Bear Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge

Oxford Slough

Waterfowl Production Area

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Volume 2
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 

Table of Contents i 

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
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

ii Table of Contents 

This page left blank intentionally. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix C. Implementation C-1 

Appendix C. Implementation 

C.1 Overview 

Implementation of the CCP will require increased funding, which will be sought from a variety of 

sources. This plan will depend on additional Congressional allocations, partnerships, and grants. 

There are no guarantees that additional Federal funds will be made available to implement any of 

these projects. Other sources of funds will need to be obtained (both public and private). Activities 

and projects identified will be implemented as funds become available. 

Many of the infrastructure and facility projects will be eligible for funding through construction or 

Federal Lands Highway Program funds (i.e., Refuge Roads). 

The Comprehensive Conservation Plan proposes several projects to be implemented over the next 15 

years. All of these projects are included in the Refuge Management Information System (RONS—

Refuge Operational Needs System or FBMS—Federal Budget Management System), which is used 

to request funding from Congress. Currently, a large backlog of maintenance needs exists on the 

Refuge. An attempt at reducing this backlog needs to be addressed and is included here in the 

analysis of funding needs. The RONS or FBMS databases are used to propose new projects to 

implement the CCP to meet refuge goals and objectives and legal mandates. 

Annual revenue-sharing payments to Bear Lake County will continue. If the Refuge undergoes a 

boundary expansion, additional in lieu of tax payments will be made to the county. See Chapter 5 for 

a summary of the economic effects. 

Monitoring activities will be conducted on a percentage of all new and existing projects and activities 

to document wildlife populations and changes across time, habitat conditions and responses to 

management practices. Actual monitoring and evaluation procedures will be detailed in step-down 

management plans. 

C.1.1 Step-Down Plans 

The Comprehensive Conservation Plan is one of several plans necessary for Refuge management. 

The CCP provides guidance in the form of goals, objectives, and strategies for several Refuge 

program areas but may lack some of the specifics needed for implementation. Step-down 

management plans will be developed for individual program areas within approximately five years 

after CCP completion. All step-down plans require appropriate NEPA compliance; implementation 

may require additional permits. Step-down plans for the Refuge follow. Project-specific plans, with 

appropriate NEPA compliance, may be prepared outside of these step-down plans. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

C-2 Appendix C. Implementation 

Step Down Management Plan Status (Date Completed and/or Date to be 

Prepared/Updated) 

IPM Plan 2013 (prepared concurrently with CCP, Appendix F) 

Habitat Management Plan 2013 (CCP meets requirements for HMP) 

Fire Management Plan 2014. Current plan completed March 2009, included 

with CCP (Appendix G). 

Cultural Resources Plan 2013 (Prepared concurrently with CCP, Appendix 

H.) 

Fishing Plan 2017 

Visitor Services Plan 2017 

Environmental Education Plan 2017 

Step Down Plans Identified in CCP Strategies:

Inventory and Monitoring Plan 2015 

Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point 

Plan

2017 

Land Protection Plan Refuge will evaluate need for LPP

Cropland Management Plan (revision and 

update) 

2019 

Outreach and Communications Plan 2014 

Visitor Contact Point and Site Plan 2017 

C.2 Costs to Implement CCP 

The following sections detail both one time and recurring costs for various projects. One-time costs 

reflect the initial costs associated with a project, such as the purchase of equipment, contracting 

services, construction, purchase of land, etc. Recurring costs reflect the future operational and 

maintenance costs associated with the project. 

C.2.1 One-Time Costs 

One-time costs are project costs that have a startup cost associated with them, such as purchasing a 

new vehicle for wildlife and habitat monitoring or designing and installing an interpretive sign. Some 

are full project costs for those projects that can be completed in three years or less. One-time costs 

can include the cost of temporary or term salary associated with a short-term project. Salary for new 

positions and operational costs are reflected in operational or recurring costs. 

Funds for one-time costs will be sought through increases in refuge base funding, special project 

funds, grants, etc. Some projects also might require land acquisition funds, or other special 

appropriations or grants. Some costs listed below as one time may be distributed through the 15-year 

life of the CCP and a portion of the total project completed yearly. 

Projects listed below in Table C-1 show one-time costs, such as those associated with building and 

facility needs such as offices, public use facilities, road improvements, and new signs. One-time 

costs are also associated with habitat restoration and protection projects such as specific forestry and 

wetland projects, research and land acquisition. New research projects, because of their short-term 

nature, are considered one time projects, and include costs of contracting services or hiring a 

temporary for the short-term project. Some project costs are displayed as ranges since there are many 

factors that could influence the number of acres managed per year. 
Appendix C. Implementation C-3 Table C-1. Estimates of one-time costs under the CCP. These data are separated into two tables, Wildlife and Habit

each is organized by goals and objectives. Goal 2. Riparian and In-stream Provide high-quality riparian habitat within the watershed for focal wildlife species li

requirements, while simulating natural environmental processes. 2.1 Restore wooded riparian and in-stream habitats Current Management Future Management Priority Fu

Acres of wooded riparian habitat restored 0 134 Total One-time Restoration Cost $0 $1,139,900 (8,500/acre) H 126Miles of in-stream habitat restored 0 5 Total One-time Restoration Cost $0 $500,000-50,000,000 (100,000- 10,000,000/mile) H 126

ChMaw/p

For Bonneville cutthroat trout, work in partnership with PacifiCorp and IDFG to study and consult on the effects of fish passage at irrigation diversions and water control structures within the Refuge $0 $4,000,000 H 126

ChMaw/p

Total one-time cost $0 $5,639,900-55,139,900 
C-4 Appendix C. Implementation Goal 3. Uplands Maintain and protect the existing integrity of functional early successional upland ha

natural range of variability and resiliency to late successional upland habitat. 3.1b: Restore Meadow Grass (intermittently flooded) Habitat Current Management Future Management Priority Fu

Acres of meadow grass habitat restored 0 214 Total One-time Restoration Cost $0 $64,200 (300/acre) H 123.1c: Restore Mixed Shrub (Rabbitbrush, Greasewood, and Sagebrush) Habitat Current Management Future Management Priority FuAcres of mixed shrub habitat restored 0 79 Total One-time Restoration Cost $0 $27,650 (350/acre) H 12Goal 4. Forage Crops Provide a supplemental on-refuge forage base for carbohydrate and protein require

waterfowl and landbirds within the Pacific and Bear River migratory corridor. 4.1a: Bear Lake NWR Forage Crops Current Management Future Management Priority Fu

Acres of meadow grass habitat restored 0 11 Total One-time Restoration Cost $0 $3,300 (300/acre) H 124.1c: Oxford Slough WPA Forage Crops Current Management Future Management Priority FuAcres of upland habitat restored 0 49 Total One-time Restoration Cost $0 $15,925 (325/acre) H 12
Appendix C. Implementation C-5 Table C-1. Public Use Management Direction: One-Time Costs Goal 5. Wildlife-dependent Recreation and Education Increase public understanding and appreciation of wildlife, and build support for Bear L

providing opportunities for all visitors to participate in safe, quality wildlife-dependent reeducation programs while minimizing wildlife disturbance. 5.1 Conduct outreach Current Management Future Management Priority Fun

Revise refuge website with improved photos, navigation aids, and maps. Provide interactive web capability for visitors to electronically post wildlife observations and photos. Post PDF files of all publications on refuge website. $0 $10,000 L Develop Outreach and Communications Plan $0 $5,000 H 126Total One-Time Cost $0 $15,000 5.2 Welcome and Orient Visitors Current Management Future Management Priority FunDevelop Visitor Contact Station and Site Plan $0 $5,000 H 126Place directional signs to BLNWR at the junction of Hwys 30 and 89 in Montpelier, and at the junction of W. Center Road and Dingle Road in Dingle $0 $4,000 H 126
C-6 Appendix C. Implementation Revise and reprint BLNWR brochure $5,000 $5,000 H Develop and provide to the public a wildlife brochure specific to the Thomas Fork Unit $0 $5,000 H 126

For the Thomas Fork Unit, develop off-site visitor orientation facilities, signage, and interpretive panels at areas strategic for wildlife viewing $0 $20,000-30,000 M 126Oxford Slough WPA: improve visitor orientation facilities, signage, and interpretation $0 $20,000-30,000 H 126Develop and provide to the public an informational brochure specific to Oxford Slough WPA $0 $5,000 H 126Total One-Time Cost $5,000 $64,000-84,000 5.3 Wildlife Observation and Photography Current Management Future Management Priority FunAt BLNWR, provide two additional pullouts/wide spots/passing areas for vehicle passage on the ATR $0 $5,000 ($2,500 per pullout) H 126At BLNWR, provide seasonal spotting scope along ATR and on accessible walking trail with view of cormorant and gull nesting colony $0 $4,000 H 126
Appendix C. Implementation C-7 At BLNWR, develop a boardwalk and elevated viewing platform along the southeastern side of the Refuge adjacent to North Beach Road $0 $55,000-120,000 M Refu

Proj

At BLNWR, develop one turn-out and one major vehicle turn-off with a small parking area, informational panels and seasonal spotting along Merkley Lake Road $0 $50,000-75,000 M Refu

Proj

At Oxford Slough WPA, provide viewing areas with information on seasons and species of wildlife that could be observed and photographed $0 $30,000 M Refu

Proj

Total One-Time Cost $0 $149,000-239,000 Future Future Current Management Future Management Priority FunDevelop refuge-specific curricula for EE and I programs that meet State standards $0 $2,000 H 126At BLNWR, provide interpretive panels along the ATR in order to inform visitors of the NWRS mission and the Refuge’s place in the larger landscape $0 $10,000 H 126

Spe
C-8 Appendix C. Implementation At Oxford Slough WPA, provide interpretive panels at areas strategic for viewing the unit $0 $10,000 M 126

Spe

At Thomas Fork Unit, work with the states of Idaho and Wyoming and Bear Lake County to develop displays along overlooks on Highways 89 and 30 to interpret the TFU’s role in the NWRS, its importance in the Bear River Watershed, and as part of the Oregon-California Trail $0 $10,000 M 126

Spe

Total One-Time Cost $0 $32,000 5.5 a + b: Provide Quality Waterfowl and Upland Game Hunting Opportunities Current Management Future Management Priority FunBLNWR acres Open to Waterfowl Hunting 7,000 7,000 BLNWR acres open to upland game hunting 300 300 TFU acres open to waterfowl and upland game hunting 0 0 Create a tear sheet with map for hunters and post printable PDF file on refuge website $0 $2,000 H 126Place signs for hunter access points, parking areas, and boat ramps $0 $2,000 H 126
Appendix C. Implementation C-9 Develop programs in addition to youth hunt to attract and educate youth hunters $0 $2,000 H 126

Secure access easement to Rainbow Inlet Canal boat launch and parking area $4,000 $4,000 Total One-Time Cost $4,000 $10,000 5.5 c + d: Provide a quality hunting and trapping program at Oxford Slough WPA Current Management Future Management Priority FunOxford Slough WPA acres open to hunting and trapping 1,878 1,878 Develop and provide an information panel and brochure or tear sheet describing hunting and trapping opportunities and regulations $0 $5,000 H 126Develop an ADA- accessible hunter access trail and parking area $0 $30,000 H 126In conjunction with BLNWR, develop programs in addition to youth hunt to attract and educate youth hunters $0 $500 Total One-Time Cost $0 $35,500 
C-10 Appendix C. Implementation 5.6: Provide quality fishing opportunities at BLNWR Current Management Future Management Priority Fun

The Outlet Canal north of the former Paris Dike and an area immediately north of the Lifton Pump Station are open for fishing   Open banks along Merkley Lake Road for fishing 0 1 mile Post informational and regulatory signs along Merkley Lake Road fishing area $0 $1,000 M 126Improve access to bank fishing by constructing one or two piers or platforms in areas already open for fishing $0 $5,000-$10,000 M 126Total One-Time Cost $0 $6,000-11,000 5.7: Develop partnerships, a strong volunteer base, and a Friends Group to assist with developing and delivering vprograms Current Management Future Management Priority FunDevelop and build Friends Group to support the SE Idaho NWR Complex, focusing on BLNWR and Oxford Slough WPA $0 $5,000 H 126Total One-Time Costs $9,000 $6,066,575- 55,681,575 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix C. Implementation C-11 

C.2.2 Operational (Recurring) Costs 

Operational costs reflect refuge spending of base funds allocated each year. These are also known as 

recurring costs and are usually associated with day to day operations and projects that last longer 

than three years. 

Table C-2 displays projected operating costs under the CCP. The CCP reflects increased funding 

needs for proposed increases in public uses and facilities, increased habitat restoration and 

conservation activities, and new monitoring needs. This table includes such things as salary, 

operational expenditures such as travel, training, supplies, utilities and annual maintenance costs. 

Table C-2 includes costs for permanent and seasonal staff needed year after year. It does not include 

staff costs associated with special projects; these are summarized in Table C-1. 

Table C-2 is also related to the Refuge Annual Performance Plan. The table does not project costs 

other than operational. This data are separated into two tables, Wildlife and Habitat and Public Use 

and each is organized by goals. 
C-12 Appendix C. Implementation 

Table C-2. Wildlife and Habitat Recurring Costs

Goal 1. Wetlands Provide high quality refuge wetland habitat that simulates the ecological processes and function

Dingle Marsh, while providing for the life history requirements of focal wildlife species 

1.1 Tall Emergent Wetlands (Permanently and Semi-Permanently Flooded)1.2 Ephemeral Wetlands (Seasonally and Temporally Flooded)

Current Management Future 

Management

New Staff Priority 

Total acres tall emergent wetlands 

17,110 15,773 

Total acres ephemeral wetlands 

1,556 2,593 

Manipulate water levels using existing water control infrastructure 

$7,800 $15,600 H 

Mechanical disturbance, prescribed fire, and herbicide 

$5,000 $10,000 H 

Annual WCS and fish screen maintenance 

$4,000 $4,000 H 

Annual dike maintenance 

$15,600 $15,600 H 

Monitor for invasive species 

$0 $4,000 Biological 

Technician 

H 

Monitor for adaptive management 

$0 $4,000 Biological 

Technician 

H 

Every five years use GIS to determine proportions of habitat types to inform adaptive management 

$0 $3,000 = $15,000 

every five years amortized over the 15-yr life of the CCP 

 H 
Appendix C. Implementation C-13 

For Alkali Meadow habitat, initiate pilot study to test direct seeding and container plantings to restore target halophytic vegetation and alkali habitat function 

$0 $4,000 Biological 

Technician 

H 

Total annual cost $32,400 $60,200 Goal 2. Riparian and Instream Habitats Provide high quality refuge wetland habitat that simulates the ecological processes and fu

historic Dingle Marsh, while providing for the life history requirements of focal wildlife sp

2.1 Wooded Riparian and In-stream Habitats 

Current Management 

Future Management New Staff Priority 

Total Acres Wooded Riparian 

92 acres 134 acres 

Riparian restoration project area 

0 134 acres 

Total Miles In-Stream Habitat 

3 miles 5 miles 

In-stream project restoration area 

0 5 miles 

Fence naturally regenerating woodland to exclude ungulate browsing. Fertilize, if advantageous. 

$0 $5,000 H 
C-14 Appendix C. Implementation 

Goal 2. Riparian and Instream Habitats Provide high quality refuge wetland habitat that simulates the ecological processes and fu

historic Dingle Marsh, while providing for the life history requirements of focal wildlife sp

If natural regeneration does not adequately meet objectives, plant woodland tree and shrub species on appropriate sites 

$0 $10,000 = 

Amortization of expenses for 15-year project including fencing, planting, fertilizing, monitoring, replanting, controlling invasive species 

Biological Technician 

Invasive species management using IPM techniques 

$1,000 $2,000 H 

Place large woody debris if needed, as identified in habitat inventories and surveys 

$0 $2,750 (amortized 

over 15-yr life of CCP since areas needing treatment may appear over time) 

Biological Technician M 

Maintain streamside vegetation 

$0 $2,000 Biological Technician H 

Monitor riparian vegetation for adaptive management 

$0 $1,500 Biological Technician H 

Total annual cost $1,000 $17,000 Goal 3. Upland Habitat Maintain and protect the existing integrity of functional early successional upland habitat 

natural range of variability and resiliency to late successional upland habitat

3.1 a: Alkali Upland Meadow (Intermittently Flooded) Habitat3.1 b: Meadow Grass (Intermittently Flooded) Habitat3.1 c: Mixed Shrub (Rabbitbrush, Greasewood, and Sagebrush) Habitat

Current Management

Future Management

New Staff Priority 

Acres of Alkali Upland Meadow 

442 467 
Appendix C. Implementation C-15 

Management of water levels and timing to increase acreage 

$1,500 $3,000 H 

Management of invasive species using IPM 

$1,000 $2,000 H 

Use of prescribed fire in a mosaic pattern to increase acreage 

$0 $6,500-13,000 

(Amortized over 15-yr life of CCP 

 M 

If needed, planting of alkali sacaton and saltgrass, etc. 

$0 $1,000 (Amortized 

over 15-year life of CCP) 

Biological Technician 

M 

Acres of Meadow Grass 920 1,134 Management of water levels and timing to increase acreage 

$1,500 $3,000 H 

Management of invasive species using IPM 

$1,000 $2,000 H 

Maintain residual cover through native grass plantings, and periodic prescribed fires 

$0 $2,500 (amortized 

over 15-year life of CCP) 

Biological Technician 

H 

Acres of Mixed Shrub 463 542 Management of invasive species using IPM 

$1,000 $2,000 H 

Conduct periodic shrub inventory to assess resistance and resilience of habitat 

$0 $2,000 Biological 

Technician 

H 

Total annual cost $6,000 $24,000-30,500 Goal 4. Upland Forage Crops

Provide a supplemental on-refuge forage base for carbohydrate and protein requirements waterfowl and landbirds within the Pacific and Bear River migratory corridor 

4.1 Provide Crops for Migratory Wildlife4.2 Haying 

Current Future New Staff Priority 
C-16 Appendix C. Implementation 

Goal 4. Upland Forage Crops

Provide a supplemental on-refuge forage base for carbohydrate and protein requirements waterfowl and landbirds within the Pacific and Bear River migratory corridor Management Management

Acres of upland forage crops 

214 154 

Hay unit acreage 3,533 1,491 Administer CLMAs and/or SUPs to achieve goals. Permit holder will perform all work directed by management. 

$3,000 $4,500 H 

Manipulate water levels to facilitate hay and crop programs 

$1,500 $3,000 

Monitor habitat and wildlife use to inform adaptive management 

$0 $2,000 Biological 

Technician 

H 

Total annual cost $4,500 $9,500 Goal 5. Wildlife-dependent Recreation and Education

Increase public understanding and appreciation of wildlife, and build support for Bear Lopportunities for all visitors to participate in safe, quality wildlife-dependent recreation awhile minimizing wildlife disturbance.

5.1 Conduct outreach to community, conservation, and outdoor recreation groups by 2014 to expand public awareupland species diversity and ecology, habitat management actions, and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge 

Current Management

Future Management New Staff Priority 

Recruit and train volunteers; develop education programs 

$0 $5,000 Visitor Services 

Manager (Complex); Park Ranger 

H 

Provide guided wildlifebased tours to youth groups and the general public 

$0 $2,000 Park Ranger H 

Participate in at least one community event annually 

$0 $500 Park Ranger H 

Total annual costs $0 $7,500 
Appendix C. Implementation C-17 

5.2 Welcome and Orient Visitors: Improve existing operational capacity of refuge public-visitor contact and orientthe visiting public, including people with disabilities, by enhancing the visiting public’s safety, sanitation, comfort, of access to the Refuge.

Current Management

Future Management New Staff Priority 

BL and OS: Continue to obtain baseline data on visitation; conduct counts and observations to back up/calibrate traffic counter data 

$0 $2,000 Park Ranger H 

BL and OS: Provide and monitor visitor sign-in and comment stations at trail heads and photography and hunting blinds 

$0 $2,000 Park Ranger H 

Total annual costs $4,000 5.3: Provide ample opportunities for self-guided wildlife observation and photography by annually maintaining a 2auto tour loop, 1.9-mile seasonal accessible pedestrian trail with two accessible photography blinds, and the 1.5-miTrail.

Current Management

Future Management New Staff Priority 

Auto tour maintenance $5,000 $5,000 H Conduct at least one guided wildlife-based refuge tour per month from MaySeptember 

$0 $2,000 Park Ranger H 

Periodically monitor and evaluate public-use sites and programs to inform adaptive management 

$0 $2,000 Park Ranger H 

Total annual costs $5,000 $9,000 
C-18 Appendix C. Implementation 

5.4 Environmental Education and Interpretation: By 2020, develop formal environmental education programs for serves 300 students annually and delivers messages about wetland values and functions and watershed health, with River watershed and the life histories and habitat needs of waterfowl and waterbirds.

Current Management

Future Management New Staff Priority 

Conduct teacher training workshops 

$0 $2,000 VSM; Park Ranger H 

Host at least one Field Day event for students annually 

$0 $500 Park Ranger H 

Recruit interns from university education programs to design and conduct EE and I programs 

$0 $1,000 Visitor Services 

Manager (VSM) (Complex); Park Ranger 

H 

Develop and administer onrefuge opportunities for scouting programs (Birding Badge, Conservation Badge, and “leave no trace”) 

$0 $1,000 VSM; Park Ranger 

Working with partners, develop and administer citizen science programs that involve students from multiple grade levels in monitoring activities 

$0 $2,000 VSM; Park Ranger; 

Biological Technician

H 

OS: Provide volunteer-led educational opportunities for youth groups and the general public 

$0 $500 VSM; Park Ranger 

Total annual costs $0 $7,000 5.5 Provide Quality Waterfowl and Upland Game Hunting OpportunitiesBear Lake NWR5.5 a: Provide a quality and safe waterfowl hunt program on 7,000 acres that includes youth and disabled hunters; conflicts between hunters, adjacent landowners, and other users groups.5.5 b: Provide a quality, safe hunt for upland game birds on 300 acres
Appendix C. Implementation C-19 

Current Management

Future Management New Staff Priority 

Maintain two ADAaccessible hunting blinds and associated trails 

$500 $500 H 

Post additional “hunting” and “no hunting” signage before season 

$500 $500 H 

Provide a Youth Hunt one weekend prior to the opening of the regular hunt season 

$500 $500 H 

Conduct law enforcement $2,000 $4,000 Additional LEO H Monitor wildlife disturbance or impacts 

$0 $2,000 Bio Tech H 

Total annual cost $3,500 $7,500 Oxford Slough WPA5.4c: Provide a quality, safe waterfowl, big and small game hunting, and trapping program on 1,840 acres (100%) and disabled hunters, and minimizes conflicts between hunters, adjacent landowners, and other user groups.

Current Management

Future Management

New Staff Priority F

Monitor wildlife disturbance or impacts 

$0 $2,000 Biological 

Technician 

H 1

Conduct law enforcement $2,000 $4,000 Additional LEO H 1Total annual cost $2,000 $6,000 Bear Lake NWR5.6 Provide a quality, safe fishing program for trout, yellow perch, suckers, chub, and carp, including bowfishing f

Current Management

Future Management

New Staff Priority F

Maintain signs and fishing infrastructure 

$0 $500 H 1

Conduct law enforcement $500 $1,000 Additional LEO H 1Monitor wildlife disturbance or impacts 

$0 $1,000 Biological 

Technician 

H 1

Total annual cost $500 $2,500 
C-20 Appendix C. Implementation 

5.7 Develop partnerships, a strong volunteer base, and a Friends Group to assist with developing and delivering visprograms at Bear Lake NWR and Oxford Slough WPA.

Current Management

Future Management

New Staff Priority F

Oversee environmental education and volunteer programs 

$0 $4,000 VSM; Park Ranger H 1

Develop and administer partnerships with regional universities to develop and deliver EE and I programs and teacher training, and to conduct surveys and monitoring to support refuge biological goals and objectives 

$0 $4,000 VSM; Park Ranger; 

Biological Technician 

H 1

Total annual cost $0 $8,000 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix C. Implementation C-21 

C.2.3 Staffing 

Staff is needed to conserve and enhance the quality and diversity of indigenous wildlife habitats on 

the Bear Lake NWR. With the proper staffing to implement this plan, habitat management practices 

can be implemented and monitoring of flora and fauna responses to management can be applied. This 

will allow us to implement adaptive management strategies that are crucial for long-term success in 

meeting the mission, goals, and objectives of the Refuge. 

Staff will interact with the public for education purposes and to provide for public safety. 

Maintenance staff will maintain facilities and equipment. Training of staff and coordination among 

staff, volunteers, and partners will ensure the mission and guiding principles of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System endure. 

The following proposed full development level staffing plan will achieve CCP goals within 15 years. 

The rate at which this station achieves its full potential to fulfill the objectives and strategies 

contained in the plan is totally dependent upon receiving adequate funding and staffing. 

Table C-3 below shows the staffing levels needed to fully implement the CCP. Note that these costs 

are already included (project by project) in the recurring costs. The table simply provides a picture of 

how the staff structure will look and provides an indication of what percent of the total recurring 

costs will be allocated toward staff. Staff positions so marked are for the Southeast Idaho NWR 

Complex and will also serve the other refuges in the Complex. These numbers include the cost of 

employee benefits. 

Table C-3. Bear Lake NWR Staffing Chart under Management Proposed in CCP 

PFT= Permanent Full Time Employee; FTE= Full Time Employee

Position Title Series/Grade Annual Salary 

Refuge Manager PFT GS-0485-12 $108,000 

Biological Technician PFT GS-0485-7/9 $75,000 

Park Ranger/Volunteer Coordinator PFT GS-0025-5/7 $65,000 

Engineering Equipment Operator PFT WG-5716-10 $81,000 

Engineering Equipment Operator PFT WG-5716-9 $75,000 

 

Complex Wildlife Biologists (2) 0.25 FTE GS-0486-9/11 $25,000 

Complex Visitor Services Manager 0.25 FTE GS-0485-9/11 $25,000 

Complex Refuge Law Enforcement 

Officers (2) 0.25 FTE GS-0025-7/9 $20,000 

Complex Fire Management Officer 0.10 FTE GS-xxxx-11 $10,000 

Complex Fire Fuels Specialist 0.10 FTE GS-xxxx-9 $8,000 

Totals 5.95 FTE $492,000 

C.2.4 Partnership Opportunities 

The Refuge’s goals offer opportunities for partnerships with other agencies, interest groups, and 

schools. Coordinated partnership efforts will focus on habitat restoration, land protection, 

environmental education, fish and wildlife monitoring, outreach, and quality wildlife-dependent 

recreation. Current and potential future partners include local schools, Friends of Southeast Idaho 

NWR Complex, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Highlands Cooperative Weed Management 

Area, Bear Lake Watch, PacifiCorp, Ducks Unlimited, Trout Unlimited, The Nature Conservancy, 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

C-22 Appendix C. Implementation 

and many others. Partnerships like these will increase our effectiveness, knowledge, and community 

support, as well as reduce refuge operating costs. The Refuge will strive to exchange information 

with neighboring landowners to promote protection of valuable wildlife habitat in the Bear River 

watershed. 

C.2.5 Budget Summary 

Table C-4 summarizes the data from the above tables and displays the total funding needs over the 

15-year life of the CCP for Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge to implement the CCP in full. 

Table C-4. Budget Summary: Funding Needed to Implement CCP 

Budget Category Current Management Future Management 

One Time Expenditures 

Wildlife and 

Habitat $0 $5,750,075-55,250,075 

Public Use $9,000 $316,500-431,500 

Subtotal $9,000 $ 6,066,575-55,681,575 

Recurring Costs (Annual costs totaled over 15-year life of CCP) 

Wildlife and 

Habitat $43,900 x 15 =$658,649 

$110,700-117,200 x 15 =$1,660,500-

$1,758,000 

Public Use $11,000 x 15 =$165,000 $51,500 x 15 =$772,500 

Subtotal $823,649 $2,433,000-$2,530,500 

Total CCP Cost $832,649 $8,499,575-$58,212,07 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix D. Wilderness Review D-1 

Appendix D. Wilderness Review

D.1 Introduction 

The Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) is located in southeast Idaho at an elevation of 

5,900 feet. It is situated within the Bear Lake valley and is part of the Bear River watershed. The 

Refuge’s approved boundary encompasses 21,500 acres. Currently, the Refuge consists of three 

distinct jurisdictional units—Bear Lake NWR (18,606 acres); Thomas Fork Unit (1,015 acres); and 

Oxford Slough WPA (1,878 acres). 

D.1.1 Policy for Wilderness Reviews 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service policy (Part 602 FW 3.4 C.(1) (c)) requires that wilderness reviews be 

completed as part of the Comprehensive Conservation Planning process. This review includes the reevaluation of refuge lands existing during the initial 10-year review period of The Wilderness Act of 

1964, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136) as well as new lands and waters added to the NWRS since 

1974. A preliminary inventory of the wilderness resources is to be conducted during pre-acquisition 

planning for new or expanded refuges (341 FW 2.4 B., “Land Acquisition Planning”). NWRS policy 

on Wilderness Stewardship (610 FW 1-5) includes guidance for conducting wilderness reviews (610 

FW 4, Wilderness Review and Evaluation). 

D.1.2 Criteria for Evaluating Lands for Possible Inclusion in the National 

Wilderness Preservation System 

The Wilderness Act of 1964, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136) provides the following description 

of wilderness: 

“A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is 

hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, 

where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean 

in this Act as an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, 

without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to 

preserve its natural conditions ... ”

The following criteria for identifying areas as wilderness are outlined in Section 2(c) of the Act and 

are further expanded upon in NWRS policy (610 FW 4). The first three criteria are evaluated during 

the inventory phase; the fourth criterion is evaluated during the study phase. 

1. generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of 

man’s work substantially unnoticeable; 

2. has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; 

3. has at least five thousand acres of land or is of a sufficient size as to make practicable its 

preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and 

4. may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or 

historic value 

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

D-2 Appendix D. Wilderness Review 

Criterion 3 is further defined in Section 3(c) of the Act as 1) a roadless area of 5,000 contiguous acres or 

more, or 2) a roadless island. Roadless is defined as the absence of improved roads suitable and 

maintained for public travel by means of four-wheeled, motorized vehicles that are intended for highway 

use. 

D.1.3 The Wilderness Review Process 

A wilderness review is the process of determining whether the Service should recommend NWRS 

lands and waters to Congress for wilderness designation. The wilderness review process consists of 

three phases: wilderness inventory, wilderness study, and wilderness recommendation. 

Wilderness Inventory 

The inventory is a broad look at a refuge to identify lands and waters that meet the minimum criteria 

for wilderness—size, naturalness, and outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and 

unconfined type of recreation. All areas meeting the criteria are preliminarily classified as 

Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs). If WSAs are identified, the review proceeds to the study phase. 

Wilderness Study 

During the study phase, WSAs are further analyzed: 

 for all values of ecological, recreational, cultural, economic, symbolic 

 for all resources, including wildlife, vegetation, water, minerals, soils 

 for existing and proposed public uses 

 for existing and proposed refuge management activities within the area, 

 to assess the Refuge’s ability to manage and maintain the wilderness character in perpetuity, 

given the current and proposed management activities. Factors for evaluation may include, 

but are not limited to staffing and funding capabilities, increasing development and 

urbanization, public uses, and safety. 

We evaluate at least an “All Wilderness Alternative” and a “No Wilderness Alternative” for each 

WSA to compare the benefits and impacts of managing the area as wilderness as opposed to 

managing the area under an alternate set of goals, objectives, and strategies that do not involve 

wilderness designation. We may also develop “Partial Wilderness Alternatives” that evaluate the 

benefits and impacts of managing portions of a WSA as wilderness.

In the alternatives, we evaluate: 

 the benefits and impacts to wilderness values and other resources 

 how each alternative will achieve the purposes of the Wilderness Act and the NWPS 

 how each alternative will affect achievement of refuge purpose(s) and the Refuge’s 

contribution toward achieving the Refuge System mission 

 how each alternative will affect maintaining and, where appropriate, restoring biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health at various landscape scales 

 other legal and policy mandates 

 whether a WSA can be effectively managed as wilderness by considering the effects of 

existing private rights, land status and service jurisdiction, refuge management activities and 

refuge uses and the need for or possibility of eliminating Sec 4 (c) prohibited uses 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix D. Wilderness Review D-3 

Wilderness Recommendation 

If the wilderness study demonstrates that a WSA meets the requirements for inclusion in the National 

Wilderness Preservation System, a wilderness study report should be written that presents the results 

of the wilderness review, accompanied by a Legislative Environmental Impact Statement (LEIS). 

The wilderness study report and LEIS that support wilderness designation are then transmitted 

through the Secretary of Interior to the President of United States, and ultimately to the United States 

Congress for action. Refuge lands recommended for wilderness consideration by the wilderness 

study report would retain their WSA status and be managed as “... wilderness according to the 

management direction in the final CCP until Congress makes a decision on the area or we amended 

the CCP to modify or remove the wilderness recommendation” (610 FW 4.22B). When a WSA is 

revised or eliminated, or when there is a revision in “wilderness stewardship direction, we include 

appropriate interagency and tribal coordination, public involvement, and documentation of 

compliance with NEPA” (610 FW 3.13). 

The following constitutes the inventory phase of the wilderness review for the Bear Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge. 

D.1.4 Previous Wilderness Reviews 

There have been no previous wilderness reviews conducted for the Refuge. 

D.1.5 Lands Considered Under This Wilderness Review 

All Service-owned lands and waters (in fee title) within the Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

approved boundary were considered during this wilderness review. 

D.2 Wilderness Inventory 

D.2.1 Unit Size: Roadless areas meet the size criteria if any one of the 

following standards apply: 

 An area with over 5,000 contiguous acres solely in FWS ownership. 

 A roadless island of any size. A roadless island is defined as an area surrounded by 

permanent waters or an area that is markedly distinguished from the surrounding lands by 

topographical or ecological features. 

 An area of less than 5,000 contiguous Federal acres that is of sufficient size as to make 

practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition, and of a size suitable for 

wilderness management. 

 An area of less than 5,000 contiguous Federal acres that is contiguous with a designated 

wilderness, recommended wilderness, or area under wilderness review by another Federal 

wilderness managing agency such as the Forest Service, National Park Service, or Bureau of 

Land Management. 

 The Thomas Fork Unit and Oxford Slough WPA do not meet the minimum size requirements 

for consideration of wilderness, while the Bear Lake NWR Unit meets the minimum size 

requirements for a wilderness area. The Bear Lake NWR unit is subdivided into managed 

wetland impoundments with a series of man-made dikes and levees. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

D-4 Appendix D. Wilderness Review 

D.2.2 Naturalness and Wildness: the area generally appears to have been 

affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s 

work substantially unnoticeable 

This criterion must be evaluated in the context of current natural conditions and societal values and 

expectations without compromising the original intent of the Wilderness Act. It is well recognized 

that there are few areas remaining on the planet that could be truly classified as primeval or pristine, 

with even fewer, if any, existing in the conterminous United States. Likewise, few areas exist that do 

not exhibit some impact from anthropogenic influences, be it noise, light, or air pollution; water 

quality or hydrological manipulations; past and current land management practices; road or trails, 

suppression of wildfires; invasions by non-native species of plants and animals; or public uses. While 

allowing for the near-complete pervasiveness of modern society on the landscape, the spirit of the 

Wilderness Act is to protect lands that still retain the wilderness qualities of: 1) natural, 2) 

untrammeled, 3) undeveloped. These three qualities are cornerstones of wilderness character. For 

areas proposed or designated as wilderness, wilderness character must be monitored to determine 

baseline conditions and thereafter be periodically monitored to assess the condition of these 

wilderness qualities. Proposed and designated wilderness areas by law and policy are required to 

maintain wilderness character through management and/or restoration in perpetuity. 

 Defining the first two qualities (natural and untrammeled) requires a knowledge and understanding of the 

ecological systems which are being evaluated as potential wilderness. Ecological systems are comprised 

of three primary attributes—composition, structure, function. Composition is the components that make 

up an ecosystem, such as the habitat types, native species of plants and animals, and abiotic (physical and 

chemical) features. These contribute to the diversity of the area. Structure is the spatial arrangement of the 

components that contribute to the complexity of the area. Composition and structure are evaluated to 

determine the naturalness of the area. Function is the processes that result from the interaction of the 

various components both temporally and spatially, and the disturbance processes that shape the landscape. 

These processes include but are not limited to predator-prey relationships, insect and disease outbreaks, 

nutrient and water cycles, decomposition, fire, windstorms, flooding, and both general and cyclic weather 

patterns. Ecological functions are evaluated to determine the wildness or untrammeled quality of the area. 

The third quality assessment is whether an area is undeveloped. Undeveloped refers to the absence of 

permanent structures such as roads, buildings, dams, fences, and other man-made alterations to the 

landscape. Exceptions can be made for historic structures or structures required for safety or health 

considerations, providing they are made of natural materials and relatively unobtrusive on the 

landscape. 

General guidelines used for evaluating areas for wilderness potential during this wilderness inventory 

process include: 

 The area should provide a variety of habitat types and associated abiotic features, as well as a 

nearly complete complement of native plants and wildlife indicative of those habitat types. 

Non-native and invasive species should comprise a negligible portion of the landscape. 

 The area should be spatially complex (vertically and/or horizontally) and exhibit all levels of 

vegetation structure typical of the habitat type, have an interspersion of these habitats, and 

provide avenues for plant and wildlife dispersal. 

 The area should retain the basic natural functions that define and shape the associated 

habitats including but not limited to flooding regimes, fire cycles, unaltered hydrology and 

flowage regimes, basic predator-prey relationships including herbivory patterns. 

 Due to their size, islands may not meet the habitat guidelines in 1 and 2 above. Islands 

should, however, exhibit the natural cover type with which it evolved and continue to be 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix D. Wilderness Review D-5 

shaped and modified by natural processes. Islands should be further analyzed during the 

study portion of the review, if they provide habitat for a significant portion of a population, or 

key life cycle requirements for any resources of concern, or listed species. 

 Potential wilderness areas should be relatively free of permanent structures or man-made 

alterations. Areas may be elevated to the study phase if existing structures or alterations can 

be removed or remediated within a reasonable timeframe, and prior to wilderness 

recommendation to the Secretary of the Interior. 

The refuge units are comprised of predominately of emergent wetlands, wet meadow, riparian, and 

shrub habitats. In general, these habitats are comprised of native tree, shrub, forb and grass 

communities. Wet meadow and upland grass habitats are actively managed to achieve short grass and 

other successional vegetation stages for waterfowl, sandhill cranes, and shorebirds. This management 

includes prescribed fire, and haying to achieve refuge purposes for short grass habitats. Invasive 

plant species are a significant threat to the meadows and uplands, so a variety of Integrated Pest 

Management techniques are used to keep these species in check. These techniques include: 

prescribed fire, mechanical manipulation, and herbicide applications. A small portion of the upland 

areas are farmed for grain crops to provide forage for migratory waterfowl and cranes. 

Riparian habitats have been degraded through cattle grazing and establishment of invasive plant 

species. The riparian habitat is in need of restoration, a process which may include the use of 

herbicides, mechanical equipment, and seeding or transplanting of native species. The natural 

hydrology of the riparian areas has likewise been altered by upstream water withdrawals and 

therefore, it does not exhibit the natural dynamics of a functional riparian system. 

Sagebrush habitats on the Refuge have been significantly altered through decades of cattle grazing 

and invasions by non-native plant species, the most notable being cheatgrass. Over 30 percent of the 

sagebrush habitat is in need of restoration. Management and restoration activities will require 

prescribed fire, mechanical removal, and herbicide applications. 

The refuge unit is intensively managed to provide the habitat conditions necessary for achieving 

refuge purposes for waterfowl, shorebirds, and other waterbirds. Most of these habitats require some 

restoration activities over the long term to re-establish the natural vegetation and function of those 

habitats, and to meet refuge purposes. Due to the current habitat condition and ongoing and proposed 

management needs, the unit does not meet the criteria for naturalness and wildness. 

D.2.3 Outstanding Solitude or Primitive or Unconfined Recreation: 

A designated wilderness area must provide outstanding opportunities for solitude, or a primitive and 

unconfined type of recreation. Possession of only one of these outstanding opportunities is sufficient 

for an area to qualify as wilderness, and it is not necessary for one of these outstanding opportunities 

to be available on every acre. Furthermore, an area does not have to be open to public use and access 

to qualify under these criteria. 

Opportunities for solitude refer to the ability of a visitor to be alone and secluded from other visitors 

in the area. Primitive and unconfined recreation means nonmotorized, dispersed outdoor recreation 

activities that are compatible and do not require developed facilities or mechanical transport. 

Primitive recreation activities may provide opportunities to experience challenge and risk, selfreliance, and adventure. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

D-6 Appendix D. Wilderness Review 

 Approximately 40 percent of Bear Lake Refuge lands are currently open to public use. Hunting and other 

wildlife-dependent recreational activities are allowed; camping is not allowed. The individual parcels are 

relatively small in size and though they could provide a degree of solitude and primitive recreation to 

some individuals under certain circumstances (such as the winter months), overall they do not provide 

outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive type of recreation. 

D.2.4 Inventory Summary and Conclusion: 

Based on this inventory, the refuge unit does not meet the basic criteria for inclusion into the 

National Wilderness Preservation System. Only one unit is greater than 5,000 acres, but is subdivided 

into managed wetland impoundments with a series of man-made dikes and levees. The refuge lands 

are actively managed for wetland and upland habitat characteristics using a variety of techniques, 

including grazing, herbicide use for invasive plants, prescribed fire, and mechanical manipulations. 

Much of the refuge lands have undergone significant degradation due to nearly a century of livestock 

grazing, hydrologic alterations, and invasions by non-native plant species. These lands do not fulfill 

the criteria for naturalness and wildness, and therefore do not possess outstanding wilderness 

character. The Refuge provides some unique recreational opportunities; however, these opportunities 

are not considered to be outstanding. 

 

Table D-1. Results of Wilderness Inventory for Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

Refuge Unit: Bear Lake Thomas Fork Oxford Slough 

(1) Unit Size: has at least 5,000 acres of land 

or is of sufficient size to make practicable its 

preservation and use in an unconfined 

condition, or is a roadless island 

Yes No No 

(2) Naturalness and wildness: generally 

appears to have been affected primarily by the 

forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s 

work substantially unnoticeable 

No No No 

(3a) Outstanding opportunities for solitude No No No 

(3b) Outstanding opportunities for primitive 

and unconfined recreation 

No No No 

(4) contains ecological, geological or other 

features of scientific, educational, scenic, or 

historical value 

N/A N/A N/A 

Area qualifies as a wilderness study area 

(meets criteria 1,2, and 3a or 3b) 

No No No 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

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

Appendix E. Refuge Resources of Concern and Priorities 

Table of Contents 

E.1 Refuge Resources of Concern and Management Priorities .............................................................. 2

E.1.1 National Wildlife Refuge System Resources of Concern for Bear Lake NWR .............................. 2

E.1.2 Resources of Concern from Refuge Purposes of Bear Lake NWR ................................................. 4

E.1.3 Resources of Concern from Regional Wildlife Conservation Plans Applicable to Bear Lake 

NWR ......................................................................................................................................................... 4

E.1.4 Comprehensive List of Refuge Resources of Concern ................................................................... 9

E.2 Habitat and Ecosystem Associations at Bear Lake NWR .............................................................. 30

E.3 Priority Refuge Resources of Concern and Focal Resources ......................................................... 36

E.3.1 Selection of Priority Refuge Resources of Concern ...................................................................... 36

E.4 Conservation Targets ......................................................................................................................... 49

E.5 Desired Future Conditions ................................................................................................................ 49

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

E-2 Appendix E. Refuge Resources of Concern and Priorities 

E.1 Refuge Resources of Concern and Management Priorities 

The priorities associated with wildlife and habitat management for a National Wildlife Refuge and are 

determined through the identification of refuge Resources of Concern. Prioritizing refuge Resources of 

Concern begins with assembling a near comprehensive list of species and habitats that could potentially 

drive a refuge’s management 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has developed a process for formulating the Resources of 

Concern described in this appendix. It entails first assessing: 

 National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) trust resource responsibilities (i.e., threatened and 

endangered species and migratory birds) for Bear Lake NWR. 

 Species, species groups, and/or communities that support Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

purposes. 

 Developing a comprehensive list of all the species of Bear Lake NWR and their conservation 

needs and status as identified in prominent International, National, Regional, or State 

ecosystem plans. 

Additional analysis of resources of concern will entail documenting: 

 Biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of natural, functional communities 

such as those found under historic conditions that need to be maintained and, where appropriate, 

restored at Bear Lake NWR. 

Subsequently, refuge staff will then: 

 Identify a subset of Focal Resources as prioritized refuge Resources of Concern, by selective 

filtering the Comprehensive Refuge Resources of Concern list to species and communities that 

represent the needs of larger groups of species or communities on the Refuge. 

 Categorize the highest Priority to manage on refuge as Focal Resources of Concern by 

identifying Priority Habitats. 

This iterative process for the identification of resources of concern ultimately concludes in the 

formulation of the Bear lake NWR Conservation Targets, in which: 

 The specific characteristics of Focal Resources are used to describe the attributes required in each 

priority habitat type requiring management on Bear Lake NWR. 

E.1.1 National Wildlife Refuge System Resources of Concern for Bear Lake 

NWR 

National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) Resources of Concern are identified in the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Mission Goals and Refuge Purposes Policy (601 FWS). The first three NWRS goals (601 

FW 1.8) identify the natural resource conservation priorities for the System. 

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

endangered or threatened with becoming endangered. 

 

B. 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 

Appendix E. Refuge Resources of Concern and Priorities E-3 

C. 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.” 

Each of these groups of NWRS Resources of Concern is further described below. 

 Migratory Birds: A list of all species of migratory birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act (16 U.S.C. 703-711) and subject to the regulations on migratory birds is contained in 

subchapter B of title 50 CFR § 10.13. The Migratory Birds Program also maintains subsets of this 

list that provide priorities at the national, regional, and ecoregional (bird conservation regions) 

scales. 

 Interjurisdictional Fish: Interjurisdictional fish are those “...populations that two or more States, 

nations, or Native American tribal governments manage because of their geographic distribution 

or migratory patterns (710 FW 1.5H).” Examples include anadromous species of salmon and freeroaming species endemic to large river systems, such as paddlefish and sturgeon (601 FW 1). 

 Threatened and Endangered Species: The Endangered Species Act (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 utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this Act.” 

 Marine Mammals: The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 13611407) prohibits, 

with certain exceptions, the take of marine mammals in U.S. waters and by U.S. citizens on the 

high seas, and the importation of marine mammals and marine mammal products into the U.S. 

 Significant or Rare Communities and Ecosystems: Plant and habitat communities, are also 

NWRS Resources of Concern when they are rare, declining, underrepresented, represent 

important ecological/ecosystem processes and/or when they are important in the maintenance or 

restoration of biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health. 

Table E-1. National Wildlife Refuge System Resources of Concern for Bear Lake NWR 

NWRS Resources of 

Concern Supporting Resources of Concern for Bear Lake NWR 

Migratory Birds: 214 species of migratory birds use the Refuge for breeding or migratory 

life history events

Interjurisdictional Fish: N/A: No interjurisdictional fish occur at Bear Lake NWR

Threatened and Endangered 

Species: 

N/A: No ESA listed species occur at Bear Lake NWR at this time

Significant or Rare 

Communities and 

Ecosystems: 

Red glasswort 

Purple meadow-rue
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

E-4 Appendix E. Refuge Resources of Concern and Priorities 

E.1.2 Resources of Concern from Refuge Purposes of Bear Lake NWR 

The Refuge System Improvement Act, and subsequent policy, requires that each refuge be managed to 

fulfill both its establishment purpose and the mission of the Refuge System. The Policy, National Wildlife 

Refuge System Mission and Goals and Refuge Purposes (601 FW 1), explains the relationship between 

these two. Where there is a conflict, individual refuge purposes have priority. A detailed discussion of the 

authorities and purposes of Bear lake NWR can be found in Chapter 2. Table E-2 summarizes Resources 

of Concern identified in the purpose statements of Bear Lake NWR. 

Table E-2. Resources of Concern Identified in the Purposes of Bear Lake NWR 

Species, Species Group, 

or Habitat

Supporting Bear Lake 

NWR Habitat Type(s)

Life History 

Requirement(s)

Documentation

Great Basin Canada 

Goose 

Old Fields, Emergent 

Wetlands, Wet Meadows, 

Agricultural 

Nesting, Brood 

Rearing, and 

Migration

Greater Sandhill Crane Emergent Wetlands; Wet 

Meadows; Riparian, 

Agriculture

Nesting, Brood 

Rearing, and 

Migration

Redhead Emergent wetlands Nesting and Brood 

Rearing

Bonneville cutthroat 

trout 

Riparian (Thomas Fork) All

E.1.3 Resources of Concern from Regional Wildlife Conservation Plans 

Applicable to Bear Lake NWR 

Various conservation plans, reports, and datasets developed by the FWS or in cooperation with our 

conservation partners provide information to identify species and habitats that are, or could be, supported 

by the Refuge. Table E-3 documents a comprehensive list of the flora and fauna of Bear Lake NWR and 

the conservation “status” of these species as identified in the following regional or State plans: 

Partners In Flight: The Partners in Flight (PIF) long-term strategy document commonly referred to as 

“The Flight Plan,” lists the following set of goals: 

1. Conservation when it 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. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix E. Refuge Resources of Concern and Priorities E-5 

Idaho Partners in Flight, Idaho Bird Conservation Plan (IBCP): The Idaho Bird Conservation Plan 

stresses the importance of four primary habitats, two of which are located on BLNWR and Oxford Slough 

WPA; 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. 

U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan: 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 to be conducted. BLNWR 

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: 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 BLNWR helps provide a 

critical breeding and stopover 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 to 

develop cross-cultural partnerships to encompass waterbird habitat across the America’s. BLNWR 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 (3,000-5,000 nests). 

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

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

E-6 Appendix E. Refuge Resources of Concern and Priorities 

The Bear Lake Valley contains colonial waterbird breeding habitat for one of two high concern 

species (snowy egret), and eight of 10 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: 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.” As discussed in the introduction, BLNWR 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. 

IWJV Habitat Conservation Objectives: 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. 

More recently, the IWJV has developed a coordinated implementation plan to consolidate region specific 

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 BLNWR 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. 

IWJV 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 to 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. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix E. Refuge Resources of Concern and Priorities E-7 

More specifically, the Southeast Idaho Wetland Focus Area, Wetland Conservation Plan (IWJV),

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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife 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 one 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 BLNWR and Oxford Slough WPA have been 

designated as Globally Important Bird Areas by the National Audubon Society. As two of 503 such sites, 

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. 

Other regional plans include The Southeast Idaho Wetland Focus Area, Wetland Conservation Plan 

(IWJV), 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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

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. 

Bear Lake NWR and Oxford Slough WPA are strategically situated between National priority areas 27 

and 28 as referenced under the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP), United 

States Shorebird Conservation Plan (USSCP), and the North American Waterbird Conservation 

Plan (NAWCP), but are not included as a priority designation. All referenced regional plans identify the 

importance of the BLNWR and Oxford Slough WPA as high priority sites for restoration activities; 

however, only the National Partners in Flight Plan includes the project area as a National high priority site 

at present. Depending on how the biopolitical boundaries were drawn on the other plan maps, the Bear 

Lake Valley could have easily been included in: 

Priority Area 27 – Great Salt Lake and Bear River Marsh – the Bear Lake Valley serves as an 

important breeding area and migration corridor for key species using this priority area. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

E-8 Appendix E. Refuge Resources of Concern and Priorities 

Priority Area 28 – Yellowstone-Intermountain Wetlands – Importance for trumpeter swan 

habitat expansion and reintroduction efforts. Important breeding area for key colonial nesting, 

shorebird, and in particular, overwater nesting waterfowl. 
Appendix E. Refuge Resources of Concern and Priorities E-9 E.1.4 Comprehensive List of Refuge Resources of Concern Table E-3. Comprehensive List of Bear Lake NWR Resources of Concern and their Conservation Status Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

Species Abundance 

Breeds/Nests Locally 

BIDEH 

Federal T&E

Birds of Conservation 

Concern-USFWS R1& 

BCR 9 and 10 

ID Partners in Flight High 

Priority Species 

ID Partners in Flight Mod 

Priority Species 

 Idaho Comprehensive 

Wildlife Conservation Plan 

Species of Greatest 

Conservation Need 

Intermountain West Regional 

Shorebird Plan Regionally 

Important Species

Intermountain West 

Waterbird Conservation Plan 

Intermountain West 

Coordinated Implementation 

Plan 

N.A. Waterbird Conservation 

Plan

N.A. Waterfowl Management 

Plan Breeding/Non-Breeding

SS 

FAUNA (WILDLIFE) Birds Swans Trumpeter swanCygnus buccinator

 c x 26 

(ID) 

 G4/S1B,

S2N 

BL-SWOW 

 PA 

W M/M 

Tundra Swan Cygnus columbianus 

 oSp,F /H 

GeeseCanada gooseBranta canadensis moffitti

x aSp, S,F; 

uW 

x H/MH 

Greater white-fronted goose Anser albifrons 

 rSp /MH 

Snow goose Chen caerulescens 

 rS,F; rW 

Dabbling Waterbirds American green-winged tealAnas crecca

 c x ML/M

L 

American wigeonAnas americana

 cSp,F; 

uS 

x MH/

ML 

Blue-winged tealAnas discors

 u x 

Cinnamon tealAnas cyanoptera

 aSp,S; 

cF 

x 21 

(80) MH/ 

GadwallAnas strepera 

 c x ML/ 

MallardAnas platyrhynchos 

 a x ML/M

H 
E-10 Appendix E. Refuge Resources of Concern and Priorities Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

Species Abundance 

Breeds/Nests Locally 

BIDEH 

Federal T&E

Birds of Conservation 

Concern-USFWS R1& 

BCR 9 and 10 

ID Partners in Flight High 

Priority Species 

ID Partners in Flight Mod 

Priority Species 

 Idaho Comprehensive 

Wildlife Conservation Plan 

Species of Greatest 

Conservation Need 

Intermountain West Regional 

Shorebird Plan Regionally 

Important Species

Intermountain West 

Waterbird Conservation Plan 

Intermountain West 

Coordinated Implementation 

Plan 

N.A. Waterbird Conservation 

Plan

N.A. Waterfowl Management 

Plan Breeding/Non-Breeding

SS 

Northern pintailAnas acuta

 aSp,F; 

cS 

x G5/S5B,

S2N 

BL-ASW-OW ML/ 

Northern shovelerAnas clypeata

 c x ML/ 

Wood duck Aix sponsa 

 r 19* 

(64) 

ML/M

L 

Diving Waterbirds Barrow’s goldeneyeBucephala islandica

 rSp,W x 24* 

(64) H/MH 

BuffleheadBucephala albeola

 u 18* 

(ID) H/ML 

CanvasbackAythya valisineria

 cSp; 

uS,F 

ML/M

L 

Common goldeneyeBucephala clangula

 u ML/M

L 

Common loon Gavia immeer 

 oSP G5/S1B,

S2N 

High PA 

W 

Common Merganser Mergus merganser 

 c 

Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus 

 oSp; rF 22 

(64) 

 G5/S2B,

S3N MH/ 

Lesser scaupAythya affinis

 cSp; uS, 

F 

x 17 

(ID) G5/S3 MH/ ML 

Greater Scaup Aytha fuligula 

 r L/ML 

Red-breasted merganser Mergus serrator 

 r 

RedheadAythya americana

x c x 22 

(89) 

ML/M

L 

Ring-necked duckAythya collaris

 o x 20 

(64) MH/ 

Ruddy duckOxyura jamaicensis

 c x MH/

MH 

Grebes 
Appendix E. Refuge Resources of Concern and Priorities E-11 Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

Species Abundance 

Breeds/Nests Locally 

BIDEH 

Federal T&E

Birds of Conservation 

Concern-USFWS R1& 

BCR 9 and 10 

ID Partners in Flight High 

Priority Species 

ID Partners in Flight Mod 

Priority Species 

 Idaho Comprehensive 

Wildlife Conservation Plan 

Species of Greatest 

Conservation Need 

Intermountain West Regional 

Shorebird Plan Regionally 

Important Species

Intermountain West 

Waterbird Conservation Plan 

Intermountain West 

Coordinated Implementation 

Plan 

N.A. Waterbird Conservation 

Plan

N.A. Waterfowl Management 

Plan Breeding/Non-Breeding

SS 

Clark’s grebe Aechmophorus clarkii 

 uS 20* 

(ID) 

G5/S2B 

BL-SWOW 

Mod10 Low- NA 

Eared grebePodiceps nigricollis

 cSu x 15 

(ID) 

High9 

Stagin

g 

ModCOS 

Horned grebe Podiceps auritus 

 oSP 

Pied-billed grebePodilymbus podiceps

 c x 

Western grebe Aechmorphus occidentalis

 c x 22 

(ID) G5/S2B BL-SWOW Mod- 10 High- 9 Mod- NA 

Pelicans and Cormorants American white pelican Pelecanus erythroryhchus 

 c x 24 

(ID) 

 G3/S1B 

BL-WSOW 

High PA 

W Mod- NA 

Double crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus 

 c 

Wading Birds American avocetRecurvirostra americana

 c x 9 23 

(80) 

 G5/S5B 

BL-SWOW High 5/3/3 

American bitternBotaurus lentiginosus 

 c x Mod10 

Black-crowned night heron Nycticorax nycticorax 

 u x G5/S2B 

BL-ASW-OW 

Mod9 Mod- COS 

Black-necked stiltHimantopus mexicanus

 c x 18 

(80) 

 G5/S3B 

BL-SWOW High 5/3/3 

Cattle egretBubulcus ibis

 oSP; rS G5/S2B 

Great egret Ardea alba 

 rSP G5/S1B 
E-12 Appendix E. Refuge Resources of Concern and Priorities Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

Species Abundance 

Breeds/Nests Locally 

BIDEH 

Federal T&E

Birds of Conservation 

Concern-USFWS R1& 

BCR 9 and 10 

ID Partners in Flight High 

Priority Species 

ID Partners in Flight Mod 

Priority Species 

 Idaho Comprehensive 

Wildlife Conservation Plan 

Species of Greatest 

Conservation Need 

Intermountain West Regional 

Shorebird Plan Regionally 

Important Species

Intermountain West 

Waterbird Conservation Plan 

Intermountain West 

Coordinated Implementation 

Plan 

N.A. Waterbird Conservation 

Plan

N.A. Waterfowl Management 

Plan Breeding/Non-Breeding

SS 

Snowy egretEgretta thula

 c 14 

(80) G5/S2B 

Mod10 

High9 

HighWH 

Great Egret Ardea alba 

 G5/S1B 

BL 

Great blue heron Ardea herodias 

 u 

Sandhill crane (Greater)Grus cadensis tabida 

x Csp, su, 

fa 

x 24 

(ID) G5/S3B 

High9 PB Ag 

Marsh Birds American cootFulica americana

 a x 

SoraPorzana Carolina 

 c x 

Virginia railRallus limicola

 u x 

White-faced ibisPlegadis chihi

 Csu, fa x 20 

(89) 

 G5/S2B 

BL-ASW-OW 

Mod PA 

W Low- WH 

Shorebirds Black-bellied plover Pluvialis squatarola 

 r Low 

2/1/1 

Common snipeGallinago gallinago

 aSp,S; 

cF; rW 

x Mod 

3/3/2 

Greater yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca 

 uSP; 

oS,F 

Mod 

3/3/3 

KilldeerCharadrius vociferus

 a x 19 

(ID) 

Mod 

3/2/1 

Long-billed curlewNumenius americanus

 cSp,S; 

uF 

x R1; 9; 

10 

23 

(80) 

 G5/S2B 

BL-ASXS 

Very 

High 

5/4/3 

 PB 

G/Ag 

Pectoral sandpiper Calidris melanotos 

 rSp,F Low 

1/1/1 

Red-necked phalarope Phalaropus lobatus 

 u Mod 

4/1/1 
Appendix E. Refuge Resources of Concern and Priorities E-13 Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

Species Abundance 

Breeds/Nests Locally 

BIDEH 

Federal T&E

Birds of Conservation 

Concern-USFWS R1& 

BCR 9 and 10 

ID Partners in Flight High 

Priority Species 

ID Partners in Flight Mod 

Priority Species 

 Idaho Comprehensive 

Wildlife Conservation Plan 

Species of Greatest 

Conservation Need 

Intermountain West Regional 

Shorebird Plan Regionally 

Important Species

Intermountain West 

Waterbird Conservation Plan 

Intermountain West 

Coordinated Implementation 

Plan 

N.A. Waterbird Conservation 

Plan

N.A. Waterfowl Management 

Plan Breeding/Non-Breeding

SS 

WilletCatoptrophorus semipalmatus

 cSp,S; 

uF 

x High 

4/3/2 

Wilson’s phalaropePhalaropus tricolor

 cSp,S; 

uF 

x 9; 10; 

16 

 21 

(69) 

G5/S3B 

BL-SWOW High 5/3/1 PA W 

Western sandpiper Calidris mauri 

 rS; oF Mod 

4/2/2 

Least sandpiper Calidris minutilla 

Mod 

4/2/2 

Spotted sandpiper Actitis macularia 

 u x Mod 

3/3/3 

Long-billed dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus 

 uSp; rS; 

oF 

Mod 

5/2/2 

Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa 

 oSp, Su, 

F; rS 

 9; 10; 

16 

High 

4/1/1 

Solitary sandpiper Tringa solitaria 

 Unk 9, 10; 

16 

Mod 

2/2/3 

Semipalmated plover Charadrius semipalmatus 

 Unk Mod 

3/1/1 

Stilt Sandpiper Calidris himantopus 

Low 

1/1/1 

Lesser yellowlegs Tringa flavipes 

 r Low 

2/2/2 

Ruddy turnstone Arenaria interpres 

 Accident

al 

Low 

1/1/1 

Sanderling Calidris alpina 

 Accident

al 

 9 Low 

1/1/1 

Dunlin Calidris alpina 

 Accident

al 

Low 

2/1/1 

Terns and Gulls Black ternChlidonias niger

 uSP,F; 

cS 

x 18* 

(ID) 

G4/S1B 

BL-SWOW 

High PA 

W Mod- COS 

Franklin’s Gull Larus pipixcan 

 aSp,S; rF x 24 

(80) 

 G4G5/ 

S2B 

BL-ASW-OW 

High 

ModWH 
E-14 Appendix E. Refuge Resources of Concern and Priorities Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

Species Abundance 

Breeds/Nests Locally 

BIDEH 

Federal T&E

Birds of Conservation 

Concern-USFWS R1& 

BCR 9 and 10 

ID Partners in Flight High 

Priority Species 

ID Partners in Flight Mod 

Priority Species 

 Idaho Comprehensive 

Wildlife Conservation Plan 

Species of Greatest 

Conservation Need 

Intermountain West Regional 

Shorebird Plan Regionally 

Important Species

Intermountain West 

Waterbird Conservation Plan 

Intermountain West 

Coordinated Implementation 

Plan 

N.A. Waterbird Conservation 

Plan

N.A. Waterfowl Management 

Plan Breeding/Non-Breeding

SS 

Forster’s ternSterna forsteri

 uSp,S; 

rF 

x G5/S1B 

BL-SWOW 

High10 

Mod9 

ModNA 

Ring-billed gull Larus delawarensis 

 u 

Herring gull Larus argentatus 

 LowCOS 

Caspian tern Sterna caspia 

 r G5/S2B,

S3NBLSW-OW Low- COS 

California gullLarus californicus

 cSp,F; 

oS, 

 19 

(ID) 

G5/S2B,

S3N 

BL-ASW-OW 

Mod10 ModNA 

Raptors American kestrelFalco sparverius

 c x 

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 

 o x F

T 

 G4/S3B,

S4N 

BL-SW 

 PA 

R 

Burrowing owl Speotyto cunicularia 

 Unk R1; 9; 

16 

 19* 

(ID) 

G4/S2B 

BL-ASXS 

 PB 

Ag 

Cooper’s hawkAccipiter cooperii

 o x 

Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos 

 u x 9; 10; 

16 

19 

(89) 

Great-horned owl Bubo virginianus 

 c x 

Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis 

 u x 9; 10; 

16 

23 

(ID) G4/S3B 

Long-eared owl Asio oyus 

 r 

Merlin Falco columbarius 

 Unk G5/S2B,

S2N 

BL-ASXS-SW 
Appendix E. Refuge Resources of Concern and Priorities E-15 Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

Species Abundance 

Breeds/Nests Locally 

BIDEH 

Federal T&E

Birds of Conservation 

Concern-USFWS R1& 

BCR 9 and 10 

ID Partners in Flight High 

Priority Species 

ID Partners in Flight Mod 

Priority Species 

 Idaho Comprehensive 

Wildlife Conservation Plan 

Species of Greatest 

Conservation Need 

Intermountain West Regional 

Shorebird Plan Regionally 

Important Species

Intermountain West 

Waterbird Conservation Plan 

Intermountain West 

Coordinated Implementation 

Plan 

N.A. Waterbird Conservation 

Plan

N.A. Waterfowl Management 

Plan Breeding/Non-Breeding

SS 

Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis 

 Unk x 21 

(64) 

Northern harrierCircus cyaneus

 c x 16 18 

(80) 

Osprey Pandion haileatus 

 r 17 

(ID) 

Peregrine falconFalco peregrinus

 o x F

C

o 

R1; 9; 

10; 16 

 19 

(ID) 

G4T3/ 

S2B 

BL-SWSXS 

Prairie falconFalco mexicanus

 u x R1; 9; 

10; 16 

24 

(80) 

 PB 

G 

Red-tailed hawkButeo jamaicensis

 c x 

Rough-legged hawk Buteo lagopus 

 u; cW 

Sharp-shinned hawk Falco striatus 

 o x 18 

(64) 

Short-eared owlAsio flammeus

 u x 16 23 

(ID) G5/S4 

Swainson’s hawkButeo swainsoni

 c x R1; 9; 

10; 16 

21 

(89) G5/S3B 

Barn owl Tyto alba 

 r 

Western screetch owl Otus kennicottii 

 Accident

al 

Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura 

 C Sp, Su 

Corvids American crowCorvus brachyrhynchos

 c x 

Common ravenCorvus corax

 c x 

Black-billed magpiePica pica

 cSp,S,F; 

oW 

x 19 

(ID) 

Upland Game Birds Gray partridge (Exotic) Perdix perdix 

 o x 
E-16 Appendix E. Refuge Resources of Concern and Priorities Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

Species Abundance 

Breeds/Nests Locally 

BIDEH 

Federal T&E

Birds of Conservation 

Concern-USFWS R1& 

BCR 9 and 10 

ID Partners in Flight High 

Priority Species 

ID Partners in Flight Mod 

Priority Species 

 Idaho Comprehensive 

Wildlife Conservation Plan 

Species of Greatest 

Conservation Need 

Intermountain West Regional 

Shorebird Plan Regionally 

Important Species

Intermountain West 

Waterbird Conservation Plan 

Intermountain West 

Coordinated Implementation 

Plan 

N.A. Waterbird Conservation 

Plan

N.A. Waterfowl Management 

Plan Breeding/Non-Breeding

SS 

Greater sage-grouse Centrocerus urophasianus 

 u x R1;9 25 

(ID) 

 G4/S2 

BL-ASXS 

 PA 

SB/S

DS 

Sharp-tailed grouse Centrocerus urophasianus 

 u x 20 

(89) 

 G4T3/S1 

BL-ASXS 

Chukar (Exotic) Alectoris chukar

 r 

Ring-necked pheasant (Exotic) Phasianus colchicus

 r 

Doves Mourning dove Zenaida macroura 

 c Su x 

Passerines and other Birds (Goatsuckers) Common night hawk Chordeiles minor 

uSp,S; 

oF 

x 

Common poorwill Phalaenoptilus nuttalli 

Unk x 

(Hummingbirds) Black-chinned hummingbird Archilocus alexandri 

r x 

Calliope hummingbird Stellula calliope 

Unk x 23 

(ID) 

 PA 

R 

Broad-tailed hummingbird Selasphorus platycercus 

Unk x 

Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus 

r x 22 

(89) 

(Kingfishers) Belted kingfisher Ceryle alcyon 

o x 

(Woodpeckers) Lewis’ woodpecker Melanerpes lewis 

r R1; 9; 

10; 16 

23 

(ID) G4/S3B 

Downy woodpecker Picoides pubescens 

r x 

Hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus 

r 
Appendix E. Refuge Resources of Concern and Priorities E-17 Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

Species Abundance 

Breeds/Nests Locally 

BIDEH 

Federal T&E

Birds of Conservation 

Concern-USFWS R1& 

BCR 9 and 10 

ID Partners in Flight High 

Priority Species 

ID Partners in Flight Mod 

Priority Species 

 Idaho Comprehensive 

Wildlife Conservation Plan 

Species of Greatest 

Conservation Need 

Intermountain West Regional 

Shorebird Plan Regionally 

Important Species

Intermountain West 

Waterbird Conservation Plan 

Intermountain West 

Coordinated Implementation 

Plan 

N.A. Waterbird Conservation 

Plan

N.A. Waterfowl Management 

Plan Breeding/Non-Breeding

SS 

Northern flicker Colaptes auratus 

c x 15 

(ID) 

(Flycatchers) Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi 

o R1; 21 

(ID) 

Western wood pewee Contopus sordidulus 

u x 17 

(ID) 

Willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii

oSp; uS x 21 

(ID) 

 PA 

R 

Hammond’s flycatcher Empidonax hammondi 

oSp,F; 

uS 

 23 

(ID) 

Gray Flycatcher Empidonax wrightii 

 24 

(80, 

89) 

Dusky flycatcher Empidonax oberholersi 

o 22 

(64) 

Say’s phoebe Saornis saya 

Unk 

Western kingbird Tyrannus verticalis 

o 

Eastern kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus 

o 

(Larks) Horned lark Eremophila alpestris 

c x R1 PA 

SB/S

DS 

(Swallows) Tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor

 aSp,S; 

uF 

x 

Violet-green swallow Tachycineta thalassina 

 o x 17 

(ID) 

Northern rough-winged swallow Stelgidoptyerx serripennis 

 o x 

Bank swallow Riparia riparia 

 u x 
E-18 Appendix E. Refuge Resources of Concern and Priorities Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

Species Abundance 

Breeds/Nests Locally 

BIDEH 

Federal T&E

Birds of Conservation 

Concern-USFWS R1& 

BCR 9 and 10 

ID Partners in Flight High 

Priority Species 

ID Partners in Flight Mod 

Priority Species 

 Idaho Comprehensive 

Wildlife Conservation Plan 

Species of Greatest 

Conservation Need 

Intermountain West Regional 

Shorebird Plan Regionally 

Important Species

Intermountain West 

Waterbird Conservation Plan 

Intermountain West 

Coordinated Implementation 

Plan 

N.A. Waterbird Conservation 

Plan

N.A. Waterfowl Management 

Plan Breeding/Non-Breeding

SS 

Cliff swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota

 cSP; aS; 

uF 

x 

Barn swallow Hirundo rustica

 cSP,S; 

oF 

x 

(Chickadees and Titmice) Black-capped chickadee Poecile atricapillus 

c x 13 

(ID) 

 (Creepers and Nuthatches) Brown creeper Certhia americana 

o x 18 

(64) 

Red-breasted nuthatch Sitta candensis 

oSp,F,W

; uS 

x 

White-breasted nuthatch Sitta carolinensis 

o 

(Wrens) Rock wren Salpinctes obsoletus

Unk x

x 

 19 

(89) 

House wren Troglodytes aedon

Unk X2 

Marsh wren Cistothorus palustris 

cSp, Su, 

F 

x 

(Dippers) American dipper Cinculus mexicanus 

u 22 

(ID) 

(Kinglets, Bluebirds, Thrushes) Mountain bluebird Sialia currucoides

cSp,S; 

uF; oW 

x 

Townsend’s solitaire Myadestes townsendi 

o 19 

(ID) 

Veery Catharus fuscesens 

Unk 19* 

(ID) 

Swainson’s thrush Catharus ustulata

Unk x 

American robin Turdus migratorius 

a x 

(Mockingbirds and Thrashers) 
Appendix E. Refuge Resources of Concern and Priorities E-19 Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

Species Abundance 

Breeds/Nests Locally 

BIDEH 

Federal T&E

Birds of Conservation 

Concern-USFWS R1& 

BCR 9 and 10 

ID Partners in Flight High 

Priority Species 

ID Partners in Flight Mod 

Priority Species 

 Idaho Comprehensive 

Wildlife Conservation Plan 

Species of Greatest 

Conservation Need 

Intermountain West Regional 

Shorebird Plan Regionally 

Important Species

Intermountain West 

Waterbird Conservation Plan 

Intermountain West 

Coordinated Implementation 

Plan 

N.A. Waterbird Conservation 

Plan

N.A. Waterfowl Management 

Plan Breeding/Non-Breeding

SS 

Gray catbird Dumetella carolinensis 

Unk x 

Sage thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus 

oSp,F; 

uS 

x 22 

(89) 

 PA 

SB/S

DS 

(Pipits) American pipit Anthus rubescens 

oSp,F 

(Waxwings) Bohemian waxwing Bombycilla garrulus 

rSp 

Cedar waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum 

oSp,S 

(Shrikes) Northern shrike Lanius excubitor 

r 

Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus 

oSP,S,F x R1; 9; 

10 

20 

(80) 

(Starlings) European starling (Exotic) Stumus vulgaris 

c x 

(Vireos) Warbling vireo Vireo gilvus 

c 18 

(ID) 

(Warblers) Orange-crowned warbler Vermivora celata 

Unk x 

Yellow warbler Demdoricha petechia 

cSp,S; 

oF 

x 18 

(64) 

Yellow-rumped warbler Dendroica coronata 

cSp,S; 

aF 

x 16 

(64) 

Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens 

Unk 

American redstart Setophaga ruticilla 

rSp 

MacGillivary’s warbler Oporornis tolmiei 

Unk x 21 

(ID) 
E-20 Appendix E. Refuge Resources of Concern and Priorities Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

Species Abundance 

Breeds/Nests Locally 

BIDEH 

Federal T&E

Birds of Conservation 

Concern-USFWS R1& 

BCR 9 and 10 

ID Partners in Flight High 

Priority Species 

ID Partners in Flight Mod 

Priority Species 

 Idaho Comprehensive 

Wildlife Conservation Plan 

Species of Greatest 

Conservation Need 

Intermountain West Regional 

Shorebird Plan Regionally 

Important Species

Intermountain West 

Waterbird Conservation Plan 

Intermountain West 

Coordinated Implementation 

Plan 

N.A. Waterbird Conservation 

Plan

N.A. Waterfowl Management 

Plan Breeding/Non-Breeding

SS 

Common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas

uSp,S; 

oF 

x 

(Tanagers) Western tanager Piranga ludoviciana 

uSp,S; 

cF 

x 20 

(ID) 

(Grossbeaks and Buntings) Lazuli bunting Passerina amoena 

Unk x 19 

(64) 

(Towhees and Sparrows) Green-tailed towhee Pipilo chlorurus 

oSp,F; 

uS 

x 19 

(ID) 

Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum 

Unk 20 

(64) 

 G5/S2B 

BL-SXS 

 PB 

G 

House sparrow (Exotic) Passer domesticus 

u x 

Chirpping sparrow 

Spizella passerina 

oSp,F; 

uS 

x 

Brewer’s sparrow Spizella breweri 

Unk x R1; 9; 

10 

24 

(89) G5/S3B 

 PA 

SB/S

DS 

Vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus

cSp,S; 

uF 

x 16 

(80) 

Lark sparrow X Chondestes grammicus 

rSp 20 

(89) 

Savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis 

cSp,S; 

uF 

x 

Fox sparrow Passerella iliaca 

uSp,S, 

oF 

x 

Sage sparrow Amphispiza belli 

Unk 9 25 

(80 89) 

 PA 

SB/S

DS 

Song sparrow Melospiza melodia 

cSp,S; 

uF 

x 

Lincoln’s sparrow Melospiza lincolnii 

Unk x 

White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophys 

uSp,S; 

cF 

x 
Appendix E. Refuge Resources of Concern and Priorities E-21 Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

Species Abundance 

Breeds/Nests Locally 

BIDEH 

Federal T&E

Birds of Conservation 

Concern-USFWS R1& 

BCR 9 and 10 

ID Partners in Flight High 

Priority Species 

ID Partners in Flight Mod 

Priority Species 

 Idaho Comprehensive 

Wildlife Conservation Plan 

Species of Greatest 

Conservation Need 

Intermountain West Regional 

Shorebird Plan Regionally 

Important Species

Intermountain West 

Waterbird Conservation Plan 

Intermountain West 

Coordinated Implementation 

Plan 

N.A. Waterbird Conservation 

Plan

N.A. Waterfowl Management 

Plan Breeding/Non-Breeding

SS 

American tree sparrow Spizella arborea 

Unk 

Dark-eyed junco Junco hyemalis 

cSp,S,F; 

uW 

x 13 

(ID) 

Lark bunting Calamospiza melanocorys 

Unk 

Snow bunting Plectrophenax nivalis 

oF,oW 

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus

oSp,F; 

uS 

x 

(Blackbirds, Meadowlarks, and Orioles) Brown-headed cowbirdSitta pusilla

 cSp,S; 

uF 

x 

Brewer’s blackbirdEuphagus cyanocephalus

 cSp,S; 

uF 

x 15 

(ID) 

Red-winged blackbirdAgelaius phoeniceus

 cSp,S; 

uF; oW 

x 

Western meadowlarkSturnella neglecta

 cSp,S; 

uF; oW 

x 18 

(ID) 

Yellow-headed blackbirdXanthocephalus xanthocephalus

 cSp,S; 

oF 

x 18 

(80) 

Common grackle Quiscalus quiscala 

Unk 

Bullock’s Oriole Leucosticte australis 

Unk x 19* 

(ID) 

(Finches) Black Rosy-finch Lecosticte atrata 

 Unk G4/S3 

House finch Carpodacus mexicanus 

 Unk 

Pine siskin Carduelis pinus 

 uSp,S; 

cS 

x 14 

(ID) 

Lesser goldfinch Carduelis psaltria 

 Unk G5/S2B 

BL-SWSXS 

American goldfinch Carduelis tristus 

 uSp,S,F x 
E-22 Appendix E. Refuge Resources of Concern and Priorities Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

Species Abundance 

Breeds/Nests Locally 

BIDEH 

Federal T&E

Birds of Conservation 

Concern-USFWS R1& 

BCR 9 and 10 

ID Partners in Flight High 

Priority Species 

ID Partners in Flight Mod 

Priority Species 

 Idaho Comprehensive 

Wildlife Conservation Plan 

Species of Greatest 

Conservation Need 

Intermountain West Regional 

Shorebird Plan Regionally 

Important Species

Intermountain West 

Waterbird Conservation Plan 

Intermountain West 

Coordinated Implementation 

Plan 

N.A. Waterbird Conservation 

Plan

N.A. Waterfowl Management 

Plan Breeding/Non-Breeding

SS 

Evening grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus 

 uSp,S,F 

MammalsMasked shrew Sorex cinereus G5/S4 Vagrant shrew Sorex vagrans G5/S4 Water shrew Sorex palustris G5/S4 Merriam’s shrew Sorex merriami 

 G5/S2 

BL-SXS 

Little brown myotis Myotis lucifugus G5/S5 Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis G5/S3 Long-legged myotis Myotis volans G5/S3 Long-eared Myotis Myotis evotis G5/S3 Western small footed myotis Myotis ciliolabrum G5/S4 Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans G5/S4 Big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus G5/S4 Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus G5/S4 Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii 

 G4/S2 

BL-SWSXS-OW 

Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus G5/S1 Townsend’s ground squirrel Spermophilus townsendii G5/S5 
Appendix E. Refuge Resources of Concern and Priorities E-23 Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

Species Abundance 

Breeds/Nests Locally 

BIDEH 

Federal T&E

Birds of Conservation 

Concern-USFWS R1& 

BCR 9 and 10 

ID Partners in Flight High 

Priority Species 

ID Partners in Flight Mod 

Priority Species 

 Idaho Comprehensive 

Wildlife Conservation Plan 

Species of Greatest 

Conservation Need 

Intermountain West Regional 

Shorebird Plan Regionally 

Important Species

Intermountain West 

Waterbird Conservation Plan 

Intermountain West 

Coordinated Implementation 

Plan 

N.A. Waterbird Conservation 

Plan

N.A. Waterfowl Management 

Plan Breeding/Non-Breeding

SS 

Uinta ground squirrel Spermophilus armatus G5/S4 Least chipmunk Tamius minimus G5/S5 Yellow-bellied marmot Marmota flaviventris 

 r G5/S5 

Wyomong ground squirrel Spermophilus elegans 

 G5/S3 

BL 

A-SXS 

Idaho Pocket gopher Thomomys idahonoensis 

 G4/S3 

BL 

A-SXS 

Northern pocket gopher Thomomys talpoides 

 a x G5/S3 

Beaver Castor canadensis 

 u x G5/S5 

Great Basin pocket mouse Perognathus parvus G5/S5 Western harvest mouse Reithrodontomys megalotis G5/S5 Deer mousePeromyscus maniculatus

 c x G5/S5 

Northern grasshopper mouse Onychomys leucogaster G5/S4 Bushy-tailed wood rat Neotoma cinerea 

 r G5/S5 

Meadow vole Microtus pennsylvanicus 

 c x G5/S5 

Montane vole Microtus montanus 

 c x G5/S5 

Long-tailed vole Microtus longicaudus G5/S5 Sagebrush vole Lemmiscus curtatus 

 r G5/S4 

Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus 

 c x G5/S5 

Western jumping mouse Zapus princeps G5/S5 
E-24 Appendix E. Refuge Resources of Concern and Priorities Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

Species Abundance 

Breeds/Nests Locally 

BIDEH 

Federal T&E

Birds of Conservation 

Concern-USFWS R1& 

BCR 9 and 10 

ID Partners in Flight High 

Priority Species 

ID Partners in Flight Mod 

Priority Species 

 Idaho Comprehensive 

Wildlife Conservation Plan 

Species of Greatest 

Conservation Need 

Intermountain West Regional 

Shorebird Plan Regionally 

Important Species

Intermountain West 

Waterbird Conservation Plan 

Intermountain West 

Coordinated Implementation 

Plan 

N.A. Waterbird Conservation 

Plan

N.A. Waterfowl Management 

Plan Breeding/Non-Breeding

SS 

Porcupine Erithizon dorsatum 

 r G5/S5 

Mountain cottontail Sylvilagus nuttalli 

 u G5/S5 

Black-tailed jackrabbit Lepus californicus 

 u G5/S5 

Coyote Canis latrans 

 c x G5/S5 

Red foxVulpes vulpes

 c x G5/S5 

Ermine Mustela erminea 

 u G5/S5 

Long-tailed weasel Mustela frenata G5/S5 Mink Neovison vison 

 u G5/S5 

Raccoon Procyon lotor 

 c x G5/S4 

Badger Taxidea taxus 

 u x G5/S5 

Western spotted skunk Spilogale gracilis G5/S5 Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis 

 a x G5/S5 

River otter Lontra canadensis 

 r G5/S4 

Puma Puma concolor 

 r G5/S4 

Bobcat Lynx rufus 

 r G5/S4 

Elk Cervus elaphus 

 u G5/S5 

Mule deer Odocoileous hemionus 

 u G5/S5 

Moose Alces alces 

 c x G5/S4 

Amphibians 
Appendix E. Refuge Resources of Concern and Priorities E-25 Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

Species Abundance 

Breeds/Nests Locally 

BIDEH 

Federal T&E

Birds of Conservation 

Concern-USFWS R1& 

BCR 9 and 10 

ID Partners in Flight High 

Priority Species 

ID Partners in Flight Mod 

Priority Species 

 Idaho Comprehensive 

Wildlife Conservation Plan 

Species of Greatest 

Conservation Need 

Intermountain West Regional 

Shorebird Plan Regionally 

Important Species

Intermountain West 

Waterbird Conservation Plan 

Intermountain West 

Coordinated Implementation 

Plan 

N.A. Waterbird Conservation 

Plan

N.A. Waterfowl Management 

Plan Breeding/Non-Breeding

SS 

Tiger salamander Ambyystoma tigrinum G5/S5 Western toad Bufo boreas 

 x G5/S4 

Striped chorus frog Psudacris triseriata G5/S4 Northern Leopard frog Rana pipiens 

 G5/S2 

BL-SWA-SXS 

Reptiles Sagebrush lizard Sceloporus graciosus G5/S5 Rubber boa Charina bottae G5/S5 Gopher snake Pituophis melanole G5/S5 Western terrestrial garter snake Thamnophis elegans G5/S5 Common garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis G5/S5 Western rattlesnake Crotalus viridus 

 r 

Ringneck snake Diadophis pucctatus G5/S2 Racer Coluber constrictor G5/S5 Fish Bonneville cutthroat trout Oncorhychus clarki 

x c x G4T4/S3 

BL-SWA 

Rainbow trout Oncorhychus mykiss 

 x 

Brown Trout Salmo trutta 

 x 

Carp Cyprinus carpio 

 a x 
E-26 Appendix E. Refuge Resources of Concern and Priorities Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

Species Abundance 

Breeds/Nests Locally 

BIDEH 

Federal T&E

Birds of Conservation 

Concern-USFWS R1& 

BCR 9 and 10 

ID Partners in Flight High 

Priority Species 

ID Partners in Flight Mod 

Priority Species 

 Idaho Comprehensive 

Wildlife Conservation Plan 

Species of Greatest 

Conservation Need 

Intermountain West Regional 

Shorebird Plan Regionally 

Important Species

Intermountain West 

Waterbird Conservation Plan 

Intermountain West 

Coordinated Implementation 

Plan 

N.A. Waterbird Conservation 

Plan

N.A. Waterfowl Management 

Plan Breeding/Non-Breeding

SS 

Redside shiner Richardsonius balteatus Dace Rhinicthys spp. Leatherside chub Snyderichthys copei Mottled sculpin Cottus bairdi Gastropods Green River pebblesnail Flumimicola colaradonensis 

 G2/S2 

BL 

Bear Lake springsnail Pyrgulopsis pilsbryana 

 G2/S2 

BL 

FLORA Plants Red glasswort Salicornia rubra G4/S1 Purple Meadow-rueThalictrum dasycarpum G5/S2 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix E. Refuge Resources of Concern and Priorities E-27 

Table E-3 Key 

Species Abundance: 

Season

Sp = Spring 

S = Summer 

F = Fall 

W = Winter 

 Occurs: 

a = Abundant: a common species which is very numerous 

c = Common: certain to be seen in suitable habitat 

u = Uncommon: present, but not certain to be seen 

o = Occasional: seen only a few times during season 

r = Rare: known to be present, but not every year 

BIDEH: 

x= Species significantly contributes to refuge Biological Diversity, Integrity, and Environmental Health 

Federal T&E Species: 

FE = Fed. Endangered 

FT = Fed. Threatened 

FC = Fed. Candidate 

FCo = Fed. Spec. of Concern 

Birds of Conservation Concern 

R1= USFWS Region 1(WA,OR,ID) 

9= Great Basin Bird Conservation Region (BCR 9) 

10)= Northern Rockies Bird Conservation Region (BCR 10) 

ID Partners in Flight (PIF): 

Number (e.g., 24): Total PIF species score 

(ID)= Statewide 

(80)= Basin and Range Physiographic Area 

(64)= Central Rocky Mtns Physiographic Area 

High Priority= Focal species whose total PIF score ≥ 22, or total score 18-21 and Area of Importance + Population 

Trend ≥ 8 

*= Species that are habitat specialists 

State Wildlife Action Plan: Identified by plan as Species of Greatest Conservation Needs. 

GX or SX= Presumed extinct or extirpated: not located despite intensive searches and virtually no likelihood of 

rediscovery. 

GH or SH= Possibly extinct or extirpated (historical): historically occurred, but may be rediscovered. 

G1 or S= Critically imperiled: at high risk because of extreme rarity (often five or fewer occurrences), rapidly 

declining numbers, or other factors that make it particularly vulnerable to rangewide extinction or extirpation. 

G2 or S2= Imperiled: at risk because of restricted range, few populations (often 20 or fewer), rapidly declining 

numbers, or other factors that make it vulnerable to rangewide extinction or extirpation. 

G3 or S3= Vulnerable: at moderate risk because of restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), 

recent and widespread declines, or other factors that make it vulnerable to rangewide extinction or extirpation. 

G4 or S4= Apparently secure: uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other 

factors. 

G5 or S5 Secure= common, widespread, and abundant. 

N= Nonbreeding Conservation status refers to the non-breeding population of the species. 

B= Breeding population of the species 

N= Non-breeding population of the species 

M= Migrant species occurring regularly on migration at particular staging areas or concentration spots where the 

species might warrant conservation attention. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

E-28 Appendix E. Refuge Resources of Concern and Priorities 

BL= Within Bear Lake Section of Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy 

 Priority species in priority habitat of the Bear Lake Section is indicated by: 

A= Arable land (Agriculture) 

 Seeded Perennial Grassland 

 Disturbed and Invasive Grass and Forb 

UDF= Upland Deciduous Forest 

 Rocky Mountain Aspen Forest and Woodland (Key Ecological Section) 

 Rocky Mountain Bigtooth Maple Ravine Woodland (Key Ecological Section) 

 Inter-Mountain Basins Aspen-Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland (Key Ecological 

Section) 

 Rocky Mountain Dry-Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer Forest (Key Ecological Section) 

SXS= Southern Xeric Shrubland and Steppe 

 Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland 

 Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 

 Columbia Plateau Low Sagebrush Steppe 

 Columbia Plateau Steppe and Grassland 

 Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe 

 Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe 

 Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Shrub-Steppe 

 Rocky Mountain Lower Montane Riparian Woodland and Shrubland (Key Ecological 

Section) 

SW= Southern Wetland 

 Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat 

 North American Arid West Emergent Marsh 

OW= Open Water 

Intermountain West Regional Shorebird Plan: 

Regional Priorities= Very High, High, Moderate, Low, Non-Priority 

First Number (i.e., x/)= Great Basin Bird Conservation Region (BCR 9) 

Second Number (i.e., /x)= Northern Rockies Bird Conservation Region (BCR 10) 

Third Number (i.e., / /x)= Southern Rockies Bird Conservation Region (BCR 16) 

Intermountain Regional Shorebird Plan: 1 = no risk; 5 = highly imperiled 

Moderate Priority= Not high priority species, but should be considered in habitat management or monitoring plans 

Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan: 

Regional Priorities= High, Moderate 

9= Great Basin Bird Conservation Region (BCR 9) 

10= Northern Rockies Bird Conservation Region (BCR 10) 

BLM Sensitive Species 

The column titled “USDI Bureau of Land Management” indicates designations assigned by that agency. National 

policy directs State Directors to designate BLM sensitive species in cooperation with the State fish and wildlife 

agency (BLM manual 6840). The Idaho State BLM Office updated these designations in 2003. The sensitive species 

designation is normally used for species that occur on BLM public lands and for which BLM has the capability to 

significantly affect the conservation status of the species through management. 

Type 1: Threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate: species listed by the FWS or NMFS as threatened or 

endangered, or proposed or candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. 

Type 2: Rangewide/Globally imperiled: species that are experiencing significant declines throughout their range 

with a high likelihood of being listed in the foreseeable future due to their rarity and/or significant endangerment 

factors. This includes species ranked by the NatureServe heritage program network with a Global rank of G1-G3 or 

T1-T3 or recent data indicate that the species is at significant rangewide risk and this is not currently reflected by 

heritage program global ranks. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix E. Refuge Resources of Concern and Priorities E-29 

Type 3: Regional/State imperiled: species that are experiencing significant declines in population or habitat and are 

in danger of regional or local extinctions in Idaho in the foreseeable future if factors contributing to their decline 

continues. This includes Idaho BLM sensitive species that (a) are not in Type 2, (b) have an S1 or S2 State rank 

(exception being a peripheral or disjunct species), or (c) score high (18 or greater) using the Criteria for Evaluating 

Animals for Sensitive Species Status or (d) other regional/national status evaluations (e.g., Partners in Flight scores) 

indicate significant declines. 

Type 4: Peripheral: species that are generally rare in Idaho with the majority of their breeding range largely outside 

the State (Idaho Conservation Data Center 1994). This includes sensitive species that have an S1 or S2 state ranking, 

but are peripheral species to Idaho. 

Type 5: Watch list: these species are not considered BLM sensitive species and associated sensitive species policy 

guidance does not apply. Watch list species include species that may be added to the sensitive species list depending 

on new information concerning threats, species’ biology or Statewide trends. The Watch List include species with 

insufficient data on population or habitat trends or the threats are poorly understood. However, there are indications 

that these species may warrant special status species designation and appropriate inventory or research efforts should 

be a management priority. 

TNC Utah and Wyoming Ecoregional Conservation Plan 

x = Priority species 

BR = Priority species for Bear River Megasite

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

E-30 Appendix E. Refuge Resources of Concern and Priorities 

E.2 Habitat and Ecosystem Associations at Bear Lake NWR 

Table E-4. Habitat and Ecosystem Associations at Bear Lake NWR 

Habitats Habitat Attributes and 

Functions 

Natural Processes Limiting Factors 

Open Water 

Habitat sub-types

 Low water clarity 

(NTU <10) 

 High water 

clarity (NTU 

>50) 

Open water habitat is vital to 

providing piscivore access to 

refuge fisheries in wetland 

habitats and maintaining open 

stream channels for sensitive fish 

spawning access (e.g., Bonneville 

cutthroat trout). While not as 

essential as Submergent habitat to 

a wide diversity of wetland 

dependent wildlife, it is important 

to maintain for a select few 

species which require open water 

habitat for their existence. 

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 

that have not recently received 

carp control. 

Located very low in the 

landscape with a 

perennially flooded 

hydroperiod, deep flooding 

depths (>35 inches) 

through the winter. 

Naturally occurring open 

water habitat within the 

marsh is a primary 

byproduct of hydroperiod 

and herbivory. Sustained 

high water increases 

sedimentation and 

decreases water clarity and 

submerged aquatic 

vegetation germination 

rates, thereby increasing 

open water habitat, with 

muskrat herbivory 

maintaining open water 

habitats in shallow deep 

emergent depressions. 

Inversely, natural drought 

decreases inundation of 

deep water habitats, 

stimulating increases in 

submerged aquatic 

germination and decreasing 

the availability of open 

water areas. 

The introduction of carp in 

the system is an unnatural 

factor leading to increased 

herbivory of submerged 

aquatic vegetation, low 

water clarity, and a higher 

proportion of open water 

habitat than would occur 

under natural processes. 

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. 

Adequate infrastructure 

(impoundment levees and 

carp screens) required to 

reduce carp ingress in the 

Mud Lake Unit. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix E. Refuge Resources of Concern and Priorities E-31 

Habitats Habitat Attributes and 

Functions 

Natural Processes Limiting Factors 

Submerged 

Habitat sub-types

 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. 

Submergent vegetation is the most 

widely used, yet least abundant 

palustrine emergent habitat type 

on the Refuge. Providing leafy 

browse for grazing species, seeds 

for granivorous species, and 

invertebrate resources for molting, 

nesting, and young waterbirds, it 

provides the food reserve function 

within the hemi-marsh system. 

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. 

Permanently flooded 

wetlands >6" and <36"

deep. Requires high water 

clarity for germination and 

photosynthesis. 

Sedimentation and 

reduced germination, 

excessive natural 

herbivory (waterbirds), 

unnatural herbivory and 

disturbance (carp); 

disturbance and trampling 

from administrative or 

recreational boating 

and/or hunting; invasive 

species introductions 

(Eurasian milfoil). 

Carp control is required 

to reach a desired future 

condition of 

approximately 50% of 

baseline open water 

habitat converted to 

submergent habitat. 

Deep Emergent 

Comprised 

primarily of 

hardstem bulrush, 

but also containing 

cattail. 

 

Habitat sub-types

 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)

 Late 

Successional 

(Deep emergent 

habitat comprised 

Different levels of residual 

vegetation are desirable to 

different resources of concern 

based on seasonal life history 

requirements. 

Emergent vegetation at varying 

levels of residual coverage 

provides nesting habitat and cover 

for a variety of wetland dependent 

wildlife species. Providing 

overwater nesting sites for 

wetland dependent bird species; 

invertebrate substrate for foraging 

waterbirds and fish; lodge 

materials and loafing sites for 

aquatic mammals, as well as 

providing shade and cover for all 

species, emergent vegetation 

forms the “housing” requirement 

within the hemi-marsh 

environment. 

Early Successional deep emergent 

habitat is a direct result of nonhydrologic disturbance (drought 

induced fire) and typically lasts 

<2 years following burn. 

Permanent hydroperiod 

deep flooding depth (60-39 

inches), standing water or 

saturated soils typically 

year-round, with increased 

muskrat herbivory (“Eatouts”) creating openings 

during periods of sustained 

high water years through 

the winter. During periods 

of severe drought, deep 

marsh fires occurred and 

temporarily (<2 years) 

decreased emergent stem 

density. 

Tall emergent vegetation 

efficiently removes nitrates 

by providing higher 

amounts of organic 

substrate for denitrifying 

bacteria and limiting 

sunlight from the water 

column, promoting 

anaerobic conditions for 

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

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

E-32 Appendix E. Refuge Resources of Concern and Priorities 

Habitats Habitat Attributes and 

Functions 

Natural Processes Limiting Factors 

of >90% residual 

vegetation 

coverage).

Mid Successional Deep emergent 

habitat falling within 30%-90% 

residual cover is a typical midsuccessional response to 

hydrologic or fire disturbance. 

Late Successional Deep Emergent 

Habitat has greater than 90% 

residual cover and typically 

occurs under a static hydroperiod 

>7 years post disturbance. 

Shallow Emergent 

Habitat sub-types

 Freshwater 

shallow emergent 

habitat comprised 

primarily of 

hardstem bulrush 

 Alkali shallow 

emergent 

comprised 

primarily of 

alkali bulrush 

and established 

in water typically 

>1,000 ppm 

Total Dissolved 

Solids (TDS) 

Shallow emergent habitat type 

contains plant species such as 

alkali bulrush and annual weedy 

plants which provide an additional 

food reserve function within the 

hemi-marsh complex. 

Typically, deep emergent 

vegetation forms as a concentric 

ring around open 

water/submergent habitats, while 

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 those wetland 

dependent wildlife species that 

require wet meadow and adjacent 

uplands to fulfill their life history 

strategies. 

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. With the exception of 

having numerous small open 

water and/or submergent habitat 

pools intermixed within this 

habitat type, the current condition 

is desirable. 

Semi-permanently to 

ephemerally flooded 

habitat typically flooded to 

a depth of 3"-24". 

The primary difference in 

processes between deep 

and shallow emergent 

habitat is water 

permanence. Shallow 

emergent vegetation is 

similar to deep emergent 

vegetation except that 

depths within this zone are 

typically shallower 

resulting in less 

permanency. Shallow 

emergent habitats are 

occasionally dewatered 

during summer months 

(semi-permanent), while 

deep emergent habitats are 

permanently flooded yearlong. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix E. Refuge Resources of Concern and Priorities E-33 

Habitats Habitat Attributes and 

Functions 

Natural Processes Limiting Factors 

Wet-Meadow 

Habitat sub-types

 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/or >20% of 

the community is 

forb dominant 

Ranging from moist soil during 

late summer to as much as 2 feet 

of water 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 comprise 

90% of most waterbird diets 

during summer months; however, 

with fall flooding during 

migration, the annual seeds 

produced by these plants 

additionally provide forage for 

migratory waterbirds as well. 

Ephemeral hydroperiod 

(April-July/August) with a 

moderate flooding depth 

(6-30"). Located in soils 

that are moist to saturated 

during the growing season. 

Typically holds surface 

water through late summer, 

with only isolated microdepressions or sloughs 

holding water into the early 

fall. Typically only holds 

surface water till late 

Spring, but may be receive 

no surface flooding in very 

dry years. 

Wet meadow habitats are 

distinct 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. 

Conversion to haying or 

agriculture, diverted 

waters and modified 

(shortened) seasonal 

hydroperiods; invasive 

species. 

Alkali Meadow 

Habitat sub-types

 Early 

successional 

(high 

heterogeneous 

diversity) alkali 

meadow class 

occurs where 

alkali meadow 

contains >1 

halophytic plant 

species sharing 

dominance 

within the plant 

community. 

 Late successional 

(low 

homogenous 

diversity) alkali 

wet meadow 

class occurs 

where red 

glasswort is 

Less diverse than wet meadow 

habitats and typically less canopy 

coverage, the low stature, open 

nature of this habitat type lends 

itself to migration use by 

waterfowl and shorebirds, as well 

as nesting/brood rearing habitat 

for shorebird species such as the 

American avocet and long-billed 

curlew. 

Approximately 60% of all refuge 

alkali meadow is currently in 

early successional status. Typical 

species include pickelweed, red 

goosefoot, oakleaf goosefoot and 

flood/alkali tolerant saltgrass. 

Late successional status includes a 

relatively homogenous alkali 

meadow habitat where red 

glasswort is dominant within the 

plant community. 

Ephemeral to semipermanently flooded alkali 

marsh (>1,000 ppm TDS) 

dominated by low stature, 

flood tolerant, annual and 

perennial plants. 

Alkali meadow is similar to 

wet meadow except that 

concentrated water is 

typically greater than 1,000 

ppm TDS, thus, a 

specialized group of plants 

known as halophytes 

become established through 

successive years. 

Late successional alkali 

meadow communities are 

dominant where water 

quality input is >1,000 ppm 

TDS or where hydrology 

has favored natural 

evaporative areas over 

time. 

Climate change, Extreme 

drought or flood 

conditions; groundwater 

depletion; grazing; 

development; conversion 

to agriculture; invasive 

species; 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

E-34 Appendix E. Refuge Resources of Concern and Priorities 

Habitats Habitat Attributes and 

Functions 

Natural Processes Limiting Factors 

dominant within 

the plant 

community.

Alkali Upland 

Meadow 

Habitat sub-types

 Early 

successional 

Alkali Upland 

comprised of 

<10% forbs and 

<90% residual 

vegetation. 

 Late successional 

Alkali Upland 

comprised of 

>10% forbs 

and/or >90% 

residual 

vegetation.

An uncommon habitat located in 

isolated shallow pans; probably 

flooded in spring. Often has a salt 

crust in summer, 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 sensitive species would no 

longer frequent refuge habitat 

because these habitats in 

combination provide the 

components necessary to fulfill 

their life history strategy. 

Upland habitat differs from 

wetland habitat processes 

based on the seasonal 

periodicity of hydration. 

Upland habitats can be 

seasonally flooded to as 

much as three but usually 

for less than 10 days in the 

spring. 

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. 

Extreme drought or flood 

conditions; groundwater 

depletion; grazing; 

development; conversion 

to agriculture; invasive 

species; 

Meadow Grass 

Upland 

Habitat sub-types

 Early 

successional 

Meadow Grass 

habitat comprised 

of <10% forbs 

and <90% 

residual 

vegetation. 

 Late successional 

Meadow Grass 

comprised of 

>10% forbs 

and/or >90% 

residual 

vegetation. 

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 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 upland sites 

are >2’ higher than average 

spring high water level and 

are more common in higher 

elevations on the north side 

of Bear Lake

Characterized by pH 

neutral soils and less 

dissolved salt, thus, a wider 

range of plant species can 

grow within this habitat 

type. 

Conversion to refuge 

croplands, invasive 

species, fire, grazing, 

haying, disturbance, 

development 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix E. Refuge Resources of Concern and Priorities E-35 

Habitats Habitat Attributes and 

Functions 

Natural Processes Limiting Factors 

Shrub Upland 

Habitat sub-types

 Early 

successional 

Shrub habitat 

comprised 

primarily of 

rubber 

rabbitbrush 

 Late successional 

Shrub comprised 

primarily of 

alkali big 

greasewood 

 Lake 

successional 

climax Shrub 

comprised 

primarily of big 

sagebrush, with 

dominant 

overstory canopy 

coverage >50% 

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 elk and mule deer, 

while serving as the primary 

habitat type used by specialists 

such as sage grouse. Shrub habitat 

on refuge lands has been 

identified as a potential 

reintroduction site for 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. 

Not on the Refuge, but in 

the area: Residential and 

resort development; 

grazing; conversion to 

agriculture? 

Riparian 

Habitat sub-types

 Willow 

woodland 

 In-stream 

Aquatic 

A locally uncommon and 

nationally decreasing habitat type 

found in small but important 

acreages at all three refuge units. 

Riparian rivals the diversity found 

in wet meadow habitats. 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. 

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. 

. 

Typically subject to an 

ephemeral, spring flooding 

regime (>0"-12" in depth). 

Hydroperiod, grazing, 

water quality, water 

quality, beaver removal, 

seed source, grazing, 

legal and illegal 

diversions, altered 

channel morphology, 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

E-36 Appendix E. Refuge Resources of Concern and Priorities 

Habitats Habitat Attributes and 

Functions 

Natural Processes Limiting Factors 

Agriculture 

Habitat sub-types

 Small Grain 

(wheat or spring 

barley) 

 Summer Fallow 

 Legumes 

(Annual Clover) 

 Legumes 

(Alfalfa) 

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. 

N/A Funding, shortened 

growing season, and low 

precipitation, weeds, nonrefuge crop depredation, 

promises to local 

ranchers for hay. 

E.3 Priority Refuge Resources of Concern and Focal Resources 

Focal resources (Table E-6) are a prioritized subset of the Bear Lake NWR Priority Resources of Concern 

from (Table E-5) and represent legally mandated species and natural communities for management of 

Bear Lake NWR. 

The species selected as priority resources of concern from these plans support the following NWRS 

mandates: 

 Support refuge purposes and the NWRS mission; 

 Conserve biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health 

 Fulfill FWS trust resource responsibilities (migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, 

interjurisidicational fish, and marine mammals 

 High regional conservation priority 

Achieving healthy, functional ecosystems for native fish, wildlife, and plants on the Refuge can be 

described through the habitat requirements of “focal species” highly associated with important attributes 

or conditions within habitat types. As described by Altman (2000), the rationale for using focal species is 

to emphasize habitat attributes most in need of conservation or most essential for functional ecosystems. 

By managing for a group of species (guild) representative of important components in a functioning 

ecosystem, the elements of biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health will also be 

addressed. 

E.3.1 Selection of Priority Refuge Resources of Concern 

Refuge staff extensively documented and reviewed 13 regional, flyway, and State plans or lists to classify 

the conservation status and management priority of Bear Lake NWR fish, wildlife, and plant species 

(Appendix A: Resources of Concern). Seven of these plans predominately center on avian species (e.g., 

birds, shorebirds, waterbirds, waterfowl). Four plans or lists prioritized not only avian species, but all 

species of great conservation need. Of these four plans, the Idaho Conservation Strategy for Southeast 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix E. Refuge Resources of Concern and Priorities E-37 

Idaho Wetlands is the narrowest in scope, focusing singularly on wetland habitats. The Idaho Fish and 

Game Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy, priority species list of the USFWS Partners 

for Fish and Wildlife program, and The Nature Conservancy (TNC) Ecoregional Assessments for the 

Rocky Mountains and Wyoming Basin, each identified and ranked the conservation need for a suite of 

species across multiple habitats. 

Resources of Concern 

The Comprehensive List of Bear Lake NWR Resources of Concern (Table E-3) contains the full array of 

species and plant communities addressing a broad range of conservation needs. Refuge staff selectively 

reduced this list to those species and plant communities that will be managed to fulfill obligations to 

refuge purposes, Refuge System resources of concern, and biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health. This resulted in a subset of Bear Lake NWR Resources of Concern (Table E-5) 

containing 141 species of the greatest conservation need, including all four implicitly mentioned refuge 

purposes species (e.g., Canada goose, redhead, sandhill crane, and Bonneville cutthroat trout) and all 33 

species identified in the Bear Lake Section of the Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy 

(ICWCS). An additional 20 ICWCS species, not identified as Bear Lake Section species of the greatest 

conservation need, but known to inhabit Bear Lake NWR with State rankings of S1 (Critically Imperiled), 

S2 (Imperiled), or S3 (Vulnerable), were added to the refuge subset of Resources of Concern list. Ten 

species identified in the TNC Ecoregional Assessments were included in the subset list, as were 21 

USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern from Region 1 (n=11), BCR 9-Great Basin (n=16), BCR 10-

Northern Rockies (n=12), and BCR 16-Southern Rockies (n=12). A total of 45 high priority and 30 

moderate priority birds from the Idaho Partners in Flight Plan and nine high priority and six moderate 

priority birds from the Intermountain West Regional Shorebird Plan, were identified as refuge Focal 

Species. The Focal Species list also includes 37 BLM sensitive species known to inhabit the Refuge and 

12 waterfowl species of moderately high or greater breeding or non-breeding priority, as identified in the 

North America Waterfowl Management Plan. The Conservation Strategy for Southeastern Idaho 

Wetlands identified 15 species-of-concern, including one plant (red glasswort) and one bird (doublecrested cormorant) not found in any other plan or list reviewed. The North America Waterbird 

Conservation Plan identified one high, nine moderate, and four low priority species of conservation 

concern that inhabit Bear Lake NWR, including one species (herring gull) unidentified as a priority in any 

other conservation plan. Refuge staff also performed an internal assessment of refuge species that 

contribute significantly to impacting (positively or negatively) the biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health of the Refuge, but are not found in any other conservation plan or list. This 

assessment yielded three additional species (e.g., canvasback, muskrat, and European carp) for the subset 

list of Resources of Concern for Bear Lake NWR. 

Focal Resources 

Refuge staff selectively filtered the list of 141 Priority Refuge Resources of Concern for Bear Lake NWR 

from Table E-5 and developed a Resources of Concern list of species which represent the collective needs 

of the larger groups of species or communities on the Refuge. In total, 63 representative Focal species 

were identified for Bear Lake NWR (Table E-6). Collectively, these 63 focal species are representative of 

the guilds of species within the broad wetland and upland habitats of both Bear Lake NWR and Oxford 

Slough WP. 

Comparison of Focal Resources 

Table E-7 was developed to aid refuge staff in the selection of Conservation Targets, by assessing species, 

breeding, and foraging guilds and the breeding and foraging life history of the 63 Refuge Focal Species. 

Priority Habitats of Focal Species 

Table E-8 compares the primary breeding and foraging strategies of each of the 63 Focal Species at Bear 

Lake NWR within each refuge habitat. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

E-38 Appendix E. Refuge Resources of Concern and Priorities 

Table E-5. Priority Refuge Resources of Concern (n=141) representing the species of the 

greatest conservation need, refuge purposes, and the biological integrity of Bear Lake NWR 

Swans 

Trumpeter swan 

Tundra swan 

Geese 

Canada goose 

Greater white-fronted goose 

Dabbling Ducks 

American widgeon 

Cinnamon teal 

Mallard 

Northern pintail 

Wood duck x 

Diving Waterbirds 

Barrow’s goldeneye 

Bufflehead 

Common loon 

Hooded merganser 

Lesser scaup 

Canvasback 

Redhead 

Ring-necked duck 

Ruddy duck 

Grebes 

Eared grebe 

Clarks/Western grebe 

Pelicans and Cormorants 

Double crested cormorant 

American white pelican 

Wading Birds 

American avocet 

American bittern 

Black-crowned night heron 

Black-necked stilt 

Cattle egret 

Great egret 

Snowy egret 

Sandhill crane 

Marsh Birds 

White-faced ibis 

Shorebirds 

Common snipe 

Greater yellowlegs 

Killdeer 

Long-billed curlew 

Willet 

Wilson’s phalarope 

Western sandpiper 

Least sandpiper 

Spotted sandpiper 

Long-billed dowitcher 

Red-necked phalarope 

Marbled godwit 

Solitary sandpiper 

Semipalmated plover 

Sanderling 

Terns and Gulls 

Black tern 

Franklin’s gull 

Forster’s tern 

Caspian tern 

California gull 

Herring gull 

Raptors 

Bald eagle 

Burrowing owl 

Golden eagle 

Ferruginous hawk 

Merlin 

Northern goshawk 

Northern Harrier 

Osprey 

Peregrine falcon 

Prairie falcon 

Sharp-shinned hawk 

Short-eared owl 

Swainson’s hawk 

Corvids 

Black-billed magpie 

Upland Game Birds 

Sharp-tailed grouse 

Sage grouse 

Hummingbirds 

Rufous hummingbird 

Calliope hummingbird 

Woodpeckers 

Lewis woodpecker 

Northern flicker 

Flycatchers 

Olive-sided flycatcher 

Western wood pewee 

Willow flycatcher 

Hammond’s flycatcher 

Gray flycatcher 

Dusky flycatcher 

Larks 

Horned lark 

Swallows 

Violet-green swallow 

Chickadees and Titmice 

Black-capped chickadee 

Creepers and Nuthatches 

Brown creeper 

Wrens 

Rock wren 

Dippers 

American dipper 

Kinglets, Bluebirds, Thrushes 

Townsend’s solitaire 

Veery 

Mockingbirds and Thrashers 

Sage thrasher 

Shrikes 

Loggerhead shrike 

Vireos 

Warbling vireo 

Warblers 

Yellow warbler 

Yellow-rumped warbler 

MacGillivary’s warbler 

Tanagers 

Western tanager 

Grosbeaks, Buntings 

Lazuli bunting 

Towhees and Sparrows 

Green-tailed towhee 

Grasshopper sparrow 

Brewer’s sparrow 

Vesper sparrow 

Lark sparrow 

Sage sparrow 

Dark-eyed junco 

Blackbirds, Meadowlarks, 

Orioles 

Brewer’s blackbird 

Yellow-headed blackbird 

Common grackle 

Bullock’s oriole 

Western meadow lark 

Finches 

Black-rosy finch 

Lesser goldfinch 

Pine siskin 

Mammals 

Gray wolf 

Merriam’s shrew 

Yuma myotis 

Long-legged myotis 

Long-eared myotis 

Western small-footed myotis 

Townsend’s big-eared bat 

Palid bat 

Uinta ground squirrel 

Wyoming ground squirrel 

Idaho pocket gopher 

Northern pocket gopher 

Muskrat 

Amphibians 

Northern leopard frog 

Reptiles 

Ringneck snake 

Fish 

Northern leatherside chub 

European carp 

Bonneville cutthroat trout 

Gastropods 

Green river pebblesnail 

Bear river springsnail 

Plants 

Purple meadow-rue 

Red galsswort 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix E. Refuge Resources of Concern and Priorities E-39 

Table E-6. Focal Resources (n=63) for Bear Lake NWR 

Swans

Trumpeter swan

Geese

Canada goose(*)

Dabbling Ducks

American widgeon

Mallard

Northern pintail

Diving Waterbirds

Canvasback

Redhead (*)

Grebes

Eared grebe

Clarks/Western grebe

Pelicans and Cormorants

Double crested cormorant

American white pelican 

Wading Birds

American avocet

American bittern

Black-crowned night heron

Black-necked stilt

Great egret

Cattle egret

Snowy egret

Sandhill crane (*)

Marsh Birds

White-faced ibis

Shorebirds

Long-billed curlew

Wilson’s phalarope

Willett

Long-billed dowitcher

Red-necked phalarope

Marbled godwit

Solitary sandpiper

Semipalmated plover

Sanderling

Terns and Gulls 

Black tern

Franklin’s gull

Forster’s tern

Caspian tern

California gull

Raptors

Bald eagle

Burrowing owl

Merlin

Swainson’s hawk

Short-eared owl

Ferruginous hawk

Peregrine falcon

Corvids

Black-billed magpie

Upland Game Birds

Sharp-tailed grouse

Sage grouse

Finches

Lesser goldfinch

Blackbirds

Yellow-headed blackbird

Common grackle

Sparrows

Brewer’s sparrow

Shrikes

Loggerhead shrike

Towhees and Sparrows

Grasshopper sparrow

Mammals

Merriam’s shrew

Townsend’s big-eared bat

Idaho pocket gopher

Wyoming ground squirrel 

Uinta ground squirrel

Muskrat

Amphibians

Northern leopard frog

Fish

European carp

Bonneville cutthroat trout (*)

Gastropods

Green river pebblesnail

Bear river springsnail 

Plants

Purple meadow-rue 

Red glasswort

(*): Implicit refuge purpose species 
E-40 Appendix E. Refuge Resources of Concern and Priorities Table E-7. Comparison of Focal Resources (n=63) Life-history, Breeding and Foraging Strategies, and Gu

NWR Guilds Life History Characteristics Breeding Foraging Species Species Guild Breeding Guild Foraging Guild Breeding Strategy Primary Breeding Habitat Primary Foraging Habitat Foragin g Depth Spring Migration Su

B

Re

Trumpeter swan Waterfowl Independent- Specialist Deep Grazing Herbivore I Open Water, Hemi Marsh Submergent 6"-36" Leaves; Seeds; Tubers and Small grain, Insects Le

In

Western Canada goose Waterfowl Independent- Generalist Grazing Herbivore I Wet Meadow, Meadow Grass, Deep Emergent Meadow Grass, Agriculture 0"-24" Browse, Small Grain Br

Inver

L

Canvasback Waterfowl Independent- Specialist Deep Diving Omnivore II Deep Emergent, Hemi Marsh Submergent, Hemi Marsh 12"-36" Leaves, Insects, Gastropods In

Gas

Redhead Waterfowl Independent- Specialist Deep Diving Omnivore II Deep Emergent, Hemi Marsh Submergent, Hemi Marsh 12"-36" Leaves, Insects InveNorthern pintail Waterfowl Independent- Generalist Shallow Omnivore II Shrub Shallow Marsh, Submergent 0"-12" Leaves, Small Grain, Invertebrates Inver

L

Mallard Waterfowl Independent- Generalist Shallow Omnivore II Meadow Grass Shallow Marsh, Submergent 0"-18" Leaves, Small Grain, Invertebrates, Fish Inver

Leav

American widgeon Waterfowl x Grazing Herbivore II x Meadow Grass 0"-18" Leaves, Insects Le

In

Greater Sandhill crane Wading Bird Independent- Generalist Foraging/ Probing Omnivore I Shallow Marsh, Wet Meadow Wet Meadow, Agriculture 0"-18" Browse Br

Inver

Amp
Appendix E. Refuge Resources of Concern and Priorities E-41 Guilds Life History Characteristics Breeding Foraging Species Species Guild Breeding Guild Foraging Guild Breeding Strategy Primary Breeding Habitat Primary Foraging Habitat Foragin g Depth Spring Migration Su

B

Re

American avocet Wading Bird Semicolonial- Specialist Gleaning/ Probing Insectivore II Alkaline Meadow Wet Meadow, Alkaline Meadow Wade: 0-8" Swim: <10" Black-necked stilt Wading Bird Semicolonial- Generalist Gleaning/ Probing Insectivore II Wet Meadow Wet Meadow, Alkaline Meadow 0"-8" Black-crowned night heron Wading Bird Semicolonial- Generalist Stalking Carnivore III Riparian Shallow Marsh Great egret Wading Bird x Stalking Carnivore III x Shallow Emergent, Wet Meadow 0"-11" Cattle egret Wading Bird x Gleaning/ Probing Insectivore III x Shallow Emergent, Wet Meadow Snowy egret Wading Bird x Gleaning/ Probing Insectivore III x Shallow Emergent, Wet Meadow Wilson’s phalarope Breeding Shorebird Independent/ Semicolonial Gleaning/ Probing Insectivore II Wet Meadow, Alkaline Meadow Wet Meadow, Alkaline Meadow 0"-12" Invertebrates InveWillet Breeding Shorebird Independent Gleaning/ Probing Insectivore II Wet Meadow, Alkaline Meadow Wet Meadow Long-billed curlew Breeding Shorebird Independent/ Loosely Colonial Foraging/ Probing Carnivore II Meadow Grass, Shrub Meadow Grass, Wet Meadow Long-billed dowitcher Migratory Shorebird x Gleaning/ Probing Insectivore x x Wet Meadow 0"-4" Invertebrates Inve
E-42 Appendix E. Refuge Resources of Concern and Priorities Guilds Life History Characteristics Breeding Foraging Species Species Guild Breeding Guild Foraging Guild Breeding Strategy Primary Breeding Habitat Primary Foraging Habitat Foragin g Depth Spring Migration Su

B

Re

Red-necked phalarope Migratory Shorebird x Gleaning/ Probing Insectivore x x Wet Meadow, Alkaline Meadow Marbled godwit Migratory Shorebird x Probing Crustaceovor e x x Shallow Emergent, Wet Meadow, Alkaline Meadow Solitary sandpiper Migratory Shorebird x Gleaning Crustaceovor e x x Wet Meadow Semipalmated plover Migratory Shorebird x Gleaning Crustaceovor e x x Wet Meadow, Alkaline Meadow Sanderling Migratory Shorebird x Gleaning Crustaceovor e x x Alkaline Meadow American bittern Marsh Bird Independent- Specialist Shallow Stalking Carnivore I Deep Emergent, Shallow Emergent Shallow Emergent 0"-6" Invertebrates, Amphibians Inver

Amp

Western/Clark’ s grebe Marsh Bird Independent Diving Omnivore II Deep Emergent Open Water, Submergent 12"-36" Invertebrates, Fish InvertDouble-crested cormorant Marsh Bird Colonial- Specialist Diving Piscovore II Islands Open Water 12"-72" Fish FAmerican white pelican Marsh Bird x Surface Gleaning Piscovore x x Open Water 12"-36" Fish FWhite-faced ibis Marsh Bird Colonial- Specialist Probing Insectivore/ Crustaceovor e III Deep Emergent Wet Meadow, Shallow Marsh 0"-8" Invertebrates InveEared grebe Marsh Bird Semicolonial Diving Carnivore III Deep Emergent, Shallow Emergent, 0"-36" 
Appendix E. Refuge Resources of Concern and Priorities E-43 Guilds Life History Characteristics Breeding Foraging Species Species Guild Breeding Guild Foraging Guild Breeding Strategy Primary Breeding Habitat Primary Foraging Habitat Foragin g Depth Spring Migration Su

B

Re

Hemi Marsh Hemi-Marsh Black Tern Marsh Bird Semicolonial Aerial Surface Insectivore III Deep Emergent Open Water Aerial Insects In

Franklin’s gull Marsh Bird Colonial- Specialist Aerial Surface Insectivore III Deep Emergent Wet Meadow, Meadow Grass Surface Forster’s tern Marsh Bird Semicolonial Water Surface Gleaning Insectivore III Deep Emergent Open Water Surface Caspian tern Marsh Bird Colonial Plunging Piscovore III Deep Emergent Open Water Surface- 12" California gull Marsh Bird Colonial Gleaning Insectivore III Islands Wet Meadow. Meadow Grass 0"-2" Bald eagle Raptor x Scavenging Carnivore; Plunging Piscovore I x Open Water Burrowing owl Raptor Independent- Specialist Aerial Carnivore I Shrub Meadow Grass, Shrub Swainson’s hawk Raptor Independent- Generalist Aerial Carnivore I Riparian, Shrub Meadow Grass, Agriculture Ferruginous hawk Raptor Independent- Generalist Aerial Carnivore I Shrub Shrub, Meadow Grass Short-eared owl Raptor Independent/ Loosely Colonial Aerial Carnivore I Shrub, Agricultur e, Meadows Shrub, Agriculture, Meadows 
E-44 Appendix E. Refuge Resources of Concern and Priorities Guilds Life History Characteristics Breeding Foraging Species Species Guild Breeding Guild Foraging Guild Breeding Strategy Primary Breeding Habitat Primary Foraging Habitat Foragin g Depth Spring Migration Su

B

Re

Merlin Raptor Independent- Specialist Aerial Carnivore I Shrub Meadow Grass, Shrub Peregrine falcon Raptor x Aerial Carnivore I x Highly Variable Black-billed magpie Corvid Independent- Generalist Gleaning Insectivore I Uplands Uplands Sharp-tailed grouse Game Bird Independent- Obligate Foraging Herbivore III Shrub Shrub, Riparian Sage grouse Game Bird Independent- Obligate Foraging Herbivore III Shrub Shrub, Riparian Loggerhead shrike Shrike Independent- Generalist Aerial/ Ground Insectivore II Shrub Shrub Aerial Insects InLesser goldfinch Finch Independent- Generalist Gleaning Gramnavore III Uplands Uplands Brewer’s sparrow Sparrow Independent- Obligate Gleaning Insectivore III Shrub Shrub Common grackle Blackbird Independent- Generalist Foraging Omnivore III Uplands Uplands Yellow-headed blackbird Blackbird Independent- Generalist Foraging Omnivore III Deep Emergent Deep Emergent Grasshopper sparrow Sparrow Independent- Generalist Foraging Omnivore III Meadow Grass Meadow Grass Merriam’s shrew Mammal Burrower Foraging Insectivore x Shrub Shrub 
Appendix E. Refuge Resources of Concern and Priorities E-45 Guilds Life History Characteristics Breeding Foraging Species Species Guild Breeding Guild Foraging Guild Breeding Strategy Primary Breeding Habitat Primary Foraging Habitat Foragin g Depth Spring Migration Su

B

Re

Townsend’s big-eared bat Mammal x Aerial Insectivore x x Riparian x Wyoming ground squirrel Mammal Burrower Foraging Herbivore x Shrub, Meadow Grass Shrub, Meadow Grass x Idaho pocket gopher Mammal Burrower Foraging Herbivore x Shrub, Meadow Grass Shrub, Meadow Grass x Uinta ground squirrel Mammal Burrower Foraging Omnivore x Shrub, Meadow Grass Shrub, Meadow Grass x Muskrat Mammal Lodge Builder Aquatic Herbivore x Emergent, Hemi Marsh Hemi-Marsh 3"-12" Emergent EmNorthern leopard frog Amphibia n Spawn Surface Insectivore Spawn Shallow Marsh Shallow Marsh Surface Bonneville cutthroat trout Fish Spawner Aquatic Insectivore Spawn Riparian Riparian 12"-72" Invertebrates InveEuropean Carp Fish Spawner Shallow Herbivore Spawn Shallow Emergent, Canals Submergent, Shallow Emergent 6"-72" Invertebrates, Leaves Inver

L

Green river pebblesnail Invertebra te Spawner Herbivore Spawn Riparian Riparian x x Bear river springsnail Invertebra te Spawner Herbivore Spawn Riparian Riparian x x Purple meadow-rue Plant x x Seed Wet Meadow x x x Red Glaswort Plant x x Seed Alkali Meadow x x x 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

E-46 Appendix E. Refuge Resources of Concern and Priorities 

Table E-8. Priority Habitats of Focal Species by Breeding and Foraging Habitats of Bear 

Lake NWR 

Habitat Type Breeding Foraging Other 

Open Water Trumpeter swan Western grebe 

American Pelican 

Bald eagle 

Forster’s tern 

Black tern 

Caspian tern 

Double-crested cormorant 

Mallard (Molting) 

Muskrat (Winter) 

Submergent 

(Pondweed; milfoil; 

coonweed) 

 Trumpeter swan 

Canvasback 

Redhead* 

Northern pintail 

Western/Clark’s grebe 

Carp 

Muskrat 

Deep Emergent 

(Hardsten bulrush) 

Yellow-headed blackbird 

Franklin’s gull 

Forster’s tern 

White-faced ibis 

Canvasback 

Redhead* 

Western/Clark’s grebe 

American Bittern 

Black tern 

Caspian tern 

Canada goose* 

Muskrat 

Eared grebe 

Hemi-Marsh 

(50:50-Open water/ 

Submerged: Deep 

Emergent) 

Muskrat 

Eared grebe 

Canvasback 

Redhead* 

Trumpeter swan 

Shallow Emergent 

(Hardstem bulrush, 

cattail, alkali 

bulrush; sedge)

Northern leopard frog 

American bittern 

European Carp 

Northern leopard frogWinter 

 White-faced ibis 

Eared grebe 

Northern pintail 

Mallard 

Black-crowned night 

heron 

Marbled godwit
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix E. Refuge Resources of Concern and Priorities E-47 

Habitat Type Breeding Foraging Other 

Wet Meadow 

(Baltic rush/grasses) 

Greater sandhill crane* 

Wilson’s phalarope 

Willet 

Purple meadow rue 

Canada goose* 

Black-necked stilt 

 

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

Alkaline Meadow 

(Pickleweed, 

saltgrass, goosefoot) 

American avocet 

Wilson’s phalarope 

Red glasswort 

Willet Black-necked stilt 

Red-necked phalarope 

Marbled godwit 

Semipalmated plover 

Sanderling

Alkali Upland 

Meadow 

(Sacaton, saltgrass) 

American avocet 

 Snowy egret 

Meadow Grass 

(Wildrye 

wheatgrass) 

Grasshopper sparrow 

Long-billed curlew 

Canada goose* 

Wyoming ground squirrel 

Uinta ground squirrel 

Idaho pocket gopher 

Short-eared owl 

Mallard 

American widgeon 

California gull 

Burrowing owl 

Swainson’s hawk 

Ferruginous hawk 

Merlin 

Franklin’s gull 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

E-48 Appendix E. Refuge Resources of Concern and Priorities 

Habitat Type Breeding Foraging Other 

Shrub 

(Rabbitbrush, 

greasewood, 

sagebrush, 

bunchgrass, forbs) 

Greater sage-grouse 

Merriam’s shrew 

Brewer’s sparrow 

Wyoming ground squirrel Uinta ground squirrel 

Idaho pocket gopher 

Ferruginous hawk 

Loggerhead shrike 

Sharp-tailed grouse 

Merlin 

Burrowing owl 

Swainson’s hawk 

Northern pintail 

Long-billed curlew 

Riparian 

(Willow, grasses) 

Bonneville cutthroat trout* 

Green River pebblesnail 

Bear River spring snail 

Greater sage-grousebrood 

Sharp-tailed grousebrood 

Black-crowned night heron 

Swainson’s hawk 

Greater sage-grouse 

Sharp-tailed grouse 

Townsend’s big-eared bat 

Agriculture 

(Small grains, 

legumes, fallow) 

 Sandhill crane* 

Canada goose* 

Swainson’s hawk 

Short-eared owl 

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix E. Refuge Resources of Concern and Priorities E-49 

E.4 Conservation Targets 

For planning purposes, the Service uses priority conservation targets as surrogates to represent the diverse 

realm of wildlife, plants, and habitats to be managed at Bear Lake NWR. The conservation targets 

identified for Bear Lake NWR are the result of sequentially aggregating 267 wildlife species or resources 

of concern (Table E-3) and stepping those down to a subset of 141 resources of concern of the greatest 

conservation need (Table E-5). Subsequently, 27 different foraging and breeding guilds were classified 

for 63 focal wildlife species (Table E-7). The 63 focal species life history strategies were used to identify 

characteristic plant communities, natural ecological processes, and limiting factors for 11 predominant 

Priority Habitats (Table E-8). 

Ultimately, 40 representative habitat-based conservation targets were developed from 63 focal wildlife 

species with life history requirements representative of the habitats structure and function required to 

maintain or improve the ecological integrity of refuge habitats (Table E-9). All management objectives 

and strategies developed in the CCP are subsequently designed to abate threats or to enhance the viability 

of a conservation target’s contribution to the ecological integrity of Bear Lake NWR. 

E.5 Desired Future Conditions 

The description of habitat structure within Table E-9 for a given conservation target defines the targets 

desired future condition and the key ecological attributes and critical components of a conservation 

target’s life history, habitat, physical processes, or community interaction. While the desired future 

condition may not be achievable in all situations due to the degree of change of ecological attributes from 

historic conditions, threats to diversity and opportunities to enhance desired future conditions are more 

clearly identified through comparison of potential natural condition and the range of natural variability, 

with existing conditions. In other words, if the characteristics described were degraded or missing, it 

would seriously jeopardize the target’s, and possibly the Refuge’s, ecological integrity. 

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

E-50 Appendix E. Refuge Resources of Concern and Priorities 

Table E-9. Conservation Targets for Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

Focal Species Habitat 

Type 

Desired Future Conditions of Habitat 

Structure 

Life 

History 

Other Benefiting Focal 

Species 

Western/Clark’s 

grebe 

Aechmophorus 

spp. 

Open 

Water 

Wetlands >20ha (49 ac), <2 m (6.5 ft) 

deep, clear water, abundant small (<3.5-20 

cm [1.3-7.8 in] long) fish, (esp. cyprinids) 

and large (>2 cm [0.8 in]) aquatic 

invertebrates, and narrow bands emergent 

Shoenoplectus or Typha in water <25 cm 

[9.8 in] deep for nest sites (Johnsgard 

1987, Terres 1991). 

Foraging

-fish American white Pelican 

Double-crested 

cormorant 

Phalacrocorax 

auritus 

Waters < 8m deep, near rocks sandbars 

pilings for roosts (Hatch and Weseloh 

1999) < 10 km (6 mi) from nesting sites, 

wherever prey (fish 3-15 cm [1-6 in] long) 

is abundant. Nesting often on island (as at 

Bear Lake NWR) or on mats of emergent 

vegetation, sometimes in trees, always at 

site safe from ground predators (Hatch and 

Weseloh 1999). 

Foraging

-small 

fish 

California Gull, Forster’s 

tern, Black tern, 

American white pelican, 

Western/Clark’s grebe. 

Black Tern 

Chlidonias niger 

Various waters that produce or host small 

fish (i.e. 2.5-3 cm [0.9-1.1 in], <3 g [0.1 

oz]) or large insects [e.g. (Odonata) and 

dragonflies, but also mayflies 

(Ephemeroptera), caddisflies 

(Trichoptera), beetles (Coleoptera), moths 

(Lepidoptera), dipterans, grasshoppers, 

crickets, and locusts (Orthoptera), water 

scorpions (Hemiptera), spiders (Araneida), 

grubs and larvae, amphipods, crayfish, and 

small mollusks] (Heath et al. 2009). 

Foraging 

California Gull, Forster’s 

tern, American white 

pelican, Western/Clark’s 

grebe, barn and cliff 

swallows. 

White-faced ibis 

Plegadis chihi

Dense 

Marshw/Tall 

Emergen

t Plants 

(Perman

ent to 

SemiPermane

nt 

wetlands 

Dense, tall (>0.5-1 m [1.6-3.2 ft]) 

emergent vegetation (Schoenoplectus,

Typha or Scirpus), in shallow water 0.25-

0.5 m (0.8-1.6 ft) deep (Ryder and Manty 

1994). 

Breeding 

(Colonial

) 

Franklin’s gull, Forster’s 

tern, marsh wren, sora 

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

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix E. Refuge Resources of Concern and Priorities E-51 

Focal Species Habitat 

Type 

Desired Future Conditions of Habitat 

Structure 

Life 

History 

Other Benefiting Focal 

Species 

Black tern 

Chidonias niger 

Shallow freshwater marshes with 

emergent vegetation. Prefers marshes or 

marsh complexes of 5.3-20+ ha (13-49+ 

mi) (Heath et al. 2009). Main clusters of 

nests are in areas of still water, with 25-

75% surface coverage emergent 

vegetation. Floating, dead vegetation is 

abundant at most sites. Water depth at 

nests typically is 0.5-1.2 m (1.6-3.9 ft) but 

can be less (Heath et al. 2009). Black terns 

select habitats closer to open water and in 

deeper water relative to random sites, 

usually adjacent to or within 0.5-2 m (1.6 

to 6.5 ft) of small to large expanses of 

open water. Emergent vegetation <0.25-

0.50 m (0.8-1.6 ft) high when nest site is 

chosen. Snags and posts may figure into 

choice of nest site. Nest usually built on 

floating substrate of matted dead marsh 

vegetation, detached root masses of 

predominant vegetation, boards, or 

muskrat-built feeding platforms of freshcut vegetation. Size of vegetation mats 

used as nest platforms varies widely 

among sites, from 28 cm to 2.8 m (11 in to 

9.1 ft) across (Heath et al. 2009). 

Breeding 

Franklin’s gull, Forster’s 

tern, red-winged and 

yellow-headed blackbird, 

marsh wren, sora rail, 

muskrat, mink. 

Canada goose 

Branta 

canadensis 

moffitti 

Dense 

Marshw/Tall 

Emergen

t Plants 

(Perman

ent to 

SemiPermane

nt 

wetlands 

Use diverse nest sites, including mats of 

dense emergent vegetation, platforms, 

islands, muskrat houses, dikes, etc. close 

to water (<50 m [164 ft]), cover for the 

nest proper, and a view for the goose 

(Bellrose 1976, Mowbray et al. 2002) in a 

wide variety of wetland types. 

Breeding 

Canvasback, redhead, 

mallard, marsh wren, redwinged and yellowheaded blackbirds, 

muskrat, mink. 

American Bittern 

Botaurus 

lentiginosus 

Shallow water <4 cm (1.5 in) in dense, 

emergent graminoids, Scirpus, Typha or 

Schoenoplectus with wide variety of 

macroinvertebrates and small vertebrates 

(Terres 1991). 

Breeding 

and 

Foraging 

Sora rail, red-winged 

blackbird. 

Yellow-headed 

blackbird 

Xanthocephalus 

xanthocephalus 

Wetlands of any size with tall emergent 

vegetation (Schoenoplectus or Typha) over 

open water to 1 m (3.2 ft) deep for 

nesting; invertebrate rich, saturated 

substrates or open fields for foraging 

(Terres 1991). 

Breeding 

and 

Foraging 

Red-winged blackbird, 

marsh wren. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

E-52 Appendix E. Refuge Resources of Concern and Priorities 

Focal Species Habitat 

Type 

Desired Future Conditions of Habitat 

Structure 

Life 

History 

Other Benefiting Focal 

Species 

Muskrat 

Ondatra 

zibethicus

HemiMarshOpen 

Water 

/Dense 

Marsh 

(Perman

ent and 

SemiPermane

nt 

wetlands 

Lentic-lotic wetlands with humus-peaty 

soils, having current or depth sufficient to 

prevent freezing to bottom. Ponds > 0.5 ha 

(1.2 ac), but too large may have wave 

action sufficient to destroy vegetation. 

Emergent vegetation beds containing 

Schoenoplectus, Typha or Scirpus. 

Abundant submergent aquatic vegetation 

(Errington 1961, 1963; Erb and Perry 

2003). 

Breeding

; 

Foraging 

OverWinter 

Survival 

Mink 

Trumpeter swan 

Cygnus 

buccinator 

Wetlands 1->500 ha (1,235 ac), 0.3-1 m 

(0.9-3.2 ft) deep, open water: emergent 

vegetation ratios 30:70 to 70:30, with 

abundant, diverse submerged aquatic 

vegetation and invertebrate populations, 

with emergent beds of Schoenoplectus or 

Typha, with muskrat or beaver houses, 

hummocks or islands for nesting, and with 

little to no human disturbance (Banko 

1960, Mitchell 1994). 

Breeding

; 

Foraging 

(Vegetati

ve) 

Canada goose (on 

muskrat houses or 

floating platforms), 

canvasback, redhead, 

lesser scaup. 

Canvasback 

Aythya valisneria HemiMarshOpen 

Water 

/Dense 

Marsh 

(Perman

ent and 

SemiPermane

nt 

wetlands 

Wetland size variable, with emergent 

Schoenoplectus or Typha in water <1.3 m 

(4.2 ft) deep preferred for nesting. 

Requires open water and dense submerged 

aquatic plants producing seeds, buds, 

leaves and supporting abundant 

invertebrates for foraging (Hochbaum 

1944, Mowbray 2002). 

Breeding

/ 

Foraging

-

(Vegetati

ve) 

American coot, mallard, 

muskrat, mink, western 

grebe, american widgeon, 

cinnamon teal, gadwall, 

Northern shoveler 

Redhead 

Aythya 

americana

Uses wide range of wetlands. Most 

commonly uses larger (>4.0 ha [9.8 ac]) 

seasonally and semi-permanently flooded 

wetlands but will use smaller wetlands 

with adequate water (Woodin and Michot 

2002), generally nests over or near (<13 m 

[42 ft]) water in emergent vegetation, 

preferably Schoenoplectus spp. (Bellrose 

1976). Feeds primarily (~90%) on a wide 

variety of submerged aquatic plants and 

plant parts (Bellrose 1976, Woodin and 

Michot 2002) in waters 1-3 m (3.2-9.8 ft) 

deep. 

Breeding

; 

Foraging 

American coot, mallard, 

muskrat, mink, western 

grebe american wigeon, 

cinnamon teal, gadwall, 

Northern shoveler. 

Greater sandhill 

crane 

Grus cadensis 

tabida

Shallow 

Marsh 

(Seasona

l 

wetlands

) 

Marshes with adequate water levels during 

the nesting period, averaging 22.8-25.4 cm 

(9-10 in) deep (Littlefield and Ivey 2002). 

Fully structured emergent marsh 

vegetation stands capable of supporting 

substantial nest platforms (e.g., hardstem 

bulrush, common cattail; >30% but <90% 

residual vegetation) (Littlefield 1995). 

Adjacent wet meadow habitat to enhance 

foraging by colts. 

Breeding 

Virginia rail, sora rail, 

yellow-headed and redwinged blackbirds, 

American bitterns, 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix E. Refuge Resources of Concern and Priorities E-53 

Focal Species Habitat 

Type 

Desired Future Conditions of Habitat 

Structure 

Life 

History 

Other Benefiting Focal 

Species 

Northern 

Leopard frog 

Rana pipiens

Use wide variety of wetland sizes, 

especially <4 ha (9.8 ac), and types with 

variable hydroperiods (>30 days and < 

365 days), in complexes <300 m (984 ft) 

apart with good water quality (no 

pollutants), moderate emergent vegetation 

cover, with high invertebrate densities, 

and substrates suitable for burrowing 

(hibernation), without predatory fish, and 

associated wet meadows (Black 1970, 

Nussbaum et al. 1983, Semlitsch 2000, 

Burton 2006). 

Breeding

; 

Foraging

-(Insects) 

Red-headed blackbird, 

muskrat 

American Bittern 

Botaurus 

lentiginosus 

Shallow 

Marsh 

(Seasona

l 

wetlands

) 

Shallow water <4 cm (1.5 inches) in 

dense, emergent graminoids, Scirpus, 

Typha or Schoenoplectus with wide 

variety of macroinvertebrates and small 

vertebrates (Terres 1991). 

Breeding

; 

foraging 

Sora rail, red-winged 

blackbird. 

European carp 

Cyprinus carpio 

Warm(20-26° C [68-78° F]), shallow 

(<0.5-1.8 m [1.6-5.9 ft]), sluggish (<60 

cm/sec [23.6 in]), well-vegetated waters 

with silty/muddy bottoms for foraging and 

spawning (Edwards and Twomey 1982). 

Can tolerate DO to <2mg/l, wide range pH 

and salinity (Edwards and Twomey 1982). 

Need deeper water to winter. 

Breeding

; 

foraging. 

No other species benefit 

form large, spawning 

carp, although piscivores 

(Western grebe, Clark’s 

grebe, White pelican, 

double-crested 

cormorants and mink) 

benefit from eating carp 

fry. 

Mallard 

Anas 

platyrhynchos 

Submerged aquatic vegetation as a source 

of seeds and invertebrate habitat, 

especially gastropods and mollusks during 

pre-breeding. Nests in tall emergent 

vegetation or upland sites with persistent 

upright vegetation. 

Migratio

n; 

Breeding

; Molting 

Canada goose, Northern 

pintail, American wigeon, 

Canvasback, Redhead, 

Cinnamon and Greenwinged teal. 

Wilson’s 

phalarope 

Phalaropus 

tricolor 

Wet 

Meadow 

(Tempor

ary 

Wetlands

) 

Species nests in sparse to dense vegetation 

of uplands (e.g., Poa spp.) and marshes 

(e.g., Juncus balticus, Triglochin 

maritima), roadside ditches (Hordeum 

jubatum), and stage for migration mainly 

in open, shallow-water habitats (Colwell 

and Jehl 1994). Forages on arthropods, 

Diptera, Heteroptera, Coleoptera, 

Crustacea, seeds of aquatic plants in openwater and flooded meadows, less 

frequently in upland habitats and along 

beaches (Colwell and Jehl 1994). 

Breeding 

and 

Foraging 

Canada goose, mallard, 

Northern Shoveler, 

American Avocet 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

E-54 Appendix E. Refuge Resources of Concern and Priorities 

Focal Species Habitat 

Type 

Desired Future Conditions of Habitat 

Structure 

Life 

History 

Other Benefiting Focal 

Species 

Greater sandhill 

crane 

Grus Canadensis 

tabida 

Wet 

Meadow 

(Tempor

ary 

Wetlands

) 

Tall to short emergent graminoids, Carex, 

Juncus usually surrounded by shallow 

(0.25 m [0.8 ft]) to deep (0.65 m [2.1 ft]) 

open water (Austin et al 2007). 

Breeding Canada goose, long-billed 

curlew (Foraging) 

Canada goose 

Branta 

canadensis 

moffitti

Use diverse nest sites, including mats of 

dense emergent vegetation, platforms, 

islands, muskrat houses, dikes, etc. close 

to water (<50 m [164 ft]), cover for the 

nest proper, and a view for the goose 

(Bellrose 1976, Mowbray et al. 2002) in a 

wide variety of wetland types. Forages on 

grasses, sedges and monocots during 

spring migration and summer breeding 

periods (Mowbray et al. 2002). 

Breeding 

and 

Foraging 

Long-billed curlew, 

Marbled godwit, 

American coot, mallard, 

gadwall, widgeon. 

Marbled godwit 

Limosa fedoa 

Uses a variety of wetland types, temporary 

wetlands, muddy margins of large, drying 

reservoirs, shallow ponds with little or no 

emergent vegetation (Skagen et al. 1999, 

Gratto-Trevor 2000), also native 

grasslands and tame hay fields to probing 

for earthworms, aquatic insects, aquatic 

plant tubers, leeches, also Orthoptera and 

small fish. Most often seen in smaller 

marsh habitats with bulrush 

Schoenoplectus spp., spike-rushes 

Eleocharis spp. rush Juncus spp., whitetop 

Scolochloa festucacea, and cattail Typha

spp.) Gratto-Trevor 2000). 

Migrator

y Spring 

and Fall 

Foraging 

Long-billed dowitcher, 

Wilson’s phalarope 

Purple meadowrue 

Thalictrum 

dasycarpum 

Rare and local distribution. Habitat 

includes wet meadows and stream banks 

with wet or moist rich, sandy or 

calcareous loams. Prefers partly shaded 

sites. 

(http://www.wildflower.org/plants/result.p

hp?id_plant=THDA). 

Plant 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix E. Refuge Resources of Concern and Priorities E-55 

Focal Species Habitat 

Type 

Desired Future Conditions of Habitat 

Structure 

Life 

History 

Other Benefiting Focal 

Species 

Long-billed 

dowitcher 

Limnodromus 

scolopaceus 

Wet 

Meadow 

(Tempor

ary 

Wetlands

) 

Forage in shallow, saline lakes, complex 

wetlands, lakes and reservoirs (Takekawa 

and Warnock 2000). Probes and gleans for 

insects (e.g. midge fly and larvae), aquatic 

or moist soil worms, and small 

crustaceans on large mudflats (>500 m 

[1,640 ft]), on moist shoreline and water 

up to 10 cm (3.9 in) depth in bare to 

sparse vegetation (Skagen et al. 1999, 

Takekawa and Warnock 2000). 

Migrator

y Spring 

and Fall 

Foraging 

Marbled godwit, 

Wilson’s phalarope 

Long-billed 

curlew 

Numenius 

americanus

Shallow wetlands, short meadows and 

grasslands with soft, deep (2-15 cm [0.7-

5.9 in]) soils (Jenni et al. 1981, Dugger 

and Digger 2002) with invertebrates. 

Foraging 

(insects). Willet, yellow-legs. 

White-faced ibis 

Plegadis chihi 

Shallow open water (<12 cm [4.7 in]) to 

scattered emergent Carex, Juncus stands 

with variable hydroperiod and abundant 

macroinvertebrates through late August 

(Perkins 2003). 

Foraging

-(Insects) 

Snowy egret, Franklin’s 

gull; Virginia rail, Greater 

yellow-legs (migration) 

Red glasswort 

Salicornia rubra 

Alkaline 

Meadow 

and 

Alkali 

Upland 

Meadow 

(Seasona

l and 

Tempora

ry 

wetland 

and 

Upland) 

Alkaline, borders alkaline ponds, or saline 

flooded soils (Muenscher 1944, Mason 

1957, Mohlenbrock n.d.) on flats, 

seepages, and along shores and ditches 

(Larson 1993). 

Total life 

cycle. 

Wilson’s phalarope, 

black-necked stilt, willet. 

American Avocet 

Recurvirostra 

americana 

Sparsely vegetated salt flats or mudflats 

adjacent (< 0.3 km [0.2 mi]) to shallow (< 

0.9 m [3 ft] deep) alkaline or brackish 

water (Dechant et al. 2002, Floyd et al. 

2007). Short, sparse vegetation (< 7.3 m 

[24 in]) that provides an unobstructed 

view from the nest (Dechant et al. 2002). 

Water permanence through July to ensure 

brood habitat for fledgling shorebirds. 

Foraging

/ 

Migratio

n/ 

Nesting 

Wilson’s phalarope, 

black-necked stilt, willet. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

E-56 Appendix E. Refuge Resources of Concern and Priorities 

Focal Species Habitat 

Type 

Desired Future Conditions of Habitat 

Structure 

Life 

History 

Other Benefiting Focal 

Species 

Long-billed 

curlew 

Numenius 

americanus

Meadow 

Grass 

(Uplands

) 

Open short-grass or mixed grass-forb 

habitat with level to slightly rolling 

topography (Dugger and Dugger 2002) 

with intermittent patchy vegetation (< 1.0 

ha [2.5 acres], <5% of total area) of tall, 

dense foliage (> 17.7 cm [7 in] high) 

(Pampush and Anthony 1993, Neel 1999), 

void of trees, high-density shrubs, and tall, 

dense grasses (Pampush and Anthony 

1993). Buffer zones 297-4,978 m [325-

5,445 yards] around a territory that is 

unoccupied by other curlews (Paige and 

Ritter 1999). Contiguous suitable habitat > 

40.4 hec [100 ac] (capable of supporting at 

least one breeding pair) protected from 

detrimental human disturbance (Redmond 

et al. 1981 and Dechant et al. 2003) 

Breeding

/ 

Foraging 

Greater sandhill crane, 

vesper sparrow, killdeer, 

Swainson’s hawk, shorteared owl. 

American 

widgeon 

Anas americana 

Nests in mixed hayfields, grasslands, 

sometimes near low shrubs (< 3 m [9.8 ft] 

tall), < 400 m [1,312 ft] from wetlands 

(Bellrose 1976, Mowbray 1999). 

Nesting 

Mallard, Long-billed 

curlew, Lesser scaup, 

short-eared owl, 

Swainson’s hawk. 

Mallard 

Anas 

platyrhynchos 

Nets in a wide variety of habitats with 

sufficient cover (>50 cm [19.6 in]), <1 km 

[0.6 mi] from water (most <150 m [492 

ft]) (Bellrose 1976, Drilling et al. 2002). 

Nesting 

American widgeon, 

Greater sandhill crane, 

short-eared owl, 

Swainson’s hawk. 

Canada goose 

Branta 

canadensis 

moffitti

Lightly grazed areas with taller (>0.3 m 

[0.9 ft]) graminoids, Carex, Juncus, etc. 

near water. (Austin and Pyle 2004, Austin 

2002) 

Nesting Horned lark, bobolink 

Grasshopper 

sparrow 

Ammodramus 

savannarum 

Low grass or forbs, with taller stems or 

shrubs for display and singing, with 

abundant seeds, insects, especially 

grasshoppers and beetles (Byers et al. 

1997). 

Nesting/ 

Foraging 

Lesser scaup (nesting), 

short eared owl (nesting) 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix E. Refuge Resources of Concern and Priorities E-57 

Focal Species Habitat 

Type 

Desired Future Conditions of Habitat 

Structure 

Life 

History 

Other Benefiting Focal 

Species 

Greater Sagegrouse 

(Centrocercus 

urophasianus) 

Sagebrus

h Steppe 

(Uplands

) 

Habitats dominated by low sagebrush (< 

38 cm [15 in] high; 10-25% cover) with 

native forbs (10-20% cover), native 

perennial grasses (10-15% cover) 

(Connelly et al. 2000), and western juniper 

densities of <4 trees/acre. Late-seral 

sagebrush 25.4-35.5 cm (10-14 in) tall and 

10-20% canopy cover above snow during 

winter (Connelly et al. 2000). 

Mid-seral sagebrush 30.4-78.7 cm (12-31 

in) tall and 15-20% canopy cover. Native 

bunchgrasses and forbs > 17.7 cm (7 in) 

tall and >15% cover (Connelley et al. 

2000). 

Prenesting, 

Broodrearing 

Sharp-tailed grouse, sage 

sparrow, ferruginous 

hawk, merlin, Swainson’s 

hawk, golden eagle, 

prairie falcon, Brewers 

sparrow. Merriam’s 

shrew, Idaho pocket 

gopher, Wyoming ground 

squirrel, burrowing owl. 

Loggerhead 

shrike 

Lanius 

ludovicianus 

Forages in mixed shrub-steppe and 

grasslands often with bare ground, where 

grasshoppers, small reptiles, and small 

mammals are abundant; nesting in tall (>2 

m [6.5 ft]), isolated shrubs (Yosef 1996). 

Nesting, 

foraging. 

Sage sparrow, Brewer’s 

sparrow, Sage grouse, 

golden eagle, Wyoming 

ground squirrel. 

Northern pintail 

Anas acuta

Brush and shrubs provide attractive 

nesting habitat. An early nester, pintails 

rely on residual cover for nest 

concealment and are more likely to be 

negatively affected by grazing or other 

management techniques that reduce 

residual cover than are later-nesting 

species. (Kruse and Bowen 1996, Austin 

and Pyle 2004). 

Nesting White-crowned sparrow, 

Lazuli bunting 

Bonneville 

cutthroat trout 

Oncorhychus 

clarki 

Riparian 

Cold (9-12 max 22° C 48-53, max 71° F), 

clear (turbidity <35 ppm), oxygenated 

water (7-9+ mg/l), pH ~6.5-8.0, no 

barriers, pool:riffle ratios 1:1, with 

sufficient flows (10-22 cm/sec [3.9-8.6 

in/sec]) and depth (15-45 cm [5.9-17.7 

in]), and boulders, woody debris, undercut 

banks and/or over-hanging surface 

vegetation >25% total area to reduce 

predation by piscivores (Hickman and 

Raleigh 1982, Machtinger 2007). 

Cutthroat trout pass through St. Charles 

Creek which provides a critical corridor 

between Bear Lake winter and upper 

headwater spawning habitats. 

Migratio

n 

between 

winterin

g and 

spawnin

g areas. 

Mink, muskrat, beaver, 

mallard, yellow-rumped 

and orange-crowned 

warblers, yellowthroats, 

Empidonax flycatchers. 

Swainson’s hawk Riparian 

Nests in scattered trees, small trees, 

willows, rarely on ground, within 

grassland, shrub-steppe or agricultural 

habitats, often near wetlands (England et 

al. 1997). 

Nesting, 

roosting, 

hunting 

perches. 

Great horned owl, 

yellow-rumped warblers, 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

E-58 Appendix E. Refuge Resources of Concern and Priorities 

Focal Species Habitat 

Type 

Desired Future Conditions of Habitat 

Structure 

Life 

History 

Other Benefiting Focal 

Species 

Bear River 

springsnail 

Pyrgulopsis 

pilsbryana 

One of 10 Pyrgulopsis species (Lysne 

2009). All Utah localities (N=3) described 

for this species are, springs flowing from 

the ground as streams (rheocrenes), with 

low temperatures (10 to 14° C [50-57° F]), 

and conductivity 508 micromhos/cm 

(Oliver and Bosworth 1999). Status on 

Refuge uncertain. 

Total life 

cycle. 

Greater sandhill 

crane 

Grus cadensis 

tabida

Agricult

ure 

Open fields away from dense grassland, 

shrub or riparian cover with low (<.5 m 

[1.6 ft]) grain height, preferably with tworow awn-less barley in fall. Bare fields 

also provide important foraging for waste 

grain, earthworms and other invertebrates 

in early spring immediately after arrival 

when fields are typically melted off but 

before snow cover is completely gone 

from grasslands (Drewein 1973, Littlefield 

1995, Austin 2002, Austin et al 2007). 

Foraging

-Fall 

Migratio

n 

Canada goose, mallard, 

red-winged and Brewer’s 

blackbirds, Swainson’s 

hawk. 

Canada goose 

Branta 

canadensis 

moffitti

Open fields away from dense grassland, 

shrub or riparian cover with low (<.5 m 

[1.6 ft]) grain height in fall. Bare fields 

also provide important foraging for waste 

grain, earthworms and other invertebrates 

in early spring immediately after arrival 

when fields are typically melted off but 

before snow cover is completely gone 

from grasslands. 

Foraging

-Spring 

and fall 

migratio

n 

Sandhill cranes, mallards, 

red-winged and Brewer’s 

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

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan F-1 

Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

F.1 Background 

IPM is an interdisciplinary approach using methods to prevent, eliminate, contain, and/or control pest 

species in concert with other management activities on refuge lands and waters to achieve wildlife 

and habitat management goals and objectives. IPM is also a scientifically based, adaptive 

management process where available scientific information and best professional judgment of the 

refuge staff as well as other resource experts will be used to identify and implement appropriate 

management strategies that can be modified and/or changed over time to ensure effective, sitespecific management of pest species to achieve desired outcomes. In accordance with 43 CFR 

46.145, adaptive management will be particularly relevant where long-term impacts may be 

uncertain and future monitoring will be needed to make adjustments in subsequent implementation 

decisions. After a tolerable pest population (threshold) is determined considering achievement of 

refuge resource objectives and the ecology of pest species, one or more methods, or combinations 

thereof, will be selected that are feasible, efficacious, and most protective of non-target resources, 

including native species (fish, wildlife, and plants), and Service personnel, Service authorized agents, 

volunteers, and the public. Staff time and available funding will be considered when determining 

feasibility/practicality of various treatments. 

IPM techniques to address pests are presented as CCP strategies or HMP prescriptions (see Chapter 

2) in an adaptive management context to achieve refuge resource objectives. In order to satisfy 

requirements for IPM planning as identified in the Director’s Memo (dated September 9, 2004) 

entitled Integrated Pest Management Plans and Pesticide Use Proposals: Updates, Guidance, and 

an Online Database, the following elements of an IPM program have been incorporated into this 

CCP. 

 Habitat and/or wildlife objectives that identify pest species and appropriate thresholds to indicate 

the need for and successful implementation of IPM techniques; and 

 Monitoring before and/or after treatment to assess progress toward achieving objectives including 

pest thresholds. 

Where pesticides would be necessary to address pests, this Appendix provides a structured procedure 

to evaluate potential effects of proposed uses involving ground-based applications to refuge 

biological resources and environmental quality in accordance with effects analyses presented in 

Chapter 6 (Environmental Effects) of the Draft CCP/EA. Only pesticide uses that likely would cause 

minor, temporary, or localized effects to refuge biological resources and environmental quality with 

appropriate BMPs, where necessary, will be allowed for use on the Refuge. 

This Appendix does not describe the more detailed process to evaluate potential effects associated 

with aerial applications of pesticides. However, the basic framework to assess potential effects to 

refuge biological resources and environmental quality from aerial application of pesticides would be 

similar to the process described in this Appendix for ground-based treatments of other pesticides. 

F.2 Pest Management Laws and Policies 

In accordance with Service policy 569 FW 1 (Integrated Pest Management), plant, invertebrate, and 

vertebrate pests on units of the National Wildlife Refuge System can be controlled to ensure balanced 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

F-2 Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

wildlife and fish populations in support of refuge-specific wildlife and habitat management 

objectives. Pest control on Federal (refuge) lands and waters also is authorized under the following 

legal mandates: 

 National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 USC 668dd668ee); 

 Plant Protection Act of 2000 (7 USC 7701 et seq.); 

 Noxious Weed Control and Eradication Act of 2004 (7 USC 7781-7786, Subtitle E); 

 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1996 (7 USC 136-136y); 

 National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (16 USC 4701); 

 Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (16 USC 4701); 

 Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (7 USC 136); 

 Executive Order 13148, Section 601(a); 

 Executive Order 13112; and 

 Animal Damage Control Act of 1931 (7 USC 426-426c, 46 Stat. 1468). 

Pests are defined as “...living organisms that may interfere with the site-specific purposes, 

operations, or management objectives or that jeopardize human health or safety” from Department 

policy 517 DM 1 (Integrated Pest Management Policy). Similarly, 569 FW 1 defines pests as 

“...invasive plants and introduced or native organisms, that may interfere with achieving our 

management goals and objectives on or off our lands, or that jeopardize human health or safety.” 517 

DM 1 also defines an invasive species as “a species that is non-native to the ecosystem under 

consideration and whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or 

harm to human health.” Throughout the remainder of this CCP the terms pest and invasive species 

are used interchangeably because both can prevent/impede achievement of refuge wildlife and 

habitat objectives and/or degrade environmental quality. 

In general, control of pests (vertebrate or invertebrate) on the Refuge would conserve and protect the 

nation’s fish, wildlife, and plant resources as well as maintain environmental quality. From 

569 FW 1, animal or plant species, which are considered pests, may be managed if the following 

criteria are met: 

 Threat to human health and well being or private property, the acceptable level of damage by 

the pest has been exceeded, or State or local government has designated the pest as noxious; 

 Detrimental to resource objectives as specified in a refuge resource management plan (e.g., 

comprehensive conservation plan, habitat management plan), if available; and 

 Control would not conflict with attainment of resource objectives or the purposes for which 

the Refuge was established. 

The specific justifications for pest management activities on the Refuge are the following: 

 Protect human health and well being; 

 Prevent substantial damage to important to refuge resources; 

 Protect newly introduced or re-establish native species; 

 Control non-native (exotic) species in order to support existence for populations of native 

species; 

 Prevent damage to private property; and 

 Provide the public with quality, compatible wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. 

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan F-3 

In accordance with Service policy 620 FW 1 (Habitat Management Plans), there are additional 

management directives regarding invasive species found on the Refuge: 

 “We are prohibited by Executive Order, law, and policy from authorizing, funding, or 

carrying out actions that are likely to cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive 

species in the United States or elsewhere.” 

 “Manage invasive species to improve or stabilize biotic communities to minimize 

unacceptable change to ecosystem structure and function and prevent new and expanded 

infestations of invasive species. Conduct refuge habitat management activities to prevent, 

control, or eradicate invasive species ...” 

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). For example, the incidental removal of beaver damaging refuge infrastructure (e.g., 

clogging with subsequent damaging of water control structures) and/or negatively affecting habitats 

(e.g., removing woody species from existing or restored riparian) managed on refuge lands may be 

conducted without a pest control proposal. We recognize beavers are native species and most of their 

activities or refuge lands represent a natural process beneficial for maintaining wetland habitats. 

Exotic nutria, whose denning and burrowing activities in wetland dikes causes cave-ins and breaches, 

can be controlled using the most effective techniques considering site-specific factors without a pest 

control proposal. Along with the loss of quality wetland habitats associated with breaching of 

impoundments, the safety of refuge staffs and public (e.g., auto tour routes) driving on structurally 

compromised levees and dikes can be threaten by sudden and unexpected cave-ins. 

Trespass and feral animals also may be controlled on refuge lands. Based upon 50 CFR 28.43 

(Destruction of Dogs and Cats), dogs and cats running at large on a national wildlife refuge and 

observed in the act of killing, injuring, harassing or molesting humans or wildlife may be disposed of 

in the interest of public safety and protection of the wildlife. Feral animals should be disposed by the 

most humane method(s) available and in accordance with relevant Service directives (including 

Executive Order 11643). Disposed wildlife specimens may be donated or loaned to public 

institutions. Donation or loans of resident wildlife species would only be made after securing State 

approval (50 CFR 30.11 [Donation and Loan of Wildlife Specimens]). Surplus wildlife specimens 

may be sold alive or butchered, dressed and processed subject to Federal and State laws and 

regulations (50 CFR 30.12 [Sale of Wildlife Specimens]).

F.3 Strategies 

To fully embrace IPM as identified in 569 FW 1, the following strategies, where applicable, would 

be carefully considered on the Refuge for each pest species: 

 Prevention. This would be the most effective and least expensive long-term management 

option for pests. It encompasses methods to prevent new introductions or the spread of the 

established pests to un-infested areas. It requires identifying potential routes of invasion to 

reduce the likelihood of infestation. Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) 

planning can be used determine if current management activities on a refuge may introduce 

and/or spread invasive species in order to identify appropriate BMPs for prevention. See 

http://www.haccp-nrm.org/for more information about HACCP planning. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

F-4 Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

Prevention may include source reduction, using pathogen-free or weed-free seeds or fill; exclusion 

methods (e.g., barriers) and/or sanitation methods (e.g., wash stations) to prevent re-introductions by 

various mechanisms including vehicles, personnel, livestock, and horses. Because invasive species 

are frequently the first to establish newly disturbed sites, prevention would require a reporting 

mechanism for early detection of new pest occurrences with quick response to eliminate any new 

satellite pest populations. Prevention would require consideration of the scale and scope of land 

management activities that may promote pest establishment within un-infested areas or promote 

reproduction and spread of existing populations. Along with preventing initial introduction, 

prevention would involve halting the spread of existing infestations to new sites (Mullin et al. 2000). 

The primary reason for prevention would be to keep pest-free lands or waters from becoming 

infested. Executive Order 11312 emphasizes the priority for prevention with respect to managing 

pests. 

The following would be methods to prevent the introduction and/or spread of pests on refuge lands: 

 Before beginning ground-disturbing activities (e.g., disking, scraping), inventory and 

prioritize pest infestations in project operating areas and along access routes. Refuge staff 

would identify pest species on-site or within reasonably expected potential invasion vicinity. 

Where possible, the refuge staff would begin project activities in un-infested areas before 

working in pest-infested areas. 

 The refuge staff would locate and use pest-free project staging areas. They would avoid or 

minimize travel through pest-infested areas, or restrict to those periods when spread of seed 

or propagules of invasive plants would be least likely. 

 The refuge staff would determine the need for, and when appropriate, identify sanitation sites 

where equipment can be cleaned of pests. Where possible, the refuge staff would clean 

equipment before entering lands at on-refuge approved cleaning site(s). This practice does 

not pertain to vehicles traveling frequently in and out of the project area that would remain on 

roadways. Seeds and plant parts of pest plants would need to be collected, where practical. 

The refuge staff would remove mud, dirt, and plant parts from project equipment before 

moving it into a project area. 

 The refuge staff would clean all equipment, before leaving the project site, if operating in 

areas infested with pests. The refuge staff would determine the need for, and when 

appropriate, identify sanitation sites where equipment can be cleaned. 

 Refuge staffs, their authorized agents, and refuge volunteers would, where possible, inspect, 

remove, and properly dispose of seed and parts of invasive plants found on their clothing and 

equipment. Proper disposal means bagging the seeds and plant parts and then properly 

discarding of them (e.g., incinerating). 

 The refuge staff would evaluate options, including closure, to restrict the traffic on sites with 

on-going restoration of desired vegetation. The refuge staff would revegetate disturbed soil 

(except travel ways on surfaced projects) to optimize plant establishment for each specific 

site. Revegetation may include topsoil replacement, planting, seeding, fertilization, liming, 

and weed-free mulching as necessary. The refuge staff would use native material, where 

appropriate and feasible. The refuge staff would use certified weed-free or weed-seed-free 

hay or straw where certified materials are reasonably available. 

 The refuge staff would provide information, training, and appropriate pest identification 

materials to permit holders and recreational visitors. The refuge staff would educate them 

about pest identification, biology, impacts, and effective prevention measures. 

 The refuge staff would require grazing permittees to use preventative measures for their 

livestock while on refuge lands. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan F-5 

 The refuge staff would inspect borrow material for invasive plants prior to use and transport 

onto and/or within refuge lands. 

 The refuge staff would consider invasive plants in planning for road maintenance activities. 

 The refuge staff would restrict off-road travel to designated routes. 

The following would be methods to prevent the introduction and/or spread of pests into refuge 

waters: 

 The refuge staff would inspect boats (including air boats), trailers, and other boating 

equipment. Where possible, the refuge staff would remove any visible plants, animals, or 

mud before leaving any waters or boat launching facilities. Where possible, the refuge staff 

would drain water from motor, live well, bilge, and transom wells while on land before 

leaving the site. If possible, the refuge staff would wash and dry boats, downriggers, anchors, 

nets, floors of boats, propellers, axles, trailers, and other boating equipment to kill pests not 

visible at the boat launch. 

o Where feasible, the refuge staff would maintain a 100-foot buffer of aquatic pest-free 

clearance around boat launches and docks or quarantine areas when cleaning around 

culverts, canals, or irrigation sites. Where possible, the refuge staff would inspect and 

clean equipment before moving to new sites or one project area to another. 

These prevention methods to minimize/eliminate the introduction and/or spread of pests were 

taken verbatim or slightly modified from Appendix E of U.S. Forest Service (2005). 

 Mechanical/Physical Methods. These methods would remove and destroy, disrupt the growth 

of, or interfere with the reproduction of pest species. For plants species, these treatments can be 

accomplished by hand, hand tool (manual), or power tools (mechanical) and include pulling, 

grubbing, digging, tilling/disking, cutting, swathing, grinding, sheering, girdling, mowing, and 

mulching of the pest plants. 

For animal species, Service employees or their authorized agents could use mechanical/physical 

methods (including trapping) to control pests as a refuge management activity. Based upon 50 

CFR 31.2, trapping can be used on a refuge to reduce surplus wildlife populations for a “balanced 

conservation program” in accordance with Federal or State laws and regulations. In some cases, 

non-lethally trapped animals would be relocated to off-refuge sites with prior approval from the 

State. 

Each of these tools would be efficacious to some degree and applicable to specific situations. In 

general, mechanical controls can effectively control annual and biennial pest plants. However, to 

control perennial plants, the root system has to be destroyed or it would resprout and continue to 

grow and develop. Mechanical controls are typically not capable of destroying a perennial plant’s 

root system. Although some mechanical tools (e.g., disking, plowing) may damage root systems, 

they may stimulate regrowth producing a denser plant population that may aid in the spread 

depending upon the target species (e.g., Canada thistle). In addition, steep terrain and soil 

conditions would be major factors that can limit the use of many mechanical control methods. 

Some mechanical control methods (e.g., mowing), which would be used in combination with 

herbicides, can be a very effective technique to control perennial species. For example, mowing 

perennial plants followed sequentially by treating the plant regrowth with a systemic herbicide 

often would improve the efficacy of the herbicide compared to herbicide treatment only. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

F-6 Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

 Cultural Methods. These methods would involve manipulating habitat to increase pest mortality 

by reducing its suitability to the pest. Cultural methods would include water-level manipulation, 

mulching, winter cover crops, changing planting dates to minimize pest impact, prescribed 

burning (facilitate revegetation, increase herbicide efficacy, and remove litter to assist in 

emergence of desirable species), flaming with propane torches, trap crops, crop rotations that 

would include non-susceptible crops, moisture management, addition of beneficial insect habitat, 

reducing clutter, proper trash disposal, planting or seeding desirable species to shade or outcompete invasive plants, applying fertilizer to enhance desirable vegetation, prescriptive grazing, 

and other habitat alterations. 

 Biological Control Agents. Classical biological control would involve the deliberate 

introduction and management of natural enemies (parasites, predators, or pathogens) to reduce 

pest populations. Many of the most ecologically or economically damaging pest species in the 

United States originated in foreign countries. These newly introduced pests, which are free from 

natural enemies found in their country or region of origin, may have a competitive advantage 

over cultivated and native species. This competitive advantage often allows introduced species to 

flourish, and they may cause widespread economic damage to crops or out compete and displace 

native vegetation. Once the introduced pest species population reaches a certain level, traditional 

methods of pest management may be cost prohibitive or impractical. Biological controls typically 

are used when these pest populations have become so widespread that eradication or effective 

control would be difficult or no longer practical. 

Biological control has advantages as well as disadvantages. Benefits would include reducing 

pesticide usage, host specificity for target pests, long-term self-perpetuating control, low 

cost/acre, capacity for searching and locating hosts, synchronizing biological control agents to 

hosts’ life cycles, and the unlikelihood that hosts would develop resistance to agents. 

Disadvantages would include the following: limited availability of agents from their native lands, 

the dependence of control on target species density, slow rate at which control occurs, biotype 

matching, the difficulty and expense of conflicts over control of the target pest, and host 

specificity when host populations are low. 

A reduction in target species populations from biological controls is typically a slow process, and 

efficacy can be highly variable. It may not work well in a particular area although it does work 

well in other areas. Biological control agents would require specific environmental conditions to 

survive over time. Some of these conditions are understood; whereas, others are only partially 

understood or not at all. 

Biological control agents would not eradicate a target pest. When using biological control agents, 

residual levels of the target pest typically are expected; the agent population level or survival 

would be dependent upon the density of its host. After the pest population decreases, the 

population of the biological control agent would decrease correspondingly. This is a natural 

cycle. Some pest populations (e.g., invasive plants) would tend to persist for several years after a 

biological control agent becomes established due to seed reserves in the soil, inefficiencies in the 

agents search behavior, and the natural lag in population buildup of the agent. 

The full range of pest groups potentially found on refuge lands and waters would include 

diseases, invertebrates (insects, mollusks), vertebrates, and invasive plants (the most common 

group). Often it is assumed that biological control would address many if not most of these pest 

problems. There are several well-documented success stories of biological control of invasive 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan F-7 

weed species in the Pacific Northwest including Mediterranean sage, St. Johnswort (Klamath 

weed) and tansy ragwort. Emerging success stories include Dalmatian toadflax, diffuse 

knapweed, leafy spurge, purple loosestrife, and yellow star thistle. However, historically, each 

new introduction of a biological control agent in the United States has only about a 30 percent 

success rate (Coombs et al. 2004). Refer to Coombs et al. (2004) for the status of biological 

control agents for invasive plants in the Pacific Northwest. 

Introduced species without desirable close relatives in the United States would generally be 

selected as biological controls. Natural enemies that are restricted to one or a few closely related 

plants in their country of origin are targeted as biological controls (Center et al. 1997, Hasan and 

Ayres 1990). 

The refuge staff would ensure introduced agents are approved by the applicable authorities. 

Except for a small number of formulated biological control products registered by USEPA under 

FIFRA, most biological control agents are regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA)-Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine (APHISPPQ). State departments of agriculture and, in some cases, county agricultural commissioners or 

weed districts, have additional approval authority. 

Federal permits (USDA-APHIS-PPQ Form 526) are required to import biocontrols agents from 

another state. Form 526 may be obtained by writing: 

 USDA-APHIS-PPQ 

 Biological Assessment and Taxonomic Support 

 4700 River Road, Unit 113 

 Riverdale, MD 20737 

or 

through the internet at: 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/permits/bioligical/weedbio.html. 

The Service strongly supports the development, and legal and responsible use of appropriate, 

safe, and effective biological control agents for nuisance and non-indigenous or pest species. 

State and county agriculture departments may also be sources for biological control agents or 

they may have information about where biological control agents may be obtained. Commercial 

sources should have an Application and Permit to Move Live Plant Pests and Noxious Weeds 

(USDA-PPQ Form 226 USDA-APHIS-PPQ, Biological Assessment and Taxonomic Support, 

4700 River Road, Unit 113, Riverdale, MD 20737) to release specific biological control agents in 

a state and/or county. Furthermore, certification regarding the biological control agent’s identity 

(genus, specific epithet, sub-species and variety) and purity (e.g., parasite free, pathogen free, and 

biotic and abiotic contaminants) should be specified in purchase orders. 

Biological control agents are subject to 7 RM 8 (Exotic Species Introduction and Management). 

In addition, the refuge staff would follow the International Code of Best Practice for Classical 

Biological Control of Weeds (http://sric.ucdavis.edu/exotic/exotic.htm) as ratified by delegates to 

the X International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds, Bozeman, MT, July 9, 1999. 

This code identifies the following: 

o Release only approved biological control agents, 

o Use the most effective agents, 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

F-8 Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

o Document releases, and 

o Monitor for impact to the target pest, non-target species, and the environment. 

Biological control agents formulated as pesticide products and registered by the USEPA (e.g., 

Bti) are also subject to PUP review and approval (see below). 

A record of all releases would be maintained with date(s), location(s), and environmental 

conditions of the release site(s); the identity, quantity, and condition of the biological control 

agents released; and other relevant data and comments such as weather conditions. Systematic 

monitoring to determine the establishment and effectiveness of the release is also recommended. 

NEPA documents regarding biological and other environmental effects of biological control 

agents prepared by another Federal agency, where the scope is relevant to evaluation of releases 

on refuge lands, would be reviewed. Possible source agencies for such NEPA documents include 

the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture-Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, and the military services. It might be 

appropriate to incorporate by reference parts or all of existing document(s) from the review. 

Incorporating by reference (43 CFR 46.135) is a technique used to avoid redundancies in 

analysis. It also can reduce the bulk of a Service NEPA document, which only must identify the 

documents that are incorporated by reference. In addition, relevant portions must be summarized 

in the Service NEPA document to the extent necessary to provide the decision maker and public 

with an understanding of relevance of the referenced material to the current analysis. 

 Pesticides. The selective use of pesticides would be based upon pest ecology (including mode of 

reproduction), the size and distribution of its populations, site-specific conditions (e.g., soils, 

topography), known efficacy under similar site conditions, and the capability to use best 

management practices (BMPs) to reduce/eliminate potential effects to non-target species, 

sensitive habitats, and potential to contaminate surface and groundwater. All pesticide usage 

(pesticide, target species, application rate, and method of application) would comply with the 

applicable Federal (FIFRA) and State regulations pertaining to pesticide use, safety, storage, 

disposal, and reporting. Before pesticides can be used to eradicate, control, or contain pests on 

refuge lands and waters, pesticide use proposals (PUPs) would be prepared and approved in 

accordance with 569 FW 1. PUP records would provide a detailed, time-, site-, and targetspecific description of the proposed use of pesticides on the Refuge. All PUPs would be created, 

approved or disapproved, and stored in the Pesticide Use Proposal System (PUPS), which is a 

centralized database only accessible on the Service’s intranet (https://systems.fws.gov/pups). 

Only Service employees would be authorized to access PUP records for a refuge in this database. 

Application equipment would be selected to provide site-specific delivery to target pests while 

minimizing/eliminating direct or indirect (e.g., drift) exposure to non-target areas and 

degradation of surface and groundwater quality. Where possible, target-specific equipment (e.g., 

backpack sprayer, wiper) would be used to treat target pests. Other target-specific equipment to 

apply pesticides would include soaked wicks or paint brushes for wiping vegetation and lances, 

hatchets, or syringes for direct injection into stems. Granular pesticides may be applied using 

seeders or other specialized dispensers. In contrast, aerial spraying (e.g., fixed wing or helicopter) 

would only be used where access is difficult (remoteness) and/or the size/distribution of 

infestations precludes practical use of ground-based methods. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan F-9 

Because repeated use of one pesticide may allow resistant organisms to survive and reproduce, 

multiple pesticides with variable modes of action would be considered for treatments on refuge 

lands and waters. This is especially important if multiple applications within years and/or over a 

growing season likely would be necessary for habitat maintenance and restoration activities to 

achieve resource objectives. Integrated chemical and non-chemical controls also are highly 

effective, where practical, because pesticide-resistant organisms can be removed from the site. 

Cost may not be the primary factor in selecting a pesticide for use on a refuge. If the least 

expensive pesticide would potentially harm natural resources or people, then a different product 

would be selected, if available. The most efficacious pesticide available with the least potential to 

degrade environment quality (soils, surface water, and groundwater) as well as least potential 

effect to native species and communities of fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats would be 

acceptable for use on refuge lands in the context of an IPM approach. 

 

 Habitat Restoration/Maintenance. Restoration and/or proper maintenance of refuge habitats 

associated with achieving wildlife and habitat objectives would be essential for long-term 

prevention, eradication, or control (at or below threshold levels) of pests. Promoting desirable 

plant communities through the manipulation of species composition, plant density, and growth 

rate is an essential component of invasive plant management (Masters et al. 1996, Masters and 

Shelly 2001, Brooks et al. 2004). The following three components of succession could be 

manipulated through habitat maintenance and restoration: site availability, species availability, 

and species performance (Cox and Anderson 2004). Although a single method (e.g., herbicide 

treatment) may eliminate or suppress pest species in the short term, the resulting gaps and bare 

soil create niches that are conducive to further invasion by the species and/or other invasive 

plants. On degraded sites where desirable species are absent or in low abundance, revegetation 

with native/desirable grasses, forbs, and legumes may be necessary to direct and accelerate plant 

community recovery, and achieve site-specific objectives in a reasonable time frame. The 

selection of appropriate species for revegetation would be dependent on a number of factors 

including resource objectives and site-specific, abiotic factors (e.g., soil texture, 

precipitation/temperature regimes, and shade conditions). Seed availability and cost, ease of 

establishment, seed production, and competitive ability also would be important considerations. 

F.4 Priorities for Treatments 

For many refuges, the magnitude (number, distribution, and sizes of infestations) of pest problems is 

too extensive and beyond the available capital resources to effectively address during any single field 

season. To manage pests in the Refuge, it would be essential to prioritize treatment of infestations. 

Highest priority treatments would be focused on early detection and rapid response to eliminate 

infestations of new pests, if possible. This would be especially important for aggressive pests 

potentially impacting species, species groups, communities, and/or habitats associated refuge 

purpose(s), NWRS resources of concern (federally listed species, migratory birds, selected marine 

mammals, and interjurisdictional fish), and native species for maintaining/restoring biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health. 

The next priority would be treating established pests that appear in one or more previously uninfested areas. Moody and Mack (1988) demonstrated through modeling that small, new outbreaks of 

invasive plants eventually would infest an area larger than the established, source population. They 

also found that control efforts focusing on the large, main infestation rather than the new, small 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

F-10 Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

satellites reduced the chances of overall success. The lowest priority would be treating large 

infestations (sometimes monotypic stands) of well-established pests. In this case, initial efforts would 

focus upon containment of the perimeter followed by work to control/eradicate the established 

infested area. If containment and/or control of a large infestation are not effective, then efforts would 

focus upon halting pest reproduction or managing source populations. Maxwell et al. (2009) found 

treating fewer populations that are sources represents an effective long-term strategy to reduce of 

total number of invasive populations and decreasing meta-population growth rates. 

Although State-listed noxious weeds would always of high priority for management, other pest 

species known to cause substantial ecological impact would also be considered. For example, 

cheatgrass may not be listed by a state as noxious, but it can greatly alter fire regimes in shrub steppe 

habitats resulting in large monotypic stands that displace native bunch grasses, forbs, and shrubs. 

Pest control would likely require a multi-year commitment from the refuge staff. Essential to the 

long-term success of pest management would be pre- and post-treatment monitoring, assessment of 

the successes and failures of treatments, and development of new approaches when proposed 

methods do not achieve desired outcomes. 

F.5 Best Management Practices (BMPs) 

BMPs can minimize or eliminate possible effects associated with pesticide usage to non-target 

species and/or sensitive habitats as well as degradation of water quality from drift, surface runoff, or 

leaching. Based upon the Department of Interior Pesticide Use Policy (517 DM 1) and the Service 

Pest Management Policy and Responsibilities (30 AM 12), the use of applicable BMPs (where 

feasible) also would likely ensure that pesticide uses may not adversely affect federally listed species 

and/or their critical habitats through determinations made using the process described in 50 CFR part 

402. 

The following are BMPs pertaining to mixing/handling and applying pesticides for all ground-based 

treatments of pesticides, which would be considered and used, where feasible, based upon target- and 

site-specific factors and time-specific environmental conditions. Although not listed below, the most 

important BMP to eliminate/reduce potential impacts to non-target resources would be an IPM 

approach to prevent, control, eradicate, and contain pests. 

F.5.1 Pesticide Handling and Mixing 

 As a precaution against spilling, spray tanks would not be left unattended during filling. 

 All pesticide containers would be triple rinsed and the rinsate would be used as water in the 

sprayer tank and applied to treatment areas. 

 All pesticide spray equipment would be properly cleaned. Where possible, rinsate would be 

used as part of the make-up water in the sprayer tank and applied to treatment areas. 

 The refuge staff would triple rinse and recycle (where feasible) pesticide containers. 

 All unused pesticides would be properly discarded at a local “safe send” collection. 

 Pesticides and pesticide containers would be lawfully stored, handled, and disposed of in 

accordance with the label and in a manner safeguarding human health, fish, and wildlife and 

prevent soil and water contaminant. 

 The refuge staff would consider the water quality parameters (e.g., pH, hardness) that are 

important to ensure greatest efficacy where specified on the pesticide label. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan F-11 

 All pesticide spills would be addressed immediately using procedures identified in the refuge 

spill response plan. 

F.6 Applying Pesticides 

 Pesticide treatments would only be conducted by or under the supervision of Service 

personnel and non-Service applicators with the appropriate, State or BLM certification to 

safely and effectively conduct these activities on refuge lands and waters. 

 The refuge staff would comply with all Federal, State, and local pesticide use laws and 

regulations as well as Departmental, Service, and NWRS pesticide-related policies. For 

example, the refuge staff would use application equipment and apply rates for the specific 

pest(s) identified on the pesticide label as required under FIFRA. 

 Before each treatment season and prior to mixing or applying any product for the first time 

each season, all applicators would review the labels, MSDSs, and Pesticide Use Proposal 

(PUPs) for each pesticide, determining the target pest, appropriate mix rate(s), PPE, and other 

requirements listed on the pesticide label. 

 A 1-foot no-spray buffer from the water’s edge would be used, where applicable and where it 

does not detrimentally influence effective control of pest species. 

 Use low-impact herbicide application techniques (e.g., spot treatment, cut stump, oil basal, 

Thinvert system applications) rather than broadcast foliar applications (e.g., boom sprayer, 

other larger tank wand applications), where practical. 

 Use low-volume rather than high-volume foliar applications where low-impact methods 

above are not feasible or practical, to maximize herbicide effectiveness and ensure correct 

and uniform application rates. 

 Applicators would use and adjust spray equipment to apply the coarsest droplet size spectrum 

with optimal coverage of the target species while reducing drift. 

 Applicators would use the largest droplet size that results in uniform coverage. 

 Applicators would use drift reduction technologies such as low-drift nozzles, where possible. 

 Where possible, spraying would occur during low (average<7mph and preferably 3 to 5 mph) 

and consistent direction wind conditions with moderate temperatures (typically <85o

F). 

 Where possible, applicators would avoid spraying during inversion conditions (often 

associated with calm and very low wind conditions) that can cause large-scale herbicide drift 

to non-target areas. 

 Equipment would be calibrated regularly to ensure that the proper rate of pesticide is applied 

to the target area or species. 

 Spray applications would be made at the lowest height for uniform coverage of target pests to 

minimize/eliminate potential drift. 

 If windy conditions frequently occur during afternoons, spraying (especially boom 

treatments) would typically be conducted during early morning hours. 

 Spray applications would not be conducted on days with >30 percent forecast for rain within 

six hours, except for pesticides that are rapidly rain fast (e.g., glyphosate in one hour) to 

minimize/eliminate potential runoff. 

 Where possible, applicators would use drift retardant adjuvants during spray applications, 

especially adjacent to sensitive areas. 

 Where possible, applicators would use a non-toxic dye to aid in identifying target area treated 

as well as potential over spray or drift. A dye can also aid in detecting equipment leaks. If a 

leak is discovered, the application would be stopped until repairs can be made to the sprayer. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

F-12 Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

 For pesticide uses associated with cropland and facilities management, buffers, as 

appropriate, would be used to protect sensitive habitats, especially wetlands and other aquatic 

habitats. 

 When drift cannot be sufficiently reduced through altering equipment set up and application 

techniques, buffer zones may be identified to protect sensitive areas downwind of 

applications. The refuge staff would only apply adjacent to sensitive areas when the wind is 

blowing the opposite direction. 

 Applicators would use scouting for early detection of pests to eliminate unnecessary pesticide 

applications. 

 The refuge staff would consider timing of application so native plants are protected (e.g., 

senescence) while effectively treating invasive plants. 

 Rinsate from cleaning spray equipment after application would be recaptured and reused or 

applied to an appropriate pest plant infestation. 

 Application equipment (e.g., sprayer, ATV, tractor) would be thoroughly cleaned and PPE 

would be removed/disposed of on-site by applicators after treatments to eliminate the 

potential spread of pests to un-infested areas. 

F.7 Safety 

F.7.1 Personal Protective Equipment 

All applicators would wear the specific personal protective equipment (PPE) identified on the 

pesticide label. The appropriate PPE would be worn at all times during handling, mixing, and 

applying. PPE can include the following: disposable (e.g., Tyvek) or laundered coveralls; gloves 

(latex, rubber, or nitrile); rubber boots; and/or an NIOSH-approved respirator. Because exposure to 

concentrated product is usually greatest during mixing, extra care should be taken while preparing 

pesticide solutions. Persons mixing these solutions can be best protected if they wear long gloves, an 

apron, footwear, and a face shield. 

Coveralls and other protective clothing used during an application would be laundered separately 

from other laundry items. Transporting, storing, handling, mixing and disposing of pesticide 

containers would be consistent with label requirements, USEPA and OSHA requirements, and 

Service policy. 

If a respirator is necessary for a pesticide use, then the following requirements would be met in 

accordance with Service safety policy: a written Respirator Program, fit testing, physical examination 

(including pulmonary function and blood work for contaminants), and proper storage of the 

respirator. 

F.7.2 Notification 

The restricted entry interval (REI) is the time period required after the application at which point 

someone may safely enter a treated area without PPE. Refuge staff, authorized management agents of 

the Service, volunteers, and members of the public who could be in or near a pesticide treated area 

within the stated re-entry time period on the label would be notified about treatment areas. Posting 

would occur at any site where individuals might inadvertently become exposed to a pesticide during 

other activities on the Refuge. Where required by the label and/or State-specific regulations, sites 

would also be posted on its perimeter and at other likely locations of entry. The refuge staff would 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan F-13 

also notify appropriate private property owners of an intended application, including any private 

individuals who have requested notification. Special efforts would be made to contact nearby 

individuals who are beekeepers or who have expressed chemical sensitivities. 

F.7.3 Medical Surveillance 

Medical surveillance may be required for Service personnel and approved volunteers who mix, 

apply, and/or monitor use of pesticides (see 242 FW 7 [Pesticide Users] and 242 FW 4 [Medical 

Surveillance]). In accordance with 242 FW 7.12A, Service personnel would be medically monitoring 

if one or more of the following criteria is met: exposed or may be exposed to concentrations at or 

above the published permissible exposure limits or threshold limit values (see 242 FW 4); use 

pesticides in a manner considered “frequent pesticide use”; or use pesticides in a manner that requires 

a respirator (see 242 FW 14 for respirator use requirements). In 242 FW 7.7A, “Frequent Pesticide 

Use means when a person applying pesticide handles, mixes, or applies pesticides, with a Health 

Hazard rating of 3 or higher, for eight or more hours in any week or sixteen or more hours in any 30-

day period.” Under some circumstances, individuals may be medically monitored who use pesticides 

infrequently (see section 7.7), experience an acute exposure (sudden, short term), or use pesticides 

with a health hazard ranking of 1 or 2. This decision would consider the individual’s health and 

fitness level, the pesticide’s specific health risks, and the potential risks from other pesticide-related 

activities. Refuge cooperators (e.g., cooperative farmers) and other authorized agents (e.g., State and 

county employees) would be responsible for their own medical monitoring needs and costs. 

Standard examinations (at refuge expense) of appropriate refuge staff would be provided by the 

nearest certified occupational health and safety physician as determined by Federal Occupational 

Health. 

F.7.4 Certification and Supervision of Pesticide Applicators 

Appropriate refuge staff or approved volunteers handling, mixing, and/or applying or directly 

supervising others engaged in pesticide use activities would be trained and State or federally (BLM) 

licensed to apply pesticides to refuge lands or waters. In accordance with 242 FW 7.18A and 569 FW 

1.10B, certification is required to apply restricted use pesticides based upon USEPA regulations. For 

safety reasons, all individuals participating in pest management activities with general use pesticides 

also are encouraged to attend appropriate training or acquire pesticide applicator certification. The 

certification requirement would be for a commercial or private applicator depending upon the State. 

New staff unfamiliar with proper procedures for storing, mixing, handling, applying, and disposing 

of herbicides and containers would receive orientation and training before handling or using any 

products. Documentation of training would be kept in the files at the refuge office. 

F.7.5 Record Keeping 

F.7.5.1 Labels and material safety data sheets 

Pesticide labels and material safety data sheets (MSDSs) would be maintained at the refuge shop and 

laminated copies in the mixing area. These documents also would be carried by field applicators, 

where possible. A written reference (e.g., note pad, chalk board, dry erase board) for each tank to be 

mixed would be kept in the mixing area for quick reference while mixing is in progress. In addition, 

approved PUPs stored in the PUPS database typically contain website links (URLs) to pesticide 

labels and MSDSs.
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

F-14 Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

F.7.5.2 Pesticide use proposals (PUPs) 

A PUP would be prepared for each proposed pesticide use associated with annual pest management 

on refuge lands and waters. A PUP would include specific information about the proposed pesticide 

use including the common and chemical names of the pesticide(s), target pest species, size and 

location of treatment site(s), application rate(s) and method(s), and federally listed species 

determinations, where applicable. 

In accordance with Service guidelines (Director’s memo [December 12, 2007]), a refuge staff may 

receive up to five-year approvals for Washington Office and field reviewed proposed pesticide uses 

based upon meeting identified criteria including an approved IPM plan, where necessary (see 

http://www.fws.gov/contaminants/Issues/IPM.cfm). For a refuge, an IPM plan (requirements 

described herein) can be completed independently or in association with a CCP or a habitat 

management plant (HMP) if IPM strategies and potential environmental effects are adequately 

addressed within appropriate NEPA documentation. 

PUPs would be created, approved or disapproved, and stored as records in the Pesticide Use Proposal 

System (PUPS), which is centralized database on the Service’s intranet 

(https://systems.fws.gov/pups). Only Service employees can access PUP records in this database.

F.7.5.3 Pesticide usage 

In accordance with 569 FW 1, the refuge Project Leader would be required to maintain records of all 

pesticides annually applied on lands or waters under refuge jurisdiction. This would encompass 

pesticides applied by other Federal agencies, State and county governments, non-government 

applicators including cooperators and their pest management service providers with Service 

permission. For clarification, pesticide means all insecticides, insect and plant growth regulators, 

desiccants, herbicides, fungicides, rodenticides, acaricides, nematicides, fumigants, avicides, and 

piscicides. 

The following usage information can be reported for approved PUPs in the PUPS database: 

 Pesticide trade name(s) 

 Active ingredient(s) 

 Total acres treated 

 Total amount of pesticides used (lbs or gallons) 

 Total amount of active ingredient(s) used (lbs) 

 Target pest(s) 

 Efficacy (% control) 

To determine whether treatments are efficacious (eradicating, controlling, or containing the target 

pest) and achieving resource objectives, habitat and/or wildlife response would be monitored both 

pre- and post-treatment, where possible. Considering available annual funding and staffing, 

appropriate monitoring data regarding characteristics (attributes) of pest infestations (e.g., area, 

perimeter, degree of infestation-density, % cover, density) as well as habitat and/or wildlife response 

to treatments may be collected and stored in a relational database (e.g., Refuge Habitat Management 

Database), preferably a geo-referenced data management system (e.g., Refuge Lands GIS) to 

facilitate data analyses and subsequent reporting. In accordance with adaptive management, data 

analysis and interpretation would allow treatments to be modified or changed over time, as 

necessary, to achieve resource objectives considering site-specific conditions in conjunction with 

habitat and/or wildlife responses. Monitoring could also identify short- and long-term impacts to 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan F-15 

natural resources and environmental quality associated with IPM treatments in accordance with 

adaptive management principles identified in 43 CFR 46.145. 

F.8 Evaluating Pesticide Use Proposals 

Pesticides would only be used on refuge lands for habitat management as well as croplands/facilities 

maintenance after approval of a PUP. In general, proposed pesticide uses on refuge lands would only 

be approved where there would likely be minor, temporary, or localized effects to fish and wildlife 

species as well as minimal potential to degrade environmental quality. Potential effects to listed and 

non-listed species would be evaluated with quantitative ecological risk assessments and other 

screening measures. Potential effects to environmental quality would be based upon pesticide 

characteristics of environmental fate (water solubility, soil mobility, soil persistence, and 

volatilization) and other quantitative screening tools. Ecological risk assessments as well as 

characteristics of environmental fate and potential to degrade environmental quality for pesticides 

would be documented in Chemical Profiles (see Section 7.5). These profiles would include threshold 

values for quantitative measures of ecological risk assessments and screening tools for environmental 

fate that represent minimal potential effects to species and environmental quality. In general, only 

pesticide uses with appropriate BMPs (see Section 4.0) for habitat management and 

cropland/facilities maintenance on refuge lands that would potentially have minor, temporary, or 

localized effects on refuge biological and environmental quality (threshold values not exceeded) 

would be approved. 

F.8.1 Overview of Ecological Risk Assessment 

An ecological risk assessment process would be used to evaluate potential adverse effects to 

biological resources as a result of a pesticide(s) proposed for use on refuge lands. It is an established 

quantitative and qualitative methodology for comparing and prioritizing risks of pesticides and 

conveying an estimate of the potential risk for an adverse effect. This quantitative methodology 

provides an efficient mechanism to integrate best available scientific information regarding hazard, 

patterns of use (exposure), and dose-response relationships in a manner that is useful for ecological 

risk decision-making. It would provide an effective way to evaluate potential effects where there is 

missing or unavailable scientific information (data gaps) to address reasonable, foreseeable adverse 

effects in the field as required under 40 CFR Part 1502.22. Protocols for ecological risk assessment 

of pesticide uses on the Refuge were developed through research and established by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (2004). Assumptions for these risk assessments are presented in 

Section 6.2.3. 

The toxicological data used in ecological risk assessments are typically results of standardized 

laboratory studies provided by pesticide registrants to the USEPA to meet regulatory requirements 

under FIFRA. These studies assess the acute (lethality) and chronic (reproductive) effects associated 

with short- and long-term exposure to pesticides on representative species of birds, mammals, 

freshwater fish, aquatic invertebrates, and terrestrial and aquatic plants. Other effects data publicly 

available would also be used for risk assessment protocols described herein. Toxicity endpoint and 

environmental fate data are available from a variety of resources. Some of the more useful resources 

can be found in Section 7.5. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

F-16 Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

Table 1. Ecotoxicity tests used to evaluate potential effects to birds, fish, and mammals to 

establish toxicity endpoints for risk quotient calculations.

Species Group Exposure Measurement Endpoint 

Bird 

Acute Median Lethal Concentration (LC50) 

Chronic No Observed Effect Concentration (NOEC) or 

No Observed Adverse Effect Concentration (NOAEC)1 

Fish 

Acute Median Lethal Concentration (LC50) 

Chronic No Observed Effect Concentration (NOEC) or 

No Observed Adverse Effect Concentration (NOAEC)2

Mammal Acute Oral Lethal Dose (LD50) 

Chronic No Observed Effect Concentration (NOEC) or 

No Observed Adverse Effect Concentration (NOAEC)3

1

Measurement endpoints typically include a variety of reproductive parameters (e.g., number of eggs, number of offspring, eggshell thickness, and 

number of cracked eggs).

2

Measurement endpoints for early life stage/life cycle typically include embryo hatch rates, time to hatch, growth, and time to swim-up. 3

Measurement endpoints include maternal toxicity, teratogenic effects, or developmental anomalies, evidence of mutagenicity or genotoxicity, and 

interference with cellular mechanisms such as DNA synthesis and DNA repair. 

F.8.2 Determining Ecological Risk to Fish and Wildlife 

The potential for pesticides used on the Refuge to cause direct adverse effects to fish and wildlife 

would be evaluated using USEPA’s Ecological Risk Assessment Process (USEPA 2004). This 

deterministic approach, which is based upon a two-phase process involving estimation of 

environmental concentrations and then characterization of risk, would be used for ecological risk 

assessments. This method integrates exposure estimates (estimated environmental concentration 

[EEC] and toxicological endpoints [e.g., LC50 and oral LD50]) to evaluate the potential for adverse 

effects to species groups (birds, mammals, and fish) representative of legal mandates for managing 

units of the NWRS. This integration is achieved through risk quotients (RQs) calculated by dividing 

the EEC by acute and chronic toxicity values selected from standardized toxicological endpoints or 

published effect (Table 1). 

RQ = EEC/Toxicological Endpoint 

The level of risk associated with direct effects of pesticide use would be characterized by comparing 

calculated RQs to the appropriate Level of Concern (LOC) established by U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (1998 [Table 2]). The LOC represents a quantitative threshold value for screening 

potential adverse effects to fish and wildlife resources associated with pesticide use. The following 

are four exposure-species group scenarios that would be used to characterize ecological risk to fish 

and wildlife on the Refuge: acute-listed species, acute-nonlisted species, chronic-listed species, and 

chronic-nonlisted species. 

Acute risk would indicate the potential for mortality associated with short-term dietary exposure to 

pesticides immediately after an application. For characterization of acute risks, median values from 

LC50 and LD50 tests would be used as toxicological endpoints for RQ calculations. In contrast, 

chronic risks would indicate the potential for adverse effects associated with long-term dietary 

exposure to pesticides from a single application or multiple applications over time (within a season 

and over years). For characterization of chronic risks, the no observed concentration (NOAEC) or no 

observed effect concentration (NOEC) for reproduction would be used as toxicological endpoints for 

RQ calculations. Where available, the NOAEC would be preferred over a NOEC value. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan F-17 

Listed species are those federally designated as threatened, endangered, or proposed in accordance 

with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531-1544, 87 Stat. 884, as amended-Public Law 

93-205). For listed species, potential adverse effects would be assessed at the individual level 

because loss of individuals from a population could detrimentally impact a species. In contrast, risks 

to nonlisted species would consider effects at the population level. A RQ<LOC would indicate the 

proposed pesticide use “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” individuals (listed species) and it 

would not pose an unacceptable risk for adverse effects to populations (non-listed species) for each 

taxonomic group (Table 2). In contrast, an RQ>LOC would indicate a “may affect, likely to 

adversely affect” for listed species and it would also pose unacceptable ecological risk for adverse 

effects to nonlisted species. 

 

Table 2. Presumption of unacceptable risk for birds, fish, and mammals (USEPA 1998).

Risk Presumption Level of Concern 

Listed Species Non-listed Species 

Acute Birds 0.1 0.5 

Fish 0.05 0.5 

Mammals 0.1 0.5 

Chronic Birds 1.0 1.0 

Fish 1.0 1.0 

Mammals 1.0 1.0 

F.8.2.1 Environmental exposure 

Following release into the environment through application, pesticides would experience several 

different routes of environmental fate. Pesticides which would be sprayed can move through the air 

(e.g., particle or vapor drift) and may eventually end up in other parts of the environment such as 

non-target vegetation, soil, or water. Pesticides applied directly to the soil may be washed off the soil 

into nearby bodies of surface water (e.g., surface runoff) or may percolate through the soil to lower 

soil layers and groundwater (e.g., leaching) (Baker and Miller 1999, Pope et al. 1999, Butler et al. 

1998, Ramsay et al. 1995, EXTOXNET 1993). Pesticides which would be injected into the soil may 

also be subject to the latter two fates. The aforementioned possibilities are by no means complete, but 

it does indicate movement of pesticides in the environment is very complex with transfers occurring 

continually among different environmental compartments. In some cases, these exchanges occur not 

only between areas that are close together, but it also may involve transportation of pesticides over 

long distances (Barry 2004, Woods 2004). 

Terrestrial exposure 

The ECC for exposure to terrestrial wildlife would be quantified using an USEPA screening-level 

approach (USEPA 2004). This screening-level approach is not affected by product formulation 

because it evaluates pesticide active ingredient(s). This approach would vary depending upon the 

proposed pesticide application method: spray or granular. 

Terrestrial-spray application 

For spray applications, exposure would be determined using the Kanaga nomogram method (USEPA 

2005a, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2004, Pfleeger et al. 1996) through the USEPA’s 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

F-18 Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

Terrestrial Residue Exposure model (T-REX) version 1.2.3 (USEPA 2005b). To estimate the 

maximum (initial) pesticide residue on short grass (<20 cm [7.8 inches] tall) as a general food item 

category for terrestrial vertebrate species, T-REX input variables would include the following from 

the pesticide label: maximum pesticide application rate (pounds active ingredient [acid 

equivalent]/acre) and pesticide half-life (days) in soil. Although there are other food item categories 

(tall grasses; broadleaf plants and small insects; and fruits, pods, seeds and large insects), short grass 

was selected because it would yield maximum EECs (240 ppm per lb ai/acre) for worst-case risk 

assessments. Short grass is not representative of forage for carnivorous species (e.g., raptors), but it 

would characterize the maximum potential exposure through the diet of avian and mammalian prey 

items. Consequently, this approach would provide a conservative screening tool for pesticides that do 

not biomagnify. 

For RQ calculations in T-REX, the model would require the weight of surrogate species and Mineau 

scaling factors (Mineau et al. 1996). Body weights of bobwhite quail and mallard are included in TREX by default, but body weights of other organisms (Table 3) would be entered manually. The 

Mineau scaling factor accounts for small-bodied bird species that may be more sensitive to pesticide 

exposure than would be predicted only by body weight. Mineau scaling factors would be entered 

manually with values ranging from 1 to 1.55 that are unique to a particular pesticide or group of 

pesticides. If specific information to select a scaling factor is not available, then a value of 1.15 

would be used as a default. Alternatively, zero would be entered if it is known that body weight does 

not influence toxicity of pesticide(s) being assessed. The upper bound estimate output from the TREX Kanaga nomogram would be used as an EEC for calculation of RQs. This approach would yield 

a conservative estimate of ecological risk. 

Table 3. Average body weight of selected terrestrial wildlife species frequently used in research to 

establish toxicological endpoints (Dunning 1984). 

Species Body Weight (kg) 

Mammal (15 g) 0.015 

House sparrow 0.0277 

Mammal (35 g) 0.035 

Starling 0.0823 

Red-winged blackbird 0.0526 

Common grackle 0.114 

Japanese quail 0.178 

Bobwhite quail 0.178 

Rat 0.200 

Rock dove (aka pigeon) 0.542 

Mammal (1000 g) 1.000 

Mallard 1.082 

Ring-necked pheasant 1.135 

Terrestrial – granular application 

Granular pesticide formulations and pesticide-treated seed would pose a unique route of exposure for 

avian and mammalian species. The pesticide is applied in discrete units which birds or mammals 

might ingest accidentally with food items or intentionally as in the case of some bird species actively 

seeking and picking up gravel or grit to aid digestion or seed as a food source. Granules may also be 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan F-19 

consumed by wildlife foraging on earthworms, slugs or other soft-bodied soil organisms to which the 

granules may adhere. 

Terrestrial wildlife RQs for granular formulations or seed treatments would be calculated by dividing 

the maximum milligrams of active ingredient (a.i.) exposed (e.g., EEC) on the surface of an area 

equal to 1 square foot by the appropriate LD50 value multiplied by the surrogate’s body weight (Table 

3). An adjustment to surface area calculations would be made for broadcast, banded, and in-furrow 

applications. An adjustment also would be made for applications with and without incorporation of 

the granules. Without incorporation, it would be assumed that 100 percent of the granules remain on 

the soil surface available to foraging birds and mammals. Press wheels push granules flat with the 

soil surface, but they are not incorporated into the soil. If granules are incorporated in the soil during 

band or T-band applications or after broadcast applications, it would be assumed only 15 percent of 

the applied granules remain available to wildlife. It would be assumed that only 1 percent of the 

granules are available on the soil surface following in-furrow applications. 

EECs for pesticides applied in granular form and as seed treatments would be determined 

considering potential ingestion rates of avian or mammalian species (e.g., 10-30 percent body 

weight/day). This would provide an estimate of maximum exposure that may occur as a result of 

granule or seed treatment spills such as those that commonly occur at end rows during application 

and planting. The availability of granules and seed treatments to terrestrial vertebrates would also be 

considered by calculating the loading per unit area (LD50/ft2

)for comparison to USEPA Level of 

Concerns (USEPA 1998). The T-REX version 1.2.3 (USEPA 2005b) contains a submodel which 

automates Kanaga exposure calculations for granular pesticides and treated seed. 

The following formulas would be used to calculate EECs depending upon the type of granular 

pesticide application: 

• In-furrow applications assume a typical value of 1 percent granules, bait, or seed remain 

unincorporated. 

mg a.i./ft.

2 

= [(lbs. product/acre)(% a.i.)(453,580 mg/lbs)(1 percent exposed))]/{[(43,560 

ft.

2

/acre)/(row spacing (ft.))]/(row spacing (ft.)} 

or 

mg a.i./ft

2 

= [(lbs product/1000 ft. row)(% a.i.)(1000 ft row)(453,580 mg/lb.)(1 percent exposed) 

EEC = [(mg a.i./ft.

2

)(% of pesticide biologically available)] 

• Incorporated banded treatments assume that 15 percent of granules, bait, and seeds are 

unincorporated. 

mg a.i./ft.

2 

= [(lbs. product/1000 row ft.)(% a.i.)(453,580 mg/lb.)(1-% incorporated)]/(1,000 

ft.)(band width (ft.)) 

EEC = [(mg a.i./ft.

2

)(% of pesticide biologically available)] 

• Broadcast treatment without incorporation assumes 100 percent of granules, bait, seeds are 

unincorporated. 

mg a.i./ft.

2 

= [(lbs. product/acre)(% a.i.)(453,590 mg/lb.)]/(43,560 ft.

2

/acre) 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

F-20 Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

EEC = [(mg a.i./ft.

2

)(% of pesticide biologically available)] 

Where: 

• % of pesticide biologically available = 100 percent without species specific ingestion rates 

• Conversion for calculating mg a.i./ft.

2 

using ounces: 453,580 mg/lb./16 = 28,349 mg/oz. 

The following equation would be used to calculate an RQ based on the EEC calculated by one of the 

above equations. The EEC would be divided by the surrogate LD50 toxicological endpoint multiplied 

by the body weight (Table 3) of the surrogate. 

RQ = EEC/[LD50 (mg/kg) * body weight (kg)] 

As with other risk assessments, an RQ>LOC would be a presumption of unacceptable ecological 

risk. An RQ<LOC would be a presumption of acceptable risk with only minor, temporary, or 

localized effects to species. 

F.8.2.1.1 Aquatic exposure 

Exposures to aquatic habitats (e.g., wetlands, meadows, ephemeral pools, water delivery ditches) 

would be evaluated separately for ground-based pesticide treatments of habitats managed for fish and 

wildlife compared with cropland/facilities maintenance. The primary exposure pathway for aquatic 

organisms from any ground-based treatments likely would be particle drift during the pesticide 

application. However, different exposure scenarios would be necessary as a result of contrasting 

application equipment and techniques as well as pesticides used to control pests on agricultural lands 

(especially those cultivated by cooperative farmers for economic return from crop yields) and 

facilities maintenance (e.g., roadsides, parking lots, trails) compared with other managed habitats on 

the Refuge. In addition, pesticide applications may be done <25 feet of the high water mark of 

aquatic habitats for habitat management treatments; whereas, no-spray buffers (≥25 feet) would be 

used for croplands/facilities maintenance treatments. 

Habitat treatments 

For the worst-case exposure scenario to non-target aquatic habitats, EECs (Table 4) would be would 

be derived from Urban and Cook (1986) that assumes an intentional overspray to an entire, nontarget water body (1-foot depth) from a treatment <25 feet from the high water mark using the max 

application rate (acid basis [see above]). However, use of BMPs for applying pesticides (see Section 

4.2) would likely minimize/eliminate potential drift to non-target aquatic habitats during actual 

treatments. If there would be unacceptable (acute or chronic) risk to fish and wildlife with the 

simulated 100 percent overspray (RQ>LOC), then the proposed pesticide use may be disapproved or 

the PUP would be approved at a lower application rate to minimize/eliminate unacceptable risk to 

aquatic organisms (RQ=LOC). 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan F-21 

Table 4. Estimated Environmental Concentrations (ppb) of pesticides in aquatic habitats (1 foot depth) 

immediately after direct application (Urban and Cook 1986).

Lbs/acre EEC (ppb) 

0.10 36.7 

0.20 73.5 

0.25 91.9 

0.30 110.2 

0.40 147.0 

0.50 183.7 

0.75 275.6 

1.00 367.5 

1.25 459.7 

1.50 551.6 

1.75 643.5 

2.00 735.7 

2.25 827.6 

2.50 919.4 

3.00 1103.5 

4.00 1471.4 

5.00 1839 

6.00 2207 

7.00 2575 

8.00 2943 

9.00 3311 

10.00 3678 

Cropland/facilities maintenance treatments 

Field drift studies conducted by the Spray Drift Task Force, which is a joint project of several 

agricultural chemical businesses, were used to develop a generic spray drift database. From this 

database, the AgDRIFT computer model was created to satisfy USEPA pesticide registration spray 

drift data requirements and as a scientific basis to evaluate off-target movement of pesticides from 

particle drift and assess potential effects of exposure to wildlife. Several versions of the computer 

model have been developed (i.e., v2.01 through v2.10). The Spray Drift Task Force AgDRIFT® 

model version 2.01 (SDTF 2003, AgDRIFT 2001) would be used to derive EECs resulting from drift 

of pesticides to refuge aquatic resources from ground-based pesticide applications >25 feet from the 

high water mark. The Spray Drift Task Force AgDRIFT model is publicly available at 

http://www.agdrift.com. At this website, click “AgDRIFT 2.0” and then click “Download Now” and 

follow the instructions to obtain the computer model. 

The AgDRIFT model is composed of submodels called tiers. Tier I Ground submodel would be used 

to assess ground-based applications of pesticides. Tier outputs (EECs) would be calculated with 

AgDRIFT using the following input variables: max application rate (acid basis [see above]), low 

boom (20 inches), fine to medium droplet size, EPA-defined wetland, and a 

≥25-foot distance (buffer) from treated area to water. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

F-22 Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

F.8.2.2 Use of information on effects of biological control agents, pesticides, degradates, and 

adjuvants 

NEPA documents regarding biological and other environmental effects of biological control agents, 

pesticides, degradates, and adjuvants prepared by another Federal agency, where the scope would be 

relevant to evaluation of effects from pesticide uses on refuge lands, would be reviewed. Possible 

source agencies for such NEPA documents would include the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. 

Forest Service, National Park Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture-Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, and the military services. It might be appropriate to incorporate by reference parts 

or all of existing document(s). Incorporating by reference (40 CFR 1502.21) is a technique used to 

avoid redundancies in analysis. It also would reduce the bulk of a Service NEPA document, which 

only would identify the documents that are incorporated by reference. In addition, relevant portions 

would be summarized in the Service NEPA document to the extent necessary to provide the decision 

maker and public with an understanding of relevance of the referenced material to the current 

analysis. 

In accordance with the requirements set forth in 43 CFR 46.135, the Service would specifically 

incorporate through reference ecological risk assessments prepared by the U.S. Forest Service 

(http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/invasiveplant-eis/Risk-Assessments/Herbicides-Analyzed-InvPlantEIS.htm) and Bureau of Land Management (http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/veg_eis.html). 

These risk assessments and associated documentation also are available in total with the 

administrative record for the Final Environmental Impact Statement entitled Pacific Northwest 

Region Invasive Plant Program – Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants (USFS 2005) and 

Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western 

States Programmatic EIS (PEIS) (BLM 2007). In accordance with 43 CRF 46.120(d), use of existing 

NEPA documents by supplementing, tiering to, incorporating by reference, or adopting 

previous NEPA environmental analyses would avoid redundancy and unnecessary paperwork. 

As a basis for completing “Chemical Profiles” for approving or disapproving refuge PUPs, 

ecological risk assessments for the following herbicide and adjuvant uses prepared by the U.S. Forest 

Service would be incorporated by reference: 

 2,4-D 

 Chlorosulfuron 

 Clopyralid 

 Dicamba 

 Glyphosate 

 Imazapic 

 Imazapyr 

 Metsulfuron methyl 

 Picloram 

 Sethoxydim 

 Sulfometuron methyl 

 Triclopyr 

 Nonylphenol polyethylate (NPE) based surfactants 

As a basis for completing “Chemical Profiles” for approving or disapproving refuge PUPs, 

ecological risk assessments for the following herbicide uses as well as evaluation of risks associated 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan F-23 

with pesticide degradates and adjuvants prepared by the Bureau of Land Management would be 

incorporated by reference: 

 Bromacil 

 Chlorsulfuron 

 Diflufenzopyr 

 Diquat 

 Diuron 

 Fluridone 

 Imazapic 

 Overdrive (diflufenzopyr and dicamba) 

 Sulfometuron methyl 

 Tebuthiuron 

 Pesticide degradates and adjuvants (Appendix D – Evaluation of risks from degradates, 

polyoxyethylene-amine (POEA) and R-11, and endocrine disrupting chemicals) 

F.8.2.3 Assumptions for ecological risk assessments 

There are a number of assumptions involved with the ecological risk assessment process for 

terrestrial and aquatic organisms associated with use of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s 

(2004) process. These assumptions may be risk neutral or may lead to an over- or under-estimation of 

risk from pesticide exposure depending upon site-specific conditions. The following describes these 

assumptions, their application to the conditions typically encountered, and whether or not they may 

lead to recommendations that are risk neutral, underestimate, or overestimate ecological risk from 

potential pesticide exposure. 

 Indirect effects would not be evaluated by ecological risk assessments. These effects include 

the mechanisms of indirect exposure to pesticides: consuming prey items (fish, birds, or 

small mammals), reductions in the availability of prey items, and disturbance associated with 

pesticide application activities. 

 Exposure to a pesticide product can be assessed based upon the active ingredient. However, 

exposure to a chemical mixture (pesticide formulation) may result in effects that are similar 

or substantially different compared to only the active ingredient. Non-target organisms may 

be exposed directly to the pesticide formulation or only various constituents of the 

formulation as they dissipate and partition in the environment. If toxicological information 

for both the active ingredient and formulated product are available, then data representing the 

greatest potential toxicity would be selected for use in the risk assessment process (USEPA 

2004). As a result, this conservative approach may lead to an overestimation of risk 

characterization from pesticide exposure. 

 Because toxicity tests with listed or candidate species or closely related species are not 

available, data for surrogate species would be most often used for risk assessments. 

Specifically, bobwhite quail and mallard duck are the most frequently used surrogates for 

evaluating potential toxicity to federally listed avian species. Bluegill sunfish, rainbow trout, 

and fathead minnow are the most common surrogates for evaluating toxicity for freshwater 

fishes. However, sheep’s head minnow can be an appropriate surrogate marine species for 

coastal environments. Rats and mice are the most common surrogates for evaluating toxicity 

for mammals. Interspecies sensitivity is a major source of uncertainty in pesticide 

assessments. As a result of this uncertainty, data is selected for the most sensitive species 

tested within a taxonomic group (birds, fish, and mammals) given the quality of the data is 

acceptable. If additional toxicity data for more species of organisms in a particular group are 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

F-24 Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

available, the selected data would not be limited to the species previously listed as common 

surrogates. 

 The Kanaga nomogram outputs maximum EEC values that may be used to calculate an 

average daily concentration over a specified interval of time, which is referred to as a timeweighted-average (TWA). The maximum EEC would be selected as the exposure input for 

both acute and chronic risk assessments in the screening-level evaluations. The initial or 

maximum EEC derived from the Kanaga nomogram represents the maximum expected 

instantaneous or acute exposure to a pesticide. Acute toxicity endpoints are determined using 

a single exposure to a known pesticide concentration typically for 48 to 96 hours. This value 

is assumed to represent ecological risk from acute exposure to a pesticide. On the other hand, 

chronic risk to pesticide exposure is a function of pesticide concentration and duration of 

exposure to the pesticide. An organism’s response to chronic pesticide exposure may result 

from either the concentration of the pesticide, length of exposure, or some combination of 

both factors. Standardized tests for chronic toxicity typically involve exposing an organism to 

several different pesticide concentrations for a specified length of time (days, weeks, months, 

years, or generations). For example, avian reproduction tests include a ten-week exposure 

phase. Because a single length of time is used in the test, time response data is usually not 

available for inclusion into risk assessments. Without time response data it is difficult to 

determine the concentration which elicited a toxicological response. 

 Using maximum EECs for chronic risk estimates may result in an overestimate of risk, 

particularly for compounds that dissipate rapidly. Conversely, using TWAs for chronic risk 

estimates may underestimate risk if it is the concentration rather than the duration of 

exposure that is primarily responsible for the observed adverse effect. The maximum EEC 

would be used for chronic risk assessments although it may result in an overestimate of risk. 

TWAs may be used for chronic risk assessments, but they would be applied judiciously 

considering the potential for an underestimate or overestimate of risk. For example, the 

number of days exposure exceeds a Level of Concern may influence the suitability of a 

pesticide use. The greater the number of days the EEC exceeds the Level of Concern 

translates into greater the ecological risk. This is a qualitative assessment, and is subject to 

reviewer’s expertise in ecological risk assessment and tolerance for risk. 

 The length of time used to calculate the TWA can have a substantial effect on the exposure 

estimates and there is no standard method for determining the appropriate duration for this 

estimate. The T-REX model assumes a 21-week exposure period, which is equivalent to 

avian reproductive studies designed to establish a steady-state concentration for 

bioaccumulative compounds. However, this does not necessarily define the true exposure 

duration needed to elicit a toxicological response. Pesticides, which do not bioaccumulate, 

may achieve a steady-state concentration earlier than 21 weeks. The duration of time for 

calculating TWAs would require justification and it would not exceed the duration of 

exposure in the chronic toxicity test (approximately 70 days for the standard avian 

reproduction study). An alternative to using the duration of the chronic toxicity study is to 

base the TWA on the application interval. In this case, increasing the application interval 

would suppress both the estimated peak pesticide concentration and the TWA. Another 

alternative to using TWAs would be to consider the number of days that a chemical is 

predicted to exceed the LOC. 

 Pesticide dissipation is assumed to be first-order in the absence of data suggesting alternative 

dissipation patterns such as bi-phasic. Field dissipation data would generally be the most 

pertinent for assessing exposure in terrestrial species that forage on vegetation. However, 

these data are often not available and it can be misleading particularly if the compound is 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan F-25 

prone to “wash-off”. Soil half-life is the most common degradation data available. 

Dissipation or degradation data that would reflect the environmental conditions typical of 

refuge lands would be used, if available. 

 For species found in the water column, it would be assumed that the greatest bioavailable 

fraction of the pesticide active ingredient in surface waters is freely dissolved in the water 

column. 

 Actual habitat requirements of any particular terrestrial species are not considered, and it is 

assumed that species exclusively and permanently occupy the treated area, or adjacent areas 

receiving pesticide at rates commensurate with the treatment rate. This assumption would 

produce a maximum estimate of exposure for risk characterization. This assumption would 

likely lead to an overestimation of exposure for species that do not permanently and 

exclusively occupy the treated area (USEPA 2004). 

 Exposure through incidental ingestion of pesticide contaminated soil is not considered in the 

USEPA risk assessment protocols. Research suggests <15 percent of the diet can consist of 

incidentally ingested soil depending upon species and feeding strategy (Beyer et al. 1994). 

An assessment of pesticide concentrations in soil compared to food item categories in the 

Kanaga nomogram indicates incidental soil ingestion would not likely increase dietary 

exposure to pesticides. Inclusion of soil into the diet would effectively reduce the overall 

dietary concentration compared to the present assumption that the entire diet consists a 

contaminated food source (Fletcher et al. 1994). An exception to this may be soil-applied 

pesticides in which exposure from incidental ingestion of soil may increase. Potential for 

pesticide exposure under this assumption may be underestimated for soil-applied pesticides 

and overestimated for foliar-applied pesticides. The concentration of a pesticide in soil would 

likely be less than predicted on food items. 

 Exposure through inhalation of pesticides is not considered in the USEPA risk assessment 

protocols. Such exposure may occur through three potential sources: spray material in droplet 

form at time of application, vapor phase with the pesticide volatilizing from treated surfaces, 

and airborne particulates (soil, vegetative matter, and pesticide dusts). The USEPA (1990) 

reported exposure from inhaling spray droplets at the time of application is not an appreciable 

route of exposure for birds. According to research on mallards and bobwhite quail, respirable 

particle size (particles reaching the lung) in birds is limited to maximum diameter of 2 to 5 

microns. The spray droplet spectra covering the majority of pesticide application scenarios 

indicate that less than 1 percent of the applied material is within the respirable particle size. 

This route of exposure is further limited because the permissible spray drop size distribution 

for ground pesticide applications is restricted to ASAE medium or coarser drop size 

distribution. 

 Inhalation of a pesticide in the vapor phase may be another source of exposure for some 

pesticides under certain conditions. This mechanism of exposure to pesticides occurs post 

application, and it would pertain to those pesticides with a high vapor pressure. The USEPA 

is currently evaluating protocols for modeling inhalation exposure from pesticides including 

near-field and near-ground air concentrations based upon equilibrium and kinetics-based 

models. Risk characterization for exposure with this mechanism is unavailable. 

 The effect from exposure to dusts contaminated with the pesticide cannot be assessed 

generically as partitioning issues related to application site soils and chemical properties of 

the applied pesticides render the exposure potential from this route highly situation specific. 

 Dermal exposure may occur through three potential sources: direct application of spray to 

terrestrial wildlife in the treated area or within the drift footprint, incidental contact with 

contaminated vegetation, or contact with contaminated water or soil. Interception of spray 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

F-26 Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

and incidental contact with treated substrates may pose risk to avian wildlife (Driver et al. 

1991). However, available research related to wildlife dermal contact with pesticides is 

extremely limited, except dermal toxicity values are common for some mammals used as 

human surrogates (rats and mice). The USEPA is currently evaluating protocols for modeling 

dermal exposure. Risk characterization may be underestimated for this route of exposure, 

particularly with high risk pesticides such as some organophosphates or carbamate 

insecticides. If protocols are established by the USEPA for assessing dermal exposure to 

pesticides, they would be considered for incorporation into pesticide assessment protocols. 

 Exposure to a pesticide may occur from consuming surface water, dew or other water on 

treated surfaces. Water soluble pesticides have the potential to dissolve in surface runoff and 

puddles in a treated area may contain pesticide residues. Similarly, pesticides with lower 

organic carbon partitioning characteristics and higher solubility in water have a greater 

potential to dissolve in dew and other water associated with plant surfaces. Estimating the 

extent to which such pesticide loadings to drinking water occurs is complex and would 

depend upon the partitioning characteristics of the active ingredient, soils types in the 

treatment area, and the meteorology of the treatment area. In addition, the use of various 

water sources by wildlife is highly species-specific. Currently, risk characterization for this 

exposure mechanism is not available. The USEPA is actively developing protocols to 

quantify drinking water exposures from puddles and dew. If and when protocols are formally 

established by the USEPA for assessing exposure to pesticides through drinking water, these 

protocols would be incorporated into pesticide risk assessment protocols. 

 Risk assessments are based upon the assumption that the entire treatment area would be 

subject to pesticide application at the rates specified on the label. In most cases, there is 

potential for uneven application of pesticides through such plausible incidents such as 

changes in calibration of application equipment, spillage, and localized releases at specific 

areas in or near the treated field that are associated with mixing and handling and application 

equipment as well as applicator skill. Inappropriate use of pesticides and the occurrence of 

spills represent a potential underestimate of risk. It is likely not an important factor for risk 

characterization. All pesticide applicators are required to be certified by the state in which 

they apply pesticides. Certification training includes the safe storage, transport, handling, and 

mixing of pesticides; equipment calibration; and proper application with annual continuing 

education. 

 The USEPA relies on Fletcher (1994) for setting the assumed pesticide residues in wildlife 

dietary items. The USEPA (2004) “believes that these residue assumptions reflect a realistic 

upper-bound residue estimate, although the degree to which this assumption reflects a 

specific percentile estimate is difficult to quantify”. Fletcher’s (1994) research suggests that 

the pesticide active ingredient residue assumptions used by the USEPA represent a 95th

percentile estimate. However, research conducted by Pfleeger et al. (1996) indicates USEPA 

residue assumptions for short grass was not exceeded. Baehr and Habig (2000) compared 

USEPA residue assumptions with distributions of measured pesticide residues for the 

USEPA’s UTAB database. Overall residue selection level would tend to overestimate risk 

characterization. This is particularly evident when wildlife individuals are likely to have 

selected a variety of food items acquired from multiple locations. Some food items may be 

contaminated with pesticide residues whereas others are not contaminated. However, it is 

important to recognize differences in species feeding behavior. Some species may consume 

whole above-ground plant material, but others would preferentially select different plant 

structures. Also, species may preferentially select a food item although multiple food items 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan F-27 

may be present. Without species specific knowledge regarding foraging behavior 

characterizing ecological risk other than in general terms is not possible. 

 Acute and chronic risk assessments rely on comparisons of wildlife dietary residues with 

LC50 or NOEC values expressed as concentrations of pesticides in laboratory feed. These 

comparisons assume that ingestion of food items in the field occurs at rates commensurate 

with those in the laboratory. Although the screening assessment process adjusts dry-weight 

estimates of food intake to reflect the increased mass in fresh-weight wildlife food intake 

estimates, it does not allow for gross energy and assimilative efficiency differences between 

wildlife food items and laboratory feed. Differences in assimilative efficiency between 

laboratory and wild diets suggest that current screening assessment methods are not 

accounting for a potentially important aspect of food requirements. 

 There are several other assumptions that can affect non-target species not considered in the 

risk assessment process. These include possible additive or synergistic effects from applying 

two or more pesticides or additives in a single application, co-location of pesticides in the 

environment, cumulative effects from pesticides with the same mode of action, effects of 

multiple stressors (e.g., combination of pesticide exposure, adverse abiotic and biotic factors) 

and behavioral changes induced by exposure to a pesticide. These factors may exist at some 

level contributing to adverse effects to non-target species, but they are usually characterized 

in the published literature in only a general manner limiting their value in the risk assessment 

process.

 It is assumed that aquatic species exclusively and permanently occupy the water body being 

assessed. Actual habitat requirements of aquatic species are not considered. With the possible 

exception of scenarios where pesticides are directly applied to water, it is assumed that no 

habitat use considerations specific for any species would place the organisms in closer 

proximity to pesticide use sites. This assumption produces a maximum estimate of exposure 

or risk characterization. It would likely be realistic for many aquatic species that may be 

found in aquatic habitats within or in close proximity to treated terrestrial habitats. However, 

the spatial distribution of wildlife is usually not random because wildlife distributions are 

often related to habitat requirements of species. Clumped distributions of wildlife may result 

in an under- or over-estimation of risk depending upon where the initial pesticide 

concentration occurs relative to the species or species habitat. 

 For species found in the water column, it would be assumed that the greatest bioavailable 

fraction of the pesticide active ingredient in surface waters is freely dissolved in the water 

column. Additional chemical exposure from materials associated with suspended solids or 

food items is not considered because partitioning onto sediments likely is minimal. 

Adsorption and bioconcentration occurs at lower levels for many newer pesticides compared 

with older more persistent bioaccumulative compounds. Pesticides with RQs close to the 

listed species level of concern, the potential for additional exposure from these routes may be 

a limitation of risk assessments, where potential pesticide exposure or risk may be 

underestimated. 

 Mass transport losses of pesticide from a water body (except for losses by volatilization, 

degradation, and sediment partitioning) would not be considered for ecological risk 

assessment. The water body would be assumed to capture all pesticide active ingredients 

entering as runoff, drift, and adsorbed to eroded soil particles. It would also be assumed that 

pesticide active ingredient is not lost from the water body by overtopping or flow-through, 

nor is concentration reduced by dilution. In total, these assumptions would lead to a near 

maximum possible water-borne concentration. However, this assumption would not account 

for the potential to concentrate pesticide through the evaporative loss. This limitation may 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

F-28 Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

have the greatest impact on water bodies with high surface-to-volume ratios such as 

ephemeral wetlands, where evaporative losses are accentuated and applied pesticides have 

low rates of degradation and volatilization. 

 For acute risk assessments, there would be no averaging time for exposure. An instantaneous 

peak concentration would be assumed, where instantaneous exposure is sufficient in duration 

to elicit acute effects comparable to those observed over more protracted exposure periods 

(typically 48 to 96 hours) tested in the laboratory. In the absence of data regarding time-totoxic event, analyses, and latent responses to instantaneous exposure, risk would likely be 

overestimated. 

 For chronic exposure risk assessments, the averaging times considered for exposure are 

commensurate with the duration of invertebrate life-cycle or fish-early life stage tests (e.g., 

21-28 days and 56-60 days, respectively). Response profiles (time to effect and latency of 

effect) to pesticides likely vary widely with mode of action and species and should be 

evaluated on a case-by-case basis as available data allow. Nevertheless, because the USEPA 

relies on chronic exposure toxicity endpoints based on a finding of no observed effect, the 

potential for any latent toxicity effects or averaging time assumptions to alter the results of an 

acceptable chronic risk assessment prediction is limited. The extent to which duration of 

exposure from water-borne concentrations overestimate or underestimate actual exposure 

depends on several factors. These include the following: localized meteorological conditions, 

runoff characteristics of the watershed (e.g., soils, topography), the hydrological 

characteristics of receiving waters, environmental fate of the pesticide active ingredient, and 

the method of pesticide application. It should also be understood that chronic effects studies 

are performed using a method that holds water concentration in a steady state. This method is 

not likely to reflect conditions associated with pesticide runoff. Pesticide concentrations in 

the field increase and decrease in surface water on a cycle influenced by rainfall, pesticide 

use patterns, and degradation rates. As a result of the dependency of this assumption on 

several undefined variables, risk associated with chronic exposure may in some situations 

underestimate risk and overestimate risk in others. 

 There are several other factors that can affect non-target species not considered in the risk 

assessment process. These would include the following: possible additive or synergistic 

effects from applying two or more pesticides or additives in a single application, co-location 

of pesticides in the environment, cumulative effects from pesticides with the same mode of 

action, effects of multiple stressors (e.g., combination of pesticide exposure, adverse abiotic 

[not pesticides] and biotic factors), and sub-lethal effects such as behavioral changes induced 

by exposure to a pesticide. These factors may exist at some level contributing to adverse 

effects to non-target species, but they are not routinely assessed by regulatory agencies. 

Therefore, information on the factors is not extensive limiting their value for the risk 

assessment process. As this type of information becomes available, it would be included, 

either quantitatively or qualitatively, in this risk assessment process. 

 USEPA is required by the Food Quality Protection Act to assess the cumulative risks of 

pesticides that share common mechanisms of toxicity, or act the same within an organism. 

Currently, USEPA has identified four groups of pesticides that have a common mechanism of 

toxicity requiring cumulative risk assessments. These four groups are: the organophosphate 

insecticides, N-methyl carbamate insecticides, triazine herbicides, and chloroacetanilide 

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

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan F-29 

F.8.3 Pesticide Mixtures and Degradates 

Pesticide products are usually a formulation of several components generally categorized as active 

ingredients and inert or other ingredients. The term active ingredient is defined by the FIFRA as 

preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating the effects of a pest, or it is a plant regulator, 

defoliant, desiccant, or nitrogen stabilizer. In accordance with FIFRA, the active ingredient(s) must 

be identified by name(s) on the pesticide label along with its relative composition expressed in 

percentage(s) by weight. In contrast, inert ingredient(s) are not intended to affect a target pest. Their 

role in the pesticide formulation is to act as a solvent (keep the active ingredient is a liquid phase), an 

emulsifying or suspending agent (keep the active ingredient from separating out of solution), or a 

carrier (such as clay in which the active ingredient is impregnated on the clay particle in dry 

formulations). For example, if isopropyl alcohol would be used as a solvent in a pesticide 

formulation, then it would be considered an inert ingredient. FIFRA only requires that inert 

ingredients identified as hazardous and associated percent composition, and the total percentage of 

all inert ingredients must be declared on a product label. Inert ingredients that are not classified as 

hazardous are not required to be identified. 

The USEPA (September 1997) issued Pesticide Regulation Notice 97-6, which encouraged 

manufacturers, formulators, producers, and registrants of pesticide products to voluntarily substitute 

the term “other ingredients” for “inert ingredients” in the ingredient statement. This change 

recognized that all components in a pesticide formulation potentially could elicit or contribute to an 

adverse effect on non-target organisms and, therefore, are not necessarily inert. Whether referred to 

as “inerts” or “other ingredients,” these constituents within a pesticide product have the potential to 

affect species or environmental quality. The USEPA categorizes regulated inert ingredients into the 

following four lists (http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/inerts/index.html): 

 List 1 – Inert Ingredients of Toxicological Concern 

 List 2 – Potentially Toxic Inert Ingredients 

 List 3 – Inerts of Unknown Toxicity 

 List 4 – Inerts of Minimal Toxicity 

Several of the List 4 compounds are naturally occurring earthen materials (e.g., clay materials, 

simple salts) that would not elicit toxicological response at applied concentrations. However, some of 

the inerts (particularly the List 3 compounds and unlisted compounds) may have moderate to high 

potential toxicity to aquatic species based on MSDSs or published data. 

Comprehensively assessing potential effects to non-target fish, wildlife, plants, and/or their habitats 

from pesticide use is a complex task. It would be preferable to assess the cumulative effects from 

exposure to the active ingredient, its degradates, and inert ingredients as well as other active 

ingredients in the spray mixture. However, it would only be feasible to conduct deterministic risk 

assessments for each component in the spray mixture singly. Limited scientific information is 

available regarding ecological effects (additive or synergistic) from chemical mixtures that typically 

rely upon broadly encompassing assumptions. For example, the U.S. Forest Service (2005) found 

that mixtures of pesticides used in land (forest) management likely would not cause additive or 

synergistic effects to non-target species based upon a review of scientific literature regarding 

toxicological effects and interactions of agricultural chemicals (ATSDR 2004). Moreover, 

information on inert ingredients, adjuvants, and degradates is often limited by the availability of and 

access to reliable toxicological data for these constituents. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

F-30 Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

Toxicological information regarding “other ingredients” may be available from sources such as the 

following: 

 TOMES (a proprietary toxicological database including USEPA’s IRIS, the Hazardous 

Substance Data Bank, the Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances [RTECS]). 

 USEPA’s ECOTOX database, which includes AQUIRE (a database containing scientific 

papers published on the toxic effects of chemicals to aquatic organisms). 

 TOXLINE (a literature searching tool). 

 Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) from pesticide suppliers. 

 Other sources such as the Farm Chemicals Handbook. 

Because there is a lack of specific inert toxicological data, inert(s) in a pesticide may cause adverse 

ecological effects. However, inert ingredients typically represent only a small percentage of the 

pesticide spray mixture, and it would be assumed that negligible effects would be expected to result 

from inert ingredient(s). 

Although the potential effects of degradates should be considered when selecting a pesticide, it is 

beyond the scope of this assessment process to consider all possible breakdown chemicals of the 

various product formulations containing an active ingredient. Degradates may be more or less mobile 

and more or less hazardous in the environment than their parent pesticides (Battaglin et al. 2003). 

Differences in environmental behavior (e.g., mobility) and toxicity between parent pesticides and 

degradates would make assessing potential degradate effects extremely difficult. For example, a less 

toxic and more mobile, bioaccumulative, or persistent degradate may have potentially greater effects 

on species and/or degrade environmental quality. The lack of data on the toxicity of degradates for 

many pesticides would represent a source of uncertainty for assessing risk. 

A USEPA-approved label specifies whether a product can be mixed with one or more pesticides. 

Without product-specific toxicological data, it would not possible to quantify the potential effects of 

these mixtures. In addition, a quantitative analysis could only be conducted if reliable scientific 

information allowed a determination of whether the joint action of a mixture would be additive, 

synergistic, or antagonistic. Such information would not likely exist unless the mode of action would 

be common among the chemicals and receptors. Moreover, the composition of and exposure to 

mixtures would be highly site- and/or time-specific and, therefore, it would be nearly impossible to 

assess potential effects to species and environmental quality. 

To minimize or eliminate potential negative effects associated with applying two or more pesticides 

as a mixture, the use would be conducted in accordance with the labeling requirements. Labels for 

two or more pesticides applied as a mixture should be completely reviewed, where products with the 

least potential for negative effects would be selected for use on the Refuge. This is especially 

relevant when a mixture would be applied in a manner that may already have the potential for an 

effect(s) associated with an individual pesticide (e.g., runoff to ponds in sandy watersheds). Use of a 

tank mix under these conditions would increase the level of uncertainty in terms of risk to species or 

potential to degrade environmental quality. 

Adjuvants generally function to enhance or prolong the activity of pesticide. For terrestrial 

herbicides, adjuvants aid in the absorption into plant tissue. Adjuvant is a broad term that generally 

applies to surfactants, selected oils, anti-foaming agents, buffering compounds, drift control agents, 

compatibility agents, stickers, and spreaders. Adjuvants are not under the same registration 

requirements as pesticides and the USEPA does not register or approve the labeling of spray 

adjuvants. Individual pesticide labels identify types of adjuvants approved for use with it. In general, 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan F-31 

adjuvants compose a relatively small portion of the volume of pesticides applied. Selection of 

adjuvants with limited toxicity and low volumes would be recommended to reduce the potential for 

the adjuvant to influence the toxicity of the pesticide. 

F.8.4 Determining Effects to Soil and Water Quality 

The approval process for pesticide uses would consider potential to degrade water quality on and off 

refuge lands. A pesticide can only affect water quality through movement away from the treatment 

site. After application, pesticide mobilization can be characterized by one or more of the following 

(Kerle et al. 1996): 

 Attach (sorb) to soil, vegetation, or other surfaces and remain at or near the treated area; 

 Attach to soil and move off-site through erosion from runoff or wind; 

 Dissolve in water that can be subjected to runoff or leaching. 

As an initial screening tool, selected chemical characteristics and rating criteria for a pesticide can be 

evaluated to assess potential to enter ground and/or surface waters. These would include the 

following: persistence, sorption coefficient (Koc), groundwater ubiquity score (GUS), and solubility. 

Persistence, which is expressed as half-life (t1⁄2), represents the length of time required for 50 percent 

of the deposited pesticide to degrade (completely or partially). Persistence in the soil can be 

categorized as the following: non-persistent <30 days, moderately persistent = 30 to 100 days, and 

persistent >100 days (Kerle et al. 1996). Half-life data is usually available for aquatic and terrestrial 

environments. 

Another measure of pesticide persistence is dissipation time (DT50). It represents the time required 

for 50 percent of the deposited pesticide to degrade and move from a treated site; whereas, half-life 

describes the rate for degradation only. As for half-life, units of dissipation time are usually 

expressed in days. Field or foliar dissipation time is the preferred data for use to estimate pesticide 

concentrations in the environment. However, soil half-life is the most common persistence data cited 

in published literature. If field or foliar dissipation data is not available, soil half-life data may be 

used. The average or representative half-life value of most important degradation mechanism would 

be selected for quantitative analysis for both terrestrial and aquatic environments. 

Mobility of a pesticide is a function of how strongly it is adsorbed to soil particles and organic 

matter, its solubility in water, and its persistence in the environment. Pesticides strongly adsorbed to 

soil particles, relatively insoluble in water, and not environmentally persistent would be less likely to 

move across the soil surface into surface waters or to leach through the soil profile and contaminate 

groundwater. Conversely, pesticides that are not strongly adsorbed to soil particles, are highly water 

soluble, and are persistent in the environment would have greater potential to move from the 

application site (off-site movement). 

The degree of pesticide adsorption to soil particles and organic matter (Kerle et al. 1996) is expressed 

as the soil adsorption coefficient (Koc). The soil adsorption coefficient is measured as micrograms of 

pesticide per gram of soil (μg/g) that can range from near zero to the thousands. Pesticides with 

higher Koc values are strongly sorbed to soil and, therefore, would be less subject to movement. 

Water solubility describes the amount of pesticide that will dissolve in a known quantity of water. 

The water solubility of a pesticide is expressed as milligrams of pesticide dissolved in a liter of water 

(mg/L or parts per million [ppm]). Pesticide with solubility <0.1 ppm are virtually insoluble in water, 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

F-32 Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

100-1000 ppm are moderately soluble, and >10,000 ppm highly soluble (USGS 2000). As pesticide 

solubility increases, there would be greater potential for off-site movement. 

The Groundwater Ubiquity Score (GUS) is a quantitative screening tool to estimate a pesticide’s 

potential to move in the environment. It uses soil persistence and adsorption coefficients in the 

following formula. 

GUS = log10 (t1⁄2) x [4-log10 (Koc)] 

The potential pesticide movement rating would be based upon its GUS value. Pesticides with a GUS 

<0.1 would considered to have an extremely low potential to move toward groundwater. Values of 

1.0-2.0 would be low, 2.0-3.0 would be moderate, 3.0-4.0 would be high, and >4.0 would have a very 

high potential to move toward groundwater. 

Water solubility describes the amount of pesticide dissolving in a specific quantity of water, where it 

is usually measured as mg/L or ppm. Solubility is useful as a comparative measure because 

pesticides with higher values are more likely to move by runoff or leaching. GUS, water solubility, 

t1⁄2, and Koc values are available for selected pesticides from the OSU Extension Pesticide Properties 

Database at http://npic.orst.edu/ppdmove.htm. Many of the values in this database were derived from 

the SCS/ARS/CES Pesticide Properties Database for Environmental Decision Making (Wauchope et 

al. 1992). 

Soil properties influence the fate of pesticides in the environment. The following six properties are 

mostly likely to affect pesticide degradation and the potential for pesticides to move off-site by 

leaching (vertical movement through the soil) or runoff (lateral movement across the soil surface). 

 Permeability is the rate of water movement vertically through the soil. It is affected by soil 

texture and structure. Coarse textured soils (e.g., high sand content) have a larger pore size 

and they are generally more permeable than fine textured soils (i.e., high clay content). The 

more permeable soils would have a greater potential for pesticides to move vertically down 

through the soil profile. Soil permeability rates (inches/hour) are usually available in county 

soil survey reports. 

 Soil texture describes the relative percentage of sand, silt, and clay. In general, greater clay 

content with smaller the pore size would lower the likelihood and rate water that would move 

through the soil profile. Clay also serves to adsorb (bind) pesticides to soil particles. Soils 

with high clay content would adsorb more pesticide than soils with relatively low clay 

content. In contrast, sandy soils with coarser texture and lower water holding capacity would 

have a greater potential for water to leach through them. 

 Soil structure describes soil aggregation. Soils with a well-developed soil structure have 

looser, more aggregated, structure that would be less likely to be compacted. Both 

characteristics would allow for less restricted flow of water through the soil profile resulting 

in greater infiltration.

 Organic matter would be the single most important factor affecting pesticide adsorption in 

soils. Many pesticides are adsorbed to organic matter which would reduce their rate of 

downward movement through the soil profile. Also, soils high in organic matter would tend 

to hold more water, which may make less water available for leaching. 

 Soil moisture affects how fast water would move through the soil. If soils are already wet or 

saturated before rainfall or irrigation, excess moisture would runoff rather than infiltrate into 

the soil profile. Soil moisture also would influence microbial and chemical activity in soil, 

which effects pesticide degradation. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan F-33 

 Soil pH would influence chemical reactions that occur in the soil, which in turn determines 

whether or not a pesticide will degrade, rate of degradation, and, in some instances, which 

degradation products are produced. 

Based upon the aforementioned properties, soils most vulnerable to groundwater contamination 

would be sandy soils with low organic matter. In contrast, the least vulnerable soils would be welldrained clayey soils with high organic matter. Consequently, pesticides with the lowest potential for 

movement in conjunction with appropriate best management practices (see below) would be used in 

an IPM framework to treat pests while minimizing effects to non-target biota and protecting 

environmental quality. 

Along with soil properties, the potential for a pesticide to affect water quality through runoff and 

leaching would consider site-specific environmental and abiotic conditions including rainfall, water 

table conditions, and topography (Huddleston 1996). 

 Water is necessary to separate pesticides from soil. This can occur in two basic ways. 

Pesticides that are soluble move easily with runoff water. Pesticide-laden soil particles can be 

dislodged and transported from the application site in runoff. The concentration of pesticides 

in the surface runoff would be greatest for the first runoff event following treatment. The 

rainfall intensity and route of water infiltration into soil, to a large extent, determine pesticide 

concentrations and losses in surface runoff. The timing of the rainfall after application also 

would have an effect. Rainfall interacts with pesticides at a shallow soil depth (1⁄4 to 1⁄2 inch), 

which is called the mixing zone (Baker and Miller 1999). The pesticide/water mixture in the 

mixing zone would tend to leach down into the soil or runoff depending upon how quickly 

the soil surface becomes saturated and how rapidly water can infiltrate into the soil. Leaching 

would decrease the amount of pesticide available near the soil surface (mixing zone) to 

runoff during the initial rainfall event following application and subsequent rainfall events. 

 Terrain slope would affect the potential for surface runoff and the intensity of runoff. Steeper 

slopes would have greater potential for runoff following a rainfall event. In contrast, soils that 

are relatively flat would have little potential for runoff, except during intense rainfall events. 

In addition, soils in lower areas would be more susceptible to leaching as a result of receiving 

excessive water from surrounding higher elevations. 

 Depth to groundwater would be an important factor affecting the potential for pesticides to 

leach into groundwater. If the distance from the soil surface to the top of the water table is 

shallow, pesticides would have less distance to travel to reach groundwater. Shallower water 

tables that persist for longer periods would be more likely to experience groundwater 

contamination. Soil survey reports are available for individual counties. These reports 

provide data in tabular format regarding the water table depths and the months during which 

it is persists. In some situations, a hard pan exists above the water table that would prevent 

pesticide contamination from leaching. 

F.8.5 Determining Effects to Air Quality 

Pesticides may volatilize from soil and plant surfaces and move from the treated area into the 

atmosphere. The potential for a pesticide to volatilize is determined by the pesticide’s vapor pressure 

which would be affected by temperature, sorption, soil moisture, and the pesticide’s water solubility. 

Vapor pressure is often expressed in mm Hg. To make these numbers easier to compare, vapor 

pressure may be expressed in exponent form (I x 10-7), where I represents a vapor pressure index. In 

general, pesticides with I<10 would have a low potential to volatilize; whereas, pesticides with 

I>1,000 would have a high potential to volatilize (Oregon State University 1996). Vapor pressure 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

F-34 Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

values for pesticides are usually available in the pesticide product MSDS or the USDA Agricultural 

Research Service (ARS) pesticide database. 

F.8.6 Preparing a Chemical Profile 

The following instructions would be used by Service personnel to complete Chemical Profiles for 

pesticides. Specifically, profiles would be prepared for pesticide active ingredients (e.g., glyphosate, 

imazapic) that would be contained in one or more trade name products that are registered and labeled 

with USEPA. All information fields under each category (e.g., Toxicological Endpoints, 

Environmental Fate) would be completed for a Chemical Profile. If no information is available for a 

specific field, then “No data is available in references” would be recorded in the profile. Available 

scientific information would be used to complete Chemical Profiles. Each entry of scientific 

information would be shown with applicable references. 

Completed Chemical Profiles would provide a structured decision-making process using quantitative 

assessment/screening tools with threshold values (where appropriate) that would be used to evaluate 

potential biological and other environmental effects to refuge resources. For ecological risk 

assessments presented in these profiles, the “worst-case scenario” would be evaluated to determine 

whether a pesticide could be approved for use considering the maximum single application rate 

specified on pesticide labels for habitat management and croplands/facilities maintenance treatments 

pertaining to refuges. Where the “worst-case scenario” likely would only result in minor, temporary, 

and localized effects to listed and non-listed species with appropriate BMPs (see Section 5.0), the 

proposed pesticide’s use in a PUP would have a scientific basis for approval under any application 

rate specified on the label that is at or below rates evaluated in a Chemical Profile. In some cases, the 

Chemical Profile would include a lower application rate than the maximum labeled rate in order to 

protect refuge resources. As necessary, Chemical Profiles would be periodically updated with new 

scientific information or as pesticides with the same active ingredient are proposed for use on the 

refuge in PUPs. 

Throughout this section, threshold values (to prevent or minimize potential biological and 

environmental effects) would be clearly identified for specific information presented in a completed 

Chemical Profile. Comparison with these threshold values provides an explicit scientific basis to 

approve or disapprove PUPs for habitat management and cropland/facilities maintenance on refuge 

lands. In general, PUPs would be approved for pesticides with Chemical Profiles where there would 

be no exceedances of threshold values. However, BMPs are identified for some screening tools that 

would minimize/eliminate potential effects (exceedance of the threshold value) as a basis for 

approving PUPs. 

Date: Service personnel would record the date when the Chemical Profile is completed or updated. 

Chemical Profiles (e.g., currently approved pesticide use patterns) would be periodically reviewed 

and updated, as necessary. The most recent review date would be recorded on a profile to document 

when it was last updated. 

Trade Name(s): Service personnel would accurately and completely record the trade name(s) from 

the pesticide label, which includes a suffix that describes the formulation (e.g., WP, DG, EC, L, SP, 

I, II or 64). The suffix often distinguishes a specific product among several pesticides with the same 

active ingredient. Service personnel would record a trade name for each pesticide product with the 

same active ingredient. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan F-35 

Common chemical name(s): Service personnel would record the common name(s) listed on the 

pesticide label or material safety data sheet (MSDS) for an active ingredient. The common name of a 

pesticide is listed as the active ingredient on the title page of the product label immediately following 

the trade name, and the MSDS, Section 2: Composition/Information on Ingredients. A Chemical 

Profile is completed for each active ingredient. 

Pesticide Type: Service personnel would record the type of pesticide for an active ingredient as one 

of the following: herbicide, desiccant, fungicide, fumigant, growth regulator, insecticide, piscicide, or 

rodenticide. 

EPA Registration Number(s): This number (EPA Reg. No.) appears on the title page of the label 

and MSDS, Section 1: Chemical Product and Company Description. It is not the EPA Establishment 

Number that is usually located near it. Service personnel would record the EPA Reg. No. for each 

trade name product with an active ingredient based upon PUPs. 

Pesticide Class: Service personnel would list the general chemical class for the pesticide (active 

ingredient). For example, malathion is an organophosphate and carbaryl is a carbamate. 

CAS (Chemical Abstract Service) Number: This number is often located in the second section 

(Composition/Information on Ingredients) of the MSDS. The MSDS table listing components usually 

contains this number immediately prior to or following the % composition. 

Other Ingredients: From the most recent MSDS for the proposed pesticide product(s), Service 

personnel would include any chemicals in the pesticide formulation not listed as an active ingredient 

that are described as toxic or hazardous, or regulated under the Superfund Amendments and 

Reauthorization Act (SARA), Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA), Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA), State Right-to-Know, or other listed authorities. These are usually found in 

MSDS sections titled “Hazardous Identifications”, “Exposure Control/Personal Protection”, and 

“Regulatory Information”. If concentrations of other ingredients are available for any compounds 

identified as toxic or hazardous, then Service personnel would record this information in the 

Chemical Profile by trade name. MSDS(s) may be obtained from the manufacturer, manufacturer’s 

website or from an on-line database maintained by Crop Data Management Systems, Inc. (see list 

below). 

Toxicological Endpoints 

Toxicological endpoint data would be collected for acute and chronic tests with mammals, birds, and 

fish. Data would be recorded for species available in the scientific literature. If no data are found for 

a particular taxonomic group, then “No data available is references” would be recorded as the data 

entry. Throughout the Chemical Profile, references (including toxicological endpoint data) would be 

cited using parentheses (#) following the recorded data. 

Mammalian LD50: For test species in the scientific literature, Service personnel would record 

available data for oral lethal dose (LD50) in mg/kg-bw (body weight) or ppm-bw. Most common test 

species in scientific literature are the rat and mouse. The lowest LD50 value found for a rat would be 

used as a toxicological endpoint for dose-based RQ calculations to assess acute risk to mammals (see 

Table 1 in Section 7.1). 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

F-36 Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

Mammalian LC50: For test species in the scientific literature, Service personnel would record 

available data for dietary lethal concentration (LC50) as reported (e.g., mg/kg-diet or ppm-diet). Most 

common test species in scientific literature are the rat and mouse. The lowest LC50 value found for a 

rat would be used as a toxicological endpoint for diet-based RQ calculations to assess acute risk (see 

Table 1 in Section 7.1). 

Mammalian Reproduction: For test species listed in the scientific literature, Service personnel 

would record the test results (e.g., Lowest Observed Effect Concentration [LOEC], Lowest Observed 

Effect Level [LOEL], No Observed Adverse Effect Level [NOAEL], No Observed Adverse Effect 

Concentration [NOAEC]) in mg/kg-bw or mg/kg-diet for reproductive test procedure(s) (e.g., 

generational studies [preferred], fertility, new born weight). Most common test species available in 

scientific literature are rats and mice. The lowest NOEC, NOAEC, NOEL, or NOAEL test results 

found for a rat would be used as a toxicological endpoint for RQ calculations to assess chronic risk 

(see Table 1 in Section 7.1). 

Avian LD50: For test species available in the scientific literature, Service personnel would record 

values for oral lethal dose (LD50) in mg/kg-bw or ppm-bw. Most common test species available in 

scientific literature are the bobwhite quail and mallard. The lowest LD50 value found for an avian 

species would be used as a toxicological endpoint for dose-based RQ calculations to assess acute risk 

(see Table 1 in Section 7.1). 

Avian LC50: For test species available in the scientific literature, Service personnel would record 

values for dietary lethal concentration (LC50) as reported (e.g., mg/kg-diet or ppm-diet). Most 

common test species available in scientific literature are the bobwhite quail and mallard. The lowest 

LC50 value found for an avian species would be used as a toxicological endpoint for dietary-based 

RQ calculations to assess acute risk (see Table 1 in Section 7.1). 

Avian Reproduction: For test species available in the scientific literature, Service personnel would

record test results (e.g., LOEC, LOEL, NOAEC, NOAEL) in mg/kg-bw or mg/kg-diet consumed for 

reproductive test procedure(s) (e.g., early life cycle, reproductive). Most common test species 

available in scientific literature are the bobwhite quail and mallard. The lowest NOEC, NOAEC, 

NOEL, or NOAEL test results found for an avian species would be used as a toxicological endpoint 

for RQ calculations to assess chronic risk (see Table 1 in Section 7.1). 

Fish LC50: For test freshwater or marine species listed in the scientific literature, Service personnel 

would record a LC50 in ppm or mg/L. Most common test species available in the scientific literature 

are the bluegill, rainbow trout, and fathead minnow (marine). Test results for many game species 

may also be available. The lowest LC50 value found for a freshwater fish species would be used as a 

toxicological endpoint for RQ calculations to assess acute risk (see Table 1 in Section 7.1). 

Fish Early Life Stage (ELS)/Life Cycle: For test freshwater or marine species available in the 

scientific literature, Service personnel would record test results (e.g., LOEC, NOAEL, NOAEC, 

LOAEC) in ppm for test procedure(s) (e.g., early life cycle, life cycle). Most common test species 

available in the scientific literature are bluegill, rainbow trout, and fathead minnow. Test results for 

other game species may also be available. The lowest test value found for a fish species (preferably 

freshwater) would be used as a toxicological endpoint for RQ calculations to assess chronic risk (see 

Table 1 in Section 7.1). 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan F-37 

Other: For test invertebrate as well as non-vascular and vascular plant species available in the 

scientific literature, Service personnel would record LC50, LD50, LOEC, LOEL, NOAEC, NOAEL, or 

EC50 (environmental concentration) values in ppm or mg/L. Most common test invertebrate species 

available in scientific literature are the honey bee and the water flea (Daphnia magna). Green algae 

(Selenastrum capricornutum) and pondweed (Lemna minor) are frequently available test species for 

aquatic non-vascular and vascular plants, respectively. 

Ecological Incident Reports: After a site has been treated with pesticide(s), wildlife may be 

exposed to these chemical(s). When exposure is high relative to the toxicity of the pesticides, wildlife 

may be killed or visibly harmed (incapacitated). Such events are called ecological incidents. The 

USEPA maintains a database (Ecological Incident Information System) of ecological incidents. This 

database stores information extracted from incident reports submitted by various Federal and state 

agencies and non-government organizations. Information included in an incident report is date and 

location of the incident, type and magnitude of effects observed in various species, use(s) of 

pesticides known or suspected of contributing to the incident, and results of any chemical residue and 

cholinesterase activity analyses conducted during the investigation. 

Incident reports can play an important role in evaluating the effects of pesticides by supplementing 

quantitative risk assessments. All incident reports for pesticide(s) with the active ingredient and 

associated information would be recorded. 

Environmental Fate 

Water Solubility: Service personnel would record values for water solubility (Sw), which describes 

the amount of pesticide that dissolves in a known quantity of water. Sw is expressed as mg/L (ppm). 

Pesticide Sw values would be categorized as one of the following: insoluble <0.1 ppm, moderately 

soluble = 100 to 1000 ppm, highly soluble >10,000 ppm (USGS 2000). As pesticide Sw increases, 

there would be greater potential to degrade water quality through runoff and leaching. 

Sw would be used to evaluate potential for bioaccumulation in aquatic species [see Octanol-Water 

Partition Coefficient (Kow) below]. 

Soil Mobility: Service personnel would record available values for soil adsorption coefficient (Koc

[μg/g]). It provides a measure of a chemical's mobility and leaching potential in soil. Koc values are 

directly proportional to organic content, clay content, and surface area of the soil. Koc data for a 

pesticide may be available for a variety of soil types (e.g., clay, loam, sand). 

Koc values would be used in evaluating the potential to degrade groundwater by leaching (see

Potential to Move to Groundwater below).

Soil Persistence: Service personnel would record values for soil half-life (t1⁄2), which represents the 

length of time (days) required for 50 percent of the deposited pesticide to degrade (completely or 

partially) in the soil. Based upon the t1⁄2 value, soil persistence would be categorized as one of the 

following: non-persistent <30 days, moderately persistent = 30 to 100 days, and persistent >100 days 

(Kerle et al. 1996). 

Threshold for Approving PUPs: 

If soil t1⁄2 ≤100 days, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs to protect water 

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

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

F-38 Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

If soil t1⁄2 >100 days, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs specifically to 

protect water quality. One or more BMPs such as the following would be included in the Specific 

Best Management Practices (BMPs) section to minimize potential surface runoff and leaching that 

can degrade water quality: 

 Do not exceed one application per site per year. 

 Do not use on coarse-textured soils where the groundwater table is <10 feet and average annual 

precipitation >12 inches. 

 Do not use on steep slopes if substantial rainfall is expected within 24 hours or ground is 

saturated. 

Along with Koc, soil t1⁄2 values would be used in evaluating the potential to degrade groundwater by 

leaching (see Potential to Move to Groundwater below). 

Soil Dissipation: Dissipation time (DT50) represents the time required for 50 percent of the deposited 

pesticide to degrade and move from a treated site; whereas, soil t1⁄2 describes the rate for degradation 

only. As for t1⁄2, units of dissipation time are usually expressed in days. Field dissipation time would 

be the preferred data for use to estimate pesticide concentrations in the environment because it is 

based upon field studies compared to soil t1⁄2, which is derived in a laboratory. However, soil t1⁄2 is the 

most common persistence data available in the published literature. If field dissipation data is not 

available, soil half-life data would be used in a Chemical Profile. The average or representative halflife value of most important degradation mechanism would be selected for quantitative analysis for 

both terrestrial and aquatic environments. 

Based upon the DT50 value, environmental persistence in the soil also would be categorized as one of 

the following: non-persistent <30 days, moderately persistent = 30 to 100 days, and persistent >100 

days. 

Threshold for Approving PUPs: 

If soil DT50 ≤100 days, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs to protect water 

quality. 

If soil DT50 >100 days, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs specifically to 

protect water quality. One or more BMPs such as the following would be included in the Specific 

Best Management Practices (BMPs) section to minimize potential surface runoff and leaching that 

can degrade water quality: 

 Do not exceed one application per site per year. 

 Do not use on coarse-textured soils where the groundwater table is <10 feet and average annual 

precipitation >12 inches. 

 Do not use on steep slopes if substantial rainfall is expected within 24 hours or ground is 

saturated. 

Along with Koc, soil DT50 values (preferred over soil t1⁄2) would be used in evaluating the potential to 

degrade groundwater by leaching (see Potential to Move to Groundwater below), if available. 

Aquatic Persistence: Service personnel would record values for aquatic t1⁄2, which represents the 

length of time required for 50 percent of the deposited pesticide to degrade (completely or partially) 

in water. Based upon the t1⁄2 value, aquatic persistence would be categorized as one of the following: 

non-persistent <30 days, moderately persistent = 30 to 100 days, and 

persistent >100 days (Kerle et al. 1996). 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan F-39 

Threshold for Approving PUPs: 

If aquatic t1⁄2 ≤100 days, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs to protect water 

quality. 

If aquatic t1⁄2 >100 days, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs specifically to 

protect water quality. One or more BMPs such as the following would be included in the Specific 

Best Management Practices (BMPs) section to minimize potential surface runoff and leaching that 

can degrade water quality: 

 Do not exceed one application per site per year. 

 Do not use on coarse-textured soils where the groundwater table is <10 feet and average annual 

precipitation >12 inches. 

 Do not use on steep slopes if substantial rainfall is expected within 24 hours or ground is 

saturated. 

Aquatic Dissipation: Dissipation time (DT50) represents the time required for 50 percent of the 

deposited pesticide to degrade or move (dissipate); whereas, aquatic t1⁄2 describes the rate for 

degradation only. As for t1⁄2, units of dissipation time are usually expressed in days. Based upon the 

DT50 value, environmental persistence in aquatic habitats also would be categorized as one of the 

following: non-persistent <30 days, moderately persistent = 30 to 100 days, and 

persistent >100 days. 

Threshold for Approving PUPs: 

If aquatic DT50 ≤100 days, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs to protect water 

quality. 

If aquatic DT50 >100 days, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs specifically to 

protect water quality. One or more BMPs such as the following would be included in the Specific 

Best Management Practices (BMPs) section to minimize potential surface runoff and leaching that 

can degrade water quality: 

 Do not exceed one application per site per year. 

 Do not use on coarse-textured soils where the groundwater table is <10 feet and average annual 

precipitation >12 inches. 

 Do not use on steep slopes if substantial rainfall is expected within 24 hours or ground is 

saturated. 

Potential to Move to Groundwater: Groundwater Ubiquity Score (GUS) = log10(soil t 1⁄2) x [4 – 

log10(Koc)]. If a DT50 value is available, it would be used rather than a t 1⁄2 value to calculate a GUS 

score. Based upon the GUS value, the potential to move toward groundwater would be recorded as 

one of the following categories: extremely low potential<1.0, low - 1.0 to 2.0, moderate - 2.0 to 3.0, 

high - 3.0 to 4.0, or very high>4.0. 

Threshold for Approving PUPs: 

If GUS ≤4.0, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs to protect water quality. 

If GUS>4.0, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs specifically to protect water 

quality. One or more BMPs such as the following would be included in the Specific Best 

Management Practices (BMPs) section to minimize potential surface runoff and leaching that can 

degrade water quality: 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

F-40 Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

 Do not exceed one application per site per year. 

 Do not use on coarse-textured soils where the groundwater table is <10 feet and average annual 

precipitation >12 inches. 

 Do not use on steep slopes if substantial rainfall is expected within 24 hours or ground is 

saturated. 

Volatilization: Pesticides may volatilize (evaporate) from soil and plant surfaces and move off-target 

into the atmosphere. The potential for a pesticide to volatilize is a function of its vapor pressure that 

is affected by temperature, sorption, soil moisture, and the pesticide’s water solubility. Vapor 

pressure is often expressed in mm Hg. To make these values easier to compare, vapor pressure would 

be recorded by Service personnel in exponential form (I x 10-7), where I represents a vapor pressure 

index. In general, pesticides with I<10 would have low potential to volatilize; whereas, pesticides 

with I >1,000 would have a high potential to volatilize (Oregon State University 1996). Vapor 

pressure values for pesticides are usually available in the pesticide product MSDS or the USDA 

Agricultural Research Service (ARS) pesticide database (see References). 

Threshold for Approving PUPs: 

If I ≤1,000, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs to minimize drift and protect air 

quality. 

If I>1,000, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs specifically to minimize drift 

and protect air quality. One or more BMPs such as the following would be included in the Specific 

Best Management Practices (BMPs) section to reduce volatilization and potential to drift and 

degrade air quality: 

 Do not treat when wind velocities are <2 or >10 mph with existing or potential inversion 

conditions. 

 Apply the large-diameter droplets possible for spray treatments. 

 Avoid spraying when air temperatures >85o

F. 

 Use the lowest spray height possible above target canopy. 

 Where identified on the pesticide label, soil incorporate pesticide as soon as possible during or 

after application. 

Octanol-Water Partition Coefficient (Kow): The octanol-water partition coefficient (Kow) is the 

concentration of a pesticide in octanol and water at equilibrium at a specific temperature. Because octanol 

is an organic solvent, it is considered a surrogate for natural organic matter. Therefore, Kow would be used 

to assess potential for a pesticide to bioaccumulate in tissues of aquatic species (e.g., fish). If Kow >1,000 

or Sw<1 mg/L and soil t1⁄2>30 days, then there would be high potential for a pesticide to bioaccumulate in 

aquatic species such as fish (USGS 2000). 

Threshold for Approving PUPs: 

If there is not a high potential for a pesticide to bioaccumulate in aquatic species, then the PUP 

would be approved. 

If there is a high potential to bioaccumulate in aquatic species (Kow>1,000 or Sw<1 mg/L and soil 

t1⁄2>30 days), then the PUP would not approved, except under unusual circumstances where approval 

would only be granted by the Washington Office. 

Bioaccumulation/Bioconcentration: The physiological process where pesticide concentrations in 

tissue would increase in biota because they are taken and stored at a faster rate than they are 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan F-41 

metabolized or excreted. The potential for bioaccumulation would be evaluated through 

bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) or bioconcentration factors (BCFs). Based upon BAF or BCF 

values, the potential to bioaccumulate would be recorded as one of the following: low – 0 to 300, 

moderate – 300 to 1,000, or high >1,000 (Calabrese and Baldwin 1993). 

Threshold for Approving PUPs: 

If BAF or BCF≤1,000, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs. 

If BAF or BCF>1,000, then a PUP would not approved, except under unusual circumstances where 

approval would only be granted by the Washington Office. 

Worst-Case Ecological Risk Assessment 

Max Application Rates (acid equivalent): Service personnel would record the highest application 

rate of an active ingredient (ae basis) for habitat management and cropland/facilities maintenance 

treatments in this data field of a Chemical Profile. These rates can be found in Table CP.1 under the 

column heading “Max Product Rate – Single Application (lbs/acre – AI on acid equiv basis)”. This 

table would be prepared for a Chemical Profile from information specified in labels for trade name 

products identified in PUPs. If these data are not available in pesticide labels, then write “NS” for 

“not specified on label” in this table. 

EECs: An estimated environmental concentration (ECC) represents potential exposure to fish and 

wildlife (birds and mammals) from using a pesticide. EECs would be derived by Service personnel 

using an USEPA screening-level approach (USEPA 2004). For each max application rate [see 

description under Max Application Rates (acid equivalent)], Service personnel would record two 

EEC values in a Chemical Profile; these would represent the worst-case terrestrial and aquatic 

exposures for habitat management and croplands/facilities maintenance treatments. For terrestrial and 

aquatic EEC calculations, see description for data entry under Presumption of Unacceptable 

Risk/Risk Quotients, which is the next field for a Chemical Profile. 

Presumption of Unacceptable Risk/Risk Quotients: Service personnel would calculate and record 

acute and chronic risk quotients (RQs) for birds, mammals, and fish using the provided tabular 

formats for habitat management and/or cropland/facilities maintenance treatments. RQs recorded in a 

Chemical Profile would represent the worst-case assessment for ecological risk. See Section 7.2 for 

discussion regarding the calculations of RQs. 

For aquatic assessments associated with habitat management treatments, RQ calculations would be 

based upon selected acute and chronic toxicological endpoints for fish and the EEC would be derived 

from Urban and Cook (1986) assuming 100 percent overspray to an entire 1-foot deep water body 

using the max application rate (ae basis [see above]). 

For aquatic assessments associated with cropland/facilities maintenance treatments, RQ calculations 

would be done by Service personnel based upon selected acute and chronic toxicological endpoints 

for fish and an EEC would be derived from the aquatic assessment in AgDRIFT® model version 2.01 

under Tier I ground-based application with the following input variables: max application rate (acid 

basis [see above]), low boom (20 inches), fine to medium/coarse droplet size, 20 swaths, EPAdefined wetland, and 25-foot distance (buffer) from treated area to water. 

See Section 7.2.1.2 for more details regarding the calculation of EECs for aquatic habitats for habitat 

management and cropland/facilities maintenance treatments. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

F-42 Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

For terrestrial avian and mammalian assessments, RQ calculations would be done by Service 

personnel based upon dietary exposure, where the “short grass” food item category would represent 

the worst-case scenario. For terrestrial spray applications associated with habitat management and 

cropland/facilities maintenance treatments, exposure (EECs and RQs) would be determined using the 

Kanaga nomogram method through the USEPA’s T-REX version 1.2.3. T-REX input variables 

would include the following: max application rate (acid basis [see above]) and pesticide half-life 

(days) in soil to estimate the initial, maximum pesticide residue concentration on general food items 

for terrestrial vertebrate species in short (<20 cm [7.8 inches] tall) grass. 

For granular pesticide formulations and pesticide-treated seed with a unique route of exposure for 

terrestrial avian and mammalian wildlife, see Section 7.2.1.1.2 for the procedure that would be used 

to calculate RQs. 

All calculated RQs in both tables would be compared with Levels of Concern (LOCs) established by 

USEPA (see Table 2 in Section 7.2). If a calculated RQ exceeds an established LOC value (in 

brackets inside the table), then there would be a potential for an acute or chronic effect (unacceptable 

risk) to federally listed (T&E) species and nonlisted species. See Section 7.2 for detailed descriptions 

of acute and chronic RQ calculations and comparison to LOCs to assess risk. 

Threshold for approving PUPs: 

If RQs≤LOCs, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs. 

If RQs>LOCs, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs specifically to minimize 

exposure (ecological risk) to bird, mammal, and/or fish species. One or more BMPs such as the 

following would be included in the Specific Best Management Practices (BMPs) section to reduce 

potential risk to non-listed or listed species: 

 Lower application rate and/or fewer number of applications so RQs≤LOCs 

 For aquatic assessments (fish) associated with cropland/facilities maintenance, increase the 

buffer distance beyond 25 feet so RQs≤LOCs. 

Justification for Use: Service personnel would describe the reason for using the pesticide based 

control of specific pests or groups of pests. In most cases, the pesticide label will provide the 

appropriate information regarding control of pests to describe in the section. 

Specific Best Management Practices (BMPs): Service personnel would record specific BMPs 

necessary to minimize or eliminate potential effects to non-target species and/or degradation of 

environmental quality from drift, surface runoff, or leaching. These BMPs would be based upon 

scientific information documented in previous data fields of a Chemical Profile. Where necessary 

and feasible, these specific practices would be included in PUPs as a basis for approval. 

If there are no specific BMPs that are appropriate, then Service personnel would describe why the 

potential effects to refuge resources and/or degradation of environmental quality is outweighed by 

the overall resource benefit(s) from the proposed pesticide use in the BMP section of the PUP. See 

Section 4.0 of this document for a complete list of BMPs associated with mixing and applying 

pesticides appropriate for all PUPs with ground-based treatments that would be additive to any 

necessary, chemical-specific BMPs. 

References: Service personnel would record scientific resources used to provide data/information for 

a chemical profile. Use the number sequence to uniquely reference data in a chemical profile. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan F-43 

The following on-line data resources are readily available for toxicological endpoint and 

environmental fate data for pesticides: 

1. California Product/Label Database. Department of Pesticide Regulation, California Environmental 

Protection Agency. (http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/label/labelque.htm#regprods) 

2. ECOTOX database. Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, DC. (http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/) 

3. Extension Toxicology Network (EXTOXNET) Pesticide Information Profiles. Cooperative effort 

of University of California-Davis, Oregon State University, Michigan State University, Cornell 

University and University of Idaho through Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. 

(http://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/ghindex.html) 

4. FAO specifications and evaluations for plant protection products. Pesticide Management Unit, 

Plant Protection Services, Food and Agriculture Organization, United Nations. 

(http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/AGRICULT/AGP/AGPP/Pesticid/) 

5. Human health and ecological risk assessments. Pesticide Management and Coordination, Forest 

Health Protection, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. 

(http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/risk.htm) 

6. Pesticide Chemical Fact Sheets. Clemson University Pesticide Information Center. 

(http://entweb.clemson.edu/pesticid/Document/Labels/factshee.htm) 

7. Pesticide Fact Sheets. Published by Information Ventures, Inc. for Bureau of Land Management, 

Department of Interior; Bonneville Power Administration, U.S. Department of Energy; and 

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (http://infoventures.com/e-hlth/pesticide/pestfac.html) 

8. Pesticide Fact Sheets. National Pesticide Information Center. (http://npic.orst.edu/npicfact.htm) 

9. Pesticide Fate Database. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 

(http://cfpub.epa.gov/pfate/home.cfm). 

 

10. Pesticide product labels and material safety data sheets. Crop Data Management Systems, Inc. 

(CDMS) (http://www.cdms.net/pfa/LUpdateMsg.asp) or multiple websites maintained by 

agrichemical companies. 

11. Registered Pesticide Products (Oregon database). Oregon Department of Agriculture. 

(http://www.oda.state.or.us/dbs/pest_products/search.lasso) 

12. Regulatory notes. Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Health Canada, Ontario, Canada. 

(http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/pmra-arla/) 

13. Reptile and Amphibian Toxicology Literature. Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, 

Ontario, Canada. (http://www.cws-scf.ec.gc.ca/nwrc-cnrf/ratl/index_e.cfm) 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

F-44 Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

14. Specific Chemical Fact Sheet – New Active Ingredients, Biopesticide Fact Sheet and Registration 

Fact Sheet. U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 

(http://www.epa.gov/pestidides/factsheets/chemical_fs.htm) 

15. Weed Control Methods Handbook: Tools and Techniques for Use in Natural Areas. The Invasive 

Species Initiative. The Nature Conservancy. (http://tnsweeds.ucdavis.edu/handbook.html) 

16. Wildlife Contaminants Online. U.S. Geological Survey, Department of Interior, Washington, 

D.C. (http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/contaminants-online/) 

17. One-liner database. 2000. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Washington, D.C. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan F-45 

Chemical Profile 

Date: 

Trade Name(s): Common Chemical 

Name(s): 

Pesticide Type: EPA Registration 

Number: 

Pesticide Class: CAS Number: 

Other Ingredients: 

Toxicological Endpoints

Mammalian LD50: 

Mammalian LC50: 

Mammalian Reproduction: 

Avian LD50: 

Avian LC50: 

Avian Reproduction: 

Fish LC50: 

Fish ELS/Life Cycle: 

Other: 

Ecological Incident Reports 

Environmental Fate 

Water solubility (Sw): 

Soil Mobility (Koc): 

Soil Persistence (t1⁄2): 

Soil Dissipation (DT50): 

Aquatic Persistence (t1⁄2): 

Aquatic Dissipation (DT50): 

Potential to Move to Groundwater 

(GUS score): 

Volatilization (mm Hg): 

Octanol-Water Partition Coefficient 

(Kow): 

Bioaccumulation/Bioconcentration: BAF:` 

BCF: 

Worst Case Ecological Risk Assessment

Max Application 

Rate 

(ai lbs/acre – ae 

basis) 

Habitat Management: 

Croplands/Facilities Maintenance: 

EECs Terrestrial (Habitat Management): 

Terrestrial (Croplands/Facilities Maintenance): 

Aquatic (Habitat Management): 

Aquatic (Croplands/Facilities Maintenance): 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

F-46 Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

Habitat Management Treatments: 

Presumption of Unacceptable Risk Risk Quotient (RQ) 

Listed (T&E) 

Species 

Nonlisted Species 

Acute Birds [0.1] [0.5] 

Mammals [0.1] [0.5] 

Fish [0.05] [0.5] 

Chronic Birds [1] [1] 

Mammals [1] [1] 

Fish [1] [1] 

Cropland/Facilities Maintenance Treatments: 

Presumption of Unacceptable Risk Risk Quotient (RQ) 

Listed (T&E) 

Species Nonlisted Species 

Acute Birds [0.1] [0.5] 

Mammals [0.1] [0.5] 

Fish [0.05] [0.5] 

Chronic Birds [1] [1] 

Mammals [1] [1] 

Fish [1] [1] 

Justification for Use: 

Specific Best 

Management Practices 

(BMPs): 

References: 

Table CP.1 Pesticide Name

Trade 

Namea

Treatm

ent 

Typeb 

Max Product 

Rate – Single 

Application 

(lbs/acre or 

gal/acre) 

Max 

Product 

Rate -

Single 

Application 

(lbs/acre - 

AI on acid 

equiv basis) 

Max Number 

of 

Applications 

Per Season 

Max Product 

Rate Per 

Season 

(lbs/acre/seas

on or 

gal/acre/seas

on) 

Minimum 

Time 

Between 

Application

s (Days) 

 

a

From each label for a pesticide identified in pesticide use proposals (PUPs), Service personnel would record application information associated 

with possible/known uses on Service lands.b

Treatment type: H – habitat management or CF – cropland/facilities maintenance. If a pesticide is 

labeled for both types of treatments (uses), then record separate data for H and CF applications. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan F-47 

F.9 References 

AgDrift 2001. A user’s guide for AgDrift 2.04: a tiered approach for the assessment of spray drift of 

pesticides. Spray Drift Task Force, Macon, Missouri. 

ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry) U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services. 2004. Guidance Manual for the Assessment of Joint Toxic Action of Chemical 

Mixtures. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, ATSDR, 

Division of Toxicology. 62 pages plus appendices. 

Baehr, C.H. and C. Habig. 2000. Statistical evaluation of the UTAB database for use in terrestrial 

nontarget organism risk assessment. 10th Symposium on Environmental Toxicology and Risk 

Assessment, American Society of Testing and Materials. 

Baker, J. and G. Miller. 1999. Understanding and reducing pesticide losses. Extension Publication 

PM 1495, Iowa State University Extension, Ames, Iowa. 6 pages. 

Barry, T. 2004. Characterization of propanil prune foliage residues as related to propanil use patterns 

in the Sacramento Valley, CA. Proceedings of the International Conference on Pesticide 

Application for Drift Management. Waikoloa, Hawaii. 15 pages. 

Battaglin, W.A., E.M. Thurman, S.J. Kalkhoff, and S.D. Porter. 2003. Herbicides and 

Transformation Products in Surface Waters of the Midwestern United States. Journal of the 

American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 39(4):743-756. 

Beyer, W.N., E.E. Connor, and S. Gerould. 1994. Estimates of soil ingestion by wildlife. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 58:375-382. 

Brooks, M.L., C.M. D'Antonio, D.M. Richardson, J.B. Grace, J.E. Keeley, J.M. DiTomaso, R.J. 

Hobbs, M. Pellant, and D. Pyke. 2004. Effects of invasive alien plants on fire regimes. 

BioScience 54:77-88. 

BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 2007. Vegetation treatments using herbicides on Bureau of 

Land Management Lands in 17 western states Programmatic EIS (PEIS). Washington Office, 

Bureau of Land Management. 

Butler, T., W. Martinkovic, and O.N. Nesheim. 1998. Factors influencing pesticide movement to 

ground water. Extension Publication PI-2, University of Florida, Cooperative Extension 

Service, Gainesville, FL. 4 pages. 

Calabrese, E.J. and L.A. Baldwin. 1993. Performing Ecological Risk Assessments. Lewis Publishers, 

Chelsea, MI. 

Center, T.D., J.H. Frank, and F.A. Dray Jr. 1997. Biological Control. Strangers in Paradise: Impact 

and Management of Nonindigenous Species in Florida. P.245-263. 

Cox, R.D. and V.J. Anderson. 2004. Increasing native diversity of cheatgrass-dominated rangeland 

through assisted succession. Journal of Range Management 57:203-210. 

Coombs, E.M., J.K Clark, G.L. Piper, and A.F. Cofrancesco Jr. 2004. Biological control of invasive 

plants in the United States. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, 467 pages. 

Driver, C.J., M.W. Ligotke, P. Van Voris, B.D. McVeety, B.J. Greenspan, and D.B. Brown. 1991. 

Routes of uptake and their relative contribution to the toxicologic response of northern 

bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) to an organophosphate pesticide. Environmental Toxicology 

and Chemistry 10:21-33. 

Dunning, J.B. 1984. Body weights of 686 species of North American birds. Western Bird Banding 

Association. Monograph No. 1. 

EXTOXNET. 1993. Movement of pesticides in the environment. Pesticide Information Project of 

Cooperative Extension Offices of Cornell University, Oregon State University, University of 

Idaho, University of California – Davis, and the Institute for Environmental Toxicology, 

Michigan State University. 4 pages. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

F-48 Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

Fletcher, J.S., J.E. Nellessen, and T.G. Pfleeger. 1994. Literature review and evaluation of the EPA 

food-chain (Kenaga) nomogram, and instrument for estimating pesticide residue on plants. 

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 13:1381-1391. 

Hasan, S. and P.G. Ayres. 1990. The control of weeds through fungi: principles and 

prospects. Tansley Review 23:201-222. 

Huddleston, J.H. 1996. How soil properties affect groundwater vulnerability to pesticide 

contamination. EM 8559. Oregon State University Extension Service. 4 pages. 

Kerle, E.A., J.J. Jenkins, and P.A. Vogue. 1996. Understanding pesticide persistence and mobility for 

groundwater and surface water protection. EM 8561. Oregon State University Extension 

Service. 8 pages. 

Masters, R.A. and R.L. Sheley. 2001. Invited synthesis paper: principles and practices for managing 

rangeland invasive plants. Journal of Range Manage 54:502-517. 

Masters, R.A., S.J. Nissen, R.E. Gaussoin, D.D. Beran, and R.N. Stougaard. 1996. Imidazolinone 

herbicides improve restoration of Great Plains grasslands. Weed Technology 10:392-403. 

Maxwell, B.D., E. Lehnhoff, and L.J. Rew. 2009. The rationale for monitoring invasive plant 

populations as a crucial step for management. Invasive Plant Science and Management 2:1-9. 

Mineau, P., B.T. Collins, and A. Baril. 1996. On the use of scaling factors to improve interspecies 

extrapolation to acute toxicity in birds. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 24:24-29. 

Moody, M.E. and R.N. Mack. 1988. Controlling the spread of plant invasions: the importance of 

nascent foci. Journal of Applied Ecology 25:1009-1021. 

Morse, L.E., J.M. Randall, N. Benton, R. Hiebert, and S. Lu. 2004. An Invasive Species Assessment 

Protocol: NatureServe. 

Mullin, B.H., L.W. Anderson, J.M. DiTomaso, R.E. Eplee, and K.D. Getsinger. 2000. 

Invasive Plant Species. Issue Paper (13):1-18. 

Oregon State University. 1996. EXTOXNET-Extension Toxicology Network, Pesticide Information 

Profiles. Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. 

Pfleeger, T.G., A. Fong, R. Hayes, H. Ratsch, and C. Wickliff. 1996. Field evaluation of the EPA 

(Kanaga) nomogram, a method for estimating wildlife exposure to pesticide residues on 

plants. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 15:535-543. 

Pope, R., J. DeWitt, and J. Ellerhoff. 1999. Pesticide movement: what farmers need to know. 

Extension Publication PAT 36, Iowa State University Extension, Ames, Iowa and Iowa 

Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, Des Moines, Iowa. 6 pages. 

Ramsay, C.A., G.C. Craig, and C.B. McConnell. 1995. Clean water for Washington – protecting 

groundwater from pesticide contamination. Extension Publication EB1644, Washington State 

University Extension, Pullman, Washington. 12 pages. 

SDTF (Spray Drift Task Force). 2003. A summary of chemigation application studies. Spray Drift 

Task Force, Macon, Missouri. 

Teske, M.E., S.L. Bird, D.M. Esterly, S.L. Ray, and S.G. Perry. 1997. A User's Guide for 

AgDRIFTTM 1.0: A Tiered Approach for the Assessment of Spray Drift of Pesticides, 

Technical Note No. 95-10, CDI, Princeton, New Jersey. 

Teske, M.E., S.L. Bird, D.M. Esterly, T.B. Curbishley, S.L. Ray, and S.G. Perry. 2002. AgDRIFT®: 

a model for estimating near-field spray drift from aerial applications. Environmental 

Toxicology and Chemistry 21: 659-671. 

Urban, D.J and N.J. Cook. 1986. Ecological risk assessment. EPA 540/9-85-001. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington D.C. 94 pages. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1990. Laboratory Test Methods of Exposure to 

Microbial Pest Control Agents by the Respiratory Route to Nontarget Avian Species. 

Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR. EPA/600/3-90/070.USEPA (U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency). 1998. A Comparative Analysis of Ecological Risks from 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan F-49 

Pesticides and Their Uses: Background, Methodology & Case Study. Environmental Fate & 

Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, D.C. 105 pages. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2004. Overview of the ecological risk assessment 

process in the Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: 

endangered and threatened species effects determinations, Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Washington, DC. 101 pages. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2005a. Technical overview of ecological risk 

assessment risk characterization; Approaches for evaluating exposure; Granular, bait, and 

treated seed applications. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide 

Programs, Washington, DC. 

http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/ecorisk_ders/toera_analysis_exp.htm. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2005b. User’s Guide TREX v1.2.3. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC. 22 pages. 

http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/terrestrial/trex_usersguide.htm. 

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2000. Pesticides in stream sediment and aquatic biota – current 

understanding of distribution and major influences. USGS Fact Sheet 092-00, U.S. 

Geological Survey, Sacramento, California. 4 pages. 

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 2005. Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program 

Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants Final Environmental Impact Statement. 359 pages. 

Wauchope, R.D., T.M. Buttler, A.G. Hornsby, P.M. Augustijn-Beckers, and J.P. Burt. 1992. The 

SCS/ARS/CES pesticide properties database for environmental decision making. Reviews of 

Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 123:1-155. 

Woods, N. 2004. Australian developments in spray drift management. Proceedings of the 

International Conference on Pesticide Application for Drift Management, Waikoloa, Hawaii. 

8 pages. 

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

F-50 Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

This page intentionally left blank.
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Fire Management Plan G-1 

Appendix G. Fire Management Plan 

FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN 

SOUTHEAST IDAHO NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COMPLEX 

Camas National Wildlife Refuge 

Grays Lake National Wildlife Refuge Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge Minidoka National Wildlife Refuge Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Pacific Northwest Region 

March 2009
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-2 Appendix G. Fire Management Plan 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Fire Management Plan G-3 

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-4 Appendix G. Fire Management Plan 

Table of Contents

1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 6

1.1 Purpose of the Fire Management Plan (FMP) ........................................................................ 6

1.2 General Description of the Area in the Fire Management Plan .............................................. 6

1.3 Significant Values To Protect ................................................................................................. 7

2 Policy, Land Management Planning, and Partnerships ................................................................ 7

2.1 Implementation of Fire Policy ................................................................................................ 7

2.1.1 Federal Interagency Wildland Fire Policy ...................................................................... 7

2.1.2 National Fire Plan ........................................................................................................... 8

2.1.3 Department of Interior (DOI) Fire Policy ....................................................................... 8

2.1.4 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fire Policy ..................................................................... 8

2.2 Land/Resource Management Policy ....................................................................................... 9

2.2.1 Agency Land Management Documents .......................................................................... 9

2.2.2 Compliance with Regulatory Acts .................................................................................. 9

2.3 Fire Management Partnerships ............................................................................................. 10

2.3.1 Internal Partnerships ..................................................................................................... 10

2.3.2 External Partnerships .................................................................................................... 10

3 Fire Management Unit Characteristics ....................................................................................... 11

3.1 Area Wide Management Considerations .............................................................................. 11

3.1.1 Management Goals, Objectives and Constraints from CCPs and other planning 

documents .................................................................................................................................... 11

3.1.2 Management Goals, Objectives, and Constraints from other Sources .......................... 12

3.1.3 Common Characteristics of the Fire Management Units .............................................. 13

3.2 Fire Management Units ........................................................................................................ 16

3.2.1 Bear Lake FMU Characteristics .................................................................................... 17

3.2.2 Bear Lake FMU Fire Environment ............................................................................... 18

3.2.3 Bear Lake FMU Objectives and Constraints ................................................................ 19

3.2.4 Bear Lake FMU Values to Protect ................................................................................ 19

3.2.5 Camas FMU Characteristics ......................................................................................... 19

3.2.6 Camas FMU Fire Environment ..................................................................................... 20

3.2.7 Camas FMU Objectives and Constraints ...................................................................... 20

3.2.8 Camas FMU Values to Protect ...................................................................................... 21

3.2.9 Grays Lake FMU Description ....................................................................................... 21

3.2.10 Grays Lake FMU Fire Environment ............................................................................. 22

3.2.11 Grays Lake FMU Objectives and Constraints .............................................................. 22

3.2.12 Grays Lake FMU Values to Protect .............................................................................. 23

3.2.13 Minidoka FMU Description .......................................................................................... 23

3.2.14 Minidoka FMU Fire Environment ................................................................................ 24

3.2.15 Minidoka FMU Objectives and Constraints ................................................................. 24

3.2.16 Minidoka FMU Values to Protect ................................................................................. 24

3.2.17 Oxford Slough FMU Description ................................................................................. 25

3.2.18 Oxford Slough FMU Fire Environment ........................................................................ 25

3.2.19 Oxford Slough FMU Objectives and Constraints ......................................................... 26
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Fire Management Plan G-5 

3.2.20 Oxford Slough FMU Values to Protect ......................................................................... 26

4 Wildland Fire Operational Guidance .......................................................................................... 26

4.1.1 Appropriate Management Response ............................................................................. 26

4.1.2 Preparedness .................................................................................................................. 27

4.1.3 Detection ....................................................................................................................... 28

4.1.4 Dispatch, Initial Response and Initial Attack ................................................................ 29

4.1.5 Extended Attack and Large Fire Management .............................................................. 29

4.1.6 Aviation Operations ...................................................................................................... 29

4.1.7 Reviews and Investigations ........................................................................................... 30

4.1.8 Reports .......................................................................................................................... 30

4.2 Hazardous Fuels Management .............................................................................................. 30

4.2.1 Prescribed Fire Program for Hazardous Fuels and Habitats ......................................... 30

4.2.2 Non-fire Hazardous Fuels Treatment Program ............................................................. 33

4.2.3 Process to Identify Hazardous Fuels Treatments .......................................................... 34

4.3 Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation ........................................................................ 34

4.4 Prevention, Mitigation and Education .................................................................................. 35

5 Monitoring and Evaluation ......................................................................................................... 37

5.1 Fire Management Plan .......................................................................................................... 37

5.1.1 Annual FMP Review ..................................................................................................... 37

5.1.2 Fire Management Plan Terminology ............................................................................ 37

5.2 Treatment Effectiveness ....................................................................................................... 37
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-6 Appendix G. Fire Management Plan 

G.1 Introduction 

G.1.1 Purpose of the Fire Management Plan (FMP) 

This plan is written to meet Department and US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) requirements that 

every area with burnable vegetation must have an approved fire management plan (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 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). 

Completion of a 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 assure that wildland fire management goals and components 

are coordinated. 

G.1.2 General Description of the Area in the Fire Management Plan 

The Southeast Idaho National Wildlife Refuge Complex is comprised of four wildlife refuges and 

one waterfowl production area. The Complex is located in the southeastern portion of Idaho ranging 

from Bear Lake NWR on the Utah border to Camas NWR near the Montana border, (Complex map 

in appendix A). Refuges included in this Fire Management Plan: 

 Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) 

 Camas NWR 

 Grays Lake NWR 

 Minidoka NWR and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area (WPA). 

The Complex is diverse both ecologically and geographically. Habitats range from low elevations of 

the Snake River Plain to the high elevation of the inter-montane habitats of the Rocky Mountains. 

The Complex office is located in Chubbuck, Idaho; each refuge also has an onsite office with the 

exception of Oxford Slough WPA. 

The refuges in the Complex provide 71,331 acres of wetland, grassland, open water and shrub steppe 

habitats vital to waterfowl and other migratory and resident wildlife of the Inter Mountain West 

Region. In an area highly impacted by agricultural development, wetlands and shrub steppe habitats 

on the Complex are extremely significant. Each refuge has a unique component of wildlife depending 

upon the composition of various habitat types. A significant proportion of the available wetland 

habitat in Southeast Idaho is found within the boundaries of the Complex. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Fire Management Plan G-7 

Management emphasis on the Complex is on biodiversity including migratory waterfowl (nesting 

Canada geese, ducks and cranes), colonial waterbirds (white-faced ibis, American white pelicans and 

Franklin gulls), trumpeter swans migratory land birds, and fish (Bonneville cutthroat trout). 

G.1.3 Significant Values To Protect 

Key critical values to protect: 

 The Complex refuges provide significant waterfowl habitat on the Pacific Flyway. 

 The refuges provide important breeding area for sandhill cranes, Canada geese, Franklin's 

gulls, white-faced ibis, and migratory land birds. 

 Each refuge in the Complex is adjacent to a federally listed Community at Risk. This 

designation identifies wildland/urban interface (WUI) communities within the vicinity of 

federal lands that are at risk from wildfire. A list of specific Communities at Risk is located 

in each individual FMU description (3.2 FMU Characteristics). 

 Refuge structures. 

 The Complex refuges provide important opportunities for visitor use, (bird watching, hunting 

and fishing). 

G.2 Policy, Land Management Planning, and Partnerships 

G.2.1 Implementation of Fire Policy 

Specific planning documents, legislation, organizations and associated policies provide guidance for 

fire management actions described in this FMP, summarized below.

G.2.1.1 Federal Interagency Wildland Fire Policy 

This FMP meets the federal wildland fire management policy by implementing these guiding 

principles: 

 Firefighter and public safety are the first priority in every fire management activity. 

 The role of wildland fire as an essential ecological process and natural change agent has been 

incorporated into the planning process. Federal agency land and resource management plans 

guiding documents that define the use and desired future condition on federal lands. 

 Fire management plans programs, and activities support land and resource management plans 

and their implementation. 

 Sound risk management is a foundation for all fire management activities. Risks and 

uncertainties relating to fire management activities are understood, analyzed, communicated, 

and managed as they relate to the cost of either doing or not doing an activity. 

 Fire management programs and activities are economically viable, based upon values to be 

protected, costs, and land and resource management objectives. 

 Fire management plans and activities are based upon the best available science. 

 Fire management plans and activities incorporate public health and environmental quality 

considerations. 

 Federal, state, tribal, local, interagency, and international coordination and cooperation are 

essential. 

 Standardization of policies and procedures among federal agencies is an ongoing objective 

supported in this FMP. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-8 Appendix G. Fire Management Plan 

G.2.1.2 National Fire Plan 

This FMP meets the policy and direction criteria in the 2001 National Fire Plan because it 

emphasizes the following primary goals of the 10 Year Comprehensive Strategy and Cohesive 

Strategy for Protecting People and Sustaining Natural Resources: 

 Improving fire prevention and suppression. 

 Reducing hazardous fuels. 

 Restoring fire-adapted ecosystems. 

 Promoting community assistance. 

G.2.1.3 Department of Interior (DOI) Fire Policy 

This FMP incorporates and adheres to DOI policy stated in 620 DM 1 by giving full consideration to 

use of wildland fire as a natural process and tool during the land management planning process and 

by providing for the following: 

 Wildland fires, whether on or adjacent to lands administered by the Department, which 

threaten life, improvements, or are determined to be a threat to natural and cultural resources 

or improvements under the Department's jurisdiction, will be considered emergencies and 

their suppression given priority over other Departmental programs. 

 Bureaus shall cooperate in the development of interagency preparedness plans to ensure 

timely recognition of approaching critical wildland fire situations; to establish processes for 

analyzing situations and establishing priorities, and for implementing appropriate 

management responses to these situations. 

 Bureaus will enforce rules and regulations concerning the unauthorized ignition of wildland 

fires, and aggressively pursue violations.

G.2.1.4 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fire Policy 

By addressing the range of potential wildland fire occurrences and including a full range of 

appropriate management responses, this FMP meets FWS wildland fire policy. It is consistent with 

the FWS Fire Management Handbook and the Interagency Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation 

Management Operations, which are supplemental policy. 

This plan affirms these key elements of FWS fire policy (621 FW 1): 

 Firefighter and public safety are the first priority of the wildland fire management program 

and all associated activities. 

 Only trained and qualified fire managers and agency administrators will be responsible for 

wildland fire management program activities. 

 Only trained and certified employees will participate in the wildland fire management 

program activities, and noncertified employees will provide needed support as necessary. 

 All interagency partners, to the extent practicable, should be involved with fire management 

planning, preparedness, wildfire and prescribed fire operations, monitoring, and research. 

 The responsible agency administrator has coordinated, reviewed, and approved this FMP to 

ensure consistency with approved land management plans, values to protect, and natural and 

cultural resource management plans and that it addressed public health issues related to 

smoke and air quality. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Fire Management Plan G-9 

 Fire, as an ecological process, has been integrated into resource management plans and 

activities on a landscape scale, across agency boundaries, based upon the best available 

science. 

 Wildland fire is used to meet identified resource management objectives and benefits when 

appropriate. 

 Prescribed fire and other treatments will be employed whenever they are the appropriate tool 

to reduce hazard fuels and the associated risk of wildfire to human life, property, and cultural 

and natural resources and to manage FWS lands for habitats as mandated by statute, treaty, 

and other authorities. 

 Appropriate management response will consider firefighter and public safety, cost 

effectiveness, values to protect, and natural and cultural resource objectives. 

 Staff members will work with local cooperators and the public to prevent unauthorized 

ignition of wildfires on our lands. 

G.2.2 Land/Resource Management Policy

G.2.2.1 Agency Land Management Documents 

The CCP process was started at Minidoka NWR in 2008; Camas, Grays Lake, Bear Lake, and 

Oxford Slough are scheduled to start in 2009. Until the CCP for Complex refuges is completed 

interim management guidance from existing land management documents will be used. 

Habitat management direction from other Complex Land Management Documents was used to 

develop this FMP. Other documents include: 

 2007 draft Habitat Management Plan for Bear Lake NWR and Oxford Slough WPA. 

 2006 draft Habitat Management Plan for Minidoka NWR. 

 1982 Master Plan and 1996 Grassland Management Environmental Assessment for Grays 

Lake NWR. 

 1995 Refuge Management Plan for Camas NWR. 

G.2.2.2 Compliance with Regulatory Acts 

Threatened and Endangered Species Compliance 

 A 2007 Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation for normal refuge operations including 

prescribed fire and mechanical fuels reduction projects has been signed by the Complex 

Project Leader for each of the refuges; copies are on file at the Complex headquarters. 

Cultural Resource Compliance 

 In order to comply with National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and Archeological 

Resources Preservation Act of 1979 regulations, a Request for Cultural Resource Compliance 

will be completed on a project by project basis and submitted to the regional office. The 

completed Cultural Resource Compliance documents are on file at individual refuge 

headquarters. 

NEPA Compliance 

 A Categorical Exclusion for fire management operations (wildland fire suppression, 

prescribed fire, and mechanical fuels reduction) was signed by the Complex Project Leader 

and attached in Appendix C This Categorical Exclusion applies to all five Complex refuges 

and will be reviewed annually.
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-10 Appendix G. Fire Management Plan 

Smoke Management Compliance 

 Referenced in section 4.2.1.5 

G.2.3 Fire Management Partnerships 

G.2.3.1 Internal Partnerships 

An interdisciplinary team, comprised of Complex staff members, is responsible for reviewing this 

fire management plan and making recommendations concerning wildland fire management projects 

and issues. 

G.2.3.2 External Partnerships 

Federal Cooperators: 

The Complex partners with the USDI Bureau of Land Management (BLM), USDA Forest Service 

(USFS) and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to coordinate fire suppression activities, dispatch 

services, and implementation of prescribed fire projects. The Complex refuges fall into two different 

interagency fire dispatch zones in southern Idaho. Camas, Grays Lake, Bear Lake, and Oxford 

Slough fire operations are coordinated through the Eastern Idaho Interagency Fire Center, (EIIFC); 

Minidoka fire operations are coordinated with the South Central Idaho Interagency Dispatch Center, 

(SCIIDC). The Grays Lake NWR fire crew and Complex FMO are dispatched through EIIFC. 

Interagency Agreements with EIIFC and SCIIDC are attached in Appendix F 

Fire Planning Analysis: 

Federal land management agencies have been directed to implement Phase 2 of Fire Planning 

Analysis (FPA) beginning in fiscal years 2008 and 2009. FPA is a fire management workload 

analysis system that uses simulation and modeling tools to project fire workload for Fire Planning 

Units (FPUs). Interagency cooperation is fostered to meet National Fire Plan goals and specific 

agency fire program budget needs. The complex refuges (Camas, Grays Lake, Bear Lake, Oxford 

Slough) are included in the Southeast Idaho FPU; Minidoka NWR is in the South Central Idaho FPU. 

Federal partners, including the BLM, USFS, BIA work collaboratively with the Service to implement 

this plan and meet National Fire Plan goals for wildland fire protection, landscape restoration, and 

hazard fuel mitigation measures. 

Idaho State Fire Plan Working Group: 

The Idaho State Fire Plan Working Group (ISFPWG) is a multi-agency collaborative body charged 

with assisting counties with their County Wildfire Protection Plans and their associated countywide 

working groups, dissemination of information, and oversight and prioritization of grant assistance 

programs in order to facilitate the implementation of the National Fire Plan in Idaho. The Regional 

Fire Outreach Coordinator housed at Deer Flat represents the FWS as a part of this group. They 

participate in ISFPWG subcommittees as appropriate. Subcommittees include those focused on fire 

education, restoration, and communication to promote state-wide projects and emphasis items. 

Idaho State Fire Plan Working Group: 

The Complex coordinates with the Federal and State members of the Idaho State Fire Plan Working 

Group ISFPWG to identify, fund, and implements fuels reductions projects in Wildland Urban 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Fire Management Plan G-11 

Interface (WUI) areas. Each county in Idaho has developed a County Wildfire Protection Plan 

(CWPP) that identifies potential fuel reduction opportunities/area. The CWPP are posted at this 

website Idaho Department of Lands CWPP. 

Bureau of Reclamation: 

A memorandum of understanding exists between Minidoka NWR and the Bureau of Reclamation 

(BOR) to outline joint responsibilities for the operation and management of the lands and waters 

within Lake Walcott at the Refuge. This MOU is on file at the Complex office. 

G.3 Fire Management Unit Characteristics 

A fire management unit (FMU) is an area that shares common objectives, 

physiological/biological/social characteristics and constraints, that result in desired conditions as 

stated in land management plans (i.e., CCP, HMP), which set it apart from the characteristics of an 

adjacent FMU. 

Considering fire history, occurrence, staff limitations, and the characteristics stated above, the 

wildland fire program complexity at the Complex is moderate. In the Complex, each refuge will be a 

separate Fire Management Unit.

G.3.1 Area Wide Management Considerations 

The following sections addresses management considerations for the FMUs including fire 

management objectives, constraints, fuels, fire regime and condition classes, standards, fire potential 

of major vegetation types, and burned area rehabilitation. 

G.3.1.1 Management Goals, Objectives and Constraints from CCPs and other planning 

documents 

The planning process for the Complex CCPs is scheduled to start in 2009; management goals and 

objectives were obtained from existing refuge plans. The following general fire management goals 

and objectives have been identified from the pre-CCP process. 

To the extent practicable, use prescribed fire in conjunction with water management, grazing, 

mowing, and/or other mechanical manipulations and chemical applications, on emergent wetland, 

woody riparian, herbaceous upland and/or wet meadow vegetation, in order to provide desirable 

vegetation species composition and/or structure, including, but not limited to: 

 Use hazardous fuels treatments to reduce the threat of wildfire to adjacent communities and 

Refuge infrastructure. 

 Decreasing noxious weeds. 

 Decreasing dense emergent wetland plants. 

 Increasing wetland water: vegetation interspersion ratios (20-60% open water). 

 Restoring native shrub communities. 

 Removing densely matted herbaceous vegetation and/or reducing dead or decadent woody 

vegetation so as to improve ecological conditions for native plants and native plant 

communities and the resident and migratory wildlife that depend on them.
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-12 Appendix G. Fire Management Plan 

G.3.1.2 Management Goals, Objectives, and Constraints from other Sources 

The following operational standards are pertinent to the Complex, as found in the FWS manual (095 FW 

3): 

 Manage fire suppression to minimize risks to firefighter and public safety. 

 An initial action and an appropriate management response are required for every wildfire on 

or threatening refuge lands. 

 The range of appropriate management responses to wildfires may include direct or indirect 

attack of high and/or low intensities or surveillance and monitoring to ensure fire spread will 

be limited to a designated area. 

 Reduce and maintain fuels in WUI areas to provide for public and firefighter health and 

safety. 

 Reduce and maintain fuels in non-WUI areas to provide for firefighter health and safety and 

to protect habitats critical to endangered species, migratory birds, and ecosystem integrity. 

 Use prescribed fire as a tool to restore ecosystem integrity and endangered species habitat. 

 Prepare and implement an effective fire prevention plan to minimize unwanted fires. 

 Investigate all unplanned human-caused fires. 

 Retardants and foams will not be used within 300 feet of any waterway. 

 Minimize and, where necessary, mitigate human-induced impacts to resources, natural 

processes, or improvements attributable to wildland fire activities. 

 Ground disturbed by suppression activities will be rehabilitated. 

 Heavy equipment use will be closely monitored in designated areas to minimize impacts on 

cultural resources. 

 Heavy equipment use will be closely coordinated with the Refuge Manager or resource 

advisor to limit habitat damage. Due to soft ground conditions many areas of the Complex 

are unsuitable to heavy equipment usage. 

 Prevent the further spread of invasive plants. 

 Maintain close working relationship with interagency partners to accomplish wildland fire 

suppression and prescribed fire treatments. 

 Maintain Intergovernmental Agreements with interagency partners for dispatch services. 

 Promote public understanding of refuge fire management programs and objectives. 

Cost Effectiveness 

Maximizing the cost effectiveness of any fire operation is the responsibility of all involved, including 

those that authorize, direct, or implement those operations. Cost effectiveness is the most economical 

use of the resources necessary to accomplish project/incident objectives. Accomplishing these 

objectives safely and efficiently will not be sacrificed for the sole purpose of “cost saving”. Care will 

be taken to ensure that expenditures are commensurate with values to be protected. Many factors 

outside of the biophysical environment may influence spending decisions, including those of the 

social, political, and economic realms. The following tools will be used to provide information to 

make the most cost effective decision possible: 

 Employ state-of-the-art decision support tools 

 Provide a clear description of Refuge objectives in this Fire Management Plan to aid in 

alternative development 

 Through cost-share agreements, distribute the decision process to all parties involved in 

wildland fire management 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Fire Management Plan G-13 

G.3.1.3 Common Characteristics of the Fire Management Units 

Climate 

The southeast Idaho climate can be described as semi-arid. The area climate varies between that of 

the Snake River Plain (SRP) and the higher elevation Eastern Mountain Region (EMR). Minidoka 

and Camas refuges are located in the SRP; Grays Lake, Bear Lake, and Oxford Slough are located in 

the EMR. The winter weather at the Complex refuges is characterized by below freezing 

temperatures and snow covered ground. Spring months are usually wet and windy; with weather 

conditions fluctuating quickly at times. Summer may begin suddenly with a rapid change to warm 

and dry weather. Thunderstorms are common from late spring through the summer months. These 

storms often produce very localized precipitation. Fall weather can be characterized by cooler/dry 

days. The yearly precipitation ranges from 9 inches in the SRP to over 15 inches in the EMR; 

average snow fall is 27 inches-SRP and 49-61 inches-EMR. 

Information in the climate tables below was gathered from weather stations in Hamer and Soda 

Springs Idaho and BLM/USFS/FWS RAWS stations in eastern Idaho. 

Snake River Plain Climate 

 Spring Summer Fall 

Average Max Temp (F) 59 87 62 

Average Min Temp (F) 27 47 26 

Average Mean Relative Humidity (%) 51 38 46 

Average Min Relative Humidity (%) 16 11 14 

Southeast Idaho Eastern Mountain Region Climate 

 Spring Summer Fall 

Average Max Temp (F) 54 83 59 

Average Min Temp (F) 26 44 26 

Average Mean Relative Humidity (%) 50 35 43 

Average Min Relative Humidity (%) 22 12 15 

See Appendix D for additional southeast Idaho climate charts and graphs. 

Vegetation 

The vegetation/habitat for the Complex refuges is described in the individual FMU Characteristics 

with acreage and percentages. The Complex vegetation types can be generally described as Marsh 

(FM 3), Grasslands (FM 1), and Shrub (FM 2/6). 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-14 Appendix G. Fire Management Plan 

 Bulrush Marsh – FM 3 Grasslands – FM 1 

 Sagebrush Steppe - Shrub FM 2/6 

Fire behavior outputs in the table below were from the BehavePlus 3.0.2 program. In this model, 

fires are assumed to be spreading as a series of steady state ignitions through uniform fuels under 

uniform weather conditions. Spread is also assumed to be from surface fire only. The fire behavior 

outputs are modeled to represent a potential summer fire (July/August). This fire behavior would be 

considered to be high to extreme. Weather data used in the modeling is 20 year data from 

BLM/USFS/FWS RAWS stations. Weather inputs to the BehavePlus runs: July, Temp 70-89, RH 

11-38, 1-hr fuel moisture/FDFM 2/5%, 10-hr fuel moisture 7%, 100-hr fuel moisture 8%, live 

herbaceous moisture 65%, wind speed 5/15 mph, time of day 1400, slope 0-5%. 

Fire Behavior Outputs by NFFL Fuel Models 

Fuel Model Rate of Spread (ch/hr) Flame Length (ft) 

1 99-665 5-13 

2 42-388 7-21 

3 129-741 14-35 

6 37-207 6-15 

Normal Fire Season 

The normal fire season for the Complex refuges is March to October. The majority of the fires have 

occurred in July and August. The lower elevation refuges of Camas and Minidoka experience earlier 

season fires than higher elevation refuges (Grays Lake and Bear Lake). After snow melt in early 

spring Camas and Minidoka can experience a short potential for fire starts before the vegetation 

greens up, (during the drought year of 2007 Camas NWR vegetation did not green up staying cured 

all summer). The vegetation usually cures out at Camas and Minidoka by the end of June or early 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Fire Management Plan G-15 

July. Due to higher elevation and snow pack the grassland vegetation at Bear Lake and Grays Lake 

refuges usually does not cure out until the end of July or early August. The bulrush vegetation at all 

the Complex refuges does not cure out until the end of September unless drought influenced. 

Wildfire History 

From 1997 to 2007 the Complex refuges has experienced 24 wildfires. The majority and largest fires 

have occurred in the sagebrush steppe habitat at Minidoka NWR. Most of the fire starts have been 

from lightning. See fire history spreadsheet and bar graph in Appendix E 

Prescribed Fire History 

From 1997 to 2007 41 prescribed fire (RX) treatment units have been burned at the Complex refuges 

for 10,141 acres. The majority of the RX treatments have been accomplished at Grays Lake and Bear 

Lake refuges. Due to its smaller acreage the RX units at Camas NWR have been smaller in size. 

Minidoka is the only complex refuge where RX treatments have not been initiated, mainly due to the 

amount of sagebrush habitat that has been lost to wildfires. Most of the RX treatments have been in 

marsh habitat with a smaller amount in the Complex wet and dry meadows. See RX history 

spreadsheet in Appendix E 

RX treatments 1997 to 2007 

Refuge RX Treatments Acreage 

Grays Lake NWR 14 3,447 

Bear Lake NWR 13 5,272 

Camas NWR 12 795 

Oxford Slough WPA 2 117 

Totals 41 10,141 

Mechanical Fuel Reduction Treatments 

31 mechanical fuel reductions treatments have been accomplished at the Complex refuges from 1997 

to 2007. The treatments include a mixture of haying, grazing, mowing, chemical, and tree removal to 

reduce hazardous fuel loading adjacent to refuge boundaries. Most of the treatments have taken place 

in refuge grasslands. Mow lines adjacent to refuge roads are maintained yearly to enhance potential 

fire control lines. 

 Mechanical Fuel Reduction treatments 1997 to 2007 

Refuge Treatments Acreage 

Grays Lake NWR 8 2,654 

Bear Lake NWR 6 2,749 

Camas NWR 10 1,166 

Oxford Slough WPA 2 725 

Minidoka NWR 5 745 

Totals 31 8,039 

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-16 Appendix G. Fire Management Plan 

G.3.2 Fire Management Units 

Fire Management Units (FMUs) are areas which have common wildland fire management objectives 

and strategies, are manageable units from a wildland fire standpoint, and can be based on natural or 

manmade fuel breaks. In the Southeast Idaho Complex, each of the five individual refuges will be a 

separate Fire Management Unit. All five refuges are located in southeast Idaho with similar 

vegetation, (bulrush marsh, grasslands, sagebrush steppe), mission, wildlife and terrain. The wildfire 

occurrence has been similar, (Camas and Minidoka refuges located in the Snake River Plains do 

experience more fires than the other three higher elevation refuges). The five refuges are managed as 

a Complex and are suited to be included in one Fire Management Plan, identified as separate FMUs. 

Fire Management Units in the Southeast Idaho NWRC 

FWS Fire Management Units within the FMP Total Acres Burnable Acres 

Bear Lake NWR 18,051 13,026 

Camas NWR 10,578 9,948 

Grays Lake NWR 20,125 18,655 

Minidoka NWR 20,699 9,399 

Oxford Slough WPA 1,878 1,810 

Totals 71,331 52,838 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Fire Management Plan G-17 

Southeast Idaho NWRC Location Map

G.3.2.1Bear Lake FMU Characteristics 

Bear Lake NWR includes the Bear Lake Unit and the Thomas Fork unit, (map in appendix A). The 

Bear Lake unit consists of 18,051 acres of open water, marsh, uplands, grasslands, low wet meadows, 

and steep shrub covered slopes located north of Bear Lake and about seven miles south of 

Montpelier. The refuge was established in 1968 by Public land Orders 4415 and 4545, which 

withdrew 16,960, acres from the public domain for the creation of the refuge. Land purchases have 

added an additional 1,091 acres. The land was withdrawn to protect and improve the habitat for the 

western Canada goose and other waterfowl as well as the greater sandhill crane. The mission of the 

refuge has not changed although greater emphasis is now on redhead and canvasback duck 

production. Trumpeter swans and colonial nesting species, particularly white-faced ibis are receiving 

more management attention. 

The Thomas Fork unit, (TFU) consists of 1,015 acres of open water, marsh, and low meadows 

located adjacent to the Wyoming border in the Gentile Valley just above where the Thomas Fork 

joins the Bear River. This unit was acquired in fee title from the Farmers Services Administration in 

1996. The land was added to the refuge because it represents excellent sandhill crane habitat and is 

especially important to cranes on their migrations through the area in the spring and fall. TFU 

provides important habitat for a variety of wildlife in an area dominated by agriculture. An active 

farming program is maintained on uplands for grains that are the main food source for sandhill cranes 

when occupying the refuge. The Thomas Fork River is used by Bonneville cutthroat trout. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-18 Appendix G. Fire Management Plan 

A large percentage of the vegetation at Bear Lake NWR consists of emergent (primarily bulrush) 

residual cover in the large marsh. The main marsh area of the refuge is approximately 16,000 acres in 

size. The main marsh is by bordering wet meadows which consist of Juncus spp., Carex spp., and a 

variety of water tolerant grasses. Many of the wet meadows are hayed to short grass stubble during 

the summer reducing potential fire behavior. The dry meadow grass species include: saltgrass, alkali 

sacaton, several species of wheatgrass, and basin wildrye. The shrub species are comprised of 

sagebrush and greasewood; these are scattered in small areas throughout the refuge with the largest 

concentration located on the steep slopes of Merkley Ridge on the east side of the refuge. The 

riparian species is mostly comprised of willow; most of which is mainly located along the Rainbow 

Canal with a few other isolated pockets scattered across the refuge. 

Fuel Model Composition Bear Lake NWR 

Marsh FM 3 11,303 acres 59% 

Dry Meadow FM 1 1,317 acres 7% 

Wet Meadows FM 1 943 acres 5% 

Shrub FM 2 376 acres 2% 

Riparian FM 4 90 acres 1% 

Open Water 5,025 acres 26% 

G.3.2.2 Bear Lake FMU Fire Environment 

The biggest factor affecting fire management operations at the refuge is fire vehicle access to the 

marsh lands. The majority of the refuge lands consist of wetland marsh restricting conventional fire 

vehicles to dikes, roads and dry meadows. The Complex has three amphibious vehicles outfitted with 

slip-on tank/pump units which can provide limited fire suppression in the wetlands. The refuge has 

numerous open water areas and several roads which break up the vegetation continuity and provide 

opportunities for fire control lines. 

The marshland vegetation is sub-irrigated and green most of the year; the emergent bulrush usually 

does not cure out until freezing temperatures in the fall top kill the plants. The fire potential and 

spread in the bulrush marsh can usually be considered low until vegetation cures out. The biggest 

factor in bulrush fire behavior is wind speed and direction. 

The wet and dry hay meadows surrounding the marsh are also sub-irrigated. The drier meadows 

usually cure out in July; wet meadows may not cure out until August. Wind speed and direction are 

also a big factor in grassland fire behavior. 

Private property borders most of the refuge, this property is mostly ranchland and hay fields which 

are grazed heavily during fall and winter months. The federally listed Communities at Risk bordering 

Bear Lake refuge include Dingle, Paris and Bloomington, Idaho. Forest Service lands border the 

southeast section of the refuge in the Merkley Ridge area. This section of the refuge is where the 

majority of human caused fire has started. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Fire Management Plan G-19 

G.3.2.3 Bear Lake FMU 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. 

 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 not usually 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 experience the approximate burn windows will be; Spring - March 1 to April 15; Fall – 

September 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 island 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 would be very difficult to access for 

fire suppression and a potential wildfire could provide a resource benefit. 

G.3.2.4 Bear Lake FMU Values to Protect 

 High priority will be given to any wildfire on the refuge threatening private property. The 

Federally designated Communities at Risk of Dingle, Paris, and Bloomington are adjacent to 

the refuge. 

 The northeast Mud Lake colonial nesting areas used by white-faced ibis, Franklin’s gulls, 

other herons and egrets. 

 Refuge structures are listed in Appendix XX. 

 High voltage power lines running across the southwest corner of the refuge.

G.3.2.5 Camas FMU Characteristics 

The refuge was established in 1937 by Executive Order 7720. The stated purpose for the refuge is to 

provide “a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife”. Trumpeter swan 

nesting and sage grouse habitat have been receiving more attention in recent years. 

Camas NWR consists of 10,578 acres of open water, marsh, upland grasslands and shrub steppe 

located in the Snake River Plain 24 miles north of Idaho Falls. About half of the refuge's 10,578 

acres are lakes, ponds, and marshlands. The remainder consists of grass-sagebrush uplands and 

meadows. The management of sage grouse habitat has been receiving increased attention on the 

refuge in recent years. Camas Creek flows for 9 miles through the length of the refuge and is the 

source of water for many lakes and ponds. Several wells on the refuge also provide water for wildlife 

during the summer. 

The vegetation/habitat types at Camas are broken down into the following: 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-20 Appendix G. Fire Management Plan 

 Sagebrush/grassland - in climax stage, the site is dominated by basin big sagebrush, 

arrowleaf balsamroot, Indian ricegrass and needle/thread grass. Approximately 1,200 acres 

has been seeded with crested wheatgrass; rabbitbrush, knapweed and various weed species 

are also present. 

 Wet Meadow - dominated by Baltic rush and various sedges. 

 Marsh - dominated by hardstem bulrush and broadleaf cattail. 

 Semiwet Meadow – dominated by saline tolerant plants such as inland saltgrass, alkali 

bluegrass and alkali sacaton. This habitat appears as narrow strips between the Wet Meadow 

and Marsh sites. 

 Riparian – dominated by willows and some cottonwoods; the majority of the willow are 

located in a 46 acre patch adjacent to Rays Lake in the southern portion of the refuge. A 

narrow band of willow grows along sections Camas Creek. The cottonwood trees mostly 

grow in the refuge headquarters area bordering Camas Creek. 

Fuel Model Composition for Camas NWR 

Sagebrush/grasslands FM 2/6 3,633 acres 34% 

Wet Meadow FM 1 2,956 acres 28% 

Marsh FM 3 2,401 acres 23% 

Semiwet Meadow FM 1 853 acres 8% 

Riparian FM 4 105 acres 1% 

Open water/mud flats 630 acres 6% 

G.3.2.6 Camas FMU Fire Environment 

The fire risk at Camas NWR is considered moderate to high due to its location amid ranches, private 

dwellings and the numerous refuge facilities. The Upper Snake River Plain has a history of large 

wind driven fires (5,000 to 10,000 acres). Private property borders two thirds of the refuge; BLM 

land borders the west side of the refuge. Numerous private residences are located on the refuge 

boundary in the northeast section. The federally listed Community at Risk of Hamer, Idaho, borders 

the refuge on the southeast side. The refuge has numerous gravel and two-track roads which break up 

the vegetation continuity. 

The majority of the habitat at the refuge is grasslands which cure out in early to mid-summer. During 

the drought year of 2007 due to the lack of snow and spring rain fall the dryer portions of refuge 

grassland did not green-up remaining cured all season. The invasion of cheat grass to the sagebrush 

habitats has increased the fire frequency and intensity. 

G.3.2.7 Camas FMU 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. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Fire Management Plan G-21 

 FMU Appropriate Management Response objectives include managing wildfires to meet 

fuels and habitat objectives. 

 The waterfowl nesting season at the refuge ranges from mid-April to late summer. Prescribed 

fire and mechanical fuel reduction treatments will not usually 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 experience the approximate burn windows will be; Spring - March 1 to April 15; Fall – 

September 20 to October 30. During these windows the above constraints can be mitigated 

and vegetation is cured out enough to meet prescribed burn objectives. 

 AMR strategy – unplanned fire will be contained at the smallest size possible due to 

proximity to adjacent private property and structure. Some areas of the refuge (bulrush 

marsh) are not conducive to off road fire vehicle access; in these areas a refuge road may will 

be utilized for a containment line. 

G.3.2.8 Camas FMU Values to Protect 

 High priority will be given to any wildfire on the refuge threatening private property. The 

Federally designated Community at Risk of Hamer is adjacent to the refuge. 

 Sagebrush/grassland habitats located on the north and west side of the refuge. 

 Sensitive areas of the Refuge are the riparian habitat along Camas Creek associated with 

headquarters (old growth cottonwood and black willow trees). 

 The peregrine hack tower; headquarters buildings; refuge residences; and the irrigation 

pumps. 

 Numerous private residences along the northeast refuge border. 

 Cultural resource sites (documented at refuge headquarters). 

G.3.2.9 Grays Lake FMU Description 

Grays Lake NWR was established in 1965 to protect and restore habitat for waterfowl production, 

sandhill cranes, and other wildlife. The total area within the proposed refuge boundary is 32,825 

acres. Currently 20,125 acres are controlled by the Service through fee-title, use agreements and land 

purchases. Approximately 9,000 acres of land surrounding the marsh shore line is Unadjudicated 

land; the Service is currently negotiating with the adjacent private land owners and the State Of 

Idaho to get this issue resolved. Bear Island (approximately 401 acres) is located in the middle of the 

Grays Lake marsh; this land is controlled by the BIA. 

The refuge’s goals are to enhance natural ecosystem functions to support a diversity of water fowl 

birds and other wildlife. The refuge provides significant breeding area for sandhill cranes, Canada 

geese, Franklin's gulls, and white-faced ibis. 

Grays Lake NWR is located on the western edge of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem in 

Bonneville and Caribou Counties, Idaho. Grays Lake lies in a relatively remote and sparsely 

populated high altitude (6386 ft) mountain valley. Grays Lake is actually a 22,000 acre shallow 

marsh with dense vegetation (bulrush and cattail) and little open water. Caribou Mountain borders 

the refuge to the east, at 9803 feet it is the highest point within the watershed. 

The refuge is located in a transitional zone between Great Basin vegetation (south) and Rocky 

Mountain vegetation (north). Vegetation within approved refuge boundary consists of: 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-22 Appendix G. Fire Management Plan 

 Marsh - dominated by hardstem bulrush and broadleaf cattail. 

 Wet/Dry Meadow - consists of over 170 species of grasses, sedges and forbs. 

 Shrub - 17 species of shrubs. 

 Riparian - 7 species of trees. 

Fuel Model Composition for Grays Lake NWR 

Bulrush/Cattail FM 3 13,951 acres 69% 

Wet/Dry Meadow FM 1 4,504 acres 23% 

Riparian FM 8 100 +/- acres <1% 

Shrub FM 2 100 +/- acres <1% 

Open water/ mud flats 1,470 8% 

G.3.2.10 Grays Lake FMU Fire Environment 

The biggest factor affecting fire management operations at the refuge is fire vehicle access to the 

marsh lands. As mentioned above the majority of the refuge lands consists of a continuous wetland 

marsh with only a couple of short dikes and canals. The Complex has three amphibious vehicles 

outfitted with slip-on tank/pump units which can provided limited fire suppression in the wetlands. A 

large wind driven fire in the bulrush could not safely be suppressed by direct attack. 

The marshland vegetation is sub-irrigated and green most of the year; the emergent bulrush usually 

does not cure out until freezing temperatures in the fall top kill the plants. The fire potential and 

spread in the bulrush marsh can usually be considered low until vegetation cures out. The biggest 

factor in bulrush fire behavior is wind speed and direction. 

The wet and dry hay meadows surrounding the marsh are also sub-irrigated. The drier meadows 

usually cure out in August; wet meadows may not cure out until September. Wind speed and 

direction are also a big factor in grassland fire behavior. 

Private property with numerous structures (residences, barns, and out buildings) border the east and 

south sections of the refuge. The federally listed Community at Risk of Wayan, Idaho, is southeast of 

the refuge. 

G.3.2.11 Grays Lake FMU 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. 

 FMU Appropriate Management Response objectives include managing wildfires to meet 

fuels and habitat objectives. 

 The waterfowl nesting season at the refuge ranges from mid-April to late summer. Prescribed 

fire and mechanical fuel reduction treatments will not usually take place during this time to 

avoid disturbing nesting habitat. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Fire Management Plan G-23 

 Due to constraints such as nesting season, water level fluctuation, and fire season the refuge 

will have one prescribed burn window in the fall. As determined from past years burn 

experiences the approximate burn window will be September 20 to October 30. During this 

window the above constraints can be mitigated and vegetation is cured out enough to meet 

prescribed burn objectives. 

 AMR strategy for the refuge will range from full suppression to confine/contain and monitor. 

Unplanned fires adjacent to private property and structures will be contained at the smallest 

size possible if practical. As mentioned above the majority of the refuge lands consists of a 

continuous wetland marsh with only a couple of short dikes and canals. The Complex has 

three amphibious vehicles outfitted with slip-on tank/pump units which can provided limited 

fire suppression in the wetlands. A large fire wind driven fire in the bulrush could not safely 

be suppressed by direct attack. Depending on current weather and fuels conditions an AMR 

confine/contain/monitor strategy may be used for fires in the marsh. 

G.3.2.12 Grays Lake FMU Values to Protect 

 High priority will be given to any wildfire on the refuge threatening private property. The 

Federally designated Community at Risk of Wayan is adjacent to the refuge. 

 Herman, Eagle and Gravel creeks contain limited riparian vegetation (primarily willows) that 

would be damaged by fire. 

 A large mixed nesting colony of white-faced ibis and Franklin’s gulls exists in the southcentral portion of Grays Lake marsh. 

 Structures located at the refuge headquarters. 

G.3.2.13 Minidoka FMU Description 

Minidoka NWR was established as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other 

wildlife. Minidoka NWR has been designated as an Important Bird Area (IBA) of global importance 

for its colonial nesting bird populations and for the numbers of molting waterfowl. This program 

identifies areas that have high value for birds throughout the world. 

Minidoka NWR is an overlay refuge on lands withdrawn by the Bureau of Reclamation located on 

the Snake River Plain in south-central Idaho, 12 miles northeast of the town of Rupert. The primary 

feature is Lake Walcott, the reservoir formed by the construction of the Minidoka Dam in 1906. The 

dam, power plant, irrigation canals, and lake water levels are all managed by the Bureau of 

Reclamation (BOR). Adjacent to the dam and refuge headquarters is Lake Walcott State Park which 

is administered by the Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation (IDP&R). The park provides the 

public with picnic, camping and boat launch facilities. The project land and water areas are managed 

as a refuge for wildlife by the FWS. 

Minidoka Refuge extends upstream approximately 25 miles from the Minidoka Dam along both 

shores of the Snake River, encompassing a total of 20,699 acres, of which 11,300 acres are the open 

water of Lake Walcott, the Snake River, and some small marsh areas. The remaining 9,399 acres of 

upland are classified as sagebrush-grass (3,519 acres) and grassland (5,880 acres). 

 Sagebrush-grasslands - Vegetative types are predominantly sagebrush-grass and short 

bunchgrass complexes. The overstory is composed primarily of sagebrush and rabbitbrush 

with the understory mainly cheatgrass, crested wheatgrass, and native grasses and forbs. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-24 Appendix G. Fire Management Plan 

 Grasslands – include several large seedings of crested wheat grass; Native grasses commonly 

found include western wheatgrass, Indian ricegrass, Sandberg’s bluegrass, bottlebrush 

squaretail, needle-and-thread, and green needlegrass. 

 Riparian - there are a few areas with sizable patches of riparian habitat, but for the most part 

the riparian zone is narrow and linear, in most places only 1 tree wide where it goes from 

open water to basalt rock in only a few feet. Shrub species include skunkbush sumac, Wood’s 

rose, and golden currant. Mid sized species is primarily coyote willow with some skunkush 

sumac. Taller species include eastern cottonwood, peachleaf and Pacific willows, Russian 

olive, green ash, and Chinese elm. 

 Marsh – small pockets of bulrush and cattails located in shallow bays and coves, and in the 

two diked water units. In some areas it is a narrow fringe along the shoreline. 

Fuel Model Composition for Grays Lake NWR 

Grassland FM 1 5,880 acres 28% 

Sagebrush/Grass FM 2/6 3,519 acres 18% 

Marsh FM 3 NA <1% 

Riparian FM 4 NA <1% 

Open Water 11,300 acres 54% 

G.3.2.14 Minidoka FMU Fire Environment 

Minidoka NWR is located in the Snake River Plain which has a history of large wind driven fires. 

The majority of the large fires at the refuge have started from lightning. The invasion of cheat grass 

has increased the fire occurrence and fire size in the sagebrush habitat. BLM lands border most of the 

refuge, the majority of large fire experienced at the refuge have burned on both FWS and BLM lands. 

The refuge has experienced fires from spring to fall with the majority occurring in mid-summer. 

G.3.2.15 Minidoka FMU Objectives and Constraints 

 See general Complex goals and objectives in section 3.1.2. 

 Due to developing sage grouse concerns and loss of sagebrush habitat wildfires in this FMU 

will be aggressively suppressed. 

 AMR strategy – due to concerns with sagebrush habitat and close proximity to private and 

other federal lands unplanned fires will be contained at the smallest size possible. The only 

exception to this AMR strategy would be an unplanned fire on one of the refuge islands 

where direct attack suppression by fire vehicles is not possible; confine/monitoring may be 

utilized. 

G.3.2.16 Minidoka FMU Values to Protect 

 A large percentage of refuge uplands have been burned in the last 10 years; any remaining 

sagebrush habitat should be considered a critical protection area. 

 Grove of cottonwood and willow tress at Water Unit 1 that supports a great blue heron nest 

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

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Fire Management Plan G-25 

 Structures located at the refuge headquarters. 

 Cultural resource sites, (documented at refuge headquarters). 

G.3.2.17 Oxford Slough FMU Description 

Oxford Slough WPA (OSWPA) is located in the upper Cache Valley adjacent to the community of 

Oxford Idaho. The 1,853-acre WPA is mostly a hardstem bulrush marsh, interspersed with open 

water and surrounded by areas of playa, saltgrass flats, native wet meadow, and some cropland. The 

lower areas have visible alkali deposits. The marsh is fed on the north and drained at the south by 

Deep Creek. A smaller creek and several springs feed the marsh from the west. The water level in the 

marsh is allowed to fluctuate naturally; in drought years it dries out. 

The main marsh area is primarily bulrush emergent, with some cattail. 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 area are 

also scattered patches of greasewood and sagebrush patches. The north end of OSWPA is dominated 

by hilly agricultural/cropland area. The west side vegetation consists of wet meadow grasslands, 

some brush, areas of reed canary grass, Juncus spp. and other water tolerant grasses. 

The Union Pacific railroad has a track that runs from north-south along the east boundary of the 

WPA; train activity has caused at least two wildfires in past years. The wet meadow areas along the 

west side are hayed annually under a cooperative farming agreement. This significantly reduces 

potential fire behavior in the grassland vegetation next to Oxford. 

 

Table 8: Fuel Model Composition for Oxford Slough WPA 

Marsh FM 3 721 acres 39% 

Dry Meadow FM 1 495 acres 27% 

Wet Meadow FM 1 495 acres 19% 

Agricultural FM 1 143 acres 8% 

Shrub FM 2 87 acres 4% 

Open Water/Playa 43 acres 3% 

G.3.2.18 Oxford Slough FMU Fire Environment 

The fire behavior potential at Oxford Slough can be influenced by drought years. In dry years water 

flow into the WPA will stop by mid-summer, curing out the marsh and grassland vegetation. The 

federally listed Community at Risk of Oxford, Idaho, borders the west side of the WPA. The 

Complex annually hays approximately 400 acres of grassland adjacent to Oxford which reduces 

potential fire behavior. No interior roads are present in the WPA which would hamper fire vehicle 

access to an interior fire. Railroad tracks border the east side of the WPA; two fires have started from 

trains in past years.
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-26 Appendix G. Fire Management Plan 

G.3.2.19 Oxford Slough FMU Objectives and Constraints 

 See general Complex goals and objectives in section 3.1.2. 

 AMR strategy - due to the close proximity to the community of Oxford, Idaho, any 

unplanned wildfire will be aggressively suppressed. 

G.3.2.20 Oxford Slough FMU Values to Protect 

 The community of Oxford, Idaho. 

 A white-faced ibis colony in center of the marsh. 

G.4 Wildland Fire Operational Guidance 

The procedures used to implement the fire management plan (FMP) for the Southeast Idaho National 

Refuge Complex are covered in this section. Information pertaining to this management is either directly 

provided or references are cited as to where it may be located. 

USF&WS wildland fire management policy states that every wildland fire will be assessed following 

a decision support process that examines the full range of appropriate management responses 

(AMR). 

This policy also provides that wildland fires may be managed for one or more objectives based on 

land and resource management plan direction. When two or more wildland fires burn together they 

will be managed as a single wildland fire and may also be managed for one or more objectives based 

on land and resource management plan direction as an event moves across the landscape and fuels 

and weather conditions change. 

As stated before, the purpose of fire suppression is to put the fire out in a safe, effective, and efficient 

manner. Fires are easier and less expensive to suppress when they are contained to small areas on the 

Complex. Thus, the following procedures will be followed for all wildland fires to ensure optimum 

resource protection and firefighter safety.

G.4.1.1 Appropriate Management Response 

Evaluation and selection of an appropriate management response to a wildfire will include. 

 Consideration of risks to public and firefighter safety. 

 Threats to the values to protect. 

 Costs of various mitigation strategies and tactics. 

 Potential resource benefits. 

Wildfires will be staffed or monitored during active burning periods as needed to ensure that 

appropriate mitigation actions can be made to protect values threatened. 

All wildfires will be supervised by a qualified incident commander (IC) responsible to 

 Assess the fire situation and make a report to dispatch as soon as possible. 

 Use guidance in this FMP or a delegation of Authority to determine and implement an 

appropriate management response. 

 Determine organization, resource needs, strategy and tactics. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Fire Management Plan G-27 

 Brief incoming and assigned resources on the organization, strategy and tactics, weather and 

fire behavior, LCES, and radio frequencies. 

 Order resources needed for the AMR through the designated dispatch office. 

 Manage the incident until relieved or the incident is under control. 

The FMP and a Delegation of Authority can provide a general strategy to an IC, who has discretion 

to select and implement appropriate tactics within the limits described for the FMU(s), including 

when and where to use minimum impact suppression tactics (MIST) unless otherwise specified. All 

resources, including mutual aid resources, will report to the IC (in person or by radio) and receive an 

assignment prior to tactical deployment. 

Critical protection areas, such as refuge headquarters, neighboring residences and ranches, and 

adjacent private croplands, will receive priority consideration in fire control planning efforts. In all 

cases, the primary concerns of fire suppression personnel shall be the safety, and if needed, all 

individuals not involved in the suppression effort may be evacuated. 

General AMR Constraints 

 Close proximity to private property and residences, (WUI and Communities at Risk). 

 Lack of a cultural resource inventory. Limited cultural resource surveys have been completed 

at the Complex refuges, (completed surveys are on file at the Complex office) 

 Soft ground/moist-soil conditions which preclude the use of conventional fire equipment. 

 Tracts of continuous vegetation, lack of adequate fire/fuel breaks, and lack of interior and 

boundary refuge roads. 

Interagency Operations 

As mentioned in 2.3.2 the Complex coordinates with the BLM, USFS, and BIA in fire management 

operations. The Complex coordinates with these agencies for dispatch services through EIIFC and 

SCIDC. Any wildfire AMR actions would be coordinated through the appropriate dispatch centers 

with neighboring federal agencies. 

G.4.1.2 Preparedness 

The Complex is only funded to staff one Type 3 engine crew stationed at Grays Lake NWR. Due to 

the fact that the Complex refuges are spread across a large portion of eastern Idaho the Complex 

relies on its interagency partners (BLM and USFS) for initial attack fire response. The Complex fire 

crew is dispatched through EIIFC which uses a closest forces concept when dispatching fire crews to 

BLM, USFS, FWS, BIA, and State lands in the fire zone. 

The Complex FMO meets with federal cooperators (BLM, USFS, EIIFC, SCIDC) annually prior to 

fire season, to review the respective agreements. This may include contact information and fire 

suppression policies and procedures. 

The normal fire season for the Complex was discussed in section 3.1.3; prior to and during fire 

season the following tasks will be implemented and completed. 

 The Complex FMO will work with each refuge Manger to update Delegations of Authority 

for each refuge with suppression constraints. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-28 Appendix G. Fire Management Plan 

 Fire qualified personnel work with the Complex FMO to schedule annual medical 

examinations prior to start of fire season. 

 Fire qualified personnel will complete fitness testing, complete the annual refresher, and are 

issued full personal protective equipment (PPE) prior to the start of fire season. 

 A Type 3 engine will be staffed and available annually (June 15th – September 30th) at Grays 

Lake NWR. 

 Prior to fire season the Complex step-up plan will be reviewed by the FMO; the plan will be 

implemented during fire season according to daily fire weather forecasts. 

 

Annual Refuge Fire Readiness Activities 

Activities – Complete before end of month J F M A M J J A S O N D 

Update Interagency Fire Agreements/AOP’s x 

Winterize Fire Management Equipment x 

Inventory Fire Engine and Cache x 

Update Delegation of Authority x 

Completed Annual Fire Physical x 

Annual Fitness Testing x 

Annual Refresher Training x 

Pre-Season Engine Preparation x 

Prepare Temp Fire Crew hiring packet x 

Review and Update Fire Management Plan x 

Hire Temp Fire Crew x 

Weather Station Maintenance and Calibration x 

Coordinate with Refuge Managers on HFR 

planning x 

Review Delegations of Authority with Refuge 

Managers x 

Review Complex step-up plan and adjust if 

necessary 

 x 

Communications 

The Complex utilizes BLM and USFS communications systems, including repeaters and radio 

frequencies for fire operations. The Complex has MOUs with both agencies for shared radio 

frequency use during fire operations. Both EIIFC and SCDIIC centers have a fire zone frequency 

plan, this plan and radio MOUs are attached in Appendix F. All communications equipment is 

analog. 

G.4.1.3 Detection 

Wildland fires on the Complex Refuges will normally be discovered and reported by local residents 

and the visiting public. These fires may or may not be reported directly to the refuge manager; it is 

expected that the reporting individual will contact 911, EIIFC or SCIIDC directly and refuge staff 

may not learn about the fire until after it has already been staffed. Regardless of how any fires are 

discovered they need to be reported to the Refuge Manager, FMO, and interagency fire dispatch 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Fire Management Plan G-29 

center (EIIFC and SCIIDC) immediately so suppression actions can be started without delay. In 

situations where fire danger and staffing levels increase, refuge patrols will be an additional source of 

detection and reporting. 

G.4.1.4 Dispatch, Initial Response and Initial Attack 

Bear Lake, Camas, Grays Lake, and Oxford Slough refuges fall within the East Idaho Interagency 

Fire Center (EIIFC) dispatch zone. EIIFC will coordinate the initial attack response of federal fire 

crews to potential fires on these four refuges. The Refuge Manager or a representative from the 

Complex staff will serve as a Resource Advisor for the incoming Incident Commander (IC). 

Minidoka NWR falls within the Southern Idaho Interagency Fire Center (SIIFC) dispatch zone. 

SIIFC will coordinate initial attack response of federal fire crews to fires at Minidoka. 

Upon discovery of a fire, all subsequent actions will be based on the following: 

 The Incident Commander (IC) will locate, size-up, and coordinate suppression actions. The 

IC will start the EIIFC Incident Organizer to document actions, fire behavior and weather 

conditions. 

 Provide for firefighter and public safety. 

 Considering the current and predicted fire conditions, the IC will assess the need for 

additional suppression resources and estimate the final size of the fire. The potential for 

spread outside of the refuge should be predicted, as well as the total suppression force 

required to initiate effective containment action at the beginning of each burning period. 

 The IC will assess the need for law enforcement personnel for traffic control, investigations, 

evacuations, etc. and make the request to the dispatch center. 

 Document decisions in the Incident Organizer and provide the FMO a copy after the incident 

is out. 

 Should a wildland fire move into an extended attack the IC will coordinate with the Complex 

staff and EIIFC to complete a Wildland Fire Decision Support System 

 The Refuge Manager or designee will provide the IC with a Delegation of Authority. 

G.4.1.5 Extended Attack and Large Fire Management 

The Wildland Fire Decision Support System (WFDSS) process will be used when a wildfire escapes 

initial attack. Due to the limited number of historic large fire occurrences on the Complex, for any 

potential fire needing a WFDSS the refuge staff would rely on Regional Office fire management staff 

and interagency partners to prepare the analysis. 

Extended attack fires will be managed in accordance with the Interagency Standards for Fire and 

Aviation Operations (Redbook). 

G.4.1.6 Aviation Operations 

All fire-related aviation operations will follow applicable guidelines of the DOI National Business 

Center - Aviation Management Directorate and must adhere to all DOI aviation policy. Aviation 

operations at Camas, Grays Lake, Bear Lake, and Oxford Slough refuges will be coordinated through 

EIIFC. Aviation operations at Minidoka NWR will be coordinated through SCIIDC. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-30 Appendix G. Fire Management Plan 

G.4.1.7 Reviews and Investigations 

Reviews and investigations are used by wildland fire and aviation managers to assess and improve 

the effectiveness and safety of organizational operations. Brief descriptions of various reviews and 

associated procedures and requirements, including those for serious wildland fire accidents, 

entrapments, and fire trespass are listed in the Red Book Chapter 18. 

Incident Commanders and Single Resource Bosses will ensure After Action Reviews take place in a 

timely manner and that any significant issues are brought to the attention of the Zone FMO or Refuge 

Manager.

G.4.1.8 Reports 

The SE Idaho Zone FMO or designee will complete and file an Individual Fire Report (DI-1202) in 

the FWS Fire Management Information System (FMIS) for the following types of fires within 10 

days of a fire being declared out: 

 All wildfires on FWS and FWS-protected lands. 

 Wildfires threatening our lands on which we take action. 

 All escaped prescribed fires. When a fire exceeds prescription, treat must be declared a 

wildfire, and a separate new report filed to report acres burned by the wildfire from the time 

of declaration to the time of being declared out. 

 All false alarms responded to by SEID fire staff.

 All support actions to interagency cooperators by SEID fire staff. 

G.4.2 Hazardous Fuels Management 

All prescribed fire treatments on the Refuges will follow guidance outlined in the Interagency Standards 

for Fire and Fire Aviation Operations (chapter 17) and the Interagency Fire Planning and Implementation 

Procedures Reference Guide. See 3.1 for specific prescribed fire objectives. 

G.4.2.1 Prescribed Fire Program for Hazardous Fuels and Habitats 

The overall objective in the use of prescribed fire in refuge resource management will be to reduce 

hazard fuels and to promote habitat diversity. Refuge staff will carefully analyze the needs of 

hazardous fuels reduction in each FMU in relation to habitat objectives on the refuge. Variables to be 

considered in each proposed treatment area include previous treatments, vegetation type, endangered 

species, and hazardous fuels reduction. The prescribed fire program at the Refuge is being conducted 

under the categorical exclusion directive, 516 DM 2, Appendix 1and 516 DM 6, Appendix 1. 

Program Overview 

Prescribed fire can be a useful tool for restoring and maintaining natural conditions and processes at 

the Complex refuges. Research burning may also be conducted when determined to be necessary for 

accomplishment of research project objectives. The goals of prescribed fire are for hazard fuel 

reduction and to meet resource management objectives. Specific management needs for the refuge 

will be determined annually. Burn objectives, fire frequency rotation, firing methodology, and 

prescriptions will vary from year to year. Burn plans will be updated to reflect any variations. The 

Project Leader will approve prescribed fire plans after review of the plan by the Zone Fire 

Management Officer. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Fire Management Plan G-31 

The desired future of the program includes treating approximately 1000 acres per year in a variety of 

vegetation types. Prescribed fire activities include mechanical treatments (e.g., thinning), burning, 

and monitoring. 

The prescribed burn window for the Complex is generally early-Spring (March-April) and late-fall 

(September-November). Specific FMU hazardous fuels objectives and history is described in chapter 

3. 

Some specific objectives for the refuge program include: 

 Conduct a vigorous prescribed fire program with the highest professional and technological 

standards 

 Identify the prescribed burn prescriptions most appropriate to specific situations and areas 

 Efficiently accomplish resource management objectives through the application of prescribed 

fire 

 Continually evaluate the prescribed fire program to better meet program goals by refining 

prescriptions treatments and monitoring methods, and by integrating applicable technical and 

scientific advancements 

Effect of National and Regional Preparedness Levels 

Prescribed fires may be ignited during National Preparedness Level 4 or 5 as specified in the 

National Interagency Mobilization Guide. The normal prescribed burn window for the Complex 

refuges is early spring and late fall; national and regional preparedness levels are low at this time of 

year. 

Project Planning 

All prescribed fire treatments on the Complex refuges will follow guidance outlined in the 

Interagency Prescribed Fire Planning and Implementation Procedures Reference Guide. 

All prescribed fires will have prescribed burn plans. The prescribed burn plan is a site specific action 

plan describing the purpose, objectives, prescription, and operational procedures needed to prepare 

and safely conduct the burn. The treatment area, objectives, constraints, and alternatives will be 

clearly outlined. The required burn plan elements are outlined in the Interagency Fire Planning and 

Implementation Procedures Reference Guide and will be included in all refuge burn plans. 

The Prescribed Fire Plan Preparer will conduct a field reconnaissance of the proposed burn location 

with the Complex Biologist, and/or Refuge Manager to discuss objectives, special concerns, and 

gather all necessary information to write the burn plan. 

Every Prescribed Fire Plan must receive a technical review. The Technical Reviewer and Prescribed 

Fire Plan Preparer must be qualified or have been previously qualified as a Prescribed Fire Burn Boss 

at an experience level equal to or higher than the complexity being reviewed. The Technical 

Reviewer must be someone other than the primary preparer of the plan. An off-unit technical review 

is encouraged to provide an additional independent perspective. It is acceptable for other specialists 

to review certain portions of the plan however; a primary Technical Reviewer must be designated as 

technical review signatory. Either the Prescribed Fire Plan Preparer or Technical Reviewer must be 

currently qualified, less physical fitness requirement. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-32 Appendix G. Fire Management Plan 

The Agency Administrator has final approval authority for all Prescribed Fire Plans, unless special 

circumstances warrant higher review and concurrence (such as may occur during higher 

Preparedness Levels or for extremely large, complex projects). Although the Agency Administrator 

has final approval authority for the Prescribed Fire Plan and the Agency Administrator "GO/NO-GO" 

checklist, the Prescribed Fire Burn Boss has the responsibility to make the on-site tactical "GO/NOGO" decision. The Prescribed Fire Burn Boss ensures that all prescription, staffing, equipment, and 

other plan specifications are met before, during, and after the prescribed fire. 

Project Implementation 

Execution of prescribed burns will only be undertaken by qualified personnel. The Prescribed Burn 

Boss will fill all required positions to conduct the burn with qualified personnel. All personnel listed 

in the burn plan must be available for the duration of the burn or the burn will not be initiated. 

When all prescription criteria are within the acceptable range, the Prescribed Burn Boss will select an 

ignition time based on current and predicted weather forecasts. The Burn Boss will ensure that the 

Agency Administrator GO/NO-GO Checklist is valid and complete and sign the Prescribed Fire 

GO/NO-GO Checklist the morning of planned ignition. 

A thorough briefing will be given by the Prescribed Burn Boss and specific assignments and 

placement of personnel will be discussed, (using briefing outline in Prescribed Fire Plan). A spot 

weather forecast will be obtained on the day of ignition and all prescription elements will be 

rechecked to determine if all elements are still within the approved ranges. If all prescription 

elements are met, a test fire will be ignited to determine on-site fire behavior conditions as affected 

by current weather. If conditions are not satisfactory, the test fire will be suppressed and the burn will 

be rescheduled. If conditions are satisfactory the burn will continue as planned. 

A prescribed fire must be declared a wildfire by those identified in the burn plan when that person(s) 

determines that the contingency actions have failed or are likely to fail and cannot be mitigated by 

the end of the next burning period. An escaped prescribed fire must be declared a wildfire when the 

fire has spread outside the project boundary, or is likely to do so, and cannot be contained by the end 

of the next burning period. A prescribed fire can be converted to a wildfire for reasons other than an 

escape. An appropriate management response will be made to such incidents and a formal analysis 

(WFSA) undertaken when needed. The Refuge Manager or Project Leader will be notified of an 

escaped prescribed fire. 

The public will be informed of upcoming planned prescribed fires through press releases in local 

newspapers. Neighbors to the refuge will be called and local law enforcement agencies will be called 

and informed of the burn before planned ignition. Notification calls will be documented and saved in 

the Prescribed Plan file. 

Smoke Management 

According to Fish & Wildlife Service Fire Management Policies “ ... fire management activities 

which result in the discharge of air pollutants are subject to, and must comply with, all applicable 

Federal, state, interstate, and local air pollution control requirements as specified by Section 118 of 

the Clean Air Act.”

The US Fish and Wildlife Service in south Idaho participates in the Montana/Idaho Airshed Group. 

The group members include all of the federal agencies, state land management agencies, and private 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Fire Management Plan G-33 

forest products companies. The intent of the Airshed Group is to limit negative impacts from 

controlled burns through scientific monitoring of weather conditions and formal coordination of 

burns. 

Prior to the burn season the Fire Management Officer submits a list of planned burn projects to the 

Missoula Monitoring Unit via internet. This information creates a data base describing the type of 

burn, number of acres in each unit, and unit location and elevation. Each burn unit is assigned an 

identification number. The day before the planned ignition, the burn boss accesses the internet data 

base to submit a proposed prescribed burn for the following day. The program coordinator and a 

meteorologist provide timely restriction messages for airsheds with planned burning. 

The Missoula Monitoring Unit issues daily decisions which can restrict burning when atmospheric 

conditions are not conducive to good smoke dispersion. Restrictions may be directed by airshed, 

elevation or by special impact zones around populated areas. The burn boss will access the daily 

decision notice from the monitoring unit via the internet. Prescribed burn projects will not be 

conducted if the Missoula Monitoring Unit posts a burning restriction for the airshed in which the 

refuge is located. 

No non-attainment areas are located in or near the Complex; specific smoke sensitive areas area 

identified in individual burn plans and appropriate mitigation measures. 

After Action and Escaped Fire Reviews

The Burn Boss will ensure an informal After Action Review (AAR) is conducted for each 

operational period on a prescribed fire, as in Red Book chapter 17. 

All prescribed fires declared a wildfire will have an investigative review initiated by the Refuge 

Manager or Project Leader. The level and scope of the review will be determined by policy and 

procedures of the Interagency Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation Operations and the FWS Fire 

Management Handbook.

Reports

Burn Plans will specify information to be included in a project file. The Burn Boss will ensure this 

information is provided to the Refuge Manager and/or Zone Fire Management Officer as specified. 

This includes documenting conditions and fire behavior during the prescribed fire to assess how well 

actual fire characteristics fit those predicted, documenting any unanticipated difficulties encountered 

during implementation, and assessing how well the fire accomplished the intended objectives. 

The Burn Boss will complete an Individual Fire Report (DI-1202) with the Zone FMO, who will file 

an Individual Fire Report (DI-1202) electronically within 10 days of it being declared out. 

G.4.2.2 Non-fire Hazardous Fuels Treatment Program

Non-fire treatment strategies are those that do not involve the use of prescribed fire to meet stated 

objectives. For the Complex refuges, mechanical and chemical treatment strategies are available as 

non-fire management tools. The following objectives for non-fire treatments of hazardous fuels on 

the Complex include: 

 Establish defensible space along wildland-urban interface boundary and around Complex 

improvements and structures. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-34 Appendix G. Fire Management Plan 

 Protect habitat from wildfire trespass. 

 Restore early successional habitats to promote native species while minimizing invasive 

species encroachment. 

 Maintain fuel loadings within natural ranges of variability for major vegetation types. 

 Aid in control of invasive plants and weeds that contribute to the fuel hazard. 

Any work requiring heavy equipment, such as mowing, hydro-axe work, fuel break construction, or 

vegetation removal, should be done with low ground-pressure vehicles to the extent possible when 

the site is dry enough to prevent damage to soils. Non-fire treatments may be restricted during the 

nesting season from mid May to early August in areas that provide important habitat for trust wildlife 

resources. 

G.4.2.3 Process to Identify Hazardous Fuels Treatments 

The development of prescribed fire and non-fire hazardous fuel management priorities will be an 

ongoing process determined annually between the refuge staff and refuge manager based on 

changing habitat conditions on the refuge, changes in management objectives, and changes in 

management techniques or new information. The FMO and Complex staff will coordinate with 

federal and state partners and review existing CWPPs when developing potential hazardous fuels 

treatments in WUI areas. 

G.4.3 Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation 

Emergency stabilization (ES) and burned area rehabilitation (BAR) are part of a holistic approach to 

addressing post wildfire issues which also includes suppression activity damage repair and long-term 

(>3 years) restoration. 

ES is planned actions performed by burned area emergency response (BAER) teams within one year 

of wildfire containment to stabilize and prevent unacceptable degradation to natural and cultural 

resources, to minimize threats to life or property resulting from the effects of a fire, or to 

repair/replace/construct physical improvements necessary to prevent degradation of land or 

resources. 

BAR is efforts undertaken within three years of wildfire containment to repair or improve fire-damaged 

lands unlikely to recover naturally to management approved conditions, or to repair or replace minor 

facilities damaged by fire. The process concludes with long-term restoration. 

The incident management team, local fire resources, or refuge staff begins the process by repairing 

suppression activity damage. These actions are charged to the fire suppression accounting code. Fire 

suppression activity damage rehabilitation involves short-term actions to repair and rehabilitate 

damage to lands, resources, and facilities caused by the wildland fire suppression effort or activities. 

This includes dozer lines, camps, and staging areas; damaged facilities (fences, buildings, bridges, 

etc.); handlines; roads; etc. The project leader should ensure this work is complete before incident 

demobilization, or as soon thereafter as possible or practicable. Damage caused by backfires and 

burnouts to stop fire spread falls under fire damage restoration and does not qualify as damage 

caused by suppression action. 

The Refuge Manager will coordinate with the Incident Commander, Zone FMO, and Regional Office 

fire staff to determine if an ES or BAR plan is needed for a Wildland fire incident. The Refuge 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Fire Management Plan G-35 

Manager will form an interdisciplinary team which could include fire and resource specialists to 

develop and write the ERS Plan. The ES or BAR plans must include provisions for monitoring and 

evaluation of treatments and techniques, and a procedure for collecting, archiving, and disseminating 

results. For multi-agency fires, we will do joint planning and implementation. Plans must ensure that 

the treatments proposed are environmentally, culturally, and socially acceptable, meet the objectives 

of Comprehensive Conservation and Habitat Management Plans, and comply with legal 

requirements. Each ES or BAR Plan will include a cost/risk analysis of proposed emergency 

rehabilitation treatment actions to assist agency administrators and reviewing authorities in assessing 

the proposed actions. The level and sophistication of the analysis should be commensurate with the 

scope and complexity of the plan. 

ES plans should be submitted to the Regional Fire Management Coordinator (RFMC) within 7 

calendar days of the wildfire containment. If additional time is needed, extensions may be negotiated 

with the (RFMC). BAR plans must be submitted before the end of the fiscal year in which the 

wildfire fire occurs. 

Additional ES and BAR guidance may be found in the FWS Directives (095 FW3) and the 

Interagency Burned Area Emergency Response Guidebook. 

G.4.4 Prevention, Mitigation and Education

The fire education program for the refuges making up the Southeast Idaho National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex will include fire prevention, mitigation, and information specific to the ecological aspects 

of fire and its interaction with refuge habitats. The program will be aimed at increasing public 

understanding of the complexities of the overall fire program and will seek to influence attitudes and 

behavior of adults and children. Attention will be given to social groups, elected officials, schools, 

and all other interested parties of any age. 

Fire education messages will include how and why fire burns the way it does and the effects – both 

negative and positive – that fire has on plant, wildlife, and human populations. Focus will be given to 

the effect fuel, weather, and topography have on fire behavior clearly demonstrating the effect 

manipulation of fuels can have on the opportunity for a fire to burn through a given area. 

All education efforts will be consistent with approved Service national and regional messaging. 

These efforts will be interagency when appropriate. 

The fire prevention goal for the entire complex will be to prevent unwanted human-caused fires. 

High visitor use due to close proximity to large population areas increases the likelihood of careless 

human ignitions. Although campfires are not allowed on the refuges except in campgrounds, 

abandoned campfires are one of the concerns to be addressed in fire prevention efforts. Debris 

burning on neighboring private land, smoking, and fires ignited from vehicles also share some 

concern and will be addressed in conjunction with other agencies to protect human life and property, 

natural resources, and prevent damage to cultural resources or physical facilities. 

During the typical fire season prevention efforts will be elevated commensurate with fire danger. 

Refuge employees must be kept informed about changes in the fire situation. Visitor contacts, 

signing, handouts and interpretive programs may be utilized to increase visitor and neighbor 

awareness of fire hazards. Due to lack of staffing on each individual refuge, collaboration with 

interagency partners such as local fire departments, the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-36 Appendix G. Fire Management Plan 

Service, and the Idaho Department of Lands is critical for maintaining a fire prevention presence 

with the public. The complex will support interagency fire prevention efforts through use of severity 

funding, increased personnel presence, large scale campaigns, etc. 

During periods of extreme or prolonged fire danger emergency restrictions regarding refuge 

operations or area closures may become necessary. Such restrictions will usually be consistent with 

those implemented by cooperators. The FMO will recommend when such restrictions may be 

necessary. Closures will be authorized by the Project Leader in consultation with Refuge Managers 

and the FMO. 

All of the refuges are bordered by private property and have areas identified as at risk to wildfire 

should one start on the refuge. These areas will be addressed in County Wildfire Protection Plans and 

treated by chemical, mechanical or prescribed fire means as appropriate to reduce the risk. Refuge 

personnel will work with interagency partners to educate the community on fire mitigation 

techniques, consequences of doing or not doing the prescribed treatment, and issues related to any 

resulting smoke. A message of personal responsibility and Firewise principles will be included in any 

public contacts regarding fire mitigation. 

Fire Investigation 

Fire management personnel will attempt to locate and protect the probable point of origin and record 

pertinent information required to determine fire cause. They will be alert for possible evidence, 

protect the scene and report findings to the fireline supervisor. 

Prompt and efficient investigation of all suspicious fires will be carried out. However, fire 

management personnel should not question suspects or pursue the fire investigation unless they are 

currently law enforcement commission qualified. 

Personnel and services of other agencies may be utilized to investigate wildland fire arson or fire 

incidents involving structures. All fire investigations should follow the guidelines outlined in 4.1-2 of 

the Fire Management Handbook (2000). 

For fires of suspicious origin the IC or refuge Manager may request a Fire Investigator through the 

appropriate dispatch center (EIIFC or SCIIDC). 

Public Information and Education 

People who live in this area are used to prescribed burning by the private ranch owners. The burning 

of ditches and farm fields is a common practice in Southeast Idaho. 

The public will be notified of planned prescribed burning in advance of any actions via news releases 

and direct phone contact to neighboring residences. The role of wildland fire and prescribed fire may 

be incorporated into presentations that are given to various user groups and visiting public. 

Educating the public on the value of fire as a natural process is important to increasing public 

understanding and support for the fire management program. The refuge will use the most 

appropriate and effective means to explain the overall fire and smoke management program. This 

may include supplemental handouts, signs, personal contacts, auto tour routes, or media releases. 

When necessary, interpretive presentations will address the fire management program and explain the 

role of fire in the environment. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Fire Management Plan G-37 

G.5 Monitoring and Evaluation 

Monitoring and evaluation are essential elements of the Complex’s fire management program. They 

provide the means by which refuge personnel are able to determine if applicable sections of the fire 

management plan are being implemented as planned and if fire-related goals and objectives are being 

achieved. 

G.5.1 Fire Management Plan 

G.5.1.1 Annual FMP Review 

This FMP will be reviewed annually and updated as needed, upon local agency administrator 

approval. Revisions of FMPs with Regional review and concurrence are required every five years 

and following completion of a new (or significantly revised) CCP or habitat management plan. 

G.5.1.2 Fire Management Plan Terminology 

Terms in the FMP are defined in the National Wildfire Coordinating Group glossary, located at 

http://www.nwcg.gov/pms/pubs/glossary. Any terms used not in the glossary are defined below. 

G.5.2 Treatment Effectiveness 

Basic monitoring to determine habitat response will generally use photo-points, which will be revisited and photographed during subsequent seasons. Comparisons over time will aid in determining 

if burn objectives and resource objectives are being met. More complex monitoring efforts may be 

undertaken for research-related prescribed burns, or to answer questions about the effects of 

prescribed fire on specific wildlife or other habitat parameters. Such monitoring can require 

vegetation transects, breeding bird point counts, presence/absence of target species, etc. An excellent 

reference resource for monitoring procedures can be found within the Fire Monitoring Handbook, 

USDI, and National Park Service, 2007. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-38 Appendix G. Fire Management Plan 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix H. Cultural Resource Management Plan H-1 

Appendix H. Cultural Resource Management Plan 

The Comprehensive Conservation Plan represents an opportunity to improve management for the 

Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Oxford Slough WPA, and Thomas Fork Unit. Cultural resource 

management should be an integral part of habitat and people management, not just because the law 

mandates it but for the unique information it can bring to understanding our environment. The 

following issues are very important: 

1. How do we maintain the integrity of the Refuge’s cultural resources while managing and 

restoring wildlife habitat? 

2. How do we work and consult 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. How do we work and consult 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. How do we incorporate cultural resources into an interpretive and recreation program that 

illustrates humankind’s interaction with the natural world? 

These issues illustrate some of the Service’s legally mandated responsibilities for cultural resources 

management. The management of cultural resources is an integral element of the process of meeting 

the Refuge’s obligations, and consequently, of fulfilling its stated purpose. To this end, we 

recommend that the CCP includes the following goal: 

Goal: Protect, preserve, evaluate, and interpret the cultural heritage and resources of the Refuge 

while consulting with appropriate Native American groups and preservation organizations, 

and complying with historic preservation legislation.

With this goal in mind, we will implement the following objectives and strategies: 

H.1 Objective CR1 

Implement a proactive cultural resources management program that focuses on meeting the 

requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act, including consultation, identification, 

inventory, evaluation, and protection of cultural resources. 

Achievement Strategies 

A. Identify archaeological sites that coincide with existing and planned roads, facilities, public 

use areas, and habitat projects. Evaluate threatened and impacted sites and structures for 

eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places. Prepare and implement activities to 

avoid and mitigate impacts to sites and structures as necessary. 

B. Implement a proactive historic preservation program to evaluate eligibility to the National 

Register of Historic Places of those archaeological sites and historic-era structures that may 

be impacted by Service undertakings, management activities, erosion, or neglect. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

H-2 Appendix H. Cultural Resource Management Plan 

C. Develop a GIS layer for cultural resources that can be used with other GIS layers for the 

Refuge, yet contains appropriate locks to protect sensitive information. 

D. Develop partnerships with the Tribes for cultural resources inventory, evaluation, and 

project monitoring, consistent with the regulations of the National Historic Preservation 

Act. 

E. Submit RONS proposal to the Refuge Operations Needs System Develop a cultural 

resource management plan as defined above. 

F. Submit a proposal to obtain all of the Homestead Act land patent records for homesteads 

patented with the refuge boundaries. 

Rationale: Various federal historic preservation laws and regulations require the Service to 

implement the kind of program described under this objective. Inattention to these responsibilities 

may obstruct the Refuge in its other land, habitat, and wildlife management efforts. 

H.1 Objective CR2 

Develop, in partnership with the Tribes and other preservation partners, a program for the education 

and interpretation of cultural resources of the Refuge. 

Achievement Strategies 

A. Prepare and implement activities to avoid and mitigate impacts to sites and structures as 

necessary. 

B. Prepare environmental/cultural education materials for use in local schools and museums 

concerning cultural resources, the discipline of archaeology, the perspective of Native 

Americans, the history of the area, and conservation of natural and cultural resources. 

These materials could include an artifact replica kit with hands-on activities and curriculum 

prepared in consultation with the local school district, historical societies, and the Tribes. 

C. Consult with the Tribes, historical societies, and other preservation partners to identify the 

type of cultural resources information appropriate for public interpretation. 

D. Develop an outreach program and materials so that the cultural resource messages become 

part of cultural events in the area, including National Wildlife Refuge Week and 

appropriate local festivals. 

E. Develop Museum Property Inventory. Create storage and use plans for museum property as 

part of the outreach program. 

F. Submit a quarter of a full-time equivalent position for cultural resource interpretation and 

education be submitted to the Refuge Operations Needs System. A minimum of $5,000 

should be allocated yearly for supplies and materials. 

Rationale: Cultural resources are not renewable. Thus, interpretation of cultural resources can instill 

a conservation ethic among the public and others who encounter or manage them. The goals of the 

cultural resource education and interpretive program are fourfold: (1) translate the results of cultural 

research into media that can be understood and appreciated by a variety of people, (2) relate the 

connection between cultural resources and natural resources and the role of humans in the 

environment, (3) foster an awareness and appreciation of native cultures, and (4) instill an ethic for 

the conservation of our cultural heritage. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix H. Cultural Resource Management Plan H-3 

H.2 Objective CR3 

Create and use a Memorandum of Understanding with Native American groups to implement the 

inadvertent discovery clause of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

(NAGPRA). 

Achievement Strategies 

A. Identify Native American Tribes, Groups, and direct lineal descendants that may be 

affiliated with the refuge lands. 

B. Open consultation process with affiliated Tribes, Groups, and direct lineal descendants. 

C. Define funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony. 

D. Develop procedures to follow for intentional and inadvertent discoveries. 

E. Identify persons to contact for the purposes of NAGPRA. 

F. Submit a quarter of a full-time equivalent position for cultural resource interpretation and 

education be submitted to the Refuge Operations Needs System. A minimum of $5,000 

should be allocated yearly for supplies and materials. 

G. Submit to RONS a 1/8 full-time equivalent (FTE) position for two years to negotiate and 

complete an MOU, with $25,000 for travel expenses 

Rationale: Development of a Memorandum of Understanding prior to an inadvertent discovery is 

strongly suggested by the NAGPRA implementing regulations. Such an agreement can greatly 

facilitate and speed up consultations as required by law after an inadvertent discovery. 

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

H-4 Appendix H. Cultural Resource Management Plan 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix I. Glossary I-1 

Appendix I. Glossary 

I.1 Abbreviations 

Act National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

 (also Improvement Act or NWRSIA) 

ABA Architectural Barriers Act 

ABC American Bird Conservancy 

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern (BLM) 

ac. Acres 

ac/ft Acre-Feet 

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act 

AHPA Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act 

ARPA Archaeological Resources Protection Act 

ATR Auto Tour Route 

ATV All-Terrain Vehicles 

AWP Annual Work Plan 

AUD Appropriate Use Determination 

BCC Birds of Conservation Concern 

BCT Bonneville Cutthroat Trout 

BRWCA Bear River Watershed Conservation Area 

BHCA Bird Habitat Conservation Area 

BIDEH Biological Diversity, Integrity, and Environmental Health 

BLM U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

BRNWR Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

BP Before Present 

°C Degrees Celsius 

CCP Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CD Compatibility Determination 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

cfs Cubic feet per second 

CLMA Cooperative Land Management Agreement 

CO2 Carbon Dioxide 

COE U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 

cm Centimeter 

CWCS Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (State) 

Csa Mediterranean Climate 

CY Calendar Year 

dbh Diameter of a tree at breast height 

DO Dissolved oxygen, a measure of water quality 

DEQ Department of Environmental Quality 

Dfb Humid Continental, Mild Summer Climate 

DM Departmental Manual (USFWS) 

DPS Distinct Population Segment 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EE Environmental Education 

EIS Environmental Impact Assessment 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

I-2 Appendix I. Glossary 

ENSO El Niño/La Nina Southern Oscillation 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

°F Degrees Fahrenheit 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

FRO Fisheries Resource Office (USFWS) 

FSA Farm Services Agency 

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (also, Service, USFWS) 

FY Fiscal Year 

GCM Global Climate Model 

GIS Geographic Information System 

GPS Global positioning system 

HCWMA Highlands Cooperative Weed Management Area 

HGM Hydrogeomorphic 

IAC Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation 

IBA Important Bird Area 

IBIS Idaho Bird Inventory and Survey Program 

IDDEQ State of Idaho Department of Environmental Quality 

IDFG State of Idaho Department of Fish and Game 

IDWR State of Idaho Department of Water Resources 

Improvement Act National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

(also Act, NWRSIA) 

I&M Inventory and Monitor 

INFISH Inland Native Fish Strategy 

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

IPM Integrated Pest Management 

ISU Idaho State University 

kg Kilogram 

LDS The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 

IDT State of Idaho Transportation Department 

LE Law Enforcement 

m Meter 

MAPS Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship 

MBCC Migratory Bird Conservation Commission 

MBMO Migratory Bird Management Office 

MMS Maintenance Management System 

MOA Memorandum of Agreement 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

MRMP Middle Rocky Mountain Province 

MSL Mean Sea Level 

NAGPRA Native American Graves Repatriation Act 

NAS National Audubon Society 

NAWMP North American Waterfowl Management Plan 

NCDC National Climate Data Center 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NGO Nongovernmental Organization 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix I. Glossary I-3 

NTU Nephelometric turbidity unit, a measure of water turbidity 

NVCS National Vegetation Classification Standard 

NWI National Wetlands Inventory 

NWR National Wildlife Refuge 

NWRS National Wildlife Refuge System 

NWRSIA National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

OC Organochlorine Compounds 

PDO Pacific Decadal Oscillation 

PIF Partners in Flight 

PFC Pacific Flyway Council 

pH Potential Hydrogen 

PPM Parts Per Million 

R1 Region 1 of the FWS (WA, OR, ID, HI and Pacific islands) 

ROC Resource of Concern 

RONS Refuge Operating Needs System 

ROCO Rocky Mountains and Columbia Basin 

RV Recreational Vehicle 

SCA Soil Conservation Service 

SCBD Secretariat for the Convention on Biodiversity 

SCEP Student Educational Employment Program 

SCORPT Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation and Transportation Plan 

Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (also FWS, USFWS) 

SGCN Species of Greatest Conservation Need 

SST Sea Surface Temperatures 

STEP Student Temporary Employment Program 

SUP Special Use Permit 

TDS Total Dissolved Solids 

TMDL Total maximum daily load 

TNC The Nature Conservancy 

TP Total Phosphorous 

TPY Tons Per Year 

TSS Total Suspended Solids 

UP&L Utah Power and Light Company, now PacifiCorp 

USDA U.S Department of Agriculture 

USDI U.S. Department of Interior 

USFS U.S. Forest Service 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USU Utah State University 

WILD Project Wild 

WPA Waterfowl Production Area 

WRCC Western Regional Climate Center 

WMA Wildlife Management Area (State of Idaho) 

XC Cross Country 

YACC Young Adult Conservation Corps 

YCC Youth Conservation Corps 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

I-4 Appendix I. Glossary 

I.2 Glossary 

303(d) listed water bodies. Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states, territories, and 

authorized tribes to develop lists of impaired waters. These are waters that are too polluted or 

otherwise degraded to meet the water quality standards set by states, territories, or authorized tribes. 

The law requires that these jurisdictions establish priority rankings for waters on the lists and develop 

TMDLs for these waters (USEPA). For example, Deep Creek is 303(d) listed for sediment.

Alluvium. Sediment transported and deposited in a delta or riverbed by flowing water. 

Adaptive Management. The rigorous application of management, research, and monitoring to gain 

information and experience necessary to assess and modify management activities. A process that 

uses feedback from refuge research and monitoring and evaluation of management actions to support 

or modify objectives and strategies at all planning levels. (Service Manual 602 FW 1.4) 

Alternative. Different sets of objectives and strategies or means of achieving refuge purposes and 

goals, helping fulfill the Refuge System mission, and resolving issues. (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6). 

The “no action” alternative is current refuge management, while the “action” alternatives are all other 

alternatives. 

Appropriate Use. A proposed or existing use on a refuge that meets at least one of the following 

four conditions: 

(1) The use is a wildlife-dependent recreational use as identified in the Improvement Act. 

(2) The use contributes to fulfilling the refuge purpose(s), the Refuge System mission, or goals or 

objectives described in a refuge management plan approved after October 9, 1997, the date the 

Improvement Act was signed into law. 

(3) The use involves the take of fish and wildlife under State regulations. 

(4) The use has been found to be appropriate as specified in section 1.11 of the USFWS Appropriate 

Use Policy (603 FW 1). 

Approved Refuge Boundary. A National Wildlife Refuge boundary approved by the National or 

Regional Fish and Wildlife Service Director. Within this boundary, the Service may negotiate with 

landowners to acquire lands not already owned by the Service. (modified from Region 1 Landowner 

Guide, USFWS Division of Refuge Planning) 

Archaeology. The scientific study of material evidence remaining from past human life and culture. 

(Webster’s II) 

Association or Plant Association. The finest level of biological community organization 

in the US National Vegetation Classification (NVCS), defined as a plant community with a 

definite floristic composition, uniform habitat conditions, and uniform physiognomy. 

With the exception of a few associations that are restricted to specific and unusual 

environmental conditions, associations generally repeat across the landscape. They also 

occur at variable spatial scales depending on the steepness of environmental gradients 

and the patterns of disturbances. (The Nature Conservancy 2003). 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix I. Glossary I-5 

B.P. (Before Present). Used as a designation following radiocarbon dates to express the point from 

which radiocarbon years are measured. This measuring point is arbitrarily taken to be 1950. A date of 

5,200±200 B.P. means that it dates to 5,200 (plus or minus 200) years before 1950. 

Benefiting Resources. Those species, species groups, or resources expected to benefit from actions 

taken for a Resource of Concern. 

Biological Diversity: The variety of living organisms considered at all levels of 

organization including the genetic, species, and higher taxonomic levels. Biological 

diversity also includes the variety of habitats, ecosystems, and natural processes 

occurring therein. (The Nature Conservancy 2003) 

Birds of Conservation Concern. A category assembled by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Division of Migratory Birds identifying the migratory and non-migratory species (beyond those 

already designated as Federally threatened or endangered) that represent the Division’s highest 

conservation priorities. (FWS, Division of Migratory Birds) 

Biological Diversity (also Biodiversity). The variety of life and its processes, including the variety 

of living organisms, the genetic differences among them, and communities and ecosystems in which 

they occur (FWS Manual 601 FW 3). The System’s focus is on indigenous species, biotic 

communities, and ecological processes. 

Biological Integrity. Biotic composition, structure, and functioning at genetic, organism, and 

community levels comparable with historic conditions, including the natural biological processes that 

shape genomes, organisms, and communities. (FWS Manual 601 FW 3) 

Candidate Species. Plant or animal species for which FWS or NOAA Fisheries has on file sufficient 

information on biological vulnerability and threats to support a proposal to list as endangered or 

threatened. (FWS, Endangered Species Glossary, http://www.fws.gov/endangered/glossary.html) 

Categorical Exclusion. A category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human environment and have been found to have no such effect in 

procedures adopted by a Federal agency pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 

1508.4). 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). A codification of the regulations published in the Federal 

Register by the executive departments and agencies of the Federal government. The CFR is divided 

into 50 titles that represent broad areas subject to Federal regulation. Title 50 contains wildlife and 

fisheries regulations (NOAA Fisheries Glossary 2006). 

Compatible Use. A wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other use of a refuge that, in the 

sound professional judgment of the Director, will not materially interfere with or detract from the 

fulfillment of the Mission of the System or the purposes of the Refuge (Service Manual 603 FW 3.6). 

A compatibility determination supports the selection of compatible uses and identifies stipulations or 

limits necessary to ensure compatibility. 

Composition (plant). The inventory of plant species found in any particular area. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

I-6 Appendix I. Glossary 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan. A document that describes the desired future conditions of a 

refuge or planning unit and provides long-range guidance and management direction to achieve the 

purpose(s) of the Refuge; helps fulfill the mission of the System; maintains and, where appropriate, 

restores the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of each refuge and the System; 

helps achieve the goals of the National Wilderness Preservation System, if appropriate; and meets 

other mandates. (FWS Habitat Management Planning policy, 602 FW 1.4) 

Connectivity. The arrangement of habitats that allows organisms and ecological processes to move 

across the landscape; patches of similar habitats are either close together or linked by corridors of 

appropriate vegetation. The opposite of fragmentation.

Conservation Target or Target (also see Resources of Concern; Priority Species, Species 

Groups, and Communities). Term used by land management agencies and conservation 

organizations to describe the resources (ecological systems, ecological communities, species, species 

groups, or other natural resources) selected as the focus of conservation planning or actions. (adapted 

from Low, Functional Landscapes, 2003) 

Consumptive use. Recreational activities, such as hunting and fishing that involve harvest or 

removal of wildlife or fish, generally to be used as food by humans. 

Contaminants or Environmental contaminants. Chemicals present at levels greater than those 

naturally occurring in the environment resulting from anthropogenic or natural processes that 

potentially result in changes to biota at any ecological level. (USGS, assessing EC threats to lands 

managed by USFWS) Pollutants that degrade other resources upon contact or mixing. (Adapted from 

Webster’s II) 

Cooperative Agreement. An official agreement between two parties. 

Cover. The estimated percent of an area, projected onto a horizontal surface, occupied by a particular 

plant species. 

Critical Habitat. Those areas that support rare, threatened or endangered species, or serve as 

sensitive spawning and rearing areas for aquatic life as designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service or NOAA Fisheries pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (16 USC 1531). 

Cultural Resources. The physical remains, objects, historic records, and traditional lifeways that 

connect us to our nation’s past. (USFWS, Considering Cultural Resources) 

Cultural Resource Inventory. A professionally conducted study designed to locate and evaluate 

evidence of cultural resources present within a defined geographic area. Inventories may involve 

various levels, including background literature search, comprehensive field examination to identify 

all exposed physical manifestations of cultural resources, or sample inventory to project site 

distribution and density over a larger area. Evaluation of identified cultural resources to determine 

eligibility for the National Register follows the criteria found in 36 CFR 60.4. (Service Manual 614 

FW 1.7) 

Decadence. Marked by decay or decline. For plants, showing little or no new growth. (Adapted from 

Merriam-Webster online dictionary) 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix I. Glossary I-7 

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; submergent aquatic 

vegetation habitats; and semi-permanently flooded deep emergent bulrush habitat. 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). 

Deciduous. Describes trees and shrubs which shed all of their leaves each year. 

Distinct population segment (DPS). A subdivision of a vertebrate species that is treated as a species 

for purposes of listing under the Endangered Species Act. To be so recognized, a potential distinct 

population segment must satisfy standards specified in a FWS or NOAA Fisheries policy statement 

(See the February 7, 1996, Federal Register, pages 4722-4725). The standards require it to be 

separable from the remainder of and significant to the species to which it belongs. (FWS, Endangered 

Species Glossary, http://www.fws.gov/endangered/glossary.html) 

Disturbance. Significant alteration of habitat structure or composition, or of the behavior or wildlife. 

May be natural (e.g., fire) or human-caused events (e.g., aircraft overflight). 

Drawdown. A lowering of the ground-water surface caused by pumping. 

Ecosystem. A dynamic and interrelating complex of plant and animal communities and their 

associated non-living environment. 

Ecosystem Management. Management of natural resources using system-wide concepts to ensure 

that all plants and animals in ecosystems are maintained at viable levels in native habitats and basic 

ecosystem processes are perpetuated indefinitely. 

Environmental Assessment. A concise public document, prepared in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act, that briefly discusses the purpose and need for an action, alternatives to 

such action, and provides sufficient evidence and analysis of impacts to determine whether to prepare 

an environmental impact statement or finding of no significant impact (40 CFR 1508.9). 

Endangered Species (Federal). An animal or plant species in danger of extinction throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range. (FWS, Endangered Species Glossary) 

Environmental Education Study Sites. Outdoor locations where groups of students engage in 

hands-on activities within an environmental education curriculum. 

Environmental Health. Composition, structure, and functioning of soil, water, air, and other abiotic 

features comparable with historic conditions, including the natural abiotic processes that shape the 

environment. (FWS Manual 601 FW 3) 

Enhance. To improve the condition of an area or habitat, usually for the benefit of certain native 

species. 

Extirpated Species. A species that no longer survives in regions that were once part of its range, but 

that still exists elsewhere in the wild or in captivity. (FWS, Endangered Species Glossary) 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

I-8 Appendix I. Glossary 

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). A document prepared in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act, supported by an environmental assessment, that briefly presents why a 

Federal action will have no significant effect on the human environment and for which an 

environmental impact statement, therefore, will not be prepared (40 CFR 1508.13). 

Fee Hunt (also reservation hunt; regulated hunt). Areas containing designated blinds for 

waterfowl hunting, which are allocated via a lottery system and available for a fee. 

Floodplain. Mostly level land along rivers and streams that may be submerged by floodwater. A 

100-year floodplain is an area which can be expected to flood once in every 100 years. 

Fluvial processes. Referring to the physical interaction of flowing water and the natural channels of 

rivers and streams. 

Global Positioning System (GPS). A location determination network that uses satellites to act as 

reference points for the calculation of position information. These man-made reference points can be 

viewed as aerial lighthouses that are visible to user equipment and can also transmit additional 

information that can provide extremely accurate location information to the GPS function within 

location determination devices. (The Wireless Dictionary) 

Goal. Descriptive, open-ended, and often broad statement of desired future conditions that conveys a 

purpose but does not define measurable units. (Service Manual 620 FW 1.6) 

Habitat. The place or type of site where species and species assemblages are typically found and/or 

are successfully reproducing. They are named according to the features that provide the underlying 

structural basis for the community. (The Nature Conservancy 2003) 

Habitat Management Plan. A plan that provides refuge managers a decision-making process; 

guidance for the management of refuge habitat; and long-term vision, continuity, and consistency for 

habitat management on refuge lands. (FWS Habitat Management Planning policy 620 FW 1.4) 

Habitat Restoration. Management emphasis designed to move ecosystems to desired conditions and 

processes, and/or to healthy ecosystems. 

Historic Conditions. Composition, structure, and functioning of ecosystems resulting from natural 

processes that we believe, based on sound professional judgment, were present prior to substantial 

human related changes to the landscape. (FWS Manual 601 FW 3). Also see Presettlement 

Conditions. 

Hydrograph. The annual flow pattern of a river. 

Hydrologic Regime. The normal pattern of precipitation (snow and/or rainfall) and runoff occurring 

in an area. 

Important Bird Area (IBA). A site that provides essential habitat for one or more species of birds; 

program coordinated by The American Bird Conservancy and The National Audubon Society. 

Indicator. A measurable characteristic of a key ecological attribute that strongly correlates with the 

status of the key ecological attribute. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix I. Glossary I-9 

Indicator Species. A species used as a gauge for the condition of a particular habitat, community, or 

ecosystem. A characteristic or surrogate species for a community or ecosystem (The Nature 

Conservancy 2003). 

Inholding. Refers to lands within an Approved Refuge Boundary that are not owned by the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. These can be private lands or lands owned by city, county, State, or other 

Federal agencies. 

Integrated Pest Management (IPM). The use of pest and environmental information in conjunction 

with available pest control technologies to prevent unacceptable levels of pest damage by the most 

economical means and with the least possible hazard to persons, property, and the environment. (U.S. 

EPA Pesticide Glossary) 

Interpretation. A teaching technique that combines factual information with stimulating explanation 

(yourdictionary.com). Frequently used to help people understand natural and cultural resources. 

Introduced species. With respect to a particular ecosystem, any species, including its seeds, eggs, 

spores, or other biological material capable of propagating that species, that is not native to that 

ecosystem. Introduced species often compete with and cause problems for native species. Introduced 

species are also called exotic, nonnative, and alien species. (see Invasive Species) 

 

Invasive Species. An introduced species that out-competes native species for space and resources. 

Inventory. A survey of the plants or animals inhabiting an area. 

 

Issue. Any unsettled matter that requires a management decision, e.g., an initiative, opportunity, 

resource management problem, threat to the resources of the unit, conflict in uses, public concern, or 

the presence of an undesirable resource condition. (Service Manual 620 FW 1.6) 

Key Ecological Attribute. Those aspects of the environment, such as ecological processes or 

patterns of biological structure and composition that are critical to sustain the long-term viability of 

the target. These key ecological attributes are further divided into measurable indicators. 

Keystone Species. A species whose impacts on its community or ecosystem are large; 

much larger than would be expected from its abundance (for example, cottonwoods, beavers, gray 

wolves). Their removal initiates changes in ecosystem structure and often loss of diversity. (Adapted 

from The Nature Conservancy 2003) 

Lacustrine Wetlands. Those areas that are generally permanently flooded and lacking trees, shrubs, 

or emergent vegetation with greater than 30 percent areal coverage and measuring greater than 20 

acres. Smaller areas than this can be included if the water depth in the deepest part of the basin 

exceeds 6.6 feet at low water. (National Wetlands Inventory) 

Landform. A natural feature of a land surface. (yourdictionary.com) 

Maintenance. The upkeep of constructed facilities, structure, and capitalized equipment necessary to 

realize the originally anticipated useful life of a fixed asset. Maintenance includes preventative 

maintenance; cyclic maintenance; repairs; replacement of parts, components, or items of equipment, 

periodic condition assessment; periodic inspections, adjustment, lubrication and cleaning (non-
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

I-10 Appendix I. Glossary 

janitorial) of equipment; painting, resurfacing, rehabilitation; special safety inspections; and other 

actions to ensure continuing service and to prevent breakdown. 

Maintenance Management System (MMS). A national database of refuge maintenance needs and 

deficiencies. It serves as a management tool for prioritizing, planning, and budgeting purposes. 

(RMIS descriptions) 

Mesic. Habitats characterized by or requiring a moderate amount of moisture, as compared to hydric 

(wet) or xeric (dry) habitats. (Adapted from Merriam-Webster online). 

Migration. The seasonal movement from one area to another and back. 

Migratory birds. Those species of birds listed under 50 CFR section 10.13. (FWS Manual 720FW 1, 

Policies and Responsibilities of the Migratory Bird Program) 

Monitoring. The process of collecting information to track changes of selected parameters over time.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Requires all Federal agencies, including the 

Service, to examine the environmental impacts of their actions, incorporate environmental 

information, and use public participation in the planning and implementation of all actions. Federal 

agencies must integrate NEPA with other planning requirements, and prepare appropriate NEPA 

documents to facilitate better environmental decision making. (40 CFR 1500) 

Native. With respect to a particular ecosystem, a species that, other than as a result of an 

introduction, historically occurred or currently occurs in that ecosystem. (FWS Manual 601 FW 3) 

National Register of Historic Places. The Nation’s master inventory of known historic properties 

administered by the National Park Service. Includes buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts 

that possess historic, architectural, engineering, archeological, or cultural significance at the national, 

state, and local levels. (USFWS, Considering Cultural Resources) 

National Vegetation Classification Standard (NVCS). A hierarchical list of vegetation types and 

their descriptions intended to produce uniform statistics about vegetation resources across the United 

States, based on data gathered at local, regional, or national levels. (Adapted from Federal 

Geographic Data Committee). 

National Wildlife Refuge. A designated area of land, water, or an interest in land or water within the 

Refuge System, excluding coordination areas. (FWS Manual 601 FW 1.3) 

National Wildlife Refuge System. Various categories of areas administered by the Secretary of the 

Interior for the conservation of fish and wildlife, including species threatened with extinction; all 

lands, waters, and interests therein administered by the Secretary as wildlife refuges; areas for the 

protection and conservation of fish and wildlife that are threatened with extinction; wildlife ranges; 

game ranges; wildlife management areas; or waterfowl production areas. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57). A Federal law 

that amended and updated the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 

U.S.C. 668). 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix I. Glossary I-11 

Nephelometric turbidity unit (NTU). Unit of measure for the turbidity of water. Essentially, a 

measure of the cloudiness of water as measured by a nephelometer. Turbidity is based on the amount 

of light that is reflected off particles in the water. (USGS Water Science Glossary of Terms) 

Nonconsumptive Recreation. Recreational activities that do not involve harvest, removal, or 

consumption of fish, wildlife, or other natural resources. 

Noxious Weed. A plant species designated by Federal or State law as generally possessing one or 

more of the following characteristics: aggressive or difficult to manage; parasitic; a carrier or host of 

serious insect or disease; or non-native, new, or not common to the United States, according to the 

Federal Noxious Weed Act (PL 93-639), a noxious weed is one that causes disease or had adverse 

effects on man or his environment and therefore is detrimental to the agriculture and commerce of 

the United States and to the public health. 

Objective. A concise statement of what we want to achieve, how much we want to achieve, when 

and where we want to achieve it, and who is responsible for the work. Objectives derive from goals 

and provide the basis for determining strategies, monitoring refuge accomplishments, and evaluating 

the success of strategies. Make objectives attainable, time-specific, and measurable. (Service Manual 

620 FW 1.6) 

Operations. Activities related to the normal performance of the functions for which a facility or item 

of equipment is intended to be used. Costs such as utilities (electricity, water, sewage) fuel, janitorial 

services, window cleaning, rodent and pest control, upkeep of grounds, vehicle rentals, waste 

management, and personnel costs for operating staff are generally included within the scope of 

operations. 

Pacific Flyway. One of several major north-south travel corridors for migratory birds. The Pacific 

Flyway is west of the Rocky Mountains. Other flyways include the Central, Mississippi, and 

Atlantic. 

Palatable Grass. Short (generally less than 6 inches tall) actively growing grass preferred by Canada 

geese and certain other waterfowl (e.g., American wigeon). 

Palustrine Wetlands. Wetlands that may or may not be permanently flooded and typically 

recognized by the presence of trees, shrubs, or herbaceous emergent vegetation. May include nonvegetated areas measuring less than 20 acres in extent and with water depths shallower than 6.6 feet 

in the deepest part of the basin at low water (Cowardin et al. 1979). 

Planning Team. The primary U.S. Fish and Wildlife staff and others who played a key role in 

developing and writing the CCP. Planning teams are interdisciplinary in membership and function. 

Teams generally consist of a Planning Team Leader, Refuge Manager and staff biologists, a State 

natural resource agency representative, and other appropriate program specialists (e.g., social 

scientist, ecologist, and recreation specialist). Other Federal and Tribal natural resource agencies are 

asked to provide team members, as appropriate. The planning team prepares the CCP and appropriate 

NEPA documentation. (Service Manual 620 FW 1.6) 

Plant Association. A classification of plant communities based on the similarity in dominants of all 

layers of vascular species in a climax community (e.g., black cottonwood/red-osier dogwood plant 

association). 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

I-12 Appendix I. Glossary 

Plant Community. An assemblage of plant species unique in its composition; occurs in particular 

locations under particular influences; a reflection or integration of the environmental influences on 

the site such as soils, temperature, elevation, solar radiation, slope, aspect, and rainfall; denotes a 

general kind of climax plant community, e.g., Northern Rocky Mountain Mesic Montane Mixed 

Conifer Forest (NVCS). 

Preferred Alternative. This is the alternative determined [by the decision maker] to best achieve the 

refuge purpose, vision, and goals; to best contribute to the Refuge System mission; to best address 

the significant issues; and to be consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife management. 

Prescribed Fire. Any fire ignited by management actions to meet specific objectives. A written, 

approved prescribed fire plan must exist, and NEPA requirements (where applicable) must be met, 

prior to ignition (National Wildfire Coordinating Group Glossary of Wildland Fire Terminology) 

Presettlement Conditions. The state of the environment at the time of European settlement or 1850 

(Kootenai Tribe of Idaho and MT Dept of Fish, Wildlife and Parks 2004). Also see Historic 

Conditions. 

Priority Public Uses. Hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental 

education and interpretation, where compatible, are identified under the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997 as the six priority public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. 

Public. Individuals, organizations, and groups; officials of Federal, State, and local government 

agencies; Indian tribes; and foreign nations. It may include anyone outside the planning team. It 

includes those who may or may not have indicated an interest in Service issues and those who may 

be affected by Service decisions. 

Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS). A national database of unfunded refuge operating needs 

required to meet and/or implement station goals, objectives, management plans, and legal mandates. 

It is used as a planning, budgeting, and communication tool describing funding and staffing needs of 

the Refuge System. 

Refuge Purpose(s). The purposes 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. For refuges that encompass 

congressionally designated wilderness, the purposes of the Wilderness Act are additional purposes of 

the Refuge. (Service Manual 620 FW 1.6). 

Residual Cover. In pastures or grasslands, tall decadent grass and/or forbs left standing through the 

fall and winter seasons. 

Resource of Concern (ROC). 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. (FWS Habitat Management Planning policy, 620 

FW 1.4). 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix I. Glossary I-13 

Restore. To bring back to a former or original condition. (Webster’s II). 

Revenue Sharing. Service payments (government lands are exempt from taxation) made to counties 

in which national wildlife refuges reside. These payments may be used by the counties for any 

governmental purpose such as, but not limited to, roads and schools. (USFWS Revenue sharing 

pamphlet). 

Riparian. Refers to an area or habitat that is transitional from terrestrial to aquatic ecosystems; 

including streams, lakes wet areas, and adjacent plant communities and their associated soils which 

have free water at or near the surface; an area whose components are directly or indirectly attributed 

to the influence of water; of or relating to a river; specifically applied to ecology, “riparian” describes 

the land immediately adjoining and directly influenced by streams. For example, riparian vegetation 

includes any and all plant life growing on the land adjoining a stream and directly influenced by the 

stream. 

Shallow Emergent Marsh. Shallow emergent bulrush/cattail and alkali bulrush habitats 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.” 

Shorebirds. Sandpipers, plovers, and their close relatives of similar size and ecology, often 

associated with coastal and inland wetlands. (Sibley Guide to Birds 2000). 

Songbirds (Also Passerines). A category of medium to small, perching landbirds. Most are 

territorial singers and migratory. 

Source. An extraneous factor that causes a stress (the most proximate cause). (TNC 2000) 

Species of concern (Federal). An informal term referring to a species that might be in need of 

conservation action. This may range from a need for periodic monitoring of populations and threats 

to the species and its habitat, to the necessity for listing as threatened or endangered. Such species 

receive no legal protection and use of the term does not necessarily imply that a species will 

eventually be proposed for listing. (FWS, Endangered Species Glossary). 

Step-down Management Plan. A plan that provides specific guidance on management subjects 

(e.g., habitat, public use, fire, safety) or groups of related subjects. It describes strategies and 

implementation schedules for meeting CCP goals and objectives. (Service Manual 620 FW 1.6). 

Strategy. A specific action, tool, technique, or combination of actions, tools, and techniques used to 

meet unit objectives. (Service Manual 620 FW 1.6) 

Stress. Something which impairs or degrades the size, condition, or landscape context of 

a conservation target, resulting in reduced viability. (The Nature Conservancy 2003) 

Tall Emergent Wetland. Comprised of permanently flooded open and submerged aquatic 

vegetation immediately proximate to semi-permanently flooded deep emergent hardstem-bulrush 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

I-14 Appendix I. Glossary 

vegetation and semi-permanent to seasonally flooded shallow emergent alkali-bulrush/cattail 

vegetation. 

Target. See Conservation Target. 

Thatch. The dense covering of cut grass that remains after mowing of haying. Thatch inhibits growth 

of new grass and also inhibits goose foraging. 

Threat. The combined concept of ecological stresses to a target and the sources of that 

stress to the target. (The Nature Conservancy 2003) 

Threatened Species (Federal). An animal or plant species likely to become endangered within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. (FWS, Endangered Species 

Glossary) 

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). A calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a 

waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standards, and an allocation of that amount to the 

pollutant’s sources (US EPA). Pollutants may include sediment, nutrients (e.g., nitrogen and 

phosphorus), pathogens (e.g., E. coli bacteria), pesticides, and heavy metals (e.g., mercury). 

Turbidity. The amount of particulate matter that is suspended in water, measured in NTUs 

(nephelometric turbidity units). Clear water generally measures less than 10 NTU. 

Vegetation Type (Also Habitat Type, Forest Cover Type, Association, NVCS). A land 

classification system based upon the concept of distinct plant associations. 

Vision Statement. A concise statement of what the planning unit should be, or what we hope to do, 

based primarily upon the Refuge System mission and specific refuge purposes, and other mandates. 

The vision statement for the Refuge is tied to the mission of the Refuge System; the purpose(s) of the 

Refuge; the maintenance or restoration of the ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge 

System; and other mandates. (Service Manual 620 FW 1.6) 

Waterfowl. Resident and migratory ducks, geese, and swans. 

Water quality. A term used to describe the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of 

water, usually in respect to its suitability for a particular purpose. 

Watershed. The land area that drains water to a particular stream, river, or lake. It is a land feature 

that can be identified by tracing a line along the highest elevations between two areas on a map, often 

a ridge. Large watersheds, like the Mississippi River basin contain thousands of smaller watersheds. 

Wetlands. Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water 

table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water at some time during the 

growing season of each year. (Service Manual 660 FW 2; Cowardin et al. 1979) 

Permanent Wetland. A wetland basin or portion of a basin that is covered with water throughout the 

year in all years except extreme drought. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix I. Glossary I-15 

Semi-permanent Wetland. A wetland basin or portion of a basin where surface water persists 

throughout the growing season of most years. 

Seasonal Wetland. A wetland basin or portion of a basin where surface water is present in the early 

part of the growing season but is absent by the end of the season in most years. 

Wet Meadows. Shallowly flooded wetland edges with little to no slope. Flooding is generally of 

short duration. 

Wildfire. An unplanned, unwanted wildland fire including unauthorized human-caused fires, 

escaped wildland fire use events, escaped prescribed fire projects, and all other wildland fires where 

the objective is to put the fire out (National Wildfire Coordinating Group, Glossary of Wildland Fire 

Terminology) 

Wildland Fire. Any non-structure fire that occurs in the wildland. Three distinct types of wildland 

fire have been defined and include wildfire, wildland fire use (allowing naturally ignited fires to burn 

to benefit natural resources) and prescribed fire (National Wildfire Coordinating Group Glossary of 

Wildland Fire Terminology) 

Wildlife-dependent Recreational Use. A use of a refuge involving hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation and photography, or environmental education and interpretation. These are the six 

priority public uses of the Refuge System as established in the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act, as amended. Wildlife-dependent recreational uses, other than the six priority 

public uses, are those that depend on the presence of wildlife. The Service will also consider these 

other uses in the preparation of refuge CCPs; however, the six priority public uses always will take 

precedence. (Service Manual 620 FW 1.6) 

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

I-16 Appendix I. Glossary 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix J. Statement of Compliance J-1 

Appendix J. Statement of Compliance 

STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE 1

for Implementation of the 

Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Bear Lake County, Idaho 

And 

Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area, Franklin and Bannock Counties, Idaho

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

The following executive orders and legislative acts have been reviewed as they apply to 

implementation of the Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl 

Production Area Comprehensive Conservation Plan. 

1. National Environmental Policy Act (1969) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). The planning process 

has been conducted in accordance with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

Implementing Procedures and Department of the Interior and Service procedures, and has 

been performed in coordination with the affected public. The requirements of NEPA (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and its implementing regulations in 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508 have been 

satisfied in the procedures used to reach this decision. These procedures include: the 

development of a range of alternatives for the CCP; analysis of the likely effects of each 

alternative; and public involvement throughout the planning process. An environmental 

assessment (EA) was prepared for the project that integrated the Draft CCP management 

objectives and alternatives into the EA and NEPA process. The Draft CCP and EA was 

released for a 30-day public comment period. The affected public was notified of the 

availability of these documents through a Federal Register notice, news releases to local 

newspapers, the Service’s refuge planning website, and a planning update. Copies of the 

Draft CCP/EA and/or planning updates were distributed to an extensive mailing list. The 

CCP was revised based on public comment received on the draft documents.

2. National Historic Preservation Act (1966). The implementation of the CCP should not affect 

cultural resources. The proposed action does not meet the criteria of an effect or adverse effect as 

an undertaking defined in 36 CFR 800.9 and Service Manual 614 FW 2. The Service will comply 

with the National Historic Preservation Act if any management actions have the potential to affect 

any historic properties that may be present. 

3. Executive Order 12372. Intergovernmental Review. Coordination and consultation with 

affected Tribal, local and State governments, other Federal agencies, and the landowners has been 

completed through personal contact by Service Planners, refuge managers and Supervisors. 

4. Executive Order 13175. Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. 

As required under Secretary of the Interior Order 3206 American Indian Tribal Rights, FederalTribal Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act, the Project Leader consulted and 

coordinated with the Shosone-Bannock Tribe and the Northwestern Band of the Shosone 

Tribe regarding the proposed action. Specifically, Project Leader Tracy Casselman sent 

invitational letters to Chairman Small of the Shosone-Bannock Tribes, and Tribal Council 

Chair Jason Walker of the Northwestern Band of the Shosone Tribe, explaining the NWRS 

planning process and inviting the department to participate in the CCP development process. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

J-2 Appendix J. Statement of Compliance 

5. Executive Order 12898. Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and 

Low-Income Populations. All Federal actions must address and identify, as appropriate, 

disproportionally high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, 

policies, and activities on minority populations, low-income populations, and Indian Tribes in the 

United States. The CCP was evaluated and no adverse human health or environmental effects 

were identified for minority or low-income populations, Indian Tribes, or anyone else. 

6. Wilderness Act. The Service has evaluated the suitability of the Refuge for wilderness 

designation and concluded that the Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge, the Thomas Fork Unit, 

and the Oxford Slough WPA do not meet the basic criteria for inclusion into the National 

Wilderness Preservation System. 

7. National Wildlife Administration Act of 1966, as amended by The National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee). 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 and Oxford Slough WPA; canoeing and 

kayaking (nonmotorized boating) on the Bear Lake NWR and Oxford Slough WPA; and 

bicycling, cross-country skiing, and snowshoeing on the Bear Lake NWR and Oxford Slough 

WPA. The following uses were found to be compatible with stipulations: environmental 

education, interpretation, wildlife observation, and photography on Bear Lake NWR and Oxford 

Slough WPA; waterfowl hunting on Bear Lake NWR and Oxford Slough WPA; small upland 

game hunting on Bear Lake NWR; sport fishing on Bear Lake NWR; research on Bear Lake 

NWR (including Thomas Fork Unit) and the Oxford Slough WPA; agricultural practices (farming 

and haying) on Bear Lake NWR (including Thomas Fork Unit) and the Oxford Slough WPA; dog 

walking on Bear Lake NWR and the Oxford Slough WPA; canoeing and kayaking (nonmotorized 

boating) on Bear Lake NWR and the Oxford Slough WPA; bicycling, cross-country skiing, 

snowshoeing on Bear Lake NWR and Oxford Slough WPA; hunting of resident game and 

furbearers on Oxford Slough WPA; and trapping of furbearers on Oxford Slough WPA. 

8. EO 13186. Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds. This order 

directs departments and agencies to take certain actions to further implement the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act. A provision of the order directs Federal agencies to consider the impacts of 

their activities, especially in reference to birds on the Fish and Wildlife Service’s list of Birds 

of Conservation (Management) Concern (BCC). It also directs agencies to incorporate 

conservation recommendations and objectives in the North American Waterbird 

Conservation Plan and bird conservation plans developed by Partners in Flight into agency 

planning. The effects of all alternatives to refuge habitats used by migratory birds were 

assessed within the Chapter 6 of the Draft CCP/EA, which was incorporated by reference 

into this document.

9. Endangered Species Act. No Federally threatened or endangered species occur on the Bear Lake 

NWR, Thomas Fork Unit, or Oxford Slough WPA. Therefore, CCP implementation is expected 

to result in no impacts the threatened or endangered species. 

10. Executive Order 11990. Protection of Wetlands. The CCP is consistent with Executive Order 

11990 because CCP implementation will protect and enhance existing wetlands. 

11. Executive Order 11988. Floodplain Management. Under this order Federal agencies “shall 

take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix J. Statement of Compliance J-3 

 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

J-4 Appendix J. Statement of Compliance 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix K. CCP Team Members K-1 

Appendix K. CCP Team Members 

The CCP was developed primarily by core team members. The core planning team consisted of 

persons responsible for the preparation and completion of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan. 

They are the primary strategists, analysts, and writers, and attended all team meetings. To avoid 

scheduling and logistical conflicts, the core team had a limited number of participants. 

The extended team, which included professionals from several different Fish and Wildlife Service 

programs, played a supporting role to the core team. Extended team members provided input early in 

the alternatives development process, and continued to provide review and comment as the document 

evolved. They attended periodic planning meetings, compiled information for use in the plan, and/or 

provided comment on portions of the plan within their areas of expertise. Extended team members’ 

varied responsibilities include providing technical expertise and assisting with development of 

objectives, strategies, and alternatives; analysis; writing; and reviewing. In addition, content 

specialists from other agencies or organizations were contacted as needed by members of the core 

and extended teams for specific planning needs. 

Table K.1 Bear Lake NWR and Oxford Slough WPA CCP Core Team Members

Name 

Title 

(Team Role) 

Address 

Tracy Casselman Project Leader U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Southeast Idaho NWRC 

4425 Burley Drive, Suite A 

Chubbuck, ID 83202 

208-237-6617 

Annette de Knijf Refuge Manager U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Bear Lake NWR 

370 Webster, PO Box 9, Montpelier, 

ID 83254 

208-847-1757 

Carl Mitchell Wildlife Biologist 

(Retired) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Grays Lake NWR 

74 Grays Lake Road 

Wayan, ID 83285 

208-574-2755

Bill Smith Wildlife Biologist/Planner U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Grays Lake NWR 

74 Grays Lake Road 

Wayan, ID 83285 

208-574-2755 

Ken Morris Conservation Planner U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Division of Planning, Visitor Services 

and Transportation 

911 NE 11th Ave 

Portland, OR 97213 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

K-2 Appendix K. CCP Team Members 

Table K.2 Extended Team Members 

Name Title Address 

Kevin Kilbride Regional IPM Coordinator U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

1211 SE Cardinal Ct., Suite 100 

Vancouver, WA 98683 

Joe Engler Assistant Regional Biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

1211 SE Cardinal Ct., Suite 100 

Vancouver, WA 98683 

Tom Miewald Geographer U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

911 NE 11th Avenue 

Portland, OR 97232-4181 

503-231-6840 

Gary Ball Hydrologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Water Resources Branch 

911 NE 11th Avenue 2W-EN 

Portland, OR 97232-4181 

503-736-4788 

Lance Roberts Fire Management Officer U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Southeast Idaho NWRC 

4425 Burley Drive, Suite A 

Chubbuck, ID 83202 

Kathi Stopher Instructional Systems Specialist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge 

2155 West Forest St. 

Brigham City, UT 84302 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix L. Public Involvement L-1 

Appendix L. Public Involvement 

Public involvement was sought throughout the development of the Draft CCP, starting in March 

2010 with the preparation of an Outreach and Communication Plan. The Refuge also held an open 

house and sent letters and planning updates to inform the public, Tribes, and agencies, invite 

discussion, and solicit feedback. 

A mailing list of approximately 200 persons and organizations is maintained at the Refuge and was 

used to distribute planning updates and public meeting announcements. Below is a brief summary of 

the events, meetings, and outreach tools that were used in our public involvement efforts. 

L.1 Agency Consultation and Coordination 

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) was invited to the public scoping meeting and 

asked to submit comments during public scoping. On November 5, 2010, Project Leader Tracy 

Casselman sent invitational letters to IDFG Regional Supervisors Mark Gamblin (Southeast Region) 

and Steve Schimdt (Upper Snake Region) explaining the NWRS planning process and inviting the 

department to participate in the CCP development process. In addition Project Leader Casselman 

informed IDFG of progress on CCPs for the Southeast Idaho Refuges and other items of shared 

management interest on a regular basis (typically once per month). IDFG chose not to participate in 

the development of the CCP but reviewed and provided comments on the Draft CCP/environmental 

assessment (EA). 

L.2 Native American Government Consultation 

In accordance with Service and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) policy, the Service 

invited the two federally recognized Native American Tribes in the area, the Shoshone-Bannock 

Tribes and the Northwestern Band of the Shoshone Nation, to participate in the CCP process at the 

scoping or development phase. On November 5, 2010, Project Leader Tracy Casselman sent 

invitational letters to Chairman Small of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes and Tribal Council Chair 

Jason Walker of the Northwestern Band of the Shoshone Nation explaining the NWRS planning 

process and inviting the Tribes to participate in the CCP development process. Neither Tribe chose to 

do so. With the release of the draft CCP the Service sent Planning Updates and the Draft CCP/EA 

(on CD) to the Tribes. Neither Tribe provided comment. Project Leader Casselman meets with the 

Shoshone-Bannock Tribe twice yearly to discuss ongoing projects in the Southeast Idaho Complex 

(including CCPs) and discuss items of shared management interest. 

L.3 Formal Scoping 

L.3.1 Notice of Intent 

The Service began the public scoping period by publishing a Notice of Intent to prepare the CCP in 

the Federal Register on June 23, 2010. In addition to basic information about the CCP/EA project, 

the notice provided information on the planning process; public involvement opportunities; a history 

and description of Bear Lake NWR, the Thomas Fork Unit, and Oxford Slough WPA; and a 

description of the initial issues, concerns, and opportunities as developed by the Service. The 30-day 

comment period ended on July 23, 2010. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

L-2 Appendix L. Public Involvement

During scoping a total of 15 responses were received from individuals or organizations from June 23, 

2010, through July 23, 2010. Six of these were comment forms returned by mail or hand delivered to 

the Refuge. Comments from five respondents were recorded at the open house. Three responses were 

sent by e-mail. One response was a letter sent by e-mail and mail. All comments gathered during the 

period were recorded and summarized in the Public Scoping Report, which is available on Bear Lake 

NWR’s website. 

L.3.2 Other Public Notices 

 June 2010. Press releases notifying the public of the open house were sent to and published 

by The News-Examiner, a weekly newspaper for the Bear Lake Valley. 

 June 2010. Press releases notifying the public of the open house were sent to and announced 

on the air by KVSI 1450 AM, a local radio station. 

L.3.3 Public Scoping Open House 

The Service held one public open house during the 30-day scoping/comment period on July 1, 2010, 

in Montpelier, Idaho at the Bear Lake County Senior Citizens Center, 115 S. 4th Street, Montpelier 

ID 83254 from 6:30 to 8:30 PM. The meeting was in an open house format. Refuge staff explained 

the CCP process; refuge purposes, vision, and management; and preliminary management issues, 

concerns, and opportunities that had been identified early in the planning process. The public was 

invited to submit comments either in writing or verbally. A total of five private citizens attended the 

open house and provided comments. 

L.4 Other Meetings 

 July 19-20, 2010. Representatives from the Service’s Pacific Region updated the IDFG on the 

status of CCP efforts in Idaho, including Bear Lake NWR, at the annual conference of the 

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 

 April 11, 2011. Preliminary draft alternatives briefing for Region 1 Refuges Chief and staff, 

Service Regional Office, Portland, OR. 

 April 18, 2012. Internal draft CCP briefing for Region 1 Refuges Chief and staff, Service 

Regional Office, Portland, OR.

 November 6, 2012. Project Leader Tracy Casselman and Refuge Manager Annette de Knijf 

met with PacifiCorp to discuss their comments on the Draft CCP/EA.

L.5 Planning Updates 

As noted above, the Service distributed a planning update (summarized below) to individuals, 

agencies, and organizations on a mailing list to initiate the scoping process. A second update was 

released upon conclusion of the formal scoping process, and a third update was released to announce 

the availability of the draft CCP and summarize management alternatives. 

 June 2010. Planning Update 1 was distributed to a mailing list of approximately 200 

individuals and organizations on the Bear Lake Refuge and Southeast Idaho NWR Complex 

mailing lists including Federal, state, Tribal, and local governments and land management 

agencies, non-governmental organizations, media contacts, and private citizens. Planning 

Update 1 provided an overview of the CCP process, announced the start of the planning 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix L. Public Involvement L-3 

process, and presented draft issues that might be addressed in the CCP. The planning update 

included a comment form. In addition, the Planning Update was posted on the refuge 

website, and copies were available at the CCP open house and at the refuge office. 

 November 2010. Planning Update 2, summarizing the results of public scoping, was 

distributed to a mailing list of approximately 200 recipients. In addition, the Planning Update 

and a detailed report on the results of public scoping were posted on the refuge website. 

 September 2012. Planning Update 3, announcing the availability of the Draft CCP/EA and 

the start of the public comment period, was distributed to a mailing list of approximately 200 

recipients. Planning Update 3 included a summary comparison of the three alternatives 

presented in the Draft CCP/EA, and information on how the interested public could provide 

comments. CDs containing the complete Draft CCP/EA were mailed with the planning 

update. In addition, the Planning Update and the Draft CCP/EA were posted on the refuge 

website. 

L.6 Other Tools 

 June 2010. Comment forms were sent to approximately 200 people in conjunction with 

Planning Update 1. The comment form was also posted on refuge website, and distributed 

during the public scoping meeting. 

L.7 Federal Register Notices 

 June 23, 2010. Federal Register published Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (75 FR 35829). 

 September 28, 2012. Federal Register published Notice of Availability of the Draft CCP/EA 

and request for comments (77 FR 59639). 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

L-4 Appendix L. Public Involvement

This page left blank intentionally. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix M. Refuge Decrees and Agreements M-1 

Appendix M. Refuge Decrees and Agreements 

Readers please note: Utah Power and Light Company referred to in these documents is now PacifiCorp. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

M-2 Appendix M. Refuge Decrees and Agreements 

This page intentionally left blank. 
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Compact Page

Article I ) Statement of Purpose ....................................... 1

Article II ) Definition of Terms ......................................... 1

Article III ) Bear River Commission ...................................... 4

Article IV ) Allocation of Direct Flow .................................... 4

Article V ) Lower Division Allocation ................................... 7

Article VI ) Allocation of Storage ....................................... 7

Article VII ) New Projects ............................................. 9

Article VIII ) Rights in Other Signatory States ............................... 9

Article IX ) Conveyance of Stored Water between States ..................... 10

Article X ) Rights in Interstate Canals ................................... 10

Article XI ) Applications for Appropriation, Etc. ........................... 11

Article XII ) Legal Actions and Proceedings ............................... 12

Article XIII ) Existing Rights of United States .............................. 12

Article XIV ) Review of Compact Provisions ............................... 12

Article XV ) Termination ............................................. 12

Article XVI ) Severability .............................................. 12

Article XVII ) Ratification and Effective Date ............................... 12

Bylaws

Article I ) The Commission .......................................... 15

Article II ) Officers ................................................. 15

Article III ) Principal Office ........................................... 16

Article IV ) Meetings ................................................ 16

Article V ) Committees .............................................. 17

Article VI ) Fiscal .................................................. 18

Article VII ) Miscellaneous ............................................ 18
PUBLIC LAW 96-189)FEB. 8, 1980

Page 1

Public Law 96-189

96th Congress

An Act

Feb 8, 1980

[H.R. 4320]

To consent to the amended Bear River Compact between the States of Utah, Idaho,

and Wyoming.

Bear River Compact.

Congressional

consent.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of

America in Congress assembled, That the consent of Congress is given to the amended

Bear River Compact between the States of Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming. Such compact

reads as follows:

"AMENDED BEAR RIVER COMPACT

Amended agreement

by Idaho, Utah, and

Wyoming.

"The State of Idaho, the State of Utah and the State of Wyoming, acting through

their respective Commissioners after negotiations participated in by a representative of

the United States of America appointed by the President, have agreed to an Amended

Bear River Compact as follows:

"ARTICLE I

"A. The Major purposes of this Compact are to remove the causes of present and

future controversy over the distribution and use of the waters of the Bear River; to

provide for efficient use of water for multiple purposes; to permit additional

development of the water resources of Bear River; to promote interstate comity; and

to accomplish an equitable apportionment of the waters of the Bear River among the

compacting States.

"B. The physical and all other conditions peculiar to the Bear River constitute the

basis for this Compact. No general principle or precedent with respect to any other

interstate stream is intended to be established.

"ARTICLE II

Definitions. "As used in this Compact the term

"1. `Bear River' means the Bear River and its tributaries from its source in the

Uinta Mountains to its mouth in Great Salt Lake;

"2. `Bear Lake' means Bear Lake and Mud Lake;
PUBLIC LAW 96-189)FEB. 8, 1980

Page 2

"3. `Upper Division' means the portion of Bear River from its source in the Uinta Mountains to and

including Pixley Dam, a diversion dam in the Southeast Quarter of Section 25, Township 23 North, Range 120

West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming;

"4. `Central Division' means the portion of Bear River from Pixley Dam to and including Stewart Dam,

a diversion dam in Section 34, Township 13 South, Range 44 East, Boise Base and Meridian, Idaho;

"5. `Lower Division' means the portion of the Bear River between Stewart Dam and Great Salt Lake,

including Bear Lake and its tributary drainage;

"6. `Upper Utah Section Diversions' means the sum of all diversions in second-feet from the Bear River

and the tributaries of the Bear River joining the Bear River upstream from the point where the Bear River

crosses the Utah-Wyoming State line above Evanston, Wyoming; excluding the diversions by the Hilliard East

Fork Canal, Lannon Canal, Lone Mountain Ditch, and Hilliard West Side Canal;

"7. `Upper Wyoming Section Diversions' means the sum of all diversions in second-feet from the Bear

River main stem from the point where the Bear River crosses the Utah-Wyoming State line above Evanston,

Wyoming, to the point where the Bear River crosses the Wyoming-Utah State line east of Woodruff, Utah,

and including the diversions by the Hilliard East Fork Canal, Lannon Canal, Lone Mountain Ditch, and Hilliard

West Side Canal;

"8. `Lower Utah Section Diversions' means the sum of all diversions in second-feet from the Bear River

main stem from the point where the Bear River crosses the Wyoming-Utah State line east of Woodruff, Utah,

to the point where the Bear River crosses the Utah-Wyoming State line northeast of Randolph, Utah;

"9. `Lower Wyoming Section Diversions' means the sum of all diversions in second-feet from the Bear

River main stem from the point where the Bear River crosses the Utah-Wyoming State line northeast of

Randolph to and including the diversion at Pixley Dam;

"10. `Commission' means the Bear River Commission, organized pursuant to Article III of this Compact;

"11. `Water user' means a person, corporation, or other entity having a right to divert water from the

Bear River for beneficial use;

"12. `Second-foot' means a flow of one cubic foot of water per second of time passing a given point;

"13. `Acre-foot' means the quantity of water required to cover one acre to a depth of one foot, equivalent

to 43,560 cubic feet;

"14. `Biennium' means the 2-year period commencing on October 1 of the first odd-numbered year after

the effective date of this Compact and each 2-year period thereafter;

"15. `Water year' means the period beginning October 1 and ending September 30 of the following year;

"16. `Direct flow' means all water flowing in a natural watercourse except water released from storage

or imported from a source other than the Bear River watershed;

"17. `Border Gaging Station' means the stream flow gaging station in Idaho on the Bear River above

Thomas Fork near the Wyoming-Idaho boundary line in the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of

Section 15, Township 14 South, Range 46 East, Boise Base and Meridian, Idaho;

"18. `Smiths Fork' means a Bear River tributary which rises in Lincoln County, Wyoming, and flows in

a general southwesterly direction to its confluence with Bear River near Cokeville, Wyoming;

"19. `Grade Creek' means a Smiths Fork tributary which rises in Lincoln County, Wyoming, and flows

in a westerly direction and in its natural channel is tributary to Smiths Fork in Section 17, Township 25 North,

Range 118 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming;

"20. `Pine Creek' means a Smiths Fork tributary which rises in Lincoln County, Wyoming, emerging from

its mountain canyon in Section 34, Township 25 North, Range 118 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming,

and in its natural channel is tributary to Smiths Fork in Section 36, Township 25 North, Range 119 West, Sixth

Principal Meridian, Wyoming;
PUBLIC LAW 96-189)FEB. 8, 1980

Page 3

"21. `Bruner Creek' and `Pine Creek Springs' means Smiths Fork tributaries which rise in Lincoln County,

Wyoming, in Sections 31 and 32, Township 25 North, Range 118 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, and in their

natural channels are tributary to Smiths Fork in Section 36, Township 25 North, Range 119 West, Sixth

Principal Meridian, Wyoming;

"22. `Spring Creek' means a Smiths Fork tributary which rises in Lincoln County, Wyoming, in Sections

1 and 2, Township 24, Range 119 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, and flows in a general westerly

direction to its confluence with Smiths Fork in Section 4, Township 24 North, Range 119 West, Sixth Principal

Meridian, Wyoming;

"23. `Sublette Creek' means the Bear River tributary which rises in Lincoln County, Wyoming, and flows

in a general westerly direction to its confluence with Bear River in Section 20, Township 24 North, Range 119

West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming;

"24. `Hobble Creek' means the Smiths Fork tributary which rises in Lincoln County, Wyoming, and flows

in a general southwesterly direction to its confluence with Smiths Fork in Section 35, Township 28 North,

Range 118 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming;

"25. `Hilliard East Fork Canal' means that irrigation canal which diverts water from the right bank of the

East Fork of Bear River in Summit County, Utah, at a point West 1,310 feet and North 330 feet from the

Southeast corner of Section 16, Township 2 North, Range 10 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian, Utah, and

runs in a northerly direction crossing the Utah-Wyoming State line into the Southwest Quarter of Section 21,

Township 12 North, Range 119 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming;

"26. `Lannon Canal' means that irrigation canal which diverts water from the right bank of the Bear River

in Summit County, Utah, East 1,480 feet from the West Quarter corner of Section 19, Township 3 North,

Range 10 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian, Utah, and runs in a northerly direction crossing the UtahWyoming State line into the South Half of Section 20, Township 12 North, Range 119 West, Sixth Principal

Meridian, Wyoming;

"27. `Lone Mountain Ditch' means that irrigation canal which diverts water from the right bank of the

Bear River in Summit County, Utah, North 1,535 feet and East 1,120 feet from the West Quarter corner of

Section 19, Township 3 North, Range 10 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian, Utah, and runs in a northerly

direction crossing the Utah-Wyoming State line into the South Half of Section 20, Township 12 North, Range

119 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming;

"28. `Hilliard West Side Canal' means that irrigation canal which diverts water from the right bank of the

Bear River in Summit County, Utah, at a point North 2,190 feet and East 1,450 feet from the South Quarter

corner of Section 13, Township 3 North, Range 9 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian, Utah, and runs in a

northerly direction crossing the Utah-Wyoming State line into the South Half of Section 20, Township 12

North, Range 119 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming;

"29. `Francis Lee Canal' means that irrigation canal which diverts water from the left bank of the Bear

River in Uinta County, Wyoming, in the Northeast Quarter corner of Section 30, Township 18 North, Range

120 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, and runs in a westerly direction across the Wyoming-Utah State

line into Section 16, Township 9 North, Range 8 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian, Utah;

"30. `Chapman Canal' means that irrigation canal which diverts water from the left bank of the Bear River

in Uinta County, Wyoming, in the Northeast Quarter of Section 36, Township 16 North, Range 121 West,

Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, and runs in a northerly direction crossing over the low divided into the

Saleratus drainage basin near the Southeast corner of Section 36, Township 17 North, Range 121 West, Sixth

Principal Meridian, Wyoming, and then in a general westerly direction crossing the Wyoming-Utah State line;

"31. `Neponset Reservoir' means that reservoir located principally in Sections 34 and 35, Township 8

North, Range 7 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian, Utah, having a capacity of 6,900 acre-feet.
PUBLIC LAW 96-189)FEB. 8, 1980

Page 4

"ARTICLE III

Bear River

Commission,

establishment and

membership.

"A. There is hereby created an interstate administrative agency to be known as

the `Bear River Commission' which is hereby constituted a legal entity and in such name

shall exercise the powers hereinafter specified. The Commission shall be composed of

nine Commissioners, three Commissioners representing each signatory State, and if

appointed by the President, one additional Commissioner representing the United States

of America who shall serve as chairman, without vote. Each Commissioner, except the

chairman, shall have one vote. The State Commissioners shall be selected in

accordance with State law. Six Commissioners who shall include two Commissioners

from each State shall constitute a quorum. The vote of at least two-thirds of the

Commissioners when a quorum is present shall be necessary for the action of the

Commission.

Compensation and

expenses.

"B. The compensation and expenses of each Commissioner and each adviser shall

be paid by the government which he represents. All expenses incurred by the

Commission in the administration of this Compact, except those paid by the United

States of America, shall be paid by the signatory States on an equal basis.

Powers. "C. The Commission shall have power to:

"1. Adopt bylaws, rules, and regulations not inconsistent with this Compact;

"2. Acquire, hold, convey or otherwise dispose of property;

"3. Employ such persons and contract for such services as may be necessary to

carry out its duties under this Compact;

"4. Sue and be sued as a legal entity in any court of record of a signatory State,

and in any court of the United States having jurisdiction of such action;

"5. Co-operate with State and Federal agencies in matters relating to water

pollution of interstate significance;

"6. Perform all functions required of it by this Compact and do all things

necessary, proper or convenient in the performance of its duties hereunder,

independently or in co-operation with others, including State and Federal agencies.

"D. The Commission shall:

"1. Enforce this Compact and its order made hereunder by suit or other

appropriate action;

Report, transmittal to

President and

Governors.

"2. Compile a report covering the work of the Commission and expenditures

during the current biennium, and an estimate of expenditures for the following biennium

and transmit it to the President of the United States and to the Governors of the

signatory States on or before July 1 following each biennium.

"ARTICLE IV

Water rights,

limitations.

"Rights to direct flow water shall be administered in each signatory State under

State law, with the following limitations:

"A. When there is a water emergency, as hereinafter defined for each division,

water shall be distributed therein as provided below.

"1. Upper Division

"a. When the divertible flow as defined below for the upper division is less than

1,250 second-feet, a water emergency shall be deemed to exist therein and such

divertible flow is allocated for diversion in the river sections of the Division as

follows:
PUBLIC LAW 96-189)FEB. 8, 1980

Page 5

"Upper Utah Section Diversions)0.6 percent

 "Upper Wyoming Section Diversions)49.3 percent,

 "Lower Utah Section Diversions)40.5 percent

 "Lower Wyoming Section Diversions)9.6 percent.

 "Such divertible flow shall be the total of the following five items:

 "(1) Upper Utah Section Diversions in second-feet,

 "(2) Upper Wyoming Section Diversions in second-feet,

 "(3) Lower Utah Section Diversions in second-feet,

 "(4) Lower Wyoming Section Diversion in second-feet,

 "(5) The flow in second-feet passing Pixley Dam.

"b. The Hilliard East Fork Canal, Lannon Canal, Lone Mountain Ditch, and Hilliard West Side Canal,

which divert water in Utah to irrigate lands in Wyoming, shall be supplied from the divertible flow allocated

to the Upper Wyoming Section Diversions.

"c. The Chapman, Bear River, and Francis Lee Canals, which divert water from the main stem of Bear

River in Wyoming to irrigate lands in both Wyoming and Utah, shall be supplied from the divertible flow

allocated to the Upper Wyoming Section Diversions.

"d. The Beckwith Quinn West Side Canal, which diverts water from the main stem of Bear River

in Utah to irrigate lands in both Utah and Wyoming, shall be supplied from the divertible flow allocated to

the Lower Utah Section Diversions.

"e. If for any reason the aggregate of all diversions in a river section of the Upper Division does not

equal the allocation of water thereto, the unused portion of such allocation shall be available for use in the

other river sections in the Upper Division in the following order: (1) In the other river section of the same

State in which the unused allocation occurs; and (2) in the river sections of the other State. No permanent

right of use shall be established by the distribution of water pursuant to this paragraph e.

"f. Water allocated to the several sections shall be distributed in each section in accordance with State

law.

"2. Central Division

"a. When either the divertible flow as hereinafter defined for the Central Division is less than 870

second-feet, or the flow of the Bear River at Border Gaging Station is less than 350 second-feet, whichever

shall first occur, a water emergency shall be deemed to exist in the Central Division and the total of all

diversions in Wyoming from Grade Creek, Pine Creek, Bruner Creek and Pine Creek Springs, Spring

Creek, Sublette Creek, Smiths Fork, and all the tributaries of Smiths Fork above the mouth of Hobble

Creek including Hobble Creek, and from the main stem of the Bear River between Pixley Dam and the

point where the river crosses the Wyoming-Idaho State line near Border shall be limited for the benefit of

the State of Idaho, to not exceed forty-three (43) percent of the divertible flow. The remaining fifty-seven

(57) percent of the divertible flow shall be available for use in Idaho in the Central Division, but if any

portion of such allocation is not used therein it shall be available for use in Idaho in the Lower Division.

"The divertible flow for the Central Division shall be the total of the following three items:

"(1) Diversions in second-feet in Wyoming consisting of the sum of all diversions from Grade

Creek, Pine Creek, Bruner Creek and Pine Creek Springs, Spring Creek, Sublette Creek, and Smiths

Fork and all the tributaries of Smiths Fork above the mouth of Hobble Creek including Hobble Creek,

and the main stem of the Bear River between Pixley Dam and the point where the river crosses the

Wyoming-Idaho State line near Border, Wyoming.

"(2) Diversions in second-feet in Idaho from the Bear River main stem from the point where the

river crosses the Wyoming-Idaho State line near Border to Stewart Dam including West Fork Canal

which diverts at Stewart Dam.

"(3) Flow in second-feet of the Rainbow Inlet Canal and of the Bear River

passing downstream from Stewart Dam.
PUBLIC LAW 96-189)FEB. 8, 1980

Page 6

"b. The Cook Canal, which diverts water from the main stem of the Bear

River in Wyoming to irrigate lands in both Wyoming and Idaho, shall be

considered a Wyoming diversion and shall be supplied from the divertible flow

allocated to Wyoming.

"c. Water allocated to each State shall be distributed in accordance with

State law.

"3. Lower Division

"a. When the flow of water across the Idaho-Utah boundary line is

insufficient to satisfy water rights in Utah, covering water applied to beneficial

use prior to January 1, 1976, any water user in Utah may file a petition with the

Commission alleging that by reason of diversions in Idaho he is being deprived

of water to which he is justly entitled, and that by reason thereof, a water

emergency exists, and requesting distribution of water under the direction of the

Commission. If the Commission finds a water emergency exists, it shall put into

effect water delivery schedules based on priority of rights and prepared by the

Commission without regard to the boundary line for all or any part of the

Division, and during such emergency, water shall be delivered in accordance

with such schedules by the State official charged with the administration of

public waters.

Emergency

declaration authority.

"B. The Commission shall have authority upon its own motion (1) to declare a

water emergency in any or all river divisions based upon its determination that there are

diversions which violate this Compact and which encroach upon water rights in a lower

State, (2) to make appropriate orders to prevent such encroachments, and (3) to

enforce such orders by action before State administrative officials or by court

proceedings.

User's water rights,

petition filing.

"C. When the flow of water in an interstate tributary across a State boundary line

is insufficient to satisfy water rights on such tributary in a lower State, any water user

may file a petition with the Commission alleging that by reason of diversions in an

upstream State he is being deprived of water to which he is justly entitled and that by

reason thereof a water emergency exists, and requesting

Water delivery

schedules.

distribution of water under the direction of the Commission. If the Commission finds

that a water emergency exists and that interstate control of water of such tributary is

necessary, it shall put into effect water delivery schedules based on

Joint water

commissioner.

priority of rights and prepared without regard to the State boundary line. The State

officials in charge of water distribution on interstate tributaries may appoint and fix the

compensation and expenses of a joint water commissioner for each tributary. The

proportion of the compensation and expenses to be paid by each State shall be

determined by the ratio between the number of acres therein which are irrigated by

diversions from such tributary, and the total number of acres irrigated from such

tributary.

Interstate water

delivery schedules,

findings of fact.

"D. In preparing interstate water delivery schedules the Commission, upon notice

and after public hearings, shall make findings of fact as to the nature, priority, and

extent of water rights, rates of flow, duty of water, irrigated acreages, types of crops,

time of use, and related matters; provided that such schedules shall recognize and

incorporate therein priority of water rights as adjudicated in each of

Prima facie evidence. the signatory States. Such findings of fact shall, in any court or before any tribunal,

constitute prima facie evidence of the facts found.

Emergency

termination.

"E. Water emergencies provided for herein shall terminate on September 30 of

each year unless terminated sooner or extended by the Commission.
PUBLIC LAW 96-189)FEB. 8, 1980

Page 7

"ARTICLE V

Lower Division water

rights, Idaho and

Utah.

"A. Water rights in the Lower Division acquired under the laws of Idaho and

Utah covering water applied to beneficial use prior to January 1, 1976, are hereby

recognized and shall be administered in accordance with State law based on priority of

rights as provided in Article IV, paragraph A3. Rights to water first applied to

beneficial use on or after January 1, 1976, shall be satisfied from the respective

allocations made to Idaho and Utah in this paragraph and the water allocated to each

State shall be administered in accordance with State law. Subject to the foregoing

provisions, the remaining water in the Lower Division, including ground water tributary

to the Bear River, is hereby apportioned for use in Idaho and Utah as follows:

"(1) Idaho shall have the first right to the use of such remaining water resulting

in an annual depletion of not more than 125,000 acre-feet.

"(2) Utah shall have the second right to the use of such remaining water resulting

in an annual depletion of not more than 275,000 acre-feet.

"(3) Idaho and Utah shall each have an additional right to deplete annually on an

equal basis, 75,000 acre-feet of the remaining water after the rights provided by

subparagraphs (1) and (2) above have been satisfied.

"(4) Any remaining water in the Lower Division after the allocations provided for

in subparagraphs (1), (2), and (3) above have been satisfied shall be divided; thirty (30)

percent to Idaho and seventy (70) percent to Utah.

Allocation charge. "B. Water allocated under the above subparagraphs shall be charged against the

State in which it is used regardless of the location of the point of diversion.

Depletions. "C. Water depletions permitted under provisions of subparagraphs (1), (2), (3),

and (4) above, shall be calculated and administered by a Commission-approved

procedure.

"ARTICLE VI

Reservoir storage

rights.

"A. Existing storage rights in reservoirs constructed above Stewart Dam prior

to February 4, 1955, are as follows:

 "Idaho....................... 324 acre-feet

 "Utah........................ 11,850 acre-feet

 "Wyoming..................... 2,150 acre-feet

"Additional rights are hereby granted to store in any water year above Stewart

Dam, 35,500 acre-feet of Bear River water and no more under this paragraph for use

in Utah and Wyoming; and to store in any water year in Idaho or Wyoming on Thomas

Fork 1,000 acre-feet of water for use in Idaho. Such additional storage rights shall be

subordinate to, and shall not be exercised when the effect thereof will be to impair or

interfere with (1) existing direct flow rights for consumptive use in any river division

and (2) existing storage rights above Stewart Dam, but shall not be subordinate to any

right to store water in Bear Lake or elsewhere below Stewart Dam. One-half of the

35,500 acre-feet of additional storage right above Stewart Dam so granted to Utah and

Wyoming is hereby allocated to Utah, and the remaining one-half thereof is allocated

to Wyoming.

Additional storage

rights.

"B. In addition to the rights defined in Paragraph A of this Article, further

storage entitlements above Stewart Dam are hereby granted. Wyoming and Utah
PUBLIC LAW 96-189)FEB. 8, 1980

Page 8

are granted an additional right to store in any year 70,000 acre-feet of Bear River water

for use in Utah and Wyoming to be divided equally; and Idaho is granted an additional

right to store 4,500 acre-feet of Bear River water in Wyoming or Idaho for use in

Idaho. Water rights granted under this paragraph and water appropriated, including

ground water tributary to Bear River, which is applied to beneficial use on or after

January 1, 1976, shall not result in an annual increase in depletion of the flow of the

Bear River and its tributaries above Stewart Dam of more than 28,000 acre-feet in

excess of the depletion as of January 1, 1976. Thirteen thousand (13,000) acre-feet of

the additional depletion above Stewart Dam is allocated to each of Utah and Wyoming,

and two thousand (2,000) acre-feet is allocated to Idaho.

Limitations. "The additional storage rights provided for in this Paragraph shall be subordinate

to, and shall not be exercised when the effect thereof will be to impair or interfere with

(1) existing direct flow rights for consumptive use in any river division and (2) existing

storage rights above Stewart Dam, but shall not be subordinate to any right to store

water in Bear Lake or elsewhere below Stewart Dam; provided, however, there shall

be no diversion of water to storage above Stewart Dam under this Paragraph B when

the water surface elevation of Bear Lake is below 5,911.00 feet, Utah Power & Light

Company datum (the equivalent of elevation 5,913.75 feet based on the sea level datum

of 1929 through the Pacific Northwest Supplementary Adjustment of 1947). Water

depletions permitted under this Paragraph B shall be calculated and administered by a

Commission-approved procedure.

"C. In addition to the rights defined in Article VI, Paragraphs A and B, Idaho,

Utah and Wyoming are granted the right to store and use water above Stewart Dam

that otherwise would be bypassed or released from Bear Lake at times when all other

direct flow and storage rights are satisfied. The availability of such water and the

operation of reservoir space to store water above Bear Lake under this paragraph shall

be determined by a Commission-approved procedure. The storage provided for in this

Paragraph shall be subordinate to all other storage and direct flow rights in the Bear

River. Storage rights under this Paragraph shall be exercised with equal priority on the

following basis: six (6) percent thereof to Idaho; forty-seven (47) percent thereof to

Utah; and forty-seven (47) percent thereof to Wyoming.

Irrigation reserve. "D. The waters of Bear Lake below elevation 5,912.91 feet, Utah Power and

Light Company Bear Lake datum (the equivalent of elevation 5,915.66 feet based on

the sea level datum of 1929 through the Pacific Northwest Supplementary Adjustment

of 1947) shall constitute a reserve for irrigation. The water of such reserve shall not

be released solely for the generation of power, except in emergency, but after release

for irrigation it may be used in generating power if not inconsistent with its use for

irrigation. Any water in Bear Lake in excess of that constituting the irrigation reserve

may be used for the generation of power or for other beneficial uses. As new reservoir

capacity above the Stewart Dam is constructed to provide additional storage pursuant

to Paragraph A of this Article, the Commission shall make a finding in writing as to the

quantity of additional storage and shall thereupon make an order increasing the

irrigation reserve in accordance with the following table:
PUBLIC LAW 96-189)FEB. 8, 1980

Page 9

 Lake surface elevation,

"Additional Storage Utah Power and Light Company,

 (Acre-feet) Bear Lake datum

 5,000 ........................... 5,913.24

 10,000 ........................... 5,913.56

 15,000 ........................... 5,913.87

 20,000 ........................... 5,914.15

 25,000 ........................... 5,914.41

 30,000 ........................... 5,914.61

 35,500 ........................... 5,914.69

 36,500 ........................... 5,914.70

"E. Subject to existing rights, each State shall have the use of water, including

ground water, for ordinary domestic, and stock watering purposes, as determined by

State law and shall have the right to impound water for such proposes in reservoirs

having storage capacities not in excess, in any case, of 20 acre-feet, without deduction

from the allocation made by paragraphs A, B, and C of this Article.

"F. The storage rights in Bear Lake are hereby recognized and confirmed subject

only to the restrictions hereinbefore recited.

"ARTICLE VII

Development projects. "It is the policy of the signatory States to encourage additional projects for the

development of the water resources of the Bear River to obtain the maximum beneficial

use of water with a minimum of waste, and in furtherance of such policy, authority is

granted within the limitations provided by this Compact, to investigate, plan, construct,

and operate such projects without regard to State boundaries, provided that water

rights for each such project shall, except as provided in Article Vi, paragraphs A and

B, thereof, be subject to rights theretofore initiated and in good standing.

"ARTICLE VIII

Water rights,

acquisition.

"A. No State shall deny the right of the United States of America, and subject

to the conditions hereinafter contained, no State shall deny the right of another

signatory State, any person or entity of another signatory State, to acquire rights to the

use of water or to construct or to participate in the construction and use of diversion

works and storage reservoirs with appurtenant works, canals, and conduits in one State

for use of water in another State, either directly or by exchange. Water rights acquired

for out-of-state use shall be appropriated in the State where the point of diversion is

located in the manner provided by law for appropriation of water for use within such

State.

Property rights,

acquisition.

"B. Any signatory State, any person or any entity of any signatory State, shall

have the right to acquire in any other signatory State such property rights as are

necessary to the use of water in conformity with this Compact by donation, 
PUBLIC LAW 96-189)FEB. 8, 1980

Page 10

purchase, or, as hereinafter provided through the exercise of the power of eminent

domain in accordance with the law of the State in which such property is located. Any

signatory State, upon the written request of the Governor of any other signatory State

for the benefit of whose water users property is to be acquired in the State to which

such written request is made, shall proceed expeditiously to acquire the desired

property either by purchase at a price acceptable to the requesting Governor, or if such

purchase cannot be made, then through the exercise of its power of eminent domain and

shall convey such property to the requesting State or to the person, or entity designated

by its Governor provided, that all costs of acquisition and expenses of every kind and

nature whatsoever incurred in obtaining such property shall be paid by the requesting

State or the person or entity designated by its Governor.

Facilities, State

authority.

"C. Should any facility be constructed in a signatory State by and for the benefit

of another signatory State or persons or entities therein, as above provided, the

construction, repair, replacement, maintenance and operation of such facility shall be

subject to the laws of the State in which the facility is located.

Facilities,

taxation.

"D. In the event lands or other taxable facilities are acquired by a signatory State

in another signatory State for the use and benefit of the former, the users of the water

made available by such facilities, as a condition precedent to the use thereof, shall pay

to the political subdivisions of the State in which such facilities are located, each and

every year during which such rights are enjoyed for such proposes, a sum of money

equivalent to the average of the amount of taxes annually levied and assessed against

the land and improvements thereon during the ten years preceding the acquisition of

such land. Said payments shall be in full reimbursement for the loss of taxes in such

political subdivision of the State.

"E. Rights to the use of water acquired under this Article shall in all respects be

subject to this Compact.

"ARTICLE IX

Water exchanges. "Stored water, or water from another watershed may be turned into the channel of

the Bear River in one State and a like quantity, with allowance for loss by evaporation,

transpiration, and seepage, may be taken out of the Bear River in another State either

above or below the point where the water is turned into the channel, but in making such

exchange the replacement water shall not be inferior in quality for the purpose used or

diminished in quantity. Exchanges shall not be permitted if the effect thereof is to

impair vested rights or to cause damage for which no compensation is paid. Water

from another watershed or source which enters the Bear River by actions within a State

may be claimed exclusively by that State and use thereof by that State shall not be

subject to the depletion limitations of Articles IV, V and VI. Proof of any claimed

increase in flow shall be the burden of the State making such claim, and it shall be

approved only by the unanimous vote of the Commission.

"ARTICLE X

Interstate canals,

water use.

"A. The following rights to the use of Bear River water carried in interstate

canals are recognized and confirmed.
PUBLIC LAW 96-189)FEB. 8, 1980

Page 11

____________________________________________________________________________________

 Primary Lands Irrigated 

 "Name of Canal Date of right

 priority second- Acres State

 feet

____________________________________________________________________________________

Hilliard East Fork ..... 1914 28.00 2,644 Wyoming

Chapman ................. 8-13-86 16.46 1,155 Wyoming

 8-13-86 98.46 6,892 Utah

 4-12-12 .57 40 Wyoming

 5- 3-12 4.07 285 Utah

 5-21-12 10.17 712 Utah

 2- 6-13 .79 55 Wyoming

 8-28-05 1134.00

Francis Lee ................ 1879 2.20 154 Wyoming

 1879 7.41 519 Utah

_____________________________________________________________________________________

 "1Under the right as herein confirmed not to exceed 134 second-feet may be carried across the Wyoming-Utah

State line in the Chapman Canal at any time for filling the Neponset Reservoir, for irrigation of land in Utah and

for other purposes. The storage right in Neponset Reservoir is for 6,900 acre-feet, which is a component part of

the irrigation right for the Utah lands listed above.

Administration. "All other rights to the use of water carried in interstate canals and ditches, as

adjudicated in the State in which the point of diversion is located, are recognized and

confirmed.

"B. All interstate rights shall be administered by the State in which the point of

diversion is located and during times of water emergency, such rights shall be filled

from the allocations specified in Article IV hereof for the Section in which the point of

diversion is located, with the exception that the diversion of water into the Hilliard East

Fork Canal, Lannon Canal, Lone Mountain Ditch, and Hilliard West Side Canal shall

be under the administration of Wyoming. During times of water emergency these

canals and the Lone Mountain Ditch shall be supplied from the allocation specified in

Article IV for the Upper Wyoming Section Diversions.

"ARTICLE XI

Applications. "Applications for appropriation, for change of point of diversion, place and nature

of use, and for exchange of Bear River water shall be considered and acted upon in

accordance with the law of the State in which the point of diversion is located, but no

such application shall be approved if the effect thereof will be to deprive any water user

in another State of water to which he is entitled, nor shall any such application be

approved if the effect thereof will be an increase in the depletion of the flow of the Bear

River and its tributaries beyond the limits

Allocation status

report.

authorized in each State in Articles IV, V and VI of this Compact. The official of each

State in charge of water administration shall, at intervals and in the format established

by the Commission, report on the status of use of the respective allocations.
PUBLIC LAW 96-189)FEB. 8, 1980

Page 12

ARTICLE XII

"Nothing in this Compact shall be construed to prevent the United States, a

signatory State or political subdivision thereof, person, corporation, or association,

from instituting or maintaining any action or proceeding, legal or equitable, for the

protection of any right under State or Federal law or under this Compact.

ARTICLE XIII

"Nothing contained in this Compact shall be deemed:

"1. To affect the obligations of the United States of America to the Indian tribes;

"2. To impair, extend or otherwise affect any right or power of the United

States, its agencies or instrumentalities involved herein; nor the capacity of the United

States to hold or acquire additional rights to the use of the water of the Bear River;

"3. To subject any property or rights of the United States to the laws of the

States which were not subject thereto prior to the date of this Compact;

"4. To subject any property of the United States to taxation by the States or any

subdivision thereof, nor to obligate the United States to pay any State or subdivision

thereof for loss of taxes.

ARTICLE XIV

Commission review

and proposed

amendments.

"At intervals not exceeding twenty years, the Commission shall review the

provisions hereof, and after notice and public hearing, may propose amendments to any

such provision, provided, however, that the provisions contained herein shall remain

in full force and effect until such proposed amendments have been ratified by the

legislatures of the signatory States and consented to by Congress.

ARTICLE XV

Termination of

Compact.

"This Compact may be terminated at any time by the unanimous agreement of the

signatory States. In the event of such termination all rights established under it shall

continue unimpaired.

ARTICLE XVI

Constitutionality of

provision.

"Should a court of competent jurisdiction hold any part of this Compact to be

contrary to the constitution of any signatory State or to the Constitution of the United

States, all other severable provisions of this Compact shall continue in full force and

effect.

ARTICLE XVII

Ratification and

notice.

"This Compact shall be in effect when it shall have been ratified by the Legislature

of each signatory State and consented to by the Congress of the United States of

America. Notice of ratification by the legislatures of the signatory States shall be given

by the Governor of each signatory State to the Governor of each of the other signatory

States and to the President of the United States of America, and the President is hereby
PUBLIC LAW 96-189)FEB. 8, 1980

Page 13

 requested to give notice to the Governor of each of the signatory States of approval

by the Congress of the United States of America.

"IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Commissioners and their advisers have executed this

Compact in five originals, one of which shall be deposited with the General Services

Administration of the United States of America, one of which shall be forwarded to the

Governor of each of the signatory States, and one of which shall be made a part of the

permanent records of the Bear River Commission.

"Done at Salt Lake City, Utah, this 22nd day of December, 1978.

"For the State of Idaho:

"(s) Clifford J. Skinner

"(s) J. Daniel Roberts

"(s) Don W. Gilbert

"For the State of Utah:

"(s) S. Paul Holmgren

"(s) Simeon Weston

"(s) Daniel F. Lawrence

"For the State of Wyoming:

"(s) George L. Christopulos

"(s) J. W. Myers

"(s) John A. Teichert

"Approved:

"Wallace N. Jibson

"Representative of the United States of America

"Attest:

"Daniel F. Lawrence

"Secretary of the Bear River Commission."

Approved February 8, 1990.

STATE AMENDING LEGISLATION

WYOMING: Enrolled Act No. 41

Amended W.S. 41-12-101

March 6, 1979

UTAH: Enrolled Copy S.B. No. 255

Amended Section 73-16-2, Ut. Code Annot. 1953

May 8, 1979

IDAHO: Senate Bill No. 1162

Amended Section 42-3402, Idaho Code

April 5, 1979
PUBLIC LAW 96-189)FEB. 8, 1980

Page 14

_______________________

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:

HOUSE REPORT No. 96-524 (Comm. on Interior and Insular Affairs).

SENATE REPORT No. 96-526 accompanying S. 1489 (Comm. on the Judiciary).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:

Vol. 125 (1979): Nov. 27, considered and passed House.

 Dec. 20, S. 1489 considered and passed Senate.

Vol. 126 (1980): Jan. 23, considered and passed Senate.
Page 15

BYLAWS

OF

BEAR RIVER COMMISSION

ARTICLE I

THE COMMISSION

1. The Commission shall be composed of nine Commissioners, three Commissioners representing each

of the States of Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming, selected in accordance with the laws of each such State and, if

appointed by the President, one Commissioner representing the United States of America.

2. The credentials of each Commissioner shall be filed with the Secretary of the Commission.

3. Each Commissioner shall advise in writing the Secretary of the Commission as to his address to which

all official notices and other communications of the Commission shall be sent to him and shall further promptly

advise in writing the Secretary of the Commission as to any change in such address.

ARTICLE II

OFFICERS

1. The officers of the Commission shall be:

Chairman,

Vice-Chairman,

Secretary,

Treasurer

2. The Commissioner representing the United States of America shall be the Chairman of the Commission.

The Chairman shall preside at meetings of the Commission. His duties shall be such as are usually imposed

on such officers and such as may be assigned to him by these Bylaws or by the Commission from time to time.

3. The Vice-Chairman and Secretary shall each be one of the Commissioners representing a State. They

shall be elected at each annual meeting of the Commission and shall hold office until the next annual meeting

and until their successors are elected. In the case of a vacancy in either office, the Commission shall at its next

meeting, whether regular or special, elect a successor to serve for the unexpired term. The Vice-Chairman

shall perform all the duties of the Chairman when the Chairman is unable for any reason to act, or when for

any reason there is a vacancy in the office of Chairman. In addition, the Vice-Chairman and Secretary shall

perform such other duties as may be assigned to them under these Bylaws or by action of the Commission.

4. The Treasurer may or may not be a member of the Commission. He shall be elected at each annual

meeting of the Commission and shall hold office until his successor is elected and shall have qualified. The

Treasurer shall receive, hold, and disburse all funds of the Commission. The Treasurer shall furnish a bond

for the faithful performance of his duties in such amount as the Commission may direct. The cost of such bond

shall be paid by the Commission. In the case of a vacancy in the office of Treasurer the Chairman shall appoint

a new Treasurer to serve for the unexpired term or until such time as the Commission shall elect a successor

at a regular or special meeting and the person so elected shall have qualified. The offices of Secretary and

Treasurer may be held by the same person.
Page 16

5. The Commission may employ a secretarial assistant and such engineering, legal, clerical, and other

personnel as, in its judgment, may be necessary. They shall receive such compensation and perform such duties

as may be fixed by the Commission.

ARTICLE III

PRINCIPAL OFFICE

1. The principal office and place of business of the Commission shall be at a location designated by the

Commission.

2. The principal office shall be open for business on such hours and days as the Commission may direct.

3. All books and records of the Commission shall be kept at the principal office of the Commission.

Except as otherwise provided in the Compact, or herein, all records of the Commission shall be open to

inspection by the public.

ARTICLE IV

MEETINGS

1. The annual meeting of the Commission shall be held on the third Tuesday of April of each year unless

otherwise designated by the Commission.

2. The Commission shall hold a regular meeting during the month of November on the Tuesday of the

week preceeding the week of Thanksgiving each year unless otherwise designated by the Commission.

3. Special meetings of the Commission may be called by the Chairman or, in case of vacancy in the office

of the Chairman or inability of the Chairman to act, by the Vice-Chairman. Upon the request of two or more

Commissioners, it shall be the duty of the Chairman to call a special meeting.

4. Notice of all meetings of the Commission shall be sent by the Secretary or the Engineer-Manager, to

all members of the Commission, by ordinary mail at least ten days in advance of each such meeting. Such

notice shall designate the time, place, and proposed agenda of the meeting. The notice here required may be

waived by unanimous consent of all members of the Commission.

5. The approved minutes of the Commission shall be preserved in a suitable manner. Until approved by

the Commission, minutes shall not be official and shall be furnished only to members of the Commission, its

employees, and committees.

6. Six Commissioners, who shall include two Commissioners from each State, shall constitute a quorum.

An absent member may be represented by his proxy who must be an accredited adviser from his State, and such

proxy shall have the powers of a member at such meeting.

7. Each Commissioner, except the Federal Representative, shall have one vote.

8. When a quorum is present, an affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the Commissioners in attendance

shall be necessary for Commission action.
Page 17

9. At each meeting of the Commission, the agenda items, unless agreed otherwise, shall include approval

of the minutes of the last meeting, and reports from the Chairman, the Secretary, the Treasurer, the EngineerManager, and other agreed-upon agenda items.

10. All meetings of the Commission, except executive sessions, shall be open to the public. Executive

sessions shall be open only to officers and members of the Commission, three advisers designated by each

State, and the Federal Representative; provided, however, that the Commission may call witnesses in such

sessions.

11. Each State may accredit three advisers to the Commission.

ARTICLE V

COMMITTEES

1. There shall be the following standing committees:

Management Committee

Operations Committee

Records & Public Involvement Committee

Water Quality Committee

2. The standing committees shall have duties as assigned by the Commission.

3. Members of Management, Operations, and Records & Public Involvement Committees shall be

Commission members. The number of members on each committee shall be determined by the Commission.

Each State shall designate the members and/or advisors on each committee representing such State. In all

committee action the votes shall be taken by States, with each State having one vote.

4. The Water Quality Committee will be composed of at least three members who have been designated

by each of the three states' Director of Environmental Quality, or its equivalent, as being the lead water quality

administrator from that agency to represent the state and serve on the committee. These designated members

of the Water Quality Committee need not be members of the Commission. Other members or advisors to the

Water Quality Committee may be determined by the Commission and designated by each state. In all

committee action the votes shall be taken by States, with each State having one vote.

5. The Chairman shall be an ex-officio member of all committees.

6. Each committee shall designate a chairman from among the members of the committee.

7. The Commission may create special committees and assign them tasks to be determined by the

Commission.

8. Committees shall report all of their findings and recommendations.
Page 18

ARTICLE VI

FISCAL

1. All expenses incurred by the Commission in the administration of the Bear River Compact, except those

paid by the United States of America, shall be paid by the signatory States on an equal basis.

2. Commission funds shall be received by the Treasurer and deposited by him in a depository or

depositories designated by the Commission.

3. The Treasurer shall disburse Commission funds by check upon vouchers approved and countersigned

by the Chairman, the Vice-Chairman, or a member of the Management Committee.

4. On or before May 1 of each odd-numbered year, the Commission shall adopt and transmit to the

appropriate water resource agencies of the three States, a budget covering an estimate of its expenses for the

following biennium and the amount payable by each State under the provisions of the Bear River Compact.

5. The payment of expenses of the Commission and its employees shall not be subject to the audit and

accounting procedures of any of the three States.

6. All receipts and disbursements of the Commission shall be biennially audited by a certified public

accountant to be selected by the Commission. The audit report shall be included in the official minutes of the

Commission meeting to which the report was submitted.

7. The Secretary shall keep an up-to-date inventory of all Commission property.

8. The fiscal year of the Commission shall begin July 1 of each year and end June 30 of the following year.

ARTICLE VII

MISCELLANEOUS

1. The Commission shall on request make available to the Governor of each of the States signatory to the

Bear River Compact any information within its possession at any time, and shall always provide the Governors

of such States or their representatives or authorized representatives of the United States of America, free

access to records. The cost of making information available shall be borne by the person or government

requesting such information.

2. All contracts or other instruments in writing to be signed for and in behalf of the Commission, except

matters relating to the receipt or disbursement of funds, shall be signed by the Chairman or Vice-Chairman and

the Secretary or Treasurer.

3. Amendments to the Bylaws may be made at any meeting of the Commission, provided notice of the

proposed amendment shall have been given in the notice of the meeting.

4. Except as otherwise provided by the Compact or herein, meetings of the Commission shall be in

accordance with Robert's Rules of Order.



















!

~,i'in the gUiet~.nd~~~cea~~~ p~'sseSSi~;~ of the 'StiiO ~~r~ie~ Of"t~: ~'~~ond ;a~~, t~sir heir~j

and assigns, aca in ab t.he said parties of the f irs t par-t and their he ir s , ann a¥ain.et all

I

!,:. 9.110 every person 3.110 persons whomsoever, Lavf'u L'ly c La Irn inz or to claim the same shELll

r ann VF:Lll war r an t , a n d by th~se presents f c r ev er d ef'en d ,

~ rrr WITNESS V.rH~rtr:;OF, The sa.id "9ar~ieS of the Fj,rst p ar t have h e r eunt o subscribed thei

1

~ names the day and year first above wr itt en.

! Signed and delivered in

n the pr esenee of:

~t

~'

I

i[

J

!

!i

i,

I

f

II

~

i

~

~

!

3amsay M. Wa11:er

Abbie Wa.lker

Gladys Mad(ay

E. L. Wallace.

STATE OF IDLHO

e e ,

COUNTYOF SHOSHOHE, ) , I

On this 3rd day of March, A.D. 1924, before me E. L. Wallace a Notary Public in and ~or

said State aforesaid, personally appeared 3:amsay E. Y~alker ana Abbie Walker, his w if'e , peI1-

::onall! k:!-o~. to me to ~e .L...the persons who signed the v:.Q thin instrument, and acknowledged I

1.00 me that .tn ey execute a tn e same,

I!\f TESTIMONY WHE:2EOF,J I have hereunto set my hand and a~fiy.ea mv official seal at mJT

office in ~Vallace, Idaho, the oay and year in thlE c er t ifaca t.e first~ above wr itten.

SEAL.

My Commt ss i on expires Mar 14, 1926.

E. L. Wallace

Notar.v Pub li c in '3.nO for

State' of Idaho.

the

Residing at Wallace; Idaho.

Recorded at the request of Wallace 3a.Il.K & Trust Co. March8A.D. 1924 a t 10:10 o'clock A.i\!.

B,Y -,a"",,'/uJr.=o.o.f,,",'Ia,,-,L""'~="""'""~&<;i>-' _De put y.

11 T' II If H " T' T! T!

J. S. Peterson

Recorder.

n 11 H T' 11 H

IN TEE DISTRICT COURT OF TEE FIFTH JFDICIAl DJ:: TRICT OF

THE STATE OF IDAHO, IN .A1-JD FO:2 TEE COUNTY OF BEAR LAKE

PRESTON-MONTPELER IRRIGATIOIJ

COMPANY.",a corpoT9.tiol1,

Plaintiff J

vs.

DIHGLE IRRIGATIOlI COMPANY,a corpcr e t aon ; Grirr ..me tt+B'Leck Otter

Irrigation Company, a corporation;

Peg Leg Island Irrigation Company,

a c or-o or-a t t on ; West Fork Iryiga·tion·

Company, a corpor'3.tion; Ream-Crockett

Irrigation Company, a corporation;

Pugmire Livestock & Land Company, a

c o'rp or at i on; Continental Li f'e Insurance Company, a corporation; Ola

Transtr1L'Jl; Carrie Hill; J. A. C. Nielson,

John A. Jensen; Oron Quayle; Thomas

Quayle; George Parker; Ed>,.'. La Ro c c o ; ,

John O. Miller; Ezra J. Phe Lpe ; George

A. Sparks; Hyru.T:1Esterholdt,-'3.no Joseph

Esternoldt,

DEe R E E

Defendants,

Ii

I

~ _This cause came on r eg u Lar Ly for trial on the 4th day of August, 1923, John A. Bagley

r! Esqui-re, and D. C. Kunz, Esquire, appear ing as a tt oz-ncye for the p La i ntd f'f , Pr e s t on-Mori tpe r e r

i Irrigation ~ompany, a corporation; and John A. Bagley, Esquire, appearing as attorney far .

! Oron Quayle, Thomas Qu.aYle, George Parker, Edward. La Roc c o , John O. Miller, E.zra J. Phelps, I

I and George A. Sparks, defendants and cross-complainants; and D. C. Kunz , Esquire, appearing!

t. as a tt or=riey for the Continental Life Insurance Company, a corporation, Ole Transtrum, carrr

fi Hill, -J. A. C. Nielson ana 30hn A.. Jensen, defendants an c or css=comp La.i nan ts ; and A.B.

Ii Gough, Esquire, appearing as a t t or noy for JJingl·s Lr r i ga t i on Company, a corporation, Peg

i: Leg Island Irrigation Ccmpany , a c cz-pnr-a t a cri , G-rimmett Bla.ck Otter Irrigation Company, a I

~ corporation, ana the Pugmire Li ve e t oc k & Land Company , a corpor-ation, defendants a nd crOSS-I

i c ompLa.ina rrt e.; ROE~ ~l. Bates Esquire, appearing as a tt or n ey for the ~eam-9::ockett I~rigationll

~ Company, a co r'poz-e t r on , defendants and c r o s s c c omp La Lnan t s ; ano Jesse P. R1Ch, Esqulre, 2.pii, pearing as attorney for the West Fork Irrigation Company, a corporation, aefend8.nts and

~cr oes=c ompLainan ts , and Darwin Ha0dock, Esquire, appearing as attorney for Hj7TUm Es t-erh oLdt.]

~:ana Joseph Esterholdt, defendants and cr cs o-c ompla r nant.s , -Whereupon, the respective 'partie$

~proceeded to negotiate a settlement :3.nO ad justment of the issu.es r a t ee d by the complainant 1-...

I

a.n.C! the answe r s of the defendants thereto ana by the cross-compla mant.s , and answer-s theretf' ,

'and thereafter, to-wit: On the 4th fia y of Auz us t , 1923, a stinu.lation of facts wa s e nt er ec

~into, signed and filed he r e i n , in whi ch it was agreed be twe en the par tt eE, the. tit should

rDe; and the same is hereby a do p t e d as the findings of fact herein, and the court-from the !

~st.Lpu.La.t i on and findings o:f fact- being ful~J.' a dv Ls e d in the .pr e mi s e s 3.110conclusions of '\

~law being waivea:

! IT IS EEREBY ORD:::RED, ALJrDGED MiD DECREED th at the respective partie" hereto be, and 'I

l

each of them is hereby awarded and decreed the ouant i t;y of water he r-e i na r't e r specified with

date of priority aDO. for the ir r iee t ton of lands as hereinbefore e e t forth, e uch wat e r to ~

be d rected i);:Q.1ll._ the several points of d ivarsi ons as hereinafter stated all rights herein i

de c r ea. to-be either what i2 hereinafter de s i ena t ed as a "Moa d ow Rig-ht or an TlAR"ricultural \

~RiQh f! an d to be by the r eauec t j v e dates and p::;.rticu.lar years fixed as the da tie of' priorjty~ &"fo--. I - - - !

[

t

;

I:

~---.---- ..------
'.~'~~~:,~e~~ 'c:~~r' ':';' 'S::~':':~"~~~',"";O:~::l~'i: ';o~~~:"e-n' SOD.th, Rang'~e~'::;~~~':,:'~a~~"J'~~-~;"~~'~

BOis~~ridi3n, to be used upon 2500 a cr e s of land. /'" i

Si tuated~ the follo~'inf ~ub-divisionf: .-// '

Section WOU1"iee·~ (14) of 'I'owneh io Fourteen soutr, 14 S. R9.nae FortS'-fou"r aa s t 4.:4-E""'B~iE€

~Eerj d ial1~ - - O":-:,.L- -- ..,,..,.r'~/'.'"

Section twenty-three ('1;5.l.. of Township fourteen south .(14.S. lRam,e forty;.-f6ur aa e t (44.Z)

Boise Meridian; ~-..... - '- ..""...' -~-

The East one-half (E-~-) the so~·th~est one= ouar-t er (Sw±) ana the./·-sc)uth one-half of the the:

northwest one-quarte~ ~e 6l11.' ter-'("S.t~of Nwt) of SeciionJ.;j:ft~en (15) all in Tovmship fOU]'-

teen South (148) Ranfe forty-four eaet--f'4.4,:E) Bo i s e Me:r;.;i-'i(ian; ,

2he East one=ha Lf (E2); the eas t o.ne-h8.1f. O·f>-'~~.u.'heJ~.'.'e.'s(one-half (Et of W~.); the ea e t one- '.

half of the West one-half of the aout hwee t on.e;·~=a.rter (Et ofwt OI 5Wt) , all i·n Section :

26 of Township fourteen so ut h (14S) Rang~".:forty-fo1.tt,e!>st (!1Ats) , Boice Me r t d f an , ,

Lots One (1), two (2) arid three (3) oj,-B'ection thirty-f±v.§ (35) of' t.ownsn i p fourteen soutt

(148), Range forty-four east (44E.!>Boise Meridian. " •.•..,,'... .

The Sou th ea s t...on..e.-CJ.na.rter of):;,he'lJorthea2t one-quarter (SEt) oI'-''lN:.jj:i)of 8eot ..ion... s i xt.e en ( ~)

of township fourteen south.f14S) Range forty-fo);.r e as t (44E) Boise"'Me,ridian.

Commencing at the northwee t corner of section twenty-three (23) tov;nsh~fo1}".!' teen south i

(148), ::lange forty:~four east (44.E 1 Boise Meridian and running thence west ·'e,;j.f'hty (80) ro d ,

thence south t1No·hund.red fort~) (240) roils; thence east ei.£'hty (SO) rods thenc''S ..,south eip:h

(80) rods".t·hEmce east eil!hty (80) rods to the southwest corner of Lot three (3}·"of said

secticI}.,·ti

1-enty-three (25) - thence north a Loriz thev,estern boundar y line of lots thre-e'-",f.?}

two J·21 and one (1) and the nor thwes t Quarter of' the northwest Quarter 0f s a i d s ec t t on-c,

t-,:Wffi~t~1-three (23) to point of b eg Lnrri ng ; ... '~'",_

GRI111ffiTT.2BLACK OTTE~ IR2IGATIQN COIvIPAlry:

1877;· April 15th, what is deSignated in this decree as a "Meadow Right".

April 15th-July 1st, 133.5 cubic feet per second.

July Ls t , September 30th, !5't cubic feet per e e c on d ,

All of said waters to be diverted f'r om Bear River through the Black Otter S).ou~h nea!jl

the line b e twe e n Sections Six and. Seven! TOVl1l-qbi2.1 FO"J.rteen South. Ra-'lfre tr·orty-fotFr .ea at of~ the

Boise Meridian, and from saic1 eLouah t hr ouah t.wo main cli t c h e s , one of whi hh is known as t:rle

Grinnr.e.tt Di t ch , taken from sa i c slough in the Northwest oua r t e r of Section Eleven, TovvnSh~'

Fou:rteen South Ran~e For ty-fouT ESf2t'- of the Bois e Meri dia n , and the ot he r d itch ·t3.ken fr 0

said sLouvh in the -Northwest QU9.rter of Section 'I'weLve , ·TownShip Fourteen .Southl Ran?e For· y

fOl-IT East o f toe Bots e Meridian, and other smaller ditches and dams, said r;to be usee ~

up on 4434.25 a c r e s of 19.nc1 described as follows, t.c-wt t i x .

Gommanc t ng at a po i nt South 88° 30

1 East 205 feet and ~outh 2°10' West 3~5. 8 and

East 150 feet from the North quarter corner of Section 6 in Tovvnshlp 14 South, Hang-e 44 Ea'.c:t

of Boi e s Meridi.:a.n; whi c h uo irrt is 150 feet Ea st from the East bank of the Outlet cana l. of 'vhe

Utah Power & Light Company, running thence in a south~irection approximately 3160 fee~

to a point which is ?lO feet south of the Northeast corner of Lot 9 of said Section 6; thet1ce

North ;:.80.8 feet to q'ua r t er Section line; thence East 1320 feet; t he nce in a SO-,:tth~:ir ct t on , foll-owing boundary line of Lot 5 ·of Sec. 5 in Townsllip 1.4 South, Range 44 East Boise~

Merid.ian to the Southwest c cr ne r of the Nor t heas t oua r t e r of the Southwest quarter of said ~

Section 5; thence Ea s t, 2640 feet; thence North :3366 feet; thence West 660 f'e e t ; thence North

313.5 feet; thence west 1980 feet; thence North 280. 5 feet; thence West 2640 feet; thence'

South 354.75 ft. thence West 965 feet to ulace of ·be£'inning.

Also Lot 10 of Sec. 6 in TownShip 14.- South., Range 44 East of Boise Meridian, cont2.inir· s

24.93, acres; an? ~ont.a~ ni~g ;..n ::11 452 ::cr~B, mo;:~..l..or le~i· " rn _ . rz. Q _ ~

Ale o. ccmne nc ing a c tne ",.,. JO;. Cornel or the ",V, •. of SJ!i", of Sec. 3", ~ownah ip 10 ~ou,tn l!

Range 44 East of Boise Meridian, and runm ng thence South 68 rods; thence West 40 rods; I

·thence South 29 r ods ; thence We:=t 120 rods; thence North 81 rods, more or Lee e, to Bird

Slough; thence Easterly along said slough 94 rods, more or less, to trrt er s e c tr o n of subdivision_line; thence East 66 rods, more pr less, to place of beginning co~taining 83 acre~,

more or less. ~

Also, be.ginning. at the sout heas t corner of the H0:r:.thweet oua r t e r of the s cut hwest qu·a.rter.

of Sec. 321 'I'ownehi p IS South I :2ange 44 East OJ: Boise ltleridian, ana runrn ng thence North

GO ro ae , tne-nce West 160 ro d s ; thence South 60 rods; thence Ea e t 160 rOGS to place of bep'-,

inning containing 60 acres. more or less.

Also, commencing at the Northwest corner of the Southeast oua r t er of the Sou.thwest

qua r t er of Sec., 32 il1 'I'ownah Lp 13 South Ranr e 44 East of Boise i~eJidian, a nd running thence

Sout~ 16 roas-~'6'~'~'10ugh; thence ea s ~~r~y, 2.1onf the ;neand erini 8 of sai d slo~gh 109, r Od~; t o]

a p oI n t where 2t lntersects the sub divi ai on Lt ne ; t h enc e Wesv along the sa i d s ub dLv isLon I

line 88 rods to the place of be?inning, c cnt a inf nc 4 acres and 64 s qua r-e rods, more OT le~s.

Also, the Southwest qua r t ez- of the Northwest quarter .a.rr! West half of the EouthweEt

5'iuarter of'. See.. 32, and the Eontheast quarter of th e 2011th ca s t quarter of Sec. 3.1'; all in

TownShip 13 South. Range 44 Ea.st of Bois e Meridian, o.onta i n i ng 160 acres. _

Also Lot 6 in Sec. 5, Tov.;nship 14 South, Ran.~e 44 East Boise Meridi9.n, c on ta i nt ns- 20

acres; a rrd Lot 1 in Se c ," 8, Township 14 South, Range 44 Ea e t of Boise Meridian, cont ai n+ng]

34 acres,

Also commenc i ne 23 rods South from the Nor-t hwee t corner of the Northeast ouarter of

the Northeast cuar t e r of Section 8 Tow:'fJ.shin 14 'South, Range 44 East Boise Meridian, thence

South 57 TonE; -t-hence 3ast 38 r-o de ; thence-North 57 Tods;'-thence West 38 rode to the place

of beg:inning, cont at na n a 13.5 acres, more OT less .

.bso bef':'il1..1lillfCat ii point 40 rods West of the Southwest COrner of the Northwest ouar t 'r

of the NorthvieEt C!uarter ~of Section 9, TOViTIship 14 SC11.th, Range 44 East of Boi8~ Meridia;,

and running thence South 28 r-ods ; thence West to the llI·Lest Line of Lot 2 of Sec. 8 of s a i d I

Tovmship 2nO Range; thence in a Nor t.hwes t er Ly direction f'o L'lowi ng the West line of said La

2 to the Nor thwe s t corner of said Lot 2; thence East on ~~F'orty line to place of beginning.

Also, commencil1~ at the Northeast corner of Lot 2, Section 5, Townshtp 14 South, Rang:

44 Ea s t of Bo i.s e i&er'laian, and r unn i ng .J.:,hel1ce South 36 rods; thence Wes~t. .{b rods; t he nce '-

North 36 r o ds : thence East 40 r cd s to place of b s c i nm.n a. Also, c ommenci nz at the Southeast

corner of' the' Southeast qua r te r of Sec~ 32, Powneh ap 13-South, Range 44 Ea st of Boise Ivler-f

idian, .and runm ng thence Ncr th 4 c ha Lns ; then~e West 10 cna irs ; thence South 10 chains, t e n ce

West 10 chains; thence 20uth 4 chains; thence t.;ast 20 chains; thence Nor th 10 ch a.Lns to

"lace of bs girm i ng , c on ta in inc 18 acres, more or Le s s , A180 commencing at a point 10 Chail'

\VeBt 5.nO 4: cnarns - No r th from the Southea.Et. co rne r of ·the Sonthe a st quarter .Of'- sec., 32 Tow,o 'hi P

l3 South, Ra ng e 44 East of Boise Meridian, ana running thence 1Jor;;h 10 chains; thence west

10 chains; thence £outh 10 chains; thence East 10 ch at n s to the place of -oegi:anj~J c on te t :jn~

10 acres mor e 01' les8.! Also, c ommenc in s at the Southwest Corner of cec. 3Z TD\VTlship 1S

South, Ra..ng e 44 :=:s.st Boise l;ieridia.n, and runmng -~':fle_nc~,North 64 r o os ; tben~e Za~t ~O roaS

j

thence South 104 rods; thence Weet 40 rods; thence ·-I'10rv.t1 40 rods to place OJ: b egtnna ng , co -

t a in inz 26 acres. 0 i: ~ + '

Also, commenc a.ne at a point 10 chains South from the Sout hea s.t corner or bh e 0ouuheas.~

quarter of Sec. 32, 'Tov:,·nship .1. 3, South, ~a:TIg€ 44 East o-I Boise Meridian, 5.m running thencl

r
·,----,

c

r:

. ,

rj:

~

f!

II

I

I

!

!

!

I

I~

!

West 20 cha tns : thence South 10 chains; thence 1Oaf"1;20 chains; thence North 10 chains

to the o Ia e e of beginning c on t.ain rriz 20 acres, more or less. Also commencing at a p oi rrt

10 chains WeEt from the Sotrt hea st corner of Secti on 32, Township 12, South, Ran¥ e 44 East

of Boise 1vlerid:ia.n, and rurrm nc thence No:rth 4: ch a.i ns ; thence West 10 cha rns ; thence South

.10 chains; thence East 10 c hs t n s ; thence Ncr t.h 6 cha i ns to Pla.ce of b eg Lnni ng , corrt ao n i ng

10 acres, mo~e or leSE:

Also, cornmcnc i n s at a point 4 cha i ns NOTth f r-orn the SoutheaEt COTneT of the SOlJ.theasv

quarter of Sec. 32, Township 13· South, rt9.Il?e 4-4 Ea s t of Bots e Meri dan , a nd r unn i ne thence

Nor th 20 c ha ins; the nc e WeEt 10 chains; thence South 20 cha ina: thence east 10 cha ire to

place of beginning, corrta t.n i ng 20 a c r e s , ?_lso, c ommenc m g at a point 24 ch a i ns North fro

the Southeact corner of the couthesct quarter of Section 32, Township 13 ~outb., Ranfte 44:,

East of Boise IiLeridian, and z-unm nz thence north 10 chains; thence West 10 chains: thence

South 10 chains; thence SaEt 10 cna rns to place of begi~1ning) ccnt.a.t m ng 10 a c r e s , .A'Leo

c ommencknz at a point 10 chains West a nd Lf chains and 50 links South fr om the l~ortheast

corner of- the Southea~t quarter of Sec. 32, Township 13 Sou.th, Range 44: Zast of Boise

Meridian, and running thence West 10 chains; thence South 10 char re : thence East 10 c ha in

thence North 10 chains to oLac e of be g irm i na , cant ai ning 10 acres.

Commencing at the Southea~st corner of the Northeast quarter 0:: ·Eec. 4 ~ Township 14

South, Range 44 Ea st, of Boise !",.',(eridian, and r-unm nz thence North 30 rods; thence Ea s t 17t

rods to center of Black Otter Slough; thence north'- w: east follov.:ing the wi nd Lng s of sa t

Slough for a distance of 160 rods, more or less; thence north 6 rods; thence fo Ll owi ng

the v,Iind.inP.'s of said Slouf:th We~t a distance of 70 rods; thence north 21 rods to township

line; thence West on said-line 70 rods and 3 feet, nor:e or less, to William Quayle's line

thence South 45 rods; thence West 281 rods to West line of said Section 4; thence SOlrth

115 rods to oua r-t or c or ne r ; thence East 320 r-ods to place of c ommenc emen't , c on ta inf.rig 270

acres, mor e 01' lese. ~;Als 0, beginning a t a p oi n t L10 rods North of the Northeast corner of

the Southeast Quarter of Sec. 31, To~nlship 13 South, Range 44 East of B.:::lise Meridia.n, ana

running thence West 160 rods; thence South 80 rOaS...i....:t.he·rrc~st 65 roo.s~;· ..+h erc e South 40

rods i thence East 95 rod s ; t ne nee Noz-th 120 rods to place of beginning, containing l03{

acres, save ana. except therefrom a strip co nt a trnng 7.72 a cr e s f'r c-: said ab ove tract Ed..o.

to Bear River Vlater Cornp any , and :for a }J9.rticul:s .T. description of said stzip reference is m

to page 625 of Deed Eook 6, records of Bear Lake County, Idaho.

Also, c omrnenc i nr- at a point in the center of a deep slough 20 chains Ea st along Qv.ar

section line and 8 chains and 90 links South along eight section line from the Northwest

corner of tre :NE-i- of Section 33 Townshin 13 SO\Ith~, ?ans:e 44 East of' Boise Mer i dt an , anrl r : -

nine: thence South aLon> ei zh t, section line E-l rehainsand 10 links; thence West alone: e i eh h

Section lint 4: cba t ns 8..:."'18d3 links; thence North 34 minutes East 49 chains ana 50 liYlks';

thenc e a'l oriz cent er of' sg,j.d. ~ laugh 4 chains and 33 links to .I~fle place of be a inn Lne , c onta im ns 23 acres and 5 scuar e ro 11s, Also, CQJJlJC'encnic a t the stv corner of the ~jEt· of the

SEt of-Sec. 23, TOWTIship-13 South, ~5.n~e 44 East Boise Meridia.n, a.nd running thence Za.st

36 rods; t nenc e North l80 rod s to Pe" Leg Slough; thence Westerly along aa i d Slou.e:h 55 roils

more or less, to half quarter government-line;-thence South along said-line 194 rods to

place of beginning, containii1g- 43 acres.

Also, the Southeast Quarter of .the Northeast Querter and LOtE numbered Two, three anj~

four of Sec. 8, and Lot numbered one of section seventeen, Townshin 14 South, ?..an;;re 44 Ea t

B. M., 127.05 acres. --

Also, the East half of the Northeast quarter, a nd t h e northeast Quarter of the South

east Quarter of Section 3~, ana. the IJorthwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of Sec. 34,

"aL'l in Tov.Tlship 13 Soutb, Range 44 Ea e t of Boise Eeridian, containing 160 acres; exc ep t ing

therefrom t h e f'oL'l.owing tract, to -wi t.: Commencing at the Southwest corner of the northea

quaz t er of the southeast quarter of Sec. 33 in Township 13 Sout h , Range 44 East of' Boise t

Meridian, and r unni.ng thence Ear t 36' rod s ; thence North 180 ro ds to Peg Leg SloU[;4; th ene

Westerly along said Slough 55 rods, mor e or less, to half Quarter government line; t-hence

Sout1i along eai d line 194 r cd s to the ol.ac e of besri.nn i ng , c onte tn ine 43 ac r es cmo re or less.

. Aleo, ~be~il1nillg at a point on the~East b oundar y line of the Utah Power &: Light. Campen "s

Canal rifht-of-wa,sT, and on the South nounaa r y line of Tovl.!!lship 13 SOl.i.tn, Range 44 East of

BoI se M:eridi.9.;.n, wh i ch point a s South 88°30' East 456.4 feet from the South corner of Sec.

3l, Twp. l3 South R. 44 E.B.l.l., thence S. 4° 28' East 168.7 :feet to a p otnt' o:f curve;

thence o-n a 1° Oclcurve to the left, for a di2tance of 188 feet to a point 21t rods South

of Township line; thence East 840 feet, more or 1e82, to local line' t.heno e North 1674 f'e e

thence Wect 240: feet, more or less, to local corner; thence Nor th feet; thence West

800 feet, more or less, to east line of said right· of way; tEence South 4° 28

1 East along

said rir,ht-o:f-way 1991 feet to point of lJe?inning, containi.ng 46.75 acres, more or less.

Also, beginnin" at the quarter EO ection corner .between sections 5, and 8 in Township

14 South, Range 44 East Boise Meridian, and runn inc thence East 1320 feet; thence South- 37 t

feet to a. di t ch ; thence East along sai-d di t ch 585 feet to a corner of fence; thence North

8°.15' West 1715 feet to corner of fence: thence YfeEt 1659 feet; thence South 1320 feetto

point of beginnin", wb i oh is a Quarter corner between s3.id Sections E- and 8, con taa mn c

58 acres, more or les2. _ - -

Also, the Nor Lhwes t quarter of Sec. 11 in Township 14 Sout.h, ?B.TI@"e 44.East of Boise

Meriden, cont~ining 160 acres. t

Also, commencing at the Northwest oua r t e r of the Southwest ouar t er 0:: Sec. 11 in Town

ship 14 South, Range-44 East of Boise Heridial1., and r'unn ing thence East 120 ro ds : the nc e

SOU.th 160 rode; thence West 120 rOGS; t+ snce North 160 r ods to place of beginning COl1taini.

t

?

120 acres.

Also the South ha If 0 f ~.;he Sout bs a st oua r t er ana the South Hal f of the Southwest ouar er

of Sec. 3, in I'ownsh t p 14 Scut h , Range 44 East of Boise Mer) dian, Bea2' Lak e County , Lda ho ,

c on ta im ne 160 acres, excepting therefrom 40 acres heretofore deeded to the Ut a h Power &

~ight Company, also, t bs North half of the Nort.nwe s t quarter of See.,15, in TownShip ]A

South, Range 44 East of Bois e Meridian, containing 80 acres. \

Also c ommenc I n g at a point 35 rods e out n :from the lJortheast corner of the Southeast

quarter of Sec. g,-in TownShip 14 South, Rang e 44 East of Boise Meridian, running tberr::e

s~uth ~5 ~Ods ; th:n~ e .wes~ 320 rod s; t henc e North 25 rods; thence East 320 TO ds to the pIa-e

O..L b e gt nnt n g , co n ua zrn ng DO acres.

Also, the Sou.th half of th e Nor thweat qua r t e r ana the South ha If of the Nor t.hea s t

quarter of Sec. 9, in TownShip 14 South, Range 44 .i!:ast of Boi ee Meridian, containing 160

acres.

Also, the Northeast quarter of the Northeast ouar t er of Sec. 9 in TOlJllIlShip 14 soutn ,

Range 44 Ea st of Boi se Meridian, -cont a ining 40 acres.

Als 0, the Noz tnwe e t quarter of' the l~oYtn.e3.ct Quarter of' Sec. 9 in Townshtp 14 South,

2ange 44 East of Boise MeriO.ian, containing 40 acres •

.Also, the Nor t.hea st quarter of Sec. 10 in Powns lu.p 14 South, Range 44 East of Boise

M:erio.ian, containing 160 acres; excepting thereIrom 60 acres heretofore de e de d to the U'tah

Power & Lip-ht Company.

Also,' the South3aet quarter of Sec. 10 in Tovvnship 14 South, Range 44 East of Boise

Meridian, c on ta irn n" 160 acres.

Also, c ommenci nc at a po in t 23 r ods south from. the Northeast corner of the Nor-thwe st

quar t er of Sec. 9, ~'~·vi,.'113hip 14 South ?ange 44 E8.~ of Boise Meridia.TI, ano runrunr- thence
\Vest 202 r od e ; thence So~:_th 57 rode; thence Last 2 r o de ; thence canth 55 r o ds ; thence

40 rods; thence North 55 rods; thence East 160 rods; thence North 57 rode to place

?inning, c orrt a i n ing 85 aCTE,s, mere or less.

14 SO~~~~'R~~;:e~~i~~s~t o~h~o~~~ti:~:~~~i~l~:n~~~_~;~v;~~t~~e~~a~~:r~~~n7;g ~ S~~~n~!\~st

rods; thence South 160 r o ds ; thence East 40 rods; -thence Nor th 160 r o ds to place of

containing 40 acres.

Also: the so ut neer t oua r t er of ~,ec. 10, TOVfI1Ship 14 ;:outh, Range. ,44 East Boi e e

containing 160 acres •

.Also: Lot 1, the st~of the SEi- of Sec. 4: 'I'p, 14 s. ?. 44 E. B. E., containing 80

,Also, Lot 2 commencing at the HW corner of Sec. 9. Tp. 14 S. R. 44 E.3.}lI., .r unn i ng thene

--"H. 23 rods to place of beginning, co rrtut m ng 23 acres. Also, Lot3 commencing' at the SE

corner of the lJ3i- of the S\Nt of Sec. 4"~ Pp, 14 South R. 44 E.B.IL., running thence liVest

rods; thence :N. 20 rods, thence E. 80 TOOS; thence S. 20 rods to place of beginning, 10

Also, Lot 4, commencing at the HE corner of the SEt of the SEt of Sec. 5, 'I'p. 14 2.

44 E.B.IV:. running thence West 45 rods; t.he noe S. 103 rods; thence E. 45 r o ds ; thence N.

rods to place of beginning, 29 acres.

Also, CODJITlencin9: at the NW corner of the IJE±- of 2ee., 16, 'I'p , 14 S. R. 44

thence S. 78 r ods ; thence E. 80 r ocs ; thence 1'-T. 78 ro ds : thence Vil. 80 rods to

l)egin~i~;: ~~~!:~~~~~;~ ~~~e~E c or ner of' Sec. 9, Tp. 14 S.R. 44 Ec:LIE.,

N. 50 rods; thenc§ W. 160 rodE; thence S. 50 rods; thence E. 150 rods to

containing 50 acres •

.Also: the NEt of ~he ITE! ana the svvt of the lEt of Eec. IE,

conte..ininF' 80 acres.

,IF!1I~~~i{~f~!: i~iitf~!i~i(:l;~f~~~:jfi~~~ji~!~~!f;!!;!~!:~~;'r~~f:;::;::;~::,::

containing 20 acres. .

Also, commenc in c at the SW corner of the svrt of Sec. 9, 'I'p , 14 S. ~~. 44 Z.3·.TE.,

ning thence N. 50 rode; thence E. 160 rods; thence S. 50 rodP; thence W. 160 rodE to

of b e§!inning, containing 50 acres c

Also, cornmenc t ng at a nt 40 r ods N. from the ?JE COTner of Sec. 9, Tp. 14 ;3.R. 44

thence N. 120 ro+e ; thence • 240 rods; thence ;:). 60 rods; thence E. 80 r ode ; thence 2.

1'08.8; thence E. 160 r-ort s to 'oLac e of be,qinnin2."", c on ta in+nc 150 acres and SE-i of NEt Sec.

Also,Tnthe IJVVi of the SVV± of Sec. 4 and the I'TE~ of the SEt-aT Sec. 5, Tp. 14 E:. ~. 44 E~

containin~ 120 acres.

Also: the HE±- oi' tbe Nwi of 2·ec. 16, T'o. 14 s. B. 44 B•.B.LIe., c onta in i nz 40 acres.

Also, the Nwi of tf.i8 :tIEi and. the I'm±- of t.b.e ITVv-%of See .. Ie, Tp .• 14 s. R. 44 E.B.M.

containing 80 acres •

.Als 0: comme:(lcinR at the N"We or-ne r of' th e Sl1,~ bf' Sec 11 Tn

thence S .. 34 r-cc e ; thence E. 40 rods;- th~nc~"""N ..~34 ;odS; "):;he.r;~"

b eg inn ing , c onna tn tng a{- acres.

Also, the l-J1N"iof See., 10 Tn. 14 S. R~ 44 E.B.liK., co n ta i n;

Also, he Hi of the swi, a.no. the Hi- of the SEi of Sec. 9,

containJng 160 acres.

AlSO: commence at a point 60 r oue 1:-;.of t.h e SW corner of Sec. 9 Tp. 14 S.li. 44 B.E.lvI.

aDO r-unn i ng thence E, 320 rods; thence; S. 20 r ods ; thence iN. 2)20 ToelE; thence N. 2J: :rods

to the p~ac~, of ~~gi~n~~?, "T.;~nta~nl~l~40 -'-~C~"7~.S; _

ALs o , tile 8.1.:/4 0..1. cn e L.l.:.'L ana r n 10 •... 0..; nurnbe r-e d 2,3, e.nr 4, of Sec. 8, and

bered 1 of Sec. 17, l'p. 140 S.R. 44 E.B.E. 127 acres.

Also, commenc mp at the SW corner 0= the :frEt of Sec. 11, Tp. 14, S.R. 44 E~B.M.,

r-unm nc tr!ence N. 160 rods, thence E. 12 YOaS to the threao. of the stream of' the Black

Slougb~ thence following the windin?s of the 3lack Ot~er Slough a distance·of 40 rods in

s01].theasterly diT!?ction; t.h enc e 79 1'03 s in a North~a2teTly direction to the. northern sect

line of said section 11; thenc e said line to the threao of saj.o Black Otter Slouf!h;

thence t.h e winoin-gs of in. a SO'u"L d ir e c t.Lon a d i st.aric c of

25 rods; ·thence 58 Tods;~thence 5 YO ; thence 2·01).t 12 rods and six lir:.ks;

thence 8.-34 rode; thence W. 53 ro~s; thence S. 33 rods; thence W. 84 rodE to theplace

b e g inri.i.n g, containing 121 acres, more or less.

Elsa, c omnenc at a p oirrt 40 r cc e E, fr crn the NW corner of Sec. 4, Tp .. 14

3.l1d running thence . 80 rods; thence .u. 120 r ocs : thence 3. 12:5ronE; thence \iV.

tbence 1L 45 YO oS to place of cO~lt9.inj nR" 93~ acres.

Also commencing at a 'ooic t ns \V~ from the iJortheast COTDer of ·S·eation

14 S.R. 44 E.B.LE., and run~linp" thence S. lli chains; thence W. 30% e ha i n a , mor s or

to half' section line; thence 1:L IIi eh a i n s : thence E.. 30.z. chains, mOTE' 01' less, t.o

ofbeg:innin?, containing 34 ELCTeS, mo.re 01' less.

The ~'South half of the southeast quarter ana the s out h eas t qua.r t.e r of

of Section 33 ~To~v·n2hi"p 13 -South a n d the lot rrumbc.r e d 3 of section four in

o"f' Range 44 east of t~.:.e Boise IVleridian in laaho, containing 160 a c.r cs and

)

160 acres.

I4.·

r

S. R. 421 E.B.lvI.

the s ou t hwest

TOlATIlshi'o 14

19/100 of

PUGIvlTRE LIV7:STOCK & L.(·dill COMPjtr·1Y~

1877-April 15th, what is designated in th i e decree

April 15th-July Let 6.9 cubic f'ee t. pe r e e c on d ,

July Let - Sept. 30th, 4.6 cubic feet pe r second.

as a HMeado"\:vRight H.

All of sai d Vera ter2 to d ive r t e d from Bear River t nr ouah the Kent-LaRocco a.i·.rtch

about forty rods wo et of i tE intake out o:f the Casto Slough, - to be used upon 231. 75 acr e c

of Land, described as fo1101}\.1s, to-Ivit : -

Uommencil1g at the Nor thwe e t corner of Section 34 and runmng thence Nor+h 50 rods,

or 1 eSB, yo Bear Hivel'; thence following l1,P the channel of saie Bear RiveT in a

I

dir ec t i cn to i ts intersection w it h the North .bc tmda rv line of said Section 34, thence

. 40 r od s : more 01' less, to the Nor t.h ea s". corner of too Northwest qua r t e r of sai d Section

J thence South 80 z-odr: thence East 80 r-oc s ; thence South 80 rods; thence West ·80 rods;

-\ South 13 roo"; mor e or Iess to center of Slough; thence Westerly &.long center of said

J

80 r-od e , more 01' less, to intersection of West boundary line of the Northeast qu.a r t e r of

t.h c SOllthvrest ouar t er of Sect ion 34; t hs nc e Horth 10 rods, rno r e or less to the ha If s ecti

_I' line; thene e West 3f rods, moreior 1 ess, to c. en ter 0= Slough; thence following the

_ in9's of' said Slough in a Foythwesterly c.iT'ecti.on. to i tsinterE8ction w ith the WeE:·,t UUU_LCLu~,r~y

line OT said Section 34; thence North 12 rODE, mcr c or less, to 9, wh i ch is 44 rodE.

South from the No'r t.hwe st corner of said Sectio'n 34 thence East .4 TOOS; thenc-e Nor t.h 44

r o ds ; thence weet 10.4 r oce to the place of , and conts'inj.ng 210 acres, more OT
1897-liiay 1st, ?!(~at ie designa ted in tm e decr ee as an "Agrr cuLt ur a I ::1igbt. II•• :3 cubic

per second.

All (5£ said wat er to be diverted from BeaT River at a point de s c r-obe d as f0110v':3, an f

st swi, swt SEt, Section 23, NEt I'fil't, Section 26, Tov.rnship 14 So-c_th, 2anf7e 45 Ea st I

Boise laeriaian in Beaz Lake County, State OT Idaho. and to be used on l~O a c r e s of La nd

'described as follows, to-wit:x

. i'_11 of s.e..id waters to be diverted from Bear River by means of a Dam known as tr:e 2zrt

J. .PbeIp s ~ar:1 lacs. te:, a t or near ~tl~e SOl~thea2t ~orn ..~r ?f. the Southeast Quarter of' Sectj on i

23, Townshlp 14 south, :::1ange 45 .c;ast, OT the.~OlEe. Eerldlan, to be used on 160 acres of 1

land, de s c r i b e d a s f'oLl ov e , to-wit:

sf SW±, swi SEt, Section 23; and NEt- l;J'V!iSection 26, Township 14 South, ~3.nge 45 Ea e

B.IIE. in Bear Lake Coun ty, State_ of Idaho, ccn t.a in: ~Jg 160 acres. :

I

JOHN O. MILIZE:

r-,

\

)

18'77-Apr11 Lft h What 1S de s Lena t c d in t h ie decree as a "Mea d ow Rifht.

1l

April iStb-JulS Ls t 4.50, cubic feet per ee c on d.

July lst- September 30th 3.0 cur t c feet per sacort d ,

l880-April 15th, What is d e s ig n at.e d in thjE Decree to be a TTlileacov/ Rifht. n

April 15th:" July lEt 4.5 c ub i c f'e e t per e e c orrd ,

July 1st-September 30th 3.0 cub i c feet per second.

1885 April 15th Viha.t is de si z na t e d in t.h i s decree to be an nA€lricultEral Right. tr

3.,6 cubi c :feet per eecond s ~

All of said wat.e r s to be diverted from Bear ?iver by means of the Miller Ditch, .~r.e

point of di v ez e ion of whrc h i2 about 150 saTos East from the lTo:rtheast corner of ;::ectiol1

31, Township 14 South, ::lange 46 Ear:t of the Bois e Iv1eridian, to be usea upon 480 a c re s of

ls.nn described ac :follo1>vs: ;<

Et NEt, Nt SEi, st~Nwi, and SVlt Section 3~, 'I'owns hi p 14.South Range 46 east Boise

Meridian. r

AndK~;SEt, Section 36 'TOW,lShip 14 ~outh, Range 45,2ast B.H. all in Bear Like County,j

.~State of Idaho. ' I

yu IT' I~ FURTHu:I ORDERED, ADJUJ)GED AND J)ZCREED; That there shall be a Ll.o wcd to pass .

~ by the Wardboro Lam in Bear :ti ver fi ve cubic feet per second of wat er at a.ll times for thel

; use of the West Fork Irrigation Cornpa.ny for c u.Ldna r y 9.110 domestic purposes; ana it is

t fu.r tb er und.e r st ood ,ano af-reecl t.h at said West Fork Irrigation Company is to ha v e a r tpa r ian

~ right:,-- in:ferior to the irri~ati.on rights herein decreed, :fO? :forty cubic feet per second I

~ of r wa't er to be Tun throl2g-h ite os na L at all t-imes d-nring the yes.r except when needed :for

~I irrigation purpo8e8.

Ii

~

I

I

!

!

~

I

I

IT IS F1.3THZR O~D:t:RL]), ADJl;"])GED _'"l..HIl D~C3Z~D: Tnat all of t.he above d e ec r Lb e d lands

are arid. in character and require irri.:ratlon fer the i r pr op er cul'tivation ans :for the

profitable rats.ing of crops thereon, 3.nO that the duty of wat e r shall be fixeo and determined at one snc one-half (It) mtne r e Lnch ee per acre of' wat er 'from April 15th to July Lst

of each year, ana a.tone (l) nn ne r e inch per acre, .f'r-om July 18 t to ceptember 30th t o=~ each

yea.r for the Land s desi,g-nated as mea dew 13.n08, and for the Land s de sismat e d as. af!ricultura]

Land e , it i8 agreed that the duty sh aTl be one nn ne r-sv tnch per acre t h rous h the J:r:r:i aation I

season, exc eo t that it iE3.0 jUdfed an,o decreed that 500 acres of afri.cultural 19.n02 under

th e ca na l of the -JDil1g1e Irrif3.tion Ccrnpany a nd 400 a cr e.a of AfYicultuyal 19.1108 un dor tr.e

Preston-Montpelier Irrirati.ol1 Company ' 2 Canal} and 400 ae.r c e of La nd U110er +h e 5eam-Crocke t

Ditch have a '?rsvelly eub= s oiI 03..110 require DEe :r.no one-fourth (It) mi ne r s mche s per acre,

for t.h e ar i pr op er tr r r aa t t on , whi ch amount is hereby "d.ecreed to said lands, it it further

adjud~ed and ~ecTeed ihat if within five years it is determjned that said'gravAlly l~nd

does not need one a nd one-Tour th (Ii) amer Is Lnchc s per acre) th E. aarrre+may be r eduoed

which in no' event shall it be reduced so aE to gjve les2 than one (1) miner's inch per

acre to s.uch lands, the court r et a in ins j.:arisdiction of this cause for said purpose~ '

IT IS FURTHER O~-1D3REIJ }.DJDIJGED AlJD DECREED, that the lanas herein cLa s e if ie d 8.2 IlMead w

Land a " or yif!hts are understood tc mean those lands a Lonz Bear Hi ver producing wha t is

commonly called "Wild Hay" or "na tur a I meadow grass" which Land s must be flooded in. order

to produce crops, the water r unn rng over said land£ a.no back into Bea.r River, which said

meadow lands s hall be sub jsct to ri p..:hts hereinafter epe ci f'ti e d in th ts decree. 1

The asrr t cuLt ur a I Lan ds or rights as herein classified ar e intended to mean those 1and-r

whr ch have-"been cultivated and irriga'te.:.ch fOT the p r ortuc t.t ori of crops. The acreage 0;'- sai!

agricultural lands a re hereby decreed anfi d.ic ig na t.e d as f'oTl ows : Preston llTontpel:ier Irrigation Company, 2200 acres, ,Dingle Irrigation Ocmpa ny , 1721 acres, Peg Leg Irrig-ation

Company 866.5 acre~, Ream-Crockett Irri~tion Company 861 acres, and Kent-LaRocco Ditch

365 acres. It being a d j.udg-ed s.nd decreed t ha t this Is ths number of acres de si gna tea as

agricultural lands under this decree.

- IT Ie ?U:RTEER O~DERED, ADJUDG-:::n Al\ID D~C:aEED·:.· that if at any time between .the 17th

day of June and the 4th day mf' Ju.ly of s ny year there eha~l not be sufficient water in

Bear River to supply the a bo v e de'cignated af.Y.icu.ltural 13.1103, consisting- of Six Thousand

T~Nelve ana. T'wenty-five hundredths (6012.25)e.cres, t.nen, in that event, there 8:19.11 be

taken from the Lands or: r i ght.s her-einb ef'or e desigl1.s:-,er1 as "Meadrn Rifhts

l1

pro rata a t

auf f t c t en t amount of' wat e r so {-'-;,:--t' .4hc:o Q"'td Sl'X tp'no"<>"Do"'rrv'e1ve and twerrt.v-f'i ve hunrir ed tts

a~'~~s ~(6012 ~25 r- of ;F!~~ ~1l.1tural ·.--{~:'1.~~""ah;rllec e i;re u.~~yel'.j~;_fiY8~p~r ~;~1t(J75%) ~f -~~heuf~i

amount of water herein decreed to Baia ap r i cu.l t.ur a I Land s , and if after July 4th of any ,

year there is not euf'f'Lc ! en t water in Bear Ri ver to supp Iy the 23.i d six Thousand Twelve

and T\,;..entjr-fi,te Hundredth-s acres (6012.25) .ac r e s wi th the full amourrt of their decreed wat e

r ir-ht s , then, in t ha t ev srrt , there Shall be taken f r om the said mea dow Larids or rights a !

sufficient amount of. water to 8upplS c].i 0 SiT t.hous aric Twelve 'lno 'Twent~!-fiye i111n8reaths !

(6012~25)ac:;:~s ~~..-a-fTicu~tnraJ. ~~n~s t~,,_!he _ful~ extent, of their ~ec:eed rip"b~. .. I

~ iT IS l"LTRTli~n O::DE~~:DJ ADJl;lJG~DJ P•,.l"!J.' n~CRE~D: ~h9.t the Court s oa Ll. r e+a i n ;lUT1~- ;

Y

1

'd ic it aon , arid .iur Ls dLcti on is hereby reserved for a period of fi ve years f'r orn the da ts or

~ hereof. fOT the purpose o f c o r r ec t i no .said decree if :i t ~a L'L be ma d e to ap-pear to th e c our-

~that there ar e errors in the. aesc2~iption 'Or anount s of land to which water na s been decreed,

I

.'u..nil· : er thi S decree '.. I

: IT IS Frr.:.~TH2R O:;(n:SrtE:D, ..L_DJtTDG;:n j',..NT D~C:?EED, th£l.t each p::irty pa~i its OV!J.'l coste r,eTein.l-

, " j

, Dated this 7th day of Marhh, 1924. \

I

Znr1 rsed:

"'i 1 d rl1ar. 7, 1924.

t ..Jr: - •. ,P§t?T~:On, .,C~erk ))t~trict Oourt .

Rch~rt K. Terre~

Dts tric t Judg :<.L

,I
Book of By Laws of the Dry Lake

Canal Company of

Paris~ Idaho

Article I

This company shall be known as the Dry Lake Company and has a

capital stock of twenty five hundred dollars $2~500 divided into

five hundred shares~ of the par value of five dollars each.

Article II

There shall be elected annually a board of five directors~ the Chairman~

of which shall be the President of the Company~ also a Secretary and

Treasurer and a Watermaster.

Article III

It shall be the duty of the President to preside at all meetings and to

sign all certificates of stock and in case of the absence of the President

a President may be appointed by a majority of the shares present to act

in his stead for that meeting.

Article IV

The Secretary shall keep a record of all proceedings also take charge of

all books belonging to the Company and report the financial condition of

the Company at each annual meeting also act as Treasurer for the Company

and sign all certificates of stock with the President.

Article V

The Watermasters duties are to take a general superv~s~on of the ditch and

have control of the water under the direction of the Directors of the

Company.

Article VI

All voting shall be done by ballot and each share shall be entitled to one

vote.

Article VIII

One share in this company shall consist of one acre of land.
Article IX

The Directors shall have power to meet and levy assessments for the

construction and maintenance of said canal at anytime that the best

interests of the Company requires said assessment shall become delinquent

with in fourty days after such assessment is made and after additional

notice of fifteen days sufficient of his stock shall be sold according

to law to pay said assessment and all expenses of sale.

Article X

Any person or persons taking and using the water without permission from

the Watermaster shall after an impartial hearing before the Board of

Directors and proof of his guilt being established~ be fined any not

less than one dollar nor more than twenty five dollars at the direction

of the Board of Directors and is not paid in ten days after judgement

sufficient of his capital stock shalZ be transferred to the person

or persons who sustain the loss. *

Article XI

A majority of the shares present at any meeting either in person or by

proxy shall form a quorum for the transaction of business and no person

shall act as proxy for another without written authority.

Article XII

Each share holder shall be required to sign his name to there by laws

and there by assent to the provisions there in contained.

Article XIII

A special meeting may be called at any time and any business transacted

in case of emergency by order of the Board of Directors.

Article XIV

No certificate of stock shall be issued for any stock not fully paid up~

and no stock shall be transfered on the company book without written

authority or upon surrender of certificate.

Article XV

-'J}hereby laws may be ammended or repealed by a two thirds majority of

the- votes present at .ci. ty regular annual meetings.

* This part of the law was stricken out on March 21~ 1908
Article XVI

The annual meeting of the Company shall be held at Paris Idaho on the

second Saturday in March of each year~ lawfull notice of which shall

be posted in three conspicuous places in the district~ or be published

in the nearest newspaper in the county ten days prior to the time of the

meeting.
March 21~ 1908

Minutes of adjourned meeting held at the office of J.W. Stucki~ President.

Present:

M.L. Rich~ J.W. Stucki~ Edward Sutton~ Charles Ames~ J.H. Stocker~

J.L. Linvall~ Wm. G. Heyward.

The By Laws were read and it was moved and carried that the Zatter

part of Article X of the By Laws be stricken out namely that part

commenc~ng:

and if not paid in ten days after judgement sufficient of his capital

stock shall be transferred to the person or persons who sustain the loss.

The financial condition of the ditch was read~ showing a delinquence of

about $20.00. The Water Master was allowed $6.00 for his services during

1907. It was moved and carried that l59 be levied on the capital stock.

Voting by ballot for officers and directors resulting in election of:

Edward Sutton - Secretary and Treasurer

Wm. L. Rich - Water Master

Directors:

Wm. L. Rich~ Edward Sutton~ Wm.G. Hayward~ J.B. Stocker~ J.L. Linvall

355 shares represented

Minutes read and accepted.

March 21~ 1908

Minutes of directors meeting at the ajournment of annual meeting.

W.L. Rich was elected President and Edward Sutton Secretary and Treasurer

of Directors.

~:

"

','

t',

~

;-'.....

"-

"

"

t.

" "\

<, '::\

--::i'\,

~\.

-~ "

\

.... \.

.•..\.~-..... s.

, .

~

<,~

•..•......•


;.,>,:.,~.'."/.:''<..

.''''

5:f~--'"

>#,,".

•

,

:ft' :·:"·<~·;'\"';\~'~"-.:'~'. i -:f:i+ijls:,
~.

i····.·.•. ::1" .

~

i

l

i

I

- i

I

Ii

1

i

,J
28

.,,_.,. ",e·- _'._

- '~~"''''''''1'~''-·--:-::·'''''''_~~~ID,.:~·~~~~:f;!ill'_~''~~!iIti!ittt'!tf?B~~C'~'~~:',<;;o;:,.; ,..;, .a '~""
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix N. Unit Habitat Targets N-1 

Appendix N. Unit Habitat Targets 

The acreages for the individual habitat types that comprise a habitat type are provided in this 

appendix. The Thomas Fork Unit, Oxford Slough WPA Units, and five Complexes (composed of 14 

individual impoundments) of Bear Lake NWR will be managed as indicated for the habitat targets 

identified below. Comparisons of the baseline (current conditions) are provided to contrast the degree 

of change required to meet the target acres. 

 
N-2 Appendix N. Unit Habitat Targets Tall Emergent Wetlands (Includes: Open Water, Submerged Aquatic, Deep Emergent and Shallow Emergent) Management Complex Targets Bear Lake NWR (18,010 ac) Thoma

Un

North Meadows Complex Bunn Lake Complex Bloomington Complex Rainbow Complex Mud Lake Complex 1,791 ac 3,528 ac 2,521 ac 2,108 ac 8,062 ac 1,004 ac 

Baseline % (acres) Target % (acres) Acceptable Range % Acceptable Range ac 74% (1,327 ac) 56% (1,003 ac) 46.5%-95.0% 833-1,702 ac 93% (3,266 ac) 86% (3,026 ac) 66.1%-95.0% 2,331-3,350 ac 86 % (2,155 ac) 67% (1,689 ac) 45.0%-90.0% 1,134-2,269 ac 94 % (1,973ac) 85% (1,796 ac) 61.0%-98% 1,289-2,071 ac 91 % (7,353 ac) 90% (7,230 ac) 46.1%-95% 3,734-7,694 ac 27 % (27

24% (2419%-33% 192-335

Deep “Hemi” Marsh (Includes: Open Water, Submerged Aquatic, Deep Emergent) Management Complex Targets Bear Lake NWR (18,010 ac) Thomas 

Uni

North Meadows Complex Bunn Lake Complex Bloomington Complex Rainbow Complex Mud Lake Complex 1,791 ac 3,528 ac 2,521 ac 2,108 ac 8,062 ac 1,004 ac 

Baseline % (acres) Target % (acres) Acceptable Range % Acceptable Range ac Baseline Hemi Ratio Target Hemi Ratio 13.0% (233 ac) 16.0% (287 ac) 6%-25.5% 833-1,702 ac 1:4 1:2.7 51% (1,884 ac) 61% (2,136 ac) 41%-80% 1,446-2,821 ac 1:8.6 1:3 54% (1,348 ac) 42% (1,059 ac) 23%-62.5% 579-1,585 ac 1:6.3 1:3.5 54% (1,146 ac) 55% (1,162ac) 38%-78% 803-1,649 ac 1:3.3 1:2.75 70 % (5,668 ac) 79% (6,327 ac) 40%-80% 3,240-6,450 ac 3.8:1 2.8:1 6.3% (63 

6% (60 ac4%-8% 40-81ac 1:2.3 1:3 
Appendix N. Unit Habitat Targets N-3 Open Water Management Complex Targets Bear Lake NWR (18,010 ac) Thomas 

Unit 

North Meadows Complex Bunn Lake Complex Bloomington Complex Rainbow Complex Mud Lake Complex 1,791 ac 3,528 ac 2,521 ac 2,108 ac 8,062 ac 1,004 ac 

Baseline % (acres) Target % (acres) Acceptable Range % Acceptable Range ac 2.2% (40 ac) 1% (18 ac) 0%-3% 0-54 ac 4.1% (144 ac) 5.0% (178 ac) 1%-10% 35-353 ac 6.3% (159 ac) 2.0% (50 ac) 1%-7.5% 25-189 ac 8.0% (170 ac) 5.0% (106 ac) 3%-8% 63-169 ac 50.3 % (4,055) 28% (2,260 ac) 20%-60% 1,620-4,859ac 2.8% (28 

2.0% (20 1.0%-3.0% 10-30 ac 

Submerged Aquatic Management Complex Targets Bear Lake NWR (18,010 ac) Thomas 

Unit 

North Meadows Complex Bunn Lake Complex Bloomington Complex Rainbow Complex Mud Lake Complex 1,791 ac 3,528 ac 2,521 ac 2,108 ac 8,062 ac 1,004 ac 

Baseline % (acres) Target % (acres) Acceptable Range % Acceptable Range ac 1.1% (20 ac) 5.0% (90 ac) 1%-7.5% 18-134 ac 1.9% (68 ac) 15.1% (534 ac) 10%-20% 353-705 ac 2.2% (57 ac) 10% (252 ac) 2%-10% 50-252 ac 8.3% (175 ac) 15% (317 ac) 5%-20% 106-423 ac 1.4 % (112 ac) 22.4% (1,808) 5%-55% 405-4,454 ac Deep Emergent Management Complex Targets Bear Lake NWR (18,010 ac) Thomas 

Unit 

North Meadows Complex Bunn Lake Complex Bloomington Complex Rainbow Complex Mud Lake Complex 1,791 ac 3,528 ac 2,521 ac 2,108 ac 8,062 ac 1,004 ac 

Baseline % (acres) Target % (acres) Acceptable Range % Acceptable Range ac 9.7% (174 ac) 10.0% (179 ac) 5%-15% 90-269ac 45.4% (1,603 ac) 40.4% (1,424 ac) 30%-50% 1,058-1,763 ac 44.9% (1,133ac) 30.0% (756 ac) 20%-45% 504-1,144 ac 38.1% (802 ac) 35.0% (739 ac) 30%-50% 634-1,057ac 18.6 % (1,501ac) 28% (2,260) 15%-30% 1,215-2,430 ac 3.5 % (35 

4.0% (40 3%-5% 30-51 ac 
N-4 Appendix N. Unit Habitat Targets Shallow Emergent Management Complex Targets Bear Lake NWR (18,010 ac) Thomas 

Unit 

North Meadows Complex Bunn Lake Complex Bloomington Complex Rainbow Complex Mud Lake Complex 1,791 ac 3,528 ac 2,521 ac 2,108 ac 8,062 ac 1,004 ac 

Baseline % (acres) Target % (acres) Acceptable Range % Acceptable Range ac 61.1% (1,094 ac) 40% (716 ac) 30%-60% 538-1,075 ac 41% (1,451 ac) 25.2% (890 ac) 20%-30% 705-1,058 ac 32% (806 ac) 25% (630 ac) 20%-40% 504-1,008 ac 39.2% (826 ac) 30% (634 ac) 20%-45% 423-951 ac 20.9 % (1,685ac) 11.2% (904 ac) 5%-20% 405-1,620 ac 20.9% (21

18% (181 15%-25% 152-254 a

Ephemeral Marsh Wetlands (Includes: Wet Meadow and Alkali Meadow habitats) Management Complex Targets Bear Lake NWR (18,010 ac) Thomas 

Unit 

North Meadows Complex Bunn Lake Complex Bloomington Complex Rainbow Complex Mud Lake Complex 1,791 ac 3,528 ac 2,521 ac 2,108 ac 8,062 ac 1,004 ac 

Baseline % (acres) Target % (acres) Acceptable Range % Acceptable Range ac 11.4% (203 ac) 26.0% (466 ac) 10%-32% 188-565 ac 2.4% (86 ac) 10.2% (360 ac) 5%-15% 180-536 ac 1.8% (46 ac) 15% (377 ac) 2%-15% 50-378 ac 2.1% (45 ac) 9.8% (207 ac) 3%-18% 63-380 ac 2.1 % (172 ac) 2.5% (204 ac) 1%-4.5% 100-364 ac 38.8% (39

37.5% (3732%-44% 325-447 a

Wet Meadow Management Complex Targets Bear Lake NWR (18,010 ac) Thomas 

Unit 

North Meadows Complex Bunn Lake Complex Bloomington Complex Rainbow Complex Mud Lake Complex 1,791 ac 3,528 ac 2,521 ac 2,108 ac 8,062 ac 1,004 ac 

Baseline % (acres) Target % (acres) Acceptable Range % Acceptable Range ac 11.3% (202 ac) 25.0% (448 ac) 10%-30% 179-538 ac 2.3% (81 ac) 10.1% (356ac) 5%-15% 176-529 ac <1% (23ac) 10.0% (252 ac) 1%-10% 25-252 ac 2.1% (44ac) 4.9% (103 ac) 2%-10% 42-211 ac 1.9 % (150 ac) 2.3% (185 ac) 1%-4% 84-324 ac 35.7% (35

35.0% (3430%-40% 305-406ac 
Appendix N. Unit Habitat Targets N-5 Alkali Meadow Management Complex Targets Bear Lake NWR (18,010 ac) Thomas 

Unit 

North Meadows Complex Bunn Lake Complex Bloomington Complex Rainbow Complex Mud Lake Complex 1,791 ac 3,528 ac 2,521 ac 2,108 ac 8,062 ac 1,004 ac 

Baseline % (acres) Target % (acres) Acceptable Range % Acceptable Range ac 0.1% (1 ac) 1.0% (18 ac) 0.5%-1.5% 9-27 ac 0.1% (5 ac) 0.1% (4 ac) 0.1%-0.2% 4-7 ac 0.9% (23ac) 5.0% (125 ac) 1.0%-5% 25-126 ac 0% (1 ac) 4.9% (104 ac) 1%-8% 21-169 ac 0.3 % (23 ac) 0.2% (18 ac) 0.1%-0.5% 16-40 ac 3.2% (32 

2.5% (24 2%-4% 20-41ac 

Wooded Riparian Management Complex Targets Bear Lake NWR (18,010 ac) Thomas 

Unit 

North Meadows Complex Bunn Lake Complex Bloomington Complex Rainbow Complex Mud Lake Complex 1,791 ac 3,528 ac 2,521 ac 2,108 ac 8,062 ac 1,004 ac 

Baseline % (acres) Target % (acres) Acceptable Range % Acceptable Range ac 0.1% (2 ac) 1.0% (18 ac) 1%-3% 18-54 ac 0.2% (8 ac) 0.2% (7 ac) 0.2%-0.5% 7-18 ac 0.1% (3 ac) 0.1% (3 ac) 0.1%-0.5% 3-13 ac 0.5% (10 ac) 0.5% (11 ac) 0.5%-1.5% 11-32 ac 0.3 % (26 ac) 0.5% (40 ac) 0.3%-1% 27-81 ac 4.1% (41 

5.0% (51 4%-7.5% 41-76 ac 

Uplands (Includes: Alkali Upland Meadow, Meadow Grass, and Shrub) Management Complex Targets Bear Lake NWR (18,010 ac) Thomas 

Unit 

North Meadows Complex Bunn Lake Complex Bloomington Complex Rainbow Complex Mud Lake Complex 1,791 ac 3,528 ac 2,521 ac 2,108 ac 8,062 ac 1,004 ac 

Baseline % (acres) Target % (acres) Acceptable Range % Acceptable Range ac 12.7% (228 ac) 16.0% (287 ac) 14%-28.5% 251-510 ac 4.1% (143ac) 3.1% (110 ac) 1.5%-7% 53-251 ac 10.9% (274 ac) 16.2% (409 ac) 7%-23.5% 179-593 ac 3.8% (80 ac) 4.5% (95 ac) 3.5%-8% 74-169 ac 6.3 % (511 ac) 7.3% (587 ac) 5.5%-9% 445-729 ac 25.6% (25

29.4% (2922.5%-35229-361 a
N-6 Appendix N. Unit Habitat Targets Alkali Upland Meadow Management Complex Targets Bear Lake NWR (18,010 ac) Thomas 

Unit 

North Meadows Complex Bunn Lake Complex Bloomington Complex Rainbow Complex Mud Lake Complex 1,791 ac 3,528 ac 2,521 ac 2,108 ac 8,062 ac 1,004 ac 

Baseline % (acres) Target % (acres) Acceptable Range % Acceptable Range ac 5.1% (92 ac) 5.0% (90 ac) 3%-7.5% 54-134 ac 1.3% (47 ac) 1.0% (36 ac) 0.5%-2% 18-71 ac 4.9% (123 ac) 6.0% (151 ac) 2%-8% 50-202 ac 1.1% (24 ac) 1.0% (21ac) 1%-2% 21-42 ac 0.4 % (28 ac) 0.6% (45ac) 0.5%-1% 40-81 ac 0.2% (2ac

0.5% (5 ac0.2%-0.5% 2-5 ac 

Meadow Grass Management Complex Targets Bear Lake NWR (18,010 ac) Thomas 

Unit 

North Meadows Complex Bunn Lake Complex Bloomington Complex Rainbow Complex Mud Lake Complex 1,791 ac 3,528 ac 2,521 ac 2,108 ac 8,062 ac 1,004 ac 

Baseline % (acres) Target % (acres) Acceptable Range % Acceptable Range ac 6.9% (124 ac) 10.0% (179 ac) 10%-20% 179-358 ac 2.7% (97 ac) 2.0% (71 ac) 1%-5% 35-176 ac 5.8% (147 ac) 10.1% (254 ac) 5%-15% 126-378 ac 2.6% (55 ac) 3.0% (63 ac) 2%-5% 42-106 ac 1.8 % (148 ac) 2.2% (181 ac) 1%-3% 81-243 ac 23.0% (23

24.0% (2420%-30% 203-305 a

Mixed Shrub Management Complex Targets Bear Lake NWR (18,010 ac) Thomas 

Unit 

North Meadows Complex Bunn Lake Complex Bloomington Complex Rainbow Complex Mud Lake Complex 1,791 ac 3,528 ac 2,521 ac 2,108 ac 8,062 ac 1,004 ac 

Baseline % (acres) Target % (acres) Acceptable Range % Acceptable Range ac 0.7% (12 ac) 1.0% (18 ac) 0.7%-1% 12-18 ac 0% (0 ac) 0.1% (4 ac) 0%-0.1% 0-4 ac 0.2% (4 ac) 0.2% (4 ac) 0.1%-0.5% 3-13 ac 0.1% (1 ac) 0.5% (11 ac) 0.5%-1% 11-21 ac 4.2 % (335 ac) 4.5% (362 ac) 4%-5% 324-405 ac 2.4% (24 

5.0% (50 2.3%-5% 24-51 ac 
Appendix N. Unit Habitat Targets N-7 Agriculture Upland Crops Management Complex Targets Bear Lake NWR (18,010 ac) Thomas 

Unit 

North Meadows Complex Bunn Lake Complex Bloomington Complex Rainbow Complex Mud Lake Complex 1,791 ac 3,528 ac 2,521 ac 2,108 ac 8,062 ac 1,004 ac 

Baseline Fields Baseline % (acres) Target Crop Fields Target % (acres) Target Restore Fields Target Restore % (ac 2 0.3% (10.7) 11 1.9% (68.3 ac) 9 1.6% (57.6 ac) 0 0% (0 ac) 3 1.0% (25.1 ac) 3 1.0% (25.1 ac) 0 0% (0 ac) 4 4.4% (44.

4 4.4% (44.0 0% (0 ac) 

Hayed Meadow and Uplands Management Complex Targets Bear Lake NWR (18,010 ac) Thomas 

Unit 

North Meadows Complex Bunn Lake Complex Bloomington Complex Rainbow Complex Mud Lake Complex 1,791 ac 3,528 ac 2,521 ac 2,108 ac 8,062 ac 1,004 ac 

Baseline % (acres) Target % (acres) Target Restoration of Hayed % (ac 73% (1,300) 22% (391) 70% (909) 34% (1,191) 13% (450) 62% (741) 12% (311) 10% (260) 16% (51) * 1.2% (94) 0.5% (39) 60% (57) 34% (337

21% (21557% (122
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

N-8 Appendix N. Unit Habitat Targets 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix O. References O-1 

Appendix O. References 

Alexander, T.G. 2010. Utah: the right place. In: Fremont’s exploration, Utah history to go, state of 

Utah 2010. Available at: 

http://historytogo.utah.gov/utah_chapters/trappers,_traders,_and_explorers/fremontsexploration.h

tml. Accessed December 19, 2010. 

Allen, Cody M. 2011. Seasonal transport of suspended solids and nutrients between Bear River and 

Bear Lake. Graduate theses and dissertations. Paper 1277. 113 pp. Available at: 

http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2292&context=etd. Accessed January 

2013. 

Always, F.J. 1931. Early trials and use of reed canarygrass as a forage plant. Journal of the American 

Society of Agronomists 23:64-66. 

American Fisheries Society, Idaho Chapter. 2011. 2000-2012: Fishes of Idaho. Available at: 

http://www.idahoafs.org/fishes.php. Accessed December 2011. 

Anderson, A.C. 1940. Trails of early Idaho: the pioneer life of George W. Goodhart, and his 

association with the Hudson’s Bay and American Fur Company’s traders and trappers. Caldwell, 

ID: Caxton Press. 

Anderson, H.E. 1982. Aids to determining fuel models for estimating fire behavior. General 

Technical Report INT-122. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest 

and Range Experiment Station. Ogden, UT. 22 pp. 

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. Natural 

Resource Report NPS/ROMN/NRR—2010/220. National Park Service. Fort Collins, CO. 81 pp. 

Aw, J. and M.J. Kleeman. 2003. Evaluating the first-order effect of intra-annual temperature 

variability on urban air pollution. Journal of Geophysical Research 108(D12) Art. No. 4365. 

Bachelet, D., J.M. Lenihan, and R.P. Neilson. 2007. Wildfires and global climate change: the 

importance of climate change for future wildfire scenarios in the western United States. Regional 

impacts of climate change: four case studies in the United States. Arlington, VA: Pew Center on 

Global Climate Change. 22 pp. 

Bachelet, D., R.P. Neilson, J.M. Lenihan, and R.J. Drapek. 2001. Climate change effects on 

vegetation distribution and carbon budget in the United States. Ecosystems 4:164-185. 

Badiou, P.H.J. 2005. Ecological impacts of an exotic benthivorous fish in wetlands: a comparison 

between common carp (Cyprinus carpio L.) additions in large experimental wetlands and small 

mesocosms in Delta Marsh, Manitoba. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, 

Manitoba, Canada. 

Bakermans, R.A. 2006. What is the appropriate paradigm for riparian forest conservation? Biological 

Conservation 128(2):193-200. 

Baldassare, G.A. and E.G. Bolen. 2006. Waterfowl ecology and management. 2nd edition. Malabar, 

FL: Krieger Publishing Company. 

Baldassare, G.A., R.J. Whyte, E.E. Quinlin, and E.G. Bolen. 1983. Dynamics and quality of waste 

corn available to postbreeding waterfowl in Texas. Wildlife Society Bulletin 11:25-31. 

Bancroft, H.H. and F.F. Victor. 1890. History of Washington, Idaho, and Montana: 1845-1889, 

Volume 31. San Francisco: The History Company, Publishers. Barker, W.T. and G.W. Fulton. 

1979. Analysis of wetland vegetation on selected areas in southwestern North Dakota. Report 79-

15. North Dakota State University, North Dakota Regional Environmental Assessment Program. 

Fargo, ND. 132 pp. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

O-2 Appendix O. References 

Barnett, T.P., D.W. Pierce, H.G. Hidalgo, C. Bonfils, B.D. Santer, T. Das, G. Bala, A.W. Wood, 

T. Nozawa, A.A. Mirin, D.R. Cayan, and M.D. Dettinger. 2008. Human-induced changes in the 

hydrology of the western United States. Science 319:1080-1083. 

Baron, J.S., M.D. Hartman, L.E. Band, and R.B. Lammers. 2000. Sensitivity of a high-elevation 

rocky mountain watershed to altered climate and CO2. Water Resources Research 36:89-99. 

Battin, J., M.W. Wiley, M.H. Ruckelshaus, R.N. Palmer, E. Korb, K.K. Bartz, and H. Imaki. 2007. 

Projected impacts of climate change on salmon habitat restoration. Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104:6720-6725. 

Bear Lake Chamber of Commerce. 2010. Historic Montpelier. Available at: 

http://bearlakechamber.org/area_visitors/. Accessed December 2010. 

Bear Lake Watch. 2010. Water history of Bear Lake. Available at: 

http://www.bearlakewatch.com/aboutfight1.html. Accessed October 6, 2010. 

Bear River Compact and By-Laws of Bear River Commission. 1963. Public Law 86-348, 85th 

Congress S.1086, March 17, 1958. United States Congress. 

Bear Lake County Planning and Zoning Commission. 2002. Bear Lake County comprehensive plan2025. Bear Lake County, ID. 

Bellrose, F.C. 1976. Ducks, geese and swans of North America. Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole. 

Bernard, S.M., J.M. Samet, A. Grambsch, K.L. Ebi, and I. Romieu. 2001. The potential impacts of 

climate variability and change on air pollution-related health effects in the United States. 

Environmental Health Perspectives 109:199-209. 

Beule, J.D. 1979. Control and management of cattails in southeastern Wisconsin wetlands. Technical 

Bulletin 112. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Madison, WI. 41 pp. 

Binns, A.N. and R. Remmick. 1994. Response of Bonneville cutthroat trout and their habitat to 

drainage-wide habitat management at Huff Creek, Wyoming. North American Journal of 

Fisheries Management 14:669-680. 

Birdsey, P.W., Jr. 1989. The limnology of Bear Lake, Utah–Idaho, 1912-1988: a literature review. 

Publication no. 89-5. Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife Resources, 

Salt Lake City, UT. 

Bjornn, T.C. and Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. 1998. An evaluation of 

sediment and nutrient loading on fish and wildlife production at Bear Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge. Technical Report 87-3. Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. Moscow, 

ID. 

BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 2003. Idaho BLM sensitive species list. Bureau of Land 

Management Instruction Memorandum No. ID-2003-057. May 20, 2003. Bureau of Land 

Management. Boise, ID. 50 pp. 

BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 2009. Draft EIS, Blackfoot Bridge Mine, Caribou County, 

Idaho. EIS No. ID-320-2006-EIS-1553. Idaho Falls District, Pocatello Field Office. Pocatello, 

ID. Available at: http://www.blm.gov/id/st/en/info/nepa/Pocatello/blackfoot_mine_deis.html. 

Accessed December 1, 2010. 

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. 

Bonfils, C., B.D. Santer, D.W. Pierce, H.G. Hidalgo, G. Bala, T. Das, T.P. Barnett, D.R. Cayan, 

C. Doutriaux, A.W. Wood, A. Mirin, and T. Nozawa. 2008. Detection and attribution of 

temperature changes in the mountainous western United States. Journal of Climate 21:6404-

6424. 

Both, C., S. Bouwhuis, C.M. Lessells, and M.E. Visser. 2006. Climate change and population 

declines in a long-distance migratory bird. Nature 441:81-83. 

Bowker, J.M., D.B.K. English, and H.K. Cordell. 1999. Projections of outdoor recreation 

participation to 2050. Pages 323-350 in: H.K. Cordell, C.J. Betz, J.M. Bowker, D.B.K. English, 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix O. References O-3 

S.H. Mou, J.D. Bergstrom, R.J. Teasley, M.A. Tarrant, and J. Loomis, eds. Outdoor recreation in 

American life: a national assessment of demand and supply trends. Champaign, IL: Sagamore 

Publishing. 

Bradley, B.A. 2010. Assessing ecosystem threats from global and regional change: hierarchical 

modeling of risk to sagebrush ecosystems from climate change, land use and invasive species in 

Nevada, USA. Ecography 33:198-208. 

Bradley, B.A., M. Oppenheimer, and D.S. Wilcove. 2009. Climate change and plant invasions: 

Restoration opportunities ahead? Global Change Biology 15:1511-1521. 

Brasher, M.G., J.D. Steckel, and R.J. Gates. 2007. Energetic carrying capacity of actively and 

passively managed wetlands for migrating ducks in Ohio. Journal of Wildlife Management 

71:2532-2541. 

BRC (Bear Lake Regional Commission). 1983. The Bear Lake 314 clean lakes study. Bear Lake 

Regional Commission. Fish Haven, ID. 

BRC. 1997. A report of the Bear River Commission: a 20 year review of the compact. Bear River 

Commission. Fish Haven, ID. Available at: 

http://waterrights.utah.gov/techinfo/bearrivc/bear20.html. Accessed December 13, 2010. 

Breshears, D.D., N.S. Cobb, P.M. Rich, K.P. Price, C.D. Allen, R.G. Balice, W.H. Romme, 

J.H. Kastens, M.L. Floyd, J. Belnap, J.J. Anderson, O.B. Myers, and C.W. Meyer. 2005. 

Regional vegetation die-off in response to global-change-type drought. Proceedings of the 

National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102:15,144-15,148. 

Brode, J.M. and R.B. Bury. 1984. The importance of riparian systems to amphibians and reptiles. 

Pages 30-36 in: R. E. Warner and K. M. Hendrix, eds. California riparian systems. Berkeley: 

University of California Press. 

Brown, T.J., B.L. Hall, and A.L. Westerling. 2004. The impact of twenty-first century climate change 

on wildland fire danger in the western United States: an applications perspective. Climatic 

Change 62:365-388. 

BRWIS (Bear River Watershed Information System). 2010. Bear River watershed description. Utah 

Water Research Laboratory, Utah State University. Available at: 

http://www.bearriverinfo.org/description. Accessed August 3, 2010. 

Bundy, R. 2007. Bear Lake NWR and Oxford Slough WPA. Draft habitat management plan. 

Unpublished manuscript. May 2007. On file, Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Montpelier, 

ID. 

Bunting, S.C., J.L. Kingery, M.A. Hemstrom, M.A. Schroeder, R.A. Gravenmier, and W.J. Hann. 

2002. Altered rangeland ecosystems in the interior Columbia Basin. General Technical Report 

PNW-GTR-553. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Portland, OR. 69 pp. 

Burch, S., S. Arena, and C. Thomas. 2004. Evaluation of contaminant concentrations in water, 

sediment, and biota at Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge from historical phosphate mining and 

agricultural return flows. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Environmental Contaminants Branch, 

Snake River Fish and Wildlife Office. Boise, ID. 

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. 

Burkett, V. and J. Kusler. 2000. Climate change: Potential impacts and interactions in wetlands of the 

United States. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 36:313-320. 

Burnett, P. 2003. Factors affecting spawning and survival of Bear Lake Bonneville cutthroat trout in 

St. Charles Creek, Idaho. M.S. thesis. Utah State University, Logan. On file at Quinney Library, 

Utah State University, USU Call Number: Library QL 638.S2 B87x 2003. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

O-4 Appendix O. References 

Bury, R.B. 1988. Habitat relationships and ecological importance of amphibians and reptiles. Pages 

61-76 in: K.J. Raedeke, ed. Streamside management: riparian wildlife and forestry interactions. 

Contribution No. 59. University of Washington Institute Forestry Resources. Seattle, WA. 

Busselberg, T. 2011. Population decline continues in Bear Lake County. The News Examiner. March 

23. 

Butler, B.R. 1978. A guide to understanding Idaho archaeology. Upper Snake and Salmon River 

country. Special publication. Idaho Museum of Natural History. Pocatello, ID. 

Butler, R.B. 1986. Prehistory of the Snake and Salmon River area. In: W.L. d’Azevedo, ed. Great 

Basin. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 11. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian 

Institution. 

Carpenter, S.R. and D.M. Lodge. 1986. Effects of submersed macrophytes on ecosystem processes. 

Aquatic Biology 26:341-370. 

Casanova, M.T. and M.A. Brock. 2000. How do depth, duration and frequency of flooding influence 

the establishment of wetland plant communities? Plant Ecology 147(2):237-250. 

Caudill, J. and E. Henderson. 2005. Banking on nature 2004: the economic benefits to local 

communities of national wildlife refuge visitation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of 

Economics. Washington, D.C. 435 pp. 

Cayan, D.R., S.A. Kammerdiener, M.D. Dettinger, J. Caprio, and D.H. Peterson. 2001. Changes in 

the onset of spring in the western United States. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 

82:399-415. 

Christiansen, L.D. 2007. Chief Bear Hunter. Available at: 

http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~utcache/history/bearhunter.htm. Accessed December 2010. 

CIG (Climate Impacts Group). 2004. Overview of the climate change impacts in the U.S. Pacific 

Northwest. Available at: www.cses.washington.edu/cig. 

CIG. 2009. Climate variability-impacts of natural climate variability on Pacific Northwest climate. 

Available at: http://cses.washington.edu/cig/pnwc/clvariability.shtml. 

CIG. 2010. Climate science in the public interest website. University of Washington, Joint Institute 

for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean, Seattle, WA. Available at: 

http://cses.washington.edu/cig/. 

Cleland, E.E., N.R. Chiariello, S.R. Loarie, H.A. Mooney, and C.B. Field. 2006. Diverse responses 

of phenology to global changes in a grassland ecosystem. Proceedings of the National Academy 

of Sciences of the United States of America 103:13740-13744. 

Collins, B., J. Miller, A. Thode, M. Kelly, J. van Wagtendonk, and S. Stephens. 2009. Interactions 

among wildland fires in a long-established Sierra Nevada natural fire area. Ecosystems 12:114-

128. 

Collins, W.B. and P.J. Urness. 1983. Feeding behavior and habitat selection of mule deer and elk on 

northern Utah summer range. Journal of Wildlife Management 47(3):646-663. 

Colman, S. 2006. Acoustic stratigraphy of Bear Lake, Utah–Idaho Late Quaternary sedimentation 

patterns in a simple half-graben. Sedimentary Geology 185:113-125. Available at: 

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgssta_pub/276. 

Colman, S.M., D.S. Kaufman, J. Bright, C. Heil, J.W. King, W.E. Dean, J.R. Rosenbaum, 

R.M. Forester, J.L. Bischoff, M. Perkins, and J.P. McGeehin. In press. Age models for a 

continuous 250-kyr Quaternary lacustrine record from Bear Lake, Utah–Idaho. Quaternary 

Science Reviews. 

Colyer, W.T., J.L. Kershner, and R.H. Hilderbrand. 2005. Movements of fluvial Bonneville cutthroat 

trout in the Thomas Fork of the Bear River, Idaho–Wyoming. North American Journal of 

Fisheries Management 25(3):954-963. Available at: 

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1577/M04-078.1. Accessed December 20, 2011. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix O. References O-5 

Compton, B.B., compiler. 2009a. Elk progress report, July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008. W-170-R-32. 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Boise, ID. 138 pp. 

Compton, B.B., compiler. 2009b. Mule deer progress report, July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008. W-170-

R-32. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Boise, ID. 110 pp. 

Conway, C.J. 2005. Standardized North American marsh bird monitoring protocols. Wildlife 

Research Report 2005-04. U.S. Geological Survey, Arizona Cooperative Fish and Wildlife 

Research Unit. Tucson, AZ. 

Cook, E.R., C.A. Woodhouse, C.M. Eakin, D.M. Meko, and D.W. Stahle. 2004. Long-term aridity 

changes in the western United States. Science 306:1015-1018. 

Cook, E.R., R. Seager, M.A. Cane, and D.W. Stahle. 2007. North American drought: reconstructions, 

causes, and consequences. Earth Science Reviews 81:93-134. 

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and 

deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. 

CPC (Climate Prediction Center). 2005. Pacific/North American pattern. Available at: 

http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/data/teledoc/pna.shtml. 

Crissey, W.F. 1969. Prairie potholes from a continental viewpoint. Pages 161-171 in: Saskatoon 

Wetlands Seminar. Canadian Wildlife Service Report, Series 6. 

Cross, S.P. 1985. Responses of small mammals to forest riparian perturbations. Pages 269-275 in: 

R.R. Johnson, C.D. Ziebell, D.R. Patten, P.F. Ffolliot, and R.H. Hamre, tech. cords. Riparian 

ecosystems and their management: reconciling conflicting uses. General Technical Report RM120. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station. Fort Collins, CO. 523 pp. 

d’Azevedo, W.L., ed. 1986. Great Basin. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 11, 

Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian InstitutionDahl, T.E. 1990. Wetland losses in the United States, 

1780s to 1980s. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. 21 

pp. 

Dale, R., H. Moisl, and H. Somers, eds. 2000. Handbook of natural language processing. New York, 

NY: Marcel Dekker. 

Dale, V.H., L.A. Joyce, S. McNulty, and R.P. Neilson. 2000. The interplay between climate change, 

forests, and disturbances. Science of the Total Environment 262:201-204. 

De Szalay, F.A. and V.H. Resh. 2000. Factors influencing macroinvertebrate colonization of seasonal 

wetlands: responses to emergent plant cover. Freshwater Biology 45(3):95-308. 

Dean, W., J. Rosenbaum, G. Skipp, S. Colman, R. Forester, A. Liu, K. Simmons, and J. Bischoff. 

2006. Unusual Holocene and late Pleistocene carbonate sedimentation in Bear Lake, Utah–Idaho, 

U.S.A. Sedimentary Geology 185:93-112. Available at: doi:10.1016/j.sedgeo.2005.11.016. 

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. 

Derig, B. 1996. Roadside history of Idaho. Missoula, MT: Mountain Press Publishing. 

Diaz, H.F. and J.K. Eischeid. 2007. Disappearing “alpine tundra” Köppen climatic type in the 

western United States. Geophysical Research Letters 34:L18707. 

Digital Atlas of Idaho. 2000. Idaho natural history website. Idaho Museum of Natural History. 

Available at: http://imnh.isu.edu/digitalatlas/. 

Dion, N.P. 1969. Hydrologic reconnaissance of the Bear River Basin in southeastern Idaho. Water 

information bulletin no. 13. U.S. Geological Survey and Idaho Department of Reclamation. 66 

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

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

O-6 Appendix O. References 

Doran, J.W., D.G. Fraser, M.N. Culik, and W.C. Liebhardt. 1987. Influence of alternative and 

conventional agricultural management on soil microbial processes and nitrogen availability. 

American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 2:99-106. 

Doyle, A.T. 1990. Use of riparian and upland habitats by small mammals. Journal of Mammalogy 

71(1):14-23. 

Drewien, R.C. and E.G. Bizeau. 1974. Status and distribution of greater sandhill cranes in the Rocky 

Mountains. Journal of Wildlife Management 38(4):720-742. 

Drewien, R.C. and P.F. Springer. 1969. Ecological relationships of breeding blue-winged teal to 

prairie potholes. Pages 102-115 in: Saskatoon Wetlands Seminar. Canadian Wildlife Service 

Report, Series 6. 

Dukes, J.S. and H.A. Mooney. 1999. Does global change increase the success of biological invaders? 

Trends in Ecology and Evolution 14:135-139. 

Dzubin, A. 1969. Comments on carrying capacity of small ponds for ducks and possible effects of 

density on mallard production. Pages 138-160 in: Saskatoon Wetlands Seminar. Canadian 

Wildlife Service Report, Series 6. 

Ecosystems Research Institute. 2005. Bear River/Malad Subbasin assessment and total maximum 

daily load plan. Prepared for Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Pocatello, ID. 

Ecosystems Research Institute, Inc., Logan, UT. 353 pp. 

Eddins, N. 2002. Astorians from Oregon country across Rocky Mountains to St. Louis. Available at: 

http://www.thefurtrapper.com/robert_stuart.htm. Accessed October 6, 2010. 

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. 

Elmore, A.J., S.J. Manning, J.F. Mustard, and J.M. Craine. 2006. Decline of alkali meadow 

vegetation cover in California: the effects of groundwater extraction and drought. Journal of 

Applied Ecology 43:770-779. 

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). 

Euliss, N.H., Jr., J.W. LaBaugh, L.H. Fredrickson, D.M. Mushet, M.K. Laubhan, G.A. Swanson, 

T.C. Winter, D.O. Rosenberry, and R.D. Nelson. 2004. The wetland continuum: a conceptual 

framework for interpreting biological studies. Wetlands 24:448-458. 

Evans, C.D. and K.E. Black. 1956. Duck production studies on the prairie potholes of South Dakota. 

Special Science Report Wildlife 32. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 59 pp. 

Evans, J.P., D.C. Martindale, and R.D. Kendrick Jr. 2003. Geologic setting of the 1884 Bear Lake, 

Idaho, earthquake: rupture in the hanging wall of a basin and range normal fault revealed by 

historical and geological analyses. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 93:1621-

1632. 

Fang, X. and H.G. Stefan. 1998. Potential climate warming effects on ice covers of small lakes in the 

contiguous U.S. Cold Regions Science and Technology 27:119-140. 

Fang, X. and H.G. Stefan. 1999. Projections of climate change effects on water temperature 

characteristics of small lakes in the contiguous U.S. Climatic Change 42(2):377-412. 

Fausch, K.D., Y. Taniguchi, S. Nakano, G.D. Grossman, and C.R. Townsend. 2001. Flood 

disturbance regimes influence rainbow trout invasion success among five holartic regions. 

Ecological Applications 11:1438-1455. 

Fellers, G.M. and E.D. Pierson. 2002. Habitat use and foraging behavior of Townsend’s big-eared bat 

(Corynorhinus townsendii) in coastal California. Journal of Mammalogy 83(1):167-177. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix O. References O-7 

Field, C.B., L.D. Mortsch, M. Brklacich, D.L. Forbes, P. Kovacs, J.A. Patz, S.W. Running, and 

M.J. Scott. 2007. North America: contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment 

report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Pages 617-652 in: M.L. Parry, O.F. 

Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson, eds. Climate change 2007: 

impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Cambridge, UK; Cambridge University Press. 

Flannigan, M., B. Amiro, K. Logan, B. Stocks, and B. Wotton. 2006. Forest fires and climate change 

in the 21st century. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 11:847-859. 

Frankel, S.J. 2008. Forest plant disease and climate change. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/topics/plant-diseases.shtml. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Climate Change Resource Center. 

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 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. 

French, H.T. 1914. History of Idaho: a narrative account of its historical progress, its people and its 

principal interests, Volume 1. Chicago and New York: Lewis Publishing Company. Available at: 

http://books.google.com/books?id=WN8UAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=

false. Accessed August 31, 2010. 

Fromm, J.R. n.d. The early Bear River fur trade: Bear Lake and Cache Valley. Available at: 

http://www.3rd1000.com/history3/events/bearriver.htm. Accessed November 9, 2010. 

Gabler, R.E., R.J. Sager, and D.L. Wise. 1997. Essentials of physical geography. 5th edition. Fort 

Worth, TX: Saunders College Publishing. 

Gagstetter, N. and N. Mesner. 2006. Journey through the Bear River watershed. Logan, UT: Utah 

State University. 

Galatowitsch, S.M. and A.G. van der Valk. 1996. The vegetation of restored and natural prairie 

wetlands. Ecological Applications 6:102-112. 

Garay, G., W. Johnson, and W. Franklin. 1991. Relative abundance of aquatic birds and their use of 

wetlands in the Patagonia of southern Chile. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 64:127-137. 

Goeztmann, W.H. 1966. Exploration and empire: the explorer and the scientist in the winning of the 

American West. New York, NY: Knopf.

Goodrich, G. 2007. Influence of the Pacific Decadal oscillation on winter precipitation and drought 

during years of neutral ENSO in the western United States. Weather and Forecasting 22:116-124. 

Gooseff, M.N., K. Strzepek, and S.C. Chapra. 2005. Modeling the potential effects of climate change 

on water temperature downstream of a shallow reservoir, Lower Madison River, MT. Climatic 

Change 68:331-353. 

Gowans, F.R. 2005. Rocky Mountain rendezvous: a history of fur trade rendezvous 1825-1840. 

Layton, UT: Gibbs Smith. 

Greer, A.K., B.D. Dugger, D.A. Graber, and M.J. Petrie. 2007. The effects of seasonal flooding on 

seed availability for spring migrating waterfowl. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:1561-1566. 

Gregory, T. 1911. Sonoma County biography, Thomas Augustus Bodwell. Pages 408-410 in: History 

of Sonoma County, California. Los Angeles: Historic Record Company. Transcribed by Roberta 

Hester Leatherwood, March 2008. Available at: 

http://www.cagenweb.com/archives/Biography/SonomaCounty/BodwellCharlesAugustus.htm. 

Accessed November 2010. 

Guay, J.W. 1968. The breeding biology of Franklin’s gull (Larus pipixcan). Ph.D. dissertation. 

University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

O-8 Appendix O. References 

Gudde, E.G. and E.K. Gudde, eds. and trans. 1958. Exploring with Fremont: the private diaries of 

Charles Preuss, cartographer for John C. Fremont on his first, second and fourth expeditions to 

the Far West. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press. 

Guenther, A. 2002. The contribution of reactive carbon emissions from vegetation to the carbon 

balance of terrestrial ecosystems. Chemosphere 49:837-844. 

Haak, A.L., J.E. Williams, D. Isaak, A. Todd, C. Muhfeld, J.L. Kershner, R. Gresswell, S. Hostetler, 

and H.M. Neville. 2010. The potential influence of changing climate on the persistence of 

salmonids in the inland west. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010-1236. 74 pp. 

Hall, M.H.P. and D.B. Fagre. 2003. Modeled climate-induced glacier change in Glacier National 

Park, 1850-2100. BioScience 53:131-140. 

Hamlet, A.F. and D.P. Lettenmaier. 1999. Effects of climate change on hydrology and water 

resources in the Columbia River Basin. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 

35:1597-1623. 

Hamlet, A.F. and D.P. Lettenmaier. 2007. Effects of 20th century warming and climate variability on 

flood risk in the western U.S. Water Resources Research 43:W06427. 

Hamlet, A.F., P.W. Mote, M.P. Clark, and D.P. Lettenmaier. 2005. Effects of temperature and 

precipitation variability on snowpack trends in the western United States. Journal of Climate 

18:4545-4561. 

Hamlet, A.F., P.W. Mote, M.P. Clark, and D.P. Lettenmaier. 2007. Twentieth-century trends in 

runoff, evapotranspiration, and soil moisture in the western United States. Journal of Climate 

20:1468-1486. 

Hari, R.E., D.M. Livingstone, R. Siber, P. Burkhardt-Holm, and H. Guttinger. 2006. Consequences 

of climatic change for water temperature and brown trout populations in Alpine rivers and 

streams. Global Change Biology 12:10-26. 

Harrison, R.D., N.J. Chatterton, R.J. Page, M. Curto, K.H. Assay, K.B. Jemson, and W.H. Horton. 

1996. Competition, biodiversity, invasion, and wildlife usage of selected introduced grasses in 

the Columbia and Great Basins. Research Report 155. Utah State University, Utah Agricultural 

Experiment Station. Logan, UT. Available at: 

http://www.agx.usu.edu/agx/ResearchReports/USDAREPORT/toc.html. 

Hart, N. 1982. The Bear River massacre. Preston, ID: Cache Valley Newsletter Publishing Company. 

Harvell, C.D., C.E. Mitchell, J.R. Ward, S. Altizer, A.P. Dobson, R.S. Ostfeld, and M.D. Samuel. 

2002. Climate warming and disease risks for terrestrial and marine biota. Science 296:2158-2162. 

Hauer, F.R., J.S. Baron, D.H. Campbell, K.D. Fausch, S.W. Hostetler, G.H. Leavesley, P.R. Leavitt, 

D.M. McKnight, and J.A. Stanford. 1997. Assessment of climate change and freshwater 

ecosystems of the Rocky Mountains, USA and Canada. Hydrological Processes 11:903-924. 

Hawley, J.H. 1920. History of Idaho, the gem of the mountains. Vol. 3. Chicago: S.J. Clarke 

Publishing Company. 

Hehnke, M. and C.P. Stone. 1979. Value of riparian vegetation to avian populations along the 

Sacramento River system. Pages 228-235 in: R.R. Johnson and J.F. McCormick, eds. Strategies 

for protection and management of floodplain wetlands and other riparian ecosystems. General 

Technical Report WO-12. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 410 pp. 

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. 

Heller, V.J. 1978. The effects of stream alteration and associated land use changes on a riparian 

avifauna in south central Oklahoma. M.S. thesis. Oklahoma State University, Stillwater. 

Hellmann, J.J., J.E. Byers, B.G. Bierwagen, and J.S. Dukes. 2008. Five potential consequences of 

climate change for invasive species. Conservation Biology 22:534-543. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix O. References O-9 

Holling, C.S. and G.K. Meffe. 1996. Command and control and the pathology of natural resource 

management. Conservation Biology 10(2):328-337. 

Hostetler, S.W. and E.E. Small. 1999. Response of North American freshwater lakes to simulated 

future climates. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 35:1625-1637. 

Hovey, M.R. 1923-1925. An early history of Cache County. Available at: 

http://www.mendonutah.net/history/cache_county/54.htm. Accessed May 4, 2011. 

Hutchison, D.J. and L.R. Jones, eds. 1993. Emigrant trails of southern Idaho. Idaho Cultural 

Resource Series No. 1. Bureau of Land Management and Idaho State Historical Society. Boise, 

ID. 231 pp. 

Idaho Department of Labor. 2010. Idaho ranks fourth in fastest growing states in 2010 Census. 

Available at: 

http://labor.idaho.gov/news/NewsReleases/tabid/1953/ctl/PressRelease/mid/2527/itemid/2284/De

fault.aspx. Accessed May 4, 2011. 

Idaho Department of Labor. 2011a. County profiles of Idaho: Bear Lake. Available at: 

http://labor.idaho.gov/lmi/pubs/bearlakeprofile.pdf. Accessed May 4, 2011. 

Idaho Department of Labor. 2011b. County profiles of Idaho: Bannock. Available at: 

http://labor.idaho.gov/lmi/pubs/bannockprofile.pdf. Accessed May 4, 2011. 

Idaho Department of Labor. 2011c. County profiles of Idaho: Franklin. Available at: 

http://labor.idaho.gov/lmi/pubs/franklinprofile.pdf. Accessed May 4, 2011. 

Idaho Public Television. 2010. Thomas Fork—the big hill. In: Outdoor Idaho, pathways of pioneers, 

Idaho’s Oregon Trail legacy. Available at: 

http://idahoptv.org/outdoors/shows/pathwaysofpioneers/BigHill.cfm. Accessed October 2010. 

Idaho Sage-grouse Advisory Committee. 2006. Conservation plan for the greater sage-grouse in 

Idaho. Available at: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/sageGrouse/conservPlan.pdf. 

Idaho State Historical Society. 1970. Shoshone and Northern Paiute Indians in Idaho. Reference 

Series #484. 5 pp. Available at: http://history.idaho.gov/Reference%20Series/0484.pdf. Accessed 

May 4, 2011. 

Idaho State Historical Society. 1984. Pocatello’s [Shoshoni] band. Reference Series #818. 2 pp. 

Available at: http://history.idaho.gov/Reference%20Series/0818.pdf. Accessed May 4, 2011. 

Idaho Steering Committee - Intermountain West Joint Venture. 2005. Coordinated implementation 

plan for bird conservation in Idaho. 46 pp. 

IDDEQ (Idaho Department of Environmental Quality). 2006. Final Bear River/Malad River Subbasin 

assessment and total maximum daily load plan. State of Idaho Department of Environmental 

Quality. Ecosystems Research Institute, Inc., Logan, UT. 

IDDEQ. 2007. Recommendations for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. State of Idaho Department of 

Environmental Quality. 

IDDEQ. 2008. Southern Middle Bear Subbasin TMDL implementation plan for agriculture. Prepared 

by Steven Smith, Idaho Soil Conservation Commission, in cooperation with the Franklin Soil and 

Water Conservation District, Idaho Association of Soil Conservation Districts. U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 23 pp. 

IDDEQ. 2011. Bear River Basin total maximum daily load. Addendum to the Bear River/Malad 

Subbasin assessment and total maximum daily load plan for HUCs 16010102, 16010201, 

16010202, 16010204. State of Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. Prepared by 

Pocatello Regional Office Department of Environmental Quality. 

IDFG (Idaho Department of Fish and Game). 2005a. Idaho comprehensive wildlife conservation 

strategy. IDFG, Idaho Conservation Data Center. Boise, ID. Available at: 

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/tech/CDC/cwcs.cfm. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

O-10 Appendix O. References 

IDFG. 2005b. Appendix B, species of greatest conservation need. In: Idaho comprehensive wildlife 

conservation strategy. IDFG, Idaho Conservation Data Center. Boise, ID. Available at: 

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/compWildStrategy/appendixB.pdf. 

IDFG. 2007. Management plan for conservation of the Bonneville cutthroat trout in Idaho. IDFG 07-

48. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Boise, ID. 84 pp. 

IDFG. 2008a. Mule deer management plan 2008-2017. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Boise, 

ID. 73 pp. 

IDFG. 2008b. Idaho Bird Inventory and Survey (IBIS) Annual Report. Idaho Department of Fish and 

Game. Boise, ID. 

IDFG. 2009. Waterfowl fall and winter surveys, production, summer banding, and harvest, July 1, 

2007 to June 30, 2008. Available at: 

https://research.idfg.idaho.gov/wildlife/Wildlife%20Technical%20Reports/Waterfowl%20PR08.

pdf. Accessed June 18, 2010. 

IDFG. 2010. Mule deer initiative action plan update. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Pocatello, 

ID. 33 pp. 

IDPR (Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation). 2006. Idaho statewide comprehensive outdoor 

recreation and tourism plan (SCORTP), 2006-2010. Available at: 

http://parksandrecreation.idaho.gov/assets/content/docs/Comp Planning/Final Plan 2006-

2010.pdf. 

Independent Multidisciplinary Scientific Team. 1999. Recovery of wild salmonids in western Oregon 

forests: Oregon Forest Practices Act rules and the measures in the Oregon Plan for salmon and 

watersheds. Technical Report 1999-1. Prepared for Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds. 

Salem, OR: Governor’s Natural Resource Office. 99 pp. 

Inouye, D.W., B. Barr, K.B. Armitage, and B.D. Inouye. 2000. Climate change is affecting altitudinal 

migrants and hibernating species. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the 

United States of America 97:1630-1633. 

Interagency HPAI H5N1 Early Detection Working Group. 2006. An early detection system for HPAI 

H5N1 highly pathogenic avian influenza in wild migratory birds: U.S. Interagency Strategic Plan. 

Unpublished final report. Prepared for the Department of Homeland Security, Policy 

Coordinating Committee for Pandemic Influenza Preparedness. Available at: 

http://www.usda.gov/documents/wildbirdstrategicplanpdf.pdf. 

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. Climate change 2007: the physical 

science basis. S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Avery, M. Tignor, 

and H.L. Miller, eds. Cambridge, UK, and New York: Cambridge University Press. 

Irving, W. 1961. The adventures of Captain Bonneville, U.S.A., in the Rocky Mountains and the Far 

West. Edgeley W. Todd, ed. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press. 

Ivey, G.L. and C.P. Herziger. 2006. Intermountain West waterbird conservation plan. Version 1.2. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pacific Region. Portland, OR. 205 pp. 

Izaurralde, R.C., A.M. Thomson, N.J. Rosenberg, and R.A. Brown. 2005. Climate change impacts 

for the conterminous USA: an integrated assessment. Part 6. Distribution and productivity of 

unmanaged ecosystems. Climatic Change 69:107-126. 

Jacob, D.J. and D.A. Winner. 2009. Effect of climate change on air quality. Atmospheric 

Environment 43:51-63. 

Jankovsky-Jones, M. 1997. Conservation strategy for southeastern Idaho wetlands. Idaho Department 

of Fish and Game, Natural Resource Policy Bureau. Boise, ID. 210 pp. 

Jenni, D.A. 1956. Pothole Water levels in relation to waterfowl breeding populations and production. 

M.S. thesis. Utah State University, Logan. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix O. References O-11 

Jensen, H.C. 2001. Joseph Smith Brown. Available at: 

http://www.orsonprattbrown.com/CJB/06McRee/jsmith-br1856-1903.html. Accessed November 

9, 2010.

Jiang, S.-C., N.-P. He, L. Wu, and D.-W. Zhou. 2009. Vegetation restoration of secondary bare 

saline-alkali patches in the Songnen plain, China. Applied Vegetation Science 13(1):47-55. 

Judd, H.L. 1997. Utah’s lakes and reservoirs–an inventory and classification of Utah’s priority lakes 

and reservoirs. Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Quality. Salt Lake 

City, UT. 

Kadlec, J. and S. Adair. 1993. Evaluation of water requirements for the marshes of the Bear River 

delta. Available at: 

http://cnr.usu.edu/quinney/files/uploads/SpecialCollection/Bear%20River/EvaluationDelta.pdf. 

Kaliser, B.N. 1972. Environmental geology of Bear Lake area, Rich County, Utah. Bulletin 96. Utah 

Geological and Mineralogical Survey, University of Utah. Salt Lake City, UT. 34 pp. 

Kaminski, R. and H. Prince. 1981. Dabbling duck and aquatic macroinvertebrate responses to 

manipulated wetland habitat. Journal of Wildlife Management 45:1-15. 

Kaminski, R. and H. Prince. 1984. Dabbling duck-habitat associations during spring in Delta Marsh, 

Manitoba. Journal of Wildlife Management 48:37-50. 

Kantrud, H.A. and R.E. Stewart. 1977. Use of natural basin wetlands by breeding waterfowl in North 

Dakota. Journal of Wildlife Management 41(2):243-253. 

Karl, T., J. Melillo, and T. Peterson, eds. 2009. Global climate change impacts in the United States. 

Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. 

Keddy, P.A. 2010. Wetland ecology principles and conservation. 2nd edition. Cambridge, England 

and New York: Cambridge University Press. 

Kershner, J. 1995. Bonneville cutthroat trout. In: M.K. Young, ed. Conservation assessment for 

inland cutthroat trout. General Technical Report RM-256. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins, CO. 61 pp. 

Kiesecker, J.M., A.R. Blaustein, and L.K. Belden. 2001. Complex causes of amphibian population 

declines. Nature 410:681-684. 

Kilbride, K.M. and F.L. Paveglio. 1999. Integrated pest management to control reed canarygrass in 

seasonal wetlands of southwestern Washington. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27(2):292-297. 

Knetter, J. 2009. Waterfowl fall and winter surveys, production, summer banding and harvest. 

Project W-170-R-32. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Boise, ID. 57 pp. 

Knick, S.T. and J.T. Rotenberry. 1999. Spatial distribution of breeding passerine bird habitats in a 

shrubsteppe region of southwestern Idaho. Studies in Avian Biology 19:104-111. 

Knick, S.T., A.L. Holmes, and R.F. Miller. 2005. The role of fire in structuring sagebrush habitats 

and bird communities. Studies in Avian Biology 30:63-75. 

Knick, S.T., D.S. Dobkin, J.T. Rotenberry, M.A. Shroeder, W.M. Vander Haegen, and C. Van Riper 

III. 2003. Teetering on the edge or too late? Conservation and research issues for avifauna of 

sagebrush habitats. The Condor 195:611-634. 

Knowles, N., M.D. Dettinger, and D.R. Cayan. 2006. Trends in snowfall versus rainfall in the 

western United States. Journal of Climate 18(4):545-544, 559. 

Konrad, C.P. and D.B. Booth. 2005. Ecological significance of hydrologic changes in urban streams. 

Pages 157-177 in: L.R. Brown, R.H. Gray, R.M. Hughes, and M.R. Meador, eds. Effects of 

urbanization on stream ecosystems. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 47, Bethesda, MD. 

Krohn, W.B. and E.G. Bizeau. 1980. The Rocky Mountain population of the western Canada goose: 

its distribution, habitats, and management. Special Science Report-Wildlife No. 229. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. 93 pp. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

O-12 Appendix O. References 

Kusler, J. 2006. Common questions: wetlands, climate change, and carbon sequestering. Association 

of State Wetland Managers. Berne, NY. 27 pp. Available at: 

http://aswm.org/pdf_lib/11_carbon_6_26_06.pdf. 

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. 

Lamarra, V.C., C. Liff, and J. Carter. 1986. Hydrology of Bear Lake Basin and its impact on the 

trophic state of Bear Lake, Utah/Idaho. Great Basin Naturalist 46(4):690-705. 

Lee, W.T., R.W. Stone, H.S. Gale, and others. 1916. Guidebook of the western United States: Part B. 

The overland route. Geological Survey Bulletin 612. Available at: 

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/geology/publications/bul/612/sec21.htm. 

Accessed November 8, 2010. 

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. 

Link, P.K. and E.C. Phoenix. 1996. Rocks, rails and trails. 2nd edition. Pocatello, ID: Idaho Museum 

of Natural History. Available at: http://imnh.isu.edu/digitalatlas/geog/rrt/rrtfr.htm. Accessed 

November 8, 2010. 

Littell, J.S., D. McKenzie, D.L. Peterson, and A.L. Westerling. 2009. Climate and wildfire area 

burned in western U.S. ecoprovinces, 1916-2003. Ecological Applications 19:1003-1021. 

Loarie, S.R., P.B. Duffy, H. Hamilton, G.P. Asner, C.B. Field, and D.D. Ackerly. 2009. The velocity 

of climate change. Nature 462:1052-1055. 

Lohse, E.S. 1993. Southeastern Idaho Native American prehistory and history. In: Manual for 

archaeological analysis: field and laboratory analysis procedures. Department of Anthropology 

Miscellaneous Paper No. 92-1 (revised). Idaho Museum of Natural History. Pocatello, ID. 

Madsen, B.D. 1980. The Northern Shoshoni. Caldwell, ID: Caxton Printers. 

Madsen, B.D. 1986. Chief Pocatello: the “White Plume.” Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah 

Press. 

Madsen, B.D. 2010. Shoshoni Indians. In: State of Utah 2010. Utah history to go. Available at: 

http://historytogo.utah.gov/utah_chapters/american_indians/shoshoniindians.html. Accessed May 

4, 2011. 

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. 

Manning, S. 1999. Summary of 1998 perennial cover and life form changes in parcels inventoried 

with line-point transects. Unpublished report submitted to Inyo/LA Technical Group. April 14, 

1999. 

Mantua, N.J. 2001. The Pacific decadal oscillation. Pages 592-594 in: M.C. McCracken and 

J.S. Perry, eds. The encyclopedia of global environmental change, vol 1, the Earth system: 

physical and chemical dimension of global environmental change. Article available at: 

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~mantua/REPORTS/PDO/PDO_egec.htm. Graphic available 

at: http://www.jisao.washington.edu/pdo/. 

Maurer, D.A, R. Lindig-Cisneros, K.J. Werner, S. Kercher, R. Miller, and J.B. Zedler. 2003. The 

replacement of wetland vegetation by reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea L.). Ecological 

Restoration 21(2):116-119. 

May, B.E., and S. Albeke. 2005. Range-wide status of Bonneville cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus 

clarki utah): 2004. Publication 05-02. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. Salt Lake City, UT. 

McCalpin, J.P. 1993. Neotectonics of the northeastern basin and range margin, western USA. 

Zeitschrift fur Geomorphologie 94:137-157. 

McCalpin, J.P. 2003. Neotectonics of Bear Lake Valley, Utah and Idaho: a preliminary assessment. 

Miscellaneous Publication 03-4. Utah Geological Survey. Salt Lake City, UT. 43 pp. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix O. References O-13 

McConnell, W.J., W.J. Clark, and W.F. Sigler. 1957. Bear Lake–its fish and fishing. Utah State 

Department of Fish and Game, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, and Wildlife Management 

Department of Utah State Agricultural College. 

McKee, K.L. and I.A. Mendelssohn. 1989. Response of a freshwater marsh plant community to 

increased salinity and water level. Aquatic Botany 34:301-316. 

McKenzie, D., Z. Gedalof, D.L. Peterson, and P. Mote. 2004. Climatic change, wildfire, and 

conservation. Conservation Biology 18:890-902. 

Mclvor, D.E. and M.R. Conover. 2003. Impacts of greater sandhill cranes foraging on corn and 

barley crops. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 49(3):223-237. 

McMenamin, S.K., E.A. Hadly, and C.K. Wright. 2008. Climatic change and wetland desiccation 

cause amphibian decline in Yellowstone National Park. Proceedings of the National Academy of 

Sciences of the United States of America 105:16988-16993. 

Meko, D.M., C.A. Woodhouse, C.A. Baisan, T. Knight, J.J. Lukas, M.K. Hughes, and M.W. Salzer. 

2007. Medieval drought in the upper Colorado River Basin. Geophysical Research Letters 34. 

Merigliano, M.F. and P. Lesica. 1998. The native status of reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea 

L.) in the inland Northwest, U.S.A. Natural Areas Journal 18:223-230. 

Miller, S.A. and T.A. Crowl. 2006. Effects of common carp (Cyprinus carpio) on macrophytes and 

invertebrate communities. Freshwater Biology 51:85-94. 

Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. 2008. IMPLAN System (2008 data and software). Stillwater, MN. 

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. 

Mitchell, C.D. and M.W. Eichholz. 2010. Trumpeter swan Cygnus buccinator. In: A. Poole, ed. The 

birds of North America. No. 105 (revised). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences, and 

Washington, D.C.: American Ornithologists Union. Available at: 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/105. 

Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands. 2nd edition. New York: JohnWiley. 

Mohseni, O., H.G. Stefan, and J.G. Eaton. 2003. Global warming and potential changes in fish 

habitat in US streams. Climatic Change 59:389-409. 

Morgan, D.L. 1964. Jedediah Smith and the opening of the West. Lincoln, NE: University of 

Nebraska Press. 

Morris, D. and M. Walls. 2009. Climate change and outdoor recreation resources. Resources for the 

Future. Washington, D.C. Available at: http://www.rff.org/RFF/Documents/RFF-BCKORRG_ClimateChange.pdf. 

Mote, P.W. 2003. Trends in snow water equivalent in the Pacific Northwest and their climatic 

causes. Geophysical Research Letters 30:1601. 

Mote, P.W., A.F. Hamlet, M.P. Clark, and D.P. Lettenmaier. 2005. Declining mountain snowpack in 

western North America. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 86(1):39-49. 

Mote, P.W., D. Canning, D. Fluharty, R. Francis, J. Franklin, A. Hamlet, M. Hershman, 

M. Holmberg, K.G. Ideker, W. Keeton, D. Lettenmaier, R. Leung, N. Mantua, E. Miles, B. 

Noble, H. Parandvash, D.W. Peterson, A. Snover, and S. Willard. 1999. Impacts of climate 

variability and change: Pacific Northwest. Pacific Northwest Regional Assessment Group for 

U.S. Global Change Research Program. University of Washington, JISAO/SMA Climate Impacts 

Group, Seattle, WA. 109 pp. 

Moulton, C.E. 2007. Idaho bird survey and inventory (IBIS) 2006 annual report. Idaho Department 

of Fish and Game. Boise, ID. 39 pp. 

Moulton, C.E. 2008. Idaho bird survey and inventory (IBIS) 2007 annual report. Idaho Department 

of Fish and Game. Boise, ID. 42 pp. 

Moulton, C.E. 2009. Idaho bird survey and inventory (IBIS) 2008 annual report. Idaho Department 

of Fish and Game. Boise, ID. 37 pp. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

O-14 Appendix O. References 

Moulton, C.E. 2010. Idaho bird survey and inventory (IBIS) 2009 annual report. Idaho Department 

of Fish and Game. Boise, ID. 36 pp. 

Moulton, C.E. and R. Sallabanks. 2006. Idaho bird survey and inventory (IBIS) 2005 annual report. 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Boise, ID. 40 pp. 

Murkin, H.R. and J.A. Kadlec. 1986. Relationships between waterfowl and macroinvertebrate 

densities in a northern prairie marsh. Journal of Wildlife Management 50(2):212-217. 

Murkin, H.R., R.M. Kaminski, and R.D. Titman. 1982. Responses by dabbling ducks and aquatic 

invertebrates to an experimentally manipulated cattail marsh. Canadian Journal of Zoology 

60:2324-2332. 

Murphy, R.F. and Y. Murphy. 1986. Northern Shoshone and Bannock. Pages 284-307 in: 

W.L. d’Azevedo, ed. Great Basin. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 11. Washington, 

D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. 

MWH (MWH Global, Inc.). 2010. 2010 post reclamation monitoring memorandum for Rhodia’s Hot 

Springs Mine. South Jordan, UT: MWH Global, Inc. 

Myers, R. and C.M. Falter. 1988. Nutrient dynamics of Dingle Marsh, Bear Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge, Idaho. University of Idaho. Moscow, ID. 118 pp. 

NAGPRA (Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act) of 1990. 25 United States 

Code 3001, 43 Code of Federal Regulations 10. 

Naiman, R.J. and J.J. Latterell. 2005. Principles for linking fish habitat to fisheries management and 

conservation. Journal of Fish Biology 67:166-185. 

NAS. 2012. Site Report: Oxford Slough. In: Important bird areas in the U.S. Available at: 

http://iba.audubon.org/iba/profileReport.do?siteId=655 and 

http://iba.audubon.org/iba/profileReport.do?siteId=4. Accessed May 4, 2012. 

National Assessment Synthesis Team. 2001. Climate change impacts on the United States: the 

potential consequences of climate variability and change. Report for the U.S. Global Change 

Research Program. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 

National Cooperative Soil Survey. 2008. Bear Lake Series. Available at: 

https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/B/BEAR_LAKE.html. 

Bloomington Series. Available at: 

https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/B/BLOOMINGTON.html. 

Chesbrook Series. Available at: 

https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/C/CHESBROOK.html. 

Dingle Series. Available at: https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/D/DINGLE.html. 

Downata Series. Available at: 

https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/D/DOWNATA.html. 

Lago Series. Available at: https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/L/LAGO.html. 

La Roco Series. Available at: https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/L/LA_ROCO.html. 

Oxford Series. Available at: https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/O/OXFORD.html. 

Picabo Series. Available at: https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/P/PICABO.html. 

Thatcherflats Series. Available at: 

https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/T/THATCHERFLATS.html. 

National Park Service. 1999. Craters of the Moon historic context statements. Available at: 

http://www.nps.gov/archive/crmo/hcs1.htm. Accessed October 7, 2010. 

National Research Council. 1996. Upstream: salmon and society in the Pacific Northwest. 

Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. 

NCDC (National Climatic Data Center). 2010. Storm events. U.S. Department of Commerce. 

Available at: http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwevent~storms. Accessed August 

2, 2010. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix O. References O-15 

NDOW (Nevada Division of Wildlife). 2004. Sage grouse conservation plan for Nevada and portions 

of eastern California. Reno, NV. Available at: 

http://www.ndow.org/wild/sg/plan/SGPlan063004.pdf. 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Plan Committee. 2004. North American waterfowl 

management plan 2004. Implementation framework: strengthening the biological foundation. 

Canadian Wildlife Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y 

Recursos Naturales. 106 pp. 

NSRE (National Survey on Recreation and the Environment). National Survey on Recreation and the 

Environment 2000-2002. The Interagency National Survey Consortium. Coordinated by the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Recreation, Wilderness, and Demographics Trends 

Research Group, Athens, GA, and the Human Dimensions Research Laboratory, University of 

Tennessee, Knoxville, TN. 

NWS (National Weather Service). 2010. Southeast Idaho climate information. U.S. Department of 

Commerce. Available at: http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/pih/climate/descrip.php. Accessed December 

9, 2010. 

Ogden, N.H., A. Maarouf, I.K. Barker, M. Bigras-Poulin, L.R. Lindsay, M.G. Morshed, 

C.J. O’Callaghan, F. Ramay, D. Waltner-Toews, and D.F. Charron. 2006. Climate change and 

the potential for range expansion of the Lyme disease vector Ixodes scapularis in Canada. 

International Journal for Parasitology 36:63-70. 

Olson, B.E. 1999. Grazing and weeds. Chapter 8 in: R.L. Sheley and J.K. Petroff, eds. Biology and 

management of noxious rangeland weeds. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. 

OTA (Office of Technology Assessment). 1993. Wetlands. Pages 153-218 in: Preparing for an 

uncertain climate, Vol. II. OTA-O-568. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 

Pacific Flyway Council. 2001. Pacific flyway management plan for the western population of tundra 

swans. Pacific Flyway Study Committee, Subcommittee on Tundra Swans. Unpublished report. 

On file, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Office, Portland, OR. 

Palacios, P., C. Luecke, and J. Robinson. 2007a. Bear Lake Basin–history, geology, biology, and 

people. Natural Resources and Environmental Issues 14(1). Available at: 

http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/nrei/vol14/iss1/1/. 

Palacios, P., C. Luecke, and J. Robinson. 2007b. Geologic history of the Bear Lake Basin. Natural 

Resources and Environmental Issues 14(8). Available at: 

http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/nrei/vol14/iss1/8. 

Palacios, P., C. Luecke, and J. Robinson. 2007c. Climatology in the Bear Lake Basin, Utah. Natural 

Resources and Environmental Issues 14(12). Available at: 

http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/nrei/vol14/iss1/12. 

Parmesan, C. 2006. Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change. Annual Review 

of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 37:637-669. 

Parry, M. 2010. The northwestern Shoshone. Available at: 

http://historytogo.utah.gov/people/ethnic_cultures/the_history_of_utahs_american_indians/chapt

er2.html. Accessed May 4, 2011 

Parson, R. 2004. The hardest worked river in the world: the 1962 Bear River project, Utah and Idaho. 

Utah Historical Quarterly 72(2). Available at: 

http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1051&context=lib_pubs. Accessed 

May 4, 2010. 

Parton, W.J., D.S. Ojima, and D.S. Schimel. 1994. Environmental change in grasslands: assessment 

using models. Climatic Change 28:111-141. 

Parton, W.J., M.P. Gutmann, S.A. Williams, M. Easter, and D. Ojima. 2005. Ecological impact of 

historical land-use patterns in the Great Plains: a methodological assessment. Ecological 

Applications 15:1915-1928. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

O-16 Appendix O. References 

Patten, D.T. 1998. Riparian ecosystems of semi-arid North America: diversity and human impacts. 

Wetlands 18:498-512. 

Pederson, G.T., L.J. Graumlich, D.B. Fagre, T. Kipfer, and C.C. Muhlfeld. 2010. A century of 

climate and ecosystem change in western Montana: What do temperature trends portend? 

Climatic Change 98:133-154. 

Petersen, J.H. and J.F. Kitchell. 2001. Climate regimes and water temperature changes in the 

Columbia River: Bioenergetic implications for predators of juvenile salmon. Canadian Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58:1831-1841. 

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. 

Plissner, J.H., S.M. Haig and L.W. Oring. 1999. Within and between-year dispersal of American 

avocets among multiple western Great Basin wetlands. Wilson Bulletin 111:314-320. 

Poff, N.L., J.D. Allan, M.B. Bain, J.R Karr, K.L. Prestegaard, B.D. Richter, R.E. Sparks, and 

J.C. Stromberg. 1997. The natural flow regime. A paradigm for river conservation and 

restoration. BioScience 47:769-784. 

Poff, N.L., M.M. Brinson, and J.W. Day. 2002. Aquatic ecosystems and global climate change. Pew 

Center on Global Climate Change. Arlington, VA. 

Ponnamperuma, F.N. 1972. The chemistry of submerged soils. Advanced Agronomy 24:29-96. 

Poore, R.E., C.A. Lamanna, J.J. Ebersole, and B.J. Enquist. 2009. Controls on radial growth of 

mountain big sagebrush and implications for climatic change. Western North American 

Naturalist 69:556-562. 

Powell, A.K. 2010. Cowboys and the cattle industry. Available at: 

http://historytogo.utah.gov/utah_chapters/pioneers_and_cowboys/cowboysandthecattleindustry.h

tml#8. Accessed December 19, 2010. 

Preston, Idaho Chamber of Commerce. 2007. History of Preston, Idaho. Available at: 

http://www.htmaps.com/Preston_07.pdf. 

Prevey, J.S., M.J. Germino, N.J. Huntly, and R.S. Inouye. 2010. Exotic plants increase and native 

plants decrease with loss of foundation species in sagebrush steppe. Plant Ecology 207:39-51. 

Pyrovetsi, M. and A. Criveli. 1988. Habitat use by waterbirds in Prespa National Park, Greece. 

Biological Conservation 45:135-153. 

Raffa, K.F., B.H. Aukema, B.J. Bentz, A.L. Carroll, J.A. Hicke, M.G. Turner, and W.H. Romme. 

2008. Cross-scale drivers of natural disturbances prone to anthropogenic amplification: dynamics 

of biome-wide bark beetle eruptions. BioScience 58:501-517. 

Rahel, F.J. and J. D. Olden. 2008. Assessing the effects of climate change on aquatic invasive species. Conservation Biology 22:521-533. 

Ratti, J.T. and J.A. Kadlec. 1992. Intermountain West waterfowl-wetland concept plan. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Office of Migratory Bird Management. Portland, OR. 

Ray, A.J., J.J. Barsugli, and K.B. Averyt. 2008. Climate change in Colorado: a synthesis to support 

water resources management and adaptation. Western Water Assessment. Boulder, CO: 

University of Colorado at Boulder. 58 pp. Available at: 

http://wwa.colorado.edu/publications/reports/WWA_ClimateChangeColoradoReport_2008.pdf. 

Accessed January 2013. 

Ream, G. and S. Nate. n.d. A short history of Dingle, Idaho. In: J. Bunderson, ed. Dingle community 

recipe book. Dingle Ward Relief Society. Available at: 

http://www.remembermeforever.com/Cookbook/HISTORY.htm. Accessed November 2010. 

Reeve, P.W. 1995. Chief Pocatello struggled to survive on Utah’s northern frontier. History blazer. 

Available at: http://historytogo.utah.gov/people/chiefpocatello.html. Accessed May 4, 2011. 

Reeves, G.H., L.E. Benda, K.M. Burnett, P.A. Bisson, and J.R. Sedell. 1995. A disturbance-based 

ecosystem approach to maintaining and restoring freshwater habitats of evolutionarily significant 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix O. References O-17 

units of anadromous salmonids in the Pacific Northwest. American Fisheries Society Symposium 

17:334-349. 

Reeves, H. 1954. Muskrat and waterfowl production and harvest on Dingle Swamp, Bear Lake 

County, Idaho. M.S. thesis. Utah State Agricultural College, Logan. 

Rehfeldt, G., W. Wykoff, and C. Ying. 2001. Physiologic plasticity, evolution, and impacts of a 

changing climate on Pinus Contorta. Climatic Change 50:355-376. 

Reid, F.R., J.R. Kelley Jr., T.S. Taylor, and L.H. Fredrickson. 1989. Upper Mississippi Valley 

wetlands–refuges and moist-soil impoundments. Pages 181-202 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 Technological University Press. 

Reynolds, T. 1980. Save some sage. Idaho Wildlife 2:10-13. 

Rich, T.D., M.J. Wisdom, and V.A. Saab. 2005. Habitat trends, population trends and conservation 

status of priority birds in sagebrush ecosystems. Pages 589-606 in: C.J. Ralph and T.D. Rich, eds. 

2005. Bird conservation implementation and integration in the Americas: proceedings of the third 

international Partners in Flight conference, 2002 March 20-24, Asilomar, California. General 

Technical Report PSW GTR-191. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Research Station. Albany, CA. 651 pp. 

Rieman, B.E. and D.J. Isaak. 2010. Climate change, aquatic ecosystems, and fishes in the Rocky 

Mountain West: implications and alternatives for management. General Technical Report 

RMRS-GTR-250. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. Fort Collins, CO. 46 pp. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr250.pdf. 

Accessed January 2011. 

Ritter, S.A. 2000. Idaho bird conservation plan, version 1.0. Idaho Partners in Flight. Idaho 

Department of Fish and Game. Boise, ID. 

Robel, R.J. 1961. Water depth and turbidity in relation to growth of sago pondweed. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 25:436-438. 

Robertson, G.C., III. 1978. Surficial deposits and geologic history, northern Bear Lake Valley, Idaho: 

M.S. thesis. Utah State University, Logan. 

Rogers, K. 2010. Shoshone of northern Utah. In: State of Utah. Utah history to go. Available at: 

http://historytogo.utah.gov/utah_chapters/american_indians/shoshoneofnorthernutah.html. 

Accessed October 7, 2010. 

Rollins, G.L. 1981. A guide to waterfowl habitat management in the Suisun Marsh. California 

Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. 109 pp. 

Romesburg, H.C. 1981. Wildlife science: gaining reliable knowledge. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 45(2):293-313. 

Romesburg, H.C. 1991. Ten years after “reliable knowledge”: are we gaining? Journal of Wildlife 

Management 55(4):757-799. 

Rood, S.B., J. Pan, K.M. Gill, C.G. Franks, G.M. Samuelson, and A. Shepherd. 2008. Declining 

summer flows of Rocky Mountain rivers: changing seasonal hydrology and probable impacts on 

floodplain forests. Journal of Hydrology 349:397-410. 

Root, T.L., J.T. Price, K.R. Hall, S.H. Schneider, C. Rosenzweig, and J.A. Pounds. 2003. Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and plants. Nature 421:57-60. 

Rosenbaum, J.G. 2004. USGS Bear Lake studies. Presented at the Bear Lake Eco-Symposium, 

September 23, 2004 sponsored by the Bear Lake Preservation Advisory Committee. Available at: 

http://www.bearlakewatch.com/Bear_Lake_EcoSym/BLES1.htm and 

http://www.bearlakewatch.com/Bear_Lake_EcoSym/rosenbaum.pdf. 

Rowland, M.M., L.H. Suring, R.J. Tausch, S. Geer, and M.J. Wisdom. 2008. Characteristics of 

western juniper encroachment into sagebrush communities in central Oregon. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service Forestry and Range Sciences Laboratory. La Grande, OR. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

O-18 Appendix O. References 

Roylance, W.J. 1982. Utah: a guide to the state. Salt Lake City, UT: A Guide to the State Foundation. 

Russell, O. 1965. Journal of a trapper, 1834-1843. A.L. Haines, ed. Lincoln, NE: University of 

Nebraska Press. 

Ruwaldt, J., Jr., L.D. Aake, and J.M. Gates. 1979. Waterfowl use of natural and man-made wetlands 

in South Dakota. Journal of Wildlife Management 43:375-383. 

Ryan, M.G., S.R. Archer, R. Birdsey, C. Dahm, L. Heath, J. Hicke, D. Hollinger, T. Huxman, 

G. Okin, R. Oren, J. Randerson, and W.H. Schlesinger. 2008. Land resources: forests and arid 

lands. Pages 75-120 in: P. Backlund, A. Janetos, D. Schimel, M. Walsh, eds. The effects of 

climate change on agriculture, land resources, water resources, and biodiversity in the United 

States. U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change 

Research, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington, D.C. 

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. 

Saab, V. 1999. Importance of spatial scale to habitat use by breeding birds in riparian forests: a 

hierarchical analysis. Ecological Applications 9:135-151. 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. 

SCBD (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity). 2003. Interlinkages between 

biological diversity and climate change. Advice on the integration of biodiversity considerations 

into the implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and its 

Kyoto protocol. Montreal, Canada. 

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. 

Scott, M.L., J.M. Friedman, and G.T. Auble. 1996. Fluvial process and the establishment of 

bottomland trees. Geomorphology 14:327-339. 

Scott, M.L., P.B. Shafroth, and G.T. Auble. 1999. Responses of riparian cottonwoods to alluvial 

water table declines. Environmental Management 23:347-358. 

SCS (Soil Conservation Service). 1992. 1992 national resources inventory tables. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Boise, ID. 

Sigler, J.W. 1972. Investigations of the algal productivity of selected and limited sites along the 

western shore of Bear Lake, Utah–Idaho. M.S. thesis. Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Utah 

State University, Logan. 

Simpson, J.C. and R.L. Wallace. 1978. Fishes of Idaho. Moscow, ID: University Press of Idaho. 

Skeen, R.C. 1975. A reflection seismic study of the subsurface structure and sediments of Bear Lake, 

Utah–Idaho. Unpublished senior thesis. University of Utah, Salt Lake City. 24 pp. 

Smith, A.G., J.H. Stoudt, and J.B. Gollop, 1964. Prairie potholes and marshes. Pages 39-50 in: J.P. 

Unduska, ed. Waterfowl tomorrow. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Smith, L.M. and J.A. Kadlec. 1986. Habitat management for wildlife marshes of Great Salt Lake. 

Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Resource Conference 51:222-231. 

Smith, L.M., D.A. Hawkos, and R.M. Prather. 2004. Avian response to vegetative pattern in playa 

wetlands during winter. Wildlife Society Bulletin 43(2):474-480. 

Smith, S. 2008. Southern Middle Bear Subbasin TMDL implementation plan for agriculture. Idaho 

Department of Environmental Quality in cooperation with Franklin Soil and Water Conservation 

District, Idaho Association of Soil Conservation Districts, and USDA-Natural Resources 

Conservation Service. Available at: http://www.deq.idaho.gov/media/449958-

southern_middle_bear_ag_imp_plan.pdf. Accessed January 2013. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix O. References O-19 

Smith, S. and C. Banks. 2008. Bear Lake Subbasin TMDL implementation plan for agriculture. 

Idaho Department of Environmental Quality in cooperation with the Bear Lake Soil and Water 

Conservation District and the Caribou Soil Conservation District. Available at: 

http://www.deq.idaho.gov/media/449961-bear_lake_ag_imp_plan.pdf. Accessed January 2013. 

Smith, S.D., R.K. Monson, and J.E. Anderson. 1997. Physiological ecology of North American 

desert plants. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. 

Smoak, J.M. and P.W. Swarzenski. 2004. Recent increases in sediment and nutrient accumulation in 

Bear Lake, Utah/Idaho, USA. Hydrobiologia 525:175-184. 

Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller 

(eds). 2007. Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I 

to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, 

UK: Cambridge University Press. 

Spaeth, K.E., T.L. Thurow, W.H. Blackburn, and F.B. Pierson. 1996. Ecological dynamics and 

management effects on rangeland hydrologic processes. In: F.B. Pierson, M.A. Weltz, K.E. 

Spaeth, and R.G. Hendricks, eds. Grazing land hydrology issues: perspectives for the 21st 

century. Society for Range Management. Denver, CO. 

Steltzer, H. and E. Post. 2009. Seasons and life cycles. Science 324:886-887. 

Stevens, R. 1994. Interseeding and transplanting to enhance species composition. Pages 300-306 in: 

S.B. Monsen and S.G. Kitchen, comps. Ecology and management of annual rangelands: 

proceedings; 1992 May 18-21; Boise, ID. General Technical Report INT-GTR-313. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. Ogden, UT. 

Stevens, L.E., B.T. Brown, J.M. Simpson, and R.R. Johnson. 1977. The importance of riparian 

habitat to migrating birds. Pages 156-164 in: R.R. Johnson and D.A. Jones Jr., (tech. coords.) 

Importance, preservation and management of riparian habitat: a symposium. [Tucson, Arizona, 

July 9, 1977.] USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-43. Rocky Mountain Forest 

and Range Experiment Station, . Ft. Collins, CO. 217 pp. 

Steward, J.H. 1938. Basin-Plateau aboriginal sociopolitical groups. Bureau of American Ethnology 

Bulletin 120. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. Available at: 

http://www.archive.org/stream/bulletin1201938smit/bulletin1201938smit_djvu.txt. Accessed 

January 3, 2011. 

Stewart, I.T., D.R. Cayan, and M.D. Dettinger. 2005. Changes toward earlier streamflow timing 

across western North America. Journal of Climate 18:1136-1155. 

Story, M. and T. Dzamba. 2005. Smoke NEPA guidance describing air resources impacts from 

prescribed fire on national forests and grasslands of Montana, Idaho, North Dakota, and South 

Dakota in Regions 1 and 4. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Missoula, MT. 30 

pp. 

Stromberg, J.C., R. Tiller, and B. Richter. 1996. Effects of groundwater decline on riparian 

vegetation of semiarid regions: the San Pedro, Arizona. Ecological Applications 6:113-131. 

Subcommittee on Rocky Mountain Canada Geese. 2000. Pacific Flyway management plan for the 

Rocky Mountain Population of Canada Geese, Pacific Flyway Study Comm.Portland, OR: 

USFWS. Unpublished report. 31 pp. Available at: 

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Management/cangeese/Final_EIS/RM%2

0Pop%20WCG%20-%20Plan.pdf. Accessed January 2013. 

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

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

O-20 Appendix O. References 

Subcommittee on Rocky Mountain Trumpeter Swans. 2008. Pacific Flyway management plan for the 

Rocky Mountain population of trumpeter swans. Unpublished report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Migratory Bird Management Office, Pacific Flyway Study Committee. Portland, OR. 

Sugden, L.G. 1971. Metabolizable energy of small grains for mallards. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 35:81-785. 

Swanson, G.A. and M.I. Meyer. 1977. Impact of fluctuating water levels on feeding ecology of 

breeding blue-winged teal. Journal of Wildlife Management 41(3):426-433. 

Teuscher, D. and J. Capurso. 2007. Management plan for the conservation of Bonneville cutthroat 

trout in Idaho. IDFG 07-48. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Pocatello, and U.S. Forest 

Service. Idaho Falls, ID. 88 pp. 

The Tornado Project. 1999. Idaho Tornadoes 1880-2000. St. Johnsbury, VT: The Tornado Project. 

Available at: http://www.tornadoproject.com/alltorns/idtorn.htm. Accessed July 30, 2010. 

Thomas, D.H., S. Lorann, A. Pendleton, and S.C. Cappannari. 1986. Western Shoshone. Pages 262-

283 in: W.L. d’Azevedo, ed. Great Basin. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 11. 

Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. 

Török, P., A. Kelemen, O. Valkó, B. Deák, B. Lukács, and B. Tóthmérész. 2011. Lucernedominated 

fields recover native grass diversity without intensive management actions. Journal of Applied 

Ecology 48:257-264. 

Toth, R.E, J.B. Baker, C.L. Bryner, J. Evans, K.E. Hinman, K.R. Kilpatrick, and K. Seegmiller. 

2005. Alternative futures for the Bear River watershed. Final project report no. 2005-1. Utah 

State University, College of Natural Resources. Logan, UT. 

Toweill, D. 2008. Moose. Progress Report W-170-R-32. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise. 

ID. 66 pp. 

Tullidge, E.W. 1889. Tullidge’s histories, (volume II) containing the history of all the northern, 

eastern and western counties of Utah: also the counties of southern Idaho. Salt Lake City, UT: 

Press of the Juvenile Instructor. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. Census data. Available at: http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/. 

Accessed May 2011. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2011. Population distribution and change: 2000 to 2010. Census briefs. 

Available at: http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-01.pdf. Accessed May 4, 

2011. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. 2010. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Regional economic accounts.

Available at: www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/data.htm. Accessed November 2010. 

UDAR (Utah Division of Administrative Rules). 2006. Rule R317-2: standards of quality for waters 

of the state. Utah Department of Administrative Services. Available at: 

http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r317/r317-002.htm. Accessed January 15, 2006. 

UDNR (Utah Department of Natural Resources). 2005. Bear Lake State Park resource management 

plan. Division of Parks and Recreation. Available at: 

http://static.stateparks.utah.gov/plans/bearlakefinal.pdf. 

UDPR (Utah Division of Parks and Recreation). 2005. Draft Bear Lake State Park management plan. 

Utah Department of Natural Resources. Salt Lake City, UT. 

UDWR (Utah Division of Water Resources). 2000. Draft operations agreement for Pacificorp’s Bear 

River system. Interstate streams, Bear River. Available at: 

http://www.water.utah.gov/interstate/bear/OpAgFINAL.pdf. 

UDWR. 2010. The Great Salt Lake. Available at: 

http://www.water.utah.gov/construction/gsl/lake%20page.htm. Accessed December 9, 2010. 

University of Utah and Utah Department of Community and Culture. 2010. Utah American Indian 

digital archive. Available at: http://www.utahindians.org/archives/shoshone.html. Accessed May 

4, 2011. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix O. References O-21 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1989. Bear River Basin investigation, Idaho, Utah, 

Wyoming, reconnaissance report, February 1989, revised December 1989. U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Sacramento District, South Pacific Division. Sacramento, CA. 

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2007. Census of agriculture. Available at: 

http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/. 

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Final EIS for the Caribou National Forest revised forest plan, vol. 1 

(chapters 1, 2, 3). February 2003. Caribou-Targhee National Forest. Idaho Falls, ID. Available at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5229172.pdf. 

USDA/NRCS (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2011. 

Web Soil Survey. Available at: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm. 

USDA/NRCS. 2010. Soil survey of Bear Lake County area, Idaho. Available at: 

http://soils.usda.gov/survey/printed_surveys. 

USDI (U.S. Department of the Interior), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Department of 

Commerce. 2007. 2006 National survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation. 

Washington D.C. 168 pp. 

USDOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2009. Idaho National Laboratory Cultural Resources 

Management Plan. 3rd revision. Report No. DOE/ID 10997. Idaho Operations Office. Available 

at: http://www.inl.gov/technicalpublications/Documents/4192201.pdf. Accessed December 17, 

2010. 

USDOI (U.S. Department of the Interior). 1966. In the matter of application for withdrawal of public 

lands, filed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and 

Wildlife, for establishment of a National Wildlife Refuge in and adjacent to Dingle Swamp, Bear 

Lake County, Idaho. Transcript of public meeting, May 18, 1966. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002. Assessment data for Utah, Bear Lake 

watershed, year 2002. National assessment database. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Available at: 

http://oaspub.epa.gov/pls/tmdl/w305b_reportv2.huc?p_huc=16010201&p_state=UT. Accessed 

January 14, 2006. 

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 2001. Thomas Fork watershed analysis. Montpelier Ranger District, 

Caribou-Targhee National Forest. USFS. 2006. St. Charles Creek watershed analysis. Available 

at: www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm8_046991.pdf. 

USFS. 2010a. Climate change primer-the natural climate cycles. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/primers/climate-change-primer.shtml. Accessed December 14, 2010. 

USFS. 2010b. National visitor use monitoring program 2005-2009. Available at: 

http://apps.fs.usda.gov/nrm/nvum/results/. Accessed May 4, 2011. 

USFS. n.d. Ecological subregions of the United States. Northwestern Basin and Range. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/land/pubs/ecoregions/ch48.html#342B. Bear Lake. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/land/pubs/ecoregions/ch48.html#342E. Overthrust Mountain. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/land/pubs/ecoregions/ch43.html#M331D. Accessed August 2011. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1965. Fish and wildlife resources in relation to the Bear 

River project, first phase, Utah and Idaho. U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Southwest Region. Albuquerque, NM. On file, 

Realty files, USFWS Region 1, Portland, OR. 

USFWS. 1994a. Letter from Mollie H. Beattie, Director, USFWS, to Honorable Larry E. Craig, 

U.S. Senator, regarding discontinuation of grazing permits on southeast Idaho national wildlife 

refuges. December 15, 1994. 

USFWS. 1994b. Native American policy: national policy issuance #94-10. 

USFWS. 1996. Status of outstanding compatibility issues. Memorandum from Regional Director, 

Region 1. June 27, 1996. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

O-22 Appendix O. References 

USFWS. 2001a. Appendix 9, Cultural Resource Inventory for Grays Lake NWR. In: Fire 

management plan, Camas, Bear Lake and Grays Lake NWRs, 2001. Available at: 

http://www.fws.gov/fire/fmp/region1/idaho/southeast_idaho_nwr.pdf. Accessed May 4, 2011. 

USFWS. 2001b. Wildland fire management plan, Southeast Idaho national wildlife refuge complex. 

Chubbuck, ID. 67 pp. Available at: 

http://www.fws.gov/fire/fmp/region1/idaho/southeast_idaho_nwr.pdf. 

USFWS. 2002. Writing refuge management goals and objectives: a handbook (draft). U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. 

USFWS. 2005. St. Charles Creek fish passageway (Bear Lake NWR) to support trout passage. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Journal, April 1, 2005. Available at: 

http://www.fws.gov/FWSJournal/regmap.cfm?arskey=15132&callingKey=state&callingValue=I

D. Accessed December 2011. 

USFWS. 2009. Identifying refuge resources of concern and management priorities: a handbook 

(Draft). U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wildlife 

Refuge System. Unpublished report. On file, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Office, 

Portland, OR. 

USFWS. 2010. Rising to the urgent challenge, strategic plan for responding to accelerating climate 

change. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. 32 pp. 

USFWS. 2012. Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS). Canada lynx. Available at: 

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A073. Greater sagegrouse. Available at: 

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B06W. Wolverine. 

Available at: http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A0FA. 

Yellow-billed cuckoo. Available at: 

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B06R. 

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2001a. Tectonism (land movement). In: Geologically interesting 

aspects of the Bear Lake region. Available at: http://esp.cr.usgs.gov/info/lacs/tectonism.htm. 

USGS. 2001b. Lake levels. In: Geologically interesting aspects of the Bear Lake Region. Available 

at: http://esp.cr.usgs.gov/info/lacs/lakelevels.htm. 

USGS. 2006. Daily stream flow for Utah streams. Available at: http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/ut/. 

Accessed February 21, 2006. 

USU (Utah State University). 1995. Materials relating to Utah Power and Light’s dredging of Bear 

Lake, and the historical use of Bear Lake as a reservoir site 1889-1994. On file at Utah State 

University, Merrill-Cazier Library Special Collections, Logan, UT. 

USU. 2001. Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge wetland vegetation classification project. Final 

report. Utah State University, College of Natural Resources, RS/GIS Laboratories. Logan, UT. 

Utah Comprehensive Emergency Management Team. 2000. Hazard mitigation plan, Utah 1999. Utah 

Department of Public Safety. Salt Lake City, UT. 

Utley, R.M. 1997. A life wild and perilous. Mountain men and the path to the Pacific. New York: 

Henry Holt and Company. 

van der Valk, A.G. 1981. Succession in wetlands: a Gleasonian approach. Ecology 62:688-696. 

van der Valk, A.G. 1989. Northern prairie wetlands. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. 

Visher, S.S. 1966. Climatic atlas of the United States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 

Vose, R.S., D. Wuertz, T.C. Peterson, and P.D. Jones. 2005. An intercomparison of trends in surface 

air temperature analyses at the global, hemispheric, and grid-box scale. Geophysical Research 

Letters 32. 

Wadley, C. 2007. Connecting with ‘the people’: American West heritage tour highlights Shoshone 

sites in Cache Valley. Deseret News, September 14, 2007. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix O. References O-23 

Wakley, D.L. n.d. Southern Idaho–during the time of Jefferson (Compton) Davis (taken from “Marsh 

Valley” by Darrel La Mar Wakley). Available at: 

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~reynaud/south_east_idaho.htm. Accessed 

May 4, 2011. 

Walker, M.D., D.A. Walker, T.A. Theodose, and P.J. Webber. 2001. The vegetation: hierarchial 

species-environment relationships. Pages 99-127 in: W.D. Bowman and T. Seastedt, eds. 

Structure and function of an alpine ecosystem. Niwot Ridge, CO: Oxford University Press. 

Walther, G.R., E. Post, P. Convey, A. Menzel, C. Parmesan, T.J.C. Beebee, J.M. Fromentin, 

O. Hoegh-Guldberg, and F. Bairlein. 2002. Ecological responses to recent climate change. Nature 

416:389-395. 

Wang, H., S. Schubert, M. Suarez, J. Chen, M. Hoerling, A. Kumar, and P. Pegion. 2008. Attribution 

of the seasonality and regionality in climate trends over the United States during 1950-2000. 

Journal of Climate 22:2571-2590. 

Waters, T.F. 1995. Sediment in streams: sources, biological effects, and control. American Fisheries 

Society Monograph 7. 

Weller, M.W. 1981. Freshwater marshes: ecology and wildlife management. Minneapolis, MN: 

University of Minnesota Press. 

Weller, M.W. and C.E. Spatcher. 1965. Role of habitat in the distribution and abundance of marsh 

birds. Entomology Special Report 43. Iowa State University, Department of Zoology, 

Agriculture and Home Economics Experiment Station. Ames, IA. 

Weller, M.W. and L.H. Fredrickson. 1974. Avian ecology of a managed glacial marsh. The Living 

Bird 12:269-291. 

West, N.E. and J.A. Young. 2000. Intermountain valleys and lower montane slopes. Pages 256-284 

in: M.G. Barbour and W.D. Billings, eds. North American terrestrial vegetation. 2nd edition. 

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 

Westerling, A. and B. Bryant. 2008. Climate change and wildfire in California. Climatic Change 

87:231-249. 

Westerling, A.L., H.G. Hidalgo, D.R. Cayan, and T.W. Swetnam. 2006. Warming and earlier spring 

increase western US forest wildfire activity. Science 313:940-943. 

Western Native Trout Initiative. 2010. Western Native Trout Initiative transtrum diversion fish 

passage restoration for Bonneville cutthroat trout in St. Charles Creek, project update, 09-24-10. 

Available at: 

http://www.westernnativetrout.org/sites/default/files/St%20Charles%20Creek%20WNTI%20fina

l%20project%20report.pdf. 

Wildflower Association of Michigan. 2007. Invasive Plants. Available at: 

http://www.wildflowersmich.org/index.php?menu=10. 

Williams, J.E., A.L. Haak, H.M. Neville, and W.T. Colyer. 2009. Potential consequences of climate 

change to persistence of cutthroat trout populations. North American Journal of Fisheries 

Management 29:533-548. 

Williams, J.E., J.E. Johnson, D.A. Hendrickson, S. Contreras-Balderas, J.D. Williams, M. NavarroMendoza, D.E. McAllister, and J.E. Deacon. 1989. Fishes of North America—endangered, 

threatened, or of special concern: 1989. Fisheries 14(6):2-20. 

Williams, J.E., N.G. Gillespie, H.M. Nelville, and W.T. Colyer. 2007. Healing troubled waters: 

preparing trout and salmon habitat for a changing climate. Arlington, VA: Trout Unlimited. 

Williams, J.S., A.D. Willard, and V. Parker. 1962. Recent geological history of Bear Lake Valley, 

Utah and Idaho. American Journal of Science 260:24-36. 

Winter, T.C. 2000. The vulnerability of wetlands to climate change: a hydrologic landscape 

perspective. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 36:305-311. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

O-24 Appendix O. References 

Wisdom, M.J., R.S. Holthausen, B.C. Wales, C.D. Hargis, V.A. Saab, D.C. Lee, W.J. Hann, 

T.D. Rich, M. Rowland, W.J. Murphy, and M.R. Eames. 2000. Source habitats for terrestrial 

vertebrates of focus in the Interior Columbia Basin: broad-scale trends and management 

implications. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-485. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. La Grande, OR. 

Wisdom, M.J., B.C. Wales, R.S. Holthausen, W.J. Jann, M.A. Hemstrom, and M.M. Rowland. 2002. 

A habitat network for terrestrial wildlife in the Interior Columbia Basin. Northwest Science 76:1-

14. 

Wisdom, M.J., M.M. Rowland, L.H. Suring, L. Schueck, C. Wolff Meinke, B.C. Wales, and 

S.T. Knick. 2003a. Procedures for regional assessment of habitats for species of conservation 

concern in the sagebrush ecosystem. March 2003 Report, Version 1. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. La Grande, OR. 

Wisdom, M.J., L.H. Suring, M.M. Rowland, R.J. Tausch, R.F. Miller, L. Schueck, C. Wolff Meinke, 

S.T. Knick, and B.C. Wales. 2003b. A prototype regional assessment of habitats for species of 

conservation concern in the Great Basin Ecoregion and State of Nevada. Version 1.1, September 

2003. Unpublished report. On file at U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station, La Grande, OR. 

Wisdom, M.J., M.M. Rowland, L.H. Suring, eds. 2005a. Habitat threats in the sagebrush ecosystem: 

methods of regional assessment and applications in the Great Basin. Lawrence, KS: Alliance 

Communications Group. 

Wisdom, M.J., M.M. Rowland, and R.J. Tausch. 2005b. Effective management strategies for sagegrouse and sagebrush: a question of triage? Transactions, North American Wildlife and Natural 

Resources Conference 70:134-141. 

Wishart, W.J. 1979. The fur trade of the American West 1807-1840: a geographical synthesis. 

Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. 

Womack, K.L. 2008. Human dimensions of ecosystem science and management. M.S. thesis. Utah 

State University, Logan. 

Wormsworth, J. and K. Mallon. 2008. Bird species and climate change. The global status report: a 

synthesis of current scientific understanding of anthropogenic climate change impacts on global 

bird species now and projected future effects. Climate Risk Pty Limited. Fairlight, NSW, 

Australia. 

WRCC (Western Regional Climate Center). 2010a. Lifton pumping station, Idaho (105275). 

Available at: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?idlift. 

WRCC. 2010b. Preston, Idaho. (107346). Available at: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgibin/cliMAIN.pl?idpres. 

WRCC. 2010c. Border 3 N, Wyoming. Available at: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgibin/cliMAIN.pl?wy0915. Accessed August 2, 2010. 

Wright, H.A. and A.W. Bailey. 1982. Fire ecology: United States and southern Canada. New York, 

NY: John Wiley and Sons. 

Wuerthner, G. 1986a. Idaho mountain ranges. Idaho Geographic Series No. 1. American Geographic 

Publishing, Helena, MT. 104 pp. 

Wuerthner, G. 1986b. Idaho wildlife. Idaho Geographic Series No. 2. American Geographic 

Publishing, Helena, MT. 103 pp. 

WUI (Weather Underground, Inc.). 2010a. Montpelier, ID, Weatherstation MAS179. Available at: 

http://www.wunderground.com/weatherstation/WXDailyHistory.asp?ID=MAS719. Accessed 

July 26, 2010. 

WUI. 2010b. Border, WY, Weatherstation MITD35. Available at: 

http://www.wunderground.com/weatherstation/WXDailyHistory.asp?ID=MITD35. Accessed 

July 26, 2010. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix O. References O-25 

Yan, X.F. and Y.F. Yang. 2007. Seed flows of restoration succession series communities in alkaline 

meadows of Northeast China Songnen Plain. Journal of Applied Ecology 18(9):2035-2039. 

Young, P.J., A. Arneth, G. Schurgers, G. Zeng, and J.A. Pyle. 2009. The CO2 inhibition of terrestrial 

isoprene emission significantly affects future ozone projections. Atmospheric Chemistry and 

Physics 9:2793-2803. 

Zedler, J.B. and S. Kercher. 2005. Wetland resources: status, trends, ecosystem services, and 

restorability. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30:39-74. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

O-26 Appendix O. References 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix P. Public Comments and Service Responses P-1 

Appendix P. Public Comments and Service Responses 

In this appendix the Service responds to comments that were received on the Bear Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area Draft Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan and Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA, September 2012) during the official public 

comment period from September 28-October 29, 2012, which was extended to provide additional 

opportunities for comment and to accommodate a request from PacifiCorp to allow more time to 

review the lengthy DCCP document, which they received late due to a change of personnel at the 

Grace station. Comments were received via letter, e-mail, and phone. Since the volume of comments 

received was not substantial, all comments, paraphrased for clarity and emphasis, are presented 

below. 

P.1 Index to Comments 

1. Barbara Sachau (Jean Q. Public).................................................................................................... P-1 

2. Kelly Griffin ................................................................................................................................... P-5 

3. Lee W. Mabey (Acting Forest Fisheries Biologist, Caribou-Targhee National Forest) ................ P-5 

4, 5. Dean Ward and Sons (2 submittals) ......................................................................................... P-54 

6. Charles and Connie Hulme ............................................................................................................ P-8 

7. Bryce Nielson ................................................................................................................................. P-9 

8. Malone Hemmert ......................................................................................................................... P-11 

9. Lee Ream ..................................................................................................................................... P-12 

10. Todd Bateman ............................................................................................................................ P-13 

11, 12, 13. PacifiCorp Energy (Mark Stenberg) (3 submittals) ....................................................... P-13 

14. Idaho Department of Fish and Game (Mark Gamblin) ............................................................. P-23 

P.2 Comments and Responses 

1. Barbara Sachau (Jean Q. Public) 

Comment 1.1: Ban all hunting and trapping . . . [I oppose] attracting birds to an area so they can be 

shot . . . I oppose all changes to water to attract birds if they don’t have peace and tranquility when 

they nest there. This is federal land paid for by national taxpayers, not local [people] . . . This plan 

consigns this site to poverty, since hunters represent less than 1% of the U.S. population and they are 

cheap. Wildlife watchers are the big spenders . . . 

Service Response: Thank you for reviewing and commenting on the Draft CCP. The first priority of 

every refuge is to conserve, manage, and if needed, restore fish and wildlife populations and habitats. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

P-2 Appendix P. Public Comments and Service Responses 

The CCP was designed to address that primary mission. Hunting is one of six priority public uses 

identified in the Fish and Wildlife Administration Act, as amended, which also include wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, fishing, interpretation, and environmental education. All of these 

uses, if determined to be compatible, are to receive equal consideration. The Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act (Act) states that the amount of a Refuge open to waterfowl hunting, up to the 

maximum 40%, is variable and subject to the mandate that the Refuge meet the needs of wildlife 

first. Forty percent of Bear Lake NWR is open to hunting. Therefore, 60% of the Refuge acreage 

remains a sanctuary for wildlife. 

While NWRs are closed to hunting unless formally opened, lands acquired as WPAs are open to 

recreational hunting and public trapping unless closed (50 CFR 31.16). Hunting occurs outside the 

nesting season for birds and the rearing season for other wildlife on the WPA. Impacts of trapping to 

colonial nesting birds has not been documented to date. If monitoring demonstrates unacceptable 

impacts, seasonal restrictions on trapping would be instituted. 

In designating hunting as one of the six priority public uses on national wildlife refuges, Congress 

acknowledged the important contributions by hunters in wildlife conservation and the purchase of 

some National Wildlife Refuge System lands. Funding for National Wildlife Refuges may come 

from a variety of sources, such as Land and Water Conservation Fund, which is primarily from offshore oil leases, and the sale of Federal Duck Stamps, which are primarily purchased by waterfowl 

hunters. Federal Duck Stamps have funded the acquisition of 2.3 million acres of National Wildlife 

Refuge lands, including two NWRs in Idaho (Kootenai and Camas), and easements or leases on an 

additional 4 million acres of wetland habitat. These wetland habitats benefit a wide array of species, 

including 1/3 of our nation’s threatened and endangered species. Under the Sport Fish and Wildlife 

Restoration Programs, $200 million in Federal excise taxes on firearms, archery equipment, 

ammunition, and other sporting equipment are distributed to the State wildlife agencies annually.

Over the 75-year history of the Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration Programs, these excise taxes 

have generated a cumulative total of more than $10 billion for wildlife conservation efforts by State 

and Territorial wildlife agencies. 

The National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation reported that hunters 

comprised 6% of the US population 16 years old and older in 2011. Hunters spent more on 

equipment and trip related expenses than wildlife watchers ($766 per person for people who took 

trips to observe wildlife, compared to $2,484 per hunter). Part of hunter expenditures include 

purchases of licenses and equipment that directly fund wildlife conservation and habitat protection. 

In 2011 this included $33 million on Federal Duck Stamps, and $6 billion on equipment that is taxed 

to fund wildlife and sport fish restoration programs. 

Comment 1.2: Ban new roads. 

Service Response: No new roads are proposed at the Refuge. 

Comment 1.3: Ban all pesticide applications.

Service Response: In accordance with Departmental and Service policy (517 DM 1 and 569 FW 1), 

refuges use an integrated pest management (IPM) approach, where practicable, to eradicate, control, 

or contain pest and invasive species (herein collectively referred to as pests) on refuge lands (Draft 

CCP, pages 2-4, 5). The Refuge’s IPM Plan is included in the Draft CCP/EA (Appendix F). Pests 

targeted for IPM are those which cause environmental harm (defined as a biologically substantial 

decrease in environmental quality as indicated by a variety of potential factors including declines in 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix P. Public Comments and Service Responses P-3 

native species populations or communities, degraded habitat quality or long-term habitat loss, and/or 

altered ecological processes.) IPM uses methods based upon effectiveness, cost, and minimal 

ecological disruption (including 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 would be used unless considerations of persistence or other environmental 

and/or biotic hazards preclude it. In accordance with 517 DM 1, pesticide usage would be further 

restricted because only pesticides registered with the US 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. 

Comment 1.4: Ban all prescribed burns which . . . cause lung cancer and six other deadly health 

issues ... from ingesting fine particulate matter. 

Service Response: Department of Interior policy (910 DM 1-3) and Service policy (621 FW 1.1) 

require that Service lands with burnable vegetation have a fire management plan (FMP). The Fire 

Management Plan (FMP) for the Southeast Idaho NWR Complex (which includes Bear Lake NWR, 

Oxford Slough WPA, and the Thomas Fork Unit), included as Appendix G of the Draft CCP/EA, 

allows for a program of prescribed fire when deemed necessary to reduce hazardous fuels, restore the 

natural processes and vitality of ecosystems, improve wildlife habitat, remove or reduce non-native 

species, and/or conduct research. The FMP describes objectives for the use of prescribed fire of the 

Refuge. The FMP also describes appropriate timing of burns to avoid undesirable impacts to wildlife 

and other resources. Prescribed burn guidelines prohibit initiating burns at times when weather 

conditions are such that a burn would negatively impact air quality. 

The FMP meets the Federal Interagency Wildland Fire Policy by implementing a number of guiding 

principles, including incorporation of public health and environmental quality considerations in fire 

management plans and activities. This FMP is also in accordance with FWS fire policy (621 FW 1) 

which states that FMPs must address “public health issues related to smoke and air quality.” FWS 

policy also states that “. . . fire management activities which result in the discharge of air pollutants 

are subject to, and must comply with, all applicable Federal, state, interstate, and local air pollution 

control requirements as specified by Section 118 of the Clean Air Act.”

The US Fish and Wildlife Service in south Idaho participates in the Montana/Idaho Airshed Group, 

which includes all federal agencies, state land management agencies, and private forest products 

companies. The intent of the Airshed Group is to limit negative impacts from controlled burns 

through scientific monitoring of weather conditions and formal coordination of burns. The Missoula 

Monitoring Unit issues daily decisions which can restrict burning when atmospheric conditions are 

not conducive to good smoke dispersion. Prescribed burn projects are not conducted if the Missoula 

Monitoring Unit posts a burning restriction for the airshed in which the refuge is located. 

Comment 1.5: [Do not] mow; leave the site natural . . . 

Service Response: Mowing is used to ensure that maintenance vehicles can access dikes and water 

control structures. Mowing is a proven management tool that is used to remove or reduce some 

invasive plant species that degrade the quality of habitat for wildlife. Since settlement of the area in 

the mid-1800s, humans have modified the landscape, both purposefully (as in the case of irrigation 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

P-4 Appendix P. Public Comments and Service Responses 

development) and inadvertently (as in the case of the introduction of non-native, invasive plant 

species). Although the Refuge contains natural elements, both in terms of hydrology and species 

present it is no longer as “natural” as it was before settlement. Therefore, habitat management is 

necessary to maintain desirable conditions for migratory birds and other native wildlife. 

Comment 1.6: Ban all pesticides and toxic agribusiness and all farms from this site. American 

taxpayers did not . . . pay for this land so local agribusiness could use it for their own [profit]. These 

agribusinesses use toxic Monsanto [chemicals] that kill life. 

Service Response: No agribusiness occurs on the Refuge. The Refuge uses Cooperative Land 

Management Agreements (CLMAs) and Special Use Permits (SUPs) for crop production (Draft 

CCP, Appendix B, page B-61). 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. 

Herbicide 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. 

Insecticides, fungicides and other chemicals are not permitted under this agreement. 

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, is responsible for all the costs of production. This allows the 

Service to provide crops for wildlife at a lower cost to the Government. 

Comment 1.7: Croplands should not be in these sites. 

Service Response: Croplands on the Refuge promote sustained use of these areas by migrating 

waterfowl and sandhill cranes by providing an accessible, high-energy food source during late fall 

and early winter as wetlands freeze up. 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, scale small grain production in the Bear Lake region is beginning to experience a 

downward trend, which not only reduces grain availability for waterfowl and cranes, but increases 

pressure on privately owned small grain fields. Considering recent off-Refuge conversions from 

small grain to alfalfa and meadow hay production, Refuge agricultural crops provide supplemental 

food for wildlife, as well as a depredation benefit to those local farmers still growing small grain 

crops (Draft CCP, page 2-72). 

Comment 1.8: Taxpayers do not want to pay for new offices or huts . . . We need fewer buildings in 

these rustic sites. 

Service Response: In the Preferred Alternative, we propose developing plans for a combined Refuge 

office, small visitor contact station, with a small environmental education classroom on or near the 

Refuge within five years of CCP completion, and seeking funding to construct these facilities (Draft 

CCP, page 2-14). The Refuge has the need for on-site facilities and staff presence to provide 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix P. Public Comments and Service Responses P-5 

compatible wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities to visitors. The footprint of this facility will 

be small and it will be sited carefully to prevent impacts to sensitive species and habitats. 

Comment 1.9: Wildlife watchers ... can’t come to an area where they can be shot ... by ... hunters. 

Service Response: Due to the early winter conditions at this high elevation Refuge, few visitors 

other than waterfowl hunters use the Bear Lake NWR during the hunting season. Due to the low 

level of use by non-hunting visitors at this time of year, conflicts between waterfowl and upland 

game hunters and other visitors have never been documented and would likely remain negligible for 

the near future. Other uses that could potentially 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. Although non-hunters may walk or drive on the wildlife observation 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 would be limited 

to service roads and dikes within the hunt area from July 1- January 20 under proposed management 

(Draft CCP, Appendix B, page B-22). State law prohibits shooting across roads. The Refuge receives 

little visitation from upland game hunters and this activity occurs in an area that is not used by other 

visitors, east of the Merkley Lake (County) Road (Appendix B, page 28). Other measures to reduce 

potential conflicts between hunters and other user groups would include providing information at the 

trailhead kiosks and in the Refuge’s brochure that clearly indicates permitted uses and rules of 

conduct. 

2. Kelly Griffin 

Comment 2.1: I am writing this letter in response to the Bear Lake DCCP/EA planning update 3. 

Having lived my entire life in Preston, Idaho, my main concern is the Oxford Slough WPA. I am in 

full support of Alternative 3, the preferred alternative, with one exception. As an avid Duck hunter, 

and Trapper I am questioning the rule about non-motorized boats. I am proposing the idea of 

allowing the use of a boat with a motor, during the fall season, similar to the current rule for 

motorized boats in the Bear Lake NWR. This would then not interfere with spring bird nesting. My 

concern is for two reasons, the first being a more efficient hunting-trapping opportunity, and last but 

not least for a simple safety reason being if an accident occurred in the middle of the marsh, a boat 

with a motor will get you to help quicker than a boat without a motor.

Service Response: Motorized boats at Oxford Slough WPA (OSWPA) are not allowed due to the 

shallow and limited extent of the water and the impact that a boat motor would have on marsh 

vegetation. In most years, water at the OSWPA is in short supply by the fall, so even a nonmotorized 

boat may not be a practical way to access hunting and trapping opportunities. 

3. Lee W. Mabey, Acting Forest Fisheries Biologist, Caribou-Targhee National Forest 

Comment 3.1: Upon review of the CCP for Bear Lake Refuge I am pleased with the understanding 

and emphasis that is being placed upon Bonneville Cutthroat [trout] and maintaining fluvial and 

adfluvial populations from Bear River and Bear Lake. I am encouraged by the actions taken to date 

and the actions planned under the various alternatives. From my brief review of the CCP I am most 

highly supportive of the preferred alternative, alternative 3. Please feel free to involve the Forest 

Fisheries program and staff as it relates to the implementation of the chosen alternative especially in 

those systems that would connect cutthroat to Forest Service lands. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

P-6 Appendix P. Public Comments and Service Responses 

Service Response: We acknowledge your support of the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 3. We 

agree that this alternative will best support meeting the purposes of the Refuge (including the 

Thomas Fork Unit), including working toward maintaining and enhancing habitat for Bonneville 

cutthroat trout, and providing habitat connectivity. 

Comment 3.2: Page 4-43: Correct leatherback chub to leatherside chub. 

Service Response: The correction has been made. 

4, 5. Dean Ward and Sons 

Comment 4.1: We, Dean Ward and Sons, have very adamant feelings concerning the Bird Refuge. . 

. . We strongly feel the only option that would be beneficial to the land and the wildlife in this section 

of ground would be Alternative 1 (No Action Alternative). There can still be improvements made we 

would love to continue to work together. 

Service Response: Thank you for your comments, and we look forward to continue working with 

you and other adjacent landowners in the future. We acknowledge your support of Alternative 1, the 

no action alternative. However we believe that Alternative 3 will better address pressing issues such 

as water quality, and will better meet the purposes of the Refuge both by providing a wider array of 

habitats and by improving habitat quality. 

Comment 4.2: [It] was promised on the arrival of the Bird Refuge, [that] we would be able to 

continue to graze and hay the allotted section below our property line. We complied with what was 

asked understanding that we would be able to still be able to use the land which was and still is 

essentially vital to our black angus cow calf operation. The existing dikes and flood water irrigation 

system was installed by our forbearers, mainly George Ward, and to this day it has been kept up and 

maintained by the family. It takes constant maintenance to plug the [musk]rat runs to prevent it from 

washing out. And to continue running the head gates to control the flow and amount of water to 

provide the most desirable quality of hay. The hay harvested from the above mentioned section is 

extremely vital to our family’s livelihood. When the Bird Refuge came in we complied with the 

regulations and still do. We moved our two story Log Barn and Corrals that had previously existed 

below our property to above the property line. We’ve keep up on our agreements. But all too soon we 

lost our promised grazing rights. 

Comment 5.1. When the permit was first issued it was always in the name of Dean Ward and Sons, 

and Dean Ward and Sons were promised that as long as they were living they would be allowed to 

hay and graze the units as specified in the permits. The permittee name was set up with the same 

language as the Idaho State brand records. 

The Refuge has asked periodically to have access through the Ward property and the Wards have 

worked with Refuge staff giving permission as needed. The Wards feel they have always 

accommodated the refuge and feel the refuge should keep their promises as were set up with permits 

in 1968 when the refuge was established. 

The Wards were given permission to put in a cement headgate on bird refuge property to help 

regulate irrigation water on Bloomington Creek to enhance hay operation on private ground and on 

bird refuge ground. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix P. Public Comments and Service Responses P-7 

Service Response to Comments 4.2, 5.1: We appreciate your efforts to work with the Refuge over 

the years, and the haying you currently perform on the Refuge under a permit. We hope to continue 

working with you in the future. We understand that you believe the government promised that both 

grazing and haying would continue to be allowed on the newly established Refuge land, as had 

occurred when the land was under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management. 

Upon Refuge establishment, negotiated sale hay 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, including yourself, were 

given first priority to secure USFWS permits and continue their haying operations. The 1960s Refuge 

haying and grazing program was designed to prevent emergent bulrush and cattail encroachment and 

provide open-water foraging and brood rearing areas for waterfowl. By the 1980s, Refuge staff 

recognized that conflicts with livestock grazing had affected wildlife production and damage had 

occurred to Refuge habitat. 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 wetlands, reduction of residual nesting 

cover that reduced nest success, and direct mortality to nesting sandhill cranes from impacts with 

grazing allotment fences. 

While grazing was removed as a compatible Refuge use, haying was still considered compatible with 

Refuge purposes and hay permits continued to be issued. Since 2003, the Refuge has 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. 

The Refuge Improvement Act of 1997, which amended the earlier Refuge Administration Act, states 

that all Refuge uses must be compatible with the purposes for which the Refuge was established. The 

Act also requires that all Refuge uses be evaluated for appropriateness and compatibility, and that 

uses be periodically re-evaluated. Farming (including haying and growing crops) must be reevaluated every ten years, since conditions on Refuges may change. Therefore we have evaluated 

haying and farming (small grains and alfalfa) as part of the Draft CCP. In evaluating the current 

haying program we noted two major issues: 1) dewatering of some of the wetter hay units before 

birds have completed brood rearing; and (2) most of the Refuge’s wet meadow habitats are currently 

hayed. Under negotiated sale permits, wetland hay units must 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 Preferred Alternative would moderately 

reduce meadow and upland haying operations over the next 15 years to maintain inundation of 

shallow wetlands and wet meadow habitat through the summer, allowing birds to complete their life 

cycles. 

In addition, as the planning team began examining soils, vegetation, and wetland data for 

development of the Draft 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 wetland habitat. While 

haying benefits certain species that prefer to forage in short grass (for example, Canada geese), hayed 

meadows do not provide for all requirements of these species (for example nesting or roosting 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

P-8 Appendix P. Public Comments and Service Responses 

habitat), nor does it provide the habitat characteristics needed by many species of wildlife that use wet 

meadow habitats. Many species, for example Wilson’s phalarope, northern pintail, and black tern, 

require tall wet meadow vegetation for nesting or brood cover, or depend upon invertebrates that are 

abundant in unhayed wet meadow habitat. Furthermore, tall stature (unhayed) wet meadow is a rare 

habitat both within the Bear Lake Valley, and on the Refuge. The Preferred Alternative is intended to 

strike a balance between managing short-cover habitat through haying, and providing dense, late 

successional wet meadow habitat for those wildlife species that require it. 

The Refuge will maintain a haying program as long as it continues to demonstrate a benefit to 

wildlife and habitat, as well as mitigating wildlife depredation on adjacent private land. The periodic 

re-evaluation of haying through Compatibility Determinations allows the Refuge to adapt to 

changing conditions and provide the best possible mix of habitats that meet the needs of many 

wildlife species. The Service strives to follow the best available science in its decision-making. As 

science is constantly evolving, it follows that management decisions must also evolve to embrace the 

latest science-based findings. These decisions may not keep to the promises made by previous 

managers; however, the Service must do what is best for the habitat and wildlife, as mandated by 

Congress. 

Comment 5.2: I would prefer to continue haying on all the units I currently have (Units 109, 108W, 

and 108E). I would prefer not to have any of these units retired. If that is not possible, I would prefer 

to give up the northern part of Unit 109 and continue haying Unit 108W. 

Service Response: Based on the best biological information available, managers will assess habitat 

quality and wildlife use on specific hay units before the time proposed for unit retirement or retention 

in the hay program. Based on this assessment, management has the discretion to retire or retain a hay 

unit to fulfill habitat and wildlife objectives. 

6. Charles and Connie Hulme 

Comment 6.1: As you know, I have been well acquainted with the history and use of the property 

now known as the Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge. Even before the Refuge was designated, we 

operated, hayed and grazed the lands included in the Refuge. Since the Refuge was designated, I 

have continued to be permitted to hay certain areas, and have enjoyed a good association with the 

wildlife managers. Thank you for your cooperation in the past; and hopefully, this association will 

continue as previous managers had promised that we would be able to use the permitted properties 

for haying—at least. 

Service Response: We appreciate your efforts to work with the Refuge over the years, and the 

haying you currently perform on the Refuge under a permit. We hope to continue working with you 

in the future. 

Comment 6.2: Now that there may be changes and alternatives suggested I would just like to say 

that I think that the refuge has been managed very well in the past and would hope that it could 

continue as in the last several years. 

Service Response: Thank you for your comment. 

Comment 6.3: . . . it seems that the newly preferred alternative will likely be chosen. It looks to me 

like over the next several years that less grain would be planted and less haying allowed. If less 

haying is allowed, it appears that our permitted acreage would be reduced some time after the next 10 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix P. Public Comments and Service Responses P-9 

year period. After visiting with you, Annette, I was told that we would count on continued haying 

until at least the 2022 year period at least, at which time our unit would probably be retired for 

haying. . . . If after the ten year period, it is determined that haying should again be allowed, I would 

like to request that we be considered as the likely ones to once again be the operators of the unit that 

we have been utilizing in the past. That would more nearly meet the promises made by past 

managers; and we hopefully have fulfilled our part of the agreements. 

Service Response: In the Service’s Preferred Alternative, a phased-in reduction in the acreage being 

hayed or planted in grain would occur. The Preferred Alternative strikes a balance between managing 

short-cover habitat through haying, and providing dense, late successional wet meadow habitat for 

those wildlife species that require it (see Response to Comment 4.2 above). Management practices 

under the Preferred Alternative would produce habitats that are suitable for not only species that 

readily use human-managed habitats such as hayed fields, but a diverse suite of species. Management 

will monitor the response of the habitat and wildlife and, using adaptive management, can modify the 

program to provide optimal conditions. The Hulmes’ entire current hay unit (110M) would be retired 

sometime in the third 5-year phase beginning 2022. We acknowledge that they would like to be 

considered should permitting on those units continue or be modified. 

Comment 6.4: While I am not sure that retiring these haying areas will be beneficial to wildlife use, 

because on our own meadows which are very similar, we find that the hay grown becomes lodged 

and matted and does not provide anything but old rushes and needs to be removed to open it up for 

wildlife use, I think that occasional haying in these areas is a good practice. That is my opinion! . . . 

We have hundreds—maybe thousands of birds that enjoy our private meadows, especially after the 

hay is removed and the new grass emerges. They enjoy that regrowth. 

Service Response: Haying can remove tall decadent vegetation and provide for regrowth of new 

shoots which as you have observed, are preferred by certain wildlife species. It can also make insects 

and small rodents more readily available for those species that prey on them. For this reason haying 

is one tool used by wildlife managers to provide habitat for wildlife, and haying permits or CLMAs 

are established on Refuges under this premise. However hayed areas do not meet the needs of all 

wildlife species, and certain species (for example Wilson’s phalarope, northern pintail, black tern) 

require unhayed meadow, wet meadow, or shallow wetland habitats to complete their life cycles. 

Also even though haying can make invertebrates more easily accessible to foraging birds, the 

removal of vegetation can also reduce the abundance of invertebrates, by removing the litter these 

small creatures feed upon. 

Comment 6.5: The grain planted on the refuge has been beneficial to the birds and has helped to 

keep them satisfied on the refuge, rather than so much damage to grainfields on private land. I would 

hope that the grain planting will continue. 

Service Response: The Refuge currently grows grain to provide high-carbohydrate food for 

waterfowl and sandhill cranes during migration, and to reduce depredation on neighboring private 

lands. We plan to continue doing so. However we are planning minor reductions where we believe 

other uses would provide greater benefits to wildlife. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

P-10 Appendix P. Public Comments and Service Responses 

7. Bryce Nielson 

Comment 7.1: As a wildlife biologist who has lived and worked at Bear Lake for the last 37 years I 

would like to make some comments concerning the plan. After reading it, it is obvious that there has 

been a lot of effort and information put together. 

Service Response: Thank you for your comment. 

Comment 7.2: I am an avid waterfowl hunter who has used the marsh for years and am very well 

acquainted with the dynamics of water in the marsh and Bear Lake. . . . Hunters have been the group 

that has funded the refuge system over the years in addition to DU but unfortunately they don’t seem 

to be addressed significantly in this document. 

Service Response: Hunting is one of six priority public uses identified in the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the Refuge Improvement Act in 1997. 

Priority public uses also include wildlife observation, wildlife photography, fishing, interpretation, 

and environmental education. All of these uses, if determined to be compatible, are to and receive 

equal consideration. The Refuge spent considerable effort in examining the existing hunting program 

and determining ways to improve quality, ensure safety, and reduce conflicts with other user groups 

(see Chapter 2, Alternatives; Appendix B, Compatibility Determinations, in the Draft CCP). The 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act (Act) states that the amount of a Refuge open to waterfowl hunting, 

up to the maximum 40%, is variable and subject to the mandate that the Refuge meet the needs of 

wildlife first. Bear Lake NWR has 40% of its acreage open to hunting, the maximum allowed under 

the Act. We also hope that with habitat management actions proposed in the CCP will improve 

habitat for fall-migrating waterfowl and that therefore hunting opportunities will increase. 

Comment 7.3: I have watched the quality of hunting decline dramatically over the last five years due 

to improper water management on the marsh. Even during the drought period there was more water 

in the ephemeral wetlands than there has been recently. This lack of flooding as resulted in food 

producing and open water areas being dry and nonproductive. In 2012 even the interior units were 

dry and have attracted few waterfowl. Most migrating birds just pass through. Hunting has suffered 

dramatically. . . . I know that there are specific obligations between the FWS and Pacificorp that need 

to be met. I feel that these have not been effectively managed recently. This may be a result of poor 

communication between the two organizations. 

Service Response: The Refuge and PacifiCorp work closely together to regulate water flows through 

the Refuge in accordance with prior agreements and subject to water availability. PacifiCorp has 

accommodated Refuge requests in the past few years to facilitate lowering water levels on the Refuge 

for dike and water control construction and maintenance, prescribed burns, and control of invasive 

carp. Although these lower water levels may not have been optimal for waterfowl production during 

the last several years, the goal of these management actions, and future management actions 

proposed in the CCP, has been to improve wildlife habitat over the long term. In 2012, Bear Lake 

County was declared a drought-affected county. Water was in short supply throughout the Bear Lake 

Valley, including the Refuge. 

Comment 7.4: I am also a birder and am concerned about bird viewing on the marsh during the 

summer. Unfortunately few people that visit Bear Lake are aware of the opportunities the refuge 

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

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix P. Public Comments and Service Responses P-11 

Service Response: Wildlife observation is one of six priority public uses identified in the Fish and 

Wildlife Administration Act, as amended, which also include wildlife photography, hunting, fishing, 

interpretation, and environmental education. All of these uses, if determined to be compatible, are to 

receive equal consideration. Refuge management hopes to increase both opportunities for wildlife 

observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation, and outreach to the public so 

that they are informed about, and have opportunities to enjoy the Refuge’s resources (Draft CCP, 

page 2-14). We hope to be able to establish a visitor services position in the SE Idaho Complex that 

will serve all Refuges in the Complex. With the support of this position we would be able to recruit 

and retain volunteers which, given the Refuge’s small staff and funding available for visitor services, 

will be essential to provide expanded wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities in the future. We 

also hope that habitat management actions proposed in this CCP would enhance wildlife use of the 

Refuge, and therefore wildlife observation and photography opportunities as well. 

Comment 7.5: I was astounded to see that fishing may be regulated, why I have no idea. 

Service Response: The Refuge has always “regulated” fishing through abiding by the Idaho 

Department of Fish and Game regulations. The Refuge seeks to expand opportunities for fishing, as 

well as creating a safer and more comfortable fishing infrastructure (Draft CCP, page 2-14). 

Comment 7.6: I have also been involved in many discussions concerning the impacts of the marsh 

on Bear Lake water quality and silt loading from the Bear River. . . . Reclamation work on riparian 

zones really is not needed. Attempting to minimize silt loading from Thomas Fork is also an effort in 

futility. 

Service Response: Siltation of wildlife habitat can reduce its productivity for waterfowl. Although 

attempting to minimize silt load at BLNWR (including the Thomas Fork Unit) is a daunting task, by 

working with stakeholders and other partners, we believe that this is an achievable long-range goal. 

Comment 7.7: Farming on the refuge is a byproduct that does not need to occur unless benefit to 

waterfowl can be documented. 

Service Response: Since Refuge establishment, managers have planted crops to provide 

carbohydrate resources for waterfowl and sandhill cranes during migration, as well as to prevent 

depredation on nearby private lands. The Refuge will continue to do so as long as a benefit to 

wildlife can be demonstrated. Management will monitor the response of the habitat and wildlife and, 

using adaptive management, can modify the program to provide optimal conditions. 

Comment 7.8: In looking at the alternatives all have good points and bad. I would chose #1 as long 

as the management of the marsh returned to early 2000-2005 practices. 

Service Response: We acknowledge your support of Alternative 1, the no action alternative. 

However we believe that Alternative 3 will better address pressing issues such as water quality, and 

will better meet the purposes of the Refuge both by providing a wider array of habitats and by 

improving habitat quality. 

Comment 7.9: BLWMA is a key component of the Bear Lake ecosystem that should be allowed to 

develop naturally. Changing water regimes or hunting areas are untested and results are questionable. 

Understand that all wetlands go through the eutrophication process and to spend large sums of money 

to fight mother nature is ridiculous. Just manage it correctly and all the rest will follow. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

P-12 Appendix P. Public Comments and Service Responses 

Service Response: In regard to your comment that “BLWMA is a key component of the Bear Lake 

ecosystem that should be allowed to develop naturally:” Bear Lake is a National Wildlife Refuge 

(NWR) not a Waterfowl Management Area (WMA). The Service agrees that the Refuge is a key 

component of the Bear Lake ecosystem as well as the larger Bear River watershed. However, the 

Refuge has that status largely because of the man-made diversion of the Bear River through the 

Refuge. Although silt loading and eutrophication are natural processes, these processes may be 

accelerated and exacerbated by human actions. Refuge management seeks to provide habitat that 

meets the requirements of a diverse suite of wildlife species; often this means mitigating the effects 

of human actions. Changing the waterfowl hunting area was considered in Alternative 2, but 

ultimately we selected Alternative 3 (which retains the existing hunting area) as the Preferred 

Alternative. Changing the hunting area would have reduced the acreage available to hunt to 5,800 

acres (32% of the Refuge). 

8. Malone Hemmert 

Comment 8.1. I prefer Alternative 1 (No Action alternative). 

Service Response: We acknowledge your support of Alternative 1, the no action alternative. 

However we believe that Alternative 3 will better meet the purposes of the Refuge both by providing 

a wider array of habitats and by improving habitat quality. 

Comment 8.2: Is there compensation available to adjacent landowners flooded because of high 

waters on the Refuge during calendar year 2011? 

Service Response: The issue of compensation for flooding on private lands adjacent to the Refuge is 

outside the scope of this CCP. The affected landowners will be contacted regarding this issue 

independent of the CCP process. 

Comment 8.3: Look at grazing on the Refuge again. The Refuge is wasting resources: drowning out 

grasses that could be grazed or hayed; using fertilizer that could be provided by cattle. Use grazing 

and haying instead of burning. Haying and grazing benefit the local economy. 

Service Response: Please see response to Dean Ward and Sons (Comment 4.2 above), regarding 

Refuge grazing and haying. Temporary flooding is a natural process in wet meadows and shallow 

wetlands, which in turn causes a flush of invertebrates in spring that benefit a wide variety of bird 

species. Haying, grazing, and burning are all strategies that may be used to provide desired habitat 

conditions on Refuges and control weeds; but not all are appropriate or equally effective, based on 

site conditions. 

We agree that haying and grazing on refuges can be beneficial to the local economy. However, 

before these or any other economic uses can be allowed on a refuge, science must support them as 

beneficial to the refuge-specific habitat and wildlife conditions. Grazing on Bear Lake NWR was 

determined to be incompatible in 1993 (see Response to Comment 4.2 above). Haying was 

determined to be compatible; however in the Draft CCP we propose a gradual reduction in hayed 

area over 15 years to provide more tall-stature wet meadow habitat on the Refuge (a habitat type that 

is currently rare in the Bear Lake Valley) to benefit a larger number of wildlife species. 

Comment 8.4: Trapping for muskrat would be more beneficial and better for the local economy. 

There are not as many muskrat on the Refuge as when they were trapped. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix P. Public Comments and Service Responses P-13 

Service Response: Trapping ceased on Refuge lands when the Refuge was established in 1968. 

When Congress establishes a Refuge, it is closed to all public uses unless and until management 

opens the Refuge. Public uses are allowed on Refuges only after following appropriateness and 

compatibility determination procedures and policies. While trapping on refuges can be beneficial to 

the local economy, before this economic use can be allowed on a refuge, science must support it as 

beneficial to the refuge-specific habitat and wildlife conditions. A few people have requested that the 

Refuge allow trapping. At this time, management does not have the science-based studies necessary 

to support the benefits to wildlife, of opening the Refuge to trapping. We agree that there are fewer 

muskrats on the Refuge than there were historically. We also believe that the lower muskrat 

populations seen on the Refuge are a result of long-term changes in habitat (including both changes 

to wetland hydrology and drought). We believe that higher muskrat populations on the Refuge would 

be beneficial to a diverse group of wildlife species, since muskrats open up areas of dense wetland 

vegetation, thereby providing the mix of dense vegetation and open water preferred by many wildlife 

species. 

9. Lee Ream 

Comment 9.1: I am 80 years old and have used the refuge ground for a long time. Birds do not feed 

in tall refuge!! They like to feed and land [in areas] that has been mowed and close to the ground 

where they find food! They nest in tall grasses and go where the vegetation is removed to feed and 

travel with their young! Birds need less water and more area to feed in to stay off private ground. We 

need to cut more areas in the refuge and not to close down Hay Ground that has been used for many 

years.

Service Response: Please see responses to Dean Ward and Sons and Malone Hemmert above. We 

agree that some species of birds, for example Canada geese, prefer to feed on short grass provided by 

haying. As you also note, waterfowl require tall grasses for nesting. The Refuge also provides habitat 

that meets the needs of many species of waterfowl, waterbirds, and landbirds. For example, many 

species of ducks and waterbirds require a mixture of open water and tall bulrush/cattail to nest and 

rear their broods. Colonial nesting birds like white-faced ibis may forage in short grass habitat but 

require dense stands of bulrush for nesting. One of the Refuge’s most important roles, regionally, is 

providing secure nesting habitat for colonial waterbirds. Other birds, such as white pelicans, use large 

open water areas for roosting or foraging. The Refuge’s open water habitat supports less wildlife than 

it could, largely due to carp, which uproot aquatic vegetation, and siltation. By reducing carp 

populations and siltation, habitat management strategies proposed in the Preferred Alternative could 

improve habitat quality in open water areas, resulting in increased growth of aquatic vegetation and 

consequently, increased bird use. 

Comment 9.2: You do a good job in running the Refuge! 

Service Response: Thank you for your comment. 

10. Todd Bateman 

Comment 10.1: It is a poor society when birds and fish are put before human life. I believe the 

refuge should allow public use as well as agricultural production in the future. The refuge is set aside 

for the wildlife and then the wildlife [go to] habitat on the private property where haying and 

livestock grazing take place. This indicates that maybe to enhance the wildlife, management could 

apply practices demonstrated to be successful for a number of years. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

P-14 Appendix P. Public Comments and Service Responses 

Service Response: The Service acknowledges that wildlife use private lands that are used for hay 

and livestock production. We also agree that haying, and in some cases grazing, can produce shortgrass habitat that benefits certain species. Accordingly, haying, grazing, and farming occur on 

National Wildlife Refuges throughout the US. However under law and policy each refuge must 

determine if these uses are appropriate and compatible based on the purposes of the Refuge and local 

conditions. Grazing was determined to be incompatible at Bear Lake NWR in 1993; however, haying 

and growing crops were found to be compatible and continue to occur on the Refuge to this day. 

Where and how these uses occur are described in Compatibility Determinations that analyze local 

conditions and the needs of wildlife species. The Compatibility Determinations for haying and 

farming on Bear Lake NWR and the Oxford Slough WPA are included in the Draft CCP/EA 

(Appendix B). 

However, while lands managed for hay production or livestock use may support species of wildlife 

that prefer short-grass conditions during certain stages of their life cycles (for example Canada 

geese), it does not support species that require tall grass conditions for foraging and nesting. Even 

those species that do forage in short-grass habitat usually require other adjacent habitats to meet all 

of their life history needs (for example, nesting, roosting, or brood rearing). Therefore, Refuge 

management attempts to provide the broadest possible array of habitats that meet the needs of a 

diverse suite of wildlife species, and particularly focusses on providing habitat types that are 

currently rare or limited in a highly modified landscape. For example, wetlands occupied about 

25,000 acres in the Bear Lake Valley prior to settlement (DCCP 3-23). Wetlands have been reduced 

to about 18,000 acres – the size of the Refuge. Tall stature wet meadows were once a common 

habitat type in the Bear Lake valley. They are currently a limited habitat type in the valley (while 

hayed and grazed lands are abundant) and therefore, increasing the amount of unhayed wet meadows 

on the Refuge is emphasized in the Preferred Alternative. 

11, 12, 13. PacifiCorp Energy (Mark Stenberg) 

Note: Comments and Service responses to these three submittals are combined here, since the second 

and third submittals provides specifics on general comments in the first. 

Comment 11.1: Contrary to statements in the Draft CCP/EA, PacifiCorp has not been involved in its 

development. In Appendix K . . . Mark Stenberg is listed as an extended team member on the Draft 

CCP/EA team; however . . . he has not been involved in any of the roles listed for extended team 

members. 

Service Response: Mr. Stenberg’s name was included as an extended team member in error. His 

name has been removed from the list of extended team members in Appendix K. We appreciate Mr. 

Stenberg’s thorough review of the Draft CCP/EA and have made a number of changes to the CCP 

based on his comments (see below). In Actions Common to All Alternatives, we note that the Service 

currently does, and will continue to, work with PacifiCorp to maintain optimal water levels for 

wildlife and habitat on Bear Lake NWR while abiding by the stipulations of the Bear River Compact 

and the Agreement of 1968 between PacifiCorp and the Service. 

Comment 11.2: Statements made in the plan about fish passage at PacifiCorp facilities give the 

impression that IDFG, PacifiCorp and USFWS had had extensive conversions about these ideas, 

which is not the case. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix P. Public Comments and Service Responses P-15 

Comment 11.3: The Draft CCP/EA has not sufficiently evaluated the environmental effects of fish 

passage . . . to aquatic species that will occur when previously separate fish populations can migrate 

above and below the identified diversion structures/dams. 

Comment 11.4: On pages 2-7, 2-28, and 2-58, we request rewording of the following [two] 

statements [strategies]: 

1) “Participation in Fish Passage Projects. The Refuge would work in partnership with PacifiCorp 

and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game to construct four fish passage ladder projects on Bear 

Lake NWR (Rainbow Bridge; Paris Creek, Paris Dike, and Bloomington Creek) to increase fish 

spawning passage and reconnect the two most genetically viable populations of Bonneville cutthroat 

trout in the Bear River by 2027.” 

2) “In partnership with PacifiCorp, and Idaho Department of Fish and Game, construct 4 fish passage 

ladder projects on Bear Lake NWR (Rainbow bridge; Paris Creek, Paris Dike, and Bloomington 

Creek) to increase fish spawning passage and reconnect the 2 most genetically viable populations of 

Bonneville cutthroat trout in the Bear River by 2027” throughout the document to change this to a 

goal to study and consult on the effects of passage. Suggest changing wording to something like this, 

“The refuge will work in partnership with PacifiCorp and IDFG to study and consult on the effects of 

fish passage at irrigation diversion and water control structures within the refuge.” 

Service Response to Comments 11.2-4: We agree that both study of effects of fish passage and 

consultation with PacifiCorp would be needed before any fish passage projects could be initiated on 

Bear Lake NWR. Therefore the first statement (Draft CCP, page 2-7; Final CCP, page 2-10) has been 

replaced with: “The Refuge will 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.” 

The strategy on page 2-28 of the Draft CCP (page 2-24 of the Final CCP) and repeated on page 2-58 

of the Draft CCP (page 2-45 of the Final CCP) has been replaced with the following strategy: “The 

Refuge will 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.” 

Comment 11.5. There are other inaccuracies in the plan concerning PacifiCorp’s rights and 

obligations, property, and operations that need to be corrected . . . 

Service Response to Comments 11.5: We appreciate PacifiCorp’s thorough review of the Draft 

CCP/EA. We have made the requested corrections to factual errors, and have added language 

clarifying or further explaining the Refuge’s current and proposed water management, and the 

rationale for proposed changes. These are listed in Table 1 below. 

Comment 11.6: Note [on page 2-10]: PacifiCorp habitat enhancement grants are available in an 

action area along the Bear River that starts at the confluence of Outlet Canal and the Bear River and 

goes south to the Utah border. Tributaries in this reach are included. Project funding outside of this 

action area can be approved by PacifiCorp [if] supported by the Bear River Hydro Electric Project 

Environmental Coordination Committee [ECC]. 

Service Response: Management is aware of PacifiCorp’s ECC program both inside and outside of 

the “action area” and in the past USFWS has used this funding for private lands projects.
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

P-16 Appendix P. Public Comments and Service Responses 

Comment 11.7: [Page 2-10] Does the FWS have a plan or strategy for control of Phragmites within 

the refuge? 

Service Response: Control of noxious and invasive weeds is covered in the Refuge’s IPM Plan 

(Appendix F) and is a strategy common to all alternatives. While this section of the Draft CCP was 

written before Phragmites (or common reed, Phragmites australis) was classified a noxious weed by 

the State of Idaho, the plan includes the use of a variety of strategies that are applicable to the control 

of Phragmites. The Refuge actively controls Phragmites on its lands and will update references to 

Phragmites in the CCP to reflect that is now classified as a noxious weed in Idaho, and included in 

the Statewide Control List. 

Comment 11.8: [We concur with the statement on] page 2-41, “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.” 

Service Response: Thank you for your comment. 

Comment 11.9 The statement on page 2-42 [3rd paragraph] “Until the Mud Lake Unit can be 

subdivided into smaller impoundments” is similar to the fish passage statements. No consultation 

with PacifiCorp has occurred. These smaller impoundments could result in even more sediment 

being “delivered” into Bear Lake. This needs to be reworded as a goal to study and consult on the 

effects of creating smaller impoundments in Mud Lake. 

Service Response: The strategy under the Preferred Alternative (page 2-41) states that we would 

implement feasibility studies on techniques to further reduce sediment loading within the Mud Lake 

Complex, and present recommendations by 2020. We would consult with PacifiCorp in developing 

recommendations. The statement on page 2-42 of the Draft CCP (page 2-32 of the Final CCP) has 

been replaced with: “The Refuge will 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.” 

Comment 11.10: Check map 9 [on page 3-19] for accuracy. 

Service Response: To the best of our knowledge, this map is accurate. 

Comment 11.11: Would recommend reviewing the Utah plan to confirm this information [on Page 

3-22] is still accurate. 

Service Response: We have reviewed the Utah plan (“Bear River Basin: Planning for the Future,” 

part of the Utah Water Plan) at following website: 

http://www.water.utah.gov/planning/SWP/bear/bearRiver-1A.pdf; the information on page 3-22 in 

the Draft CCP appears to be current. 

Comment 11.12: Please describe the local community based working group referenced on page 3-27 

[“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).”] 

Service Response: A description of the St. Charles Creek Working Group and the Refuge’s 

coordination with this group has been added to the CCP (page 3-27). 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix P. Public Comments and Service Responses P-17 

Comment 11.13: From a reviewer's perspective there seems to unnecessary levels of cut and paste in 

the document. 

Service Response: We acknowledge that there is some redundancy between chapters. We repeated 

certain information rather than incorporating it by reference, to allow readers to better follow the 

discussion in each chapter (rather than having to flip back and forth between chapters to find relevant 

material). 

Comment 11.14: Throughout the document, as in these paragraphs there is considerable discussion 

about Mud Lake water quality and the habitat issues it is reported to create. . . . The concern about 

alteration of natural conditions is raised numerous times in this document which seems somewhat 

incongruous with statements here about the desire to modify the natural vegetation but having 

inadequate budget to do so. 

. . . In contrast to the apparent water quality issues, the benefit of the availability of water because of 

the diversion of the Bear River and its storage in Mud Lake and Bear Lake and its movement through 

Rainbow and Outlet Canals is discussed in the document as it allows the refuge many opportunities 

to move water, flood areas and create enhanced bird reproduction habitat that would not be available 

without the current water management system. Some reconciliation of these somewhat contradictory 

statements may be warranted. Also inclusion of the amount of additional marsh that was created 

through the diversion of the Bear River could help with this discussion. 

Service Response: We have added clarifying language that acknowledges the benefit of the reliable 

source of water for Refuge wetlands (see table below). While redirection of the Bear River has 

resulted in a reliable source of water for the Refuge, it has also resulted in excessive sediment 

deposition throughout the Mud Lake system. We have added language to the Alternatives stating that 

we will work in partnership with PacifiCorp and other stakeholders to study and consult on the 

effects, desirability, and feasibility of reducing sediment loading in Mud Lake. The hydrologic 

regime is altered from what it was historically. Wetlands north of Bear Lake proper were fed by 

undiverted streams, snowpack, and rainfall. The historically high spring 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. We cannot return to the hydrologic conditions that existed 

before settlement of the Bear Lake Valley. Bear Lake NWR represents a modified system that is 

managed to mimic historic conditions. We must, working with all our partners, manage water levels 

on the Refuge to provide the most favorable conditions for the target habitats and wildlife species, 

balanced with all the other beneficial uses of the water. We also use prescribed fire and other 

treatments to create desirable habitat conditions and control invasive species, such as carp. 

Comment 11.15. Fluctuations in the marsh [described on page 4-8] did not occur historically 

because historically, much of the marsh did not exist. 

Service Response: We disagree with the statement that historically, much of the Bear Lake marsh 

did not exist. The wetland-marsh-open water area (not including Bear Lake proper) covered 25,000-

30,000 acres before people started settling the valley and diverting water (Draft CCP, page 3-23). 

Comment 11.16. Much of the following narrative [page 4-11 on] on historical practices/ 

management, etc., in this section and others seems to not add to the points that are trying to be made. 

What year was [the drawdowns described on pages 4-13, 14]? Did they work? If so, why are we 

changing management now? If not, why are we detailing them here? What purpose do these year by 

year comments serve here? Again, suggest reducing wordiness so the points can be more clearly 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

P-18 Appendix P. Public Comments and Service Responses 

made. Do we need this level of detail, especially as it is in large part a repeat from earlier sections of 

the document? What is the purpose of this narrative? 

Service Response: The Draft CCP/EA serves not only to describe alternatives for future 

management, but also serve as a reference for future refuge managers. We have, therefore, included 

this narrative to describe as completely as possible how the Refuge has been managed in the past. 

The narrative in Chapter 4 describes how the Refuge has been managed in the past during a drought 

situation and with the cooperation of PacifiCorp. It can be used as an example of how the Refuge 

might be managed in future drought situations. 

We agree that additional rounds of editing would have resulted in a more concise document, but 

decided not to undertake additional editing in the interests of a timely release of the Draft CCP/EA 

for public review and comment. 

Comment 11.17: [It] might be good to reference the actual water rights and their details (season and 

amount) here [page 5-23]. 

Service Response: Interested parties can obtain water right information from the Refuge or the Idaho 

Department of Water Resources. 
Appendix P. Public Comments and Service Responses P-19 

Corrections Incorporated: (Note: D= page number in Draft CCP; F= page number in Final CCP. ) Page (s) Original Text Revised Text 1-1, 4-8, 4-9 

Telluride Canal Company Telluride Power Company 

1-24 “In 1911, a canal was constructed that now 

diverts almost all the water in the Bear River at Stewart Dam ...” 

Change to: “In 1911, the Dingle inlet canal was constructed, which divin the Bear River southward to Mud Lake. (Later, Stewart Dam and the were constructed to divert the Bear River water. The Dingle inlet canal irrigation canal.)” 

D 2-3, F 2-5 

“The Refuge and PacifiCorp work together to maintain optimal water levels for wildlife and habitat on the Refuge while abiding by the stipulations of the Bear River Compact and the Rainbow Decree (Appendix N).” 

Change to: “The Refuge and PacifiCorp work together to maintain optiwildlife and habitat on the Refuge while abiding by their 1968 agreemerelated to PacifiCorp's operations (Appendix M).” 

D 2-39, F 2-32 

Strategy under No Action Alternative: “Maintain a stable average water elevation of 5,920.5’ . . .”

Add +/- 0.5 feet after 5,920.5’ No Action Alternative not included in Final CCP, but this statement ha1.1 Rationale to describe current management. 

D 2-42, F 2-32 

minimum elevation (app. 5,920' UP&L datum) (app. 5,920.5' UP&L datum) 

3-18 Telluride canals Dingle Inlet canals 3-21 “Figure 3.2 (from Lamarra et al. 1986) depicts 

the ... (Palacios et al. 2007a).” (2 sentences) 

Change to: “Figure 3.2 (from Lamarra et al. 1986) documents water levas a reservoir from 1915 to 2005. Highest annual input from the Bear R450 million cubic yards; lowest in 1977 at 15.8 million cubic yards (PaWater entering the Bear Lake system is primarily from diversion of the water coming from streams, springs, and precipitation (Palacios et al. 2

3-21 Paragraph 3, starting with “During dry years . . 

.” 

Change to: “During an extended drought, PacifiCorp uses over 20 vertisupplemental irrigation downstream. Hydroelectric power is produced isecondary benefit, after the water is released from Bear Lake for irrigatrelease, along with the natural flow of the Bear River, passes through fistations along the Bear River Basin. (A sixth plant, the Cove Dam, was removed in 2006.) The five remaining hydroelectric developments are LGrace, Oneida, and Cutler. These are all part of the Bear River Hydro P

3-22, O-3 

3-22 UDWR 2005 3-22 (2 instances), O-3 BLRC 1997 

Change (UDWR 2005) to (UDWR 2000) 

Change (BLRC 1997) to (BRC 1997) 

3-22, 4-36 

3-22, 1st paragraph: “PacifiCorp merged with 

UP&L in 1989 (UP&L is now a wholly owned subsidiary of PacifiCorp) and currently controls the operation of Bear Lake portion of the Bear River Compact . . . Since the mid 1960s, UP&L has operated Bear Lake at an elevation of 5918 

Change to: “PacifiCorp merged with UP&L in 1989; the resulting comPacifiCorp and controls the operation of Bear Lake . . . Since the mid 1PacifiCorp, operated Bear Lake to a target elevation of 5,918 feet for fl(BRC 1997; Bear River operations agreement, 2000).” 
P-20 Appendix P. Public Comments and Service Responses Corrections Incorporated: (Note: D= page number in Draft CCP; F= page number in Final CCP. ) Page (s) Original Text Revised Text feet (BLRC 1997).” 4-36, 5th paragraph: “(now a wholly owned subsidiary . . .)” Change to: (“which merged with PacifiCorp in 1989)” 3-22, 4- 36 3-22 2nd paragraph; 4.36 5th par: “The Dietrich Decree of 1968 between Utah Power and Light Company . . .” Change to: “The 1968 Agreement between PacifiCorp . . .” 3-24, 4- 13-15 UP&L/Utah Power and Light Company Changed to PacifiCorp, unless referring to events occurring before 198

with PacifiCorp 3-24 1968 Rainbow Ditch Agreement 1968 Agreement 3-27 ”Through a 1968 MOU ...” Change to: “Through the 1968 Agreement . . .” 3-37 “To accomplish this PacifiCorp has established a late winter lake target elevation of 5918 to assist in spring flood mitigation, leaving a buffer of 5.56 feet of 390,000 acre-feet for basin flood control each year.” Change 5,918 to 5,916 to 5,920 Add to end of sentence: “at the typical elevation of 5,918.” 4-21 Last paragraph, “ . . .an opportunity to get 6,000 feet of power line properly marked. Power line marking was completed by UP&L in July on 1996.” Change to: “ . . .an opportunity to get 6,000 feet of power line outfitted 

Installation of avian diverters on the power line was completed by Paci

K-2 Table of extended team members Remove Mark Stenberg O-31 UDWR 2005 Change to: UDWR 2000 O-33 USGS 2006 Insert line break between this reference and USU 1995 Editorial Comments Incorporated: Original Text Revised Text 1-36 Under heading Sedimentation (Bear Lake NWR): “Because the Refuge serves as a storage basin for irrigation use in the lower Bear River, water quantity is not a problem.” To clarify this statement, add after this sentence: “Allen (2011) found t

suspended solids (TSS) and total phosphorus (TP) loading entered the RRiver. As flows moved across the Refuge marsh (Dingle Swamp), the lwas greatly reduced. Allen (2011) cites studies on the impacts of TSS oon fish gills, and on the channelization of wetlands. Allen (2011) notes pathway for other pollutants. Allen (2011) notes that excess nutrients (lcause over-fertilization (eutrophication) of water bodies. Allen’s 2011 tfor references on several past efforts to study the potential impacts of BLake proper and on the Refuge.” 1-36,; D 2-42, F 2032 “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 To clarify this statement, change to: “. . . target elevations are maintain

of the 5,920.5-foot elevation, subject to the Bear River Compact, irrigacontrol.” 
Appendix P. Public Comments and Service Responses P-21 

Corrections Incorporated: (Note: D= page number in Draft CCP; F= page number in Final CCP. ) Page (s) Original Text Revised Text 

requirements.” 

D 2-3, F 2-5 

“The Refuge and PacifiCorp work together to maintain optimal water levels for wildlife and habitat on the Refuge . . .” 

To clarify the meaning of “optimal” insert: “In this context, managemethose water levels providing the most favorable conditions for the targeexample, for waterfowl production, water levels should remain relativebreeding season and be neither so low that predators have easy access t

suitable nesting habitat is reduced.” 

D 2-39, D 2-42, F 2-32 

Draft CCP, Strategy under Current Management (2-39); Rationale (2-42); Final 

CCP, Rationale (2-32): “Maintain a stable average water elevation on 5920.5’ . . .” 

To clarify current management and constraints, add: “Note: During sea

runoff it can be difficult to maintain a stable water level.” 

D 2-41, F 2-32 

Rationale: “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.” 

To clarify rationale, insert after this sentence: “Management believes t

advances, techniques are and will become available to exclude carp and allowing passage of Bonneville cutthroat trout and other desirable fish 

D 2-42, F 2-32 

Rationale: “Because it [Mud Lake] serves as a 

storage basin . . .” 

Replace sentence with: “Mud Lake and Bear Lake proper are operated 

and together they serve as a storage basin for irrigation use in the lower 

D 2-42, F 2-32 

Rationale: “... surprisingly, several species have adapted to these conditions and preferentially select the Mud Lake Unit to fulfill certain life history events.”

Change to: “... anecdotally, several species appear to select the Mud L

to fulfill certain life history events. These observations warrant further 

D 2-42, F 2-32 

Rationale: “Until the Mud Lake Unit can be 

subdivided into smaller impoundments, it would appear that proposed normal/drought simulations would be the more appropriate management strategy for the Mud Lake Unit . . .”

For consistency with strategy on page 2-41, replace with: “The Refuge with PacifiCorp and other stakeholders to study and consult on the effefeasibility of reducing sediment loading in the Mud Lake Unit.”

3-16 “Man made dams and canals now divert the 

Bear River . . .” 

Add to end of sentence: “, which is also now used for flood control.”

3-18 “Bear Lake's 8,000- year isolation ... into 

Dingle Marsh (now Bear Lake NWR).” 

Replace with: “Bear Lake, the Dingle Marsh, and the Bear River have b

other at various times throughout prehistory. Their most recent separatiyears ago and has endured until the Bear Lake project came to fruition. of inlet and outlet canals, control structures and pumps, was begun arouin 1918.”

3-18 “In 1911 the Telluride Power Company 

completed a ... releases (USU 1995).” (last 2 sentences of 3rd paragraph) 

Deleted 
P-22 Appendix P. Public Comments and Service Responses Corrections Incorporated: (Note: D= page number in Draft CCP; F= page number in Final CCP. ) Page (s) Original Text Revised Text “The Utah Power ... outflow. These structures ... Bear Lake (Palacios et al. 2007a).” (4th paragraph ) “At Stewart Dam ... cubic feet per second.” (2nd sentence of 5th paragraph) 3-21 “However the Commission does not get involved in the operation of the river unless conditions exist that trigger provisions of the Compact. Rights to direct flow in the three administrative diversions of the Bear River is administered by the contributor state under state law.” Change to: “However the Commission is not directly involved in the o

unless conditions exist that trigger provisions of the Compact. Rights to administrative divisions of the Bear River is administered by the states 

3-30 1st paragraph beginning “Mud Lake serves as the turning basin . . .” Add sentence to 1st paragraph: “Mud Lake and Bear Lake proper are o

one unit in terms of water storage.” 4-8 “While small scale diversion from the Bear River to produce meadow hay likely occurred during the late 1800s, it wasn’t until the early 1900s that there was substantial modification to the system.” “The Utah-Idaho Sugar Company bought rights to the Bear River . . .” “The Bear River has not naturally entered Bear Lake for roughly 12,000 years.” “In the late 1800s irrigators conceived a plan to divert the Bear River . . .” Change to: “While small scale diversion from the Bear River to produc

occurred during the late 1800s, it wasn’t until 1909 to 1918 that the SteRainbow Inlet Canal, the Outlet Canal, and the Lifton Pumping Plant wChange to: “The Utah-Idaho Sugar Company secured rights to the BeaChange to: “The Bear River was joined and disconnected to Bear LakeDingle Marsh several times throughout the geologic history of the syste12,000 years, the Bear River has been separated from the lake and marsChange to: “In the late 1800s developers conceived a plan to divert the 

4-9 

3rd paragraph, last sentence 

4th paragraph, sentence starting “Unfortunately, 

redirection of the Bear River has resulted in excessive sediment deposition . . .” 5th paragraph, 2nd sentence: “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 dry residual material to carry fire.” 

To clarify meaning of “relatively sterile wetland ecosystem,” add: “. . . productivity of aquatic vegetation and waterfowl.” Change to: “Redirection of the Bear River has resulted in a reliable souRefuge, but also excessive sediment deposition throughout the Mud LaChange to: “The natural frequency and intensity of fire in the Dingle Meliminated through the absence of long-term drought and associated lacenough to carry fire.” To clarify current fire management, add after this sentence: “The naturLake Valley has been modified by human actions; however, Refuge mamimic natural fire regimes, where appropriate, through prescribed burn

4-10 2. Sediment deposition occurs at great frequency Replace with:
Appendix P. Public Comments and Service Responses P-23 

Corrections Incorporated: (Note: D= page number in Draft CCP; F= page number in Final CCP. ) Page (s) Original Text Revised Text 

where historically, deposition was not a formative factor; 4. Historically wide spring hydrologic fluctuations have been replaced by extreme fluctuations throughout the annual cycle; and 5. Absence of drought has led to less frequency of disturbance (e.g. fire) which has resulted in homogeneous emergent communities with excessive residual vegetation. 

2. Sediment deposition occurs at a greater frequency than before the 

4. The natural spring high water runoff has been replaced with water l

annually (rather than seasonally) by storage of spring runoff and relea

summer; and

5. Absence of drought has led to less frequency of disturbance (e.g., fi

homogenous emergent communities with excessive residual vegetatio

to carry fire.

4-13 

4th paragraph, “This struggle to keep water at 

respectable levels in the marsh . . .” 4th paragraph, “UP&L” 5th paragraph, “The benefits of a drawdown during this severe drought cycle outweighed the negative impacts and UP&L was instructed to pull boards at the Paris Dike . . .” 

Change to: “This struggle to keep water levels in the marsh adequate fo

Change to: Change to: “PacifiCorp (which merged with UP&L in 1989

Change to: “. . . PacifiCorp was asked . . .”

4-14 2nd paragraph, “In late August several boards 

were pulled at the Paris structure . . .” 

Change to: “In late August of 1990 . . .”

4-16 

3rd paragraph 

“By allowing PacifiCorp to meet its downstream irrigation demands, we requested and were granted the opportunity to bring Mud Lake and our management units to a full pool level . . .” Draft CCP, 4th paragraph, 3rd sentence

“Permission was obtained from PacifiCorp . . .” 

Insert after 2nd sentence: “It is important for successful swan nesting to 

of water throughout the summer. Other impoundments could be allowe“naturally” with the existing drought conditions in 2003.”Change to: “The Refuge requested and PacifiCorp granted the opportun.” Deleted 

4-36 Paragraph 4, “Where the Bear River was once 

functionally isolated from the Bear Lake system . . . These have resulted in numerous, and mostly undesirable, changes to habitat structure and function . . .” Draft CCP, Paragraph 6, 1st sentence: “In 

normal water years . . .” Paragraph 6, “Also, silt laden Bear River water 

Change to: “Where the Bear River was functionally isolated from the Brecent geologic past . . . These have resulted in numerous changes to hafunction . . .” Deleted Change to: “Silt laden Bear River water now enters the Refuge . . .” 
P-24 Appendix P. Public Comments and Service Responses Corrections Incorporated: (Note: D= page number in Draft CCP; F= page number in Final CCP. ) Page (s) Original Text Revised Text now enters the Refuge . . .” “This combination creates a relatively sterile wetland ecosystem.” To clarify meaning of “sterile” add to end of sentence: “. . . resulting in 

aquatic vegetation and waterfowl.” I-3 Acronym UP&L Add “now PacifiCorp” App O, Refs Add to References: Allen, Cody M., "Seasonal Transport of Suspended Solids and Nutrients Between Bear River and Bear Lake." (2011). All Graduate Theses and Dissertations. Paper 1277. http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/edt/1277 The reference has been added. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix P. Public Comments and Service Responses P-25 

Comment 14: Mark Gamblin, Regional Supervisor, Southeast Region, Idaho Department of Fish and 

Game 

We believe Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative) adequately addresses the service mandate to protect 

and sustain natural resources, habitats and migratory bird populations and provides emphasis on 

priority public use programs – hunting, fish[ing], wildlife observation, wildlife photography, 

environmental education, and interpretation. We also believe that the implementation of Alternative 

3 would contribute substantial improvements to water quality, stream channel stability and overall 

riparian health, for the benefit of native Bonneville cutthroat trout and a variety of other important 

aquatic and terrestrial wildlife species and values. 

Service Response: Thank you for your comments. We acknowledge your support of the Preferred 

Alternative, Alternative 3. We agree that this alternative will best support meeting the purposes of the 

Refuge (including the Thomas Fork Unit), including providing the Service’s six priority public uses. 

Alternative 3 emphasizes the health of Bonneville cutthroat trout by working toward habitat quality 

and connectivity. Alternative 3 also stresses the importance of wetland habitat health and diversity to 

support a variety of wildlife, especially migratory bird populations. 
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

P-26 Appendix P. Public Comments and Service Responses 

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