Land protection plan: Bear River Watershed Conservation Area

              Land Protection Plan
Bear River Watershed Conservation Area
Idaho, Utah, and WyomingFebruary 2013Prepared byU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceRegion 6, Mountain-Prairie RegionDivision of Refuge Planning134 Union Boulevard, Suite 300Lakewood, Colorado 80228303/236 8145 U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceRegion 1, Pacific RegionDivision of Planning and Visitor Services911 NE 11th AvenuePortland, Oregon 97232503/872 2086CitationU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Land protection plan—Bear River Watershed Conservation Area. Lakewood, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Regions 1 and 6. 227 p.Contents
Summary
VII
Abbreviations
XI
CHAPTER 1—Introduction and Project Description
1
Introduction
1
Project Description 3
Issues Identified and Selected for Analysis
3
Biological Issues
4
Socioeconomic Issues
4
Administrative and Enforcement Issues for Easements
4
Other Issues
4
National Wildlife Refuge System and Authorities
5
Related Actions and Activities
5
U.S. Department of Agriculture
5
Department of the Interior
6
Habitat Protection and Easement Acquisition Process
7
Conservation Easements
7
CHAPTER 2—Area Description and Resources
9
Physical Environment 9
Geology and Soils
9
Hydrology
10
Climate
12
Climate Change
12
Adaptation
13
Mitigation
14
Engagement
14
Biological Environment
14
Habitat
14
Connectivity and Corridors
16
Riverine and Riparian Areas
18
Wetlands
29
Upland, Grassland, and Shrubland
21
Forest
22
Wildlife
23
Birds
23
Mammals
24
Amphibians
24
Reptiles
25
Fish
25
Species of Special Concern
25
Cultural Resources
26
Prehistory
26
Paleo-Indian Period
26IV Land Protection Plan—Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming
Archaic Period 26
Late Prehistoric and Protohistoric Period 27
History 27
Socioeconomic Environment 29
Landownership 30
Property Tax 30
Public Use and Wildlife-Dependent Recreational Activities 30
CHAPTER 3—Threats to and Status of Resources 33
Threats to the Resources 33
Effects on the Physical Environment 34
Water and Soil Resources 34
Climate 34
Effects on the Biological Environment 35
Habitat and Wildlife 35
Riverine Areas, Riparian Areas, and Wetland 35
Upland, Grassland, and Shrubland 35
Species of Special Concern 35
Effects on Cultural Resources 36
Effects on the Socioeconomic Environment 36
Landownership and Land Use 36
Public Use 36
Development 36
Subsurface Development 36
Commercial and Residential Development 37
Other Conservation Impacts 37
CHAPTER 4—Project Implementation 39
Land Protection Options Not Analyzed in Detail 39
No Action 39
Easement Program 40
Project Objectives and Action 40
Evaluation of Easement Potential 41
Contaminants and Hazardous Materials 41
Cost of Project Implementation 41
Easement Acquisition Funding 41
Ecosystem Management and Landscape Conservation Cooperatives 42
Strategic Habitat Conservation and Protection Priorities 43
Biological Planning 43
Protection Priorities 43
Focal Species 44
Conservation Design 46
Focal Species Models 46
Priority Categories 49
Marxan-based Conservation Value Modeling 51
Integrated Conservation Delivery 54
Monitoring and Adaptive Management 55
Research 55
Sociocultural Considerations 56
Public Involvement and Coordination 56
Public Scoping 56Contents V
National Environmental Policy Act 56Land Protection Plan Distribution and Availability 56Service Unit Contacts 56Glossary 59Appendix A—Environmental Assessment 61Appendix B—Environmental Compliance 113Appendix C—List of Preparers and Reviewers 123Appendix D—Species List of the Bear River Watershed Conservation Area. 125Appendix E—Public Comments and Service Responses. 147Appendix F—Section 7 Biological Evaluation 209Bibliography 219
TABLES1 Acreages of vegetation types found in the Bear River project area in Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming 162 Population statistics for Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming and counties in and near the Bear River Watershed Conservation Area in Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming 293 Matrix of Bonneville cutthroat trout fish densities and ranking criteria for genetic purity 494 Conservation targets and goals for the Bear River Watershed Conservation Area in Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming 515 Protection priority category acreages for acquisition in the Bear River Conservation Area in Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming 54
FIGURES1 Map of the Bear River Watershed Conservation Area in Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming 22 Map of land stewardship in the Bear River Watershed Conservation Area in Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming 83 Vicinity map for the Bear River Watershed Conservation Area in Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming 114 Graph of the trend in annual average temperature in the Bear River basin (in Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming) over the past 100 years 135 Habitat map for the Bear River Watershed Conservation Area in Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming 156 Map of regional conservation and protected areas adjacent to the Bear River Watershed Conservation Area in Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming 177 Chart of the relative native and restored benefits of ecosystem goods and services 388 Map of the three landscape conservation cooperative areas that cover the Bear River Watershed Conservation Area in Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming 429 Elements of strategic habitat conservation 4310 Map of predicted sage thrasher and sage-grouse densities in the Bear River Watershed Conservation Area in Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming 4711 Map of predicted American avocet densities in the Bear River Watershed Conservation Area in Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming 4812 Map of the presence of Bonneville cutthroat trout in the Bear River Watershed Conservation Area in Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming 5013 Map of combined species priority areas for the Bear River Watershed Conservation Area in Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming 5214 Map of conservation ranking priority areas for the Bear River Watershed Conservation Area in Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming 53Summary
© Hal ReederMountains and marshes at Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge, Utah.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is establishing a conservation area for the Bear River watershed in Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming. The Bear River Water-shed Conservation Area project will work with private landowners to establish up to 920,000 acres of voluntary conservation easements: ■■to conserve aquatic, riparian, wetland, and upland habitats;■■to provide wildlife habitat connectivity and migra-tory corridors; ■■to maintain healthy populations of native wildlife species;■■to protect and maintain water quality and quantity;■■to increase the watershed’s resiliency during cli-mate and land use changes;■■to conserve the area’s working landscapes;■■to promote partnerships for coordinated water-shed-level conservation.
To successfully implement the Bear River Water-shed Conservation Area, the Service will work with the three landscape conservation cooperatives that encompass the project area—Great Northern, Great Basin, and Southern Rockies Landscape Conser-vation Cooperatives. In addition, the Service will coordinate conservation efforts throughout the Bear River watershed with numerous partners: The Nature Conservancy, Trout Unlimited, Ducks Unlim-ited, local Audubon chapters, PacifiCorp, State and local land trusts, soil and water conservation districts, State agencies, tribes, and other Federal agencies.The Service has developed a land protection plan for the Bear River Watershed Conservation Area. The plan focus throughout is analysis and coordina-tion of conservation easements in the Bear River watershed at a landscape scale. The plan describes the important resources and heritage of the water-shed and gives direction for evaluating potential easement properties. Service staff at the three wildlife refuges in the Bear River watershed—Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge (Idaho), Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge (Utah), and Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge (Wyoming)—will administer and monitor the conservation easement program.VIII Land Protection Plan—Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming
The Bear River Watershed
The Bear River is the largest river in the West-ern Hemisphere that flows into an inland sea—the Great Salt Lake. The river originates in the Uinta Mountains and flows north and west in an arc from Utah, through Wyoming and Idaho, and back into Utah. In the course of its 500-mile journey, the Bear River passes through three national wildlife ref-uges: Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge, and Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge.The wide range of altitudes in the Bear River watershed allow for diverse habitats. Grassland and shrubland dominate the flats and the lowlands, while pinyon–juniper woodland and pine forest cover the higher slopes. Big sagebrush is common on much of the landscape, although other shrubs such as rabbit-brush, saltbush, and greasewood may dominate some areas. Most of the lower elevation areas are privately owned, with much of the land in the wide valleys used for agriculture and grazing. Bear River water is used extensively to irrigate alfalfa, small grain crops, and ranchland. Future activity in the Bear River watershed is expected to include commercial oil and gas devel-opment, mining, wind energy development, and residential development, along with an associated increase in water demand.
How Conservation Easements Work
To protect habitat, the Service recognizes that it is essential to work with private landowners on con-servation matters of mutual interest. The project will use voluntary conservation easements on privately owned land throughout the Bear River watershed to protect wetland, grassland, and agricultural land from conversion to other uses. As a voluntary legal agreement between a landowner and the Service, an easement is a perpetual conservation agreement that the Service will purchase from willing landowners. ■■A conservation easement typically contains habi-tat protection measures that prohibit subdivision but allow for the continuation of traditional activi-ties such as livestock grazing and haying. ■■Alteration of the natural topography and conversion of native grassland, shrubland, or wetland to crop-land will be prohibited on a conservation easement.
■■Conservation easement land will remain in private ownership, and property tax and land manage-ment, including invasive weed control, will remain the responsibility of the landowner. ■■Public access to a conservation easement will remain under the control of the landowner.The Service will purchase conservation ease-ments with money generated by the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965. These funds are derived from oil and gas leases on the Outer Conti-nental Shelf, motorboat fuel tax revenues, and sale of surplus federal property. The U.S. Congress appro-priates money for a specific project, such as the Bear River Watershed Conservation Area. Easement prices offered to willing sellers will be determined by an appraisal completed by an appraiser familiar with the local market. Service staff at the three wildlife refuges in the Bear River watershed will administer and monitor the conservation easement program.
Resources Will Benefit
Through the goal of acquiring conservation ease-ments from willing sellers, the project will help maintain habitat important to a variety of fish, mam-mals, and migratory birds throughout the Bear River watershed. This includes the major migration corri-dors that connect the northern and southern Rocky Mountains. Watershed-wide conservation efforts will be coordinated, and valuable farmland and ranchland will be protected.The small, pristine mountain streams in the forested headwaters of the Bear River are ideal breeding habitat for Bonneville cutthroat trout and leatherside chub, which are important native species. Elk, black bear, pika, and marmots use these high-elevation forests and snow-covered mountain slopes. The primary routes of migratory birds follow-ing the central and Pacific flyways converge in the Bear River watershed. The national wildlife ref-uges and adjacent areas provide essential habitat for many species of waterfowl, wading birds, shorebirds, and upland birds that migrate through on their way to and from the Canadian and Alaskan interior and coastal wetlands. More than 200 bird species have been documented in the project area, and half are closely associated with wetlands. Marshbirds and shorebirds include white-faced ibis, black tern, American avocet, long-billed curlew, American bittern, sandhill crane, and trumpeter swan. Upland birds include the greater sage-grouse and Columbian sharp-tailed grouse. Summary IX
In addition to the importance of the conservation area to bird species, many mammals are dependent on the blocks of intact habitat and the key migration linkages between these areas. Elk, mule deer, moose, pronghorn, bear, lynx, and wolverine depend on key wintering areas and migration corridors throughout the Bear River watershed.Abbreviations
BRWCA
Bear River Watershed Conservation Area
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
EA
environmental assessment
GCN
(species of) greatest conservation need
HAPET
Habitat and Population Evaluation Team
LCC
land conservation cooperative
LPP
land protection plan
NRCS
Natural Resources Conservation Service
NWR
national wildlife refuge
Refuge System
National Wildlife Refuge System
refuges
national wildlife refuges within the Bear River Watershed Conservation Area
Service
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S.C.
United States Code
USDA
United States Department of Agriculture
USFWS
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
WPA
waterfowl production area
A glossary of these and other terms follows chapter 4.Vision Statement for the Bear River Watershed Conservation Area
Landscape-scale protection of the natural resources found within the Bear River watershed is essential to humans and wildlife. The Bear River Watershed Conservation Area project preserves, protects, and restores the natural resources and working landscapes within the drainage. Through cooperative efforts with ranchers, farmers, local communities, land management agencies, and other conservation organizations, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service builds a community of citizens dedicated to protection of wildlife habitat, maintenance of healthy communities, enhancement of water quality, promotion of sustainable agriculture, and recognition of good stewardship. The legacy of this effort is the tapestry of snow-covered mountains, deciduous and conifer forest, vast areas of sagebrush and wetlands, and working farms and ranches that decorate the landscape of the Bear River watershed. This expansive landscape supports a multitude of diverse wildlife species including migratory birds, sage-grouse, elk, black bear, pronghorn, mule deer, Bonneville cutthroat trout, and other native species. Implementation of a landscape-scale collaborative effort within the Bear River Watershed Conservation Area conserves the significant wildlife, aesthetic, and cultural values of this region in perpetuity.Chapter 1—Introduction and
Project Description
© Brian Ferguson
Bear River Marsh, Utah
Introduction
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is
establishing a conservation area for the Bear River
watershed in Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming (see figure 1).
The background and guidance for the Bear River
Conservation Area is in this land protection plan
(LPP), which is based on the environmental assess-ment
(EA) contained in appendix A. The regional
directors of the Service’s Regions 1 and 6 found that
establishing the Bear River Watershed Conservation
Area (alternative B of the EA) would have no signif-icant
impact (refer to “Appendix B, Environmental
Compliance”).
The Bear River Watershed Conservation Area
project will work with private landowners to estab-lish
up to 920,000 acres of voluntary conservation
easements:
■■ to conserve aquatic, riparian, wetland, and upland
habitats;
■■ to provide wildlife habitat connectivity and migra-tory
corridors;
■■ to maintain healthy populations of native wildlife
species;
■■ to protect and maintain water quality and quantity;
■■ to increase the watershed’s resiliency during cli-mate
and land use changes;
■■ to conserve the area’s working landscapes;
■■ to promote partnerships for coordinated water-shed-
level conservation.
To successfully implement the Bear River Water-shed
Conservation Area, the Service will work
with the three landscape conservation cooperatives
(LCCs) that encompass the project area—Great
Northern, Great Basin, and Southern Rockies LCCs.
In addition, the Service will coordinate conservation
efforts throughout the Bear River watershed with
numerous partners: The Nature Conservancy, Trout
Unlimited, Ducks Unlimited, local Audubon chap-ters,
PacifiCorp, State and local land trusts, soil and
water conservation districts, State agencies, tribes,
and other Federal agencies.
2 Land Protection Plan—Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming
Map of the conservation area boundary in southeastern Idaho, northeastern Utah, and western Wyoming showing existing refuges potential easement areas throughout. Map of the conservation area boundary in southeastern Idaho, northeastern Utah, and western Wyoming showing existing refuges potential easement areas throughout.Chapter 1—Introduction and Project Description 3
Service staff at the three wildlife refuges in the Bear River watershed—Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge (Idaho), Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge (Utah), and Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge (Wyoming)—will administer and monitor the conservation easement program.
Project Description
Before Euro-American settlement, the Bear River delta was a vast natural marsh that provided wet-land habitat for waterfowl in the arid Great Basin region. When John C. Fremont, an early explorer in the West, visited the area near the present day Bear River Refuge in 1843, he commented, “the waterfowl made a noise like thunder… as the whole scene was animated with waterfowl.”The Bear River travels a 500-mile course from its headwaters in Utah’s Uinta Mountains through Wyoming and Idaho, eventually terminating its horseshoe-shaped route in Utah’s Great Salt Lake, the largest inland sea in the Western Hemisphere (see figure 1). The forested areas at the headwa-ters are part of a crucial wildlife migration corridor. These forested areas offer a major link between the Northern and Southern Rocky Mountain ecosystems (Theobald et al. 2011, USDA Forest Service 2003). The small, pristine mountain streams found in the area provide ideal breeding habitat for important native species, such as the Bonneville cutthroat trout and northern leatherside chub. Elk, black bear, griz-zly bear, Canada lynx, wolverine, gray wolf, pika, and marmots inhabit the high-elevation forest and snow-covered mountain slopes found in the watershed. The montane shrubland, sage grassland, and pastureland provide good habitat for greater sage-grouse, Colum-bian sharp-tailed grouse, bald eagle, mule deer, elk, pronghorn, rabbit, bobcat, black bear, and various hawks.Wetlands and riparian areas in the lower eleva-tions provide some of the most important resting, staging, feeding, breeding, and nesting areas for migratory birds in the Pacific and central flyways (Downard 2010). More than 46 percent of the white-faced ibis, 24 percent of the marbled godwits, and 18 percent of the black-necked stilts in North America use the wetland habitat found within the watershed. More than 270 different species are associated with the habitats supported by the Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Bear Lake National Wild-life Refuge, Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge, Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area, and adja-cent lands located within the Bear River watershed.
The Bear River watershed is essential to the sur-vival of the Bonneville cutthroat trout as well as millions of birds and other wildlife. Although it provides many functions both for wild-life and for people along its route, the river is heavily affected by land use along its course. Land use in the watershed affects wildlife habitat and the amount and quality of available water. Agricultural lands provide habitat for wildlife, but in some areas are rapidly being converted to residential developments. Some counties in the watershed are expected to double in population over the next 30 years (Utah Division of Water Resources 2004). Based on its job growth rate and low unemployment rate, Logan, Utah, in the Cache Valley, was deemed the best-performing small city in the United States in 2011 (DeVol et al. 2011). The collaborative efforts of conservation partners in the Bear River watershed will be crucial to preserv-ing this working landscape that is such an important resource for people and wildlife. The Bear River Watershed Conservation Area is located in southeast Idaho, southwest Wyoming, and northeastern Utah. The conservation area will contain parts of 12 counties: Bannock, Bear Lake, Caribou, Franklin, Oneida, and Power in Idaho; Box Elder, Cache, Rich, and Summit in Utah; and Lincoln and Uinta in Wyoming.
Issues Identified and Selected for Analysis
The Service’s planning team (refer to “Appendix C, List of Preparers and Reviewers”) conducted six public scoping meetings in Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming in May 2011. Public comments were taken in Cokeville and Evanston, Wyoming; Brigham City and Logan, Utah; and Preston and Montpelier, Idaho, to identify issues to be analyzed for the proposed action. Approximately 130 landowners, members of various organizations, and elected representatives attended the meetings. Addi-tionally, 10 letters providing comments were received by mail or email. A total of 327 comments and ques-tions were received on the project proposal.Refuge staff contacted tribal, Federal, State, and local officials, as well as conservation groups that expressed an interest in the future of the Bear River watershed. Not only were fact sheets describing the pro-posed project made available on the refuges’ Web sites, but approximately 675 fact sheets on the proposed proj-ect were distributed to interested members of the public.The main categories of comments and questions expressed at meetings or received by mail follow. 4 Land Protection Plan—Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming
Biological Issues
■■
Importance of wildlife and wildlife habitat in the watershed.
■■
Questions about the types of habitat and lands that would be included in the project.
■■
Ecosystem importance of the watershed (connec­tivity and habitat types represented).
■■
Importance of protecting water resources.
■■
Water quality and quantity issues in the watershed.
■■
Impacts of dams and diversions.
■■
Climate change impacts on the region.
■■
Development (residential, oil and gas, mineral, and recreational), which was perceived as the big­gest threat to the long-term health and stability of the Bear River landscape, culture, and wildlife resources.
■■
Perceived mismanagement of lands and inap­propriate stewardship (grazing and agricultural practices) in the watershed.
■■
Invasive species in the watershed.
■■
Fragmentation of habitat.
Socioeconomic Issues
■■
Funding sources and matching contributions.
■■
Tax implication of easements.
■■
Economic impacts of easements.
■■
Financial implications of easements.
■■
Quantity and location of land needed for the Bear River Watershed Conservation Area project.
■■
Agricultural values of the Bear River.
■■
Aesthetics (open space and scenery).
■■
Importance of recreational opportunities.
■■
Availability of recreational opportunities in the watershed.
■■
Economic importance of the watershed (agricul­ture and power generation).
Administrative and Enforcement Issues for Easements
■■
Potential easement restrictions and language.
■■
Responsibilities and limitations on management practices of an easement.
■■
Current and future land uses and encumbrances (oil and gas leases, mining, and rights-of-way).
■■
Perpetual nature of Service easements.
■■
Comments and questions about enforcement of easements.
■■
Importance of monitoring conservation easement parcels.
■■
Possibility of easements increasing wildlife depre­dation, especially by sandhill cranes.
■■
Comparable easement programs that are available with other agencies and organizations.
■■
Easement financial and funding implications.
■■
Service appraisal process.
■■
Easement valuation determination.
Other Issues
■■
Conservation partnerships and coordination.
■■
Organizations and other agencies that the Service would be working with.
■■
Interest expressed in selling a conservation ease­ment to the Service.
■■
Questions on timelines, public input opportunities, and availability of data and GIS information.
■■
Comments on the need for planning various water­shed uses and future development.
■■
General concern.
■■
General support.
■■
Interest in easements.Chapter 1—Introduction and Project Description 5
National Wildlife Refuge System and Authorities
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge Sys­tem (Refuge System) is “to preserve a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and, where proper, restoration of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.” The conservation area project will be monitored as part of the Ref­uge System in accordance with the Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 and other relevant leg­islation, Executive orders, regulations, and policies.
Conservation of more wildlife habitat in the Bear River region will also continue, consistent with the following policies and management plans:
■■
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918)
■■
Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (1934)
■■
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (1940)
■■
Fish and Wildlife Act (1956)
■■
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (1965)
■■
Endangered Species Act (1973)
■■
“North American Waterfowl Management Plan” (1994)
■■
“Migratory Non-game Birds of Management Con­cern in the U.S.” (2002)
Related Actions and Activities
Private landowners have worked with many orga­nizations including the Service’s Partners in Fish and Wildlife program, The Nature Conservancy, State agencies, and county weed districts, to complete con­servation easements and control invasive plants such as tamarisk, phragmites, Russian olive, carp, and quagga and zebra mussels.
Bridgerland Audubon Society has worked with The Nature Conservancy and PacifiCorp to establish conservation easements on 500 acres of key riparian land along the Bear River in Cache County.
Coordinated Resource Management commit­tees in Box Elder and Rich Counties consist of State and Federal agency staff, representatives from local government, nonprofit organizations, academic insti­tutions, private industry, and private individuals. Coordinated Resource Management works to pro­vide rich, healthy ecosystems; sustainable agriculture industry and wildlife populations; and diverse recre­ational opportunities and vibrant rural communities.
Sagebrush Steppe Regional Land Trust was founded in 2003. It has completed 15 projects in southeast Idaho that provide protection on 2,260 acres of natural and working lands to benefit Bonnev­ille cutthroat trout and other wildlife species.
The Nature Conservancy bought a 6,700-acre conservation easement to protect habitat for the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse and other wildlife spe­cies. The organization is developing a comprehensive plan to provide early detection and rapid response for the control of invasive weeds in Cache County. The Nature Conservancy has also been involved with mapping important wetland areas throughout the watershed.
Trout Unlimited has 12 projects underway in the watershed to reconnect essential spawning tribu­taries in each of the five major sections of the Bear River. Trout Unlimited and project partners find movement barriers and retrofit the structures with fish ladders and screens to allow upstream passage around dams and prevent downstream loss of fish in irrigation canals. Trout Unlimited also works to improve aquatic and riparian habitats in the recon­nected tributaries and in the main stem Bear River.
Utah Partners for Conservation and Develop­ment is a sponsor of the Utah Watershed Restoration Initiative, a partnership-driven effort to conserve, restore, and manage ecosystems in priority areas across the State to enhance Utah’s wildlife and biolog­ical diversity, water quality and yield for all uses, and opportunities for sustainable uses. In 2010, the water­shed restoration initiative was involved in 26 projects comprising 19,336 acres in the Northern Region, which includes the Bear River watershed (Utah Divi­sion of Wildlife Resources 2010).
Wyoming Stock Growers Agricultural Land Trust holds 62 conservation easements on more than 170,000 acres of ranchland throughout the State. By working with landowners to conserve working ranches, the crucial wildlife winter ranges and travel corridors that are commonly found in the most agri­culturally productive locations along valleys and waterways are also protected.
Wyoming Land Trust holds conservation ease­ments on 30,234 acres of working ranchland, wildlife habitats, and scenic areas in Wyoming.
U.S. Department of Agriculture
The Conservation Reserve Program is admin­istered by the Farm Service Agency and provides technical and financial help to eligible farmers and ranchers to address soil, water, and related natural resource concerns on their lands in an envi­ronmentally beneficial and cost-effective manner. The statewide acreage of Conservation Reserve 6 Land Protection Plan—Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming
Program–enrolled land is 668,643 acres in Idaho, 163,082 acres in Utah, and 226,044 acres in Wyoming (USDA Farm Service Agency 2007).
The Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program provides matching funds to help buy development rights to keep productive farm and ranchland in agri­cultural uses. The Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program works through existing programs. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) collaborates with State, tribal, or local governments and non­governmental organizations to acquire conservation easements or other interests in land from landowners. Currently, 3,450 acres in Idaho, 898 acres in Utah, and 101,336 acres in Wyoming are protected under this program (USDA NRCS 2010a).
The Environmental Quality Incentives Program is a voluntary program administered through the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) that provides financial and technical help to agricul­tural producers through contracts up to a maximum term of 10 years. These contracts provide financial assistance to help plan and carry out conservation practices that address natural resource concerns and for opportunities to improve soil, water, plant, ani­mal, air, and related resources on agricultural land and nonindustrial private forestland. This program also helps producers to meet Federal, State, tribal, and local environmental regulations.
The Grassland Reserve Program is a voluntary conservation program administered through the NRCS that emphasizes support for working grazing operations, enhancement of plant and animal biodi­versity, and protection of grassland under threat of conversion to other uses. Participants voluntarily limit future development and cropping uses of their land while keeping the right to conduct common graz­ing practices and operations related to the production of forage and seeding, subject to certain restrictions during nesting seasons of bird species that are in sig­nificant decline or are protected under Federal or State law. A grazing management plan is required for participants. There are 9,692 acres in Idaho, 29,336 in Utah, and 24,458 acres in Wyoming enrolled in the program.
The Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program is a voluntary program administered by the NRCS for conservation-minded landowners who want to develop and improve wildlife habitat on agricultural land, nonindustrial private forest land, and tribal lands.
The Wetlands Reserve Program was reautho­rized in the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Farm Bill) to provide a voluntary con­servation program for farmers and ranchers that promotes agricultural production and environmental quality as compatible national goals. This program offers financial and technical assistance to help eligi­ble participants install or implement structural and management practices on eligible agricultural land. In Idaho 892 acres, in Utah 22 acres, and in Wyoming 1,013 acres are enrolled in Wetlands Reserve Pro­gram easements (USDA NRCS 2010b).
Department of the Interior
The Partners for Fish and Wildlife program pro­vides funding and technical assistance for habitat restoration and enhancement, with a special emphasis placed on projects that simultaneously benefit agri­cultural production and wildlife habitat for Service trust species. Participation in the program is volun­tary, and the details of each project are outlined in individual landowner agreements. Past examples include fence and water developments that improve livestock grazing management, irrigation diversion upgrades that allow for traditional water withdrawal and fish passage in streams, and rehabilitation of irri­gation infrastructure to maintain and enhance created wetlands.
From the period of 2007-2012, the Partners for Fish and Wildlife program restored or enhanced 10 structures for fish passage, 293 wetland acres, 1,747 upland acres, and 14.9 river miles for the Idaho por­tion of Bear River watershed. In Utah, 9 structures for fish passage, 2,157 wetland acres, 21,432 upland acres, and 5 river miles were completed. During this period in Wyoming, 16 structures for fish passage, 816 wetland acres, and 15.4 river miles were restored or enhanced.
LCCs are public–private partnerships that recog­nize that conservation challenges transcend political and jurisdictional boundaries and require an approach that is holistic, collaborative, adaptive, and grounded in science to ensure the sustainability of America’s land, water, wildlife, and cultural resources.
As a collaborative, LCCs seek to identify best practices, connect efforts, find gaps, and avoid dupli­cation through improved conservation planning and design. Partner agencies and organizations coordinate with each other while working within their existing authorities and jurisdictions.
In carrying out conservation actions through the Bear River Watershed Conservation Area, the Ser­vice will work with the Great Northern, Great Basin, and Southern Rockies LCCs (described in chapter 4) and other partners to address current and future issues and opportunities related to landscape-scale conservation in a rapidly changing world.Chapter 1—Introduction and Project Description 7
Habitat Protection and Easement Acquisition Process
On approval of a project boundary, habitat protec­tion will occur through the purchase of conservation easements. It is the long-established policy of the Ser­vice to acquire minimum interest in land needed from willing sellers to achieve habitat acquisition goals.
The acquisition authority for the conservation area is the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 United States Code [U.S.C.] 742 a–742j). The Federal monies used to acquire conservation easements are received from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which is derived primarily from oil and gas leases on the Outer Continental Shelf, motorboat fuel tax revenues, and sale of surplus Federal property.
There could be more money to acquire lands, waters, or interest therein for fish and wildlife conser­vation purposes through congressional appropriations and donations from nonprofit organizations and other possible sources.
Conservation Easements
The Service will develop an objective review pro­cess for evaluating potential conservation easement areas submitted for consideration by willing sellers. The main considerations in acquiring an easement interest in private land are the biological significance of the area, the biological needs of wildlife species of management concern, existing and anticipated threats to wildlife resources, and landowner interest in the program. The purchase of conservation ease­ments will occur with willing sellers only and will be subject to available funding.
Service conservation easements will complement current conservation efforts by other agencies and organizations in the watershed (see figure 2 for land stewardship). Fee-title acquisition is not required for, nor is it preferable to, conservation easements to achieve wildlife habitat protection. Fee-title acqui­sition would triple or quadruple the cost of land acquisition, would add significant increases in man­agement costs, and would not be accepted by most landowners.
Keeping the working landscapes and agricultural heritage that have sustained the variety of wildlife species in the conservation area is key to ensuring long-term habitat integrity and protection of wild­life resources. Conservation easements are the only viable means of protecting wildlife values on a large scale.8 Land Protection Plan—Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming
Map showing Federal, State, and private landownership in the conservation area, with mostly land throughout Bureau of Land Management on eastern part area USDA Forest Service center area. Map showing Federal, State, and private landownership in the conservation area, with mostly land throughout Bureau of Land Management on eastern part area USDA Forest Service center area.Chapter 2—Area Description and
Resources
© Keith Penner
Yellow-headed Blackbird
Physical Environment
The physical environment comprises the geology,
soils, hydrology, and climate of the Bear River water-shed.
In addition, climate change is discussed.
Geology and Soils
The Bear River basin encompasses two physio-graphic
provinces: The Basin and Range Province and
the Middle Rocky Mountain Province of the Rocky
Mountain Section (Dion 1969). The Basin and Range
Province is noted for many north–south oriented,
fault-tilted mountain ranges separated by interven-ing
broad, sediment-filled basins. Approximately
the western one-third of the watershed lies within
the Basin and Range Province, which began forming
when the previously deformed Precambrian (over 570
million years old) and Paleozoic (570–240 million years
old) rocks were slowly uplifted and broken into huge
fault blocks by extensional stresses that still continue
to stretch the earth’s crust (Milligan 2000).
Sediments shed from the ranges are slowly filling
the intervening wide, flat basins. Many of the basins
have been further modified by shorelines and sed-iments
of lakes that intermittently cover the valley
floors. The most notable of these was Lake Bonn-eville,
which reached its deepest level about 15,000
years ago when it flooded basins across western Utah
(Milligan 2000).
The Middle Rocky Mountains Province, which
encompasses approximately the eastern two-thirds
of the basin, consists of mountainous terrain, stream
valleys, and alluvial basins. The Utah part of this
province has two major mountain ranges, the north–
south trending Wasatch and east–west trending
10 Land Protection Plan—Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming
Uinta Mountains. Both ranges have cores of old Pre­cambrian rocks, some more than 2.6 billion years old (Milligan 2000). This Precambrian bedrock became exposed during the Pleistocene by glacial activity that created smooth bowls that collect and funnel water down the Bear River (Denton 2007).
The Bear River Range, located in the central part of the Bear River watershed, is aligned north to south and divides the eastern Mesozoic and west­ern Cenozoic zones. From the Uinta Mountains in the eastern part of the watershed, the Bear River flows northward along the edge of a Mesozoic region, char­acterized by rock structures that have little ability to absorb water. The western part of the watershed is comprised primarily of Paleozoic rock in the moun­tains and Cenozoic rock in the valleys. The valleys here contain alluvial and glacial deposits that are absorptive and lend well to agricultural use (Haws and Hughes 1973). The Bear River range is an impor­tant catch basin for precipitation.
The watershed contains multiple mountain ranges including the Wasatch Front to the west, the Bear River Divide (Crawford) and Tunp Ranges to the east, and the Sublette Range to the north (see fig­ure 3). The convergence of mountain ranges at Rocky Point about 1 mile northeast of Cokeville creates a pinch-point for one of the regionally important migra­tion corridors in the watershed. The position and alignment of the various ranges across the watershed play a central role in precipitation, climatic, hydrolog­ical, and biological patterns.
Hydrology
The Bear River is the largest tributary to the Great Salt Lake, the remnant of ancient Lake Bonn­eville. Lake Bonneville was a closed inland sea basin the size of Lake Michigan that once dominated the landscape in Idaho, Nevada, and Utah. Approxi­mately 16,000 years ago, Lake Bonneville began spilling over into the Snake River drainage at Red Rock Pass, reducing the lake level by 375 feet. Over the following 8,000 years, Lake Bonneville contin­ued to shrink because of changing climatic conditions, eventually occupying only the present day Great Salt Lake (Utah Geological Survey).
The Bear River watershed is unusual in that it is entirely enclosed by mountains, forming one arm of the Great Salt Lake basin, which has no natural drainage outlets. Three States share drainage in the 7,500 square-mile watershed: 2,700 square miles in Idaho, 3,300 square miles in Utah, and 1,500 square miles in Wyoming. Progressions of small, high-moun­tain streams form the headwaters of the Bear River in Utah’s Uinta–Wasatch–Cache National Forest. The Uinta Mountains, a subrange of the Rocky Mountains, vary in elevation from 7,500 to 13,500 feet and are unusual in that they run in an east to west orien­tation. From the headwaters, the Bear River flows north and west in an arc from Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, and back into Utah. Near the city of Evanston, Wyo­ming, the topography flattens and land use becomes a mix of urban and agricultural uses. Here the river begins a dramatic transformation from fast-flow­ing, cold, and clear water in the narrow valleys to a slow-moving, cool-water, meandering course on the valley floor. Humans have altered the natural stream dynamics throughout the remaining course of the Bear River to its termination at the Great Salt Lake. Although agriculture accounts for only 7 percent of the land use in the upper watershed, it accounts for more than 80 percent of the water usage. Surface and ground water sources are used to irrigate more than 96,512 acres of hay, pasture, and cropland (Bear River Watershed Information System 2009).
Instream structures like the Chapman Canal Diversion and Woodruff Narrows Reservoir dis­rupt natural channel-forming flows and sediment transport, leading to streambed and bank instability downstream. After passing through Woodruff Nar­rows Reservoir, the valley broadens and the river travels along the Wyoming–Utah border and lends itself to irrigation and production agriculture for 30 miles before reentering Wyoming near Sage Junc­tion. Nutrient loading (especially phosphorus, which is found at naturally high levels in surrounding soil formations), sediment from accelerated bank erosion, and dewatering are leading causes of stream degra­dation. Sediment and nutrient levels remain as the main water quality concerns throughout the entire Bear River watershed, and those impacts contribute to water management challenges in the refuges (Utah Division of Water Resources 2002).
As the river flows north from Evanston, the ridge and swale topography of the floodplain is character­ized by a complex association of irrigated meadows, wetlands, and grass uplands that support one of the highest densities of migrating and nesting waterfowl in Wyoming. Centered along a 20-mile stretch of the Bear River and its associated wetlands and uplands, Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1992 to protect this important habitat.
After leaving Cokeville, the Bear River crosses into Idaho near the community of Border, where the flow is greatly increased by inflow from the Smith’s Fork River, which originates in the Bridger–Teton National Forest and has a relatively intact water­shed and native fish assemblages (Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2010).
As the Bear River passes into Idaho, Pacifi­Corp diverts water at Stewart Dam through Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and into Bear Lake proper (which straddles Idaho and Utah). Bear Lake Chapter 2—Area Description and Resources 11
Map showing the location of conservation area in southeastern Idaho, northeastern Utah, and western Wyoming. Map showing the location of conservation area in southeastern Idaho, northeastern Utah, and western Wyoming.12 Land Protection Plan—Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming
National Wildlife Refuge, near Montpelier, Idaho, was established in 1968 to protect and manage habitat for waterfowl and other migratory birds. Once released from Bear Lake proper, water travels from the Out­let Canal and the refuge’s Mud Lake unit back to the Bear River’s original channel about 7 miles from where the water is first diverted. Except for some water seepage from Stewart Dam, all Bear River water is diverted through the refuge; however, small creeks and irrigation return water enter into the orig­inal river channel so that the river is not completely dewatered between Stewart Dam and its reunion with the Outlet Canal.
From Bear Lake, the river travels 100 miles to the north, where it is impounded in the Alexander Res­ervoir for irrigation, recreation, and hydroelectric power generation. Below the Alexander Dam, about one-tenth of the river’s annual flow is sent through one of the oldest diversion canals in the watershed, the Last Chance Canal. The canal was constructed by settlers to provide irrigation for agriculture in the early 1900s. From there, the river continues south toward Grace, Idaho. Just above the Black Can­yon, almost all the river water is again diverted, at the Grace Dam, through an aqueduct to the Grace Power Plant for power production. The water then is returned to its original river channel just below Black Canyon at Cove Dam. As a part of its 2008 relicensing agreement for the Grace and Cove dams, PacifiCorp provides scheduled whitewater flow releases back into Black Canyon during spring and early summer months to help mimic natural flow patterns.
Below Black Canyon, the river continues south through the Gem, Gentile, and Cache Valleys, where the predominant land uses are irrigated agriculture, grazing, and dairy production. About 100,000 people live in the Cache Valley, making it the most populated area in the Bear River watershed. Just below the Idaho–Utah State line, the Bear River receives water from the Cub River, which in turn obtains part of its water from the Mount Naomi Wilderness. Below the Cub River, the amount of water in the Bear River doubles because of input from the Logan, Blacksmith Fork, and Little Bear River flows.
Eventually the Bear River passes into the Bear River delta and the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge and then terminates its horseshoe-shaped 500-mile route in Utah’s Great Salt Lake. Today, the Bear River contributes more than one-half of the total surface flow entering the Great Salt Lake each year. This large volume of freshwater from the river helps to maintain proper temperatures, salinity, and water levels in the lake. The saline waters and freshwater marshes of the Great Salt Lake constitute one of the most important breeding and migratory staging sites for colonial waterbirds, waterfowl, and shorebirds in the Great Basin.
Climate
The climate of most of the Bear River Water­shed Conservation Area is characterized as having warm to hot summers and cold winters and is clas­sified as humid continental, mild summer under the Koppen climate classification system. The remainder of the watershed near the Great Salt Lake is classi­fied as semiarid desert–steppe or humid continental, hot summer for the Great Basin and Wasatch Front, respectively.
Annual precipitation is influenced greatly by the topography and elevations found within the water­shed, which range from 4,200 to 13,000 feet. Annual precipitation ranges from 10 inches in the lower val­leys to 65 inches at the headwaters of the Bear River in the Uinta Mountains (Utah Division of Water Resources 2005b). Two major storm patterns influ­ence precipitation in the basin: (1) frontal systems from the Pacific Northwest during winter and spring; and (2) thunderstorms from the south and southwest in late summer and early fall.
Temperatures are also variable throughout the watershed because of differences in elevation. Mean annual temperatures range from 37 °F in the Uinta Mountains at about 8,400 feet elevation to 53 °F at Tremonton at 4,300 feet. Maximum July temperatures average 91 °F at Tremonton compared to 74 °F in the Uinta Mountains.
Climate Change
The Bear River basin has warmed an average 2 °F since 1971 (Utah Climate Center). The trend of 0.5 °F per decade during the last 40 years is 1.5 times greater than the trend for the global average over the same period. Simulation models predict that, by 2040 to 2060, the Bear River basin’s climate could be 5–6 °F warmer with a 5–13 percent decrease in annual runoff, 10–15 percent lower peak accumula­tion of snowpack, earlier spring melt by 2–4 weeks, and an increasing fraction of winter precipitation coming as rain (Degiorgio et al. 2010) (see figure 4). Climate change models in the arid western regions of North America also suggest an increased frequency of extended drought in the future (Hughes and Diaz 2008, Barnett et al. 2008, Degiorgio et al. 2010). These changes have important implications for waterbird populations, and ecosystem stability within the Bear River basin wetlands.
Maclean et al. (2008) found that waterbird abun­dance and phenology are sensitive to the effects of climate change. Chapter 2—Area Description and Resources 13
Graph showing an upward trend in temperature over the last 40 years.Graph showing an upward trend in temperature over the last 40 years.
Waterbirds dependent on inland wetlands in the west are at particular risk because these crucial hab­itats are among the most likely to be dramatically influenced by climate change in the region (Hughes and Diaz 2008, Barnett et al. 2008). For example, breeding waterbirds at the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge rely on wetlands that lie at the interface between freshwater inflows and the saline Great Salt Lake. As the timing and amount of freshwater snow­melt change and humans respond by altering their use of water, the hydrology and salinity regimes of these wetlands may be dramatically influenced. With­out actions that anticipate and address these likely changes, the value of this area for breeding water­birds could be disrupted, which would likely influence the continental populations of some species.
The “U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Strategic Plan for Responding to Accelerating Climate Change” (2010) involves three progressive strategies: Adap­tation, Mitigation, and Engagement. Adaptation involves helping fish, wildlife, and their habitats adapt to climate change by implementing manage­ment actions to help reduce the impacts. Mitigation involves reducing the carbon footprint by using less energy, consuming fewer materials, and increas­ing sequestration of biological carbon. Engagement encompasses developing partnerships with local, national, and international partners, key constit­uencies, and stakeholders to seek solutions to the challenges and threats to fish and wildlife conserva­tion. The Bear River Watershed Conservation Area will have aspects that address all three of these strategies.
Adaptation
Worldwide scientific consensus is that human activity is changing the climate system. As the cli­mate changes, the abundance and distribution of wildlife and fish will also change in response to changing habitat conditions. Some species will adapt successfully to a warming world; many will struggle; and others will disappear.
The exact changes to temperature and precipita­tion in the Bear River basin are unknown. Equally 14 Land Protection Plan—Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming
unknown are the responses of wildlife and habitat to these changes, for example, which species will become the most vulnerable. Keeping adequate densities of wetlands, robust riparian corridors, and open spaces will become increasingly important to allow fish and wildlife to adapt to the changing environment.
Mitigation
Forests, grasslands, wetlands, and soils have a large influence on atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide. Carbon sequestration forms one of the key elements of mitigation. The World Resources Institute esti­mates that grasslands store approximately 34 percent, forests store approximately 39 percent, and agro-eco­systems approximately 17 percent of the global stock of carbon in terrestrial ecosystems. It is as important to protect existing carbon stores from further degrada­tion as it is to sequester atmospheric carbon.
Historically, the destruction of wetlands through land use changes has had the largest effects on carbon fluxes and the resulting radiative forcing of North American wetlands. [Radiative forcing is the measure of the amount that the Earth’s energy budget is out of balance.] The primary effects have been a reduction in the ability of the wetlands to sequester carbon (a small to moderate increase in radiative forcing), oxi­dation of their soil carbon reserves upon drainage (a small increase in radiative forcing), and reduction in methane emissions (a small to large decrease in radi­ative forcing). It is uncertain how global changes will affect the carbon pools and fluxes of North American wetlands (Bridgham et al. 2006).
Engagement
Engagement involves cooperation, communica­tion, and partnerships to address the conservation challenges presented by climate change (USFWS 2009). The conservation area will serve as a model for engagement by working with landowners, nongov­ernmental organizations, State agencies, and Federal agencies.
A key recommendation from a recent climate change workshop held by The Nature Conservancy was to coordinate management of shared resources. Given the regional pattern of recent temperature changes, with some areas experiencing warming more rapidly than others, natural resource managers will benefit by coordinating their activities with oth­ers who are managing common resources. Regional and coordinated management of shared habitat may be the only way to make sure that some habitat can be kept in a resilient state while other habitat transi­tions to another state (Roble 2011).
Taking action on these recommendations will be crucial for achieving conservation and management goals in the face of a changing climate. Reduced snow­pack in the mountains combined with earlier seasonal melting caused by rising temperatures may increase the intensity and length of late summer droughts and reduce the availability of water, especially in the western United States. Finding enough water is becoming an increasingly difficult challenge for west­ern fish and wildlife species. Spring is arriving earlier, and plants and animals are being found farther and farther north of their historical ranges in the U.S. Wildlife biologists are concerned that this will mean some migratory species may not arrive in their breed­ing habitats when, or where, their particular food sources are available.
Education is a key part of engagement. The Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge watershed education program will work with local school districts to apply scientific understanding, at a student level, through field trips to sites within the Bear River watershed. Students groups will monitor local climate change through tracking phenological events and engage in strategies to reduce carbon footprints. It is predicted that student engagement in climate change education will result in advancing its understanding among the citizenry within the watershed.
Biological Environment
The Bear River watershed’s habitat ranges from river and the adjacent riparian areas to wetland, grassland, shrubland, and forest. This section also describes the wildlife and species of concern that use these habitats.
Habitat
Below the peaks of the Uinta Mountains lies a landscape carved by glaciers containing lakes, streams, forests, and meadows. Dropping in ele­vation from more than 13,000 feet to 4,211 feet and crossing through many life zones (alpine to valley floor), the Bear River area contains a large diversity of plant communities. The diver­sity of habitats in the Bear River watershed support a variety of fish, mammal, reptile, and amphibian species as well as a large number of res­ident and migratory bird species. See figure 5
for a map of habitat types, table 1 for acreages of vegetation types, and appendix D for a list of plant and animal species representative of the Bear River watershed.Chapter 2—Area Description and Resources 15
Map of the conservation area showing 18 habitat types. Map of the conservation area showing 18 habitat types. Map of the conservation area showing 18 habitat types. Map of the conservation area showing 18 habitat types. Map of the conservation area showing 18 habitat types. Map of the conservation area showing 18 habitat types.16 Land Protection Plan—Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming
Table 1. Acreages of vegetation types found in the Bear River project area in Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming.
Vegetation types
Acres
Agriculture: cultivated cropland
594,358
Agriculture: pasture and hay
133,482
Developed
83,343
Forest and woodland
1,250,529
Grassland
128,848
Introduced riparian area and wetland
vegetation
8,821
Introduced upland vegetation—annual grassland
44,840
Introduced upland vegetation—perennial grassland and forbs
19,171
Marsh
69,430
Mining
197
Open water
119,497
Riparian area
261,407
Sagebrush steppe and shrubland
1,945,752
Shrubland and steppe
18,565
Sparse and barren
44,912
Wet meadow or prairie
12,803
Wetland
27,577
Wetland–playa
59,350
Total
4,822,882
Source: http://gap.uidaho.edu/index.php/gap-home/Northwest
-GAP/landcover; http://fws-nmcfwru.nmsu.edu/swregap
/habitatreview/ModelQuery.asp; Northwest GAP (Idaho Coop­erative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit 2011); Southwest ReGAP (U.S. Geological Survey 2005)
Connectivity and Corridors
Habitat loss and fragmentation are the chief fac­tors in the decline of many populations of wildlife throughout the world (Harris 1984, Ehrlich 1986, Lovejoy et al. 1986). In the western United States, human development of open spaces has fragmented the connections between wildlife habitats (Gude et al. 2007). Corridors that link habitats or other land­scape linkages help mitigate the effects of habitat fragmentation by linking core areas so that indi­viduals can move between them (Mech and Hallett 2001). They also allow evolutionary and ecological processes (for example, fire, succession, predation) to continue. By ensuring that plants and animals have connected populations, corridors can help prevent or mitigate against harmful population-level effects resulting from isolation including inbreeding, low genetic diversity, and extirpation (Noss 1983, Harris 1984, Dobson et al. 1999) and may actually increase population sizes, viability, and movement of habi­tat-restricted species (Noss and Cooperrider 1994, Haddad 1999, Haddad and Baum 1999). Landscape linkages should also help to provide for longer term gene flow between populations in core habitats and linkage areas and may provide a pathway for plants populations to shift under regional climate change trends (Bates and Jones 2007).
Almost all species rely on more than one habitat type to complete their life cycles, and the availability of various intact habitats close together is essential to many wildlife species found in the watershed. For example, Saalfeld et al. (2010) found that, while the long-billed curlew’s need for wetlands near its grass­land nesting habitat is poorly understood, it is clearly important since more curlews were detected near wetlands. Brood-rearing long-billed curlews typi­cally forage in upland areas (Pampush and Anthony 1993); however, curlew chicks move toward wet­lands as they grow (Foster-Willfong 2003). Shorter travel times between nest sites and wetland foraging sites reduce chick mortality (Saalfeld et al. 2010). In addition to grassland habitat, conservation of emer­gent wetlands—an element that generally has been overlooked—needs to be incorporated into habitat management plans for curlews (Saalfeld et al. 2010).
White-faced ibis also have specific habitat needs that are now being met in the Bear River watershed. In Wyoming, Dark-Smiley and Keinath (2003) found that ibis require large wetlands or lakes with dense emergent vegetation, such as bulrushes for breed­ing and foraging grounds near breeding areas. One consistent feature that all the breeding records in Wyoming have in common is proximity to irrigated crops. It seems likely that a combination of factors, such as proximity of foraging grounds and specialized habitat at open-water systems, plays a role in where white-faced ibis choose to breed.
The Bear River watershed provides linkages and migration corridors for seasonal movements of wild­life between various habitats within the watershed as well as between other protected lands and eco­systems in the region (see figure 6). Crucial wildlife corridors maintain system resiliency in the face of climate change, especially for wide-ranging wildlife Chapter 2—Area Description and Resources 17
Map showing Federal, State, and private conservation areas in the Bear River watershed.Map showing Federal, State, and private conservation areas in the Bear River watershed.Map showing Federal, State, and private conservation areas in the Bear River watershed.18 Land Protection Plan—Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming
species such as Canada lynx, wolverine, mule deer, and pronghorn. Migration corridors provide connectivity between habitats in the northern and southern Rock-ies and between Idaho and the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem for mule deer, elk, and mid- to large-sized carnivores. In particular, Canada lynx linkages are mentioned for Cache, Rich, and Uinta Counties (Idaho Department of Fish and Game 2007). Core habitat areas for lynx are found in the Uinta Mountains (USDA For-est Service 2003) as well. Large numbers of mule deer, pronghorn, elk, and moose migrate through narrow corridors in the Rocky Point area north of Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge in Wyoming.
Photo of still water flowing through an area with large rocks.
credit and caption: Photo of still water flowing through an area with large rocks.
credit and caption: Photo of still water flowing through an area with large rocks.
credit and caption:
Riverine and Riparian Areas
Although riparian areas occupy only a small pro-portion of the total landscape in the western United States, they tend to be more productive than other eco-systems (Svejcar 1997). Riparian habitat is estimated to cover less than 2 percent of the States of Idaho (Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit 2011) and Wyoming (Merrill et al. 1996) and less than 1 percent
of the State of Utah (Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 2005b).
The importance of riparian habitat to wild­life far exceeds its abundance. Distinct ribbons of green riparian areas connect streams with uplands across much of the West. These ecosystems sup­port high species diversity and density as well as high productivity, and they allow for an exchange of energy, nutrients, and species between aquatic, riparian, and upland terrestrial systems (Johnson and McCormack 1978, Gregory et al. 1991, Poff et al. 2011). Riparian zones along the major streams are important migration and dispersal corridors traversing harsh grassland and desert environ­ments (Lohman 2004).
Densities of breeding birds can be up to 10 times higher in riparian tracts than in adjacent, nonri­parian habitats (Lohman 2004). Bird diversity in riparian habitats has been linked to the complex vertical vegetative structure of these habitats compared to adjacent grassland or shrubland hab­itats (Slater 2006). In the arid Southwest, about 60 percent of all vertebrate species (Omhart and Chapter 2—Area Description and Resources 19
USFWSRiparian areas are important habitat for yellow warblers.
Anderson 1982) and 70 percent of all threatened and endangered species are riparian area obligates (John­son 1989, Poff et al. 2011). The quality of riparian habitat greatly influences the quality of aquatic hab­itat. Riparian vegetation influences light penetration and air and water temperatures, and is the transition point for food chain interactions between aquatic and terrestrial zones. Large woody debris and litter asso­ciated with riparian vegetation are often necessary for productive fish habitats, and influence the phys­ical, chemical, and biotic characteristics of riparian and stream ecosystems (Naiman et al. 1992). In some riparian ecosystems, herbaceous plants provide the functions supplied by woody plants in other locations (Baker et al. 2004, Poff et al. 2011).
Riparian areas also play an essential role in main­taining year-round aquatic habitat for fish and other species that occupy the stream channel. In most years, overbank flooding during snowmelt saturates ripar­ian area soils and elevates water tables in adjacent areas. Subsurface water sustains riparian vegetation during drought periods and releases water slowly into the stream (Ewing 1978). Although often small, these waterflows help keep appropriate stream tem­peratures, improve water quality, and sustain isolated pools essential for fish survival (Winters et al. 1998 as cited in “Wyoming State Wildlife Action Plan” 2010). Native fish populations have fluctuated, through time, in response to changes in the extent and function of riparian willow communities (Chaney et al. 1991, Binns 1981). Riffle-dwelling species such as longnose dace and riffle-spawning salmonids require relatively smaller fine sediment levels associated with healthy riparian vegetation. Riparian habitat is also required by many amphibian and reptile species.
Trout Unlimited (2010) found that the greatest limiting factor for Bonneville cutthroat trout appears to be land stewardship, because most populations are located on unprotected public and private lands. Strategies such as securing long-term protection, restoring and reconnecting degraded and fragmented habitats, and controlling nonnative species on a watershed scale are necessary to build resiliency while protecting genetic purity.
Wildlife abundance, water availability, vegetation diversity, soil productivity, and favorable topography found in riparian zones attracted both Native Amer­icans and early Europeans settlers to these areas. As a result, a high percentage of riparian areas are today privately owned. Most communities in the Bear River watershed are located near riparian zones used for agriculture, recreation, travel, water development, and housing (Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2010).
Riparian areas in the West are being influenced by a variety of stressors including land use change, grazing, dams, invasive species, timber harvest­ing, climate change, recreation, water quality, water diversion, ground-water depletion, fire, and mining. Although no comprehensive national inventory of riparian area conditions exists, Ohmart (1994) sug­gests that a minimum of 95 percent of all western riparian habitats have been altered in some way dur­ing the past century.
Another major influence on riparian areas in the Bear River watershed is irrigation. The timing, extent, and method of irrigation can have a strong influence on riparian vegetation. Conversion from flood irrigation to center pivot irrigation has been known to change riparian area characteristics. While technological changes like side-role systems and gated pipe deliver water more efficiently to crops and potentially conserve water for other uses like main­taining streamflows, the influence on riparian area characteristics is complex (Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2010).
Lowland Riparian Areas. Lowland riparian areas in the West are typically narrow bands of trees—pre­dominantly cottonwoods—and shrubs surrounded by uplands of shorter vegetation (Knopf et al. 1988, Montgomery 1996). Principal woody species found in lowland riparian habitats in the watershed include Fremont cottonwood, netleaf hackberry, squaw-bush, boxelder, lanceleaf cottonwood, willow, and redosier dogwood. Nonnative invasive species include Rus­sian olive and tamarisk. (Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, 2005, Wyoming Game and Fish Depart­ment, 2005).
Mountain Riparian Areas. Mountain riparian habitats differ from those found in lowlands because of the generally steeper stream gradients, cooler temperatures, and smaller amounts of soil deposition (Knight 1994). Mountain riparian vegetation is often characterized by sedges and short willow shrubland (Winward 2000). As elevation decreases, alder and tall willows become common, with Engelmann spruce, 20 Land Protection Plan—Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming
species. The Bear River watershed provides impor­tant complexes of wet meadow, flooded pastures, and hayfields used by many species of migrating water­fowl, shorebirds, and waterbirds including American avocet, sandhill crane, white-faced ibis, American bittern, marbled godwit, long-billed dowitcher, and northern pintail. The quality and availability of spring migration habitat have direct implications for the sur­vival and breeding productivity of migratory birds. This shallowly flooded habitat is extremely important to spring-migrating waterfowl, especially northern pintails, whose population remains below continental management goals. Important flood-irrigated grazed and hayed wet meadow habitats sustain migrat­ing waterfowl and waterbirds in the Intermountain West. These areas also provide crucial brood habitat for waterfowl and other waterbirds by supplying both escape cover from predators and productive foraging sites for rapidly growing ducklings and chicks.
As with riparian areas, the irrigation of agricul­tural lands can have both a positive and a negative influence on the ecological condition of wetlands. Agricultural irrigation has affected the hydrology of many wetlands in the Bear River watershed. Cope­land et al. (2010) found that more than 50 percent of Wyoming wetland areas in four different complexes were influenced by agricultural irrigation and pre­dicted that changes in irrigation practices driven by the need for water conservation would be likely to adversely affect the hydrology of many lower eleva­tion wetlands. As agricultural producers convert to alternative forms of irrigation because of drought concerns, many wetlands throughout the water­shed may disappear. Some studies have documented negative effects from irrigation, mainly involving
USFWSThe long-billed curlew depends on wetland and upland habitats.
narrowleaf cottonwood, lodgepole pine, aspen, and occasionally blue spruce and balsam poplar (Knight 1994).
Wetlands
Wetlands represent a small part of the landscape in the Intermountain West, covering less than 0.2 percent of Utah and 2 percent or less in both Idaho and Wyoming (Idaho Gap Analysis, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Wyoming Joint Venture Steer­ing Committee 2010). Wetlands are often found in the form of marshes next to desert springs, riv­ers, streams, and lakes, but can also be found in the spring and summer where snowmelt collects. In the Intermountain West, wetlands provide habitat for more than 140 birds and 25 mammals that are either dependent on or associated with wetlands (Gammon­ley 2004, Copeland et al. 2010). Nicholoff et al. (2003) estimates that about 90 percent of the wildlife species in Wyoming use wetlands and riparian habitats daily or seasonally during their life cycle, and about 70 per­cent of Wyoming bird species depend on wetland or riparian areas.
Wetlands within lower elevation grasslands and shrublands are especially important in terms of the biodiversity of plant species and because they have much longer growing seasons than those at higher elevations (Weiher and Keddy 1999). Lower eleva­tion wetlands generally sustain greater biological diversity and greater overall densities of wildlife. However, these lower wetland complexes are also at greatest risk of future change because they support higher density human populations and more agricul­ture, have a higher potential for energy development, and are at a higher risk for climate change (Copeland et al. 2007, 2009).
Privately owned wet meadow habitats are some of the most important unprotected wetlands within the Intermountain West. Irrigated wet meadows that are hayed and grazed annually (hay meadows) represent a particularly important subset of wetland habitats. These privately owned wetlands typically occur at mid- to high elevations (4,500–8,500 feet) in land­scapes dominated by intact wetland, grassland, and sagebrush habitats not fragmented by development. These areas are important, as they often constitute almost entirely native habitats with little area con­verted to cropland. Grass-dominated landscapes with minimal fragmentation from cropland support high nest success for wetland- and grassland-nesting birds.
In addition to nesting habitat, these landscapes provide crucial stopover habitat for migrating water­fowl and shorebirds (Intermountain West Joint Venture 2010). Agricultural areas are a major source of foraging habitat during migration as well as nest­ing and brood-rearing habitat for many waterbird Chapter 2—Area Description and Resources 21
the conversion of existing wetlands to cropland and impairment from contaminant and nutrient runoff (Dickerson et al. 1996; Lemly et al. 1993, 2000; Kie­secker 2002).
Livestock grazing can also have a major influence on the functional integrity of wetlands and riparian systems throughout the Intermountain West (U.S. General Accounting Office 1988; Chaney et al. 1990, 1993; Belsky et al. 1999; Copeland et al. 2010). If effec­tive land conservation measures are not employed, certain farming practices may adversely affect wet­lands. Sediment runoff from tilled fields and heavily grazed pastures decreases the lifespan of ponds and wetlands and impairs water quality.
Upland, Grassland, and Shrubland
From 1950 to 1990, grasslands west of the Mis­sissippi River declined by 27.2 million acres, with approximately 36 percent converted to uses other than cropland (Conner et al. 2001). Now, the greatest threats to grasslands and sagebrush ecosystems come from oil and gas development, increasing urban and agricultural development, and invasive species. Cli­mate change is also expected to cause major changes in grassland and sagebrush distribution across the landscape (Bachelet et al. 2001). Range expansions of woody species are predicted to continue, particularly the expansion of pinyon–juniper into sagebrush–steppe and grasslands (Rowland et al. 2006), resulting in a decrease in sagebrush and an increase in wood­lands across the West. Wildfires are increasing and are likely to intensify in a warmer future with drier soils, longer growing seasons, and more severe droughts (Field et al. 2007); wildfires may also cause large changes in grassland and sagebrush ecosystems.
Changes in grassland cover can be subtle, but cover is generally predicted to decrease (Bachelet et al. 2001). Modeling suggests that climate change will likely increase net primary production in grasslands and decrease soil carbon, but high annual variability in plant production makes these projections uncer­tain (Parton et al. 2005). Nutrient cycling and plant production are expected to occur more rapidly in response to climate change than changes in commu­nity composition (Parton et al. 1994).
Sagebrush is typically the most common plant in shrub–steppe habitats in the watershed. There are many species of sagebrush in the Bear River water­shed including basin, Wyoming, and mountain big sagebrush, and black or low sagebrush, which dif­fer in height and habitat affinity. Other common shrubs include rabbitbrush, greasewood, fourwing saltbush, shadscale, serviceberry, and bitterbrush. Perennial grasses may also be common and include Indian ricegrass, sand dropseed, bluebunch wheat­grass, Sandberg bluegrass, alkali sacaton, wild rye, and inland saltgrass. Common forbs include Hood’s phlox, arrowleaf balsamroot, yarrow, Richardson’s geranium, and milkvetch (Idaho Department of Fish and Game 2005, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 2005b).
In the foothills and on mountain slopes, mountain big sagebrush occurs as a dominant shrub, typically with bluebunch wheatgrass or Idaho fescue. Moun­tain big sagebrush also occurs in a more diverse shrub community known as mountain shrub, in which it codominates with bitterbrush, serviceberry, mountain snowberry, chokecherry, mountain mahogany, big­tooth maple, and a variety of forbs. In Utah, Gambel oak is a dominant species in the mountain shrub com­munity. Idaho fescue and basin wildrye are common bunchgrasses (Idaho Department of Fish and Game 2005, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 2005b). In Idaho, this habitat is restricted to the southern part of the State but is widespread in Wyoming. This diverse community of shrubs is highly palatable and is the preferred browse for many big game species (Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2010).
Sagebrush ecosystems are among the most imper­iled in North America because of a variety of human disturbances. Sagebrush habitat has been altered and fragmented by changing fire regimes, an influx of invasive species, and development (agriculture, energy, natural resource, urban, and associated infra­structure). This has resulted in a decline in both the numbers and the distribution of many of the more than 350 species that depend on sagebrush habitat for all or part of their life cycles (Wisdom et al. 2005). In particular, such habitat shifts have major implica­tions for sagebrush-dependent vertebrates, such as certain bird species (Knick et al. 2003). In all, shrub–steppe habitats are home to 20 species in Utah, 15 species in Wyoming, and at least 25 species Idaho that need added conservation actions (Idaho Department of Fish and Game 2005, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 2005b, Wyoming Game and Fish Depart­ment 2005).
Sagebrush-dependent wildlife species have adapted to heterogeneous sagebrush communities comprised of multiple age classes of plants across the landscape. In sites where the forb and grass diver­sity necessary for a healthy sagebrush community is reduced, the amount of essential food and cover avail­able for wildlife is decreased (Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2011). Greater sage-grouse in par­ticular have been affected, with breeding populations declining 45 to 80 percent from estimated numbers in the 1950s (Connelly and Braun 1997, Connelly et al. 2004, Braun 2006).
Sagebrush ecosystems are rapidly declining both in extent and quality rangewide. The historical range contraction of the greater sage-grouse is a result of land conversion of sagebrush habitats to agriculture, 22 Land Protection Plan—Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming
Photo of a flat field covered with hundreds large-bodied black birds long legs, necks, and beaks.
credit caption: Photo of a flat field covered with hundreds large-bodied black birds long legs, necks, and beaks.
credit caption:
climatic trends, and human population growth. Future range loss, however, may be due more to recent changes in land use and habitat condition including energy development and invasive species, such as cheatgrass and West Nile virus (Aldridge et al. 2008). Keeping large areas of intact sagebrush is considered essential to the long-term persistence of the sage-grouse (Aldridge et al. 2008). Based on this finding, it has been recommended that conservation efforts should begin by maintaining large expanses of sagebrush habitat and enhancing the quality and con­nectivity of those areas.
Recent research shows that viable prairie grouse and sage-grouse populations are heavily dependent on suitable nesting and brood-rearing habitat (Con­nelly et al. 2000, Hagen et al. 2009). These habitats are usually associated with leks that are located in the approximate centers of nesting and brood-rear­ing habitats (Connelly et al. 2000, but see Connelly et al. 1988; Becker et al. 2009). Quality nesting and brood-rearing habitats surrounding leks are crucial to sustaining viable prairie grouse and sage-grouse populations (Giesen and Connelly 1993, Hagen et al. 2004, Connelly et al. 2000). The average distances from nests to active leks of nonmigratory sage-grouse range from 0.7 mile to 4 miles (Connelly et al. 2000), and are possibly much more for migratory popula­tions (Connelly et al. 1988). Kaczor et al. (2011) found that sage-grouse selected brood-rearing habitats that provided increased visual obstruction and bluegrass cover. More herbaceous vegetation at these sites may provide increased invertebrate abundance. Inverte­brates are a necessary part of the diet of sage-grouse chicks to support their growth, development, and sur­vival (Johnson and Boyce 1990).
Sage-grouse avoid energy developments in oth­erwise suitable habitats in winter. Previous research has shown that breeding sage-grouse in oil and gas fields avoid developments, experience higher rates of mortality, or both (Holloran 2005, Kaiser 2006, Aldridge and Boyce 2007).
Studies on the impacts of energy development in sagebrush–steppe ecosystems show that the effects extend beyond the sage-grouse. Sawyer et al. (2006) found that mule deer avoided otherwise suitable hab­itats within 1.7–2.3 miles (2.7–3.7 kilometers) of gas wells, and densities of Brewer’s sparrow and sage sparrow declined by 36–57 percent within 328 feet (100 meters) of dirt roads in gas fields (Ingelfinger and Anderson 2004).
Sagebrush habitats conserved for sage-grouse may also benefit other sagebrush-dependent spe­cies, although the effectiveness of sage-grouse as an umbrella species will depend on the specific manage­ment objectives for the conservation of other target species (Rowland et al. 2006).
Forest
At higher elevations in the watershed, forests typ­ically consist of spruce, lodgepole pine, and subalpine fir, with areas of high-elevation tundra on north-fac­ing slopes. Moving down slope and the corresponding precipitation gradient, subalpine forests give way to dry forests of Douglas-fir, white fir, lodgepole pine, limber pine, and aspen groves, with bigtooth maple and boxelder in ravines.
Although the forested areas are largely on public lands, habitat loss through conversion to residential development is of local importance in some areas of Chapter 2—Area Description and Resources 23
the watershed. Phosphate mining also has had a sig­nificant long-term impact on forest habitats in eastern Idaho. This habitat typically occurs in landscapes that are extensively used for recreation, for livestock grazing, and increasingly for residential development.
Mark Hogan / USFWSAn aspen grove in bright fall colors.
Wildlife
This section describes the abundant variety of birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and fish that live in the Bear River watershed.
Birds
The Bear River watershed provides diverse hab­itats used by more than 300 species of birds annually for breeding or migration. Banding data also show that migratory routes for some species that nest in the Pacific and central flyways overlap in the Bear River watershed (for example, northern pintail). The Intermountain West Joint Venture’s diverse part­nership for avian habitat conservation has identified eight Bird Habitat Conservation Areas (Intermoun­tain West Joint Venture 2005), and the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge is designated as a West­ern Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network Site. The National Wildlife Refuge Association has desig­nated the Bear River watershed as one of six Beyond the Boundaries focal areas nationwide because of its importance to migratory birds and other wildlife. The National Audubon Society (2012) has designated eight Important Bird Areas within the Bear River watershed, which serves to highlight the regional and continental significance of this watershed for migratory birds. Many of the transient species are neotropical migrants that breed in the United States and Canada and winter in the Central Highlands of Mexico or further south into Central and South America. Other spring migrants to the watershed winter along the Gulf of Mexico and the coasts of southern California, Baja Norte, Baja Sur, and south­western Mexico, including the Gulf of California.
Upland areas within the Bear River watershed provide essential habitat for many bird species. Shrub–steppe and grassland habitats make up about 60 percent of the Bear River watershed land cover, supporting species such as greater sage-grouse, sage sparrow, sage thrasher, Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, burrowing owl, and long-billed curlew. All of these bird species have been listed as “Species of Greatest Conservation Need” in the Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming comprehensive wildlife conservation strategies because of changes in habitat quantity and quality (Idaho Department of Fish and Game 2005, Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2005, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 2005b). The greater sage-grouse is the only species listed above that has Federal status. The species became a can­didate for listing under the Federal Endangered Species Act after the Service’s conclusion that list­ing was warranted but precluded (USFWS 2010a). The Columbian sharp-tailed grouse was petitioned for listing in 2004, with a finding of “Not Warranted for Listing” issued in 2006 (USFWS 2006).
Studies referenced in the “U.S. Fish and Wild­life Land-Based Wind Guidelines” (2012) found that “based primarily on data documenting reduced fecun­dity (a combination of nesting, clutch size, nest success, juvenile survival, and other factors) in sage-grouse populations near roads, transmissions lines, and areas of oil and gas development and production (Holloran 2005, Connelly et al. 2000), development within 3–5 miles (or more) of active sage-grouse leks may have significant adverse effects on the affected grouse pop­ulation.” Lyon and Anderson (2003) found that in habitats fragmented by natural gas development, only 26 percent of hens captured on disturbed leks nested within 1.8 miles of the lek of capture, whereas 91 per­cent of hens from undisturbed areas nested within the same area. Holloran (2005) found that active drilling within 3.1 miles of sage-grouse leks reduced the num­ber of breeding males by displacing adult males and reducing recruitment of juvenile males. The magni­tudes and proximal causes (for example, noise, height of structures, movement, human activity) of those impacts on grouse populations are areas of much needed research (Becker et al. 2009).
Hanser and Knick (2011) found that the diversity of sagebrush habitats used by greater sage-grouse may provide an effective umbrella for a broader com­munity of passerine bird species associated with sagebrush that are also declining in numbers. Brew­er’s sparrow, sage sparrow, and sage thrasher had moderate to strong associations with sage-grouse.24 Land Protection Plan—Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming
The three national wildlife refuges—Bear Lake (with the Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area), Bear River, and Cokeville— in the watershed pro­vide habitat for waterfowl, wading birds, shorebirds, and landbirds that migrate through these refuges on their way to and from Canadian and Alaskan interior and coastal wetlands. More than 270 different species have been identified using the habitats associated with the three refuges including the following birds:
■■
white-faced ibis (46 percent of the North Ameri­can population)
■■
marbled godwit (more than 24 percent of the North American population)
■■
black-necked stilt (more than 18 percent of the North American population)
■■
American avocet (more than 16 percent of the North American population)
■■
tundra swan (32 percent of the western population)
Fish populations on the refuges provide food for birds like the American white pelican, egrets, herons, and the bald eagle. The Bear River Refuge is likely the most important foraging location for the Great Salt Lake breeding colony of American white pelican (Frank Howe, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, personal communication 2000).Other noteworthy species using wetland habi-tats found throughout the watershed include sandhill crane, redhead, Wilson’s phalarope, trumpeter swan, black-crowned night-heron, cinnamon teal, blue-winged teal, northern pintail, American white pelican, rough-legged hawk, burrowing owl, and short-eared owl.
USFWSCinnamon teal and many other waterfowl species migrate through the watershed.
USFWSA bull moose rests in wetland vegetation at Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Idaho.
Mammals
The Bear River watershed provides habitat for nearly 100 species of mammals. Forty-six of these species are listed as “Species of Greatest Conser­vation Need” under the Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming comprehensive wildlife conservation strategies (Idaho Department of Fish and Game 2005, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 2005b, Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2005).
Many wide-ranging mammals depend on the large blocks of intact habitat found in the watershed, the wintering areas, and the key migration linkages including elk, mule deer, moose, pronghorn, grizzly bear, Canada lynx, gray wolf, and wolverine. Upland shrub and grassland habitats support many species, such as white-tailed prairie dog, pygmy rabbit, Idaho pocket gopher, sagebrush vole, Wyoming ground squirrel, and Preble’s shrew.
Wetlands in the watershed provide habitat for such species as water shrew, water vole, and northern river otter. In addition, the concentration of insects found in and around wetland complexes attracts many bat species of concern including pallid bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat, long-eared bat, and long-legged bat.
Amphibians
The diversity of amphibian species in the Great Basin and southern Rocky Mountains is low compared to other areas of the country, such as the Pacific North­west. However, wetland and riparian habitats in the watershed do support 11 species of frogs and toads and one salamander. Most of these species are listed as “Species of Greatest Conservation Need” under the Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming comprehensive wildlife conservation strategies (Idaho Department of Fish and Chapter 2—Area Description and Resources 25
Game 2005, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 2005b, Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2005).
The Bear River watershed provides important habitat for the western population of the northern leopard frog, which was petitioned for listing under the Endangered Species Act in 2006. The Fish and Wildlife Service issued its 12-month finding in Octo­ber 2011. Although the species is declining across its range and is considered rare or is locally extir­pated from many States, including Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming, the Service concluded that listing was not warranted at this time (USFWS 2011c).
USFWSThe northern leopard frog is declining across its range.
Reptiles
Approximately 20 species of reptiles occur in the Bear River watershed. Fifteen of these species are listed under State plans as “Species of Greatest Con­servation Need.” Upland areas such as sagebrush and grasslands are important habitats for species such as common sagebrush lizard and western skink. More moist habitats near wetlands or streams support species such as common gartersnake, eastern yellow-bellied racer, and smooth greensnake.
Fish
The Bear River and its tributaries provide impor­tant instream habitat for at least 15 species of native fish. All three State comprehensive wildlife conser­vation strategies identified the Bear River and its tributaries as playing an important role in provid­ing habitat for an assemblage of native cool- and cold-water fish species (Utah Department of Natural Resources 2000, 2009), most notably the following:
■■
Bear River Bonneville cutthroat trout: Because of overharvesting, habitat modifications, dams, and diversions, Bonneville cutthroat trout was thought to be extinct by the 1960s; however, in 1974, an isolated population was discovered, which resulted in large restoration efforts by State, Fed­eral, and local wildlife officials to bring them back. The Bonneville cutthroat trout was petitioned for listing under the Endangered Species Act in 2008; however, a finding of “Not Warranted for Listing” was decided (USFWS 2008b).
■■
Northern leatherside chub: The northern leath­erside chub was petitioned for listing under the Endangered Species Act in 2011; however, a find­ing of “Not Warranted for Listing” was decided (USFWS 2011b).
Several other important Bear River native fish species recognized by these plans include mountain whitefish, mottled and Paiute sculpin, longnose and speckled dace, redside shiner, Utah sucker, and moun­tain sucker.
Many of these fish species evolved primarily as lake-dwelling (lacustrine) populations inhabiting Lake Bonneville during the Pleistocene. As Lake Bonnev­ille began to recede, some fish moved up stream in search of cooler water while others adapted to the shrinking remnant lake. In the upper reaches of the Bear River, seasonal migrations from larger to smaller rivers is a common reproductive strategy for many fluvial fishes—those produced or found by a river or stream.
Species of Special Concern
Several federally listed species live in or have home ranges that overlap the conservation area, as described in the following:
■■
The historical range of the endangered black-footed ferret includes the far eastern part of the watershed. Where ferrets have been reintroduced, they are considered experimental–nonessen­tial; however, unconfirmed sightings of naturally occurring ferrets continue to be reported (Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 2005a).
■■
Grizzly bear and Canada lynx, both listed threat­ened, can be found in the high country.
■■
The threatened plant Ute ladies’-tresses occurs within the project area and is found in wet mead­ows and along perennial streams.
■■
Maguire primrose, a threatened plant that grows in rocky areas and on cliff faces, is highly localized near Logan, Utah.26 Land Protection Plan—Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming
■■
Candidate species such as the yellow-billed cuckoo occupy mature cottonwood–willow riparian habi­tats.
■■
Greater sage-grouse, a candidate for listing, is dependent on sagebrush and grassland habitats found throughout the watershed.
■■
The wolverine, a candidate species, occurs in higher elevation forested areas of the watershed.
■■
Whitebark pine, a coniferous tree occurring in subalpine to alpine sites above 8,000 feet, is a can­didate species.
Steve Caicco / USFWSMaguire primrose is a threatened plant.
Cultural Resources
Humans have inhabited the Bear River area for more than 12,000 years. Their uses of the land are as diverse as the regional topography and environments and reflect both changes through time and localized adaptations. The following brief summary of the pre­history and history of the Bear River area provides an overview of some of the major themes that have influenced the human interaction with the land.
Prehistory
Paleo-Indian Period
Current archaeological evidence shows that the earliest humans, called the paleo-Indians, migrated to the region near the close of the last ice age approx­imately 12,000 years ago. These people had a highly mobile lifestyle that depended on big game hunting including for mammoths and the huge, now-extinct bison. The hallmarks of most paleo-Indian sites are the beautiful but deadly spear points that are gen­erally recovered from animal kill and butchering sites and small temporary camps, or from isolated occurrences.
Recorded paleo-Indian sites are rare in the Bear River drainage, probably indicating the need for more surveys and research rather than reflecting actual prehistoric use patterns. Several early sites have been recorded in the general region, and many of these are found in the numerous caves that charac­terize parts of the Great Basin. Sites are also found near wetlands and along the shorelines of ancient lakes, indicating the use of the abundance of floral and faunal resources that would have been available in these locations. The warming and drying climatic trend that began at the start of the Paleo-Indian Period continued and, by approximately 8,000 years ago, contributed to a change in settlement patterns and local adaptations.
Archaic Period
There was a gradual but definite shift in the pat­tern of human use of the region beginning about 8,000 years ago and continuing until approximately 2,500 years ago. The changes were the result of a combina­tion of regional climatic fluctuations and an increasing population, coupled with technological innovation and regional influences. Although the Archaic Period is bet­ter represented in the archaeological record than the preceding Paleo-Indian Period, the interpretation of the remains is difficult. A greater diversity of tools and the use of a larger variety of plants and animals are found on many sites. The semipermanent occupation of small villages, the use of smaller spear points, and the creation of basketry, cloth, and cordage are hall­marks of this period. As with the earlier inhabitants, the Archaic peoples made extensive use of the many caves and the wetland environments in the region.Chapter 2—Area Description and Resources 27
Aerial photo of a mosaic water bodies, stream, and grassland.
Photo credit caption: Aerial photo of a mosaic water bodies, stream, and grassland.
Photo credit caption: Aerial photo of a mosaic water bodies, stream, and grassland.
Photo credit caption: Aerial photo of a mosaic water bodies, stream, and grassland.
Photo credit caption:
Late Prehistoric and Protohistoric Period
Beginning approximately 2,500 years ago, several innovations greatly influenced life in the Bear River region. Although these changes were adopted at dif­ferent rates and degrees throughout the area, the advent of pottery, the bow and arrow, and agriculture, coupled with a larger and more sedentary population, defines the period until approximately 800 years ago.
Approximately 1,500 years ago, people archae­ologists refer to as the Fremont began to settle the Bear River drainage. Although five distinct Fremont variants have been identified in the archaeologi­cal record of the Great Basin, the use of pit houses, agriculture, granaries, and distinctive artistic motifs are common throughout the region. Fremont sub­sistence included cultivated corn, beans, and squash but also relied heavily on hunting and the intensive exploitation of native plants. Archaeologists suspect that a major staple of the Fremont diet along the Bear River would have been cattail and other seeds ground into meal. Animal species exploited included bison, pronghorn, and mule deer as well as shellfish, fish, and waterfowl. Evidence of the Fremont in the archaeological record disappears about 700 years ago.
About 600 years ago, the people living in the Bear River watershed began to blend culture traits with Shoshonean people living to the east of the Uinta Mountains and abandoned some Fremont cul­tural traits. These people continued to live in part on wild foods available in the marsh, but probably lived in smaller groups and exploited a broader range of resources. It is not known if the Fremont people were replaced or the two groups integrated. When the first trappers arrived in the early 1800s, people of the Sho­shone and Bannock Tribes were living in the area.
History
The Historic Period for the Bear River drainage begins with the recurring contact of the Native Peo­ples with people of European descent and ends in the mid-twentieth century. This interaction generally fol­lowed many years of occasional contact—usually for the exchange of trade goods—and occurred at differ­ent times throughout the area. As with the prehistory of the area, the history of the Bear River watershed reflects both broad themes and individual stories. The narrative below briefly summarizes some of the major historic influences in the region.
The earliest documented European in the area was fur trapper Robert Stuart in 1812. The region quickly gained fame for its abundant resources and became the site of both the 1827 and 1828 trappers’ 28 Land Protection Plan—Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming
rendezvous on the southern end of Bear Lake near the current town of Laketown, Utah. These annual gatherings were held from 1825 to 1840 to allow the trappers to sell their furs and restock their supplies.
Border disputes between the United States and Spain in various parts of North America, includ­ing the Bear River drainage, were addressed in the Adams–Onis Treaty of 1819. As a part of this treaty, the land north of the 42nd Parallel—the State bound­ary between Idaho and Utah—became United States territory and the lands below the parallel that of New Spain (Mexico after 1821).
Several major trails, sometimes referred to as the Emigrant Trails, crossed the Bear River drainage. The Oregon Trail in this area often followed the route of earlier fur trapper foot and horse trails but did not become a wagon trail until 1836. Coming from the east, the main trail takes a sharp north turn at Fort Bridger in southwest Wyoming before heading north­west along the northern banks of the Little Muddy Creek. It crosses over the Bear River Divide and joins the Bear River just south of the Cokeville Mead­ows National Wildlife Refuge. From there, it never strays far from the Bear River and is most often along the east or north sides of the river. Just west of Soda Springs, where the river cuts to the south, the trail diverges from the river and heads north­west toward Fort Hall. The California Trail follows a similar path through the watershed, but splits from the Oregon Trail at Fort Hall.
The grade of the Union Pacific Railroad, built as a part of the Transcontinental Railroad, crosses the watershed just north of the Bear River Migra­tory Bird Refuge. The Union Pacific began in Omaha, Nebraska, and headed west until joining the Central Pacific Railroad at Golden Spike, approximately 10 miles to the north of the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge in 1869. The completion of this railroad and its links to rail systems in the eastern United States had a profound effect on the settlement of the West.
The first European resident of the area is reported to have been Thomas “Peg Leg” Smith, who ran a trading post from 1842–57 near Dingle, Idaho, on the northeastern shores of Bear Lake. The influx of settlers accelerated greatly during the early 1850s following the initial waves of Mormon immigrants arriving from the east. The towns of Brigham City and Willard in the southwest corner of the watershed were both founded in 1851 by Mormon pioneers. In 1860, Mormons settled the town of Franklin, Idaho, located along the Cub River just north of the Utah–Idaho boundary, which became the first town settled in what is now Idaho. In 1867, the Fort Hall Reser­vation near Pocatello, Idaho, was established for the Shoshone and Bannock Tribes.
USFWSAmerican avocets feed in a wetland while cattle graze the adjacent grassland.Chapter 2—Area Description and Resources 29
Socioeconomic Environment
The Bear River Watershed Conservation Area is located in a vast basin covering 12 counties across Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming. The watershed spans roughly 7,500 square miles: 1,500 square miles in Wyoming, 2,700 square miles in Idaho, and 3,300 square miles in Utah (Utah Division of Water Resources 2004).
The 12-county region (which excludes the five out-of-watershed counties) has a population of roughly 361,120 people (U.S. Census Bureau 2010) (see table 2). Population growth is expected throughout much of the region, with most of the growth centered in the Cache Valley. Located in the western part of the Bear River watershed in Utah, the Cache Valley is the most populated area in the watershed, and its population is estimated to double from 2000 levels to 297,597 by 2050 (Utah Division of Water Resources 2004). Popu­lation growth in the Cache Valley is partly due to the valley’s proximity to the metropolitan Wasatch Front. In Wyoming, Lincoln County has seen 24.3 percent population growth over the last decade (U.S. Census Bureau 2010), with about 200 new homes built each year (Royster and Gearino 2006), and Uinta County has experienced a 7.0 percent population growth over the decade. Idaho counties within the conservation area have seen less growth, with Bear Lake and Car­ibou Counties seeing a decline in population over the decade. Of the conservation area counties in Idaho, Franklin and Bannock Counties have experienced the greatest growth, with 12.9 percent and 9.6 percent growth over the decade, respectively.
Total nonfarm employment was more than 265,000 individuals in 2010 (U.S. Census Bureau 2011) in the combined 12-county region. The highest percentage of total employment was found in educational services, health care, and social aid at 20 percent of nonfarm employment. This percentage is, in part, because of the high population and abundance of educational and health care centers in Cache County, Utah (home to Utah State University) and Weber County, Utah. The second and third highest percentage of total employ­ment in 2010 was in manufacturing at 14 percent and retail trade at 12 percent. Agriculture, forestry, fish­ing, hunting, and mining made up an estimated 4 percent of the total employment by sector.
Table 2. Population statistics for Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming and counties in and near the Bear River Watershed Conservation Area in Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming.
Residents (2010)
Persons per square mile
Population % change
since 2000
Utah
2,763,885
33.6
24
Cache County
112,656
96.7
64
Rich County
2,264
2.2
16
Summit County
36,324
19.4
22
Weber County*
231,236
401.8
18
Morgan County*
9,469
15.5
33
Box Elder County
49,975
8.7
17
Idaho
1,567,582
18.9
21
Power County
7,817
5.6
4
Bannock County
82,839
74.4
10
Oneida County
4,286
3.6
4
Franklin County
12,786
19.2
13
Caribou County
6,963
3.9
–5
Bonneville County*
101,234
55.8
26
Teton County*
10,170
22.6
70
Bear Lake County
5,986
6.2
–7
Wyoming
563,626
5.8
14
Uinta County
21,118
10.1
7
Teton County*
21,294
5.3
17
Lincoln County
18,106
4.4
24
Source: Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget (2008).
*Outside the Bear River Watershed Conservation Area.30 Land Protection Plan—Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming
Mining represents a relatively small percentage of total employment for many of the counties in the region, but has increased slightly since 1998 (U.S. Census Bureau 2011, Headwaters Economics 2011). Mining accounted for less than 1 percent of total employment in 2009 for all but three counties in the 12-county region.
Landownership
The Upper Bear River area is located in parts of Summit County, Utah, and Lincoln and Uinta County, Wyoming. The headwaters of the Bear River, near the border of Summit and Uinta Counties, is forested; the remaining land cover in the high-elevation Upper Bear River area is primarily grassland and shrubland, with about three-quarters of the land used for graz­ing (Utah Water Research Laboratory 2011). As of 2006, about 63 percent of the land in the Upper Bear River counties was federally owned, primarily by the Bureau of Land Management and the USDA Forest Service; about 24 percent of the land was privately owned, 4 percent was State owned, and 7 percent was tribally owned (Headwaters Economics 2011). The Upper Bear River area is lightly populated. The largest municipalities in the region are Evanston and Cokeville, Wyoming, and Randolph and Woodruff, Utah (Utah Water Research Laboratory 2011).
The Middle Bear River area is located in parts of Bear Lake, Caribou, Franklin, Bannock, Oneida, and Power Counties in Idaho. Grassland and shrubland account for about 77 percent of the land cover in the Middle Bear River counties, and croplands account for about 11 percent of the land cover (Headwaters Economics 2011). As of 2006, urban development accounts for only about 0.2 percent of the land cover in these counties; the largest municipalities in the region are Grace, Preston, Montpelier, Soda Springs, and Malad City, Idaho, and Garden City, Utah (Head­waters Economics 2011; Utah Division of Water Resources 2004). As of 2006, landownership in the Middle Bear River counties was 48 percent private, 38 percent Federal, 5 percent State, and 6 percent tribal (Headwaters Economics 2011).
The Lower Bear River area is in parts of Box Elder, Cache, Rich, Weber, and Morgan Counties in Utah. The rich soil and abundant water in this part of the Bear River watershed support a mix of urban and agricultural uses. About 9 percent of the land cover in the Lower Bear River counties is water. Mixed crop­lands account for 21 percent of the land cover in the Lower Bear River counties, with croplands concen­trated in Cache and Box Elder Counties (Headwaters Economics 2011). As of 2006, about 1.6 percent of the land in these counties is urban development, with much of the development concentrated in the Cache Valley (Headwaters Economics 2011). Major municipalities in the Lower Bear River area include Brigham City, Logan, North Logan, Smithfield, Trem­onton, and Richmond. As of 2006, landownership in the Lower Bear River counties was 52-percent pri­vate, 31-percent Federal, and 6-percent State (Headwaters Economics 2011).
While the population of the Bear River Watershed Conservation Area has declined in two counties in Idaho, some parts of the conservation area as well as areas next to it have experienced significant growth trends over the past decade (see table 2).
Property Tax
Property taxes are assessed based on the value of property. For most types of properties, county asses­sors use fair market value to determine property tax liabilities. In many States, however, the assessed value of agricultural land is determined based on the productive value of the land rather than on the fair market value of the property. The fair market value of land is the estimate of a property’s sale price. This value includes both the productive value of the land and any speculative value associated with the possi­bility of developing the land.
Conservation easements reduce the fair mar­ket value of a property by removing the speculative value associated with possible development; how­ever, conservation easements generally do not affect the productive value of agricultural land. The Bear River Watershed Conservation Area encompasses three States: Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming. In all three States, property taxes for agricultural land are assessed based on the productive value of the land. Most properties that enter into conservation ease­ment agreements with the Service are classified as agricultural land; therefore, there will be little or no impact on the current property tax base for the 12-county area.
Public Use and Wildlife-Dependent Recreational Activities
According to the “2006 National Survey of Fish­ing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation,” approximately 2.9 million residents took part in wild­life-associated recreational activities in Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming in 2006 (USFWS 2008a). It was esti­mated that residents and visitors spent $3.3 billion on wildlife-associated recreational activities in 2006 in the three States combined. Among participants, Chapter 2—Area Description and Resources 31
wildlife watching was the most frequently reported activity followed by fishing and hunting. In Wyoming, 84 percent of individuals surveyed watched wildlife, 27 percent fished, and 13 percent hunted; in Utah, 77 percent watched wildlife, 33 percent fished, and 15 percent hunted; and in Idaho, 75 percent watched wildlife, 35 percent fished, and 19 percent hunted (USFWS 2008a). Following the national trend, wild­life viewing has become increasingly popular, while hunting and fishing have decreased or remained sta­ble in popularity. From 1996 to 2006, it was found that the number of Idaho residents who fished declined by 21 percent while those who hunted declined by 33 percent. Wyoming residents who fished declined by 19 percent, while hunting and wildlife viewing num­bers remained relatively constant. During the same timeframe, Utah residents who watched wildlife increased by 30 percent, while hunting and fishing numbers remained relatively constant.
© Keith PennerKilldeer at Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming.Chapter 3—Threats to and Status of Resources
Threats to the Resources
The diverse habitats in the Bear River water­shed support a variety of fish, mammal, reptile, and amphibian species as well as a large number of res­ident and migratory bird species. The Bear Lake (with Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area), Bear River, and Cokeville Refuges provide habitat for waterfowl, wading birds, shorebirds, and land­birds that migrate through these refuges on their way to and from Canada and Alaska. More than 270 different wildlife species have been identified using the habitats associated with the three refuges. The Bear River watershed provides linkages and migra­tion corridors for seasonal movements of wildlife between various habitats within the watershed as well as between other protected lands and ecosys­tems in the region.
Historically, the abundant wildlife, availability of water, diverse vegetation, productive soil, and favor­able topography found in riparian areas attracted both Native Americans and early Euro-American settlers to these areas. As a result, a high percent­age of riparian habitat is privately owned today. Most communities in the Bear River watershed are located near riparian zones, which are used for agriculture, recreation, travel, water development, and hous­ing (Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2010). These types of development are expected to continue to occur in riparian corridors and valleys within the watershed. An increase in development along ripar­ian areas will likely remove areas of connectivity between wetland and upland habitat types. Stream quality could become degraded from continued devel­opment, adversely affecting Bonneville cutthroat trout, leatherside chub, and many other native fish species. With increasing development, more barriers to fish passage are likely to be constructed.
Cache County is one of the fastest growing coun­ties in Utah, with a 64 percent population increase since 2000. With nearly 83,000 residents, Bannock County has the largest population of the Idaho coun­ties in the watershed and has grown by 10 percent since 2000. Lincoln County, home to the Cokev­ille Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, has grown by 24 percent since 2000. Just to the north of Coke­ville are the Star Valley and the Teton Valley, which span the Idaho–Wyoming border into Teton County, Idaho, and Teton County, Wyoming. The populations in Teton County, Idaho, and Teton County, Wyoming, have increased by 70 percent and 17 percent, respec­tively, since 2000.
With projected development patterns (Utah State University 2010), ground-water aquifers will receive more demand, resulting in potential degradation to the hydrology of some wetland areas and affecting the three refuges in the Bear River watershed.
By planning for future expected development and other changes in land use, we can maintain the qual­ity and quantity of habitat that more than 270 wildlife species depend on.
© Keith PennerTwo willets keep a watchful eye over a nearby wetland.34 Land Protection Plan—Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming
Effects on the Physical Environment
The physical environment comprises the water and soil resources and climate of the Bear River watershed. In addition, climate change is discussed. Anticipated effects on these features are described.
Water and Soil Resources
Conservation easements under the conservation area will hold the historical water rights on the ease­ment property and not allow any water rights to be sold or otherwise separated from the property. The easements will not allow changes to or alterations in points of diversion, timing, or place of use for any water rights. Historical water use will be maintained in accordance with current practices.
Water resources on up to 920,000 acres of conser­vation easements will be protected from increased nonpoint source pollution from residential subdi­visions, commercial development, and draining of wetlands, all of which are prohibited under the ease­ment program. A long-term commitment to keeping vegetative cover with minimal soil disturbance will help conserve local microclimate patterns and soil processes. By limiting development on some prime agricultural and wildlife habitat areas, communities will be ensuring future ground-water supplies and reducing the need to develop more water resources to meet growing demand (Toth 2010). This protection will improve water resources throughout the Bear River watershed as well as for the three refuges. There may also be negative effects on local mitigation efforts by reducing ways to conserve and store car­bon through land protection and habitat restoration.
Climate
By protecting habitat, reducing fragmentation, and keeping connectivity, the Bear River Watershed Conservation Area will help maintain the ability of native species and ecosystems to adapt to a chang­ing climate. Climate change mitigation efforts will be positively affected because carbon sequestration now provided by native vegetation will be conserved.
While exact temperature and precipitation changes and habitat and wildlife response to those changes are unknown, it is clear that changes are coming to the Bear River basin. Keeping adequate densities of wetlands, robust riparian corridors, and open spaces will become increasingly impor­tant to allow fish and wildlife to adapt to a changing environment.
USFWSBear River south of Woodruff Narrows, Wyoming.Chapter 3—Threats to and Status of Resources 35
Historically, the destruction of wetlands through changes in land use has had the largest effects on the carbon fluxes and consequent radiative forcing (the measure of the amount that the Earth’s energy budget is out of balance) of North American wet­lands. The primary effects have been a reduction in their ability to sequester carbon (a small to moder­ate increase in radiative forcing), oxidation of their soil carbon reserves upon drainage (a small increase in radiative forcing), and reduction in methane emis­sions (a small to large decrease in radiative forcing).
Effects on the Biological Environment
This section describes the anticipated effects on habitat and wildlife. The Bear River watershed’s hab­itat ranges from river and the adjacent riparian areas to wetland, grassland, and shrubland. This section also describes effects on the wildlife and species of concern that use these habitats.
USFWSA white-faced ibis foraging in a shallow wetland.
Habitat and Wildlife
The availability of large, intact areas of diverse habitat types is essential for various wildlife species. Habitat connectivity provides a migration corridor between winter and summer ranges for mule deer, pronghorn, and elk; between breeding, nesting, and brood-rearing areas for birds including neotropical migrants; and between spawning and rearing habitat for native fish. Connectivity between different habitat types increases wildlife population resiliency by facili­tating movement to new areas during environmental challenges such as drought or flooding as well as by allowing an exchange of individuals and genes from different subpopulations. Privately owned lands next to the Bear Lake, Bear River, and Cokeville Meadow Refuges provide connectivity between the refuges and other Federal lands, thus creating a larger block of permanently protected wildlife habitat. Through protection of important migration corridors and habitats, the conservation area will have long-term beneficial effects on fish and wildlife populations.
Riverine Areas, Riparian Areas, and Wetlands
The Bear River is the lifeblood of the three ref­uges located along its course. Large populations of waterfowl, shorebirds, and native fishes depend on the refuges and adjacent habitat areas to meet their breeding, migration, and nutritional needs. The conservation area will protect privately owned wet­lands, irrigated meadows, and fields that now provide important wildlife habitat. This will help maintain healthy riparian areas that recharge aquifers, reduce soil erosion, filter chemical wastes, moderate stream temperatures, and buffer water loss from upland drainages.
Protecting essential travel corridors for wildlife by maintaining riparian areas will become an increas­ingly important part of effective mitigation plans for human development as well as climate change (“Wyo­ming State Wildlife Action Plan” 2010). Additionally, connectivity among different riverine habitat types is important for allowing fish access to suitable spawn­ing and rearing grounds while providing adequate main stem habitat for adult growth and survival.
Conservation of riparian areas will benefit a vari­ety of species of special conservation concern that depend on riparian habitat, such as Lewis’s wood­pecker and many neotropical migratory birds.
Upland, Grassland, and Shrubland
The conservation area will conserve large patches of sagebrush that occur on the easements that are targeted for acquisition. Keeping and restoring exist­ing large patches of sagebrush will create a mosaic of sagebrush habitats that will be an important step toward reversing the population declines of sage-grouse and other sagebrush-dependent species, such as sage sparrow, sage thrasher, and Brewer’s sparrow (Hanser and Knick 2011).
Species of Special Concern
With the additional habitat protection measures in the watershed through the conservation area, there is a greater likelihood that common species can be kept 36 Land Protection Plan—Bear River Watershed Conservation Area; Idaho, Utah, Wyoming
common. There are relatively few species with Fed­eral status in the Bear River watershed. There will be a reduced probability of more species needing to be added to the State lists of conservation concern or to be federally listed as threatened or endangered.
The effects of the easement program on endan­gered, threatened, and candidate species vary by the specific area under consideration because of differ­ences in species’ ranges, their habitat affinities and restrictions, and elevations.
Effects on Cultural Resources
As a Federal agency, the Service is required to comply with numerous laws pertaining to cultural resources including the National Historic Preserva­tion Act (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq., Public Law 89–665); the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 U.S.C. 470aa–470mm, Public Law 96–95), as amended; and the Native American Graves Pro­tection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq., Public Law 101–601). Although conservation easements will preclude or limit most forms of surface disturbance, these requirements may not apply to or be fully effective in protecting cultural resources on private lands with easements.
Effects on the Socioeconomic Environment
This section describes the anticipated effects on landownership, land use, public use, and development.
Landownership and Land Use
The conservation area will affect only lands where the Service has acquired a conservation easement. The location, distribution, and sale of development rights by landowners on adjacent lands without Service easements will not be affected. Traditional agricultural uses such as ranching, grazing, and hay­ing will be allowed to continue on easement lands.
Because the conservation easement program will keep open space on a large scale, it will preserve a rural lifestyle and associated tourism and economic activities. The purchase of an easement will not result in a transfer of land title, so private landowners will continue to pay property taxes.
Because the sale of conservation easements pro­vides landowners with more revenue, easement purchases may inject new money into local economies. Landowners may spend some percentage of this money on such items as purchasing new real estate, consumer goods, or local services. This spending activity will directly affect local industries such as construction and various service sectors.
Conservation easements may help keep regional character by protecting working landscapes and a tra­ditional agricultural way of life. Land with historical commercial uses such as ranching, forestry, and farm­ing is often compatible with or beneficial to wildlife refuge objectives (Jordan et al. 2007, Rissman et al. 2007). Conservation easements provide financial ben­efits for landowners that enable them to preserve the natural and historic value of their farm, ranch, and open space lands and to pass this legacy on to their children and grandchildren.
The easement program will have no effect on tribal jurisdiction or tribal rights, because it is out­side of reservation lands and deals only with willing private sellers.
Public Use
Conservation easements bought on private tracts will not change the landowners’ rights to manage public use and access to property. Under the ease­ment program, landowners will keep full control over private property rights, including hunting and fish­ing on their lands. Wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities such as hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation will not be diminished because of declin­ing wildlife populations. According to the “2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation,” approximately 2.9 million residents took part in wild