Content uploaded by Rebekah Downard
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Rebekah Downard on Dec 02, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Utah State University
DigitalCommons@USU
All Graduate eses and Dissertations Graduate Studies, School of
5-1-2010
Keeping Wetlands Wet: e Human Hydrology of
Wetlands in the Bear River Basin
Rebekah Downard
Utah State University
is esis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate
Studies, School of at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for
inclusion in All Graduate eses and Dissertations by an authorized
administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please
contact digitalcommons@usu.edu.
Recommended Citation
Downard, Rebekah, "Keeping Wetlands Wet: e Human Hydrology of Wetlands in the Bear River Basin" (2010). All Graduate eses
and Dissertations. Paper 829.
hp://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/829
KEEPING WETLANDS WET: THE HUMAN HYDROLOGY OF
WETLANDS IN THE BEAR RIVER BASIN
by
Rebekah Downard
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
in
Human Dimensions of Ecosystem Science and Management
UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY
Logan, Utah
2010
Approved:
____________________________
Joanna Endter-Wada
Major Professor
______________________________
Judith Kurtzman
Committee Member
____________________________
Karin Kettenring
Committee Member
______________________________
Byron Burnham
Dean of Graduate Studies
ii
Copyright © Rebekah Downard 2010
All Rights Reserved
iii
ABSTRACT
Keeping Wetlands Wet: The Human Hydrology
of Wetlands in the Bear River Basin
by
Rebekah Downard, Master of Science
Utah State University, 2010
Major Professor: Dr. Joanna Endter-Wada
Department: Environment and Society
This research seeks to understand how wetlands maintain a water supply in the
Bear River Basin, where water is generally scarce. Research was conducted through
semi-structured interviews with wetland and water experts in the basin and archival
research of historical documents and water rights.
The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service manages three refuges on the Bear River, and
has obtained water rights portfolios for each. Holding water rights does not ensure that
there will be water available for refuge wetlands. Instead, position in relation to other
powerful water users is the most important factor in determining the security of a refuge‟s
water supply and the threats faced from drought. All refuges must manage their water
because the human-hydrology of the river is complex and variable; this requires a
combination of infrastructure and planning. Maintaining relationships with other water
users is another important adaptation to the human-hydrology of the river, because all
water users along the river are interconnected. Recognizing that they face the same
iv
threats to their water supply allows wetland managers and irrigators to cooperate in order
to maintain the water supply for their region of the river and increases adaptability as the
region faces climate change.
The Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge is the oldest refuge on the river and has
the least secure water supply, despite having the largest water rights portfolio. Because it
is chronically short of water during the summer, refuge staff have developed an adaptive
management strategy to effectively utilize the water they do receive. Management
involves predicting water supplies each year, setting water level targets accordingly,
actively diverting water to priority wetlands, and allowing non-priority wetland to dry.
This is followed by extensive monitoring of habitat conditions and bird use, the results of
which are shared in annual management plans. This strategy maintains the most wildlife
habitat possible and offers important institutional adaptations. Most importantly, it
demonstrates the refuge‟s water rights are being put to beneficial use. Sharing
knowledge gained through management also builds trust and adaptive capacity among
water users facing the complex human-hydrology at the end of the Bear River.
(129 pages)
v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Joanna Endter-Wada, for her extensive help
in developing and completing my research project, for helping me refine my research,
and for all the support she‟s offered over the past three years. I would also like to thank
my committee members, Dr. Karin Kettenring and Judy Kurtzman, for all the feedback
and help they‟ve given me with my research and coursework. I would also like to thank
my family for all their support and encouragement.
Rebekah Downard
vi
CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT ………………………………………………………………. iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS………………………………………………… v
LIST OF TABLES ………………………………………………………… vii
LIST OF FIGURES ………………………………………………………. viii
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………… 1
References ………………………………………………………… 7
2. WATER SECURITY AT FEDERALLY MANAGED
WETLANDS IN THE BEAR RIVER BASIN …………………… 10
Abstract……………………………………………………………. 10
Introduction ………………………………………………………. 11
Methods……………………………………………………………. 20
Results …………………………………………………………….. 24
Discussion…………………………………………………………. 39
Conclusions………………………………………………………… 44
References ………………………………………………………… 44
3. ADAPTING TO UNCERTAIN WATER CONDITIONS
AT BEAR RIVER MIGRATORY BIRD REFUGE ……………… 62
Abstract…………………………………………………………….. 62
Introduction………………………………………………………… 63
Methods……………………………………………………………. 74
Results…………………………………………………………… 79
Discussion………………………………………………………….. 87
Conclusions………………………………………………………… 91
References…………………………………………………………. 92
4. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ……………………………. 109
APPENDICES ………………………………………………………. 112
Appendix A: Interview Participants……………………………… 113
vii
APPENDIX B: Interview Protocol………………………………. 114
APPENDIX C: Informed Consent……………………………….. 115
APPENDIX D: Endnotes………………………………………… 117
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
2-1 Important Water Policies in the Bear River Basin ………………… 50
2-2 Water Rights Held by FWS for Cokeville Meadows
National Wildlife Refuge………………………………….………. 51
2-3 Water Rights with Service Areas in Bear Lake National
Wildlife Refuge.……………………………………. …………….. 52
2-4 Water Rights Held by FWS for Bear River Migratory
Bird Refuge……………………………..………………………….. 53
2-5 Assessment of Water Security at Federal Wildlife Refuges ………. 55
3-1 Important Events and Policies on the Bear River ………………….. 98
3-2 Water Rights Held by Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge …...…….100
3-3 Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge water rights vs. Bear River
Stream Discharge, by Month Over the Last Decade, the Last
Major Drought Year (2004) and Last Major Flood Year (1984) ….102
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
2-1 The Bear River Basin …………………………………………….. 56
2-2 Average monthly discharge in the Bear River at the Corinne
gauging station 1963-2009 …………………………………………. 57
2-3 Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge ……………………. 58
2-4 Average monthly discharge at federal wildlife refuges in the
Bear River Basin 1999-2009 …………………………………........ 59
2-5 Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge ……………………………… 60
2-6 Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge ………………………………... 61
3-1 The Bear River Basin ……………………………………………… 103
3-2 Average monthly discharge in the Bear River at Corinne, Utah
during a flood year, drought year, and 60 year average …………... 104
3-3 The Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge …………………………… 105
3-4 Average daily discharge in the Bear River at Corrine, Utah,
2009………………………………………………………………. 106
3-5 Average monthly discharge of the Bear River at Corinne, Utah,
1963-2009 ………………………………………………………… 107
3-6 Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge legal water rights and average
monthly stream discharge 2000-2009 ……………………………... 108
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Wetland habitat is rare in the arid Intermountain West of the United States, a
function of both the natural aridity of the region and historic destruction of wetlands.
Despite being quite rare, western wetlands provide many ecosystem services, including
water disturbance regulation, nutrient cycling, and habitat for significant portions of the
North American continent‟s bird populations, making wetland conservation especially
important (Kadlec and Knight 1996, Costanza et al. 1997, Haig et al. 1998, Batzer and
Sharitz 2006, Ivey and Herziger 2006). Conserving wetlands in this region requires not
only protecting the land within wetland complexes, but also the water supply that feeds
them. This is no easy task in a region where water is scarce and heavily appropriated for
diversion and use.
Wetlands are complex ecological systems that are potentially affected not only by
changing natural environments, but by various policy systems, management institutions,
and individual actors. Understanding how wetlands in this region have stayed wet,
despite significant changes in land and water use, requires understanding the physical and
social contexts within which wetlands exist. Aspects of that context pertinent to this
study include wetland, water and wildlife polices; wetland ecology, human hydrology
and water security; and adaptive management and collaborative learning applied to
wetland issues.
Several federal policies were enacted during the 20th century to protect wetland
habitat. Such legislation generally employs one of two mechanisms: 1) preservation of
2
important wildlife habitat through protection under federal or state agencies; or 2)
regulation of activities that could destroy wetlands through permitting, fines or subsidies.
These policies been effective in slowing the pace of wetland destruction nationwide,
however, none of these policies specifically addresses protecting a water supply for
wetlands (Vileisis 1997, Somerville and Pruitt 2006). Today, wetlands continue to be
threatened or destroyed by activities in watersheds that disrupt their hydrology (Dahl
2006). In the Intermountain West, this is most often manifested in wetlands drying up as
their water source is diverted for use elsewhere.
Periodic drying is not usually bad for wetlands; in fact, it is part of the natural
hydrologic cycle of wetlands and is often necessary for maintaining the ecosystem
services wetlands provide. However, lack of flooded wetland habitat can leave migratory
birds on the Pacific Flyway without a critical stopover point in arid regions that has
enough vegetation to meet their food or reproductive needs (Haig et al.1998, Ivey and
Herziger 2006, Denton 2007). And if water fails to return in a timely manner (between a
few months and a few years, depending on the type of wetland), it may result in long-
term damage to wetland flora and fauna (Christiansen and Low 1970, Kadlec and Adair
1994). Chronic water shortages have lead to serious wetland depletions across the West
(MacDonnell 1991).
Water policy in the West has legally allocated most of the water in Western rivers
to agricultural or municipal uses, leaving environmental uses of water, like wetlands, dry
during times of shortage (MacDonnell 1991). Under the rules of prior appropriation
water law, the primary means for allocating water in the western United States, all users
must obtain a legal water right from the state within which the water is diverted. Each
3
water right includes a priority date, corresponding to when an application to use water
was filed and designates the beneficial use the water will be put to, most often irrigation,
industry, municipal use or wildlife propagation. When water supplies are insufficient to
meet all users‟ needs, those water users who have acquired their water rights most
recently, referred to as junior appropriators, will have their water rights cut off first.
Beneficial use requirements are embedded into water law to help ensure that states are
allocating water in the public‟s interest, by producing goods or services deemed to be of
benefit to the public (MacDonnell 1991, Getches 2009).
In order to have a secure water supply, wetlands generally must be managed by an
entity capable of obtaining water rights, like the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which
manages millions of acres of wetland habitat in their National Wildlife Refuge System.
However, because of the “first in time, first in right” nature of water rights in the West,
and the current shifts in water distribution due to growing urban and suburban
populations and climate change, holding a water right does not constitute water security.
Water security is the availability of enough water, on a dependable basis and of
acceptable quality, to sustain ecosystem function and human health and livelihoods,
along with acceptable levels of water-related risks, like drought and flooding (Grey and
Sadoff 2007). Water security is affected by the historical trajectories and future prospects
of the human-hydrological environments that affect wetlands, and requires wetland
managers to be able to adapt to uncertain water conditions and changes over time.
Enhancing water security often requires active water management and networking
with other interests that use the water sources upon which wetlands depend. Having the
ability to manage water in wetlands maximizes the productive potential of a limited
4
supply while minimizing its destructive potentials. In order to be effective, water
management infrastructure must be balanced by institutional developments like planning
procedures that ensure the optimal use of water and the sustainability of water
management (Grey and Sadoff 2007).
Agriculture utilizes about 80% of diverted water in the western United States and
is commonly cited as a threat to wetlands, due to the historical conversion of wetlands for
agricultural cultivation and diversions of water for irrigation (Vileisis 1997, Lemly et al.
2000, Langston 2003). However, emerging research shows that many wetlands in the
Intermountain West region are actually irrigation dependant because they receive
significant amounts of water from irrigation return flow (Lovvorn and Hart 2004, Peck et
al. 2005). Successful efforts to increase water security must recognize the human-
hydrologic interdependencies of all water uses, agricultural, municipal and
environmental, in order to enhance security for all users (Dimitrov 2002, Endter-Wada et
al. 2009).
While it may be easiest and even most natural to let wetlands dry during times of
water shortage, such a strategy would not meet the mandates of agencies that have been
directed to protect wetlands or wildlife. Instead, wetlands managers are often advised to
respond to uncertainty or changes in environmental conditions, like decreased water
availability, through adaptive management, a management paradigm that promotes a
scientific approach to natural resource management in the face of uncertainty (Holling
1978). The goal of adaptive management is to formulate future policies based on what is
learned from effects of previous management efforts and to protect the resilience of
ecosystems (Gunderson et al. 2006, Hahn et al. 2006).
5
Adaptive management holds a lot of potential for wetland management in the
West because it provides a proactive means to confront uncertainty in water management.
Adaptive management also provides a way to meet the requirements of the multiple state,
federal and international policies related to wetlands, wildlife and water management
(Gunderson 1999). One of the key requirements of adaptive management is monitoring
the effects of management strategies and integrating what is learned into subsequent
approaches (Gunderson et al. 2006). Analyzing the effects of policies and management
strategies is also an important part of collaborative learning, an emerging paradigm in
natural resource management that involves linking government agencies, communities,
and individuals together to deal with common problems and solve regional issues.
(Wondelleck and Yaffee 2000, Euliss et al. 2008). Sustainable wetland management
requires linking adaptive management with the social component of ecosystems through
collaborative learning (Smith et al. 2008). Building such links often falls to individual
wetland or water managers, who can build relationships with other water users in the area
and foster cooperation in water use, rather than conflict (Wondelleck and Yaffee 2000,
Weber and Khademian 2008).
The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service manages three wetland complexes within the
Bear River Basin, which occupies portions of Utah, Idaho and Wyoming, as national
wildlife refuges. Each of these refuges has a unique history and geopolitical position
along the river and comparing them provides an opportunity to study the ways wetlands
in arid regions have secured and managed water supplies. Chapter 2 of this research
presents a comparative analysis of water security at the wildlife refuges through
addressing three general questions. First, how was the refuge‟s water supply obtained?
6
Second, how secure is that water supply? Third, how have refuge managers adapted to
uncertain water availability conditions?
Chapter 3 investigates one refuge in particular, the Bear River Migratory Bird
Refuge (BRMBR), located in Utah. BRMBR is the oldest refuge on the Bear River and
faces the most significant threats to its water security. As such, it provides an interesting
case study in which to examine how adaptive management is applied to a wetland
complex with an uncertain and dynamic water supply. The first research objective of
Chapter Three is to compare physical water availability, legal water rights and wetland
water needs at BRMBR. The second research objective is to explore how the refuge has
adapted to the physical and social realities of the Bear River. This case study illustrates
one means of meeting national wildlife habitat goals while complying with state water
law and maintaining relationships with local interests.
The questions addressed in this research require an in-depth contextualized study
of the politics, history, and ecology of the Bear River Basin, and of the organizations and
people who currently make decisions about water and wildlife. The specific ecological
and political dimensions of the Basin are particular to that region, but dealing with scarce
water supplies and changing water uses is an issue common across the Western United
States. The means by which the federal refuges in these case studies have secured water
supplies provide insights that can be utilized in other managed wetland cases, particularly
in other heavily allocated river basins where people are trying to balance the needs of
traditional water uses, new water demands and ecological values.
7
REFERENCES
Batzer, D. P., and R. R. Sharitz. 2006. Ecology of freshwater and estuarine wetlands:
an introduction. Pages 1-6 in D. P. Batzer, and R. R. Sharitz, editors. Ecology of
freshwater and estuarine wetlands. University of California Press, Berkeley,
California, USA.
Christiansen, J. E., and J. B. Low. 1970. Water requirements of waterfowl marshlands
in northern Utah. Publication No. 69-12, Utah Division of Fish and Game, Salt
Lake City, Utah, USA.
Costanza, R., R. d’Arge, R. deGroots, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K.
Limburg, S. Naeem, R. V. O’Neill, J. Paruelo, R. G. Raskin, P. Sutton, and
M. Van Den Belt. 1997. The value of the world‟s ecosystem services and
natural capital. Nature 387:253-260.
Dahl T. E. 2006. Status and trends in wetlands in the conterminous United States 1998-
2004. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington D.C. [online] URL:
http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/_documents/gSandT/NationalReports/StatusTrends
WetlandsConterminousUS1998to2004.pdf.
Denton, C. 2007. Bear River: last chance to change course. Utah State University
Press, Logan, Utah, USA.
Dimitrov, R. S. 2002. Water, conflict, and security: a conceptual minefield. Society and
Natural Resources 15(8):677-691.
Endter-Wada, J., T. Selfa, and L. W. Welsh. 2009. Hydrologic interdependencies and
human cooperation: the process of adapting to drought. Weather, Climate and
Society 1(1):54-70.
Euliss, N. H., L. M. Smith, D. A. Wilcox, and B. A. Browne. 2008. Linking ecosystem
processes with wetland management goals: charting a course for a sustainable
future. Wetlands 28(3):553-562.
Getches, D. H. 2009. Water law in a nutshell. 4th edition. West Publishing Company,
St. Paul, Minnesota, USA.
Grey, D., and C. W. Sadoff. 2007. Sink or swim? Water security for growth and
development. Water Policy 9:545-571.
Gunderson, L. 1999. Resilience, flexibility and adaptive management - - antidotes for
spurious certitude? Conservation Ecology 3(1):7-14.
Gunderson, L. H., S. R. Carpenter, P. Olsson, and G. Peterson. 2006. Water RATs
(resilience, adaptability, and transformability) in lake and wetland social-
8
ecological systems. Ecology and Society 11(1):16. [online] URL:
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art16/.
Hahn, T., P. Olsson, C. Folke, and K. Johansson. 2006. Trust-building, knowledge
generation and organizational innovations: the role of bridging organization for
adaptive comanagement of a wetland landscape around Kristianstad, Sweden.
Human Ecology 34:573-592.
Haig, S. M., D. W. Mehlman, and L. W. Oring. 1998. Avian movements and wetland
connectivity in landscape conservation. Conservation Biology 12(4):749-758.
Holling, C. S. 1978. Adaptive environmental assessment and management. Wiley, New
York, New York, USA.
Ivey, G. L., and C. P. Herziger. 2006. Intermountain West waterbird conservation
plan, version 1.2. A plan associated with the Waterbird Conservation for the
Americas Initiative. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pacific Region, Portland,
Oregon, USA. [online] URL: http://www.fws.gov/pacific/migratorybirds/
IWWCP-FINALversion%20with%20cover.pdf.
Kadlec, J. A., and S. E. Adair. 1994. Evaluation of water requirements for the marshes
of the Bear River Delta. Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Utah State
University, Logan, Utah, USA.
Kadlec, R. H. and R. L. Knight. 1996. Treatment wetlands. CRC Press, Boca Raton,
Florida, USA.
Langston, N. 2003. Where land and water meet: a western landscape transformed
University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Lemly, D. A., R. T. Kingsford, and J. R. Thompson. 2000. Irrigated agriculture and
wildlife conservation on a global scale. Environmental Management 25(5):485-
512.
Lovvorn, J. R., & E. A. Hart. 2004. Irrigation, salinity, and landscape patterns of
natural palustrine wetlands. Pages 105-129 in M. C. McKinstry, W. A. Hubert,
and S. H. Anderson, editors. Wetland and riparian areas of the Intermountain
West: ecology and management. University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas.
MacDonnell, L. J. 1991. Water rights for wetlands protection. Rivers 2(4):277-284.
Peck, D. E., D. M. McLeod, J. P. Hewlett, and J. R. Lovvorn. 2005. Irrigation-
dependent wetlands versus instream flow enhancement: economics of water
transfers from agriculture to wildlife uses. Environmental Management 34(6):
842-855.
9
Smith, L. M., N. H. Euliss Jr., D. A. Wilcox, and M. M. Brinson. 2008. Application of
geomorphic and temporal perspective to wetland management in North America.
Wetlands 28(3):563-577.
Somerville, D. E., and B. A. Pruitt. 2006. United States wetland regulation and policy.
Pages 313-347 in D. P. Batzer, and R. R. Sharitz, editors. Ecology of freshwater
and estuarine wetlands. University of California Press, Berkeley, California,
USA.
Vileisis, A. 1997. Discovering the unknown landscape: a history of America’s wetlands.
Island Press, Washington D.C., USA.
Weber, E. P., and A. M. Khademian. 2008. Wicked problems, knowledge challenges,
and collaborative capacity builders in network settings. Public Administration
Review 68(2):334-349.
Wondelleck, J. M. and S. L. Yaffee. 2000. Making collaboration work: lessons from
innovation in natural resource management. Island Press, Washington D.C.,
USA.
10
CHAPTER 2
KEEPING WETLANDS WET: HUMAN HYDROLOGY
AND WATER SECURITY AT FEDERALLY MANAGED
WETLANDS IN THE BEAR RIVER BASIN1
ABSTRACT
The water requirements of wetlands make them rare in the arid West. However,
in the Bear River Basin (which covers parts of Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming), there are
several large wetland complexes, including three federal wildlife refuges. Each refuge
occupies a different geopolitical position along the river and faces different threats to its
water supply due to drought and future developments. This research seeks to understand
how each refuge has obtained a water supply and the security of that supply by analyzing
the human-hydrologic contexts within which these wetlands are located. Researchers
conducted semi-structured interviews with wetland and water rights experts involved in
policy and management of the Bear River. Interviews were complimented by archival
research of historical documents, water rights and field research on the river environment.
Refuges with the most secure water supply hold senior water rights or have
agreements to utilize other users‟ senior water rights. Beyond holding legal rights, it is
best to hold an advantageous geographic position in relation to other water users whose
diversions affect the quantity and quality of water in the river. No matter how legally
secure a refuge‟s water supply is, refuge managers must practically manage this water to
make those rights effective, which requires infrastructure and planning.
1 Co-authored by Rebekah Downard and Dr. Joanna Endter-Wada
11
To adapt to the water related risks and demands of refuge management, managers
at each refuge actively manipulate their refuge‟s water supplies and works to maintain
good relationships with other water users, especially ones whose use is hydrologically
interconnected with their wetlands. Active management and collaborative problem
solving will be critical for all refuges as they face the challenges of future water
development in the Bear River Basin and the uncertain consequences of climate change
in the region.
INTRODUCTION
Wetlands are rare in the Intermountain West of the United States, primarily
because of the general aridity of the region. Conserving wetlands in this region requires
not only protecting the land within wetland complexes, but also the water supply that
feeds them. This is no easy task in regions where water is scarce and heavily
appropriated for diversion and use. Holding legal rights to water is an important step in
securing water for wetlands, but does not necessarily constitute water security. Water
security is affected by the historical trajectories and future prospects of the human-
hydrological environments that affect wetlands, and requires wetland managers to be able
to adapt to uncertain water conditions and changes over time. Enhancing water security
often requires active water management and networking with other interests that use the
water sources upon which wetlands depend.
Wetlands have three identifying characteristics: water, hydric soils and
hydrophytic vegetation (Cowardin et al., 1979). Water is the key ingredient in a wetland
and water depth and flood duration, which make up the wetland‟s hydroperiod, drive
12
most other characteristics of a wetland (Jackson, 2006). Wetlands are one of the most
biologically productive ecosystems in the world and provide ecosystem services that
include wildlife habitat, wastewater treatment, nutrient cycling, and water disturbance
regulation (Batzer & Sharitz, 2006; Costanza et al., 1997; Kadlec & Knight, 1996). To
perform these services, freshwater wetlands need dynamic pulses of water (Christiansen
& Low, 1970; Smith et al., 2008).
Despite the important role wetlands play in maintaining healthy watersheds and
wildlife populations, wetlands have been maligned as wasteful places for much of the
United States‟ history and a great deal of effort has gone into converting them to other
land uses (Badger, 2007; Cronon, 2003; Giblett, 1996; Vileisis, 1997). This began to
change in the 20th century when key pieces of legislation were enacted to protect
wetlands. This legislation generally employs one of two mechanisms: 1) preservation of
important wildlife habitat; or, 2) regulations that prevented destruction of wetlands. The
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1934) follows the first wetland protection strategy.
The Act requires consultation with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) before
beginning construction activities that could negatively affect wildlife habitat and provides
a means for the government to acquire land and water for wildlife conservation. Many
states also have similar policies to protect their own wildlife habitat. Most other federal
wetland legislation follows the second route by seeking to prevent wetland destruction
through permitting (e.g., the 1972 Clean Water Act), agency policy (e.g., Executive
Order 11990 signed in 1977) or withholding federal subsidies (e.g., the Swamp Buster
provisions of the 1985 Food Security Act) (National Research Council, 2001; Somerville
& Pruitt, 2006; Vileisis, 1997).
13
This federal legislation has been effective in slowing the pace of wetland
destruction nationwide. However, none of these policies specifically addresses protecting
the water supply for wetlands. Rather, they focus on protecting land that has been
designated as wetlands or the wildlife that utilizes wetland habitat. Today, wetlands
continue to be threatened or destroyed by activities in watersheds that disrupt their
hydrology by decreasing or increasing flood pulses or altering patterns of sedimentation
(Dahl, 2006). These activities are often regulated or mandated by policies related to
water allocation and management, which are much older than those designed to protect
wetlands and have only recently been amended to incorporate environmental values of
water, like wetlands.
Under the rules of prior appropriation water law, the primary means for allocating
water in the western United States, all users must obtain a legal water right from the state
within which the water is diverted. Each water right includes a priority date,
corresponding to when application to use water was filed and designates the beneficial
use the water will be put to, most often irrigation, industry, municipal use or wildlife
propagation. Every water user‟s rights are affected by the water available in the source of
supply and the seniority of other user‟s water rights relative to their own. When water
supplies are insufficient to meet all users‟ needs, those water users who have acquired
their water rights most recently, referred to as junior appropriators, will have their water
rights cut off first (Getches, 2009). In order to secure water, wetlands generally must be
managed by an entity capable of obtaining water rights, like the U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service which manages millions of acres of wetland habitat in their National Wildlife
Refuge System.
14
Water is primarily allocated by individual states, but there are a few cases
whereby the federal government plays a role in water allocation, one of these being
through the federal reserved right claim. Under this doctrine, established in 1908 during
the case of Winters v. United States, the federal government has right to enough water to
serve the purposes federal land was set aside for, be it Indian reservations, national parks
or wildlife refuges. Water rights claimed as federal reserved rights hold a priority date of
when the land reservation was established. The doctrine also comes into play with efforts
to protect endangered species (Getches, 2001).
Having legal access to water does not guarantee water will always be available to
wetlands, especially in the arid Intermountain West. After the establishment of western
states, water was generally allocated to agricultural first and is now being redistributed,
often through market mechanisms, from agricultural to municipal use. Meanwhile,
climate change threatens to disrupt water supplies by altering patterns of precipitation and
evaporation. Thus, water supplies for wetlands in this region are best described in terms
of their water security. Water security is defined as the availability of enough water, of
acceptable quality, to sustain ecosystem function and human health and livelihoods,
along with acceptable levels of water-related risks, like drought and flooding (Grey &
Sadoff, 2007). Most research on water security has focused on the security of water for
food production and sanitation and the risk of violent conflict due to lack of security
(Dimitrov, 2002; Gleick, 1993; Postel, 1996). Water security can be assessed for
different water uses, including personal use, agricultural use and environmental use.
Efforts to maintain or increase security for just one of these three uses can cause conflict,
and security for all uses is decreasing globally (Bruins, 2000; Vaux, 1993). However,
15
efforts to increase water security that recognize the human-hydrologic interdependencies
of all water uses are more likely to enhance security for all users, but are also more
difficult to achieve (Dimitrov, 2002; Endter-Wada et al., 2009).
Agriculture utilizes about 80% of diverted water in the western United States and
is commonly cited as a threat to wetlands, due to the historical conversion of wetlands for
agricultural cultivation and diversions of water for irrigation (Langston, 2003; Lemly et
al., 2000; Vileisis, 1997). Historical and globally focused research suggests the two
interests continue to compete for water, and that improvements in agricultural water use
efficiency will mean increased security for environmental uses (Gleick, 1993; Grey &
Sadoff, 2007; Jury & Vaux, 2005; Postel, 1996; Vaux, 2008). However, emerging
research shows that many wetlands in the Intermountain West region are actually
irrigation dependant because they receive significant amounts of water from irrigation
return flow (Lovvorn & Hart, 2004; Peck et al., 2005). Population growth increases the
demand for water, and municipal water managers are also promoting increased
agricultural water use efficiency and transfers of water from agricultural to municipal use
as a way to increase water security in urban areas (Utah Division of Water Resources,
2000). This poses a threat to wetlands that receive water from irrigation return flows or
that have adapted to the current water distribution system.
Historically, the most commonly applied means of increasing water security
under highly variable hydrologic conditions have been water storage and delivery
facilities. More recently water managers have begun seeking agreements with other
waters and other non-structural adaptations to better manage rivers and integrate multiple
uses (Dimitrov, 2002; Grey & Sadoff, 2007; Jury & Vaux, 2005). The ability to manage
16
water maximizes the productive potential of a limited supply while minimizing its
destructive potentials (e.g., the risks of droughts and floods). In order to be effective,
water management infrastructure must be balanced by institutional developments like
planning procedures that ensure the optimal use of water and the sustainability of water
management (Grey & Sadoff, 2007). As water security becomes a more pressing issue,
due to population growth and climate change, collaborative institutions that manage
water across state and agency boundaries will become necessary to address regional and
local water needs (Dimitrov, 2002; Kamieniecki & Kraft, 2008; Wondelleck & Yaffee,
2000).
Human interaction is important in river basins where water supplies are variable
and heavily managed, especially where they constitute interstate water bodies. A
common source of conflict and water insecurity is the compartmentalization of water
management within agencies or states. Conflict arises when multiple groups or agencies
manage different aspects of the same supply (e.g., quality or quantity) or when states
have different rules for allocating an interstate river (Dimitrov, 2002; Grey & Sadoff,
2007; Wondelleck & Yaffee, 2000). Individual water and wetland managers can be key
actors in building collaborative capacity in an area, especially when they can find the
flexibility to work outside the bounds of organizational structures and when they are
willing to communicate and work with personnel in other institutions (Ashe, 2003; Hahn
et al., 2006).i
Wetlands in the Intermountain West only cover about 1% of the region‟s land
area, compared to 5% nationwide (Dahl, 2006). However, these rare pieces of wetland
habitat are critical stopover points for millions of birds on the Pacific Flyway, supporting
17
30-60% of North America‟s bird diversity at some point during the year (Haig et al.,
1998; Wilson & Carson, 1950). Periodic drought is not usually bad for wetlands; in fact,
it is part of the natural hydrologic cycle of wetlands and is often necessary for
maintaining the ecosystem services wetlands provide. However, lack of flooded wetland
habitat can leave migratory birds without a critical stopover point in arid regions that has
enough vegetation to meet their food or reproductive needs (Denton, 2007; Ivey &
Herziger, 2006). Low water can decrease plant growth and food production and
concentrates more birds in smaller areas, making outbreaks of bird diseases more likely
and potentially more devastating (Al Trout, personal communication). Furthermore,
drought‟s positive effects are contingent upon the rate of water drawdown and on
sufficient water returning in a timely manner to maintain wetland plant communities
(Christiansen & Low, 1970; Kadlec, 1962; Taft et al., 2002).
Wetlands in the Intermountain West are adapted to periodic drying, but natural
hydrologic cycles and water sources have been disrupted and manipulated for human
uses. As waterways across the Western United States were developed, primarily for
agricultural use, many wetlands were intentionally drained or accidentally dried up.
Other wetlands have developed in low lying areas where water has been redistributed due
to hydrologic manipulations of rivers for other, out-of-stream uses (Lemly et al., 2000;
MacDonnell, 1991; Peck et al., 2005). Predicted changes in precipitation and
temperature due to climate change will also have a significant impact on wetlands and
water distribution in the West. Over a 50-year period, there has been a 15-60% decrease
in snowpack at measurement points across the Interior West, though the highest mountain
points have seen an increase in snowpack (Mote et al., 2009). Changes in the timing of
18
spring runoff (the annual peak of stream discharge) have been increasing over the last
few decades, with runoff peaking earlier and less water coming downstream naturally
during the late spring and summer (Lundquist et al., 2009). Climate models also suggest
increased variability in inter-annual precipitation and rises in temperature that will
increase the evapotranspiration demands of wetland and agricultural plants (Wagner,
2009). All of these factors combine to produce a great deal of uncertainty globally and
locally about how much water will be available in rivers and aquifers and how users will
have to adapt to changes in water supplies (Jackson et al., 2001).
Within the Bear River Basin, located in the states of Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming,
three wetland complexes are managed as part of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
Hydrologic conditions on the river vary considerably, both temporally and spatially, and
each refuge has had different opportunities to obtain a water supply and faces different
threats to that water supply. This chapter presents a comparative analysis of these water
supplies through three addressing general questions. First, how was the refuge‟s water
supply obtained? Second, how secure is that water supply? Third, how have refuge
managers adapted to uncertain water availability conditions?
Answering the first question requires an understanding of the legal and physical
rules of water allocation in the region. An initial policy review revealed that there are
five main mechanisms for obtaining a water supply at federal refuges in the
Intermountain West: 1) securing state certificated water rights; 2) securing a federal
reserved water right; 3) making agreements with other water users for access to water; 4)
purchasing or leasing water rights from other entities; or, 5) having an advantageous
geographic position that requires no legal or agreed upon water supply delivery.
19
The second question this research sought to answer was how secure each refuge‟s
water supply is, which requires a modification of the traditional definition of water
security. Water security for wetlands is different than water security for human
consumption or agriculture use because wetlands are adapted to dynamic hydroperiods.
For the purpose of this research, water security is defined as the availability of a quantity
of water, during most years, sufficient to support enough flooded or periodically flooded
wetlands to meet habitat needs established by each refuge. Three factors determine water
security: the hydrologic environment, the human environment, and the interactive effects
of future changes to those environments.
The three federal wetlands we studied are all located in contexts where, since the
end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, significant hydrologic manipulations
of the Bear River occurred to support irrigated agriculture. More recent changes have
involved increasing agricultural irrigation efficiency, transfers of water rights among
various uses, and developing water supply infrastructure to support growing urban areas.
Thus, our third question was: How have wetland managers adapted to the uncertain water
conditions on the Bear River?
Researching these questions requires an in-depth contextualized study of the
politics, history, and ecology of the Bear River Basin, and of the organizations and
people who currently make decisions about water and wildlife. The specific ecological
and political dimensions of the Basin are particular to this region, but dealing with scarce
water supplies and changing water uses is an issue common across the Western United
States. The means by which the refuges in this case study have secured water supplies
provide insights that can be utilized in other managed wetland cases, particularly in other
20
heavily allocated river basins where people are trying to balance the needs of traditional
water uses, new water demands and ecological values.
METHODS
Research Approach
The general research approach followed a retroductive methodology to explain an
interesting phenomenon through a combination of research approaches, including semi-
structured interviews and archival document research (Creswell, 2009; Romesburg,
2009).
A literature review and preliminary search of water rights yielded a ten-question
interview protocol and list of interview participants. Interview participants included
current and former managers and biologists at federal wildlife refuges, water right
administrators of states in the region, and state wildlife managers and biologists (see
Appendix A). Interview participants identified additional sources of data, secondary
literature, and potential interviewees that provided further insights about the case studies.
Interview questions addressed the source, quantity and legal nature of refuge water
supplies, the nature and effects of drought, constraints and opportunities for acquiring
water supplies, controversies associated with water allocation on the Bear River, the
effectiveness of wetland policies and interagency and inter-basin politics (see Appendix
B for interview protocol). Interviews were recorded and transcribed when possible (see
Appendix C for informed consent letter approved by Utah State University‟s Institutional
Review Board).
21
Data from interviews were triangulated with other sources of information,
including water rights, stream flow data and refuge management plans. Interviews
produced themes about differential water security along the Bear River and the
importance of relationships and knowledge sharing which were verified through
additional literature searches. The results of this research are presented here as a
comparative case study of three wildlife refuges in the Bear River Basin, detailing water
security and adaptations at each refuge.
The Bear River Basin: Context for the Case Studies
The Bear River Basin is geographically and politically complex (Jibson, 1991).
The Bear River flows for 500 miles through three states, beginning in the montane forests
of the High Uinta Mountains in Utah, passing through sagebrush rangelands and
agricultural valleys of Wyoming, Idaho and Utah, and crossing state lines five times
before emptying into the Great Salt Lake (see Figure 2-1).ii The Bear River Basin
receives most precipitation in the form of snow, which falls on high elevation forests
during the winter. Because of this, flow in the Bear River varies significantly seasonally
and between years depending on annual accumulated snow pack, often seen in cycles of
drought and flooding (Utah Water Research Laboratory, 2010). Discharge at the end of
the river can vary from 23 cubic feet per second (cfs) during July of a dry year, to 14,700
cfs in April of a wet year (U. S. Geological Survey, 2009a). Figure 2-2 shows the
hydrograph of average monthly discharge in the Bear River over the last 45 years,
indicating the changes in stream flow within and between years. The cycles of drought
22
and flood have been the impetus for the formation of important water policies along the
river (Endter-Wada et al., 2009; Utah Division of Water Resources, 2000).
The Bear River Basin contains two natural, ecologically unique lakes, Bear Lake
and the Great Salt Lake. The ecological differences between the two lakes have
important political consequences for their associated wetlands. The Great Salt Lake
(GSL) is a shallow, hyper-saline, terminal lake at the end of the Bear River. Changes in
lake elevation, due to changes in winter snow pack, result in large changes in surface area
(U. S. Geological Survey, 2009b).iii The north and east sides of the lake support
exceptionally productive wetlands that fluctuate in size along with the shoreline of the
lake. The GSL is often described as desolate because it supports no fisheries; however, it
has a very productive food web based on brine shrimp and brine flies that support huge
populations of birds and a large brine shrimp harvesting industry (Wurtsbaugh &
Gliwicz, 2001).
Bear Lake, which straddles the Utah-Idaho border, is a natural lake that has been
augmented to store high spring runoff flows for delivery during the irrigation season.
The Bear River was not historically connected with the lake until 1918, when a canal was
completed to divert the river into Mud Lake, then into Bear Lake, followed by a canal
and pumping station to bring stored water back out of the lake and into the river. This
allows the top 21.65 feet of the lake to be used as a storage reservoir (Jibson, 1991).iv
PacifiCorp, a power company, manages the canals within the stipulations in the Dietrich
and Kimball Decrees, the Bear River Compact, and the Bear Lake Settlement Agreement,
described in Table 2-1.
23
The natural geography of the river basin limited where and how the first settlers
could manipulate the river, so settlement began first along tributaries and on mountain
benches, where water was most easily impounded and diverted. The oldest legal rights
on the Bear River date back to the 1860s, when the river was first allocated for irrigation
according to the rules of prior appropriation. These rules were codified into state
constitutions when the territories achieved statehood in 1890 and 1896 (Jibson, 1991).v
However, in the past 150 years, technological advancements have allowed users to
exercise greater control of the river, building larger dams and putting large river valleys
into agricultural production. The Bear River and its tributaries are now impounded by
numerous dams and diverted by several canals, which capture snowmelt during spring
runoff and distribute it later when natural flow and precipitation are low. The
construction of so much infrastructure has had significant ecological and political
consequences.
Management of the Bear River is difficult because it is an interstate river and
because it is prone to cycles of drought and flooding. However, negotiations over water
on the Bear River have been marked by “cooperation and iron-clad decree” rather than
protracted conflict common in other river basins in the West, even in times of drought
(Endter-Wada et al., 2009).vi Cooperation is possible because of the Bear River
Compact, which allocates water equitably between states, and the Bear River
Commission, a transboundary organization that administers the Compact and connects
users from all three states (Boyce, 1996; Jibson, 1991). There are several other water
policies unique to the Basin that impact wetlands and their water supply, summarized in
Table 2-1. These form the “law of the river,” adding to the framework of prior
24
appropriation by including provisions that fit regional water needs and historical water
use. The law of the river includes compacts, court decrees, agreements between powerful
water users and management plans.
The human hydrology that results from the hydrological, ecological and political
aspects of the Bear River is presented below as a case study of the three federal wildlife
refuges in the Bear River Basin.
RESULTS
Each federal refuge on the Bear River holds a different geopolitical position, but
they all have the same general options for securing a water supply. Based on their
particular histories and the various pressures refuge wetlands face from drought,
managers at each refuge have chosen different means for securing a water supply, yet all
have adapted in similar ways to the water insecurities they face. There are three factors
that determine water security at each refuge: the hydrologic environment, the human
environment, and the interactive effects of future changes to those environments. These
factors together form a unique human-hydrologic environment at each Refuge.
Aspects of the hydrologic environment that affect wetlands are the absolute level
of resource availability, the inter- and intra-annual variability of water, and the spatial
distribution of the water (Grey & Sadoff, 2007). Given the region‟s general aridity and
the temporal and spatial variability of river flow, the Bear River provides a dynamic and
uncertain water supply; however, the uncertainty and dynamism of the river‟s hydrology
varies by location (Utah Division of Water Resources, 2004). The average monthly
stream flow in the Bear River in the vicinity of each refuge was analyzed to determine
25
how similar stream flows were at each refuge from year to year, particularly during the
irrigation season.
The human environment of the Bear River has two components: institutions (the
organizations, policies, laws, regulations, and incentives related to water management)
and infrastructure (dams, canals, and other water conveyance structures) (Grey & Sadoff,
2007). Prior appropriation is the primary water allocation institution on the river, and is
discussed here as the legal rights held or utilized for the wetland habitat at each refuge.
Once institutional access to water is secured, water must be managed within refuges
through a combination of infrastructure and planning. Refuge infrastructure is most often
in the form of a series of dikes that subdivide a wetland complex into discrete units where
water depth can be manipulated by canals that deliver water to these units. Information
on water needs, water rights, and physical supply are necessary to utilize infrastructure
properly.
The third factor in determining water security is the future environment of the
river. Among the future challenges facing Bear River Basin wildlife refuges are changes
in water use throughout the basin, climate change and emerging problems with water
quality. These changes will affect both the hydrological environment, through alteration
of the quantity and timing of water in the Bear River, and the human environment of the
river through the necessary changes to river management policy. Adapting to those
changes will also increase the cost of maintaining water security. The discussion below
describes the environmental factors at each case study refuge and corresponding water
security and adaptations.
26
Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming
One of the most recent additions to the national wildlife refuge system is
Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge (CMNWR), located in the upper region of
the Bear River, where it flows through western Wyoming. The refuge was established in
1993 after it was identified as prime waterfowl habitat that should be protected. The
wetlands and attendant wildlife found at CMNWR are rare in Wyoming, which consists
of more rangelands and mountains than wetlands. Thus far, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) has acquired 8,000 acres of land for the refuge and hopes to obtain up to
26,000 acres of land in order to protect 20 miles of the Bear River and its tributaries in
the vicinity of the refuge (Kate Kirk, personal communication) (see Figure 2-3).
The hydrologic environment at CMNWR follows a fairly predictable pattern,
river flow peaks in June and decreases through the summer. Differences between
minimum and maximum flows over the course of the year and between years are not
extreme, though seasonal variation and inter-annual changes in discharge are apparent
(see Figure 2-4). There are also smaller tributaries and groundwater sources that supply
water to CMNWR and moderate some of the effects of the variability in the Bear River.
The FWS has a diverse portfolio of water rights acquired with lands purchased for
CMNWR, including shares in eight ditches, 16 ground water rights and rights to storage
water (see Table 2-2). Many of the surface rights have natural flow priorities dating back
to the 1800s.vii The foundation of the refuge‟s water supply is a number of rights on the
B. Q. (Beckwith-Quinn) Dam East and Pixley Irrigation Ditches that date back to the
1870s and 1880s. These are the oldest rights on the refuge and are used to irrigate the
largest contiguous portions of the CMNWR. The refuge is entitled to 44% of the flow in
27
the B.Q. Canal (which can carry up to 150 cfs) and 33% of the flow in the Pixley Canal
(which on average carries 40-60 cfs) (Kate Kirk, personal communication).
Groundwater forms the second major piece of CMNWR‟s water supply; these
rights have lower priority, but some are quite large. Most of the rights are for irrigation
to be used during the late spring and summer; however there are some designated for
stock water or domestic use. Much of the current work on the refuge involves cataloging
their rights and working to fully utilize them. Utilizing these rights, especially
groundwater rights, requires significant infrastructure, including pumps and sprinklers.
Some of this infrastructure, which was acquired with the land purchased for the refuge,
has not been used in recent years and the refuge‟s staff is currently trying to get
groundwater pumps refurbished so they can use all water sources available to the refuge
(Kate Kirk, personal communication).
CMNWR managers are unable to fully manage their water because the refuge is
relatively new and is only just beginning the process of developing a management plan to
guide their efforts. However, the physical infrastructure for water management (dikes
and board-stop structures) is in place and as they gather data and complete a water
management plan, managers hope to be able to actively manage their water to better meet
the requirements of wildlife. According to a refuge manager, “The water management
plan is extremely important…. We just know we need water in wetlands for the birds,
and then we get rid of it for agricultural ends” (Kate Kirk, personal communication).
This is not to suggest that there is no water management taking place. Most of the time
managers spend on the refuge they are adjusting water levels in different wetland units
and following a general strategy of filling wetlands during the spring and drying units in
28
the late summer. To meet agreements with nearby landowners negotiated when the
refuge was established, the staff purposely draws down some wetland units during the
late summer to allow those landowners to cut and dry wetland vegetation from the refuge
for hay to feed cattle (Kate Kirk, personal communication).
In order to develop a water management plan and eventually open the refuge to
the public, managers will develop a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). This
document is a requirement of the 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement
Act and should act as a tool to guide long-term management decisions at the refuge. The
CCP process involves identifying the purpose of each refuge, distribution of wildlife,
habitat and archeological values, areas with recreation potential, and significant problems
that would adversely affect refuge values. With this information, and with input from the
public, refuges managers are then required to put together a comprehensive management
plan (U. S. Code, 1997). Gathering the necessary information and developing a long-
term management plan is a large task for a new refuge with limited staff.
At CMNWR, managers feel comfortable with their current water supply: “In dry
years the refuge [isn‟t] affected because we have a lot of senior rights…. What we‟re
entitled to can pretty much maintain [the habitat] we have” (Kate Kirk, personal
communication). Furthermore, they foresee no major threats to the water supply, because
of the refuge‟s advantageous position high in the watershed where upstream water
development is unlikely. It would have to be a year without snow in order for the refuge
to not have enough water. However, because no one has been staffing and monitoring
the refuge for long periods of time (because it is new), it is unclear exactly how drought
would affect the wetlands (Kate Kirk, personal communication). History has shown that
29
drought can hit the agricultural interests in that area hard because there is insufficient
storage to carry the area through several years of diminished snowpack (Jibson, 1991).
This history is applicable to CMNWR because these wetlands were agricultural fields
until the refuge was established. Climate change could also pose a serious threat to
CMNWR water supply, because various models predict it will likely decrease the
snowpack that feeds the Bear River.
As the staff determines the refuge‟s water supply and needs, managers will have
the flexibility to adapt their future management plans to the contextual realities of water
and land management in the area (Kate Kirk, personal communication). One such
adaptation already in place is allowing landowners to harvest hay on refuge lands.
Because of this arrangement, the refuge does not need to keep as many of their wetland
units flooded, thus demanding less water during the late summer than they would if units
were scheduled to be flooded.
CMNWR managers have built good working relationships with the Wyoming
State Engineer‟s Office and the Wyoming Division of Wildlife Resources. These
relationships are important because they help managers get to know their water supply
and wildlife resources and build collaborative capacity to adapt to water changes in the
area. CMNWR managers cooperate with neighboring water users on a regular basis;
currently they send FWS water down canals when other water users ask for it. This will
likely change as the refuge develops a water management plan, but the current practice
has built lines of communication between water users in the area. Managers also hope to
develop more relationships with the local community through the CCP Process (Kate
Kirk, personal communication).
30
Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Idaho
The Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge (BLNWR) was established in 1968 to
aid the recovery of declining Canada goose populations because the Mud Lake and
Dingle Marsh area of the Bear River was identified as prime goose nesting habitat
(Annette deKnijf, personal communication). The refuge encompasses 19,000 acres,
including 17,000 acres of wetland habitat. The marshes, along with grasslands, grain
fields and open water habitat, support many species of waterfowl and colonial nesting
birds (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2009). Mud Lake forms the southern portion of
BLNWR, and connects to Bear Lake through a large culvert. Despite all of the
hydrologic changes associated with development of Bear Lake for hydropower and
irrigation, the BLNWR wetlands persisted and after the area was established as a wildlife
refuge efforts have proceeded to improve the quality of the habitat (see Figure 2-5).
The hydrologic environment at BLNWR is primarily determined by the Rainbow
Canal, which diverts the Bear River from its natural channel through BLNWR and into
Bear Lake. Flow in the canal does diminish during the late summer, but not drastically,
and discharge remains fairly predictable between years (see Figure 2-4). Bloomington,
Paris, and St. Charles Creeks all terminate at this refuge, as do the Dingle and Ream
Crockett irrigation canals. Most years, these canals will carry water for the entire
irrigation season (April through October), thus increasing the reliability of water at
BLNWR.
FWS does not own any water rights for BLNWR. Instead, it has entered into
agreements with the entities that do hold rights either through holding shares in irrigation
31
companies or negotiating agreements for water use with powerful nearby water users.
PacifiCorp, a power company, manages the Rainbow Canal and other facilities associated
with Bear Lake water storage, and holds rights to divert 5,500 cfs of the Bear River
through this canal with priority dates of 1911 and 1912.viii Through an agreement with
PacifiCorp, refuge managers can draw the canal up or down six inches, according to
wetland habitat needs (Annette deKnijf, personal communication). Before this agreement
was made the water level in Dingle Marsh would fluctuate widely according to the water
being brought into and released from Bear Lake for hydropower generation or irrigation
needs, to the detriment of nesting birds (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008). While
PacifiCorp‟s rights are not as senior as the canal companies‟ rights, through several
agreements and decrees (mentioned in Table 2-1), the water is actually diverted and
stored for downstream irrigators who have priorities dating back to the 1880s.
The FWS also holds shares in five of the canal companies that irrigate lands
around the refuge. The canal companies‟ rights are primarily for irrigation, but there are
some wildlife or stock watering rights that can be used year round. The combination of
PacifiCorp and irrigation company water rights ensures there will be water for BLNWR
because of its proximity to the canals and to Bear Lake. Table 2-3 lists the rights relevant
to BLNWR.
BLNWR does have a management plan but it has less physical infrastructure than
other refuges, which limits the ability to manage habitat to some degree. However, there
are plans to add more wetland units in the near future in order to better implement
management efforts. Current management practice involves filling wetland units during
the spring, when water is plentiful, and intentionally allowing units to draw down in the
32
fall, when water is scarcer. As refuge personnel build more water control structures, they
may be able to restore some of the natural wetland hydrology to the area that was
disrupted by construction of the Rainbow Canal and a causeway between Bear Lake and
Mud Lake. This would help recreate the slow flow across BLNWR land from north to
south. Through this measure, they will also create diverse habitat types and control some
of their water quality problems (Annette deKnijf, personal communication).
BLNWR sits in a good place geopolitically currently and for the foreseeable
future. The Bear River Compact designates that there should be no net legal loss of water
into Bear Lake. Thus, water developments upstream of the refuge cannot legally
diminish PacifiCorp‟s storage rights in Bear Lake (the source of the refuge‟s supply).
Managers at BLNWR note that there seems to be enough water most years and do not
feel the refuge needs more. But they feel certain that if a really serious drought were to
affect the area, irrigators‟ needs would come before the wetlands. However, that
prospect seems unlikely. A more pressing concern is the quality of water entering the
refuge; currently managers are seeing problems with phosphorous, pesticides and
sediments (Annette deKnijf, personal communication).
BLNWR has not had to focus as much on maintaining a water supply because of
its geographic position on the river, so managers are able to focus on trying to restore the
natural hydrology and enhance water quality (Annette deKnijf, personal communication).
Enhancing water quality is an option only available to refuges with secure water supplies,
both because of the water quantity required to manage water quality problems, and
because of the time it takes to manage major water quantity issues. Climate change does
33
pose a threat to BLNWR, as it could change the amount of water entering Bear Lake
through changes in snowpack and potentially change the way the lake is operated.
One of the most important aspects of water management at Bear Lake NWR is the
good relationship managers have had with PacifiCorp, which provides the primary source
of water to the refuge. BLNWR will be starting the CCP process shortly, which presents
an opportunity to involve nearby communities in developing management goals for the
refuge (Annette deKnijf, personal communication). Having those lines of
communication with the local communities will allow for future adaptations to river
conditions.
Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge, Utah
Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge (BRMBR) sits within the 112,000 acre Bear
River Delta in the northeast arm of the Great Salt Lake (GSL) and encompasses 74,000
acres, about 30,000 acres of which are managed as freshwater wetlands (Olson, 2009;
Olson et al., 2004) (see Figure 2-6). Every year more than 260 species of birds utilize
BRMBR for feeding, breeding or staging; these birds account for about 30% of the birds
on the Pacific Flyway and some from the Central Flyway. Many of these bird
populations are internationally significant but none of them are threatened or endangered
(Haig et al., 1998; Ivey & Herziger, 2006; Wilson & Carson, 1950).
When the early explorers of the West first saw the Bear River delta they were
astonished by the flocks of ducks and shorebirds feeding on the marshes (Fremont,
1845).ix But by the 1920s, the delta had been depleted to about 2,000 scattered wetland
acres, down from 45,000 acres, due to upstream irrigation diversions. Changes in the
34
hydrology of the river exacerbated outbreaks of avian botulism that killed up to 500,000
birds a year (Olson et al., 2004; Wilson & Carson, 1950). Congress reacted by
establishing the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge in 1928 with the mission to create
suitable feeding and breeding habitat for migratory birds and to comply with the
Migratory Bird Treat Act of 1918 (U. S. Code, 1928).
Of the water in the Bear River, 60% comes from the Bear River Mountain Range,
which lies between Bear Lake and BRMBR. The river flows through this region gaining
significant volume (Will Atkin, personal communication; Bob Fotheringham, personal
communication). Despite this increase in water volume in the river, BRMBR has the
least dependable stream flows of the three Bear River Basin refuges studied because it
lies downstream of all water users, a poor geographic position to hold. The physical
hydrologic environment here shows the most variability, a result of the human hydrology
of the Bear River. Stream discharge can vary between 50 cfs and 3,500 cfs within the
same year, and drought or flood years amplify this variability (see Figure 2-4). Very
little of the refuge‟s water supply comes from sources other than the Bear River, leaving
it vulnerable to the variability of that source (Kadlec & Adair, 1994).
People managing water at BRMBR are very aware of how insecure their water
supply is. They view drought as a yearly phenomenon, rather than something that may
happen every few years. The refuge‟s primary source of water runs extremely low during
the irrigation season, “…so that leads to drought conditions for us during some pretty
critical habitat periods…. There‟s always going to be a shortage, we‟re not going to be
able to fill up everything every year” (Bridget Olson, personal communication). Every
35
year, refuge managers plan to see up to 75% of their wetland units dry up because of
summer river conditions (Al Trout, personal communication).
When BRMBR was established, managers applied for a foundational water right
to 1,000 cfs from the Bear River for wildlife propagation, a beneficial use that allows a
right to be used all year long. In addition to this foundational right, FWS holds 28 other
rights for use at the refuge that fall into four categories: applications to appropriate,
diligence claims, underground water rights and decreed rights (see Table 2-4).x
Applications to appropriate have priority dates established when the right was applied for
while the other three types of rights are claims that are declared after use has been
initiated, either by users or the courts, and hold dates prior to the declaration of use (Utah
Division of Water Rights, 2009). Most of the rights for the refuge, and their most senior
rights, are diligence and underground water claims; however, these are limited to use on a
small portion of the refuge that is composed primarily of lands purchased since the
1990s.
BRMBR managers have the greatest ability to manage water. Upon
establishment, refuge staff began aggressive development of a system of dikes and canals
to impound freshwater from the Bear River on the refuge longer and exclude the saline
water of the GSL (Olson et al., 2004). This effort produced visible improvements in
wildlife populations and habitat by the 1930s and continues to be used today there and at
other wildlife refuges (Wilson & Carson, 1950). The current system involves 96 miles of
dikes that divide the complex into 26 units; this creates more habitat diversity and gives
managers the ability to better manage water depths within units (Olson et al., 2004).xi
36
BRMBR biologists have established wetland habitat water requirements and
management goals based on migratory bird needs. Achieving these habitat goals requires
intensive water management. To maximize management goals within wetland units,
biologists complete an annual water management plan, based on snow pack forecasts,
that determines how much water they expect to see and how they will use it. The plan
establishes water depth targets for individual wetland units and prioritizes units based on
their importance to wildlife. Non-priority units are allowed to dry first as stream flow
decreases while others are actively kept flooded as long as possible, with an effort to
make sure units don‟t go dry for too many years in a row. When water becomes available
again, units are refilled on the same priority basis. A wetland unit priority system allows
for adaptations when water supply predictions are inaccurate, which can happen when
rates of snowmelt are faster or slower than predicted or when there is more spring and
summer precipitation than average. In addition to providing habitat, water is also
required for botulism control, which requires emptying and flushing wetland units during
the late summer to prevent disease outbreaks (Olson, 2009, Olson et al., 2004).
The future environment of the river at BRMBR is less clear and more threatening
than at the other refuges. According to biologists at BRMBR, “There are always threats
to our water supply” (Bridget Olson, personal communication). Foremost among those
threats are transfers of water uses upstream from agricultural to municipal or industrial
uses, which could decrease the return flow the refuge receives during irrigation season.
Because of water agreements involving Bear Lake, water saved due to increased
agricultural irrigation efficiency or other changes in use is stored in Bear Lake, rather
than making its way down the Bear River. The FWS also watches new water
37
appropriations on the river that could decrease the water available at BRMBR even more
(Bob Barrett, personal communication). While many water users on the river believe the
system is fully allocated, the Utah Division of Water Resources (2000) has been directed
to develop 275,000 acre feet of Bear River water from to support the rapid population
growth within and outside of the Bear River Basin. This will require new water storage
facilities and transfers of water from agricultural to municipal use because extra water is
only available during the spring runoff (Boyce, 1996). xii New water storage facilities can
present a threat or an opportunity to increase water security for the refuge. If FWS could
obtain storage rights for the refuge that water could potentially be used during the
summer when there is little water left in the Bear River. However, if they do not secure
storage rights, there will simply be less water flowing through the delta, thus less water
for BRMBR (Kadlec & Adair, 1994; Al Trout, personal communication).
BRMBR is the leader in adapting to the human-hydrologic context of the Bear
River through intensive water management. BRMBR has the best documentation of their
water needs, based on the habitat requirements of ten priority bird species, and well
established goals for water management that are incorporated in published annual and
long-term management plans that adapt to yearly changes in water supply (Bridget Olson,
personal communication). For further discussion of these adaptations see Chapter
Three.
Maintaining good relationships with other water users is very important for
BRMBR. Most of the water the refuge receives in the late summer is return flow from
upstream irrigation that would not be in the river without irrigators having it delivered
from storage in Bear Lake. If more water is stored in the upper reaches of the river, less
38
water will make it downstream to where BRMBR is located. Water use in the lower Bear
River is carefully planned and monitored, but after a storm event there may be extra
water in irrigation canals that must be spilled from overflowing canals rather than utilized
on fields. BRMBR managers work with a canal company and hunting clubs nearby to
manage unexpected spills and return flows so they can be of the most benefit to the lower
Bear River region as a whole (Al Trout, personal communication).
Managers at the BRMBR have done a lot of relational work with other agencies in
the Bear River delta, especially in the last 20 years. The most important work may have
been during the adjudication of the lower Bear River in the 1990s. Under the
adjudication process, the FWS presented all the water rights for the refuge to the State
Engineer, which required extensive consultation with the State Division of Water Rights.
Through this consultation and negotiation the refuge received a higher duty of water for
their rights, which allows them to use seven ac/ft of water per acre on their wetlands,
rather than the standard decreed four ac/ft of water per acre. This allows the refuge to
legally apply more water per acre to their wetlands than agricultural users do to their
crops, when that water is available. It also allows for a more accurate legal quantification
of the refuge‟s water needs. The manager of the refuge also sits on the water board in the
region and attends meetings with other water users (Will Atkin, personal communication;
Al Trout, personal communication).
Unfortunately, there have been less positive developments in the relationship
building process as well. The most notable of these events happened in the early 1990s
when BRMBR began the process of filing a federal reserved water right claim, which a
former refuge manager likened to “dropping a bomb.” The FWS dropped their claim
39
after it was determined that the Service did not own all the land for which they were
claiming a federal reserved right, and that the date of such a claim would not have a high
enough priority for it to actually get more water for the refuge. Not only did the process
cause negative feelings among other water users, but it also exacerbated tensions with the
state over management of state sovereign lands in the bed of the Great Salt Lake (Bob
Fotheringham, personal communication; Al Trout, personal communication). Before
that, in the 1970s, during negotiations over amendments to the Bear River Compact, the
Refuge had 120,000 ac/ft of the Bear River reserved for its future development in the
Compact, but this was removed, as was any further discussion of refuge development
(Boyce, 1996; Jibson, 1991). BRMBR has also pursued storage facilities with state
agencies, which fell through and strained relationships between the organizations (Al
Trout, personal communication). Currently the refuge managers focus on maintaining
the water supply they have and becoming more integrated with the local water user
community, rather than acquiring more legal rights to water (Bob Barrett, personal
communication).
DISCUSSION
It is difficult to compare factors that determine water security in this study
because not all are equally important and much depends on future development in the
Bear River Basin. However, based on the factors discussed above, water security at each
refuge within the Bear River Basin can be characterized and some preliminary
comparisons can be suggested (see Table 2-5).
40
First, a refuge‟s geographic position in the human-hydrologic context of the river
appears to be the most important factor in determining the security of its water supply. A
refuge located upstream of, or adjacent to large, powerful water users has a more secure
supply than one located downstream of powerful users in a heavily appropriated system.
Geographic position matters because it determines how much water will actually be in
the river during the growing season. However, refuges must still obtain legal rights to
that water.
The primary mechanism for obtaining a water supply at wildlife refuges in the
Bear River Basin has been to apply for state certificated water rights, though one refuge
(BLNWR) owns no water rights of its own, and has instead entered into agreements to
use other water users‟ water rights. Water rights are acquired primarily through state
applications to appropriate or accompany lands purchased for refuge use. All refuges
have a portfolio of rights from several sources and of varying priority. This plays an
important function in determining water security at each refuge.
Paradoxically, BLNWR has the most secure water supply on the river, although it
holds no rights of its own. Its security is based primarily on its relationship to the power
company that manages a major canal running through BLNWR and allows the refuge to
draw that canal up or down. As long as the major structure of the current law of the Bear
River remains in place, there will likely always be water flowing to and from the refuge
because of the seniority and quantity of the water rights managed by the power company
under contract with downstream irrigators. CMNWR has similar water security, but it is
because the FWS holds several senior water rights and the refuge lies upstream of major
water diversion and uses. Agricultural, municipal and industrial water users dewater the
41
river as it flows to BRMBR, leaving it with the least secure water supply. Not only is
there little water left in the Bear River when it reaches that refuge, but water rights held
there by the FWS have junior priority, leaving them with no legal recourse for calling for
more water to flow downstream.
In facing threats to water security, it may be necessary to reconsider what
constitutes security (Dimitrov, 2002). In the Bear River Basin water managers have long
come to expect drought (Endter-Wada et al., 2009). So in this context, water security is
the ability to deal with droughts without compromising the functionality of wetlands.
Because BRMBR has the least secure water supply, they have been the leader in adapting
to the conditions of the Bear River and the other refuges have followed its example to
some extent. Adaptations to the human hydrology of the Bear River fall into two
categories: water management and maintaining relationships with other water users.
These adaptations help to minimize conflict between water users and help users recognize
opportunities for cooperation.
All refuge managers emphasize how important it is to manage the water they
receive (Bob Barrett, personal communication; Annette deKnijf, personal
communication; Kate Kirk, personal communication; Bridget Olson, personal
communication; Al Trout, personal communication). Regional water managers have
pointed out that wetland managers manipulate their water just as much, if not more, than
any other irrigator on the river (Will Atkin, personal communication; Bob Fotheringham,
personal communication). In order to maintain water at the end of a heavily dammed and
utilized river, BRMBR has responded by impounding and diverting their water and
formulating plans for maintaining various water depths (in inches) in their different
42
wetland units on a month by month basis. Outside observers have called this seemingly
unnatural water management scheme at BRMBR, “…an engineered system, relying on an
engineered system” (Rich Sumner, personal communication). Being able to predict and
plan also gives refuges‟ staffs some flexibility to manage wildlife habitat with a limited
water supply. This type of intense water management does not often try to mimic the
natural hydrology of the river, because the river has been too heavily altered. Instead, it
seeks to restore enough wetland hydrology to keep the maximum possible amount of
flooded wetland habitat available to birds (Bob Barrett, personal communication; Kadlec
& Adair, 1994; Bridget Olson, personal communication).
The second part of adapting to human hydrology at federal wildlife refuges
involves building relationships with other agencies, especially water rights agencies, and
local water users. In order to be most effective in gathering information, refuge managers
need to know about the community of water users within which they operate in and also
about the water uses and needs of other communities they are connected to through
shared water sources. This is most often done through consultation with other agencies
or attending and participating in meetings related to water allocation and management.
Some refuge managers have gone further in building relationships with other water users
in their area. Such networking promotes discussion and action on water threats to the
area as a whole, reducing the need for area water users to face these threats individually.
These relationships do not necessarily secure additional water for refuges, but they do
give refuge managers a seat at the negotiating table and facilitate knowledge sharing in a
non-hierarchical, transboundary way (Al Trout, personal communication; Iza, 2004;
Weber & Khademian, 2008).xiii
43
In the Bear River Basin, knowing each other is as important for water users as
knowing river conditions (Endter-Wada et al., 2009). Communication with other water
users can enhance the human environment at the refuges by promoting collaborative
learning about the river among all users, including refuge managers. However building
relationships is time consuming and potentially subject to pitfalls. In the Bear River
Basin, individual refuge managers, canal company managers, university researchers and
water rights managers have built collaborative capacity as they have interacted with one
another and built links between their organizations to make the most of scarce water
supplies in the Basin (Bob Barrett, personal communication; Bob Fotheringham, personal
communication; Hahn et al., 2006; Al Trout, personal communication).
People with both agricultural and wetland interests on the Bear River recognize
their water supplies are interdependent and that they face similar threats to that supply.
Portions of some refuges, especially BRMBR, are irrigation dependent. Because of this
hydrological connection, less water used for agriculture means less water for wetlands
(Kate Kirk, personal communication; Peck et al., 2005). Recognizing that they face a
common problem allows both water use groups to focus on public involvement and
collaboration to develop innovative strategies that focus on local water problems and
fosters cooperative attempts to increase overall water security (Dimitrov, 2002; Endter-
Wada et al., 2009; Kamieniecki & Kraft, 2008; Weber & Khademian, 2006; Wondelleck
& Yaffee, 2000).
44
CONCLUSIONS
Many wetland managers must maintain habitat within complex human-hydrologic
systems. Holding water rights is a necessary step toward gaining water security for
wetlands, but does not ensure there will be water available during times of scarcity. The
most important factor in determining water security is a wetlands‟ geographic position in
relation to powerful water users. Regardless of the legal security of a wetland‟s water
supply, staff must actively manage their water because the hydrology of Western rivers
has been altered so much. This management requires both infrastructure and planning.
In addition to managing water, wetland managers must also maintain relationships
with other water users in the area, because all water uses within the watershed are
interconnected, and many wetlands are irrigation dependant to some degree.
Recognizing that they face similar threats allows agricultural and wetland water users to
cooperate in adapting to uncertain water supplies and in facing future threats.
Many Western rivers are facing changes similar to those on the Bear River,
namely growing demands on water, transfer of water from agricultural to municipal uses,
and future supply uncertainties related to climate change. The lessons learned by wetland
managers along this river can help others facing changes to the human hydrology of their
region as they seek to enhance the security of their own water supplies.
REFERENCES
Ashe, D. (2003). Future of the refuge system. Fish and Wildlife News. U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Washington, DC, p. 64.
Badger, C. (2007). A Natural History of Quiet Waters: Swamps and Wetlands of the
Mid-Atlantic Coast. University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville, VA.
45
Batzer, D. P. & Sharitz, R. R. (2006). Ecology of freshwater and estuarine wetlands: an
introduction. In Ecology of Freshwater and Estuarine Wetlands. Batzer, D. P. &
Sharitz, R. R. (eds). University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, pp. 1-6.
Boyce, J. (1996). Wrestling with the bear: a compact approach to water allocation. BYU
Journal of Public Law, 10(2), 301-324.
Bruins, H. J. (2000). Proactive contingency planning vis-à-vis declining water security
in the 21st century. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 8(2), 63-
72.
Christiansen, J. E. & Low, J. B. (1970). Water Requirements of Waterfowl Marshlands
in Northern Utah: Publication No 69-12. Utah Division of Fish and Game, Salt
Lake City, UT.
Costanza, R., d‟Arge, R., deGroots, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K.,
Naeem, S., O‟Neill, R. V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R. G., Sutton, P. & Van Den Belt,
M. (1997). The value of the world‟s ecosystem services and natural capital.
Nature, 387, 253-260.
Cowardin, L. M., Carter, V., Golet, F. C. & LaRoe, E. T. (1979). Classification of
Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Washington, DC.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches. 3rd Edition. Sage Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA.
Cronon, W. (2003). Foreword. In Where Land and Water Meet: A Western Landscape
Transformed. Langston, N. (ed). University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA,
pp. ix-xii.
Dahl T. E. (2006). Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States
1998-2004. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
Denton, C. (2007). Bear River: Last Chance to Change Course. Utah State University
Press, Logan, UT.
Dimitrov, R. S. (2002). Water, conflict, and security: a conceptual minefield. Society
and Natural Resources, 15(8), 677-691.
Endter-Wada, J., Selfa, T. & Welsh, L. W. (2009). Hydrologic interdependencies and
human cooperation: the process of adapting to drought. Weather, Climate and
Society, 1(1), 54-70.
Fremont, J. C. (1845). Report on the Exploring Expedition to the Rocky Mountains in
the Year 1842, and to Oregon and North California in the years 1843-44. Blair
and Rives, London.
46
Getches, D. H. (2001). The metamorphosis of Western water policy: have federal laws
and local decisions eclipsed the states‟ role? Stanford Environmental Law
Journal, 28, 3-72.
Getches, D. H. (2009). Water Law in a Nutshell. West Publishing Company, St. Paul,
MN.
Giblett, R. (1996). Postmodern Wetlands: Culture, History, Ecology. Edinburgh
University Press, Edinburgh.
Gleick, P. H. (1993). Water and conflict: fresh water resources and international
security. International Security, 18(1), 79-112.
Grey, D. & Sadoff, C. W. (2007). Sink or swim? Water security for growth and
development. Water Policy, 9(6), 545-571.
Hahn, T., Olsson, P., Folke, C. & Johansson, K. (2006). Trust-building knowledge
generation and organization innovations: the role of a bridging organization for
adaptive comanagement of a wetland landscape around Kristianstad, Sweden.
Human Ecology, 34(4), 573-592.
Haig, S. M., Mehlman, D. W. & Oring, L. W. (1998). Avian movements and wetland
connectivity in landscape conservation. Conservation Biology, 12(4), 749-758.
Idaho Division of Water Rights. (2010). Idaho Division of Water Rights Search Tools.
Accessed on 9 January 2010, http://www.idwr.idaho.gov/OnlineData/default.htm.
Ivey, G. L. & Herziger, C. P. (2006). Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan,
Version 1.2. A Plan Associated With the Waterbird Conservation for the
Americas Initiative. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pacific Region, Portland,
OR.
Iza, A. (2004). Developments under the Ramsar convention: allocation of water for river
and wetland ecosystems. Review of European Community and International
Environmental Law, 13(1), 40-46.
Jackson, R. B., Carpenter, S. R., Dahm, C. N., McKnight, D. M., Naiman, R. J., Postel, S.
L. & Running, S. W. (2001). Water in a changing world. Ecological
Applications, 11(4), 1027-1045.
Jackson, R. C. (2006). Wetland hydrology. In Ecology of Freshwater and Estuarine
Wetlands. Batzer, D. P. & Sharitz, R. R. (eds). University of California Press,
Berkeley, CA, pp. 43-81.
Jibson, W. (1991). History of the Bear River Compact. Bear River Commission, Salt
Lake City, UT.
47
Jury, W. A. & Vaux, H., Jr. (2005). The role of science in solving the world‟s emerging
water problems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America, 102(44), 15715-15720.
Kadlec, J. (1962). Effects of drawdown on a waterfowl impoundment. Ecology, 43(2),
268-281.
Kadlec, J. A. & Adair, S. E. (1994). Evaluation of Water Requirements for the Marshes
of the Bear River Delta. Utah State University Department of Fisheries and
Wildlife, Logan, UT.
Kadlec, R. H. & Knight, R. L. (1996). Treatment Wetlands. CRC Press, Boca Raton,
FL.
Kamieniecki, S. & Kraft, M. (2008). Series foreword. In Water Place and Equity.
Whitley, J. M., Ingram, H. & Perry, R. W. (eds). The MIT Press, Cambridge,
MA, pp. ix-x.
Langston, N. (2003). Where Land and Water Meet: A Western Landscape Transformed.
University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA.
Lemly, D. A., Kingsford, R. T. & Thompson, J. R. (2000). Irrigated agriculture and
wildlife conservation on a global scale. Environmental Management, 25(5), 485-
512.
Lovvorn, J. R. & Hart, E. A. (2004). Irrigation, salinity, and landscape patterns of
natural palustrine wetlands. In Wetland and Riparian Areas of the Intermountain
West: Ecology and Management. McKinstry, M. C., Hubert, W. A. & Anderson,
S. H. (eds). University of Texas Press, Austin, TX, pp. 105-129.
Lundquist, J. D., Dettinger, M. D., Stewart, I. T. & Cayan, D. R. (2009). Variability and
trends in spring runoff in the western United States. In Climate Warming in
Western North America: Evidence and Environmental Effects. Wagner, F. H. (ed).
The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, UT, pp. 63-76.
MacDonnell, L. J. (1991). Water rights for wetlands protection. Rivers, 2(4), 277-284.
Mote, P. W., Hamlet, A. F. & Lettenmaier, D. P. (2009). Variability and trends in
mountain snowpack in western North America. In Climate Warming in Western
North America: Evidence and Environmental Effects. Wagner, F. H. (ed). The
University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, UT, pp. 51-62.
National Research Council. (2001). Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean
Water Act. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Olson, B. (2009). Annual Habitat Management Plan 2009: Bear River Migratory Bird
Refuge. Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge, Brigham City, UT.
48
Olson, B. E., Lindsay, K. & Hirschboeck. V. (2004). Habitat Management Plan: Bear
River Migratory Bird Refuge, Brigham City, Utah. Bear River Migratory Bird
Refuge: Brigham City, UT.
Peck, D. E., McLeod, D. M., Hewlett, J. P. & Lovvorn, J. R. (2005). Irrigation-
dependent wetlands versus instream flow enhancement: economics of water
transfers from agriculture to wildlife uses. Environmental Management, 34(6),
842-855.
Postel, S. (1996). Dividing the Waters: Food Security, Ecosystem Health, and the New
Politics of Scarcity. World Watch Institute, Washington, DC.
Romesburg, H. C. (2009). Best Research Approaches: How to Gain Reliable
Knowledge. Lulu Enterprises Inc., Morrisville, NC.
Smith, L. M., Euliss, N. H., Jr., Wilcox, D. A. & Brinson, M. M. (2008). Application of
a geomorphic and temporal perspective to wetland management in North
America. Wetlands, 28(3), 563-577.
Somerville, E. D. & Pruitt, B. A. (2006). United States wetland regulation and policy.
In Ecology of Freshwater and Estuarine Wetlands. Batzer, D. P. & Sharitz, R. R.
(eds). University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, pp. 313-347.
Taft, O. W., Colwell, M. A., Isola, C. R. & Safran, R. J. (2002). Waterbird responses to
experimental drawdown: implications for the multispecies management of
wetland mosaics. Journal of Applied Ecology, 39, 987-1001.
U. S. Code. (1928). 16USC690: Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge; establishment,
acquisition of lands. United States Code. p. 64. Accessed 19 April 2008,
http://frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/PDFgate.cgi?WAISdocID
=fljSdh/6/2/0&WAISaction=retrieve.
U. S. Code (1997). 16USC668: National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act.
United States Code. pp. 1080-1092. Accessed 4 February 2010,
http://frwebgate2.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/PDFgate.cgi?WAISdocID
=igS2WX/0/2/0&WAISaction=retrieve.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2008). Milt Reeves Oral History Transcript. National
Digital Library. Accessed on 22 March 2010,
http://www.fws.gov/digitalmedia/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/natdiglib&CISO
PTR=6816&CISOBOX=1&REC=2.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2009). Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge Profile.
Accessed 3 Feb 2010, http://www.fws.gov/refuges/profiles/index.cfm?id=14613.
U. S. Geological Survey. (2009a). Water-Data Report: 10126000 Bear River Near
Corinne, UT. U. S. Geological Survey: Washington D.C. Accessed on 19 Jan
2010, http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2009/pdfs/10126000.2009.pdf
49
U. S. Geological Survey. (2009b). Great Salt Lake: Lake Elevations and Elevation
Changes. Accessed on 20 January 2010,
http://ut.water.usgs.gov/greatsaltlake/elevations/.
U. S. Geological Survey. (2010). USGS Surface-Water Data for USA. Accessed on 3
January 2010, http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis.sw.
Utah Division of Water Resources. (2000). Bear River Development. Utah Division of
Water Resources, Salt Lake City, UT.
Utah Division of Water Resources. (2004). Bear River Basin: Planning for the Future.
Utah Division of Water Resources, Salt Lake City, UT.
Utah Division of Water Rights. (2009). Water Rights Information. Accessed on 29
January 2009, www.waterrights.utah.gov.
Utah Water Research Laboratory. (2010). Bear River Watershed Information System:
Watershed Description. Accessed on 21 Jan 2010,
http://bearriverinfo.org/description/ .
Vaux, H. (2008). Addressing water security: The role of science and technology. In
Science and Technology and the Future Development of Societies: International
Workshop Proceedings. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, pp. 39-
44
Vileisis, A. (1997). Discovering the Unknown Landscape: A History of America’s
Wetlands. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Wagner, F. H. (2009). Climate change projected for the twenty-first century and
measured for the twentieth in the Rocky Mountain/Great Basin Region. In
Climate Warming in Western North America: Evidence and Environmental
Effects. Wagner, F. H. (ed). The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, UT.
Weber, E. P. & Khademian, A. M. (2008). Wicked problems, knowledge challenges,
and collaborative capacity builders in network settings. Public Administration
Review, 68(2), 334-349.
Wilson, V. T. & Carson, R. L. (1950). Bear River: A National Wildlife Refuge. U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service Publications, Lincoln, NE.
Wondelleck, J. M. & Yaffee, S. L. (2000). Making Collaboration Work: Lessons from
Innovation in Natural Resource Management. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Wurtsbaugh, W. A. & Gliwicz, Z. M. (2001). Limnological control of brine shrimp
population dynamics and cyst production in the Great Salt Lake, Utah.
Hydrobiologia, 466, 119-132.
Wyoming State Engineer‟s Office. (2010). Water Rights Database. Accessed on 9
January 2010, http://seo.state.wy.us/wrdb/index.aspx.
50
Table 2-1. Important Water Policies in the Bear River Basin
Policy
Date
Substance
Prior
Appropriation
1862
States allocate waters, rights are based on priority, and shortages
are not shared. Rights designate a quantity, date (priority and time
of use), place of use, beneficial use and point of diversion. Rights
not used are considered forfeited. *
Winter‟s
Doctrine
1908
Assures that lands set aside by the federal government have enough
water for their designated purpose. Priority for that water set at
date of refuge/reservation/park establishment. *
UP&L – U-I
Sugar
Company
Agreement
1912
Bear Lake will be run by Utah Power and Light (UP&L) as a
storage facility; Utah-Idaho Sugar Company (U-I) water rights will
be stored there and delivered by UP&L during the irrigation season.
†
Dietrich
Decree
1920
Decreed UP&L‟s right to store water in Bear Lake. Established a
schedule of rights for use of the Bear River and its tributaries that
specified the rights of the plaintiff (UP&L) and defendants (mostly
canal companies) in Idaho.
Kimball
Decree
1922
Added more defendants from Utah to Schedule of Rights from the
Dietrich Decree
The Bear River
Compact
1958
Establishes the rights and obligations of Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming
with respect to the waters of the Bear River. Divided the river to
three divisions, assigned river flow and diversions within each
division. Allocated storage water between states. Set minimum
elevation for Bear Lake. Established the Bear River Commission
to administer the provisions of the Compact. ‡
Bear River
Development
Act
1991
Passed by the Utah State Legislature in 1991. Directs the Utah
Division of Water Resources to develop the Bear River and its
tributaries. Allocates 1.2 million acre-feet of water between the
Utah and Idaho portions of the Bear River Basin. Further divides
Utah‟s portion between four counties and conservancy districts. †
Lower Bear
River
Adjudication
1993
Judicial preceding that establishes the rights of all users on a river.
Began in 1940s, preliminary findings for the Lower Bear River
Basin published in 2005.
Bear Lake
Settlement
Agreement
1995
Agreement between PacifiCorp and water users (not states) to settle
disputes concerning the operation and management of Bear Lake.
Protects the elevation of Bear Lake during drought through
decreases in irrigation allocations.
(Sources: * Getches, 2009; † Denton, 2007; ‡ Jibson, 1991)
51
Table 2-2. Water Rights Held by the FWS for Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife
Refuge.2
Priority
Quantity
Source
Beneficial Use
1878
1435
shares
B.Q. Dam East/Bear River
Irrigation
1878
9.61
cfs
B.Q. Dam East/Bear River
Irrigation
1879
2.3
cfs
Bear River
Irrigation
1880
17.0
2
cfs
Pixley Ditch/Bear River
Irrigation
1881
0.29
cfs
North Lake Spring
Irrigation
1888
0.14
cfs
Leeds Creek
Irrigation
1897
10.0
5
cfs
Smith's Fork
Irrigation, Domestic
1901
1.14
cfs
Bear River
Irrigation
1907
0.08
cfs
Pixley Enlargement/Bear River
Irrigation
1908
Unspecified
Succor Spring Ditch/Succor
Springs
Irrigation, Stock,
Domestic
1909
16.64
cfs
Covey Canal/Smith's Fork
Irrigation, Domestic
1914
1.22
cfs
Antelope Creek
Irrigation (storage)
1925
0.38
cfs
Antelope Creek
Irrigation
1959
900
gpm
Groundwater
Irrigation
1959
1900
gpm
Groundwater
Irrigation
1972
25
gpm
Groundwater
Stock, Miscellaneous,
Domestic
1972
25
gpm
Groundwater
Domestic, Stock
1977
1300
gpm
Groundwater
Stock, Irrigation
1977
1140
gpm
Groundwater
Irrigation
1981
1200
gpm
Groundwater
Irrigation, Stock
1982
200
gpm
Groundwater
Irrigation
1982
25
gpm
Groundwater
Domestic, Stock
1982
1000
gpm
Groundwater
Irrigation
1984
450
gpm
Groundwater
Irrigation
1993
400
gpm
Groundwater
Irrigation
1998
0
gpm
Groundwater
Irrigation
2 Rights gathered from information provided by Kate Kirk and the Wyoming State Engineer‟s (2010) Water
Rights Database.
52
Table 2-3. Water Rights with Service Areas in Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge.3
Owner
Priority
Quantity
Source
Beneficial Use
Irrigation Company Rights
Dry Lake Canal Co
1864
5.0
cfs
Paris Creek
Irrigation
Grimmett Black Otter
Irrigation Co
1877
20.0
cfs
Bear River
Stock water,
Wildlife
Grimmett Black Otter
Irrigation Co
1877
133.5
cfs
Bear River
Irrigation
Ream Crockett Irrigation Co
1877
30.0
cfs
Bear River
Irrigation
Ream Crockett Irrigation Co
1877
10.0
cfs
Bear River
Stock water
Dingle Irrigation Co
1884
6.0
cfs
Bear River
Irrigation
Ream Crockett Irrigation Co
1884
19.5
cfs
Bear River
Irrigation
Ream Crockett Irrigation Co
1885
12.8
cfs
Bear River
Irrigation
Hemmert Hot Spring
1898
0.3
cfs
Springs
Stock,
Domestic,
Recreation
Dry Lake Canal Co
1905
5.0
cfs
Paris Creek
Irrigation
Dingle Irrigation Co
1969
7.5
cfs
Bear River
Irrigation
Storage Rights to Bear Lake
PacifiCorp
1890
0.9
cfs
Bloomington
Creek
Irrigation
PacifiCorp
1894
0.5
cfs
St. Charles
Creek
Irrigation
PacifiCorp
1902
0.5
cfs
Bloomington
Creek
Unspecified
PacifiCorp
1911
3000.0
cfs
Bear River
Irrigation,
Power from
Storage
PacifiCorp
1912
2500.0
cfs
Bear River
Irrigation,
Power from
Storage
PacifiCorp
1912
300.0
cfs
Bear River
Irrigation,
Power from
Storage
PacifiCorp
1912
200.0
cfs
Bear River
Power from
Storage
3 Rights gathered from information provided by Annette deKnijf and located in the Idaho Division of Water
Rights (2010) Water Rights Database.
53
Table 2-4. Water Rights Held by the FWS for Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge.4
Priority
Quantity
Source
Beneficial Use
Type
1860
1.04
cfs
Stauffer-Packer Spring
Irrigation
Diligence
1869
2.4
cfs
Unnamed Stream
Irrigation, Incidental
Habitat Creation
Diligence
1869
1.0
cfs
Perry Spring Stream
Irrigation, Stock
Underground
Claim
1870
0.002
7.0
cfs
acft
Underground Water
Well
Stock
Underground
Claim
1870
0.56
cfs
Perry Spring Stream
Irrigation
Diligence
1870
3.06
cfs
Dan Walker Spring
Irrigation
Diligence
1880
1.0,
49.2
cfs
acft
Unnamed Spring
Stream
Irrigation, Stock
Diligence
1880
0.015
cfs
Unnamed Spring
Stream
Stock
Diligence
1881
1.0
17.2
cfs
acft
Unnamed Spring
Irrigation
Diligence
1885
1.5
cfs
Underground Water
Drain
Irrigation, Stock
Underground
Claim
1885
2.0
cfs
Underground Water
Drain
Irrigation
Underground
Claim
1887
3.0
cfs
Underground Water
Drain
Irrigation
Underground
Claim
1896
2.4
cfs
Unnamed Stream
Irrigation, Stock,
Incidental Habitat
Diligence
1896
7.37
cfs
East Slough
Irrigation, Stock,
Other
Decree
1896
45.0
cfs
Black Slough
Irrigation, Other
Decree
1900
1.59
cfs
Underground Water
Drain
Irrigation
Underground
Claim
1900
1.114
cfs
Underground Water
Drain
Irrigation, Stock
Underground
Claim
1902
15.9
11,51
1
cfs
acft
Bear River
Waterfowl Habitat
Diligence
1902
0.002
7.0
cfs
acft
Unnamed Stream
Stock
Diligence
1902
2000.
0
acft
Bear River
Irrigation
Diligence
1907
0.5
cfs
Surface Drains
Irrigation, Stock
Application
4 Water Rights data gathered from Utah Division of Water Rights (2009) Water Rights Database.
54
20.42
acft
1920
0.01
7
cfs
acft
Underground Water
Well
Stock
Underground
Claim
1928
1000
425,7
71
cfs
acft
Bear River
Waterfowl Habitat
Application
1955
0.011
0.42
cfs
acft
Underground Well
Stock
Application
1961
0.134
/0.14
cfs
acft
Underground Well
Stock
Application
1991
2666.
65
acft
Salt Creek
Wildlife, Fish,
Irrigation
Application
1995
1
40
cfs
acft
Underground Drain
Wildlife
Application
1995
1.04
4
cfs
acft
Stauffer-Packer Spring
Wildlife
Application
1997
2.0
cfs
Surface Water and
Underground Drains
Irrigation, Stock
Application
55
Table 2-5. Assessment of water security at federal wildlife refuges.
Hydrologic
Environment
Socio-economic Environment
Future
Environment
Assessment
Legal
Rights
Manager
Perception
Ability to
Manage
Cokeville
Meadows
NWR
Moderate:
moderate
seasonal and
inter-annual
variation
High:
senior,
various
sources
High: risk of
upstream
water
development
is low
Low:
infrastructure
in place, but
no
management
plan
Moderately
High: Loss of
winter
snowpack is
only
foreseeable
way water
would decline;
Moderate -
High
Bear Lake
NWR
Moderate-
High: season
variability,
relatively low
inter-annually
Moderate
- High:
agreeme
nts and
leases to
use water
with
senior
rights
High:
legally;
development
cannot
diminish
flow in Bear
L.
Moderate:
minimal
infrastructure,
has water
management
plan
High: No
snowpack only
way to
diminish
supply that is
legally
protected
High
Bear
River
MBR
Low: high
variability
between
seasons and
year: risk
from drought
and flood
Moderate
ly Low:
primary
water
rights are
junior,
reliant on
one
source
Low: water
is almost
always
unavailable
during
critical
growing
season
High: well
established
management
plan and
extensive
infrastructure
Low: almost
any upstream
development
could
negatively
affect water
supply
Low
56
Figure 2-1. The Bear River Basin.
57
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
1963
1966
1969
1972
1975
1978
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
Discharge (cfs)
Date
Figure 2-2. Average monthly discharge in the Bear River at the Corinne gaging station
1963-2009.5
5 Data gathered from U. S. Geological Survey (2010) online water information database.
58
Figure 2-3. Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge. Shaded parcels indicate land
owned or managed by FWS.
59
Figure 2-4. Average monthly discharge at federal wildlife refuges in the Bear River
Basin 1999-2009 (U. S. Geological Survey, 2010).
60
Figure 2-5. Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge.
61
Figure 2-6. Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge.
62
CHAPTER 3:
KEEPING WETLANDS WET: ADAPTING TO UNCERTAIN
WATER CONDITIONS AT BEAR RIVER
MIGRATORY BIRD REFUGE6
ABSTRACT
Many wetlands in the western United States have been diminished or destroyed
by changes to their water supply, primarily due to extensive stream diversions for
agriculture and other human uses. However, several large wetland complexes remain,
despite major changes to their water sources. This study looks at the Bear River
Migratory Bird Refuge (BRMBR), a large, heavily managed wetland complex that lies at
the end of the Bear River on the northern shores of the Great Salt Lake in Utah. This
research explores how BRMBR has adapted to the physical and institutional realities of
wetland management under uncertain river conditions.
Research was conducted using semi-structured interviews with wetland and water
rights experts in the Bear River Basin and archival research of water rights and river
conditions. This research shows that over the last 10 years BRMBR received about 15%
of the water needed to maintain its wetland habitat during July through September, while
receiving more than it needs most other months. The magnitude of this difference varies
according to year, depending on accumulated snowpack. Because of this poorly timed
and uncertain water supply, BRMBR uses an adaptive management approach to predict
6 This chapter is co-authored by Rebekah Downard, Dr. Joanna Endter-Wada, and Dr. Karin Kettenring
63
their annual water supply, prioritize wetland units to keep flooded and monitor the effects
of management decisions.
Adaptive wetland management at BRMBR does not pretend to recreate the
natural hydrology of the river, but it seeks to maximize migratory bird habitat, creates a
means for sharing information about the river, and puts the water rights of the BRMBR to
beneficial use. These actions are important steps in meeting refuge goals and maintaining
good relationships with other water users in the watershed. Adaptations at BRMBR
provide a useful example for other wetland managers striving to conserve wetland habitat
under the physical and institutional realities of river management in the Western United
States. These adaptations also provide experience for confronting future water
uncertainties related to climate change.
INTRODUCTION
Wetlands have always been rare in the Intermountain West of the United States,
in part due to topography, but primarily due the general aridity of the region. Wetlands
became more scarce after conversion of wetlands to cultivated fields and diversion of
waters that once fed wetlands related to European settlement and agricultural irrigation
beginning in the mid-1800s. However, a few large wetland complexes remain, though
often to a lesser extent than they existed historically. Wetland complexes are usually
managed by state or federal wildlife agencies to provide habitat for birds migrating on the
Pacific and Central flyways in compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and other
wildlife policies. In order to maintain these wetlands managers must engage in intensive
water management because of the highly variable nature of many western rivers (often
64
the major source of water for wetlands) and because of general decreases over time in the
available water supply.
Beyond these physical water limitations, there are institutional arrangements that
constrain water management on wetlands. Water policy in the West has legally allocated
most of the water in Western rivers to agricultural or municipal uses, leaving
environmental uses that appropriated water later in time, like wetlands, dry during times
of shortage. Wetland management activities often must follow the requirements of
multiple state, federal and international wildlife, water or wetland policies while also
following the tenants of adaptive management. It is under these physical and institutional
water challenges that wetlands must be managed in the region. This requires finding a
way to manage under conditions of uncertainty and cultivating the capacity to adapt to
changing water conditions.
Water is the key ingredient in creating and maintaining wetlands. The presence of
water at or near the soil surface creates anaerobic conditions that conditions that lead to
the formation of hydric soils and selects for plants and animals adapted to flooded and
low oxygen conditions (Cowardin et al. 1979). Water may be present in a wetland all
year, or only seasonally; it can be a few feet deep, or present only at the soil surface.
These differences in water depth and duration constitute a wetland‟s hydroperiod.
Changes to the hydroperiod change the character of a wetland (Jackson 2006). In the
United States Intermountain West, freshwater wetlands not only need adequate supplies
of fresh water during the growing season (April through September), but they also need
dynamic hydroperiods to function optimally (Christiansen and Low 1970, Euliss et al.
2008, Smith et al. 2008). Meeting these wetland water needs can be difficult because the
65
wetland growing season is also the agricultural irrigation season, when other water
demands on water supplies are highest.
Wetlands are one of the most biologically productive ecosystems in the world and
they perform a number of important ecosystem services, including providing wildlife
habitat and buffering against hydrological disturbances (Mitsch and Gosselink 1993,
Kadlec and Knight 1996, Batzer and Sharitz 2006, Ivey and Herziger 2006). Because
they are so rare in the West, accounting for only 1% of land cover, wetlands in arid
regions become vital habitat for both resident and migratory birds on the Pacific Flyway,
and addressing threats to what is left of their water supply is critical for maintaining
international wildlife populations (Lemly et al. 2000, Tiner 2003, Dahl 2006). The
wetlands of the Great Basin, primarily those associated with the Great Salt Lake, support
38% of North America‟s waterbird diversity and 63% of its shorebird diversity (Haig et
al. 1998).
Several federal policies are designed to protect wetlands by preventing their
destruction or by protecting wildlife habitat, including the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act
and the National Food Security Act (National Research Council 2001, Somerville and
Pruitt 2006). These policies helped slow the upward trajectory of wetland destruction,
whereby more than half of the nation‟s wetlands were converted into other uses by the
1950s. However, none of these policies specifically protect the water for wetlands and
actions that disrupt wetland hydrology continue to alter or destroy wetlands today
(Vileisis 1997, Dahl 2006). Currently wetlands in the arid West exist in contexts where
66
natural river hydrology has been so heavily manipulated that it can best be understood as
“human hydrology” (Endter-Wada et al. 2009).
Wetlands are not often resistant to hydrologic disruptions, however, they do show
resilience in recovering from the effects of hydrologic changes like drought, flooding,
and increased sedimentation (Gunderson et al. 2006). Wetlands in the West have adapted
to periodic drought and, in fact, rely on drying to maintain healthy vegetation and
invertebrate populations (Kaminiski et al. 2006). However, there are limits to the extent
wetlands can be disturbed while retaining the ability to recover. Human intervention can
undermine the resilience of these ecosystems (Holling 1973, Gunderson et al. 2006).
Chronic water shortage or constant inundation both decrease wetland health and diversity
and can make invasion by non-native vegetative species more likely (Smith et al. 2008,
Euliss et al. 2008). Understanding the ways in which wetlands respond to human-
hydrologic manipulations that alter their natural hydrologic variability is an important
issue in wetland management.
Drawdown, a common wetland management practice that involves intentionally
lowering water depth in wetlands, is often used to restore a more natural hydroperiod in
wetlands where the hydrology has been disrupted. The benefits of wetland drawdown
(managed or natural) are contingent upon when flooding conditions will return and the
time of year when drying occurs. When drying occurs at the right time and rate, it can
trigger plant reproduction, exclude undesirable plant species and rejuvenate desirable
vegetation (Bowyer et al. 2005). Drying also stimulates reproductive cycles in
invertebrates and keeps those communities diverse and resilient (Tronstad et al. 2005).
The appropriate water regime of a wetland (the cycle of flooding and drying) differs,
67
depending on the region and plants or invertebrates present or desired in wetlands.
Generally, rapid wetland drawdown, drying out a wetland too early in the growing
season, or drying a wetland for too long can cause habitat damage through soil
compaction, increased salinity, decreased invertebrate density, and establishment of
undesirable plant species (Kadlec 1962, Christiansen and Low 1970, Welling et al. 1988,
Kadlec and Adair 1994, Bolduc and Afton 2003, deSzalay et al. 2003).
When temperatures are higher, generally during the growing season, wetland
plants need more water to meet their evapotranspiration needs. Increased evaporation
and the natural decrease in stream flow during the summer months cause wetlands to dry
out naturally. Drying causes water and salt stress to plants as evaporation can leave salts
behind on the surface of wetlands and draw salts into plant root zones through capillary
action (Kadlec 1982). Too much salt in wetland soils can delay germination and slow
plant growth because it prevents plants from taking up water (Christiansen and Low
1970). Sago pondweed (Potamogeton pectinatus), one of the most important wetland
plants for waterfowl, grows well under low to moderate salinity, as do hardstem
(Schoenoplectus acutus) and alkali bulrush (Schoenoplectus maritimus), but productivity
decreases sharply when salinity passes a certain threshold (Williams and Marshall 1938,
Kadlec 1982, Kadlec and Smith 1984, Olson et al. 2004).
Understanding these plant water needs is critical for maintaining wetland habitat
under conditions of water uncertainty. The effects of drying and increased salinity may
not be detrimental to wetlands if water returns in time to rejuvenate vegetation and flush
salts from soils. However, if water does not return in a timely manner (between a few
months and a few years, depending on the type of wetland), long-term damage to wetland
68
vegetation, invertebrates, and seed banks can occur (Christiansen and Low 1970, Kadlec
and Adair 1994). Chronic water shortages have lead to serious wetland depletions across
the West (MacDonnell 1991). xiv
Irrigated agriculture is the primary use of water diverted from Western rivers, and
irrigators often have the longest historical use and most senior legal rights to use water
under Western prior appropriation laws (Utah Division of Water Resources 2004).xv The
hydrology of Western rivers has been altered through the construction of water
infrastructure designed to deliver water to meet the water needs of irrigated agricultural
crops. Delivering water to sustain wetlands was not specifically designed into this
infrastructure, as water for wetlands was considered wasteful until waterfowl production
became recognized as a beneficial use of water in the 1900s. As environmental uses of
water have become legally recognized, it has been difficult to secure water for these uses
in heavily allocated and managed river basins (MacDonnell 1991, Getches 2009).
Beneficial use is the measure of a water right. The purpose of water use
determines how much water a user can obtain and water right holders must prove they are
meeting the beneficial use of their water right within a few years of diverting water.
Beneficial uses of water in most states include irrigation, domestic use, stock watering,
industrial use, and wildlife propagation (Getches 2009). Maintaining a wetland itself is
only a beneficial use in Nevada, but other states do recognize waterfowl and fisheries
production as beneficial uses, and they are often associated with wetlands (MacDonnell
1991). States impose limits on who can hold water rights for wildlife, generally
restricting it to state and federal wildlife management agencies. The amount of water that
can be reasonably diverted to a wetland is determined by a duty of water (Getches 2009).
69
Beneficial use requirements ensure that states are allocating water in the public‟s
interest, as beneficial use of water is supposed to produce goods or services deemed to be
of benefit to the public.
This requirement [beneficial use] is intended to ensure that appropriations
meet evolving standards of public acceptability.…Thus any applicant for a
wetland water right may be required to demonstrate that the quantity of
water claimed bears some reasonable relationship to the public and private
values derived from the wetland. (MacDonnell 1991, p. 282).
Ecological uses of water, like instream flows, were not recognized by most states until
the 1970s, when most western rivers had already been fully appropriated and had been
extensively dammed and diverted (Getches 2009).
Once water rights are obtained, wetlands managers in the West must manage
water to meet habitat goals within the policies of the river basins they are located in,
which include state water laws, interstate compacts and other rules determining water use
within watersheds. Management goals must also fit within the policies implemented by
the agency managing wetlands. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) oversees the
National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) with the goals of conserving, protecting and
enhancing wildlife habitat for the benefit of the public (Dahl 2006). The specific goal of
the NWRS, as of 1997, is to manage a system of land and water specifically to conserve
wildlife and maintain the biological integrity of ecosystems (U. S. Code 1997, U. S. Fish
and Wildlife Service 1999). Wetlands have almost always been “working landscapes,”
manipulated to produce as much of a “waterfowl product” as possible (Purseglove 1989,
Langston 2003). While it may be easiest and even most natural to let wetlands dry during
times of water shortage, that may not preserve enough wildlife habitat to meet the goals
70
of wildlife management. Maximizing wildlife habitat under water scarcity often requires
extensive infrastructure and planning.
In the Intermountain West, one of the most difficult aspects of the environment to
adapt to is the uncertainty of water supplies, because rivers are often highly variable.
Uncertainty in wetland management comes from two sources: incomplete or imperfect
knowledge of a system and the variability or unpredictability of a system (Brugnach et al.
2008). Water supplies in this region present a great deal of variability and unpredictably.
Managers can respond to uncertainty or changes in environmental conditions, like
decreased water availability, in three basic ways: they can wait to see if the previous
conditions will return; they can try to return the system to its original state; or, they can
adapt to the new altered situation (Gunderson 1999). The third option is adaptive
management, a management paradigm that promotes a scientific approach to natural
resource management (Holling 1978).
Under adaptive management, potential resource management policies are chosen
based on the best available scientific information. Before a policy is applied,
environmental feedback variables affected by a policy are identified, and then results of
policy decisions on those variables are monitored to determine the success of the policy
(Holling 1978). The goal of adaptive management is to formulate future policies based
on what is learned from effects of previous management efforts and to protect the
resilience to ecosystems (Holling 1978, Gunderson et al. 2006, Hahn et al. 2006).
Adaptive management holds a lot of potential for wetland management in the West,
because it provides a means to confront uncertainty in water management through
monitoring and learning how ecosystems react to management and environmental
71
variability. It also acknowledges that resources will change as a result of human
interventions and that there will always be new uncertainties to address through
management. Adaptive management recognizes that habitats operate within an
institutional framework and that natural resource agencies also have non-ecological
management objectives for the land they manage (Gunderson 1999).
Learning from past management strategies is perhaps the most important
component of adaptive management, but the step most often missed in practice. This is
usually because of incentives built in to short-term goals and funding structures that
promote accumulating knowledge (monitoring) over actually developing understanding
(learning) (Gunderson 1999, Gunderson et al. 2006). Effective application of adaptive
management is also difficult because it requires governance agencies to be both strong (in
order to build understanding into new policies) and flexible (to be able to deal with
change) (Dietz et al. 2003, Folke et al. 2005). Lack of true understanding and the
strength and flexibility to apply it often leads to situations where learning is only
emphasized when a policy is clearly failing (Gunderson 1999).
Despite these difficulties, following the principles of adaptive management is
important for large wetland complexes in arid regions, because those wetlands are often
the only wetland habitat available to large migratory wildlife populations for hundreds of
miles. Thus, the effects of management decisions are felt beyond the boundaries of the
wetland complex. It is also important because generalizable recommendations for
wetland management are rare. Though there are extensive, place-specific
recommendations in the scientific literature about how to manage wetlands for wildlife,
recommendations are less often focused on regional limitations to wetland management,
72
like water shortages (Taft et al. 2002). Consequently, wetland managers are often put in
positions of making decisions for wetlands based on their own knowledge and set of
environmental or institutional constraints and learning from those decisions becomes
critical.
Historical examples of wetland management in the Great Basin that have
proceeded without careful planning, monitoring and learning have often been to the
detriment of wildlife and habitat. One such example is the Malheur National Wildlife
Refuge in Oregon. Before the area was established as a refuge, wetlands located there
were first overgrazed by cattle, and then drained for agricultural cultivation. After refuge
establishment, habitat was treated with numerous pesticides, mowed, disked, and
generally treated based on management trends common at that time. Each management
strategy had a different goal, but the results of management actions were not often
monitored and had significant negative impacts, including soil erosion, toxin
accumulation, and intense flooding that were not addressed, even under newer
management practices (Langston 2003).
Analyzing the effects of policies and management strategies is also an important
part of collaborative learning, an emerging paradigm in natural resource management that
involves linking government agencies, communities, and individuals together to deal with
common problems and solve regional issues. As a part of adaptive management,
collaborative learning helps agencies deal with complexity, uncertainty, and change by
encouraging them to incorporate different types of knowledge into planning and share
that knowledge with more entities (Wondelleck and Yaffee 2000, Euliss et al. 2008).
Sharing the results of learning also helps build trust and increases the ability to manage
73
natural resources, particularly migratory ones like water or wildlife (Dietz et al. 2003,
Weber and Khademian 2008).
Sustainable wetland management requires linking adaptive management with the
social component of ecosystems, including other management institutions and property
rights structures. Good management polices should have an “ecological fit” within the
ecosystem processes and social and political realities of a region (Euliss et al. 2008,
Smith et al. 2008). This involves thinking of the environment as a social-ecological
system, a system that explicitly includes humans (Berkes and Folke 1998). Ideal social-
ecological networks promote openness so information is passed around easily, while
maintaining a degree of formality that produces connectedness. The ability to integrate
both qualities gives a network the ability to adapt and transform (Gunderson et al. 2006).
The last 30 years has produced a great deal of literature on adaptive management,
but it has been introduced into practice with varying degrees of success. The Bear River
Migratory Bird Refuge (BRMBR) provides an interesting case study in which to examine
how adaptive management is applied to a wetland complex with an uncertain and
dynamic water supply. It illustrates one means of meeting national wildlife habitat goals
while complying with state water law and maintaining relationships with local interests.
This research has two objectives in exploring the environmental and social
realities of this case study. The first objective of this research is to compare physical
water availability, legal water rights and wetland water needs at BRMBR. The second
research objective is to explore how the refuge has adapted to the physical and social
realities of the Bear River.
74
METHODS
Research Approach
The Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge lies at the end of the Bear River, a heavily
managed river system. Changes far upstream can have significant effects downstream.
The causes of these changes may not be identifiable through strict quantitative analysis of
water supply, and neither are the adaptations to such disturbances (Holling 1973). Thus,
this research takes a qualitative approach to explaining how BRMBR has adapted to the
uncertain human-hydrological conditions it faces (Creswell 2009, Romesburg 2009).
A literature review, preliminary search of water rights, and inventory of water
institutions yielded a ten-question interview protocol and list of potential interview
participants. Interview participants included current and former managers and biologists
at BRMBR and other refuges, water right administrators of states in the region and state
wildlife managers and biologists (see Appendix A). Interview participants identified
additional sources of data, secondary literature, and potential interviewees that provided
insights about the case study.
Interview questions addressed the source, quantity, and legal nature of refuge
water supplies, the nature and effects of drought, constraints and opportunities for
acquiring water supplies, controversies associated with water allocation and wetland
management on the Bear River, the effectiveness of wetland policies, and interagency
and intra-basin politics (see Appendix B for interview protocol). Interviews were
recorded and transcribed when possible (see Appendix C for informed consent letter
approved by Utah State University‟s Institutional Review Board).
75
Data from interviews were triangulated with other sources of information,
including water rights, stream flow data, refuge management plans, historical documents,
and observations from meetings. Interviews produced themes about social-ecological
systems and the importance of adaptive management in the face of uncertainty that were
explored in further literature searches. This pointed to the Bear River Migratory Bird
Refuge as a telling case study of adaptive management.
Study Area: The Bear River Watershed
and Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge
The Bear River flows for 500 miles through the states of Utah, Idaho, and
Wyoming. The watershed covers 19,425 square kilometers and includes about 50
tributaries to the main stem Bear River (Utah Water Research Laboratory 2010). The
Bear River Basin contributes most of the water to the larger Great Salt Lake Watershed,
which is nested within the Great Basin Watershed. This forms a significant piece of the
region known as the Intermountain West (Ivey and Herziger 2006). Figure 3-1 shows the
major water features of the Bear River Watershed.
The natural flow in the Bear River is highly variable and driven by snowpack.
Snowpack conditions vary year to year and can change within any one year based on
climatic conditions in the month of April (Utah Division of Water Resources 2004, Olson
2009). Discharge at the end of the river can vary from 23 cubic feet per second (cfs) in
an extremely dry year, to 14,700 cfs during an intense flood year. In 2009, the river
peaked at 3,970 cfs in June, and by August it reached a minimum flow of 87 cfs (U. S.
Geological Survey 2009a). It is difficult to find an “average” water year on the Bear
76
River because stream flow is so variable. However, this variability does tend to follow a
cycle involving a few years of drought followed by a few years of flooding that seems to
be correlated with the Pacific Ocean El Nino phenomenon (B. Fotheringham, pers.
comm.). Figure 3-2 illustrates the average hydrograph of the Bear River at the Corinne,
Utah gauging station from 1963-2009, indicating spring runoff peak in June, a sharp
decline in flows beginning in July, and then a more gradual increase in flow during
September and October.xvi Figure 3-2 also shows some of the inter-annual variability of
the river, depicting flow during the highest flood year on record (1984) and the worst
drought year during time with stream gauge data (2004).
The Bear River is extensively dammed and diverted to capture high early spring
river flows and release them during the late spring and summer when river conditions are
too low to meet irrigation needs. These modifications have changed the hydrology of the
river significantly.xvii One of these changes is a redistribution of wetland coverage in the
basin. Significant wetland acreage was dried or converted to agricultural cultivation, but
there has also been an increase in wetlands in other places created by irrigation return
flows and along the edges of reservoirs (Dahl 2006; K. Kirk, pers. comm.). This pattern
has been seen in other areas throughout the West (Lemly et al. 2000, Tiner 2003).
The basic rules of prior appropriation have been modified to meet the needs of the
Bear River Basin through court decrees, interstate water compacts, legislation, and
agreements between powerful water users. Additions to the law of the river have most
often been the result of severe droughts or floods (Jibson 1991, Endter-Wada et al. 2009).
These policies and historical developments in the Bear River Basin are described in Table
77
3-1. These policies have been accompanied by governance adaptations that promote
enhanced communication between water users (Endter-Wada et al. 2009).
The central feature of the Great Basin is the Great Salt Lake, a large, shallow,
hyper-saline lake that lies at the end of the Bear, Weber, and Jordan Rivers. Because the
lake is shallow and the rivers that feed it are driven by snowpack, the shoreline of the
lake is very dynamic (U. S. Geological Survey 2009b).xviii While it appears desolate
because it is too saline to support fish, it is one of the world‟s richest ecosystems and
depends on the Bear River for most of its inflow (about 60%). At the base of this
ecosystem are the brine shrimp and brine fly (Wurtsbaugh and Gliwicz 2001). The
wetlands along the north and east shorelines of Great Salt Lake comprise 75% of all the
wetlands found in the state of Utah. The salinity gradient of Great Salt Lake marshes
makes them very productive. The lake and its wetlands support about 30% of the birds
migrating along the Pacific Flyway at some point during the year (Haig et al. 1998, Ivey
and Herziger 2006). xix
The Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge
The Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge sits within this highly modified political
and hydrological landscape at the terminus of the Bear River, where it flows into the
northeast arm of the Great Salt Lake, about 60 miles north of Salt Lake City, Utah. As
the Bear River flows into the lake, it forms a delta of about 112,000 acres, much of which
is managed as freshwater wetlands by the United States government, the state of Utah,
and private landowners (Olson et al. 2004). The refuge itself is managed by the U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and encompasses about 74,000 acres, of which 29,259
78
acres are managed as freshwater wildlife habitat (see Figure 3-3). The refuge provides
feeding, breeding, and resting habitat for more than 260 species of migratory birds by
maintaining diverse wetland and grassland types within their boundary (Paton and
Bachman 1996, Olson et al. 2004).
The wetland complex of the Bear River delta was likely always a dynamic system
that expanded and contracted in size based on flow in the Bear River (Kadlec and Adair
1994). But beginning in the 1800s with intensified land and water use in the region, the
delta wetlands began shrinking very rapidly without corresponding rebounds. By the
1920s, extensive irrigation diversions on the Bear River had depleted the delta‟s wetlands
to less than 2,000 acres. Wetland loss and outbreaks of avian botulism lead citizens in
the area to petition Congress, which established the refuge in 1928 as habitat for
migratory birds (U. S. Code 1928, Wilson and Carson 1950).
The refuge is currently divided into 26 wetland units by 96 miles of dikes.xx The
goal of this system is to manage water depth in individual units to maintain a variety of
flooded freshwater wetland habitat by impounding fresh water from the Bear River and
excluding the saline waters of the Great Salt Lake. This infrastructure is managed
through an adaptive process laid out in long-term and annual habitat management plans
(Olson et al. 2004).
Analysis of how the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge managers have adapted to
the challenges of managing wetlands in the West requires linking the human and
hydrological components of the region and understanding the Bear River Migratory Bird
Refuge within the larger context of the Bear River Watershed. The water supply
79
available to the refuge, the legal rights FWS holds for the refuge and the established
water needs of wetlands are described in the next section.
RESULTS
Wet Water: the Bear River Migratory Bird
Refuge‟s Historical Water Supply
As discussed earlier, stream flow in the Bear River varies a great deal among and
within years and shows the most variability at its terminus, where it enters BRMBR. The
river‟s hydrology is driven by inflow that comes primarily from snowpack (both annual
accumulation and rate of melting) and outflow that occurs primarily from human water
diversions. Figure 3-4 shows stream flow in the Bear River at the Corinne, Utah gauging
station (a few river miles upstream of BRMBR) over the last 45 years. This graph
indicates the general cyclic nature of the river‟s drought and flood years. The refuge
often experiences several dry years in a row or several wet years in a row. During 2004,
the driest year with gauge data, the Bear River discharged 482,714 acre-feet (acft) over
the course of the year. During a major flood, 20 years earlier, the river discharged
3,613,926 acft of water (U. S. Geological Survey 2009a).
Figure 3-5 illustrates the variability introduced through human modification of the
river through the hydrograph of the Bear River in 2009, a year where stream flow was
predicted to be about 90% of normal (Olson 2009). Total discharge from the river in
2009 was 917,250 acft, but there are distinct differences in stream flow during the spring,
when the river was running at 3,000-4,000 cfs, and the summer, when the river flowed at
80
less than 200 cfs.xxi Such a steep decline in stream flow is due to extensive diversion of
water out of the river to irrigate agricultural crops.
Paper Water: the Refuge‟s Rights
and Needs for Water
Upon establishment in 1928, the FWS applied for the refuge‟s foundational water
right to 1,000 cfs from the Bear River. The FWS holds 28 other water rights for the
refuge of various sizes and priorities from several sources (see Table 3-1). These rights
total up to 438,785.12 acft of water per year, primarily for use during the irrigation
season. Irrigation rights in Utah are for use between April 1 and October 31 (unless
otherwise stated), while water rights for stock and wildlife may be used year round. xxii
About 431,600 acft of this supply comes solely from the Bear River.
Rights held by other water users on the Bear River are important in determining
the water supply at BRMBR. Because it was established in 1928 and most Bear River
water development had occurred prior to that time, the refuge‟s foundational right is
junior to all of the large senior agricultural rights on the river during the irrigation season.
The most relevant of these water rights are held by the Bear River Canal Company
(BRCC), which diverts water from Cutler Dam with an 1889 priority, and irrigates most
of the valley upstream of the refuge.
BRMBR water rights from the Bear River have some unique stipulations. The
1928 foundation right to 1,000 cfs is limited to 425,771 acft per year, and within that
limit the diversion is also allocated by month, according to the water needs established by
researchers from Utah Division of Natural Resources (Christiansen and Low 1970). The
right allocates some water within the overall right specifically for flushing units during
81
the summer to prevent botulism outbreaks. The other two rights the refuge holds to use
water from the Bear River (with 1902 priorities) are unique in that they are only
recognized in the priority system during periods of high flow, May 1 - June 15 and
September 15 - November 30, because that is when the water covered under the right was
historically available.
Water rights have a place of use or service area specified on the right. The
service area of the refuge‟s foundational Bear River water right covers most of the
refuge‟s managed habitat (Units 1 - 5), while most of the rights to water from tributaries
and drains (those with priority before 1900) service a small, relatively new portion of the
refuge (refer to Figure 3-3). Thus, despite holding many water rights, only one right is
actually used on most of the refuge, and that right has a junior priority.
One of the key features of water rights is the duty of water, which is a
determination of the amount of water needed to grow particular crops or satisfy a use in
particular locations. In the Bear River delta, wetland habitat has a higher adjudicated
duty of water than agriculture in that area. Wetland habitat may use seven acft of water
per acre, as opposed to the four acre feet of water per acre adjudicated for agriculture (W.
Atkin, B. Fotheringham, A. Trout, pers. comms.). This was based in part on research
done by state and university researchers on the needs of Bear River delta wetlands
(Christiansen and Low 1970, Kadlec and Adair 1994).xxiii While noting that wetlands
require more water than many other water uses, researchers kept the limits of prior
appropriation in mind when they conducted their research. Wetland water requirement
was defined as
82
[T]he amount of water required by marshlands (state and federal refuges
and private hunting areas having valid water rights) to maintain them in a
productive state for the raising of waterfowl and for hunting purposes.
This requirement is considered the minimum amount that will satisfy the
needs and which can, therefore, be beneficially used (Christiansen and
Low 1970, p. 9).”
Most generally, the refuge wetlands require 1.09 cfs per 100 acres of wetted
habitat (Christiansen and Low 1970). So if the refuge is trying to keep all 29,295 acres of
wetland habitat wet, it needs a minimum flow of 319.32 cfs in the Bear River or 632.24
acft of water per day (or 18,967 acft per month).7 This is misleading, though, because the
water demand in marshes changes throughout the year based on the stages of plant
growth, with larger, growing plants requiring more water than small or senescent plants.
Over the course of the year, wetlands of the Bear River Bay require 62.91 inches of
water; however, they require 48.44 inches of that water during the months of April
through August, when water demand is highest throughout the Basin (Christiansen and
Low 1970, Kadlec and Adair 1994). Based on this, BRMBR could use about 56,000 acft
of water, or 957.77 cfs of inflow during the month of July.
Water needs are provided primarily by surface water, mainly out of the Bear
River, because summer precipitation is rare and the sediments of BRMBR are naturally
saline, making groundwater a poor choice (Kadlec and Adair 1994). When wetland
water demands reach their peak, water supplies are at their lowest, which prevents
flushing of saline sediments, leaving wetland units dry and dusted with a layer of salt left
behind by evaporation (Kadlec and Smith 1984). Drying also brings salt to the surface of
wetland soils through capillary action, increasing the salinity around plant roots (Kadlec
7 x cfs * 1.983 = acre feet of water per day
83
1982). Fortunately, the wetland plants that managers would like to be present in wetland
units at BRMBR, like alkali bulrush and sago pondweed, have moderate salinity
tolerances while less desirable species, including hardstem bulrush and cattail (Typha
latifolia) have lower salinity tolerances (Christiansen and Low 1970, Kadlec and Adair
1994, Olson et al. 2004).
Late summer wetland management at BRMBR also calls for flushing wetland
units to control outbreaks of avian botulism. This requires draining units during August
and refilling them to target levels as soon as water is available (Kadlec and Adair 1994).
BRMBR‟s foundational water right sets aside 120,000 acft of water for this purpose,
which raises their September water needs to 60,000 acft.
Comparison of Water Supply and Water
Needs
To understand whether BRMBR is receiving its entire supply requires analysis at
of water supply by month, rather than by year, because water availability changes
seasonally. Figure 3-6 charts the legal rights BRMBR holds and the physical supply it
has received over the last ten years on a monthly basis. The water demands of plants due
to growth, salt, and evapotranspiration factors, as well as water requirements for botulism
control, reach a peak just as water in the river is plummeting to its lowest point. While
this critical water demand point does not coincide with peak bird use times (March and
October), vegetation needs to remain healthy throughout the year in order to meet bird
needs during the fall migration and to reproduce the next spring.
Over the course of an entire year, the refuge does receive the 431,611.8 acre feet
it is entitled to from the Bear River (often more than that); however, during the summer
84
months, particularly July through September, BRMBR receives much less water than it
needs to maintain its wetland habitat. During the rest of the year, the refuge is receiving
far more water than it can use. Table 3-3 quantitatively compares the refuge‟s rights and
average monthly river flow during the last ten years (2000 - 2009), and the wettest and
driest years with complete stream gauge data.8 A ratio value of one or higher indicates
the Bear River is able to satisfy the refuge‟s full legal rights, a ratio of less than one
indicates the river is flowing too low to satisfy the refuge‟s rights. Because the refuge‟s
monthly rights were calculated based on wetland needs, this ratio can also be used to
illustrate the refuge‟s water need surplus or deficit.
The need calculated by Christiansen and Low (1970) and used in BRMBR‟s
foundational water right was based on two assumptions: first, that there is enough water
available to marshes during the months of maximum use to meet evapotranspiration
requirements; second, that there is enough water on an annual basis to provide outflow
sufficient to manage a tolerable salinity level. From this data, it seems clear that the first
assumption is not being met most years. During July and August, the river is only
supplying about 15% of the refuge‟s needs on average, and during a dry year it may
provide as little as 4.6% of the refuge‟s needs. The water in the river at this time is
almost exclusively return flow from irrigation, so quality is also a concern (B. Olson
pers. comm.).
Given the disparity between wetland water needs and physical supply in the Bear
River, the wetlands of BRMBR have fluctuated in size a great deal within a year‟s time.
8 This ratio was calculated for every month by dividing BRMBR legal right by the hydrologic supply in the
Bear River.
85
Over the past few years the refuge has been able to maintain between 2,803 and 27,500
acres of wetlands (Olson 2009). Ideally, the refuge could use 100,000 more acft of water
during July and August;xxiv however, that much water is not available for allocation, so
managers try to make the most of the water the refuge receives through adaptive
management (A. Trout, pers. comm.). Fortunately, these severe water shortages occur
outside of peak bird use, which is in April and October. However, birds utilize the refuge
year round and water is needed to meet bird habitat demands for accessible foraging, safe
nesting and cover, in addition to keeping vegetation viable throughout the year (Olson
2009).
Adaptive Water Management
The general management strategy at BRMBR follows an adaptive management
approach and contains both structural and operational components. This strategy
involves impounding and managing the water that comes into the refuge during the
spring so that it will last as far into the summer as possible (B. Olson, pers. comm.).
Managers recognize that it is impossible to restore the natural river hydrology at the
lower end of the river to pre-settlement conditions or obtain new large water
appropriations, so they anticipate yearly water shortages and manage their wetlands to
buffer the effects of variable water conditions in order to maintain as much healthy
wetland habitat as possible (B. Olson, pers. comm.).
The structural component of this adaptive management is the water control
system that diverts the Bear River through various canals and into diked wetland units.
The original water control system at BRMBR blocked the Bear River when it reached the
86
refuge then diverted that water into five large wetland units. Water moved through units
sequentially, rather than being delivered to each unit through canals. This system was
destroyed by floodwaters from the Great Salt Lake during the 1980s. A new water
control system was built in the 1990s that subdivided the original units into 26 smaller
units and contained several miles of canals that could divert water to individual units or
bypass water into the Great Salt Lake. Smaller wetland units mean water levels can be
more easily manipulated and controlled to provide more habitat variety within the refuge
boundaries while the potential for flood and ice damage is diminished (Olson et al. 2004).
The operational component of adaptive management at BRMBR is laid out in the
long-term and annual Habitat Management Plans written by refuge biologists to
determine how water will be managed within wetland units. Every ten years a long-term
habitat management plan is established, which lays out several management strategies
that seek to maintain the most freshwater wetland habitat possible. Strategies for each
unit are chosen annually, based on anticipated water supply and bird responses to
previous water and vegetation management strategies (Olson et al. 2004, Olson 2009).
The 2009 BRMBR Habitat Management Plan called for wetland units to be filled
after ice melts at the refuge and before the peak of spring runoff. As stream discharge
decreases, managers let non-priority units dry naturally, and divert any inflow into higher
priority units. Units are refilled based on priority when water becomes available again
during the fall (Olson 2009). Under this system, about 75% of wetland habitat still goes
dry during the summer months, but the systems maintains as much wet habitat as
possible, and works to ensure that units do not stay dry for too long (A. Trout, pers.
comm.).
87
In accordance with the principles of adaptive management, the refuge staff does
extensive monitoring of the effects of management activities. They monitor ratios of
open water to emergent vegetation, sago pondweed flowering, and water depth. They
also conduct bi-weekly bird surveys and monitor the effectiveness of predator control
programs and avian influenza (Olson et al. 2004).xxv This monitoring allows for changes
in management strategy over the years and sometimes within a year if water supplies do
not meet predictions or there are large changes in bird use (Olson 2009).xxvi However, it
is difficult to know the full impact of habitat changes at BRMBR on populations of birds
that migrate across the entire continent and beyond (A. Trout, pers. comm.). By trying to
monitor the impact of their management, the staff is meeting the goals of the refuge, the
refuge system and federal wildlife policies. However, if the Endangered Species Act
were to apply to the refuge (currently there are no threatened or endangered species with
critical habitat at BRMBR) the refuge may have to re-evaluate their management strategy
to incorporate the requirements of that policy.
DISCUSSION
BRMBR was established to support migratory birds, so refuge management
focuses primarily on the responses of birds to the provision of important bird food,
nesting areas and stopover habitat (Olson et al. 2004). Maintaining all of the refuge‟s
29,000 acres of potentially flooded freshwater wetland habitat would require more water
than is generally available to the refuge, based on its geographic position and water right
priorities. Allowing all wetlands units to go dry naturally according to the conditions of
the river would fail to meet the goals of the refuge, but seeking additional water rights to
88
completely meet established habitat needs has proven to be unfruitful. So rather than
follow either of those strategies, refuge managers have chosen to adapt to an uncertain
and generally scarce water supply on an annual basis. The intensive, adaptive water
management plan implemented at BRMBR also has the benefit of adapting to the
institutional context of the Bear River.
Management at BRMBR must meet the goals of the refuge (to provide habitat for
migratory birds) and the requirements of prior appropriation and the law of the Bear
River (to put water to a beneficial use). Monitoring habitat response to management
strategies, sharing that information with the public, and maintaining relationships with
other water users are important institutional adaptations to the human-hydrology of the
Bear River (see Chapter Two for more discussion of human hydrology).
In the Bear River Basin, there are no wetlands for wetlands‟ sake (W. Atkin, pers.
comm.). At the BRMBR, wetlands are maintained for wildlife, specifically migratory
birds. The wildlife production goals of the refuge cannot work within the physical
realities of the Bear River Basin without intensive water management and that water
management cannot work within the institutional environment of the Bear River without
monitoring. Monitoring how wildlife utilize refuge habitat, through bird counts and
nesting surveys, after water management plans have been established meets the beneficial
use requirements of prior appropriation by demonstrating that water is being consistently
put to beneficial use (for wildlife propagation). Meanwhile, the requirements governing
the FWS, the National Wildlife Refuge System and federal wildlife policies to provide
habitat for wildlife populations are also being met, thus satisfying the refuge‟s water and
wildlife obligations to the U. S. public and international community (U. S. Code 1928, U.
89
S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999). Monitoring also gathers data that will be
incorporated into adaptive management practices.
Refuge managers publish the Habitat Management Plans (HMPs) on the refuge
website every spring, which serves a role in gaining the trust of other water users.
Sharing knowledge gained through the adaptive management process, which is included
in HMPs, is an important part of the relationship building process, not only between
natural resource management agencies, but also between agencies and the public (Weber
and Khademian 2008, Gunderson 1999, Wondelleck and Yaffee 2000, Dietz et al. 2003,
Hahn et al. 2006). The FWS has increasingly recognized a need for more wildlife
refuges to involve the public in planning, and recognized that this requires a shift in
refuge management from previous paradigms that do not integrate public values into
management (Boylan 2003, Langston 2003). BRMBR is a leader in this aspect, as
community support is already an important component of management (B. Barrett, A.
Trout, pers. comm.).
Within the context of the Bear River Basin, sharing knowledge gained about the
river with other water users helps promote transparency and trust (Endter-Wada et al.
2009). Maintaining relationships with other water users in the Bear River Basin is an
important piece of water management at BRMBR because all water uses in the area are
connected to each other through the Bear River and all uses ultimately affect the wetlands
downstream (Euliss et al. 2008). During July and August, water in the Bear River is
almost exclusively return flow from Bear River Canal Company (BRCC) (Olson 2009, A.
Trout, pers. comm.). While most irrigation rights in Utah end October 31, BRCC rights
end September 30. This gives BRMBR the right to call on the water BRCC may be using
90
in the month of October, if they think it will help them refill refuge wetland units in a
timely and effective manner. However, making a call on the river would likely prove to
be futile because water would not realistically reach the refuge in time to benefit wetland
habitat. Furthermore, calling on the right of another user causes negative feelings
between water users and that has prevented cooperation between irrigators and the refuge
in the past (A. Trout, pers. comm.).
Refuge managers have sought other means of obtaining additional water for their
refuge, including attempting to file for a federal reserved water right, asking for
allocations under the amended Bear River Compact, and pursuing shares in a water
storage facility. However, these efforts were viewed as giving too much power to the
state of Utah (in interstate negotiations) or too much power to the federal government (in
negotiations with the state), and thus failed to secure more water for the refuge (Jibson
1991, Boyce 1996, A. Trout, pers. comm.).
Rather than seeking more water by calling on the river or making federal reserved
rights claims, BRMBR maintains open communication with other water users. This
includes BRCC, which can occasionally spill unanticipated excess water to the refuge
when all users are on good terms with one another. Refuge managers remain active in
water management discussions on the Bear River and actively monitor new, large
appropriation applications on the river. Individual wetland, water, and canal managers
have been critical in forging relationships between water users and management agencies
(B. Barrett, B. Fotheringham, A. Trout, pers. comms.). Attending meetings and talking
with other water users might not put more water in the Bear River on a guaranteed basis,
but it does keep the refuge with a seat at the negotiating table to seek occasional and
91
future opportunities to improve its abilities to secure water through informal as well as
formal means (A. Trout, pers. comm.). This facilitates sharing knowledge gained about
the Bear River and discovery of any opportunities to access additional water. It also
encourages face-to-face communication that helps increase trust and the ability to govern
scarce resources (Dietz et al. 2003, Gunderson et al. 2006).
CONCLUSIONS
The Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge faces serious management challenges
during the summer, when stream flow in the Bear River falls far below the needs of
wetlands on the refuge. The refuge staff has adapted to this by obtaining water rights
through the state of Utah and building a complex system of dikes and canals to manage
its water supply. To compliment this infrastructure, refuge biologists complete long-term
and annual habitat management plans based on predictions of summer water supplies and
bird response to previous treatments. This follows the tenants of adaptive management
and produces the most wet freshwater wetland habitat possible under extremely variable
and often low water circumstances. Managers at the refuge have developed important
relationships with other water users that facilitate sharing information about what they
have learned about the Bear River and ways they can cooperate to benefit the area.
Beyond adapting to the physical realities of scarce water supplies, the water
management strategy at BRMBR also conforms to the institutional realities of the area,
where water rights must be put to beneficial uses and users must prove they are using
their water in such a manner. It also helps the refuge managers meet the goals of the
refuge within the larger National Wildlife Refuge System.
92
This combination of adaptive management strategies and relationship building is
critical to successful wetland management in arid river basins. BRMBR demonstrates
how wetlands can be managed successfully within the constraints of low water supply
and multiple institutional expectations.
REFERENCES
Batzer, D. P., and R. R. Sharitz. 2006. Ecology of freshwater and estuarine wetlands:
an introduction. Pages 1-6 in D. P. Batzer, and R. R. Sharitz, editors. Ecology of
freshwater and estuarine wetlands. University of California Press, Berkeley,
California, USA.
Berkes, F., and C. Folke. 1998. Linking social and ecological systems for resilience
and sustainability.” Pages 1-12 in F. Berkes, and C. Folke, editors. Linking
social and ecological systems: management practices and social mechanisms for
building resilience. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Bolduc, F., and A. D. Afton. 2003. Effects of structural marsh management and salinity
on invertebrate prey of waterbirds in marsh ponds during winter on the Gulf Coast
Chenier Plain. Wetlands 23(4):897-910.
Bowyer, M. W., J. D. Stafford, Y. P. Aaron, C. S. Hine, M. M. Horath, and S. P.
Havera. 2005. Moist-soil plant seed production for waterfowl at Chautauqua
National Wildlife Refuge, Illinois. American Midland Naturalist 154:331-341.
Boyce, J. 1996. Wrestling with the bear: a compact approach to water allocation. BYU
Journal of Public Law 10(2):301-324.
Boylan, M. 2003. Keeping the service in the Fish and Wildlife Service. Fish and
Wildlife News. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [online] URL:
http://library.fws.gov/fwnews/fwnews_spring03_special.pdf.
Brugnach, M., A. Dewulf, C. Pahl-Wostl, and T. Taillieu. 2008. Toward a relational
concept of uncertainty: about knowing too little, knowing too differently, and
accepting not to know. Ecology and Society 13(2):30-45. [online] URL:
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art30/.
Christiansen, J. E., and J. B. Low. 1970. Water requirements of waterfowl marshlands
in northern Utah. Publication No. 69-12, Utah Division of Fish and Game, Salt
Lake City, Utah, USA.
93
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of
wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Washington, D.C., USA.
Creswell, J. W. 2009. Research Design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches, 3rd edition. Sage Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks, California, USA.
Dahl T. E. 2006. Status and trends in wetlands in the conterminous United States 1998-
2004. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington D.C. [online] URL:
http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/_documents/gSandT/NationalReports/StatusTrends
WetlandsConterminousUS1998to2004.pdf.
Denton, C. 2007. Bear River: last chance to change course. Utah State University
Press, Logan, Utah, USA.
deSzalay, F. A., C. Carroll, J. A. Beam, and V. H. Resh. 2003. Temporal overlap of
nesting duck and aquatic invertebrate abundances in the Grasslands Ecological
Area, California, USA. Wetlands 23(4):739-749.
Dietz, T. E., E. Ostrom, and P.L. Stern. 2003. The struggle to govern the commons.
Science 302:1907-1912.
Endter-Wada, J., T. Selfa, and L. W. Welsh. 2009. Hydrologic interdependencies and
human cooperation: the process of adapting to drought. Weather, Climate and
Society 1(1):54-70.
Euliss, N. H., L. M. Smith, D. A. Wilcox, and B. A. Browne. 2008. Linking
ecosystem processes with wetland management goals: charting a course for a
sustainable future. Wetlands 28(3):553-562.
Folke, C., T. Hahn, P. Olsson, and J. Norberg. 2005. Adaptive governance of social
ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30:441-473.
Getches, D. H. 2009. Water law in a nutshell, 4th edition. West Publishing Company,
St. Paul, Minnesota, USA.
Gunderson, L. 1999. Resilience, flexibility and adaptive management - - antidotes for
spurious certitude? Conservation Ecology 3(1):7-14.
Gunderson, L. H., S. R. Carpenter, P. Olsson, and G. Peterson. 2006. Water RATs
(resilience, adaptability, and transformability) in lake and wetland social-
ecological systems. Ecology and Society 11(1):16. [online] URL:
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art16/.
Hahn, T., P. Olsson, C. Folke, and K. Johansson. 2006. Trust-building, knowledge
generation and organizational innovations: the role of bridging organization for
adaptive comanagement of a wetland landscape around Kristianstad, Sweden.
Human Ecology 34:573-592.
94
Haig, S. M., D. W. Mehlman, and L. W. Oring. 1998. Avian movements and wetland
connectivity in landscape conservation. Conservation Biology 12(4):749-758.
Holling, C. S. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of
Ecological Systems 4:1-23.
Holling, C. S. 1978. Adaptive environmental assessment and management. Wiley, New
York, New York, USA.
Ivey, G. L., and C. P. Herziger. 2006. Intermountain West waterbird conservation
plan, version 1.2. A plan associated with the Waterbird Conservation for the
Americas Initiative. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pacific Region, Portland,
Oregon, USA. [online] URL: http://www.fws.gov/pacific/migratorybirds/
IWWCP-FINALversion%20with%20cover.pdf.
Jackson, R. C. 2006. Wetland hydrology. Pages 43-81 in D. P. Batzer and R. R.
Sharitz, editors. Ecology of freshwater and estuarine wetlands. University of
California Press, Berkeley, California, USA.
Jibson, W. 1991. History of the Bear River Compact. Bear River Commission, Salt
Lake City, Utah, USA.
Kadlec, J. 1962. Effects of drawdown on a waterfowl impoundment. Ecology
43(2):268-281.
________. 1982. Mechanisms affecting salinity of Great Salt Lake marshes. The
American Midland Naturalist 107(1):82-94.
Kadlec, J. A., and S. E. Adair. 1994. Evaluation of water requirements for the marshes
of the Bear River Delta. Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Utah State
University, Logan, Utah, USA.
Kadlec, J. A., and L. M. Smith. 1984. Marsh plant establishment in newly flooded salt
flats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 12:388-394.
Kadlec, R. H., and R. L. Knight. 1996. Treatment Wetlands. CRC Press, Boca Raton,
Florida, USA.
Kaminski, M. R., G. A. Baldassarre, and A. T. Pearse. 2006. Waterbird responses to
hydrological management of Wetlands Reserve Program Habitats in New York.
Wildlife Society Bulletin 34(4):921-926.
Langston, N. 2003. Where land and water meet: a western landscape transformed
University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Lemly, D. A., R. T. Kingsford, and J. R. Thompson. 2000. Irrigated agriculture and
wildlife conservation on a global scale. Environmental Management 25(5):485-
512.
95
MacDonnell, L. J. 1991. Water rights for wetlands protection. Rivers 2(4):277-284.
Mitsch, W. J., and J. G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands, 2nd edition. John Wiley and Sons,
Inc., New York, New York, USA.
National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for wetland losses under the Clean
Water Act. National Academy Press, Washington D.C., USA.
Olson, B. 2009. Annual Habitat Management Plan: Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge.
Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge: Brigham City, Utah, USA. [online] URL:
http://www.fws.gov/bearriver/management_plans/2009-annual-hmp.pdf
Olson, B. E., K. Lindsay, and V. Hirschboeck. 2004. Habitat Management Plan: Bear
River Migratory Bird Refuge, Brigham City, Utah. Bear River Migratory Bird
Refuge, Brigham City, Utah, USA. [online] URL: http://www.fws.gov/
bearriver/management_plans/BR_HMP.pdf.
Paton, P. W., and V. C. Bachman. 1996. Impoundment drawdown and artificial nest
structures as management strategies for Snowy plovers. International Water
Studies 9:64-70.
Purseglove, J. 1988. Taming the flood: a history and natural history of rivers and
wetlands. Oxford University Press, New York, New York, USA.
Romesburg, H. C. 2009. Best research approaches: how to gain reliable knowledge.
Lulu Enterprises Inc., Morrisville, North Carolina, USA.
Smith, L. M., N. H. Euliss Jr., D. A. Wilcox, and M. M. Brinson. 2008. Application
of a geomorphic and temporal perspective to wetland management in North
America. Wetlands 28(3):563-577.
Somerville, D. E., and B. A. Pruitt. 2006. United States wetland regulation and policy.
Pages 313-347 in D. P. Batzer, and R. R. Sharitz, editors. Ecology of freshwater
and estuarine wetlands. University of California Press, Berkeley, California,
USA.
Taft, O. W., M. A Colwell, C. R. Isola, and R. J. Safran. 2002. Waterbird responses
to experimental drawdown: implications for the multispecies management of
wetland mosaics. Journal of Applied Ecology 39:987-1001.
Tiner, R. W. 2003. Estimated extent of geographically isolated wetlands of the United
States. Wetlands 23(3):494-516.
Tronstad, L. M., B. P. Tronstad, and A. C. Benke. 2005. Invertebrate responses to
decreasing water levels in a subtropical river floodplain wetland. Wetlands
25(3):583-593.
96
U. S. Code. 1928. 16USC690: Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge; establishment,
acquisition of lands. United States code. [online] URL:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/index.html.
U. S. Code. 1997. 16USC668dd: National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act.
United States code. [online] URL: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/index.html.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. History of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
[online] URL: http://www.fws.gov/refuges/history/index.html.
U. S. Geological Survey. 2009a. Water-data report: 10126000 Bear River near
Corinne, UT. [online] URL: http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2009/pdfs
/10126000.2009.pdf.
U. S. Geological Survey. 2009b. Great Salt Lake: lake elevations and elevation
changes. [online] URL: http://ut.water.usgs.gov/greatsaltlake/elevations/.
U. S. Geological Survey. 2010. National Water Information System: USGS 1012600:
Bear River Near Corinne, UT. [online] URL:
http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/inventory/?site_no=10126000&
Utah Division of Water Resources. 2004. Bear River Basin: planning for the future.
Utah Division of Water Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA. [online] URL:
http://water.utah.gov/Planning/SWP/bear/bearRiver-1A.pdf
Utah Division of Water Rights. 2009. Water Right Information Index Program.
[online] URL: http://www.waterrights.utah.gov/cgi-bin/wrindex.exe?Startup
Utah Water Research Laboratory. 2010. Bear River Watershed Information System:
Watershed Description. [online] URL: http://bearriverinfo.org/description/.
Vileisis, A. 1997. Discovering the unknown landscape: a history of America’s wetlands.
Island Press, Washington D.C., USA.
Weber, E. P., and A. M. Khademian. 2008. Wicked problems, knowledge challenges,
and collaborative capacity builders in network settings. Public Administration
Review 68(2):334-349.
Welling, C. H., R. L. Pederson, and A. G. Vandervalk. 1988. Temporal patterns in
recruitment from the seed bank during drawdown in a prairie wetland. Journal of
Applied Ecology 25(3):999-1008.
Williams, C. S., and W. H. Marshall. 1938. Duck nesting studies, Bear River
Migratory Bird Refuge, Utah, 1937. Journal of Wildlife Management 2(2):29-48.
Wilson, V. T., and R. L. Carson. 1950. Bear River: a national wildlife refuge. U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service Publications, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA.
97
Wondelleck, J. M., and S. L. Yaffee. 2000. Making collaboration work: lessons from
innovation in natural resource management. Island Press, Washington D.C.,
USA.
Wurtsbaugh, W. A., and Z. M. Gliwicz. 2001. Limnological control of brine shrimp
population dynamics and cyst production in the Great Salt Lake, Utah.
Hydrobiologia 466:119-132.
98
Table 3-1. Important Events and Policies on the Bear River
Date
Event
Implication
1862
First allocation
on the Bear
River
Establishes Prior Appropriation as means for allocating
water. † States allocate waters, rights are based on priority,
and shortages are not shared. Rights designate a quantity,
date (priority and time of use), place of use, beneficial use
and point of diversion. Rights not used are considered
forfeited. *
1889
Utah-Idaho
Sugar Company
applies for water
Right is to 333 cfs of the Bear River, which is distributed
throughout the valley above BRMBR. Company sells land
with water rights to encourage agriculture in the area. Later
changes name to Bear River Canal Company. †
1908
Winter‟s
Doctrine
Assures that lands set aside by the federal government have
enough water for their designated purpose. Priority for that
water is set at date of refuge/reservation/park establishment.*
1912
UP&L – U-I
Sugar Company
agreement of
Bear Lake Use
Bear Lake will be run by Utah Power and Light (UP&L) as a
storage facility; Utah Idaho Sugar Company (U-I Sugar)
water rights will be stored there and delivered by UP&L
during the irrigation season. †
1920
Dietrich Decree
Botulism
outbreak in GSL
Delta
Decreed Utah Power and Light‟s right to store water in Bear
Lake. Established a schedule of rights for use of the Bear
River and its tributaries that specified the rights of the
plaintiff (UP&L) and defendants (mostly canal companies).
Public outcry results from bird die-offs
1922
Kimball Decree
Added more defendants to Schedule of Rights from the
Dietrich Decree
1928
Bear River
Migratory Bird
Refuge
established
Apply for foundational water right, infrastructure and
management put in place to rehabilitate the diminished
marshes of the Bear River Delta.
1958
The Bear River
Compact
Establishes the rights and obligations of Idaho, Utah, and
Wyoming with respect to the waters of the Bear River.
Divided the river into 3 divisions, and assigned river flow
and diversions within each division. Allocated storage water
between states. Set minimum elevation for Bear Lake. ‡
1983
Great Salt Lake
Flooding
Flood waters destroy BRMBR buildings and dikes, refuge
closed until 1989
1989
GSL Waters
recede
Refuge begins construction on more elaborate systems of
dikes and canals to more fully manage water (including a
bypass option)
1991
Bear River
Passed by the Utah State Legislature in 1991. Directs the
99
Development
Act
Utah Division of Water Resources to develop “excess water”
in the Bear River and its tributaries. Allocates 1.2 million
acre-feet of water between the Utah and Idaho portions of the
Bear River Basin. Further divides Utah‟s portion between
four counties and conservancy districts. †
1993
Lower Bear
River
Adjudication
Judicial proceeding that establishes the rights of all users on a
river. Began in 1940s, preliminary findings for the Lower
Bear River Basin published in 2005.
1995
Bear Lake
Settlement
Agreement
Cutler
Relicensing
Voluntary agreement between PacifiCorp (formerly UP&L)
and water users (not states) to settle disputes concerning the
operation and management of Bear Lake. PacifiCorp made
contracts with downstream irrigators for the use of their
storage water in Bear Lake. Protects the elevation of Bear
Lake during drought.
Cutler Dam now managed as run-of-the-river facility, ending
large fluctuations in river levels below dam due to power
generation.
2004
BRMBR Long
Term Habitat
Management
Plan Completed
Lays out management strategies for BRMBR based on
habitat use and water supply.
(Sources: * Getches 2009, † Denton 2007, ‡ Jibson 1991)
100
Table 3-2. Water Rights held by Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge. Bear River Water
Rights are Highlighted.9
Source
Priority
Quantity
(acre-feet)
Flow Right
(cfs)
Right
Number
Beneficial Use
Type
Stauffer-
Packer Spring
1860
149.19
1.04
29-3172
Irrigation
Diligence
Perry Spring
Stream
1869
57.21
1.00
29-951
Irrigation
Underground
claim
Unnamed
Stream
1896
326.38
29-1919
Irrigation, Incidental
Wildlife
Diligence
Unnamed
Spring
1869
283.78; (0.03)
29-973
Irrigation (Stock,
Incidental Wildlife)
Diligence
Dan Walker
Spring
1870
192.68; (0.64)
3.06
29-936
Irrigation; (Stock)
Diligence
Perry Spring
Stream
1870
27.84
(0.56)
0.56
29-937
Irrigation (Stock)
Diligence
Underground
Drains
1870
0.22
0.002
29-3061
Stock
Underground
claim
Unnamed
Spring Stream
1880
10.86
0.02
29-2622
Stock
Diligence
Unnamed
Spring Stream
1880
49.2
(0.91)
1.00
29-1697
Irrigation (Stock)
Diligence
Unnamed
Spring
1881
328.62
1.00
29-3060
Irrigation
Diligence
Underground
Drains
1885
164.40
(0.86)
1.50
29-1915
Irrigation (Stock)
Underground
Claim
Underground
Drains
1885
329.73 (0.86)
2.00
29-1916
Irrigation (Stock)
Underground
Claim
Underground
Drains
1887
147.64 (0.86)
3.00
29-1914
Irrigation (Stock)
Underground
Claim
East Slough
1896
403.60
7.37
29-1450
Irrigation
Decree
Black Slough
1896
940.4
45.00
29-3484
Irrigation
Decree
Underground
Drains
1900
231.96 (0.84)
1.59
29-768
Irrigation (Stock)
Underground
Claim
Underground
Drains
1900
189.08 (0.64)
1.11
29-769
Irrigation (Stock)
Underground
Claim
Bear River
1902
3840.80
15.90
29-3485
Wildlife
Diligence
Bear River
1902
2000.00
-
29-3698
Irrigation
Diligence
Unnamed
Stream
1902
0.28
0.002
29-3157
Stock
Diligence
Underground
Drains
1920
0.86
0.01
29-770
Stock
Underground
claim
Surface
Drains
1907
20.52
(0.03)
0.50
29-980
Irrigation (Stock)
Application
Bear River
1928
425,771.00
1,000.00
20-1014
Wildlife
Application
Underground
Well
1955
0.42
0.01
29-1165
Stock
Application
9 Data gathered from Utah Division of Water Rights (2009) online database.
101
Underground
Well
1961
0.002
0.13
29-1330
Stock
Application
Salt Creek
1991
666.25
(666.25)
[1337.75]
-
29-3668
Waterfowl (Fisheries)
[Irrigation]
Application
Stauffer-
Packer Spring
1995
4.00
1.04
29-3825
Wildlife
Application
Underground
Drains
1995
40.00
1.0
29-3824
Wildlife
Application
Surface and
Underground
Drains
1997
1447.59
2.0
29-1637
Stock
Application
Total
BRMBR
Rights
438785.12
102
Table 3-3. Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge Water Rights vs. Bear River Stream
Discharge, by Month Over the Last Decade, the Last Major Drought Year (2004) and
Last Major Flood Year (1984).
Month
BRMBR
Water
Rights
(acft)
Average
discharge
„00-‟09
(acft)
Ratio
Average
discharge
2004
Ratio
Average
discharge
1984
Ratio
Jan
5,938
75,843
12.77
53,445
9.00
223,700
37.67
Feb
8,202
66,456
8.10
57,400
7.00
199,609
24.34
Mar
61,380
105,235
1.71
96,021
1.56
313,574
5.11
Apr
59,400
123,121
2.07
65,261
1.10
397,988
6.70
May
61,733
103,238
1.67
24,890
0.40
590,018
9.56
June
35,842
59,121
1.65
29,906
0.83
547,367
15.27
July
56,978
7,134
0.13
2,643
0.05
207,410
3.64
Aug
40,868
5,958
0.15
2,871
0.07
181,038
4.43
Sept
60,072
15,996
0.27
7,823
0.13
203,634
3.39
Oct
28,800
36,198
1.26
33,195
1.15
250,257
8.69
Nov
10,331
46,622
4.51
44,344
4.29
265,980
25.74
Dec
1,997
58,703
29.40
64,915
32.51
233,352
116.85
Total
431,542
703,624
1.63
482,714
1.12
3,613,926
8.37
103
Figure 3-1. The Bear River Basin
104
Figure 3-2. Average monthly discharge in the Bear River at Corinne, Utah during a flood
year, drought year, and 60-year average (U. S. Geological Survey 2010).
105
Figure 3-3. The Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge
106
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
1-Jan
11-Feb
24-Mar
4-May
14-Jun
25-Jul
4-Sep
15-Oct
25-Nov
Discharge (cfs)
Figure 3-4. Average daily discharge in the Bear River at Corinne, Utah, 2009.10
10 Data gathered from U. S. Geological Survey (2010).
107
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
1963
1966
1969
1972
1975
1978
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
Discharge (cfs)
Date
Figure 3-5. Average monthly discharge of the Bear River at Corinne, Utah, 1963-2009
(U. S. Geological Survey 2010).
108
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
Average Monthly Discharge (acft)
Month
Legal
Rights
Stream
Flow
(2000-
2009)
Figure 3-6. Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge legal water rights and average monthly
stream discharge 2000-2009.
109
CHAPTER 4
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Wetland protection in the Western United States is difficult for many reasons, but
water scarcity is foremost among those difficulties. While many federal policies exist to
protect land that has been designated as wetlands from being converted to other uses,
state water policies continue to develop potential wetland water supplies for other uses.
The research reported on in this thesis focused on case studies in the Bear River Basin,
but the issues examine here are common across the West. Thus, conclusions from this
research have potential applications for other wetlands in the region where managers are
trying to secure and maintain water supplies and adapt to uncertain future hydrologic
conditions.
One conclusion form this study is that a wetland‟s geographic position within the
human-hydrologic system where it is located is the most important factor in determining
the security of its water supply. A wetland located upstream of, or adjacent to large,
powerful water users will likely have a more secure supply than one located downstream
of powerful users. This is especially true in heavily appropriated watersheds.
Geographic position in relation to water sources as well as other water users matters
because it determines how much water will actually be available at critical points during
the growing season.
Regardless of the water security bestowed by favorable climatic and hydrologic
conditions, under western water law, wetland managers must still obtain legal rights or
secure agreements to use the water that supplies their wetlands. The primary mechanism
110
for obtaining a water supply at wildlife refuges in the Bear River Basin has been to apply
for state certificated water rights, though agreements to access other water users‟ water
rights have also played a role. Water rights can be obtained through applications to
appropriate, now that most states recognize ecological uses of water as beneficial uses.
However, many river systems are already heavily appropriated for other uses and rights
obtained through new applications would not have high enough seniority to get water
when it is most needed by plants either seasonally or during periods of severe drought.
Often, it is better to acquire senior water rights in connection land acquistions.
Once managers have the right or permission to use water, it must be actively
managed to meet the requirements of wetland, wildlife and water policies. Water
management does not pretend to recreate natural wetland hydrology, because often that is
not possible within the altered human-hydrologic contexts of most wetlands in the West.
Instead, wetland water management tries to provide a buffer against extremes in water
availability by decreasing the rate of drying or flooding. It also helps provide the most
wildlife habitat possible, which is often the purpose for which wetland water rights are
obtained.
Having an insecure and uncertain water supply does not mean that wetlands are
allowed to dry or flood according to water conditions. While that may be a more natural
way for wetlands to function, it fails to meet the requirements of wetland and water
policies. Instead, as is the case with Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge (BRMBR),
uncertainty can prompt wetland managers to adapt in innovative ways. Such adaptations
have both a structural and a social dimension, and BRMBR has been a leader in this. Not
only have managers built an extensive water management system, but they also integrate
111
forecasting and monitoring into their planning process, in order to adapt to seasonal and
annual changes in water availability. Such adaptations are enhanced by relationships
within the local water users‟ community that help refuge staff recognize opportunities for
cooperation and collaboration and minimize conflict.
The monitoring and knowledge sharing components of the adaptive management
strategy followed by BRMBR plays an important role in adapting to the institutional
contexts wetlands operate in, foremost by increasing trust and facilitating networking
among water users. In this region, water users understand the refuge is meeting the
beneficial use requirements of their water rights when they report on their management
decisions and the results of those decisions. Having good relationships with other water
users is important, not so much for gaining additional water supplies, but for having a
place at the negotiating table that could provide opportunities in the future for enhancing
wetland water security. Being involved with other water users also fosters cooperation
through the recognition that agricultural and wetland uses of water are interdependent,
especially in areas where many wetlands are actually dependent on irrigation return flow,
and that both types of users face similar threats to their supplies.
Other wetlands in the Western United States are facing changes similar to those
along the Bear River, namely growing demands on limited supplies due to population
growth and future supply uncertainties related to climate change. The lessons learned by
wetland managers along this river can help others facing changes to the human hydrology
of their own region as they seek to enhance the security of their water supplies.
112
APPENDICES
113
APPENDIX A
Interview Participants
Atkin, Will. 2009. State Engineer‟s Office, Northern Division Manager. Interview 12
January 2009.
Barrett, Bob. 2009. Refuge Manager, Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge. U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. Interview 7 January 2009.
deKnijf, Annette. 2009. Refuge Manager, Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge. U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. Interview 23 March 2009.
Fotheringham, Bob. 2009. Water Director, Water Department, Cache County (former
northern region State Engineer). Interview 22 June 2009.
Kirk, Kate. 2009. Interview. Biological Technician, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Interview 9 April 2009.
Olson, Bridget. 2009b. Biologist, Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge. U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. Interview. 7 January 2009.
Sumner, Rich. 2009. Environmental Protection Agency Wetlands Liaison. Interview 9
July 2009.
Trout, Al. 2009. Interview. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Former Refuge Manager.
Interview 20 March 2009.
114
APPENDIX B
Interview Protocol
1. Where does the water come from that maintains (“Bear River” or specific reference)
wetlands?
Probes: Do (these) wetlands have certificated water rights?
If so, what is the nature of those rights?
If not, how is the water secured?
2. How much water (amount, frequency) do these wetlands need?
3. What happens to (“Bear River” or specific reference) wetlands in times of drought?
4. Are maintenance of (Bear River; these) wetlands controversial? Can you explain?
Probes: What groups or individuals are involved in this controversy?
5. What are the constraints to obtaining enough water to maintain these wetlands?
Probes: What constraints operate on an annual basis?
What constraints pertain in times of scarcity?
6. What are the opportunities for obtaining enough water to maintain these wetlands?
Probes: What is the role of formal water rights applications?
What is the role of informal agreements?
7. How do natural resource agencies take wetlands into account in their planning
processes?
8. How does your state division of water rights take wetlands into account when
reviewing water use applications (new appropriations, changes of use)?
9. I would be interested in hearing your opinions about wetland policies.
Probes: What do you think are the strengths and weaknesses of those policies?
10. Do the policies and politics differ depending upon the geographic location of the
wetland involved?
115
APPENDIX C
116
117
APPENDIX D
ENDNOTES
i Natural resource agencies like the FWS have come to recognize the importance of forging ties between the
land they hold and communities and are trying to promote building these ties at wildlife refuges that have
not yet done so (Ashe, 2003).
ii The Bear River is unique in being the longest river in North America that does not reach the ocean
(Jibson, 1991).
iii During the past 100 years the lake has occupied between 3,300 and 950 square miles of surface area (U.
S. Geological Survey, 2009b)
iv Historians have called this the single most important development affecting Bear River water allocation
(Jibson, 1991).
v Agricultural development in the Bear River Basin was encouraged by canal companies that sold parcels of
land with shares of water in their companies. Irrigation is the dominant water interest on the Bear River,
followed closely by PacifiCorp, formerly Utah Power and Light (UP&L). Together they determine how
most of the water in the river is used. However, as the basin has developed, a more diverse set of interests
call on the river, including municipal uses, manufacturing, and recreational and environmental interests,
while hydropower has fallen in importance (Jibson, 1991). Water policy on the river has developed to
address these newer uses and will continue to evolve to address changes in water use in the basin (Boyce,
1996).
vi This could be due to the Mormon traditions in the Basin or because the complexities of the Bear River
require creative approaches to water allocation (Boyce, 1996).
vii Every water right has a beneficial use with corresponding period of use; irrigation rights are generally in
priority from April through October, but this varies by state and legal decree; while stock water, wildlife
and domestic rights are in priority year round. Within this period of use, many flow rights, measured in cfs
or gpm (gallons per minute) are limited to a discharge amount in acre-feet that constitutes the maximum
volume of water that can be used per year.
viii However, the river has never exceeded 5,000 cfs above Bear Lake (Jibson, 1991)
ix Birds of the delta were so numerous, John C. Fremont described the noise from the movement of huge
flocks of birds as thunderous (Fremont,1845; Wilson & Carson, 1950).
x In Utah, diligence claims are rights to waters that had been used prior to 1903 and underground water
claims are rights to underground water that had been used prior to 1935 (Utah Division of Water Rights,
2009).
xi A simple water management system was built when the Refuge was established and rebuilt with more
units and control in the 1980s after the refuge was destroyed by flooding of the Great Salt Lake (Al Trout,
personal communication).
118
xii Under the law, Utah Division of Water Resources (2000) is to develop 120,000 acft of water in Cache
and Box Elder Counties, within the Bear River Basin, and 100,000 acft in Davis and Jordan Valley Water
Conservancy Districts, south of the basin.
xiii It also follows the recommendations of social scientists who study collaboration and the RAMSAR
Convention (a convention to protect global wetlands for birds) to participate in watershed-wide water
planning, foster cooperation, and get wetland/environmental water use recognized by more water users (Iza
2004).
xiv Including in some high profile cases such as the Lahontan Valley in Nevada and the Central Valley of
California (MacDonnell 1991).
xv Most western states follow the Doctrine of Prior Appropriation, generally summarized as “First in Time,
First in Right,” but allocation rules specify far more requirements than simply having priority. Users obtain
water rights with a priority date and senior users are guaranteed their full water right in times of shortage,
while junior users may be cut off, because water shortages are not shared between users. A water right
gives the user the right to divert a specific quantity of water, at a specific time during the year, with a
specified priority date, for a designated, beneficial use at a specific location. Prior Appropriation also
contains a “use it or lose it” clause; water that is not continually put to a beneficial use may be lost (Getches
2009).
xvi There is some disagreement between water users over whether the Bear River is fully allocated, most
water users, and even historians believe there is no longer water available in the river for major
appropriations (Jibson 1991, Al Trout personal communication, Bob Barrett personal communication).
However, the state of Utah has been directed to develop 220,000 additional acre-feet of water, through the
Bear River Development Act (Utah Department of Water Resources 2000). What is clear to everyone on
the river is that there are times of the year, namely July through September, when the Bear River is fully
allocated.
xvii Little is known about the historical conditions of the river, but researchers hypothesize that before the
impoundments and diversions were in place, the hydrograph of the Bear River had two peaks associated
with snowmelt, one in March or April, and a higher spring runoff peak in May or June. This would have
been followed by a gradual decrease in discharge through September, when precipitation events increased
flow in the river again (Olson et al. 2004).
xviii On average it covers 1,700 square miles (mi2) but in the last 40 years alone the lake has fluctuated
between 3,300 mi2 and 950 mi2 in surface area (U. S. Geological Survey, 2009b).
xix The delta where the Bear River flows into the Great Salt Lake itself hosts significant portions of the
world‟s populations of California gulls, Eared grebes, White-faced ibis, and American white pelicans (Ivey
and Herziger 2006).
xx Refuge staff began aggressive construction of a water management system when the refuge was first
established. This active management produced significant, visible improvements in wildlife populations
within a few years (Wilson and Carson 1950). After flooding in the 1980s destroyed the refuge, the water
control system was rebuilt more wetland units to produce greater control of water.
xxi The pre-settlement hydrology of the Bear River likely had a dry phase at the same time of year, but not
nearly as extreme as current conditions.
xxii The Dietrich and Kimball Decrees establish the irrigation season for Bear River Canal Company (and
several other water users) as April 1 – September 30.
119
xxiii Work in the 1960s was done to determine the needs of wetlands in order to ensure the state‟s wildlife
management areas had the water rights they needed.
xxiv If this water were equally distributed between the months it is most needed, the refuge‟s demand:supply
ratio would be just over 1.
xxv However, these are constrained by time and staff (Olson 2009).
xxvi For instance, 2008 was predicted to be a close-to-normal water year, however, water in the river ended
up much lower than expected, closer to 36% of normal. Nevertheless, BRMBR was still able to maintain
11,000 acres of wetland habitat (Olson 2009). Managers have also been able to divert water from wetland
units that used to host nesting birds, to other units, should birds decide to move.
