Camas

National Wildlife 

Refuge

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and 

Environmental 

Assessment
Sandhill cranes in flight. ©David Goeke

Comprehensive Conservation Plans 

provide long-term guidance for 

management decisions and set forth 

goals, objectives, and strategies 

needed to accomplish refuge purposes 

and identify the U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service’s best estimates of future 

needs. These plans detail program 

planning levels that are sometimes 

substantially above current budget 

allocations, and as such, are primarily 

used for strategic planning and program 

prioritization purposes. The plans do 

not constitute a commitment for 

staffing increases, operational and 

maintenance increases, or funding 

for future land acquisition. 

Long before Camas National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was established in 

1937 in eastern Idaho’s high desert, wet meadows sustained by Camas Creek 

provided abundant insect life for waterbirds and sage-grouse to rear their 

broods. Sandhole Lake provided a year-round water source for pronghorn, 

mule deer, and people.

Today, much of the surrounding landscape has been transformed by 

agriculture. But Camas NWR still provides a serene setting where tundra 

swans glide on pools framed by a brilliant orange sunrise. Here visitors can 

see a pure white V of snow geese pressed against a brilliant blue sky, or 

search for rare warblers in the willows along Camas Creek. Photographers 

try their skill at capturing the fall ritual of a bull elk gathering his herd, and 

visitors even brave midwinter cold to watch bald eagles returning to roost 

in the Refuge’s cottonwood trees.

Camas NWR will continue to provide wetland and sage-steppe habitat 

for migratory birds and other native wildlife. Here, people of all ages and 

abilities will have the opportunity not only to enjoy, but to better understand 

the habitats and wildlife of the eastern Snake River Plain, and the 

importance of natural systems. We will use water resources wisely and 

become a model for energy and water conservation. We will work with our 

partners to sustain functional ecosystems in a changing environment.

Our Vision for the Future
Camas National Wildlife Refuge 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

and 

Environmental Assessment

Prepared by:

Camas National Wildlife Refuge

2150 East 2350 North 

Hamer, Idaho 83425 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Pacific Northwest Planning Team 

911 NE 11th Avenue 

Portland, Oregon 97232 

January 2014 

Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Table of Contents i 

CONTENTS 

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

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

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

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

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

1.5 Refuge Planning and Management Guidance ........................................................................ 1-6

1.6 Establishment and Purposes of the Refuge .......................................................................... 1-14

1.7 Relationship to Ecosystem Management Goals ................................................................... 1-19

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

1.9 Refuge Vision ....................................................................................................................... 1-42

1.10 Refuge Goals ........................................................................................................................ 1-43

1.11 Planning Process .................................................................................................................. 1-43 

1.12 References ............................................................................................................................ 1-44

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ............................................................... 2-1

2.1 Consideration in Alternative Designs..................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Actions/Alternatives Considered but Not Developed ............................................................ 2-1

2.3 Alternative Descriptions ......................................................................................................... 2-3

2.4 Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ......................................................................................... 2-37 

2.5 References .......................................................................................................................... 2-107

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

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

3.2 Climate Change ...................................................................................................................... 3-6

3.3 Hydrology ............................................................................................................................. 3-18

3.4 Topography and Bathymetry ................................................................................................ 3-37

3.5 Geology and Geomorphology .............................................................................................. 3-37

3.6 Soils ...................................................................................................................................... 3-43

3.7 Fire ....................................................................................................................................... 3-47

3.8 Environmental Contaminants ............................................................................................... 3-51

3.9 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................ 3-52

3.10 Water Quality ....................................................................................................................... 3-52

3.11 Visual Quality ...................................................................................................................... 3-54

3.12 Surrounding Land Uses ........................................................................................................ 3-55 

3.13 References ............................................................................................................................ 3-57

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

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

4.2 Selection of Priority Resources of Concern ......................................................................... 4-23

4.3 Habitat Types ....................................................................................................................... 4-29

4.4 Major Species Groups .......................................................................................................... 4-78

4.5 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species .................................................................. 4-93
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

ii Table of Contents

4.6 Exotic, Invasive, and Nuisance Species ............................................................................... 4-94

4.7 References .......................................................................................................................... 4-100

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

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

5.2 Refuge Facilities ................................................................................................................... 5-14

5.3 Public Use Overview ............................................................................................................ 5-17

5.4 Wildlife-Dependent Recreation ............................................................................................ 5-20

5.5 Illegal Uses ........................................................................................................................... 5-24

5.6 Area Outdoor Recreational Opportunities and Trends ......................................................... 5-24

5.7 Social/Economic Environment ............................................................................................. 5-29 

5.8 References ............................................................................................................................ 5-35

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects ...................................................................................................... 6-1

6.1 Overview of Effects Analysis................................................................................................. 6-1

6.2 Summary of Effects ................................................................................................................ 6-2

6.3 Effects to Waterfowl and Waterbird Species ......................................................................... 6-9

6.4 Effects to Threatened and Endangered Species ................................................................... 6-23

6.5 Effects to Wetland Habitats and Associated Species ........................................................... 6-25

6.6 Effects to Riparian Habitats and Associated Species ........................................................... 6-35

6.7 Effects to Upland Habitats and Associated Species ............................................................. 6-45

6.8 Effects to Shelterbelt Habitats and Associated Species ....................................................... 6-54

6.9 Effects to Soil Resources ...................................................................................................... 6-59

6.10 Effects to Water Resources and Water Quality .................................................................... 6-63

6.11 Effects to Air Quality ........................................................................................................... 6-66

6.12 Social Effects - General ........................................................................................................ 6-69

6.13 Effects to Opportunities for Quality Wildlife Observation, Photography, Interpretation, 

and Environmental Education ....................................................................................................... 6-71

6.14 Effects to Opportunities for Quality Hunting Experiences .................................................. 6-77

6.15 Effects to Cultural Resources ............................................................................................... 6-80

6.16 Economic Effects ................................................................................................................. 6-82

6.17 Cumulative Effects ............................................................................................................... 6-86 

6.18 References ............................................................................................................................ 6-93

MAPS

Map 1. Beaver-Camas Watershed, Land Ownership and Status ........................................................ 1-3

Map 2. Land Status, Camas NWR .................................................................................................... 1-17

Map 3. Camas NWR, Habitats, Alternative 1 (Current Management) ............................................. 2-17

Map 4. Camas NWR, Habitats, Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) ............................................. 2-19

Map 5. Camas NWR, Habitats, Alternative 3 ................................................................................... 2-21

Map 6. Camas NWR, Public Use, Alternative 1 (Current Management) ......................................... 2-23

Map 7. Camas NWR, Public Use, Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) ......................................... 2-25

Map 8. Camas NWR, Public Use, Alternative 3 ............................................................................... 2-27

Map 9. Camas NWR, Flow Map ...................................................................................................... 3-29
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Table of Contents iii

Map 10. Camas NWR Water Rights ................................................................................................. 3-35

Map 11. NRCS Soil Map Units of the Camas NWR. ....................................................................... 3-45 

Map 12. Core, Active and Inactive Wetlands and Hay Units ........................................................... 4-53 

FIGURES

Figure 3.1. Mean and distribution of monthly temperatures and precipitation at USHCN 

Ashton, ID (100470) for the period 1981-2010. ............................................................................... 3-16

Figure 3.2. Trends in precipitation at USHCN Ashton, ID (100470) for the period 1981-2010 ..... 3-17

Figure 3.3. Trends in average temp at USHCN Ashton, ID (100470) for the period 1981-2010. .... 3-17

Figure 3.4. Groundwater levels for the period of record 1952 to 2011 at USGS Site No. 

434307112382601 ............................................................................................................................. 3-21

Figure 3.5. Average monthly streamflow at USGS Station No. 1311200, Camas Creek near 

Camas, ID ......................................................................................................................................... 3-24

Figure 4.1. Public land survey of the Camas NWR area, 1884 and 1899. .......................................... 4-5

Figure 4.2. The Camas NWR area in the mid-1920s through late 1930s ......................................... 4-10

Figure 4.3. Peak spring waterfowl migration counts at Camas NWR, 1941-1991 ........................... 4-81

Figure 4.4. Peak fall waterfowl migration counts at Camas NWR, 1941-1991 ............................... 4-81

Figure 4.5. Waterfowl production at Camas NWR, 1941-1991 ....................................................... 4-82

Figure 4.6. Camas NWR Ungulate Populations, 1941-2010 ............................................................ 4-93

TABLES

Table 1.1. Camas NWR Lands Purchased Through Fee Title Purchase ........................................... 1-15

Table 2.1. Comparison and Summary of Management Alternatives ................................................ 2-29 

Table 3.1. PRISM Monthly Normals for Camas NWR (1971-2000) ................................................. 3-3

Table 3.2. Summary of Projected Climate Changes in the Rocky Mountains and Upper 

Columbia Basin (based on McWethy et al. in press in Ashton 2010). ............................................. 3-11

Table 3.3. Named Creeks and Streams on Camas NWR .................................................................. 3-23

Table 3.4. Camas Creek Flow Dates from Camas NWR, 1941-2009 .............................................. 3-25

Table 3.5. Acreage of Lakes, Ponds, and Impoundments in the Camas National Wildlife 

Refuge. .............................................................................................................................................. 3-31

Table 3.6a. Certified Water Rights held by Camas NWR ................................................................ 3-33 

Table 3.6b. Privately Held Water Rights Located on Inholdings Within Camas NWR ................... 3-34 

Table 3.6c. Privately Held Water Rights with a POD Inside the Acquired Boundary at Rays 

Lake, and a POU Outside of the Approved Boundary for Camas NWR .......................................... 3-34

Table 3.7. Major Soil Types of the Camas National Wildlife Refuge .............................................. 3-44 

Table 3.8. Wildland Fires at Camas NWR, 1983-2009 .................................................................... 3-49 

Table 3.9. Fuel Model Composition for Camas NWR ..................................................................... 3-50 

Table 3.10. Listed Waterbodies at the Camas National Wildlife Refuge ......................................... 3-53 

Table 3.11. Land Cover and Land Use in the Beaver-Camas Watershed ......................................... 3-56 

Table 3.12. Irrigated Lands in the in the Beaver-Camas Watershed ................................................ 3-56 

Table 4.1. Vegetation Alliances of Concern Camas NWR ................................................................. 4-6

Table 4.2. Prescribed Fires at Camas NWR, 2001-2012 .................................................................. 4-15 

Table 4.3. Priority Resources of Concern (Focal Species) for Camas NWR ................................... 4-26

Table 4.4. Focal Species Comparison by Breeding and Foraging Habitats. ..................................... 4-27
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

iv Table of Contents

Table 4.5. Habitat and Vegetation Types of Camas NWR. .............................................................. 4-30

Table 4.6. Key Ecological Attributes, Indicators, and Condition Parameters for Wetlands ............. 4-35

Table 4.7. Key Ecological Attributes, Indicators, and Condition Parameters for Waterfowl - 

Wetlands ........................................................................................................................................... 4-37

Table 4.8. Key Ecological Attributes, Indicators, and Condition Parameters for Waterbirds - 

Wetlands ........................................................................................................................................... 4-38

Table 4.9. Active and Inactive Modified Wetland Basins at Camas NWR ...................................... 4-48

Table 4.10. Key Ecological Attributes, Indicators, and Desired Condition - Riparian ..................... 4-65 

Table 4.11. Key Ecological Attributes, Indicators, and Desired Condition - Sagebrush-Steppe ..... 4-69 

Table 4.12. Key Ecological Attributes, Indicators, and Condition Parameters for Waterfowl - 

Uplands ............................................................................................................................................. 4-74 

Table 4.13. Key Ecological Attributes, Indicators, and Condition Parameters for Waterfowl - 

Crops ................................................................................................................................................. 4-75 

Table 4.14. Spring and Fall Peak Waterfowl Population Estimates and Annual Waterfowl 

Production Estimates at Camas NWR, Idaho, 1941-1991 ................................................................ 4-79 

Table 4.15. Weight gain by migratory landbirds during stop-over at Camas NWR (from 

Carlisle at al. 2008) ........................................................................................................................... 4-87 

Table 4.16. Recent Bald Eagle Roost Peak Counts, Camas NWR, 1994-2010 ................................ 4-89 

Table 4.17. Historical Bald Eagle Roost Peak Counts, Camas NWR, 1978-1993 ........................... 4-89 

Table 4.18. Camas NWRUngulate Populations, 1941-1995 ............................................................ 4-91

Table 5.1. Recorded Prehistoric Resources on Camas Refuge ......................................................... 5-10

Table 5.2. Recorded Historic Period Resources on Camas Refuge .................................................. 5-11

Table 5.3. Cultural Resource Surveys on the Camas Refuge (by year) ............................................ 5-13

Table 5.4. Camas Refuge 2006 Recreation Visits ............................................................................ 5-18

Table 5.5. Camas Refuge 2007-2012 Recreation Visits and Total Visitation .................................. 5-19

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

Region 6 ............................................................................................................................................ 5-25

Table 5.7. Participation in Wildlife-Dependent Recreational Activities in Idaho, 2006 .................. 5-26

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

Mountain Region (from Bowker et al. 1999) .................................................................................... 5-27

Table 5.9. Idaho SCORTP Statewide Trends in Selected Outdoor Recreation Activities, 2002-

2005................................................................................................................................................... 5-28

Table 5.10. Participation Trends of Idaho Region Residents in Selected Outdoor Activities, 

1994-2011 ......................................................................................................................................... 5-28 

Table 5.11. Estimated Waterfowl Harvest Numbers from USFWS's Waterfowl Hunter Survey 

for Idaho, 1988-2006 ........................................................................................................................ 5-29

Table 5.12. Summary of Population and Per Capita Income, Idaho and Jefferson, Bonneville, 

and Madison Counties, 2010 ............................................................................................................. 5-30

Table 5.13. Selected Demographic and Social Statistics for Idaho .................................................. 5-31

Table 5.14. Summary of Employment (in thousands), 2008 ............................................................ 5-32

Table 5.15. Average Industry Employment and Wages, Jefferson, Bonneville, and Madison 

Counties, 2010 .................................................................................................................................. 5-33

Table 5.16. Visitor Recreation Expenditures at Camas Refuge (2006 $,000) .................................. 5-34

Table 5.18. Local Economic Effects Associated with Recreation Visits at Camas Refuge (2006 

$,000) ................................................................................................................................................ 5-35

Table 6.1. Summary of Effects under CCP Alternatives .................................................................... 6-3

Table 6.2. Waterfowl Harvest and Population at Flyway and State Levels ...................................... 6-20
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Table of Contents v 

Table 6.3. Soil Quality Indicators ..................................................................................................... 6-60

Table 6.4. Camas NWR’s Projected Annual Visitation in 15 Years ................................................ 6-71

APPENDICES 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix M. Camas NWR Hunt Plan .............................................................................................. M-1 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

vi Table of Contents

This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 1

Introduction and

 Background

Chapter 1Introduction andBackground

Farrel Downs/USFWS

Chapter 5HumanEnvironment

Chapter 4BiologicalEnvironment Appendices

Chapter 3PhysicalEnvironment

Chapter 2ManagementAlternatives, Goals, Objectives and Strategies

Chapter 6Environmental Effects

Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-1 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

1.1 Introduction 

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

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

This CCP applies only to Camas National Wildlife Refuge (NWR, Refuge). The Grays Lake, Bear 

Lake, and Minidoka CCPs are being completed under separate planning efforts. 

1.1.1 Camas National Wildlife Refuge 

Camas Migratory Waterfowl Refuge* was established by Executive Order 7720 on October 8, 1937, 

in the high desert of Idaho’s eastern Snake River Plain. The 10,806-acre Refuge lies within Jefferson 

County, near the small community of Hamer, 36 miles north of Idaho Falls at an elevation of about 

4,800 feet. Much of the water needed to support the Refuge’s wetlands and wet meadows is supplied 

by Camas Creek, which originates in the Centennial Range 40 miles to the northeast. The lower reach 

of Camas Creek cuts though the heart of the Refuge for about 8 miles, and terminates at Mud Lake 

just south of the Refuge. 

Prior to the arrival of Euro-American settlers, the area now known as Camas National Wildlife 

Refuge was a diverse mosaic of sagebrush-steppe, grasslands, and seasonal to ephemeral wet 

meadows. Meadows along Camas Creek were shallowly inundated in spring, as the snowmelt-fed 

creek overtopped its banks. These meadows provided seasonal grazing for elk and bison, as well as 

nesting and brood rearing habitat for sandhill cranes and other birds. Later in the year the lower reach 

of Camas Creek could run dry, but at the site of present day Sandhole Lake, artesian flow from 

perched groundwater reached the surface, providing wildlife and people with a reliable water source 

in an otherwise arid and unpredictable environment. Although the area was never permanently 

inhabited, it did lie along an important travel route leading to the camas meadows near present-day 

Kilgore, Idaho, and to the buffalo hunting grounds of central Montana. Members of several tribes 

passed through the area regularly, and sometimes camped for short periods. The Shoshone and 

Bannocks were the most frequent users of the lands within the present-day Camas NWR as a travel 

corridor. 

The first Euro-Americans arrived shortly after the exploration of Lewis and Clark, who passed less 

than 100 miles north of the Refuge. The first to arrive were trappers, traders, and then missionaries. 

The first large influx of settlers came with the discovery of gold in western Montana in the 1860s. 

About this time, a wagon and stage road was established between the railhead at Corrine, Utah, 

across the Snake River Plain to Monida Pass on the Idaho-Montana border, and on to the gold fields 

in Montana. A short segment of this wagon and stage road passed through what is now Camas 

Refuge. One of the many overnight stage stops was located at “Sandhole” (now Sandhole Lake) in 

the southeast corner of the refuge. 

Agriculture initially developed in the area to support the thousands of people working the mines, as 

well as travelers on the wagon roads. Agriculture expanded in southeast Idaho after the Federal 

*The name of the Refuge was changed to Camas National Wildlife Refuge on July 25, 1940 (Presidential 

Proclamation 2416). 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

1-2 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

government enacted a series of acts to encourage homesteading in arid and semiarid regions of the 

West: the Desert Land Act of 1877, the Desert Land Act of 1894 (Carey Act) and the Reclamation 

Act of 1902. By the early 1880s the railroads had come, connecting farmers and ranchers to markets 

far beyond rural Southeast Idaho. In the 1890s settlers began claiming homesteads for ranches and 

farms within the Camas NWR boundary area. The first land patent on the Refuge was for 319 acres 

by Humphrey Toomey in August 1889. In all, sixty-one land claim patents were filed on the presentday Camas NWR between 1890 and Refuge establishment. 

The Carey Act made it possible for enormous tracts of previously arid lands to be opened up for 

agricultural use through complex irrigation projects. Under this Act, the so-called “public land states” 

with desert lands were offered one million Federal acres each, provided they would cause the granted 

lands to be irrigated. Over a period of 40 years, the State of Idaho received 618,000 acres of 

previously desert land. Carey Act reclamation projects put substantial tracts of land under cultivation 

in and around the area that is now Camas National Wildlife Refuge. 

In the early 1900s, a large reclamation project on the Egin Bench, 15 miles to the east, had a major 

effect on the hydrology of the Camas/Mud Lake area. Subirrigation of the Bench, intended to raise 

the local water table, created a huge body of subsurface water, some of which leaked to the north and 

then to the west, ultimately arriving in the Mud Lake Basin. The character of the present-day Refuge 

rapidly changed from dry to wet. Low swales became marshy, Rays Lake (formerly dry) filled, and 

Sandhole Lake swelled to its present size. By 1921, much of the present-day Refuge had become too 

wet to farm, and many of the original homesteaders sold out. 

While the area that eventually became Camas NWR was mostly too wet for crops, it continued to 

provide pasturage and hay fields for livestock. By the time the Refuge was established, much of its 

lands were owned by Idaho Livestock Lands Inc. A diverse suite of waterfowl and waterbirds also 

benefitted from the expansion of wetlands brought by the rising water table. Widespread drought in 

the 1930s led to the protection of many waterfowl breeding areas as National Wildlife Refuges, 

including Camas NWR. Shortly after the Refuge was established, crews from the Works Progress 

Administration (WPA) constructed the refuge headquarters buildings, water control structures, and 

bridges. This work is still evident and in use today. 

With the expansion of center pivot irrigation on the eastern Snake River Plain and cessation of flood 

irrigation on the Egin Bench, water tables in the Camas area have dropped 15 to 20 feet since the 

1980s. Wetlands that once perched on saturated soils have become difficult to maintain, and many are 

now classified as inactive. Increasingly, Refuge staff have been forced to look at new strategies for 

managing wetland habitat. 

Today, the Refuge supports significant concentrations of migrating waterfowl, as well as resident elk, 

white-tailed deer, mule deer, pronghorn, and moose. There are 292 known species of wildlife that use 

the Refuge during various periods of the year. During migration, which peaks during March and 

April, and again in October, up to 50,000 ducks, 3,000 geese, and several hundred tundra and 

trumpeter swans may be present on the Refuge. Approximately 100 species of migratory birds nest at 

the Refuge, and it is especially important to migrating land birds. A large number of songbirds use 

the Refuge’s cottonwood groves, which are also a significant winter roost site for bald eagles. Greater 

sandhill cranes gather on the Refuge prior to fall migration. Sage grouse use the Refuge during brood 

rearing. The Refuge provides excellent opportunities for wildlife viewing and photography, and is 

well known in the birding community as a place to spot rare warblers and other migrating landbirds 

in the spring. 
Camas NWR - Regional Overview

Map Date: 2/3/2012 File: Map1_CMS_RegionalOverview.mxd

Data Source: USGS 1:24,000 National Hydrography Dataset, USGS NLCD 2006.

Map 1.

Camas

Hamer

Spencer

E A S T E R N 

C E N T E N N I A L

M O U N T A I N S

C E N T E N N I A L 

M O U N T A I N S

B E A V E R H E A D M O U N T A I N S

Eighteenmile

Kilgore

M O N T A N A M O N T A N A

I D A H O I D A H O

Camas Creek

Camas Creek

Beaver Creek

Mud Lake

0 5 10

Miles

0 5 10

Kilometers

Water

Barren Land

Forest

Developed

Grass and Shrub

Agriculture

Wetlands

Camas NWR

States

Approved Boundary

Streams

HUC 17040214

______________________________________________________________________________________________ Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background

______________________________________________________________________________________________

1-3
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

1-4 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-5 

1.2 Proposed Action 

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), manage Camas NWR as part of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. We propose to adopt and implement a Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

(CCP) for the Refuge. This document is the Refuge’s Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA). A CCP sets forth management guidance for a refuge for 

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

U.S.C. 668dd et seq.) as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

(Public Law 105-57). The Administration Act requires CCPs to identify and describe: 

 The purposes of the refuge unit; 

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

values found on the refuge unit; 

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

correct or mitigate those problems; 

 Areas suitable for administrative sites or visitor facilities; and 

 Opportunities for fish and wildlife-dependent recreation. 

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

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

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

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

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

The Service has developed and examined alternatives for future management of Camas NWR 

through the CCP process. The various alternatives address the major issues and relevant mandates 

identified during the process and are consistent with the principles of sound fish and wildlife 

management. We evaluated three alternatives for the Refuge’s Draft CCP/EA and selected 

Alternative 2 as the preferred alternative. 

The draft preferred alternative represents the most balanced approach for: Achieving the Refuge’s 

purposes, vision, and goals; contributing to the Refuge System’s mission; addressing relevant issues 

and mandates; and managing the refuge units consistent with the sound principles of fish and wildlife 

management. However, the draft preferred alternative may be modified between the draft and final 

documents depending upon comments received from the public or other agencies and organizations. 

The Service’s Regional Director for the Pacific Region will decide which alternative will be 

implemented. For details on the specific components and actions constituting the range of 

alternatives, see Chapter 2. 

1.3 Purpose and Need for the CCP 

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

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

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

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

the ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System; ... and meet other mandates.” 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

1-6 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

The Service has developed and examined alternatives for future management of Camas NWR 

through the CCP process. The various alternatives address the major issues and relevant mandates 

identified during the process and are consistent with the principles of sound fish and wildlife 

management. We evaluated three alternatives for the Refuge’s Draft CCP/EA and selected 

Alternative 2 as the preferred alternative. 

The draft preferred alternative represents the most balanced approach for: Achieving the Refuge’s 

purposes, vision, and goals; contributing to the Refuge System’s mission; addressing relevant issues 

and mandates; and managing the refuge units consistent with the sound principles of fish and wildlife 

management. However, the draft preferred alternative may be modified between the draft and final 

documents depending upon comments received from the public or other agencies and organizations. 

The Service’s Regional Director for the Pacific Region will decide which alternative will be 

implemented. For details on the specific components and actions constituting the range of 

alternatives, see Chapter 2. 

1.4 Content and Scope of the CCP 

This Draft CCP/EA provides guidance for management of refuge habitats and wildlife and 

administration of public uses on refuge lands and waters. This Draft CCP/EA is intended to comply 

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

as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347). The Draft CCP/EA includes the following information. 

 An overall vision for the Refuge and its role in the local ecosystem (Chapter 1). 

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

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

 A description of the Refuge’s physical environment (Chapter 3). 

 A description of the Refuge’s wildlife species and species groups identified as priority 

resources of concern and their habitats; their condition and trends on the Refuge and within 

the local ecosystem; the desired ecological conditions for sustaining them, and a short 

analysis of threats to resources of concern and their habitats (Chapter 4). 

 A description of the Refuge’s historic and cultural resources, socioeconomic environment, 

administrative and public use facilities, and public use programs (Chapter 5). 

 An analysis of the effects of the proposed action as compared to current management, 

including cumulative effects (Chapter 6). 

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

the Refuge’s purposes (Appendices A and B). 

 An outline of the projects, staff and facilities needed to support the alternatives considered 

(Appendix C). 

1.5 Refuge Planning and Management Guidance 

The Refuge is managed as part of the Refuge System within a framework provided by legal and 

policy guidelines. This Draft CCP/EA is primarily guided by the provisions of the mission and goals 

of the Refuge System, the purposes of the Refuge as described in its acquisition authority, Service 

policy, and Federal laws. The following summaries are provided as background for the Draft 

CCP/EA. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-7 

1.5.1 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

The Refuge is managed by the Service, an agency within the Department of the Interior. The Service 

is the principal Federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting and enhancing the Nation’s fish 

and wildlife populations, and their habitats. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

conservation programs. 

1.5.2 National Wildlife Refuge System 

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

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

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

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

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

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

that are managed for multiple uses. 

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

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

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

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

future generations of Americans (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration 

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

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

System, as articulated in the Mission Goals and Purposes Policy (Service Manual Part 601 [601 FW 

1]) are to: 

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

endangered or threatened with becoming endangered. 

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

carefully managed to meet important life history needs of these species across their ranges. 

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

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

underrepresented in existing protection efforts. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

1-8 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

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

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

interpretation). 

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

wildlife, and plants and their habitats. 

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

executive orders, Service policies, and international treaties. Fundamental to the management of 

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

refuge unit as described in establishing legislation, executive orders, or other documents establishing, 

authorizing, or expanding a refuge. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

administration of units of the Refuge System. 

Many other laws apply to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and management of Refuge System 

lands. Examples include the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, and the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. Brief descriptions of laws pertinent to Camas Refuge are 

included in this chapter. A complete list of laws pertaining to the Fish and Wildlife Service and the 

Refuge System can be found at http://laws.fws.gov. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the Administration Act by defining a unifying mission for all refuges, including a new process for 

determining compatible uses on refuges, and requiring that each refuge be managed under a 

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

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

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

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

the refuge’s purposes, vision, goals, or objectives. The Refuge Administration Act also 

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

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

formal guidance, can play a role in selecting the preferred alternative. The CCP provides 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-9 

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

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

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

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

a CCP, and require appropriate NEPA compliance. 

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

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

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

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

are maintained. House Report 105-106 accompanying the Improvement Act states “ ... the 

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

conservation must come first.” 

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

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

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

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

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

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

the mission. 

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

the Refuge Recreation Act regarding compatibility, and also provided significant additional 

guidance regarding recreational and other public uses on units of the Refuge System. The 

Refuge Administration Act identifies six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses. These 

uses are hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education 

and interpretation. The Service is to grant these six wildlife-dependent public uses special 

consideration during planning for, management of, and establishment and expansion of units 

of the Refuge System. When determined compatible on a refuge-specific basis, these six uses 

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

efforts to facilitate priority wildlife-dependent public use opportunities. 

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

exceptions, lands and waters within the Refuge System are different from multiple-use public lands 

in that they are closed to all public access and use unless specifically and legally opened. No refuge 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

appropriate, then a compatibility determination is completed. 

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

economic uses (even those occurring to further refuge habitat management goals) occurring or 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

1-10 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

proposed on a refuge for appropriateness and compatibility. Updated appropriate use and 

compatibility determinations for existing and proposed uses for the Camas Refuge are in Appendices 

A (Appropriateness) and B (Compatibility) of this Draft CCP/EA. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

that existed during historic conditions.” 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a visitor services plan. 

1.5.3 Biological Resource Protection Acts 

The Refuge’s plant and animal species are protected under several Federal laws, including the 

following. 

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

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

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

and plants depend. The ESA: 

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

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

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

conservation funds; 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-11 

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

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

plants; 

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

and 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

occur on the Refuge; however, several State of Idaho species of the greatest conservation need are 

found on the Refuge and are described in Chapter 4, Biological Environment. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

at some point during their annual life cycle). All of the Refuge’s bird species are protected under this 

act, with the exception of nonnative species (European starling, house sparrow, and rock dove). 

1.5.4 Tribal Consultation 

Since the inception of the United States, the U.S. Government has recognized the sovereignty of 

American Indian Tribes by entering into treaties with them. Moreover, the Constitution ascribes the 

official duties of conducting relations with the Tribes to the Federal Government, not the states, and 

judicial decisions have upheld this relationship over time. This government-to-government 

relationship provides the framework for all interactions between the U.S. Government and American 

Indian Tribes. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, Nov. 6, 2000) directs Federal agencies to consult with Federally recognized Tribes at 

the government-to government level. Therefore, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as a federal 

agency, must consult with Tribes on any matter that may affect tribal treaty rights and interests. 

The Secretary of the Interior announced a new Tribal consultation policy on December 1, 2011. This 

new policy sets out detailed requirements and guidelines for Department of the Interior officials and 

managers to follow to ensure they are using the best practices and most innovative methods to 

achieve meaningful consultation with federally recognized Tribes. Any regulation, rulemaking, 

policy, guidance, legislative proposal, grant funding formula change or operational activity that may 

have a substantial and direct effect on a Tribe is subject to Tribal consultation. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

1-12 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

The Service developed and adopted a Native American Policy in 1994. The Service’s purpose in 

creating this policy is to “articulate the general principles that will guide the Service’s governmentto-government relationship to Native American governments in the conservation of fish and wildlife 

resources.” Key provisions of the Native American Policy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

include: 

 The Service recognizes the sovereign status of Native American governments. 

 There is a unique and distinctive political relationship between the United States and Native 

American governments...that differentiates Native American governments from other 

interests and constituencies. 

 The Service will maintain government-to-government relationships with Native American 

governments. 

 The Service recognizes and supports the rights of Native Americans to utilize fish and 

wildlife resources on non-reservation lands where there is a legal basis for such use. 

 While the Service retains primary authority to manage Service lands, affected Native 

American governments will be afforded opportunities to participate in the Service’s decisionmaking process for Service lands. 

 The Service will consult with Native American governments on fish and wildlife resource 

matters of mutual interest and concern to the extent allowed by the law. The goal is to keep 

Native American governments involved in such matters from initiation to completion of 

related Service activities. 

 The Service will involve Native American governments in all Service actions that may affect 

their cultural or religious interests, including archaeological sites. 

 The Service will provide Native Americans reasonable access to Service managed or 

controlled lands and waters for exercising ceremonial, medicinal, and traditional activities 

recognized by the Service and by Native American governments. The Service will permit 

these uses if the activities are consistent with treaties, judicial mandates, or Federal and 

Tribal law and are compatible with the purposes for which the lands are managed. 

The Shoshone-Bannock Tribe is a federally recognized Tribe, some of whose constituent Tribes or 

bands are descendants of people who historically used the Refuge area. The Shoshone-Bannock 

Tribe has a treaty negotiated with the United States government (the Fort Bridger Treaty of July 3, 

1868 between the United States and the Eastern Band of Shoshone and Bannock Tribes, ratified on 

February 24, 1869, 15 Stat. 209 [p. 673]). The treaty authorized the President to establish a 

reservation for the Bannock and certain Shoshone bands. Article 4 of the treaty also states: “The 

Indians herein named...shall have the right to hunt on the unoccupied land of the United States so 

long as game may be found thereon....” In 1936, The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes adopted a 

constitutional form of government that established the seven-member Fort Hall Business Council, 

elected by tribal members living on the reservation. The council regulates business and other 

activities on the reservation according to the Law and Order Code, and other ordinances. 

1.5.4 Historic Preservation Acts 

The Refuge’s historic resources are protected under several Federal laws. 

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

Archaeological Resources Protection Act largely supplanted the resource protection provisions of the 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-13 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

carry out the policy established by the Historic Sites Act, this Archaeological and Historic 

Preservation Act directed Federal agencies to notify the Secretary of the Interior whenever they find 

that a Federal or federally assisted, licensed, or permitted project may cause loss or destruction of 

significant scientific, prehistoric, or archaeological data. The act authorized use of appropriated, 

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

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

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

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

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

this act. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Camas Refuge has several sites that are potentially eligible for placement to the National Register of 

Historic Places. The three original refuge buildings built during the Works Progress Administration 

Camp are eligible for the National Register. Five other sites found during a cursory cultural survey of 

some refuge areas documented five other potential National Register of Historic Places sites, 

including a stone circle, two historic canals, a historic trash dump, and an irrigation canal. Other 

potentially eligible sites may include refuge bridges, water control structures, dikes, and the Brindley 

cabin. 

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

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

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

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

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

to any lineal descendant or specific Tribe with whom such item is associated. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

1-14 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

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

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

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

of the executive branch of the government must: 

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

trusteeship for future generations; 

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

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

archaeological significance are preserved, restored, and maintained for the inspiration 

and benefit of the people; and 

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

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

enhancement of nonfederally owned sites, structures, and objects of historical, 

architectural, or archaeological significance. 

1.6 Refuge Establishment and Refuge Purposes 

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

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

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

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

and proposed refuge uses. 

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

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

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

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

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

management and administration of any unit. 

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

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

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

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

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

individual refuge, the refuge purpose may supersede the mission. The purposes for Camas Refuge are 

described below. 

1.6.1 Summary of Purposes and Management Direction for the Refuge 

The primary purpose of Camas National Wildlife Refuge, as derived from Executive Order 7720 

(President Franklin D. Roosevelt, October 8, 1937), is: 

 “ ... as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife.” Executive Order 

7720, dated Oct. 8, 1937. 

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

birds.” 16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-15 

 “ ... conservation, management, and ... restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources 

and their habitats ... for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans ....” 16 

U.S.C. § 668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act) 

On July 25, 1940, the name of the Refuge was changed to Camas National Wildlife Refuge under 

Presidential Proclamation 2416, “Changing the Names of Certain Federal Wildlife Refuges.” 

1.6.2 Refuge Acquisition History and Authorities 

The original boundary of the Refuge established in E.O. 7720 was “approximately 10,922 acres.” 

Later surveys established the approved boundary at 10,726 acres. The boundary was expanded to 

include the 80-acre Bunker Hill tract in 2011; therefore the current approved boundary is 10,806 

acres. The Refuge has ownership of all lands within its approved boundary with two exceptions, a 

40-acre inholding and the 80-acre Bunker Hill tract (Tract 85). At the time of this writing, acquisition 

is pending on the Bunker Hill tract from its owner, Pheasants Forever. Map 2 shows current land 

status on the Refuge. 

Table 1.1. Camas NWR Lands Purchased Through Fee Title Purchase 

Tract Number Acquired 

Date 

Tract Owner Interest of 

Acquisition 

Acres 

84 11/01/2005 Ball Lands L.C. Fee 1.41 

52 12/22/1938 Bramwell, Adna E. Fee 230.49 

71, 71a 5/10/1937 Brindley, George W. Fee 795.76 

80 10/1/1965 Brown, Rachel R. Fee 121.30 

61 7/8/1938 Brown, S.E. Fee 160 

82 5/5/1982 Bybee et ux, Don R. Fee 80 

74 11/12/1936 Clinton, Robert D. Fee 80 

77 5/28/1937 Clyne, Charles C. Fee 120 

57 9/13/1937 Davies, Benjamin T. et al. Fee 40 

58 7/16/1938 Ellis, G.W. Fee 40 

53 12/03/1936 Fielding, Joseph Fee 160 

81 2/8/1968 Flint, William L. Fee 40 

75, 75 I 3/4/1938 Haight, Glen Fee 80 

76 6/26/1937 Hall, Floyd W. Fee 40 

56, 56-I, 56a 6/29/1939 Helm, Ralph et al. Fee 197.35 

33, a, b-I 10/16/1936 Idaho Livestock Lands, Inc. Fee 5137.08 

33-I, 33-II, 33 6/7/1938 Idaho Livestock Lands, Inc. Fee 1083.37 

54 6/13/1938 Idaho Muskrat Corporation Fee 280 

64 7/22/1936 Jacques, Alpha R. Fee 160 

60 9/24/1936 Leavitt, Bertha M. Fee 160 

55 7/8/1938 Richardson, John Fee 120 

62 12/04/1936 Rostad, Sam R. Fee 40 

79 11/12/1936 Sanders, C. A. Fee 320 

83 6/23/1999 Sanders Family Trust Fee 19.88 

51 6/7/1938 Sargent, Mac et al. Fee 89.51 

59, 59a, 59a-I 8/4/1941 Smith, Mary T. Fee 296.10 

2 4/26/1938 State of Idaho Fee 360 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

1-16 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

Table 1.1. Camas NWR Lands Purchased Through Fee Title Purchase 

Tract Number Acquired 

Date 

Tract Owner Interest of 

Acquisition 

Acres 

65 7/13/1938 Turman, Tabitha Fee 160 

66 2/3/1939 Woodard, Perry B. Fee 320 

Camas Land Exchanges 

Camas NWR has executed four land exchanges since its establishment. 

1. An exchange of 40 acres for a like 40 acres was executed on April 18, 1967 with 

William Flint (tract # 81). 

2. An exchange of 159.94 refuge acres for 80 acres plus a sum of $5,700 was executed on 

May 27, 1981 with Don R. Bybee (tract #82). 

3. An exchange of 19.88 acres for Refuge property of equal value was executed on June 

23, 1999 with the David Ray Sanders Family Trust (tract #83). 

4. An exchange of 1.41 acres for Refuge property of equal value was executed on 

November 1, 2005 with Ball Lands Limited Company (tract #84). 
Land Status

Map Date: 5/31/2013 File:CCPMap_2_CMS_LandStatus_Oct11.mxd

Data Source:

Map 2.

£¤I 15

£¤91

Hamer

11

20

28

16

30 29

32

27

15

21

27

33

28

29

10

03

14

09

35 36

34

04

22

17

26

19

08

25

23

31

02

24

07

13

05

18

12

01

30

06

26 25

34

03

10

15

22

27

27

35 36 31 32 33 34 34

26

23

14

11

02

35

35

26

21 22 23

Legend

Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

Pheasants Forever

Camas NWR, Acquired

Inholding

Refuge Boundary

Refuge Roads

0 0.5 1 2

Miles

0 1 2 0.5

Kilometers

______________________________________________________________________________________________ Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background

______________________________________________________________________________________________

1-17
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

1-18 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-19 

1.7 Relationship to Ecosystem Management Goals 

1.7.1 Regional Setting 

Camas NWR is located within the Intermountain West, a region comprising portions of eight states 

including eastern Washington and Oregon, northeast California, northern Nevada and Utah, western 

Wyoming and Montana, and Idaho. Due to its arid to semi-arid climate, wetlands are scarce in the 

region (Ratti and Kadlec 1992). Wetlands in the Intermountain West region account for about 1 

percent of the surface area (1.6 million acres) compared to 6 percent (22.5 million acres) in the 

Midwest region (Dahl 1990). 

Camas Refuge is located in the Basin and Range province, which occupies a small area of southern 

Idaho between the Middle Rocky Mountains and the Snake River Plain, west of the northern 

boundary of the Central Rocky Mountains. The Beaver-Camas Watershed encompasses the Refuge 

and is the eastern-most of the local Central Valleys watersheds that collectively make up the Sinks 

Drainages (Idaho Department of Environmental Quality [IDEQ] 2005). The Sinks Drainages are a 

collection of closed surface drainage basins in southeast Idaho. The streams of these basins originate 

in the Pioneer, Lost River, Lemhi, and Centennial mountain ranges and flow generally east and south, 

eventually sinking into the fractured basalts of the eastern Snake River Plain (Van Kirk et al. 2003). 

The Beaver-Camas subbasin drains an area of 647,255 acres (1,011 square miles) within the Sinks 

Drainage and is bounded by the western edge of the Centennial Mountains and the Eastern Edge of 

the Beaverhead Mountains in the northern region of the subbasin. Beaver Creek and Camas Creek 

begin in the Centennial Mountains on the Idaho/Montana border and flow generally south and 

southwest, respectively. They converge just north of, and provide much of the water for, Camas 

National Wildlife Refuge. After exiting the Refuge, Camas Creek flows westward into Mud Lake, a 

natural playa “improved” with a dam forming a year-round impoundment (IDEQ 2005). 

Groundwater flow for irrigation eventually reaches Mud Lake, which is the endpoint for all drainage 

in the subbasin. Camas Creek is 303(d) listed for flow alteration, sediment, and nutrients (IDEQ 

2005). 

Mud Lake, three miles north of Terreton, Idaho, is an approximately 3,000-acre shallow (5 feet) lake 

authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1950 and formed by a 10-mile-long embankment constructed 

years ago by local farmers. The embankment confines the lake and provides water elevation so that 

irrigation canals can deliver water to farms. Originally the area was a natural sump where Camas 

Creek spread out and disappeared to groundwater. The area naturally extended several miles farther 

southeast, south, and west from its present area (IDEQ 2005). Water to fill Mud Lake comes from 

Camas Creek and pumping from wells by local irrigators (IDFG 1999). 

The Beaver-Camas subbasin is rural, with very small towns located in Jefferson and Clark Counties. 

The largest town in the subbasin is Dubois with a population of 677 in 2010 (U.S. Census Bureau 

2013). The two remaining towns with population data are Hamer and Spencer, with 2010 populations 

of 48 and 37, respectively (U.S. Census Bureau 2013). Land use in the Beaver-Camas subbasin is 

primarily agriculture with the majority of the watershed used for rangeland (64 percent). Forest lands 

are located at higher elevations in the northern areas of the subbasin, and total approximately 21 

percent of land use. The majority of the irrigated land (gravity flow and sprinkler) is located in the 

southern portion of the watershed where soils and topography are more amenable to crop production. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

1-20 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

A rich riparian community exists around Mud Lake; this is the smallest portion of land use at 1 

percent (IDEQ 2005). 

The majority (61 percent) of landownership in the Beaver-Camas subbasin is public. The CaribouTarghee Forest Service manages the high elevation mountainous regions, constituting 28 percent of 

the subbasin. North of Dubois is a low-gradient basalt plain managed by the United States 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) Sheep Experiment Station. Outside of the USFS property, the 

rest of the subbasin is a mosaic of private, BLM, and State ownership. The USFWS owns and 

manages 2 percent of the land in the subbasin as Camas National Wildlife Refuge (IDEQ 2005). 

The Mud Lake Wildlife Management Area (WMA), managed by the Idaho Department of Fish and 

Game, was established to preserve and improve nesting habitat for waterfowl (IDFG 2010). The first 

acquisition for the WMA was in 1940, when IDFG purchased 607 acres of Mud Lake wetlands. The 

latest acquisition was made in 1969. A total of 5,889 acres have been purchased by the State of Idaho 

for the WMA, the majority (97 percent) with Federal Pittman-Robertson (PR) funds. Currently, a 

total of 8,853 acres are managed as Mud Lake WMA. This includes 259 acres of land that are leased 

from the Idaho Department of Lands, and 2,705 acres of U.S. Government withdrawn land (the North 

Lake Wildlife Management Area) that is administered by the IDFG as part of the Mud Lake WMA 

(IDFG 1999).

The North Lake State Migratory Waterfowl Refuge (later known as the North Lake Wildlife 

Management Area) was created by Public Land Order 278 (10 FR 6313, May 21, 1945) which 

withdrew 313 acres of Federal lands. On October 1, 1954 an additional 2,392 acres were withdrawn 

under Public Land Order 1014 for a total of 2,705 acres. Both PLOs stated that:

Subject to valid existing rights, and to the provisions of existing withdrawals, the 

following—described public lands in Idaho are hereby withdrawn from all forms 

of appropriation under public-land laws, and reserved under the jurisdiction of 

the Department of the Interior for use of the Department of Fish and Game of the 

State of Idaho, in connection with the North Lake State Migratory Waterfowl 

Refuge, under such conditions as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the 

Interior. 

Under the National Wildlife System Improvement Act, a Wildlife Coordination Area is defined as: 

a wildlife management area that has been previously acquired by the Federal 

Government and subsequently made available to a State— 

(A) by cooperative agreement between the United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

and the State; or 

(B) is acquired by the Federal Government and subsequently made available to a 

State— 

(i) by cooperative agreement between the United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

and the State fish and game agency pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-666c); or 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-21 

(ii) by long-term leases or agreements pursuant to the Bankhead-Jones Farm 

Tenant Act (50 Stat. 525; 7 U.S.C. 1010 et seq.).

The Act also notes that Coordination Areas are specifically excluded from the definition of the term 

“refuge.” As such, they are exempt from the requirement to develop Comprehensive Conservation 

Plans and other requirements of the Improvement Act. 

1.7.2 Regional Conservation Plans 

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

CCP follows: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(SGCN) (IDFG 2005). To this end, this strategy promotes proactive conservation to ensure costeffective solutions instead of reactive measures enacted in the face of imminent losses. 

Specifically, the Idaho CWCS: 

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

2. Provides an ecological, habitat-based framework to aid in the conservation and 

management of SGCN; 

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

4. Describes an approach for long-term monitoring to assess the success of conservation 

efforts and to integrate new information as it becomes available; 

5. Complements other conservation strategies, funding sources, planning initiatives, and 

legally mandated activities; 

6. Incorporates public participation throughout development and implementation to 

provide an opportunity for all conservation partners and Idaho residents to influence the 

future of resource management; 

7. Provides guidance for use of SWG funds and fulfills Federal requirements associated 

with these funds; and 

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

conditions. 

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

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

objective State rank for species considered for inclusion as SGCN. Factors included, but were not 

limited to, information about population size, trend, viability, environmental specificity, threats, and 

protection status. A total of 229 animals (103 invertebrates, 126 vertebrates) were identified as 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

1-22 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

SGCN. Of these, 64 species (44 invertebrates, 20 vertebrates) lacked essential information pertaining 

to their status (i.e., S Rank) in Idaho. Therefore, their primary conservation need is more basic 

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

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

recommend conservation actions. 

Camas NWR is within the Snake River Basalts Section of the Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy (ICWCS). Eighty-eight Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) were 

identified in the Snake River Basalts Section of the Idaho CWCS. An additional 15 CWCS species 

with State rankings of S1 (Critically Imperiled), S2 (Imperiled), or S3 (Vulnerable) are known to 

inhabit Camas NWR, but were not identified as SGCN for the Snake River Basalts Section. 

Conservation Plan for the Greater Sage-grouse in Idaho. The 2006 Plan was designed to provide 

guidance, tools, and resources to Local Working Groups (LWG) to facilitate the development of their 

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

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

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

other land uses (Idaho Sage-grouse Advisory Committee 2006). 

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

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

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

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

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

LWG currently exists.

Camas NWR is within the Upper Snake LWG. The Upper Snake LWG plan was completed in June 

of 2009. The goal of the Upper Snake Sage-grouse LWG is to increase sage-grouse populations 

and/or improve sage-grouse habitat to achieve management objectives in the 2006 Conservation Plan 

for the Greater Sage-grouse in Idaho. The Local Working Group will attempt to achieve this goal 

through implementation of recommended habitat, population, partnership, cultural/human, and 

information based actions. 

Habitat based recommended actions within the Upper Snake LWG plan include: habitat inventories; 

habitat condition evaluations; management for sustainable grass communities; wildfire and 

prescribed fire policy; habitat recovery and restoration; wetland and riparian management; grazing 

management; and noxious weed control. Population based recommendations include: sage-grouse 

population inventories and monitoring; sage-grouse hunting management; and predation 

management. Partnership recommendations encompass: Enhancement of interagency and 

interdisciplinary technical assistance; collection of baseline information; conservation project 

partnerships; identifying funding sources. Cultural/Human recommended actions address: pesticide 

management; controlling lek access; land use; travel management; and utility corridors. Information 

actions entail: development of Internet home page; and creating an information repository. 

Idaho Mule Deer Management Plan 2008-2017. The Mule Deer Management Plan tiers off of the 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) strategic plan, functioning as the action plan for mule 

deer management in the State (IDFG 2008). Major issues affecting mule deer management are 

identified, setting overall direction for mule deer management during the next 10 years and providing 

performance targets and management strategies for management actions. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-23 

Camas NWR within the Snake River Population Management Unit (PMU) and includes Game 

Management Units 38, 52A, 53, 63, 63A, 68, 68A. The Snake River PMU has multiple habitat and 

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

direction identified in the plan for incorporation into the Camas NWR CCP includes habitat 

improvements to key winter, summer, and transitional mule deer habitats. 

Idaho Elk Management Plan 1999. The Elk Management Plan tiers off of the Idaho Department of 

Fish and Game (IDFG) strategic plan, functioning as the action plan for elk management in the State. 

Management objectives, historical perspectives, and issues associated with habitat, biology, interspecific competition, predation, and winter feeding are addressed in this plan for 28 of the 29 elk 

management zones. Only the Snake River Zone (Game Management Units 53, 63, 63A, 68A), which 

encompasses both Camas and Minidoka NWRs, remained unaddressed in the plan. Idaho’s revised 

elk management plan, which will guide elk management for the next 10 years, was released for 

public comment in August 2013. The draft plan included includes management direction for all 

zones, including the Snake River Zone. The final plan will be submitted to the Idaho Fish and Game 

Commission for approval in January 2014 (IDFG 2013a). 

Camas NWR lies within Game Management Unit (GMU) 63. In 2013, GMU 63 was managed for a 

general elk season allowing only A-tag hunts in GMU 63. The general A-tag hunt for GMU 63 in 

2013 was an any-weapon, any-elk hunt from August 1 through August 31 and an any-weapon 

antlerless only hunt September 1 through December 31. No controlled hunts for elk were offered in 

2013 for GMU 63 (IDFG 2013b). Depredation hunts may also be offered on limited basis at the 

discretion of the Idaho Fish and Game Department. 

Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. The 1988 amendment to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Act mandates the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to “identify species, subspecies, and 

populations of all migratory nongame birds that, without additional conservation actions, are likely to 

become candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973.” Birds of 

Conservation Concern 2008 (BCC 2008) is the most recent effort to carry out this mandate. The 

overall goal of this report is to accurately identify the migratory and non-migratory bird species 

(beyond those already designated as federally threatened or endangered) that represent our highest 

conservation priorities (USFWS 2008a). The geographic scope of this endeavor is the United States 

in its entirety, including island territories in the Pacific and Caribbean. BCC 2008 encompasses three 

distinct geographic scales—North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) Bird 

Conservation Regions (BCRs), USFWS Regions, and National—and is primarily derived from 

assessment scores from three major bird conservation plans: the Partners in Flight North American 

Landbird Conservation Plan, the United States Shorebird Conservation Plan, and the North American 

Waterbird Conservation Plan. 

The Camas NWR is a part of USFWS Region 1 (Pacific Region), which includes the mainland states 

of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. The Refuge is within BCR 9 (Great Basin), but also borders BCR 

10 (Northern Rockies). Of the 34 mainland species identified in the Region 1 BCC list, 20 have been 

documented at Camas NWR. Additionally, 15 of the 28 Birds of Conservation Concern from BCR 9-

Great Basin, and 15 of the 22 from BCR 10-Northern Rockies, occur at the Refuge. 

U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. Few direct specific habitat guidelines are provided by the U.S. 

Shorebird Conservation Plan, which instead, seeks to identify key shorebird regions throughout the 

continent, and allow regional committees to determine the best locations for shorebird restoration 

initiatives to be conducted (Brown et al. 2001). Camas NWR is within the Intermountain West 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

1-24 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

Region, stretching from Canada to Mexico and from the Rocky Mountains to the Sierras and 

Cascades. 

Intermountain West Regional Shorebird Plan. The Intermountain West Regional Shorebird Plan 

maintains a series of habitat restoration objectives centered around delineating regionally important 

sites, and incorporating restoration activities into a landscape scale design (Oring et al. 2005). 

The Intermountain West Region is composed of six Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs), represented 

by an array of habitats from saline sinks to alpine streams. The plan identifies 11 species of 

shorebirds as regular breeders in the Intermountain West (IMW), and 23 additional species are annual 

migrants. The plan identified human competition for and consumption of water as the most important 

issue facing the IMW. The IMW plan addresses this and other issues through five goals and 

associated objectives and strategies for habitat management, monitoring and assessments, research, 

outreach, and planning. Camas NWR is within the Great Basin BCR, which includes the interior 

drainage systems of Nevada, western Utah, eastern California, southeastern Oregon, and southern 

Idaho. 

The plan did not identify Camas NWR as an important Great Basin BCR wetland, but did identify 

Grays Lake, for breeding sandhill cranes, and Bear Lake NWR, for breeding white-faced ibis and 

Franklin’s gulls as important. Snowy plover, long-billed curlew, American avocet, and black-necked 

stilt were identified as important for breeding shorebirds in the Great Basin BCR. Five other species 

were identified to occur as substantial breeders in the Great Basin, including: killdeer; willet; spotted 

sandpiper; Wilson’s phalarope, and common snipe. Upland sandpipers were noted to breed outside 

the Great basin hydrological area, but within the Great Basin BCR. While no species were identified 

as important Great Basin wintering species, Wilson’s phalarope, red-necked phalarope, American 

avocet, long-billed dowitcher, marbled godwit, western sandpiper, and least sandpiper were listed as 

important stopover species. 

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

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

meet species and population goals” (Kushlan et al. 2002). Focusing primarily on colonial nesting 

waterbirds, the plan seeks to develop cross-cultural partnerships to encompass waterbird habitat 

across the Americas. 

Camas NWR serves as a nesting site for several nesting waterbird species prioritized in the North 

American Waterbird Conservation Plan. One low and three moderate North American Waterbird 

Conservation Plan conservation concern species occur at Camas NWR with breeding and wintering 

distributions that occur only in North America. Two waterbirds which breed in the Western 

Hemisphere (North and South America) are represented at Camas (one moderate, and one low 

species of conservation concern). The plan also identifies three moderate and one low species of 

conservation concern which occur on the Refuge as “Cosmopolitan distribution breeding and 

wintering species.” 

Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan. This Intermountain West Waterbird 

Conservation Plan (IWWCP) is one of several regional step-down plans designed to implement the 

North American Waterbird Conservation Plan. As defined by these hierarchical plans, waterbirds are 

wetland-dependent species including both colonial breeders (e.g., gulls, terns, most grebes, 

cormorants, herons, egrets, ibis and pelicans), and solitary nesting marshbirds (e.g., cranes, rails, 

coots, bitterns and loons). Shorebirds and waterfowl are covered by other bird conservation 

initiatives and, thus, were excluded from this plan. The goal of the IWWCP is to maintain healthy 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-25 

populations, distributions, and habitats of waterbirds throughout the Intermountain West region (Ivey 

and Herziger 2006). The regional planning area of the IWWCP includes the U.S. portions of 11 

western states and four Bird Conservation Regions that are defined as geographic regions with 

similar habitat conditions delineated to facilitate bird conservation efforts. 

The IWWCP listed general habitat conservation objectives and targets restoration areas should 

consider: 

1. Areas rich in priority birds and habitats 

2. Opportunities for conservation and partnerships 

3. Threats to priority species and habitats 

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

capture local working groups. 

Camas NWR has documented the occurrence of seven high and three moderate priority IWWCP 

species for BCR 9 (Great Basin). The Refuge contains colonial waterbird breeding habitat for one 

(Franklin’s gull) of two high concern colonial BCR 9 species. The IWWCP identified Camas NWR 

as one of 44 notable waterbird sites within the Intermountain West. The plan summarized refuge 

challenges associated with the cost of pumping groundwater to sufficiently fill refuge wetlands due to 

the lowering of the groundwater table and lessening of Camas Creek in-stream flows from 

agricultural irrigation. The IWWCP further noted that Camas NWR and Market and Mud Lake 

WMAs hosted a historic breeding population of approximately 3,500 Franklin’s gulls, but that the 

recent breeding population was diminished due to drought. 

The plan specifically called for a conservation action for the maintenance of suitable emergent 

breeding habitats for nesting sites to support at least 2,670 white-faced ibis nests collectively at 

Market and Mud Lake WMAs, Camas NWR, Oxford Slough WPA, and the Duck Valley Indian 

Reservation. General conservation strategies for species within the Idaho portion of BCR 9 (Great 

Basin) included: 

 Sandhill Crane (RMP): Conserve, restore, and protect wet meadow/seasonal marsh breeding 

habitat. 

 California Gull: Implement conservation to maintain existing breeding sites. 

 Franklin’s Gull: Implement conservation to maintain existing breeding sites. 

 Forster’s Tern: No net loss of existing nesting habitat at known breeding sites to support at 

least 40 pairs. 

 Black Tern: Maintain emergent wetland habitat at known breeding sites to support at least 60 

pairs. 

 Pied-billed Grebe: No net loss of existing seasonal or semi-permanent wetlands. 

 Great Blue Heron: Maintain suitable riparian nesting areas to maintain at least 900 pairs. 

 Black-crowned Night Heron: Maintain suitable emergent wetland breeding habitats to 

support at least 770 nests. 

 American Bittern: No net loss of existing seasonal or semi-permanent wetland habitats. 

Maintain freshwater wetlands > 10 ha (2.5 acre). 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan. This plan was adopted by the United States and 

Canada in 1986, and by Mexico in 1994, to address the conservation and restoration of waterfowl, 

other migratory waterbirds, and the habitats on which they depend. The Plan, as adopted, aims to 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

1-26 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

restore waterfowl populations to 1970-1979 levels and establishes specific population objectives for 

25 species of ducks, five species of geese, plus trumpeter and tundra swans. The Plan was updated in 

1998 and 2003. The NAWMP states that the goal is “to return waterfowl populations to their 1970s 

levels by conserving wetland and upland habitat” (North American Waterfowl Management Plan 

Committee 2004). This will be accomplished through a combination of a solid “Biological 

Foundation, Landscape Approach, and Partnerships.” 

Camas NWR lies between two National priority sites: Priority Area 28, Yellowstone-Intermountain 

Wetlands, and Priority Area 27, Great Salt Lake and Bear River Marshes. The Refuge maintains a 

nexus with each Priority Area through provision of quality breeding and migration habitat for 

waterfowl and the provision of quality breeding habitat for trumpeter swans and overwater nesting 

waterfowl species such as redhead and canvasback. National breeding population objectives for key 

waterfowl species include the northern pintail (5.6 million, decreasing), mallard (8.2 million, no 

trend), and greater and lesser scaup (6.3 million, decreasing) among which only the mallard 

population has satisfied this objective (8.64 million). Current refuge populations for these species are 

relatively small compared to these National Objectives; however, they are regionally significant 

considering proximity to NAWMP high profile sites. The plan also lists breeding population 

objectives for redhead (640,000) and canvasback (540,000), both of which are currently above the 

population objective on a National basis, but with insufficient data to estimate trend information. The 

remaining three plan-listed priority species—wood duck (200,000 western population), American 

wigeon (3.1 million total population), and ring-necked duck (2 million)—are all considered to be 

either increasing or to have stable populations. 

IWJV Habitat Conservation Objectives: The IWJV lists the following habitat objectives in their 1995 

implementation plan. 

1. To protect 1.5 million public and private acres through facilitation of conservation 

easements, management agreements, incentive programs, and stewardship programs. 

2. To restore and enhance 1 million acres of wetland habitat through direct habitat 

improvement programs 

3. To enhance all bird habitat through direct habitat improvement programs, public 

education, and cooperation with our partners. 

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

specific information from each of the four National Plans. The 2005 update to the IWJV Coordinated 

Bird Conservation Implementation Plan describes goals and objectives for two priority habitat types, 

which occur at Camas NWR. 

IWJV Coordinated Implementation Plan for Bird Habitat in Idaho (IWJVCIP). Prepared for 

the Intermountain West Joint Venture, the coordinated implementation plan seeks to address and 

consolidate National Plan habitat objectives into one document (Idaho Steering Committee—

Intermountain West Joint Venture 2005). The IWJV Management Board decided in 2007 to update 

the 2005 Implementation Plan to include model-driven habitat objectives and spatially explicit 

decision-support tools. This update was slated for completion in 2010. The 2010 plan will embody 

the principles of Strategic Habitat Conservation and be responsive to the 2007 NAWMP Continental 

Assessment. The 2010 plans intent is to extend the existing strong science foundation consistent with 

the objectives of all four major bird initiatives and the 11 State Wildlife Action Plans. The new plan 

will strive to meet the Desired Characteristics for Joint Venture Implementation Plans, which was 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-27 

recently adopted by the NAWMP Plan Committee and will address emerging issues such as climate 

change. 

The current 2005 IWJVCIP plan for Idaho places Camas NWR a part of the Medicine Lodge 

Conservation Area, one of 23 priority Conservation Areas in Idaho. Camas NWR contains three of 

the four most critical Priority A habitat types—wetlands (marshes, lakes, and ponds), riparian, and 

sagebrush—within the Medicine Lodge Conservation Area. The Refuge additionally contains two of 

the six Priority B habitats (agriculture and grassland) within the Medicine Lodge CA. 

Southeast Idaho Wetland Focus Area, Wetland Conservation Plan (IWJV). This plan lists the 

mallard and northern pintail as priority species. According to the plan, mallards are the most 

abundant duck species in Southeast Idaho, while northern pintail breeding populations continue to 

decline. Other important waterbird groups include colonial nesting waterbirds, of which five species 

are recognized as National species of low or moderate concern (American white pelican, California 

gull, white-faced ibis, western grebe, and Clark’s grebe). Plan authors used a habitat based, as 

opposed to population objective approach, and described the desired future condition needed to 

support these species: “wetlands should be protected/maintained/enhanced/restored in such 

condition that the hydrology of a site remains intact.”

Concept Plan for Preservation of Redhead Breeding Habitat in Idaho. In response to declining 

population numbers, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conducted an evaluation to document the 

extent of redhead breeding habitat in the Great Basin and formulate a strategy to maximize habitat 

restoration efforts. The plan looked at wetlands within Idaho for their importance to redhead 

production based on a complex set of ranking factors. Primary among these factors were the 

contributions of perennial emergent marsh for redheads, the importance of these habitats for other 

waterfowl species, and the increasing threat of agricultural water distribution during the breeding 

season. 

Conservation Strategy for Southeast Idaho Wetlands. Through funding provided by the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Idaho Department of Fish and Game conducted a study 

to characterize and rank wetland importance in southeast Idaho. The study area only extended to the 

South Fork of the Snake River, therefore excluding Camas NWR. However, this initiative classified 

several waterbird species of importance for consideration in wetland management, 15 of which occur 

at Camas NWR. 

Audubon Society Important Bird Area. Camas NWR has been designated as an Important Bird 

Area by the National Audubon Society. Idaho’s Important Bird Areas (IBA) Program was launched in 

1996 as a partnership between Idaho Partners in Flight and the Idaho Audubon Council. Since 1997, 

the IBA Technical Committee has encouraged and reviewed nominations for potential IBAs. To date, 

55 sites have been officially recognized as Important Bird Areas in Idaho, representing 3.8 million 

acres of public and private wetland and upland habitat throughout the State. The monitoring phase of 

the Idaho IBA program is underway, with monitoring at several IBAs being conducted either by 

biologists responsible for the management of the area, or by volunteers. These monitoring efforts, 

which are intended to collect basic information about the IBAs, will create an inventory of bird 

species present at each site, at a minimum, and will likely lead to further investigations. 

The Columbia Plateau Ecoregional Assessment. The Nature Conservancy (TNC) has adopted 

ecoregion-based planning as the most effective way to achieve its national mission of preserving a 

diversity of plants, animals, and natural communities. The planning process used by TNC follows a 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

1-28 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

methodology outlined in their publication Geography of Hope (2000) that defines a vision of 

conservation success at an ecoregional scale, and is based on documenting and mapping a list or 

“portfolio” of biologically outstanding sites that represent a full complement of ecosystems, natural 

communities, and species characteristics of the ecoregion. This methodology may be used to direct 

TNC programs and influence other conservation efforts across the United States. The ecoregional 

plans are based on amended ecoregional units delineated by Bailey et al. (1998). 

These ecoregional boundaries approximate but do not necessarily match the BCR boundaries. For 

example, Idaho Falls is within five of TNC’s ecoregions. The Columbia Plateau Ecoregion covers 

most of southern Idaho, as well as the west-central panhandle. The Middle Rocky Mountain-Blue 

Mountain Ecoregion covers most of central Idaho, and the Canadian Rockies Ecoregion covers the 

remainder of the Idaho Panhandle. The Utah-Wyoming Rocky Mountains Ecoregion includes the 

eastern edge of the State, abutting Wyoming, and a small sliver of the Utah High Plateaus Ecoregion 

juts into the very southwestern corner of the State. TNC is developing ecoregional assessments and 

plans for all of the ecoregions, which cover Idaho. Timing of the completion of these plans will vary, 

depending on TNC priorities and which State office of TNC is taking lead responsibility for each 

plan. 

Camas NWR and Mud Lake WMA were identified as one of 104 Conservation Portfolio Sites within 

the Columbia Plateau Ecoregion. Although TNC’s ecoregional plans are not specifically designed as 

bird conservation plans, they do include the identification and classification of those habitat types, 

areas, and sites, which provide important habitat for birds. Birds identified as conservation targets for 

the five ecoregions are linked to the portfolio sites in those ecoregional plans. Target Bird Species, 

listed by TNC for each ecological system group, were obtained from the literature and interviews 

with acknowledged experts. 

1.7.3 Pacific Flyway Management Plans 

The Pacific Flyway Council is an administrative body that forges cooperation among public wildlife 

agencies for the purpose of protecting and conserving migratory game birds in western North 

America. The Council has prepared numerous management plans to date for most populations of 

swans, geese, and sandhill cranes in the Pacific Flyway (www.pacificflyway.gov). These plans 

typically focus on populations, which are the primary unit of management, but may be specific to a 

species or subspecies. Management plans serve to: 

 Identify common goals; 

 Coordinate collection and analysis of biological data; 

 Establish the priority of management actions and responsibility for them; and 

 Emphasize research needed to improve management. 

The Council creates flyway management plans to help state and Federal agencies cooperatively 

manage migratory game birds under common goals. Management strategies are recommendations, 

but do not commit agencies to specific actions or schedules. Fiscal, legislative, and priority 

constraints influence the level and timing of implementation. Pacific Flyway plans generally guide 

management and research for a five-year planning horizon. Several of these plans pertain to species 

found on the Refuge. A brief summary of the flyway management plans we considered in the 

development of this CCP follows. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-29 

Management Plan of the Pacific and Central Flyways for the Rocky Mountain Population of 

Greater Sandhill Cranes (2007) 

This plan is a revision of the July 1997 Rocky Mountain Population (RMP) sandhill crane plan. Its 

purpose is to establish guidelines for managing RMP sandhill cranes. The plan addresses habitats 

(breeding range, fall staging areas, migration routes, fall and spring stopover areas, and winter areas), 

status, uses, current management, problems associated with the population, and crane hunting 

guidelines. 

The primary objective of the plan is to manage the RMP for numbers and distribution that will 

provide maximum direct benefit to the public and for the intrinsic values of the birds themselves. 

Objectives include: A) Manage for a stable population index of 17,000-21,000 cranes determined by 

an average of the 3 most recent reliable September (fall pre-migration) surveys; B) Maintain and 

protect suitable habitats in sufficient quantity and quality to support population objectives and spatial 

distribution, while encouraging populations expansion where desirable; C) Provide for recreational 

uses of RMP cranes; and D) Minimize crop depredations by RMP cranes (Subcommittee on Rocky 

Mountain Greater Sandhill Cranes 2007). 

The plan recommends several management procedures. The degree and timing of their 

implementation by the various lead agencies will be influenced by manpower and fiscal and 

legislative constraints beyond the scope of the plan. The following procedures within the plan are the 

most pertinent to CCP development for the four refuges of the Southeast Idaho Complex: 

1. The IDFG, in cooperation with other State and Federal agencies, nongovernmental 

organizations, and private parties, will work to annually provide 600-1,000 acres of 

supplemental feed crops in strategic locations to help alleviate crop damage. Funding 

for this program will come primarily from the interest earned by a Lure Crop 

Endowment established from private contributions. 

2. Encourage to identify, classify, rank, and catalog habitats used by the RMP throughout 

its range to facilitate the protection of important habitat through acquisition, easement, 

cooperative agreements, special use permits, and mitigation exchanges and 

developments. 

3. Promoting increased awareness and understanding of cranes was deemed essential to 

the well-being of the RMP cranes. Individual state wildlife agencies and the FWS will 

cooperatively develop and distribute information on the life history of RMP cranes and 

important management issues. 

4. The plan calls on the Subcommittees to consider problem situations and recommend 

options to the appropriate state agencies for reducing or eliminating crop damage. 

Various individuals, nongovernmental organizations, and other agencies will be 

encouraged to suggest solutions. 

5. Population surveys are to be done each September when peak numbers of cranes are 

present on pre-migration staging areas in summer range states. 

6. As appropriate, the Subcommittees will develop research proposals, recommend needed 

research, and review research proposals. In these actions, the Subcommittees will give 

priority to research conducted on the RMP or regional flocks/subpopulations, rather 

than local projects. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

1-30 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

Pacific Flyway Management Plan for the Rocky Mountain Population of Western Canada 

Geese (2000) 

The purpose of this plan is to improve coordinated management of western Canada geese by 

providing goals and objectives to guide wildlife agencies responsible for management programs for a 

five-year period. 

The western Canada goose (Branta canadensis moffitti) occurring within the Pacific Flyway is 

currently recognized for management purposes as consisting of two populations: the Pacific 

Population (PP) and the Rocky Mountain Population (RMP) (Krohn and Bizeau 1980). The RMP 

population is primarily migratory with geese undertaking spring and fall migrations between 

breeding and wintering areas. Due to interstate and international distribution of certain flocks and 

shared management concerns, management of this resource requires interstate and international 

coordination. 

Sixteen reference areas are used in this plan to facilitate management and tabulation of population 

and harvest data. These areas were delineated on the basis of band recovery distribution and are 

defined in detail by Krohn and Bizeau (1980). The four NWRs of the Southeast Idaho NWR 

Complex fall within Southeast Idaho Reference Area 3. 

The goal of this management plan is to maintain numbers and distribution of RMP Canada geese to 

optimize recreational opportunity while controlling depredation and nuisance problems. 

Objectives of this plan are to: 

1. Maintain a breeding population index of 117,000 birds, while considering desired 

levels of regional breeding and wintering flocks within individual reference areas. For 

Reference Area 3 (Southeastern Idaho) there is a Breeding Population Index of 5,040 

and an Objective Breeding Population Index of 5,550; 

2. Maintain seasonal breeding, wintering, and molting distributions; 

3. Maintain suitable breeding and wintering habitats to support distribution objectives; 

4. Maintain optimum hunting opportunities and provide for viewing, educational, and 

scientific pursuits; 

5. Evaluate current population and reference area boundaries to determine if they reflect 

true demographic differences among neighboring Canada goose populations (PP, HiLine Population (HLP), and RMP); and 

6. Evaluate depredation and nuisance issues and implement management practices where 

appropriate. 

The plan recommends several management procedures. The degree and timing of their 

implementation by the various lead agencies will be influenced by manpower and fiscal and 

legislative constraints beyond the scope of the plan. The following procedures within the plan are the 

most pertinent to CCP development for the four refuges within the Southeast Idaho Complex: 

1. Annual Breeding Population Index: Breeding population surveys will be conducted 

within each reference area throughout the breeding range of RMP Canada geese. These 

surveys may be either breeding pair or breeding population surveys. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-31 

2. Banding Needs Assessment: Banding for monitoring recovery distribution, derivation 

of harvest, harvest, and survival rates for individual flocks, will be considered as part of 

a needs assessment. 

3. Annual Production Trend Survey: Nesting and/or brood surveys are encouraged in all 

reference areas throughout the breeding range of RMP Canada geese. 

4. Annual Midwinter Waterfowl Survey: RMP Canada geese will be counted in all 

reference areas that support concentrations of wintering geese during the MWS, which 

is normally conducted during the first week in January. 

5. Research: The Subcommittee will, as needed, recommend research and review 

proposals for research. The Subcommittee will establish priorities for research based on 

the needs of the RMP. Areas of identifiable needed research include Harvest 

Information and Range Delineation. 

6. Depredation and Nuisance Problems: Increasing problems with depredation and 

nuisance Canada geese facilitated the development of a Flyway Depredation Policy. 

The plan asks all agencies to implement programs to assist in the deployment of 

management actions to assist landowners. 

Pacific Flyway Management Plan for the Rocky Mountain Population of Trumpeter Swans 

(2008) 

The goal of this management plan is to restore the RMP as a secure and primarily migratory 

population, sustained by naturally occurring and agricultural food resources in diverse breeding and 

wintering sites (Subcommittee on Rocky Mountain Trumpeter Swans 2008). Management objectives 

are: 

1. Continue to encourage swans to use wintering areas outside of the core Tri-State Area 

while reducing the number of wintering swans in the core Tri-State Area to a maximum 

of 1,500; 

2. Rebuild U.S. nesting flocks by year 2013 to at least 165 nesting pairs (birds that display 

evidence of nesting) and 718 adults and subadults (white birds) that use natural, diverse 

habitats. For Idaho, the plan identifies a target of 30 nesting pairs and 175 adults and 

sub-adults, by 2013. Furthermore, the plan calls for specific nesting and adult/sub-adult 

objectives for: Grays Lake NWR (10 and 30 respectively); Bear Lake NWR (5 and 25 

respectively); and Camas County (1 and 5 respectively). 

3. Expand the breeding range in order to enhance the connectivity of breeding flocks; 

4. Increase the abundance of desirable submerged macrophytes (aquatic plants) in the 

Henrys Fork of the Snake River in and near Harriman State Park. 

5. Promote the restoration and development of high quality wetland habitats for breeding 

and wintering swans; and 

6. Monitor the population. 

Important management strategies to achieve the objectives include: 

1. Reduce the attractiveness of HSP [Harriman State Park] by manipulating water levels; 

2. Provide habitat to attain population objectives; 

3. Identify potential breeding and winter expansion areas; 4) evaluate the effectiveness of 

raising cygnets from eggs collected in Canada to increase the availability of swans for 

release and to increase genetic heterozygosity; 

4. Identify, fund, and implement new wetland projects; 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

1-32 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

5. Translocate flightless U.S. and Canadian cygnets as appropriate; 

6. Continue to monitor submerged macrophytes in the Henrys Fork of the Snake River; 

7. Develop and implement an effective public information program; and 

8. Maintain trumpeter swan–compatible, tundra swan sport hunting opportunities in the 

Pacific Flyway. 

Pacific Flyway Management Plan for the Western Population (WP) of Tundra Swans (2001) 

The goal of the tundra swan plan is to ensure the maintenance of the western population (WP) of 

tundra swans, at a size and distribution that will provide for all their benefits to society (Pacific 

Flyway Council 2001). 

Objectives of this plan are to: 

1. Maintain a population of at least 60,000 swans to provide suitable public benefits; 

2. Maintain current patterns of distribution throughout the WP tundra swan range; 

3. Provide breeding, migration, and wintering habitats of sufficient quantity and quality to 

maintain the desired numbers and distribution of swans; 

4. Provide for aesthetic, educational, and scientific uses of swans; and 

5. Provide for sustainable sport and subsistence harvests of WP swans. 

Surveillance for Early Detection of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza H5N1 in Wild 

Migratory Birds (2006) 

The overall goal for this strategy is to provide guidance to Pacific Flyway wildlife agencies in 

planning and implementing surveillance to detect Asian H5N1 in wild migratory birds. The plan was 

intended as a step-down approach from the draft U.S. Interagency Strategic Plan (Interagency HPAI 

Early Detection Working Group 2006) to articulate flyway-level objectives, recommend surveillance 

strategies, and support further planning in each state to assess available and needed agency resources. 

The goal of the national strategy and this Pacific Flyway strategy is early detection of Asian H5N1 in 

wild migratory birds—not to assess its prevalence over time, monitor its rate of movement, or 

investigate the ecology of the disease. 

This strategy did not intend to provide detailed implementation plans for each Pacific Flyway state. 

The strategy also does not dictate rigid sampling objectives—the intent is to provide a sense of 

priorities, but not to constrain sampling of species or areas deemed important by the states or other 

cooperators. Surveillance efforts for Asian H5N1 will involve, by necessity, extensive cooperation at 

state and local levels among wildlife agencies, agriculture agencies, public health systems, and other 

entities—efforts best left to adaptive approaches by our member agencies. Thus, the scope of this 

strategy is focused on a flyway-level framework for surveillance of wild migratory waterbird 

populations that are shared and cooperatively managed throughout the Pacific Flyway. 

Objectives of the plan include: 

1. Prioritize waterbird species to be sampled for Asian H5N1 in the Pacific Flyway. 

2. Recommend a suite of sampling approaches to effectively establish an Asian H5N1 

detection system in wild migratory birds. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-33 

3. Provide guidance to states and cooperators to develop state-specific implementation 

plans. 

4. Recommend procedures to integrate detection efforts within the Pacific Flyway and 

with national programs. 

5. Describe additional planning efforts and coordination necessary to establish and 

maintain an effective Asian H5N1 detection system in the flyway. 

1.7.4 Partners in Flight Landbird Conservation Plans 

The national Partners in Flight (PIF) program began in 1989 as a coordinated effort to document and 

reverse apparent declines in the populations of neotropical migratory birds, those birds that breed 

north of Mexico and then migrate to Mexico, Central and South America, and the Caribbean in the 

winter months. Their proactive stance is to “keep common birds common.” The National Fish and 

Wildlife Foundation took the lead in bringing together Federal, state, and local government agencies, 

foundations, conservation groups, industry and the academic community to address the problem of 

population declines. The reasons are complex, and include loss of breeding habitat due to 

fragmentation, alteration, urban expansion and natural disasters; loss or alteration of habitat in nonbreeding areas and along migratory routes; and brood parasitism. The PIF program was later 

expanded to include all nongame land birds. 

Today, PIF is an international program, with eastern and western regional coordinators and PIF 

Working Groups in each state. In 2000, the American Bird Conservancy (ABC) published the first 

comprehensive national plan for the program, titled Partners in Flight: Conservation of the Land 

Birds of the United States. This planning document summarizes the goals and priorities of the various 

state Bird Conservation Plans, as well as 93 physiographic areas and seven generalized regions of the 

continental United States. It also encourages better coordination with other initiatives such as the 

NAWMP, U.S. Shorebird Management Plan, and the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan. 

PIF initially divided Idaho into three physiographic areas, but for purposes of coordinated bird 

conservation, these have now been replaced by the BCRs. Passage of the Neotropical Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act in 2001 provided a new Federal commitment to the conservation of neotropical 

migrant species addressed by PIF. In September 2003, PIF released a new North American Landbird 

Conservation Plan. 

Idaho PIF was formed in 1992 to direct resources of PIF partners to the conservation of birds and 

their habitats through cooperative efforts in the areas of monitoring, research, management and 

education. Idaho PIF is a public-private partnership made up of professionals from State and Federal 

natural resource agencies, universities, Native American tribes, private industry and 

nongovernmental organizations. The Idaho PIF steering committee is made up of a number of 

partners, including representatives from the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, USDA Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Geological Survey, 

Audubon Society, and the Potlatch Corporation. 

Idaho Partners in Flight, Idaho Bird Conservation Plan (IBCP): In January 2000, Idaho PIF 

released Version 1.0 of the Idaho Bird Conservation Plan (BCP), which was based on an assessment 

of the status of 243 species of breeding birds in Idaho, including waterfowl, shorebirds, waterbirds 

and 119 species of Neotropical migrants (Ritter 2000). This assessment identified 60 species of Idaho 

breeding birds, considered to be High Priority species in Idaho. These 60 species are organized into 

12 habitats, which are listed in the BCP. These habitats in turn were combined and synthesized into 

four habitats considered to be the highest priority for Idaho birds: Riparian, Non-riverine wetlands 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

1-34 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

(marshes lakes and ponds), Sagebrush Shrublands (excluding salt desert shrub), and Ponderosa Pine 

(dry Ponderosa Pine/Douglas Fir/Grand Fir) forests. Each of these four priority habitats is described 

in the BCP, along with their importance to birds. Also included in the BCP are statewide habitat 

objectives, issues, strategies and tasks for implementing those habitat objectives. For Idaho, the BCP 

remains the best statewide summary of species and associated habitat information, and is one of the 

primary sources of information used in developing a Coordinated Implementation Plan for Bird 

Conservation in Idaho. 

The January 2000 Version 1.0 of the Idaho Partners in Flight BCP identified 62 high priority Idaho 

species and 68 moderate priority Idaho species. Forty-six of the 62 high priority Idaho species are 

found on the Refuge. Thirty-five of these 46 high priority refuge species were classified as a high 

priority species for Physiographic Areas other than the Refuge’s Physiographic Area 89 (Columbia 

Plateau). Eighteen of these refuge species were ranked a high priority for Idaho-wide distribution, 

nine were a priority within Physiographic Area 64 (Central Rocky Mountains), and eight refuge 

species were a priority in Physiographic Area 89 (Columbia Plateau). Only one (Wilson’s phalarope) 

of the 35 moderate priority Idaho PIF species that occur on the Refuge is classified a priority within 

Physiographic Area 89. The remaining moderate priority species occur as an Idaho-wide priority 

(n=24), Physiographic Area 64 priority (n=5) and Physiographic Area 80 priority (n=5). 

Since the publication of Version 1.0 of the Idaho BCP, Idaho PIF has revised its list of priority bird 

species and their respective priority level classifications. The revised list reflects more objective 

classification rules, updated PIF priority scores, and a BCR-level approach. Species are classified 

into one of four priority-level categories: (1) Level I (highest priority); (2) Level II (moderate 

priority); (3) Level III (low priority); and (4) Level IV (no priority). Fifty-eight species were 

classified as Level I or Level II priority in BCRs 9 (Northern Rockies) and 10 (Great Basin). Ranking 

criteria included Relative Abundance, Breeding Distribution, Non-breeding Distribution, Breeding 

Area Importance, Threats to Breeding, Threats to Non-breeding, and Breeding Population Trend. 

Also included in the ranking process (in part to help make the BCR-level scores more relevant to 

Idaho), is the relative importance of Idaho to a particular species and its conservation, based upon the 

abundance of that species in Idaho (Idaho Area Importance). Camas NWR has documented the 

occurrence of 32 of the 52 PIF regionally important species for Idaho on the Refuge. Of these 32 bird 

species, none were ranked for management action of Critical Recovery (CR); five for Immediate 

Action (IM), which include sage-grouse, Lewis’s woodpecker, Brewer’s sparrow, olive-sided 

flycatcher, and willow flycatcher, 15 for Management Attention (MA), and 12 for Planning and 

Responsibility (PR) oversight. 

1.7.5 Recovery Plans 

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544, December 28, 1973, as amended 

1976-1982, 1984 and 1988) states in SEC. 8A.(a) that “The Secretary of the Interior ... is designated 

as the Management Authority and the Scientific Authority for purposes of the Convention and the 

respective functions of each such Authority shall be carried out through the United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service.” The Act also requires that “all Federal departments and agencies shall seek to 

conserve endangered species and threatened species and shall utilize their authorities in furtherance 

of the purposes of this Act.” 

No federally listed endangered or threatened species occur within or immediately adjacent to Camas 

NWR. There are no goals, objectives, strategies, actions, or tasks identified in any regional ESA 

recovery plans applicable to Camas NWR. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-35 

1.8 Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities 

1.8.1 Major Issues to be Addressed in the CCP 

The core planning team evaluated and presented refuge issues and concerns during public scoping. 

Issues are defined as matters of controversy, dispute, or general concern over resource management 

activities, the environment, land uses, or public use activities. Issues are important to the planning 

process because they identify topics to be addressed in the CCP, pinpoint the types of information to 

gather, and help define alternatives for the CCP. Additional issues, concerns, and opportunities were 

raised during the public scoping process; we addressed them all in some manner in the Draft 

CCP/EA. It is the Service’s responsibility to focus planning and the EA analysis on the major issues. 

Major issues typically suggest different actions or alternative solutions, are within the Refuge’s 

jurisdiction, and have a positive or negative effect on the resource. Major issues will influence the 

decisions proposed in the Draft CCP/EA. The following issues, concerns, and opportunities were 

presented during public scoping and were considered in the Draft CCP/EA. 

1. Wetland Management 

a. Water Quantity 

The Ecological Integrity Assessment for Camas NWR (Kittel et al. 2012) concluded that Camas 

NWR has some of the best condition low elevation wetlands within the local Beaver-Camas 

watershed. Camas NWR also has some of the best base-of-the-foothills positioned wetlands in the 

entire Upper Snake River Watershed, especially along the northern edge of the Snake River Plain. 

The location of Camas’ wetland and riparian areas within a landscape that has largely been converted 

to intensive production agriculture, as well as its position within an interior arm of the Pacific 

Flyway, make it strategically important for supporting wildlife movement and long-term 

conservation of wetland-dependent species. Refuge wetlands are managed to provide high quality 

habitat in support of nesting and migrating waterbirds. Current management actions consist of 

manipulating water on an annual basis to produce desirable food and cover plant species, and provide 

wetland features during appropriate times of the year for resting, foraging, or breeding of wetlandassociated species. 

Since the 1980s, the water table in the Camas NWR area has dropped approximately 15 feet (see 

Chapter 3). The causes include: a 10+ year drought cycle; cessation of irrigation on the Egin Bench 

in the 1980s; local water demands for agriculture; and the incising of Camas Creek, which 

exacerbates the effects of a lower water table. Historically Camas Creek overflowed its banks each 

spring, creating seasonal and temporary wetlands. In the early 1900s, subirrigation on the Egin 

Bench, 15 miles to the east, caused artesian flow in the Camas/Mud Lake area to increase, creating 

permanent and semipermanent wetlands. Under this hydrologic regime, which was present at the 

time of refuge establishment, wetlands retained water for most of the year. 

Since the duration of Camas Creek spring flows is reduced compared to historic conditions and the 

local water table has dropped, many of the once-artesian wells have been replaced by mechanical 

pumps. Now seven irrigation wells are used to supplement the spring runoff; they are run from midMarch to October but still cannot keep many of the Refuge’s wetlands hydrated for the length of time 

needed for brood rearing to be completed. When the pumps are turned off, most of the water slowly 

sinks back into the water table. This leaves many refuge wetlands dry by late fall through the winter. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

1-36 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

At this time, more than 25 percent of Refuge wetlands have been placed in “inactive” status, and 

several other large wetlands are dry for much of the year. The current management strategy will not 

continue to meet our management goals due to water and budget limitations. 

i. Open and Deep Water Habitat: In recent years, some open water and deep emergent 

wetland basins at Camas NWR have experienced drier conditions and subsequent heavy 

encroachment from a variety of more mesic upland meadow species. If groundwater pumping 

were to cease, many of the deep water permanently or semi-permanently flooded wetland 

basins would revert to seasonally or temporarily flooded wet meadows, or possibly dry 

meadows. If this habitat succession were to occur, it would likely diminish use by waterfowl 

and shorebirds, but benefit guilds more associated with those habitat types such as migratory 

landbirds, rails, and soras. 

 

ii. Wet Meadow Habitat: Wet meadows are among the rarest plant communities in the region 

and provide a diverse realm of wildlife habitat. Wet meadows consist of native grasses and 

forbs with almost no trees or shrubs. As previously noted, some seasonal wetland 

communities may naturally move toward wet meadow plant species and may need to be 

managed as such, but it is unknown how many acres of habitat is necessary to be of benefit to 

guilds such as migratory songbirds. 

b. Water Quality 

As a refuge partially surrounded by agricultural lands, there are external threats that may be 

impacting water quality and quantity to refuge wetlands and streams within the surrounding 

watershed. There is concern that refuge wetland basins may be acting as sinks for pesticides and 

heavy metals received from runoff, or adjacent agricultural practices (see Chapter 3). 

c. Water Rights 

Due to the perceived reduced levels of water in the Lower Snake River Plain, there has been recent 

discussion regarding a call* on groundwater from the Upper Snake River Plain. The Refuge’s 

groundwater rights are relatively senior to most of the rights that would be subject to curtailment. Of 

the nine refuge groundwater rights established for wildlife and/or irrigation use, three could be 

considered junior rights. Impacts to the refuge resources in relation to the extent of a call would have 

to be evaluated. 

2. Riparian Restoration 

Camas Creek and other streams entering the Refuge have been highly altered, off-Refuge, to support 

agriculture. This has had a profound impact on the riparian habitats along Camas Creek, Rays Lake, 

and Sandhole Lake. Overbank flooding of Camas Creek now rarely occurs, because flows are 

reduced in duration compared to historical conditions, and the creek is now deeply incised. As a 

result, the Refuge’s willow shrublands are not being rejuvenated. In addition, willows are subject to 

increasing browsing pressure from the growing ungulate population. 

*A “call” refers to a request by an appropriator for water which the person is entitled to under his decree. Such a call 

will force those users with junior decrees to cease or diminish their diversions and pass the requested amount of 

water to the downstream senior making the call. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-37 

3. Naturalized Shelterbelt Habitat Maintenance or Restoration 

In the 1930s, when the Works Progress Administration (WPA) constructed the refuge headquarters 

buildings, crews also planted many trees and shrubs around the compound. Since many of the species 

planted are not native, the Service’s default strategy would be to remove the trees and restore the site 

to native habitat. However over the years this gallery forest has become an important migration 

stopover site for many species of migratory land birds. A study conducted by the Idaho Bird 

Observatory in 2005-2006 captured more than 70 species of migratory land birds in and around the 

headquarters. Also, two rows of cottonwood trees that are directly adjacent to the refuge compound 

has become a traditional roost site for wintering bald eagles. As many as 90 eagles have been 

observed in these tree belts at one time. 

Most of the cottonwood trees are near the end of their lifespan and are in declining condition. In 

order for the Refuge to continue to provide habitat for the migratory landbirds, these trees will need 

to be replaced. Work has begun to replace some of the trees and shrubs in and around the 

headquarters. However, replacement of these trees has many challenges: securing funds to replace 

trees, determining what species to plant, and supplying enough water and protection to ensure that 

the trees survive. 

4. Sage-steppe Upland Restoration 

While Camas NWR has lost much important sage-steppe habitat, a significant portion of that 

community is still present on the Refuge and more could be restored. Sage obligates such as sage 

grouse and pronghorn currently use the Refuge. The actual extent of existing sage-steppe habitat on 

the Refuge is unknown, but the potential extent (based on soil type) is approximately 3,600 acres. It 

is imperative that existing sagebrush areas remain intact. A number of threats to sage-steppe exist, 

such as wildfire and invasive, nonnative vegetation. 

Rehabilitation of potential sagebrush sites is the next priority. Extensive crested wheatgrass plantings 

occupy sandy ecological sites that historically would have supported sage-steppe communities. 

Crested wheatgrass was established to provide ground cover on abandoned farm fields, or areas 

denuded by wildfires. It is widely distributed across the Refuge, ranging from monotypic stands 

where little recolonization by native plant species is evident, to more heterogeneous communities 

having a representation of both crested wheatgrass and native plants. Wildlife use of crested 

wheatgrass on Camas NWR is unknown but considered minimal. Some ungulates may graze it in 

early spring and certain bird and small mammal species may use it for cover. 

Rehabilitation of monotypic crested wheatgrass stands to native vegetation will prove challenging. 

Crested wheatgrass is inherently very competitive due to the species’ phenology and decades of 

seedbed accumulation, among other traits. Also, the high cost of rangeland seeding and restoration 

undermine the efficacy of restoring sagebrush communities in crested wheatgrass stands. 

Other crucial questions include: How important is the Refuge’s sage-steppe community for sageobligate species, such as sage grouse, especially in the context of continuity with high value 

surrounding habitat? Is there connectivity with other shrub steppe habitats off the Refuge? How have 

previously described changes in local hydrology affected refuge upland habitat, particularly sagesteppe? Is there any noteworthy wildlife value (forage or other) to crested wheatgrass on the Refuge? 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

1-38 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

5. Agricultural Cropland Management 

Camas NWR currently has a cooperative farming program. Two farmers plant, water, and harvest 80 

acres of alfalfa each. The last cutting is left for wildlife. One farmer plants 20 acres of wheat that is 

left for wildlife. Two other individuals harvest “wild hay” from the Refuge. They are each allowed to 

remove hay from separate 125 acre parcels. The hay, which the individuals pay for, is predominantly 

smooth brome grass, quack grass, or both. 

The farm fields are heavily used by geese, sandhill cranes, and sage-grouse; they are also used by 

moose, deer, and elk. The wheat field is used by a variety of bird species during fall migration. 

6. Invasive Species Management 

Like many national wildlife refuges, Camas continually battles invasive species in its quest to 

maintain biological integrity. Ironically, Camas Creek, the purveyor of life giving water, is also the 

primary conduit for invasive species into the Refuge. It washes many seeds into the Refuge from 

infestations that have taken hold in upstream pastures. Each summer when the creek bed dries, a 

ribbon of leafy spurge grows for many miles. Other species that line the creek banks are black 

henbane, musk thistle, Scotch thistle, and houndstongue, which was discovered in 2009. 

In the uplands, the problematic species are Russian knapweed, Swainson’s pea, cheatgrass, and to a 

lesser extent, smooth brome. In some areas crested wheatgrass has become dominant and 

outcompetes native grasses. Spot treatment with herbicides has been the method of choice in most 

cases, to avoid impacts to desirable native species such as sagebrush. 

Canada thistle grows along the fringe of the Refuge’s wetlands and within its wet meadow habitat. It 

is a huge challenge because it grows in places that are difficult to access with equipment and limits 

the use of herbicides. In 2009 the Refuge embarked upon a biological control program for Canada 

thistle to control this species in inaccessible areas. 

Camas NWR cooperates with the Continental Divide Weed Control Area, which works to control 

weeds upstream of the Refuge. 

7. Wildlife-dependent Recreation 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 identified six priority public uses on 

refuges: hunting; fishing; wildlife observation and photography; environmental education; and 

interpretation. These uses receive enhanced consideration in planning and management over all other 

general public uses on refuges. When compatible, these wildlife-dependent recreational uses are to be 

strongly encouraged. These uses, as well as other current or proposed uses, receive an extensive 

compatibility review in the CCP before being allowed. Under FWS compatibility policy (603 FW 2), 

refuges with limited staffing and funding are required to make efforts to obtain additional resources 

or outside assistance to provide wildlife-dependent recreational uses, and to document those efforts 

before determining that any of these uses are not compatible. 

The Camas NWR must manage an ever-increasing request for visitation and demand for visitor 

services programs with a very small staff. Currently, the visitor services program at the Refuge is 

mostly “self serve,” with informational kiosks and interpretive displays. To date emphasis has been 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-39 

placed on maintaining visitor facilities, welcoming and orienting visitors, answering information 

requests, and law enforcement during the bird hunting season. 

The main issue to be addressed in the CCP is balancing internal and external demands for increased 

refuge recreation with the “Wildlife First” mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and the 

wildlife conservation purposes of Camas NWR. 

8. Global Climate Change 

Climate change will have effects on species and their habitats throughout the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. Mean global temperature has risen rapidly during the past 50 years and is projected 

to continue increasing throughout the twenty-first century. Changes in precipitation, diurnal 

temperature extremes, and cloudiness—as well as sea level rise—are some of the factors that are 

projected to accompany the warming. A coherent pattern of poleward and upward (elevation) shifts in 

species distributions, advances in phenology of plants, and changes in the timing of arrival of 

migratory birds and other animals on seasonal ranges have been well documented. The effects of 

most concern are those that may occur to NWRS trust species that have limited dispersal abilities. 

Climate related changes in the distribution and timing of resource availability may cause species to 

become decoupled from their resource requirements. 

Managing the “typical” challenges to the NWRS requires accounting for the interaction of climate 

change with other stressors in the midst of substantial uncertainties about how stressors will interact 

and systems will respond. Many NWRS trust species are migratory. Breeding, staging, and wintering 

habitats are typically dispersed throughout the system and on non-NWRS lands. The superimposition 

of spatially and temporally variable warming on spatially separated life history events will add 

substantial complexity to understanding and responding to ongoing conservation challenges. Climate 

change will act synergistically with other system stressors, and is likely to impose complex nonlinear system responses to the “typical” challenges. It will be extremely difficult to clearly 

understand the influence of non-climate stressors on habitats, populations, and management actions 

without accounting for the effects of climate change. Local- to national-scale managers will face the 

dilemma of managing dynamic systems without fully understanding what, where, or when the 

climate related changes will occur, or how they might best be addressed. 

While NWRS policy provides a basis for ecological sustainability, climate change presents new 

challenges at unprecedented scales for maintaining biological integrity, diversity, and environmental 

health of refuges and the Refuge System. Explicit performance goals and objectives tied to biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health of refuges and the Service’s conservation targets will be 

needed to assess the degree and effectiveness of NWRS response to the challenges of climate change. 

9. Inventory, Monitoring, and Adaptive Management 

Camas NWR needs natural resource inventory and monitoring protocols and a systematic program to 

quantify the efficacy of management actions. The CCP effort should address a process to acquire 

needed resource information and the means to make effective, science-based managerial decisions 

for resource protection. At a minimum, the strategy should consist of a framework for completion of 

basic resource inventories upon which monitoring efforts can be based; creation of experimental 

monitoring to evaluate management actions and design; and implementation of operational 

monitoring of critical processes and parameters. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

1-40 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

10. Historic and Cultural Resource Management 

Over time Camas NWR has been in consultation with SHPO on various projects to ensure 

compliance with historic preservation laws. To date most consultations have involved structures 

located at the refuge headquarters and living quarters. A field study was conducted in 2005 found 

some sites that were potentially eligible for the National Historic Register (see Chapter 5). 

The most recent survey of the structures at the Camas NWR headquarters listed three of the buildings 

as eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The three buildings identified are the 

Main Office/Quarters # 1, the Old Shop, and the Old Office. These three buildings were built during 

the Works Progress Administration days in the late 1930s and early 1940s. Also built during this time 

were water control structures and bridges. To date not all of these have been evaluated to determine if 

they would be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). 

In 2005 an Archaeological Investigation was completed on Camas NWR, but only in specific areas 

that were identified as possible locations for prescribed fire or seeding operations. Seven separate 

units were identified and surveyed by North Wind Inc. Five separate sites were located that were 

considered potentially eligible to the NRHP and required avoidance. Sites identified included two 

historic canals, a stone circle, an irrigation canal, and one historic trash dump. 

11. Land Protection and Acquisition 

The staff of Camas NWR has identified some priority areas both within and outside the current 

acquisition boundary that could provide benefits to wildlife if the chance of acquisition were to 

occur. One in-holding of about 40 acres exists near the refuge headquarters and acquisition should be 

given priority in the event of a willing seller. This area is a true in-holding and is surrounded by the 

Refuge on all four sides. At the time of this writing, acquisition is pending on another, 80 acre 

inholding, the Bunker Hill Tract. 

Another potentially beneficial area outside the current acquisition boundary is the corridor of lands 

along Warm Creek. These lands are in private ownership. No surface water is allowed to flow 

through Warm Creek, unless the area is in a flood emergency. That surface flow would provide an 

important riparian corridor, but would also add surface recharge to Sandhole Lake, which is one the 

most important wetlands on Camas NWR. 

Any land that comes up for sale with Camas Creek within its boundaries should also be closely 

looked at for acquisition potential. Benefits of acquiring such lands would include protecting water 

quality, providing riparian habitat for migratory landbirds, and increasing habitat connectivity. 

1.8.2 Issues Outside the Scope of the CCP 

While CCPs are very comprehensive plans, no single plan can cover all issues. The planning team 

has compiled a list of issues which are currently considered to be outside the scope of this CCP. 

Livestock Grazing. Reassessing the use of cattle grazing on the Refuge to improve habitat was 

suggested during public scoping. Livestock grazing is an economic use that must support 

achievement of refuge purposes and System Mission in accordance with 50 CFR 29.1. Livestock 

grazing was not included in the alternatives, because under current management domestic livestock 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-41 

grazing as a management tool is not required to meet refuge objectives. Livestock grazing was 

deemed incompatible with Camas NWR purposes in 1993. 

The Department of the Interior and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service were sued on October 22, 

1992, for alleged violations of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, the Refuge 

Recreation Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act. The suit (Audubon et al. v. Babbitt) 

alleged incompatible secondary uses were being permitted on nine refuges and that the Department 

of Interior was failing to follow legal requirements in allowing similar uses throughout the Refuge 

System. Livestock grazing was specifically cited in the suit as an incompatible secondary use at 

Camas NWR. 

The suit was settled out of court on October 20, 1993. The settlement agreement made several direct 

decisions on secondary uses on the national wildlife refuges identified in the suit. Through the 

settlement agreement, the Service discontinued grazing at Camas NWR in 1994. Therefore, grazing 

appropriateness and compatibility was not re-evaluated in the development of the Camas NWR 

CCP/EA as a future management strategy on the Refuge. 

Restoration of Sage-steppe, Camas Creek, and Camas Wetlands to Pre-settlement Conditions. 

Camas NWR uplands and wetlands functioned much differently prior to development of commercial 

agriculture and irrigation. Current alterations to the historic system have been substantial and include 

type conversion of thousands of acres of sagebrush habitat to crop production and depletion of spring 

flows and declining groundwater levels from the collective effect of drought, changes in surface 

water irrigation acreage and practices, and groundwater pumping. These effects have led to major 

structural changes to the Camas NWR including: 

1. Altered hydrologic groundwater and surface water regimes 

2. Altered Camas creek morphology and flows 

3. Fragmented landscapes 

4. Altered fire regimes 

Because of the strategic importance of Refuge wetlands for supporting wildlife movement and longterm conservation of wetland-dependent species, migratory birds and other wetland-dependent 

wildlife species will remain a primary focus of refuge management in the CCP. However, restoring 

the natural hydrology of the Camas ecosystems is not practical at this time. A project of this 

magnitude would require major alterations that would affect many outside interests and involve 

considerable expense. Therefore the CCP assesses management options (alternatives) that mimic the 

natural formative hydrologic processes and provide variable extents of wetland habitats 

representative of the historic wetlands. 

Camas Creek and Watershed Restoration as Primary Emphasis: Restoration of unimpeded 

hydrologic processes throughout a large portion of Camas Creek was considered by the Service, but 

was not carried forward for detailed analysis. Although this scenario could result in benefits such as 

increased riparian habitat, an aesthetically pleasing view, improved water quality, and a reconnected 

floodplain, it could also lead to the loss of prime wetland habitat at Camas NWR, thus falling short of 

refuge purpose and trust resource responsibilities, as well as the loss of senior water rights within the 

watershed. 

Currently, the Camas NWR provides the majority of sustainable wetland habitat in the Sinks Basin. 

Camas NWR plays a vital role in providing habitat for waterfowl and waterbirds during breeding and 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

1-42 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

migration. It is for this reason that refuge staff must first focus on understanding and increasing 

aquatic health Refuge-wide before full watershed scale restoration can be addressed. For these 

reasons, the Service rejected a detailed analysis of this alternative. 

Exercise of Tribal treaty rights on the Refuge. The Service consulted with the Shoshone-Bannock 

Tribe during the development of the Draft CCP/EA. While the Tribe and the Service discussed tribal 

treaty rights, including the right to hunt on open and unclaimed lands, the Service believes that 

defining the application of tribal treaty rights is outside the scope of this CCP planning effort. Neither 

the existence of this CCP/EA nor any portion of its contents is intended to enlarge or diminish treaty 

rights, or to have any influence over the resolution of any unadjudicated treaty rights. At their 

request, the Service will meet with the Shoshone-Bannock Tribe independent of the CCP process to 

develop Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) and other instruments that are respectful of the 

rights and needs of the Tribe, in accordance with Service Tribal policies and consistent with 

preserving the natural and cultural resources of Camas NWR. 

1.9 Refuge Vision 

Refuge vision statements are broad general statements that describe the long-range desired future 

condition of national wildlife refuges, well beyond the 15-year lifespan of the CCP. The vision 

statement for Camas NWR will serve as a challenging and worthwhile long-range target toward 

which people can direct their energies. 

Long before Camas NWR was established in 1937 in eastern Idaho’s high desert, 

wet meadows sustained by Camas Creek provided abundant insect life for 

waterbirds and sage-grouse to rear their broods. Sandhole Lake provided a yearround water source for pronghorn, mule deer, and people. 

Today, much of the surrounding landscape has been transformed by agriculture. 

But Camas NWR still provides a serene setting where tundra swans glide on pools 

framed by a brilliant orange sunrise. Here visitors can see a pure white V of snow 

geese pressed against a brilliant blue sky, or search for rare warblers in the 

willows along Camas Creek. Photographers try their skill at capturing the fall 

ritual of a bull elk gathering his herd, and visitors even brave midwinter cold to 

watch bald eagles returning to roost in the Refuge’s cottonwood trees. 

Camas NWR will continue to provide wetland and sage-steppe habitat for 

migratory birds and other native wildlife. Here, people of all ages and abilities 

will have the opportunity not only to enjoy, but to better understand the habitats 

and wildlife of the eastern Snake River Plain, and the importance of natural 

systems. We will use water resources wisely and become a model for energy and 

water conservation. We will work with our partners to sustain functional 

ecosystems in a changing environment. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-43 

1.10 Refuge Goals 

1.10.1 Wildlife and Habitat Goals 

Goal 1 (Native Habitats): 

Maintain and protect the existing integrity of functional native habitat and restore the 

natural range of variability and resiliency of degraded habitats. 

Goal 2 (Naturalized Habitats): 

Provide high quality forage and cover habitat to increase fitness (e.g., physical condition, 

survival, reproduction) for migratory birds. 

Goal 3 (Agricultural Habitats): 

Provide a supplemental on-Refuge forage base for carbohydrate and protein requirements 

of migratory waterfowl and landbirds within the Pacific and Rocky Mountain migratory 

corridors. 

1.10.2 Public Use Goals 

Goal 4 (Wildlife-dependent Recreation and Public Use): 

Increase public understanding and appreciation of wildlife, and build support for Camas 

NWR by providing opportunities for all visitors to participate in safe, quality wildlifedependent recreation and education programs, while minimizing wildlife disturbance or 

other impacts to wildlife populations or habitats. 

1.11 Planning Process 

A core planning team, consisting of a Project Leader, Deputy Project Leader, Refuge Manager, 

Refuge Biologist, Complex Planner, and a Regional Planner, began developing the CCP in January 

2010. Reviewers and subject matter experts from various divisions within the Service assisted in 

CCP development, particularly in reviewing preliminary goals, objectives and strategies, and in 

developing alternatives. A list of core team members, and professionals from other agencies and 

Service programs who assisted with CCP development is located in Appendix K. 

Early in the planning process, the core team identified 40 priority wildlife species (focal species) for 

the Refuge, their associated habitats, and other species that would benefit from managing the focal 

species. These focal species are listed in Appendix E. Wildlife and habitat goals and objectives were 

designed directly around the habitat requirements of species designated as priority resources of 

concern. The analytical framework for analyzing the resources of concern and for devising 

appropriate conservation objectives and strategies was based on the Service’s Draft Identifying 

Resources of Concern and Management Priorities for a Refuge: A Handbook (USFWS 2008b). 

Public use planning centered on developing goals, objectives and strategies around the “Big Six” 

wildlife-dependent public uses—hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

1-44 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

environmental education and interpretation—and the transportation and infrastructure needs 

associated with those uses. 

Public scoping began in the summer 2010. In August 2010 scoping meetings were held in Hamer and 

Idaho Falls, Idaho. Public commentary was also solicited through distribution of a planning update to 

the refuge mailing list. A summary of public involvement to date is in Appendix L. An internal draft 

was distributed to Service Region 1 reviewers in February 2013. All changes requested by reviewers 

and extended team members and actual changes made were documented. 

1.12 References 

Brown, S., C. Hickey, B. Harrington, and R. Gill, eds. 2001. The U.S. shorebird conservation plan, 

2nd edition. Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, Manomet, MA. 

IDEQ (Idaho Department of Environmental Quality). 2005. Beaver-Camas subbasin assessment and 

total maximum daily loads. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. Idaho Falls, ID. 

IDFG (Idaho Department of Fish and Game). 1999. Mud Lake Wildlife Management Area 

management plan. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Region 6. Idaho Falls, ID. 63 pp. 

Available at: 

https://fishandgame.idaho.gov/ifwis/portal/sites/ifwis/files/webform/wmasurvey/Mud%20La

ke%20Management%20Plan.pdf. 

IDFG. 2005. Idaho comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy. Idaho Conservation Data Center, 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Boise, ID. Available at: 

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/tech/CDC/cwcs.cfm. 

IDFG. 2008. Mule deer management plan, 2008-2017. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Boise, 

ID. 86 pp. 

IDFG. 2010. Mud Lake WMA information. Available at: 

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/wma/mud/info.cfm#info. 

IDFG. 2013a. Elk Management Plan Process. Available at: 

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/?getpage=324 Accessed November 5, 2013. 

IDFG. 2013b. 2013 Big Game Seasons and Rules. Available at: 

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/hunt/rules/?getPage=63 Accessed November 5, 2013. 

Idaho Department of Labor. 2000. Idaho census 2000. Available at: 

http://www.lmi.idaho.gov/Population/tabid/2021/Default.aspx. 

Idaho Sage-grouse Advisory Committee. 2006. Conservation plan for the greater sage-grouse in 

Idaho. 358 pp. Available at: 

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/sageGrouse/conservPlan.pdf 

Idaho Steering Committee, Intermountain West Joint Venture. 2005. Coordinated implementation 

plan for bird conservation in Idaho. 46 pp. 

Ivey, G.L. and C.P. Herziger. 2006. Intermountain West waterbird conservation plan. Version 1.2. 

Waterbird Conservation for the Americas Initiative, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pacific 

Region. Portland, OR. 205 pp. 

Kittel, G., D. Faber-Langendoen, and P. Comer. 2012. Camas NWR: ecological integrity assessment, 

watershed analysis and habitat vulnerability climate change index. Contract #F11PX04463. 

NatureServe. Boulder, CO. 105 pp plus appendices. 

Kushlan, J.A., M.J. Steinkamp, K.C. Parsons, J. Capp, M. Acosta Cruz, M. Coulter, I. Davidson, 

L. Dickson, N. Edelson, R. Elliot, R.M. Erwin, S. Hatch, S. Kress, R. Milko, S. Miller, K. 

Mills, R. Paul, R. Phillips, J.E. Saliva, B. Sydeman, J. Trapp, J. Wheeler, and K. Wohl. 2002. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-45 

Waterbird conservation for the Americas: the North American waterbird conservation plan, 

version 1. Waterbird Conservation for the Americas. Washington, D.C. 78 pp. 

Jankovsky-Jones, Mabel. 1997. Conservation strategy for southeastern Idaho wetlands. Idaho 

Department of Fish and Game Natural Resource Policy Bureau. Boise, ID. 210 pp. 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan Committee. 2004. North American waterfowl

management plan 2004. Implementation framework: strengthening the biological foundation. 

Canadian Wildlife Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Secretaria de Medio 

Ambiente y Recursos Naturales. 106 pp. 

Noss, R., G. Wuerthner, K. Vance-Borland, and C. Carroll. 2001. A biological conservation 

assessment for the Utah-Wyoming Rocky Mountains ecoregion: report to the Nature 

Conservancy. Conservation Science, Inc. Corvallis, OR. 

Oring, L.W., L. Neel, and K.E. Oring. 2005. Intermountain West regional shorebird plan. Manomet 

Center for Conservation Sciences. Manomet, MA. 

Pacific Flyway Council. 2001. Pacific Flyway management plan for the western population of tundra 

swans. Pacific Flyway Study Committee. Subcommittee on Tundra Swans. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird Management Office. Portland, OR.. 47 pp. 

Ritter, S.A. 2000. Idaho bird conservation plan, version 1.0. Idaho Partners in Flight. Idaho 

Department of Fish and Game. Boise, ID. 167 pp. 

Subcommittee on Rocky Mountain Greater Sandhill Cranes. 2007. Management plan of the Pacific 

and Central Flyways for the Rocky Mountain population of greater sandhill cranes. Pacific 

Flyway Study Committee and Central Flyway Webless Migratory Game Bird Technical 

Committee. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird Management Office. Portland, 

OR. 97 pp. 

Subcommittee on Rocky Mountain Trumpeter Swans. 2008. Pacific Flyway management plan for the 

Rocky Mountain population of Trumpeter Swans. Unpublished report. Pacific Flyway Study 

Committee. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird Management Office. Portland, 

OR. 103 pp. 

Subcommittee on Pacific Population of Western Canada Geese. 2000. Pacific Flyway management 

plan for the Pacific population of western Canada geese U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Migratory Bird Management Office. Portland, OR.. 30 pp. 

U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. 2013. Annual Estimates of the Resident Population: April 

1, 2010 to July 1, 2012. Release date for Cities and Towns (Incorporated Places and Minor 

Civil Divisions), May 2013. Available at: 

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk

Accessed November 5, 2013. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2008a. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management. Arlington, VA. 85 pp. Available 

at: http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds. 

USFWS. 2008b. Identifying refuge resources of concern and management priorities: a handbook 

(Draft). U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wildlife 

Refuge System. City, State. 60 pp. 

USFWS Ecological Service Office. 2006. Evaluation of contamination in Camas Creek from 

upstream deposition of herbicides at Camas NWR. Unpublished report, on file at Camas 

NWR. 

Van Kirk, R.W., J.M. Capurso, and B.L. Gamett, eds. 2003. The Sinks symposium: exploring the 

origin and management of fishes in the Sinks Drainages of southeastern Idaho. American 

Fisheries Society Idaho Chapter. Boise, ID. 34 pp. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

1-46 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Chapter 2

Management

Alternatives, Goals, 

Objectives and

 Strategies

Chapter 5HumanEnvironment

Chapter 4BiologicalEnvironment Appendices

USFWS

Chapter 3PhysicalEnvironment

Chapter 1Introduction andBackground

Chapter 2ManagementAlternatives, Goals, Objectives and Strategies

Chapter 6Environmental Effects

Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-1 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

2.1 Consideration in Alternative Designs 

During development of the alternatives for this Draft CCP/EA, the Service reviewed and considered 

a variety of resource, social, economic, and organizational aspects important for managing the 

Refuge. These background conditions are described more fully in Chapters 3, 4, and 5. As is 

appropriate for a national wildlife refuge, resource considerations were fundamental in designing 

alternatives. House Report 105-106 accompanying the Improvement Act states “ ... the fundamental 

mission of our System is wildlife conservation: wildlife and wildlife conservation must come first.” 

The Refuge’s planning team reviewed available scientific reports and studies to better understand 

ecosystem trends and the latest scientific recommendations for species and habitats. The team met 

with staff from local, State, Native American Tribes, and Federal agencies, and elected officials to 

ascertain priorities and problems as perceived by others. Refuge staff met with refuge users, 

nonprofit groups, and community organizations to ensure that their comments and ideas were 

considered during Draft CCP/EA development. 

2.2 Actions/Alternatives Considered but Not Developed 

The details of public participation can be found in Appendix L. During development of the 

alternatives, the planning team considered the actions detailed below. All of these actions were 

ultimately eliminated for the reasons provided. 

Restoration of Camas NWR to Pre-Settlement Conditions. Camas NWR uplands and wetlands 

functioned much differently prior to development of commercial agriculture and irrigation. Current 

alterations to the historic system have been substantial and include type conversion of thousands of 

acres of sagebrush habitat to crop production and depletion of spring flows and declining 

groundwater levels from the collective effect of drought, changes in surface-water irrigation acreage 

and practices, and groundwater pumping. These effects have led to major structural changes to the 

Camas NWR including: 

1. Altered hydrologic groundwater and surface water regimes 

2. Altered Camas Creek morphology and flows 

3. Fragmented landscapes 

4. Altered fire regimes 

Wetland, migratory birds, and other wetland-dependent wildlife species will remain a primary focus 

of refuge management. However, restoring the natural hydrology of the Camas NWR ecosystems is 

not practical at this time. A project of this magnitude would require major alterations that would 

affect many outside interests and involve considerable expense. Therefore the CCP will assess 

management options (alternatives) that mimic the natural formative hydrologic processes and provide 

variable extents of wetland habitats representative of the historic wetlands. 

Camas Creek and Watershed Restoration as Primary Management Emphasis: Restoration of 

unimpeded hydrologic processes throughout a large portion of Camas Creek was considered by the 

Service, but was not carried forward for detailed analysis. Although this scenario could result in 

benefits such as increased riparian habitat, an aesthetically pleasing view, improved water quality, 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-2 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

and a reconnected floodplain, it could also lead to the loss of prime wetland habitat at Camas NWR, 

thus falling short of refuge purpose and trust resource responsibilities, as well as the loss of senior 

water rights within the watershed. 

Many rivers and streams flowing from the north side of the Snake River plain are fed by mountain 

springs and snowmelt. As these rivers and streams reached the Snake River Plain they encounter 

areas where the water disappeared into the ground (sink) and provide direct recharge for the aquifer. 

If and when the aquifer was fully recharged the excess water would continue to flow across the 

landscape and eventually reach the Snake River. Currently, the Camas NWR provides the majority of 

sustainable wetland habitat in a group of watersheds called the lost streams of Idaho, or the “Sinks 

Basin.” Camas NWR plays a vital role in providing habitat for migratory bird species during 

breeding and migration within the “Sinks Basin.” It is for this reason that refuge staff must first focus 

on understanding and increasing aquatic health Refuge-wide before full watershed scale restoration 

can be addressed. Therefore the Service rejected a detailed analysis of this alternative. 

Upland Restoration as Primary Management Emphasis: The Service looked at the option of 

elevating upland restoration as the predominant habitat management emphasis of the Refuge, due to 

limitations in groundwater availability for wetland management. This alternative would have 

severely limited wetland and riparian habitat management and diverted available resources away 

from refuge purposes. The Service therefore rejected a detailed analysis of an upland emphasis 

alternative. However, an alternative where upland and wetland/riparian management have equal 

emphasis was developed by the Refuge. 

Livestock Grazing. Reassessing the use of cattle grazing on the Refuge to improve habitat was 

suggested during public scoping. Livestock grazing is an economic use that must support 

achievement of refuge purposes and the NWR System Mission in accordance with 50 CFR 29.1. 

Livestock grazing was not included in the alternatives, because under current management domestic 

livestock grazing as a management tool is not required to meet refuge objectives and was deemed 

incompatible with Camas NWR purposes in 1993. 

The Department of the Interior and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service were sued on October 22, 

1992, for alleged violations of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, the Refuge 

Recreation Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act. The suit alleged incompatible secondary 

uses were being permitted on nine refuges and that the Department of Interior was failing to follow 

legal requirements in allowing similar uses throughout the Refuge System. Livestock grazing was 

specifically cited in the suit as an incompatible secondary use at Camas NWR. 

The suit was settled out of court on October 20, 1993. The settlement agreement made several direct 

decisions on secondary uses on the national wildlife refuges identified in the suit. Through the 

settlement agreement, the Service discontinued grazing at Camas NWR in 1994. Grazing 

appropriateness and compatibility will not be re-evaluated in the development of the Camas NWR 

CCP/EA as a future management strategy on the Refuge. 

Expanding Off-Refuge Recreational Opportunities. Suggestions were made for the Refuge to 

work with the County to increase off-Refuge wildlife observation opportunities along the south and 

east boundaries of the Refuge for pedestrians, bicyclists, and others. The Fish and Wildlife Service 

has no jurisdiction over adjacent land at Camas NWR. While the CCP does assess alternatives to 

increase access and opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation on the Refuge, persons interested 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-3 

in off-Refuge outdoor activities and visitation would need to work with the State of Idaho, County, or 

private landowners. 

2.3 Alternative Descriptions

2.3.1 Features Common to All Alternatives 

All alternatives contain some common features. These are presented below to reduce the length and 

redundancy of the individual alternative descriptions. 

Implementation subject to funding availability.

Under each alternative, actions will be implemented 

over a period of fifteen years as funding becomes 

available. Project priorities, and funding needed to 

implement the CCP, are described in Appendix C. 

The Refuge will continue to work with partners to 

implement the CCP by sharing science, providing 

updates on successes and challenges, initiating 

discussions, encouraging participation, and hosting working groups.

State, local, and interagency coordination. Under all alternatives, the Service would continue to 

maintain regular discussions with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG). Key topics of 

discussion would include habitat management for waterfowl and other migratory birds; updates of 

waterfowl management plans; wildlife monitoring; hunting and fishing seasons and regulations; and 

management of Federal and State-listed species. 

Refuge management efforts, such as invasive species control and land and water acquisitions, will be 

coordinated with the adjacent Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) Mud Lake and Market 

Lake Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs), the Continental Divide Weed Management Area 

(CWMA), and Jefferson County, ID. 

Tribal coordination. The Service would coordinate and consult with the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes 

of Idaho on a regular basis regarding issues relating to the traditionally shared resource interests. The 

Service would also seek assistance from the Tribe, as needed, on issues related to cultural resources 

education and interpretation, special programs, and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). 

Maintain Waterfowl Habitat in Support of Pacific Flyway Planning Efforts. The Pacific Flyway 

Council (PFC) prepares management plans for populations of swans, geese, and sandhill cranes in 

the Pacific Flyway (www.pacificflyway.gov). These plans help State and Federal agencies 

cooperatively manage migratory game birds under common goals. Defining the role and extent of 

waterfowl habitat, including sanctuary areas (areas closed to hunting and significant disturbance from 

other public uses) is a component of Pacific Flyway waterfowl management plans. Camas NWR will 

continue to manage waterfowl habitat and will make adjustments as needed, in support of these plans 

(see Chapter 1). 

Maintenance and updating of existing facilities. Periodic maintenance and updating of refuge 

buildings and facilities will be necessary regardless of the alternative selected. Periodic updating of 

The CCP sets priorities for 

implementation. Actions will be 

implemented over a period of 15 

years as funding becomes available. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-4 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

facilities is necessary for safety and accessibility, reducing the Refuge’s carbon footprint, and to 

support staff and management needs. 

Adaptive Management. The Refuge will be using an adaptive management (AM) decision making 

process to implement management strategies authorized in the Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

(CCP). Adaptive management is a science-based public participation process for evaluating and 

adjusting a conservation effort relative to goal achievement as experience and knowledge are gained 

through implementation, study and discussion. The Refuge and its collaborative partners support the 

fact that AM promotes flexible decision making which can be adjusted in the face of uncertainties, as 

outcomes from management actions and other events become better understood. As the CCP is 

implemented, AM will help the Refuge achieve diverse goals while enhancing wildlife benefits, 

advancing scientific knowledge, and improving working relationships among stakeholders. 

The principle of AM is based on the recognition that ecosystem function is inherently complex and 

often results in knowledge gaps. AM implementation means a firm commitment to the development 

of measurable outcomes and the application of rigorous evaluation and monitoring methods to 

determine whether management goals are being met. Careful monitoring of these actions advances 

scientific understanding and helps adjust policies or operations as part of an on-going learning 

process. This is not a “trial and error” process but rather emphasizes “learning while doing,” which 

recognizes the importance of incorporating new information as it becomes available. AM requires 

flexibility and an ability to acknowledge risks/failures while using new knowledge in a constructive 

manner to make adjustments while building a foundation for ongoing learning/adjustment. 

The Refuge is committed to a rigorous and inclusive AM approach to enhance public confidence in 

the ability of the Refuge to transfer the theory to practice. The Refuge recognizes as it moves forward 

with CCP implementation that there is a critical need for transparency. This transparency, as it 

pertains to AM, needs to include both the learning and decision making processes. The following 

discussion describes how the Refuge will move forward through AM. 

 INFORMATION SHARING/LEARNING: The Refuge is committed to an AM process that 

will bring diverse interests together through various forums to share information and site 

specific results so that all those engaged, including the Refuge, can learn together. These 

forums will evolve through time but would include mechanisms such as the Aquatic Health 

Coalition, the Ecology Working Group and an evolution of the Collaborative Planning 

Group. The timing and frequency of information sharing/learning will be determined by how 

rapidly new information is being acquired, level of partners’ interest/engagement, ecological 

cycles and the forum being used. The Refuge will share the results of its inventory and 

monitoring work. Additionally, the Refuge will be responsive to partners’ requests for open 

discussion and collaboration in assessing the need for adaptive changes in management. 

 DECISION MAKING: As the Refuge and partners learn through the AM process, new 

information may show the need for adjustments, confirm existing strategies or identify 

additional information needs. Based on the best information available at the time, the Refuge 

will make decisions for future management actions. As with the sharing/learning aspects of 

AM, the Refuge recognizes the importance of transparency for decisions made during the 

AM process. The Refuge is committed to bringing together interested parties to assist with, 

the evaluation of available information and consultation about management options and their 

implications prior to making course changing decisions. This process does not diminish the 

Refuge’s legal authority to make decisions, but rather serves to enhance the decision making 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-5 

process by enabling the Refuge to approach issues from multiple perspectives, thereby 

finding creative solutions to complex challenges. 

Inventory and Monitoring. Current and proposed new inventorying and monitoring (I&M) policy 

(863 FW 1 to supersede 701 FW 2) requires refuges to prepare I&M plans. Refuge I&M plans have 

two sequential phases (parts): 

1. A prioritized list of surveys for approval by the refuge supervisor. 

2. Individual protocols based upon the finalized list of surveys. 

An interim (2014-2015) I&M goal (Goal 4), objectives (Objectives 4.1-4.4), and near-term strategies 

are developed for this CCP. A full I&M step down plan will be developed for Camas NWR in 2016. 

The Refuge I&M Plan will consist of three components. The first is a prioritized list of surveys and 

methods for a refuge. The second table provides a justification regarding how each survey informs 

refuge resource management decisions. The third table focuses on time frames (calendar) to complete 

training, fieldwork, data management and analyses, and reporting for each survey. 

Invasive species control. Because invasive plants and animals currently represent a threat to the 

Refuge’s wildlife and habitat, control of invasive species will be a high-priority management activity 

in all alternatives. State-listed noxious weeds would continue to be a primary management concern. 

Non-noxious weeds such as common mullein, horseweed, and tumble mustard also limit the Refuge’s 

ability to provide high-quality habitat for migratory birds and other trust species, and will be 

controlled to the degree that funding permits. Invasive species control will be initiated prior to or 

concurrently with habitat restoration efforts. The Refuge’s Integrated Pest Management Plan is 

included in this CCP (Appendix F). 

Integrated Pest Management (IPM). In accordance with 517 DM 1 and 569 FW 1, an integrated 

pest management (IPM) approach would be used, where practicable, to eradicate, control, or contain 

pest and invasive species (herein collectively referred to as pests) on refuge lands. IPM would 

involve using methods based upon effectiveness, cost, and minimal ecological disruption, which 

considers minimum potential effects to non-target species and the refuge environment. Pesticides 

may be used where physical, cultural, and biological methods or combinations thereof, are 

impractical or incapable of providing adequate control, eradication, or containment. If a pesticide 

would be needed on refuge lands, the most specific (selective) chemical available for the target 

species would be used unless considerations of persistence or other environmental and/or biotic 

hazards would preclude it. In accordance with 517 DM 1, pesticide usage would be further restricted 

because only pesticides registered with the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) in full 

compliance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and as provided in 

regulations, orders, or permits issued by USEPA may be applied on lands and waters under refuge 

jurisdiction. 

Environmental harm by pest species would refer to a biologically substantial decrease in 

environmental quality as indicated by a variety of potential factors including declines in native 

species populations or communities, degraded habitat quality or long-term habitat loss, and/or altered 

ecological processes. Environmental harm may be a result of direct effects of pests on native species 

including preying and feeding on them; causing or vectoring diseases; preventing them from 

reproducing or killing their young; out-competing them for food, nutrients, light, nest sites or other 

vital resources; or hybridizing with them so frequently that within a few generations, few if any truly 

native individuals remain. Environmental harm also can be the result of an indirect effect of pest 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-6 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

species. For example, decreased waterfowl use may result from invasive plant infestations reducing 

the availability and/or abundance of native wetland plants that provide forage during the winter. 

Environmental harm may involve detrimental changes in ecological processes. For example, 

cheatgrass infestations in shrub steppe greatly can alter fire return intervals, displacing native species 

and communities of bunch grasses, forbs, and shrubs. Environmental harm may also cause or be 

associated with economic losses and damage to human, plant, and animal health. For example, 

invasions by fire-promoting grasses that alter entire plant and animal communities by eliminating or 

sharply reducing populations of many native plant and animal species can also greatly increase firefighting costs. 

See Appendix F for the Refuge’s IPM program documentation to manage pests for this CCP. Along 

with a more detailed discussion of IPM techniques, this documentation describes the selective use of 

pesticides for pest management on refuge lands, where necessary. Throughout the life of the CCP, 

most proposed pesticide uses on refuge lands would be evaluated for potential effects to refuge 

biological resources and environmental quality. These potential effects would be documented in 

“Chemical Profiles” (see Appendix F). Pesticide uses with appropriate and practical best 

management practices (BMPs) for habitat management as well as cropland/facilities maintenance 

would be approved for use on refuge lands where there likely would be only minor, temporary, and 

localized effects to species and environmental quality based upon non-exceedance of threshold 

values in Chemical Profiles. Hazard analysis and critical control points planning (HACCP) is a tool 

to aid natural resource managers identify critical control points in their activities to decrease the 

spread of invasive species. The HACCP Wizard Version 2.04 (http://www.haccpnrm.org/Wizard/default.asp) will be used to construct plans for staff, contractors, volunteers, and 

other users of the Refuge to evaluate their activities and address ways to conduct their activities to 

limit the chance of spreading invasive species. 

Cooperative Farming. The Refuge will evaluate the use of cooperative agreements (CLMAs) for 

crop cultivation, haying, or the harvest of vegetative products, including plant life, growing with or 

without cultivation on the Refuge. CLMA are share-in-kind agreements whereby the cooperator is 

allowed to farm on the Refuge in exchange for work to benefit management of the Refuge (50 CFR 

29.2).

Water Rights. The right to use water on the Refuge is managed through the State of Idaho’s 

Department of Water Resources. Water rights in Idaho are managed by two basic principles: (1) first 

in time, first in right, and (2) beneficial use. All water use on the Refuge has some form of a State 

certified water right. To protect the habitats and values associated with springs, the Service will take 

steps to file a groundwater right under all alternatives. Refuge objectives are to obtain water supplies 

of adequate quantity and quality, and the legal rights to use that water, for development, use, and 

management of Service lands and facilities, and for other congressionally authorized objectives such 

as protection of endangered species and maintenance of instream flows (430 FW 1). 

These objectives will be achieved at Camas NWR by: a) Reviewing and documenting the need for 

and use of refuge water; b) Identifying and evaluating water rights appurtenant to, or which may be 

applied to beneficial use on, lands proposed for protection, restoration, enhancement, development, 

or acquisition; c) Asserting appropriative, riparian, vested, and reserved water rights in proper 

administrative and judicial forums; d) Submitting applications for new State appropriative water 

rights and changes to existing State appropriative water rights according to State law; e) Providing 

technical and evaluation data to the Solicitor and Department of Justice to resolve and water rights 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-7 

controversies that may develop through negotiation and litigation; f) Identifying and pursuing 

opportunities to acquire water through mitigation, settlement of potential or future litigation, 

legislation, or other means to satisfy Service objectives; and g) Communicating water rights technical 

and policy guidance to project leaders and Service managers. 

Removal of In-Stream Obstructions. The Refuge would accommodate downstream water users for 

the removal of in-stream obstructions in Camas Creek, as per the conditions of the Mud Lake Water 

Decree. 

Fire Management. The goal of fire management is to plan and implement actions that help 

accomplish the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. That mission is to administer a 

national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and, where appropriate, 

restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the 

benefit of present and future generations of Americans (095 FW 3.2). 

The current Southeast Idaho National Wildlife Refuge Complex Fire Management Plan (2009; 

Appendix G) is a working reference for fire program implementation that formally documents the 

fire management program elements. The Fire Management Plan is to be written to meet Department 

and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service requirements that every area with burnable vegetation must have 

an approved FMP. An approved FMP allows the Southeast Idaho National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

to consider a wide range of management responses to wildfires and to conduct prescribed fires; 

without it, prescribed fires cannot be conducted and only wildfire suppression strategies may be 

implemented. 

In compliance with the USFWS requirement that refuges review and/or revise fire management plans 

(FMPs) at a minimum of 5-year intervals or when significant changes are proposed, such as might 

occur if significant land use changes are made adjacent to USFWS lands (621 FW 2), the FMP will 

be revised within one year of CCP completion. The revised FMP will address objectives, strategies, 

and resource considerations that are identified in the CCP, for example use of prescribed fire, 

response to wildfire incidents, and rehabilitation/stabilization of areas burned by wildfire. The 

revised FMP would be a step down management plan from the CCP and is a fundamental strategic 

document that guides the full range of fire management related activities including organization, 

facilities, equipment, staffing needs, activities, timing, locations, and budgetary procedures. 

Law Enforcement. The goal of law enforcement at Camas NWR is to protect natural resources and 

maintain the peace and safety of the visitors and employees of the Refuge. Law enforcement 

activities will include patrols to establish and maintain an effective, professional, and courteous law 

enforcement presence to eliminate unauthorized uses by creating and fostering partnerships with the 

County Sheriff, IDFG, BLM, Tribe, and FS Law Enforcement to provide mutual aid benefits. The 

Service will investigate reports of violations in a timely fashion. 

Cultural resource protection and compliance. Cultural resource management is an integral part of 

Camas National Wildlife Refuge management, not just because the law mandates it but for the 

unique information it can bring to our understanding of the environment. 

Actions with the potential to affect cultural resources will undergo a thorough review before being 

implemented, consistent with the requirements of cultural resource laws. All ground-disturbing 

projects will undergo a review and compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-8 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

The following cultural resource issues are addressed in the goals and objectives of the Refuge’s 

Cultural Resource Management Plan (Appendix H): 

1. Maintaining the integrity of the Refuge’s cultural resources while managing and 

restoring wildlife habitat. 

2. Consulting with federally recognized tribes on the management of Native American 

cultural resources in a manner that facilitates the mission of the Refuge and addresses 

issues of importance to the Tribes. 

3. Working and consulting with federally recognized tribes on the disposition of human 

remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony as defined 

under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. 

4. Incorporating cultural resources into interpretive and educational programs that 

illustrate humankind’s interaction with the natural world. 

Climate Change. Refuge staff will participate in and contribute to climate change assessment 

efforts, including those underway at a landscape scale, such assessments being conducted by the 

Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative (LCC). LCCs are formal science-management 

partnerships consisting of the Service, other Federal agencies, states, tribes, NGOs, universities, and 

other entities. LCCs provide science support, biological planning, conservation design, research, and 

design of inventory and monitoring programs to address climate change and other environmental 

stressors in an integrated fashion. As needed, objectives and strategies will be adjusted to assist in 

enhancing refuge resources’ resiliency to climate change. Refuge staff will also continue to pursue 

and engage in efforts to reduce energy consumption in refuge operations, including the use of fuel 

efficient vehicles. 

Reduce the Refuge’s carbon footprint. The Service has developed a Strategic Plan for Responding 

to Accelerating Climate Change in the 21st Century (2010), and a five-year Action Plan outlining 

specific actions needed to implement the Strategic Plan. The Action Plan calls for the Service to 

make its operations carbon-neutral by 2020. The Refuge will work toward this goal by replacing its 

current vehicles with more fuel efficient vehicles, and by building appropriately sized, energy 

efficient facilities, as funding becomes available. The Refuge will also reduce the carbon footprint of 

land management activities by using energy-efficient techniques, where feasible and in line with 

management goals. The Refuge will also explore ways of offsetting any remaining carbon balance, 

such as carbon sequestration. 

Wilderness review. The Service’s CCP policy requires that a wilderness review be completed for all 

CCPs. If it is determined that the potential for wilderness designation is found, the process moves on 

to the wilderness study phase. As part of the process for this Draft CCP/EA, the planning team 

completed a wilderness review (Appendix D). This review concluded that the Refuge is not suitable 

for wilderness designation. 

Emphasis on wildlife-dependent public uses. The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration 

Act, as amended, mandates that NWRs provide wildlife-dependent public uses, including hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation and photography, interpretation, and environmental education, when 

these uses are compatible with the needs of wildlife. Therefore, providing compatible wildlifedependent public uses is a high priority in all alternatives. 

Volunteer opportunities and partnerships. Volunteer opportunities and partnerships are key 

components of the successful management of public lands, and are vital to refuge programs, plans, 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-9 

and projects, especially in times of static or declining budgets. In the future, successful 

implementation of native habitat restoration, inventory and monitoring, and environmental education 

and interpretation programs will require the use of partnerships and volunteers. 

Participation in planning and review of regional development activities. The Service will 

actively participate in planning and studies pertaining to future industrial and urban development, 

transportation, recreation, contamination, and other potential concerns that may affect refuge 

resources. The Service will continue to cultivate working relationships with county, State, and 

Federal agencies to stay abreast of current and potential developments, and will use outreach and 

education as needed to raise awareness of refuge resources and dependence on the local environment. 

The Refuge will ensure compliance with regulatory statutes, when local partnerships cannot resolve 

issues affecting refuge habitats. 

Land Protection and Conservation. We will participate in area conservation planning efforts in 

cooperation with other refuges; State, Federal, and local agencies; and interested parties to assess and 

identify land conservation priorities. Land conservation as part of the NWRS may include land 

protection such as fee title acquisition, conservation easements, and cooperative agreements. 

In all alternatives, the Service would work with local partnerships to identify and consider both small 

scale and landscape scale conservation priorities within Upper Snake River Area. The Service will 

foster social-ecological objectives to respond to and shape ecological change, by attempting to: 

understand the habitat needs of key wildlife species, understand effects of climate change, conserve 

water resources, increase groundwater recharge to benefit depleted water tables, decrease the 

dependence of non-renewable energy sources, and decrease soil erosion. 

Under all alternatives, a Preliminary Project Proposal (PPP) would be developed within three years 

of CCP completion. If the PPP by the USFWS Director is approved, a more detailed Land Protection 

Planning (LPP) process would then be initiated to address large-scale land protection alternatives and 

help to prioritize adjoining lands that are most critical for protection of refuge water quality and 

quantity; have the highest quality sage-steppe and wetland habitat; and provide the best opportunities 

for habitat restoration. The LPP strategies would be developed with input from the public, State, 

county, non-governmental organizations, and other refuge partners to ensure that any local land 

protection and acquisition occurs in a coordinated and efficient manner. A separate decision making 

NEPA process would consider a range of alternatives for possible new land protection efforts. Tools 

for land protection include easements, agreements, and fee title acquisition. 

On a smaller scale the Refuge will actively pursue land protection and acquisition within and 

adjacent to the boundary of Camas NWR. Land protection actions will be prioritized for: lands with 

existing commitments to purchase or protect; lands with active water rights attached to them; 

biological important habitat for wildlife species; significance of the area to refuge management and 

administration; and lands with existing or potential threats to wildlife habitat, which need to be 

remediated. 

2.3.2 Alternative Description Summary 

A brief description of each alternative follows. Maps displaying the three alternatives follow the 

alternatives descriptions. Maps 3-5 display habitat areas proposed under each alternative, while maps 

6-8 display public use facilities proposed under each alternative. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-10 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Alternative 1: Provide Breeding Habitat; Prioritize Non-Consumptive Wildlife-dependent 

Recreation (Current Management) 

Wildlife and Habitat: 

The Refuge would continue to be managed to provide consistent deep wetland habitats April through 

October, to support reliable levels of annual waterfowl production. Providing hemi-marsh habitat 

(habitat with approximately equal areas of emergent vegetation and open water) is the primary 

management emphasis, which frequently occurs at the expense of advancing management for 

improved riparian habitat function. Deeply flooded wetlands would be maximized by diverting 58.1 

cfs of Camas Creek surface flows, consistent with refuge water rights, from April through July in an 

average flow year, into six managed wetland impoundments. Groundwater pumping would 

compensate for surface water seepage into the ground, and would be used to maintain deep wetland 

habitat through October. 

Camas Creek would remain highly altered (diked and incised). Minimal overbank flooding would 

occur approximately one in every six years, in the late spring to early summer. Overbank flood 

events that inundate the historic Camas Creek floodplain on the Refuge would be rare (approximately 

once every 20 years). The majority of Camas Creek surface waters (58.1 cfs) would continue to be 

diverted into managed wetlands. Camas Creek flows below the diversion structure would only occur 

above 58.1 cfs when additional flow is released past the diversion structure downstream through 

Camas Creek (In an average year Camas Creek flows below the refuge point-of-diversion would be 

expected to occur for only 3 to 6 weeks). Species benefiting from the resulting riparian habitat are 

migratory land birds, upland game birds, and big game species. 

Upland habitats (sage steppe and grasslands) management would be minimal. Upland maintenance 

and protection would occur through invasive species control and monitoring. Areas of upland habitat 

impacted by wildfire, and 90 acres of previously farmed lands that are now in brome and quack grass 

monocultures, would be rehabilitated with native grasses and shrubs. 

Shelterbelt habitats would be managed for tall mature cottonwoods with a native understory of 

smaller trees and shrubs for the benefit of migratory landbirds. Cottonwoods within naturalized 

shelterbelt habitats would continue to be irrigated and large trees near the end of their life-span would 

be replaced. Non-native shelterbelt understory trees and shrubs would continue to be replaced with 

species that are native to Idaho. 

The Refuge would cooperatively farm about 160 acres in the Well #7 and #9 fields, consisting of 140 

acres of irrigated alfalfa and 20 acres of irrigated small grain for waterfowl, cranes, upland game 

birds, and big game species that inhabit the Refuge. The Refuge would use cooperative farming 

agreements with area farmers to plant agricultural fields using refuge-owned irrigation equipment 

(Well #7 Field) and privately owned irrigation equipment (Well #9 Field). Approximately 330 acres 

of formerly farmed fields would be flood-irrigated annually, and 150 acres of these fields would be 

hayed annually. 

Public Use: 

The Refuge would continue to provide quality wildlife observation and photography opportunities. 

Wildlife observation prospects are enhanced by the maintenance of a 1⁄2 mile birding trail within 

shelterbelt habitat and a viewing platform overlooking Camas Creek riparian habitat. A 6.3 mile, 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-11 

two-way auto tour route is maintained year round, but may be closed at times in winter due to ice or 

snow. In addition to the auto tour route, 6.5 miles of refuge roads (leading to and within the north and 

south waterfowl and upland game bird hunting areas) are open to vehicle and pedestrian traffic 

during the hunt season. Year-round hiking, biking, jogging, cross-country skiing, and/or snowshoeing 

are allowed on approximately 27 miles of unimproved service roads. Off-road hiking is permitted 

throughout the Refuge from July 15 through February 28. Dog walking, with pets on leash or under 

close control, is allowed in areas where other public uses occur. Horseback riding is prohibited. 

(Although the use of horses by grazing permittees on the Refuge was once allowed, this was 

discontinued when the grazing program was terminated in 1994. The Refuge has never been 

officially opened to horseback riding by the general public.) 

There are currently no Environmental Education (EE) facilities or staff dedicated to EE. Currently 

the refuge manager provides refuge tours and educational programs upon request. Approximately six 

to ten programs are provided annually, reaching 150 to 200 students annually. Volunteers currently 

provide environmental education programs to an additional 250 students annually. While the Refuge 

relies on a small cadre of dedicated volunteers to run educational and other programs, the size of the 

volunteer program is currently limited by lack of staff to recruit, train, and manage volunteers. 

The Refuge would continue to provide limited opportunities for hunting of migratory game birds 

(ducks, geese, mergansers, American coots, and Wilson’s snipe) and upland game birds (ring-necked 

pheasants, gray partridge, and sage-grouse) on two separate units totaling approximately 2,510 acres. 

Big game hunting is not allowed. 

Visitor information would continue to be disseminated through a self-serve informational kiosk 

collocated with an adjoining comfort station and paved parking area. There is a small visitor contact 

area in the refuge office that is staffed on weekdays during normal business hours when employees 

are available. 

Alternative 2: Increase Variability of Wetland Habitats; Increase Wildlife-dependent 

Recreation Opportunities (Preliminary Preferred Alternative) 

Wildlife and Habitat: 

The Refuge would provide a more diverse array of wetland, riparian, and upland habitats for not only 

waterfowl, but a variety of migratory birds and other wildlife. 

Over the next four years, as the Refuge develops a wetland and riparian rehabilitation plan (see 

below), wetlands would be managed in a more dynamic nature. Of the six refuge wetland 

impoundments, no more than three to four would be annually deep flooded for hemi-marsh habitat, 

with two to three impoundments annually drawn-down dry, and one to two impoundments managed 

as seasonally flooded shallow marsh habitat. This would simultaneously provide more natural 

variability in wetland habitats, while reducing the Refuge’s dependency upon groundwater pumping.

Using the results of site-specific assessments, hydrogeomorphic (HGM) modeling, and pilot projects, 

the Refuge would develop a long-term rehabilitation plan for Camas Creek and refuge wetlands 

(Wetland and Riparian Rehabilitation Plan) by 2017. Under this plan, water would be managed to 

mimic natural variability in hydrologic processes, while simultaneously conserving groundwater 

resources and rehabilitating partial riparian habitat function. An engineering feasibility study, using 

the results of HGM modeling (scheduled for completion in the next two years) would be used to 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-12 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

determine the best engineering solution to achieve this goal. Using the results of these studies, 

wetland management and infrastructure (e.g., dikes, levees, ditches) would be removed, modified, or 

relocated to restore, where possible, the partial historic extent of some shallow marsh and wet 

meadow habitats. New diversion structures and additional points of diversion would be constructed 

to increase the efficacy of water delivery. This infrastructure would only partially deflect Camas 

Creek flows into managed wetland areas, while simultaneously allowing partial flow to remain in the 

Camas Creek channel. As in Alternative 1, groundwater pumping would still be used to compensate 

for losses of surface water to groundwater seepage. However, supplemental pumping efforts would 

attempt to mimic shallower seasonal wetlands, rather than an expansive deep hemi-marsh. 

The goal of Camas Creek restoration would be a partial reinstatement of historic habitat function, 

including increased frequency, duration and extent of overbank flows. Under this alternative, 

assessments and pilot projects necessary to develop the Wetland and Riparian Rehabilitation Plan 

would be completed as funding, staff time, and resources allow. The Service would consult with a 

large range of riparian experts, evaluate an array of possible enhancement scenarios, and use results 

of pilot projects to develop the Plan. Immediate actions within four years of CCP completion may 

include a pilot project to partially lower the bank berms of Camas Creek in strategic locations. In 

average or abundant water years, the Refuge would balance Camas Creek diversions between 

wetland and riparian management needs to ensure partial riparian flow and function below the refuge 

diversion points. 

Inventory and monitoring efforts would place high priority on information that assists the Refuge in 

building a baseline data layer that could be used in pursuing riparian rehabilitation activities while 

furthering our understanding of adjacent habitats. More in-depth, site-specific assessments would be 

done if opportunities arise (e.g., funding availability and additional refuge staff). 

Efforts to stabilize and rehabilitate upland habitats (sage-steppe and native grassland) would increase, 

but this would be lower priority and subordinate to the primary refuge emphasis on wetland 

management. The Refuge would not dismiss opportunities for large-scale efforts (described in 

Alternative 3) to restore habitat connectivity, function, and processes, but wetland and riparian 

rehabilitation would remain the management priority. Therefore large-scale upland habitat 

management would occur only as additional funding and time allows. Upland rehabilitation in this 

Alternative would be similar to Alternative 1 in scope and acreage, but in addition, small test plot (<1 

acre) experimental restorations of sagebrush habitat components would be implemented in areas 

dominated by crested wheatgrass. 

Similar to Alternative 1, the headquarters shelterbelt habitat would be managed for tall mature 

naturalized cottonwoods and for native trees and shrubs within the understory. However, the Refuge 

would not initiate replacement of tall mature cottonwood trees or native understory trees and shrubs 

until additional supplemental funding sources were secured. Native tree plantings would be irrigated 

by renewable energy drip irrigation in the same location where current groundwater irrigation 

capabilities exist. 

Farming would predominately continue on the Refuge as characterized in Alternative 1, with the 

Refuge farming 160 acres within the Well #7 field (80 acres of which 20 are small grain and 60 acres 

alfalfa) and the Well #9 field (80 acres of irrigated alfalfa). The Refuge would continue to use 

cooperative farming agreements with area farmers to plant agricultural fields using refuge-owned 

irrigation equipment (Well #7 Field) and privately owned irrigation equipment (Well #9 Field). 

Agriculture fields would be rotated after two consecutive years of cropping small grains into a six-
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-13 

year alfalfa planting. Should the current cooperative farmer decide to no longer farm the Refuge and 

remove his irrigation equipment, the Refuge would attempt to purchase irrigation equipment and 

continue to cooperatively irrigate and farm the Well #9 Field. Should the Refuge be unable to acquire 

irrigation equipment, the Alternative 2 contingency is to implement rotational dryland farming 

practices on the Well #9 Field for 20 to 40 acres of dryland grain and 20 to 40 acres of dryland 

alfalfa. Approximately 45 percent (150 acres) of formerly farmed fields would be irrigated and hayed 

annually. 

Public Use: 

The Refuge would expand quality wildlife observation and photography opportunities. The existing 

1⁄2 mile shelterbelt birding trail would be lengthened to 1.3 miles and the existing viewing platform 

within Camas Creek riparian habitat would be maintained. The use of personal portable photo blinds 

would be allowed on the Refuge within 100 feet of refuge roads or trails. 

As in Alternative 1, a 6.3-mile auto tour route would be maintained year round; however the route 

would be changed from two-way to one-way. 6.5 miles of refuge roads (leading to the north and 

south waterfowl and upland game hunting units) would be open to vehicle and pedestrian access 

during hunt seasons. No additional refuge roads would be open to vehicle traffic. Year-round hiking, 

biking, jogging, cross-country skiing, or snowshoeing would be allowed on approximately 27 miles 

of unmaintained and ungroomed refuge service roads as conditions permit. To avoid disturbances to 

wildlife and their habitat, off-road hiking would be prohibited, except by hunters with valid State 

licenses in the hunt areas during State seasons. Dog walking would be allowed only on roads that are 

open to public use, and dogs would be required to be on a leash or functional electronic collar at all 

times. As in Alternative 1, horseback riding would be prohibited. 

A small visitor contact station, environmental education multi-purpose room, and refuge office would 

be constructed. One new full-time position stationed at Camas NWR would be dedicated to the 

expansion of the Refuge’s Environmental Education program. A new Visitor Services Manager 

position, stationed at the SE Idaho Complex office, would be created to recruit, train, and oversee 

volunteers, allowing the volunteer program to expand. With these additional facilities, staffing, and 

volunteers, the Refuge would serve up to 800 students annually within ten years, and offer volunteerled tours to an additional 200-300 visitors annually. 

Opportunities for migratory game bird and upland game bird hunting are the same as in Alternative 1. 

The Refuge would allow hunting of elk on 4,112 acres by issuing up to 20 elk hunting access permits 

annually. Priority would be given to youth and mobility impaired hunters. The permit system would 

allow us to provide a safe, quality, and uncrowded hunt that assists IDFG in reducing elk depredation 

on nearby agricultural lands and reduces the potential for elk damage to the Refuge’s riparian habitat. 

Alternative 3: Increase Variability of Wetland Habitats; Restore Upland Habitats; Increase 

Wildlife-dependent Recreation Opportunities:

Wildlife and Habitat: 

The Refuge would provide a more diverse array of wetland, riparian, and upland habitats for not only 

waterfowl, but a variety of migratory birds and other wildlife. Wetland and riparian management, 

including short-term changes to management of wetland impoundments, and a long-term 

rehabilitation plan for Camas Creek and refuge wetlands, would occur as described in Alternative 2. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-14 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Similar to Alternative 2, inventory and monitoring efforts would place high priority on collecting 

data needed to implement riparian rehabilitation activities. 

In Alternative 3, upland (sage-steppe and native grassland), wetland, and riparian habitats would 

receive equal management emphasis. Actions described in Alternatives 1 and 2 for wetland and 

riparian habitats would continue. As in Alternative 2, the Refuge would develop a long-term 

rehabilitation plan for Camas Creek and refuge wetlands (Wetland and Riparian Rehabilitation Plan) 

by 2017. In addition, the Refuge would emphasize restoring landscape connectivity within sagebrush 

ecosystems to support and maintain integrated wildlife communities. Upland management would 

strongly emphasize maintaining and restoring structural and functional attributes of sage-steppe 

habitat. Thus the best results would come from matching management questions to a mix of 

technologies and methods based on the scale of the question. Inventory and monitoring efforts in this 

Alternative would also assess sage-steppe habitat and wildlife attributes at multiple scales. 

Existing naturalized shelterbelt habitat would continue to be maintained to provide habitat for 

migratory landbirds and maintain quality wildlife viewing opportunities. Over time, non-native trees 

and shrubs would be replaced with native trees and shrubs that provide similar habitat attributes. 

Cottonwoods would continue to be irrigated within the refuge shelterbelt habitat to reduce mortality 

of mature trees. Replacement cottonwoods and native understory trees and shrubs would be planted 

in existing stands as mature trees and shrubs die off. The Refuge would seek outside funding sources 

to maintain existing shelterbelt habitat and expand this habitat on the periphery of the existing stand, 

adjacent to current irrigation infrastructure. 

Within the next eight years, acres of cooperative farming on the Refuge would decrease from 160 

acres to 80 acres (60 of irrigated alfalfa and 20 acres of irrigated small grain) for use by waterfowl, 

cranes, upland game birds and big game species that inhabit the Refuge. Eighty acres of farmland 

would be slowly restored back to a native sage-steppe community. This would be accomplished by 

restoring 20 acres every two years until all 80 acres are returned to a native plant community. As in 

Alternative 2, agriculture fields would be rotated after two consecutive years of cropping small grains 

into a six-year alfalfa planting. 

The Refuge’s 330 acres of formerly farmed fields would no longer be irrigated. Haying would occur 

on up to 150 acres of dryland meadows annually, without irrigation. 

Public Use: 

The Refuge would expand quality wildlife observation and photography opportunities. As in 

Alternative 2, the existing 1⁄2 mile shelterbelt birding trail would be expanded to 1.3 miles and the 

existing viewing platform within Camas Creek riparian habitat would continue to be maintained. As 

in Alternative 2, the use of personal portable photo blinds would be allowed on the Refuge within 

100 feet of refuge roads or trails. In addition, three new semipermanent photo blinds would be 

established with input from local photographers. Blinds would be available by reservation. 

As in Alternative 2, a 6.3-mile, one-way auto tour route would be maintained year round, and 6.5 

miles of refuge roads (leading to the north and south waterfowl and upland game hunting units) 

would be open to vehicle and pedestrian access during hunt seasons. In addition, the Refuge would 

open the 7.5 mile Sandhole Lake loop road seasonally (July 1-Nov 1) for vehicle traffic. Year-round 

hiking, biking, jogging, cross-country skiing, or snowshoeing would be allowed on approximately 27 

miles of unmaintained and ungroomed refuge service roads as conditions permit. Ten miles of these 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-15 

service roads would be groomed in winter. Off-road hiking would be allowed year round on the north 

waterfowl and upland game hunting unit (980 acres), and January 1-July 31 in the south waterfowl and 

upland game hunting unit (1,530 acres). Off-road hiking would be prohibited on the rest of the Refuge 

to avoid disturbances to wildlife and their habitat. As in Alternative 2, dog walking would be allowed 

only on roads that are open to public use, and dogs would be required to be on a leash or functional 

electronic collar at all times. As in Alternatives 1 and 3, horseback riding would be prohibited. 

A new visitor contact station would be constructed with environmental education multi-purpose room 

and a new refuge office. The visitor contact station would be staffed during peak wildlife viewing 

seasons or special events by volunteers and/or the Friends Group of Camas NWR. Two new positions 

would be created to advance environmental education and volunteer programs on the Refuge. As in 

Alternative 2, the new Environmental Education position would be stationed at Camas NWR. The 

additional Volunteer Coordinator position would be stationed at the Southeast Idaho NWR Complex 

in Pocatello Idaho. With additional staff and facilities the Refuge could serve up to 2,000 students 

annually within ten years, and offer volunteer-led tours to an additional 400 visitors annually. 

Opportunities for migratory game bird and upland game bird hunting are the same as in Alternative 1. 

As in Alternative 2, the Refuge would allow hunting of elk on 4,112 acres by issuing up to 20 elk 

hunting access permits annually. Priority would be given to youth and mobility impaired hunters. The 

permit system would allow us to provide a safe, quality and uncrowded hunt that assists IDFG in 

reducing elk depredation on nearby agricultural lands and reduces the potential for elk damage to the 

Refuge’s riparian habitat. 

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-16 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

This page intentionally left blank. 

 
Habitats, Alternative 1, Current Management

0 0.5 1 2

Miles

C

a

m as Cre

e

k

Map 3. 

§ ̈¦I-15

Legend

Open Water

Hemi-Marsh

Shallow Marsh

Riparian

Shelterbelt

Wet Meadow

Lowland Non-Native

Shrub Steppe

Shrub Steppe Restoration

Upland Non-Native

Hay

Co-op Farming

Developed

Refuge Boundary

Inholding

______________________________________________________________________________________________ Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

______________________________________________________________________________________________

2-17
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-18 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

This page intentionally left blank. 

 
Map 4. Habitats, Alternative 2, Preferred Alternative

0 0.5 1 2

Miles

C

a

m as Cre

e

k

Test Site

§ ̈¦I-15

Legend

Open Water

Hemi-Marsh

Shallow Marsh

Riparian

Shelterbelt

Wet Meadow

Lowland Non-Native

Shrub Steppe

Shrub Steppe Restoration

Upland Non-Native

Hay

Co-op Farming

Developed

Inholding

Refuge Boundary

Upland Restoration 

______________________________________________________________________________________________ Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

______________________________________________________________________________________________

2-19
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-20 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

This page intentionally left blank. 

 
Map 5. Habitats, Alternative 3

0 0.5 1 2

Miles

C

a

m

as Creek

§ ̈¦I-15

Legend

Open Water

Hemi-Marsh

Shallow Marsh

Riparian

Shelterbelt

Wet Meadow

Lowland Non-Native

Shrub Steppe

Shrub Steppe Restoration

Upland Non-Native

Hay

Co-op Farming

Developed

Refuge Boundary

Inholding

______________________________________________________________________________________________ Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

______________________________________________________________________________________________

2-21
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-22 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

This page intentionally left blank. 

 
______________________________________________________________________________________________ Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

______________________________________________________________________________________________

2-23

Public Use, Alternative 1, Current Management

I-I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I-

!i

!i !i

!i

!i

!i

Legend

Service Roads (Closed to vehicle traffic)

Auto Tour Route

Roads open to vehicles year-round

Hunting and Wildlife Observation Road

Birding Trail

Gate and Access

Refuge Boundary

!@ Headquarters and Information

Waterfowl and Upland Bird Hunting Areas

!] Info Kiosk

I- Pull-out / Information Sign

!i Parking

0 0.475 0.95 1.9

Miles

I- I- I- I- I- 

I- I- I-

!]I- 

C

a

m as Cre

e

k

Headquarters/

Birding Trail

§ ̈¦I-15 !@

!@

Map 6.

Two Way
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-24 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

This page intentionally left blank. 

 
Public Use, Alternative 2, Preferred Alternative

I-I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I-

!i

!i !i

!i

!i

!i

Legend

Service Roads (Closed to vehicle traffic)

Auto Tour Route

Roads open to vehicles year-round

Hunting and Wildlife Observation Road

Existing Birding Trail (in inset map)

Proposed Birding Trail 

Gate and Access

Refuge Boundary

!@ Headquarters and Information

Elk Hunt Area

Waterfowl and Upland Bird Hunting Areas

!] Info Kiosk

I- Pull-out / Information Sign

!i Parking

0 0.5 1 2

Miles

I- I- I- I- I- 

I- I- I-

!]I- 

One Way

C

a

m as Cre

e

k

Headquarters/

Birding Trail

§ ̈¦I-15 !@

!@

Map 7.

______________________________________________________________________________________________ Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

______________________________________________________________________________________________

2-25
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-26 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

This page intentionally left blank. 

 
Public Use, Alternative 3

I-I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I-

!i

!i !i

!i

!i

!i

Legend

Service Roads (Closed to vehicle traffic)

Auto Tour Route

Roads open to vehicles year-round

Hunting and Wildlife Observation Road

Sandhole Lake Loop

Existing Birding Trail (in inset map)

Proposed Birding Trail 

Gate and Access

Refuge Boundary

!@ Headquarters and Information

Elk Hunt Area

Waterfowl and Upland Bird Hunting Areas

!] Info Kiosk

I- Pull-out / Information Sign

!i Parking

0 0.5 1 2

Miles

I- I- I- I- I- 

I- I- I-

!]I- 

One Way

C

a

m as Cre

e

k

Headquarters/

Birding Trail

§ ̈¦I-15 !@

!@

Map 8.

______________________________________________________________________________________________ Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

______________________________________________________________________________________________

2-27
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-28 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-29 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Table 2.1. Comparison and Summary of Management Alternatives Alternative 1 (No-Action Alternative) Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) Alternative 3 Alternative Theme Provide Breeding Habitat; Prioritize Non-Consumptive Wildlife- dependent Recreation Increase Variability of Wetland Habitats; Increase Wildlife- dependent Recreation Opportunities Increase Variability of Wetland Habitats; Restore Upland Habitats; Increase Wildlife- dependent Recreation Opportunities 

NATIVE 

WETLAND 

HABITAT 

MANAGEMENT 

ALL 

WETLANDS From 2014-2017 develop Wetland and Riparian Rehabilitation Plan to reestablish dynamic wetlands and sustainable fluvial riparian system 

1. 2014-2015: Assess hydrologic, geomorphic, and biologic features associated with target wetland systems

2. 2014-2017: Implement wetland pilot projects to evaluate biological and physical responses to management3. By 2017: Develop a decision support system to identify management objectives to rehabilitate wetland habitats 

HEMI-MARSH For the life of the plan: 

a) Maintain 840 acres annually b) Manage deep-flooded Hemi-Marsh in 6 wetland basins (783 acres) annually c) Draw-down 0 wetland basins annually 

For the next 4 years (2014-2017): a) Decrease to 285 acres (range: 250-300 acres) annually b) Manage deep-flooded Hemi-marsh in 3-4 wetland basins annually c) Draw-down 2-3 wetland basins annually 

SHALLOW 

MARSH For the life of the plan, maintain 1,213 

acres of seasonal and semipermanent wetlands in managed wetland basins. 

For the life of the plan, maintain 1,743-1,803 acres of seasonal and semipermanent wetlands in managed wetland basins. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-30 

Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Alternative 1 

(No-Action Alternative) 

Alternative 2 

(Preferred Alternative) 

Alternative 3 

SEASONALLY 

FLOODED 

SHALLOW 

MARSH

(MOIST 

SOIL) 

For the life of the plan, maintain 40-60 acres in 2 wetland basins annually 

For the next 4 years (2014-2017), increase to 150-200 acres in 1-2 wetland basins annually 

WET 

MEADOW For the life of the plan, maintain 1,958 acres of existing wet meadow habitat. 

For the life of the plan, enhance 60-70 acres 

For the next 4 years (2014-2017), enhance 80-100 acres 

WILLOW 

SHRUBLAND For the life of the plan, maintain and enhance 239-259 acres of willow shrubland associated with refuge wetlands (e.g., 

Rays Lake, Sandhole Lake). 

RIPARIAN 

CAMAS 

CREEK(I

N-STREAM AND 

WILLOW 

RIPARIAN) 

For the life of the plan: a) Maintain 4 miles in-stream habitat b) Maintain 20-40 acres of willow riparian habitat associated with Camas Creek. 

For the next 4 years (2014-2017): a) Maintain and restore 8 miles in-stream habitat b) Maintain and restore 100-150 acres of willow riparian habitat associated with Camas Creek. 

Divert 58.1 cfs through 1 point-ofdiversion on Camas Creek for impounded wetland habitat 

Between 2014 and 2017 implement pilot project to lower the banks of Camas Creek in strategic locations to restore more natural and efficient wetland hydrology. 

NATIVE 

UPLAND 

HABITAT 

MANAGEMENT 

SHRUB 

STEPPE 

(SAGEBRUSH) 

For the lifetime of the plan, maintain 2,623 acres of existing sagebrush-steppe habitat. Rehabilitate and restore 113 acres of degraded or altered sagebrush steppe habitat Rehabilitate and restore 425 acres Maintain rehabilitation and restoration efforts as a subordinate priority to wetland management 

Slightly increase rehabilitation and restoration efforts as a subordinate priority to wetland management 

Dramatically increase rehabilitation and restoration efforts as a co-equal priority to wetland management 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-31 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Alternative 1 (No-Action Alternative) Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) Alternative 3 Increase diversity and habitat function within altered crested wheatgrass habitats Increase ecological integrity within the Upper Snake Ecoregion 

NATURALIZED 

HABITAT 

MANAGEMENT 

SHELTERBELT Maintain 34 acres in current location Expand to 50 acres along the 

periphery of existing habitat 

Groundwater irrigation Use refuge base funding for shelterbelt management 

Partial groundwater and micro-irrigation Develop supplemental funding to support shelterbelt management 

Groundwater irrigation Use refuge base funding for shelterbelt management 

AGRICULTURAL 

HABITAT 

MANAGEMENT 

WELL #7

FIELD 

(SMALL 

GRAIN AND 

ALFALFA) 

Use Cooperative Land Management Agreements (CLMA) with local farmers and refuge irrigation equipment to farm: 

Total 80 acres Grain: 20 acres (irrigated) Alfalfa: 60 acres (irrigated) 

Rotate irrigated grain crop with alfalfa (2 years grain/6 years alfalfa) in Well #7 field 

WELL #9

FIELD 

(ALFALFA AND 

RESTORATION) 

Use Cooperative Land Management Agreement (CLMA) with local farmers and privately owned irrigation equipment to farm: Total 80 acres Alfalfa: 80 acres (irrigated) 

Restore Well #9 Field to native shrub steppe habitat, 20 acres every two years, until all 80 acres completed. 

Implement rotational dryland farming practices, should Refuge be unable to acquire irrigation equipment. Grain: 20-40 acres (dryland) Alfalfa: 20-40 acres (dryland) 

HAY Irrigate 330 acres (100%) of formerly 

farmed fields annually. 

Irrigate 150 acres (45%) of formerly farmed fields annually. 

Do not irrigate formerly farmed fields. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-32 

Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Alternative 1 

(No-Action Alternative) 

Alternative 2 

(Preferred Alternative) 

Alternative 3 

Hay 150 irrigated acres annually Hay up to 150 dryland acres 

annually. 

LAND 

PROTECTION AND 

CONSERVATION (ALL 

ALTERNATIVES) 

PRELIMINARY 

PROJECT 

PROPOSAL

Develop Preliminary Project Proposal (PPP) within 3 years of CCP completion 

LANDSCAPE PROTECTION 

PLAN

Upon PPP approval, develop an LPP to address land protection alternatives and prioritize adjoining lands that are most critical for protection of refuge water quality and quantity; have the highest quality sage-steppe and wetland habitat; and provide the best opportunities for habitat restoration. 

INVASIVE 

SPECIES 

CONTROL (ALL 

ALTERNATIVES) 

INVASIVE 

SPECIES 

CONTROL

Continue to control State-listed noxious weeds and non-noxious weeds (e.g., common mullein, common teasel, horseweed, and tumble mustard) to the degree that funding permits.

FIRE 

MANAGEMENT (ALL 

ALTERNATIVES) 

FIRE 

SUPPRESSION AND 

FUELS 

MANAGEMENT 

Consider a full range of appropriate suppression strategies and conduct prescribed fires for hazardous fuels and habitat management. 

EMERGENCY STABILIZATION AND REHABILITATION 

Implement emergency stabilization and burned area rehabilitation, which also includes suppression activity, damage repair, and long-term (>3 years) restoration, as part of a holistic approach to addressing post wildfire issues. 

WATER 

RESOURCES (ALL 

ALTERNATIVES) 

WATER RIGHTS Obtain water supplies of adequate quantity and quality, and the legal rights to use that water, for development, use, and 

management of Service lands and facilities, and for other congressionally authorized objectives such as protection of endangered species and maintenance of instream flows. 

IN-STREAM OBSTRUCTIONS 

Accommodate downstream water users for the removal of in-stream obstructions in Camas Creek, as per the conditions 

of the Mud Lake Water Decree. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-33 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Alternative 1 (No-Action Alternative) Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) Alternative 3

INVENTORY, MONITORING, SCIENTIFIC 

ASSESSMENTS, AND 

RESEARCH

INVENTORY AND MONITORING 

STEP 

DOWN 

PLAN

Conduct interim (2014-2015) I&M objectives for: 

 Prioritized baseline inventories of vegetation and wildlife  Adaptive management at refuge and landscape scales  Prioritized surveys of wildlife and habitats for focal or rare species 

or species groups 

 Recruiting qualified researchers and funding to conduct highpriority research projects.

Develop Inventory and Monitoring step down plan for Camas NWR by 2016. The Refuge I&M Plan would consist of 3 components: 1. A prioritized list of surveys and methods for the Refuge. 2. A justification regarding how each survey informs refuge resource management decisions. 3. A time frame (calendar) to complete training, fieldwork, data management and analyses, and reporting for each survey. 

WELCOME AND 

ORIENT 

VISITORS

WELCOME AND ORIENTATION 

Provide self-service orientation facilities and a comfort station for visitors. Provide small visitor contact area in refuge office. 

Construct new visitor contact station and environmental education multipurpose room staffed by Friends of Camas NWR volunteers. Create an on-site Visitor Services staff position (Park Ranger) to develop and deliver outreach and visitor services programs. 

WILDLIFE 

OBSERVATION AND 

WILDLIFE/NATURE 

PHOTOGRAPHY 

TOUR 

OPPORTUNITIES Self-guided only Self-guided and refuge volunteer–led tours 

AUTO 

TOUR 

ROUTE AND 

VEHICULAR 

ACCESS 

6.3 mile year-long, two-way auto tour route with pullouts, interpretive panels 

6.3 mile year-long, one-way auto tour route with pullouts and interpretive panels 

6.5 miles of roads open to vehicle and pedestrian access during hunt seasons (Roads leading to and within the north and south migratory game bird/upland game bird hunt units) 

14 miles of seasonally open roads (Re-open 7.5 mile Sandhole Lake loop road, July 1-Nov 1 in addition to the 6.5 seasonally open in Alternatives 1 and 2) 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-34 

Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Alternative 1

(No-Action Alternative)

Alternative 2

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 3

BIRDING 

TRAIL 0.5 mile 1.3 mile 

TRAILS (WALKING,BICYCLING, CROSSCOUNTRY 

SKIING,

SNOWSHOEING) 

27 miles of service roads open year round to hiking, jogging, bicycling, cross-country skiing, and snowshoeing, weather and conditions permitting Unmaintained and Ungroomed 17 miles Unmaintained 

10 miles Groomed (For Cross-country Skiing) 

OFF-ROAD 

HIKING Allowed July 15-February 28 

10,806 acres (entire Refuge) 

Off-road hiking prohibited, except by hunters with valid State licenses in hunt areas, during hunt seasons

As in Alternative 2, except: Off-road hiking allowed year round on 980 acres (north waterfowl/upland game hunt unit); Jan 1-July 31 in the south waterfowl and upland game hunting unit (1,530 acres) 

ELEVATED 

VIEWING 

PLATFORMS

1 wildlife observation platform at Camas Creek, near refuge HQ 

PHOTOGRAPHY BLINDS No blinds Up to 5 personal portable blinds for 

photography would be allowed on the Refuge at any given time. Blinds must be placed within 100 feet of a refuge road. 

As in Alternative 2, but in addition: 3 semipermanent photo blinds available by reservation 

GUIDED 

WILDLIFE 

VIEWING 

TOURS

No tours 8 tours annually 12 tours annually 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

EDUCATION AND INTERPRETATION

MEMBERS 

OF 

PUBLIC 

REACHED 

ANNUALLY 

400-500 1,000-1,000 2,000-2,400 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-35 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Alternative 1 (No-Action Alternative) Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) Alternative 3

STUDENTS IN EEPROGRAMSANNUALLY

250 students 800 students within first 10 years of 

facility development 

2,000 students within first 10 years of facility development 

WILDLIFE 

BASED 

EDUCATIONAL 

TOURS 

6-10 Tours Refuge staff led 150-200 Participants 

10-15 Tours Refuge staff and volunteer led 200-300 Participants 

20 Tours Refuge staff and volunteer led 400 Participants 

STAFFING No staff dedicated to public use, 

environmental education 

Staff 1 full-time Camas NWR Park Ranger position Coordinate program and develop refuge-specific curricula 

Refuge manager recruits, coordinates, trains volunteers (limited capacity) 

Staff full-time Southeast NWRC Volunteer Coordinator position Oversee recruitment and training of refuge volunteers 

FACILITIES No facilities dedicated to EE. Construct a combined refuge office, small visitor contact station, and 

environmental education multi-purpose classroom. 

HUNTING

HUNT 

TYPE/ACRES Waterfowl, upland game hunting allowed on 2,510 acres in accordance with State seasons and regulations.

No big game hunting Allow elk hunting on 4,112 acres; 0 to 20 access permits issued annually 

with priority to mobility impaired and youth hunters. 

FRIENDS 

GROUP AND 

VOLUNTEERS

FRIENDS OF 

CAMAS 

NWR

Assist Friends of Camas NWR grow its membership and build a strong, actively engaged workforce that supports the Refuge’s biological and visitor service programs. 

PROJECTS Develop a list of educational and biological projects and activities to assist the Friends Group in focusing and 

prioritizing their efforts. 

STAFFING Refuge Manager recruits, coordinates, 

trains volunteers (limited capacity) 

Staff full-time Visitor Service Manager position for the Southeast Idaho NWRC Office in Pocatello, ID Hire a Camas NWR Park Ranger to assist with recruiting, assisting, and training the Refuge’s Friends Group and volunteer workforce. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-36 

Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Alternative 1

(No-Action Alternative)

Alternative 2

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 3

LAW 

ENFORCEMENT (ALL 

ALTERNATIVES) 

STAFFING Refuge Complex Officer staffed in Southeast Idaho NWRC Office Pocatello, ID 

Zone Officer staffed at Deer Flat NWR, Nampa, ID Special Agent staffed in Office of Law Enforcement Idaho, Falls, ID 

PARTNERSHIPS Create and foster partnerships with the County Sheriff, IDFG, BLM, Tribal, and FS Law Enforcement to provide 

mutual aid benefits. 

CULTURAL 

RESOURCES (ALL 

ALTERNATIVES) 

INVENTORY Inventory, evaluate, monitor, and protect refuge cultural resources. TRIBAL 

CONSULTATION Coordinate and Consult with the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes on cultural resources identification and protection. 

PUBLIC 

AWARENESS Increase public awareness and appreciation of the Refuge’s historic, archaeological, and cultural resources using signs, 

brochures, and other appropriate information and educational tools. 

INTERPRET 

CULTURAL 

RESOURCES 

Partner with Tribes, universities, Friends groups, and volunteers to provide cultural resources interpretation and education programs and exhibits for refuge visitors and Tribal members. 

HISTORIC 

STRUCTURES To the fullest extent possible, maintain the structural integrity of the historic structures that were built during the Works 

Progress Administration (WPA) days, with regular inspections and updates when necessary. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-37 

2.4 Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Goals and objectives are the unifying elements of successful refuge management. They identify and 

focus management priorities, resolve issues, and link to refuge purposes, Service policy, and the 

Refuge System mission. 

A CCP describes management actions that help bring a refuge closer to its vision. A vision broadly 

reflects the refuge purposes, the Refuge System mission and goals, other statutory requirements, and 

larger-scale plans as appropriate. Goals then define general targets in support of the vision, followed 

by objectives that direct effort into incremental and measurable steps toward achieving those goals. 

Strategies identify specific tools and actions to accomplish objectives (USFWS 2008). 

In the development of this Draft CCP, the Service prepared an environmental assessment. The 

environmental assessment evaluates alternative sets of management actions derived from a variety of 

management goals, objectives, and implementation strategies. 

The draft goals for Camas Refuge for the fifteen years following completion of the CCP are 

presented on the following pages, in tables. Each goal is followed by the objectives that pertain to 

that goal. Some objectives pertain to multiple goals and have simply been placed in the most 

reasonable location. Similarly, some strategies pertain to multiple objectives. 

The goal order does not imply any priority in this CCP. Priority actions are identified in the staffing 

and funding analysis (Appendix C). 

Readers, please note the following: 

 The objective statements apply to the Service’s Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2. 

 Text underlined and italicized in the objective statement indicates specific items (i.e., 

acreages) that vary in the other alternatives. How those items vary is displayed in the short 

table under each objective statement; as applicable, each other alternative shows substitute 

text for the item or items in italics. 

 If an objective is not in a particular alternative, a blank is used to indicate that this objective 

is not addressed in that alternative. 

Below each objective statement are the strategies that could be employed in order to accomplish the 

objectives. Note the following: 

 Check marks (✓) alongside each strategy show which alternatives include that strategy. 

 If a column for a particular alternative does not include a check mark for a listed strategy, it 

means that strategy will not be used in that alternative. 

Other symbols used in the following tables include: 

 % percent sign 

 > greater than 

 < less than 

 > greater than or equal to 

 < less than or equal to 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-38 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Goal 1: Native Habitats 

Maintain and protect the existing integrity of functional native habitat and 

restore the natural range of variability and resiliency of degraded habitats. 

WETLAND HABITATS 

Objective 1.1: Hemi-Marsh Habitat Management 

From 2014-2017 decrease hemi-marsh habitat to 285 acres (range 250-300 acres) within 3-4 

annually flooded impoundments and 2-3 impoundments annually dewatered (drawn-down) to 

provide conditions essential for the conservation of select focal wildlife species, while 

simultaneously working to develop a Wetland and Riparian Rehabilitation Plan by 2017 to 

rehabilitate Camas Creek and refuge wetlands. 

Benefitting Refuge Species: 

Redhead, eared grebe, trumpeter swan, muskrat, Franklin’s gull, white-faced ibis, lesser scaup, 

peregrine falcon 

Hemi-marsh is characterized by the following attributes 

 Native emergent species (hardstem bulrush, burreed, cattails) as a mosaic with open water. 

 Permanently to semipermanently flooded, with water depths ranging from 6"-5′ 

 Inundated from March through October, with drawdowns every 3 to 7 years. 

 25-35% open water to 65-75% of emergent plant cover within individual wetlands 

 >40% cover of submergent plants (e.g., pondweeds, chara, water milfoil, coontail, smartweed, 

mare’s tail) within open water areas 

 Diverse invertebrate community, including crustaceans, midges, aquatic worms, dragonflies, 

snails, and water beetles. 

 <5% cover of invasive plants (e.g., reed canarygrass) 

Alternatives 

Objective as written above is modified by replacing acres in italics 

with the text in this row. 

Alt 1 

Current 

Alt 2 

Preferred 

Alt 3 

Timeframe: For the 

life of the 

plan 

From 2014-2017 

Total Hemi-Marsh acres managed: 840 acres 

(range 

500-700 

acres) 

285 acres (range 250-300 

acres) 

Annually flooded impoundments in Hemi-Marsh habitat: 6 basins 

(783 

acres) 

3-4 basins (285 acres) 

Annually dewatered (drawn-down) impoundments 0 basins 2-3 basins 

Develop Wetland and Riparian Rehabilitation Plan By 2017 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-39 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 

Current 

Alt 2 

Preferred Alt 3 

Maximize the extent of hemi-marsh in 6 wetland basins (Big, 

Redhead, Toomey, Center, Two-Way and Spring Ponds) with 

available annual water delivery and management capabilities from 

April-October. 

 

Maintain ≥500 acres of artificially deep hemi-marsh habitats 

primarily for waterfowl and secondarily to provide wildlife-dependent 

public use opportunities. 

 

From 2014-2017 reduce the extent of hemi-marsh to occur within 

only 3 to 4 of 6 wetland basins (i.e., Big, Redhead, and Toomey 

Ponds), which historically consisted of natural deep marsh habitat 

before refuge impoundment construction, and are presumed to have 

tighter pockets of hydric soils, which historically held permanent 

water when natural groundwater levels were higher. 

 

Maintain 285 acres (range 250-300 acres) of artificially deep hemimarsh habitats primarily for fish, wildlife, and plants and secondarily 

to provide wildlife-dependent public use opportunities until the 

Wetland and Riparian Rehabilitation Plan is completed in 2017. 

 

From 2014-2017, develop a Wetland and Riparian Rehabilitation Plan 

(and associated NEPA document) for Camas NWR using a threetiered process: 

1. 2014-2015: Assessment of hydrologic, geomorphic, and biologic 

features associated with target wetland (i.e., hemi-marsh, shallow 

marsh, and wet meadow) and riparian (i.e., riparian and riparian 

woodland) systems; 

2. 2014-2017: Implementation of wetland pilot projects to evaluate 

biological and physical responses to management action and assess 

management objectives; and 

3. 2017: Work with partners to develop a decision support system to 

identify management objectives and support an integrated approach to 

rehabilitating wetland and riparian habitats in the Plan. 

 

From 2014-2015, conduct surveys and assessments needed to develop 

the Wetland and Riparian Rehabilitation Plan: 

1. Conduct Hydro Geomorphic Model (HGM) and engineering 

feasibility study by 2015 to determine historic and current physical 

refuge setting and best future management options. 

2. Perform topographic LiDAR survey and construct a Digital 

Elevation Model (DEM) of the Refuge by 2015 to quantify elevation 

gradients natural and altered water flows and location, size, and depth 

of inundation. 

3. Evaluate and compare historic and current wetland habitat extent 

with GIS data (e.g., soil maps, USGS maps, LandSAT imagery, 

LiDAR imagery) 

4. Quantify winter snowpack and moisture content, spring weather 

patterns, agricultural acreage and irrigation techniques, groundwater 

levels, and other appropriate variables that define annual surface and 

groundwater availability. 

5. Assess surface water associations with groundwater discharge and 

recharge rates by tracing source isotopic signatures. 

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-40 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

6. Monitor water delivery ditches and groundwater recharge rates to 

determine how much Camas Creek surface water or pumped 

groundwater is lost before the water reaches the intended wetland. 

7. By 2015, incorporate HGM classification of natural core wetland 

extent and develop a water budget and predictive model by 2016 to 

calculate annual potential water availability and optimize the efficient 

application of water to achieve native wetland habitat objectives. 

8. Run predictive models to determine the anticipated annual location 

and extent of seasonal wetland habitats to be inundated using annual 

predictive models of water availability for Camas NWR. 

9. Adaptively adjust and recalculate predictive water models based on 

annual model performance. 

From 2014-2017, construct pilot projects for new diversion structures 

and additional points-of-diversion to test the capacity to increase the 

efficacy of water delivery. 

 

Maintain 1 point-of-diversion along Camas Creek for wetland surface 

water diversion and allow Camas Creek banks to remain raised and 

diked with minimal overbank flooding. 

 

Between 2014 and 2017, implement pilot project to lower the banks 

of Camas Creek on the Refuge in strategic locations, as consistent 

with Idaho Water Law, to increase the occurrence of natural overbank 

flooding. 

 

Maximize deep hemi-marsh wetland habitat by diverting the majority 

of Camas Creek surface waters (58.1 cfs) from April-July in an 

average flow year to inundate refuge impoundments. 

 

Upon completion of Wetland and Riparian Rehabilitation Plan in 

2017, design a new water delivery system (e.g., wells, canals, pipes, 

pumps, breaching and/or removal of dikes) to modify, relocate and 

restore more natural and efficient wetland hydrology, where 

applicable and desirable. 

 

By 2017, manage deep hemi-marsh wetland habitats to reduce 

dependency upon groundwater pumping and only partially deflect 

Camas Creek flows into managed wetland impoundments, while 

simultaneously allowing partial flow to remain in the Camas Creek 

channel. 

 

Manage Refuge’s Camas Creek surface water rights and refuge 

groundwater pumping rights to spring flood and maintain permanent 

to semipermanently flooded wetlands through the summer and fall, 

for consistent availability of hemi-marsh habitat, but little annual 

variability in wetland flooding regimes. 

 

By 2017, manage dynamic wetland rotations within the confines of 

existing water rights and available annual funding, that provide 

annual variability which mimics “drought,” “normal,” or “wet” 

annual climatic conditions. 

 

Monitor and assess annual climatic variables and use predictive 

models to assign either “drought”, “normal”, and “wet” annual 

wetland management prescriptions by 2017, to ensure water levels 

occur in refuge wetlands at different heights so no one wetland is 

maintained at the same water level for prolonged (>3 year) periods. 

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-41 

Every 3 years assess emergent cover using aerial photography, 

ground-truthing, and GIS analysis to determine responses to habitat 

management practices. 

 

Use groundwater water rights and pumping to compensate for losses 

of wetland surface water to groundwater seepage and recharge. 

 

Manage water within refuge impoundments to maintain marsh 

productivity and offset the effects of groundwater recharge and 

evapotranspiration. 

 

Initiate complete drawdowns of deep marsh habitats every 5-7 years 

to recycle nutrients, increase submerged aquatic germination, and 

allow for physical control of dense emergent vegetation, as warranted. 

  

Where possible, lessen emergent components of hemi-marsh 

distribution and density through occasional high water level 

manipulations (“wet” flooding cycle) to over-winter flood 24"-30" by 

late January through spring. 

 

Manage low water levels (“drought” flooding cycle) to encourage 

hardstem bulrush growth, increase bulrush stem density, and decrease 

open water interspersion, where required and desired. 

  

Use spring (March 1-April 15) or fall (Sept. 20-Oct. 30) prescribed 

fire and fall mowing to reduce cover of emergents in order to set back 

succession and maintain open, shallow water areas and create mosaic 

patterns within wetlands when water level manipulations prove 

insufficient to maintain hemi-marsh attributes (25-35% open water to 

65-75% ratio of emergent plant cover across wetland). 

  

As part of the Refuge’s revised Fire Management Plan, adjust timing 

of prescribed fire to improve efficacy (e.g. no burns in March; 

consider summer burns if water can be delivered to wetlands 

immediately post-burn). 

 

Where mechanical manipulation is not feasible to achieve desired 

habitat conditions, use approved over-water chemicals to reduce 

cover of emergents in order to set back succession and maintain open, 

shallow water areas and create mosaic patterns within wetlands when 

water levels manipulations are insufficient to maintain Hemi-marsh at 

25-35% open water to 65-75% ratio of emergent plant cover across all 

management units. 

 

Annually maintain and repair water pumps, control structures, and 

ditches. 

  

Annually document all water level manipulations and hydroperiod.   

Annually document all habitat manipulations.   

Use IPM strategies including mechanical, physical, biological, and 

chemical means to eradicate, control, or contain invasive and 

undesirable plants (see Appendix F-IPM Program). 

  
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-42 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Rationale, Objective 1.1, Hemi-Marsh Habitat Management: 

Most of Camas NWR’s deepwater wetlands were created by artesian groundwater discharges that 

increased due to subirrigation of the Egin Bench starting in the late 1800s (see Chapter 3). Sandhole Lake 

and Rays Lake represent areas of natural artesian discharge prior to subirrigation (Keigley 2012). The 

Refuge’s water control infrastructure and wetland impoundments were constructed between the 1930s and 

1960s to provide waterfowl habitat through precise manipulation of water levels. The Refuge has six 

“core” wetlands (Big, Redhead, Toomey, Spring, Center, and Two-Way Ponds) that are currently managed 

to provide consistent hemi-marsh habitat for brood rearing (see Chapter 4). From the time of Refuge 

establishment until the 1980s, these wetlands were flooded with water diverted from Camas Creek. 

The hemi-marsh stage provides diverse food resources and vegetative structure that are used by a variety 

of wetland-dependent wildlife. During spring and fall migration, refuge hemi-marshes provide 

exceptional resting and stop-over sites for large flocks of waterfowl. Overwater nesting waterbirds (diving 

ducks and grebes, for example) require hemi-marsh habitat to fulfill two primary life history 

requirements: nesting and brood rearing. These productive wetlands provide valuable invertebrate food 

for developing ducklings, while the emergent vegetation provides good cover from predators and bad 

weather. Birds use both deep and shallow emergent vegetation to construct floating or elevated nest 

structures, while brood rearing habitat (consisting of open water and submergent vegetation) provides the 

forage base for fledgling waterbirds. Maximum nesting densities are realized where the deep emergent 

marsh component retains a complex edge, relative to the open water component, and there is a 50:50 mix 

of these two components within any given management unit (Weller and Spatcher 1965). 

However, the Refuge is now faced with management limitations associated with water availability due to 

the lowering of the water table in the Eastern Snake River aquifer over the past 30 years and 

anthropegenic modifications to Camas Creek (see Objective 1.4). Agricultural interests are now placing 

an extraordinary pressure on groundwater resources within the Snake River aquifer (Konikow and Kendy 

2005). Groundwater pumped from the Eastern Snake River Aquifer accounts for 1.14 million acre-feet, or 

14 percent of discharge. Nearly all of this groundwater is pumped for irrigation (95 percent), about 3 

percent is pumped for drinking water for cities and rural homes. The remaining 2 percent is pumped for 

industrial and livestock use (IDEQ 2006; Smith 2004). The combination of agricultural irrigation 

diversion and groundwater pumping have combined to impact groundwater discharge wetlands within the 

Camas and Beaver watersheds (IDEQ 2005), and water tables in the Camas area have dropped 15 to 20 

feet since the 1980s. Incision of Camas Creek has compounded the situation (see Chapter 3). 

For much of the Refuge’s history, wetland impoundments were flooded in spring with water diverted 

from Camas Creek. Due to a high water table, these wetlands could be brought to full pool quickly and 

retained water throughout the summer. However, due to lowering water tables, groundwater pumping is 

currently required to maintain these wetlands through the summer. The main refuge point of diversion 

from Camas Creek remains in its original location and only one groundwater well has been moved since 

the original drilling of the seven irrigation wells. From this main diversion point on Camas Creek, water 

must flow 2 miles in order to reach the first managed wetland basin, resulting in losses to evaporation and 

seepage. Under current conditions, the only three basins that can be reliably hydrated to provide hemimarsh habitat are Big, Redhead, and Toomey Ponds (285 acres total). The other three basins (Spring, 

Center, and Two-Way Ponds, 498 acres total) are difficult or impractical to hydrate throughout the brood 

rearing season. All of these basins were historically composed of deep marsh habitat before refuge 

impoundment construction and are presumed to have tighter pockets of hydric soils, which held 

permanent water prior to the 1980s, when groundwater levels were higher. It is not known at this time if 

current hemi-marsh and submergent plant communities can be maintained with current refuge water 

rights, given the altered hydrology of Camas Creek and the depletion and lowering of the aquifer. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-43 

To provide wetland habitat for native fish and wildlife, the Refuge must work within the altered 

hydrology and the continued degradation of water sources within the Snake River Basalts Region and the 

Sinks Watersheds. The contemporary challenge is how to simulate historic hydrologic processes within 

the Camas Creek floodplain (see Objective 1.4), while retaining adequate wetland acreage for the wildlife 

species that have come to depend on refuge wetlands. An additional challenge is to provide water levels 

that meet seasonal life history requirements of focal species while dynamically managing wetlands to 

maintain and enhance their productivity over time. Thus, attainment of the CCP wetland goal to: “ ... 

restore the natural range of variability and resiliency of degraded habitats” depends on replicating natural 

environmental processes (e.g., drought, flood, fire, and disturbance) among different management units, 

while still maintaining essentially the same acreage from year to year. 

In Alternatives 2 and 3, an integrated Wetland and Riparian Rehabilitation Plan and associated NEPA 

document would be developed by 2017. The Plan would consider various alternatives for wetland 

restoration, evaluate the biological, cultural, economic, and social benefits and costs, and determine a 

future course of action supporting desired ecological outcomes. A three-tiered process would be used to 

develop the Plan: (1) identification of management objectives, and assessment of hydrologic, geomorphic, 

and biologic features associated with target riparian systems (e.g., Camas Creek) and associated wetlands; 

(2) implementation of wetland and riparian pilot projects to evaluate biological and physical responses to 

management action and assess management objectives; and (3) working with partners to develop a 

decision support system to support an integrated wetland/riparian rehabilitation plan and associated NEPA 

document. The first two years (2014-15) would be spent collecting necessary information 

(geomorphological, hydrological, and biological assessments). The next four years (2014-2017) would be 

used for implementing and monitoring pilot projects to gain a better understanding of system response to 

enhancement activities. Implementation of the Plan would take place from 2017-2027. 

In the interim period while the Plan is being developed (2014-2017), changes in water management and 

increased riparian streamflow are required to improve riparian function (see Objective 1.4). Increased 

riparian streamflows would lessen the availability of water to be diverted into wetland impoundments, 

and would correspondingly decrease deepwater wetland habitats by approximately 40-120 acres (7-14% 

decrease from present) from 2014 to 2017. From 2014-2017, the Refuge would reduce the extent of hemimarsh to occur within only 3 to 4 of 6 core wetland basins. However, the Refuge would considerably 

improve water management capability by moving the main point of diversion and irrigation wells 

downstream closer to the wetlands, reducing losses to evaporation and seepage. Therefore the Refuge 

would prioritize the use of limited water resources while simultaneously improving the quality of wetland 

habitats for waterfowl and waterbirds. 

Although the extent of deepwater wetlands in Alternatives 2 and 3 would be reduced as compared to 

Alternative 1, wetland productivity is anticipated to increase due to a more dynamic and variable water 

management approach that mimics the natural range of wetland variability. In wetlands, emergent 

vegetation structure, and interspersion of emergent vegetation and open water have been demonstrated to 

be associated with diversity and abundance of breeding-bird species in the northern prairies (Kaminski 

and Prince 1984; Murkin et al. 1982; Weller and Fredrickson 1974; Weller and Spatcher 1965). 

Specifically, northern prairie wetlands with a 50:50 ratio of interspersed emergent vegetation to open 

water had a higher diversity and abundance of breeding wetland bird species than those wetlands 

containing more or less interspersed emergent vegetation (Kaminski and Prince 1984; Murkin et al. 

1982). However, the term “hemi-marsh” (used to denote an approximately 1:1 interspersion of open water 

and emergent vegetation) has usually been far too stringently interpreted and managed at too small of a 

spatial scale (Fredrickson 1979). Although a 1:1 ratio of open water to wetland vegetation may be 

desirable, it is not practical or attainable on all units at all times. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-44 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Attempts to maintain a consistent 1:1 interspersion of open water and submerged to deep emergent 

vegetation has too frequently resulted in wetland hydroperiods that are invariable from year to year. 

Although high short-term productivity may result from this management, it is usually followed by static 

habitat conditions and long-term reductions in the wetland productivity. From a management perspective, 

the hemi-marsh can be difficult to maintain for long periods. Over time, wetlands can become completely 

dominated by continuous stands of cattails of bulrush, with little or no value to wildlife. On the other 

hand, if water levels are too deep the wetland can become devoid of emergent vegetation. Therefore a 

clear understanding of both the spatial and temporal relationships of managing natural variability in a 

“hemi-marsh” remains essential to ensure long-term productivity of the perennial emergent marsh (Smith 

et al. 2004). 

In Alternatives 2 and 3, the Refuge would make adjustments in the timing and amount of drawdown in a 

wetland unit or complex to allow for increased hemi-marsh stage. Additional activities, such as fire 

management and manipulation of muskrat populations, would also aid in achieving hemi-marsh 

conditions. Refuge wetlands would be managed at different successional stages. The Refuge’s hemimarshes would experience periodic drying or drawdown cycles which regulate vegetation growth, thereby 

positively benefitting waterbird species (Lor and Malecki 2006). 

In Alternative 3, upland habitat restoration and wetland/riparian rehabilitation receive equal emphasis and 

would likely compete for limited resources (refuge staff time, funding, as well as grant opportunities and 

partnership involvement). Such an approach would be analogous to fighting a war on two fronts (Wu et al. 

2000), possibly compromising the success of either effort (Botrill et al. 2008; Mackenzie 2008). 

Conversely, Alternative 2 would prioritize wetland/riparian rehabilitation, while moving forward 

strategically with limited upland habitat rehabilitation efforts. Alternative 2 allows for flexibility in the 

amount of progress that is made depending on the availability of resources, using optimal decision-making 

tools to indicate the best allocation of such resources to achieve conservation objectives, and adaptive 

management practices related to pilot projects on the Refuge. This alternative also offers the advantage of 

using other available resources if they become available through agency funding, partnerships, etc. to work 

on upland habitat restoration, while focusing efforts on wetland and riparian hydrology assessments and 

pilot projects necessary for developing the wetland/riparian rehabilitation plan. 

The comprehensive, science-based approach to hydrology and wetland and riparian management proposed 

in Alternatives 2 and 3 would increase the likelihood of providing suitable and productive wetland habitats 

within this highly modified landscape. Wetland and riparian rehabilitation efforts would involve the 

assessment of current water quality/quantity, habitat conditions, site potential, and vegetative trend, and 

would seek increased understanding of hydrologic connectivity within connected aquatic systems. The 

understanding gained through these efforts would assist refuge staff and partners in returning the Camas 

NWR wetlands to their once significant prominence in the Pacific Flyway. Increased partnerships with 

subject matter experts and funding agencies would be the key to this effort’s success (Curtis 1998). 

Fire Management: In all alternatives, prescribed fire would be used to reduce stands of dense emergents 

(e.g., cattail, bulrush, phragmites, reed canarygrass), while maintaining areas of open water for birds to 

forage. Under current management, burning of wetland occurs in spring (March 1-April 15) and fall 

(September 20-October 30.) Spring burns must take place before the nesting season to avoid bird mortality, 

an important seasonal constraint limiting spring burns to the earlier months (Weller 1994). This limits the 

efficacy of spring burns in reducing dense emergent vegetation. In Alternatives 2 and 3, the Refuge would 

modify the timing of burns, to increase their efficacy in removing dense emergent vegetation. We would 

attempt to shift toward summer burns, instead of spring or fall burns, where feasible. Summer burns are 

more effective in controlling tall emergent vegetation, whereas fall or spring burns promote rejuvenation of 

reed canarygrass (Apfelbaum and Sams 1987), cattail (Mallik and Wein 1986), phragmites (Thompson and 

Shay 1985) and cordgrass (Johnson and Knapp 1995). However, both summer and fall burns must be timed 

such that either (a) wetlands can be hydrated immediately after the burn, or (b) burns are timed with 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-45 

snowfall, to avoid post-fire wind erosion. Effective cattail control is usually attained by drawing down 

water levels, conducting a summer burn, and then re-flooding the unit, drowning the cattail rhizomes for 

several weeks. The resulting open-water area will be free of cattail for at least two years, and is attractive 

as duck foraging areas.

Objective 1.2: Seasonal and Shallow Marsh Habitat Management 

a) Over the lifetime of the CCP, maintain and enhance 1,743-1,803 acres of seasonal to 

semipermanent wetland habitat in managed wetland impoundments. 

b) From 2014-2017, increase seasonally flooded shallow marsh habitat (moist soil units) to 150-

200 acres that provides conditions essential for the conservation of select focal wildlife species, 

while simultaneously working to develop a Wetland and Riparian Rehabilitation Plan by 2017 to 

rehabilitate Camas Creek and refuge wetlands. 

Benefitting Refuge Species: 

American avocet, northern leopard frog, cinnamon teal, sora, Virginia rail 

Seasonally flooded shallow marsh is characterized by the following attributes: 

 Mineral or shallow organic soils that are moist to saturated and only seasonally inundated. 

 Large zones of sedge and Baltic rush, with dense smartweed stands along the shallow edge and 

a periphery of a shallow emergent cattails in sparse unconnected stands. 

 Flooded to a depth of 18"-24" April-June, with water depths in very shallow smartweed areas 

targeted for 4"-10" by July-August. 

 Semipermanently to seasonally flooded. Typically only inundated with very shallow standing 

water throughout the year, although the substrate may be exposed in dry years. 

 <10-15% cover of invasive plants (e.g., Canada thistle, smooth brome, reed canary grass) 

Alternatives 

Objective as written above is modified by replacing acres in italics 

with the text in this row. 

Alt 1 

Current 

Alt 2 

Preferred 

Alt 3 

Timeframe: For the life 

of the plan From 2014-2017 

Total seasonal and semipermanent wetland acres managed: 1,213 acres 1,743-1,803 acres 

Total seasonal shallow-marsh (moist soil) acres managed: 40-60 acres 150-200 acres 

Develop Wetland and Riparian Rehabilitation Plan By 2017 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 

Current 

Alt 2 

Preferred Alt 3 

Allow seasonal shallow marsh (moist soil) habitats to fluctuate in size 

(40-60 acres) in response to Hemi-Marsh management. Under current 

management shallow marsh habitat would be located and along the 

edges of hemi-marsh. 

 

From 2014-2017, develop a Wetland and Riparian Rehabilitation Plan 

(WRRP) and associated NEPA document for Camas NWR using a 

three-tiered process (see Objective 1.1 above). 

 

From 2014-2017 (until the WRRP is developed), increase the extent 

of seasonal shallow-marsh (moist soil) habitats to 150-200 acres, by 

managing wetland hydroperiod on a rotational basis for shallow 

marsh habitat. Decrease the current emphasis on consistently 

providing deep hemi-marsh habitats. 

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-46 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

By 2017, promote seasonal freshwater overbank flooding from Camas 

Creek into historic ephemeral wetlands and playas, as well as into 

vegetated semipermanent shallow marshes, sufficient to create 

mudflats and maintain a shallow-water shoreline for the longest 

possible period. 

 

Manage seasonally flooded wetlands for a variable, but at least 2 

month, dry period in the late summer (July/August) of each year to 

maintain abundant populations of invertebrate forage. 

 

Manage or restrict surface disturbing activities in historic seasonal 

wetlands and playas to protect the integrity of the clay soil pan and 

maximize water retention. 

 

Encourage smartweed production and growth along shallow marsh 

edges through the timing of early spring (April/May) drawdowns of 

hemi-marsh units and fall re-flooding in mid-August. 

 

Conduct very shallow soil disturbance (e.g., light disking, harrowing) 

in 25-35% of established seasonally flooded smartweed communities 

every 3-5 years. 

 

By 2017, upgrade existing water control structures and reconfigure 

impoundments to allow finer scale management of water levels within 

units with a predominance of shallow marsh. 

 

Every 3 years assess emergent cover using aerial photography, 

ground-truthing, and GIS analysis to determine responses to habitat 

management practices. 

 

Where shallow-marsh habitat is a priority, inundate isolated cattail 

islands through the late summer months (semipermanent), and inundate 

sedge and Baltic rush until early summer months (seasonal). 

  

Use groundwater water rights and pumping to compensate for losses 

of wetland surface water to groundwater seepage and recharge. 

  

Use prescribed fire, disking, and mowing to reduce cover of emergents 

and create mosaic patterns within wetlands when water level 

manipulations prove insufficient to maintain shallow-marsh attributes. 

  

Annually maintain and repair water pumps, control structures, and 

ditches. 

  

Annually document all water level manipulations and hydroperiod.   

Annually document all habitat manipulations.   

Use IPM strategies including mechanical, physical, biological, and 

chemical means to eradicate, control, or contain invasive and 

undesirable plants (see Appendix F-IPM Program). 

  

Rationale, Objective 1.2, Seasonal and Shallow Marsh Habitat Management: 

Prior to agricultural development, the area now known as Camas National Wildlife Refuge was composed 

of a diverse mosaic of shallow seasonal and semipermanent wetland and wet meadow habitats, 

surrounded by an expansive sea of sagebrush. The primary source of water for these wetlands was surface 

water via overbank flooding of Camas Creek (see Chapters 3, 4). 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-47 

Providing a diversity of shallow seasonal wetlands is vital to the Refuge’s purpose of providing habitat for 

a variety of breeding and migrating waterbirds, especially waterfowl. Yet the Refuge must largely work 

within an established wetland infrastructure that was designed in the 1960s, primarily to provide deep 

hemi-marsh habitat. Additionally the Refuge is now faced with management limitations associated with 

water availability due to the lowering of the water table in the Eastern Snake River aquifer (see Objective 

1.1). Due to these issues, 595 acres of wetland impoundments that were formerly managed as seasonal 

wetlands (including Wet Marsh, Moose, Ruddy, and Pintail Ponds) have been placed in inactive status and 

currently support a mixture of wet meadow and non-native wet meadow vegetation (see Chapter 4). 

Another 1,213 acres of wetland impoundments (in addition to the core wetlands described in Objective 1.1) 

are managed as seasonal to semipermanent wetlands. These include Avocet and Brindley Ponds, Cattail 

Flat, Mallard Slough, and Rays Lake. Although these wetlands can demonstrate impressive productivity 

when adequate water is available, in most cases the Refuge currently has limited ability to hydrate these 

wetlands. Intensive management of Rays Lake is not feasible, and irrigation demand is the principal 

determinant of the lake’s pool. Under Alternatives 2 and 3 we propose to reduce acres managed as hemimarsh by 530-590 acres; the managed wetland basins managed as seasonal to semipermanent wetlands 

would correspondingly increase. 

Seasonal shallow wetlands (moist soil) can be highly productive for waterfowl (Smith et al. 1964) even 

though production fluctuates widely from year to year with wetland conditions (Crissey 1969; Dzubin 

1969). Evans and Black (1956), Drewien and Springer (1969), and Jenni (1956) stressed the importance of 

small, small seasonal wetlands to dabbling ducks during spring and early summer. Kantrud and Stewart 

(1977) compared pair densities on a series of glacial pond types of varying permanence and found some of 

the highest densities of dabblers occurred on temporary ponds; in the case of blue-winged teal, extremely 

high densities occurred on ephemeral wetlands. Similarly, Ruwaldt et al. (1979) found unusually high 

densities of blue-winged teal pairs on ephemeral wetlands in South Dakota and generally high densities of 

waterfowl on temporary wetlands. While deep marsh habitats provide ample protection from predators, 

seasonal wetlands usually supply a much greater abundance of invertebrates (De Szalay and Resh 2000; 

Euliss et al. 2004). Invertebrates are the primary source of dietary protein for ducks and other wetland birds 

during the breeding season (Murkin and Kadlec 1986; Swanson and Meyer 1977). 

While Camas NWR infrastructure was not specifically designed for moist-soil management, opportunities 

still exist to provide increased seasonally flooded habitat for migratory birds, both during the breeding 

season, and during fall migration. Increasing the distribution of seasonal foraging wetlands dominated by 

smartweed, adjacent to semipermanent wetland impoundments with abundant cover and security would 

increase use by dabbling ducks, particularly mallards. Smartweeds’ complex leaf structure supports both 

high invertebrate abundance and diversity when flooded (Fredrickson and Taylor 1982). Since invertebrate 

populations decline with prolonged flooding, allowing these seasonal wetland basins to dry for at least two 

months each year, as proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3, is essential for maintaining abundant populations of 

invertebrates (Fredrickson and Taylor 1982; Reid et al. 1989). 

Smartweed provides waterbirds with a quality food source during fall migration. Smartweed seeds contain 

balanced proportions of essential vitamins, protein, minerals, and carbohydrates (Gray et al.1999). 

Smartweed requires cool soil temperatures (roughly in the low 60s) and relatively high soil moisture for 

germination, and therefore, is usually found in wetlands that undergo early spring drawdowns (Fredrickson 

and Taylor 1982; Kadlec 1962; Meeks 1969). Smartweed is considered a “pioneer” or “invader” plant 

species because it colonizes recently disturbed wetland sites. Eventually, competition from other wetland 

plants, particularly cattails and bulrush, would eliminate smartweed from the community. Smartweed can 

be maintained in seasonal wetlands for several years if water management coincides with its growth 

requirements (Reinecke et al. 1989). Periodic soil disturbance every three to four years, as proposed in 

Alternatives 2 and 3, would be essential to the maintenance of smartweed stands. Disturbing older 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-48 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

smartweed stands would increase smartweed abundance substantially and allow more palatable and 

nutritional stands of smartweed to re-establish (Gray et al.1999a; Rundle 1981). 

By increasing seasonal shallow wetland (moist soil) habitat at Camas NWR, the Refuge would be able to 

provide diverse and critical migration and breeding habitat to waterfowl, wading birds, and other wildlife 

species. Of particular importance, the shallow, extensive wetland habitats on this site would provide 

important feeding and resting habitat for spring migratory waterbirds. Camas Refuge is an important stopover for northward migrating waterbirds that breed in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Alaska, and other northern 

breeding areas (Ivey and Herziger 2006). The restoration and increase of seasonal wetland habitat would 

provide breeding habitat for several species at Camas NWR, including mallards, Canada geese, northern 

shovelers, gadwalls, cinnamon teal, and blue-winged teal.

Objective 1.3. Wet Meadow Habitat Management 

From 2014-2017, maintain 1,958 acres of existing wet meadow habitat and enhance 80-100 acres

of wet-meadow complexes, while simultaneously working to develop a Wetland and Riparian 

Rehabilitation Plan by 2017 to rehabilitate Camas Creek and refuge wetlands and restore 140-200 

acres of natural wet meadow habitat associated with Camas Creek by 2027. 

Benefitting Refuge Species: 

Long-billed curlew, greater sandhill crane, short-eared owl, American avocet, northern leopard 

frog, cinnamon teal, bobolink 

Wet Meadow is characterized by the following attributes: 

 Hydric soils on flat or very gently sloping topography 

 Mix of palatable forage with a height of <6" by October. 

 >75% species composition of sedges, western wheatgrass, rush and foxtail barley, with small 

patches or large flats of alkali meadows 

 15-20% cover of forbs such as lupine, clover, and cinquefoils 

 < 5% cover of native shrubs. 

 Soils moist to saturated during the growing season to 6"-12" in water depth. Wet meadows may 

naturally receive no surface flooding in very dry years. 

 Temporarily flooded (April-July), with very shallow water depths (< 6") by mid-June 

 Fresh water (<1,000 ppm TDS) fosters wet meadow plants establishment; where hydrology has 

favored natural evaporative areas over time, alkali meadow halophytes would predominate the 

site. 

 Isolated micro-depressions of seasonally flooded sloughs would hold water into the early fall. 

 <10% cover of invasive plants (e.g., Canada thistle) 

 Preferable patch size ranges from 2 to 45 acres with a minimum predator-detection width of 

250 feet 

Alternatives 

Objective as written above is modified by replacing acres in italics 

with the text in this row. 

Alt 1 

Current 

Alt 2 

Preferred 

Alt 3 

Timeframe: For the life 

of the plan From 2014-2017 

Total wet-meadow acres managed: 60-70 acres 80-100 acres 

Develop Wetland and Riparian Rehabilitation Plan: By 2017 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-49 

Restore wet-meadow habitat associated with Camas Creek 140-200 acres 

Additional wet meadow acres restored: 60-70 acres 80-100 acres 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 

Current 

Alt 2 

Preferred Alt 3 

Use groundwater and surface water rights to irrigate 80-100 acres of 

wet-meadow habitats, with the commencement and duration 

dependent upon site-specific objectives. 

 

Use existing water management infrastructure to encourage hemimarsh habitat maintenance and manage small peripheral wet meadow 

sites. 

 

Manage wet meadow habitat potential being cognizant of 

hydrological gradients that drive plant community expression and by 

establishing a natural range of variability in flooding prescription 

which allow for long-term, dynamic management to maintain or 

enhance the integrity of this habitat type. 

 

Maintain/enhance management units within this habitat type through 

the use of active successional vegetation management (e.g., haying, 

seeding, discing, grain farming—see Goal 3; Objective 3.1, 3.2, and 

3.3). 

  

Enter into Cooperative Land Management Agreements (CLMA) with 

haying permittees to inter-seed native wet meadow grass plantings in 

exchange for refuge hay tonnage. 

 

From 2014-2017, prevent further riparian stream incision where 

possible to improve ecological conditions or maintain existing wetmeadows, while lessening further natural wet-meadow degradation. 

 

From 2014-2017 maintain wet meadow sites that are beginning to 

lose their potential to support wet meadow types and are exhibiting a 

slight change from wet meadow to mesic meadow species 

composition due to hydrologic modifications, by initiating spring or 

stream bank stabilization pilot projects with planted plugs or 

transplants of meadow grasses, sedges, and rushes and riparian woody 

vegetation on low to moderately incised channels. 

 

From 2014-2017 or until more natural hydrologic processes can be 

reinstated, remove encroaching upland shrubs in wet-meadows 

through active physical or mechanical management in wet-meadow 

sites that have transitioned toward dry or sage meadows. 

 

Over the life of the plan, control/eradicate non-native cool-season 

grasses in native wet meadow sites. Experiment with techniques to 

rehabilitatee wet meadows, including: 1) Broad spectrum herbicides 

(i.e., glyphosate, imazapyr) to reduce plant height, promote 

competition, decrease rhizome reserves, and create dry biomass for 

fire; 2) Grass-specific herbicide (i.e., sethoxydim, fluazifop) to 

suppress grass growth, release natives, control regrowth after 

burning/mowing; 3) Spring burning in combination with other 

practices to remove litter/thatch prior to seeding, kill seeds, reduce 

available nitrogen, force cool-season grasses to re-sprout and use 

rhizome reserves; 4) Mow or hay to reduce biomass/nutrients, reduce 

height, promote seed establishment, change fire behavior; 

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-50 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

5) Tillage to fragment rhizomes or in combination with chemical 

control to expose rhizomes to light and activate dormant buds to make 

them more susceptible to herbicides, and prepare new seedbed; 

6) Native seeding and propagation of treated sites. 

From 2014-2017, develop a Wetland and Riparian Rehabilitation Plan 

(and associated NEPA document) for Camas NWR using a threetiered process (see Objective 1.1). 

 

From 2014-2015, conduct surveys and assessments needed to develop 

the Wetland and Riparian Rehabilitation Plan: 

1. Annually measure and monitor shallow groundwater depths, using 

soil augers, digging soil pits or installing groundwater wells, to 

quantify the depth to saturation of the water table to determine sitepotential for wet meadow maintenance, enhancement, and 

rehabilitation efforts. 

2. From 2015, assess the likelihood for geomorphic change and the 

probability that these alterations would result in further declines in 

groundwater levels and, thus further changes in wet-meadow 

vegetation. 

3. By 2017, formulate and use plant community-specific tolerance 

thresholds, as determined through a Camas NWR State-andTransition Model, to influence management prescriptions to meet 

annual and long-term wet meadow habitat objectives. 

 

From 2017-2027, as required and identified in the Camas NWR 

Wetland and Riparian Rehabilitation Plan, restore wet-meadows on 

valley fans with convex side-valley profiles by installing in-stream 

grade control structures (e.g., Cross-vanes, J-hooks, Rock vanes, Wweirs, check-dams, K-dams, jack dams, wedge dams, dams, log/rock 

sills, log drop structure) to prevent and minimize further riparian 

incision of the main Camas Creek channel, prevent incision in spring 

channels, and maintain existing springs and seeps that feed wetmeadows. 

 

From 2017-2027, as required and identified in the Camas NWR 

Wetland and Riparian Rehabilitation Plan, decrease upstream gully 

propagation from headcut advancement occurring from the combined 

effects of surface and groundwater (seepage) erosion associated with 

shallow groundwater and layered stratigraphy, by assessing options 

and installing as required: 1) in-stream check dams and weirs to 

stabilize the base level and retain sediment; 2) re-grading and 

vegetating the gully banks and headcut to increase channel crosssectional area and reduce shear stress to lesson bank failures; 3) lining 

headcuts and banks with rocks or erosional resistant materials; and 4) 

spreading or diverting surface flows to reduce the volume of water 

entering the gully and to limit the concentration of erosional forces of 

surface flows. 

 

From 2017-2027, modify dikes, ditches, and other infrastructure, as 

identified in the Camas NWR Wetland and Riparian Rehabilitation 

Plan to manage impounded wet meadow habitats in the most 

productive and efficient manner. 

 

Use IPM strategies including chemical, mechanical, horticultural, and 

biological control agents to control/eradicate invasive plants (see 

Appendix F). 

  
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-51 

Rationale, Objective 1.3, Wet Meadow Habitat Management: 

Wet meadows are seasonally and temporarily flooded marsh dominated by low stature, flood tolerant, 

annual and perennial plants. For the majority of waterbirds, this habitat type provides seasonal food 

reserves to fulfill specific phases in their life history strategy (Garay et al. 1991; Kaminski and Prince 

1984; Pyrovetsi and Crivelli 1988). Wet meadow habitats are distinct from alkali meadows primarily by 

the quality of water typically hydrating the marsh. Where freshwater (<1,000 ppm TDS) input is the norm, 

wet meadow plants become established, ranging from Baltic rush and annual grasses, to forbs such as curly 

dock (Austin and Pyle 2004; Bedford et al. 1999). Historically, wet meadow habitat in the Camas NWR 

area was created by overbank flooding of Camas Creek, which now rarely occurs (see Chapters 3, 4). 595 

acres of wetland impoundments along Camas Creek (including West Marsh, Moose, Ruddy, and Pintail 

Ponds) have been placed in “inactive” status due to lack of water to reliably hydrate them. Vegetation in 

these wetlands is currently classified as a mixture of wet meadow and lowland non-native vegetation. 

Meadow management. Much of the Refuge’s wet meadow habitat has a history of being either grazed or 

hayed, or both. As a result of this history, much of the Refuge’s historic wet meadow and shallow wetland 

habitat (2,748 acres) is now dominated by non-native plants. Most of the Refuge’s extant wet meadow 

habitat (1,958 acres) is dominated by Baltic rush. Although Baltic rush is a native species, it tends to 

increase in abundance under heavy grazing pressure. In addition, at one point in the history of Camas 

NWR, approximately 500 acres of wet meadows were leveled, and infrastructure for flood irrigation was 

constructed to support production of small grains. Once farming was stopped in the late 1970s, these areas 

were left as fallow. In most recent history these areas have been hayed through Cooperative Land 

Management Agreements, but the vegetation is for the most part introduced non-native species such as 

smooth brome and quackgrass. 

Over the lifetime of the CCP, approximately 80-100 acres of selected fallow fields would be rehabilitated 

to wet meadow habitat. Future management strategies would target reducing non-native cover and 

increasing native grass and forb species as noted in Objective 1.3. However, restoring native wet meadow 

habitat in areas dominated by non-natives is time and resource-intensive, requiring two to three years of 

initial treatments, and continued monitoring and follow-up for five to ten years to prevent reinfestation 

(Kilbride and Paveglio 1999; Paveglio and Kilbride 2000; Tu 2004). To ensure long-term habitat integrity 

of at-risk wet meadows, a combination of wetland flooding and water schedule adjustments, 

the designation of alternative suitable acres to meet irrigation prescriptions, and/or cool-season grass 

treatments may be used. Treatments may include disking, mowing, chemical applications, or prescribed 

fire to restore native components in cool-season non-native grass monocultures. 

In managing wet meadow habitat within impounded wetlands, the Refuge would remain cognizant of 

hydrological gradients that can drive plant community expression and subsequent habitat quality and 

availability for target wildlife species. In impounded wet meadow habitat it is important to establish 

flooding prescriptions that accommodate the habitat needs of focal wet meadow species. The Refuge 

would carefully identify priority areas for both focal species and for the larger successional characteristics 

needed to meet management objectives. Through dynamic management, the Refuge would seek to 

maintain or enhance the integrity of wet meadow habitats in areas where historic subtle variations in 

topography have been compromised by past land-use practices, or where an unacceptable percentage of 

plant assemblages is shifting toward undesirable species. 

Habitat restoration. Wet meadow ecosystems have complex hydrologic connections to surface and subsurface groundwater, and are influenced by riparian stream incision, groundwater lowering, and vegetation 

degradation based on their geomorphic and hydrologic controls and disturbance history (Castelli et al. 

2000). Stream diversions, modifications of springs and seeps, and groundwater pumping can result in both 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-52 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

direct and indirect effects on wet meadow water tables. Water-table declines can cause shifts meadow plant 

composition from mesic to xeric species and decrease in the overall extent of the ecosystem (Rosgen 

1996). Riparian stream incision that causes a significant drop in the water table may cause natural wet 

meadows to transition to a new, drier ecological type with a new site potential (Leopold et al. 1964). This 

transition from wet to dry ecological types is already occurring on the Refuge (see Chapter 4) and appears 

to be influenced, in large part, by anthropogenic modifications to Camas Creek (incision and gully 

formation) and land use practices in the surrounding watershed. 

Camas Creek is a degraded, incised, and highly unstable riparian corridor. In Alternatives 2 and 3 we 

propose to develop a Wetland and Riparian Rehabilitation Plan (WRRP) and associated NEPA document 

by 2017 that would address causes of habitat degradation and at least partially restore natural hydrologic 

processes on the Refuge (see Objectives 1.1, 1.4). Restoration and management objectives and approaches 

are most effective when based on an understanding of ecosystem processes and the long- and short-term 

causes of disturbance (Wohl et al. 2005). It is therefore paramount that before Camas NWR identifies longterm management objectives and strategies in the WRRP, we further assess the Refuge’s physical setting 

and characteristics and wetland functions. Therefore, a three phased approach is proposed: (1) assessment, 

2014-2015; (2) implementation and evaluation of pilot projects (2014-2017), and (3) developing a decision 

support system (see Objective 1.1). 

Because natural meadow complexes are groundwater features closely tied to the riparian surface channel 

systems, the ongoing HGM assessment is of utmost importance in assessing the effect of channel incision 

on groundwater levels, documenting current and potential vegetation types, and determining the linkage 

between the channel and groundwater flow systems (Chambers and Miller 2011; Currier 1989; 

Galatowitsch et al. 2000). Likewise, thoroughly assessing the current conditions of key indicators would 

allow comparison to the acceptable range of variability along the successional trajectory of wet-meadow 

and riparian habitats. Collecting these data would allow the Refuge to better characterize current conditions 

and implement a programmatic-level evaluation of watershed scale data (Munro et al. 2007). Important 

data sets relevant to evaluating riparian conditions in relation to trigger-points would include remote 

sensing imagery (e.g., satellite imagery, LiDAR, aerial photos), water gauging station flow rates, and 

resampling permanent plots. Data from these sources are not only essential for development of the WRRP, 

but for adaptive management and are and recommended as part of the long-term monitoring program. 

The Camas NWR Wetland and Riparian Rehabilitation Plan would be based on careful assessment both of 

the dominant geomorphic and hydrologic controls and of the causes of disturbance at watershed, valley 

segment, and site scales. This plan would also consider the current magnitude of incision or degradation 

and the potential for stream stabilization and vegetation management (Chambers and Miller 2011). In the 

interim period before the Plan is completed, active management in former wet meadow sites is necessary to 

improve the ecological condition of these sites and to prevent them from transitioning into dry or shrub 

meadows with weedy species invasions or undesirable species compositions (Wright and Chambers 2002). 

Because water table depths are highly variable both among and within years in mesic, dry, and sage 

meadow ecological types (Castelli et al. 2000; Martin and Chambers 2002), groundwater monitoring 

activities would be conducted several times during the growing season and for at least two years prior to 

wet meadow/riparian rehabilitation (Chambers et al. 2004). 

Camas NWR will face extremely challenging issues in the rehabilitation of the aggraded gullies within 

Camas Creek. Gully formation is a degraded condition much worse than incision, and is not only the 

product of altered surface flows, but result from the combined effects of both surface and groundwater 

(seepage) erosion associated with shallow groundwater levels and layered stratigraphy. Thus, treatment 

options identified in the Camas NWR Wetland and Riparian Rehabilitation Plan must include measures to 

deal with multiple mechanisms of erosion that may occur at different times and under different hydrologic 

conditions (Ponce and Lindquist 1990). Complicating the problem further, data with which to evaluate the 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-53 

effectiveness of headcut and gully mitigation strategies in meadow complexes in the region are limited. 

Identification of the most appropriate headcut and gully management actions would be addressed in the 

WRRP and would depend on results of the HGM report and the gully’s current morphology, its hydrologic 

and geologic setting, its position and integration within the drainage network, and the mechanisms 

responsible for headcut migration. 

Objective 1.4 Camas Creek Riparian (In-Stream and Willow) Habitat Management 

From 2014-2017 maintain and restore 8 miles of in-stream Camas Creek habitat,100-150 acres of 

willow riparian habitat associated with Camas Creek, and maintain and enhance 239-259 acres 

of willow shrubland in wetland areas, while simultaneously working to develop a Wetland and 

Riparian Rehabilitation Plan by 2017 to rehabilitate Camas Creek and refuge wetlands and reestablish sustainable fluvial systems and riparian ecosystems for Camas NWR wetland and riparian 

habitat by 2027. 

Benefitting Refuge Species: 

Riparian Stream: American dipper, Northern leopard frog, belted kingfisher, mink 

Riparian Woodland: Willow flycatcher, dusky flycatcher, yellow warbler, black-billed magpie, 

calliope hummingbird 

Riparian habitat is characterized by the following attributes:

 Smaller drainages and isolated seeps, typically subject to an ephemeral, spring flooding regime 

(0"-12" in depth). 

 Channel form (e.g. sinuousity) and substrate composition consistent with geomorphic and 

hydrologic setting. 

 Natural stream banks and cross-section profile, consistent with stream gradient segment. 

 Pulse channel flows >200 cfs for 3-4 months in duration. Extreme events estimated at or above 

200 cfs, with over-bank flooding occurring on occasion, dependent upon precipitation. 

 Areas of bare soil (e.g. point bars) available for recruitment of bottomland trees. 

 Presence of large woody debris (LWD: greater than 10 cm [3.9 inches] diameter and 1 m [3.3 

feet] in length) in stream channel. 

 Connectivity among habitats (i.e., unimpeded passage within channels, floodplain regularly 

flooded, continuous site-appropriate vegetation along riparian zones) 

 40-80% cover of understory native shrubs (e.g., yellow willow; whiplash willow; peachleaf 

willow; black hawthorn, red osier dogwood, Wood’s rose) that are >3 feet tall in associated 

riparian areas with shallow water table. 

 <40% canopy cover of native trees, primarily narrow-leaf (coyote) willow 

 >10% cover of herbaceous layer sedges, tufted hairgrass, bluegrasses, foxtails, timothy, and 

forbs. 

 <5% cover of invasive plants (e.g., reed canary grass, Canada thistle) or noxious species. 

Alternatives 

Objective as written above is modified by replacing acres in italics 

with the text in this row. 

Alt 1 

Current 

Alt 2 

Preferred 

Alt 3 

Timeframe: For the life 

of the plan From 2014-2017 

Total riparian in-stream (lotic) miles managed: Maintain 

4 miles 

Maintain and restore 

8 miles 

Total willow riparian (lentic) acres associated with Camas Creek: 20-40 acres 100-150 acres 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-54 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Develop Wetland and Riparian Rehabilitation Plan: By 2017 

Re-establish sustainable fluvial riparian systems: By 2027 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 

Current 

Alt 2 

Preferred Alt 3 

Maintain extent of current willow and shrub habitat where possible 

given the constraints of water rights requirements. 

 

Maintain 1 point-of-diversion along Camas Creek for wetland surface 

water diversion and allow Camas Creek banks to remain raised and 

diked with minimal overbank flooding occurring approximately every 

1 in 6 years, and major events 1 in 20 years. 

 

Divert the majority of Camas Creek surface waters (58.1 cfs) from 

April-July in an average flow year to inundate refuge wetland 

impoundments. 

 

Manage for Camas Creek riparian flows below the diversion point for 

approximately 3-6 weeks annually, only when flows above 58.1 cfs 

occur. 

 

Allow the banks of Camas Creek to remain altered (diked and 

incised) with minimal overbank flooding occurring. 

 

Over the life of the plan work to halt, minimize, or mitigate activities 

which are the causal factors for riparian habitat degradation. 

 

From 2014-2017, develop a Wetland and Riparian Rehabilitation Plan 

(and associated NEPA document) for Camas NWR using a threetiered process: 

1. 2014-2015: Assessment of hydrologic, geomorphic, and biologic 

features associated with target wetland (i.e., hemi-marsh, shallow 

marsh, and wet meadow) and riparian (i.e., riparian and riparian 

woodland) systems; 

2. 2014-2017: Implementation of wetland pilot projects to evaluate 

biological and physical responses to management action and assess 

management objectives; and 

3. 2017: Work with partners to develop a decision support system to 

identify management objectives and support an integrated approach to 

rehabilitating wetland and riparian habitats in the Plan. 

 

From 2014-2015, conduct surveys and assessments needed to develop 

the Wetland and Riparian Rehabilitation Plan: 

1. Conduct Hydro Geomorphic Model (HGM) and engineering 

feasibility study by 2015 (See Goal 4; Objective 4.1) to determine 

historic and current physical refuge setting and best future 

management options. 

2. From 2014-2015, survey refuge portions of Camas Creek to 

identify reaches with: a) relatively intact (few anthropogenic impacts 

evident) and worthy of maintenance or protection management 

strategies; b) reaches where restoration is feasible with changes in 

current land-use practices or without large expenditures of resources; 

c) reaches that could be restored, but only at high cost; and d) those 

reaches that are in a condition where restoration is not technically 

feasible due to extreme conditions of alteration, degradation, or 

sociopolitical issues. 

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-55 

From 2014-2017, implement pilot projects to assess management 

objectives for the Wetland and Riparian Rehabilitation Plan: 

1. Construct pilot projects for new diversion structures and additional 

points-of-diversion to test the capacity to increase the efficacy of 

water delivery to only partially deflect Camas Creek flows into 

managed wetlands, while allowing partial flow to remain in the 

Camas Creek channel. 

2. Initiate pilot projects to decrease water loss in Camas Creek 

channel, including artificially lining the upper main Camas Creek 

canal to decrease surface water loss to groundwater recharge and 

increase available riparian water downstream. 

3. From 2014-2017, initiate spring or stream bank stabilization pilot 

projects with planted plugs or transplants of meadow grasses, sedges, 

and rushes and riparian woody vegetation on low to moderately 

incised channels to maintain riparian sites that are losing their ability 

to support riparian habitat types. 

 

Between 2014 and 2017, implement pilot project to lower the banks 

of Camas Creek on the Refuge at strategic locations, as consistent 

with Idaho Water Law, to increase the occurrence of natural overbank 

flooding. 

 

Upon completion of the Wetland and Riparian Rehabilitation Plan in 

2017, design a new water delivery system (e.g., wells, canals, pipes, 

pumps, breaching and/or removal of dikes) to modify, relocate and 

restore more natural and efficient wetland hydrology, where 

applicable and desirable. 

 

From 2014-2017, prevent further stream incision and avulsion where 

possible to improve ecological conditions or maintain existing 

riparian habitat, while lessening further riparian degradation. 

 

Obtain necessary permits for implementation of Camas Creek 

rehabilitation and ensure compliance with Federal and State 

regulatory programs and requirements (e.g., NEPA; EPA/IDEQSections 401, 402, and 404 of the Clean Water Act; ESA Section 7 

and 10; Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899). 

 

Identify and link available resources to the actions required to 

implement Camas Creek habitat rehabilitation and secure available 

funds to execute the restoration design. 

 

From 2017-2027, as required and identified in the Camas NWR 

Wetland and Riparian Rehabilitation Plan, restore riparian in-stream 

habitats by installing in-stream grade control structures (e.g., crossvanes, J-hooks, rock vanes, W-weirs, check-dams, K-dams, jack 

dams, wedge dams, dams, log/rock sills, log drop structure) to prevent 

and minimize further riparian incision of the main Camas Creek 

channel, prevent incision in spring channels, and maintain existing 

springs and seeps that feed wet meadows. 

 

From 2017-2027, as required and identified in the Camas NWR 

Wetland and Riparian Rehabilitation Plan, decrease upstream gully 

propagation from headcut advancement occurring from the combined 

effects of surface and groundwater (seepage) erosion associated with 

shallow groundwater and layered stratigraphy, by assessing options 

and installing as required: 1) in-stream check dams and weirs to 

stabilize the base level and retain sediment; 

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-56 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

2) re-grading and vegetating the gully banks and headcut to increase 

channel cross-sectional area and reduce shear stress to lessen bank 

failures; 3) lining headcuts and banks with rocks or erosion-resistant 

materials; and 4) spreading or diverting surface flows to reduce the 

volume of water entering the gully and to limit the concentration of 

erosional forces of surface flows. 

Monitor large ungulate (i.e., elk, deer, and moose) use of willow 

communities to ensure habitat structure is not being degraded and 

natural regeneration and recruitment of willows is not being inhibited. 

 

Promote natural willow regeneration in established stands by 

physically, biologically, or mechanically treating 10% of large old 

stands a season to create structural diversity and habitat mosaics. 

 

Use patchy low intensity prescribed fire to create mosaics of willow 

stands in various successional stages. 

 

Seed or plant willow and red-osier dogwood along wetland edges, or 

other appropriate hydric areas to connect or expanding existing 

riparian woodlands. Incorporate techniques to discourage rodent 

damage to new plantings. 

 

Minimize riparian channel degradation and encourage natural instream structure and woody debris, to the extent practical, as per 

existing water rights requirements for channel maintenance. 

  

Establish riparian plant species in formerly degraded sites by 

propagation and planting of willows and riparian obligate vegetation, 

through proper selection of species, planting locations, planting 

elevations and zones, plant material procurement or propagation, 

plant handling, and establishment techniques. 

  

Acquire property and water rights to increase Camas Creek base 

flows within the Refuge. 

  

Annually measure and monitor existing water rights for both 

groundwater and surface water usage. 

  

Monitor Camas Creek surface flows daily and file an end-of-the year 

water usage report with Water District 31. 

  

Monitor groundwater wells at least once a month and file end-of-year 

usage report with the Idaho Department of Water Resources. 

  

Maintain consistent and effective communication with district water 

masters. 

  

Monitor public notices of intent on modification of current and new 

water rights. 

  

Use IPM strategies including chemical, mechanical, horticultural, and 

biological control agents to control/eradicate invasive plants (see 

Appendix F). 

  

Rationale, Objective 1.4 Camas Creek Riparian (In-Stream and Willow) Habitat Management: 

Habitat Management. Yellow warblers, willow flycatchers, and associated species require dense thickets 

of deciduous riparian shrubs for feeding and/or reproduction. This objective and associated strategies seek 

to maximize shrub density while managing for periodic disturbance to reinvigorate woody riparian stands. 

The greatest negative impact to riparian shrub habitat over the last century has been past grazing practices 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-57 

and the purposeful eradication of riparian habitats as to not impede water delivery. In recent years, 

livestock grazing and other impacts to woody riparian communities at Camas NWR have been 

significantly reduced. The result has been an increase in both the quantity and quality of this habitat type 

on the Refuge. In order to continue this upward trend, it will be necessary to protect these and additional 

potential woody riparian areas from unnecessary impacts. In target areas that are either disconnected from 

the floodplain, or lie outside of floodplain areas, supplemental soil moisture via flood irrigation would be 

used to sustain existing acres of this habitat and promote expansion. Strategic planting would be used to 

increase shrub species diversity. Proposed prescribed fire and mowing treatments would be infrequent, 

and balanced by the need for older stands of dense, undisturbed willow/shrub areas according to focal 

species’ needs. 

Habitat Restoration. Throughout the western states, riparian ecosystems have been affected by water 

diversions or spring and seep modifications that decrease the quantity of instream flows and result in 

lowered water-tables (Castelli et al. 2000). Water extraction is especially damaging in arid and semi-arid 

regions where the presence of instream and groundwater flows are crucial to riparian vegetation. In 

riparian ecosystems in the western U.S., water supply is a function of both instream flows (Rood and 

Mahoney 1990; Stromberg et al. 1993) and groundwater available from springs and seeps (Allen-Diaz 

1991). Stream diversion, development of springs and seeps, and groundwater pumping can result in both 

direct and indirect effects on riparian water tables. Water-table declines can cause shifts in plant 

composition from mesic to xeric species and decreases in the overall extent of riparian ecosystems. The 

loss of riparian vegetation, in turn, can affect stream channel stability by increasing bank erosion and 

resulting in channel degradation or aggradation (Rosgen 1996). 

Camas Creek is the heart of a complex irrigation system where groundwater is pumped into the modified 

creek channel to supply irrigated agriculture. Camas Creek flows reach Mud Lake reservoir, which is the 

endpoint for all drainage in the Beaver-Camas Subbasin. Camas Creek is §303(d) listed from its 

headwaters to its mouth in two segments. IDEQ (2005) determined upstream riparian grazing has 

contributed to bank erosion and elevated stream temperatures. Sediment and temperature TMDLs have 

been calculated to address the pollutants of concern in the upper segment. The lower section of Camas 

Creek is 303(d) listed for flow alteration, habitat alteration, sediment, nutrients, and temperature. Because 

this section of Camas Creek is intermittent and flow altered for irrigation, the lower segment was 

proposed for de-listing for sediment, nutrients, and temperature and re-listed as a flow altered reach 

(IDEQ 2005). 

Although the effects of channelization on the Camas Creek stream ecosystem are substantial and obvious, 

the effects on the associated riparian and wetland ecosystem are equally significant. The effects of 

channelization on the Camas Creek riparian zone include reduction in frequency of floodplain inundation, 

reduction or elimination of natural channel migration, elimination of sediment beds used as plant 

recruitment areas, and lower groundwater tables. Confinement of flood flows to the channel eliminates 

the periodic inundation of the floodplain, and thereby decreases the level of soil moisture in the riparian 

zone. In meandering channels, stabilizing and fixing a channel in place eliminates point bar development 

and growth. Point and other channel side bars provide open areas of bare sediment available for 

recruitment by bottomland trees (Bradley and Smith 1985; Scott et al. 1996). Finally, channel shortening 

and steepening contributes to alluvial water table to drop, turning refuge groundwater-dependent riparian 

ecosystems into drier upland types (Groeneveld and Griepentrog 1985; Schoof 1980). 

Large woody debris (LWD: greater than 10 cm [3.9 inches] diameter and 1 m [3.3 feet] in length) in 

stream channels has an important role in the ecological processes of lotic systems, dictating channel form, 

providing sites for storage of organic matter and sediment, and modifying the movement and 

transformation of nutrients (Bisson et al. 1987). It is well known that LWD influences the physical 

characteristics of streams, affecting the in-channel biological community (Bilby and Bisson 1998; Maser 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-58 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

and Sedell 1994) as well as the dynamics of the riparian woodland (Naiman et al. 1998, 2000). 

Additionally, LWD on the riparian woodland floor and in the channel provides habitat for many species of 

wildlife (Bartels et al. 1985; Steel et al. 1999). Geomorphic evidence suggests that a stable piece of large 

wood may influence a channel for anywhere from tens to hundreds of years (Bryant 1980; Keller and 

Swanson 1979; Keller and Tally 1979; Megahan 1982), and the impacts of a mass debris flood movement 

event may last for decades, and probably much longer (Pearce and Watson 1983; Swanson and Dyrness 

1975). 

However, local water users are very concerned about the accumulation of “debris” within riparian 

channels, as they believe this impedes water flows and volume. As allowed under State regulations, the 

Mud Lake irrigators have been allowed to remove all “debris” and regenerating willows within refuge 

stream channels. Idaho statutes for the Alteration of Channels and Streams (Title 42; Chapter 38; 42-

3806) states: “No permit shall be required by the state or any agency or political subdivision thereof, from 

a water user or his agent to remove any obstruction from any stream channel, if such obstruction 

interferes with, or is likely to interfere with, the delivery of, or use of, water under any existing or vested 

water right, or water right permit.” The Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2) and Alternative 3 would seek 

collaborative common ground solutions with the Mud Lake Water Users to ensure the rightful conveyance 

of Camas Creek waters to Mud Lake while restoring important riparian habitat processes, such as instream debris maintenance. 

Wetland and Riparian Rehabilitation Plan. Increasing public concern regarding the sustainable 

development of river systems and the maintenance and enhancement of their biodiversity has resulted in 

the demand for the implementation of more environmentally sensitive and natural engineering works, and 

for the restoration of unstable and degraded rivers (Boulton 1999). Consequently, there is an urgent need 

to develop more appropriate channel design procedures that will not only preserve the natural stability of 

rivers but, by maintaining habitat diversity, also their ecological and amenity value. By designing with 

nature, rather than imposing a solution on the river, such approaches are likely to be sustainable and, 

therefore, more cost effective than traditional engineering solutions (Hey 2006; Rosgen 1994). Thus, 

practices to reduce, rather than eliminate, the channelization disturbance must be undertaken (Henderson 

1986; Brookes 1988). Although still in its formative stages, restoration science for riparian ecosystems is 

growing rapidly, and progress is being made (Goodwin et al. 1997). There is not, and probably never will 

be, a universal approach to riparian restoration that is appropriate for all situations. The continuum of 

river and riparian environments is so extensive that Camas NWR should not seek universal solutions or 

transfer management approaches based on relations and concepts developed for other riparian systems 

(Schumm 1984). 

In Alternatives 2 (Preferred Alternative) and 3, we propose to develop an integrated Camas NWR 

Wetland and Riparian Rehabilitation Plan (WRRP) and associated NEPA document by 2017. Riparian 

restoration requires the a priori specification of a set of physical and ecological conditions to be 

established at a restoration site. The WRRP would consider various alternatives for Camas Creek 

restoration, weigh the biological, cultural, economic, and social benefits and costs, and determine a future 

course of action supporting desired ecological outcomes. A three-tiered process would be used to develop 

the management plan: (1) identification of management objectives, and assessment of hydrologic, 

geomorphic, and biologic features associated with target riparian systems and associated wetlands; (2) 

Implementation of riparian/wetland pilot projects to evaluate biological and physical responses to 

management action, and assess the efficacy of management strategies; and (3) development of a decision 

support system to support an integrated wetland/riparian rehabilitation plan and associated NEPA 

document with refuge partners. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would provide a realistic timeline to complete and implement the rehabilitation plan 

within the lifetime of the CCP. The first two years would be spent collecting necessary information 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-59 

(geomorphological, hydrological, and biological assessments). Concurrently, the Refuge would 

implement and monitor rehabilitation pilot projects to gain a better understanding of system response to 

enhancement activities. By conducting pilot studies over the next four years (2014-17), the Refuge would 

better understand how the riparian system and adjacent wetland habitats may respond to larger scale 

rehabilitation efforts. Such pilot projects would have the advantage of being relatively low cost and 

reversible, and allow the Refuge to assess the efficacy of different approaches in meeting biological 

objectives before making a decision to pursue larger, long term projects. For example, a long term goal of 

increasing the frequency and duration of overbank flows could be accomplished by either raising the 

channel bottom or lowering the banks to their historic natural height. A pilot project to lower banks in 

strategic locations would allow the efficacy of this strategy in restoring overbank flows to be assessed. 

Using results from the pilot projects, a comprehensive plan would be crafted by 2017, and 

implementation of long-term rehabilitation efforts would be conducted from 2017-2027. 

The objective of stream restoration proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3 is to restore natural geomorphic 

forms and processes and a sustainable fluvial ecosystem. Restoration of geomorphic form, however, does 

not necessarily restore geomorphic processes. Streams are complex geomorphic features (Schumm 1984), 

shaped and controlled by numerous internal and external processes and conditions. Like human beings, 

streams are singular or unique, even though all streams share many common characteristics (Schumm 

1984). This combination of complexity and singularity means that restoring Camas Creek to some 

particular form does not guarantee that riparian processes would be reestablished (Goodwin et al. 1997). 

Because riparian ecosystems are dependent on their watersheds, larger scale watershed and river basin 

approaches to restoration may be necessary to solve Camas Creek problems (DeBano and Schmidt 

1989a,b, 1990; McGlothlin et al. 1988). These watershed changes may be manifested in the riparian zone 

by channel degradation, aggradation or widening, lowering of the alluvial groundwater table, and 

modifications to fluvial processes (Keller and Kondolf 1990; McGlothlin et al. 1988). In addition to 

watershed treatments, in-channel structures may be required to stabilize channels, reduce sediment, and 

extend the duration of streamflow (DeBano and Schmidt 1989). If the watershed cannot be restored, the 

stream channel and riparian zone must be rehabilitated to a state in equilibrium with the watershed’s 

ongoing water-sediment production regime (Brookes 1987; Morris 1995). While some of the stream 

systems and their associated meadow complexes have adjusted to the current hydrologic and 

sedimentologic regimes and are now in a quasi-equilibrium state, others are in a nonequilibrium state and 

are still actively incising. Consequently, return to pre-incision conditions is an unrealistic goal for these 

dynamic systems (Chambers and Miller 2011). 

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-60 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

UPLAND HABITATS 

Objective 1.5: Semi-Desert Shrub Steppe Habitat Management 

(1.5a) For the life of the plan, maintain existing sagebrush-steppe habitat (2,623 acres) and 

slightly increase efforts to prioritize a “triaged” effort for rehabilitation and restoration of 

degraded uplands as a subordinate priority to the primary refuge emphasis for wetland 

management. 

(1.6b) Over the life of the plan, rehabilitate 113 acres of degraded or altered upland sagebrush 

habitat on historic sagebrush sites impacted by wildfire or previously type-converted to 

agriculture, while conducting experimental (<1 acre) test-plot treatments to increase plant diversity 

and habitat function within refuge areas dominated by crested wheatgrass.

Benefitting Refuge Species: 

Sage-grouse, sage thrasher, mule deer, elk, pygmy rabbit, Idaho pocket gopher, Brewer’s 

sparrow, loggerhead shrike 

Upland sagebrush habitat is characterized by the following attributes: 

 Basin big sagebrush, in silty or sandy soils, with perennial bunchgrass understory

 Wyoming sagebrush in shallower drier soils, with perennial bunchgrass understory

 Fire frequency return-intervals from 50-100 years. 

 10-40% open to moderately dense canopy cover dominated by sagebrush or co-dominated 

by 5-10% antelope bitterbrush. 

 Shadscale saltbush, green rabbitbrush, rubber rabbitbrush, horsebrush, or prairie sagewort 

may be common, especially in disturbed stands. 

 >25% cover of native bunchgrasses (e.g., Indian ricegrass, plains reedgrass, streambank 

wheatgrass, Idaho fescue, rough fescue, prairie Junegrass, Sandberg bluegrass, and 

bluebunch wheatgrass) and forbs (i.e., Hood’s phlox, sandwort, and milkvetch). 

 <10% cover of invasive plants (e.g., Russian knapweed, cheatgrass) 

Alternatives 

Objective as written above is modified by replacing acres in italics 

with the text in this row.

Alt 1 

Current 

Alt 2 

Preferred 

Alt 3 

(1.6a) Sagebrush-steppe Restoration and Rehabilitation efforts: Maintain Slightly 

Increase 

Dramatically 

increase 

(1.6a) Restoration and Rehabilitation prioritization: Case-bycase 

Triaged Extensive 

(1.6a) Refuge management emphasis: As a subordinate priority 

to wetland/riparian 

management 

As a Coequal priority 

with wetland/

riparian 

management 

(1.6b) Treatment acres: Rehabilitate 113 acres Restore and 

Rehabilitate 

425 acres 

(1.6b) Restoration scale: Experimental 

treatments 

Ecological 

restoration 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-61 

(1.6b) Restoration attributes: Increase. 

habitat 

diversity, 

function 

Increase 

ecological 

integrity 

(1.6b) Restoration target area: Areas 

dominated 

by crested 

wheatgrass 

The Upper 

Snake 

ecosystem 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 

Current 

Alt 2 

Preferred 

Alt 3 

Opportunistically restore sagebrush in degraded habitats that have 

recently burned, or are in stable crested wheatgrass or cheatgrass 

monocultures. 

  

Prioritize wetland/riparian rehabilitation over upland habitat 

restoration. Should resources become available through agency 

funding, partnerships, etc., restore upland habitat using a strategic, 

“triaged” approach. 



Initiate upland habitat restoration and wetland/riparian rehabilitation 

as an equal management priority. 

 

Implement experimental (<1 acre) test-plots to restore sagebrush 

within refuge areas dominated by crested wheatgrass. 

  

Facilitate the establishment and persistence of native grasses and 

forbs in non-native crested wheatgrass monocultures. 

 Decrease density of crested wheatgrass through appropriate 

treatments (mechanical, chemical, and fire), implemented singly 

or in combination, prior to introducing native grasses and forbs as 

seed or seedlings. 

 After treatment to reduce non-native grasses, inter-seed native 

grasses and forbs with a standard rangeland drill, minimal till drill 

where less soil disturbance is desired (e.g., Truax or Brillion), or 

deep-furrow rangeland drill (for deeper sod forming soils). 

 Transplant “wildlings” from existing native populations or 

propagated bareroot or container stock. 

 Document all implementation practices (e.g., spatial and temporal 

considerations, conditions, techniques, equipment). 

  

Monitor plant diversity in the sagebrush restoration areas annually 

for the first post-restoration year and every 2-3 years thereafter to 

measure the effectiveness of treatments and provide a framework for 

adaptive management to improve restoration practices in the future. 

  

Minimize public use and management activities that disturb the soil 

surface (e.g., grading of road shoulders or use by OHVs) which may 

increase spread of invasive species into sagebrush habitats. 

  

Rehabilitate sagebrush sites impacted by wildfire through 

Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation (ESR) and Burned Area 

Emergency Response (BAER) or refuge force-account funds. 

Evaluate wildfires as soon as possible to determine if re-seeding is 

necessary to achieve habitat management objectives. If needed, plant 

sagebrush seedlings to increase sagebrush succession in burned areas 

with high sagebrush mortality. Re-seed herbaceous understory with 

native bunchgrasses and forbs whenever possible. Ensure post-fire 

  
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-62 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

activities do not remove or burn any remaining patches of sagebrush 

within the fire perimeter. 

Enhance the development of partnerships for design and 

implementation of sagebrush conservation and restoration efforts. 

  

Coordinate sagebrush management actions and treatments with State 

WMAs, IDFG, BLM, Tribe, and the USFS as partnering agencies 

and land management entities. 

  

Cooperatively share restoration techniques and ideas with partnering 

agencies and land management entities (e.g., Mud Lake and Market 

Lake Wildlife Management Areas, BLM, Tribes, IDFG, USFS). 

  

Reduce the size, intensity, and frequency of wildfires by identifying 

and implementing an active refuge fire suppression response in 

identified functional high priority sage-grouse habitat. 

 

Do not implement prescribed fire in sage-grouse habitats prone to 

invasion by cheatgrass and other invasive weed species unless 

adequate measures are included in restoration plans to replace the 

cheatgrass understory with perennial species using approved 

reseeding strategies. These strategies could include, but are not 

limited to, use of pre-emergent herbicides (e.g., Oust®, Plateau®) to 

retard cheatgrass germination until perennial herbaceous species 

become established. 

 

Restrict prescribed fire occurrence >200 meters (m; 656 feet) from 

riparian and wet meadows and limit fire size to not exceed a onetime occurrence of >120 acres or 20% of the total refuge winter 

sage-grouse habitat within any 20-30 year interval, unless other 

compelling reasons warrant larger areas. In those cases, the reasons 

should be thoroughly justified in the analysis. Removal of sagebrush 

should be avoided. 

 

Work with the representative agencies that constitute the Upper 

Snake Sage-grouse Local Working Group to create a useable habitat 

map and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) database of the 

Upper Snake area that identifies: leks; nesting and early brood 

rearing habitat; summer brood rearing habitat, winter habitat; and 

migration corridors/linkage areas. 

 

Evaluate the anticipated responses and model the trajectory of 

sagebrush communities to human-associated disturbances across the 

Upper Snake regional ecosystem as the basis for spatial prioritization 

of landscape scale management. 

 

Establish spatial priorities, across the regional sagebrush ecosystem 

within the Upper Snake Sage-grouse Local Working Group by 

estimating and inventorying resistance and resiliency of sagebrush 

communities for best uses of limited resources for maintenance of 

current conditions, and restoration of desirable conditions. 

 

Prioritize habitat management actions to occur within: 

1. Existing habitats, in occupied sage-grouse range, that have 

moderate or high potential to be maintained; 

2. Former habitats, in occupied sage-grouse range, that have 

moderate or high potential to be restored, and that are adjacent to or 

close to areas with moderate or high potential to be maintained; and 

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-63 

3. Existing habitats, in occupied sage-grouse range, that have low 

potential to be maintained. 

Implement preventive treatments in priority areas that are vulnerable 

to wildfire to reduce potential large-scale losses of sage-grouse 

habitat by: 

1. Identification for potential for wildfire occurrence based on 

history, human use patterns, and fuel loading; 

2. Potential for wildfire ignition, difficulty of suppression, potential 

suppression tactics, and potential acreage of burns; and 

3. Minimizing the acreage that is vulnerable to wildfire by 

implementing preventive treatments (i.e., mechanical, physical, and 

chemical) to reduce fine and woody fuel loads and the risk of 

catastrophic wildfire. 

 

Estimate the resources and budgets required to fully address 

extensive participation and coordination of landscape spatial 

sagebrush restoration and management priorities within the Upper 

Snake region. 

 

Formulate a regional approach to sagebrush conversation by 

contacting landowners in key habitat areas to explain sage grouse 

needs and seek their support for improving sage grouse habitat. Meet 

with groups and agencies that work with private landowners to 

explain and seek support for actions outlined the Idaho Sage-grouse 

Management Plan (1997) and Upper Snake Sage-Grouse Local 

Working Group Plan for Increasing Sage-Grouse Populations (2009). 

 

Restore degraded sagebrush areas (areas with undesirable vegetation 

and areas in poor ecological condition) with a desired mix of grasses, 

forbs, and shrubs so they again can become usable habitat for focal 

sage-obligate species, by: 

1. Mechanically, physically, or chemically decrease sagebrush cover 

in areas predominately shrub dominated (shrub dominated state/late 

seral) and of low risk for invasive species establishment. 

2. Inter-seed native grass (broadcast/harrow, but preferably shallow 

drilling with a rangeland drill) and native forbs (seed or head-started 

seedlings) to increase diversity within the herbaceous understory. 

 

Use IPM strategies including chemical, mechanical, horticultural, 

and biological control agents to control/eradicate invasive plants (see 

Appendix F). 

  

Rationale, Objective 1.5: Semi-Desert Shrub Steppe Habitat Management: 

Shrub-steppe habitat is the least variable of all refuge habitat types, but complements the wetland complex 

by providing additional habitat for upland nesting wildlife. Additionally, shrub habitats provide winter 

cover for big game species such as moose and mule deer, while serving as the primary habitat type used by 

specialists such as sage-grouse. 

The sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) ecosystem once occupied over 150 million acres of western North America 

(Barbour and Billings 1988). The ecosystem still occupies over 100 million acres (Connelly et al. 2004; 

Wisdom et al. 2005a), but the abundance and condition of sagebrush communities is declining rapidly in 

response to a variety of detrimental land uses and undesirable ecological processes (Knick et al. 2003). 

Since Euro-American settlement, this ecosystem has been reduced in area by 40-50% (Connelly et al. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-64 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

2004), and less than 10% remains in a condition unaltered by human disturbances (West 1999). Numerous 

anthropogenic threats have reduced the abundance, quality, and contiguity of sagebrush ecosystems. 

Wisdom et al. (2005a) identified 26 threats to sagebrush habitats and species that operate at regional scales, 

and thus affect, or have potential to affect, areas the size of a county, multiple counties, or even a state. The 

varied range of threats—including climate change, exotic plant invasions, roads to transmission lines, 

urban development, and overgrazing by livestock—shows that no single factor or process is responsible for 

the ecosystem’s problems. 

Currently the Refuge contains 2,623 acres of sagebrush-steppe (primarily Basin big sagebrush) habitat, 

which includes about 470 acres of green rabbitbrush shrubland. (Green rabbitbrush shrubland is 

considered an early successional stage, with sagebrush being the climax community). Over time, more 

than half of the sagebrush habitat at Camas NWR has been highly degraded by altered fire regimes, past 

livestock grazing, and invasive species. The total current acreage of upland non-native plant communities, 

which were historically either sagebrush-steppe or native grassland, is 1,114 acres. Most of this area (984 

acres) is dominated by crested wheatgrass monocultures which have relatively low value to wildlife. The 

condition of the Refuge’s remaining sagebrush and green rabbitbrush plant communities are variable. 

Some relatively high quality stands remain, that are far superior to any shrub habitat on adjacent private 

land, while other areas have a high percentage of non-native grasses and forbs in the understory. 

Before undertaking broad restorative efforts, Alternatives 2 and 3 call for inventories to determine which 

sagebrush communities are currently resistant and resilient, versus those that have low resistance and 

resilience, as well as those with characteristics intermediate to these extremes (Wisdom et al. 2005b). 

Healthy sage-steppe communities are defined as “resistant” when the ecosystem maintains its structural 

and functional attributes in the face of stress and disturbances. “Resilience” describes the ability of an 

ecosystem to regain structural and functional attributes that have suffered harm from stress or disturbance. 

Current knowledge suggests that little can be done to restore vast areas of sagebrush that have already been 

lost and experienced threshold effects that are impossible, or highly improbable, to reverse (Bunting et al. 

2002). On the other hand, many areas of existing sagebrush that are close to transitioning to undesirable, 

irreversible habitat conditions (e.g., cheatgrass) might be prevented from transitioning through 

management intervention. Still other areas of sagebrush are highly resistant and resilient to most human 

disturbances, and would require less management intervention to retain native components and processes. 

Under all alternatives we would use a suite of strategies (physical, mechanical, and chemical treatments) 

to attain desired vegetative conditions on either existing or restored upland habitats. Restoration is 

typically thought of as one or more actions that move an ecosystem from its current degraded set of 

conditions toward a target, or reference, set of conditions (SER 2002). In contrast to this “active” 

restoration, “passive” restoration entails eliminating the source of the disturbance that resulted in 

degraded conditions, protecting that ecosystem from other disturbances, and allowing the ecosystem to 

recover on its own and at its own pace (DellaSala et al. 2003; Kauffman et al. 1997). Some existing 

refuge sagebrush communities are highly resilient and resistant, and therefore at low risk from 

disturbance and transitioning to an undesirable state. These communities are better managed and 

maintained in their current state, as proposed in Alternative 1. The passive approach is exemplified in 

Alternative 1 (Current Management). Alternative 1 would rely on maintenance and protection of existing 

uplands through invasive species containment and limiting access. In most cases previous protective and 

passive restrictions, such as eliminating livestock grazing from the Refuge in 1994, have greatly enhanced 

upland habitats, facilitated regeneration in previously disturbed areas, and minimized the need for active 

management. 

However, in some areas past grazing impacted sagebrush shrub habitat to the point where transitional 

thresholds were reached and degraded habitats are now dominated by late successional sagebrush with 

little grass or forb understory. These areas are now at risk from catastrophic wildfire and conversion to an 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-65 

annual cheatgrass state. It is highly unlikely that small refinements in current management practices will 

maintain existing, desirable conditions in areas where sagebrush communities have low resistance and 

resiliency (Hemstrom et al. 2002). Many sagebrush communities that have intermediate levels of 

resistance and resiliency require restoration and active management, as identified in Alternatives 2 and 3, 

to prevent undesirable transitions that are likely to occur under current management (Alternative 1). 

Active restoration (as proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3) would be required to restore these altered 

habitats. 

Alternative 3 would seek to both prevent undesirable transitions of community type, and restore relatively 

large areas of degraded sagebrush habitat on the Refuge. Implementation of this alternative would require 

comprehensive and effective management of all human-associated disturbances that operate at broader 

scales in the sagebrush ecosystem. If all human-associated disturbances were effectively managed, as 

proposed in Alternative 3, many existing sagebrush communities might be maintained, and some former 

sagebrush-steppe communities within the Upper Snake ecoregion would have a better chance of being 

restored. To focus mitigation on some threats, but ignore many other threats, is a strategy likely to fail 

when applied at the landscape scale across expansive areas that typically experience a wide variety of 

disturbances (Wisdom et al. 2005a). 

However, the funds needed to fully implement all prescriptions on regional sagebrush ecosystems are 

scarce, and considerations of current natural resource management budgets makes implementation of 

Alternative 3 difficult at best (Wisdom et al. 2005b). Unless budgets substantially increase for public land 

managers of sagebrush, there simply are not enough resources to maintain all current sagebrush 

communities, let alone recover a portion of communities lost. In the Interior Columbia Basin, Hemstrom et 

al. (2002) and Wisdom et al. (2002) found that even a six-fold increase in the budgets of the U.S. 

Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service 

for sagebrush maintenance and restoration reduced the rate of decline in habitat loss and quality, but did 

not reverse the decline. Notably, Hemstrom et al. (2002) and Wisdom et al. (2002) focused their 

management scenarios on restoration of former sagebrush sites, with less emphasis on maintenance of 

existing communities; increased emphasis on maintenance would likely have resulted in more effective 

outcomes. Regardless, the findings of these authors demonstrate that a dramatic funding increase is 

required to realistically expect a reversal in the accelerating loss of both area and quality of sagebrush 

habitats. Consequently, an appropriate concept of “triage” would be implemented according to a system of 

priorities designed to maximize habitat function (Wisdom et al. 2005b). Prioritizing, or “triaging” areas for 

habitat management in occupied sage-grouse range which have moderate or high potential to be 

maintained concentrates management where populations of sagebrush focal species are largest and 

declining least (Connelly et al. 2004). Finally, these are the areas most likely to be maintained under 

current refuge budget and resource constraints. 

If the Refuge were to select Alternative 3, which elevates upland habitat restoration as a coequal to 

wetland/riparian rehabilitation, as the Preferred Alternative, upland habitat restoration would likely 

compete with wetland and riparian restoration for limited resources (refuge staff time, grant opportunities, 

and partnership involvement). Such an approach would be analogous to fighting a war on two fronts (Wu 

et al. 2000), possibly compromising the success of either effort (Botrill et al. 2008; Mackenzie 2008). 

Therefore, Alternative 2, which prioritizes wetland/riparian rehabilitation while moving forward 

strategically with a degree of upland habitat rehabilitation efforts, was selected as the Preferred Alternative 

in this CCP. Alternative 2 allows flexibility in the amount of progress that is made in upland habitat 

restoration, depending on the availability of resources and results of pilot habitat restoration projects. 

Alternative 2 would use optimal decision-making tools to indicate the best allocation of resources to 

achieve conservation objectives. 

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-66 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Restoration of native sagebrush-steppe communities in crested wheatgrass monocultures. Crested 

wheatgrass was widely introduced to the Intermountain regions of North America to improve the condition 

of degraded rangelands (Pellant and Lysne 2005). It proved to be a successful revegetation species due to 

its superior ease of establishment, strong competitive ability, and grazing tolerance (Monsen 2004). 

Crested wheatgrass forms large homogeneous stands lacking the sagebrush and plant species diversity 

required for sage-obligate species (Crawford et al. 2004; Heidniga and Wilson 2002). Once established, 

crested wheatgrass can quickly dominate the seedbank and hinder recruitment and growth of native species 

(Henderson and Naeth 2005; Marlette and Anderson 1986), thereby forming nearly monotypic stands. 

Crested wheatgrass is also reported to resist invasion by nonindigenous forbs and annual grasses (Berube 

and Myers 1982; D’Antonio and Vitousek 1992; Sheley et al. 2008). 

The best methods to suppress crested wheatgrass in order to establish sagebrush should be based on the 

most current scientific literature and knowledge (Pehrson and Sowell 2011). Crested wheatgrass cover 

must be reduced for sagebrush to be seeded and successfully established. While no one technique has 

proven to eliminate crested wheatgrass in a single application, strategies to increase native plant diversity 

in crested wheatgrass stands need to address all three causes of succession (site availability, species 

availability, species performance). Furthermore, treatments to suppress crested wheatgrass need to be 

applied at the most opportune time and may need to be repeated prior to introducing native species (Fansler 

and Mangold 2010). Subsequent management that favors the persistence of native species and retards 

crested wheatgrass is critical. Otherwise, attempts to control crested wheatgrass and establish native 

species would lead to failure and lost investments. Treatments that address species performance should be 

considered in future research projects. Repeated treatments or combinations of treatments may be 

necessary to reduce crested wheatgrass biomass and increase the establishment of native seeded species 

(Pellant and Lynse 2005). Achieving shrub densities of 1 shrub/m2

 (1 shrub/11 square feet) would be 

acceptable; however, 1.2 to 1.4 shrubs/m2 (1.2 to 1.4 shrubs/11 square feet) would provide better habitat for 

most shrub-dependent species, such as sage-grouse (Woodward 2006). 

Applying seed with a rangeland drill is considered the best method for establishing species with large, 

hard seeds because the seed is placed in contact with the soil and at an appropriate depth (Hull 1948; Pyke 

1994). However, seeding many native species with the standard rangeland drill is problematic given the 

lack of control of seeding depth, variable seed coverage with soil, and absence of a mechanism to 

improve soil to seed contact. Surface obstructions such as rocks, steep slopes, and soddy vegetation also 

limit the effectiveness of rangeland drills in establishing any seed mixture, especially native forbs and 

grasses. One unknown in the use of rangeland drills is the effectiveness of these drills in cutting through 

dead plant crowns and shallow root masses. If this is a problem, the Refuge has developed management 

strategies in Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 for the use of a deep furrow rangeland drill (Hull and Stewart 1948), 

which has a double furrow opener, which may be more effective in soddy conditions than the rangeland 

drill, which has a single furrow opener. The single disk or double disk opener on the rangeland drill does 

create a furrow that can capture and store water for seedlings. However, the soil disturbance created by 

this drill also opens the plant community for the entry of other invasive species. It may not be possible or 

feasible to evaluate seeding success or failure until at least eight years after initial seeding (Schuman et al. 

2005). However, the benefits of increasing plant diversity in crested wheatgrass monocultures would 

include improved aesthetics, more soil cover (Stevens 1994), and increased diversity of birds, mammals, 

reptiles, and insects (Reynolds 1980). 

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-67 

GOAL 2: Naturalized Habitats 

Provide high quality forage and cover habitat to increase fitness (e.g., physical 

condition, survival, reproduction) of migratory birds. 

Objective 2.1: Shelterbelt Habitat Management 

(2.1a) Maintain 34 acres of naturalized shelterbelt habitat in current location with partial 

groundwater flooding irrigation and micro-irrigation using additional supplemental funding 

sources, other than refuge force-account base funds. 

(2.1b) Annually re-plant 10-15% of mature cottonwoods within the existing shelterbelt stand lost 

to drought or old age, and annually restore 1-5% of the understory to native Idaho tree and 

shrub species. 

Benefitting Refuge Species: 

Breeding: Willow flycatcher, dusky flycatcher, yellow warbler 

Migrants: Wilson’s warbler, yellow-rumped warbler, ruby-crowned kinglet, Mac Gillivray’s 

warbler 

Wintering: Bald eagle 

Shelterbelt habitat is characterized by the following attributes: 

 Introduced and naturalized plains cottonwood. 

 >40% canopy cover of mature (>60 feet tall) and >20% early-mid successional (<60 feet tall) 

cottonwood. 

 <15% cover of understory exotic shrubs (i.e., Siberian pea, Russian olive) that are <18 feet in 

height 

 >35% cover of native understory shrubs and trees (i.e., blue elderberry; black hawthorn; 

chokecherry; silver buffaloberry; skunkbush sumac; Wood’s rose; red osier dogwood; American 

plum) 

 Occasional overbank flooding and sediment deposition, for cottonwood seed dispersal and 

regeneration. 

 <5-10% cover of invasive plants (e.g., cheatgrass, Canada thistle, musk thistle, smooth brome 

grass) 

Alternatives 

Objective as written above is modified by replacing acres in italics 

with the text in this row.

Alt 1 

Current 

Alt 2 

Preferred 

Alt 3 

(2.1a) Management action: Maintain 34 acres Expand by 

15 acres 

(2.1a) Shelterbelt location: In current location Along 

periphery 

of existing 

stand 

(2.1a) Irrigation: Groundwater 

irrigation 

Partial 

groundwater 

flooding 

and microirrigation 

Groundwater 

irrigation 

(2.1a) Funding sources for implementation: Refuge 

forceaccount 

Additional 

supplement

al funding 

Force-acct 

+suppl 

funding 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-68 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

(2.1b) Replacement of mature cottonwood overstory: 5-10% 

annually 

10-15% 

annually 

20-25% 

annually 

(2.1b) Restoration of native understory: 5-10% 

annually 

1-5% 

annually 

10-20% 

annually 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 

Current 

Alt 2 

Preferred 

Alt 3 

Pump groundwater and flood irrigate shelterbelt habitat with existing 

ditch and water delivery network to irrigate shelterbelt habitat. 

 

Re-design water delivery system and re-configure groundwater 

pumps to flood irrigate shelterbelt habitat and mimic natural 

floodplain processes in units with water management capabilities 

promote native seed germination and to control invasive plants. 

 

Develop micro-irrigation system and renewable solar energy powered 

water delivery system to supplement groundwater flood irrigation to 

irrigate and establish new plantings. 



Prepare planting or re-planting sites with an individual or 

combination of manual, mechanical, prescribed fire, herbicide 

treatments to improve planting success by improving site conditions 

suitable for high seedling survival and rapid growth. 

 

Initiate habitat management treatments to establish suitable light, 

moisture, and nutrient conditions to naturally release young trees from 

competition from ground or canopy competition. 

 

Between 2014 and 2017 initiate pilot project to lower the banks of 

Camas Creek on the Refuge (See Riparian Habitat Objective 1.4) in 

strategic locations, as consistent with Idaho Water Law, to increase 

the occurrence of natural overbank flooding for shelterbelt habitat. 

 

Seek grants and other funds to provide shelterbelt trees and shrubs 

and materials and supplies to maintain shelterbelt habitats on a 

sustained basis. 

 

Endorse and formulate partnerships with public and private agencies 

and adjacent landowners to maintain and enhance connectivity of 

Regional farm and ranch shelterbelt habitat quality on adjoining 

lands. 

 

Re-initiate landbird banding and monitoring station to inventory and 

monitor spring/fall migrant use and phenology of shelterbelt habitat 

use. 

 

Develop propagation techniques and program for cottonwood and 

native riparian trees and shrubs for out-planting on the Refuge and 

adjoining shelterbelts. 

 

Annually plant an additional 800 m2 (8,611 square feet) (20 × 40 m 

[66 × 131 feet]) area of cottonwood saplings on the peripheral edge of 

the existing shelterbelt stand, adjacent to current irrigation 

capabilities. 

 

Maintain processes which allow natural succession of early 

successional shelterbelt to advance into mid-late succession stage 

habitat. It is estimated that approximately 16 acres of early 

successional shelterbelt would achieve mid-successional 

characteristics over the lifetime of the CCP. 

  

Protect plantings from rodent and deer damage by planting small trees 

in protective plastic tubing, rodent and deer proof fencing, and rodent 

repulsion chemicals. 

  

Replace non-native and/or invasive trees and shrubs (i.e., Russian 

olive, Siberian pea) with trees and shrubs native to Idaho that provide 

similar habitat and food values for migratory birds. 

  
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-69 

Enlist the help of volunteers and other special interest groups to help 

provide labor for planting and maintenance of plantings on a case by 

case basis. 

  

Allow cottonwood snags (standing dead trees) and fallen dead limbs 

to remain unless they pose an immediate danger to the public or 

refuge facilities, or inhibit natural or assisted regeneration of young 

cottonwoods. 

  

Use IPM strategies including mechanical, physical, biological, and 

chemical means to eradicate, control, or contain invasive and 

undesirable plants (see Appendix F-IPM Program) 

  

Rationale, Objective 2.1: Shelterbelt Habitat Management: 

Shelterbelts (also known as windbreaks) generally consist of rows of shrubs and trees planted on the 

windward side of farmstead dwellings (Yahner 1983). Field windbreaks are similar plantings also designed 

to reduce wind erosion of agricultural land (Goldsmith 1976). They became common in the 1930s in order 

to prevent wind erosion on American farmlands. The Food Security Act of 1985 approved shelterbelts as a 

cover type for areas not being farmed. Today, farmers participating in the Conservation Reserve Program 

(CRP), sponsored by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), receive rental payments for 

land used to support shelterbelts and cost-sharing for planting trees and shrubs. Only 34 acres (less than 1 

percent) of the total 10,806-acre Refuge is shelterbelt habitat. The cottonwood trees around the 

headquarters site were planted as windbreaks when the Refuge was commissioned in 1937. The tall canopy 

trees are Plains cottonwoods, and the shorter sub-canopy trees and shrubs are predominantly native coyote 

(narrowleaf) willow, and non-native Russian olive and Siberian pea. 

However, this small area is extremely important to migratory landbirds. Eastern Idaho birders have 

recognized the wooded area at Camas NWR as a migration hotspot for decades. Increased birding 

attention in the past decade has yielded numerous sightings of birds never previously documented in 

Idaho. Carlisle et al. (2008) documented an impressive abundance and diversity of spring and autumn 

migrants using both the Refuge and the Market Lake and Mud Lake WMAs. Seventy-four different 

songbird species were captured at the Camas NWR headquarters shelterbelt. Additionally, one of the 

shelterbelts at the headquarters site has become a favorite overnight roost for wintering bald eagles. 

According to refuge records, as many as 85 eagles have been counted in these trees in a single evening, 

with an average of about 40. 

However, a long-lasting drought and increased agricultural use of groundwater in the region has resulted 

in lowered groundwater levels and low streamflows along Camas Creek, the main source of water for the 

Refuge. This has resulted in extensive mortality of mature trees in the refuge headquarters area. In 

addition, many of the trees around headquarters are at the end of their life span. Replacement in some 

areas has been initiated and is proving to be time, labor, and money intensive. With the lowering of the 

water table, new tree plantings must now be cared for diligently and funds must be committed to irrigate 

them for several years, until their root systems are well established. 

In all alternatives, existing naturalized shelterbelt habitat would continue to be maintained to provide 

habitat for migratory landbirds and maintain quality wildlife viewing opportunities. The alternatives differ 

in the rate of replacement and the use of groundwater versus drip irrigation. Under Alternative 1 we 

would replace 5-10 percent of mature trees near the end of their life-span annually. Annually 5-10 percent 

of non-native understory trees and shrubs would be replaced with native species. Alternative 1 would 

continue to use surface water diversions and groundwater pumping to surface irrigate shelterbelt habitats. 

Surface irrigation has proven to be an appropriate choice in porous soils (final infiltration rates over 7 cm 

[2.8 inches]/hour), such as the sandy soils on the Refuge (Letey 1985; Sijali 2001). Although surface 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-70 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

irrigation can be efficient (70 percent or more), in the Refuge’s situation only half of the applied water 

reaches the plant because of poor irrigation infrastructure. 

Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) would manage shelterbelt habitats similar to Alternative 1, but 

increase efforts to replace mature cottonwoods from 5-10 percent to 10-15 percent annually. The Refuge 

would reduce the rate of non-native understory plantings from 5-10 percent to 1-5 percent annually. 

Native tree plantings would be irrigated with a new system of renewable energy drip irrigation in the 

same location (34 acres) where current shelterbelt groundwater irrigation capabilities exist. However, 

additional supplemental funding sources would need to be secured to implement Alternative 2, since the 

Refuge would not use refuge base funds to initiate replacement of tall mature cottonwood trees or native 

understory trees and shrubs. 

In Alternative 3, the Refuge would dramatically increase cottonwood overstory rehabilitation from 5-10 

percent in Alternative 1, to 20-25 percent annually in Alternative 3. Non-native understory replacement 

with natives would increase as well, from 5-10 percent in Alternative 1, to 10-20 percent in Alternative 3. 

Extensive groundwater irrigation would be used to reduce mortality of mature trees and increase 

survivability of planted trees. The Refuge would use both base and outside funding sources to expand this 

habitat by 36 acres to 50 acres (a 40 percent increase). 

Stop-over ecology data provides documentation that the majority of refuge migrants were able to gain 

mass during stop-over at Camas NWR within mixed native/non-native vegetation (Carlisle at al. 2008). 

This suggests that, either in spite of or with the help of non-native vegetation, migrants are able to stopover successfully in these oases. Hudson (2000) examined fall migrant abundance and diversity in willow 

(native) and Russian olive (non-native) habitats in the Columbia River basin and found that species 

richness was greatest in willow but that different suites of species showed higher abundances in willow 

versus olive habitats. In particular, short distance migrants such as yellow-rumped warbler and whitecrowned sparrow were more common in Russian olive whereas neotropical migrant species such as 

orange-crowned, yellow, and Wilson’s warblers, were more common in willow habitats (Hudson 2000). 

These data stress the importance of native riparian habitats but also suggest that Russian olive habitats can 

be important to certain migrant species. At Camas NWR, non-native species such as Russian olive and 

Siberian pea provide much of the cover available to migrants during stop-over and their importance has 

been recognized. Therefore the systematic long-term approach of Alternative 2, to gradually restore 1-5 

percent of the non-native vegetation per year with native trees and shrubs, versus the more rapid 

approaches proposed in Alternatives 1 and 3, is not only warranted but likely to result in positive effects 

to migratory landbirds. 

In the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2) drip or trickle irrigation the water would be applied to the soil 

through small-sized openings in a small (0.5- to 1-inch) irrigation pipe laid directly on the soil surface or 

buried in the soil. By applying water at a very slow rate, drip irrigation is capable of delivering water to 

the roots of individual trees or plants as often as desired and at a relatively low cost. Because drip 

irrigation makes it possible to place water precisely where and when needed with a high degree of 

uniformity and efficiency (90 percent or more) the method is useful under many field and water 

situations. Losses to runoff, deep percolation and evaporation are minimal (Sijali 2001) which means that 

most of the irrigation water is taken up by the plant. 

To a large extent, soil texture determines the survival and growth rate of each species. Cottonwood trees 

grow rapidly in soils that have a high proportion of sand. Soil texture is critical to plant survival and 

growth because the soil particle sizes determine the water holding capability. Large particles such as sand 

allow water to drain quickly and cannot hold water for extended periods. Refuge soils are predominantly 

sandy and will not allow for the use of flood irrigation due to rapid drainage, so a drip-irrigation system 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-71 

will be required (Griggs 2009). The installation and application of micro-drip irrigation in Alternative 2 

would greatly enhance survival of tree plantings, while simultaneously conserving water. 

In the Great Plains, the width of shelterbelts is very important in determining the value for wildlife (Podoll 

1979). Snow drifts commonly penetrate up to 30 m (98 feet) into shelterbelts, and belts less than this width 

have less value for wildlife in winter. Multi row shelterbelts where shown to provide winter cover for ringnecked pheasants, gray partridge, sharp-tailed grouse, cottontail rabbits, fox squirrels, and songbirds, while 

single-row belts provide winter cover for only the gray partridge. In the Great Plains States, multi row 

shelterbelts also provided both escape and loafing cover for white-tailed deer. The best configuration of 

multi row shelterbelts for wildlife is to have tall trees in the middle rows and lower shrubs in the outer 

rows of the belt. 

Cassel and Wiehe (1980) analyzed breeding bird counts from 81 shelterbelts in North Dakota; these data 

indicate that individual shelterbelts with a large number of rows (>20) contained more breeding birds per 

belt than did individual shelterbelts with ~20 rows. Belts with only a few rows attracted more birds 

associated with open habitats, whereas belts with many rows attracted more birds associated with forested 

habitats. The highest bird species diversity in a study of South Dakota shelterbelts occurred in shelterbelts 

with a developed tree canopy and an understory with a full, lush grass layer (Martin and Vohs 1978). 

Dense shrub growth under the trees was not preferred, although tall, dense shrubs along the outside edges 

of shelterbelts increased the number of bird species using the shelterbelt. In Minnesota shelterbelts, 

vegetative variables that were positively correlated with total bird species richness for all seasons were 

stem density of canopy vegetation, mean diameter of trees at breast height, total basal area, percent 

canopy closure, and growth form diversity (Yahner 1983). The complexity of the vegetative structure was 

a major factor in determining bird community structure in shelterbelts, with older belts having more 

mature plant communities and greater bird species richness. While all alternatives would increase the 

complexity of vegetative structure over time, Alternative 3 would increase complexity at the fastest rate, 

and in addition the addition of shelterbelt habitat at the edge of existing plantings would increase the 

effective width of shelterbelt habitat. 

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-72 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

GOAL 3: Agricultural Habitat 

Provide a supplemental on-Refuge forage base for carbohydrate and protein 

requirements of migratory waterfowl and landbirds within the Pacific and 

Rocky Mountain migratory corridors. 

Objective 3.1: Small Grain (Wheat and Barley) and Legume (Alfalfa) Management 

(3.1 a) Annually work within existing Cooperative Land Management Agreements to maintain 20 

irrigated acres of upland habitats as small-grain (wheat or barley) in the Well #7 Field for wildlife 

forage, in rotation with 60 acres of legumes (alfalfa).

(3.1b) Annually work within existing Cooperative Land Management Agreements to maintain 80 

irrigated acres of legumes (alfalfa) in the Well #9 Field for wildlife forage. 

(3.1c) Acquire refuge irrigation equipment within 2 years of Well #9 Field should cooperative 

farmer remove personal irrigation equipment and continue to maintain 80 acres of irrigated acres 

of legumes (alfalfa) in the Well #9 Field. 

(3.1d) Modify the Well #9 Field objective (3.1c) from 80 acres of irrigated alfalfa to farm 20-40 

dryland acres of upland habitats as small-grain (wheat or barley) and 20-40 dryland acres of legumes 

(alfalfa), should the Refuge be unable to acquire replacement irrigation equipment. 

Small Grain (Wheat and Barley) Benefitting Refuge Species: 

Canada goose, mallard, greater sandhill crane, greater sage-grouse. 

Small Grain (Wheat and Barley) Agriculture is characterized by the following attributes: 

 Supplemental and artificial habitat maintained through agricultural management to provide 

small grain forage for wildlife use. 

 Small grain, such as fall wheat or spring barley, planted in rotation with alfalfa (2 years grain 

followed by 6 years in alfalfa). 

 <10% cover of invasive plants (e.g., musk thistle, Canada thistle, and smooth brome) 

Legume (Alfalfa) Benefitting Refuge Species: 

White-faced ibis, Swainson’s hawk, long-billed curlew, Canada goose, mallard, greater sandhill 

crane, greater sage-grouse 

Agriculture is characterized by the following attributes: 

 Supplemental and artificial habitat maintained through agricultural management to provide 

leafy browse forage for wildlife use. 

 Alfalfa height <6" by October 1 

 Sustained green browse through migratory spring and fall seasons. 

 Newly planted alfalfa fields with >75% cover of established alfalfa in first year. 

 Rotational plantings of alfalfa and small grains (2 years grain followed by 6 years in alfalfa). 

 <10% cover of invasive plants (e.g., musk thistle, Canada thistle, and smooth brome) 

Alternatives 

Objective as written above is modified by replacing acres in italics 

with the text in this row.

Alt 1 

Current 

Alt 2 

Preferred 

Alt 3 

(3.1a) Well #7 Field acres planted annually through CLMA Small Grains: 20 irrigated acres 

Alfalfa: 60 irrigated acres 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-73 

(3.1b) Well #9 refuge management agreement: Work within existing 

Cooperative Land 

Management Agreement 

(3.1b) Well #9 refuge management action: Maintain Restore 

(3.1b) Well #9 refuge crop or habitat type: 80 acres alfalfa 80 acres 

native 

sage-steppe 

(3.1b) Well #9 refuge crop or habitat type purpose: Wildlife forage Sagebrush 

obligate 

wildlife 

(3.1c) Well #9 Irrigation equipment should cooperative farmer 

remove personal irrigation equipment: Acquire 

refuge 

irrigation 

equipment 

(3.1c) Well #9 refuge crop, should cooperative farmer remove 

personal irrigation equipment: 

 80 acres 

alfalfa 

(3.1d) Well #9 Contingency objective should Refuge be unable to 

acquire irrigation equipment: 

 20-40 acres 

dryland 

small 

grains 

20-40 acres 

dryland 

alfalfa 

Small Grain (Wheat and Barley) 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

Alt 1 

Current 

Alt 2 

Preferred Alt 3 

Use Cooperative Land Management Agreements (CLMAs) with local 

farmers to implement the refuge farming program. Require 

Cooperators to front the cost of small grain operations (e.g., 

mechanical preparations, watering, seeding, labor costs) in exchange 

for harvesting a portion of the refuge alfalfa crop. 

  

Rotate crops after 2 years of being planted to small grain into a 6-year 

alfalfa planting. 

  

Annually evaluate workforce needs as indicated in the Camas NWR 

Annual Work Plan, to determine the efficacy of CLMAs in 

comparison to the Refuge undertaking agricultural plantings through 

force-account funding. 



Should the current cooperative farmer decide to no longer farm the 

Refuge and remove his irrigation equipment, transition from the 

irrigated CLMA acres identified in objective 3.1a to dry land forceaccount acres identified in Objective 3.1b. 



Reduce application of water for agricultural irrigation and increase 

water availability for wetland habitat management by taking the Well 

#9 field out of production for agriculture irrigation. 

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-74 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Rehabilitate native sage-steppe habitat in the Well #9 field by 

restoring 20 acres to sage-steppe every 2 years (80 acres rehabilitated 

by 2020). 

 

Seek and develop partnership opportunities, and associated grant 

acquisition, to minimize overhead costs of agriculture management 

and infrastructure. 

 

Annually survey and monitor wildlife use within refuge agriculture 

crops to assess benefits or impacts from the refuge farming program 

for wildlife. 

 

Conduct periodic soil tests and work with cooperative farmer to apply 

proper fertilization and liming treatments, as necessary, to maintain 

proper nutrient and pH levels for productive agriculture plantings. 

 

Amend soil and fertilize small grain crops by broadcasting granular 

nitrogen fertilizers on small grains during planting or prior to barley 

jointing. 

  

Prohibit applications of anhydrous ammonia fertilizer to minimize the 

presence of excessive environmental N accumulations and concerns 

for refuge soil and water resources. 

 

Initiate small grain planting before irrigation of alfalfa begins to 

conserve water resources and irrigate planted small grain in 

conjunction with alfalfa. 

  

Apply lime 6 months before the actual planting date to affect soil pH 

by planting time. 

  

Attempt to till and plant across the slope, rather than with the slope of 

the land to reduce erosional forces on soil. 

 

Use conservation tillage practices and avoid fall tillage for spring 

plantings. Initiate planting immediately after plowing and disking of 

small grain fields to lessen the amount of soil lost to wind erosion. 

 

Plant small grain crops in blocks of rows running perpendicular to 

one another to ensure that the tops of some rows would be exposed by 

the prevailing winds during heavy snow. 

 

Mow strips of small grain crops as they mature in the late summer or 

early fall to provide forage base for migrating birds. Leave a 

combination of standing small grain crops and mowed small grain 

crops (without harvest), to provide wildlife with suitable forage. 

  

Mow wide swaths of mature small grain crops, separated by several 

rows of unharvested crops, thereby providing a “snow fence” to 

enhance the availability of grain on the ground as well as provide a 

reserve of food that would remain above even the deepest early 

snows. 

 

Legume (Alfalfa)

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective

Alt 1 

Current 

Alt 2 

Preferred 

Alt 3 

Use Cooperative Land Management Agreements (CLMAs) with local 

farmers to implement the refuge farming program. Require 

Cooperators to front the cost of small grain operations (e.g., 

mechanical preparations, watering, seeding, labor costs) in exchange 

for harvesting a portion of the refuge alfalfa crop. 

  
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-75 

Rotate crops after 2 years of being planted to small grain into a 6-year 

alfalfa planting. 

  

Annually evaluate workforce needs as indicated in the Camas NWR 

Annual Work Plan, to determine the efficacy of CLMAs in 

comparison to the Refuge undertaking agricultural plantings through 

force-account funding. 



Acquire refuge irrigation equipment within 2 years of Well #9 Field 

cooperative farmer removing personal irrigation equipment 



Should the current cooperative farmer decide to no longer farm the 

Refuge and remove his irrigation equipment transition from the 

irrigated CLMA acres identified in objective 3.2c to dry land forceaccount acres identified in Objective 3.2d. 



Reduce application of water for agricultural irrigation and increase 

water availability for wetland habitat management by taking the Well 

#9 field out of production for agriculture irrigation. 

 

Rehabilitate native sage-steppe habitat in the Well #9 field by 

restoring 20 acres to sage-steppe habitat every 2 years (80 acres 

rehabilitated by 2020). 

 

Seek and develop partnership opportunities, and associated grant 

acquisition, to minimize overhead costs of agriculture management 

and infrastructure. 

 

Annually survey and monitor wildlife use within refuge agriculture 

crops to assess benefits or impacts from the refuge farming program 

for wildlife. 

 

Conduct periodic soil tests and work with cooperative farmer to apply 

proper fertilization and liming treatments, as necessary, to maintain 

proper nutrient and pH levels for productive agriculture plantings. 

 

Apply lime 6 months before the actual planting date to affect soil pH 

by planting time. 

 

Attempt to till and plant across the slope, rather than with the slope of 

the land to reduce erosional forces on soil. 

 

Rotate old alfalfa stands to cereal grains every 6 years or when 

density of alfalfa reaches 0.75 plants per square foot. 

 

Maintain cereal small grains rotation for 2-years post alfalfa, to lessen 

autotoxicity and ensure a successful re-establishment of alfalfa in the 

same field following grain plantings. 

 

Mow grasses adjacent to alfalfa fields to maintain short vegetation 

along the agriculture field interface to provide additional green forage 

for and visual security for foraging birds from predators. 

 

Evaluate potential to increase the duration of alfalfa coverage longer 

than 6 years within established and maintained fields via either 

increased winter fertilization, increased seeding rates, or decreased 

spacing between plant rows. 

 

Swath and bale irrigated alfalfa in late summer with the final timing 

of the harvest occurring at the discretion of the cooperator, based 

upon the maturity of the alfalfa. 

  
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-76 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Fall disc and plant alfalfa to re-establish an alfalfa planting just prior 

to seeding to lessen the amount of soil lost to wind erosion. 

  

Harvest alfalfa through the cooperative agreement based on the 

amount of funds the cooperative farmer puts into fuel, seed, fertilizer, 

and irrigation. 

  

Use companion plantings or winter wheat or rye with alfalfa to 

increase completion and decrease weed establishment. 

 

Apply herbicides on farmed units with refuge personnel through force 

account refuge funding as-needed to control invasive species. 

  

Rationale, Objective 3.1: Small Grain (Wheat and Barley) and Legume (Alfalfa) Management: 

Most waterfowl are opportunistic feeders, and some species such as Canada geese, snow geese, mallard, 

northern pintails, and teal have learned to capitalize on the abundant foods produced by agriculture 

(Bellrose 1976). During the last century, migration routes and wintering areas have changed in response to 

availability of these foods (Fredrickson and Drobney 1979). Some species have developed such strong 

migratory traditions that many populations are now dependent on agricultural foods for their migration or 

winter survival (Ringelman 1990). During breeding and molting periods, waterfowl require a balanced diet 

with high protein content. Agricultural foods, most of which are neither nutritionally balanced nor high in 

protein, are seldom used during these periods. However, during fall, winter, and early spring, when 

vegetative foods make up a large part of their diet, agricultural foods are preferred forage except in arctic 

and subarctic environments (Sugden 1971). Waterfowl management during these periods is often directed 

at providing small grain and row crops (Baldassarre et al. 1983). 

In all alternatives the Refuge would continue to provide supplemental crops for migratory waterfowl and 

sandhill cranes within the Pacific and Snake River migratory corridor, primarily for the benefit of 

waterfowl and sandhill cranes. Croplands on refuge and State WMA lands promote sustained use of these 

areas by migrating waterfowl by providing an accessible, high-energy food source during late fall and early 

winter as wetlands freeze up. This reduces waterfowl depredation on adjacent croplands. Not only cranes 

and waterfowl, but many other species benefit directly or indirectly from refuge crops, e.g., long-billed 

curlews, white-faced ibis, sage-grouse, Swainson’s hawks, and bald eagles. 

Formerly, large areas of the Refuge were planted in crops, to support a trumpeter swan recovery project on 

Red Rock Lakes NWR and later the whooping crane recovery project at Grays Lake NWR. When these 

programs ended in the mid-1970s Camas NWR scaled back on small grain production. Formerly farmed 

fields on the Refuge were taken out of production and allowed to revert back to introduced pasture grasses. 

Although the agricultural footprint on the Refuge has been reduced by approximately 75% since the 1980s, 

waterfowl population trends in Upper Snake Area appear to have remained relatively constant. 

Currently, a total of 160 acres of planted agriculture is provided on the Refuge on two separate 80-acre 

refuge tracts: the Well #7 Field which has irrigation equipment owned entirely by the Refuge, and the Well 

#9 Field, which contains a wheel-line irrigation system owned by the cooperator. 20 acres of irrigated 

small grain is grown in the Well #7 field. The Well #9 Field has not proven to be conducive for growing 

grain, so all 80 acres are currently in alfalfa. The majority of the farming on the Refuge is done under 

Cooperative Land Management Agreements (CLMAs) with local farmers, where they provide green forage 

and grain for migratory birds in exchange for alfalfa cuttings. In all alternatives, the limited overall acreage 

of small grains, small field size, and the fact that cooperative farmers would have to leave a portion of the 

crops for wildlife makes growing grain on the Refuge undesirable for cooperative farmers without 

exchange for alfalfa cuttings. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-77 

Habitat management guidelines often encourage managers to produce high-energy foods (Lane and Jensen 

1999; Nassar et al. 1993; Nelms 2007; Strader and Stinson 2005); however, true metabolizable energy of 

many waterfowl foods and selection tendencies of most species are unknown (Dugger et al. 2007; 

Fredrickson and Taylor 1982). Increasing the refuge acres planted in a larger yield crop such as corn is 

limited by high cost (due to soil prep, fertilizer and weed control), the need to rotate crops, and the need for 

increased weed control activities in fallow cornfields (Atkeson and Givens 1952; Foster et al. 2010). As a 

result the Refuge will continue to cultivate small grains crops all alternatives, since they are less labor and 

water intensive than a high-energy crop such as corn. 

Under the No-Action Alternative (Alternative 1), we would continue to farm 20 acres of irrigated small 

grain and 140 irrigated acres of alfalfa using CLMAs. All small grain plantings would occur within the 

Well #7 field with the refuge-owned and supplied irrigation equipment. In the Well #9 field the Refuge 

would continue to work with a cooperative farmer to maintain 80 acres of alfalfa with the farmer’s 

privately owned irrigation equipment. No rehabilitation of agricultural fields to sage-steppe habitat would 

occur in Alternative 1. 

Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) would use CLMAs to farm the Well #7 Field with refuge-owned 

irrigation equipment to provide 20 acres of irrigated grains and 60 acres of irrigated alfalfa. Small grain 

plantings would be rotated between the Well #7 and Well #9 fields with no rehabilitation of agricultural 

fields. Camas NWR owns the irrigation equipment on the Well#7 field and agricultural management is not 

likely to change within the life of the plan. However, the Refuge does not own the irrigation equipment on 

the Well #9 field. Should the cooperative farmer decide to no longer farm on the Refuge and remove his 

irrigation equipment from the Well #9 field, the Refuge would need to acquire irrigation equipment to 

continue to provide 80 acres of irrigated alfalfa in the Well #9 field. Acquiring a wheel or pivot irrigation 

system for this field would entail a high initial expense and would substantially increase the Refuge’s 

agricultural management costs. Should the Refuge be unable to irrigate the Well #9 field, the planned 

contingency in Alternative 2 would be to switch from 80 acres of irrigated alfalfa to 20-40 non-irrigated 

grains and 20-40 acres non-irrigated alfalfa. This would still provide adequate agricultural forage for local 

and migratory wildlife, while reducing incurred refuge operation costs. Alternative 3 would use CLMAs to 

farm the Well #7 field as in Alternative 2, to rotationally produce 20 acres of irrigated small grain and 60 

acres of irrigated alfalfa with refuge-owned irrigation equipment. In Alternative 3 the Refuge would no 

longer farm the Well #9 field and would rehabilitate all 80 acres of the Well #9 field to native sage-steppe 

habitat. 

In Alternatives 2 and 3 the Refuge would implement a consistent strategy to present unharvested or freshly 

harvested crops in ways that have proven attractive to waterfowl (Reinecke et al. 1989). By mowing strips 

of small grain crops as they mature in the late summer or early fall the Refuge would ensure a forage base 

for migrating birds and leave a combination of standing small grain crops and mowed small grain crops 

(without harvest), to provide wildlife with suitable forage. The proposed approach in Alternatives 2 and 3 

for wide swaths of mowed crop separated by several rows of unharvested plants would provide a “snow 

fence” to enhance the availability of grain on the ground as well as provide a reserve of food that would 

remain for migratory waterfowl above even the deepest snow. Additionally, by planting crops in blocks of 

rows running perpendicular to one another the Refuge would ensure that the tops of some rows would be 

exposed and available to migratory birds by the prevailing winds during heavy snow. 

Agricultural management practices. Agricultural practices in Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would include 

disking fields (prior to seeding), seeding in fall (spring seeding may be used for perennial crops), tilling, 

and adding soil amendments/fertilizers. Crop residues are generally removed by fall tilling, but some 

fields are left fallow over the next summer. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-78 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Fall tillage as an agricultural practice eliminates valuable winter food and cover for wildlife and causes 

soil nutrient loss. By implementing a refuge conservation tillage system that plants with the slope rather 

than up and down a slope, and avoiding fall tillage for spring plantings, the Refuge would improve soil 

retention, reduce fertilizer costs, and reduce erosion. Generally, as soil-conserving measures increase, 

upland wildlife habitat quality also improves (Lines and Perry 1978; Miranowski and Bender 1982). 

Some soil conservation practices directly benefit habitat quality in that they provide one or more critical 

habitat elements incidental to their erosion control function. Field border strips are much underused 

though they increase wildlife food plot yields, while simultaneously providing direct and indirect benefits 

to wildlife and the environment. As proposed in Alternative 2, planting field border strips around refuge 

small grain fields would reduce erosion in end rows, reduce non-point source pollutants and sediments, 

improve water quality, and provide an element of safety for machinery operations (Haufler 2007). Among 

the benefits of the rotational practices proposed by the Refuge in Alternatives 2 and 3 are higher soil 

organic matter and nitrogen, lower fossil energy inputs, yields similar to those of conventional systems, 

and conservation of soil moisture and water resources, which is especially advantageous under drought 

conditions (Pimentel et al. 2005). 

In all alternatives the Refuge will amend soils with lime and appropriate fertilizers. Soil pH can greatly 

affect the availability of soil nutrients for plant use. Most annual grains will have adequate production for 

wildlife if the soil pH is near 6 to 6.5 (Westerman 1990). If the soil pH is low, lime can be added to raise 

it. Tang and colleagues (2003) found that liming at 1.5 ton/acre in 1984 increased grain yield by 25 

percent and re-liming in 1999 increased barley yield by over 50 percent. Studies suggest that surface 

liming can ameliorate subsoil acidity fifteen to seventeen years after application, and that surface liming 

provides a good strategy to combat subsoil acidity (Dolling and Porter 1994; Tang et al. 2003). Lime 

should be applied about six months before the actual planting date to affect soil pH by planting time 

(Tang et al. 2003). Soil tests proposed in Action Alternatives 2 and 3 would allow the Refuge to 

accurately determine soil pH and lime needs. 

Annual grains also respond well to fertilizing (Hansson et al. 1987). Again, refuge soil tests are the only 

way to accurately determine nutrient deficiencies and needs. Nitrogen (N) and Sulfur (S) are the most 

yield-limiting nutrient. Phosphorus (P) is the next most limiting nutrient. Levels of potassium (K) and 

micronutrients generally are sufficient for small grain production in Idaho soils. Nitrogen application 

almost universally increases cereal yield in all precipitation zones on soils with low available soil N 

(Schillinger 2006). Nutrient interactions can change this pattern, but only the interaction between N and S 

is routinely encountered in dryland cereal production. Nitrogen fertilizer application can intensify S 

deficiency and decrease yield under severe S deficiency (Rasmussen and Douglas 1992). 

Incorporating granular N fertilizers during planting or broadcast topdressing granular N fertilizers later in 

the spring are efficient ways to supply a portion of the total N needs. Most local commercial growers prefer 

to apply anhydrous ammonia or urea-ammonium-nitrate solution in combination with P fertilizers in a 

tillage operation prior to planting grain crops. However, in Alternatives 2 and 3 the Refuge would not 

allow cooperative farmers to apply anhydrous ammonia fertilizers in order to minimize excessive 

environmental N accumulations. Accumulation of anhydrous ammonia fertilizers can lead to soil and water 

acidification, contamination of surface and groundwater resources, increased ozone depletion and 

increased greenhouse gas levels associated with the production of these highly reactive enhanced N 

fertilizers (Motavalli et al. 2008). 

Rationale, Obective 3.1 (Legume Management): 

Wildlife in the Upper Snake area and must contend with a radically changed landscape, one where natural 

wetlands and riparian habitats have been largely replaced by various agricultural crops. Although 

agricultural foods such as small grains provide an important carbohydrate source during migration, most 

are neither nutritionally balanced nor high in protein, are seldom used during breeding life-history events 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-79 

of waterbirds (Ringelman 1990). During breeding and molting periods, waterfowl and waterbirds require 

a balanced diet with high protein content. In this highly altered landscape, alfalfa provides a surrogate 

habitat for a wide range of species. Alfalfa supports some of the highest biodiversity amongst row crops, 

with many species using alfalfa to forage, nest, rest, and hide (Hartman and Kyle 2010). Several bird 

species such as white-faced ibis, long-billed curlew, and Swainson’s hawk are highly dependent on alfalfa 

to support them given a lack of native wetland and grassland habitat (Hartman and Kyle 2010). 

As a legume, alfalfa may be particularly good habitat for earthworms, an important food source for many 

birds. Alfalfa contributes nitrogen to the soil, and high nitrogen promotes earthworm growth (Evans and 

Guild 1948) and increases their protein content (Stribling and Doerr 1985). One hypothesis for the 

preferential use of alfalfa over other irrigated crops by some waterbirds is increased earthworm 

abundance (Bray and Klebenow 1988). Irrigated fields, and in particular alfalfa, can be valuable feeding 

sites for white-faced ibis. Ryder and Manry (1994) argue that increased planting of alfalfa is a major 

reason for an increase in white-faced ibis populations in the West. Bray and Klebenow (1988) propose 

that where historical white-faced ibis feeding habitats have been diminished, flood irrigated crops could 

be maintained or even created to benefit ibis, and that the predominant crop should be alfalfa. 

Alfalfa often supports an abundant small mammal community that is exploited by various birds of prey. 

Swainson’s hawks will hunt for mice and voles in alfalfa, which provides a long-term, stable habitat for 

prey and good hunting conditions year round (Estep 1989). The optimal time for Swainson’s hawks to use 

alfalfa is when prey is easily accessible, especially after a cutting or irrigation and when field vegetation is 

less than 15′′ tall (Swolgaard et al. 2008). Swainson’s hawks rely heavily on the current agricultural 

landscape in southeast Idaho to provide adequate hunting grounds and safe nesting sites along riparian 

corridors. However, frequent early alfalfa cutting changes the amount and structure of vegetation used by 

many birds for nesting and also destroys nests and eggs of ground-nesting birds (CPIF 2000; Frawley and 

Best 1991). Because of this the Refuge should limit alfalfa harvests to late summer and not consider or 

manage alfalfa as a particularly productive nesting habitat. 

Alfalfa produces one of the highest crude protein levels and greatest yields of any legume. It is generally 

considered the most difficult legume to establish, but once established its deep roots makes it very 

drought-resistant. Alfalfa requires high levels of phosphorus and potassium and soil pH in the 6.6 to 7.2 

range. The availability of phosphorus is reduced in low pH soils because it binds with iron and aluminum 

at pH levels less than 5.5 (Dionne et al. 1989). If the soil pH is too high, phosphorus reacts with calcium 

reducing the amount available to the plants (Rechcigl et al. 1986). As a result, plants in soils having 

adequate levels of phosphorus and potassium may not be able to use those nutrients if the pH level is too 

high or too low (Tsakelidou 2000). Proper soil pH not only increases the availability of essential plant 

nutrients but promotes the growth of desirable microorganisms and reduces the toxic effects of aluminum 

and manganese. As with cereal grains, liming can be an effective method of reducing soil acidity in alfalfa 

fields. Ideally, lime should be applied six to twelve months prior to seeding and thoroughly incorporated 

into the plow layer. Soil testing proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3 would ensure that lime is added as 

needed to maintain soil pH at optimal levels, ensuring maximum nutrient availability and reducing need 

for fertilizers. Should soil testing indicate a need for lime or fertilization, the Refuge and the cooperative 

farmer would work together to decide on the best strategies to achieve desired soil conditions. 

Mowing, plowing and disking a field at the wrong time may cause avoidable weed problems. The general 

belief is that tillage stirs buried weed seeds up to the surface, allowing them to germinate. The decision to 

plant legumes in the spring or in the fall may depend on the types of weeds present. If there is an 

abundance of summer growing weeds (crabgrass, ragweed, foxtail, or lambsquarters) where one intends to 

plant legumes, one should attempt sowing in the fall. Spring plantings are usually more successful where 

winter weeds (chickweed, henbit, and yellow rocket) are a problem. Some attention must also be paid to 

the effects other plants have on the desired legumes. A common refuge grass called quackgrass has been 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-80 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

found to be allelopathic, meaning it releases chemicals that may seriously reduce growth or the nitrogenfixing ability of alfalfa and other legumes. On the positive side, winter wheat or rye plantings are often 

used as companion crops with legumes because they release chemicals that suppress the development of 

weeds but do not harm legumes. By mixing legumes with annual wheat or rye as a companion crop in 

Alternative 2 and 3, the Refuge can provide weed control benefits and in association with fall and winter 

grain forage while the legume crop matures. 

In areas where alfalfa is planted in appropriate soils and managed properly, stands can often last five years 

with some remaining productive for seven to ten years. The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would 

avoid replanting immediately after an old alfalfa stand has declined, as alfalfa produces autotoxic 

chemicals that can damage new alfalfa seedlings (Jennings and Nelson 2002). This autotoxicity causes 

poor establishment of alfalfa planted too soon after an old alfalfa stand. Autotoxicity can cause long-term 

yield reduction of new plants that do become established, although the plants may appear normal. Attempts 

at thickening declining or thin stands of alfalfa are seldom successful due to autotoxicity from the old 

plants. Established alfalfa plants can severely reduce establishment and growth of new alfalfa seedlings 

emerging within an 8-inch radius from the old plant. This means that an old alfalfa stand that is as thin as 

0.75 plants per square foot could inhibit establishment of new plants over 100% of the field surface. 

Research has shown that once alfalfa stands deteriorate, a one-year rotation of another crop other than 

alfalfa is sufficient for successful re-establishment of alfalfa in the same field (Jennings and Nelson 2002; 

Wollenhaupt et al. 1995). 

The importance of weed control in refuge forage production for wildlife should not be overlooked, 

especially when the high investment associated with alfalfa and other legume forages is considered. 

Weeds reduce forage yield by competing for water, sunlight, and nutrients. Vigorous, dense-growing 

forage legume stands have fewer weed problems. Thus, cultural and management practices that promote a 

highly competitive forage stand prevent many weed problems. These practices include: 1) liming and 

fertilizing fields based on soil test recommendations; 2) seeding well-adapted, vigorous, long-lived 

perennial varieties; 3) buying weed-free seed; 4) cutting forage at proper timing intervals or growth stage; 

5) timely control of insect and disease problems; and 6) rotating fields with other crops to interrupt the 

buildup of certain weeds (Green and Martin 1995). Because of the aggressive nature of some weed species, 

they can become established despite preventive efforts. Therefore, approved refuge herbicide treatments 

might be necessary to combat some weed problems. 

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-81 

Objective 3.2 Hay Meadow Management 

Annually flood-irrigate, as funds and water are available, 150 acres (45%) of the total 330 acres of 

formerly farmed lands which were allowed to revert to non-native grassland, to hay 150 acres of 

short stature (4"-6") early successional, seasonally flooded wet meadow habitat by August 1 for 

the benefit of foraging and nesting wildlife. 

Benefitting Refuge Species: 

Sandhill crane, long-billed curlew, willet, Franklin’s gull, white-faced ibis, greater sage-grouse 

and Canada goose 

Hay Meadow short stature habitat is characterized by the following attributes: 

 Short (4"-6") meadow grass habitat. 

 A diverse array of pasture grasses more palatable and attractive to foraging and nesting wildlife 

than quack and brome grass meadows. 

 Short stature hayed habitat provided by July 15 and no later than August. 

 Short stature hayed units to occur within areas where original agricultural fields and irrigation 

systems were constructed. 

 <20% cover of invasive species (e.g., Canada thistle, musk thistle, smooth brome) 

Alternatives 

Objective as written above is modified by replacing acres in italics 

with the text in this row.

Alt 1 

Current 

Alt 2 

Preferred 

Alt 3 

Proportion of formerly farmed areas flood irrigated: 100% 

330 acres 

 0% 

0 acres 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 

Current 

Alt 2 

Preferred 

Alt 3 

Continue to use Cooperative Land Management Agreements (CLMA) 

for haying as an alternative to force account farming, fencing and 

weed control. 

 

Rotate haying patterns so that no unit would be hayed for 2 

consecutive years, allowing at least 60% of old farm fields to have 

residual cover for the following spring. 

 

Employ late spring or fall prescribed burning in non-native meadows 

if short-cover habitat objectives cannot be achieved. 

 

Reseed hay meadows predominated quack and brome grasses to a 

more palatable and desirable mix of grasses and forbs for foraging 

and nesting wildlife. 



Require cooperators to clean haying equipment before they enter and 

upon leaving the Refuge, to minimize the amount of weeds being 

transferred to and from the Refuge. 



Delay first hay cuttings until after July 15th to minimize impacts to 

nesting or young birds. 

  

Conduct haying operations from July 15-August 1 to provide optimal 

foraging habitat for fall migratory birds. 

  

Flood irrigate hay units with irrigation capability to ensure good 

forage can be produced and the quality hay remains acceptable to 

cooperative farmers. 

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-82 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Use agricultural practices (e.g., seeding, disking, planting cover crops, 

fertilizing, soil amendments, herbicides) to rehabilitate pastures that 

do not meet the habitat objective. 

  

Use IPM strategies including mechanical, physical, biological, and 

chemical means to eradicate, control, or contain invasive plants. 

  

Rationale, Objective 3.2, Hay Meadow Management: 

In all alternatives, a total of 150 acres of early successional short-stature habitats would be created annually 

by haying. Under Alternative 1 (Current Management), approximately 330 acres of formerly farmed fields 

would be flood-irrigated annually, and 150 acres of these fields would be hayed annually. Under 

Alternative 2, only half of this acreage would be flood irrigated, but 150 acres would continue to be hayed 

annually. Under Alternative 3 we would cease irrigation of formerly farmed fields and hay 150 dryland 

acres annually. 

Haying objectives are designed to increase wildlife foraging opportunity by providing artificially low 

stature vegetation. Alternatives 1 and 2 support refuge purposes by providing short-cover forage for 

wildlife within dense non-native grasslands and by contributing to a diversity of habitat types (Eldred 

2009; La Sorte and Boecklen 2005). By using cooperative farming in Alternatives 1 and 2, the Refuge 

would greatly reduce the budgetary and manpower requirements that would be needed if the work were to 

be performed by refuge staff. Haying would provide feeding areas for migratory birds, primarily 

waterfowl, a primary purpose for the establishment of this Refuge. Potential wildlife benefits of managed 

short-cover grassland include: increased palatability of grasses for grazers, increased invertebrate forage 

availability and detection rates, reduced physical obstruction, and increased security from predators 

during grazing or foraging activity (Devereux et al. 2006). 

The Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2) is to hay 150 acres annually, and rotate haying operations 

through different parcels, so that the same units would not get hayed two years in a row. Also, by allowing 

some time for units to recover, forage quality and quantity would increase, while providing denser grass 

nesting cover for wildlife in un-hayed meadows. Under Alternative 2, Canada geese, greater sandhill 

cranes, snow geese, curlews, and ducks would benefit from refuge haying operations. These groups of 

birds regularly use refuge habitats during the fall migration. Refuge hay grounds supplement natural food 

sources and provide undisturbed/safe areas where migrating birds can forage. Haying would also provide 

beneficial open foraging areas for elk, deer and other resident species. 

Less groundwater would be used under Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) than Alternative 1 (only 150 

acres would be flood irrigated annually). We would also reseed hay meadows that are predominated by 

quack and brome grass to a more palatable and desirable mix of grasses for foraging and nesting wildlife. 

Alternative 2 strikes a balance between water conservation and providing short-cover habitat for the 

wildlife species that benefit from it. Alternative 3 would eliminate irrigation of hayfields, thereby 

conserving groundwater resources for higher-priority uses. Forage quality and quantity, and invertebrate 

populations, would be expected to decline and dryland hayfields would be expected to be less productive 

and attractive to wildlife than irrigated fields. Forage quantity and quality would also be unlikely to attract 

cooperative farmers. Therefore dryland haying and other management activities would likely need to be 

accomplished by permittees or via force account. 

Hayed or naturally occurring short-cover habitats are composed of low density grass and forbs 0-4 inches 

in height with bare ground, or light vegetative litter, with the ground easily visible. Ground foraging birds 

can easily move through this type of habitat and tend to select short cover habitat over dense grass habitat. 

Many passerine species prefer short grass pastures as a foraging habitat (Devereux et al. 2004; Perkins et 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-83 

al. 2000; Whitehead et al. 1995). Several mechanisms may underpin this choice, including greater visibility 

for monitoring predators and conspecifics, improved prey accessibility and better mobility for foragers 

(Butler and Gillings 2004; Whittingham and Evans 2004; Whittingham and Markland 2002; Wilson et al. 

2005). Birds that prefer to forage in short-cover habitat include species in the Meadow Foraging Guild 

(e.g., greater sandhill crane, long-billed curlew, Canada goose, western meadowlark, American robin, 

cattle egret; Grazing Waterfowl Guild (e.g., American widgeon, American coot, gadwall, Canada geese); 

and Upland Nesting Guild (e.g., long-billed curlew, black-necked stilt, killdeer). Many species that forage 

in short-cover habitat are highly adaptable to human habitat alterations. 

There is good evidence that food abundance is the main driver in determining bird usage of fields for both 

invertebrate-feeders (Brickle et al. 2000), and seed-eaters (Moorcroft et al. 2002; Robinson and Sutherland 

1999). However, food availability (i.e., abundance modified by ease of access to that food) has also been 

shown to be an important factor in determining bird usage (Henderson and Evans 2000; Henderson et al. 

2001). Management for short stature, and the abundance and availability of food resources to birds, are 

inextricably linked (McCracken and Tallowin 2004). 

By reducing grass height, haying or mowing affects the amount of, and access to, food resources in 

different ways. Conventional wisdom in agricultural and range management is that removal of “excess” or 

“decadent” plant litter increases sunlight and solar radiation, thereby warming soils earlier and promoting 

plant growth earlier in the spring than areas covered by dense litter (Lecain et al. 2000). Increased access to 

invertebrates is the principal advantage cited for short-cover management practices (Schekkerman and 

Beintema 2007). In Northern California, the abundance and diversity of birds, particularly sandhill cranes, 

on hayed meadow were equal to or greater than the abundance and diversity of birds on nonhayed plots, 

and cranes spent more time foraging and less time alert in hayed plots (Epperson et al. 1999). However, an 

unanticipated effect of haying operations is that by reducing detritus, the base of the biotic pyramid, 

primary and secondary productivity may be reduced (van der Valk 1989). Second, where litter 

accumulation is scant, invertebrate production may be impeded because of unfavorable conditions 

associated with hydrology, substrate, and nutrient availability (Magee 1993). 

All haying operations involve the use of farm equipment to mow, rake, bale, and transport hay in grassland 

areas. Several studies show a direct and often substantial impact of the harvesting process on wildlife, 

especially from the mowing stages, and that this impact depends on the techniques and equipment used, as 

well as the equipment settings, and the habitat and ecology of each species (Humbert et al. 2009). Paullin 

et al. (1977) found that young shorebirds were in Oregon were especially vulnerable to mortality from hay 

cutting in early July. Unlike ducks, shorebirds, especially Wilson’s phalarope, tend to remain in hay 

meadows to feed after hatching. Consequently, earlier nesting species may be especially vulnerable to 

mowing. Several other studies suggest that early hay mowing mortality is greatest in the first two weeks of 

July (Braun et al. 1978; Dale et al. 1997; Labisky 1957; Sargeant and Raveling 1992). 

Hay cutting within the Upper Snake Region begins as early as mid-June, likely causing very high rates of 

shorebird mortality on private property adjacent to the Refuge. Currently, refuge hay operators cannot 

initiate mowing or harvest of refuge hay until July 15 to ensure that cutting occurs after the nesting season 

for grassland species is complete. Multiple researchers and management plans support the conclusion that 

wildlife mortality from seasonal hay mowing can be minimized by not allowing haying before July 15th 

(Bollinger et al. 1990; Dechant et al. 2003; Krapu et al. 2000; Licht 1997; Perlut et al. 2006; USDA NRCS 

2007; Warner and Etter 1989). Managers of some grassland management areas recommend waiting until 

early August to prevent impacts to double and triple-brooded species such as savannah sparrows and 

meadowlarks (Warren and Anderson 2005). 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-84 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

GOAL 4: Inventory, Monitoring, Adaptive Management, and Research 

Collect, synthesize, and manage science-based information to support the 

management of Camas NWR and the NWRS at multiple geographic scales. 

Objective 4.1: Inventory Habitat and Wildlife 

Conduct prioritized baseline inventories of vegetation and animal life on Camas NWR, with 

particular emphasis on suspected or little known groups and species. 

Alternatives 

Objective as written above is modified by replacing acres in italics 

with the text in this row.

Alt 1 

Current 

Alt 2 

Preferred 

Alt 3 

Inventory implementation: Opportunistic 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 

Current 

Alt 2 

Preferred 

Alt 3 

Compile refuge “Legacy Data” (i.e., existing data sets, annual 

narratives, reports, theses, museum voucher specimens, and species 

checklists) that represent historic, not necessarily current, species 

occurrence, to serve as a benchmark against which future changes can 

be contrasted. 

 

From 2014-2015, survey, inventory, and assess abiotic resources and 

physical features (As identified in the Habitat Management 

Objectives) to develop a Wetland and Riparian Rehabilitation Plan by 

2017: 

1. Conduct Hydro Geomorphic Model (HGM) and engineering 

feasibility study by 2015 to determine historic and current physical 

refuge setting and best future management options. 

2. Perform topographic LiDAR survey and construct a Digital 

Elevation Model (DEM) of the Refuge by 2015 to quantify elevation 

gradients natural and altered water flows and location, size, and depth 

of inundation. 

3. Perform Water Resource Inventory by 2014 to document refuge 

water quantity and quality, including physical descriptions of surface 

water and groundwater features, water rights, infrastructure, and 

water quality issues. Description of physical characteristics of a 

station’s water bodies, hydrography, and water-related infrastructure, 

as attributes relatable to GIS layers, and include both surface and 

groundwater resources. The inventory would also describe each 

station’s water rights, water resource needs, and threats. 

4. Evaluate and compare historic and current wetland habitat extent 

with GIS data (e.g., soil maps, USGS maps, LandSAT imagery, 

LiDAR imagery). 

5. Summarize sources of data (e.g., Idaho Water Supply and Outlook 

Report) on winter snowpack and moisture content, spring weather 

patterns, agricultural acreage, and irrigation techniques, groundwater 

levels, and other appropriate variables that define annual surface and 

groundwater availability.

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-85 

6. Monitor water delivery ditches and groundwater recharge rates to 

determine how much Camas Creek surface water or pumped 

groundwater is lost before the water reaches the intended wetland. 

Conduct baseline inventories of refuge biota and vegetation: 

1. Survey refuge portions of Camas Creek from 2014-2015 to identify 

reaches with. 

a. Relatively intact (few anthropogenic impacts 

evident) and worthy of maintenance or protection 

management strategies; 

b. Reaches where restoration is feasible with changes 

in current land-use practices or without large 

expenditures of resources; 

c. Reaches that could be restored, but only at high 

cost; and 

d. Reaches that are in a condition where restoration is 

not technically feasible due to extreme conditions of 

alteration, degradation, or sociopolitical issues. 

2. Work with the representative agencies that constitute the Upper 

Snake Sage-grouse Local Working Group to create a useable habitat 

map and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) database of the 

Upper Snake area that identifies: leks; nesting and early brood rearing 

habitat; summer brood rearing habitat, winter habitat; and migration 

corridors/linkage areas. 

3. Within 5 years, using interdisciplinary teams of botanists and 

zoologists, using standard sampling techniques appropriate for each 

life form, identify and document little known vegetative and animal 

life present on the Refuge, their distribution, and relative abundance 

(e.g., rare, common, abundant). 

4. Annually inventory and map established invasive species, with 

particular attention to the banks of Camas Creek for new source 

infestation establishment of invasive species and dispersal of seed 

sources along the creek channel. 

5. Use Contaminant Assessment Process (CAP) to assess potential 

threats posed by environmental contaminants to the Refuge. Inventory 

point and non-point contaminant sources, identify areas of concern, 

and describe pathways of contaminant movement that might affect 

refuge natural resources. 

6. Continue butterfly surveys and summarize data from 2005-present. 

7. Conduct baseline survey of reptiles and amphibians, stratified by 

habitat using techniques outlined by Corn and Bury (1990) and 

Hutchens and De Perno (2009). 

 

Annually analyze, summarize results; disseminate findings to refuge 

staff, cooperators; and archive all data and reports. 

 

Pursue cooperative funding and partner contributions to implement 

I&M Objectives 

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-86 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Rationale, Objective 4.1: Inventory Habitat and Wildlife: 

The Refuge System is unique among Federal lands in having legislative mandates to maintain and restore 

biological integrity, biological diversity and environmental health, and to monitor the status and trends of 

fish, wildlife, and plant resources. Refuges have traditionally focused on the purposes for which each was 

established, primarily migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, marine mammals, and 

interjurisdictional fish. The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (NWRSAA) (16 U.S.C. 

668dd-668ee), as amended by the 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (NWRSIA) 

(Public Law 105-57), requires a more comprehensive approach to managing the natural resources of the 

Refuge System, and to conducting the inventories and monitoring needed to inform management. 

The inherent value of knowing which species occur on a refuge is predicated on the certainty of that 

knowledge, the rigor with which data were collected, and the spatial distribution of the sampling efforts. 

These attributes dictate the potential for the Refuge in using inventory data as baseline values for plotbased monitoring, for input into spatial modeling at local scales including the development of vegetation 

and wildlife species distribution maps, for developing statistical models of species-habitat relationships, 

for inputs into remote sensing-based models, ground-truthing remotely sensed data, or as validation data 

sets for spatially explicit models. Refuge inventories proposed in the Preferred Alternative can be a onetime event that simply generates a spatial species list with an unknown level of certainty about its 

completeness, or it can be the first of a time series in a statistically rigorous, spatially comprehensive 

monitoring design. The trade-off is that even as the collateral benefits increase with increasing statistical 

rigor and spatial comprehensiveness, so does the financial cost of conducting the inventory. Camas NWR 

has attempted to balance the costs with the merits of inventory and monitoring to the Refuge and in a way 

that data can be integrated by others on public and private lands outside the NWRS. 

Detailed and meaningful vegetation/habitat inventory and mapping are fundamental elements to all 

inventory and monitoring programs, but have not been completed for the vast majority of national wildlife 

refuges, including Camas NWR. The NWRS Inventory Team specifically recommended the development 

of vegetation community maps (Byrd et al. 2004) for all refuges. Vegetation mapping of Camas NWR 

would follow the National Vegetation Classification System. Vegetation inventories would be conducted 

at a floristic or floristic/physiographic scale. Required sample design and field data collection would be 

rigorous and intensive to ensure a statistically defensible and accurate inventory. The Refuge would use 

ancillary data required to develop vegetation inventories, including high resolution multispectral airborne 

sensors to mid- and coarse-resolution satellite sensors such as LandSat TM and MODIS, depending on 

the needs of the project. 

By inventorying abiotic factors such as soils, hydrology, and geomorphology, the Refuge would provide a 

foundation for ecological processes and ecosystem restoration to guide refuge management into the 

future. Biological resources cannot be successfully managed without knowledge of the underlying abiotic 

resources upon which they ultimately depend and inhabit. Local-scale knowledge of soils, hydrography, 

topography, and geomorphology would be of primary interest to the Refuge as it collects and synthesizes 

information to complete a Wetland and Riparian Restoration Plan by 2017. 

Hydrogeomorphic analysis (HGM) is a method of assessing ecosystem condition and ecological 

processes at a site to evaluate departure from historic conditions, identify restoration and management 

options, and identify ecological attributes needed to restore specific habitats. Completion of the Camas 

NWR HGM by 2015 would provide the Refuge with a science-based approach to understanding the 

physical and ecological attributes of landscapes and specific areas within them, such as refuges. HGM 

uses historic condition and ecological processes (soils hydrology, topography, geomorphology, 

vegetation), identifies changes to physical condition and ecological process, and generates restoration and 

management options for a given landscape. An HGM analysis would help the Refuge clarify management 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-87 

objectives and respond to altered hydrologic regimes and climate change by creating a better 

understanding of the potential for a refuge to support wildlife and plant communities. Restoration options 

for refuge wetlands and riparian communities would be significantly informed by the HGM. 

The Refuge System cannot be expected to adapt strategically to climate change impacts without a better 

sense of in situ biological diversity. Floral and faunal inventories are critical for benchmarking extant 

species assemblages before accelerated climate change and non-climate stressors cause extinctions, 

species redistributions, and novel assemblages. Inventories also set the stage for reasoned and deliberate 

development of monitoring objectives and a well-designed monitoring program. New data resulting from 

comprehensive inventories may also redirect current management priorities and assist with assessments of 

species vulnerability to climate change. 

In FY 2008, the NWRS reported spending $15.3 million on invasive species management activities. 

Rapidly changing climate will only exacerbate the issue. Pests and diseases are likely to move North, and 

temperature and moisture stresses will weaken native species and make them more susceptible to 

diseases. Camas NWR needs to remove or mitigate the stress that invasive species put on refuge 

ecosystems so that fish, wildlife and plants will have the best opportunity to adapt to rapid climate 

change. Without inventory data, we do not know what the invasive problems are, where invasive species 

exist, and we do not understand patterns of spread. At a local scale, Camas NWR needs to be able to 

quantify the extent of the problem through inventory efforts and monitor for early detection of new 

invaders on refuge lands. By sharing I&M findings with sister agencies and nongovernmental partners 

through LCCs or other collaborative data-sharing platforms or venues, the Refuge would substantially 

improve the response for control and eradication of invasive species which threaten refuge resources. 

The Refuge System has a legislative mandate, under the NWRSAA, as amended in 1997 by the 

NWRSIA, to “assist in the maintenance of adequate water quantity and water quality to fulfill the mission 

of the System and the purposes of each refuge,” and to “acquire, under State law, water rights that are 

needed for refuge purposes.” The challenge for the Service in light of climate change and growing 

competition for water is to ensure that sufficient quantities of good quality water are available for fish, 

wildlife and plants. Camas NWR currently lacks baseline information on refuge water bodies, 

groundwater supplies, infrastructure, water rights, water quality impairments, threats to water supplies, 

and needs. By acquiring water resource inventory data, the Refuge would be able to better manage water 

supplies, prioritize field studies and water rights acquisitions, and develop efficient, informative water 

monitoring strategies. 

The Contaminants Assessment Process (CAP) is a national program that provides a standardized 

approach for the Service to assess potential threats posed by environmental contaminants without and 

within the NWRS. By incorporating CAP into refuge I&M strategies, Camas NWR would be able to 

inventory point and non-point contaminant sources, identify areas of concern, and describe pathways of 

contaminant movement that might affect a refuge’s natural resources. CAP findings would provide the 

basis for management actions (such as more detailed investigations, cleanup actions or public outreach, 

including fish consumption advisories) that refuge managers can take to reduce contaminant impacts on 

the species and lands under their stewardship. These actions would also enhance health and safety for 

employees and visitors to the Refuge. Once this site-specific CAP information is acquired, it would 

support Camas NWR spill response planning, cleanup actions, and natural resource damage assessment, 

and restoration activities. 

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-88 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Objective 4.2: Adaptively Manage and Monitor Responses to Management 

Support adaptive management at refuge and landscape scales by establishing appropriate 

metrics (e.g., presence, relative abundance, density, sex and age ratios, reproductive success, 

annual recruitment, etc.) for each habitat type and Focal Species and survey to ensure that these 

metrics meet or exceed management targets. 

Alternatives 

Objective as written above is modified by replacing acres in italics 

with the text in this row.

Alt 1 

Current 

Alt 2 

Preferred 

Alt 3 

Communities to monitor: Waterfowl 

and 

waterbirds 



Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 

Current 

Alt 2 

Preferred 

Alt 3 

Conduct the simplest form of Adaptive Management designed to 

determine if individual refuges are achieving their specific objective. 

Tier 1 (Passive Adaptive Management/Low-Intensity Monitoring): 

1.Every 3 years assess emergent cover using aerial photography, 

ground-truthing, and GIS analysis to determine responses to habitat 

management practices. 

2. Monitor large ungulate (i.e., elk, deer, and moose) use of willow 

communities to ensure habitat structure is not being degraded and 

natural regeneration and recruitment of willows inhibited. 

3. Monitor Camas Creek surface flows daily and file an end-of-the 

year water usage report with Water District 31. 

4. Monitor water usage from all 9 irrigation wells and file end-of-theyear water usage report with The Idaho Department of Water 

Resources. 

5. Monitor public notices of intent on modification of current and new 

water rights 

6. Annually survey and monitor wildlife use within refuge agriculture 

crops to assess benefits or impacts from the refuge farming program 

for wildlife. 

7. Conduct periodic soil tests and work with cooperative farmer to 

apply proper fertilization and liming treatments, as necessary, to 

maintain proper nutrient and pH levels for productive agriculture 

plantings. 

8. Annually monitor vegetation (species composition and condition of 

plantings) in restored riparian woodland and shelterbelt habitat. 

9. Monitor composition and distribution of aquatic vegetation in 

managed wetlands every 2 to 5 years to determine need for and/or 

efficacy of treatments, and assess benefits to waterfowl. 

10.Establish repeat photo-points to measure effectiveness of invasive 

species management efforts 

 

Conduct more intensive Adaptive Management of priority CCP 

objectives which require more rigorous monitoring to provide 

definitive documentation of management outcomes. 

Tier 2 (Passive Adaptive Management-Intensive monitoring with 

implications at the landscape scale): 

1. Re-initiate landbird banding and monitoring effort to inventory and 

monitor spring/fall migrant use and phenology of shelterbelt habitat 

use. 

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-89 

2. Monitor temporal phenology changes to plants and wildlife that 

may result from climate change. 

3. Annually measure and monitor changes in shallow groundwater 

depths by measuring depth to groundwater in irrigation wells and 

using soil augers, digging soil pits or installing groundwater wells in 

strategic locations, to quantify the depth to saturation of the water 

table to determine site-potential for wet meadow maintenance, 

enhancement, and rehabilitation efforts. 

4. Monitor agricultural land use practices and associated water rights 

related to groundwater pumping within the Snake River Aquifer. 

Conduct highly rigorous application of Adaptive Management when 

there is high uncertainty about the outcomes of management actions, 

high risks to conservation targets, high costs of management, or 

public controversy regarding management actions. 

Tier 3 (Active Adaptive Management-Intensive monitoring): 

1. Assess refuge vulnerability to climate change. 

2. Establish annual habitat trend plots to measure each specified 

habitat amount, distribution, condition in managed wetlands: predrawdown, post-drawdown and yearly to determine need for 

drawdown and/or reduction in persistent emergent vegetation. 

3. Assess natural and altered landscape disturbance processes to 

provide accurate recurring monitoring of current and historic 

disturbance regime attributes (e.g., fire, flooding, drought, wind, 

erosion, sedimentation) and biotic and abiotic values at risk 

4. Annually conduct behavioral act observations (Lehner 1979) of 

Focal Species in each habitat type within each management unit, in 

conjunction with other surveys, to ensure that Focal Species are 

successfully using the habitat for breeding or foraging as predicted. 

5. Immediately before and after major habitat management actions 

(e.g., water level manipulation, prescribed fire, haying), sample 

terrestrial and/or aquatic invertebrates and/or live trap small mammal 

communities in each appropriate habitat type in each management 

unit to document changes in species composition and density (Ross 

and Murkin 1989). 

 

Use information attained from inventory of abiotic resources and 

physical features (Objective 4.1) to develop predictive models to 

adaptively manage refuge water resources and habitats: 

1. By 2015, incorporate HGM classification of natural core wetland 

extent and develop a water budget and predictive model by 2016 to 

calculate annual potential water availability and optimize the efficient 

application of water to achieve native wetland habitat objectives. 

2. Run predictive models to determine the anticipated annual location 

and extent of seasonal wetland habitats to be inundated using annual 

predictive models of water availability for Camas NWR and assigning 

either “drought”, “normal”, and “wet” annual wetland management 

prescriptions by 2017, to ensure water levels occur in refuge wetlands 

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-90 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

at different heights so no one wetland is maintained at the same water 

level for prolonged (>3 year) periods. 

3. Conduct Hydro Geomorphic Model (HGM) and engineering 

feasibility study by 2015 (See Goal 4; Objective 4.1) to determine 

historic and current physical refuge setting and best future 

management options. 

4. Adaptively adjust and recalculate predictive water models based on 

annual model performance. 

5. By 2017, formulate and use plant community-specific tolerance 

thresholds, as determined through a Camas NWR State-andTransition Model, to influence management prescriptions to meet 

annual and long-term wet meadow habitat objectives. 

6. Evaluate the anticipated responses and model the trajectory of 

sagebrush communities to human-associated disturbances across the 

Upper Snake regional ecosystem as the basis for spatial prioritization 

of landscape scale management. 

Document all responses that fall short of management goals, ascertain 

causes, and employ adaptive management to correct management 

prescriptions. 

 

Annually analyze, summarize results; disseminate findings to refuge 

staff, cooperators; and archive all data and reports. 

 

Pursue cooperative funding and partner contributions to implement 

I&M objectives. 

 

Rationale, Objective 4.2: Adaptively Manage and Monitor Responses to Management: 

 

The Refuge would use an adaptive management (AM) decision making process to implement 

management strategies authorized in the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). Adaptive 

management is a science-based public participation process for evaluating and adjusting a conservation 

effort relative to goal achievement as experience and knowledge are gained through implementation, 

study and discussion. The Refuge and its collaborative partners support the fact that AM promotes 

flexible decision making which can be adjusted in the face of uncertainties, as outcomes from 

management actions and other events become better understood. As the CCP is implemented, AM would 

help the Refuge achieve diverse goals while enhancing wildlife benefits, advancing scientific knowledge, 

and improving working relationships among stakeholders.

The principle of AM is based on the recognition that ecosystem function is inherently complex and often 

results in knowledge gaps. AM implementation means a firm commitment to the development of 

measurable outcomes and the application of rigorous evaluation and monitoring methods to determine 

whether management goals are being met. Careful monitoring of these actions advances scientific 

understanding and helps adjust policies or operations as part of an on-going learning process. This is not a 

“trial and error” process but rather emphasizes “learning while doing,” which recognizes the importance 

of incorporating new information as it becomes available. AM requires flexibility and an ability to 

acknowledge risks/failures while using new knowledge in a constructive manner to make adjustments 

while building a foundation for ongoing learning/adjustment. 

The Refuge is committed to a rigorous and inclusive AM approach to enhance public confidence in the 

ability of the Refuge to transfer theory to practice. The Refuge recognizes as it moves forward with CCP 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-91 

implementation that there is a critical need for transparency. This transparency, as it pertains to AM, 

needs to include both the learning and decision making processes. The following discussion describes 

how the Refuge would move forward through AM. 

The AM process would bring diverse interests together through various forums to share information and 

site-specific results so that all those engaged, including the Refuge, can learn together. These forums 

would evolve through time but would include mechanisms such as the Aquatic Health Coalition, the 

Ecology Working Group and an evolution of the Collaborative Planning Group. The timing and 

frequency of information sharing/learning would be determined by how rapidly new information is being 

acquired, level of partners’ interest/engagement, ecological cycles and the forum being used. The Refuge 

would share the results of its inventory and monitoring work. Additionally, the Refuge would be 

responsive to partners’ requests for open discussion and collaboration in assessing the need for adaptive 

changes in management. 

As the Refuge and partners learn through the AM process, new information may show the need for 

adjustments, confirm existing strategies or identify additional information needs. Based on the best 

information available at the time, the Refuge would make decisions for future management actions. As 

with the sharing/learning aspects of AM, the Refuge recognizes the importance of transparency for 

decisions made during the AM process. The Refuge is committed to bringing together interested parties to 

assist with, the evaluation of available information and consultation about management options and their 

implications prior to making course changing decisions. This process does not diminish the Refuge’s 

legal authority to make decisions, but rather serves to enhance the decision making process by enabling 

the Refuge to approach issues from multiple perspectives, thereby finding creative solutions to complex 

challenges. 

Objective 4.3: Survey Wildlife and Habitat Trends 

Conduct prioritized surveys of wildlife and habitats for focal or rare species or species groups, to 

determine which, if any, habitat or population management strategies should be undertaken for 

their benefit. 

Alternatives 

Objective as written above is modified by replacing acres in italics 

with the text in this row.

Alt 1 

Current 

Alt 2 

Preferred 

Alt 3 

Inventory implementation: Opportunistic  

Inventory emphasis: Waterfowl 

and 

waterbirds 

 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 

Current 

Alt 2 

Preferred 

Alt 3 

Conduct status and trend surveys of priority fish and wildlife species: 

1. Annually conduct standard avian point counts (Ralph and Scott 

1981) stratified by habitat type to measure breeding migrant landbird 

density by habitat type on the Refuge. 

2. Annually conduct nest searches for breeding avian focal species 

using plots or transects to measure nest density and success. 

3. Annually conduct secretive marsh bird surveys (Conway 2005) to 

document presence and relative abundance of Focal Species. 

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-92 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

4. Annually conduct ground surveys of Focal shorebird species from 

April through October to document the presence and relative 

abundance. 

5. Annually survey for reptiles and amphibians stratified by habitat 

using techniques outlined by Corn and Bury (1990) and Hutchens and 

De Perno (2009). 

6. Annually assist in conducting the Southeast Idaho NWRC bimonthly low level aerial fall survey to document the fall RMP 

sandhill crane population. 

7. Annually assist in conducting the Southeast Idaho NWRC low 

level aerial surveys April through September to assess the Tri-state 

Trumpeter swan population (breeding and production) 

8. Survey focal waterfowl and waterbird species (breeding/migration) 

9. Survey fall refuge sandhill crane population (migration) 

10.Work with IDFG to fund and perform census of refuge and local 

elk population 

11.Weekly survey wintering refuge eagle roosts 

12.Assist IDFG in regional mid-winter eagle survey 

13.Annually monitor 6 to 10 (as to rotate through all the monitoring 

plots every 8 to 10 years) of the 60 established long-term vegetative 

trend sites 

14.Participate in the pollinator monitoring initiative hosted by the 

USGS at Patuxent Wildlife Research Center in Maryland

Rationale, Objective 4.3: Survey Wildlife and Habitat Trends: 

Research, scientific collecting, and surveys on refuge lands are inherently valuable to the Service because 

they expand scientific information available for resource management decisions. Use of the Refuge to 

conduct research, scientific collecting, and surveys would generally provide information that would 

benefit fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats. Scientific findings gained through these projects provide 

important information regarding life-history needs of species and species groups as well as identify or 

refine management actions to achieve resource management objectives in refuge management plans (for 

example, CCPs, HMPs, and Fire Management Plans). Reducing uncertainty regarding wildlife and habitat 

responses to refuge management actions in order to achieve desired outcomes reflected in resource 

management objectives is essential for adaptive management in accordance with 522 DM. 

In 2007 the Refuge decided to suspend an ongoing mist netting portion of a refuge inventory and 

monitoring study, due to a variety of concerns including funding availability, USFWS’s lack of personnel, 

and opposition to the mist netting from a contingent of the Idaho birding community. Assuming 

continued habitat restoration occurs at Camas NWR in Alternative 2, and/or there is sufficient interest, the 

Refuge would resume mist netting with the idea of measuring potential response to restoration efforts 

and/or future migrant abundance, richness, migration timing, and energetic condition on five-year 

intervals (two to three years on, five years off), creating a seven- to eight-year on/off cycle. As regards the 

“on” part of the cycle, two years is viewed as an absolute minimum, whereas three consecutive years 

(pending funding and logistical support), would better allow us to account for annual fluctuations in 

analyses. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-93 

Objective 4.4: Applied Research 

Through the life of the CCP, develop a program capable of recruiting qualified researchers and 

funding to conduct high-priority research projects, which provide rigorous scientific-based 

information to positively affect future management decisions and test uncertain assumptions. 

Alternatives 

Objective as written above is modified by replacing acres in italics 

with the text in this row.

Alt 1 

Current 

Alt 2 

Preferred 

Alt 3 

Quality of data Credible  

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 

Current 

Alt 2 

Preferred 

Alt 3 

Continuously work with refuge and SEINWRC staff, other Federal 

agencies, State agencies, universities, and non-governmental 

organizations to identify and prioritize appropriate research questions 

most germane to refuge management and Service mandates. 

 

Construct and continually maintain a spreadsheet of all potential 

research projects, their refuge and regional priority rank, potential 

partners, and approximate costs. 

 

Ensure all research projects involving the Refuge and refuge staff 

adhere to the highest standards of science. 

 

At appropriate intervals (annual progress reports, project completion 

and technical publications) share all information with all refuge and 

SEINWRC staff, project partners, and local media. 

 

Pursue cooperative funding and partner contributions to implement 

identified research projects. 

 

As appropriate, integrate all research findings into refuge habitat and 

population management actions. 

 

Rationale, Objective 4.4: Applied Research: 

Although knowledge of highly complex ecological systems will always be incomplete, agencies must 

make management decisions using the best information to guide their actions. By systematically 

identifying uncertainties at Camas NWR, the Refuge can highlight a biological foundation for acquiring 

information through applied research. In the absence of perfect knowledge, it is necessary to make 

assumptions which are essentially testable hypotheses about uncertainties. However, not all assumptions 

are equally important. By considering each assumption in light of two factors (how uncertain it is; and to 

what extent better information would affect future management decisions), refuge assumptions that are 

both tenuous and high impact can be identified. There would therefore be the priorities for Camas NWR 

research. 

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-94 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Goal 5: Wildlife-dependent Recreation and Public Use 

Increase public understanding and appreciation of wildlife, and build support 

for Camas NWR by providing opportunities for all visitors to participate in 

safe, quality wildlife-dependent recreation and education programs, while 

minimizing wildlife disturbance or other impacts to wildlife populations or 

habitats. 

Objective 5.1: Welcome and Orient Visitors 

By 2017, enhance the Refuge’s ability to conduct outreach and welcome and orient visitors of all 

ages and abilities, through improved facilities, increased staffing, and more effective use of print 

and electronic media.

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 

Current 

Alt 2 

Preferred

Alt 3 

Provide self-service visitor orientation facilities (kiosk) and comfort 

station at refuge headquarters. 

  

Provide small visitor contact area at refuge office. Refuge staff would 

greet and orient visitors that come into the office, on weekdays during 

normal business hours. 

 

Construct a combined refuge office, small visitor contact station and 

environmental education multi-purpose room at the headquarters site. 

The visitor contact station would be staffed by volunteers and/or 

Friends group members 7 days per week during high visitation 

periods and during special events. 

 

Create an on-site staff position (Park Ranger and/or Visitor Services 

Manager) to develop and deliver outreach and visitor services 

programs, manager volunteer program and develop partnerships (also 

see Objectives 5.3, 5.5 below). 

 

Develop Outreach and Communications Plan for Refuge, including 

key messages and audiences and communication strategies. 

 

Participate in at least one community event annually (e.g., Dubois 

Grouse Days). 

  

Revise the Refuge’s general brochure with updated regulations, text, 

maps and photographs. 

 

Update panels on informational kiosk in visitor parking area to 

include migratory bird information and updated refuge map. 

 

Revise the refuge website with improved photos, navigation aids and 

maps. Provide interactive Web capability for visitors to electronically 

post wildlife observations/photos. Post PDF files for all publications 

on refuge website. 

 

Host at least one public event per year (e.g., Migratory Bird Day).   

Rationale, Objective 5.1: Welcome and Orient Visitors: 

Camas NWR has a very small staff with only three permanent employees, and therefore currently relies 

mainly on unstaffed, self-serve facilities to welcome and orient the public. Self-serve facilities and 

associated print products would be improved and/or enhanced to make them as user-friendly as possible. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-95 

Updated maps would more clearly show where and when the public can participate in recreational 

activities. Updated panels in the main parking lot kiosk would emphasize the purpose of the Refuge: a 

home and breeding ground for migratory birds. (The current panels emphasize big game species rather 

than migratory birds.) Refuge information available through print and electronic media (Web) would also 

be updated and upgraded, including interactive interfaces that provide opportunities for the public to post 

their wildlife observations on the refuge website. This would allow the Refuge to reach and interact with a 

larger and more diverse audience.

While “self-serve” facilities would continue to be important, direct personal contact with visitors is a more 

effective way to welcome and orient visitors, educate them about the Refuge and its wildlife, and enlist 

their support for our mission. The current office is the former manager’s residence and includes a small 

visitor contact area, but is not designed as a visitor contact station. It is not staffed on weekends, nor is it 

consistently staffed on weekdays. Most visitors bypass the office and continue directly to the auto tour 

route or trails. It would be desirable to have an office/visitor contact station on-site that is consistently 

staffed during peak visitation periods, including weekends. Using volunteers or Friends Group members to 

staff the visitor contact station would allow the public better access to information and provide 

opportunities to interact with people who have knowledge of the Refuge, especially during high traffic or 

special events. Having better, and more consistently staffed facilities to welcome and orient visitors would 

not only enhance visitors’ experiences and increase their understanding of refuge wildlife, habitats, and 

resource management issues, but may also increase visitation through word of mouth in surrounding 

communities. An increased staff presence may also increase compliance with refuge regulations. Because 

the Refuge would rely heavily on volunteers to staff the visitor contact station, hiring a position dedicated 

to visitor services would be necessary to recruit, manage and train volunteers (see Objective 4.5 below). 

Outreach. Outreach is crucial to distinguishing the Service’s National Wildlife Refuge System from other 

lands managed by other natural resource agencies. When the public knows and understands the role of the 

Service, the Refuge System, and Camas NWR, it results in several benefits. By increasing public 

understanding and appreciation of the Refuge’s wildlife and habitat resources, the Refuge expects 

increased public support for protecting and enhancing refuge lands, thereby achieving the overall goal of 

protection and stewardship of wildlife. A greater understanding of refuge regulations and policies, and the 

reasons behind them, reduces violations necessitating LE. Outreach programs must be carefully designed 

in order to be successful. Design of outreach programs begins with identification of key messages and 

target audiences, and culminates in the development and delivery of specific tools or programs. 

 

Small staff size not only limits refuge interaction with the public, but also limits opportunities to conduct 

outreach. Currently the Refuge relies primarily on its website and brochures as outreach tools. However, 

there are opportunities to improve refuge outreach, through both print and electronic media and direct 

interaction with the public. Hiring one position dedicated to visitor services would allow the Refuge to 

conduct outreach, improve visitor services programs and leverage partnership and volunteer opportunities 

in order to develop new programs (e.g., interpretation, environmental education, and guided tours).

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-96 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Objective 5.2: Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Provide opportunities for self-guided and guided wildlife observation and photography at by 

annually maintaining a 6.3 mile year-long auto tour loop; 6.5 additional miles of roads open 

seasonally to vehicles and pedestrian traffic; a 1.3 mile birding trail; and approximately 27 miles

of service roads open year round to hiking, biking, snowshoeing, or cross-country skiing as 

conditions permit.

Alternatives 

Objective as written above is modified by replacing acres in italics 

with the text in this row.

Alt 1 

Current 

Alt 2 

Preferred

Alt 3 

Type of Opportunity Self-guided 

only 



Birding trail 0.5 miles 

Service roads open to hiking, bicycling, cross-country skiing, and 

snowshoeing as conditions permit 



Additional roads open seasonally to vehicles and pedestrian traffic 

for wildlife observation, photography, and hunt area access 



(open during hunting 

seasons only) 

14 miles 

(6.5 miles 

during hunt 

seasons; 

7.5 miles 

July 1-Nov 

1) 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 

Current 

Alt 2 

Preferred

Alt 3 

Provide a 6.3-mile, two-way, self-guided auto-tour route, with 9 

pullouts and interpretive panels, that is open year round to vehicle, 

foot, and bicycle traffic. 

 

As above, but change route to one-way to provide for public safety.  

Provide an additional 6.5 miles of roads that are open to vehicle and 

pedestrian traffic during the hunting season for wildlife observation 

and photography and provide access to hunting areas (roads are 

leading to and within the north and south waterfowl and upland game 

hunting units). 

  

Re-open the 7.5 mile Sandhole Lake loop road to vehicle traffic from 

July 1 to November 1 annually. 

 

Allow hiking, bicycling, cross-country skiing, and snowshoeing on 27 

miles of unmaintained/ungroomed service roads, as conditions permit. 

 

Maintain some groomed winter trail through refuge partnerships with 

local public user groups interested in winter refuge activities. 



Allow hiking, bicycling, cross-country skiing, and snowshoeing on 27 

miles of service roads year round as conditions permit. Groom 10 

miles of service roads for cross-country skiing, and snowshoeing; 17 

miles ungroomed/unmaintained. 

 

Off-road hiking permitted throughout the Refuge, July 15- Feb. 28.  

Off-road hiking not permitted, except by hunters in possession of 

valid State licenses during hunting seasons. 


Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-97 

Off-road hiking not permitted, except by hunters in possession of 

valid State licenses during hunting seasons, except as follows: 

Off-road hiking permitted year round in the north waterfowl and 

upland game hunting unit (980 acres); Jan 1-July 31 in the south 

waterfowl and upland game hunting unit (1,530 acres). 

 

Dog walking allowed in all areas that are open to public use. Dogs 

must be on leash or under close control. 

 

Dog walking allowed only on roads that are open to public use. Dogs 

are required to be on a leash or wear a functional electronic collar at 

all times. 

 

Develop print and/or digital interpretive media for self-guided tours 

of the Refuge’s Auto Tour Route, service roads and trails. 

 

Maintain a 1⁄2 mile long birding/walking tail that starts at visitor center 

parking lot. 

 

Complete a 1.3 mile birding/walking trail that starts at the visitor 

parking lot. 

 

Maintain wildlife observation platform on Camas Creek, near refuge 

headquarters. 

  

Allow the use of personal portable photo blinds on Refuge within 100 

feet of refuge roads. Allow no more than 5 portable blinds on the 

Refuge at any given time. Photographers must reserve space in 

advance. 

 

Construct three semipermanent photo blinds, using input from local 

photographers. Blinds would be available by reservation only. 

 

Conduct at least 8 guided wildlife-based refuge tours annually during 

the peak of wildlife viewing times (e.g., snow goose migration, 

wintering bald eagles and/or fall elk tours). Tours would be advertised 

on the refuge website, Friends Group website and newsletter, and 

Audubon and local tourism bureau websites. Guided tours would be 

limited to 30 visitors and slots would be filled on a first-come, firstserve basis. 



Conduct at least 12 guided wildlife-based refuge tours annually 

during the peak of wildlife viewing times (e.g., snow goose migration, 

wintering bald eagles and/or fall elk tours). Tours would be advertised 

on the refuge website, Friends Group website and newsletter, and 

Audubon and local tourism bureau websites. Guided tours would be 

limited to 30 visitors and slots would be filled on a first-come, firstserve basis. 

 

Provide visitor sign-in/comment station at trail heads to 

photography/hunting blinds. Develop means for visitors to “sign in” 

and record wildlife observations electronically (directly to website or 

social media). 

 

Rationale, Objective 5.2: Wildlife Observation and Photography: 

In accordance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1996, as amended, 

refuges are encouraged to provide wildlife observation and photography opportunities wherever they are 

compatible with refuge purposes. Allowing automobile traffic on a small portion of the road system at 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-98 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Camas NWR (the Auto Tour Route and hunter access roads) limits disturbance to wildlife, yet still allows 

vehicle access to a diverse and scenic drive of the Refuge. Keeping the auto tour route open during the 

winter allows visitors to see bald eagles that roost on the Refuge, white-tailed deer, and other wildlife, as 

well as spectacular winter sunrises and sunsets. With almost 40 miles of roads on the Refuge, many 

different types of outdoor activities, including hiking, snowshoeing, cross-country skiing, and bicycling, 

can be accommodated while minimizing disturbance to wildlife and impact to habitat. 

The Auto Tour Route (ATR) is currently open to vehicle traffic (vehicles licensed for highway use only), 

bicycling, walking, dog walking (under control of owner), cross-country skiing, and snow shoeing. Few 

visitors have been observed walking or bicycling on the ATR. Given these low numbers, conflicts 

between vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, or any other visitor uses are negligible to nonexistent. Based 

upon data gathered from a vehicle traffic counter installed on the ATR in 2009, from 50 to 370 vehicles 

used the ATR per month, with the peak occurring from March to June. To date no accidents or incidents 

on the auto tour route have been reported or observed by refuge staff. The auto tour route is currently 

maintained in winter to the best of our abilities to keep the road open. Changing the auto tour route from 

two-way to one-way traffic, as proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3, would eliminate many of the issues with 

cars trying to pass on the narrow roads with steep ditches. Construction of the birding trail near refuge 

headquarters was initiated about five years ago. Currently the birding tail is only about one half mile long 

and does not have a defined or complete loop. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, a 1.3 mile loop would be 

completed that takes visitors through the best landbird habitat the Camas NWR has to offer. 

Anticipated direct impacts of wildlife observation and photography include disturbance to wildlife by 

human presence which typically results in a temporary displacement of individuals or groups. Immediate 

responses by wildlife to recreational activity can range from behavioral changes including nest 

abandonment or change in food habits, physiological changes such as elevated heart rates due to flight, or 

even death (Knight and Cole 1995). The long-term effects are more difficult to assess but may include 

altered behavior, vigor, productivity, or death of individuals; altered population abundance, distribution, 

or demographics; and altered community species composition and interactions. Knight and Cole (1991) 

found that wildlife responses to human disturbance include avoidance, habituation, and attraction. 

In this CCP the Refuge must consider the location and timing of recreational activities and how 

observational recreation can impact species in different ways. The Preferred Alternative prohibits off-road 

hiking and limits wildlife observation and photography to designated roads and trails. This approach is 

more restrictive than either Current Management or Alternative 3, but affords the most positive benefit to 

refuge wildlife by minimizing wildlife disturbance through restrictive off-road hiking access. Stolen 

(2003) found that the proximity of wading birds to a roadway influenced the probability that a given bird 

would flush. Migratory waterfowl at J.N. “Ding” Darling NWR remained more than 80 m (262 feet) from 

the auto tour route, even when human visitation was low (Klein 1995). Miller et al. (1998) found that 

nesting success was lower near recreational trails, where human activity was common, than at greater 

distances from the trails. 

The Refuge is popular with wildlife photographers, and has received requests to construct a permanent 

photo blind. One of the issues with establishing a permanent structure is that water management and 

wildlife use vary by year and therefore, an established blind would not always be in a desirable location. 

Since a permanent blind may not get enough use to justify its construction, better options would be: (1) 

Allow, on a reservation basis, the use of portable blinds for photography in designated areas (the user 

would have to remove the blind while not in use); or (2) Place semipermanent portable blinds. Such 

blinds have been used successfully at other refuges. Either option would allow photographers to take 

advantage of seasonal changes in lighting, habitat, and wildlife use patterns. Photographers would be 

allowed to place their own blinds within 100 feet of roads in Alternatives 2 and 3. The number of portable 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-99 

blinds would be limited to 5 at any given time, on a reservation basis, to reduce user conflicts and provide 

a quality experience. Semipermanent blinds are proposed in Alternative 3. 

While self-guided programs would continue to constitute the majority of refuge use, opportunities to 

observe and learn about wildlife can be greatly enhanced though guided programs. While more staffintensive, these programs increase visitor success in seeing wildlife, provide access to areas that are 

otherwise closed to the public, provide greater opportunities to convey key messages (e.g., wildlife and 

habitat conservation, viewing techniques/ethics), and have the potential for high return for effort (e.g., 

volunteer recruitment). For example, at Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge, their guided tour program is 

their most popular program, and slots are always filled to capacity. Guided tours provide opportunities to 

serve a targeted audience while minimizing undesirable impacts to wildlife. At Camas NWR there are 

several key periods when birds or other wildlife are reliably present and active enough to warrant regular 

guided tours, for example the snow goose migration, the fall rut (elk, white tailed deer), and bald eagle 

roosting in winter. However additional staffing and volunteers would be required to develop this program, 

as well as interpretive and educational programs (see Objectives 5.1, 5.4). 

Objective 5.3: Environmental Education and Interpretation 

(5.3a) Annually provide educational programs and guided refuge tours that reach at least 1,000 

to 1,100 students, members of youth groups and other members of the public, within 10 years of 

program implementation. 

(5.3b) Provide 10-15 guided wildlife based refuge tours to 200-300 participants annually, 

conducted by refuge staff and/or trained volunteers, to youth and special interest groups that 

expand their awareness of the Refuge’s habitat and wildlife. 

Alternatives 

Objective as written above is modified by replacing acres in italics 

with the text in this row.

Alt 1 

Current 

Alt 2 

Preferred

Alt 3 

(5.3a) Total number of participants annually (students; youth and 

special interest groups) 

400-450  2,400 

(5.3b) Number of refuge tours: 6-10 tours  20 tours 

(5.3b) Tours conducted by: By refuge 

staff 



(5.3b) Participants annually: 150-200  400 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 

Current 

Alt 2 

Preferred

Alt 3 

Target educational and interpretive programs to increase public 

awareness of wetland and upland species diversity and ecology, 

Camas NWR habitat management actions, energy and water 

conservation actions and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. 

 

Staff a full time position at Camas Refuge (Park Ranger) to develop 

and coordinate environmental education programs, including: 

developing refuge-specific curricula that meet State standards; 

delivering teacher training; and overseeing EE program. 

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-100 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Staff a full time volunteer coordinator position in the Southeast Idaho 

Complex Office to oversee recruitment and training of volunteers and 

develop education programs on all four refuges within the Southeast 

Idaho Complex. 

 

Provide volunteer-led environmental education programs to 

approximately 250 students annually. 

 

Construct a combined refuge office, small visitor station, and 

environmental education multi-purpose classrooms to provide outdoor 

public learning opportunities for local schools and universities. 

 

Provide environmental education programs to 300 students for the 

first 5 years after construction of the new environmental multipurpose classroom and then 800 students in the second 5 years of 

implementation. 



Provide environmental education programs to 2,000 students for the 

ten years after construction of the new environmental multi-purpose 

classroom 

 

Grade K-12 EE programs on the Refuge would be conducted by 

teachers who have received training in the use of refuge-specific 

curricula, or Service-wide curricula such as Project Wild or Project 

Wet. Encourage the use of the Refuge as an “outdoor classroom” for 

programs such as Project Wild or Project Wet. 

 

Conduct at least one teacher workshop annually to ensure that key 

Refuge System messages are delivered appropriate to grade level. 

 

Encourage the use of the Refuge as an “outdoor classroom” for local 

universities to hold field classes or other resource related education 

(e.g., water rights, hydrology, geology and soils, wildlife biology and 

management, range sciences, botany). 

 

Develop refuge programs to encourage Scouting participation. 

Develop and conduct programs that would allow Scouting groups to 

earn badges while learning in an outdoor setting. 

 

Work cooperatively with BYU-Idaho to involve student participation 

in inventory and monitoring programs being established on the 

Refuge. 

 

Develop a quality interpretation program that fosters long-term 

interest in the conservation of natural resources among visitors or all 

ages, and fosters a connection between children and nature. Staff 

would be responsible for developing program content and delivering 

training to volunteers, who would conduct the program. 

 

Rationale, Objective 5.3: Environmental Education and Interpretation: 

Environmental education and interpretation play a key role in encouraging current and future generations 

to engage in environmentally responsible behavior, including supporting the protection of habitat for 

wildlife through the National Wildlife Refuge System. The Refuge is close enough to the Idaho Falls 

school district to be able to serve large numbers of students. The surrounding communities also have 

strong Scouting programs, and local Scout groups are always looking for educational opportunities in 

outdoor settings. 

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-101 

Currently, with no visitor services staff for the Refuge or the Refuge Complex, and a small number of 

volunteers, EE and interpretation programs on the Refuge are limited. The refuge manager provides tours 

to Scout groups on request, serving approximately 150-200 Scouts annually. Volunteers reach an 

additional 250 students annually. There are no teacher training programs or refuge-specific curricula. 

Reaching more students and offering high quality EE and interpretive programs would require a full-time 

Park Ranger or Visitor Services Manager who would also recruit, train, and oversee volunteer staff to 

implement the program. Hiring a position dedicated to visitor services would allow the Refuge to improve 

visitor services programs, and leverage partnership and volunteer opportunities in order to develop new 

programs (e.g., interpretation, environmental education, and guided tours). Strategically placed 

interpretive media, including interpretive panels, brochures, and posters, are currently used by the Refuge 

and would continue to be developed and used as educational tools. Web-based media would also be used 

to reach an increasingly diverse and tech-savvy audience. 

With its close proximity to the Idaho Falls school system, BYU-Idaho and the Idaho National Laboratory 

(INL), opportunities exist to recruit and train a cadre of volunteers to engage students in a wide variety of 

science-based educational programs. With the proper facilities and staff support in place, Camas NWR 

would provide an excellent setting to host teacher training workshops such as Project Wild or Project 

Wet. Project Wild workshops have been hosted at Camas NWR in the past. If reinstated, these workshops 

would be likely to be popular with local teachers, since they provide an opportunity to earn credits. In 

addition, teachers that are trained on the Refuge are likely to bring their students back. 

The Refuge also has the opportunity to partner with the BYU-Idaho and INL to participate in inventory 

and monitoring programs. BYU-Idaho has a growing enrollment of students in the biological sciences that 

are willing and eager to work on projects related to wildlife biology and management. Faculty at BYU-I 

have expressed interest in establishing a relationship with the Refuge and other natural resource 

organizations that would allow students to help with projects while gaining valuable field experience that 

would make them more competitive in the job market. Having adequate staff and a viable facility to host 

educational programs would help foster a continuous partnership that would lead to collection of high 

quality data that would help the Refuge attain its inventory, monitoring, and research goals. 

Objective 5.4: Hunting 

(5.4a): Annually provide a quality, safe migratory game bird hunt (for ducks, geese, mergansers, 

American coots, and Wilson’s snipe) on 2,510 acres of Camas Refuge. 

(5.4b): Annually provide a quality, safe upland game bird hunt (for snipe, gray partridge, 

pheasants, and sage-grouse) on 2,510 acres of Camas NWR. 

(5.4c): Annually provide a quality, safe hunt for elk on approximately 4,112 acres of the Refuge.

Alternatives 

Objective as written above is modified by replacing acres in italics 

with the text in this row.

Alt 1 

Current 

Alt 2 

Preferred

Alt 3 

(5.4c) Acres open to elk hunting 0 4,112 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 

Current 

Alt 2 

Preferred

Alt 3 

Hunting would occur in accordance with Idaho, Federal, and any 

special refuge regulations. 

  
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-102 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

The Refuge is open to sportsmen and visitors from one half hour 

before sunrise and one half hour after sunset. 

  

Approved non-toxic shot is required for hunting all bird species.   

In 2018, after the changes in water management described in the CCP 

are initiated, re-evaluate the size and location of the waterfowl hunt 

area. Depending upon wetland response to changes in water 

management, consider shifting the waterfowl hunt units into areas 

with more reliable fall water, or enlarging the waterfowl hunt area. 

Areas open to migratory bird hunting would not exceed 40% of the 

total refuge acres. 

 

Allow an elk hunt on 4,112 acres of the Refuge. Elk hunting would be 

allowed on Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays, Mondays, and Tuesdays 

during the Idaho season for Unit 63, as specified in Idaho Fish and 

Game Big Game Hunting Rules: Any elk (bull and antlerless) may be 

harvested between August 1 and August 31. Antlerless elk may be 

harvested from September 1 through December 31. 

 

Issue up to 20 elk hunting access permits annually to hunters holding 

valid State elk tags for GMU 63, by random draw. The number of 

permits issued would be determined by the staff of Camas NWR in 

coordination with the IDFG before the beginning of each season. 

Refuge access permit would allow hunters to access the Refuge on 

hunt days for two weeks, until an elk was harvested. Priority would be 

given to youth and mobility impaired hunters. If the number of youth 

and mobility impaired hunter applicants is less than the total number 

of access permits being issued in a given season, other applications 

would be included in the drawing for access permits. 

 

The refuge manager would meet annually (May) with regional IDFG 

staff to discuss elk population levels in the general area and decide on 

the number of access permits that would be allowed for the Refuge 

based upon the effectiveness of the previous season’s elk hunt. 

 

A maximum of two elk hunters would be allowed on the Refuge at 

any given time. (Youth hunters age 12-17 must be accompanied by an 

adult; mobility impaired hunters may be accompanied by a non 

hunting assistant designated in writing in accordance with State 

regulations.) 

 

All elk hunters would receive a pre-hunt orientation from USFWS 

Southeast Idaho Complex employees (including LE Officers), or 

volunteers trained by Camas NWR or SE Idaho Complex staff. 

 

Mobility-impaired hunters may use temporary hunting blinds. They 

would be taken to and from hunting blinds by refuge personnel or a 

trained volunteer using a refuge-owned utility terrain vehicle (UTV). 

Hunting from vehicles is prohibited. 

 

Weapons used in elk hunting would be shoulder fired, center fire with 

cartridges larger than 20 caliber. 

 

Successful hunters (or non hunting assistants of mobility impaired 

hunters) would be allowed to move a harvested elk to the nearest 

established, designated refuge road by foot. Vehicles would then be 

used to remove the elk from the Refuge. Refuge personnel or a 

designated trained volunteer would aid in the removal of elk 

harvested by mobility impaired hunters. 

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-103 

Hunters must maintain a distance of at least 400 m (1⁄4 mile) of 

roosting sandhill cranes. Elk hunters would be advised of the presence 

of sensitive non-target wildlife species, and setback distances and/or 

area closures, in the pre-hunt orientation. 

 

Refuge personnel would meet in January to evaluate the safety and 

quality aspects of the elk hunt and make adjustments to number of 

hunters and area closures if necessary to ensure a safe, quality hunt 

that minimizes impacts to sensitive non-target wildlife resources. The 

Refuge would implement, as needed, spatial or temporal closures to 

protect sensitive non-target wildlife resources. If refuge closures do 

occur, the general public would be notified of closure dates via press 

releases to local media, and the refuge website. 

 

Create a tear sheet with map for hunters and post printable PDF file 

on refuge website. 

 

Improve signage for hunting areas, access roads, and parking areas.  

Rationale, Objective 5.4: Hunting: 

Migratory game birds. Camas NWR has a history of providing quality waterfowl and upland game 

hunting opportunities. In the 1950s and 1960s, when plentiful water resources allowed the Refuge to keep 

ponds flooded well into the fall, local hunters viewed the Refuge among the best waterfowling in the area. 

Currently approximately 2,510 acres of the Refuge’s wetland/meadow areas are open to migratory game 

bird hunting. A major management issue is that due to the falling water table in the region, the Refuge 

cannot provide enough water to fill all the wetlands that exist within the refuge boundaries. This is the 

case with the areas open to waterfowl hunting. Water may be present during the spring, but it typically 

cannot be maintained throughout the summer and into the hunting season. Due to lack of reliable fall 

water, use of Camas NWR for migratory game bird hunting is very limited, estimated at 4 to 8 hunter 

visits per season. When this plan is reviewed in five years, after the changes in water management 

described in the CCP are initiated, we will re-evaluate the size and location of the waterfowl hunt area. 

Depending upon wetland response to changes in water management we may consider shifting the 

waterfowl hunt units into areas with more reliable fall water, or enlarging the waterfowl hunt area. At that 

time consideration will also be given to maintaining closed areas for migratory birds to rest and gain 

necessary energy to continue migration. Areas open to migratory bird hunting would not exceed 40% of 

the total refuge acres. This is in accordance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act 

(16 U.S.C. 668dd(d)(1)(A); the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712); and the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 715a-715r), which state that “If a refuge, or portion thereof, has been 

designated, acquired, reserved, or set apart as an inviolate sanctuary, we may only allow hunting of 

migratory game birds on no more than 40 percent of that refuge, or portion, at any one time unless we 

find that taking of any such species in more than 40 percent of such area would be beneficial to the 

species.” 

Upland game birds. Greater sage-grouse are a resident native game species. Loss of quality sagebrush 

habitat in the surrounding area has led to a decline in the number of sage-grouse on the Refuge. Greater 

sage-grouse populations are cyclic and the Table Butte population, which uses Camas NWR as part of its 

range, demonstrates this with total male count on lek varying from 77 to 343 over a fifteen-year time 

frame (IDFG 2011a). Sage-grouse are a Candidate Species for listing under the Endangered Species Act, 

but are still hunted throughout most of their range. Although literature is mixed on whether hunting is 

compensatory (the proportion of the population that was harvested would die from some other factor if 

hunting did not occur) or additive (number harvested adds to those that die from other causes), hunting of 

sage-grouse is permitted in Idaho. Presently IDFG sets the hunting season every August after examining 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-104 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

population data and comparing them to the thresholds set in the statewide conservation plan. In recent 

years the Refuge has supported few sage-grouse within its boundary during the hunting season. For this 

reason Camas NWR may only receive one or two visits annually by hunters pursuing sage-grouse. 

Ring-necked pheasants and gray partridge were introduced to the area and are not native to North 

America. In the 1970s and 1980s pheasant numbers were high, but have declined in the last several 

decades. One of the reasons for this decline is the change in agricultural practices in the area. Prior to the 

1990s most of the agriculture was flood irrigation with ditches, relatively small fields, and consequently, 

abundant edge habitat (e.g. brush and tall vegetation) used by pheasants for thermal and security cover. 

With the shift to center-pivot irrigation, fields are larger with fewer ditches. Consequently, there is very 

little edge habitat. This has had a devastating effect on the pheasant population and it has not recovered to 

the high populations of the earlier years. Despite the fact that the population is low compared to historic 

highs, it is stable, in the cyclic pattern of this species. Populations of gray partridge have met the same 

fate as the pheasants, with local changes in agricultural practices. As with most upland game bird species, 

gray partridge populations are cyclic and in recent years, populations on the Refuge have been low but 

stable. In recent years an estimated 6 to 12 hunter visits come to the Refuge to hunt pheasant, while 

hunting of gray partridge is largely opportunistic. 

Changes in habitat management called for in the CCP may bring a change in vegetation cover that may 

improve winter survival of pheasants and thus might potentially improve hunting opportunities. If good 

nesting and brood rearing conditions exist for several consecutive years, pheasant and partridge numbers 

could return to a level that would make the Refuge more attractive to upland game bird hunters. 

Elk. In the past two decades incidental counts of the number of elk using Camas NWR as a safe haven, 

have been on the increase. A trend throughout elk range in the western U.S. is that the number of elk in 

urban or “refuge” settings is increasing due to availability of forage, adaptability of elk to new habitat, 

and safety from hunting pressure. Unfortunately, this adaptability has caused conflicts between elk and 

people (e.g., depredation to farms and feedlots, safety hazards on roads). As elk numbers grow on Camas 

NWR, the issues seen in other locations are beginning to occur here. 

Elk are found throughout refuge habitats, and during certain times of the year they are the most numerous 

big game species on the Refuge. It is estimated that the Refuge supports from 0 to 150 elk seasonally. The 

numbers are typically highest in the fall and winter and lower in the spring and summer. The bulk of the 

elk spend their time south of the auto tour route, primarily around Rays Lake. It is felt that some of these 

elk are a resident herd while other elk are using the area solely as a wintering ground. 

Camas NWR lies within IDFG’s Snake River Zone (Game Management Units 53, 63, 63A, 68A). The 

boundary of Camas NWR lies within the GMU 63 of the Snake River Zone. IDFG estimated a population 

of 380 elk in the Snake River Zone in 2011 (IDFG 2011b). Agricultural depredation is a significant 

concern in GMU 63 (IDFG 2010). Consequently, for the past fifteen years or so this unit has had one of 

Idaho’s longest, most liberal (5 months long, August 1-December 31) elk hunting seasons. The Draft 

Idaho Elk Management Plan 2014-2024 (IDFG 2013) does not specify a numeric population objective for 

elk in the Snake River Zone. IDFG’s proposed 10-year management direction for the Snake River Zone is 

as follows: “Management direction in the Snake River Zone involves decreasing the current elk 

population. The zone is dominated by agricultural lands and small communities that are not compatible 

with large numbers of resident elk. It is proposed to continue managing for minimal elk numbers by 

using long, liberal hunting seasons and prompt responses to crop and property damage on agricultural 

lands” (IDFG 2013). 

The objectives of the proposed elk hunt on Camas NWR are: 1) To offer quality recreational hunting 

opportunities; 2) to maintain and improve riparian habitat condition on the Refuge; and 3) to assist the 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-105 

IDFG in reducing the elk population locally, in order to alleviate depredation concerns on surrounding 

private lands. The proposed hunt is intended to offer a quality and unique elk hunting opportunity that 

prioritizes youth and mobility impaired hunters. The hunt would offer a reasonable opportunity to harvest 

elk. By using an access permit process, a quality limited-entry elk hunt can be provided. An established 

number of permits (up to 20 annually) would allow for low hunter density within a limited hunt area 

footprint of 4,112 acres. By reducing the elk hunter density, the program would promote quality, safety, 

and uncrowded conditions; and would also allow hunting pressure to be distributed over a longer period 

of time. 

Hunting may improve riparian habitat condition on the Refuge, both by direct reduction of herd size and 

by dispersing elk from riparian habitat. The elk hunt would help alleviate localized depredation issues on 

nearby agricultural lands by reducing the elk population, and/or dispersing elk onto adjacent private or 

public (BLM) lands where they may be hunted. The Refuge has coordinated closely with the State in 

developing an elk hunt that falls within frameworks for the general elk hunt within GMU 63. The 

Preferred Alternative would assist IDFG in supporting population objectives for the Snake River 

Management Zone, specifically as it applies to alleviating depredation to agricultural croplands. The 

proposed elk hunt would occur on 4,112 acres of the Refuge, generally described as the southern and 

western portion of the Refuge, south of the core wetlands and auto tour route, and west of Camas Creek. 

This area includes, and overlaps with, the current south waterfowl and upland game bird hunt unit (1,530 

acres). 

The proposed elk hunt has the potential to disturb sandhill cranes, since Rays Lake (an important premigration staging area) is included within the proposed elk hunting area. Sandhill cranes have shown 

susceptibility to even low levels of disturbance at roost sites (Bettinger and Milner 2000; Littlefield and 

Ivey 2000). Because of the sensitivity of roosting cranes to disturbance, hunters must maintain a distance 

of at least 400 m (1⁄4 mile) from roosting cranes. The Refuge may also selectively close areas, as detected, 

to prevent abandonment of sandhill crane roosts and protect sensitive wildlife resources within the hunt 

area. As closures are implemented, the Refuge would supply elk hunt permit holders with maps of 

closures to hunting activity. All elk hunters would be required to attend a pre-hunt orientation where they 

would be advised of the location of sandhill cranes and other sensitive wildlife resources, and setback 

distances and/or area closures. 

With a maximum of 20 elk hunting access permits issued annually, and a maximum of only two elk 

hunters allowed on the Refuge at any one time, conflicts between elk hunters and nonconsumptive users 

of the Refuge are expected to be minimal. The 6.3-mile auto tour route and 1.3 mile birding trail and 

observation deck, where the majority of nonconsumptive uses occur, are in the “no hunting” area and 

outside the elk hunt unit boundary. Currently few visitors use the proposed elk hunting area. In the 

Preferred Alternative, off-road hiking (other than by hunters with valid State licenses during the hunt 

season) would no longer be allowed on the Refuge. While this is proposed to minimize wildlife 

disturbance, this measure would also help reduce potential conflicts between elk hunters and other refuge 

visitors, and ensure visitor safety. The general public would still be allowed to use the 6.5 miles of hunter 

access roads, however currently few visitors, other than hunters, use these roads. Access roads to hunt 

units would be clearly signed so that all visitors understand that they are entering the elk hunt area. 

Enforcement of existing State regulations that prohibit discharge of firearms from or across public right of 

ways would minimize risk of trajectories into the non-hunting portion of the Refuge. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-106 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Objective 5.5: Friends Group and Volunteers 

Over the 15-year lifetime of the CCP, build a strong, actively engaged Friends Group which 

supports the Refuge’s biological and visitor services goals and objectives. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 

Current 

Alt 2 

Preferred

Alt 3 

Hire a Park Ranger or Visitor Service Manager to assist with 

recruiting, assisting, and training the Refuge’s Friends Group and 

volunteer workforce. (Also see Objectives 5.1, 5.3) 

 

Create an on-site staff position (Park Ranger and/or Visitor Services 

Manager) to develop and deliver outreach and visitor services 

programs, manager volunteer program and develop partnerships (also 

see Objective 5.3). 

 

Assist the Friends of Camas NWR in growing its membership, 

through activities such as “membership drives” to enlist regular 

refuge visitors as Friends Group members, presentations to local 

interest groups and participation in community events. 

  

Develop a list of educational and biological projects and activities to 

assist the Friends Group in focusing and prioritizing their efforts. 

  

Rationale, Objective 5.5: Friends Group and Volunteers: 

Friends Groups within the National Wildlife Refuge System have become numerous over the past ten 

years. Friends Groups essentially “adopt” individual refuges or complexes, advocate for their needs, and 

provide both financial and volunteer support to accomplish many essential tasks and projects. Friends 

Groups not only directly benefit refuges, but also empower members to become advocates for refuges, 

and conduct outreach that increases public awareness of, and involvement with, national wildlife refuges. 

This occurs both through direct contact and increasingly, through the Web and social media. Historically, 

Camas NWR has had many “friends” that performed a variety of tasks and work projects, but no official 

Friends Group. In 2011, a Friends Group for Camas NWR was formed and has received their 501(c)3 

nonprofit status. It is important for the Refuge to support this new Friends Group since it will play a 

critical role in providing volunteer support for the Refuge’s biological and public use programs, and as an 

advocate for protecting refuge wildlife and habitat. 

The Refuge has had a small cadre of volunteers who have performed a variety of important services, 

including mapping, facilities maintenance, and conducting refuge tours. However, the Refuge’s small 

staff limits its ability to recruit, train, and manage volunteers. A Visitor Services Manager position at the 

SE Idaho Complex, and a Park Ranger at the Refuge, would allow the Refuge to grow its volunteer 

program to perform a variety of tasks in important areas, including building and maintaining visitor 

facilities, conducting visitor services programs, and habitat restoration and management. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-107 

2.5 References 

Allen-Diaz, B. 1991. Water-table and plant species relationships in Sierra Nevada Meadows. 

American Midland Naturalist 126:30-43. 

Apfelbaum, S.I. and C.E. Sams. 1987. Ecology and control of reed canary grass. Natural Areas 

Journal 7(2):69-72. 

Atkeson, T.Z. and L.S. Givens. 1952. Upland farming as a method of supplementing the natural 

waterfowl food supply in the Southeast. Journal of Wildlife Management 16 (4):442-446. 

Austin, J.E. and W.H. Pyle. 2004. Nesting ecology of waterbirds at Grays Lake, Idaho. Western 

North American Naturalist 63(3):277-292. 

Baldassarre, G.A., R.J. Whyte, E.E. Quinlin, and E.G. Bolen. 1983. Dynamics and quality of waste 

corn available to postbreeding waterfowl in Texas. Wildlife Society Bulletin 11:25-31. 

Barbour, M.G. and W.D. Billings. 1988. North American terrestrial vegetation. Cambridge, United 

Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. 

Bartels, R., J.D. Dell, R.L. Knight, and G. Schaefer. 1985. Dead and down woody material. Pages 

172-186 in: E.R. Brown, ed. Management of wildlife and fish habitats in forests of western 

Oregon and Washington. Publication Number R6-F&WL-192-1985. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, OR. 

Bedford, B.L., M.R. Walbridge, and A. Aldous. 1999. Patterns in nutrient availability and plant 

diversity of temperate North American wetlands. Ecology 80:2151-2169. 

Bellrose, F.C. 1976. Ducks, geese and swans of North America. Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole. 

Berube, D.E. and J.H. Myers. 1982. Suppression of knapweed invasion by crested wheatgrass in the 

dry interior of British Columbia. Journal of Range Management 35:459-461. 

Bettinger, K.A., and R. Milner. 2000. Sandhill crane (Grus canadensis). In: E.M. Larsen and N. 

Nordstrom, eds. Management recommendations for Washington's priority species, volume 

IV: Birds. Available at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00026/wdfw00026.pdf. 

Accessed December 18, 2012. 

Bilby, R.E. and P.A. Bisson. 1998. Function and distribution of large woody debris. Pages 324-346 

in: R.J. Naiman and R.E. Bilby, eds. River ecology and management: lessons from the 

Pacific Coastal ecoregion. New York: Springer-Verlag. 

Bisson, P.A., R.E. Bilby, M.D. Bryant, C.A. Dolloff, G.B. Grette, R.A. House, M.L. Murphy, K.V. 

Koski, and J.R. Sedell. 1987. Large woody debris in forested streams in the Pacific 

Northwest: past, present and future. Pages 143-190 in: E.O. Salo and T.W. Cundy, eds. 

Streamside management: forestry and fisheries interactions. Contribution No. 57. Institute of 

Forest Resources, University of Washington. Seattle. 

Bollinger E.K., P.B. Bollinger, and T.A. Gavin. 1990. Effects of hay-cropping on eastern populations 

of the bobolink. Wildlife Society Bulletin 18(2):142-150. 

Bottrill, M., L.N. Joseph, J. Carwardine, M. Bode, C. Cook, E.T. Game, H. Grantham, S. Kark, S. 

Linke, E. McDonald-Madden, R.L. Pressey, S. Walker, K.A. Wilson, and H.P. Possingham. 

2008. Is conservation triage just smart decision-making? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 

24:183-184. 

Boulton, A.J. 1999. An overview of river health assessment: philosophies, practice, problems and 

prognosis. Freshwater Biology 41(2):469-479. 

Bradley, C. and D. G. Smith. 1984. Meandering channel response to altered flow regime: Milk River, 

Alberta and Montana. Water Resources Research 20(12): 1913-1920. 

Braun, C.E., K.W. Harmon, J.A. Jackson, and C.D. Littlefield. 1978. Management of national 

wildlife refuges in the United States: its impacts on birds. Wilson Bulletin 90(2):309-321. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-108 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Bray, M.P. and D.A. Klebenow. 1988. Feeding ecology of white-faced ibis in a Great Basin Valley, 

USA. Colonial Waterbirds 11:24-31. 

Brickle, N.W., D.G.C. Harper, N.J. Aebischer, and S.H. Cockayne. 2000. Effects of agricultural 

intensification on the breeding success of corn buntings Miliaria calandra. Journal of 

Applied Ecology 37:742-755. 

Brookes, A. 1988. Channelized Rivers: Perspectives for Environmental Management. John Wiley 

and Sons. Chichester, U.K. 

Bryant, M.D. 1980. Evolution of large, organic debris after timber harvest: Maybeso Creek, 1949 to 

1978. General Technical Report PNW-69. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 

Bunting, S.C., J.L. Kingery, M.A. Hemstrom, M.A. Schroeder, R.A. Gravenmier, and W.J. Hann. 

2002. Altered rangeland ecosystems in the interior Columbia Basin. General Technical 

Report PNW-GTR-553. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Portland, Oregon. 

69 pp. 

Butler, S.J. and S. Gillings. 2004. Quantifying the effects of habitat structure on prey detectability 

and accessibility to farmland birds. Ibis 146 (S2):123-130. 

Byrd, K.B., N.M. Kelly, and E.V. Dyke. 2004. Decadal changes in a Pacific estuary: a multi-source 

remote sensing approach for historical ecology. GIScience Remote Sens 41: 347–370. 

Carlisle, J.D., G.S. Kaltenecker, and D.L. Swanson. 2005a. Stopover ecology of autumn landbird 

migrants in the Boise Foothills of southwestern Idaho. Condor 107:244-258. 

Carlisle, J. D., G. S. Kaltenecker, and D. L. Swanson. 2005b. Molt strategies and age differences in 

migration timing among autumn landbird migrants in southwestern Idaho. Auk 122:1070-

1085. 

Carlisle, J., R. Larranaga, and G. Kaltenecker. 2008. Migration monitoring of songbirds at Camas 

National Wildlife Refuge, Market Lake Wildlife Management Area, and Mud Lake Wildlife 

Management Area in eastern Idaho. Unpublished report. Idaho Bird Observatory. Boise, ID. 

Cassell, F.F. and J.M. Wiehe. 1980. Use of shelterbelts by birds. Workshop Proceedings, 

Management of Western Forests and Grasslands for Nongame Birds. General Technical 

Report Int. 86. USDA Forest Service. Ogden, UT. 

Castelli, R.M., J.C. Chambers, and R.J. Tausch. 2000. Soil-plant relations along a soil-water gradient 

in Great Basin riparian meadows. Wetlands 20:251-266. 

Chambers, J.C., J.R. Miller, D. Germanoski, and D.A. Weixelman. 2004. Process based approaches 

for managing and restoring riparian ecosystems. Pages 261-292 in: J.C. Chambers and J.R. 

Miller, eds. Great Basin riparian ecosystems—ecology, management and restoration. Covelo, 

CA: Island Press. 

Chambers, J.C. and Jerry R. Miller, eds. 2011. Geomorphology, hydrology, and ecology of Great 

Basin meadow complexes-implications for management and restoration. General Technical 

Report RMRS-GTR-258. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. Fort Collins, CO. 

Conway, C.J. 2005. Standardized North American marsh bird monitoring protocols. Wildlife 

Research Report 2005-04. U.S. Geological Survey, Arizona Cooperative Fish and Wildlife 

Research Unit. Tucson, AZ. 

Corn, P.S. and R.B. Bury. 1990. Sampling methods for terrestrial amphibians and reptiles. General 

and Technical Report PNW-GTR-256. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR. 34 pp. 

CPIF (California Partners in Flight). 2000. The draft grassland bird conservation plan: a strategy for 

protecting and managing grassland habitats and associated birds in California. Version 1.0. 

Point Reyes Bird Observatory. Stinson Beach, CA. 49 pp. Available at: 

http://www.prbo.org/calpif/plans.html. Accessed 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-109 

Connelly, J.W., S.T. Knick, M.A. Schroeder, and S.J. Stiver. 2004. Conservation assessment of 

greater sage-grouse and sagebrush habitats. Unpublished report. Western Association of Fish 

and Wildlife Agencies. Cheyenne, WY. 

Crawford, J.A., R.A. Olson, N.E. West, J.C. Mosley, M.A. Schroeder, T.D. Whitson, R.F. Miller, 

M.A. Gregg, and C.S. Boyd. 2004. Ecology and management of sage-grouse and sage-grouse 

habitat. Journal of Range Management 57:2-19. 

Crissey, W.F. 1969. Prairie potholes from a continental viewpoint. Pages 161-171 in: Saskatoon 

wetlands seminar. Canadian Wildlife Service Report 6. The Queen’s Printer, Ottawa, 

Ontario. 

Currier, P.J. 1989. Plant species composition and groundwater levels in a Platte River wet meadow. 

In: Prairie pioneers: ecology, history and culture. Proceedings of the Eleventh North 

American Prairie Conference, August 7-11, 1988. Lincoln, NE. 

Curtis, A. 1998. Agency-Community partnership in landcare: Lessons for state sponsored citizen 

resource management. Environmental Management 22 (4):563-574. 

Dale, B.C., P.A. Martin, and P.S. Taylor. 1997. Effects of hay management on grassland songbirds in 

Saskatchewan. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25(3):616-626. 

D’Antonio, C.M. and P.M. Vitousek. 1992. Biological invasions by exotic grasses, the grass/fire 

cycle, and global change. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 23:63-87. 

DeBano, L.F. and L.J. Schmidt. 1989a. Improving southwestern riparian areas through watershed 

management. General Technical Report RM-182. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins, CO. 33 pp. 

DeBano, L.F. and L.J. Schmidt. 1989b. Interrelationship between watershed condition and health of 

riparian areas in southwestern United States. Pages 45-52 in: R.E. Gresswell, B.A Barton, 

and J.L. Kershner (Editors). Practical approaches to riparian resource management, and 

educational workshop: proceedings, May 8-11, 1989.. Bureau of Land Management, Billings, 

MT. 

DeBano, L. F., and L. J. Schmidt. 1990. Potential for enhancing riparian habitats in the southwestern 

United States with watershed practices. Forest Ecology and Management 33/34: 385-403. 

Dechant, J.A., M.F. Dinkins, D.H. Johnson, L.D. Igl, C.M. Goldade, and B.R. Euliss. 2003. Effects 

of management practices on grassland birds: vesper sparrow. Northern Prairie Wildlife 

Research Center, Jamestown, ND. Available at: 

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/grasbird/vesp/vesp.htm. 

DellaSala, D.A., A. Martin, R. Spivak, T. Schulke, B. Bird, M. Criley, C. van Daalen, J. Kreilick, R. 

Brown, and G. Aplet. 2003. A Citizen’s Call for Ecological Forest Restoration: Forest 

Restoration Principles and Criteria. Ecological Restoration. 21(1):14-23. 

De Szalay, F.A. and V.H. Resh. 2000. Factors influencing macroinvertebrate colonization of seasonal 

wetlands: responses to emergent plant cover. Freshwater Biology 45(3):95-308. 

Devereux, C.L., M.J. Whittingham, J.R. Krebs, E. Fernandez-Juricic, and J.A. Vickery. 2006. What 

attracts birds to newly mown pasture? Decoupling the action of mowing from the provision 

of short swards. Ibis 148:302-306. 

Devereux, C.L., McKeever, C.U., Benton, T.G., Whittingham, M.J., 2004. The effect of sward height 

and drainage on common starlings Sturnus vulgaris and northern lapwings Vanellus vanellus 

foraging in grassland habitats. Ibis 146 (S2), 115–122. 

Dionne, J.L., A.R. Peasant, G.M. Barnett, and W.N. Mason. 1989. Effect of temperature and 

moisture regimes and soil pH on alfalfa response to phosphorus applications. Canadian 

Journal of Plant Science 69:1149-1163. 

Dolling, P.J. and W.M. Porter. 1991. Effect of soil acidity on barley production in the south-west of 

Western Australia: the interaction between lime and nutrient application. Australian Journal 

of Experimental Agriculture 31(6). 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-110 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Drewien, R.C. and P.F. Springer. 1969. Ecological relationships of breeding blue-winged teal to 

prairie potholes. Pages 102-115 in: Saskatoon Wetlands Seminar. Canadian Wildlife Service 

Report, Series 6. The Queen’s Printer, Ottawa, Ontario. 

Dugger, B.D., M.L. Moore, R.S. Finger, and M.J. Petrie. 2007. True metabolizable energy for seeds 

of common moist-soil plant species. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:1964-1967. 

Dzubin, A. 1969. Comments on carrying capacity of small ponds for ducks and possible effects of 

density on mallard production. Pages 138-160 in: Saskatoon Wetlands Seminar. Canadian 

Wildlife Service Report, Series 6. The Queen’s Printer, Ottawa, Ontario. 

Eldred, T. 2009. Vigilance behavior and land use by sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis). M.S. thesis, 

Department of Biology, Eastern Michigan University. Ypsilanti, MI. Available at: 

http://commons.emich.edu/theses/238. Elphick, C.S. and L.W. Oring. 1998. Winter 

management of Californian rice fields for waterbirds. Journal of Applied Ecology 35:95-108. 

Epperson, W.L., J.M. Edie, D.B. Marcum, E.L. Fitzhugh, and R.E. Delmas. 1999. Late season hay 

harvest provides habitat for marshland birds. California Agriculture 53:12-17. 

Estep, J.A. 1989. Biology, movements, and habitat relationships of the Swainson’s hawk in the 

Central Valley of California, 1986-87. California Department of Fish and Game, Nongame 

Bird and Mammal Section. Sacramento, CA. 60 pp. 

Euliss, N.H., Jr., J.W. LaBaugh, L.H. Fredrickson, D.M. Mushet, M.K. Laubhan, G.A. Swanson, 

T.C. Winter, D.O. Rosenberry, and R.D. Nelson. 2004. The wetland continuum: A 

conceptual framework for interpreting biological studies. Wetlands 24:448-458. 

Evans, A.C. 1948. Studies on the relationships between earthworms and soil fertility. Vol. V. Field 

populations. Annals of Applied Biology 35:485-493. 

Evans, C.D. and K.E. Black. 1956. Duck production studies on the prairie potholes of South Dakota. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Special Science Report Wildlife 32. 59 pp. 

Fansler, V.A. and J.M. Mangold. 2010. Restoring native plants to crested wheatgrass stands. 

Restoration Ecology 19(101):16-23. doi 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2010.00678.x. 

Foster, M.A., M.J. Gray, C.A. Harper, and J.G. Walls. 2010. Comparison of agricultural seed loss in 

flooded and unflooded fields on the Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge. Journal of Fish and 

Wildlife Management 1:43-46. 

Frawley, B.J. and L.B. Best. 1991. Effects of mowing on breeding bird abundance and species 

composition in alfalfa fields. Wildlife Society Bulletin 19:135-142. 

Fredrickson, L.H. and R.D. Drobney. 1979. Habitat utilization by postbreeding waterfowl. Pages 

119-131 in: T.A.Bookhout, ed. Waterfowl and wetlands—an integrated review. La Crosse, 

WI: La Crosse Printing. 

Fredrickson, L.H. and T.S. Taylor. 1982. Management of seasonally flooded impoundments for 

wildlife. Resource Publication 148. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 31 pp. 

Galatowitsch, S.M., D.C. Whited, R. Lehtinen, J. Husveth, and K. Schik. 2000. The vegetation of wet 

meadows in relation to their land-use. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 60(2):121-

144. 

Garay, G., W. Johnson, and W. Franklin. 1991. Relative abundance of aquatic birds and their use of 

wetlands in the Patagonia of southern Chile. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 64:127-137. 

Gray, M.J., R.M. Kaminski, G. Weerakkody, B.D. Leopold, and K.C. Jensen. 1999a. Aquatic 

invertebrate and plant responses following mechanical manipulations of moist-soil habitat. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 27(3):770-779. 

Gray, M.J., R.M. Kaminski, and G. Weerakkody. 1999b. Predicting seed yield of moist-soil plants. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 63:1261-1268. 

Goldsmith, L. 1976. Action needed to discourage removal of trees that shelter cropland in the Great 

Plains. Pages 12-18 in: R.W. Tinus, ed. Shelterbelts on the Great Plains. Proc. of the Symp. 

Great Plains Agric. Council, Publication 78, Lincoln, NE. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-111 

Goodwin, C.N., C.P. Hawkins, J.L. and Kershner. 1997. Riparian restoration in the western United 

States: overview and perspective. Restoration Ecology 5 (4S): 4-14. 

Green, J.D. and J.R. Martin. 1995. Weed control in alfalfa and other forage legume crops. University 

of Kentucky Cooperative Extension Service, Agr-148. University of Kentucky. 18 pp. 

Griggs, F.T. 2009. California riparian habitat restoration handbook. 2nd edition. California Riparian 

Habitat Joint Venture. 83 pp. 

Groeneveld, D.P. and T.E. Griepentrog, 1985. Interdependence of Groundwater, Riparian 

Vegetation, and Streambank Stability: A Case Study. In: Riparian Ecosystems and Their 

Management: Reconciling Conflicting Uses. First North American Riparian Conference, 

R.R. Johnson, C.D. Ziebell, D.R. Patton, P.F. Folliott, and R.H. Hamre (Technical 

coordinators). Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-120. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado, pp. 44-48. 

Hansson, A.C., R. Pettersson, and K. Paustian. 1987. Shoot and root production and nitrogen uptake 

in barley, with and without nitrogen fertilization. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 

158(3):163-171. 

Hartman, C.A. and K. Kyle. 2010. Farming for birds: alfalfa and forages as valuable wildlife habitat. 

In: Proceedings, 2010 California Alfalfa & Forage Symposium and Corn/Cereal Silage MiniSymposium, Visalia, CA, 1-2 December, 2010. UC Cooperative Extension, Plant Sciences 

Department, University of California, Davis, CA. 11pp. Haufler, J.B., ed. 2007. Fish and 

wildlife response to Farm Bill conservation practices. Wildlife Society Technical Review 07-

1. The Wildlife Society. Bethesda, MD. 118 pp. 

Heidinga, L. and S.D. Wilson. 2002. The impact of an invading alien grass (Agropyron cristatum) on 

species turnover in native prairie. Diversity and Distributions 8:249-258. 

Henderson, J. E. 1986. Environmental Designs for Streambank Protection Projects. Water Resources 

Bulletin 22: 549-558. 

Henderson, D.C. and M.A. Naeth. 2005. Multi-scale impacts of crested wheatgrass invasion in 

mixed-grass prairie. Biological Invasions 7:639-650. 

Hemstrom, M.A., M.J. Wisdom, M.M. Rowland, B. Wales, W.J. Hann, and R.A. Gravenmier. 2002. 

Sagebrush-steppe vegetation dynamics and potential for restoration in the Interior Columbia 

Basin, USA. Conservation Biology 16:1243-1255. 

Henderson, I.G. and A.D. Evans. 2000. Responses of farmland birds to set-aside and its management. 

Pages 69-76 in: N.J. Aebischer, A.D. Evans, P.V. Grice, and J.A. Vickery, eds. Ecology and 

Conservation of Lowland Farmland Birds. Tring, UK: British Ornithologists’ Union. 

Hey, Richard D. 2006. Fluvial geomorphological methodology for natural stable channel design. 

Journal of the American Water Resources Association 42(2):357-374. 

Hudson, S.E. 2000. Avian use of riparian areas in the mid-Columbia River basin during fall 

migration. M.S. thesis. University of Idaho, Moscow, ID. 

Hull, A.C., Jr. 1948. Depth, season, and row spacing for planting grasses on southern Idaho range 

lands. Journal of the American Society of Agronomy 40:960-969. 

Hull, A.C., Jr. and G. Stewart. 1948. Replacing cheatgrass by reseeding with perennial grass on 

southern Idaho ranges. American Society of Agronomy Journal 40:694-703. 

Humbert, J.A., J. Ghazoul, and T. Walker. 2009. Meadow harvesting techniques and their impacts on 

field fauna. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment 130(1-2):1-8. 

Hutchens, S.J., and C.S. DePerno. 2009. Efficacy of sampling techniques for determining species 

richness estimates of reptiles and amphibians. Wildlife Biology 15:113-122. 

IDEQ (Idaho Department of Environmental Quality). 2005. Beaver-Camas subbasin assessment and 

total maximum daily loads. IDEQ. Idaho Falls, ID. 251 pp. Available at: 

http://www.deq.idaho.gov/water-quality/surface-water/tmdls/table-of-sbas-tmdls/beavercamas-subbasin.aspx. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-112 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

IDEQ. 2006. Our changing aquifer. Available at: http://www.deq.idaho.gov/media/462786-

newsletter_0306.pdf. Accessed February 2012. 

IDFG (Idaho Department of Fish and Game). 2010. Elk statewide progress report. Jon Rachael, ed. 

Available at: 

https://research.idfg.idaho.gov/wildlife/Wildlife%20Technical%20Reports/Elk%20Statewide

%20PR10.pdf. Accessed Dec 5, 2012. 

IDFG. 2011a. Statewide sage-grouse lek database. Unpublished data, on file at Camas NWR. 

IDFG. 2011b. Deer and elk status overview, January 27, 2011. Available at: 

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/hunt/2010deerElkStatus.pdf. Accessed January 11, 

2013.

IDFG (Idaho Department of Fish and Game). 2013. Idaho Elk Management Plan 2014-2024 (Draft). 

Available at: https://fishandgame.idaho.gov/content/webform/2013-draft-elk-plan Accessed 

Sept. 20, 2013. 

Ivey, G.L. and C.P. Herziger. 2006. Intermountain West waterbird conservation plan, Version 1.2. 

Waterbird Conservation for the Americas Initiative, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pacific 

Region. Portland, OR. 205 pp. 

Jenni, D.A. 1956. Pothole water levels in relation to waterfowl breeding populations and production. 

M.S. thesis. Utah State University, Logan. 

Jennings, J.A. and C.J. Nelson. 2002. Rotational interval and pesticide effects on establishment of 

alfalfa after alfalfa. Agronomy Journal 94:786-791. 

Johnson, S.R. and A.K. Knapp. 1995. The influence of fire on Spartina pectinata wetland 

communities in a northeastern Kansas tallgrass prairie. Canadian Journal of Botany 73:84-90. 

Kadlec, J.A. 1962. Effects of a drawdown on a waterfowl impoundment. Ecology 43(2):267-281. 

Kaminski, R. and H. Prince. 1981. Dabbling duck and aquatic macroinvertebrate responses to 

manipulated wetland habitat. Journal of Wildlife Management 45:1-15. 

Kaminski, R.M. and H.H. Prince. 1984. Dabbling duck habitat associations during spring in Delta 

Marsh, Manitoba. Journal of Wildlife Management 48:37-50. 

Kantrud, H.A. and R.E. Stewart. 1977. Use of natural basin wetlands by breeding waterfowl in North 

Dakota. Journal of Wildlife Management 41(2):243-253. 

Kauffman, J.B., R.L. Beschta, N. Otting, and D. Lytjen. 1997. An ecological perspective of riparian 

and stream restoration in the western United States. Fisheries 22:12-24. 

Keigley, R.B. 2012. Evaluation of the effect of ungulate browsing on the Camas National Wildlife 

Refuge, Idaho (draft). Unpublished report on file, Camas NWR. Hamer, ID. 28 pp. 

Keller, E.A. and G.M. Kondolf. 1990. Groundwater and fluvial processes: selected observations. 

Pages 319-340 in: C.G. Higgins and D.R. Coates, eds. Groundwater geomorphology: the role 

of subsurface water in Earth-surface processes and landforms. Special Paper 252. Boulder, 

CO: Geological Society of America. 

Keller, E.A. and F.J. Swanson. 1979. Effects of large organic material on channel form and fluvial 

processes. Earth Surface Processes 4:361-380. 

Keller, E.A. and T. Tally. 1979. Effects of large organic debris on channel form and fluvial processes 

in the coastal redwood environment. Pages 169-197 in: D.P. Rhodes and G.P. Williams, eds. 

Adjustments of the fluvial system. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. 

Kilbride, K.M. and F.L. Paveglio. 1999. Integrated pest management to control reed canarygrass in 

seasonal wetlands of southwestern Idaho. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27(2):292-297. 

Klein, M.L. 1995. Effects of ecotourism on the distribution of waterbirds on a wildlife refuge. 

Conservation Biology 9:1454-1465. 

Knick, S.T., D.S. Dobkin, J.T. Rotenberry, M.A. Schroeder, W.M. Vander Haegen, and C. Van Riper 

III. 2003. Teetering on the edge or too late? Conservation and research issues for avifauna of 

sagebrush habitats. Condor 105:611-634. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-113 

Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole 1995. Wildlife responses to recreationists. Pages 51-70 in: R.L. Knight 

and K.J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through management and 

research. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 372 p. 

Konikow, L.F. and E. Kendy. 2005. Groundwater depletion: A global problem. Hydrolgeology 

Journal 13(1):317-320. 

Krapu, G.L., P.J. Pietz, D.A. Brandt, and R.R. Cox Jr. 2000. Factors limiting mallard brood survival 

in prairie pothole landscapes. Journal of Wildlife Management 64(2):553-561. 

La Sorte, F.A. and W.J. Boecklen. 2005. Temporal turnover of common species in avian assemblages 

in North America. Journal of Biogeography 32(7):1151-1160. 

Labisky, R.F. 1957. Relation of hay harvesting to duck nesting under a refuge-permittee system. The 

Journal of Wildlife Management 21(2):194-200. 

Lane, J.L. and K.C. Jensen. 1999. Moist-soil impoundments for wetland wildlife. U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers Technical Report EL-99-11. Washington, D.C. 42 pp. Available at: 

http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/trel99-11.pdf. Accessed March 2011. 

Lehner, P.N. 1979. Handbook of ethological methods. New York: Garland STPM Press. 403 pp. 

Littlefield, C.D. and G.L. Ivey. 2000. Conservation assessment for greater sandhill cranes wintering 

on the Cosumnes River floodplain and delta regions of California. The Nature Conservancy. 

Galt, CA. 

Leopold, L.B., M.G. Wolman, and J.B. Miler. 1964. Fluvial processes in geomorphology. San 

Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman. 

Letey, J. 1985. Relationship between soil physical properties and crop production. Advances in Soil 

Science 1:277-294. 

Licht, D.S. 1997. Ecology and economics of the Great Plains. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. 

Lines, I.L. and C.J. Perry. 1978. A numerical wildlife habitat evaluation procedure. Transactions of 

the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 43:284-301. 

Lor, S. and R.A. Malecki. 2006. Breeding ecology and nesting habitat associations of five marsh bird 

species in western New York. Waterbirds 29(4):427-436. 

McFarland, L.Z. and H. George. 1966. Preference of selected grains by geese. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 30:9-13. 

MacKenzie, D.I. 2008. Getting the biggest bang for our conservation buck. Trends in Ecology & 

Evolution 24(4): 175-177. 

Marlette, G.M. and J.E. Anderson. 1986. Seed banks and propagule dispersal in crested-wheatgrass 

stands. Journal of Applied Ecology 23:161-175. 

Magee, P.A. 1993. Detrital accumulation and processing in wetlands. Fish and Wildlife Leaflet 

13.3.14. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. 7 pp. 

Mallik, A.U. and R.W. Wein. 1986. Response of a Typha marsh community to draining, flooding, 

and seasonal burning. Canadian Journal of Botany 64:2136-2143. 

Martin, D.W. and J.C. Chambers. 2002. Restoration of riparian meadows degraded by livestock 

grazing: above- and belowground responses. Plant Ecology 163:77-91. 

Maser, C. and J.R. Sedell. 1994. From the forest to the sea: the ecology of wood in streams, rivers, 

estuaries, and oceans. Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press. 

Meeks, R.L. 1969. The effect of drawdown date on wetland plant succession. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 33(4):817-821. 

Martin, T.E. 1981. Limitation in small habitat islands: chance or competition? Auk 98(4):715-734. 

Martin, T.E. and P.A. Vohs. 1978. Configuration of shelterbelts for optimum utilization by birds. 

Pages 79-88 in: R.W. Tinus, ed. Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of the Forestry 

Committee, Great Plains Agricultural Council. Great Plains Agricultural Count. Publication 

No. 87. Tulsa, OK. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-114 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

McCracken, D.I. and J.R. Tallowin. 2004. Swards and structure: the interactions between farming 

practices and bird food resources in lowland grasslands. Ibis 146(Suppl. 2):108-114. 

McGlothlin, D., W.L. Jackson, and P. Summers. 1988. Ground water, geomorphic processes, and 

riparian values: San Pedro River, Arizona. Pages 537-544 in: M. Waterstone and R.J. Burt, 

eds. Proceedings of the symposium on water-use data for water resources management, 1988, 

Tucson, Arizona. American Water Resources Association. Bethesda, MD. 

Megahan, W.F. 1982. Channel sediment storage behind obstructions in forested drainage basins 

draining the granitic bedrock of the Idaho batholith. Pages 114-121 in: F.J. Swanson, R.J. 

Janda, T. Dunne, and D.N. Swanston, eds. Sediment budgets and routing in forested drainage 

basins. General Technical Report PNW-141. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. Portland, OR. 

Miller, S.G., R.L. Knight, and C.K. Miller. 1998. Influence of recreational trails on breeding bird 

communities. Ecological Applications 8(1):162-169. 

Miranowski, J.A. and R.L. Bender. 1982. Impact of erosion control policies on wildlife habitat on 

private lands. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 37:288-291. 

Monsen, S.B. 2004. History of range and wildlife habitat restoration in the Intermountain West. 

Pages 1-5 in: S.B. Monsen, R. Stevens, N.L. Shaw, compilers. Restoring western ranges and 

wildlands. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-136-vol-1. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Fort Collins, CO. 

Moorcroft, D., M.J. Whittingham, R.B. Bradbury, and J.D. Wilson. 2002. The selection of stubble 

fields by wintering granivorous birds reflects vegetation cover and food abundance. Journal 

of Applied Ecology 39:535-547. 

Morris, S.E. 1995. Geomorphic aspects of stream channel restoration. Physical Geography 

16:444459. 

Motavalli, P.P., K.W. Goyne, and R.P. Udawatta. 2008. Environmental impacts of enhancedefficiency nitrogen fertilizers. Crop Management doi:10.1094/CM-2008-0730-02-RV. 

Murkin H.R. and J.A. Kadlec. 1986. Relationships between waterfowl and macroinvertebrate 

densities in a northern prairie marsh. Journal of Wildlife Management 50(2):212-217. 

Murkin, H. R., R. M. Kaminski, and R. D. Titman. 1982. Responses by dabbling ducks and aquatic 

invertebrates to an experimentally manipulated cattail marsh. Canadian Journal of Zoology 

60:2424-2332. 

Munro, D., Bohle, T., Chapin, D.C., Joselyn, M., LaBarge, A.K., and Nickelson, S. 2007. Watershed 

Characterization Strategic Plan. An unpublished report by Seattle Public Utilities Watershed 

Services Division, Seattle, WA. 

Naiman, R.J., K.L. Fetherston, S.J. McKay, and J. Chen. 1998. Riparian forests. Pages 289-323 in: 

R.J. Naiman and R.E. Bilby, eds. River ecology and management: lessons from the Pacific 

Coastal Ecoregion. New York: Springer-Verlag. 

Naiman, R.J., R.E. Bilby, and P.A. Bisson. 2000. Riparian ecology and management in the Pacific 

coastal rain forest. BioScience 50:996-1011. 

Nassar, J.R., W.E. Cohen, and C.R. Hopkins. 1993. Waterfowl habitat management handbook for the 

lower Mississippi Alluvial River Valley. Mississippi State University Extension 

Publication1864. Starkville, MS. 

Nelms, K.D. 2007. Wetland management for waterfowl: a handbook. Mississippi River Trust. 

Stoneville, MS. Available at: 

http://www.ms.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRCS%20Wetland%20Mgt%20for%20Waterfowl.p

df. Accessed March 2011. 

Paullin, D. G., C. D. Littlefield and R. E. Vorderstrasse. 1977. Malheur-Harney Lakes Basin Study, 

Oregon. Report No. 1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 47 pages. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-115 

Paveglio, F.L. and K.M. Kilbride. 2000. Response of vegetation to control of reed canarygrass in 

seasonally managed wetlands of southwestern Idaho. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(3):730-

740. 

Pearce, A.J. and A. Watson. 1983. Medium-term effects of two landsliding episodes on channel 

storage of sediment. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 8:29-39. 

Pellant, M. and C.R. Lysne. 2005. Strategies to enhance plant structure and diversity in crested 

wheatgrass seedings. Pages 81-92 in: N.L. Shaw, M. Pellant, and S.B. Monsen, compilers. 

Sage-grouse habitat restoration symposium proceedings,2001 June 4-7, Boise, ID. Proc. 

RMRS-P-38. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station, Ft. Collins, CO. 130 p. 

Pehrson, K.A. and B.F. Sowell. 2011. Converting crested wheatgrass stands to enhance big 

sagebrush: a literature review. Natural Resources and Environmental Issues 16(16). 

Perkins, A.J., M.J. Whittingham, R.B. Bradbury, J.D. Wilson, A.J. Morris, and P.R. Barnett. 2000. 

Habitat characteristics affecting use of lowland agricultural grassland by birds in winter. 

Biological Conservation 95:279-294. 

Perlut, N.G., A.M. Strong, T.M. Donovan, and N.J. Buckley. 2006. Grassland songbirds in a 

dynamic management landscape: behavioral responses and management strategies. 

Ecological Applications 16:2235-2247. 

Pimentel, D., P. Hepperly, J. Hanson, R. Seidel, and D. Douds. 2005. Environmental, energetic, and 

economic comparisons of organic and conventional farming systems. Bioscience 55(7):573-

582. 

Ponce, V.M. and D.S. Lindquist. 1990. Management of baseflow augmentation: a review. Journal of 

American Water Resources Association 26(2):259-268. 

Podoll, E.B. 1979. Utilization of windbreaks by wildlife. Proceedings for the Committee of Great 

Plains Agricultural Council 31:121-128. 

Pyke, D.A. 1994. Rangeland seedings and plantings: exotics or natives. Pages 32-44 in: W.D. Edge 

and S.L. Olson-Edge, eds. Proceedings— symposium on sustaining rangeland ecosystems. 

Special Report 953. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 

Pyrovetsi, M. and A. Criveli. 1988. Habitat use by waterbirds in Prespa National Park, Greece. 

Biological Conservation 45:135-153. 

Ralph, C.J. and J.M. Scott. 1981. Estimating numbers of terrestrial birds. Studies in Avian Biology 

No. 6. Cooper Ornithological Society. Lawrence, KS: Allen Press. 

Rasmussen, P.E. and C.L. Douglas, Jr. 1992. The influence of tillage and cropping-intensity on 

cereal response to nitrogen, sulfur, and phosphorus. Fertilizer Research 31:15-19. 

Rechcigl, J.E., R.B. Reneau, Jr., D.C. Wolf, W. Kroontje, and S.W. Van-Scoyoc. 1986. Alfalfa 

seedling growth in nutrient solutions as influenced by aluminum, calcium, and pH. 

Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 17:27-44. 

Reinecke, K.J., R.M. Kaminski, D.J. Moorhead, J.D. Hodges, and J.R. Nassar. 1989. Mississippi 

alluvial valley. Pages 203-247 in: L.M. Smith, R.L. Pederson, and R.M. Kaminski, eds. 

Habitat management for migrating and wintering waterfowl in North America. Lubbock, TX: 

Texas Tech University Press. 

Reid, F.A., J.R. Kelley, Jr., T.S. Taylor, and L.H. Fredrickson. 1989. Upper Mississippi Valley 

wetlands-refuges and moist soil impoundments. Pages 181-202 in: L.M. Smith, R.L. 

Pederson, and R.M. Kaminski, eds. Habitat management for migrating and wintering 

waterfowl in North America. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University Press. 

Reynolds, T. 1980. Save some sage. Idaho Wildlife 2:10-13. 

Ringleman, J.K. 1990. Managing agricultural foods for waterfowl. Waterfowl Management 

Handbook. Fish and Wildlife Leaflet 13. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 4 pp. 

Ritter, S. 2000. Idaho Bird Conservation Plan. Idaho Partners in Flight. Hamilton, MT.167 pp. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-116 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Robinson, R.A. and W.J. Sutherland. 1999. The winter distribution of seed-eating birds: habitat 

structure, seed density and seasonal depletion. Ecography 22:447-454. 

Rood, S.B. and J.M. Mahoney. 1990. Collapse of riparian poplar forests downstream from dams in 

western prairies: probable causes and prospects for mitigation. Environmental Management 

14:451-464. 

Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22: 169-199. 

Rosgen, D. L. 1996. Applied river morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO, USA: Wildland Hydrology. 

Ross, L.C.M. and H.R. Murkin. 1989. Invertebrates. Pages 35-38 in Murkin, E.J. and H.R. Murkin 

(eds.). Marsh Ecology Research Program long-term monitoring procedures manual. Delta 

Waterfowl and Wetlands Research Station Technical Bulletin 2. 

Rundle, D.W. 1981. Habitat selection by fall migrant snipe in southeastern Missouri. Southeastern 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 35:20-26. 

Rundle W.D. and L.H. Fredrickson. 1981. Managing seasonally flooded impoundments for migrant 

rails and shorebirds. Wildlife Society Bulletin 9(2):80-87. 

Ruwaldt, J.J., Jr., L.D. Aake, and J.M. Gates. 1979. Waterfowl use of natural and man-made 

wetlands in South Dakota. Journal of Wildlife Management 43:375-383. 

Ryder, R.R. and D.E. Manry. 1994. White-faced ibis (Plegadis chihi). In: A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. 

The birds of North America 130. Philadelphia: Academy of Natural Sciences and 

Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union. 

Sargeant, A.B. and D.G. Raveling. 1992. Mortality during the breeding season. Pages 396-422 in: 

B.D.J. Batt, A.D. Afton, M.G. Anderson, C.D. Ankney, D.H. Johnson, J.A. Kadlec, and G.L. 

Krapu, eds. Ecology and management of breeding waterfowl. Minneapolis: University of 

Minnesota Press. 

Schekkerman, H. and A.J. Beintema. 2007. Abundance of invertebrates and foraging success of 

black-tailed godwit (Limosa limosa) chicks in relation to agricultural grassland management. 

Netherlands Ornithologists Union 95(1):39-54. 

Schillinger, W.F., R.I. Papendick, S.O. Guy, P.E. Rasmussen, C. van Kessel. 2006. Dryland cropping 

in the western United States. Pages 365-393 in: G.A. Peterson, P.W. Unger, and W.A. Payne, 

eds. Dryland agriculture. Agronomy Monograph No. 23. 2nd edition. ASA, CSSA, and 

SSSA. Madison, WI. 

Schoof, R. 1980. Environmental impact of channel modification. Water Resources Bulletin 16:697-

701. 

Schuman, G.E., L.J. Ingram, P.D. Stahl, and G.F. Vance. 2005. Dynamics of long-term carbon 

sequestration on rangelands in the western USA. In F.P. O’Mara, R.J. Wilkins, L.’t Mannetje, 

D.K. Lovett, P.A.M. Rogers, and T.M. Boland, eds. XX International Grassland Congress, 26 

June-1 July 2005, Dublin, Ireland. The Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers. 

Schumm, S. A. 1985. Patterns of alluvial rivers. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Science 13: 

5-27. 

Scott, M. L., J. M. Friedman and G. T. Auble. 1996. Fluvial process and the establishment of 

bottomland trees. Geomorphology 14: 327-339. 

SER (Society for Ecological Restoration). 2002. SER primer on restoration ecology. Posted on 

website at http://www.ser.org/work.php?pg=primer1 

Shaw, N.L., A.M. DeBolt, and R. Rosentreter. 2005. Reseeding big sagebrush: techniques and issues. 

Pages 99-108 in: N.L. Shaw, S.B. Monsen, and M. Pellant, compilers. Sage-grouse habitat 

improvement symposium: proceedings. Proc. RMRS-P-38. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Ogden, UT. 

Sheley, R.L., T.J. Svejcar, and B.S. Bingham. 2008. Crested wheatgrass defoliation intensity and 

season on medusahead invasion. Rangeland Ecology and Management 61:211-217. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-117 

Sijali, I.V. 2001. Drip Irrigation. Options for smallholder farmers in eastern and southern Africa. 

Technical Handbook No. 24. RELMA. 

Smith, R. 2004. Geologic setting of the Snake River plain aquifer. Vadose Zone Journal 3:47-58. 

Smith, A.G., J.H. Stoudt, and J.B. Gallop. 1964. Prairie potholes and marshes. p. 39–50 In: J.P. 

Linduska (ed.) Waterfowl Tomorrow. U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 

USA. 

Steel, E.A., R.J. Naiman, and S.D. West. 1999. Use of woody debris piles by birds and small 

mammals in a riparian corridor. Northwest Science 73:19-26. 

Strader, R.W. and P.H. Stinson. 2005. Moist-soil management guidelines for the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service Southeast Region. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory 

Birds, Southeast Region Migratory Bird Field Office. Jackson, MS. Available at: 

http://www.fws.gov/columbiawildlife/MoistSoilReport.pdf. Accessed September 2010. 

Stevens, R. 1994. Interseeding and transplanting to enhance species composition. Pages 300-306 in: 

S.B. Monsen and S.G. Kitchen, compilers. Ecology and management of annual rangelands: 

proceedings; 1992 May 18-21; Boise, ID. General Technical Report INT-GTR-313. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. Ogden, UT. 

Stribling, H.L. and P.D. Doerr. 1985. Nocturnal use of fields by American Woodcock. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 49:485-491. 

Stolen, E.D. 2003. The effects of vehicle passage on foraging behavior of wading birds. Waterbirds 

26(4) 429-436. 

Stromberg, J.C., B.D. Richter, D.T. Pattern, and L.G. Wolden. 1993. Response of a sonoran riparian 

forest to a 10 year return flood. Great Basin Naturalist 53:118-130. 

Sugden, L.G. 1971. Metabolizable energy of small grains for mallards. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 35:781-785. 

Swanson, F.J. and C.T. Dyrness. 1975. Impact of clearcutting and road construction on soil erosion 

by landslides in the western Cascade Range, Oregon. Geology 33:393-396. 

Swanson, G.A. and M.I. Meyer. 1977. Impact of fluctuating water levels on feeding ecology of 

breeding blue-winged teal. Journal of Wildlife Management 41(3):426-433. 

Swolgaard, C.A., K.A. Reeves, and D.A. Bell. 2008. Foraging by Swainson’s hawks in a vineyarddominated landscape. Journal of Raptor Research 42:188-196. 

Tang, C., Z. Rengel, E. Diatloff, and C. Gazey. 2003. Responses of wheat and barley to liming on a 

sandy soil with subsoil acidity. Field Crops Research 80 (3):235-244. 

Thompson, D.R. and J.M. Shay. 1985. The effects of fire on Phragmites australis in the Delta Marsh, 

Manitoba. Canadian Journal of Botany 63:1864-1869. 

Tsakelidou, K. 2000. Effect of calcium carbonate as determined by lime requirement buffer pH 

methods on soil characteristics and yield of sorghum plants. Communications in Soil Science 

and Plant Analysis 31:1249-1260. 

Tu, M. 2004. Reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea L.) control and management in the Pacific 

Northwest. The Nature Conservancy, Idaho Field Office. Portland, OR. 

USFWS. 2008. Writing refuge management goals and objectives: a handbook. U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. 30 pp. 

USFWS. 2010. Rising to the urgent challenge, strategic plan for responding to accelerating climate 

change. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. 32 pp. 

Van der Valk, A.G. 1989. Northern prairie wetlands. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. 

Warner, R.E. and S.L. Etter. 1989. Hay cutting and the survival of pheasants: a long-term 

perspective. Journal of Wildlife Management 53(2):455-461. 

Warren, K.A. and J.T. Anderson. 2005. Grassland songbird nest-site selection and response to 

mowing in West Virginia. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33:285-292. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

2-118 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Weller, M.W. 1994. Freshwater marshes: ecology and wildlife management. 3rd edition. 

Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 

Weller, M.W. and L. H. Fredrickson. 1974. Avian ecology of a managed glacial marsh. Living Bird 

12:269-291. 

Weller, M.W. and C.E. Spatcher. 1965. Role of habitat in the distribution and abundance of marsh 

birds. Entomology Special Report 43. Iowa State University, Department of Zoology, 

Agriculture and Home Economics Experiment Station. Ames, IA. 31 pp. 

West, N.E. 1999. Managing for biodiversity of rangelands. Pages 101-126 in: W.W. Collins and C.O. 

Qualset, eds. Biodiversity in agroecosystems. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. 

Westerman, R.L. 1990. Soil testing and plant analysis. 3rd edition. Madison, WI: Soil Science 

Society. 

Whitehead, S.C., J. Wright, and P.A. Cotton. 1995. Winter field use by the European starling Sturnus 

vulgaris—habitat preferences and the availability of prey. Journal of Avian Biology 26:193-

202. 

Whittingham, M.J. and K.L. Evans. 2004. The effects of habitat structure on predation risk of birds in 

agricultural landscapes. Ibis 146 (S2):210-220. 

Whittingham, M.J. and H.M. Markland. 2002. The influence of substrate on the functional response 

of an avian granivore and its implications for farmland bird conservation. Oecologia 

130:637-644. 

Wilson, J.D., M.J. Whittingham, and R.B. Bradbury. 2005. The management of crop structure: a 

general approach to reversing the impacts of agricultural intensification on birds? Ibis 

147:453-463. 

Wisdom, M.J., M.M. Rowland, B.C. Wales, M.A. Hemstrom, W.J. Hann, M.G. Raphael, R.S. 

Holthausen, R.A. Gravenmier, and T.D. Rich. 2002. Modeled effects of sagebrush-steppe 

restoration on Greater sage-grouse in the interior Columbia Basin, USA. Conservation 

Biology 16:1223-1231. 

Wisdom, M.J., M.M. Rowland, and L.H. Suring, eds. 2005a. Habitat threats in the sagebrush 

ecosystem: methods of regional assessment and applications in the Great Basin. Lawrence, 

KS: Alliance Communications Group. 

Wisdom, M.J., M.M. Rowland, and R.J. Tausch. 2005b. Effective management strategies for sagegrouse and sagebrush: a question of triage? Transactions of the North American Wildlife and 

Natural Resources Conference 70:134-141. 

Wohl, E., P.L. Angermeier, B. Bledsoe, G.M. Kondolf, L. MacDonnell, D.M. Merritt, M.A. Palmer, 

N.L. Poff, and D. Tarboton. 2005. River restoration. Water Resources Research 41:W10301. 

Wollenhaupt, N.C., A.A. Bosworth, J.D. Doll, and D.J. Undersander. 1995. Erosion from alfalfa 

established with oat under conservation tillage. Soil Science Society of America Journal 

59:538-543. 

Wright, M.J. and J.C. Chambers. 2002. Restoring riparian meadows currently dominated by 

Artemisia using threshold and alternative state concepts—aboveground vegetation response. 

Applied Vegetation Science 5:237-246. 

Woodward, J.K. 2006. Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) habitat in central Montana. 

Thesis, Montana State University. Bozeman, MT. 

Wu, J., R.M. Adams, and W.G. Boggess. 2000. Cumulative effects and optimal targeting of 

conservation efforts: steelhead trout habitat enhancements in Oregon. American Journal of 

Agricultural Economics 82(May):400-413. 

Yahner. R.H. 1983. Seasonal dynamics, habitat relationships, and management of avifauna in 

farmstead shelterbelts. Journal of Wildlife Management 47(1):85-104. 
Chapter 3

Physical Environment

Chapter 5HumanEnvironment

Chapter 3PhysicalEnvironment

©

Donn Larsen

Appendices

Chapter 4BiologicalEnvironment

Chapter 1Introduction andBackground

Chapter 2ManagementAlternatives, Goals, Objectives and Strategies

Chapter 6Environmental Effects

Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-1 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

3.1 Climate 

3.1.1 General Climate 

Climate in the Camas NWR area is typical of the Intermountain West, being relatively dry with mild 

summers and cold winters. Temperatures exceeding 90°F are usually encountered only a few days 

each summer, while winter lows in the −30°F range are not uncommon. Precipitation averages less 

than 10 inches annually. 

Southeast Idaho displays a more continental climate than that of the western and northern portions of 

the State. This is apparent in not only the somewhat greater range between winter and summer 

temperatures, but also in the reversal of the wet winter–dry summer pattern. The semiarid climate of 

the area yields annual precipitation ranging from 10 inches annually at lower elevations and up to 21 

inches in the highlands and mountains, with a majority of the precipitation occurring in the winter 

and spring months. Summer precipitation is light and infrequent, and usually comes in the form of 

afternoon thundershowers brought on by the influx of moisture-laden air from the Gulf of Mexico 

and the Caribbean region. 

Annual temperatures vary from highs of about 88oF to lows of 11oF in the Snake River Plain, to highs 

of 79oF and lows of 3oF in the highlands. Seasonally, winter temperatures can be well below 0°F, 

especially when influenced by northern Canadian air flows, but frequent southwest winds can 

moderate cold winter conditions. Spring and fall temperatures can vary widely, with daytime 

temperatures typically ranging between 30 to 70°F. Summer temperatures frequently rise into the 

90°F range, but long periods of extremely hot weather are not common. Summer night temperatures 

frequently drop into the 50 to 60°F range. The growing season (freeze-free duration) is about 125 

days and shorter in other higher elevation areas, including the eastern valleys (Bureau of Land 

Management [BLM] 2009).

The climate of Idaho is largely governed by the Continental Divide of the Rocky Mountains, lying 

far to the east, and the maritime winds of the Pacific Ocean, more than 300 miles to the west. 

However, southeast Idaho has a more continental climate than the rest of the State. Summer winds 

from the south bring moisture from the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean, along with thunder, 

lightning, and rain. Summer monsoonal moisture intrusions are infrequent and significantly modified 

by the arid Great Basin of Utah and Nevada (NWS 2010). 

At present, the climate becomes warmer and drier when moving south from the northern Rockies and 

Upper Columbia Basin to the southern Rockies. Climate in the ROCO region is influenced by the 

Rocky Mountains, which present a barrier to the westerly flow of the atmosphere carrying moisture 

from the Pacific Ocean. On the east side of the Rockies, winter precipitation is generated from polar 

continental air flows and warmer maritime air from the Gulf of Mexico colliding with the mountains 

(Ashton 2010). In the summer, the northern Rockies may continue to receive moist Pacific air, but 

the southern and central Rockies receive dry continental air or monsoonal flows from the Gulf of 

Mexico and Gulf of California (Kittel et al. 2002). Total annual precipitation and January 

precipitation are greater in the northern Rockies than in the central and southern Rockies. January 

temperatures in the northern Rockies and Upper Columbia Basin tend to be slightly warmer than 

those of the central Rockies (Kittel et al. 2002). 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

 

3-2 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

Southeast Idaho experiences four distinct seasons, with summers generally mild, but winters long and 

often harsh. Arctic air can contribute to the severity of winter bringing temperatures well below zero 

for extended periods. The valleys can also experience inversions when air quality can become a 

health issue due to the lack of circulation of air. 

During winter, brisk southwesterly winds often persist for days or weeks. These winds may moderate 

cold winter conditions, producing unusually mild temperatures compared to surrounding areas. There 

are usually a number of days each winter when temperatures remain below freezing. Subzero 

temperatures usually occur only a few days each winter. During especially cold outbreaks, snowfall 

may accumulate to a depth of several feet or more. Cloudy and unsettled weather is common during 

the winter with measurable precipitation occurring on about one-third of the days (NWS 2010). 

Spring months are normally wet and windy. Winds of 20 to 30 mph may persist for days at a time. 

Weather conditions fluctuate quickly during the spring. Afternoon temperatures in the 30s and 40s 

with precipitation in the form of rain or snow may occur after a period of sunny skies and afternoon 

temperatures in the 60s or 70s. Thunderstorms are not uncommon, and are usually accompanied by 

rain showers and occasional snow. Low elevations snowpack usually melts quickly during the spring, 

but high elevation snowpack can persist into late June (NWS 2010). 

Summer may begin suddenly with a rapid change to warm and dry weather. Home heating is usually 

not required after the first week in June, but chilly nights can persist into early July. Showers and/or 

thunderstorms are common from late spring through summer. These storms often produce very 

localized precipitation. Thunderstorms are seldom severe, and tornadoes occur infrequently in the 

area. Brief heavy rain, lightning, small hail, and gusty winds may cause very localized damage at 

times. Long periods of excessively hot weather in July and August are uncommon. Afternoon 

temperatures often rise into the 90s, however low humidity usually results in overnight temperatures 

in the 50s or even cooler. The average growing season in Pocatello is around 120 days, extending 

from late May to late September (NWS 2010). 

Autumn ushers in cooler weather with daytime highs generally in the 70s in early fall dipping into 

the mid-40s by mid-November with generally dry conditions. Autumn storms are usually very fast 

moving, and seldom persist for more than a few days. Sunny, warm days with cool nights are 

delightful for outdoor activities. Continuous home heating is seldom needed until mid-October. The 

first cold wave with highs below 20 and lows around 0 or lower may arrive anytime between late 

November and late December (NWS 2010). 

Temperature and Precipitation 

Camas NWR lies in the northeast corner of the Upper Snake River Plain at an elevation of 

approximately 4,800 feet. Temperatures have a wide range between summer and winter, and between 

day and night. Temperature and precipitation data from the Parameter-elevation Regressions on 

Independent Slopes Model (PRISM) (Daly 2002; Daly et al. 2008) were compiled for the Camas 

Water Resources Inventory Assessment (U.S. Fish and Wildlife [USFWS] 2011). PRISM provides a 

complete record (no missing data) of monthly temperature and precipitation data at 4-kilometer (km; 

2.5-mi) resolution for the entire conterminous United States. Table 3.1 presents average monthly 

precipitation and average monthly minimum and maximum temperature from PRISM for the period 

1971 to 2000 for the area within the refuge boundary. Average annual precipitation for the Refuge is 

9.8 in/yr and the average annual temperature is 42.4°F. The coldest month is January with an average 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-3 

maximum temperature of 27.91° F and an average minimum temperature of 5.9°F. The warmest 

month is July with an average maximum 85.48°F and an average minimum temperature of 47.95°F. 

Annual total precipitation averages 9.8 inches with May receiving the most (1.5 inches) and February 

the least (0.52 inches). About 25 percent of total annual precipitation falls in May and June. Data 

collected by the National Weather Service at the Hamer 4 NW weather station between 10/25/1948 

and 12/31/2005 record annual total snowfalls averaging 27.6 inches, with two-thirds of annual 

snowfall occurring December through February. December has the highest average snowfall with 7.7 

inches.

Table 3.1 PRISM Monthly Normals for Camas NWR (1971-2000) 

Month Precipitation 

(in) 

Min Temperature

(F) 

Max 

Temperature 

(F) 

Average of Min 

and 

Max Temp (F) 

January 0.64 5.91 27,91 16.9 

February 0.52 11.43 34.30 22.9 

March 0,72 21.08 45.16 33.1 

April 0.85 28.60 58.30 43.5 

May 1.51 36.85 67.49 52.2 

June 1.18 43.56 76.84 60.2 

July 0.88 47.95 85.48 66.7 

August 0.77 46.41 85.19 65.8 

September 0.66 37.61 74.39 56.0 

October 0.67 27.73 60.87 44.3 

November 0.74 18.04 41.41 29.7 

December 0.68 6.47 29.02 17.7 

Total 

Precipitation 

9.81 

Average 

Temperature 

 27.64 57.19 42.4 

Floods 

Riverine flooding is a threat, especially when spring rains compound with snowmelt runoff to peak 

the volumes of water coursing through stream channels to exceed their bearing capacity. The main 

flood-prone season in Jefferson County is during the spring and early summer months of April, May, 

and June. The primary cause of flooding during this time is snowmelt. However, a rare climatological 

occurrence during the winter months can cause the most severe floods. Several days of warm 

temperatures followed by rains can send floodwaters from snowmelt augmented by lack of 

percolation due to frozen ground into the county during January or February. In addition, 

thunderstorm activity during the summer months can cause havoc in the smaller tributaries. 

Camas and Beaver Creeks are sources of surface inflow to Mud Lake, southwest of the Refuge, 

which has no effective outlet other than irrigation canals, evaporation, and seepage. Lands along 

Camas Creek near the lake and along the south side of the lake are susceptible to flooding (Idaho 

Bureau of Homeland Security 2010). Water levels in Mud Lake reached record levels in spring 1984 

after two years of above normal precipitation in the watershed (1982-1984). The Spokane Chronicle
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

 

3-4 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

(1984) reported that Mud Lake area residents had “living with a daily threat of flooding for the last 

two months.” It reported that the Mud Lake dam was being improved with additional fill material and 

a spillway channel southwest of Mud Lake was improved. On Wednesday, June 20, a 30-foot section 

of dike failed and flooded 2 square miles of farmland before being plugged (Milwaukie Journal

1984). 

Flash flooding may also occur. Warm season convection is typically associated with precipitation 

minima in the Great Basin (Mock 1996) and specifically in the Snake River Plain of eastern Idaho 

(Andretta 1999). However, climatological anomalies in monthly summer rainfall can occur in eastern 

Idaho due to the poleward intrusion of the summer monsoon from the desert southwest United States 

into the Great Basin (Higgins et al. 1997; Higgins et al. 1999). For example, on July 18, 2004 a 

subtropical air mass permeated Utah and Idaho, leading to heavy rains in eastern Idaho. Several 

successive days of heavy rainfall in the region led to the issuance of flash flood watches and 

warnings (Andretta 2006). 

Wind and Severe Weather Events 

The topography of the Eastern Snake River Plain (ESRP) funnels the strong westerly winds typical of 

mid-latitude North America. This produces dominantly northeast-directed winds in the ESRP 

(Phillips 2012). Winds within the Snake River Plain are usually from the south and south west, light 

and variable, and largely result from the daily heating and cooling of land surfaces. The ESRP is 

characterized by near surface winds that trend generally throughout the year from SW to NE 

(Clawson et al. 1989). On average, the frequency of high wind events is greatest in spring and 

summer, with fall being calmer, and winter the calmest season (Clawson et al. 1989). 

Windstorms are fairly common in Idaho and have resulted in disruptions of power, but usually only 

minor damage to structures. The strongest winds generally are associated with weather fronts and the 

thunderstorms that occur in spring and summer. With that comes the threat of lightning, rain, and 

hail. These events are generally limited in duration, but 40 to 60 mile per hour (mph) gusts are 

possible (BLM 2009). By exposing soil, both agricultural practices and range fires contribute to dust 

storms in the area. These occur more often in spring prior to agriculture planting, and in late 

summer/fall after harvest. Wind erosion can be severe at these times and the problem can be 

compounded if farmers have burned their crop residue. Blowing soil and dust have been severe 

enough to close major roadways (BLM 2009). 

Idaho does not have hurricanes and very few tornadoes. From 1880 to 2000 there have been only 

twelve tornadoes in Jefferson County, where Camas NWR is located. These tornadoes occurred on 

July 8, 1980, April 11, 1985, June 29, 1987, March 23, 1988, two on April 17, 1988, June 4, 1991, 

June 7, 1992, two on June 15, 1993, May 31, 1997 and July 17, 2000. The severity of these storms on 

the Fujita Tornado Scale ranged from F0 (40-72 mph) to F1 (73-112 mph). No deaths or injuries were 

reported (Tornado Project 1999). 

The 1955 Camas NWR annual narrative described a small tornado that passed through the 

headquarters area, damaging trees and power lines. This is not mentioned on the Tornado Project 

website, and may not have been a confirmed tornado. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-5 

3.1.2 Climate Cycles in the Intermountain West

In addition to the familiar daily, seasonal, and yearly fluctuations in weather, there are longer term 

natural variations in the Earth’s climate. Climate can be defined as the “average weather,” or more 

specifically, as “the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities 

over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years” (IPCC 2007). Past 

variation in the Earth’s climate has been cyclical, as opposed to being random or following linear 

trends. 

Cycles in the Earth’s climate are nested and on multiple time scales, from year to year (interannual) 

to decades, centuries, and millennia. Various cycles are caused by independent physical mechanisms. 

Thus, for example, there are major glacial (cold) and interglacial (warm) periods on multimillennial 

time scales, caused by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the Sun. Other cycles in the Sun’s activity 

drive climate variations at the century scale. Cyclical patterns in circulation of the oceans and 

atmosphere lead to decadal (30 to 40 year) patterns, such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), 

which affects the west coast of North America. Cycles in the ocean-atmosphere system also lead to 

interannual variations in climate, such as the El-Niño/La Niña cycle (ENSO, for El-Niño Southern 

Oscillation). Climate at any one time is an expression of all of these nested mechanisms and cycles 

operating together (U.S. Forest Service [USFS] 2010). 

El Niño/La Nina Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events are linked to ocean temperatures in the tropical 

Pacific and last 6 to 18 months. In El Niño years, ocean temperatures are warmer than average; in La 

Nina years, cooler. A single warm or cool PDO phase lasts 20 to 30 years, and the strongest signal for 

the PDO is in the north Pacific. The triggering cause of the PDO phase shift is not understood. The 

potential for temperature and precipitation extremes increases when ENSO and PDO are in the same 

phases and thereby reinforce each other. This additive effect is also seen in the region’s streamflow 

and snowpack. When ENSO and PDO are in opposite phases, their opposite effects on temperature 

and precipitation can cancel each other out, but not in all cases and not always in the same direction 

(Climate Impacts Group 2009). 

During La Niña events, winters in the northwestern U.S. tend to be colder and wetter than average, 

and winters in the southwestern U.S. tend to be dryer and warmer than average (Goodrich 2007). The 

changes in storm tracks and weather events associated with ENSO can also influence other climate 

patterns. However, the teleconnections between ENSO and the other patterns are not as well 

understood as ENSO itself. During El Niño events, winters in North America tend to be warmer than 

average in the north and wetter than average in the south. The Intermountain West region is in an area 

that does not show a distinct anomaly due to El Niño (CPC 2005). 

The PDO reflects decadal changes in sea surface temperatures (SST) in the northern or “extratropical” Pacific Ocean (Goodrich 2007; Mantua 2001). When the PDO is positive, the SSTs in the 

northern Pacific Ocean are colder than average, and when the PDO is negative, the SSTs in the 

northern Pacific Ocean are warmer than average precipitation tends to be above average in the 

southwestern United States and portions of the Intermountain West region. When La Niña and the 

positive PDO are in phase, and SSTs in the Pacific are below average, winter precipitation tends to be 

below average in the southwestern United States, including parts of Utah. Finally, during a negative 

PDO event and a neutral ENSO, winter precipitation is above average for most of the west (Goodrich 

2007). 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

 

3-6 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

As part of their analysis of temperature and precipitation trends in the Camas NWR area (below), the 

USFWS Water Resources Branch also evaluated the correlation of precipitation and temperature with 

ENSO and PDO. Their examination of data from USHCN Ashton, ID indicated little or no 

correlation of precipitation or temperature with either ENSO or the PDO (USFWS 2011). This is 

supported by results from Redmond and Koch (1991) indicating that the area is neutral with respect 

to ENSO and only weakly correlated with the PDO. 

3.2 Climate Change 

Note: Much of the following section is derived from “Observed and projected ecological response to 

climate change in the Rocky Mountains and Upper Columbia Basin: A synthesis of current scientific 

literature” (Ashton 2010) and “Climate change, aquatic ecosystems, and fishes of the Rocky 

Mountain West: implications and alternatives for management” (Rieman and Isaak 2010). 

A growing body of scientific evidence has emerged supporting the theory of human-caused global 

climate change. During the 20th century, the global environment experienced increases in average 

worldwide temperatures, sea levels, and chemical concentrations. Average annual air temperatures on 

the earth’s surface have increased by 1.3°F since the mid-19th century (Solomon et al. 2007). 

Furthermore, the increasing trend in global temperatures over the last 50 years is approximately twice 

the trend of the previous 50 years (IPCC 2007). Globally, during 11 of 12 years from 1995 to 2006, 

surface temperatures are the warmest on record since 1850 (IPCC 2007). 

Climate change is having significant effects on organisms and ecosystems worldwide. Changes in the 

western United States have been particularly noticeable in the last century, with increases averaging 

0.5 to 2°C (0.9-3.6°F) in mean annual temperatures, depending on elevation (Diaz and Eischeid 

2007; Pederson et al. 2010). Warmer winters and springs have resulted in more precipitation falling 

as rain instead of snow, reduced snowpack, earlier snowmelt, earlier streamflow from snowmelt, an 8 

to 10 day advance in the onset of spring on average across the West, more frequent large fires, and 

possibly an increase in insect outbreaks and plant mortality (Breshears et al. 2005; Cayan et al. 2001; 

Knowles et al. 2006; Mote et al. 2005; Pederson et al. 2010; Raffa et al. 2008; Stewart et al. 2005; 

Westerling et al. 2006). 

The preponderance of evidence suggests that the magnitude of these changes has been influenced by 

human activity. Barnett et al. (2008) used nested climate and hydrological models to attribute most of 

these changes in the West to greenhouse gas emissions and their impact on global and regional 

climate. Another modeling study suggests that these changes are caused by a blend of anthropogenic 

forcing and Pacific and Atlantic decadal variability (Wang et al. 2008). 

3.2.1 Predicted Future Ecological Trends in the Intermountain West 

Projected temperature increases for the coming century are expected to increase the proportion of 

winter precipitation falling as rain, increase the frequency of winter flooding, reduce snowpack, 

increase winter streamflow, result in earlier peak streamflow, and decrease late spring and summer 

streamflows (Hamlet et al. 2007; Hamlet and Lettenmaier 1999; Mote et al. 2003; Mote et al. 2005; 

Payne et al. 2004; Tague et al. 2008). Unless otherwise noted, projected trends were abridged from 

Ashton (2010). 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-7 

Temperature and Precipitation 

Since 1900, temperatures have increased 0.5 to 2°C (0.9-3.6°F) in most areas of the western United 

States (Pederson et al. 2010; Mote 2003; Ray et al. 2008) but cooling has occurred at some sites (CIG 

2010; Ray et al. 2008). The rate of change varies by location and elevation but is typically a 1oC 

(2°F) increase since the early 20th century (Hamlet et al. 2007). Temperature increases are more 

pronounced during the cool season (Hamlet and Lettenmaier 2007). In the northern U.S. Rockies, 

annual rates of increase are roughly two to three times that of the global average (Bonfils et al. 2008; 

Hall and Fagre 2003; Pederson et al. 2010; Vose et al. 2005), a pattern that is evident at northern 

latitudes and higher elevation sites throughout the West (Diaz and Eischeid 2007; National 

Assessment Synthesis Team 2001). Rises in temperature appear to be accelerating where mean 

regional spring and summer temperatures for 1987 to 2003 were 0.87°C (1.57°F) higher than those 

for 1970 to 1986, and were the warmest since 1895 (Westerling et al. 2006). 

Trends in precipitation in the Intermountain West Region are far less clear. Instrumental data from the 

last century show modest increases for much of the northwestern United States (Mote 2003; Mote et 

al. 1999; Mote et al. 2005), but no directional trends for parts of the southern Rockies (Ray et al. 

2008). Natural variability in precipitation is evident in the instrumental record for all of the climate 

regions, and long-term drought conditions during the last century impacted large areas within the 

region. Although 20th century droughts had substantial socioeconomic and ecosystem impacts, there 

is ample evidence that they were not as severe, in terms of duration and magnitude, as a number of 

drought events that occurred during the last millennium (Cook et al. 2007, 2004; Meko et al. 2007). 

Temperatures in the region are generally expected to increase by approximately 1 to 2°C (2-4°F) 

during the next 50 years with natural variation over years to decades. Precipitation is less well 

understood, but the projection for total annual precipitation suggests that the dominant pattern in 

North America will be a wetter climate in the northern tier and a drier climate in the southwestern 

United States. These and other predicted changes for the Rocky Mountains and Upper Columbia 

Basin are outlined in Table 3.1. 

Air Quality 

A warmer climate will make it more difficult to meet U.S. air quality standards, particularly for 

ozone (Field et al. 2007; Karl et al. 2009). Changes in climate affect air quality by changing wind 

patterns and ventilation rates, precipitation, dry deposition, chemical production and loss rates, 

natural emissions, and background concentrations (Jacob and Winner 2009). For instance, higher 

temperatures increase the oxidation of sulfur and N oxides, and precipitation changes will influence 

the distribution of acids deposited across the landscape (Bernard et al. 2001). 

Some of the better understood effects from a warmer climate include increased ground-level ozone 

formation and increased particulate matter derived from forest fires. Ozone formation generally 

increases at higher temperatures due to increased gas-phase reaction rates (Aw and Kleeman 2003). 

The rate at which volatile organic compounds are produced from natural sources, such as trees, will 

also increase with increasing temperatures (Guenther 2002). This may be somewhat offset by the 

inhibitory effect of carbon dioxide (CO2) on isoprene production (Young et al. 2009), as isoprene is 

one of the more significant ozone precursors emitted by vegetation. Most models find that even with 

current emission rates, there will be a widespread increase in ground-level ozone during the summer 

over the next century (Jacob and Winner 2009). This is consistent with historical data that show a 

consistent increase in ozone with temperature in polluted areas (Jacob and Winner 2009). In the West, 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

 

3-8 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

however, decreases in background concentrations of ozone (due to increased water vapor) may offset 

increases in ozone due to temperature (Jacob and Winner 2009). 

Biodiversity 

With a 1°C (2°F) increase in average global temperature, the IPCC estimates that up to 30 percent of 

all species will be at increased risk of extinction (Field et al. 2007). While such models and estimates 

include uncertainties, there is little or no evidence that climate change will slow species loss (SCBD 

2003). The Secretariat for the Convention on Biodiversity (2003) predicted four impacts on 

biodiversity as a result of climate change: (1) the climatic range of many species will move poleward 

or upward in elevation; (2) many species that are already vulnerable, such as rare endemics and 

threatened and endangered species, are likely to become extinct; (3) changes in the frequency, 

intensity, extent, and locations of climatically and non-climatically induced disturbances will affect 

how and at what rate existing ecosystems will be replaced by new plant and animal assemblages; and 

(4) some ecosystems, such as high mountain ecosystems, arid ecosystems, remnant native grasslands, 

and ecosystems underlain by permafrost, will be particularly vulnerable to climate change. Diversity 

will decline where habitats are found in small discrete patches, such as alpine tundra and lakes, and 

where warming contributes to habitat loss. 

Productivity 

Although primary productivity is projected to increase moderately due to longer growing seasons and 

elevated CO2 concentrations, net ecosystem and biome productivity may decline due to increased 

disturbance, drought, and changes in community structure. While models project that a modest 

warming will lead to greater tree growth in the United States (Ryan et al. 2008), there will be spatial 

and temporal variations depending on other factors that limit productivity at a given site (Ryan et al. 

2008). This may result in a pattern of initial gains in productivity followed by declines. The areal 

extent of drought-limited ecosystems is expected to increase by 11 percent for each 1oC (2°F) of 

warming in the continental United States (Bachelet et al. 2001). For widespread species such as 

lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), a 3oC (5°F) temperature increase would increase growth in the 

northern part of its range, decrease growth in the middle range, and decimate southern forests 

(Rehfeldt et al. 2001). Where climate change leads to conversions of vegetation type (e.g., woodland 

to grassland), this will have strong impacts on productivity (Izaurralde et al. 2005). 

Phenology 

With continued warming, we should expect to see a continued advance of spring in the Intermountain 

West Region. Compared to 1950 to 1970, streamflow and peak snowmelt are occurring 1 to 4 weeks 

earlier (Stewart et al. 2005). Lack of good phenology data makes predictions difficult, but changes in 

the timing of spring will likely affect the timing of reproduction, emergence, and migration of 

numerous species, which may affect community structure and function. On the other hand, 

phenological events that are tied to day length, such as the emergence of many plants, are not 

expected to change. 

While evolutionary adaptations to climate change can be rapid, it is generally thought that they are 

not rapid enough to counter the negative effects that climate change will have on many species 

(Parmesan 2006). One concern is the development of asynchronies among interacting and dependent 

species. For instance, there is the potential for increased stress for marmots in the early spring 

because while marmots are emerging earlier, there has been no change in the emergence of food 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-9 

plants in the area (Inouye et al. 2000). Mismatches in the phenology of birds and their prey have been 

documented in other parts of the United States and the globe and have been linked to population 

declines (Both et al. 2006; Wormsworth and Mallon 2008). 

The key uncertainties in understanding the response of phenology to climate change lie in the rate at 

which phenological changes occur and how fast species will adapt to new seasonal regimes. 

Manipulative experiments suggest that other global changes, such as changing CO2 concentrations 

and increased nutrient availability, may dampen the phenological response to warming (Cleland et al. 

2006). As a result, it will be difficult to predict the magnitude and direction of response for many 

species. There are also apparent contradictions between individual species and ecosystem level 

responses (Steltzer and Post 2009). Moreover, it remains unknown how often and how many species 

interactions will be affected by the development of asynchronous life histories. Finally, the largest 

changes to date are related to earlier spring onsets; less is known about phenological changes to 

climatic trends in other seasons. 

Wildland Fire 

Most evidence supports that future climate changes will cause increases in the frequency, intensity, 

severity, and average annual extent of wildland fires (Field et al. 2007; Ryan et al. 2008). Models 

project that numerous aspects of fire behavior will change, including longer fire seasons, more days 

with high fire danger, increased natural ignition frequency and fire severity, more frequent large fires, 

and more episodes of extreme fire behavior (Bachelet et al. 2007; Brown et al. 2004; Westerling and 

Bryant 2008). The best evidence, however, is for increases in the average annual area burned 

(Bachelet et al. 2007; Flannigan et al. 2006; McKenzie et al. 2004). For instance, McKenzie and 

colleagues (2004) predict that a mean temperature increase of 2.2°C (4.0°F) will increase the annual 

area burned by wildfire by a factor of 1.5 to 5. In another study, it is predicted that the median annual 

acres burned in the Upper Columbia Basin and northern Rockies would increase from about 0.5 

million acres (0.2 million hectares [ha]) in 1916 to 2006 to 0.8 million acres (0.3 million ha) in the 

2020s, 1.1 million acres (0.4 million ha) in the 2040s, and 2.0 million acres (1 million ha) in the 

2080s (Littell et al. 2009). 

While there is strong evidence that climate change will increase the number of fires, and particularly 

the area burned each year, uncertainties remain. First, historical patterns of precipitation are linked to 

fire and synoptic weather features that drive fire growth, such as high pressure ridges and wind patterns, but models differ in their projections for these climate variables. Other factors, such as 

increases in non-native, annual grass invasions, may alter fire dynamics, making predictions based on 

climate alone difficult. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, if fires and other stand-replacing 

disturbances occur more frequently, the resulting landscape pattern may limit the size of future fires 

and total area burned (Collins et al. 2009). 

Plant and Wildlife Disease 

Climate change will likely increase the range, frequency, severity, and impact of plant and wildlife 

disease (Harvell et al. 2002). The IPCC states with very high confidence that climate change will 

increase the risk and geographic spread of vector-borne infectious diseases, including Lyme disease 

and West Nile virus, and changes in precipitation will increase water-borne disease (Field et al. 

2007). Diseases will likely move farther north and into higher elevations. For example, the tick that 

causes Lyme disease, Ixodes scapularis, is limited by cold temperature, and models suggest that its 

range limit could shift north by 200 km (124 mi) by the 2020s and 1,000 km (621 mi) by the 2080s 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

 

3-10 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

(Ogden et al. 2006). In some cases, climate change may adversely affect the disease rather than the 

host. For instance, fungal diseases dependent on moist conditions may decrease in a warmer, drier 

future (Frankel 2008; Harvell et al. 2002). 

Invasive Species 

The spread and impact of invasive species is driven mainly by changes in land use, increasing 

urbanization, disturbance, and alteration in management practices, but climate change may 

exacerbate the extent of invasions. Climate change is generally expected to increase the spread of 

invasive species through direct effects on habitat suitability and the indirect effects of altered nutrient 

availability and disturbance regimes (Dukes and Mooney 1999). The IPCC has very high confidence 

that disturbances such as wildfire will continue to increase and this will facilitate invasions (Field et 

al. 2007). In general terms, invasive species are expected to differ in their response to climate change 

from native species because they possess traits such as broad climatic tolerances and robust dispersal 

mechanisms that enable them to better adapt to changing conditions. Hellman and colleagues (2008) 

identified five consequences of climate change on invasion dynamics: altered invasion pathways, 

changes in environmental constraints, altered distribution of existing invasive species, altered 

impacts of invasive species, and a change in management effectiveness. An example of an altered 

invasion pathway would be an increase in recreational boat traffic as a result of warmer temperatures 

in previously snow-covered areas resulting in an increase in the spread of nuisance species. 

Here are some examples of how climate change is expected to alter invasion dynamics in the region. 

 Stream temperatures are expected to warm with warmer air temperatures and lower flows, 

increasing the amount of suitable habitat for warm-water fishes by an estimated 31 percent 

nationwide (Mohseni et al. 2003). 

 Warmer temperatures may increase the impact of invasive species. In the Columbia River, 

for example, increasing temperatures have caused smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu)

to consume more native salmon (Petersen and Kitchell 2001), and whirling disease is more 

virulent in warmer streams (Rahel and Olden 2008). 

 Earlier melting of snowpack will alter streamflows, may increase disturbance and flood 

events, and favor invasive species. It is predicted that such changing conditions may increase 

rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) invasions in Colorado (Fausch et al. 2001). However, 

native species such as cottonwoods could benefit from larger spring flood events that facilitate establishment and recolonization (Scott et al. 1996). 

 Bradley and colleagues (2009) examined the current and potential distributions of five 

problematic plant invaders in the West (cheatgrass, knapweed, yellow star thistle, tamarisk, 

and leafy spurge) based on the current climatically suitable habitat and maps of future habitat 

based on an ensemble of global climate models. They found that precipitation was the most 

important predictor of plant distribution and that warming temperatures alone may have little 

effect on range expansion. Most species were expected to expand in some areas while 

contracting in others. For example, they predict that the risk of cheatgrass invasion will 

increase in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, and Colorado, but decrease in parts of Nevada and 

Utah. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-11 

Table 3.2. Summary of Projected Climate Changes in the Rocky Mountains and Upper 

Columbia Basin* 

Climate 

Variable 

General Change 

Expected 

Range of Change 

Expected 

General Pattern Confidence 

Temperature Increase 1.5-2.1oC (2.7°-3.4°F) Increases slightly 

greater in the 

summer 

High 

Precipitation No change 2-5% increase in 

winter, 0-4% decrease 

in summer 

Increase in winter, 

decrease in 

summer 

Moderate for 

winter; low for 

summer 

Drought Increase in frequency 

and severity 

Varies with 

magnitude of 

temperature and 

evaporation change 

Greatest impact in 

summer 

High 

Temperature 

Extreme Events 

Increase of warm 

events, decrease of 

cold events 

Varies with 

magnitude of temperature change 

Increase in 

frequency and 

length of hot 

events 

High 

Precipitation 

Extreme Events 

Potential for 

decreased frequency 

coupled with 

increased intensity 

Uncertain Potential for more 

intense spring and 

summer floods 

Uncertain 

* based on McWethy et al. in press, in Ashton 2010. 

3.2.2 Effects of Climate Change upon Intermountain West Communities 

Warming temperatures and changing precipitation regimes will likely alter plant and animal 

communities throughout the region. Since the timing and magnitude of response to climate change is 

certain to vary by species, future community assemblages may not have current analogs. Below are 

concepts that are common across all communities and discuss some of the more specific observed 

and projected responses to climate change for wildlife species and sagebrush, grassland, and wetland 

ecosystems. 

Sagebrush and Grasslands 

Over the short term, the greatest threats to grasslands and sagebrush ecosystems come from oil and 

gas development, increasing urban and agricultural development, and invasive species. However, 

wildfires are increasing and likely to intensify in a warmer future with drier soils, longer growing 

seasons, and more severe droughts (Field et al. 2007), and these may cause large changes in 

grassland and sagebrush ecosystems. Direct impacts on big sagebrush, a keystone species throughout 

its range, may also be severe (Smith et al. 1997). The species is not fire tolerant and once removed 

from large disturbances, is very slow to recover (Smith et al. 1997). Weed invasion typically follows 

removal of sagebrush (Prevey et al. 2010), and this disturbance will likely be exacerbated by 

drought-induced stress on the species (e.g., Poore et al. 2009). 

Modeling suggests that climate change will likely increase net primary production in grasslands and 

decrease soil carbon, but high annual variability in plant production makes these projections 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

 

3-12 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

uncertain (Parton et al. 2005). Nutrient cycling and plant production are expected to occur more 

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

Climate change is also expected to cause major changes in grassland and sagebrush distribution 

across the landscape (Bachelet et al. 2001). Range expansions of woody species are predicted to 

continue, particularly the expansion of pinyon-juniper into sagebrush steppe and grasslands 

(Rowland et al. 2008), resulting in a decrease in sagebrush and an increase in woodlands across the 

West. Changes in grassland cover are more subtle, but cover is generally predicted to decrease 

(Bachelet et al. 2001). Kremer et al. 1996, who used an earlier generation of downscaled global 

circulation models to predict the response of warming and reduced precipitation scenarios in eastern 

Washington, suggested that native sagebrush would decline and a less productive, invasive annual–

dominated grassland would persist or increase. Such a shift has major implications for sagebrushobligate vertebrates such as certain bird species (Knick et al. 2005). Climatic suitability models 

suggest that by 2100 sagebrush communities in Nevada, southern Idaho, Utah, Colorado, and eastern 

Wyoming may be at risk of loss due to climate change; regions in southwestern Wyoming will be at 

less risk (Bradley 2010). 

There are a number of uncertainties in projecting the response of grasslands and sagebrush to climate 

change. First, regional, elevational, and grassland type may strongly influence response. A recent 

estimate of the velocity of climate change across biomes found that temperature changes will occur 

much more quickly in xeric shrublands and flooded grasslands than in other biomes, and much more 

slowly in montane grasslands (Loarie et al. 2009). Second, the magnitude and velocity of changes 

caused by the strong link between invasive species, fire, and grasslands and sagebrush is difficult to 

estimate. Third, precipitation and drought rather than temperature will likely drive changes in 

grasslands, and they are more difficult to predict. Fourth, the future impact of grazers is difficult to 

estimate, particularly as grassland fragmentation increases. Finally, many grassland and sagebrush 

systems are actively managed through livestock grazing, invasive species control, and prescribed and 

suppressed fire. 

Aquatic Resources and Wetlands 

Climate change will significantly impact regional aquatic resources and will likely make it more 

difficult to achieve water quality standards nationwide (Field et al. 2007). While there are likely to be 

regional variations, projected effects across the West include loss of glaciers, less snow, earlier peak 

flows, less streamflow, warmer water temperatures, more frequent droughts, and more intense 

storms. 

At the current rate of melting, it has been suggested that the Glacier National Park’s remnant glaciers 

will be gone in the next 25 to 30 years (Hall and Fagre 2003) due to increases in summer 

temperatures and a reduction in winter snowpack. Streamflow may increase during this initial period 

of melt, but flows will decline when the glaciers disappear (Morris and Walls 2009). Total winter 

precipitation may increase but overall snowpack is projected to decline throughout the West. For 

example, with a 4oC (7°F) temperature increase and doubling of atmospheric CO2 in Loch Vale 

Watershed at Rocky Mountain National Park, models predict a 50 percent reduction in snowpack and 

4 to 5 week earlier increases in soil moisture and runoff compared to mean onset of spring conditions 

from 1984 to 1998 (Baron et al. 2000). 

The loss of winter snowpack will greatly reduce the major source of groundwater recharge and 

summer runoff, resulting in a potentially significant lowering of water levels in streams, rivers, lakes, 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-13 

and wetlands during the growing season (Mote et al. 2005; Barnett et al. 2008). With warmer 

temperatures and increasing droughts, municipal and agricultural demands for water are likely to 

increase, drawing down freshwater resources even further (National Assessment Synthesis Team 

2001). Lower summer base flows reduce the amount of instream habitat for invertebrates and fish 

and cause a reduction in stream-side groundwater tables which are important for sustaining riparian 

vegetation communities (Scott et al. 1999; Stromberg et al. 1996). Reduced water depths may also 

increase the vulnerability of sensitive species (e.g., amphibians) to harmful ultraviolet radiation 

(Kiesecker et al. 2001). 

In addition to the shift in the quantity of water, climate change may reduce water quality due to 

increased erosion and decreased dilution of pollutants. Decreases in snow cover and more winter rain 

on bare soil are likely to lengthen the erosion season (Walker et al. 2001), which could lead to 

average phosphorus concentrations in streams increasing 25 to 35 percent (Walker et al. 2001). 

Predicted increases in the severity and frequency of floods may also contribute to increases in 

erosion, as well as affect ecological processes that are sensitive to changes in the probability 

distributions of high flow events such as habitat stability, biodiversity, and trophic structure (Hamlet 

and Lettenmaier 2007; Konrad and Booth 2005). Degradation of water quality will likely lead to a 

reduction in or loss of sensitive stream species (Waters 1995). 

Warming air temperatures and a reduction in glacial inputs will lead to warmer water temperatures 

across the West. Surface and bottom water temperatures of lakes, reservoirs, rivers, and estuaries are 

projected to increase from 2 to 7°C (4-13°F) (Fang and Stefan 1998, 1999; Gooseff et al. 2005; 

Hostetler and Small 1999). Warmer waters may lead to oxygen depletion, a change in fish 

distribution, an increase in algae and zooplankton in coldwater lakes, and a loss of some species. 

Species that are isolated in habitats near thermal tolerance limits or that occupy rare and vulnerable 

habitats like alpine wetlands may become extinct (Williams et al. 2007), and fish such as trout that 

are dependent on cool waters will likely decline (Pederson et al. 2010; Williams et al. 2009). In 

contrast, many fish species that prefer warmer water, such as largemouth bass and carp, may expand 

their ranges if surface waters warm (Battin et al. 2007). Warmer waters may also cause aquatic 

diseases and parasites to become more widespread (Hari et al. 2006). 

 Wetlands are among the most significantly altered ecosystems in North America due to stressors 

such as changes in hydrology from flow regulation, groundwater pumping, fill placement, 

overgrazing by domestic and native ungulates, atmospheric deposition, and biological invasion 

(Patten 1998; Zedler and Kercher 2005). Over the last 200 years, wetland areas have declined 

approximately 56 percent in Idaho, 50 percent in Colorado, 38 percent in Wyoming, and 27 percent 

in Montana (OTA 1993). Like other freshwater ecosystems, wetlands are considered extremely 

vulnerable to climate change, which is projected to diminish their number and extent and cause a 

decline in associated flora and fauna (Field et al. 2007). Wetlands are already facing widespread 

degradation so that even small reductions in precipitation could exacerbate wetland loss. 

A few of the wetland types considered at greatest risk globally are found in the Intermountain West 

Region including riparian wetlands in arid zones, peatlands, and alpine wet meadows (Burkett and 

Kusler 2000; OTA 1993). But despite the recognition of the increasing role of climate change in 

altering wetland functions (e.g., Baron et al. 2000), there is a paucity of studies in the ROCO region 

that document climate-driven declines in wetland function or extent. One exception is a recent article 

describing changes in hydrology leading to wetland desiccation in Yellowstone National Park 

(McMenamin et al. 2008). Currently, the biggest losses are in the marshes on Yellowstone’s northern 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

 

3-14 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

range. It is expected that loss of wetlands will result in a corresponding loss in biodiversity and critical functions such as carbon storage in peat and water storage (OTA 1993). 

Warmer temperatures will affect the growth and reproduction of wetland species by increasing 

decomposition rates and evaporation from wetlands and their water supplies, reducing peat 

accumulation, and thawing upper layers of permafrost in alpine wetlands (Burkett and Kusler 2000; 

OTA 1993). Where warmer temperatures lead to increased fire severity and extent, peat bodies, 

particularly those in a matrix of forest, will be at risk. Where warmer temperatures cause an increase 

in wetland decomposition rates and reduce peat accumulation, carbon storage will be reduced. 

Greater changes in wetlands are expected to result from altered precipitation as it affects soil and 

vegetation conditions (Winter 2000). Many models project wetter winters in the Region, but any 

positive effect of increased winter flows for wetlands is expected to be outweighed by drier summers 

and warmer temperatures. It is predicted that wetlands response will first become evident in water 

table changes and alterations in the formation and duration of soil anoxic conditions. Alterations in 

the composition of short-lived and then longer-lived perennial plants will follow. Soils may be 

altered after many decades unless fire occurs. Alterations of plant cover and soil permeability may 

act in a feedback loop to further modify the hydrological cycle. Some wetlands, such as forest 

wetlands and wet meadows, are particularly sensitive to hydrological changes and a reduction in the 

water table of a few inches could convert wetlands to upland habitats (Kusler 2006). 

Reduced groundwater flow due to lower snowpack, earlier melt dates, or reduced summer 

precipitation could result in lower water tables in wetlands dependent on groundwater inputs (Poff et 

al. 2002). Riparian wetlands will be sensitive to precipitation because changes in the timing and 

magnitude of flooding will affect the flux of water, nutrients, sediment, and biota between main river 

channels and riparian wetlands (Hauer et al. 1997). 

Wildlife 

There are numerous uncertainties involved in predicting wildlife responses to climate change, the 

largest being that associated with vegetation change. Shifts in vegetation and habitat availability, 

whether caused by climate or land use change, will have strong impacts on wildlife populations. 

Another uncertainty results from the lack of the basic life-history data needed to estimate 

vulnerability. How biotic interactions will be altered and to what degree this will affect populations 

remains unknown. Phenotypic plasticity and behavior adaptations may allow species to respond to 

change in unpredictable ways. The responses of wildlife to non-climate stressors such as fire, disease, 

and invasive species may dampen or strengthen responses to climate change. 

There is evidence that warmer temperatures and changes in precipitation have caused range shifts, 

asynchronies, altered migration and hibernation patterns, increases in disease prevalence, and 

ultimately a reduction in the population size of many species (Root et al. 2003; Walther et al. 2002). 

Moreover, climate change can strongly affect animal populations through its effects on disturbance 

regimes, disease, land use, and invasive species. The predicted responses of wildlife to climate 

change are that: 

 Many species’ ranges will move northward and upward in elevation. 

 Species will respond differentially, creating non-analog communities and asynchronies 

among interacting species.

 In most cases, climate changes will be more rapid than evolutionary adaptations.
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-15 

 Species that are mobile, genetically diverse, show wide physiological tolerances, and have 

generalist diets will respond the most positively.

 Temperature-limited and snow-adapted species are at particular risk to a changing climate.

 Wildlife associated with habitat types and communities such as spruce-fir, alpine and 

sagebrush that are expected to decline are at greater risk.

3.2.2 Observed Changes to the Refuge Area 

Temperature and Precipitation 

In 2011 the USFWS Water Resources Branch (Region 1, Portland, OR) compiled and analyzed 

temperature and precipitation data from the closest USHCN climate monitoring site to the Refuge 

(Ashton, Idaho, located about 60 miles east of the Refuge). The USHCN is a network of climate 

monitoring sites maintained by the National Weather Service (Menne et al. 2011). Sites in the 

network are selected because their location and data quality make them well suited for evaluating 

long-term trends in regional climate. The Ashton site is wetter because it is about 1,000 feet higher in 

elevation than the Refuge. But air temperatures are comparable and the trends and monthly 

distribution of precipitation and air temperature for the two sites should be similar and representative 

of the area. 

They used the PRISM (Daly 2002; Daly et al. 2008) to analyze temperature and precipitation data to 

determine long-term trends from 1925 to 2010. PRISM provides a complete record (no missing data) 

of monthly temperature and precipitation data at 4-km (2.5-mi) resolution for the entire conterminous 

United States. 

Monthly air temperature and precipitation at Ashton, ID are shown in Figure 3.1. Temperatures are 

coldest in December and January and warmest in July and August. Mean air temperature at Ashton, 

ID is about 42°F, similar to the Refuge. Monthly precipitation is relatively evenly distributed 

throughout the year with slight increases during the winter and again in May and June. Southeastern 

Idaho is somewhat unique with these two precipitation peaks as compared to the rest of the State, 

which typically has one winter peak in precipitation. The average annual precipitation for Ashton, ID 

is about 20 in/yr, which is more precipitation than the Refuge receives annually. 

Total precipitation and average temperature at Ashton, ID for water years 1925 to 2010 are shown in 

Figure 3.2 and Figure 3.3 below. Annual average temperatures have increased 1.5°F (0.18°F/decade) 

from 1925 to 2010 and that increase is statistically significant (p=0.004). Annual monthly minimum 

temperatures have increased even more (2.2°F over the period or 0.26°F/decade, p=0.000) but 

maximum temperatures show no statistically significant change. Total precipitation has increased 

slightly over the period, however, the increase is only weakly significant (p=0.075). The more 

substantial change has been an increase in the variability in total precipitation in the area. A similar 

pattern has been observed in precipitation and streamflow elsewhere in the western U.S. (Pagano and 

Garen 2005). 

The observed temperature increases are very similar to increases described in other studies. McWethy 

et al. (2010) reported that average annual temperatures in the Upper Columbia Basin show increases 

of 1.2 to 1.4°F for the period 1920 to 2003. Mote et al. (2005) reported that regionally averaged 

temperatures in the Pacific Northwest rose 1.5°F between 1920 and 2000. Further statistical 

examination of monthly trends at the USHCN station at Ashton, ID showed that the increase in air 

temperatures was strongest during the winter and spring months, particularly in January and March. 
Cama

3-16 

Winter te

significan

while sma

lengths an

as National Wi

mperatures i

ntly across th

all, has affec

nd disturbanc

Figur

and p

perio

From C

ildlife Refuge D

n January an

he West (Ham

cted snowpac

ce regimes li

re 3.1. Mean

precipitation

od 1981-2010

Camas NWR W

Draft Compreh

nd March hav

mlet and Lette

k, stream tem

ke wildfires,

n and distrib

n at USHCN

0. 

ater Resource In

hensive Conser

ve been show

enmaier 2007

mperatures, f

 insect, and d

bution of mo

N Ashton 1N

nventory Area [W

rvation Plan an

wn by other st

7; Knowles e

flooding and 

disease outbr

onthly tempe

N, ID (100470

WRIA; USFWS

nd Environmen

Chapter 3. Ph

tudies to be i

et al. 2006). T

landslides, g

reaks (USGC

erature 

0) for the 

2011] Fig. 1. 

ntal Assessmen

hysical Enviro

increasing 

The increase

growing seaso

CRP 2009). 

 

nt

onment

, 

on 
Cama

Chapter 3. 

s National Wi

Physical Envir

Figur

1N, I

From C

Figur

1N, I

From C

ildlife Refuge D

ronment

re 3.2. Trend

ID (100470) 

Camas NWR W

re 3.3. Trend

ID (100470) 

Camas NWR W

Draft Compreh

ds in total p

for the perio

RIA [USFWS 2

ds in averag

for water ye

RIA [USFWS 2

hensive Conser

recipitation 

od 1981-201

011] Fig. 2. 

ge temperatu

ears 1925-20

011] Fig. 3. 

rvation Plan an

at USHCN 

0. 

ure at USHC

010. 

nd Environmen

Ashton 

CN Ashton 

tal Assessment

3-17 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

 

3-18 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

Streamflow Changes 

One of the most important responses to warmer winter temperatures in the Pacific Northwest has 

been the loss of spring snowpack (Mote et al. 2005). As temperatures rise, the likelihood of winter 

precipitation falling as rain rather than snow increases. The loss of spring snowpack in the Pacific 

Northwest has been significant, with declines averaging 25 percent over the past 40 to 70 years 

(Mote et al. 2005). The declines are greatest at low elevation sites and have occurred in the absence 

of significant decreases in winter precipitation, implicating temperatures rather than precipitation as 

the cause of the trend. 

The decrease in spring snowpack and earlier snowmelt has led to a change in streamflow in many 

systems, including earlier spring runoff peaks, increased winter streamflow, and reduced summer and 

fall streamflows. Stewart et al. (2005) examined 302 streamflow gages in the western U.S. and 

reported that the timing of winter runoff and annual streamflow had advanced by 1 to 4 weeks from 

1948 to 2002. The degree of change depends on the location and elevation of the specific river basin. 

Basins located significantly above freezing levels have been much less affected by warmer 

temperatures than those located at lower elevations. Particularly relevant to Camas NWR are the 

timing changes reported for two Idaho streams. Both basins are presumably influenced by the same 

regional climate regimes. The snowmelt peak in the St. Joes River (basin elevation 2,172 feet), 

advanced 19 days from 1948 to 2002 while in the Big Lost River (basin elevation 6,821 feet), the 

peak only advanced 6 days for the same period. The Big Lost River is located just west of the Refuge 

(Stewart et al. 2005). 

3.2.3 Potential Changes to the Refuge 

There have been no specific studies documenting effects of climate change to the Refuge’s wildlife 

and habitat. There have already been major and irreversible changes to refuge habitats and wildlife 

due to changes altered streamflows (due to upstream diversions) and a lowered water table, 

introduced species, land conversion to agriculture, and surrounding land uses. The impacts of climate 

change will be difficult to distinguish from these other impacts, at least in the near term. Potential 

effects of climate change to the Refuge, and the interaction between climate change and other factors 

influence refuge habitat and wildlife, are examined in detail in Chapter 6. 

3.3 Hydrology 

3.3.1 Beaver-Camas Watershed 

Camas NWR lies at the southern end of the Beaver-Camas Subbasin (eight-digit Hydrologic Unit 

Code), which originates on the south side of the Centennial Range north of the Refuge and terminates 

at Mud Lake, a natural playa which was dammed in the 1920s, forming a year-round impoundment. 

The Beaver-Camas watershed is the easternmost drainage in a system that shows no connectivity to 

the Snake River. Hydrologically, the Beaver-Camas Subbasin is a closed drainage or hydrologic sink, 

with no surface outflow. Mud Lake is located in the southern tip of the Beaver-Camas Subbasin, 

approximately 8 miles southwest of the Refuge, and it is the subbasin’s hydrologic endpoint. There 

are no natural surface flows from Mud Lake to any other body of water. 

The drainage area of the Beaver-Camas watershed at the point where Camas Creek exits the Refuge 

is 643,083 acres (1,005 square mi). The basin elevation averages 6,030 feet, and ranges from 4,777 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-19 

feet at the southern end of the basin to 9,872 feet at the northern end of the basin. There are two main 

drainages in the Beaver-Camas watershed: the Beaver Creek drainage and the Camas Creek drainage 

(Chapter 1, Map 1). Natural infiltration and diversion for irrigation limit the presence of water in the 

stream channel throughout the lower two-thirds of the subbasin. A significant quantity of surface 

water in the watershed is diverted for agricultural use. 

3.3.2 Groundwater 

Two of the most distinct hydrologic characteristics of the Beaver-Camas watershed are: (1) the 

massive natural infiltration of stream surface water and (2) the introduction of groundwater via wells 

into Camas Creek and ultimately Mud Lake. 

Camas NWR is underlain by the Snake River Plain Aquifer, a vast groundwater aquifer that extends 

throughout the Snake River Plain from the western boundary of Yellowstone National Park in eastern 

Idaho to the Idaho-Oregon border where the Snake River enters Hells Canyon, an area of 

approximately 28,000 square km (10,811 mi). Camas NWR lies in the northeastern horn of the 

crescent shaped river plain. Surface water of the Camas-Beaver Watershed naturally infiltrates into 

the Snake River Plain Aquifer. Total groundwater storage in the upper 150 meters (492 feet) of the 

aquifer is estimated at 200 to 300 million acre-feet, roughly the equivalent of Lake Erie (DeGrey and 

Link 2011). Recharge in the ESRP aquifer is mainly from infiltration of streamflow and applied 

irrigation water, and groundwater inflow from adjoining mountains. The major contributing rivers are 

the Big Lost and Little Lost Rivers, Birch Creek, and Camas Creek, which drain the mountain ranges 

to the north and east of the Plain. Some recharge may be from direct infiltration of precipitation, 

however the hot, arid climate of the Plain make this a minimal contribution (Lindholm et al. 1987). 

Natural discharge from the aquifer principally occurs through springs along the Snake River at two 

areas about 100 miles downstream of Camas NWR: the American Falls Reservoir and Thousand 

Springs, west of Twin Falls. 

Ackerman (1995) more precisely defines the system: 

“Most flow in the aquifer is contained within a regional-scale compartment and 

follows paths that discharge to the Snake River downstream from Milner Dam. Two 

intermediate-scale compartments exist along the southeast side of the aquifer and 

near Mud Lake. One intermediate-scale compartment along the southeast side of the 

aquifer discharges to the Snake River near American Falls Reservoir and covers an 

area of nearly 1,000 square miles. This compartment, which receives recharge from 

an area of intensive surface-water irrigation, is apparently fairly stable. The other 

intermediate-scale compartment near Mud Lake covers an area of 300 square miles.” 

Human activity has had a tremendous impact on the water balance of the ESRP aquifer. About 60 

percent of total recharge to the aquifer is derived from irrigation with surface water. Most 

groundwater still leaves the aquifer via springs and seepage losses in the two major upper basin 

reaches mentioned above, although pumping withdrawals contribute significantly to the aquifer's 

total losses. Irrigation practices have and continue to exert a major influence on water resources of 

the ESRP. During the first half of the 20th century, spring discharges increased at the two major 

discharge areas in the eastern portion of the aquifer and the water table in the central part of the 

aquifer rose by 60 to 70 feet on average due to irrigation on the Egin Bench, about 15 miles east of 

the Refuge (see Section 3.3.3 below). This was due to the common early practice of flood irrigation: 

farmlands were irrigated by releasing large amounts of water (either from reservoirs or canals) over 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

 

3-20 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

agricultural fields. This was not a very efficient practice and most water infiltrated back into the 

aquifer system. 

During the 1950s and 1960s more land was irrigated with groundwater and irrigation efficiency 

increased through the use of sprinkler irrigation. This resulted in a substantial decline in groundwater 

levels in parts of the Plain between 1975 and 1995, leading to a cumulative decrease in aquifer 

storage of about 3 percent, and decreased spring flows in the central part of the aquifer. In general, 

the declines in spring discharge and groundwater levels have been caused by increased groundwater 

pumping, more efficient irrigation methods, and reduced reliance on surface water diversions for 

irrigation. Localized declines may be predominantly the result of increased pumping withdrawals in 

some areas (De Grey and Link 2011). 

Currently, there are approximately three million acres of irrigated farmland within the Snake River 

Plain with about one-third of this area irrigated with groundwater and the other two-thirds irrigated 

with surface water. The extensive irrigation system is the primary reason that Idaho has the highest 

per capita water consumption in the nation. The ESRP aquifer was designated a sole source aquifer in 

1991. It provides the sole source of drinking water for nearly 200,000 people in southeast and south 

central Idaho. 

There are 44 wells in the USGS Active Groundwater Level network in Jefferson County, Idaho. 

Statistics are calculated for each well in the network and compare the most recent groundwater-level 

measurement to the period of record. A groundwater level category is then determined from the most 

recent data measurement. Of the 44 wells in Jefferson County, 24 are ranked as either: Below 

Normal, Much Below Normal or Low Groundwater Level. The Below Normal Groundwater Level 

rank indicates that the most recent groundwater measurement is lower than the lowest monthly 

median groundwater level in the month of measurement for the period of record. The sites closest to 

the Refuge are all within the normal percentile class; however, many indicate declines in water level 

over the last 10 years. 

Figure 3.4 shows groundwater levels for the period of record 1952 to 2011 for the continuous, real 

time USGS Site No. 434307112382601. Groundwater levels varied but were fairly stable during the 

early part of the record. Since the 1980s, levels have declined about 15 feet. This groundwater well is 

located about 20 miles southwest of the Refuge in an area that does not appear to be currently 

irrigated. The decline in water levels in this well likely reflects the general decline in water levels in 

the aquifer as a result of increased pumping, more efficient irrigation practices, and reduced 

infiltration. Monitoring well records in the Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) database 

(IDWR 2011) show declines of a similar magnitude over the same time period (1980 to the present) 

in the area of the Refuge. 
Cama

Chapter 3. 

3.3.3 Ch

Keigley (

Office rec

from this 

permanen

show only

northeast 

discharge

bunchgra

Lake.” Th

Creek ov

with satur

extensive

Bench are

oldest wil

The const

acquired 

the region

canals, dr

when the 

was desig

assumptio

as National Wi

Physical Envir

Figur

to 20

hanges to 

(2012) provid

cords, hydrol

synthesis. Pr

nt or semiper

y a “slough” 

end of prese

ed perched gr

asses. The onl

his willow st

ertopped its b

rated to temp

e wetlands ma

ea, 15 miles t

llow stands o

truction of ir

under the De

n’s water tab

rains, and pum

Refuge was 

gned to ensur

on of a high w

ildlife Refuge D

ronment

re 3.4. Grou

11 at USGS

Local Hyd

ded a synthes

logy studies, 

rior to the ea

rmanent wetl

in the locatio

ent-day Rays 

roundwater. V

ly stand of w

and probably

banks each sp

porary water 

apped by Ste

to the east, st

on the refuge

rrigation cana

esert Land Ac

le rose in the

mps. A portio

acquired. Ad

re reliable wa

water table th

Draft Compreh

undwater lev

 Site No. 434

drology, 1

sis of the hyd

legal procee

arly 1900s, th

ands. Public 

on of present

Lake. These

Vegetation on

willows record

y represented

pring, this w

regimes, rath

earns in 1921

tarting in the

e area appear 

als began soo

ct of 1877, an

e 1920s, plan

on of the wat

dditional infr

ater througho

hat would all

hensive Conser

vels for the p

43071123826

1900 to Pre

drologic histo

edings, and lo

he area that is

land surveys

t-day Sandho

e wetlands we

n the present

ded on the pr

d natural artes

would have cr

her than perm

 appear to ha

e late 1800s. O

to date from

on after settle

nd the later D

ns were made

ter control in

rastructure th

out the summ

low wetlands

rvation Plan an

period of rec

601. 

esent 

ory of the Re

ocal history. T

s now Camas

s in 1884 (ea

ole Lake, and

ere fed by na

t-day Refuge 

resent-day R

sian flow in t

reated season

manent or sem

ave resulted f

Other than th

m about 1920 

ement, and ir

Desert Land A

e to redistribu

nfrastructure 

hat is currentl

mer in drough

s to hold wat

nd Environmen

cord 1952 

efuge using G

The discussio

s NWR did n

ast half) and 1

d a “Dry Lak

atural artesian

was primari

Refuge in 188

this area. (Al

nal to epheme

mipermanent

from subirrig

he willows at

(Keigley 20

rrigation was

Act of 1894 (

ute that abund

at Camas NW

ly in place at

ht years, but l

ter. 

ntal Assessmen

General Land

on here is de

not have exten

1899 (west h

ke” at the 

n wells, whic

ly sagebrush

84 was at “Dr

lthough Cam

eral wetlands

t wetlands.) T

gation of the 

t Rays Lake, 

12). 

 required for

(Carey Act). 

dant supply w

WR was pres

t Camas NWR

likely with th

nt

3-21 

d

erived 

nsive 

half) 

ch 

h and 

ry 

mas 

s, 

The 

Egin 

the 

r land 

As 

with 

sent 

R

he 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

 

3-22 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

The Refuge was established after 12 years of subnormal precipitation starting in the 1920s, 

culminating in a severe one-year drought in 1934 (Pechanec et al. 1937). Like many refuges 

established in the 1930s, Camas NWR was established to protect and enhance dwindling wetlands for 

waterfowl production. After refuge establishment, impoundments and water control structures were 

created to provide reliable wetlands throughout the summer, and in drought years, to support 

breeding waterfowl and waterbirds. After the drought of the 1930s abated, reliable Camas Creek 

flows and a high water table allowed the Refuge to support a high density of wetlands, ponds, and 

wet meadows. New wetland projects were developed in the 1960s. It was at this time that the Refuge 

began using wells to fill wetlands. The high water table allowed wetlands to be filled with relatively 

low inputs of well water, and to remain filled throughout the brood rearing and migration season. 

In the 1980s this situation began to change. Several factors led to a lowering of the water table in the 

Camas area. In the winter of 1979-1980, water to the canals on Egin Bench was cut off (a water 

rights issue). Up to this time, water had been maintained near the surface (20 feet) to facilitate 

irrigation in the spring (Young 1980). In 1980 the Mud Lake water master called Young (who was 

involved with water administration) describing the effect. Young believed that if it had not been for 

an exceptionally wet spring, the effect to Mud Lake Basin agriculture could have been devastating. 

The cessation of winter recharge had an immediate effect on the water table at Mud Lake. However, 

the cessation of winter recharge was moderated by the fact that the water table was seasonally raised 

to subirrigate crops on Egin Bench. 

The second change began with the installation of pivot irrigation on Egin Bench. Pivots derive their 

water from canals and surface irrigate crops with far less water than that required for subirrigation. A 

1987 photo of part of Egin Bench shows few pivot sprinklers. By 1996, “most” of the Egin Bench 

area was irrigated by pivot sprinkler (Sullivan et al. 1996). The combination of the cessation of 

winter recharge in 1980 and the switch to pivot irrigation ended the abundant supply of Egin Bench 

water that had been inputted into the Mud Lake Basin for decades—and the source of water that 

created the extensive deepwater wetlands of the 1910s and 1920s in the Camas area. 

As the water table lowered, the Refuge had to pump increasing amounts of well water to fill certain 

wetland basins. To date about 25 percent of managed wetlands have been placed in “inactive” status 

due to their inability to hold water, which appears to be due to a combination of sandy soils and the 

lower water table. In addition, the northern Snake River Plain experienced a drought from 1987 to 

1992 (Leonard et al. 2000) and the Upper Snake River Plain has been in an “extreme drought” for 12 

years as of 2012 (−4.0 or less on the Palmer Drought Severity Index). 

3.3.4 Streams 

The three streams that flow through the Refuge are: Camas Creek, Beaver Creek, and Warm Creek. 

The major stream is Camas Creek, which flows through the entire Refuge before exiting and 

terminating west of the Refuge at Mud Lake. Beaver Creek is a small tributary of Camas Creek that 

enters the Refuge just before its confluence with Camas Creek. Warm Creek branches off of Camas 

Creek just upstream of the refuge boundary and flows onto the Refuge to terminate at Mallard 

Slough (Map 9). 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-23 

Table 3.3. Named Creeks and Streams on Camas NWR* 

Stream Name Miles on Refuge

Beaver Creek 0.7

Camas Creek 11.9

Warm Creek 7.3

Total 19.9

*Includes features on or within 0.1 mile of the Camas NWR 

approved boundary. 

Source: USGS 1:24,000 National Hydrography Dataset and 

digitized by USFWS staff. 

Beaver Creek 

The hydrology of the Beaver Creek drainage is principally spring runoff driven. Beaver Creek is a 

fairly substantial tributary to Camas Creek for the short period of time that it flows. The creek has its 

headwaters in the peaks of the Centennial Mountains to the north and east of Camas NWR. Water is 

sustained in Beaver Creek throughout the year above Spencer, ID. Beaver Creek flows in a canyon to 

a point some distance below Spencer, where it hits a lava gorge about 50 feet deep and commences to 

flow across coarse gravel soils, where much of the flow sinks into the ground (Stearns et al. 

1939:45). Stearns et al. (1939) state: “During the spring flood period the creek usually flows for 

about two months all the way to its mouth and discharges into Camas Creek, but during the 

remainder of the year the creek is generally dry below a point about three miles south of Dubois.” 

Typically Beaver Creek will begin to flow a few days to a week before Camas Creek, providing the 

first water through the Camas Creek channel and onto Camas NWR. The flow of Beaver Creek is 

much shorter lived on the Refuge than Camas Creek, and usually only provides two to four weeks of 

measurable flow. Today, Beaver Creek will remain dry far to the north of Dubois. 

Camas Creek 

The hydrologic characteristics of Camas Creek are even more complex and diverse than those of 

Beaver Creek. The upper eastern edge of the watershed (the southern slopes of the Centennial Range) 

is the source of flow to Camas Creek and, like Beaver Creek, flows are principally spring runoff and 

precipitation driven. A number of streams drain the mountains and form a spider web of drainages 

and ephemeral creeks that flow through an area referred to as the Camas Meadows, which extends 

from Kilgore to Eighteenmile. Some of the major tributaries are East and West Camas Creeks, Dry 

Creek, Ching Creek, Cottonwood Creek and Crooked Creek. Near Eighteenmile, below the wetlands, 

all of the streams converge to form what is considered the headwaters of Camas Creek. Here the 

basin narrows, forming a lava canyon. This canyon extends to a point a few miles above the Refuge’s 

northern boundary. Below the canyon the creek flows over sand and gravel, and eventually through 

Camas NWR (for approximately 8 miles) to Rays Lake, where lava crops out in some places. From 

Rays Lake the creek flows to Mud Lake over sand and clay where surface flow terminates (Stearns et 

al. 1939:44). 

Camas Creek receives a very large volume of water from the upstream tributaries and flow is 

sustained in the upper reaches of the creek year round, to the point where land use changes from 

rangeland to irrigated agriculture and several major water diversion structures remove the surface 
Cama

3-24 

water. Th

meaning 

infiltratio

Below Ca

sustained

groundwa

Refuge’s 

But when

The main

of 160 to 

Monthly 

that most

Refuge an

ponds we

normal to

round flo

with year

while in t

Camas Cr

typically 

short as 2

the period

or even in

from subs

flows, to 

as National Wi

he entire leng

that streamfl

on. This is ch

amas, Camas

d in this reach

ater table and

Annual Narr

n Camas Cree

n channel of C

180 cubic fe

flows from th

t of the flow i

Figur

13112

From C

nnual narrati

ere filled. Bet

o over 250 pe

ws) and 1 M

r round flows

the drought y

reek flows ha

last about 2 m

2 weeks. Tim

d of record h

ncreased (US

surface flow)

not at all. 

ildlife Refuge D

gth of Camas 

low is natural

aracteristic o

s Creek does 

h. In the past,

d assisted by 

ratives descri

ek was not fl

Camas Creek

eet per second

he USGS gag

in this reach 

re 3.5. Avera

200, Camas 

Camas NWR W

ves record hi

tween 1941 a

ercent norma

May, and cease

s). In the exce

year of 2004 

ave typically

months, but c

me series data 

as increased,

SFWS 2011).

) has been ex

Draft Compreh

Creek is a lo

lly lost from 

of many of th

receive an an

, surface flow

artesian spri

ibe the refuge

lowing, in mo

k,where it ent

d (cfs). Extre

ging station (

occurs in Ap

age monthly

Creek near

RIA [USFWS 2

ighly variabl

and 2009, sno

l. Camas Cre

es flowing be

eptionally we

it flowed for

y started in M

can persist fo

from the US

, the number 

 Refuge data

xtremely vari

hensive Conser

osing reach th

the stream c

he streams in 

nnual spring 

ws in the cree

ings or flowin

e portion of C

ost years slac

ters the Refu

eme events e

(No. 1311200

pril, May, and

y streamflow

Camas, ID.

011] Fig. 5. 

e dates for C

owpack reco

eek starts run

etween May 

et years of 19

r only four w

March or Apri

or as long as 

SGS gage sho

of years with

a (Table 3.4) 

iable, as well

rvation Plan an

hrough the po

channel to the

this part of t

flush; howev

ek’s lower re

ng wells that

Camas Creek

ck water wou

uge, is subjec

stimated at, o

0), 1 mile no

d June (Figur

w at USGS S

.

Camas Creek 

orded ranged 

nning betwee

5 (1992, 200

982 through 

eeks (Table 3

il and ceased

4 months an

ow that while

h zero flow i

indicate that

l. Ponds filled

nd Environmen

Chapter 3. Ph

orous basalt 

e groundwate

the State. 

ver, continuo

ach were sup

t dotted the la

k as “intermit

uld fill the ch

ct to estimate

or above, 200

orth of the Re

re 3.5). 

Station No. 

flow, and da

from less tha

en 1 January (

04) and Dece

1984 it flow

3.4). During 

 in June or Ju

nd have been 

e the total ann

in August has

t “subbing” (p

d within two

ntal Assessmen

hysical Enviro

streambed, 

er system thr

ous flows are

pported by a 

andscape. Th

ttent” since 1

hannel. 

d average flo

0 cfs can occ

efuge, indicat

ates by which

an 50 percent

(years with y

ember 31 (in 

ed year roun

the last deca

uly. Spring fl

reported to b

nual flow ov

s remained e

ponds filling

 weeks after 

nt

onment

rough 

e not 

high 

he 

1937. 

ows 

cur. 

te 

h

t

year 

years 

nd, 

ade, 

lows 

be as 

ver 

qual 

g

first 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-25 

Table 3.4. Camas Creek Flow Dates from Camas NWR, 1941-2009 

Year Camas Creek 

Flow Begins Ponds Full Camas Creek Stops Flowing 

1941 03/18 04/30 

1942 04/01 05/01 

1943 03/26 

1944 04/03 05/15 

1945 03/13 04/30 

1946 04/30 

1947 04/01 

1948 07/12 

1949 04/09 04/24 

1950 04/02 04/15 

1951 

1952 05/01 

1953 

1954 04/01 04/21 

1955 

1956 

1957 03/15 05/15 

1958 04/01 04/30 

1959 

1960 03/15 04/01 

1961 04/08 

1962 

1963 04/04 

1964 04/19 

1965 04/15 

1966 04/15 

1967 09/03 

1968 05/01 

1969 04/07 

1970 

1971 

1972 

1973 

1974 

1975 

1976 

1977 

1978 

1979 04/11 

1980 04/18 

1981 02/19 

1982 02/01 

1983 01/01 12/31 

1984 01/01 11/01 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

 

3-26 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

Table 3.4. Camas Creek Flow Dates from Camas NWR, 1941-2009 

Year Camas Creek 

Flow Begins Ponds Full Camas Creek Stops Flowing 

1985 01/01 07/18 

1986 03/06 07/14 

1987 04/10 06/01 

1988 06/08 

1989 06/29 

1990 06/23 

1991 06/16 

1992 05/05 

1993 07/12 

1994 04/17 05/25 

1995 03/12 08/15 

1996 02/20 07/15 

1997 01/08 08/31 

1998 01/30 10/12 

1999 01/01 12/20 

2000 02/01 08/14 

2001 04/03 06/24 

2002 04/15 06/20 

2003 04/14 07/05 

2004 04/05 05/05 

2005 04/18 07/15 

2006 03/07 08/09 

2007 03/09 06/21 

2008 04/30 07/07 

2009 04/15 07/22 

Further downstream, just below the Refuge, groundwater is pumped into the dry Camas Creek 

channel to provide water for irrigation. The system of groundwater wells is known as the “Owsley 

Wells” and is responsible for providing the water that sustains Mud Lake. 

Surface erosion from upstream agriculture and grazing has led to sediment transport and deposition 

within Camas Creek. Over the years, the sediment deposits have been removed from Camas Creek 

with the spoils placed adjacent to the channel, further confining natural channel flow and function. 

The spoils create levees prevent natural channel-floodplain interactions. Additionally, lowering of the 

channel elevation in Camas Creek hastens the drainage of Rays Lake to Camas Creek, reducing the 

Refuge’s ability to retain water for habitat in the lake. 

3.3.5 Canals and Drainage Ditches 

An extensive system of canals, ditches and water control structures is used to move water from the 

points of diversion (either wells or surface water) to the places of use. Approximately 13.2 miles of 

canals and ditches are present and indicated on Map 9. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-27 

Two of the ditches on the Refuge are privately owned. The Independent Ditch flows through the 

Refuge and is operated by the Independent Water Users of Mud Lake, Inc. Water from the 

Independent Ditch eventually flows into the Camas Creek channel as it nears what is now the Mud 

Lake State Wildlife Area. Jacket Ditch starts at a well on private land, flows through the Refuge and 

eventually ties into Independent Ditch, supplying water for downstream irrigators. Jacket Ditch is 

managed by the Mud Lake Water Users, Inc. A summary of ditches on Camas Refuge can be found in 

Appendix A, Table 6 of the Water Resources Inventory and Assessment (USFWS 2011). 

3.3.6 Lakes and Ponds 

The existing complex of wetlands, ponds, and wet meadows is maintained through water 

management. Water is intensively managed on this Refuge through a series of dikes, canals, 

diversions, well pumps, and water control structures. Inflows, outflows, and water levels in most of 

the major wetlands and ponds on the Refuge are regulated. Inflows come from the surface water 

streams, groundwater wells, and direct precipitation and runoff, although with less than 10 inches of 

rainfall annually, precipitation inputs are limited. Evapotranspiration has not been measured on the 

Refuge but can be estimated to be about 3 feet per year, based on ET data and maps from IDWR. 

Map 9 (above) shows NWI wetlands, and flow to and from these wetlands via canals and natural 

water courses. 

The total wetland area for the Refuge, from NWI, is estimated to be 6,324 acres, which constitutes 60 

percent of the total Refuge. This includes the Refuge’s meadow management units, which are 

temporarily flooded and contain a mixture of native wet meadow vegetation and non-native lowland 

vegetation (see Chapter 4). 

The total surface area of all ponds (wetland basins) on the Refuge is 2,844 acres, which is 

approximately one quarter of the total area of Refuge (Table 3.5). These are all modified basins, 

where an effort was made to create a more permanent, that is deeper, marsh through structural means, 

including provision of additional water. Supplemental water is, or was supplied to these wetlands 

through three methods, either singly or in combination: well water through delivery ditches, Camas 

Creek water via delivery ditches, and Camas Creek flood flows. 595 acres of these modified wetlands 

(25 percent of total managed wetlands) have been placed in “inactive” status because there is no 

longer adequate water for hydration, the water delivery system is no longer functional, or both. Most 

have been dry for the majority of the past 30 years, but those that connect to Camas Creek may 

occasionally become hydrated due to early season stream overflow, or flooding. Table 3.5 below 

presents data on the Refuge’s active and inactive modified wetland basins. 

Due to decline of the local aquifer, and degradation of streamflows before and since refuge 

establishment, both the number and total acreage of refuge wetlands that can reliably be hydrated in 

any given year has precipitously dropped over the past 30 years. Therefore the Refuge prioritizes 

“core” wetland units for management. These wetlands exhibit a combination of high wildlife values 

and the ability to deliver adequate water to most of them on a yearly basis. Water sources for the core 

wetlands include both Camas Creek and well water via irrigation ditches. Currently, the following 

Camas NWR wetlands are considered “core wetlands:” Big Pond, Redhead Pond, Center Pond, TwoWay, and Toomey. Due to the infrastructure of the Camas NWR water delivery (ditch) system for 

both surface and subsurface water to ponds, water has to cross at least one other pond before arriving 

at the target wetland; this reduces management flexibility in terms of being able to either dewater 

some ponds in the upstream portion of the delivery system, or to efficiently deliver water to ponds on 

the downstream end of the system. During periods of water shortage, the core wetlands (677 acres 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

 

3-28 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

total) may be the only basins to receive any substantial amount of water. Ray’s Lake, which receives 

water from Camas Creek, is typically drawn down every year for irrigation by downstream water 

rights holders. However in very wet years it may fill enough to backflow into Cattail Flat, Sandhole 

Lake, and Mallard Slough. Cattail Flat and Mallard Slough dry out by summer in most years. 

Sandhole Lake is unconnected to the main water delivery system. It rarely goes dry, and is the only 

refuge wetland that can subsist entirely on its own water supply in most years. 
@?

@?

@?

@?

@?

""

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

""

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

" """

""

"

"

"

""

"

@?

"

"

@?

Road

West Marsh

Pond Road

Center

Loop Road Pond

Westsid

Sandhole Lake

Two-Way

c Ar et nu H Rssec dao

Loop Road

Rays Lake Canal

nI de ep

dn ent

Eastside Canal/Ditch

Camas Creek

Camas Creek

Warm Creek

Rays Lake

Center Pond

Mallard 

Slough

Sandhole Lake

Pintail Pond

Owsley Wells

Cattail Flat

Big Pond

West 

Marsh

Flat Pond

Moose 

Pond

Redhead 

Pond

Spring Pond

Two-way 

Pond

Toomey 2

Ruddy 

Pond

Avocet 

Pond

Toomey 

Pond

Brindley 

Pond

Rat Farm 

Pond

Spring 

Pond 2

Goose Pond

Rays Lake 2

Jack t e Di ct h

Ditch

Map Date: 2/3/2012 File: Map6_CMS_FlowMap.mxd

Data Source: USGS 1:24,000 National Hydrography Dataset, WRIA-RLGIS geodatabase, 2009 Idaho NAIP.

@? Well

" Water Control Structure Streams/Ditches/Canals

Additional Flow 

Direction Information

Lakes/Ponds E 0 0.5 1

Miles

0 0.5 1

Kilometers

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3-29
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Ass

3-30 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-31 

Table 3.5 Acreage of Lakes, Ponds, and Impoundments in the Camas National Wildlife 

Refuge 

Name Acres Water Source 

Hydrated (Active) wetlands

Avocet Pond 40.91 

Big Pond (Core wetland) 113.59 Camas Creek and well water via ditches 

Brindley Pond 39.49 Camas Creek and well water via ditches 

Cattail Flat 167.22 Sandhole Lake; in wet years, reverse flow 

from Ray’s Lake. 

Center Pond (Core wetland) 329.00 Camas Creek and well water (Wells 4,5,6) via 

ditches 

Mallard Slough 335.59 Spring runoff, well water pumped through 

Sandhole Lake, runoff from Sandhole Lake in 

wet years 

Ray’s Lake 615.40 

13.26 (part) 

Camas Creek 

Redhead Pond (Core wetland) 67.96 Camas Creek and well water via ditches 

Sandhole Lake 254.04 Spring runoff from adjacent uplands and 

groundwater influx. In wet years, reverse flow 

from Ray’s Lake. 

Spring Pond 75.13 

31.08 (part) 

Camas Creek and well water (Well 8) via 

ditches 

Toomey Pond (Core wetland) 43.18 

59.60 (part) 

Camas Creek and well water via ditches 

Two-Way Pond (Core wetland) 63.74 Camas Creek water via ditches 

Total Active Modified Wetlands 2,249.19 

Inactive modified wetlands 

Flat Pond 59.13 Camas Creek and well water via ditches 

Goose Pond 17.64 Camas Creek and well water via ditches 

Moose Pond 98.62 Camas Creek and well water via ditches; 

overflow from Camas Creek 

Pintail Pond 192.28 Camas Creek and well water via ditches; 

overflow from Camas Creek 

Rat Farm Pond 42.76 Camas Creek and well water via ditches 

Ruddy Pond 46.68 Camas Creek and well water via ditches; 

overflow from Camas Creek 

West Marsh 77.14 Camas Creek and well water via ditches 

Unnamed lakes/ponds (Incl NW#1,2) 61.00 Overflow from Camas Creek during flood 

stage 

Total Inactive Modified Wetlands 595.42 

Total Modified Wetlands 2,844.61 

Note: Named ponds were derived from USGS National Elevation Dataset (NED) by refuge staff. 

Unnamed ponds are from the USGS 1:24,000 National Hydrography Dataset. 

Source: Adapted from Camas WRIA, USFWS 2011.
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

 

3-32 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

3.3.7 Water Rights 

Idaho Water Law/Water Rights 

A water right is required in the State of Idaho to divert, store, pump or generally use water. Water use 

must be measured and recorded in order to maintain the water right. Idaho water law, like many 

western states, is based on the doctrine of prior appropriation, or “first in time - first in right.” The 

Idaho Water Code explicitly states that all waters of Idaho are public property, and a water right is a 

usufructuary right. Beneficial use is the measure and limit of a water right in Idaho. The State 

recognizes fish propagation, wildlife, and water quality control as beneficial uses. A diversion is 

generally required to establish a water right in Idaho. The Idaho Water Resources Board is the only 

entity authorized to appropriate rights for minimum instream flows, without diversions. In general, 

surface water rights on the Snake River and tributaries were developed before water rights for 

irrigation wells. Consequently, groundwater pumping rights for irrigation are typically junior to 

surface water rights. Idaho’s conjunctive management rules hold junior groundwater users (excluding 

domestic use) partially responsible for spring and river depletion that potentially results in injury to 

senior surface water right holders. 

In general, stream adjudication is a legal proceeding to inventory the water rights of an entire stream 

system by deciding their nature, extent and priority. Adjudications in Idaho involve both surface 

water and groundwater. The Snake River Basin Adjudication is an ongoing, general stream 

adjudication that began in 1987. It is one of the largest general adjudications in the country. 

Geographically, it involves 38 of the 44 counties in Idaho and accounts for about 87 percent of the 

State’s water rights. 

The Snake River Basin Adjudication will eventually determine the quantity, priority date and source 

of every water right in the Snake River Basin in Idaho. The Service has filed a number of water right 

claims and has been actively participating in this adjudication. In July 2002 the Snake River Basin 

Adjudication court issued partial decrees for both groundwater and surface water rights in Water 

District 31, which includes the Camas Refuge. The partial decree is one step forward toward a final 

decision in the adjudication process. In February 2007, the director of the IDWR filed its final report 

with the Snake River Basin Adjudication (SRBA) District Court. The director’s report contains a 

preliminary determination for the majority of remaining water rights in the Snake River Basin. 

A final decree will be issued once all the decrees in the Snake River Adjudication have been issued. 

The final decree will confirm and define each water right in the basin. 

Camas Refuge Water Rights 

Table 3.6a below, from the Camas NWR Water Resources Inventory and Assessment (USFWS 2011) 

contains a summary of certificated water rights on the Refuge. These include decreed rights (Camas 

Creek), groundwater rights, and appropriative rights (Camas Creek). The Water Management Plan for 

Camas NWR (Deutscher 2003) contains additional details about period of use, rate of diversion and 

diversion period for Camas NWR water rights. Map 10 (page 3-35) depicts current Camas water 

rights. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-33 

Table 3.6a. Certificated Water Rights held by Camas NWR

FWS 

Number

Certificate 

Number

Type of Use Priority Date Water Source

1 31-00269 Wildlife 4/1/1883 Camas Creek 

2 31-00270 Wildlife 4/1/1884 Camas Creek 

3 31-00271 Wildlife 4/1/1885 Camas Creek 

4 31-00272 Wildlife 4/1/1886 Camas Creek 

5 31-00273 Wildlife 4/1/1895 Camas Creek 

6 31-00274 Wildlife 4/1/1883 Camas Creek 

7 31-00275 Wildlife 4/1/1887 Camas Creek 

8 31-00276 Wildlife 4/1/1883 Camas Creek 

9 31-00277 Wildlife 4/1/1884 Camas Creek 

10 31-00278 Wildlife 4/1/1885 Camas Creek 

11 31-00279 Wildlife 4/1/1887 Camas Creek 

12 31-00280 Wildlife 4/1/1895 Camas Creek 

13 31-00281 Wildlife 7/30/1903 Camas Creek 

14 31-00282 Wildlife 8/25/1902 Camas Creek 

15 31-00283 Wildlife 3/23/1909 Camas Creek 

16 31-00284 Wildlife 5/26/1911 Camas Creek 

17 31-00231 Wildlife 4/1/1916 Unnamed Slough/Springs and 

Seeps 

19 31-02251 Irrigation 11/4/1931 Groundwater 

20 31-02322 Wildlife 5/9/1953 Groundwater 

21 31-02350 Wildlife 10/20/1955 Groundwater 

22 31-02362 Wildlife 5/13/1957 Groundwater 

23 31-02363 Wildlife 5/13/1957 Groundwater 

24 1-04016 Irrigation 6/15/1955 Groundwater 

25 31-04066 Domestic 11/12/1936 Groundwater 

25 31-04066 Irrigation 11/12/1936 Groundwater 

26 31-07301 Wildlife 6/2/1978 Groundwater 

975 31-11229 Wildlife 11/5/1957 Groundwater 

1026 31-11230 Wildlife 3/20/1962 Groundwater 

1027 31-11232 Wildlife 5/7/1962 Groundwater 

1028 31-11231 Wildlife 5/7/1962 Groundwater 

1029 31-11668 Wildlife 3/30/1941 Camas Creek 

1030 31-11233 Domestic 1/1/1931 Groundwater 

1031 31-11234 Domestic 1/1/1920 Groundwater 

1031 31-11234 Livestock 1/1/1920 Groundwater
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

 

3-34 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

Table 3.6b. Privately Held Water Rights Located on Inholdings Within the Camas 

NWR

Status of Right Certificate 

Number 

Type of Use Priority Date Water Source 

1172 Certificate 31-10373 Domestic 1/1/1948 Groundwater 

1172 Certificate 31-10373 Livestock 1/1/1948 Groundwater 

1173 Certificate 31-12074 Irrigation 1/21/1981 Groundwater 

1174 Certificate 31-12075 Irrigation 1/21/1981 Groundwater 

1175 Certificate 31-11328 Domestic 5/1/1965 Groundwater 

Table 3.6c. Privately Held Water Rights with a POD Inside the Acquired Boundary at 

Rays Lake, and a POU Outside of the Approved Boundary for Camas NWR

Status of Right Certificate 

Number 

Type of Use Priority Date Water Source 

1169 Certificate 31-10499 Irrigation 9/5/1912 Rays Lake 

1170 Certificate 31-00262 Irrigation 1/27/1914 Rays Lake 

1171 Certificate 31-00267 Irrigation 8/10/1917 Rays Lake 

 
Ground Water Rights

Map 10. Camas NWR - Water Rights

Point of Diversion

31-02350, 31-11230

31-02362, 31-11231 

31-2363, 31-11232

31-02251

31-02322, 31-11229

31-04016

31-04066

31-11233

31-11234

31-07301

Place of Use

Decreed Rights (Camas Creek)

Point of Diversion

31-11668

31-00269

31-00270

31-00271

31-00272

31-00273

31-00274

31-00275

31-00276

31-00277

31-00278

31-00279

31-00280

31-00281

31-00282

31-00283

31-00284

Place of Use

Appropriative Rights (Camas Creek)

Place of Use

31-10499

31-00262, 31-00267 

Point of Diversion

31-00231

Map Date: 11/08/2011 File: Map11_CMS_WaterRights.mxd

Data Source: USGS 1:24,000 National Hydrography Dataset, USFWS Water Rights Database, Idaho Department of Water Resources Water Rights GIS.

______________________________________________________________________________________________ Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 3-35
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

 

3-36 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

This page intentionally left blank. 

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-37 

3.4 Topography and Bathymetry 

Camas NWR lies within Jefferson County, ID, which is noted as one of the most uniformly level 

counties in Idaho (Jorgensen 1979). The Refuge sits at an elevation of 4,800 feet above mean sea 

level, with a low point of 4,784 feet being found in Rays Lake. Conversely the high spot is 4,850 

feet, just west of the refuge boundary. This gently rolling topography historically provided islands of 

sage brush habitat intermixed with wetland meadows. Much of the Camas region consists of low, 

southwest-northeast-trending ridges and depressions (lineaments) created by windblown sand and 

silt, that are visible on aerial and landsat imagery (see sections 3.5 and 3.6 below). 

3.5 Geology and Geomorphology 

3.5.1 Physical Setting 

Camas NWR lies on the northern end of the ESRP, the easternmost extension of the Columbia 

Intermontane Physiographic Province. The ESRP is an east-northeast-trending, 600-km-long (373-

mi-long), 100-km-wide (62-mi-wide) topographic depression extending from Twin Falls to Ashton, 

Idaho (Hughes et al. 1999). The northern margin of the ESRP is bounded by the Beaverhead, 

Centennial, and Henry’s Lake mountain ranges of the Northern Rocky Mountain Physiographic 

Province. On the eastern and southeastern margin of the ESRP lie the Teton, Caribou, and Snake 

River ranges of the Middle Rocky Mountain Physiographic Province. On the west and northwestern 

margin lie the Pioneer, Big Lost, and Lemhi ranges of the Basin and Range Physiographic Province 

(BLM 2009). 

Topography and drainage in the ESRP reflect interactions of a mantle plume (an upwelling of 

abnormally hot rock) with the crust of the North American tectonic plate. Beginning about 16 million 

years ago (Ma) and continuing to the present, the plate has moved progressively over the plume, 

causing uplift and rhyolitic caldera eruptions followed by subsidence and basaltic volcanism. As a 

result, the ESRP slopes to the southwest, away from the present location of the plume beneath the 

Yellowstone Plateau. The ESRP is divided into north and south segments by a cluster of large shield 

volcanoes, lava flows and rhyolitic domes. This topographic feature is called the axial volcanic high 

(Phillips 2012). 

3.5.2 Geology and Geomorphology 

The mountain ranges of the Northern and Middle Rocky Mountain Physiographic Provinces are part 

of the zone of structurally disturbed strata that form a mountain system that extends from northern 

Alaska to Central America. The mountains along the eastern and northern edge of the ESRP include 

metamorphic and sedimentary rock sequences that range in age from Precambrian to Mesozoic and 

have been uplifted, faulted, and folded. The mountains of the Basin and Range Physiographic 

Province are typical of the north-south-trending ranges that resulted from the stretching and thinning 

of the Earth’s crust in the western U.S. These ranges consist of Tertiary lava flows and interbedded 

pyroclastic rocks as well as Paleozoic sedimentary rocks, which have also been faulted and folded, 

and in some areas, hydrothermally altered (BLM 2009). 

The volcanic rocks of the ESRP consist of a sequence of rhyolite flows capped by undissected 

Quaternary basalt flows that have a thickness of 5,000 to 6,000 feet. Quaternary deposits that cover 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

 

3-38 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

the basalts consist of stream terrace and channel deposits as well as flood plain deposits and 

windblown sediments (BLM 2009). 

Basaltic shields on the ESRP topographically control the deposition of younger sediments and lavas 

(Hughes et al. 1999). Modern sediments are distributed on the ESRP largely in eolian (wind-driven), 

lacustrine (playa-like sinks) and fluvial (river) depositional systems (e.g., Geslin et al. 1999; 

Gianniny et al. 1997; Hackett and Smith 1992; Kuntz et al. 1992, 1994). Playa sediments are clayrich silt and fines and mixtures of eolian and stream-borne material. Fluvial sediments are mostly 

coarser sand, pebbles and cobbles. North of the axial volcanic zone that runs through the middle of 

the ESRP, they are derived from the Big Lost River, Little Lost River, and Birch Creek drainages 

with outlets on the Idaho National Laboratory (INL). Loess and eolian sand also covers most preHolocene surfaces and occurs as layers between lava flow groups in the subsurface (BLM 2009). 

Rocks of Mesozoic and Paleozoic age crop out in the mountains adjacent to the Mud Lake plain. 

Limestone, shale, sandstone, and conglomerate of Carboniferous and Cretaceous age are present in 

the Beaverhead and Centennial Mountains. These ancient rocks are highly cemented and deformed 

and thus nearly impermeable (Idaho Dept. of Reclamation 1969). 

Rhyolite and associated volcanic rocks of late Tertiary age outcrop along the mountain front to the 

north and east of the Mud Lake plain. These rocks are generally light colored, fragmental rhyolite 

and welded ash flows. Basalt overlies the rhyolite at several locations. The total thickness of the 

Tertiary volcanic rocks is unknown but probably exceeds 2,000 feet. Sedimentary rocks of possibly 

Pliocene age overlie the older Tertiary volcanic rocks along the mountain front. These deposits have 

an exposed thickness of approximately 500 feet and represent ancient alluvial fans (Idaho Dept. of 

Reclamation 1969). 

The Mud Lake plain is underlain by large volumes of Quaternary volcanic rocks. These rocks are 

predominantly basalt with a few flows of andesite. The sources of these rocks were innumerable 

volcanic cones and fissures. Remnants of some of these vents now form small hills on the plain. 

Differences in erosion of various craters and numerous sedimentary interbeds indicate that the 

eruptions took place intermittently over a long period of time. The basalts, extruded as thin, low 

viscosity flows, are highly jointed and have cavernous, slaggy contacts. These features, in 

combination with lava tubes and blisters, provide openings for groundwater flow beneath the Mud 

Lake plain. Groundwater moves almost unimpeded through these rocks, and yields to wells of 4,500 

gpm (gallons per minute) with little drawdown were common in the 1960s (Idaho Dept. of 

Reclamation 1969). 

Recent lakebed deposits of sand, clay, and silt are present near Mud Lake. These sediments were 

deposited in a shallow lake formed during the Ice Ages, when ancient creeks to the north discharged 

into a structural depression. This lake, Lake Terreton, covered approximately 140 square miles in its 

highest stage. Numerous angular lava boulders, present in the lake sediments, were presumably 

rafted from shore by ice during the winter months. The lake sediments, which interfinger with the 

younger basalt flows, act more as confining beds than aquifers. The relatively high water table in the 

Mud Lake area is a result of the low permeability of these sediments. Extensive deltas were formed 

where creeks flowed into ancient Lake Terreton. These deposits, consisting primarily of sand and 

gravel, are located along the northern edge of the lake beds. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-39 

Alluvium of both Pleistocene and Holocene age is present along the major stream valleys and along 

the hill front as broad coalescing fans. These fans generally consist of detritus from older 

sedimentary rocks washed down from the mountains. 

3.5.3 Geologic History 

Several major late Tertiary geologic events are important to the formation of the ESRP. These 

include: (1) time-transgressive Miocene-Pliocene rhyolitic volcanism associated with the track of the 

Yellowstone hotspot, (2) Miocene to Recent crustal extension which produced the Basin-and-Range 

province, (3) Quaternary outpourings of basaltic lavas and construction of coalescent shield 

volcanoes, and (4) Quaternary glaciation and associated eolian, fluvial, and lacustrine sedimentation 

and catastrophic flooding (Hughes et al. 1999). 

Yellowstone Hotspot 

The most widely accepted hypothesis is that the ESRP was formed above a hotspot track created by 

the passage of the North American plate southwestward over a stationary mantle plume (Hughes et 

al. 1999). Along this track, a series of explosive, rhyolitic caldera eruptions occurred in Miocene and 

Pliocene times and represent some of the largest eruptions known. Rhyolitic volcanism associated 

with this postulated thermal plume began about 16.1 million years ago at the McDermitt volcanic 

field in northern Nevada and southeastern Oregon, progressed northeastward forming the ESRP, and 

arrived at the present position of the Yellowstone Plateau about 2 million years ago (Pierce and 

Morgan 1992). The Heise volcanic field, the second youngest of these fields, became active about 6.6 

million years ago. A series of four large-volume eruptions occurred in this field over approximately 2 

million years (Morgan and McIntosh 2005). Camas National Wildlife Refuge is located on the 

margin of the Heise volcanic field. 

As a result of these caldera eruptions, rhyolite is far more abundant than basalt in the ESRP. Here, 

only a relatively thin veneer of basalt lies over a thick sequence of rhyolitic ash and flow tuffs 

(Digital Atlas of Idaho 2012). However, the source calderas for the rhyolite are buried below the 

basalts, and exposures of these rhyolites tend to occur at the margins of the ESRP (Morgan and 

McIntosh 2005). These basaltic and rhyolitic lava flows have been measured by drilling to a depth of 

2.5 miles. One-half mile of basalt rests on more than two miles of rhyolite. 

Basalt Flows 

Overlying these Miocene-Pliocene rhyolites are much more recent basalts. Widespread basaltic 

volcanic activity occurred intermittently throughout the ESRP throughout Pleistocene and Holocene 

times. Basalts erupted from volcanic vents, as well as eruptive and non-eruptive fissure systems 

visible in and around some Holocene lava fields. These fissures occur mainly along the series of 

northwest-southeast-trending volcanic rift zones that occur on the ESRP. These eruptions were 

relatively small and short lived. Kuntz et al. (1992) estimate a meager magma output rate of 3.3 cubic 

km (0.79 cubic mi) per 1,000 years for the entire ESRP during the past 15,000 years. Most individual 

basalt flows in the upper part of the volcanic section are relatively thin, ranging from about 5 to 25 

meters (16.4 to 82 feet). 

The rift zones lie roughly parallel to Pioneer, Lost River, Lemhi, and Beaverhead ranges to the north, 

and may be extensions of northwest-trending, range-front faults of the Basin and Range Province. 

The Circular Butte-Kettle Buttes rift zone lies 12 miles southwest of the Refuge. The Lava-Ridge-
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

 

3-40 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

Hell’s Half Acre rift zone, a few miles to the west, created the Hell’s Half Acre lava field between 

Blackfoot and Idaho Falls. Craters of the Moon, which lies approximately 60 miles to the southeast 

of the Refuge, is the largest and most complex of the late Pleistocene and Holocene ESRP basaltic 

lava fields. Here, lavas erupted from the Great Rift, which extends about 5 miles across the Snake 

River Plain, covering about 1,600 square km (618 square mi) with about 30 cubic km (7.2 cubic mi) 

of basaltic and compositionally evolved lava flows. Eight eruptive periods occurred from 15,000 to 

2,100 years ago with quiescent intervals as long as 3,000 years (Kuntz et al. 1992). 

Standing out from this relatively flat basaltic plain are middle Pleistocene (300,000 to 1 million years 

old) rhyolite domes such as Big Southern Butte, 45 miles southwest of the Refuge, Middle Butte, and 

East Butte, About 300,000 years ago, the butte intruded through surrounding layers of basalt, rising 

to an elevation of 7,560 feet (2,300 meters). Other rhyolite domes include Middle Butte (less than 

1,000 ka) and East Butte (600 ka), which lie to the southwest of the Refuge. Rising more than 2,500 

feet (760 meters) from the plain, and with a base diameter of 6.5 kilometers (4.0 mi) and a combined 

volume of approximately 8 cubic kilometers (1.9 cu mi) (Haller and Wood 2004), Big Southern 

Butte is the largest rhyolite dome on the ESRP and one of the largest composite rhyolite domes in the 

world (INL 2012b). 

Tuff rings (tuff is a fine grained rock composed of volcanic ash) are uncommon on the ESRP and 

represent phreatic eruptions (eruptions into saturated ground beneath transient lakes or other regions 

with elevated water tables). For example, phreatic eruptions near Mud Lake produced mixed 

volcaniclastic deposits of sand, ash and juvenile scoria containing numerous accidental blocks of 

lacustrine sediment and older basalt. 

Recent Geologic History 

During the Pleistocene, a large ice sheet formed several times on the Yellowstone Plateau. Two 

periods of glaciation have been recognized and dated at Yellowstone: the Pinedale glaciation between 

14,000 and 25,000 years ago (14-25 ka); and the Bull Lake glaciation between about 140 and 150 ka. 

Small alpine glaciers also formed on the higher mountains northwest of the plain during these 

glaciations. During glacial periods the Snake River was the principal meltwater channel of the 

Yellowstone ice sheet. The river was transformed from a narrow, largely single-channel meandering 

stream into a huge braided stream with a floodplain 10 to 30 km wide (6.2-18.6 mi) (Phillips 2012). 

A shallow series of freshwater lakes, of which Lake Terreton was the largest, formed in areas of 

internal drainage during glacial periods. These lakes filled with fine-grained sediments that were 

reworked into eolian deposits when the lakes dried up. Throughout the region, alluvial fan 

sedimentation increased during these times, also bringing fine-grained sediment onto the plain 

(Phillips 2012). Lake Terreton dominated the northern reaches of the Pioneer Basin throughout most 

of the Pleistocene epoch (about 1.8 million to 10,000 years before present). The lake covered 140 

square miles at its highest stage at the end of the Pleistocene, about 13,000 years ago. During this 

time the region was cooler and wetter than it is today and local rivers had higher and more reliable 

flows. Camas and Beaver Creeks sustained an eastern subbasin of Lake Terreton, known today as 

Mud Lake. About 20 miles to the west, on lands now within the boundaries of the INL, Birch Creek 

and the Big and Little Lost Rivers fed a western subbasin of the Lake that was approximately 90 

square miles in extent (Braun et al. 2007; Gianniny et al. 2002). Over its long lifetime, Lake Terreton 

expanded and receded in response to wet and dry climate cycles during the Pleistocene. As a result, 

sediments deposited in the lakebed alternated between clay-rich lacustrine sediments and sandy 

fluvial and eolian (wind deposited) sediments (Geslin et al. 1999). When the climate became warmer 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-41 

and drier about 10,000 years ago, much of the lake dried up. Mud Lake is the modern remnant of 

Lake Terreton (INL 2012a). 

During the Pleistocene, extensive eolian deposition produced thick loess blankets on the ESRP and in 

adjacent areas of southeastern Idaho (Pierce et al. 1982). Although the ESRP was never glaciated, 

large amounts of sand and silt were brought onto the Plain by meltwaters from glaciers in 

surrounding highlands. These deposits were reworked and transported by the strong winds 

characteristic of glacial periods (Phillips 2012). 

Loess is widespread across the ESRP, reflecting multiple sources of fine-grained sediment. South of 

the axial volcanic high, the major source was outwash deposits along the Snake River. North of the 

axial volcanic high, including the Camas NWR area, alluvial fans and outwash from drainages with 

alpine glaciers were likely the most important loess sources. During Pleistocene glaciations, the 

Snake River probably operated like modern high latitude rivers with high discharge and flooding 

during spring-early summer meltout, and low discharge during winters when the glacial outwash 

system was largely frozen. Silt and clay on vegetation-free braid plains were exposed during winter 

to strong drying winds, which picked up and transported the deposits as loess. Loess accumulation 

diminished greatly at about 14 ka with retreat of the Yellowstone ice sheet and reduction of outwash 

stream and alluvial fan discharge. The Snake River became incised at Idaho Falls between 14.4 to 

12.6 ka, probably as a result of diminishing discharge. Stream incision greatly reduced the area of 

vegetation-free outwash deposits subject to deflation of fine sediments. Loess covers all Pleistocene 

lava flow surfaces but is thin on 17.4 ka Bonneville Flood deposits and almost absent on a 6 ka lava 

flow (Phillips 2012). 

Sand Dunes 

Sand dunes are widespread over most of the ESRP. Transport of sand to form dunes largely occurred 

after cessation of loess deposition and continues to the present day. The largest dunes are in the 

northern end of the plain near St. Anthony. Bonneville Flood deposits form the sand source for the 

dune field that extends over 110 km (68 mi) from near American Falls to near Idaho Falls. Dating of 

ESRP dunes with the optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) technique yields mostly Holocene 

ages, suggesting that regional droughts controlled periods of dune destabilization and movement 

(Phillips 2012). Today, severe dust and sand storms occur several times a year in the ESRP. These 

events occur at areas recently burned by wildfires and over plowed fields. 

Current Eolian Processes 

Eolian (wind-driven) processes, aided by range fires that denude large tracts of the ESRP, have 

continued to modify the landscape up to the present time. Numerous historic and prehistoric fire 

scars on the ESRP suggest a continuing process of eolian redistribution of loess following range fires. 

Prominent linear features (lineaments) on the ESRP, observed in landsat imagery and aerial 

photography, are the result of the redistribution of surface materials by wind following range fires 

(Morin-Jansen 1987 in Hughes et al. 1999). These lineaments are repeatedly formed and destroyed 

by range fires and wind. Range fires tend to have the same shapes and sizes in various parts of the 

plain, reflecting similar prevailing wind directions and fire dynamics. Over the long term, sediment is 

continually on the move in a down-wind direction (northeast). A sorting of the upper few centimeters 

to decimeters of soil may occur, with fine material being moved farther downwind and coarser 

material lagging behind (Hughes et al. 1999). Such lineaments are clearly visible on BLM lands to 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

 

3-42 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

the west of the Refuge, and are reflected in the Refuge’s soil types and vegetation as well (see 

Section 3.6, Soils). 

This process has been observed in action since the mid-1990s (Hughes et al. 1999). Range fires on 

and near the INL have provided real-time observations of wind-driven sediment redistribution on the 

ESRP. Since early 1994, nine range fires burned over 60,000 acres (95 square miles) of sage-steppe 

and grasslands. Ensuing dust storms whipped up by prevailing winds caused highway closures and 

shutdowns of work at some INL facilities. Measurements of soil erosion and estimates of removed 

material indicate that millions to tens of millions of cubic meters of fine-grained sediments had been 

mobilized. Under these conditions, very rapid development of new landforms and modification of 

existing landforms may occur. For example, within a few days of a 17,000-acre fire in the western 

part of the INL in 1994, a discontinuous dune, 20 km long (12.4 mi long), 1 meter (3.3 feet) high, and 

several meters wide, formed along the eastern (downwind) edge of the fire scar. A 2-meter-wide (6.6-

feet-wide) fissure along the east edge of the scar was filled with sediment after the first wind storm. 

In the eastern INL a 19,000-acre fire in 1996 burned an area that contained a prominent lineament, 

called the Principal Lineament, which was itself formed by eolian modification of a prehistoric fire 

scar (Morin-Jansen 1987). Aerial and surface monitoring of the new fire scar is tracking of the fate of 

the Principal Lineament and the potential development of new lineaments. 

3.5.4 Geologic Hazards 

Most earthquakes in Idaho occur along a belt of seismicity called the Intermountain Seismic Belt that 

extends from the northwest corner of Montana, along the Idaho-Wyoming border, through Utah, and 

into southern Nevada. Along most of its length, the Intermountain Seismic belt straddles the 

boundary between the extending Basin and Range Province to the west and more stable parts of 

North America to the east. In Idaho, the Yellowstone Hotspot has interacted with the Basin and 

Range to create a more complicated pattern of earthquakes and mountain building called the 

Yellowstone Tectonic Parabola. As a result, a major branch of the Intermountain Seismic Belt called 

the Central Idaho Seismic Zone extends from the Yellowstone area westward across central Idaho. 

This zone includes at least eight major active faults and has been the site of numerous earthquake 

swarms and seismic events, including the two largest historic earthquakes in the Intermountain West 

(Idaho Bureau of Homeland Security 2009). 

The State of Idaho does not currently operate an earthquake information center that compiles data 

collected from seismic networks in the State. The University of Utah Seismic Center in Salt Lake 

City, Utah, in cooperation with the USGS, operates an extensive seismic network throughout 

northern Utah, the mountain ranges of the Middle Rocky Mountain Physiographic province (the 

Teton, Caribou, and Snake River ranges), and the Yellowstone National Park area. The INL also 

operates a network of 27 seismic stations within and surrounding the INL. In addition, Brigham 

Young University (BYU)–Idaho, formerly Ricks College, has operated a seismic station for many 

years (BLM 2009). 

The historical earthquake record (since 1884) shows that the ESRP is seismically quiet, relative to the 

surrounding Basin and Range and Middle and Northern Rocky Mountain Physiographic Provinces 

(Idaho Bureau of Homeland Security 2009). Since the installation of the INL’s seismic network in 

1971, only 29 small magnitude microearthquakes (magnitude <1.5) have been detected within the 

ESRP (BLM 2009). 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-43 

In contrast, thousands of earthquakes have occurred in the mountain ranges surrounding the ESRP, 

which are part of the Intermountain Seismic Belt and the Central Idaho Seismic Zone. However, only 

two of these quakes, the August 18, 1959 magnitude 7.3 to 7.5 Hebgen Lake quake (also known as 

the Yellowstone Quake) in Montana and the October 28, 1983 magnitude 6.9 Borah Peak quake, 

centered around Challis, Idaho, are considered significant (BLM 2009; USGS 2012a). The Hebgen 

Lake quake, caused by simultaneous movement on two faults, the Red Canyon Fault and the Hebgen 

Fault, is the largest earthquake recorded in Montana (since May 1869) (USGS 2012a). The epicenter 

was just west of Yellowstone National Park. The Borah Peak quake is the largest recorded in Idaho. 

This quake occurred in the Lost River fault zone, located just east of the Long Valley fault zone. 

Spectacular surface faulting was associated with this earthquake: a 21-mile (34-km) long, northwesttrending zone of fresh scarps and ground breakage on the southwest slope of the Lost River Range 

(USGS 2012a). Both quakes occurred in the Central Idaho Seismic Zone. 

Unstable soils and areas of mass movement do exist in southeastern Idaho. However, most of these 

soils and areas of mass movement occur on the steeper slopes of the National Forest Service lands 

that surround the ESRP (BLM 2009). 

3.6 Soils 

Soils in the Refuge have formed in Pleistocene pro-glacial deposits delivered by water and wind. 

Some of the soils began as stratified lenses within former lakebeds and other soils formed in dunes. 

The soils in the Refuge range from excessively drained loamy sands developing in eolian deposits to 

very poorly drained silty clays and clay loams in the relict lakebeds. The eolian deposits are subject 

to wind and water erosion. Permeability of the soils varies greatly both across the surface of the 

landscape and within soil horizons below the surface. Throughout the Refuge, soils are deep to very 

deep and depths to the water table vary. Soil sampling by refuge staff has uncovered historic 

indications of a higher water table. Additional soil sampling will be conducted in the future to 

determine the prior extent of seasonal high water tables within the Refuge. 

Spatial and tabular soil data sets have been acquired for the Camas National Wildlife Refuge from 

USDA NRCS (Map 11, page 3-45). The major soil types of the Refuge are summarized in Table 3.7. 

These soils cover 74 percent of the refuge area. When the soil survey was made, 679 acres or 6 

percent of the refuge area were classified as water (NRCS 2008). 

As noted in Section 3.5 above, eolian (wind-driven) deposition of loess and sand has been an 

important process on the ESRP throughout the Pleistocene and Holocene periods. In recent times 

(both prehistorically and historically), removal and deposition of soils by prevailing southwesterly 

winds following fires has resulted in the formation of linear, southwest-northeast-trending features 

where higher dunes alternate with lower depressional areas. These “lineaments” can be seen clearly 

in aerial and landsat imagery. On the Refuge, this process has created alternating bands of sandier 

Grassy Butte soils and loamier Medano soils in upland areas, while lacustrine soils (fluvaquents, 

Levelton, Medano, and Psammaquents) dominate lowland areas. 

Soils are deep over much of the Refuge, but on the west side of the Refuge outcrops of basalts do 

occur. These outcrops are more prevalent on Table Butte, to the west of the Refuge. A small portion 

of the Refuge (approximately 50 acres) contains dunes (Zweifel sand), which are very prone to wind 

erosion (USFWS 2009). 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

 

3-44 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

Wind erosion is a significant concern in the refuge area. Both rangeland fires and agricultural 

practices that expose bare soil contribute to erosion in this region. In surrounding croplands, pasture, 

and CRP areas, wind erosion spiked at almost 10 tons per acre per year in 1987. Since then wind 

erosion has decreased to 5.5 tons per acre per year (Idaho NRCS 2007). 

Table 3.7. Major Soil Types of the Camas National Wildlife Refuge 

Soil Map Unit Acres within 

Refuge 

Percent of 

Acres 

Summary Soil 

Characteristics 

Grassy Butte – Medano complex 

This map unit consists of approximately 

60% or more Grassy Butte 

These soils are developing in eolian deposits 

on relict dunes and lake beds 

2,213 21% Deep to very deep 

Drainage class ranges 

from somewhat 

excessively to poorly 

drained 

Sands and loamy sands 

Non saline 

Fluvaquents, nearly level 1,870 17% Very deep 

Frequently ponded, very 

poorly drained 

Silty clay over very 

gravelly sand (or sandy 

loam) 

Slightly saline to 

strongly saline 

Levelton-Medano complex 

This map unit consists of approximately 

45% Levelton and 30% Medano soils. 

These soils are developing in lacustrine 

deposits in lake beds. The Levelton soils have 

an organic surface horizon. 

1,255 12% Deep to very deep 

Poorly drained 

Loamy sands to clay 

loams 

Non saline to very 

slightly saline 

Medano-Psammaquents complex 

This map unit consists of approximately 

80 % Medano and similar soils. 

These soils are developing in relict lakebeds. 

947 9% Very deep 

Poorly drained to very 

poorly drained 

Loamy sands 

Non saline to very 

slightly saline 

Grassy Butte loamy sand, 2 to 4 % slopes and 

Grassy Butte loamy sand, 2 to 20 % slopes. 

856 8% Very deep 

Somewhat excessively 

drained 

Sands and loamy sands 

Non saline 

Medano complex 

These soils are developing in relict lakebeds. 

727 7% Very deep 

Poorly drained 

Sandy loam over loamy 

sand 

Non saline to very 

slightly saline 
NRCS Soil Map Units of the Camas N

Map 11.

Map Date:11/2/2011 File: Map4_CMS_SoilMapUnits.mxd Data Source: USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey

37

29 104

60

32

36

32

36

81

36

81

36

36

73

31

82 29

34

93

56

36

34

34

29

56

121

127

29

36

82

56

31

32

30

60

36

110

81

121

34

82

36

82

36

60

127

36

24

54

30

32

82

81

60

93

31

128

108 127

82

32

36

32

36

36

36

32

81

82

121

56

32

81 36

30

36

32

36

30

29

32

108

30

81

31

82

32

127

127

29

29

82

82

108

93

56

36

93

127

70

32

121

127

36

82

127

108

30

127

60

32

36

127

126

127

36

60

30 30

60

29

29

81

30

82

30

36

81

127

81

29

32

81

54

81

127

82

36

108

32

121

121

107

107

60

30

121

36

121

30 121 121

127

121

121

30

121 121

121

121

121

121

121

121

121

121

121

121

121

121

121

121

121

121

121

121

121

121

121 121

121

121

121

121 121

121

121

121

121

E

0 2,500 5,000

Feet

0 500 1,000

Meters

Legen

Chapter 3. Physical Environment

______________________________________________________________________________________________

3-45
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

 

3-46 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-47 

3.6.1 Soil Drainage Classes 

Soil drainage classes refer to the frequency and duration of wet periods under conditions similar to 

those in which the soils developed. Natural soil drainage class is a function of water table, soil 

wetness, landscape position and soil morphology. Soil characteristics such as redoximorphic features 

indicate the depth and duration of seasonal saturation for the undisturbed soil. Alteration of the water 

regime by human activity does not affect drainage class unless the soil morphology has been 

changed. There are seven soil drainage classes recognized: very poorly drained, poorly drained, 

somewhat poorly drained, moderately well drained, well drained, somewhat excessively drained, and 

excessively drained. Soil drainage classes in the Camas National Wildlife Refuge are noted in Table 

3.7 above. There are few acres in the Refuge in the “moderate” drainage class. Soils are either poorly 

to very poorly drained, or well to somewhat excessively drained. Additionally, the soils in the 

watershed upstream of the Refuge are almost entirely in the “somewhat excessively drained” 

category. Water moves downward through these soils rapidly creating droughty surface conditions 

and the potential for groundwater recharge. Camas Creek is a losing reach in this section of the 

watershed. Water that is withdrawn from Camas Creek above the Refuge and applied as irrigation to 

these soils will not likely return to Camas Creek, but will slowly infiltrate to the deep aquifer below. 

A more detailed understanding of drainage class, soil permeability, soil horizons, and bedrock 

porosity will be key in efforts to conserve water and restore natural habitats on the Refuge. 

3.6.2 Water Movement Through Soil 

A quantitative measure of how easily water flows through soil is described by hydraulic conductivity. 

This depends on the permeability of the material and the degree of saturation. Saturated hydraulic 

conductivity varies across the landscape surface and through the depth of the soil by horizon. 

Saturated hydraulic conductivity classes are separated by a tenfold increase in magnitude. The higher 

the saturated hydraulic conductivity rating, the faster the rate at which water will flow through the 

soil. Soils on the Refuge vary from low to high saturated hydraulic conductivity classes. Below the 

surface, a rapidly conductive soil horizon may underlie a horizon of much lower conductivity, 

creating a feature similar to a drainage tile. Care must be taken when excavating or digging in stream 

channels or wetlands of the Refuge, since connecting these highly conductive soil horizons to surface 

water sources can lead to inadvertent drainage of wetlands or stream channels.

3.7 Fire 

3.7.1 Regional fire history 

Presettlement Fire History 

The cold-desert climate of the Snake River Plain, with its cold, wet winters and springs and dry, hot 

summers predisposed many sagebrush steppe communities to an evolutionary history with recurring 

fire. Estimates of fire return intervals for sagebrush steppe range from ca. 20 to 100 or more years 

(Houston 1973; Wright et al. 1979; Wright and Bailey 1982). Wright et al. (1979) surmised that the 

interval between fires must have been sufficiently long for Basin big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata 

var. tridentata), which does not resprout and must recolonize burned sites from seeds, to regain 

dominance; otherwise, the extensive areas dominated by sagebrush would have been dominated by 

root-sprouting shrubs such as horsebrush (Tetradymia canescens) or rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus 

viscidiflorus). Nevertheless, it is clear that fire played an important role in the evolution of many 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

 

3-48 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

plant species that constitute cold desert communities. The vast majority of shrubs and perennial 

grasses and forbs can survive wildfires, especially fires that occur in late summer or fall when many 

plants are dormant. Some species respond vigorously to postfire conditions (INL 2012c). 

Post-settlement Fire History 

Wildfire is currently a common hazard in the semiarid rangelands of southeast Idaho. The ESRP has 

a history of large, rapidly spreading wind-driven fires (5,000 to 10,000 acres). For example in 2006 

the Crystal Fire, the second largest wildfire documented in southeast Idaho since 1936, burned 

approximately 31 percent of the “Big Desert,” rangelands managed by the BLM in Southeast Idaho. 

The Crystal Fire burned approximately 220,000 acres/344 square miles (89,117 ha/890 square km) of 

grasslands and sagebrush between August 15 and August 31, 2006, and more than 40,000 acres 

(16,100 ha) burned in a single day (Chen et al. 2011; USGS 2012b). 

In the Great Basin, the invasive introduced annual cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) was introduced in 

the late 1800s and by the 1990s dominated 3 million acres, with another 14 million acres heavily 

infested and 60 million acres considered at risk for potential domination (Pellant and Hall 1994). 

Changes in fire regime in this habitat type due to invasion of cheatgrass are leading to conversion of 

sagebrush to annual grasses and demise of species dependent upon sagebrush. In more xeric 

sagebrush ecosystems, exotic annual grasses have become more dominant at the expense of native 

perennial species, and these annuals have shifted mean fire return intervals from more than 50 years 

to less than 10 years in some places (Whisenant 1990). 

However, the eastern portion of the Snake River Plain has largely escaped the cheatgrass dominance 

found in the western portions of the Plain and in northern Nevada. This may be because the ESRP 

differs climatically from most cheatgrass-invaded areas: winter temperatures are colder and there is 

more late spring precipitation (Perkins et al. 2012). 

At the same time, introduced annual grasses have become more common and fire frequencies on the 

ESRP have increased compared to historic levels. Fire frequencies and area burned per year have 

increased substantially in the recent decade in sagebrush steppe, to nearly 500 ha/year in some years 

(Sankey et al. 2008). Following wildfire, ground vegetation is typically eliminated, leaving the 

landscape devoid of vegetative cover. Sage-steppe and grassland communities frequently undergo a 

series of adverse ecological changes, such as soil erosion, invasion by introduced annual grasses 

(e.g., cheatgrass [Bromus tectorum] and Medusahead [Taeniatherum caput-medusae]), and long-term 

native species decline (Hilty et al. 2004; Pierson et al. 2002). 

Compounding the problems caused by cheatgrass and other invasive species in sagebrush 

ecosystems, a policy of total fire prevention evolved in the 20th century based on the premise that all 

fires were unnatural and therefore harmful. Fire exclusion was incorporated in Federal land 

management policies around the turn of the 20th century (Agee 1974; Kilgore 1976; Komarek 

1962a,b; Shinn 1977). 

3.7.2 Refuge Fire History 

Since Camas NWR was established in 1937, wildland fires have occurred infrequently. The Annual 

Narratives report only a handful of fires started by natural causes such as lightning. Fire suppression 

has been part of the Refuge’s management program since establishment, since the area around the 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-49 

Refuge contains numerous ranches and various outbuildings and the potential for costly property 

damage is possible during periods of extreme fire danger. 

Records at Camas NWR from 1962 to 2009 indicate 20 wildland fires occurred, burning 1,216 acres 

of the Refuge. Fourteen of these fires occurred between 1983 and 2009, burning 1,190 acres of the 

Refuge (Table 3.8 below). Of these fourteen fires, five were caused by lighting, one by burning on 

adjacent land, six by downed power lines or electrical shorts in irrigation pumps, and two were 

escaped prescribed fires. The largest, the Sandhole fire in 1987, caused by debris burning on adjacent 

private land, was 327 acres; the smallest involved one cottonwood tree. 

The Independence and Buck Springs fires were started by lightning that hit the Camas NWR area 

about 2:00AM on August 12, 2003. The Independence Fire was located on the southwest corner of 

the Refuge just west of the Independent Ditch. The fire burned a total of 136 acres, all on refuge land. 

The Buck Springs Fire was located on the west side of Camas NWR. This fire started in the West 

Marsh Unit and spread off-Refuge onto adjacent BLM ground. This fire burned a total of 251 acres, 

105 acres of which was refuge land. Fire crews arrived on the scene of the fires about 4:00 AM and 

successfully cut off potential spread of the fires into sage-steppe habitat to the west. The Buck 

Springs Fire was contained on August 13 and declared controlled on August 14. The Independent 

Fire was contained on August 13 and declared controlled on August 15 (USFWS 2003). 

Table 3.8. Wildland Fires at Camas NWR 1983-2009 

Date Fire Name Acres Cause 

04/23/87 Sandhole 327 Adjacent landowner burning 

09/06/90 Quarters #2 5 Equipment use (down power line) 

06/05/92 Well #7 1 Undetermined (electrical short in pump) 

08/28/92 Powerline 30 Equipment use (down power line) 

07/28/96 Rat Farm 115 Lightning strike 

08/01 Unknown 120 Downed power line 

2000 Camas 116 Lightning 

2003 Beaver Creek 2 Lightning 

08/12/2003 Buck Springs 251.9 (105 on 

Refuge) 

Lightning 

08/12/2003 Independence 136 Lightning 

2004 Power Line 0.1 

2007 Camas 7 Equipment use 

4/20/2009 Independent 

Wildfire 

55 Escaped prescribed fire (acres burned is in addition 

to prescribed fire treatment area) 

2009 Mallard Wildfire 171 Escaped prescribed fire 

Sources: Refuge data; USFWS 2001. 

Although the historical incidence of wildland fires at Camas NWR has been low, there is a potential 

for extreme fire situations both on the Refuge and along the north and western boundary of the 

Refuge. The fire risk at Camas NWR is considered moderate to high due to its location amid ranches, 

private dwellings, and refuge facilities. Private property borders two thirds of the Refuge; BLM land 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

 

3-50 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

borders the west side of the Refuge. Numerous private residences are located on the refuge boundary 

in the northeast section. The federally listed Community at Risk of Hamer, Idaho, borders the Refuge 

on the southeast side. 

BLM lands adjacent to the Refuge’s western boundary contain dense stands of sagebrush and grass. 

These areas are highly combustible during late summer and drought years due to low fuel moisture 

content. The adjoining lands along the east and south boundary are mostly irrigated cropland. The 

Refuge has numerous gravel and two-track roads which break up the vegetation continuity and act as 

firebreaks. Since the Refuge is relatively flat, elevation and aspect differences on the Refuge 

contribute little to fire behavior. Fire behavior on the Refuge is affected mostly by vegetative density 

and wind influences. Most fires tend to burn at slow to moderate speed unless gusty or strong winds 

are present. The exception would be fires in dense bulrush or cattail which could generate enough 

heat to produce their own localized wind conditions (USFWS 2001). 

The normal fire season for the Refuge is March to October. The majority of the fires have occurred in 

July and August. After snow melt in early spring Camas NWR can experience a short potential for 

fire starts before the vegetation greens up. During the drought year of 2007 Camas NWR vegetation 

did not green up, staying cured all summer. The vegetation usually cures out at Camas by the end of 

June or early July. Vegetation in emergent wetlands (e.g. bulrush) does not cure out until the end of 

September; however it may cure out earlier in drought years. Most of the Refuge (approximately 

9,948 of the Refuge’s 10,578 acres) is considered burnable. 

The vegetation/habitat types at Camas are broken down into the following (for more detail see 

Chapter 4): 

 Sagebrush/grassland: in climax stage, the site is dominated by Basin big sagebrush, 

arrowleaf balsamroot, Indian ricegrass, and needle- and-thread grass (Hesperostipa comata). 

Green rabbitbrush also occurs and represents the early seral stage of sage-steppe community. 

Approximately 1,200 acres has been seeded with crested wheatgrass. Knapweed and various 

other weed species are also present. 

 Wet Meadow: dominated by Baltic rush and various sedges. 

 Marsh: dominated by hardstem bulrush and broadleaf cattail. 

 Semiwet Meadow: dominated by saline tolerant plants such as inland saltgrass, alkali 

bluegrass and alkali sacaton. This habitat appears as narrow strips between the Wet Meadow 

and Marsh sites. 

 Riparian: dominated by narrow-leaf willow (also called sandbar or coyote willow); the 

majority of the willows are located adjacent to Rays Lake in the southern portion of the 

Refuge. A narrow band of willow grows along sections of Camas Creek. Cottonwood trees 

represent non-native shelterbelt vegetation and mostly grow in the refuge headquarters area 

bordering Camas Creek. 

Table 3.9. Fuel Model Composition for Camas NWR 

Habitat Type Fuel Model Acres in Fire 

Regime Class 

% of 

Refuge 

Sagebrush/grasslands (native and non-native) FM 2/6 3,633 acres 34% 

Wet Meadow FM 1 2,956 acres 28% 

Permanent and semipermanent wetlands FM 3 2,401 acres 23% 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-51 

Semiwet Meadow FM 1 853 acres 8% 

Riparian FM 4 105 acres 1% 

Open water/mud flats 630 acres 6% 

3.8 Environmental Contaminants 

In 2004 USFWS staff completed a Contaminants Assessment Process (CAP) for the Camas Refuge 

(Arena 2004). The CAP gathered existing information and made an initial assessment of 

contaminants of concern to fish and wildlife resources. The CAP reviewed literature, studies and 

internal USFWS reports relevant to the area surrounding the Refuge. The CAP considered both 

ground and surface water contamination. 

The INL is located approximately 12 miles from Camas Refuge. INL is owned by the U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE) and covers a total of 890 square miles. Since it began operation in 

1949, INL facilities produced environmental contaminants via groundwater injection wells, surface 

discharge of liquid effluents, and airborne emissions. 

Atmospheric mercury: In 2001, a study sponsored by the INL was undertaken on Sandhole Lake. The 

purpose of the study was to investigate sediment core samples from Sandhole Lake in order to 

reconstruct atmospheric mercury fallout trends from pre-INL times to the present. The impetus of this 

study was the operation of a thermal liquid waste treatment process (calciner) on the INL, which 

emitted 50 kg/yr Hg+2 to the atmosphere over a 36-year period (1964-2000). The sediment core 

studies indicated an increase of mercury over time. Results are inconclusive, however, as to where 

the mercury originated from. No obvious correlation was observed between local source flux over 

time and annual emissions from the INL calciner (Arena 2004). 

Agricultural runoff: Camas Creek receives surface water runoff and sediment input from upstream 

agricultural areas. Contaminants may be leached from soils used for agriculture and may be 

conveyed to the Refuge by Camas Creek. Some of the contaminants associated with agriculture 

runoff are known to cause adverse effects to fish and wildlife resources when present at elevated 

concentrations. One farm in particular (Larsen Farms), lies directly upstream of the Refuge. There 

are over 5,000 acres of potato, alfalfa, and wheat agricultural lands on Larsen Farms, over 1,600 

acres of which are permitted for application of wastewater from their potato processing plant. All 

discharge from the processing plant is applied via the wastewater application permit; there is no 

direct discharge into any of the surrounding creeks, all discharge is land applied. In addition, at least 

nine different chemicals are applied to the agriculture land, mostly during the summer months June 

through August. The method of chemical application varies, but includes ground application, aerial 

application, or chemigation (application through the irrigation system). Four of the nine chemicals 

being used on Larsen Farms (Discover, Quadris, Ridomil-Copper, and Baythroid) are considered 

highly toxic to aquatic organisms, and four (Discover, Sencor, Diquat/Reglone, Baythroid) are 

considered slightly to moderately toxic to birds/waterfowl (Arena 2004). Further investigation of 

agricultural runoff constituents would facilitate determination of whether concentrations present in 

Camas Creek, within the refuge boundary, are sufficient to pose a threat to fish and wildlife 

resources. 

Minimal water quality data for the Refuge exist. However, in an evaluation of contamination in 

Camas Creek from deposition of herbicides upstream (USFWS 2006), organic and inorganic test 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

 

3-52 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

results were non-significant. The only results above the detection limit were total nitrogen levels. All 

other organics and sediment and water samples were below the laboratory detection limits. 

3.9 Air Quality 

The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) monitors air and water quality at several 

locations around the State. Landowners burn irrigation ditches to reduce vegetation that can block 

water flows; sometimes they burn crop residue; and they regularly burn rubbish piles. Jefferson 

County is subject to temperature inversions when air movement is restricted, so poor air quality can 

be exacerbated at these times. Both agricultural burning and wildfires may impact Camas Refuge air 

quality during periods of low winds and stagnant air masses. Inversions occur intermittently 

throughout southeast Idaho, and may last for several weeks. There also are periods of stagnant air in 

the summer that may result in air quality alerts, typically when temperatures exceed 95 degrees 

(Arena 2004). 

By exposing soil, both agricultural practices and range fires contribute to dust storms in the area. 

These occur more often in spring prior to agriculture planting, and in late summer/fall after harvest. 

Wind erosion can be severe at these times and the problem can be compounded if farmers have 

burned their crop residue. Blowing soil and dust has been severe enough to close major roadways. 

During the summer, air quality can be adversely affected by the occasional dust storm and wildfires 

(BLM 2009). The prevailing wind direction on an annual basis in the Camas Refuge area is from the 

west-southwest. Near the surface, a southwesterly wind in most common, as it tends to closely follow 

the confines of the topography, blowing from the southwest to the northeast, up the Snake River 

Plain. Westerly and southwesterly winds can transport agricultural dust and/or suspended particulate 

matter onto the Refuge from agricultural areas and from the INL (Arena 2004). 

3.10 Water Quality 

3.10.1 Clean Water Act 

The State of Idaho has established water quality standards that have been approved by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in order to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act. In 

Idaho, the DEQ administers the State water quality program. ID DEQ develops water quality 

standards and monitors streams and rivers to assess the level of pollutants in the surface waters of the 

State. In order to develop standards for a water body, ID DEQ must first designate the beneficial 

use(s) of the water in question. Idaho has identified the following beneficial uses: aquatic life, water 

supply, recreation, wildlife habitats and aesthetics. Most water bodies will have more than one 

beneficial use. The beneficial uses of Camas Creek are classified as Primary Contact Recreation, 

Salmonid Spawning, and Cold Water Aquatic Life by the Idaho DEQ. Beaver Creek has beneficial 

uses classified as Domestic Water Supply, Primary Contact Recreation, Salmonid Spawning, and 

Cold Water Aquatic Life by IDEQ. 

Section 303(d) if the Clean Water Act establishes requirements for states and tribes to identify and 

prioritize water bodies that do not meet water quality standards. Idaho must develop a water quality 

improvement plan, called a total maximum daily load (TMDL), for those water bodies not found to 

be meeting water quality standards. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-53 

TMDLs have been developed for sediment and temperature for the upper section of all streams in the 

basin (above the Refuge). Riparian grazing is the principal source of temperature and sediment 

loading to the watershed. Because the lower segments of these streams are flow altered (irrigation) 

and naturally lose water to groundwater, IDEQ recommends delisting them for sediment and 

temperature and re-listing them as flow-altered (IDEQ 2005a). 

3.10.2 Surface Water Quality 

Beaver Creek flows from the north into the Refuge where it continues for 0.5 miles before joining 

Camas Creek. This segment of Beaver Creek qualifies for 303(d) listing for flow alteration, habitat 

alteration, nutrients, sediment, and temperature. However, since streamflows in Beaver Creek are 

altered such that perennial flows are rarely seen in this segment, no TMDLs were developed for this 

reach on the Refuge (Idaho DEQ 2005b). 

Camas Creek is 303(d) listed throughout its length, from the headwaters to the mouth. Within the 

Refuge, the listing is for flow alteration, nutrients, and sediment (See Table 3.10 below). The BeaverCamas Watershed Assessment (Idaho NRCS 2007) notes agriculture and grazing are sources of soil 

erosion in the watershed. The watershed assessment also observes that agriculture and grazing 

contribute nutrients and organics to the waterways. The NRCS document lists numerous agricultural 

and rangeland management practices that could be implemented to improve water quality and 

quantity. 

The water quality concerns in the Beaver-Camas subbasin stem from nonpoint sources. Nonpoint 

source pollutants originate from multiple points across the landscape (such as surface erosion and 

runoff from agriculture). The Clean Water Act controls water pollution by regulating point sources 

the discharge pollutants directly into water. Point sources are discrete conveyances such as pipes or 

ditches. Industrial and municipal facilities must obtain National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) permits if they discharge directly to surface waters. The NPDES permits closest to 

Camas National Wildlife Refuge are 25 miles to the east, outside of HUC 17040214, in an area that is 

not connected to the watershed (U.S. EPA 2013). 

Table 3.10. Listed Waterbodies at the Camas National Wildlife Refuge 

List ID Waterbody 

Name 

Miles 

on 

Refuge 

Latest 

Listing 

Impairment 

ID17040214SK001_06 Camas Creek – 

(Beaver Creek 

to 

Mud Lake) 

10.35 2008 Not Supporting Cold Water Aquatic 

Life 

*Sediment 

*Nutrients (Suspected) 

ID17040214SK003_05 Beaver Creek – 

(Beaver Creek 

canal to mouth) 

0.49 2008 Not Supporting Cold Water Aquatic 

Life 

*Other flow regime alterations 

*Physical substrate habitat alterations 

Source: IDEQ 2011
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

 

3-54 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

3.10.3 Groundwater Quality 

INL: A 50-year history of waste disposal at the INL has resulted in measurable concentrations of 

waste contaminants in the ESRP aquifer. Known contaminants include hexavalent chromium, I-129, 

tritium, and trichloroethylene (TCE). An extensive groundwater monitoring effort, led by USGS in 

cooperation with the DOE, is underway in order to understand the movement of fate of these 

contaminants in the regional aquifer. The monitoring is used in modeling efforts to simulate both 

contaminant movement in the aquifer and the slow release of residual contamination for wastes left 

buried in shallow pits and trenches. The direction of regional groundwater flow in this section of the 

aquifer is southwesterly—away from Camas Refuge (Ackerman et al. 2010). 

Agriculture: As an internally drained basin with highly permeable surface materials, the Camas basin 

is particularly vulnerable to groundwater contamination. Added risk to groundwater is posed by the 

concentration of agricultural lands around the Refuge. The ESRP aquifer underlying the basin is 

extremely productive and important to both the ecology and economy of the region. The IDWR ranks 

the ESRP aquifer as having a high to very high potential for groundwater contamination (Van Steeter 

et al. 2002). 

In 1998, Idaho State Department of Agriculture conducted a groundwater quality monitoring program 

in the Mud Lake region in order to characterize degradation of groundwater quality by contaminants 

leaching from agricultural sources. Results were published in 2002 (Carlson et al. 2002). 

Nitrates: Groundwater quality monitoring for nitrates indicates a slight increasing trend in 

groundwater nitrate concentrations over time. During the 4-year period (1998-2001) in which the 

ISDA sampled, no samples from the 30 wells in the study exceeded the EPA Maximum Contaminant 

Level (MCL) of 10 mg/L. However, five wells south of Mud Lake along State Highway 33 

consistently sampled above 5 mg/L of nitrate, leading IDEQ to establish a nitrate area of concern 

near Mud Lake. 

Pesticides: Pesticide sampling was conducted at all 30 wells in the Mud Lake groundwater quality 

monitoring study in 1998. Several pesticide compounds were detected in the 1998 samples but no 

pesticides were detected in follow up sampling in 1999, 2000, or 2001. ISDA has concluded that 

groundwater contamination by pesticides in the Mud Lake area is minimal (Carlson et al. 2002). 

3.11 Visual Quality 

Visibility is the major determinant of visual quality. Visual quality has major impacts to the visitors’ 

experience of the Refuge. On clear days, mountains on the Teton, Centennial and Beaverhead ranges 

are visible from the Refuge. The most distant of these ranges lie more than 50 miles from the Refuge. 

These form the scenic backdrop which makes the Refuge a popular destination for wildlife 

photographers. 

Visibility is generally described as the maximum distance that an observer can see a landscape 

viewed against the background sky. It also refers to the clarity with which the texture, form, color, 

and details of the landscape appear. Visibility is how far we see and how clear the view appears. 

Visibility impairment is one of the most obvious indicators of pollution in the air. Air pollution can 

cause light to be absorbed or scattered, thereby affecting the image we see. The pollution and 

resulting changes in light are referred to as “haze.” In Idaho, most haze is a result of smoke from 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-55 

fires, and dust. Depending on the source(s) of the haze, it may be localized or transported into the 

area by wind (BLM 2009). 

The 1999 amendments to the Clean Air Act (CAA) set forth a national goal for visibility. The rule, 

referred to as the Regional Haze Rule, calls for states to establish goals and emission reduction 

strategies for improving visibility in all Class I areas (national parks and wilderness areas). The CAA 

Regional Haze Rule requires states to set “Reasonable Progress Goals” toward improving visibility in 

the nation’s national parks and wilderness areas, which are designated as Class I areas. The goal 

envisioned by the drafters of the Regional Haze Rule is that visibility in Class I areas will return to 

natural conditions within 60 years. Without haze, the natural visual range would be approximately 

140 mi in the western U.S. The rule requires states to develop 10-year plans to demonstrate progress 

toward that goal. Idaho will be setting reasonable progress goals to improve and protect primarily by 

addressing the three major haze-causing pollutants, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and sulfur 

dioxide. 

The two closest Class I areas to the Refuge, for which visibility data are available, are Craters of the 

Moon National Monument and Preserve and Yellowstone National Park. Data comparing the best and 

worst visibility days at Craters of the Moon show poor visibility most often occurs in the winter; 

when air stagnation events create inversions, conditions cause pollutant levels to rise. During these 

episodes, visibility is impacted by higher levels of nitrates and sulfates, which contribute to the 

formation of fine particulates. In the summer, visibility impairment occurs less frequently. Visibility 

impairment in the summertime results from higher levels of organic matter, usually attributed to 

wildland fires. Visibility data for Craters of the Moon National Monument from 2001 through 2004 

show that mean annual visual range varied from 150 to 180 mi on clear days to 100 to 110 mi on 

average days, to 60 to 70 mi on hazy days. Visibility data for Yellowstone National Park from 1997 

through 2004 show that mean annual visual range varied from 170 to 180 mi on clear days, to 120 to 

130 mi on average days, to 70 to 90 mi on hazy days (Greater Yellowstone Clean Air Partnership 

1999). 

3.12 Surrounding Land Uses 

Camas NWR falls within the Great Basin ecosystem, which includes the high desert and mountain 

portions of Oregon, Nevada, Utah, Idaho and California. Stein et al. (2000) identified the Great Basin 

as the third most endangered ecosystem in the United States. The human population is expanding at 

the highest rate in the nation, and major sociological and ecological changes are occurring across the 

region. These changes can be attributed to numerous interacting factors including urbanization, 

changing technology and land use, climate change, limited water resources, altered fire regimes, 

invasive species, insects and disease. 

In the 647,255-acre Beaver-Camas Subbasin (eight-digit Hydrologic Unit Code), of which Camas 

NWR is a part, 38 percent of land is privately owned and 62 percent is public land. Most of the 

subbasin lies in the eastern portion of Clark County; however the southern portion, including the 

Refuge, lies in Jefferson County. Fifty-eight percent of the watershed is shrubland or rangeland. 

Forest lands are located in the northern, high elevation, high relief areas of the subbasin, 

approximately 15 percent of total land area. Nineteen percent of the watershed is grass, pasture, or 

hayland, and 6 percent is cropland (Idaho NRCS 2007). 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

 

3-56 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

Land use in in the subbasin is primarily agriculture, with the majority of the watershed used for 

rangeland (64 percent). Approximately 10 percent of the subbasin is irrigated, of which half is 

cropland and half pastureland. The majority of the irrigated cropland (gravity flow and sprinkler) in 

the subbasin is located in the southern portion of the watershed where soils and topography are more 

amenable to crop production. A rich riparian vegetation community exists around Mud Lake; this is 

the smallest portion of land use in the Beaver-Camas subbasin, constituting 1 percent of the total 

basin area (IDEQ 2005a; USFWS 2010). 

Table 3.11. Land Cover and Land Use in the Beaver-Camas Watershed 

Land Cover/Land 

Use 

Ownership 

Public Private Totals % of 

HUC Acres % Acres % 

Forest 97,200 15% 2,882 1% 100, 082 15% 

Grain Crops 69 1% 11,016 2% 11,085 2% 

CRP* Land 3,147 1% 3,147 1% 

WRP** Land 436 1% 436 1% 

Grass, Pasture, 

Hay Lands 

58,011 9% 65,541 10% 122,552 19% 

Row Crops 841 1% 27,710 4% 28,551 4% 

Shrub/Rangelands 239,250 37% 133,454 21% 372,704 58% 

Water, Wetlands, 

Developed, Barren 

5,353 1% 3,493 1% 8,846 1% 

Idaho HUC Totals 400,724 62% 246,679 38% 647,403 100% 

*CRP= Conservation Reserve Program 

** WRP= Wetland Reserve Program 

Source: adapted from Idaho NRCS 2007. 

Table 3.12. Irrigated Lands in the Beaver-Camas Watershed 

Type of Land Acres % of Irrigated 

Lands 

% of HUC 

Cultivated Cropland 30,000 47% 5% 

Non-cultivated Cropland* 4,800 8% 1% 

Pastureland 28,700 45% 4% 

Total Irrigated Lands 63,500 100% 10% 

*Includes permanent hayland and horticultural cropland. 

Source: From Idaho NRCS 2007. 

BLM shrub and rangelands are adjacent to most of the Refuge’s western boundary. The BLM land is 

used for grazing in different allotments from spring throughout the summer. Other uses of BLM 

lands are hunting in the fall of the year (mostly for big game), and some horseback riding and Off 

Road Vehicle (ORV) use in the spring. The land is predominantly native sage-steppe habitat. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-57 

Lands adjacent to the northern, eastern, and southern boundaries of the Refuge are mostly under 

private ownership and are used for agriculture. Potatoes and grain (mostly spring wheat) in rotation 

are grown on croplands around the Refuge and are mostly under center pivot (sprinkler) irrigation. 

Other crops grown in the area include barley, oats, alfalfa, grass hay, and nursery stock. A few 

scattered tracts around the refuge boundary that are under private ownership are pasture used for 

cattle and recently, a limited number of sheep. 

3.13 References 

Ackerman, D.J, J.P. Rousseau, G.W. Rattray, and J.C. Fisher. 2010. Steady-state and transient 

models of groundwater flow and advective transport, Eastern Snake River Plain aquifer, 

Idaho National Laboratory and vicinity, Idaho. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2010-5123. U.S. Geological Survey Idaho Science Center, Boise, ID. 

220 pp. 

Ackerman, D.J. 1995. Analysis of steady-state flow and advective transport in the eastern Snake 

River Plain aquifer system, Idaho. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations 

Report, 94-4257. U.S. Geological Survey Idaho Science Center, Boise, ID. 25 pp. 

Agee, J.K. 1974. Environmental impacts from fire management alternatives. National Park Service, 

Western Regional Office. San Francisco, CA. 92 pp. 

Andretta, T.A. 1999. Harmonic analysis of precipitation data in eastern Idaho. National Weather 

Digest 23(1-2):31-40. 

Andretta, T.A. 2006. Synpotic and mesoscale analyses of a flash flood event in eastern Idaho. 

Available at: http://www.nwas.org/ej/andretta2006/text/ffldtxt_fnl2.htm. Accessed October 9, 

2012. 

Arena, S. 2004. Camas National Wildlife Refuge, Contaminants Assessment Process – Complete 

Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 1. Available at: 

https://ecos.fws.gov/cap/fws/viewFinalReports.do. Accessed October 12, 2011. 

Ashton, I. W. 2010. Observed and projected ecological response to climate change in the Rocky 

Mountains and Upper Columbia Basin: A synthesis of current scientific literature. Natural 

Resource Report NPS/ROMN/NRR—2010/220. National Park Service. Fort Collins, CO. 98 

pp. 

Aw, J. and M.J. Kleeman. 2003. Evaluating the first-order effect of intraannual temperature 

variability on urban air pollution. Journal of Geophysical Research 108 (D12). Article No. 

4365. 

Bachelet, D., J.M. Lenihan, and R.P. Neilson. 2007. Wildfires and global climate change: The 

importance of climate change for future wildfire scenarios in the western United States. 

Pages 22-41 in: K.L. Ebi, et al. Regional impacts of climate change: four case studies in the 

United States. Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Arlington, VA. 

Bachelet, D., R.P. Neilson, J.M. Lenihan, and R.J. Drapek. 2001. Climate change effects on 

vegetation distribution and carbon budget in the United States. Ecosystems 4:164-185. 

Barnett, T.P., D.W. Pierce, H.G. Hidalgo, C. Bonfils, B.D. Santer, T. Das, G. Bala, A.W. Wood, T. 

Nozawa, A.A. Mirin, D.R. Cayan, and M.D. Dettinger. 2008. Human-induced changes in the 

hydrology of the western United States. Science 319:1080-1083. 

Baron, J.S., M.D. Hartman, L.E. Band, and R.B. Lammers. 2000. Sensitivity of a high-elevation 

rocky mountain watershed to altered climate and CO2. Water Resources Research 36:89-99. 

Battin, J., M.W. Wiley, M.H. Ruckelshaus, R.N. Palmer, E. Korb, K.K. Bartz, and H. Imaki. 2007. 

Projected impacts of climate change on salmon habitat restoration. Proceedings of the 

National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104:6720-6725. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

 

3-58 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

Bernard, S.M., J.M. Samet, A. Grambsch, K.L. Ebi, and I. Romieu. 2001. The potential impacts of 

climate variability and change on air pollution-related health effects in the United States. 

Environmental Health Perspectives 109:199-209. 

BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 2009. Analysis of the management situation, Upper Snake 

Field Office. Bureau of Land Management, Idaho Falls District. Idaho Falls, ID. Available at: 

http://www.blm.gov/id/st/en/prog/planning/upper_snake_rmp/analysis_of_the_management.

html. 

Bonfils, C., B.D. Santer, D.W. Pierce, H.G. Hidalgo, G. Bala, T. Das, T.P. Barnett, D.R. Cayan, C. 

Doutriaux, A.W. Wood, A. Mirin, and T. Nozawa. 2008. Detection and attribution of 

temperature changes in the mountainous western United States. Journal of Climate 21:6404-

6424. 

Both, C., S. Bouwhuis, C.M. Lessells, and M.E. Visser. 2006. Climate change and population 

declines in a long-distance migratory bird. Nature 441:81-83. 

Bradley, B.A. 2010. Assessing ecosystem threats from global and regional change: Hierarchical 

modeling of risk to sagebrush ecosystems from climate change, land use and invasive species 

in Nevada, USA. Ecography 33:198-208. 

Bradley, B.A., M. Oppenheimer, and D.S. Wilcove. 2009. Climate change and plant invasions: 

Restoration opportunities ahead? Global Change Biology 15:1511-1521. 

Braun, J.B., H.K. Gilbert, D.L. Lowrey, C.F. Marler, and B.R. Pace. 2007. Idaho National 

Laboratory Cultural Resource Management Annual Report FY 2006. Idaho National 

Laboratory. Idaho Falls, ID. 47 pp. Available at: 

http://www.inl.gov/technicalpublications/Documents/3634245.pdf. Accessed October 3, 

2012. 

Breshears, D.D., N.S. Cobb, P.M. Rich, K.P. Price, C.D. Allen, R.G. Balice, W.H. Romme, J.H. 

Kastens, M.L. Floyd, J. Belnap, J.J. Anderson, O.B. Myers, and C.W. Meyer. 2005. Regional 

vegetation die-off in response to global-change-type drought. Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102:15, 144-5, 148. 

Brown, T.J., B.L. Hall, and A.L. Westerling. 2004. The impact of twenty-first century climate change 

on wildland fire danger in the western United States: An applications perspective. Climatic 

Change 62:65-388. 

Burkett, V. and J. Kusler. 2000. Climate change: Potential impacts and interactions in wetlands of the 

United States. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 36:313-320. 

Carlson, R., G. Eliopulos, and J. Fox. 2002. Ground water quality monitoring results of Mud Lake 

area in Jefferson County, Idaho. Idaho State Department of Agriculture Technical Results 

Summary #10. 4 pp. Available at: 

http://www.agri.state.id.us/Categories/Environment/water/waterPDF/gwreports/MudLakeTec

hSum%204-15-02.pdf. 

Cayan, D.R., S.A. Kammerdiener, M.D. Dettinger, J. Caprio, and D.H. Peterson. 2001. Changes in 

the onset of spring in the western United States. Bulletin of the American Meteorological 

Society 82:399-415. 

Chen, F., K.T. Weber, and J.L. Schnase. 2011. Assessing the success of post-fire reseeding in 

semiarid rangelands using Terra MODIS. Available at: 

http://giscenter.isu.edu/research/Techpg/nasa_epscor/pdf/AssessingPost-fireReseeding.pdf. 

Accessed October 5, 2012. 

CIG (Climate Impacts Group). 2010. Climate Impacts Group, University of Washington. Available 

at: http://cses.washington.edu/cig/. 

CIG. 2009. Climate variability: Impacts of natural climate variability on Pacific Northwest climate. 

Available at: http://cses.washington.edu/cig/pnwc/clvariability.shtml. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-59 

Clawson, K.L, G.E. Start, and N.R. Ricks., eds. 1989. Climatography of the Idaho National 

Engineering Laboratory. 2nd edition, DOE/ID-12118. National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, Environmental Research Laboratories, Air Resources Laboratory, Field 

Research Division. Idaho Falls, ID. 169 pp.

Cleland, E.E., N.R. Chiariello, S.R. Loarie, H.A. Mooney, and C.B. Field. 2006. Diverse responses 

of phenology to global changes in a grassland ecosystem. Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 103:13740-13744. 

Collins, B., J. Miller, A. Thode, M. Kelly, J. van Wagtendonk, and S. Stephens. 2009. Interactions 

among wildland fires in a long-established Sierra Nevada natural fire area. Ecosystems 

12:114-128. 

Cook, E.R., C.A. Woodhouse, C.M. Eakin, D.M. Meko, and D.W. Stahle. 2004. Long-term aridity 

changes in the western United States. Science 306:1015-1018. 

Cook, E.R., R. Seager, M.A. Cane, and D.W. Stahle. 2007. North American drought: 

Reconstructions, causes, and consequences. Earth Science Reviews 81:93-134. 

CPC (Climate Prediction Center). 2005. Pacific/North American pattern. Available at: 

http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/data/teledoc/pna.shtml. 

Daly, C. 2002. Climate division normals derived from topographically-sensitive climate grids. Pages 

177-180 in: Proceedings of the thirteenth AMS conference on applied climatology (May 13-

16, 2002), American Meteorological Society. Portland, OR. 

Daly, C., M. Halbleib, J.I. Smith, W.P. Gibson, M.K. Doggett, G.H. Taylor, J. Curtis, and P.A. 

Pasteris. 2008. Physiographically-sensitive mapping of temperature and precipitation across 

the conterminous United States. International Journal of Climatology 28:2031-2064. 

DeGrey, L. and P. Link. 2011. Snake River Plain Aquifer. Module 15 in: Digital Geology of Idaho. 

Available at: http://geology.isu.edu/Digital_Geology_Idaho/Module15/mod15.htm. Accessed 

July 28, 2011. 

Deutscher, G. 2003. Water management plan for Camas National Wildlife Refuge. US Fish and 

Wildlife Service, internal report. On file, Camas NWR. Hamer, ID. 

Diaz, H.F. and J.K. Eischeid. 2007. Disappearing “alpine tundra” Köppen climatic type in the 

western United States. Geophysical Research Letters 34: L18707. 

Digital Atlas of Idaho. 2012. Snake River Plain. Available at: 

http://imnh.isu.edu/digitalatlas/geo/snkrvpln/snkrvpln.htm. Accessed October 3, 2012. 

Dukes, J.S. and H.A. Mooney. 1999. Does global change increase the success of biological invaders? 

Trends in Ecology and Evolution 14:135-139. 

Fang, X. and H.G. Stefan. 1998. Potential climate warming effects on ice covers of small lakes in the 

contiguous U.S. Cold Regions Science and Technology 27:119-140. 

Fang, X., and H. G. Stefan. 1999. Projections of climate change effects on water temperature 

characteristics of small lakes in the contiguous US. Climatic Change 42:377–412. 

Fausch, K.D., Y. Taniguchi, S. Nakano, G.D. Grossman, and C.R. Townsend. 2001. Flood 

disturbance regimes influence rainbow trout invasion success among five holartic regions. 

Ecological Applications 11:1438-1455. 

Field, C.B., L.D. Mortsch, M. Brklacich, D.L. Forbes, P. Kovacs, J.A. Patz, S.W. Running, and M.J. 

Scott. 2007. North America: Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report 

of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Pages 617-652 in: M.L. Parry, O.F. 

Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson, eds. Climate change 2007: 

Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 

Flannigan, M., B. Amiro, K. Logan, B. Stocks, and B. Wotton. 2006. Forest fires and climate change 

in the 21st Century. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 11:847-859. 

Frankel, S.J. 2008. Forest plant disease and climate change. USDA Forest Service, Climate Change 

Resource Center. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/topics/plant-diseases.shtml. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

 

3-60 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

Geslin, J.K., P.K. Link, and C.M. Fanning. 1999. High-precision provenance determination using 

detrital-zircon ages and petrography of Quaternary sands on the eastern Snake River Plain, 

Idaho. Geology 27:295-298. Available at: 

http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/27/4/295.abstract. Accessed October 3, 2012. 

Gianniny, G.L., J.K. Geslin, J. Riesterer, P.K. Link, and G.D. Thackray. 1997. Quaternary 

surficial sediments near Test Area North (TAN), northeastern Snake River Plain: An 

actualistic guide to aquifer characterization. Pages 29-44 in: S. Sharma and J.H. 

Hardcastle, eds. Proceedings of the 32nd symposium on engineering geology and 

geotechnical engineering, Owyhee Plaza Hotel, Boise, Idaho, March 26 - 28, 1997. Idaho 

State University, Boise ID. 476 pp.

Gianniny, G.L., G.D. Thackray, D.S. Kaufman, S.L. Forman, M.J. Sherbondy, and D. Findeisen. 

2002. Late Quaternary highstands in the Mud Lake and Big Lost trough sub-basins of Lake 

Terreton, Idaho. Pages 61-75 in: P.K. Link and L.L. Mink, eds. Geology, hydrogeology and 

environmental remediation, Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, 

Eastern Snake River Plain, Idaho. Geological Society of America Special Paper 353. 

Available at: http://specialpapers.gsapubs.org/content/353/77.abstract. Accessed October 3, 

2012. 

Goodrich, G. 2007. Influence of the Pacific decadal oscillation on winter precipitation and drought 

during years of neutral ENSO in the western United States. Weather and Forecasting 22:116-

124. 

Gooseff, M.N., K. Strzepek, and S.C. Chapra. 2005. Modeling the potential effects of climate change 

on water temperature downstream of a shallow reservoir, Lower Madison River, MT. 

Climatic Change 68:331-353. 

Greater Yellowstone Clean Air Partnership. 1999. Greater Yellowstone area air quality assessment 

document. Available at: 

http://www.tetonscience.org/data/contentfiles/file/downloads/pdf/CRC/CRCAirQuality/CRC

AirQualityRegional/GYACAP.%201999.%20GYA%20AQ%20Assessment%20Document.p

df. 

Guenther, A. 2002. The contribution of reactive carbon emissions from vegetation to the carbon 

balance of terrestrial ecosystems. Chemosphere 49:837-844. 

Hackett, W.R. and R.P. Smith. 1992. Quaternary volcanism, tectonics, and sedimentation in the 

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory area. Pages 1-18 in: J.R. Wilson, ed. Field guide to 

geologic excursions in Utah and adjacent areas of Nevada, Idaho, and Wyoming. 

Miscellaneous Publication 92-3, Utah Geological Survey, Salt Lake City, UT. 

Hall, M.H.P. and D.B. Fagre. 2003. Modeled climate-induced glacier change in Glacier National 

Park, 1850-2100. BioScience 53:131-140. 

Haller, K. and S. Wood, eds. 2004. Geological field trips in southern Idaho, eastern Oregon, and 

northern Nevada. Available at: http://books.google.com/books?id=cgE6XG-uL0C&pg=PA138&lpg=PA138&dq=Big+Southern+Butte&source=web&ots=WxL2fS6M_9&s

ig=8VtBj2t5tglN3qvY4I2OxJGW4pc&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result 

Hamlet, A.F. and D.P. Lettenmaier. 1999. Effects of climate change on hydrology and water resources 

in the Columbia River basin. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 35: 

1597-1623. 

Hamlet, A.F., P.W. Mote, M.P. Clark, and D.P. Lettenmaier. 2007. Twentieth-century trends in 

runoff, evapotranspiration, and soil moisture in the western United States. Journal of Climate 

20:1468-1486. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-61 

Hamlet, A.F. and D.P. Lettenmaier. 2007. Effects of 20th century warming and climate variability on 

flood risk in the western U.S. Water Resources Research 43:W06427. 

doi:10.1029/2006WR005099. 

Hari, R.E., D.M. Livingstone, R. Siber, P. Burkhardt-Holm, and H. Guttinger. 2006. Consequences 

of climatic change for water temperature and brown trout populations in Alpine rivers and 

streams. Global Change Biology 12:10-26. 

Harvell, C.D., C.E. Mitchell, J.R. Ward, S. Altizer, A.P. Dobson, R.S. Ostfeld, and M.D. Samuel. 

2002. Climate warming and disease risks for terrestrial and marine biota. Science 296:2158-

2162. 

Hauer, F.R., J.S. Baron, D. Campbell, K.D. Fausch, S.W. Hostetler, G.H. Leavesley, P.R. Leavitt, D. 

McKnight, and J. A. Stanford. 1997. Assessment of climate change and freshwater 

ecosystems of the Rocky Mountains, USA and Canada. Hydrological Processes 11:903-924. 

Hellmann, J.J., J.E. Byers, B.G. Bierwagen, and J.S. Dukes. 2008. Five potential consequences of 

climate change for invasive species. Conservation Biology 22:534-543. 

Higgins, R.W., Y. Chen, and A.V. Douglas. 1999. Interannual variability of the North American 

warm season precipitation regime. Journal of Climate 12(3):653-680. 

Higgins, R.W., Y. Yao, and X.L. Wang. 1997. Influence of the North American monsoon system on 

the U.S. summer precipitation regime. Journal of Climate 10(10):2600-2622. 

Hilty, J.H., D.J. Eldridge, R. Rosentreter, M.C. Wicklow-Howard, and M. Pellant. 2004. Recovery of 

biological soil crusts following wildfire in Idaho. Journal of Range Management 57:89-96. 

Hostetler, S.W. and E.E. Small. 1999. Response of North American freshwater lakes to simulated 

future climates. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 35:1625-1637. 

Houston, D.B. 1973. Wildfires in Northern Yellowstone Park. Ecology 54:1111-1117. 

Hughes, S.S., R.P. Smith, W.R. Hackett, and S.R. Anderson. 1999. Mafic volcanism and 

environmental geology of the Eastern Snake River Plain, Idaho. Pages 143-168 in: S.S. 

Hughes and G.D. Thackray, eds. Guidebook to the geology of eastern Idaho. Idaho Museum 

of Natural History. 26 pp. Available at: 

http://imnh.isu.edu/digitalatlas/geo/gsa/papers/gsac3p9.pdf. Accessed October 3, 2012. 

Idaho Bureau of Homeland Security. 2009. Putting down roots in earthquake county: your handbook 

for earthquakes in Idaho. 40 pp. Available at: 

http://healthandwelfare.idaho.gov/Portals/0/Health/Rural%20Health/Putting%20Down%20R

oots%20in%20EQ%20Country.pdf. Accessed October 5, 2012. 

Idaho Bureau of Homeland Security. 2010. State of Idaho hazard mitigation plan 2010. 366 pp. 

Available at: http://www.bhs.idaho.gov/Resources/PDF/SHMPFinalw-signatures.pdf. 

Idaho Department of Reclamation. 1969. Water-level changes in the Mud Lake Area, Idaho, 1958-

1968. Water Information Bulletin No. 7. Available at: 

http://www.idwr.idaho.gov/WaterInformation/Publications/wib/wib07-

wl_changes_mudlake_id_1958-68.pdf. Accessed October 3, 2012. 

Idaho DEQ (Department of Environmental Quality). 2005a. Beaver-Camas subbasin assessment and 

TMDLS. IDEQ. Idaho Falls, ID. 251 pp. Available at:

http://www.deq.idaho.gov/media/450154-

_water_data_reports_surface_water_tmdls_beaver_camas_beaver_camas_entire.pdf. 

Accessed July 28, 2011. 

Idaho DEQ. 2005b. Table of subbasin assessments, TMDLs, implementation plans, and five-year 

reviews. Beaver-Camas subbasin. Available at: http://www.deq.idaho.gov/waterquality/surfacewater/tmdls/table-of-sbas-tmdls.aspx. Accessed July 28, 2011. 

Idaho DEQ. 2011. Final 2010 Integrated Report. Boise, ID: Idaho Department of Environmental 

Quality. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

 

3-62 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

Idaho NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2007. Beaver-Camas rapid watershed 

assessment. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

Available at: ftp://ftpfc.sc.egov.usda.gov/ID/technical/watersheds/beaver_camas_revised.pdf. Accessed July 28, 

2011. 

IDWR (Idaho Department of Water Resources). 2011. Hydro.Online for ground water level data. 

Available at: http://www.idwr.idaho.gov/hydro.online/gwl/default.html. 

INL (Idaho National Laboratory). 2012a. Lake Terreton. Available at: 

https://inlportal.inl.gov/portal/server.pt/community/area_history/479. 

Accessed October 3, 2012. 

INL. 2012b. Area geography. Available at: 

https://inlportal.inl.gov/portal/server.pt/community/area_geography/478. Accessed October 

3, 2012. 

INL. 2012c. Fire history. INL environmental surveillance, education and research program. 

Available at: http://www.gsseser.com/Flora/fire.htm. Accessed October 4, 2012. 

Inouye, D.W., B. Barr, K.B. Armitage, and B.D. Inouye. 2000. Climate change is affecting altitudinal 

migrants and hibernating species. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the 

United States of America 97:1630-1633. 

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. Climate change 2007: the physical 

science basis. Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 

Izaurralde, R.C., A.M. Thomson, N.J. Rosenberg, and R.A. Brown. 2005. Climate change impacts 

for the conterminous USA: An integrated assessment. Part 6. Distribution and productivity of 

unmanaged ecosystems. Climatic Change 69:107-126. 

Jacob, D.J. and D.A. Winner. 2009. Effect of climate change on air quality. Atmospheric 

Environment 43:51-63. 

Jorgensen, W. 1979. Soil survey of Jefferson County, Idaho. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, 

D.C. 219 pp. 

Karl, T., J. Melillo, and T. Peterson, eds. 2009. Global climate change impacts in the United States. 

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 

Keigley, R.B. 2012. Evaluation of the effect of ungulate browsing on the Camas National Wildlife 

Refuge, Idaho (draft). Unpublished manuscript on file at Camas NWR. Hamer, ID. 28 pp. 

Kiesecker, J.M., A.R. Blaustein, and L.K. Belden. 2001. Complex causes of amphibian population 

declines. Nature 410:681-684. 

Kilgore, B.M. 1976. Introduction: Fire management section. Pages 7-9 in: Proceedings of the 1974 

Joint Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference and lntermountain Fire Research Council Fire 

and Land Management Symposium 14, Tallahassee, FL. 

Kittel, G., D. Faber-Langendoen, and P. Comer. 2012. Camas NWR: ecological integrity assessment, 

watershed analysis and habitat vulnerability climate change index. Contract #F11PX04463. 

NatureServe. Boulder, CO. 105 pp. 

Kittel, T.G.F., P.E. Thornton, A. Royle, and T.N. Chase. 2002. Climates of the Rocky Mountains: 

Historical and future patterns. Pages 59-82 in: J.S. Baron, ed. Rocky Mountain futures: an 

ecological perspective. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 

Knick, S.T., A.L. Holmes, and R.F. Miller. 2005. The role of fire in structuring sagebrush habitats 

and bird communities. Studies in Avian Biology 30:63-75. 

Knowles, N., M.D. Dettinger, and D.R. Cayan. 2006. Trends in snowfall versus rainfall in the 

western United States. Journal of Climate 18:544,545,559. 

Komarek, E.V., Sr. 1962a. Fire ecology. Proceedings of the First Annual Tall Timbers Fire Ecology 

Conference 1:95-107. Tall Timbers Research Station. Tallahassee, FL. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-63 

Komarek, E. V. Sr. 1962b. The use of fire: an historical background. Proceedings of the First Annual 

Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference 1:7-10. Tall Timbers Reseatch Station. Tallahasee, 

FL. 

Konrad, C.P. and D.B. Booth. 2005. Ecological significance of hydrologic changes in urban streams. 

Pages 157-177 in: L.R. Brown, R.H. Gray, R.M. Hughes, and M.R. Meador, eds. Effects of 

urbanization on stream ecosystems. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 47. Bethesda, 

MD. 

Kremer, R.G., E.R. Hunt, Jr, S.W. Running, and J.C. Coughlan. 1994. Simulating vegetational and 

hydrologic responses to natural climatic variation and GCM-predicted climate change in a 

semi-arid ecosystem in Washington, U.S.A. Journal of Arid Environments (1996) 33: 23–38. 

Kuntz, M.A., H.R. Covington, and L.J. Schorr. 1992. An overview of basaltic volcanism of the 

eastern Snake River Plain. Pages 227-267 in: P.K. Link, M.A. Kuntz, and L.B. Platt, eds. 

Regional geology of eastern Wyoming and western Wyoming. Geological Society of 

America Memoir 179. 53 pp. 

Kuntz, M.A., B. Skipp, M.A. Lanphere, W.E. Scott, K.L. Pierce, G.B. Dalrymple, D.E. Champion, 

G.F. Embree, W.R. Page, L.A. Morgan, R.P. Smith, W.R. Hackett, and D.W. Rodgers. 1994. 

Geologic map of the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory and adjoining areas, eastern 

Idaho. U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map 1-2330. Scale 

1:100,000. 

Kusler, J. 2006. Common questions: Wetlands, climate change, and carbon sequestering. Association 

of State Wetland Managers. Berne, NY. 29 pp. 

Leonard, K.M., K.P. Reese, and J.W. Connelly. 2000. Distribution, movements and habitats of sage 

grouse Centrocercus urophasianus on the Upper Snake River Plain of Idaho: Changes from 

the 1950s to the 1990s. Wildlife Biology 6:265-270. 

Lindholm, G.F., S.P. Garabedian, D.D. Newton, and R.L. Whitehead. 1987. Configuration of the 

water table and depth to water, spring 1980, water-level fluctuations, and water movement in 

the Snake River Plain regional aquifer system, Idaho and eastern Oregon. U.S. Geological 

Survey Atlas HA-703, 1 sheet. 

Littell, J.S., D. McKenzie, D.L. Peterson, and A.L. Westerling. 2009. Climate and wildfire area 

burned in western U.S. ecoprovinces, 1916-2003. Ecological Applications 19:1003-1021. 

Loarie, S.R., P.B. Duffy, H. Hamilton, G.P. Asner, C.B. Field, and D.D. Ackerly. 2009. The velocity 

of climate change. Nature 462:1052-1055. 

Mantua, N.J. 2001. The Pacific decadal oscillation. Pages 592-594 in: M.C. McCracken and J.S. 

Perry, eds. The encyclopedia of global environmental change, Vol 1. The Earth system: 

Physical and chemical dimension of global environmental change. Available at: 

http://www.jisao.washington.edu/pdo/ and 

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~mantua/REPORTS/PDO/PDO_egec.htm. 

McKenzie, D., Z. Gedalof, D.L. Peterson, and P. Mote. 2004. Climatic change, wildfire, and 

conservation. Conservation Biology 18:890-902. 

McMenamin, S.K., E.A. Hadly, and C.K. Wright. 2008. Climatic change and wetland desiccation 

cause amphibian decline in Yellowstone National Park. Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105:16988-16993. 

McWethy, D.B, S.T. Gray, P.E. Higuera, J.S. Littell, G.T. Pederson, A.J. Ray, and C Whitlock. 2010. 

Climate and terrestrial ecosystem change in the U.S. Rocky Mountains and Upper Columbia 

Basin. Natural Resource Report NPS/GRYN/NRR-2010/260. National Park Service, Natural 

Resource Program Center. Fort Collins, CO. 79 pp. 

Meko, D.M., C.A. Woodhouse, C.A. Baisan, T. Knight, J.J. Lukas, M.K. Hughes, and M.W. Salzer. 

2007. Medieval drought in the upper Colorado River Basin. Geophysical Research Letters 

34. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

 

3-64 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

Menne, M.J., C.N. Williams, Jr., and R.S. Vose. 2011. United States Historical Climatology Network 

(USHCN) Version 2 serial monthly dataset. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Oak Ridge, TN. 

Milwaukie Journal. 1984. Midwest floods drown crops. Milwaukie Journal June 21. Available at:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1499&dat=19840621&id=E2kaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=

DyoEAAAAIBAJ&pg=7076,21815. 

Mock, C.J. 1996. Climatic controls and spatial variations of precipitation in the western United 

States. Journal of Climate 9(5):1111-1125. 

Mohseni, O., H.G. Stefan, and J.G. Eaton. 2003. Global warming and potential changes in fish 

habitat in U.S. streams. Climatic Change 59:389-409. 

Morgan, L.A. and W.C. McIntosh. 2005. Timing and development of the Heise volcanic field, Snake 

River Plain, Idaho, Western USA. Geological Society of America Bulletin 117(314):288-306. 

Available at: http://www.rcn.montana.edu/pubs/pdf/2005/GSA_Heise_final.pdf. Accessed 

October 3, 2012. 

Morin-Jansen, A. 1987. A study of the principal lineament and associated lineaments, Idaho National 

Engineering Laboratory. Idaho State University. Pocatello, ID. 158 pp. 

Morris, D. and M. Walls. 2009. Climate change and outdoor recreation resources. Resources for the 

Future, Washington, D.C. Available at: http://www.rff.org/RFF/Documents/RFF-BCKORRG_ClimateChange.pdf. 

Mote, P.W. 2003. Trends in snow water equivalent in the Pacific Northwest and their climatic 

causes. Geophysical Research Letters 30:1601. 

Mote, P.W., et al. 1999. Impacts of climate variability and change: Pacific Northwest. A report of the 

Pacific Northwest Regional Assessment Group for the U.S. Global Change Research 

Program. JISAO/SMA Climate Impacts Group, University of Washington. Seattle. 116 pp. 

Mote, P.W., A.F. Hamlet, M.P. Clark, and D.P. Lettenmaier. 2005. Declining mountain snowpack in 

western North America. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 86(1):39-49. 

Mote, P.W., E.A. Parson, A.F. Hamlet, W.S. Keeton, D. Lettenmaier, N. Mantua, E.L. Miles, D.W. 

Peterson, D.L. Peterson, R. Slaughter, and A.K. Snover. 2003. Preparing for climatic change: 

the water, salmon, and forests of the Pacific Northwest. Climatic Change. 61: 45-88. 

National Assessment Synthesis Team. 2001. Climate change impacts on the United States: The 

potential consequences of climate variability and change. Report for the U.S. Global Change 

Research Program. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 

NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2008. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) 

Database for Jefferson County Area, Idaho. Available at: http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov. 

Accessed August 15, 2011. 

NWS (National Weather Service). 2010. National Weather Center – southeast idaho climate 

information. U.S. Department of Commerce. Available at: 

http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/pih/climate/descrip.php. Accessed December 9, 2010. 

Ogden, N.H., A. Maarouf, I.K. Barker, M. Bigras-Poulin, L.R. Lindsay, M.G. Morshed, C.J. 

O’Callaghan, F. Ramay, D. Waltner-Toews, and D.F. Charron. 2006. Climate change and the 

potential for range expansion of the Lyme disease vector Ixodes scapularis in Canada. 

International Journal for Parasitology 36:63-70. 

OTA (U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment). 1993. Chapter 4: Wetlands. In: Preparing 

for an Uncertain Climate--Volume II, OTA-O-568. Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office, October 1993. 389 pp. 

Pagano, T.C., and D.C. Garen. 2005. A recent increase in western U.S. streamflow variability and 

persistence. Journal of Hydrometeorology 6:173-179. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-65 

Parmesan, C. 2006. Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change. Annual Review 

of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 37:637-669. 

Parton, W.J., D.S. Ojima, and D.S. Schimel. 1994. Environmental change in grasslands: Assessment 

using models. Climatic Change 28:111-141 

Parton, W.J., M.P. Gutmann, S.A. Williams, M. Easter, and D. Ojima. 2005. Ecological impact of 

historical land-use patterns in the great plains: A methodological assessment. Ecological 

Applications 15:1915-1928. 

Patten, D.T. 1998. Riparian ecosystems of semi-arid North America: Diversity and human impacts. 

Wetlands 18:498-512. 

Payne, J. T., A.W. Wood, R.N. Palmer, and D.P. Lettenmaier. 2004, Mitigating the Effects of 

Climate Change on the Water Resources of the Columbia River Basin. Clim. Change 62: 

233–256. 

Pechanec, J.F., G.D. Pickford, and G. Stewart. 1937. Effect of the 1934 drought on native vegetation 

of the upper Snake River Plain of northern Idaho. Ecology 18:490-505. 

Pederson, G.T., L.J. Graumlich, D.B. Fagre, T. Kipfer, and C.C. Muhlfeld. 2010. A century of 

climate and ecosystem change in western Montana: What do temperature trends portend? 

Climatic Change 98:133-154. 

Pellant, M. and C. Hall. 1994. Distribution of two exotic grasses on intermountain rangelands: Status 

in 1992. Pages 109-112 in: S.B. Monsen and S.G. Kitchen, compilers. Proceedings—ecology 

and management of annual rangelands. General Technical Report INT-GTR-313. Ogden, 

UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 

Perkins, L., R.S. Nowak, and K. Allcock. 2012. Minimizing risk of cheatgrass invasion and 

dominance at the Idaho National Laboratory. Available at: 

http://www.gsseser.com/NERP/cheatgrass.htm. Accessed October 5, 2012. 

Petersen, J.H. and J.F. Kitchell. 2001. Climate regimes and water temperature changes in the 

Columbia River: Bioenergetic implications for predators of juvenile salmon. Canadian 

Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58:1831-1841. 

Phillips, W. 2012. Eolian landforms and deposits of the eastern Snake River Plain, Idaho. Vignettes, 

key concepts in geomorphology. Science Education Resource Center. Carleton College, MN. 

Available at: http://serc.carleton.edu/vignettes/collection/36639.html. Accessed February 2, 

2012. 

Pierce, K.L. and L.A. Morgan. 1992. The track of the Yellowstone hot spot: Volcanism, faulting and 

uplift. Pages 1-53 in: P.K. Link, M.A. Kuntz, and L.B. Platt, eds. Regional geology of eastern 

Idaho and western Wyoming. Geological Society of America Memoir 179. 53 pp.

Pierce, K.L., M.A. Fosberg, W.E. Scott, G.C. Lewis, and S.M. Colman. 1982. Loess deposits of 

southeastern Idaho: age and correlation of the upper two loess units. Pages 717-725 in: Bill 

Bonnichsen and R.M. Breckenridge (eds). Cenozoic Geology of Idaho. Idaho Bureau of 

Mines and Geology Bulletin 26. 

Pierson, F.B, D.H. Carlson, and K.E. Spaeth. 2002. Impacts of wildfire on soil hydrological 

properties of steep sagebrush-steppe rangeland. International Journal of Wildland Fire

11:145-151. 

Poff, N.L., M.M. Brinson, and J.W. Day. 2002. Aquatic ecosystems and global climate change. Pew 

Center on Global Climate Change. Arlington, VA. 90 pp. 

Poore, R.E., C.A. Lamanna, J.J. Ebersole, and B.J. Enquist. 2009. Controls on radial growth of 

mountain big sagebrush and implications for climatic change. Western North American 

Naturalist 69:556-562. 

Prevey, J.S., M.J. Germino, N.J. Huntly, and R.S. Inouye. 2010. Exotic plants increase and native 

plants decrease with loss of foundation species in sagebrush steppe. Plant Ecology 207:39-51. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

 

3-66 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

Raffa, K.F., B.H. Aukema, B.J. Bentz, A.L. Carroll, J.A. Hicke, M.G. Turner, and W.H. Romme. 

2008. Cross-scale drivers of natural disturbances prone to anthropogenic amplification: 

Dynamics of biome-wide bark beetle eruptions. BioScience 58:501-517. 

Rahel, F.J. and J.D. Olden. 2008. Assessing the effects of climate change on aquatic invasive species. 

Conservation Biology 22:521-533. 

Ray, A.J., J.J. Barsugli, and K.B. Averyt. 2008. Climate change in Colorado: A synthesis to support 

water resources management and adaptation. Report prepared for the Colorado Water 

Conservation Board. Western Water Assessment. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado. 58 

pp. 

Redmond, K.T. and R.W. Koch. 1991. Surface climate and streamflow variability in the western 

United States and their relationship to large-scale circulation indices. Water Resources 

Research 27(9):2381-2399. 

Rehfeldt, G., W. Wykoff, and C. Ying. 2001. Physiologic plasticity, evolution, and impacts of a 

changing climate on Pinus contorta. Climatic Change 50:355-376. 

Root, T.L., J.T. Price, K.R. Hall, S.H. Schneider, C. Rosenzweig, and J.A. Pounds. 2003. 

Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and plants. Nature 421:57-60. 

Rieman, B. E. and D.J. Isaak. 2010. Climate change, aquatic ecosystems, and fishes in the Rocky 

Mountain West: implications and alternatives for management. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR250. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 46 p. 

Rowland, M.M., L.H. Suring, R.J. Tausch, S. Geer, and M.J. Wisdom. 2008. Characteristics of 

western juniper encroachment into sagebrush communities in central Oregon. USDA Forest 

Service Forestry and Range Sciences Laboratory. La Grande, Oregon. 25 pp. 

Ryan, M.G., S.R. Archer, R. Birdsey, C. Dahm, L. Heath, J. Hicke, D. Hollinger, T. Huxman, G. 

Okin, R. Oren, J. Randerson, and W.H. Schlesinger. 2008. Land resources: Forests and arid 

lands. Pages 75-120 in: The effects of climate change on agriculture, land resources, water 

resources, and biodiversity in the United States. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change 

Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. Washington, DC., 

USA, 362 pp. 

Sankey, J.B., M.J. Germino, and N.F. Glenn. 2008. Fire effects on wind erosion in sagebrush steppe 

rangelands of the Snake River Plain. Pages 343-354 in: K. Weber, T. Windholz, N. Glenn, 

and M. Germino. Impact of temporal landcover changes in southeastern Idaho rangelands. 

Idaho State University, GIS Training and Research Center. 354 pp. Available at: 

http://giscenter.isu.edu/Research/Techpg/nasa_tlcc/pdf/Ch21.pdf. Accessed October 5, 2012. 

SCBD (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity). 2003. Interlinkages between 

biological diversity and climate change. Advice on the integration of biodiversity 

considerations into the implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on 

Climate Change and its Kyoto protocol. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological 

Diversity. Montreal, Canada. 154 pp. 

Scott, M.L., J.M. Friedman, and G.T. Auble. 1996. Fluvial process and the establishment of 

bottomland trees. Geomorphology 14:327-339. 

Scott, M.L., P.B. Shafroth, and G.T. Auble. 1999. Responses of riparian cottonwoods to alluvial 

water table declines. Environmental Management 23:347-358. 

Shinn, D.A. 1977. Man and the land: an ecological history of fire and grazing on eastern Oregon 

rangelands. MS thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis. 

Smith, S.D., R.K. Monson, and J.E. Anderson. 1997. Physiological ecology of North American 

desert plants. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-67 

Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller, 

eds. 2007. Climate change 2007: The physical science basis. Contribution of working group I 

to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Fourth 

assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge, UK: 

Cambridge University Press. 

Spokane Chronicle. 1984. Eastern idaho flood threat eased. Spokane Chronicle June 19. Available at: 

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1345&dat=19840619&id=Q1dOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=

ivkDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3806,643546. 

Stearns, H.T., L.L. Bryan, and L. Crandall. 1939. Geology and water resources of the Mud Lake 

Basin, Idaho. USGS Water-Supply Paper 818. USGS. Washington, D.C. 

Stein, B., L.S. Kutner, and J.S. Adams. 2000. Precious heritage: the status of biodiversity in the 

United States. New York: Oxford University Press. 

Steltzer, H. and E. Post. 2009. Seasons and life cycles. Science 324:886-887. 

Stewart, I.T., D.R. Cayan, and M.D. Dettinger. 2005. Changes toward earlier streamflow timing 

across western North America. Journal of Climate 18(8):1136-1155. 

Stromberg, J.C., R. Tiller, and B. Richter. 1996. Effects of groundwater decline on riparian 

vegetation of semiarid regions: The San Pedro River, Arizona, USA. Ecological Applications 

6:113-131. 

Sullivan, W.H., G.S. Johnson, J.L. Casper, and C.E. Brockway. 1996. An assessment of the 

capability of existing canal companies to deliver artificial recharge water to the Snake Plain 

aquifer in southeast Idaho. Idaho Water Resources Research Institute, University of Idaho. 

Moscow, ID. 180 pp. 

Tague, C., G. Grant, M. Farrell, J. Choate, and A. Jefferson. 2008. Deep groundwater mediates 

streamflow response to climate warming in the Oregon Cascades. Climatic Change. 86: 189-

210. 

Tornado Project. 1999. Idaho tornadoes 1880-2000. The Tornado Project. St. Johnsbury, VT. 

Available at: http://www.tornadoproject.com/alltorns/idtorn.htm. Accessed July 30, 2010. 

U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2013. Enforcement and compliance history online 

(ECHO). Available at: http://www.epa-echo.gov/echo/. 

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 2010. Climate change primer: The natural climate cycles. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/primers/climate-change-primer.shtml. Accessed December 14, 

2010. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2001. Wildland fire management plan, Southeast Idaho 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Unpublished report on file, Camas NWR. Hamer, ID. 67 

pp. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/fire/fmp/region1/idaho/southeast_idaho_nwr.pdf. 

USFWS. 2003. Independence and Buck Springs fires burned area emergency stabilization and 

rehabilitation (ESR) plan. Available at: 

http://www.fws.gov/fire/downloads/ES_BAR/IndepBuckSp.pdf. Accessed October 5, 2012. 

USFWS. 2006. Evaluation of contamination in Camas Creek from upstream deposition of herbicides 

at Camas NWR. Unpublished report on file, Camas NWR (File 3 [H]1b). Hamer, ID. 

USFWS. 2009. Fire management plan, Southeast Idaho National Wildlife Refuge Complex. 

Unpublished report on file, Camas NWR. Hamer, ID. 38 pp. 

USFWS. 2011. Camas NWR water resource inventory and assessment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Services Water Resources. Portland OR. Unpublished report on file, USFWS Regional 

Office. Portland, OR. 53 pp. 

USGCRP (U.S. Global Change Research Program). 2009. Global climate change impacts in the 

United States. T.R. Karl, J.M. Melillo, and T.C. Peterson, eds. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge 

University Press. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

 

3-68 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2012a. Historic earthquakes. Hebgen Lake, Montana and Borah 

Peak, Idaho. Available at: 

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/events/1959_08_18.php and 

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/events/1983_10_28.php. Accessed October 5, 

2012. 

USGS. 2012b. Crystal fire, Atomic City, Idaho, USA. Available at: 

http://landsat.usgs.gov/gallery_view.php?category=orangeflag&thesort=mainTitle. Accessed 

October 5, 2012. 

Van Steeter, M.M., R.L. Mahler, and L.L. Mink. 2002. Groundwater in Idaho. University of Idaho 

Cooperative Extension System, Water Quality for Idaho Current Information Series No. 900. 

Available at: http://www.uiweb.uidaho.edu/wq/wqpubs/cis900.html. 

Visher, S.S. 1966. Climatic atlas of the United States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 

Vose, R.S., D. Wuertz, T.C. Peterson, and P.D. Jones. 2005. An intercomparison of trends in surface 

air temperature analyses at the global, hemispheric, and grid-box scale. Geophysical 

Research Letters 32. 

Walker, M.D., D.A. Walker, T.A. Theodose, and P.J. Webber. 2001. The vegetation: hierarchial 

species-environment relationships. Pages 99-127 in: W.D. Bowman and T. Seastedt, eds. 

Structure and function of an alpine ecosystem: Niwot Ridge, Colorado. New York: Oxford 

University Press. 

Walther, G.R., E. Post, P. Convey, A. Menzel, C. Parmesan, T.J.C. Beebee, J.M. Fromentin, O. 

Hoegh-Guldberg, and F. Bairlein. 2002. Ecological responses to recent climate change. 

Nature 416:389-395. 

Wang, H., S. Schubert, M. Suarez, J. Chen, M. Hoerling, A. Kumar, and P. Pegion. 2008. Attribution 

of the seasonality and regionality in climate trends over the United States during 1950-2000. 

Journal of Climate 22:2571-2590. 

Waters, T.F. 1995. Sediment in streams: Sources, biological effects, and control. American Fisheries 

Society Monograph 7. 

Westerling, A.L., H.G. Hidalgo, D.R. Cayan, and T.W. Swetnam. 2006. Warming and earlier spring 

increase western U.S. forest wildfire activity. Science 313:940-943. 

Westerling, A. and B. Bryant. 2008. Climate change and wildfire in California. Climatic Change 

87:231-249. 

Whisenant, S.G. 1990. Changing fire frequencies on Idaho’s Snake River Plain: Ecological and 

management implications. Pages 4-10 in: E.D. McArthur, E.M. Romney, S.D. Smith, and 

P.T. Tueller, eds. Proceedings—Symposium on cheatgrass invasion, shrub die-off, and other 

aspects of shrub biology and management, Las Vegas, NV, April 5-7, 1989. USDA Forest 

Service, Intermountain Research Station, General Technical Report INT-276. Ogden, UT. 

Williams, J.E., A.L. Haak, H.M. Neville, and W.T. Colyer. 2009. Potential consequences of climate 

change to persistence of cutthroat trout populations. North American Journal of Fisheries 

Management 29:533-548. 

Williams, J.E., N.G. Gillespie, H.M. Nelville, and W.T. Colyer. 2007. Healing troubled waters: 

Preparing trout and salmon habitat for a changing climate. Trout Unlimited. Arlington, VA. 

12 pp. 

Winter, T.C. 2000. The vulnerability of wetlands to climate change: A hydrologic landscape 

perspective. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 36:305-311. 

Wormsworth, J. and K. Mallon. 2008. Bird species and climate change. The global status report: A 

synthesis of current scientific understanding of anthropogenic climate change impacts on 

global bird species now and projected future effects. Climate Risk Pty Limited. Fairlight, 

New South Wales. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-69 

Wright, H.A. and A.W. Bailey. 1982. Fire ecology: United States and southern Canada. New York, 

NY: John Wiley and Sons. 

Wright, H.A., L.F. Neuenschwander, and C.M. Britton. 1979. The role and use of fire in sagebrushgrass and pinyon-juniper plant communities: A state-of-the-art review. USDA Forest Service, 

General Technical Report INT-58, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 

Ogden, UT. 

Young, J.C. 1980. Interview: A history of irrigation in Fremont, Madison, and Teton Counties. Tape 

#79. Transcribed 2003 by Joel Miyasaki. Brigham Young University. Rexburg, ID. 

Young, P.J., A. Arneth, G. Schurgers, G. Zeng, and J.A. Pyle. 2009. The CO2 inhibition of terrestrial 

isoprene emission significantly affects future ozone projections. Atmospheric Chemistry and 

Physics 9:2793-2803. 

Zedler, J.B. and S. Kercher. 2005. Wetland resources: Status, trends, ecosystem services, and 

restorability. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30:39-74. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

 

3-70 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Chapter 4

Biological Environment

Chapter 5HumanEnvironment

Chapter 4BiologicalEnvironment

©

Donn Larsen

Appendices

Chapter 3PhysicalEnvironment

Chapter 1Introduction andBackground

Chapter 2ManagementAlternatives, Goals, Objectives and Strategies

Chapter 6Environmental Effects

Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-1 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

This chapter addresses the biological resources and habitats found on the Refuge. However, it is not 

an exhaustive overview of all species and habitats. The chapter begins with a discussion of biological 

integrity (historic conditions and ecosystem function), as required under the Refuge Administration 

Act, as amended. The bulk of the chapter is then focused on the presentation of pertinent background 

information for habitats used by each of the Priority Resources of Concern (ROCs) and other 

benefitting species designated under the CCP. That background information includes descriptions, 

conditions and trends of habitats and threats (stresses and sources of stress) to the habitats and/or 

associated ROCs. This information was used to develop goals and objectives for the CCP. 

4.1 Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, as amended, directs the Service to ensure 

that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health (BIDEH) of the Refuge System are 

maintained for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans. In simplistic terms, 

elements of BIDEH are represented by native fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats as well as those 

ecological processes that support them. The Refuge System policy on BIDEH (601 FW 3) also 

provides guidance on consideration and protection of the broad spectrum of fish, wildlife, and habitat 

resources found on the refuges and in associated ecosystems, that represents BIDEH on each refuge. 

Water management is the overriding factor affecting most refuge habitat management strategies for 

migrating and nesting waterfowl and waterbirds. The Refuge is currently managed to provide 

consistent deep wetland habitats to support reliable levels of annual waterfowl production. Currently 

the Refuge’s six “core” wetlands are flooded by diverting 58.1 cfs of Camas Creek surface flows into 

managed wetland impoundments. Water is pumped from wells to compensate for surface water 

seepage into the ground, and maintain deep wetland habitat through October. The Refuge also uses 

mechanical disturbance and prescribed fire to manage wetland habitat. Agricultural small grains, 

alfalfa, and hayed short-cover areas complement wetland habitats by providing foraging habitat for 

sandhill cranes, Canada geese, and other waterfowl. Haying currently occurs on approximately 150 

irrigated acres of upland and wet meadow habitat annually. 

In addition to wetlands, the Refuge contains willow riparian and scrub-shrub wetlands, shelterbelt, 

sagebrush-steppe, grassland, and agricultural habitats. Management of upland habitats (sagebrushsteppe and grasslands) management is currently limited to invasive species control and monitoring, 

and post-fire restoration. Recent vegetation surveys (Germino et al. 2010; Miewald et al. 2012) show 

significant areas of former sagebrush-steppe and wet meadow sites are now dominated by non-native 

plants, due to both the Refuge’s past agricultural history and the spread of invasive species. 

Shelterbelt habitats, which were originally created as windbreaks by local farmers and ranchers, as 

well as by refuge staff at the time of establishment, contain a mixture of native and non-native trees, 

including tall mature cottonwoods with an understory of smaller trees and shrubs. These are 

extensively used by migratory landbirds and are maintained by irrigation and plantings of native 

understory trees and shrubs. 

Both the Beaver-Camas watershed and the Eastern Snake River Plain, of which Camas NWR is a 

part, has undergone dramatic alteration over the past century, which has ultimately affected the 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

4-2 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the region’s ecosystems. There were three 

separate periods which led to the wetland succession and current habitat conditions at Camas NWR: 

 Pre-1915: Historically, in periods of high snowmelt, Camas Creek would overtop its banks 

and inundate the surrounding area, while in low flow periods, wetlands would become 

desiccated following flow cessation and the onset of high summer temperatures typical of the 

Upper Snake River Plain. The extent of wetlands in the Camas-Mud Lake area was highly 

variable and fluctuated according to drought and flood conditions in the Upper Snake River 

Watershed. These conditions are described in section 4.1.1 below. 

 1915-1980: The local water table rose dramatically between about 1915 and 1921 due to 

irrigation of the Egin Bench, 15 miles to the east. Mud Lake expanded, backing up and 

creating permanent and semipermanent wetlands on the Refuge. The local water table 

remained relatively high in the Camas area through about 1980. Artificial wetlands were 

easily created on the Refuge, and water levels could be quickly raised by pumping relatively 

small amounts of water into diked units. The high water table allowed such ponds to hold 

water for most, if not all, of the year (see Chapter 3, Hydrology). At the same time alterations 

in the timing, intensity, and duration of Camas Creek flows occurred. Overbank flooding 

became rare due to deepening of the Camas Creek channel (see section 4.1.2 below). 

 1980-Present: The historic pattern of spring flood of Camas Creek, followed by natural 

“drawdown”, or desiccation, throughout the remainder of the year, still exists but has been 

acutely altered in terms of timing, intensity, and duration. Camas Creek is now an 

intermittent stream and the average flow time through the Refuge is about two months. Due 

to both lowering of the water table and incision of the creek channel, minimal overbank 

flooding occurs (approximately one in every six years, in the late spring to early summer). 

With drought conditions (1987-1992 and 2000-present), the cessation of winter recharge on the Egin 

Bench in 1980, and increasing groundwater withdrawals to support sprinkler (center pivot) irrigation 

for agricultural production in the area, the local water table has dropped compared to conditions prior 

to 1980. The Refuge became dependent on irrigation from wells to keep any remaining wetlands 

(mostly deep water marsh) hydrated long enough for brood rearing to occur. As the water table 

lowered, the Refuge has had to pump increasing amounts of well water to fill certain wetland basins. 

To date about 25 percent of managed wetlands have been placed in “inactive” status due to their 

inability to hold water, which appears to be due to a combination of sandy soils and the lowering 

water table. 

The most significant changes to the region’s ecosystems include: 

 Changes in the hydrology of Camas Creek due to irrigation diversions; 

 Expansion of center-pivot irrigation and a consequent lowering of the local water table; 

 Changes in vegetative communities due to livestock grazing; 

 Loss of native species, accompanied by a large influx of nonnative and invasive plants and 

animals into the system; 

 Altered fire regimes in sage-steppe habitat. 

This section discusses the connection between these landscape level changes and the current 

vegetation and wildlife on the lands and waters occupied by the Camas NWR. This summary is not a 

complete analysis of all factors related to changes in native vegetation, fish and wildlife. Much of the 

information presented here is based upon the planning team’s knowledge of the area. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-3 

4.1.1 Historic Descriptions of Habitat and Wildlife 

The complex of upland and wetland habitats on Camas NWR occupies a partial remnant of the 

historic Camas Creek floodplain at its interface with the Upper Snake River Valley. Camas Creek and 

its primary tributary, Beaver Creek, flow southwestward from the mountains into Mud Lake, the 

terminus of a closed basin with no natural surface-water outlet (Spinazola et al. 1992). (It is 

impossible to delineate a Camas Creek channel beyond Mud Lake on present-day aerial imagery.) As 

Camas Creek accessed the desert it would eventually disappear completely into the sandy soils and 

fractured basalt substrate of the northern Snake River Plain. Prior to subsiding, Camas Creek water 

formed a discontinuous floodplain of variable size basins (Stearns et al. 1939). 

The extent and duration of inundation would vary both annually and long term (e.g., decades), 

depending on natural, annual precipitation in both the upper watershed, as well as in and around the 

floodplain itself. An appreciation for the highly variable and transient hydrologic conditions extant in 

historical times is critical. The exact extent of the floodplain has never been precisely established, but 

could conservatively be estimated at approximately 2,200 square miles (Spinazola 1993). The size of 

Mud Lake was estimated at only 2,500 acres in 1899, whereas the lake was surveyed at 14,200 acres 

in 1914 (Stearns et al. 1939). While the high lake levels seen at that time were due to a rising 

groundwater table on the Egin Bench (see Section 4.1.2 below), the Mud Lake playa could have 

filled, at least temporarily, during exceptionally wet years. During such wet cycles, an area much 

larger than the existing Refuge could have been inundated by the streamflow. 

While it is uncertain how the Camas NWR wetlands and uplands functioned prior to development of 

surrounding irrigation systems and storage facilities, it is possible to infer historic function, based on 

examination of local geography. The Camas Creek floodplain receives runoff from southern face of 

the Centennial Range to the north and east. This high elevation zone of abundant snowfall would 

normally provide heavy spring flows, truncating to perennial summer and fall discharges in Camas 

Creek, through the floodplain and into the Upper Snake River Plain. The floodplain itself was 

situated in an area of low precipitation that would be expected to support only upland steppe-type 

vegetation, without the additional moisture from Camas Creek. Typically, the Camas NWR area 

receives approximately 10 inches of precipitation annually. In an average rain and snowfall year, 

Camas Creek could be expected to remain within its banks, or overflow only to a limited extent. 

However, occasional wet, or high moisture, years could be expected in and around the floodplain 

itself. During such high precipitation years, spring runoff could be expected to mix with overflow 

from Camas Creek channel in flood stage. The Camas floodplain would also have received water 

contribution from other small streams, such as Warm Creek, as well as local springs. The result of 

this combination of water sources would be flooding and natural irrigation of the floodplain. The 

relatively flat local topography did little to restrict Camas Creek flows during out-of-bank events. In 

such circumstances, the stream’s waters probably affected a large percentage of the floodplain before 

disappearing into the Upper Valley sands. The Camas Creek floodplain would have likely been 

shallowly flooded, at least partially, for several weeks and been subjected to late summer desiccation. 

(Elevation change over the spring and early summer period, based on topography, basin size and 

surface flows currently observed, is estimated in terms of inches over the majority of the landscape, 

with some limited areas of greater depth.) 

The interspersion of lower lying areas subject to inundation and sections of “high ground” which 

rarely, or never, were covered with water created a mosaic of seasonal to ephemeral wetlands (e.g., 

wet meadows, mudflats) and upland vegetation (grasslands and shrub steppe). This mosaic of habitat 

types, with wet and dry environments in close proximity to each other, would have in turn supported 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

4-4 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

a wide variety of wetland- and upland-dependent plant and animal species. However, historic records 

indicate that at least in the recent past, the extent of permanent and semipermanent wetlands in the 

lower Beaver-Camas watershed was limited from the 1850s until about 1915, when irrigation from 

the Egin Bench raised the local water table (see Chapter 3 and Section 4.1.2 below). On the presentday Refuge, only “Sandhole” (in GLO maps from the 1880s and 90s, it is described both as a 

“slough” and “ponds”) contained reliable, permanent water. Given the dry character of the Upper 

Snake River Plain, wetlands would have been primarily seasonal to ephemeral, and desiccation 

would have been a common condition for the historic habitats of Camas NWR. 

Other natural processes such as fire and grazing by native herbivores (e.g., bison Bison bison, 

pronghorn Antilocapra americana, mule deer Odocoileus hemionus, and elk Cervus elaphus) would 

likely have been frequent, and could have been intense during certain periods. Tied to annual 

variation in delta, or floodplain, marsh hydrologic cycles, it is likely that fire would have occurred 

during late summer, drought periods; presumably triggered by lightning strikes. When conditions 

were right (i.e., hot, dry summer during drought), thunderstorm lightning strikes would have reduced 

residual cover in emergent wetland communities, as well as throughout the upland grassland and 

steppe sites. Due to variation in vegetative production across different floodplain sites, as well as 

climatic conditions at the time of ignition, these fires would have been variable, some intense and 

others mild, in effect. The variation in fire intensity would have produced further variation in 

vegetative community structure and composition, and maintained plant vigor and health through 

removal of residual vegetation. These short burning fires would have probably lasted a day or less, 

given the relatively small area of the delta. Exceptions would have been the woody riparian areas 

where larger diameter fuels could have supported low intensity, smoldering fires, for days to several 

weeks. While the frequency of these widespread fires is uncertain, they would have provided a 

valuable stimulus to marsh, meadow and upland succession, and ultimately, in promoting overall 

ecosystem health. 

Hydrologic periodicity would also have influenced grazing intensity. During wet climatic cycles, 

traditional grazing patterns of native ungulate species may have had little influence on habitats 

dominated by marsh-type vegetation. Depth of water would have reduced ungulate access to the 

wetland sites. Conversely, during average and low precipitation years, wetland plant communities 

probably received inordinately high grazing use due to the attractiveness of the relatively green and 

lush forage these habitats provided. It is assumed that use of upland sites by native herbivores would 

have been continuous during all seasons, moderated primarily by their traditional movement patterns 

rather than the climate of a particular year. Heavy snowfall is normally not a feature of the Camas 

Creek floodplain, so local vegetation would have remained available throughout most winters. Again, 

ungulate grazing or browsing would likely have been regulated more by traditional movement 

patterns of these animals, than by the character of a given winter. It is also assumed that ungulate 

forage preference, in general, would have shifted to browse species, i.e., woody plants such as 

bitterbrush and willow, in upland sites during the winter, when protein demands increased. 

Bison were present in substantial numbers in the Snake River Plain (Russell 1965) and bones have 

been discovered within Camas NWR. This suggests that bison may have frequented this area and 

been a significant influence on soils, vegetation and nutrient cycling. The traditional movement 

patterns of the herds may have been a more important factor determining bison populations and 

grazing pressure on the Camas Creek floodplain, than the influence of climate on bison distribution. 

However, it is equally possible that hydrologic effects on vegetative productivity and availability at 

the historic Camas NWR site may have determined the level of bison presence, use and impact on 

those sites. Certainly, abundant local precipitation, along with high spring flows in Camas Creek, 
Cama

Chapter 4. 

would ha

well as st

would ha

the other 

movemen

grazing li

Vegetatio

Early rec

extensive

labeled “D

day Sand

south to t

1884 surv

and sageb

almost all

as the tea

flow. The

been an o

water (St

provide a

Figur

Source

After the 

for 319 ac

T7N R36

1964 USG

complete

(E3⁄4S1⁄4 T

as National Wi

Biological Env

ave produced 

timulating gr

ave served to 

ungulate spe

nt, as oppose

ikely occurre

on Commun

ords indicate

e wetlands. Pu

Dry Lake” in

dhole Lake, ad

the midpoint 

vey field note

brush (Keigle

l of which ar

am entered D

ere was no m

oversight (Ke

earns et al. 1

access to all (

re 4.1. Publi

e: Bureau of Lan

area was pla

cres by Hum

6E Sec 30; ap

GS topograph

ly occupied b

T7N R36E Se

ildlife Refuge D

vironment

lush wet me

eater than no

attract and k

ecies using th

d to some oth

ed as a short d

nities 

e that prior to

ublic land su

n the location

djacent to a w

of T7N R36 

es almost exc

ey 2012). In t

re sagebrush,

ry Lake from

mention of wil

eigley 2012).

939). In 190

(Gerard 1963

ic land surve

nd Management G

atted, parcels 

mphrey Toome

pproximately 

hic map. The

by Rays Lak

ection 18) is n

Draft Compreh

eadow grasse

ormal grass p

keep bison in 

he Camas floo

her species th

duration even

o the early 19

urveys in 188

n of present-d

wagon road,

Section 30, 

clusively cha

the interior o

 or sagebrush

m the east sid

llow as they 

In the late 1

0 herds of ca

3). 

ey of the Cam

General Land Of

were acquire

ey in August 

half of the a

e NE1⁄4 of Sec

e. Much of th

now occupie

hensive Conser

s along the c

production in 

the Camas N

odplain. Of c

hat may mov

nt, as the anim

900s, the area

84 (east half) 

day Rays Lak

is a feature l

and then vee

aracterize the

of T7N R36E

h and bunchg

de, which may

entered the C

800s, Mud L

attle being dr

mas NWR a

ffice records (su

ed by settlers

1889. In 189

area homestea

c 30 purchas

he area purch

ed by Two-wa

rvation Plan an

channel and in

nearby uplan

NWR area; th

course, bison

ve less and re

mals moved 

a that is now 

and 1899 (w

ke (Figure 4.

abeled “slou

ers southwest

e vegetation a

E, there are 60

grass. There 

y have repres

Camas Creek

Lake was a sh

riven to Arco 

area, 1884 an

urveys). 

s. The first la

90, Elias Ray

aded by Ray 

ed by Claude

hased by Sara

ay Pond. In 1

nd Environmen

n the adjacen

nd sites. All 

he same is tru

n are known f

emain in an a

from one loc

Camas NWR

west half) sho

1). In the loc

ugh.” Camas 

t to flow into

as sagebrush,

0 description

is a single m

sented an are

k channel, but

hallow, interm

 had to be div

nd 1899. 

and patent on

y homesteade

is part of Ra

e Hixson in 1

ah Richardso

1901 Louis L

ntal Assessmen

nt floodplain

of these fact

ue for many o

for frequent 

area longer. B

cation to the 

R did not hav

ow a feature 

cation of pres

Creek meand

o Mud Lake. T

, or bunchgra

ns of vegetati

mention of wil

ea of artesian

t this could h

mittent body 

vided in half

n the Refuge 

ed the E1⁄2W1⁄2

ays Lake on t

1904 is almo

on in 1915 

Lienemann 

nt

4-5 

, as 

ors 

of 

Bison 

next. 

ve 

sentders 

The 

ass 

ion, 

llow 

n

have 

of 

f to 

was 

1⁄2 of 

the 

st 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

4-6 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

acquired 424 acres in sections 13, 18, 19, and 24 under the Desert Land Act of 1877 (Bureau of Land 

Management [BLM] n.d.). Presumably these, and other settlers in the area, would not purchase land 

that was unsuitable for agriculture due to excessive moisture. 

Given the transitory nature of overland flows in this era, the wetlands that historically existed in the 

Camas Creek delta likely had seasonal to ephemeral water regimes. The range health inventory team 

that studied Camas NWR (Germino et al. 2010) used the terms “semi-wet saline meadow” and “wet 

meadow” to describe different communities that would be analogous to ephemeral marsh. These sites 

would have been essentially the same in the historic era. The wetland and upland alliances in Table 

4.1 are believed to be native to the Camas NWR area prior to Euro-American settlement (Miewald et 

al. 2012). 

Table 4.1. Vegetation Alliances of Camas NWR 

Group Alliance 

Wetlands 

Alkaline-Saline Wet Meadow Group Saltgrass Herbaceous Alliance 

Alkali Sacaton Grassland Alliance 

Marsh Group Common Spikerush Herbaceous Alliance 

Hardstem Bulrush Herbaceous Alliance 

Broadleaf Cattail Herbaceous Alliance 

Wet Meadow Group Sedge (wheat, clustered field, Northwest Territory) 

Montane Wet Meadow Alliance 

Mudflat Group Amaranth (California, green) Mudflat Sparse 

Herbaceous Alliance 

Woody Riparian Group Coyote (narrowleaf) Willow Shrubland Alliance 

Uplands

Shrublands Basin Big Sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. 

tridentata) Shrubland and Steppe Alliance. 

Needle-and thread would have been a common 

understory species. 

Green Rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus) 

Shrubland and Steppe Alliance. 

Grasses occurring within this habitat type would 

include needle-and-thread and western wheatgrass. 

Grasslands Western Wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii) 

Grassland Alliance 

Needle and Thread (Hesperostipa comata) SemiDesert Grassland Alliance. 

Other grasses in this habitat type included 

Sandberg bluegrass (Poa secunda) and Barkworth 

Indian ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides, Syn: 

Oryzopsis hymenoides).

Source: Miewald et al. 2012.

Birds 

Historically, upland birds, particularly sage and sharp-tailed grouse, were abundant on the upper 

Snake River Plain. The exploitation of these species followed the same patterns as large game and 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-7 

waterfowl/shorebirds. Initial human use, whether by indigenous peoples or Euro-American migrants, 

would have been subsistence-oriented and probably incidental to the hunting of large ungulates. Over 

time, subsistence use evolved into focused commercial use and, finally, sport hunting. 

Before agricultural development of the region starting in the late 1800s, temporary to seasonal wet 

meadow habitat would have been supported by overbank flows of Camas Creek, and ephemeral 

wetlands created by flooding of mudflats and playas (e.g., Mud Lake and “Dry Lake” in the location 

of present-day Rays Lake) in wet years. Wet meadows would have provided habitat for sandhill 

cranes and black terns while ephemeral wetlands would have supported species such as avocets and 

phalaropes. During wetter climactic cycles, an expanded Mud Lake would have provided foraging 

opportunities for piscivorous birds (e.g., white pelicans, grebes). 

Mammals 

Although, bison no longer exist in the Upper Snake River Plain, a relict population of pronghorn 

remains, as well as a mule deer population that is presumably much reduced from historic levels. It is 

generally assumed that the remaining ungulate species persist at radically different diversities and 

densities on the Refuge today, albeit at perhaps similar geographic locations, when compared to the 

historic situation. Similar to pronghorn, Shiras moose are still present within the Camas Creek 

floodplain, put probably at lower densities than historically. Refuge Rocky Mountain elk numbers are 

probably similar to the precontact period, but their distribution is skewed much more heavily toward 

the Refuge as compared to surrounding private lands. Alternatively, white-tailed deer, which are 

abundant on the Refuge, as well as surrounding agricultural lands, were probably not present in large 

numbers in southeastern Idaho during the pre-settlement era (Anderson 1940). 

Fish 

Yellowstone cutthroat trout would likely have been present in the Camas Creek drainage historically. 

Other fishes likely would have included native sculpin (Cottus spp.) (Garren 2010), Utah sucker 

(Catostomus ardens), and minnows (Myler 2010.) 

4.1.2 Changes to Wildlife and Habitat Since 1800 

The area surrounding what is now Camas NWR was inhabited seasonally by pre-Shoshonean and 

Shoshone peoples for thousands of years (Hutchison and Jones 1993). These peoples used a variety 

of wildlife (Derig 1996) and plants in a subsistence (hunting and gathering) lifestyle. Their use of 

natural resources did not generate any discernible long-term negative environmental impacts, at least 

none that were recorded in the historical record (see below). 

Collectively, hundreds of fur trappers used this area, trapping beaver and other fur-bearers (otter, 

muskrat, mink) (Gowans 2005; Russell 1965; Utley 1997; Wishart 1979) and hunting big game 

(bison, pronghorn, bighorn sheep, elk and mule deer) in an unsustainable manner (Wuerthner 1986a, 

b). For example, in the 1820s bison and other large game were abundant throughout the area (Russell 

1965), but by 1834 trader Warren Ferris was already noticing declines (Wuerthner 1986b). By the 

late 1840s Shoshones had to leave the Snake River Plain and hunt bison in Montana and Wyoming, 

and by 1860 bison were nearly extirpated from Idaho altogether (Wuerthner 1986a, b). Other large 

game declined apace. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

4-8 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

It is logical to assume, given the presence of trappers and fur traders in the area and at least some of 

their journal accounts, that historically beaver were much more common in and adjacent to the 

perennial middle and upper reaches of Camas Creek and Beaver Creek than they are today, wherever 

suitable habitat occurred. It is likely that beaver in the Beaver-Camas watershed suffered the same 

declines due to unregulated trapping that other beaver populations in the region experienced. The 

large scale fur trade in beavers ended by 1845, largely due to changes in fashion (Wishart 1979), but 

trapping for other furbearers (mink, otter) and subsistence hunting for mule deer, white-tailed deer, 

and elk continued in the region through the 1860s (Anderson 1940). 

The Upper Snake River Plain, including the Camas Creek terminus, was used as a travel corridor 

during the exploration and fur trade era. As the fur trade waned, numbers of immigrants travelling 

through the Snake River Plain increased. This created additional hunting pressure, as well as altering 

habitats through drayage stock grazing. 

Starting in the late 1800s, livestock grazing and homesteading activities served to both directly 

reduce numbers of wildlife and to reduce, or degrade, the amount of suitable habitat remaining. As 

Camas Creek was developed for irrigation, irrigation interests would have removed beaver since they 

interfered with irrigation development and delivery of water to agricultural crops. Significant 

alteration of habitat was also realized through road and railroad construction that supported the new 

farms and communities. 

Agricultural Development 

One of the most far-reaching impacts on Camas Creek, throughout the stream course, as well as its 

delta, was the advent of irrigation for farming and supplemental grazing. Construction of dams, 

diversion structures and ditches began early in the Upper Snake Plain, at first as small scale efforts 

by individual homesteaders at the field, or pasture level. Over time, the size, complexity, and 

environmental impacts of irrigation projects increased, as neighboring farmers and communities 

collaborated on larger-scale developments. The Desert-Land Act of 1877, which amended the 

Homestead Act of 1862, was intended to promote the reclamation of arid and semi-arid public lands 

by making them available for privately-managed irrigation developments. The act offered up to 640 

acres (2.6 km2

) of land to an adult married couple, or 320 acres (1.3 km2) to an individual, who 

would pay $1.25 an acre and promise to irrigate the land within three years. Individuals taking 

advantage of the act were required to submit proof of their efforts to irrigate the land within three 

years (Landstrom 1954). Many of the Refuge’s original homesteaders, including Humphrey Toomey 

in 1889, applied for patents under this Act. 

Over time, the size, complexity, and environmental impacts of irrigation projects increased, as 

neighboring farmers and communities collaborated on larger-scale developments. These efforts were 

aided by the Desert Land Act (Carey Act) of 1894, and the Reclamation Act of 1902, which allowed 

the development of large, complex irrigation projects that removed water from rivers and delivered it 

to rich desert soils. To encourage settlement in drier regions, the Carey Act offered up to 1 million 

acres of federal land to anyone who could irrigate it (using either public or private funding), and turn 

it into farmland within 10 years. 

Large-scale agricultural development had three major effects on the area that would later become 

Camas NWR: first, a rise in the local water table starting about 1915, due to subirrigation of the Egin 

Bench 15 miles east of the Refuge (Keigley 2012); second, changes to the duration and intensity of 

Camas Creek flows and alteration of the channel; and third, lowering of the water table due to the 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-9 

expansion of center pivot irrigation starting in the 1980s. This, combined with cutoff of water to the 

canals on Egin Bench in the winter of 1979-1980 (a water rights issue) and drought conditions in the 

region, has resulted in lowering water tables (Keigley 2012). 

Egin Bench development causes rise in local water table. The following discussion is derived from 

Keigley (2012). The first evidence that hydrology was changing in the area occurred about 1900, 

when standing water was noticed about a mile north of present-day Hamer. Residents soon connected 

those pools of water with Egin Bench, about 15 miles east, where irrigation had begun in 1895. Prior 

to irrigation in the late 1800s, Egin Bench was sand and sagebrush (Young 1980). To make the land 

suitable for agriculture, water from the Snake and Teton River system was brought to the bench, and 

distributed by a network of canals. As was the practice of the day, crops were subirrigated. The water 

table beneath the bench was 100 feet deep, and the overlying substrate is extremely porous (Stearns 

et al. 1939). To subirrigate, the water table had to be raised from a depth of 100 feet, almost to the 

surface. This produced an immense body of water (estimated at 326,000 acre-feet) in porous soil, 

some of which leaked to the north and then to the west, ultimately arriving in the Mud Lake Basin. 

Stearns and Bryan (1925) found two water tables in the Mud Lake Basin. There was a shallow water 

table that was perched above a deep water table about 250-275 feet below. Locally, the shallow water 

table consisted of water flowing through porous volcanic rock that was confined at the top and 

bottom by impermeable clay layers. This water could potentially be released as artesian flow. Some 

of the water leaking from Egin Bench flowed down Camas Creek into Mud Lake. Some of the water 

moved through the confined aquifer, and if it penetrated the upper clay layer, emerged as artesian 

springs or wells. 

Figure 4.2 below is from Stearns et al. (1939). The blue cross-hatch describes the area of artesian 

flow. Note that both the slough and Dry Lake mapped in the 1884 survey are located within this 

artesian area. The tiny wetland area mapped in 1884 must reflect artesian output in the absence of 

irrigation from Egin Bench. As this map indicates (as well as one prepared by Stearns in 1921), a 

substantial area had become wet, either from artesian flow or from leakage out of Camas Creek. The 

change from dry to wet appears to have happened rapidly. As mentioned above, Sarah Richardson 

acquired her property in 1915. Six years later, the area is a wetland on a map prepared in 1921 

(published in Stearns and Bryan 1925). Many settlers were flooded out and left the area permanently 

(Stayley and Hartwell 1982). 
Cama

4-10 

Figur

hatch

From S

What cau

the areas 

Creek and

significan

Little cha

surface ar

of their la

of the Att

Creek, so

the confin

4,200 to 9

where it w

1921 whe

as National Wi

re 4.2. The C

h indicates a

Stearns et al. 193

used Rays La

to the north 

d artesian rel

nt influence o

anged at Mud

rea from 2,46

and, ultimate

torney Gener

ome was inpu

ned aquifer d

9,300 acre fe

would be red

en storage rea

ildlife Refuge D

Cama NWR 

area of artesi

39. 

ake to form? I

such as at Tw

lease. But for

on the format

d Lake until 1

60 acres to 14

ly creating an

ral 1988). Wh

ut from spring

described abo

eet per year. I

directed into w

ached 55,000

Draft Compreh

area in the 

ian flow. Mu

In part it cou

wo-way Pond

r reasons des

tion of Rays 

1908. From 1

4,200 acres. 

n impoundm

hile most of t

gs at the bott

ove). Stearns 

If storage inc

what had bee

0 acre-feet (S

hensive Conser

mid 1920s th

ud Lake is to

uld be influen

d. This would

scribed below

Lake. 

1908 to 1914

In the 1920s 

ment that allow

the water ent

tom of the lak

and Bryan (

creased enoug

en Dry Lake. 

Stearns et al. 

rvation Plan an

C

hrough late 

o the southw

nced by the sa

d be a combin

w, changes at 

4 the lake ros

 settlers cons

wed Mud La

tering Mud L

ke (this woul

1925) estima

gh, water wo

 This appear

1939). 

nd Environmen

Chapter 4. Bio

1930s. Blue

west. 

ame water th

nation of leak

Mud Lake m

e about 5 fee

structed dike

ake to rise 8 f

Lake flows th

ld be water f

ated the artes

ould flow up 

s to have hap

ntal Assessmen

ological Enviro

e cross 

hat was wettin

kage from C

may have had

et, increasing

s to halt floo

feet (Idaho O

hrough Cama

flowing throu

sian discharge

Camas Creek

ppened in Jun

nt

onment

 

ng 

amas 

d a 

g in 

oding 

Office 

as 

ugh 

e at 

k, 

ne 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-11 

The changes at Rays Lake occurred rapidly. George and William Bird acquired the SE1⁄4 of section 30 

in 1912, presumably with the expectation of farming. Ten years later, farming was impossible. The 

map below shows the area submerged in 1921 when Mud Lake exceeded 55,000 acre-feet (Stearns et 

al. 1939). That amount was exceeded again in 1922, 1923, 1924, and 1926 (data from USGS). The 

map shows Sandhole Lake and Rays Lake at more or less their present size, as well as numerous 

areas of marsh in lower topographic areas. After the Refuge was established, these shallow basins 

were modified to increase the acreage of deepwater wetlands for waterfowl production. Keigley 

(2012) believes that willows were expanding away from “Dry Lake” (now Rays Lake) for a few 

years before 1921, the year by which this, and adjacent areas, were mapped as wetlands (Stearns and 

Bryan 1925). Much of the establishment of willows at Rays Lake was likely from clonal root 

sprouting. In some years, conditions may have been appropriate for establishment from seed. 

Prior to 1921, water flowed through the Rays Lake area into Mud Lake. If backflow was the 

dominant factor in determining water level in Rays Lake, then the lake would only fill when storage 

in Mud Lake exceeded 55,000 acre-feet. A dike was constructed in the 1960s on Camas Creek 

between Rays Lake and Mud Lake, which markedly increased the tendency of Rays Lake to flood 

(Idaho Department of Water Resources 2010). 

During this era of abundant water, wetlands would have been deeper, with more permanent water 

regimes than they had been historically. Plant species would have been native species that have the 

ability to quickly colonize wetland sites. Wetland types of the Camas Creek floodplain would likely 

have included perennial emergent hemi-marsh (open water, submerged aquatic plants, shallow and 

deep emergent habitat), ephemeral marsh (wet meadows, alkaline meadows), palustrine forested or 

scrub-shrub wetlands, and riparian wetlands associated with Camas Creek (Cowardin et al. 1979). 

Palustrine forested/shrub wetlands were likely dominated by tree and shrub forms of willow (Salix

spp.). 

The wetlands that developed in what was essentially the delta of Camas Creek when the local water 

table rose ca. 1915 (see Chapter 3) provided a vast and productive area of marshes, meadows and 

ponds that would in turn have attracted migratory waterfowl and waterbirds. The interspersion of 

shallow and deep wetlands, intermixed with upland habitat, created extensive irregular shorelines 

that would have yielded ample opportunities for waterfowl, shorebirds, and wading birds to feed, 

nest, and loaf. This patchy habitat was also highly productive, providing abundant plant, invertebrate, 

and fish resources for a diverse suite of wetland birds. 

Waterfowl would have included essentially the same suite of species observed in the area today: 

trumpeter swans (Cygnus buccinator), tundra swans (Cygnus columbianus), Canada geese (Branta 

canadensis moffiti), lesser snow geese (Anser caerulescens caerulescens), Ross’ geese (Anser rossii),

canvasbacks (Aythya valisneria), redheads (Athya americana), lesser scaup (Athya affinis), ringnecked ducks (Athya collaris), common goldeneyes (Bucephala clangula), Barrow’s goldeneyes

(Bucephala islandica), buffleheads (Bucephala albeola), ruddy ducks (Oxyura jamaicensis), mallards 

(Anas platyrhynchos), pintails (Anas acuta), American wigeons (Anas americana), gadwalls (Anas 

streptera), shovelers (Anas clypeata), American green-winged teal (Anas crecca), cinnamon teal 

(Anas cyanoptera), and blue-winged teal (Anas discors). Wading and shorebirds included greater 

sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis tabida), long-billed curlews (Numenius americanus), willet

(Catroptrophorus semipalmatus), greater yellowlegs (Tringa melanoleuca), lesser yellowlegs (Tringa 

flavipes), and common snipe (Gallinago gallinago). 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

4-12 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

The mid and upper elevation reaches of Camas Creek and Beaver Creek would have historically held 

numerous beaver (Castor canadensis) (Russell 1965; Utley 1997) as well as mink (Neovison vison), 

muskrats (Ondatra zibethica), and river otters (Lutra canadensis) (Anderson 1940; Gowans 2005). 

While we have no historical data on furbearer presence or abundance, it is likely that populations of 

muskrats and other furbearers increased in the Camas area, along with the expansion of permanent 

and semipermanent wetlands. 

Degradation of Camas Creek wetlands. In areas with low precipitation, such as the Camas Creek 

region, the effect of surface water cannot be overemphasized. The availability and application of 

surface flows as irrigation water are key to agricultural potential in such climatic regions, and can 

increase crop production by several orders of magnitude. As the flows of Camas Creek and its 

tributaries began to be increasingly diverted from the natural channels, and with increasing ditch and 

evapotranspirational losses reducing return flows, the impact on the floodplain’s wetlands and 

wildlife became significant. The combined effects of reduced Camas Creek flows and long-term 

drought patterns decreased both the size and quality of the Camas Creek wetlands. The trend of 

degradation continued as the regional population grew and technical irrigation abilities increased. 

Ultimately, as the 20th century progressed, pumps were increasingly used, first to augment surface 

flows from main creek channels and diversion ditches, and then to mine the Snake River Aquifer 

from large, deep wells. Pump capacities and well depth continued to increase and the result (again 

combined with a series of long-term droughts) was the lowering of the water table in the Camas 

Creek drainage. This was reflected by Ackerman in 1995: “The most recent trend in the flow system 

has been a decrease in recharge since 1987 because of an extended drought and changes in land use.” 

Degradation of the Camas Creek channel. An additional impact of irrigation development, 

exacerbated by forestry, grazing and farming practices in the Camas Creek watershed, was the 

degradation of the original, natural Camas Creek channel. This degradation took three basic forms, 

with some interrelation among them: erosion, deposition, and channelization. The practice of 

clearcutting forest in the highest reaches of the Camas Creek watershed, along with overgrazing by 

sheep and cattle throughout the watershed, created a flashier flow regime (short-term, high-volume 

flows), with abnormally high sediment loads. Farming practices adjacent to much of the entire stream 

reach reinforced similar negative effects. These high flows and sediment loads alternately scoured the 

channel, widening and deepening it in some areas, while depositing sediment in other zones, 

depending on channel morphology and geology. Valuable riparian plant communities were damaged 

by bank scouring, mass wasting, and incising of the channel bottom that occurred during high flows. 

Further channel down-cutting was caused by irrigation interests channelizing the stream to increase 

flows and ultimate water yields to their points of diversion. Landowners channelized portions of the 

creek under the erroneous belief that stream course undulations increased erosion and that a straight 

channel would damage banks on their property less. A second goal of channelization was to move 

spring flood waters off more quickly in years when Camas Creek overflowed its banks. 

Channelization added to the erosive quality of Camas Creek, increasing bank erosion and stream 

channel down-cutting. 

These impacts, along with extended dry years, have changed the duration and intensity of Camas 

Creek flows. The Refuge’s Annual Narratives describe the refuge portion of Camas Creek as 

“intermittent” since 1937. But when Camas Creek was not flowing, in most years slack water would 

fill the channel. During the last decade of drought conditions, Camas Creek flows have typically 

started in March or April and ceased in June or July. Spring flows typically last about 2 months, but 

can persist for as long as 4 months and have been reported to be as short as 2 weeks. Time series data 

from the USGS gage (USGS Station No. 1311200, Camas Creek near Camas ID) show that while the 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-13 

total annual flow over the period of record has increased, the number of years with zero flow in 

August has remained equal or even increased (USFWS 2011). 

As the character of Camas Creek changed from the end of the 19th century into the 20th, a fourth 

anthropogenic impact began to take effect. As flows in Camas Creek began to decrease over the long 

term, sediment carrying capacity of the stream decreased and sediment deposition increased. 

Extensive and numerous sandbars began to form within the creek channel and these, in turn, were 

colonized by willows from the adjacent riparian community. Irrigation users felt that sediment 

deposition and new willow stands further blocked flow, and reduced channel capacity and irrigation 

diversion point yields. They began to remove sediment deposits and place the resultant overburden 

along the tops of the adjacent creek banks. The end result was long stretches of dike-like piles of 

sediment that further confined Camas Creek to the already deep channel and reduced or prevented 

spring flows from overtopping the banks during spring runoff. The loss of such overland flows 

seriously reduced nutrient cycling and environmental enrichment of habitat adjacent to Camas Creek, 

including the terminal flood plain and associated wetland basins. 

With the deepening of the Camas Creek channel and the decrease, or loss, of spring overbank 

flooding, adjacent riparian plant communities suffered from lack of water. Streamside shrub riparian 

communities declined in vigor as the channel bottom deepened beyond reach of their roots. Adjacent 

meadows suffered from the lack of spring floods, as well as the lowering of the water table. 

Additionally, the unnaturally deepened channel began to increasingly function as an actual drain for 

surrounding areas, further reducing the already dwindling supply of water. 

Along with the physical damage to the channel of Camas Creek and the ultimate reductions of flows 

came a degradation of water quality (see Chapter 3). While the original, historic character of Camas 

Creek water is not clearly understood, it is assumed to have been far less turbid than what is currently 

observed. Logging, grazing and farming in the upper watershed not only created a flashier flow 

regime (short-term, high-volume flows), but also increased turbidity via elevated sediment loads. 

This resultant decline of water quality in the Camas Creek system would have impacted native fish, 

particularly cutthroat trout. As the lands around Camas Creek were being settled, non-native brook 

trout were planted in the creek which competed with native cutthroat. 

4.1.3 History of Refuge Management 

Executive Order No. 7720, published October 12, 1937, established Camas Migratory Waterfowl 

Refuge as signed by Franklin D. Roosevelt. A large portion of land that is now the Camas NWR was 

purchased from Idaho Livestock Lands, Inc., which headquartered a grazing operation at the same 

site where the refuge headquarters now sits. With the acquisition of land also came water rights to 

surface water from Camas Creek and one right from Schlagel Spring. Most of these water rights were 

termed either “High Water Rights” or “Wild Hay Rights” in the 1931 Sauve Decree. The oldest water 

right is from 1883 and is the most senior right for surface waters of Camas Creek. Almost all 

management actions taken on Camas NWR since its establishment have been tied in one shape or 

form to water and the subsequent water rights (For a table of water rights, see Chapter 3). 

Habitat and Water Management 

It appears that immediately prior to refuge establishment, the need for water was driven mostly by 

livestock operations, and to a lesser degree, agriculture. Staley and Hartwell (1982) noted between 

about 1914 and 1920, many local farmers had left the Mud Lake/Camas area, as a rising water table 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

4-14 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

caused their dikes to fail. The rising water table at the Mud Lake/Camas area was caused by 

subirrigation at Egin Bench, 15 miles to the east (Stearns et al. 1939). In the 1920s farmers 

constructed dikes to halt flooding of their land, ultimately creating an impoundment that allowed 

Mud Lake to rise 8 feet (Attorney General Opinion 88-2, Idaho Office of the Attorney General 1988). 

The area that eventually became Camas NWR was mostly too wet for crops, but continued to provide 

pasturage and hay fields. Providing drinking water for livestock and irrigating pastures and hay fields 

were essential to livestock operations in this area. It is unclear how previous owners, such as Idaho 

Livestock Lands, Inc., diverted water from the Camas Creek channel, but it is likely that they used 

small structures in channel banks and overland flooding (flood irrigation) in strategic locations where 

level topography made this strategy feasible. 

By 1937 as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service began to operate Camas NWR, the surrounding lands 

were becoming more intensively converted to production agriculture. In December 1937 the Works 

Progress Administration (WPA) officially opened a work camp at Camas to begin to build 

infrastructure. By the end of December 44 men were working in the camp and began with cleanup of 

the headquarters site, fencing, and road work. The 1937 Annual Narrative also describes the 

construction of a permanent diversion structure for Toomey Pond. The 1939 Narrative Report states 

that as of July, the main diversion structure was 60 percent complete, and ten percent of the main 

supply channel was also complete. For the next five years the WPA crews worked on refuge 

headquarters buildings, fencing, building up existing roads, and building diversions and water control 

structures, water delivery canals, and bridges. Many of these structures are still visible and many are 

still in use today. Over the next four decades the Refuge continued to build up roads that also acted as 

dikes, with a goal of creating more deep-water habitat for waterfowl production. The Refuge also 

took part in the “cleaning out” of the Camas Creek channel to attempt to keep as much water as 

possible within the banks of the creek, and prevent water from overtopping the banks and flooding 

out neighbors’ or refuge crop lands. In 1947 the first centrifugal pump was installed on the Refuge to 

allow use of groundwater to augment Camas Creek flows to refuge wetlands. Well #1 on the north 

end of the Refuge was completed in 1954 and Wells 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 (formerly called Barmwell) all 

had pumps and electrical service in 1958. Wells 2 and 3 were initially used mostly for agriculture 

while the other wells supplied wetlands. Well #8 came on line much later (1980) and was also used to 

augment surface flows into wetlands. 

Throughout the history of the area, the flows from Camas Creek were sporadic and largely based on 

precipitation levels. In wet years the creek would flow year round, while in drier years little water 

would make it to the Refuge from the north (see Chapter 3, Hydrology). However, water was still 

plentiful enough to allow the Refuge to create and sustain new deep water marshes, while retaining a 

diversity of shallow marsh and wet meadow habitats. In the 1960s new wetland projects were 

brought on line, and the use of wells to fill the Refuge’s managed wetlands increased. Relatively low 

well water inputs were needed to keep managed wetlands full through the brood rearing season, 

because the water table was still relatively high. This allowed even wetlands with relatively porous, 

sandy substrates to retain water. In the 1980s this began to change. The water table began to drop, 

due to the cessation of winter recharge on the Egin Bench in 1980, the switch to pivot irrigation on 

the Egin Bench, and an increase in center pivot irrigation in the Camas area (see above). As the water 

table began to drop (and continues to do so today) many of the Refuge’s wetlands could no longer 

hold water through the summer, and some became dry for the majority of the year. In addition, 

drought conditions in the upper Snake River Plain have resulted in lower, and more intermittent, 

Camas Creek flows. The region experienced a severe drought in 1987-1992 and has been 

experiencing drought conditions for the past decade. As a result, the average flow time of Camas 

Creek through the Refuge is about two months annually. The Refuge became dependent on irrigation 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-15 

from wells to keep any remaining wetlands (mostly deep water marsh) hydrated long enough for 

brood rearing to occur, and currently has placed approximately 600 acres (25 percent) of its modified 

wetlands into inactive status. 

Prescribed Fire 

Prior to 2001, fire management on Camas NWR focused on controlling wildfires, both naturally 

caused and human-caused (for wildfire history, see Chapter 3). Prescribed fire was used infrequently 

on the Refuge prior to 2001 (total 134 acres, 1997-2000). (Prior to refuge establishment, farmers and 

ranchers may have conducted burning at times to improve livestock forage and to clear irrigation 

ditches and canals; however little is known about these prior management practices.) A prescribed 

burning program was begun on the Refuge in 2001 with a 75-acre burn completed to improve habitat 

conditions on Toomey Pond (Table 4.2). From 2001 to 2012, 22 prescribed fires totaling 1,756 acres 

have been conducted at Camas NWR. Prescribed fire units at Camas NWR have generally been small 

in size (100 acres or less). 

Approximately 42 percent of prescribed fire, in terms of acreage, has been conducted to improve 

habitat conditions in wetlands, control invasive species, burn slash piles of fallen shelterbelt trees or 

Russian olive after they have been removed, or to clean ditches of accumulated debris and vegetation 

prior to the spring irrigation season. Most of these prescribed fire treatments have been in marsh 

habitat, to remove dense residual vegetation. A smaller amount of treatments have been in the wet 

and dry meadows. About 58 percent of prescribed fires by acreage have been treatments to reduce 

fuel loads, and therefore wildfire risk, to protect refuge or adjacent private property. 

Table 4.2 Prescribed Fires at Camas NWR, 2001-2012 

Fire Name Fire # Year Fire Type Total Acres 

Toomey 1855 2001 Treatment 75 

Redhead A097 2003 Treatment 100 

Spring Pond 1469 2004 Wildland Urban Interface 162 

Camas Piles 05 1588 2005 Treatment 10 

Tumble Mustard 06 A054 2006 Wildland Urban Interface 66 

Willow Piles 06 A057 2006 Wildland Urban Interface 66 

Field 7 A055 2006 Treatment 36 

Rays Willow rx A525 2006 Treatment 50 

Camas Piles A527 2006 Treatment 36 

Rx Burning A650 2007 Wildland Urban Interface 20 

S Big Pond A624 2007 Treatment 40 

Grouse Field 1639 2008 Wildland Urban Interface 30 

Field 7b 1401 2008 Treatment 30 

Flat Pond 1402 2008 Treatment 62 

Pc Piles 1836 2009 Wildland Urban Interface 5 

Independent Rx 09 1852 2009 Wildland Urban Interface 410 

Mallard Piles 1835 2009 Treatment 30 

CSR Pile Rx 2010 A227 2010 Wildland Urban Interface 10 

CSR Ditches A A269 2010 Wildland Urban Interface 100 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

4-16 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Table 4.2 Prescribed Fires at Camas NWR, 2001-2012 

Fire Name Fire # Year Fire Type Total Acres 

Toomey A268 2010 Treatment 210 

Q2 Rx A475 2011 Wildland Urban Interface 28 

Big Pond W1159 2012 Wildland Urban Interface 180 

Total Acres 1,756 

Due to constraints such as the waterfowl nesting season (mid-April to late summer), water level 

fluctuation, and fire season, the Refuge has two prescribed burn windows in spring and fall. As 

determined from past years’ burn experience, the approximate burn windows are in spring (March 1 

to April 15) and fall (September 20 to October 30). During these windows the above constraints can 

be mitigated and vegetation is cured out enough to meet prescribed burn objectives. Prescribed fire is 

conducted so as to protect sensitive habitats (sagebrush/grassland habitats located on the north and 

west side of the Refuge; riparian habitat along Camas Creek associated with headquarters); private 

property and residences; refuge facilities; and cultural resources. 

The results of prescribed fire, in terms of habitat improvement, have been mixed to date. The 2008 

Grouse Field burn was done to remove non-native vegetation (e.g., cheatgrass and smooth brome) 

from a field that was being prepared for a native grass and forb restoration and met this objective. 

However spring burns in areas where Canada thistle already exists, may result in at least temporary 

increases of this weed. The 2010 burn of Toomey Pond was conducted reasonably early in the spring 

with the goal of reducing the amount of dense, tall emergent wetland vegetation (bulrush and cattails) 

that had built up over time in that wetland unit. This burn was not successful in meeting the stated 

objective because the soil was still frozen, protecting the roots of these plants, which resprouted later 

in the season. On the other hand, the 2012 Big Pond burn was conducted later in the spring and after 

a mild winter. This fire burned hot enough to kill the roots of emergent vegetation, leading to a 

noticeable reduction of density and size of the emergent vegetation in this wetland unit. To date, no 

monitoring efforts have been put in place to quantify post-fire habitat conditions or treatment results 

for either wildfire or prescribed burns. This points to the need for measurable biological objectives in 

future fire plans. 

In 2009 two separate prescribed fires escaped their boundaries. The Mallard Slough prescribed fire 

was the first, when slash piles initially surrounded by snow, escaped and burned 172 acres eight days 

after the fire was ignited. The Independent prescribed fire was ignited on April 20th 2009, less than 

one mile to the southwest while broadcast-burning light to moderate grass. The objective of the 

prescribed fire was to consume 95 to 100 percent of the grass in the 410-acre burn unit to reduce 

hazardous fuels and create favorable wildlife habitat conditions. The escaped fire burned an 

additional 55 acres (including some willow riparian vegetation), all on refuge land (USFWS 2009a). 

Grazing 

Livestock grazing continued after the USFWS purchased the lands that are now Camas NWR. In 

1938, then Assistant Refuge Manager Howard J. Sargent wrote in the annual narrative: “On basis of 

observations during this quarter it appears necessary or at least desirable to either eliminate grazing 

on most of the Refuge or build sufficient interior fence to protect pothole and marsh areas.” Both 

grazing (20-25 permittees) and winter feeding (normally two or three permittees) of livestock were 

permitted uses of Camas NWR in the early years. The 1952 annual narrative reported that 33 grazing 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-17 

permits were issued, for a total of 5,353 AUMs. Grazing levels remained fairly static into the 1970s, 

with the possible exception of lower levels during extreme dry conditions. The last winter feeding 

operation was terminated in 1969. In the 1980 Annual Narrative, then Manager Jack Richardson 

reported that 4,620 AUMs were leased from Camas NWR, and mentions the possible elimination of 

grazing from the Refuge. 

On October 22, 1992, the National Audubon Society, the Wilderness Society, Defenders of Wildlife, 

Black Hills Audubon Society, and Alan D. Riley filed a complaint for declaratory judgment and 

injunctive relief against Manual Lujan, Jr., Secretary of the Interior; John F. Turner, Director, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service; and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The complaint challenged the actions 

of the Service in authorizing and allowing secondary uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System, 

such as grazing, military air exercises, motorboating, and watersports, without ensuring that such 

uses are compatible with the purposes of the national wildlife refuges on which they occur. The 

Service agreed to a settlement on October 21, 1993. The settlement agreement required that the 

Service “review all secondary uses on all national wildlife refuges to ensure that they are compatible 

with the major purposes for which the respective units were established” (USFWS 1994). Grazing on 

Camas NWR was discontinued as part of the settlement agreement in this litigation. The last permits 

were issued in 1993 and since then, interior fencing has gradually been removed. 

Haying and Farming 

Camas NWR began to produce crops for waterfowl and forage for livestock in the early 1940s. The 

1940 Annual Narrative reported that millet was sown in shallow wetland areas on the Refuge. In 

1941, 5 acres near the headquarters site were plowed, disced, and seeded to non-native crested 

wheatgrass (which was planted extensively in the region at that time, for both livestock forage and 

soil stabilization). In 1942 two five-acre patches near Sandhole Lake were broken and planted to 

barley, and 40 acres near the refuge headquarters planted to small grain (sharecrop). By 1947 it was 

reported that 240 acres of the Refuge were being farmed for grain production. Between 1944 and 

1945, 100 pounds of crested wheatgrass was broadcast seeded near Rays Lake. In 1949 1,000 pounds 

of millet were planted in around ponds, and 1,000 pounds of sweetclover planted on the west side of 

Independent Ditch. 

The intensity of the refuge farming program increased in the 1950s. In 1950, 160 acres of new 

ground were broken for grain production and 500 pounds of yellow sweetclover were seeded at 

various sites. In an effort to increase early season forage for livestock, Camas NWR planted one ton 

of brome grass seed received from Medicine Lake NWR and one ton of crested wheatgrass seed from 

Slade NWR. The 1956 annual narrative reports that 20 acres of refuge lands were leveled for farming 

purposes. By the mid to late 1960s, approximately 500 acres of land on the Refuge had been leveled 

to increase the production of small grain crops. One of the reasons for this major increase in cropping 

was to support the Animal Damage Control (ADC) program, and the trumpeter swan and whooping 

crane recovery programs at Red Rock Lakes NWR and Grays Lake NWR in the 1970s. Grain from 

Camas NWR was shipped to the Pocatello Supply Depot for use by ADC, while grain was shipped to 

Red Rock Lakes NWR to feed trumpeter swans as part of the swan recovery program. In early 1970s, 

Grays Lake NWR received grain from Camas for a whooping crane project. In 1977 Camas NWR 

was relieved of these duties, and grain production was immediately reduced. 

By 1981 the annual narrative reported that only 160 acres of refuge lands were still in crop 

production. By the late 1980s cropped acres had been further reduced to 70 acres. From the late 

1980s to the present day, acres in crop production have ranged from 120 to 160 acres and grain 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

4-18 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

production has been de-emphasized in favor of legumes (alfalfa) which provides not only green 

forage for geese and other waterfowl, but benefits to sage-grouse, white-faced ibis, long-billed 

curlew, and Swainson’s hawk. Currently most of the Refuge’s 160 farmed acres are in irrigated 

alfalfa (140 acres), while only 20 acres are in small grain (winter wheat or barley). All crops are 

currently produced under cooperative agreements with local farmers. 

Tree Plantings 

As the area was homesteaded most settlers planted trees, at least around buildings to provide 

protection from wind and shade in the summer. It is likely that Idaho Livestock Lands, Inc. had 

planted some trees around what is now the refuge headquarters site, as well as on other lands 

acquired by the Refuge. The large cottonwoods near the refuge headquarters date from prior to refuge 

establishment. Once the Refuge was established, additional trees were planted to benefit wildlife. In 

1940, 2,000 Russian olive trees were planted at various locations on the Refuge, along with 375 

chokecherry, 600 hawthorn, 200 currant, 700 black willow, and 300 wild plum trees. Ground juniper, 

white fir and spruce were also planted at the headquarters site in that same year. In 1941, 4,000 more 

Russian olive and 300 Caragana (Siberian pea) were planted. In 1947, 60 black willows were 

planted near Quarters #2. In 1956, IDFG personnel planted 2,300 Russian olive and 20 ash trees near 

the headquarters site and Quarters #2. In 1958, large numbers of lilacs were moved to the 

headquarters area. In 1971, Russian olive, Siberian elm, and Siberian pea were planted on refuge 

lands. 

The importance of this mostly non-native shelterbelt habitat to landbird migration was brought to 

light in a study conducted by Jay Carlisle in 2005 and 2006 (Carlisle et al. 2008). Dr. Carlisle found 

that the landbird migrants using the shelterbelt habitat around the refuge headquarters were making 

significant weight gain, which was vital for the journey these birds were making to and from their 

breeding grounds (see Section 4.4.3 below). After this study, some carefully planned tree plantings 

were undertaken at the headquarters site to attempt to replace some the trees that were dead or 

already lost, with native species. 

Wildlife Releases 

At least two wildlife releases were conducted on Camas NWR in the early 1940s. On October 4, 

1940, 60 chukars (Alectoris chukar) were released on the Refuge with hopes of establishing a selfsustaining population. Because of the lack of suitable habitat on the Refuge, these birds quickly 

disappeared. It appears that this was the only attempt to release chukars on the Refuge, and similar 

releases on the Snake River Plain met with the same fate. In 1941, 30 Hungarian partridge were 

released for the first time on refuge property. It appears that there were multiple releases of 

Hungarian partridge on the Refuge, particularly during the 1960s and 1970s when some local kennel 

clubs were allowed to host dog trials on the Refuge. Other species of birds may have been released as 

well, but records are not available. Hungarian partridge still exist on the Refuge today, in relatively 

low numbers. 

In 1983 in a cooperative effort, Utah Power and Light, the Peregrine Fund, and the IDFG erected 

hack towers for the release of peregrine falcons in certain locations in eastern Idaho. One of these 

sites was on Camas NWR. That first year, three young were hacked to the tower and two eventually 

fledged. In 1984 five young falcons were hacked to the site and all five fledged. In 1988 as 

preparations were being made to hack more young to the tower at Camas NWR, it was discovered 

that an adult pair of peregrine falcons were using this tower as a nest site. No young were hacked to 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-19 

the tower that year to allow territory establishment. 1989 saw three peregrines fledged from the 

tower, from a resident pair of falcons. Since then, falcons have nested successfully on this site in 

most years. 

Fisheries 

No major work or effort has ever been put into management of fishery resources on Camas NWR, 

but some observations were reported in the annual narratives. In the 1938 annual narrative it was 

noted that catfish and perch were observed in Sandhole Lake. In 1939 crappie were planted in 

Sandhole Lake, and trout were observed in Independent Ditch. Perch and chubs were observed in 

Camas Creek in 1941, and in 1942 trout were observed at Buck Springs, Camas Creek, Mallard 

Slough, and Warm Creek. Observations in 1944 were: 2- to 3-inch catfish in Sandhole Lake, perch in 

Mallard Slough, and rainbow trout at Buck Springs. In 1952, 1,500 pounds of suckers were taken in a 

trap on Camas Creek by a commercial fisherman. Two-Way Pond froze out in the winter of 1952 and 

large numbers of suckers and perch died from this event. In 1954 the IDFG, through publication of 

fishing rules, opened Camas NWR to public fishing. However, this was not approved by the Service 

and no fishing was allowed. Also in 1954, the State used rotenone in Mud Lake (Mud Lake Wildlife 

Management Area), refuge lakes and ponds, and Camas Creek to remove all fish. This apparently 

was successful and the State later stocked Camas Creek with trout and Mud Lake with bass. In 1976 

the first recorded hoop netting took place on Sandhole Lake and produced one perch, Utah chubs, 

and seven bullheads. A yellow perch die off was recorded in Center Pond in 1979. More netting took 

place in 1980 on Sandhole Lake and produced Utah chubs, yellow perch, and large-mouth bass. In 

1989 it was recorded that both rainbow and cutthroat trout were observed in Camas Creek. Another 

notable winter kill occurred in 1990 in Rays Lake. Species found were tiger muskellunge, largemouth bass, Utah chubs, and suckers. 

Today, some trout, in particular non-native brook trout, can be found in the upper reaches of Camas 

Creek (Garren 2010). Refuge annual narratives contain documentation of sightings of cutthroat and 

rainbow trout. The last recorded sighting of trout on the Refuge was in 1995 (rainbow trout in in the 

main diversion channel near the Well #4 outlet).

Fisheries management is not possible on Camas NWR given the current water situation. During 

spring flows fish do move up Camas Creek and enter the Refuge from either the northern reaches of 

Camas Creek or Mud Lake. All ponds or lakes on the Refuge are either dry by winter, or freeze out 

during the winter months. 

Invasive Species Control 

The first mention of invasive plants in the annual narratives was in 1941 when 10 acres of Russian 

knapweed were “cleaned up.” In 1946 refuge personnel had started to use the herbicide 2-4D to 

control Canada thistle, sow thistle, and morning glory. In 1947 managers were using both herbicides 

and controlled burns to control knapweed. The 1953 narrative mentions the use of plowing for weed 

control. The use of spraying for pests was implemented in 1954 when the Refuge used a Service 

plane to spray 605 acres of cattails and also treat 75 acres for grasshoppers. In 1955 a mixture of 2-

4D and diesel fuel was used to treat 500 acres of weeds. The first recorded release of bio-control 

agents (insects for the control of Canada thistle) was in 1994 and 1995. In 2009 there were four 

releases of stem mining weevils (Ceutorhynchus litura) and crown mining (seed head) weevils 

(Rhinocyllus conicus) on Camas NWR for control of Canada thistle. In 2010 the 2009 releases were 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

4-20 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

supplemented with fifteen releases of stem and crown mining weevils and fifteen releases of leaf 

defoliating beetles (Cassida rubiginosa). 

Wildlife Control 

In 1948 the Refuge set out 200 pounds of poisoned muskrat meat to attract and kill magpies that were 

felt to be overpopulated and causing depredation issues. From 1951 through 1969, the Refuge also 

hosted, or had personnel present at, jackrabbit drives, which were intended to reduce crop and habitat 

damage caused by high jackrabbit populations. Five hundred people participated in the first drive and 

captured 2,300 jackrabbits. In 1970, the refuge manager decided that the Refuge and its staff would 

no longer participate in rabbit drives and ended the Service’s association with those events. In recent 

decades, control of animals involved in off-refuge agricultural depredation has been conducted by the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife Services. 

Wildlife Surveys 

The history of banding waterfowl on Camas NWR dates back to the early 1950s. The first data found 

in the files were from 1951 when 1,916 ducks were banded. In the 1950s, between 700 and 2,000 

ducks were banded per year. Banding efforts were strong in the 1960s with 1,200 to 2,700 ducks 

being banded annually. Winter banding was also conducted, with as many as 769 mallards being 

banded in January of 1966. Banding efforts decreased in the 1970s, with 500 to 1,000 mallards being 

banded annually, and in some years managers did not report that any banding was conducted. 

Banding resumed in the 1990s, but only 200 and 450 ducks were banded annually. The last recorded 

banding effort occurred in 1995 when 242 ducks were banded at Camas NWR. In 2001 the banding 

permit for Camas NWR had become inactive and has not been reactivated. 

Sagebrush-Steppe Habitat Restoration 

Recently, Camas NWR staff has conducted sage-steppe restoration on previously farmed refuge 

lands. Two different treatment sites were selected (15.7 acres and 14.0 acres, total 29.7 acres). Both 

sites were burned in the fall of 2008 and then sprayed with glyphosate in the spring and fall of 2009. 

The two sites were further split into four treatment areas and all seeded with the same native grass 

and forb mix. Three different treatments were applied: (1) seeding only (two areas), (2) disking 

twice, and harrowing before seeding (one area); and (3) spraying with imazapic after seeding (one 

area). The newly seeded areas were not irrigated and are part of a demonstration project to see if the 

seeding can survive without irrigation. The seeded area is being monitored with permanent study 

transects and plots. 

4.1.4 Changes in Wildlife Populations after Refuge Establishment 

Historically, the Camas area hosted a diverse and abundant wildlife that used an attractive mosaic of 

habitats with a vigorous and healthy flora. Depending on species, wildlife used these habitats both 

seasonally, and year round. The combined influences of climatic change and anthropogenically 

induced hydrogeologic degradation, combined with early human overuse of the local natural 

resources, have led to declines in the majority of wildlife species. These declines are generally 

continuing to present day, but vary in intensity. A few wildlife species, such as white-tailed deer and 

Rocky Mountain elk, have increased or are increasing, but the permanence of those proliferations are 

uncertain. While not the only limiting factor on wildlife populations and habitat condition, the 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-21 

decline of water availability and quality in the Camas Creek Basin is a major cause of declining 

habitat quality and therefore, wildlife populations as well.

Birds 

Continental passerine, waterfowl, and waterbird populations have changed considerably since the 

Refuge was established in 1937, and refuge populations have fluctuated widely through time. In 

some cases species abundance has declined, due to habitat changes and other causes. The loss of 

many habitats, including breeding wetlands, regionally and nationally increases the importance of 

remaining areas like Camas NWR, although the Refuge itself has certainly experienced declines in 

extent and/or quality of some habitats. 

Use of the Refuge by trumpeter swans, Canada geese, and many species of breeding waterfowl 

increased dramatically after establishment. This generally followed the recovery of the continental 

waterfowl populations in the late 1930s, as drought conditions eased and hunting was regulated to 

ensure sustainable wildlife populations. Construction of impoundments and wetlands on the Refuge, 

along with farming for wildlife, probably resulted in local increases in waterfowl populations, 

although the significance of this new wildlife-centric management to duck, goose and swan 

populations on the continental or flyway level is unclear. Refuge managers and biologists of the 

period tended to ascribe recovering waterfowl numbers generally to both improving climatic 

conditions and more intensive habitat management. 

Waterfowl data from refuge Annual Narrative Reports are presented in Section 4.4.1 below. Peak 

spring waterfowl estimates varied widely from year to year, with a low of 8,000 in 1948 to a high of 

197,000 in 1979. In 1982, the last year for which data are available, the peak spring count was 

25,000. Peak fall waterfowl estimates varied from a low of 9,585 in 1962, to a high of 200,000 in 

1946. In 1991, the last year for which data are available, the fall peak was 65,000. Since then, fall 

peaks appear to be much lower, because the Refuge now typically holds little open water in the fall. 

Waterfowl production was reported at 18,000 in 1943; the low figure was 905 in 1959. In dry years, 

production was in the 1,700-2,000 range, while in wetter years, production was in the 4,000-9,000 

range. In recent years, production has probably been relatively low, due to the lower acreage of 

wetlands that remain hydrated through the brood-rearing season. 

Mammals 

Camas Refuge has historically supported a diverse community of large ungulates. Five species occur 

on the Refuge: elk, moose, mule deer, white-tailed deer, and pronghorn. Data are presented in section 

4.4.2 below. Populations and densities of these five species have been highly variable since refuge 

establishment. Elk and moose populations have increased since refuge establishment: initial records 

are of sporadic individual sightings, followed by a trend of slow growth over decades. The area’s elk 

population has increased dramatically from early historical records. Accounts of trappers in the mid1800s suggest that elk were common, though buffalo and bighorn sheep were more numerous. 

Unregulated harvest of the late 1800s and early 1900s reduced populations to relatively low levels. 

By 1952, elk were believed to be numerous enough to warrant the first hunting season. Since then, 

elk have continued to increase, likely as a result of the combination of forage (e.g., alfalfa) on 

farmlands, and the security provided by refuge habitat (see section 4.4.2 below). 

Idaho’s mule deer population has fluctuated widely at least since the early 1800s, and likely previous 

to that time. Early accounts from that period indicated that deer were less numerous than buffalo, 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

4-22 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

bighorn sheep, and elk. Deer declined through the early 1900s, probably due to unregulated harvest. 

By 1920 deer were quite rare. From 1920 to the early 1970s, deer numbers increased dramatically, 

interrupted briefly by significant winter mortality. Following a significant decline in numbers 

beginning in 1972, numbers again increased. In 1975 mule deer surpassed pronghorn as the most 

abundant ungulate on the Refuge. Numbers peaked at 200 in 1992. Both on the Refuge and 

throughout Idaho, mule deer experienced high mortality in the winter of 1992-1993. The refuge herd 

has never recovered and mule deer are now rarely seen on the Refuge. White-tailed deer were absent 

from the Camas NWR area, or at least unobserved, until 1972 and then only sporadically recorded 

for approximately 10 more years. In the mid-1980s, reports of white-tailed deer began to increase 

rapidly and were beginning to surpass mule deer numbers by the mid-1990s. 

Pronghorn were maintaining the largest herds of any of the ungulates at refuge establishment and 

continued relatively stable for several decades. Peak numbers recorded on the Refuge were about 350 

animals in the early 1950s. As with mule deer, pronghorn populations have declined, not only at the 

Refuge but across the western states (Rachael 2010). Currently, pronghorn herds are the smallest of 

any refuge ungulate, excepting mule deer. There is currently a small herd of 20-50 pronghorn that can 

regularly be found within the Refuge. 

Muskrats are a flagship species when considering marsh function and health. These rodents are 

“ecosystem engineers” that maintain a balance between tall emergent vegetation and open water 

areas within wetlands, especially the deeper and more permanent basins. We have been unable to 

locate historic data on muskrat populations or harvest on the Camas Creek marshes. However, it is 

likely that muskrat populations were historically low in the refuge area but increased as the water 

table rose in the early 1900s. It is likely that muskrat populations declined from early refuge levels. 

There are no population estimates for other mammals, such as bobcats (Lynx rufus), coyotes (Canis 

latrans), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), striped skunks (Mephitis mephitis), spotted skunks (Spilogale 

putorius), raccoons (Procyon lotor), badgers (Taxidea taxus), river otter (Lutra canadensis), beaver 

(Castor canadensis), mink (Neovison vison), and weasels (Mustela spp.). Occasionally populations 

are mentioned as “high” or “low” in refuge annual narratives, but these are subjective assessments at 

best. Historically coyote, badger and spotted skunk would likely have been the most abundant 

medium-sized predators in the region, while red fox, raccoon and striped skunk would have been rare 

or absent. The red fox, as an example, was considered to be absent from the uplands of eastern Idaho 

and rarely present on in the Snake River Plain, if at all. The development of farms and ranches in the 

area created conditions favorable to the more adaptable red fox, raccoon, and striped skunk, while 

increased human populations and activity have been detrimental to the coyote, badger and spotted 

skunk. However, we have been unable to locate Camas NWR records to locally substantiate this 

theory. Mountain lion (Felis concolor) and black bear (Ursus americanus) have both been observed 

on Camas NWR, but their occurrence is very rare. Refuge habitat is not suitable for long-term 

occupancy by these species. Mink also occur, but again, reliable population estimates are not 

available. 

Fish 

Native fishes, especially Camas Creek populations of Yellowstone cutthroat trout, have declined from 

historic populations. Since the character of Camas Creek has declined to a seasonal stream, we 

assume no trout of any species survive within the refuge boundaries, except during spring runoff 

events. Under these circumstances, Yellowstone cutthroat trout, as well as non-native brook trout and 

rainbow trout, are washed down from the upper reaches of the stream. There are few data on other 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-23 

fishes of the Camas Creek floodplain, other than suckers (probably Utah suckers), being prominently 

mentioned by Manager Richardson in the 1979-1993 annual narrative reports as being very abundant, 

particularly during low water periods. 

Reptiles, Amphibians, and Invertebrates 

There are little refuge data on reptiles or amphibians, and Camas NWR generally appears to have a 

low-to-moderately abundant herpetofauna. Subjectively, the amphibian populations do not appear to 

be particularly diverse or robust. This is no doubt a function of the Refuge’s xeric (dry) nature, sandy 

soils, rocky sites and very cold winters. There are no data on species present, or population trends for 

any reptile or amphibian species. The only minor, organized survey to date was an extensive one-day 

search for malformed northern leopard frog metamorphs on July 17 and 30, 2009. That limited 

survey yielded no amphibians of any species and only one aquatic reptile, a painted turtle. We 

suspect that this investigation severely underestimates the existing amphibians at Camas, but it 

nonetheless gives a sense of the relatively low occurrence of this class on the Refuge. As with 

herptiles, there is little information on terrestrial or aquatic invertebrates, despite growing recognition 

of their ecological importance. 

4.2 Selection of Priority Resources of Concern 

4.2.1 Selection Process 

Early in the planning process, the planning team identified 40 focal species (resources of concern) for 

the Refuge, as recommended under the Service’s Policy on Habitat Management Plans (620 FW 1). 

In this policy, resources of concern (ROCs) are defined as: 

All plant and/or animal species, species groups, or communities specifically identified in 

refuge purpose(s), System mission, or international, national, regional, State, or ecosystem 

conservation plans or acts. For example, waterfowl and shorebirds are a resource of concern 

on a refuge whose purpose is to protect ‘migrating waterfowl and shorebirds.’ Federal or 

State threatened and endangered species on that same refuge are also a resource of concern 

under terms of the respective endangered species acts. (620 FW 1.4G) 

The Service’s Draft Identifying Resources of Concern and Management Priorities for a Refuge: A 

Handbook (USFWS 2009c) states that “Habitats or plant communities are resources of concern when 

they are specifically identified in refuge purposes, when they support species or species groups 

identified in refuge purposes, when they support NWRS resources of concern, and/or when they are 

important in the maintenance or restoration of biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health.” 

Therefore, resources of concern for a refuge may be a species or species group, or the habitat/plant 

community that supports a priority species/species group. (Resources of concern are called 

conservation targets in conservation planning methodologies used by other agencies and NGOs.) These 

priority resources of concern (ROCs) frame the development of goals and objectives for wildlife and 

habitat. Resources of concern may be species, species groups, or features that the Refuge would 

actively manage to conserve and restore over the life of the CCP; or species that are indicators of 

habitat quality for a larger suite of species (see “Other Benefitting Species,” Table 4.4). Negative 

features of the landscape, such as invasive plants, may demand a large part of the refuge management 

effort, but are not designated as resources of concern. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

4-24 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

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

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

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

focal species is to emphasize habitat attributes most in need of conservation or most essential for 

functional ecosystems. By managing for a group of species (guild) representative of important 

components in a functioning ecosystem, the elements of biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health will also be addressed. Focal species are a prioritized subset of the Camas 

NWR Resources of Concern from Appendix E and represent legally mandated species and natural 

communities for management of Camas NWR. The species selected as priority resources of concern 

support the following NWRS mandates: 

 Support the Refuge’s establishing purposes and the NWRS mission; 

 Conserve biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health; 

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

species, interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammals); 

 High regional conservation priority. 

A description of the methodology used to select focal species for this CCP follows. 

Selection of Focal Species 

Refuge staff extensively documented and reviewed thirteen regional, flyway, and State plans or lists 

to classify the conservation status and management priority of Camas NWR fish, wildlife, and plant 

species (Appendix E: Resources of Concern). Seven of these plans predominately center on avian 

species (e.g., birds, shorebirds, waterbirds, waterfowl). Four plans or lists prioritized not only avian 

species, but all species of great conservation need. Of these four plans, the Idaho Conservation 

Strategy for Southeast Idaho Wetlands is the narrowest in scope, focusing singularly on wetland 

habitats. The Idaho Fish and Game Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy, priority 

species list of the USFWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife program, and The Nature Conservancy 

(TNC) Ecoregional Assessments for the Columbia Plateau identified and ranked the conservation 

need for a suite of species across multiple habitats. 

Subset of Resources of Concern 

The list of 292 Resources of Concern (Appendix E) was narrowed down to a smaller subset for 

Camas NWR. The subset of Camas NWR Resources of Concern (Appendix E, Table E-5) contains 

153 species of the greatest conservation need, including 36 of the 88 species identified in the Snake 

River Basalts Section of the Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (ICWCS). The 36 

ICWCS species that inhabit Camas NWR consist of 34 birds, seven mammals, one amphibian, and 

one reptile. An additional fifteen ICWCS species with State rankings of S1 (Critically Imperiled), S2 

(Imperiled), or S3 (Vulnerable) and not identified as Camas Section species of the greatest 

conservation need and not identified on any other regional conservation plan, but known to inhabit 

Camas NWR, were added to the refuge subset of Resources of Concern list. Thirty-seven species 

identified in the TNC Ecoregional Assessments were included in the subset list, as were 20 USFWS 

Birds of Conservation Concern from Region 1 (n=12), BCR 9-Great Basin (n=14), and BCR 10-

Northern Rockies (n=12). A total of 46 high priority and 34 moderate priority birds from the Idaho 

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

West Regional Shorebird Plan, were identified for the subset list of Resources of Concern. The subset 

list also includes 36 BLM sensitive species, consisting of 31 birds, three mammals, one amphibian, 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-25 

and one reptile of Type 1 (1); Type 2 (4); Type 3 (18); Type 4 (1); and Type 5 (12) BLM rankings. 

Fifteen waterfowl species of moderately high or greater breeding or non-breeding priority in BCR 9, 

as identified in the North America Waterfowl Management Plan, were included in the subset. The 

Conservation Strategy for Southeastern Idaho Wetlands identified sixteen species-of-concern, 

including one bird (double-crested cormorant) not found in any other plan or list reviewed. The 

North America Waterbird Conservation Plan identified one high, nine moderate, and four low priority 

species of conservation concern that inhabit Camas NWR. Refuge staff also performed an internal 

assessment of refuge species that contribute significantly to impacting (positively or negatively) the 

biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge, but are not found in any other 

conservation plan or list. This assessment yielded nine additional species for the subset list of 

Resources of Concern for Camas NWR. 

Focal Resources 

Refuge staff selectively filtered the list of Focal Resources for Camas NWR (Appendix E, Table E-5) 

and developed a Resources of Concern list of species, which represent the collective needs of the 

larger groups of species or communities on the Refuge. In total, 40 representative focal species were 

identified for Camas NWR (Table 4.3). Collectively, these 40 focal species represent the requisite 

wildlife life-histories required in the management of the seven wetland and upland habitat types of 

Camas NWR (Table 4.4). 

Additional tables that support this chapter are located in Appendix E and include a Comprehensive 

List of Resources of Concern (both species and habitat types), and Biological Integrity, Diversity, 

Environmental Health tables that describe habitat types, key ecological processes, and limiting 

factors. In Section 4.3, we consider the condition and trends of the habitat types that support these 

focal wildlife species. In Section 4.4, we consider condition and trends of populations of key species 

and species groups on the Camas NWR. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

4-26 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Table 4.3. Priority Resources of Concern (Focal Species, 

n= 40) for Camas NWR

Swans 

Trumpeter swan 

Geese 

Canada goose 

Dabbling Ducks 

Cinnamon teal 

Northern pintail 

Northern shoveler 

Diving Waterbirds 

Lesser scaup 

Redhead 

Grebes 

Eared grebe 

Pelicans and Cormorants 

American white pelican 

Wading Birds 

American avocet 

Sandhill crane 

Marsh Birds 

White-faced ibis 

Shorebirds 

Long-billed curlew 

Marbled godwit 

Common snipe 

Terns and Gulls 

Franklin’s gull 

Raptors 

Bald eagle 

Short-eared owl 

Peregrine falcon 

American kestrel 

Upland Game Birds 

Sage grouse 

Woodpeckers 

Downy woodpecker 

Flycatchers 

Willow flycatcher 

Olive-sided flycatcher 

Western wood-pewee 

Mockingbirds and Thrashers 

Sage thrasher 

Shrikes 

Loggerhead shrike 

Vireos 

Warbling vireo 

Warblers 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-27 

Table 4.3. Priority Resources of Concern (Focal Species, 

n= 40) for Camas NWR

Yellow warbler 

Blackbirds, Meadowlarks, Orioles 

Western meadowlark 

Mammals 

Ground squirrel spp. 

Pygmy rabbit 

Sagebrush vole 

Mink 

Muskrat 

Elk 

White-tailed deer 

Pronghorn 

Moose 

Amphibians 

Northern leopard frog 

Table 4.4. Focal Species Comparison by Breeding and Foraging Habitats at Camas NWR

Habitat Type 

Use of Habitat by Focal Species 

Breeding Foraging Other Benefitting 

Species 

Hemi-Marsh 

(50:50-Open 

water/Submerged 

aquatic: Deep 

Emergentbulrush/cattail) 

Trumpeter swan 

Eared grebe 

Redhead 

Muskrat 

White-tailed deer 

(Winter) 

Franklin’s gull 

White-faced ibis 

Cinnamon teal 

Northern pintail 

Northern shoveler 

Lesser scaup 

American white pelican 

Peregrine falcon 

Mink 

Shallow Marsh Northern leopard frog Northern leopard 

frog (Winter) Sandhill crane Cinnamon teal 

White-faced ibis 

Eared grebe 

Northern pintail 

Common snipe 

Moose 

Wet Meadow 

(Sedges, rushes, 

grasses) 

Sandhill crane 

American avocet 

Cinnamon teal 

Northern shoveler 

Common snipe 

White-faced ibis 

Long-billed curlew 

Marbled godwit 

Franklin’s gull 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

4-28 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Table 4.4. Focal Species Comparison by Breeding and Foraging Habitats at Camas NWR

Habitat Type 

Use of Habitat by Focal Species 

Breeding Foraging Other Benefitting 

Species 

Short-eared owl 

Western meadowlark 

Dry Meadow 

(Grasses, forbs) 

Long-billed curlew 

Canada goose 

Lesser scaup 

Western meadowlark 

Short-eared owl 

Sandhill crane 

Franklin’s gull 

Sagebrush Steppe 

(Sagebrush, 

rabbitbrush, 

bitterbrush, 

bunchgrass, forbs) 

Greater sage-grouse 

Sage thrasher 

Loggerhead shrike 

Sagebrush vole 

Pygmy rabbit 

Pronghorn antelope 

Ground squirrel spp. 

Northern pintail 

Long-billed curlew 

Elk 

Riparian 

(Willow, grasses) 

Willow flycatcher 

Yellow warbler 

Greater sagegrouse(Brood and 

Winter) 

Elk (Security Cover) 

 Greater sage-grouse 

Elk 

Moose 

Shelterbelt 

(Cottonwood, 

small trees, 

shrubs) 

Warbling vireo 

Western wood-pewee 

Downy woodpecker 

American kestrel 

Bald eagle (Winter 

roosting) 

Yellow warbler 

Olive-sided flycatcher 

Agriculture 

(Small grains, 

legumes, fallow) 

Sandhill crane 

Canada goose 

Long-billed curlew 

Elk 

White-tailed deer 

Greater sage-grouse 

(Brood rearing) 

4.2.1 Analysis of Priority Resources of Concern 

Wildlife and habitat goals and objectives were designed directly around the habitat requirements of 

species designated as priority resources of concern. In developing objectives, the team followed the 

process outlined in the Service’s Draft Identifying Resources of Concern and Management Priorities 

for a Refuge: A Handbook (USFWS 2009c). 

In developing its listing of Priority Resources of Concern, the team selected not only species 

identified in refuge purposes and international, national, regional, State, or ecosystem conservation 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-29 

plans, but also species that captured the key ecological attributes of habitats required by larger suites 

of species. A key ecological attribute of an ROC is defined as: 

“A characteristic of the resource’s biology, ecology, or physical environment that is so 

critical to the resource’s persistence, in the face of both natural and human-caused 

disturbance, that its alteration beyond some critical range of variation will lead to the 

degradation or loss of the resource within decades or less.” (Unnasch et al. 2009) 

The team analyzed the key ecological attributes of habitats that are necessary to meet the life history 

requirements of ROCs, and are therefore critical to sustain the long-term viability of the ROC and 

other benefitting species (see Appendix E). Key ecological attributes include habitat patch size; 

adjacency to or contiguity with other habitats; vegetation structure, species composition, age class, 

and seral stage; frequency and duration of flooding; and frequency and intensity of fire. These key 

ecological attributes provide measurable indicators that strongly correlate with the ability of a habitat 

to support a given species. For most attributes, the team developed “desired” conditions that were 

based partly on scientific literature review and partly on team professional judgment. These desired 

conditions for specific attributes were used to help design measurable habitat-based objectives, as 

presented in Chapter 2. Not all key ecological attributes or indicators were deemed ultimately 

feasible or necessary to design an objective around. In addition, while the key ecological attribute 

identifies a desired condition for most indicators, other factors, such as feasibility and the ability to 

reasonably influence or measure certain indicators, played a role in determining the ultimate 

parameters chosen for each objective. Thus the key ecological attributes should be viewed as a step 

in the planning process, but the ultimate design of objectives was subject to further discussion and 

consideration. Appendix E serves as a supporting appendix to Chapter 2. 

The team analyzed limiting factors for the habitats that support the ROCs. A limiting factor is a threat 

to, or an impairment or degradation of, the natural processes responsible for creating and maintaining 

plant and animal communities (see Appendix E). In developing objectives and strategies, the team 

gave priority to mitigating or abating limiting factors that presented high risk to ROCs. In many cases 

limiting factors occur on a regional or landscape scale and are beyond the control of individual 

refuges. Therefore objectives and strategies may seek to mimic, rather than restore, natural processes. 

For example pumps and water control structures may be used to control water levels in wetlands in 

areas where natural hydrology has been altered. The structure of plant communities used by ROCs 

can be created, rather than restoring native species composition. For example, haying may be used to 

maintain a desirable vegetation structure, when restoring native grassland communities may be 

impractical. 

4.3 Habitat Types 

A baseline inventory of Camas NWR habitats, including vegetation mapping, was completed in 2012 

(Miewald et al. 2012). The effort resulted in characterization of sixteen plant communities (primarily 

mapped to the Alliance level) and four additional cover types (e.g., open water, nonvegetated, 

developed), based on analysis of aerial imagery combined with ground truthing. These are combined 

into five primary habitat types for the purposes of this analysis: Wetlands (including hemi-marsh, wet 

meadow, and open water); Willow Riparian and Scrub-shrub; Sagebrush-Steppe; Agriculture 

(including hay, alfalfa, and small grains); and Shelterbelt. Upland and Lowland Non-Native (also 

called ruderal) Vegetation are plant communities dominated by introduced non-native species. 

Historically these areas would have been represented by Sagebrush-Steppe/Dry Grassland, and Wet 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

4-30 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Meadow communities, respectively. Map 3 (Chapter 2) shows current distribution of habitat types on 

Camas NWR. Table 4.5 below summarizes habitat and vegetation types on the Refuge. 

Table 4.5. Habitat and Vegetation Types Of Camas NWR 

CCP Habitat Type 

Acres % of 

Total 

Acres 

U.S. National Vegetation Classification 

Type 

Acres 

Agricultural 328.2 3.05 Hay, Cooperative Farming (Alfalfa, Small 

Grain)* 

328.2 

Riparian 

(NWI riverine, 

palustrine scrubshrub) 

279.3 2.6 Narrow-Leaf Willow Shrubland Alliance 277.5 

Russian Olive Alliance* 

1.8 

Shelterbelt 

33.9 0.32 Crack Willow Alliance 9.7 

Cultural Woody Vegetation* 33.9 

Shrub Steppe 

2,622.6 24.38 Intermountain Semi-Desert Grassland and 

Steppe Group 

209.2 

 Green Rabbitbrush Shrubland and Steppe 

Alliance 

470.6 

 Intermountain Dry Tall Sagebrush 

Shrubland and Steppe Group, Native 

1,749.9 

 Intermountain Dry Tall Sagebrush 

Shrubland and Steppe Group, Ruderal* 

191.6 

 Non-Vegetated (Intermountain Basins 

Cliff, Scree and Badland Sparse 

Vegetation) 

1.4 

Upland Non-Native 

1,113.6 10.35 Crested Wheatgrass Ruderal Grassland 

Alliance* 

983.9 

 Great Basin and Intermountain Ruderal 

Dry Shrubland and Grass* 

129.8 

Wet Meadow (NWI 

Palustrine 

Emergent) 

1,958.1 18.2 Baltic Rush Herbaceous Alliance 1,950.0 

 Native Sedge Montane Wet Meadow 

Alliance 

8.1 

Lowland NonNative 2,746.8 25.53 Western North American Ruderal Wet 

Meadow and Marsh Group* 

2,746.8 

Hemi-Marsh (NWI 

Palustrine 

Emergent, 

Palustrine Flooded) 

841.0 7.82 Common Spike-Rush Herbaceous 

Alliance 

256.9 

 Hard-Stem Bull-Rush Herbaceous 

Alliance 

485.1 

Broadleaf Cattail Herbaceous Alliance 51.6 

Senescent Vegetation Dominant (Litter) 37.7 

Open Water (NWI 

Lacustrine, 

Riverine) 

735.6 6.83 Amaranth Mudflat Sparse Herbaceous 

Alliance 

256.8 

Open Water 439.0 

 River Bottom Active Channel, 

Transitionally Vegetated 

39.8 

Developed 100.2 0.93 Developed 100.2 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-31 

Table 4.5. Habitat and Vegetation Types Of Camas NWR 

CCP Habitat Type 

Acres % of 

Total 

Acres 

U.S. National Vegetation Classification 

Type 

Acres 

Total Acres 10,759.3 100 

Total Acres Native 6,436.6 59.82% 

Total Acres Nonnative 4,322.7 40.17% 

Source: Miewald et al. 2012. 

USNVC types are finest level mapped (Group, Alliance, Association). 

* indicates non-native vegetation. 

4.3.1 Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats

Overview 

For the purposes of the CCP, wetlands are defined according to the classification system (Cowardin 

et al. 1979) used by the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI); however for the purposes of analysis 

here we exclude all riparian habitats which might be included under this classification, that is, those 

areas dominated by woody perennial shrubs or trees. These are discussed in Section 4.3.2, Willow 

Riparian and Scrub-Shrub. Cowardin et al. describe wetlands as “lands transitional between 

terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface, or the land is 

covered by shallow water.” A positive indicator of wetland status requires the presence of one of the 

following: 

 hydrophytic plants; 

 hydric soils; or 

 saturated or flooded soils during part of the growing season. 

The key divisions of the NWI classification relevant to the Refuge include the lacustrine, palustrine, 

and riverine systems. Lacustrine wetlands are generally permanently flooded and are identified as 

those areas lacking trees, shrubs, or emergent vegetation with greater than 30 percent areal coverage 

and measuring greater than 20 acres. Smaller areas can be defined as lacustrine if the water depth in 

the deepest part of the basin exceeds 6.6-feet at low water. Palustrine wetlands may or may not be 

permanently flooded, but they are typically recognized by the presence of trees, shrubs, or 

herbaceous emergent vegetation. Under the NWI classification, Camas NWR shallow marsh includes 

the following palustrine types: 

 Class = Emergent wetland (water regime modifier = semipermanently flooded) 

 Class = Emergent wetland (water regime modifier = seasonally flooded) 

 Class = Emergent wetland (water regime modifier = temporarily flooded) 

 Class = Unconsolidated bottom (water regime modifier = temporarily flooded) 

 Class = Unconsolidated bottom (water regime modifier = semipermanently flooded) 

 Class = Unconsolidated shore (water regime modifier = seasonally flooded) 

 Class = Open water (water regime modifier = semipermanently flooded) 

 Class = Shrub scrub (water regime modifier = seasonally flooded) (Shrub-scrub is discussed 

in Section 4.3.2 below, “Riparian and Instream Habitat.” 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

4-32 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Wetland plant communities tend to respond to the depth, duration, timing, and frequency of flooding 

(Fredrickson and Taylor 1982). Over time, these communities become well established and provide a 

snapshot of the type of hydrologic regime in place during the community development process. 

While other abiotic factors such as soil structure, groundwater movement, substrate texture, and 

water quality have some influence, hydroperiod is likely the primary formative factor in maintaining 

productive wetlands at Camas NWR. 

Lacustrine (lake), palustrine (marsh) and riverine (stream) wetland systems are all represented in the 

Camas floodplain wetlands. As may be seen in Table 4.5, the majority of refuge wetlands are the 

palustrine type, along with small areas of lacustrine limnetic and littoral subsystems included within 

some of the deeper basins. Palustrine wetlands are characterized by a mix of wetland plant 

associations subject to a range of water regimes (temporary, seasonal, semipermanent and 

permanent). On the Refuge, semipermanent is the most common water regime, followed by seasonal 

and temporary, in that order. Permanent water regimes are the rarest among refuge wetlands, as 

would be expected in an arid environment. Within the palustrine system, the emergent vegetation 

class is the primary type encountered on the Refuge. All of the Refuge’s active wetlands (see Refuge 

Management Activities section below for definition of active vs. inactive) are primarily palustrine 

emergent type, including the natural wet meadows and the hayed meadows. The inactive meadows 

are classified entirely as palustrine emergent vegetation. 

In combination, the two primary components of palustrine emergent wetlands, perennial emergent 

hemi-marsh and ephemeral wet meadow, provide for the seasonal needs of all wetland-dependent 

resources of concern. Perennial emergent hemi-marsh and ephemeral wet meadow currently cover 

approximately 8 percent and 18 percent, respectively, of the Camas NWR habitat base (see Table 4.5 

above). 

Refuge wetlands total 6,561 acres, of which 24 percent (1,577 acres) is considered emergent and/or 

deepwater wetland habitat (hemi-marsh and open water, including mudflats); 72 percent (4,705 

acres) are wet meadow-type wetlands; and 4 percent (279 acres) is riparian scrub-shrub (Table 4.5). It 

must be noted that more than half of the wet meadow habitat type (2,747 acres or 42 percent of total 

wetlands) is dominated by non-native vegetation (shown as “lowland non-native vegetation” in 

Chapter 2, Map 3) (Miewald et al. 2012). A detailed description of each wetland type is included in 

the following sections. 

1. Perennial Emergent Hemi-Marsh can be defined as a roughly equal mix of emergent and open 

water/submergent habitat, and is critical to fulfilling the life history strategies of numerous wetland 

dependent wildlife species (Weller and Spatcher 1965). While the term is somewhat antiquated and 

rarely used today, a clear understanding of the general concept is essential to effective perennial 

emergent marsh management. The general premise is that overwater nesting waterbirds require 

habitat to fulfill two primary life history requirements during the breeding season; nesting and brood 

rearing. Nesting habitat (consisting of deep and shallow emergent vegetation) provides plant material 

necessary to construct floating or elevated nest structures, while brood rearing habitat (consisting of 

open water and submergent vegetation) provides the forage base for fledgling waterbirds. Maximum 

nesting densities are realized where the deep emergent marsh component retains a complex edge, 

relative to the open water component, and there is a 50:50 mix of these two components within any 

given management unit. Ideally, this optimal relationship would be realized through a large number 

of smaller open pools (1-25 acres) within emergent vegetation; however, at present, most refuge 

hemi-marsh habitat consists of a few large pools (>100 acres) ringed by emergent vegetation. Habitat 

types within the hemi-marsh system include: 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-33 

(a) open water, 

(b) submergent wetlands, 

(c) deep emergent wetlands, and 

(d) shallow emergent wetlands. 

a) Open Water Habitat is defined as permanently flooded habitat greater than 12 inches in depth 

that is devoid of any aquatic vegetation. Open water habitat is vital to providing fish-eating birds 

such as white pelicans, western grebes, and Clark’s grebes access to this food source. While not as 

essential as submerged habitat to a wide diversity of wetland dependent wildlife, it is important to 

maintain open water for a select few species which require this habitat for foraging. Open water 

wetlands also offer long sight distances and are free of mammalian predators. Therefore, they provide 

important loafing, resting, roosting and molting habitats for waterfowl. 

Some deeper basins at Camas NWR, for example Sandhole Lake, contain open water year round, 

while other shallow basins dry out seasonally, creating mudflats. At Camas, 736 acres (6.8 percent of 

the Refuge) have been mapped as open water. Of this, 257 acres have been mapped as the “Amaranth 

mudflat sparse herbaceous alliance” (Miewald et al. 2012). 

b) Submergent Habitat can be defined as permanently flooded habitat greater than 6 inches but less 

than 36 inches in depth, which consists of primarily aquatic submergent vegetation species such as 

pondweed, coontail, or water milfoil. Submergent habitat can be further subdivided into early and 

late producing submergent vegetation species such as pondweeds and muskgrass (Chara). Late 

successional submergent habitat consists of primarily leafy vegetation such as water milfoil, coontail, 

and mare’s tail. Providing leafy browse for grazing species, seeds for granivorous species, and 

invertebrate resources for molting, nesting, and young waterbirds, submergent habitat provides a 

major food reserve within the hemi-marsh system. 

Beds of submergent aquatic vegetation have been noted in the Refuge’s open water habitat but have 

not been mapped separately to date, nor have surveys of aquatic vegetation been done. In the 2012 

vegetation survey, submergent habitat was included under the Open Water habitat type (Miewald et 

al. 2012).

Submergent habitat provides the desirable open water condition in palustrine emergent marsh 

wetlands. The desired condition is approximately 50 percent submergent habitat in open water areas, 

while maintaining a minimum of 5 percent of the refuge area as this habitat type. Within successional 

stages, it would be desirable to maintain between 60 to 80 percent of submergent habitat in early 

successional seed producing vegetation, while maintaining 20 to 40 percent of submergent habitat in 

a late successional stage consisting of leafy browse-dominant vegetation. 

c) Deep Emergent Habitat can be defined as semipermanently flooded habitat consisting primarily 

of hardstem bulrush, but also containing cattail. Emergent vegetation at varying levels of residual 

coverage provides nesting habitat and cover for a variety of wetland dependent wildlife species. 

Emergent vegetation forms the “housing” component of the hemi-marsh environment, including 

overwater nesting sites for wetland dependent bird species; invertebrate substrate for foraging 

waterbirds; lodge materials and loafing sites for aquatic mammals, and shade and cover for all 

species. 

Similar to submergent habitats, deep emergent habitat can be further subdivided into three 

successional stages: early successional (deep emergent habitat consisting of less than 30 percent 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

4-34 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

residual vegetation coverage from previous year’s growth), mid successional (deep emergent habitat 

consisting of 30-90 percent residual vegetation coverage), and late successional (deep emergent 

habitat consisting of over 90 percent residual vegetation coverage). Different levels of residual 

vegetation are desirable to different resources of concern based on seasonal life history requirements. 

Early successional deep emergent habitat is a direct result of prescribed fire and typically lasts less 

than two years following a burn. Mid successional deep emergent habitat is found in areas burned 

between three to seven years prior. Late successional deep emergent habitat typically occurs more 

than seven years following disturbance (mechanical or prescribed fire). The desired condition is to 

maintain between 10 percent and 20 percent of refuge deep emergent habitat in an early successional 

seral stage (<30 percent residual cover), between 60 percent and 80 percent in a mid-successional 

stage (30-90 percent residual cover), and between 10 percent and 20 percent of refuge deep emergent 

habitat in a late successional stage (>90 percent residual cover). 

d) Shallow Emergent Habitat is defined as semipermanently to ephemerally flooded habitat 

consisting primarily of hardstem bulrush, but also containing shallowly flooded cattail and alkali 

bulrush, typically flooded to a depth of 3 to 24 inches. The primary difference between deep and 

shallow emergent habitat is water permanence. Shallow emergent habitats are occasionally dewatered 

during summer months, while deep emergent habitats are permanently wet. Additionally, this habitat 

type contains plant species such as alkali bulrush and annual plants which provide additional food 

reserves for wildlife within the hemi-marsh complex. While deep emergent vegetation forms the 

concentric ring around open water/submergent habitats, shallow emergent vegetation provides the 

interface with the ephemeral wet meadow zone. As such, the shallow emergent zone functions 

similarly to the deep emergent zone for wetland dependent wildlife species that require wet meadow 

and adjacent uplands to fulfill their life history strategies. 

Together, deep and shallow emergent wetlands cover approximately 840 acres or 7.8 percent of the 

Refuge (Miewald et al. 2012). 

2. Ephemeral Marsh is the palustrine emergent marsh component that is subject to an ephemeral 

hydrologic regime. Water depths range from moist soil during late summer to as much as two feet 

during spring. It is this seasonal fluctuation that produces and then concentrates food reserves for 

most wetland-dependent wildlife species. The diversity and complexity of plant species within 

ephemeral marsh habitats provides ideal substrate for invertebrates, which constitute 90 percent of 

most waterbird diets during summer months. With fall flooding during migration, the seeds produced 

by annual plants additionally provide forage for migratory waterbirds. Ephemeral marsh consists of 

two habitat types including (a) wet meadow and (b) alkaline meadow, either of which can be treated 

as moist-soil habitat with the appropriate water management strategy.

a) Wet Meadow is defined as ephemeral to semipermanently flooded marsh dominated by low 

stature, flood tolerant, annual, and perennial plants. Typical species include spikerush, Baltic rush, 

and flood tolerant grasses such as foxtail barley, saltgrass, and rabbitfoot grass. Approximately 1,950 

acres, or 18.2 percent of the Refuge, is the native Baltic Rush Herbaceous Alliance. Only 8 acres are 

Native Sedge Montane Wet Meadow Alliance. While native, Baltic rush becomes more dominant in 

grazed areas (Kittel et al. 2012). Past grazing practices probably contributed to the prevalence of 

Baltic rush in the Refuge’s wet meadow communities. The most extensive vegetation group on the 

Refuge is the non-native Western North American Ruderal Wet Meadow and Marsh Group, which 

occupies 2,747 acres or more than 25 percent of the Refuge. Historically, this was likely native wet 

meadow habitat (Miewald et al. 2012). 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-35 

Wet meadow habitats can be further subdivided by successional stage. Early successional status 

includes wet meadow habitat where less than 20 percent of the community contains dense residual 

cover, whereas late successional status is defined as wet meadow habitat where greater than 90 

percent of the community contains dense residual cover and/or greater than 20 percent of the 

community is forb dominant. The desired condition is less than 60 percent of wet meadow in the 

early successional stage and a minimum of 20 percent to 40 percent coverage in the late successional 

stage. Only 150 acres of Camas wet meadow is hayed annually; see section 4.3.4 below, Agriculture. 

Therefore in terms of successional status, the wet meadows at Camas meet this desired condition. 

The majority of meadow-type wetlands, especially the more mesic sites, were considered “wild hay” 

(native grasses that were hayed annually) before refuge establishment. Although some native herbs 

and grasses survive, much of the hayland meadows have been converted to “tame” species, such as 

quack grass, smooth brome and alfalfa. Management of hay units are described in section 4.3.4 

below. Approximately 330 acres of areas previously farmed in small grain were allowed to go fallow 

in the mid-1970s when refuge grain production was scaled back. Consequently non-native grasses 

(quackgrass, smooth brome) became established in these areas. 

Table 4.6. Key Ecological Attributes, Indicators, and Condition Parameters for Wetlands 

Habitat 

Type 

Key 

Attributes 

Indicators/ Desired Conditions 

All wetland 

types 

Hydrology Natural hydrologic cycles to stimulate vegetation succession, soil 

desiccation and nutrient recycling. Annual spring floods with 

gradual summer to fall drawdowns so that approximately 33% of the 

Refuge is in natural or simulated drought, normal or flood 

conditions. Different units would be managed in rotation so that any 

unit would cycle through drought, normal and flood conditions. 

Hydroperiod Maintain sufficient water in all wetland habitat types to fulfill 

natural ecological processes and meet life history needs of wetland 

dependent wildlife. 

Vegetation 100% native emergent and submergent species. 

Patch Size Sufficient to ensure normal ecological function and to meet life 

history needs of all wetland dependent wildlife. 

Invertebrates Diverse and abundant populations of native terrestrial and aquatic 

invertebrates. 

Population size, density and distributions sufficient to maintain selfsustaining viable populations, provide forage for all insectivorous 

wildlife, and perform necessary ecological functions such as 

herbivory, predation and pollination. 

Invasive 

Species 

Few to none. <10% thistles, Phragmites and other wetland invasive 

plants; few to no carp or other non-native fish. 

Palustrine 

emergent 

hemi-marsh 

Structure Complex edge of open water component; 50:50 mix of open water 

and emergent vegetation within each management unit. Large 

number of small open pools (1-15 ac) within emergent veg. (At 

present most refuge hemi-marsh consists of a few large pools ringed 

by emergent vegetation.) 

Open Water Water 

Depth/ 

Quality 

100% coverage of high clarity open water, greater than 12 inches 

deep in impounded wetland units 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

4-36 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Table 4.6. Key Ecological Attributes, Indicators, and Condition Parameters for Wetlands 

Habitat 

Type 

Key 

Attributes 

Indicators/ Desired Conditions 

Submergent 

aquatic 

vegetation 

Vegetation Aquatic submerged veg (e.g., pondweed, coontail, water milfoil) 

60-80% early successional seed producing veg 

20-40% late successional leafy browse veg 

Water 

Regime/ 

Depth 

Permanently flooded, 6-36 inches deep 

Deep 

emergent 

habitat 

Vegetation Tall emergent vegetation, primarily hardstem bulrush, cattail. 

10% to 20% in early seral stage (<30% residual cover), 60% to 80% 

in mid seral stage (30%-90% res cover), 10% to 20% in late seral 

stage (>90% res cover) 

Water 

Regime 

Depth 

Semipermanently to ephemerally flooded 3-24" deep 

Shallow 

emergent 

habitat 

Vegetation Hardstem bulrush, shallowly flooded cattail, alkali bulrush 

Water 

Regime, 

Depth 

Semipermanently to ephemerally flooded 

Ephemeral 

marsh 

Vegetation Emergent vegetation, e.g., rushes, sedges. 

Water 

Regime/ 

Depth 

Ephemerally flooded, moist soil during late summer to ≤24 inches in 

spring 

Wet 

meadow 

Vegetation Low stature, flood tolerant, annual and perennial plants, e.g., 

spikerush, Baltic rush, foxtail barley, saltgrass, and foxtail grass. 

≤60% in early seral stage and ≥20%-40% in late seral stage 

Water 

Regime/ 

Depth 

Ephemerally to semipermanently flooded 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-37 

Table 4.7. Key Ecological Attributes, Indicators, and Condition Parameters for Waterfowl—

Wetlands 

Key Ecological 

Attributes 

Indicators Desired Conditions 

Hydrology/hydroperiod Variable depth over space 

and time; intra- and interannual variation as 

determined by surface 

and groundwater 

availability. 

Applied surface water in different areas according 

to Camas Creek flows. 

Vegetation diversity 

and structure 

Rotating hemi-marsh 

conditions; wide 

abundance and diversity 

of submerged aquatic 

vegetation 

Sago pondweed and other Potamogetons; ≤50% 

surface area moderately dense (≤50 stems/m2

) 

emergent vegetation (e.g., bulrush, cattail) for 

nesting and brood cover 

Forage Abundant and diverse 

submerged aquatic 

vegetation; abundant and 

diverse invertebrate 

populations. 

Sago and other Potamogetons; Myriophyllum; 

Ceratophyllum; gastropods; chironomids; 

amphipods; etc. determined by site and 

hydroperiod. 

Invasive species Few to no invasive plants 

or animals present 

No carp, Eurasian milfoil, thistles, etc. 

Human use None to much, depending 

on location and season 

No disturbance during breeding (courtship through 

brood rearing); localized and high disturbance 

during legal hunting seasons to freeze-up, with 

sanctuary provided. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

4-38 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Table 4.8. Key Ecological Attributes, Indicators, and Condition Parameters for Colonial 

Waterbirds—Wetlands

Key Ecological 

Attributes 

Indicators Desired Conditions 

Hydrology/hydroperiod Variable depths over 

space and time within 

each refuge unit, by 

specific impoundment. 

Maintain stable breeding conditions for large 

colonial nesting concentrations; approximately 1-

foot water elevation in historic colonial nesting 

waterbird colony sites. Maintain approximate 

50:50 interspersion of perennially flooded hemimarsh for overwater and upland nesting 

waterbirds. Maintain submergent vegetation for 

post breeding forage. Reflood annual plants 

produced by summer drawdown for fall migratory 

waterfowl use. 

Vegetation diversity 

and structure 

Rotating temporary, 

seasonal, and structure. 

Semipermanent and 

permanent wetlands 

containing a wide 

abundance and diversity 

of submerged and 

emergent vegetation. 

Moderately dense to dense (≤50 stems/m2

) 

emergent vegetation (e.g., bulrush, cattail) for 

nesting and brood cover 

Forage Abundant and diverse 

submerged aquatic 

vegetation hosting 

abundant and diverse 

macro-and microinvertebrate populations.

 

A variety of native submerged aquatic plants, 

hosting diverse and abundant invertebrates (i.e., 

coleoptera, gastropods; chironomids; amphipods; 

etc.) determined by site and hydroperiod. 

Invasive species Few to no invasive plants 

or animals present 

No carp, Eurasian milfoil, thistles, etc. 

Human use None to much, depending 

on location and season 

Except for required research or monitoring, no 

disturbance during breeding (courtship through 

brood-rearing); localized and high disturbance 

during legal hunting seasons to freeze-up 

permitted since these species can use other areas. 

Regional Distribution, Conditions, and Trends of Wetlands 

In Idaho an estimated 386,000 acres of wetland habitat (56 percent) were lost from 1780 to 1980 

(Dahl 1990). Many remaining wetlands have been degraded by actions such as hydrologic alteration 

and impacts to vegetation and soils. Wetlands, including deepwater habitat, cover approximately 

34,766 ha (85,909 acres) of southeastern Idaho’s Upper Snake River watershed (Kittel et al. 2012). 

Most of these wetland occur in mid to upper elevations in the watershed (27 percent is 

subalpine/montane riparian in upper elevations and 50 percent is foothill and lower montane riparian 

woodland and shrubland). Thirteen percent is open water (primarily the American Falls Reservoir). 

Low elevation wetlands account for only 4 percent of wetlands in the watershed (1,296 ha/3,202 

acres of floodplain and 116 ha/287 acres of emergent marsh). Wetlands cover 2,325 ha (5,745 acres) 

of the Beaver-Camas watershed; 82 percent is mid to upper elevation riparian. Eight percent 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-39 

(193 ha/477 acres) is open water (mostly Mud Lake) and only 190 ha/470 acres (8 percent) is 

floodplain and emergent marsh habitat. 

The Ecological Integrity Assessment for Camas NWR (Kittel et al. 2012) concluded that lower 

elevation riparian and marsh areas are in the poorest condition relative to other wetland types in both 

the Upper Snake River and Beaver-Camas watersheds, with high impacts from development. In the 

Beaver-Camas watershed, emergent wetlands had a condition ranking of 37/100 (Low Condition) 

and lowland riparian and floodplain had condition ranks of 61/100 and 66/100 respectively 

(Moderate). (These scores do not reflect cumulative loss of wetland habitat, only condition of 

existing habitat). The EIA also concluded that Camas NWR has some of the best condition low 

elevation wetlands within the local Beaver-Camas watershed. Camas NWR also has some of the best 

base-of-the-foothills positioned wetlands in the entire Upper Snake River Watershed, especially 

along the northern edge of the Snake River Plain. The location of Camas’ wetland and riparian areas 

within a landscape that has largely been converted to intensive production agriculture, as well as its 

position within an interior arm of the Pacific Flyway, make it strategically important for supporting 

wildlife movement and long-term conservation of wetland-dependent species. 

Condition and trends of Camas NWR wetlands. A significant portion of the existing wetlands at 

Camas NWR have intensive anthropogenic influences. Many of the present ponds are completely 

manmade and artificial. Others, including numerous meadow and hayfield wetlands, have been 

extensively modified by human activity. Construction of numerous impoundments with water control 

structures allowed managers to partition and manage discrete water bodies for specific goals and 

objectives, based on hydrology, soils, vegetation, and other ecological factors, but this management 

was dependent on adequate water. However, proper water management is difficult in this complex 

system, and requires considerable skill in monitoring and interpreting conditions at any given place 

or time. It is imperative to have new management guidelines that will allow managers to factor in 

current conditions while still striving to maintain wetland habitat goals. 

In the absence of adequate water to hydrate wetlands, invasive plants easily gain a foothold. The 

2011 vegetation survey of the Refuge (Miewald et al. 2012) showed that approximately 40 percent of 

Camas NWR (including approximately one-third of upland plant communities and half of lowland, 

for instance, wetland plant communities) are “ruderal,” that is, constituted primarily of non-native 

species, such that reconstructing the original vegetative community of the area is difficult. By 

extension, these non-native, undesirable plant communities can be expected to continue to increase. 

Managers must be extremely cautious of any activities in, or near, those sites that would provide 

opportunities for, or accelerate the rate of, weed expansion. 

Kittel et al. (2012) ranked the ecological integrity of both wetland and upland sites at Camas NWR 

(127 sites covering 252 acres/102 ha). Ninety-three wetland sites and 34 upland sites were assessed. 

Metrics for assessing ecological integrity of wetland sites included relative cover or native and nonnative plant species, vegetation composition (species composition and diversity), soil surface 

condition, and patch diversity. An EIA score of 1 is a highly altered ecosystem that has a high level of 

stress, little buffer or resistance capacity, and may not recover from continued application of 

stressors. An EIA score of 5 represents reference conditions in a completely undisturbed state. In 

addition, ecological integrity of the Refuge’s wetland complexes were also assessed using remote 

sensing with GIS with field verification. Metrics for wetland complexes included surrounding land 

uses, landscape and hydrologic connectivity, buffer indices, and absolute and relative size. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

4-40 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

For the 93 wetland samples, one third of the plots ranked excellent to good integrity (EIA score A-B, 

3.1-5.0), while the remaining two thirds ranked fair to poor integrity (EIA score C-D, 1.0-3.0) (Table 

4.9). Soils showed very little direct physical damage, no soil compaction, excessive erosion, or offroad vehicle damage. Lower scores at Camas NWR are largely due to the abundance of non-native 

invasive plant species. Some areas have completely transformed into ruderal types (areas that are 

dominated entirely by non-native species and are now beyond the natural variation of the native 

vegetation community once present). 

Looking at the ecological integrity scores summarized by their vegetation classification by the US 

NVC Group type, we can tease out the condition of remaining native, non-ruderal habitats. The 

Freshwater Marsh Group (US NVC G518 Western North American Temperate Interior Freshwater 

Marsh Group, 19 sites) consists of emergent wetland vegetation dominated by tall species such as 

hardstem bulrush (Schenoplectus acutus) and cattails (Typha latifolia), or the much shorter spikerush 

(Eleocharis palustris). These wetlands remain saturated or with standing water for much of the 

growing season and are therefore often nearly devoid of invasive weed species. About half of the 

Freshwater Marsh areas sampled were in excellent condition (47 percent), 21 percent in good 

condition, 21 percent in Fair condition, and 11 percent in Poor condition. Poor condition sites were 

often located at the drier fringes of the wetland where invasive weeds can more easily gain a 

foothold. 

As the sites with the most transient water regimes, wet meadows are particularly vulnerable to 

invasion by non-native plants. The Wet Meadow Group (USNVC G521 Vancouverian and Rocky 

Mountain Montane Wet Meadow Group) was sampled 28 times. Twelve percent of sites were in 

excellent condition, 17 percent were in good condition, about half of the areas were in fair condition, 

and one quarter were in poor condition. In the NRCS state and transition vegetative succession 

models, there are two community states for wet meadow sites, where either sedge (Nebraska, Carex 

nebrascensis, or beaked, Carex rostrata) and Baltic rush (Juncus balticus) are dominant (Germino et 

al. 2010). Stringham (2003) defines a “state” as “a recognizable, resistant and resilient complex of 

two components, the soil base and the vegetation structure.” The expected natural dominant plant 

species of these sites, in the admittedly subjective rating of “healthy” condition, should be sedge and 

rush. The NRCS technical guide notes the wet meadow site will transition to an altered state with 

lowering of the 10-20 inch reference water table. The dominant plants and other plant species within 

the wet meadow community change as the site shifts to different successional sites. The water table 

at Camas NWR has receded far below the 10-20 inch zone. 

Kittel et al. found more examples of poor condition Baltic Rush (Juncus balticus) Alliance than the 

montane sedge alliance; however few Montane Sedge Wet Meadow Alliance sites were sampled 

(three sites). The Baltic Rush Alliance had more samples where non-native quack grass (Agropyron 

repens) was co-dominant, whereas the montane sedge meadow alliance had stands where non-native 

species were less abundant. The Ruderal Wet Meadow and Marsh Group is by definition dominated 

by non-native invasive species and the assumption in applying EIA ranking criteria is that these areas 

were once the native wet meadow type that has now been completely transformed into a novel 

ruderal type. The EIA score of “D” or poor, is consistent with the classification of these areas, i.e., 

they are no longer functioning as (and are outside the natural range of variation of) their native 

counterparts. Additional sample points from freshwater and alkaline flats showed a similar trend with 

20 percent in good condition and 80 percent in fair to poor condition. 

These results confirm the findings of Germino et al. (2010). They found that of 23 Camas wet 

meadow transects, Baltic rush was above 35 percent coverage of ground area in only three transects 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-41 

(13 percent), and was above 10 percent coverage in five more transects (22 percent). The other 

dominant plant type in reference sites, sedges, were only found above 10 percent on three transects 

(13 percent). 

Germino’s work further characterizes the wet meadow sites as follows: “The cover of all transect 

points combined in wet meadows was 24% quackgrass; 16% Baltic rush, 11% tufted hairgrass, 6.6% 

western wheatgrass, 4% each of pennycress, smooth brome, and Devil weed; 3% spikerush, about 1-

2% each of scirpus bulrush, sisymbrium, cheatgrass, rabbitbrush, Canadian thistle, wild licorice, 

prickly lettuce, poverty weed, and kochia.” Obviously, the conditions of the hay meadows and the 

unmodified portions, or balance, of the wet meadow ecological sites have greatly departed from the 

expected natural condition. Germino concluded, “Much of the habitat classified as wet meadow at 

Camas NWR appears to be in the transition from state 2 to 3, or it is in an undescribed state that does 

not resemble typical wet meadows and instead has early-successional and exotic weedy species of 

upland habitats.” 

Wetland Complex Ecological Integrity Analysis. 

Big Pond Wetland Complex (Map 12) includes Big Pond, Spring Pond, Flat Pond, Goose Pond, and 

Brindley Pond. Component metric scores included some excellent and poor rating scores for a total 

Ecological Integrity Assessment score of 3.3, “B-” or fair/good. The Landscape context is very good, 

since the complex is mostly surrounded by other wetlands, natural vegetative cover, and only a small 

amount of irrigated agriculture (score “A”). The immediate buffer area surrounding the wetland 

contains a 15-20-meter (m)-wide (49-66-feet-wide) dirt road on a raised dike that nearly surrounds 

the wetland, while the rest is native or weedy vegetation (Buffer Index score “D”). The total 

Landscape score is a “C” (Fair). 

The size of Big Pond Complex is relatively large for this type of wetland (score “A”), but the loss of 

an artesian well due to a drop in the groundwater table has reduced the historic extent of this wetland 

area, giving a relative size score “B.” The total Size score still averaged out to an “A,” (excellent). 

The Big Pond Complex has areas of entirely native vegetation (emergent marshes of bulrush and 

cattail and native wet meadows of Baltic rush). One field site at Big Pond received an “excellent” 

score for vegetation condition. However the complex also contains large areas of non-native invasive 

weeds, which have transformed formerly native wet meadows into ruderal vegetation (for example, 

Flat Pond), likely due to the loss of groundwater upwelling in the northeast corner of the wetland. 

The average condition of the vegetation in six field-based sites is a “C” (fair). The hydrology metrics 

are scored as good, since the refuge is actively replacing lost groundwater upwelling with pumped 

water, and the hydroperiod as managed may be replacing the historic pattern of high spring flows and 

late fall drawn downs. In addition, the water management allows for hydrologic connectivity between 

the Big Pond and Center Pond wetland complexes. The total Hydrology Score is “B” (good). Current 

soil surface conditions appear excellent with little compaction, erosion, damage or off-road vehicle 

use: score “A.” However the physical patch type or patch diversity has been altered; the ponds are 

deeper and there is more open water than was historically present (score “C”). The total Condition 

score combines the vegetation condition, hydrology condition and soils condition which averages out 

to a “B” or good score. The overall Ecological Integrity Assessment score for Big Pond Wetland 

Complex is 3.3, “B-” or fair/good. 

Center Pond Wetland Complex includes most of the Refuge’s “core” wetlands and consists of Center 

Pond, Two-way Pond, Toomey Pond, Redhead Pond and Rat Farm Pond. Component metric scores 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

4-42 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

included some excellent and poor rating scores for a total Ecological Integrity Assessment score of 

3.1, “C” or fair. Since the Center Pond Complex is located in the heart of Camas NWR, the 

surrounding area beyond the wetland buffer to 500 m (1,640 feet) is nearly all natural land cover with 

little human influence, scoring “A” (excellent) for both landscape continuity and land use. However, 

the immediate wetland buffer is not natural; 15-20-m-wide (49-66-feet-wide) dirt roads on raised 

berms nearly surround the wetland. The limited area with a natural buffer has mostly non-native 

weedy vegetation, so the Buffer Index score is “D.” The combined Landscape Context (Buffer Index, 

Land Use, and Landscape Connectivity) score is “C.” 

The size of the Center Pond Complex is typical and relatively large for this type of wetland (score 

“A”), but the loss of an artesian well due to a drop in the groundwater table has reduced the historic 

extent of this wetland area, giving a relative size score “B.” The total Size score still averaged out to 

an “A” (excellent). 

As with the Big Pond Complex, Center Pond has areas of entirely native emergent marshes of 

bulrush, cattail and spike rush (e.g., Toomey, portions of Center, and Two-Way Ponds) and native wet 

meadows of Baltic rush and native sedges. However, it also contains large areas of former wet 

meadows that are now dominated by non-native invasive weeds (e.g., the northeast portion of the 

Complex, and Rat Farm Pond) likely due to the loss of groundwater upwelling. The average 

vegetation condition of sixteen field based sites is a “D” or poor rating. As with the Big Pond 

Complex, the hydrology scores are good, since the lost groundwater upwelling is being replaced with 

pumped water, and the managed hydroperiod may simulate the historic pattern. In addition, the water 

management allows for hydrologic connectivity between Center Pond and other wetland complexes. 

The total Hydrology Score is “B” (good). Current soil surface conditions appear excellent with little 

compaction, erosion, damage or off-road vehicle use: score “A.” However the physical patch type or 

Patch diversity has been altered; the ponds are deeper and there is more open water than was 

historically present (score “C”). The total Condition score combines the vegetation condition, 

hydrology condition and soils condition, and averages out to a “B,” (good). The overall Ecological 

Integrity Assessment score for Big Pond Wetland Complex is 3.3, “B-” or fair/good. 

The Rays Lake Wetland Complex includes Rays Lake, Sandhole Lake, Mallard Slough and Cattail 

Flat, and Avocet Pond. Cattail Flat is adjacent to Camas Creek and was part of its historic floodplain. 

Component scores included some excellent and poor scores, for a total Ecological Integrity 

Assessment score of 3.1, “C” or fair. Rays Lake Complex is surrounded by wetland and upland 

habitats with little human footprint within 500 m (1,640 feet), scoring “A” (excellent) for both 

landscape continuity and land use. About half of the immediate wetland buffer is composed of 15-20-

m-wide (49-66-feet-wide) dirt roads on raised berms. The rest of the buffer has mostly non-native 

weedy vegetation, so the Buffer Index score is “D.” The combined Landscape Context (Buffer Index, 

Land Use and Landscape Connectivity) score is “C.” 

The size of Rays Lake Wetland Complex is typical and relatively large for this type of wetland (score 

“A”), but the loss of both Camas Creek inflows and artesian wells due to a drop in the groundwater 

table has reduced the historic extent of this wetland area, giving a relative size score of “B.” The total 

Size score still averaged out to an “A” (excellent). 

Rays Lake has areas of entirely native emergent marshes of bulrush, cattail and spike rush, and native 

wet meadows of Baltic rush and native sedges (e.g., Sandhole Lake and portions of Rays Lake). 

However there are large areas of non-native invasive weeds (e.g., portions of Cattail Flat and Mallard 

Slough) that have transformed formerly native wet meadows into ruderal vegetation; again, likely 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-43 

due to the loss of groundwater upwelling. The average score for vegetation condition of the 32 field 

based sites is “C” (fair). The hydrology score is good, since the lost groundwater upwelling is being 

replaced with pumped water, and the managed hydroperiod may simulate the historic pattern of high 

spring flows with late fall drawn downs. In addition, the water management allows for hydrologic 

connectivity between Rays Lake, Camas Creek, and other wetland complexes. The total Hydrology 

Score is “B” (good). Current soil surface conditions appear to be fair, with some areas of compaction, 

erosion, damage, or off-road vehicle use: score “C.” However the physical patch type or patch 

diversity shows what appears to be a natural gradient between shallow marsh and uplands. The patch 

diversity appears to be a near historic pattern for this type of wetland complex, for a score of “A.” 

The total Condition score combines the vegetation condition, hydrology condition and soils 

condition, which averages out to a “B” or good score. The overall Ecological Integrity Assessment 

score for Rays Lake Wetland Complex is 3.3, “B-” or fair/good. 

Threats to Wetlands 

The main threat to the wetlands of Camas NWR, of all types, whether natural, or modified, is the 

reduction in available water. Both climatic and anthropogenic causes of that loss are equally serious, 

although the relative contributions of each cause shift through time as various impacts increase or 

subside. Losses of atmospheric moisture, surface flows, or groundwater have combined to degrade 

the lacustrine, palustrine, and riverine systems of the Camas Creek floodplain, both on- and offRefuge. The lowering of the aquifer through both a drying climate, agricultural pumping and, 

perhaps, environmental warming, has probably been the most pervasive negative impact to wetland 

condition on Camas NWR and surrounding lands. Allied influences, such as incision of the Camas 

Creek streambed, as well as other drainages, through erosion and channelization, or cleaning 

activities, magnify the effect of lower total water availability. 

The future prospects offer no apparent relief from these hydrologic stressors. Population growth and 

water demand in the region are projected to increase at greater intrinsic rates than historically. 

Regional climate models indicate a warming climate with decreasing snowpack in upper elevations 

of watersheds (see Chapter 3). Given these projections of both decreased water availability and 

increased demand, the obvious management model would appear to be a “rear guard” action of 

slowing the inevitable, continuing degradation of refuge wetland conditions and the actual loss of 

wetland acres. As noted above, type conversion of plant communities (e.g., from wetland to upland 

types) has already begun, and invasive species constitute much of those new plant communities in 

the Camas NWR wetlands (Germino et al. 2010; Miewald et al. 2012). 

Key Species Supported 

Birds 

All told, the refuge hosts at least 177 species of birds, including 32 species of waterbirds (e.g., loons, 

grebes, bitterns, terns, gulls, ibis, cranes), 26 species of waterfowl (swans, geese and ducks), 23 

raptors, and over 65 species of passerine birds. At least 83 species breed on the Refuge. Many of 

these use the Refuge’s wetland habitats for foraging, nesting, and brood rearing. Healthy and 

productive refuge palustrine wetlands host a rich diversity of emergent wetland plants including 

smartweeds, bulrushes, sedges, rushes, bur-reed, and cattail. Additionally, submergent plants such as 

pondweeds, and floating aquatic plants such as duckweed, are valuable waterfowl food resources 

produced within palustrine wetlands. Waterfowl may consume entire plants, or selectively consume 

portions of plants including seeds, tubers, rhizomes, and roots. The detritus and submerged 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

4-44 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

microhabitats formed by seasonally flooded, emergent vegetation create an important substrate for 

the production of aquatic invertebrates. Consumption of invertebrates provides fat and protein that is 

seasonally significant to female ducks for egg development and laying (Baldassarre and Bolen 2006). 

With an interspersion of deep water (up to 5 feet) and tall emergent vegetation, a long period of 

inundation (generally March-October), and a diverse forage base (e.g., aquatic plants and 

invertebrates), refuge hemi-marsh habitat provides both breeding and foraging habitat for a variety of 

species. Most notably these include trumpeter swans (breeding and foraging), diving ducks (e.g., 

redhead and lesser scaup), dabbling ducks (cinnamon teal, northern pintail, and shoveler), grebes, 

and colonial nesting waterbirds (Franklin’s gull, white-faced ibis). Colonial nesting has been in a 

long-term decline on the Refuge, and currently occurs sporadically, based on water and vegetation 

conditions. 

Shallow (seasonal) marshes provide breeding habitat for greater sandhill cranes, as well as foraging 

habitat for American avocets, cinnamon teal, sora, Virginia rail, white-faced ibis, eared grebe, 

northern pintail, and common snipe. The Refuge’s wet meadows are important breeding habitat for 

sandhill cranes, cinnamon teal, northern shoveler, common snipe, and American avocet. They 

provide foraging habitat for a variety of species including sandhill crane, American avocet, whitefaced ibis, long-billed curlew, marbled godwit, Franklin’s gull, short-eared owl, and western 

meadowlark. 

Mammals, Reptiles and Amphibians, and Fish 

This habitat also supports muskrats (although populations are probably much reduced from levels 

present several decades ago). Hemi-marsh also provides cover and forage for white-tailed deer in 

winter. Carnivores (e.g., coyote, raccoon, striped skunk, mink, long-tailed weasel), use wetlands 

opportunistically. The small mammal community is not well-documented. 

Reptiles and amphibians known to occur in wetland habitat are western terrestrial and “common” 

garter snakes, western chorus frogs, and northern leopard frogs. Shallow seasonal wetlands provide 

breeding, foraging and wintering (hibernation) habitat for northern leopard frogs. Other species 

undoubtedly occur, but there are no formal inventories. Native or introduced fish do not exist on 

Camas NWR at present, other than native minnows (e.g., Utah chub) in Sandhole Lake and possibly 

in the most persistent pools in various ditches and stream courses. 

There are no known checklists of any invertebrate species on Camas NWR. Since these species have 

important ecological roles, these data are badly needed to ensure that any habitat management takes 

species life histories into account. 

Refuge Management Activities 

Water Management 

The general management philosophy to date has been to maintain hydrologic regimes that maximize 

permanent water for migratory and breeding waterfowl and waterbirds. Currently, the management 

focus of the Refuge is to use the available water to provide the minimum amount of palustrine 

emergent marsh sufficient to allow waterbirds and other wildlife to successfully complete their life 

history requirements during the time they are present. This is difficult given that annual water 

supplies are not very predictable, and that the current system of impoundments was not designed to 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-45 

move often very limited amounts of water throughout the entire system. Because of highly variable 

annual flows, the extent and distribution of habitat that is actively managed is also highly variable 

within and between years. 

Following natural environmental fluctuations of flood or drought, overall historic wetland levels in 

the area now occupied by Camas NWR may have fluctuated from basin-wide coverage in flood 

years, to only a few wetland acres during drought periods. These processes were important in 

developing the wetland habitats that exist on the Refuge today, but the historic hydrologic periodicity 

has been dramatically altered, as previously described, by both climatic variation and anthropogenic 

influences throughout the watershed. 

Annual fluctuations in Camas Creek, and rarely in Beaver and Warm creeks, resulting in out-of-bank 

flow, provide desirable hydrologic periodicity outside of the irrigation season. Such events, where 

flows exceed channel capacity, are rare and unpredictable, and are currently a remote potential only 

during high moisture years (approximately one out of every six years). During the regular irrigation 

season, spring flows subside rapidly, depleting wetland acreage at the time when waterbirds need it 

most. Today, with a dropping water table and raised banks of Camas Creek that prevent overland 

flooding, water must be diverted from Camas Creek to help sustain and recharge the wetlands of 

Camas NWR. Refuge water rights are generally used to hydrate wetlands for wildlife needs and 

irrigate hay fields during summer months. The management intent is to at least partially replicate the 

area’s natural hydrology by direct use of water rights to simulate natural flood periods. A possible 

ancillary benefit to this management practice is limited groundwater discharge from Refuge wetlands 

back into the aquifer. In the 1950s and 1960s the managers of Camas NWR began to augment surface 

water flows from Camas Creek with the use of groundwater pumping to have more control of water 

levels and placement throughout the calendar year. 

Some of the seasonal water allocation is used to supplement overbank flow, as well as recharge 

meadows adjacent to the creek channels (historically meadows were recharged by instream flow, but 

this normally no longer occurs).Refuge management needs to simulate natural environmental 

processes, particularly hydrologic periodicity, while retaining as much wetland acreage as possible 

on an annual basis. The existing infrastructure was not developed for that purpose and is not capable 

of rotating wetlands between normal, flood, and drought simulations based on the condition of the 

habitat in a given year. The infrastructure was designed to hold as much water as possible, every 

year. This applies to all “modified” refuge wetlands, that is, those that have been mechanically 

altered with dikes and water delivery systems, including wells and pumps. 

The infrastructure allows for independent water management within individual wetland units, in 

some cases, but in others water cannot be moved without first filling, or draining, a nontarget 

wetland. The modified refuge wetlands are a mosaic of both wetland management complexes (see 

“Wetland Management Units,” page 45 below), where water cannot generally be moved to, or from, 

specific impoundments without affecting others; and “stand-alone” units with their own water 

delivery systems. The design of the existing wetland system reflects the waterfowl management 

philosophy that was in force at the time of refuge establishment, and for many years thereafter: trying 

to develop the most permanent water possible on the largest acreage available. 

Today, management philosophy has shifted toward emulating natural hydrologic periodicity to 

maintain wetland health and provide the best long-term wetland habitat possible. At the crudest 

management level, periodic fluctuations, including complete drawdown and wetland bottom drying 

and aeration, are now highly desirable objectives. It would be desirable to mimic historic natural 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

4-46 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

processes of flooding and drying to maintain wetland function. Because the natural hydrologic 

regime in the Camas Creek floodplain has been altered through development of groundwater based 

irrigation systems upstream, it is no longer possible to maintain these natural processes. However, 

using the water that is available, it is possible to mimic natural environmental fluctuations, at least 

periodically. Using rotation among wetlands, it is possible to simulate three scenarios (flood, normal 

cycle, and drought) between years. This is proposed on the Preferred Alternative of this CCP (see 

Chapter 2). 

A few of the Refuge’s wetlands allow for independent simulation of natural environmental processes 

to promote a mix of habitat types. By providing a mix of these habitat types in close juxtaposition, a 

variety of habitats in various successional stages can be provided to meet a wide diversity of wetland 

dependent wildlife demands. Rotation of simulations within wetlands maintains overall marsh health 

by setting back succession to prevent units from becoming dense decadent stands of emergent 

vegetation. 

Appropriate water depths are important for effective waterfowl management. Geese frequently forage 

in shallow wet meadow conditions or sheet water conditions with less than six inches of water. 

Management of seasonal wetlands is valuable for producing emergent wetland vegetation that is a 

primary food resource for breeding and migrating waterfowl. Water depths of 2-10 inches are optimal 

for foraging by dabblers, allowing them access to invertebrates and seed heads. Various duck species 

have preferred foraging depths within this range; for example preferred water depths for mallards are 

2.75-5.5 inches, while northern shovelers prefer depths of 6.3-9.5 inches (Frederickson 1991). Swans 

feed on aquatic plants and their tubers. For successful feeding, water depths must be less than 5 feet 

to allow swans to reach the submerged tubers (Mitchell and Eichholz 2010). Conversely, divers 

including canvasbacks, redheads, and lesser scaup are capable of locating food resources throughout 

the water column, from near the surface to depths of many feet (Baldassarre and Bolen 2006; 

Bellrose 1976). 

Hemi-Marsh Management: Currently, 500-700 acres of hemi-marsh habitat (six impoundments, the 

“core” wetland units on the Refuge) are flooded annually, with the goal of providing waterfowl 

habitat, and public use opportunities. Dikes and water control structures at Camas NWR allow for 

improved hydrology and wetland function through precise manipulation of water levels. Much of the 

water control infrastructure at Camas NWR was constructed in the 1960s to provide waterfowl 

habitat. The Refuge’s Camas Creek surface water rights and refuge groundwater pumping rights are 

managed to spring flood and maintain permanent to semipermanently flooded wetlands through the 

summer and fall, for consistent availability of hemi-marsh habitat, but little annual variability in 

wetland flooding regimes. There is one point of diversion along Camas Creek for surface water 

diversion to wetlands. Deep hemi-marsh wetland habitat is maximized by diverting the majority of 

Camas Creek surface waters (58.1 cfs) from April-July in an average flow year to inundate these 

impoundments. From this main diversion point on Camas Creek, water must flow two miles in order 

to reach the first managed wetland basin. At the time of refuge establishment, wetlands were flooded 

by artesian groundwater discharges. Currently continued groundwater pumping is needed to maintain 

wetlands through the summer. 

Complete drawdowns of individual impoundments are conducted every five to seven years to recycle 

nutrients, increase germination of submerged aquatic plants, and allow for physical control of dense 

emergent vegetation, as warranted. Water levels are lowered as needed (“drought” flooding cycle) to 

encourage hardstem bulrush growth, increase bulrush stem density, and decrease open water 

interspersion. Late summer prescribed fire and fall mowing is used to reduce cover of emergent 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-47 

vegetation and set back succession to create or maintain open, shallow water areas and create mosaic 

patterns within wetlands when water level manipulations prove insufficient to maintain hemi-marsh 

attributes. 

Shallow Marsh Management: The infrastructure at Camas NWR was designed to provide deepwater 

habitat; therefore; shallow marsh habitats fluctuate in size (40-60 acres) in response to hemi-marsh 

management. Under current management, shallow marsh habitat is located within and along the 

edges of hemi-marsh. Prescribed fire, disking, and mowing are used to reduce cover of emergents 

and create mosaic patterns within wetlands when water level manipulations prove insufficient to 

maintain shallow-marsh attributes. 

Wet Meadow: As with shallow marsh habitat, existing water management infrastructure is designed 

for hemi-marsh habitat maintenance, limiting management options for wet meadows. Currently, 

ground and surface water rights are used to irrigate 80 to 100 acres of wet-meadow habitats annually. 

Management units within this habitat type are maintained and enhanced through the use of active 

successional vegetation management (e.g., haying through CLMAs). 

Management of specific wetland units is described in detail below. 

Wetland Management Units 

Approximately 42 wetlands have been discretely identified on Camas NWR since its establishment. 

Many are wetland basins that have been modified by the refuge staff to improve wildlife habitat, 

most commonly for waterfowl benefit. There are 21 of these modified wetlands (see Table 4.9 and 

Map 12). Modified wetlands are both “active” (12), that is hydrated for management purposes, 

usually annually; or “inactive” (9), dry, diked basins for which adequate water is no longer available, 

the water delivery system is no longer functional, or both. Additional unnamed wetland basins that 

have not been structurally developed and receive no specific water management treatment also exist 

within the Refuge. Their number and extent have yet to be documented. Active wetland units are 

dominated by open water and persistent emergent vegetation (hardstem bulrush, cattail, and common 

spikerush), while most of the Refuge’s inactive wetland management units are native wet meadow 

habitat, dominated by Baltic rush, and non-native (ruderal) wet meadow and wetland vegetation. 

The Ecological Integrity Assessment for Camas NWR (Kittel et al. 2012) delineated four wetland 

complexes: the Big Pond Complex, Center Pond Complex, Rays Lake Complex, and Camas Creek 

and Floodplain. These complexes encompass ponds that are linked by water source and direction of 

flow, creating a suite of interconnected ponds and their surrounding lowlands. Table 4.9 groups 

wetlands by Complex. 

Another aspect of Camas NWR wetlands and wetland management is the concept of “core” units 

(Table 4.9). These are the principal ponds directly visible from the auto tour route, but there are more 

practical reasons for their ascent to high priority management targets over time. These wetlands 

exhibit a combination of high wildlife values that naturally make them a management priority, but 

the ability to deliver adequate water to most of them on a yearly basis elevates their management 

value and attractiveness. Due to climatic changes, decline of the local aquifer, and degradation of 

streamflows before and since refuge establishment, both the number and total acreage of refuge 

wetlands that can reliably be hydrated in any given year has precipitously dropped. Currently, the 

following Camas NWR wetlands are considered “core wetlands”: Big Pond, Redhead Pond, Center 

Pond, Two-Way, and Toomey. All of these except Big Pond are part of the Center Pond Complex. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

4-48 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Due to the infrastructure of the Camas NWR water delivery (ditch) system for both surface and 

subsurface water to ponds, water has to cross at least one other pond before arriving at the target 

wetland; this reduces management flexibility in terms of being able to either dewater some ponds in 

the upstream portion of the delivery system, or to efficiently deliver water to ponds on the 

downstream end of the system. During periods of water shortage, the core wetlands may be the only 

basins on the Refuge to receive any substantial amount of water. 

Table 4.9. Active and Inactive Modified Wetland Basins at Camas NWR 

Pond Name 

(boldface = 

core 

wetland; 

I = Inactive) 

Acres* Current 

Water Regime 

 NWI 

Classification 

Vegetation/Cover Types from 

2011 mapping 

(groups and alliances in 

parentheses) 

Big Pond Complex 

Spring Pond (1) 75.13 

(2) 31.08 

Temporary, 

seasonal 

Palustrine 

emergent 

(Persistent tall 

emergent) 

Primarily hemi-marsh (mostly 

senescent tall emergent 

vegetation; small areas of 

hardstem bulrush.) Also lowland 

non-native (ruderal wet meadow), 

and wet meadow (Baltic rush). 

Condition: Fair. 

Goose Pond 

(I) 

17.64 Temporarily 

flooded to 

saturated 

Palustrine 

emergent, 

Palustrine 

(Persistent 

emergent, 

unconsolidated 

bottom) 

Lowland non-native (ruderal wet 

meadow); upland non-native. 

Condition: Poor. 

Big Pond 113.59 Semipermanent 

with deepwater 

areas; dry in 

winter 

Palustrine 

emergent (east 

side); palustrine 

flooded (west side). 

(Persistent tall 

emergent 

vegetation; 

unconsolidated 

bottom.) 

Hemi-marsh (hardstem bulrush) 

(east side); open water (west 

side). 

Condition: Good 

Brindley 

Pond

39.49 Palustrine 

emergent 

50% wet meadow, 50% lowland 

non-native; small amount of 

riparian. 

Condition: Prob fair to poor; 

significant non-natives. 

Flat Pond (I) 59.13 Temporarily 

flooded to 

saturated 

Palustrine 

emergent, 

palustrine flooded 

(Persistent 

emergent, unconsolidated bottom) 

100% Lowland non-native 

(ruderal wet meadow). Condition: 

Poor 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-49 

Table 4.9. Active and Inactive Modified Wetland Basins at Camas NWR 

Pond Name 

(boldface = 

core 

wetland; 

I = Inactive) 

Acres* Current 

Water Regime 

 NWI 

Classification 

Vegetation/Cover Types from 

2011 mapping 

(groups and alliances in 

parentheses) 

Center Pond Complex 

Rat Farm 

Pond (I) 

42.76 Temporarily 

flooded to 

saturated 

Palustrine 

emergent, 

palustrine flooded 

(Persistent 

emergent, 

unconsolidated 

bottom) 

Primarily lowland non-native 

(ruderal wet meadow 

Condition: Poor 

Center 

Pond 

329.00 Shallow; 

temporary, 

seasonal, and 

semipermanent 

Palustrine 

emergent, 

palustrine flooded 

(Persistent tall 

emergent 

vegetation; 

unconsolidated 

bottom; mudflats) 

West side: Hemi-marsh (hardstem 

bulrush) with small areas of open 

water; small areas of wet 

meadow, riparian scrub-shrub. 

Condition: Prob fair to good. 

East side: Extensive shallow open 

water (amaranth mudflat) 

merging to lowland non-native 

vegetation (ruderal wet meadow).

Condition: Fair to poor. 

Redhead 

Pond 

67.96 Semipermanent 

with deepwater 

areas, dry in 

winter 

Palustrine 

emergent, 

palustrine flooded 

(Persistent tall 

emergent 

vegetation; 

unconsolidated 

bottom.) 

Open water, hemi-marsh 

(hardstem bulrush), wet meadow 

(Baltic rush) 

Condition: Probably good. 

Toomey 

Pond 

43.18 (S) 

59.60 (N) 

Temporary, 

seasonal, and 

semipermanent 

Palustrine 

emergent, 

palustrine flooded 

(Persistent tall 

emergent 

vegetation; 

unconsolidated 

bottom.) 

South end: Hemi-marsh 

(hardstem bulrush), open water 

North end (Toomey 2): Hemimarsh (extensive cattails) 

Condition: Probably good 

Two-Way 

Pond 

63.74 Seasonal and 

semipermanent 

Lacustrine Hemi-marsh, open water. 

Condition: Probably fair to good. 

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

4-50 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Rays Lake Complex 

Avocet Pond 40.91 Palustrine 

emergent 

Hemi-marsh 

Sandhole 

Lake 

254.04 Permanent, 

semipermanent, 

temporary, 

seasonal. 

Extensive deepwater areas that 

dry out 

infrequently.

Lacustrine, 

surrounded by band 

of palustrine 

emergent 

(Primarily limnetic 

unconsolidated 

bottom; also 

persistent tall, 

medium, and short 

emergent 

vegetation, 

palustrine scrubshrub on NE 

shoreline.) 

Primarily open water. Narrow 

margin of hemi-marsh (hardstem 

bulrush and other emergents); 

patch of wet meadow (common 

spikerush) on north lobe; riparian 

scrub-shrub (narrowleaf willow) 

on east shoreline. 

Condition: Good to excellent. 

Mallard 

Slough 

335.59 Temporary, 

seasonal, and 

semipermanent 

Palustrine 

emergent, 

palustrine flooded 

(Persistent 

emergent; 

palustrine 

forested/shrub 

wetland) 

Predominantly wet meadow 

(Baltic rush) with hardstem 

bulrush in deeper channels, and 

small pools of open water. Some 

significant shallow open water 

(amaranth mudflats). On W side 

predominantly hemi-marsh 

(common spikerush) with some 

riparian scrub-shrub (narrowleaf 

willow). 

Condition: Variable, mostly fair 

to poor but a good quality site 

mapped on the slough itself. 

Rays Lake 615.40 

part 13.26 

Semipermanent 

and seasonal 

Lacustrine, 

Palustrine 

emergent, 

Palustrine scrubshrub 

(Unconsolidated 

bottom; Mudflats; 

palustrine scrubshrub) 

Primarily open water (both deep 

open water and amaranth 

mudflat), hemi-marsh (common 

spikerush), and riparian scrubshrub (narrowleaf willow). Small 

areas of hardstem bulrush. South 

portion primarily wet meadow 

(Baltic rush) with some lowland 

non-native (ruderal wet meadow) 

in shallow areas. 

Condition: Variable but with 

some patches of good to excellent 

habitat 

Cattail Flat 167.22 Seasonal Palustrine 

emergent 

(Persistent 

emergent) 

Primarily wet meadow (Baltic 

rush) on W side; hemi-marsh 

(common spikerush) on E side 

with inclusion of riparian scrubshrub. Small areas of lowland 

non-native (ruderal wet meadow), 

hardstem bulrush. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-51 

Condition: Primarily poor but 

with some patches of good 

quality habitat 

Camas Creek and Floodplain Complex 

West Marsh 

(I) 

77.14 Temporarily 

flooded to 

saturated; 

usually dry 

Palustrine 

emergent (Saline 

wet meadow) 

Primarily hay; some wet meadow 

(Baltic rush) and lowland nonnative (ruderal wet meadow) 

Moose Pond 

(I) 

98.62 Temporarily 

flooded to 

saturated; 

usually dry 

Palustrine 

emergent (Wet 

meadow) 

Lowland non-native (ruderal wet 

meadow), wet meadow (Baltic 

rush). 

Ruddy Pond 

(I) 

46.68 Temporarily 

flooded to 

saturated; small 

area of 

seasonal 

Palustrine 

emergent (Wet 

meadow with small 

marsh area) 

Lowland non-native (ruderal wet 

meadow), wet meadow (Baltic 

rush). A little open water. 

Condition: Probably fair to poor. 

Pintail Pond 

(I) 

192.28 Temporarily 

flooded to 

saturated 

Palustrine 

emergent, 

palustrine scrubshrub. (Wet 

meadow; small 

areas of saline wet 

meadow, emergent, 

and upland) 

Wet meadow (Baltic rush), 

Lowland non-native (ruderal wet 

meadow), shallow open water 

(amaranth mudflat), riparian 

scrub-shrub 

Unnamed 

lakes/ponds 

(Incl 

NW#1,2) 

61.00 

Total Active Modified Wetlands: 2,249.19 acres 

Total Inactive Modified Wetlands: 595.42 

Total Modified Wetlands: 2,844.61 acres 

Modified wetlands (n=21) Hydrated (Active) wetlands=12, Inactive Wetlands = 9 

* From Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIA) 2011. 

Adapted from Camas WRIA (USFWS 2011) and Ecological Integrity Assessment (Kittel et al. 2012)
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

4-52 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

This page left blank intentionally.
@?

@?

@?

@?

""

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

""

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

" """

""

"

"

""

""

"

@?

"

Road

West Marsh

Pond Road

Center

Loop Road Pond

West

Sandhole Lake

Two-Way

c Ar et nu H Rssec dao

Loop Road

Camas Creek

Camas Creek

Warm Creek

Rays 

Lake

Center Pond

Mallard 

Slough

Sandhole Lake

Pintail

Pond

Cattail Flat

Two-way 

Pond

Flat 

Pond

West

Marsh

Ruddy 

Pond

Moose

Pond Brindley

Pond

Spring 

Pond 2

Spring

Pond

Goose 

Pond

Rat Farm 

Pond

Redhead 

Pond

Big 

Pond

Toomey 2

Toomey 

Pond

Rays 

Lake 2

Avocet 

Pond

nI depen

ed

t n

Ditch

Jacket Di ct

h

Rays Lake Canal

Map Date:5/31/2012 File: Map12_WaterResource.mxd

Data Source: USGS 1:24,000 National Hydrography Dataset, WRIA-RLGIS geodatabase.

@? Well

" Water Control Structure

E 0 0.5 1

Miles

0 0.5 1

Kilometers

Streams/Ditches/Canals

Core Wetlands

Inactive Modified Wetlands

Delivery Ditches

Active Hay Meadows

Inactive Hay Meadows

Lakes/Ponds

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

4-53
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Ass

4-54 

This page left blank intentionally. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-55 

Meadow Management Units (hay meadows) 

Hay meadows, like the wetland basins, have been named, or numbered, and delineated for specific 

management. There are nineteen of these meadow management units, of which fifteen are actively 

managed and four are inactive. These are classified as “agriculture” in recent vegetation mapping and 

will be discussed in Section 4.3.4 below. 

Inactive Modified Wetlands 

The inactive modified wetlands of the Camas NWR are an amalgam of management actions by both 

private landowners before refuge establishment, and habitat development after refuge establishment. 

There are two primary types of augmented wetland habitats: hayfields and waterfowl ponds. The 

hayfields, or meadows, were probably developed by settlers and ranchers, starting soon after 

settlement of the Camas area. These agriculturalists no doubt continued modifying these hay units to 

improve water delivery and hay production throughout their ownership of the properties. The 

irrigation/water conveyance infrastructure the private owners developed may, in some cases, have 

affected the waterfowl habitat (wetland) improvements later attempted by the refuge staff. The 

Refuge’s habitat development efforts were intended to enhance waterfowl productivity, and generally 

consisted of the construction of water delivery systems, a dike, and nesting islands. All of these 

modified wetlands have dikes to some extent, but not all have ditch water delivery systems, nor do all 

have islands. The water delivery systems generally consisted of small irrigation-type ditches, with 

water control structures. Ring dikes were intended to facilitate control both of water depth, as well as 

extent of hydration. The earthen islands were constructed to provide more secure and attractive sites 

for waterfowl nesting. Both the inactive hay units and the dry waterfowl ponds are on hydric soils 

and occur within the wet meadow, saline wet meadow and marsh ecological sites, based upon NRCS 

soil survey delineations (Jorgensen 1979). Of these, wet meadow is the predominant ecological site 

among these formerly active wetlands. The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) delineates these 

modified basins as palustrine emergent, with temporary, semipermanent and permanent water 

regimes. The semipermanent and permanent rankings reflect the older NWI work from an era of a 

higher water table in the Camas Creek floodplain, and possibly a wetter climate. A more accurate 

ranking would be temporarily, or possibly seasonally flooded in a few restricted locations, i.e., some 

of the deeper depressions. Besides temporarily flooded, the other potential designation for most of 

these dry wetlands would be saturated. It is instructive to consider the definition of temporarily 

flooded versus saturated as described by Cowardin et al. (1979): 

Temporarily Flooded. Surface water is present for brief periods during the growing season, 

but the water table usually lies well below the soil surface for most of the season. Plants that 

grow both in uplands and wetlands are characteristic of the temporarily flooded regime. 

Saturated. The substrate is saturated to the surface for extended periods during the growing 

season, but surface water is seldom present. 

There are a total of thirteen inactive wetlands within Camas NWR (see Map 12). These artificial 

wetlands include two different principal types and three type subsets. Nine are actual modified basins 

where an effort was made to create a more permanent, i.e., deeper, marsh through structural means, 

including provision of additional water. Supplemental water was supplied to these wetlands through 

three methods, either singly or in combination: well water through delivery ditches, Camas Creek 

water via delivery ditches, and Camas Creek flood flows. These include Goose Pond and Flat Pond 

(Big Pond Complex); Rat Farm Pond (Center Pond Complex); West Marsh, Moose Pond, Ruddy 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

4-56 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Pond, and Pintail Pond (Camas Creek Floodplain Complex); and two unnamed large structures in the 

northeast quadrant of the Refuge, along Camas Creek. Four of these nine ponds were designed to 

receive both Camas Creek and well water via ditches: West Marsh and Goose, Flat, and Rat Farm 

ponds. These four wetlands cannot receive overland flow from Camas Creek in flood stage due to 

embankments. Three of the nine ponds (Moose, Ruddy and Pintail ponds) can receive both Camas 

Creek and well water via ditches, similar to the first subset, but Camas Creek flood flows can also 

reach them overland. Two artificial wetlands (unnamed structures along the northeast bank of Camas 

Creek) were designed to be hydrated solely with overflow waters from Camas Creek during flood 

stage. Reference to Map 12 is helpful in understanding the three wetland subsets. 

The four other inactive wetlands are hay meadow types (unit numbers 2a, 2b, 10a, and 10b). All 

these hay meadows were watered either by well, or Camas Creek flows, delivered by ditch (refer to 

Map 12).

Modified Wetlands: Big Pond Complex 

Spring Pond. The 106-acre Spring Pond unit is on the eastern leg of the Camas NWR water delivery 

system and is, in fact, the first unit on the system, i.e., closest to that irrigation pump. As such, Spring 

Pond can easily be partially hydrated, but the relatively large size of the basin and other higher 

priority units further downstream make this impractical. 

Spring Pond was mapped as palustrine emergent wetland with a temporary and seasonal water 

regime. The existing vegetation/open water pattern within the basin is close to hemi-marsh; if the 

wetland could ever be regularly and substantially hydrated, it could no doubt produce some 

noteworthy waterfowl habitat. The pond’s hydrology does not simulate natural patterns due 

unnaturally frequent and prolonged dry periods, at least in the majority of the basin. On a fraction of 

the basin, that lowest and closest to the water delivery inlet, flooding and normal hydrologic cycles 

tend to occur annually. 

Big Pond. The 114-acre Big Pond Unit, a core wetland, is one of the Refuge’s larger and deeper open 

water areas, and has historically been managed for permanent water. It is an amalgamation of 

wetland types, primarily palustrine emergent marsh with temporary to semipermanent water regimes. 

Big Pond also has significant portions of palustrine unconsolidated bottom, with both permanent and 

semipermanent water regimes. These palustrine unconsolidated bottom sites occur both as a 

combination with emergent marsh, persistent vegetation, and semipermanent water, as well as 

unmixed. Although portions of the pond are described as “permanent water” in the National Wetland 

Inventory (NWI), available water sources have declined to the point where a designation of 

“semipermanent” would be more accurate. 

This maintenance of relatively deep, open and persistent water (although the pond is dry overwinter) 

provides habitat for diving ducks and trumpeter swans, although there are sufficient shallows, along 

with extensive tall emergent vegetation, to attract dabbling ducks as well. Waterfowl both nest and 

forage in this basin, which has been modified with a dike on three sides to increase basin depth and 

size. Of particular note, Big Pond normally has a trumpeter swan territory and often an active nest. 

Big Pond has been among the most productive trumpeter swan brood sites in the Greater Yellowstone 

Ecosystem. It receives considerable use by waterbirds and wading birds, although shorebird use is 

restricted due to the limited area of exposed, shallow shorelines. Most of the shoreline is vegetated 

and steep, as it is on an artificial dike slope. Due to its location in the Camas water delivery network, 

as well as the quality of habitat it provides, Big Pond is the core marsh unit for the Refuge. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-57 

Big Pond is hydrologically isolated from natural Camas Creek inflow. Water levels are maintained 

through a combination of snowmelt, Camas Creek water (artificially delivered through a refuge ditch, 

early in the season), and refuge well water pumped through the same ditch later in the year, after the 

Camas Creek flow has subsided. Refuge water rights are crucial in maintaining this wetland, which 

would cease to exist without them. Groundwater influx is probably not a factor in Big Pond. 

Water levels have not followed a typical historic hydrograph with high spring flows, followed by 

rapid summer drawdown, and a slight increase in wetland water levels during fall. Rather, the current 

Big Pond hydrograph features high spring flows, but rather than attenuating rapidly, as in naturally 

functioning wetlands, artificially high flows continue into the summer period, maintaining 

unnaturally high water levels in the wetland throughout spring, summer, and fall. The extended 

duration of flooding probably has led to a reduction in the spring flush of invertebrates. Because the 

water levels remain high, there is no subsequent summer concentration of critically important bird 

forage (Bundy 2007). Big Pond has both surface and subsurface sources in the refuge water delivery 

system. 

Brindley Pond. This small (40 acres), hallow wetland has a vigorous and diverse plant community. 

When combined with the extended drawdown (drought) and soil aeration, this creates impressive 

productivity (and wildlife use) when the pond is flooded. Brindley Pond consists primarily of 

palustrine emergent marsh with seasonal and semipermanent water regimes. The wetland is 

reminiscent of a hay meadow, which it probably historically was, with the additional of some 

depressions which support tall emergent vegetation. Historically in higher moisture periods, and 

currently when the unit is irrigated, these basins are hydrated, and much of the higher elevation 

surface is covered with shallow water. The unit has been rarely flooded, and is typically in drought 

condition. However, in 2010 and 2011 the unit was irrigated, maintaining at least the deeper basins in 

water through the majority of the frost-free period. Groundwater contributions within this wetland 

are not known. Flood and normal hydrologic conditions usually only occur in very wet years, or 

when management applies ditch water. Water for this unit must come from Big Pond. 

Goose Pond (Inactive). Goose Pond is one of the smallest of the Refuge’s developed wetlands (18 

acres). It is diked and is served by a ditch from Well #8. Flow can also be augmented from Well #4 

and Camas Creek water can be diverted down the same delivery ditch. Goose Pond’s ecological sites 

are predominantly marsh with some moderately extensive sandy uplands. As with Ruddy Pond, 

upland sites were included in this wetland development, either as nesting islands, for ease of 

construction, or to increase the new wetland area. These uplands were also captured in the NWI 

mapping, but the main delineation was a compound designation of palustrine emergent persistent 

vegetation with unconsolidated bottom and a semipermanent water regime. Although Goose Pond is 

almost always dry, the wetland system, class and subclass appear accurate, but the water regime is 

now temporarily flooded, or saturated. 

Flat Pond (Inactive). At 59 acres, Flat Pond is larger than Goose Pond and also must be hydrated via 

well and ditch. Like Goose Pond, Well #8 is the water source for Flat Pond, but flows from Well #4 

and Camas Creek can be used as well. The vast majority of Flat Pond is typed as a marsh ecological 

site, with a small portion of sandy upland site that was included in this wetland development. Flat 

Pond is primarily palustrine emergent vegetation with a semipermanent water regime, followed by 

palustrine unconsolidated bottom with permanent water. Flat Pond also has inclusions of palustrine 

emergent vegetation with a seasonal water regime, palustrine unconsolidated shore with seasonal 

water, and uplands. The NWI mapping actually identified more upland parcels than the ecological 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

4-58 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

site mapping did. As with the other palustrine systems and classes, the water regimes for every site in 

this wetland would now be classified as temporarily flooded, or saturated. 

Modified Wetlands: Center Pond Complex 

Center Pond. Another core unit, the 329-acre Center Pond unit also must receive its flows from Big 

Pond. Due to its extremely large size, only a fraction of the Center Pond basin is normally hydrated 

in recent times. There is simply insufficient spring runoff the majority of years, and Center is now 

dependent on flood flows if the high water mark is to be reached. With the depleted Snake River 

aquifer, refuge wells cannot begin to supply the water necessary to fill the soil profile and then the 

wetland basin, even if unlimited funds were available to support the pumping. (Due to diking, Center 

Pond appears to be larger than it ever was naturally.) In spite of limited hydration, Center Pond is 

large enough to provide a diversity of productive habitat for waterfowl, waterbirds, and wading birds, 

as well as a host of other marsh fauna. Although possessing some zones of deeper water, most of 

Center Pond is a shallow seasonal-to-semipermanent wetland. This generally shallow water tends to 

allow a high percentage of the basin to dry out and become aerated. Consequently, when Center Pond 

does receive flows, these previously dried areas are typically very productive and receive 

correspondingly high use from waterfowl and waterbirds. Center Pond’s bathymetry also produces 

more exposed and available mudflats for shorebird use than any other Camas NWR wetland, except 

Rays Lake. 

Center Pond was delineated as primarily palustrine emergent marsh with temporary, seasonal and 

semipermanent water regimes. Palustrine unconsolidated bottom,emergent marsh, and persistent 

vegetation with a semipermanent water regime have also been identified in Center Pond. An 

uncommon wetland class for Camas NWR--lacustrine, littoral, unconsolidated bottom, with a 

permanent water regime—is found in Center Pond. This permanent aquatic rating should be 

redefined as semipermanent or seasonal, since the wetland’s water regime has deteriorated since 

mapping. Although mapped as lacustrine, the area generally appears to exhibit more of a palustrine 

character. Perennial emergent hemi-marsh quality is difficult to maintain in Center Pond, due to 

unreliable water supplies. However, facilitated drawdown results in a moist-soil management 

response, similar to that described by Bundy (2007) for the Mud Lake unit at Bear Lake NWR. 

The hydrograph for Center Pond more closely simulates a natural pattern, since it receives early 

flows during normal spring runoff, but unlike Big and Redhead which continue to be augmented 

post-runoff by well water, Center usually receives little artificial water enhancement once spring 

flows subside in Camas Creek. Additionally, the Center Pond’s soils have a coarse, sandy texture and 

do not appear to hold water well. Finally, groundwater influx is not known to be significant factor in 

Center Pond. Due to these characteristics, Center Pond begins to dewater (in years when it has any 

water at all) soon after Camas Creek flows decrease significantly. This produces a drying/drawdown 

cycle that somewhat simulates the periodicity of a natural system, with the pond normally dry by late 

summer. In moderately dry years, there may be enough water to partially hydrate Center, but the 

basin can dry out before waterfowl and waterbirds have had sufficient time to fledge their young. 

Normally, this brood water failure is somewhat ameliorated by the proximity of other wetlands, such 

as Toomey and Redhead, to which stranded Center Pond broods can move; although, juvenile 

mortality is no doubt increased by such events. Water sources for Center Pond are both surface and 

subsurface, but only Camas Creek flood flows are sufficiently large to significantly fill this wetland. 

Redhead Pond. The 68-acre Redhead Pond, a refuge core wetland, receives all of its flows through 

Big Pond. Past management has focused on reaching full pool by mid-April. At this point, water 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-59 

levels are maintained for breeding waterbirds through at least mid-July, and often through majority of 

the summer and fall. Though not known as an actual trumpeter swan nesting territory, Redhead has 

functioned as an alternate brooding area for the Big Pond pair. In certain years this pair moves 

between the two wetlands with their brood and has probably actually finished the fledging process on 

Redhead. The basin also regularly receives use from other trumpeters when not defended by a 

territorial pair. The initial portion of a normal flood hydrologic regime is maintained in most years, 

but the mid-late season drawdown portion is often lacking. Groundwater influx is probably not a 

factor in Redhead Pond. 

Redhead is a relatively diverse wetland, consisting primarily of palustrine emergent vegetation marsh 

types with temporary, seasonal, and semipermanent water regimes. A combination wetland site of 

palustrine emergent and unconsolidated bottom with semipermanent water has also been mapped. 

Additionally, there is a palustrine unconsolidated bottom marsh component with a permanent water 

regime. As in the case of Big Pond, Redhead Pond is dewatered every winter and there is effectively 

no permanent water in this wetland; this needs to be reflected in the NWI delineations. 

Waterfowl use indicates at least fair forage productivity in Redhead, but continued hydration and lack 

of drawdown may threaten that fecundity. Long-term management of Redhead has been focused on 

producing waterfowl and providing brooding, and then migration, habitat. Some shallow shoreline 

habitat, as well as occasional exposed mudflats, is provided in some years to benefit sandhill cranes, 

other wading birds, and migratory shorebirds. Redhead Pond can be supplied by either surface or 

subsurface water sources. 

Toomey Pond. The 103-acre Toomey Pond, a core wetland unit, is a composite of palustrine 

emergent marsh with temporary, seasonal and semipermanent water regimes. An open water type 

combination of palustrine unconsolidated bottom and emergent marsh with persistent vegetation and 

semipermanent water also exists on Toomey Pond. The wetland is currently providing productive 

hemi-marsh habitat over a significant portion of its surface. 

Toomey is one of the larger wetlands on the Refuge and has at least moderate habitat diversity, which 

combines to make it one of the Refuge’s more productive units. Toomey’s location within the water 

delivery system makes it likely that a high proportion of its basin can be hydrated annually. While 

positive in a traditional wetland management view, this nonetheless reduces the ability of this unit to 

mimic a natural hydrograph. Similar to Big Pond and Redhead, Toomey Pond receives its largest 

flows in early spring, but has usually been kept artificially hydrated throughout the spring, summer 

and fall. As with other continuously hydrated wetlands, this management approach can cause a 

decrease in wetland productivity. Long-term management of Toomey has been focused on producing 

hemi-marsh conditions for migrating and breeding waterfowl and waterbirds. The pond typically 

receives substantial waterfowl use, including by a territorial pair of trumpeter swans. There have 

been years when Toomey produced the only trumpeter cygnets on the Refuge. Water sources for this 

wetland are both surface (Camas Creek) and subsurface. 

Two-Way Pond. The 64-acre Two-Way Pond is a core wetland unit for Camas NWR, delineated in 

the NWI as lacustrine limnetic unconsolidated bottom with a permanent water regime, and palustrine 

emergent persistent with a semipermanently flooded regime. The lacustrine designation should be 

changed to a palustrine unconsolidated bottom with a semipermanent or seasonal water regime. 

Additionally, previous wetland mapping identified a palustrine scrub shrub seasonal (PSSIC) site that 

no longer is indicated on the wetland map. Since willows continue to exist, and probably expand, on 

Two-Way Pond, the PSSIC should be again added to the wetland map. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

4-60 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

When annual water supplies are sufficient to allow hydration, Two-Way Pond provides an optimal 

mix of habitat for a wide diversity of wetland dependent wildlife. Wetland management within TwoWay Pond is dependent on both Camas Creek and well water sources; normally, due to the difficult 

location of Toomey within the Refuge water delivery net, only surface, or runoff flows are used. 

Two-Way Pond cannot be filled every year, and since water supply is less dependable, a “drought” 

hydrologic regime can more easily, and regularly, simulated than “flood” and “normal” regimes. The 

heavy use of Two-Way Pond by waterfowl and other aquatic birds indicates that the wetland is, in 

fact, quite productive. Groundwater influx is not known to be a significant factor in Two-Way Pond. 

As will be characterized further in the Sandhole and Rays Lake discussions, willow (primarily coyote 

willow, S. exigua) has established on Two-Way Pond, near the southwest corner of the unit. It is 

currently providing passerine and perhaps some limited waterfowl habitat. The stand is too small to 

be of value as elk habitat, but could possibly offer that in the future if it continues to expand. The 

water regime within this wetland type ranges from seasonal to temporary along a gradient from 

shoreline to uplands. 

Rat Farm Pond (Inactive). This 43-acre pond lies on the west side of the wetland complex, near 

Warm Creek. It is currently primarily lowland non-native vegetation and in poor condition. Potential 

water sources are Well #4 and #8, as well as Camas Creek. Rat Farm Pond was mapped as a marsh 

ecological site in 1988, with sizeable area of water identified. Additionally, there were small 

inclusions of sandy uplands. Rat Farm Pond’s wetland mapping showed mainly palustrine emergent, 

persistent vegetation, semipermanent water regime, followed by palustrine unconsolidated bottom, 

permanent water regime and then palustrine emergent, persistent, seasonal water. The water regimes 

for every site in this wetland would now be classified as temporarily flooded, or saturated. 

Modified Wetlands: Rays Lake Complex 

Sandhole Lake. The 254-acre Sandhole Lake is situated in the southeast corner of the Refuge and 

unconnected to the main water delivery system. There are two options for surface water for 

Sandhole, neither dependable in any given year, especially for significant amounts of water. Surface 

flows can only reach Sandhole via Warm Creek to the north, or through Mallard Slough to the south. 

Warm Creek passes through private land north of the Refuge and is encumbered due to flooding 

hazards at that point. Consequently, Warm Creek rarely flows into Sandhole Lake. The southern 

option through Mallard Slough is actually a reverse current/flow situation, whereby Rays Lake in the 

extreme southwestern quadrant of the Refuge must fill to the point where water starts to flow 

northerly toward Mallard Slough and ultimately Sandhole. The conduit is the natural outflow channel 

of Sandhole Lake which sequentially connects to Mallard Slough, Cattail Flat and finally Rays Lake. 

This artificial reverse flow from Rays Lake is the principal surface flow delivery scenario for 

Sandhole, but only occurs in wet years. Sandhole does have its own well and pump and can be 

augmented with subsurface water, but the amount available is insufficient to substantially affect the 

lake’s water level. It is assumed that a considerable portion of Sandhole’s water is derived from 

spring runoff from adjacent uplands, and that groundwater influx is a significant factor in this basin, 

but no investigations have been performed to confirm these theories. Regardless, Sandhole is the 

only refuge wetland that can subsist entirely on its own water supply in most years and it rarely goes 

dry. 

Sandhole Lake is the deepest unit in the complex and one of the most conducive to maintaining 

hemi-marsh habitat, although most of the lake is currently open water habitat, primarily delineated as 

a limnetic unconsolidated bottom wetland with a permanent water regime. Sandhole also has 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-61 

significant representations of palustrine emergent marsh with temporary, seasonal and 

semipermanent water regimes. As previously mentioned, a semi-unique habitat class for Camas 

NWR wetlands is palustrine scrub-shrub, which occurs to a significant extent only on Sandhole and 

Rays Lakes. This is discussed in Section 4.3.2 below. 

Water quality subjectively appears to be quite good, which greatly enhances aquatic submergent plant 

growth. Due to lack of normal watershed inflow, very little sediment appears to have been deposited 

within the unit, which also leaves the substrate in good condition to stimulate growth of submergent 

plants. The major limitation on this unit is the inability to drain, or otherwise dewater Sandhole Lake 

through management action. The basin will sometimes dry in a drought year, although infrequently. 

While this long period of hydration may lower the long-term productivity of Sandhole Lake, avian 

and other wildlife use of the wetland appears to remain high. The pond’s character is natural; it has 

not been significantly modified anthropogenically, and remains hydrated due to a combination of its 

relatively great depth, as well as a probable groundwater nexus. It is probably inaccurate to 

characterize Sandhole Lake’s hydrograph as unnatural, since mainly natural forces, or situations, are 

keeping the basin hydrated longer than an average Camas floodplain wetland. 

Sandhole receives significant use from multiple waterfowl classes, reflecting the quality and diversity 

of its habitat. Ducks, geese, swans and waterbirds preferentially select this wetland to fulfill certain 

life history events. For example, the extensive open water areas provide ideal protection for molting 

birds; deep water zones attract diving duck species; shallow water areas provide ideal dabbling duck 

habitat; stands of medium and tall emergent vegetation provide good waterfowl brood cover; 

interspersed reaches of bare, or short cover shoreline present attractive loafing areas; and minnows 

provide an ideal food source for piscivorous species. Again, probably due to its large size and 

apparently good water quality, Sandhole receives substantial use by nonbreeding trumpeter swans. 

Mallard Slough. Mallard Slough (336 acres) is another, broad, flat, large wetland similar to Cattail 

Flat. Both have the potential for considerable productivity in terms of waterfowl and wildlife habitat, 

both in terms of quantity and quality; but productivity is currently limited due to lack of water 

availability. Situated at a critical juncture in the water supply system between several other wetlands, 

Mallard Slough has an added challenge in maintaining water levels throughout the growing season. 

Snow melt tends to raise annual spring water levels. However, depths are typically inadequate to 

maintain water through the summer and the wetland must be augmented with either Camas Creek 

spring flows (surface water), backing in from Rays Lake, or well water pumped through Sandhole 

Lake. In reality, the capacity of the Sandhole Lake pump is inadequate to, in itself, make a significant 

contribution to Mallard Slough. When water actually flows into Mallard Slough from Sandhole Lake, 

it is ordinarily due to a “wet” year with high runoff flows into Sandhole Lake and through it to 

Mallard Slough. Groundwater contributions at Sandhole Lake may also have substantial impact on 

Mallard Slough in wet years, although this is conjecture. It is unknown if significant groundwater 

sources exist within the Mallard Slough basin. 

The normal situation is for Mallard Slough to have some early season water, at least in pools, or 

sloughs across the wetland, without necessarily having any flow that actually crosses the entire 

depression. In average water years, there is not adequate moisture to maintain water in Mallard 

Slough throughout the spring, summer and fall. Consequently, with the exception of the confluence 

with Sandhole Lake, the slough typically dries between mid-July and mid-August. Similar to Center 

Pond, broods produced at Mallard will often have to move to another, more permanent wetland, to 

complete fledging. Drought has tended to be the principal condition of Mallard Slough on a seasonlong basis. Flood and normal conditions are usually of very limited duration. Even though Mallard 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

4-62 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Slough may actually experience “micro floods,” or begin with essentially normal hydrologic 

conditions in the spring, these states last such a short time that the impact to the wetland is negligible, 

and it actually finishes the average year in drought condition. Hydrating the northern segment of the 

sub-impoundment would greatly enhance habitat availability for migrating and breeding shorebirds. 

Mallard Slough is principally composed of palustrine emergent marsh, persistent vegetation with 

temporary to semipermanent water regimes. It always provides some palustrine open water with a 

semipermanent water regime, as well as palustrine unconsolidated bottom habitats with both 

semipermanent and permanent water. The permanent water designation should be reduced to 

seasonal or semipermanent. The only example of palustrine freshwater forested/shrub wetland found 

on Camas NWR occurs on Mallard Slough and is described in Section 4.3.2 below. 

Rays Lake. At 629 acres, Rays Lake is the largest of Camas NWR’s wetlands, but habitat quality is 

limited and intensive water level management is not possible. Composed mostly of open water 

habitat, with poor water quality and variable shoreline habitat quality, Rays Lake was delineated in 

the NWI primarily as lacustrine, littoral, unconsolidated bottom and permanent water in the primary 

basin; with palustrine emergent marsh (either with seasonal or semipermanent water) surrounding the 

deeper basin. There are also inclusions of palustrine scrub-shrub and unconsolidated shoreline, both 

with seasonal water regime and unconsolidated bottom with semipermanent water. All the permanent 

water (lacustrine) and semipermanent water regimes described have probably declined since initial 

wetland delineation. The permanent classification should be changed to semipermanent, and a 

significant portion of the semipermanent changed to seasonal. Although mapped as lacustrine, Rays 

Lake generally appears to exhibit more of a palustrine character.Rays Lake also has extensive areas 

of palustrine scrub-shrub (willow thickets), which are discussed further in Section 4.3.2 below. 

With poor water quality and a high evapotranspiration rate, Rays Lake does not appear to be a highly 

productive wetland. However, waterfowl and waterbird use of this basin is moderate to high, possibly 

because Rays Lake is totally dewatered, or nearly so, every year. It is assumed that groundwater 

influx is not a significant factor in Rays Lake. It is, however, heavily influenced by off-site private 

irrigation interests whose water rights control the elevation that the Rays Lake pool can attain, and 

more importantly how quickly Rays Lake is drained to supply irrigation water to private lands 

surrounding the Refuge. Besides annual precipitation in the upper watershed, the annual irrigation 

demand on Rays Lake is the principal determinant of the duration of the lake’s pool. In terms of 

hydrologic regimes (i.e., flood, normal, and drought cycles), the first two are achieved most years, 

but the drought cycle is too pervasive. The wetland needs more periods of more extensive hydration. 

Cattail Flat. The 167-acre Cattail Flat unit is a broad wetland expanse which, under current 

conditions, is fully hydrated only infrequently. It is essentially a shallow emergent hemi-marsh, 

currently trending toward overly robust emergent vegetation. While the majority of this basin is 

typed as palustrine emergent, there is palustrine open water mapped within it and additional open 

water habitat is clearly achievable, no doubt having been so in the past. There are also minor 

inclusions of palustrine unconsolidated shoreline. Much of the water regime was classified as 

semipermanent, but is probably now seasonal. Given the extensive shallows and rich vegetation 

communities, this wetland has the potential for substantial wildlife productivity, but suffers from a 

lack of water. Cattail Flat is fed either from Sandhole Lake, or more substantially, but less frequently, 

from Rays Lake flows backing upstream, as previously described in the Sandhole Lake account. In 

terms of normal/natural hydrologic cycle, Cattail Flat is continuously attenuating in the drought 

phase. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-63 

Avocet Pond (Inactive). Avocet Pond is a small (41 acre) wetland just north of Sandhole Lake. 

Currently most of the pond is shallow emergent hemi marsh, currently trending towards overly robust 

emergent vegetation. A small island of upland habitat lies within the center of the wetland. 

Modified Wetlands: Camas Creek Floodplain 

West Marsh (Inactive). West Marsh is a medium-sized (77 acres), dry, diked wetland in the 

northwest section of the Refuge. Besides the dikes and the nesting islands, a water delivery system 

from Well #3 was constructed to hydrate West Marsh. Well water has not been supplied to West 

Marsh for many years due to pumping costs, high water loss in conveyance ditches, and higher 

priority water use. Even with two potential water supply sources, West Marsh has been dry for the 

majority of the last 30 years, but does occasionally fill during an extremely high runoff event, such as 

a 100-, or 500-year frequency storm. Limited pools probably form within West Marsh’s basin, but it 

has only been significantly hydrated once in the last ten years, in 2005. West Marsh is unique among 

Camas NWR artificial dry wetlands in that a sizeable portion of it is a saline wet meadow ecological 

site. The majority of West Marsh is ecologically delineated as wet meadow. The wetland 

classification for this basin is palustrine emergent with a temporarily flooded, or saturated, water 

regime. 

Moose Pond (Inactive). Moose Pond is a medium sized wetland (99 acres). Moose Pond is more 

typical of refuge wetland ecological mapping in that it is a wet meadow site. It is composed entirely 

of palustrine emergent vegetation with a temporarily flooded, or saturated, water regime. Moose 

Pond is hydrated slightly more frequently than West Marsh, since a higher percentage of its eastern 

perimeter abuts Camas Creek. This increases the probability of hydration from early season stream 

overflow, or flooding. Moose Pond, like West Marsh, can receive water from Well #3 via a delivery 

ditch, but has not been so supplied for many years. Regardless of its more favorable location and the 

availability of auxiliary well water, Moose Pond has been dry for the majority of the last several 

decades. 

Ruddy Pond (Inactive). Ruddy Pond is a small (47 acres) wetland situated further from the Camas 

Creek channel. Consequently, Ruddy Pond receives water from Camas overflow less regularly and, 

although hydrated in the high water year of 2005, has been dry for the majority of the last 30 years. 

Ruddy Pond has a limited well water source via ditch and buried pipe from Well #3. Ruddy Pond is 

primarily a wet meadow site, but also has a small marsh inclusion. A significant portion of the basin 

is a sandy upland site, which is not unusual in some larger wetland development projects on the 

Refuge. Uplands would sometimes be included in wetland developments when levees were being 

constructed in order to provide areas of naturally higher elevation to act as nesting islands. Ruddy 

Pond is mapped as primarily palustrine emergent vegetation with a temporarily flooded, or saturated, 

water regime, and a smaller percentage of its area delineated as seasonal water. All of Ruddy Pond 

should be currently delineated as temporarily flooded. 

Pintail Pond (Inactive). Pintail Pond is the largest of the Refuge’s inactive wetlands (192 acres). 

Pintail Pond is adjacent to the Camas Creek channel and, like Moose Pond, more frequently 

inundated by the creek’s flood waters. Like nearby Ruddy Pond, Pintail Pond was last hydratedin 

2005, but has been dry for most of the past 30 years. Again similar to Ruddy Pond, Pintail Pond has a 

secondary water source, Well #3. Pintail Pond is primarily a wet meadow ecological site, but also has 

small inclusions of marsh sites around its northern and eastern perimeter. A very small portion of the 

basin is a saline wet meadow site. Palustrine emergent marsh with a temporary water regime is the 

principal NWI wetland type mapped on Pintail Pond, with a lesser amount of seasonal water regime. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

4-64 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

As with other presently dehydrated sites, the seasonal water regime would now be classified as a 

temporarily flooded or saturated. The Pintail Pond wetland community map also displays a 

significant inclusion of upland (38 acres). 

Prescribed Fire 

Prescribed fire has been used on the Refuge since 2001, primarily to set back vegetative succession 

and create openings in dense emergent vegetation. In wetlands, both spring (March 1-April 15) and 

fall (September 20-October 30) burns have been used. The history of prescribed fire use on the 

Refuge to date is included in Section 4.1.3 above. Fire models and history are discussed in Chapter 3. 

4.3.2 Willow Riparian and Scrub-Shrub Habitat 

Overview 

Willow habitat, dominated by narrowleaf willow (also called coyote or sandbar willow, Salix exigua) 

occurs on 279 acres of the Refuge, about 2.6 percent of the Refuge’s total acreage (Miewald et al. 

2012). Willow habitats include both linear stream riparian habitat and palustrine scrub-shrub habitat 

in patch, or stand/thicket configurations. 

Riparian Habitat is defined as natural stream or artificial water course habitat predominantly 

consisting of native willow species with a wet meadow understory, typically subject to an ephemeral, 

spring flooding regime (>0-12 inches in depth) (Bundy 2007). Willow riparian habitat primarily 

occurs along Camas Creek. Typically willows are present in linear configurations extending only a 

short distance from the stream banks. The three streams crossing the Refuge, Camas, Beaver, and 

Warm Creeks, all fall within the NWI classification of riverine intermittent streambeds, with a 

seasonally flooded water regime. Riverine Intermittent Streambed is a nationally decreasing habitat 

type. It is the willow overstory above the mix of wet meadow plants that make riverine intermittent 

streambed critically important for a variety of migratory and breeding landbird species. Willow 

communities support both terrestrial and semi-aquatic insects that are an important forage base for 

both fish and passerine birds. Willow communities are also important in maintaining water quality 

for fish by stabilizing banks and shading water. Stream riparian habitat on the Refuge is dominated 

by narrow-leaf willow (Salix exigua), with sporadic representation of a variety of other species that 

have not been thoroughly surveyed and described. A small area, approximately 9 acres, of crack 

willow (S. fragilis) was documented in the 2011 vegetation survey. Probable minority members of 

the stream riparian plant community would be peachleaf willow (Salix amygdaloides), Drummond 

willow (Salix drummondiana), Bebb willow (Salix bebbiana), Geyer willow (Salix geyeriana), 

Woods rose (Rosa woodsii), western snowberry (Symphoricarpos occidentalis), and currants (Ribes 

sp.), among others. Table 4.10 (below) describes key ecological attributes and desired conditions for 

riparian habitat. 

Other willow patches occur in wetland basins and are considered palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, 

with temporary to seasonal water regimes. Vegetation is less diverse than stream riparian and more 

typical of the native Camas Creek floodplain vegetation. The largest patches occur on Rays Lake. 

Here, large thickets of narrow-leaf willow occur at the mouth of Camas Creek and along the outlet 

from the lake, along the shoreline on both sides of the northeastern dike, and around the shore of the 

easternmost bay. Willows are pioneering widely across the lake basin along the northeast shoreline. 

As at Sandhole Lake, these stands range from linear ribbons hugging the shoreline to patches of 20 or 

more acres; but unlike Sandhole, at Rays Lake the larger groves tend to extend more into the 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-65 

frequently dry lakebed, rather than into the uplands. All of these groves are important to landbirds, 

particularly passerines. However, the largest Rays Lake stands are probably critical for the refuge elk 

herd. More study is needed to determine the exact value of the woody riparian zones, but they are 

probably providing escape and thermal cover for elk, as well as some forage. Due to the relatively 

flat topography of the Refuge, as well as generally short vegetation, habitat that is tall and dense 

enough to provide visual obscuration and to act as a wind and weather barrier, is limited. 

Consequently, elk use of the Rays Lake willow groves is heavy. The Rays Lake stands appear to be 

principally a tall shrub form narrowleaf willow, with an occasional Bebb, or Geyer, tree-form willow. 

The only example of palustrine freshwater forested/shrub wetland found on Camas NWR occurs on 

Mallard Slough. As with other palustrine systems, this site is characterized by wetland dominated by 

trees, shrubs, emergent vegetation, mosses or lichens, and woody vegetation that is 6 m (18 feet) tall 

or taller; is composed of broad-leaved deciduous trees or shrubs; and has a temporary water regime. 

This site consists of a mature stand of willow trees (Salix sp.) along a small drainageway on the south 

side of the marsh, leading into Rays Lake. 

Smaller thickets of willows are found in other wetlands such as Sandhole Lake, Two-Way Pond, and 

Pintail Pond. Thickets of narrowleaf willow are found along the northeast shoreline of Sandhole 

Lake. As at Rays Lake, the water regime is temporary or seasonal, depending on elevation. These 

stands range from linear ribbons hugging the shoreline to patches extending several acres inland from 

the shore. Similar to but much smaller than the Rays Lake willow thickets, these woody riparian 

habitats provide habitat for migratory landbirds, as well as forage, escape and thermal cover for elk. 

Table 4.10. Key Ecological Attributes, Indicators and Desired Conditions—Riparian 

Key Ecological 

Attributes 

Indicators Desired Conditions 

Hydrology/hydroperiod Ephemeral spring 

flooding regime 

Natural or simulated flooding to stimulate 

growth and germination of native riparian 

vegetation; duration sufficient to provide soil 

moisture sufficient for plant growth and 

germination without damaging flood levels 

that erode soil or drown plants. 

Vegetation diversity 

and structure 

Healthy woody riparian 

communities with 

native understory 

suitable to the site. 

Self-sustaining Salix overstory with 

understory of native shrubs and/or wet 

meadow vegetation. 

Patch size Sufficient to ensure 

normal ecological 

function and meet life 

history needs of all 

riparian dependent 

wildlife. 

Normal range of use and nesting success for 

foraging and/or breeding birds, especially 

colonially nesting great blue herons, blackcrowned night-herons, and breeding yellow 

warblers. Adequate for escape and thermal 

cover for moose, elk, white-tailed and mule 

deer. 

Invasive species Few to no invasive 

plants present 

Little or no Russian olive, knapweed, leafy 

spurge, thistles, or other invasive plants. 

Human use Little to none. Prohibit or limit entry to sensitive areas, 

except for vegetation and wildlife 

monitoring. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

4-66 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Regional Distribution, Conditions, and Trends of Riparian and Scrub-Shrub Habitat 

Instream and Riparian. Riparian habitats in the Beaver-Camas watershed are threatened by altered 

and insufficient flows to sustain native vegetation due to legal and illegal diversions, increased 

demands on surface and groundwater by exurban development and agriculture, vegetation removal, 

altered channel morphology and reduced water quality caused by improper livestock grazing, beaver 

removal, over-browsing by moose and beaver (an unlikely threat given current population levels), 

and fire. 

Several creeks (Camas, Beaver, and Warm Creeks) flow into Camas NWR but do not originate there, 

and significant portions of the watershed lie outside the Refuge. Off-refuge upstream activities have 

major impacts on water quality and quantity. Restoring riparian habitats would require cooperative 

efforts between the Service, USFS, Trout Unlimited, NRCS, and landowners throughout the BeaverCamas Watershed. 

The annual streamflow patterns of Camas Creek are essentially the same as occurred historically 

until the irrigation season begins around the 1st of April. However, this does not allow for overland 

flows to occur as they did historically, due to the deep incising of the Camas Creek channel, as 

compared to its original contour prior to Euro-American settlement. As previously described, the 

creek channel has experienced accelerated erosion through the cleaning and channelization activities 

of irrigation interests, as well as increased and altered (flashier) flows due to the effects of grazing, 

farming, and timber harvest within the watershed. In spite of significant water rights, the Refuge has 

been unable to artificially maintain both wetland levels and instream flow during, for example, 

critical late spring/early summer months necessary to support spawning, or survival, of Yellowstone 

cutthroat trout. This is true of both Camas Creek and other refuge streams. This example 

demonstrates the extreme departure of the Camas Creek floodplain from its historic, natural state. 

The effect of altered hydrology on the meadows adjacent to the streams has been somewhat less 

dramatic than the complete demise of the salmonid fishery, but is nonetheless severe. Through the 

remnant hydrologic function within, primarily, Camas Creek, and supplementation with deep well 

water, the Refuge has been able to provide a vestige of the historic meadow habitat used by a wide 

variety of wetland and riparian-dependent wildlife species for nesting and brood-rearing. 

As noted above, Kittel et al. (2012) ranked the ecological integrity of both wetland and upland sites 

at Camas NWR, and wetland complexes, including the Camas Creek and Floodplain Complex. 

Metrics are described under Section 4.3.1 above. The Camas Creek riparian area and floodplain 

received few excellent scores and several poor scores for a total EIA score of “C” or fair. The 

landscape context of the riparian corridor is good, since natural uplands and adjacent wetlands 

surround the corridor (an “A” score). The buffer index score is poor (“D”), since the buffer is 

interrupted by roads, ditches, and agricultural use, mostly on the north and west sides, less so on the 

south and east side; the buffer width is constricted by the refuge utility compound, roads, and 

agriculture that occur within the 100 m (328 feet) buffer; and there are areas of continuous weedy 

vegetation. The overall Landscape Score combines the Landscape Context and Buffer Index Scores, 

into a “C” (fair) score. 

The absolute size of the riparian corridor is a healthy 6 mile plus corridor and ranked an “A” score. 

However the relative size, compared to historic conditions, has been reduced through alteration of 

stream banks and floodplain, narrowing the riparian corridor. Therefore the relative size ranking is 

“C” (fair), and the total Size ranking is “B” (good). 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-67 

The Condition score consists of vegetation, hydrology, and soil condition scores. Vegetation 

condition in the floodplain of Camas Creek is highly altered. There are areas where the land has been 

leveled and cleared and quackgrass (Agropyron repens) planted, and weeds such as Canada thistle 

(Cirsium arvense) are abundant. There are areas of native woody riparian shrubs along the river 

banks, and areas with very few weeds. However these weed-free areas are tiny relative to the amount 

of altered land within the Camas Creek floodplain. Vegetation scores therefore averaged out to a “D” 

(poor) score. The hydrology of the river channel has been altered in several ways: ditches remove 

water from the stream channel both upstream, midstream, and downstream of the Refuge, reducing 

the natural water source of in-stream waters and changing the hydroperiod (timing and duration of 

seasonal high and low flows). The immediate channel has been dredged and the stream banks 

augmented in height, whichreduces the hydrologic connection of the channel with the floodplain, so 

that overbank flooding happens less frequently. Hydrology scores are all very low (D for hydrologic 

connectivity, hydroperiod, and water source). Current soil condition is good, with little evidence of 

compaction or churning, no off-road vehicle damage or excessive erosion. Finally physical 

alterations to the channel and bank have changed the physical patch diversity in the channel itself 

through reduction in channel sinuosity, reduced pool to riffle ratios, and elevation of the stream bank 

in many places (Physical Patch Type score D). The total Condition score is an average of these 

components, a “D” or poor score. 

The Camas Creek and Floodplain Wetland Complex Ecological Integrity Assessment score is an 

average of the Landscape Context, Size and Condition component scores for a final Ecological 

Integrity score of 2.3, “C” or fair. 

Willow scrub-shrub. A recent study (Keigley 2012) attempted to determine if elk browsing or other 

factors were causing declines in extent and quality of willow habitat (both riparian and scrub-shrub) 

on the Refuge. However this study is preliminary; quantitative assessment of condition and 

regeneration is required. Many of the willows on certain sections of the Refuge (e.g., Rays Lake) 

appear to be dead or dying, while others (e.g., at Two-Way Pond and Camas Creek west of Toomey 

Pond) appear healthy and vigorous. There are a number of questions to be addressed, including 

whether the apparently high mortality areas are human-caused, or natural, as there is some indication 

that coyote willow may be somewhat cyclic and prone to periodic die-offs. Keigley believes that 

conditions at Rays Lake were once conducive to willow establishment and growth, but that current 

conditions of flooding alternating with desiccation have killed many willows in this area. Currently 

the Two-Way/Toomey Pond area provides more stable conditions for willow habitat, and willow in 

this area is only lightly browsed. 

Kittel et al. (2012) found few samples of the Riparian Shrublands Group (USNVC G526 Rocky 

Mountain and Great Basin Lowland and Foothill Riparian and Seep Shrubland Group) but these were 

in better condition than their wet meadow neighbors, with three-quarters in excellent to good 

condition and a quarter in poor condition.

Key Species Supported 

As with most wildlife data baselines for Camas NWR, data on wildlife associated with riparian 

streams and woodland are limited. The best data available on wildlife use of these habitats come 

from the study of migratory passerine landbirds conducted by Dr. Carlisle of the Idaho Bird 

Observatory, Boise State University, Boise, Idaho (Carlisle et al. 2008). The results of this study are 

described in section 4.4.3 below. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

4-68 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

A variety of bird species use riparian habitats for foraging and nesting. These include great blue 

herons, black-crowned night herons, snowy egrets, and great horned owls. The Refuge’s dense 

willow thickets provide both breeding and foraging habitat for migratory landbirds, for example 

willow and dusky flycatcher, calliope hummingbird, black-billed magpie, and yellow warbler. 

Riparian habitat provides brood and winter habitat for greater sage-grouse, and willow thickets 

provide both valuable forage and thermal or security cover for moose and elk. 

Terrestrial and semi-aquatic insects also live in willow communities and provide the food base for 

nesting and migrating songbirds. Although the Refuge’s insect community is not well documented, 

weight gains made by migrating songbirds during their stop-over at Camas (Carlisle et al. 2008) 

attest to large insect populations in both riparian and shelterbelt habitats. 

Native fish in historic Camas Creek were likely limited to cutthroat trout and sculpins (Cottus spp.) 

(Garren 2010). Rainbow trout, brown trout and small- and largemouth bass were introduced in later 

years, and populations persisted for an unknown number of years. Camas Creek does not currently 

have suitable habitat to support fish and no fish are known to be present, other than native minnows 

and suckers. 

Refuge Management Activities 

All of the Refuge’s stream courses have been modified by management activities, but the only 

physical modifications to any of the streams for wildlife management purposes have been for water 

diversion to waterfowl ponds, or development of ponds within the channels themselves. In average 

flow years, the majority of Camas Creek surface waters (58.1 cfs) are diverted from April-July to 

inundate refuge wetland impoundments. The Refuge can manage for Camas Creek riparian flows 

below the diversion point for approximately 3-6 weeks, only when flows above 58.1 cfs occur. The 

Refuge maintains the extent of current willow and shrub habitat where possible, given the constraints 

of water rights requirements. 

Other stream management on the Refuge has been for nonwildlife purposes and has consisted largely 

of clearing sand, vegetation and debris from the Camas Creek channel by outside, private irrigation 

interests. Monitoring and control of invasive plants is the only management currently occurring on 

riparian habitat at Camas NWR. Management of scrub-shrub habitat is discussed in Section 4.3.1 

(Wetlands) above. 

4.3.3 Sagebrush-Steppe and Grassland Habitats 

Overview 

Shrub-steppe and semi-desert grassland covers approximately 2,622 acres, or more than 24 percent, 

of the Refuge and are part of a complex local mosaic of other vegetation community types and 

ecological sites (Miewald et al. 2012). Sagebrush-steppe habitat has been mapped on about 1,750 

acres (16 percent) of the Refuge, green rabbitbrush shrubland (which is considered an early seral 

stage of the climax sagebrush-steppe community) on 470 acres, and Intermountain Semi-Desert 

Grassland on 209 acres. The Refuge also contains 191 acres of “ruderal” sagebrush shrubland, that is, 

a plant community with a sagebrush overstory but an understory dominated by non-native grasses 

and forbs such that reconstructing the historic vegetation type would be difficult. Another 1,113 acres 

of the Refuge has been mapped as Upland Non Native habitat, primarily the Crested Wheatgrass 

Ruderal Grassland Alliance (984 acres). These sites historically would have been sagebrush-steppe 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-69 

and/or semidesert grassland. The findings of the 2012 vegetation mapping project (Miewald et al. 

2012) support the findings of Germino et al. (2010), which are summarized below. The “Crested 

Wheatgrass Ruderal Grassland” corresponds to Germino’s State 3, while the Ruderal Dry Shrubland 

and Grass groups correspond to State 2. 

Refuge sagebrush-steppe habitat is primarily composed of sandy upland ecological sites with 8-12 

inches of precipitation, based on USDA, National Resource Conservation Service guidelines, as 

described by Germino et al. (2010). There are doubtless inclusions of wet meadow and saline wet 

meadow that are small enough to escape delineation in the general habitat survey and site mapping 

process. The sandy upland, 8-12 inch site is characterized as follows by the NRCS Technical Guide 

as follows (in Germino, et al. 2010): 

“The dominant visual aspect of this site is basin big sagebrush and antelope 

bitterbrush in the overstory with needle and thread in the understory. Composition by 

weight is approximately 45 to 55 percent shrubs, 5 to 15 percent forbs, and 35 to 45 

percent [shrubs].” 

The NRCS guide furthers states that there are many possible phases for this site, depending on local 

natural and anthropogenic influences. The technical guide describes the reference plant community 

composition as follows: 

“This plant community is dominated by needle and thread, basin big sagebrush, and 

antelope bitterbrush. Other species that can be significant in the community include 

Indian ricegrass, sand dropseed, thickspike wheatgrass, western wheatgrass, and 

arrowleaf balsamroot.” 

The designation of reference plant community indicates a plant community in near-pristine condition 

and at an advanced seral stage. After years of drought and heavy livestock grazing, few sandy 

upland/sagebrush-steppe sites on the Refuge are in such good condition. 

Sandy upland sites are widely distributed across Camas NWR. The heaviest concentration of 

sagebrush-steppe sites (or potential sites, since many have been converted to grasslands or 

agricultural fields), tends to be around the perimeter of the Refuge. The sandy upland communities 

are interspersed with other habitat types; where plant communities are in healthy condition, this 

creates ecologically valuable ecotones. Key ecological attributes and desired conditions for 

sagebrush-steppe habitat is shown in Table 4.11 below. 

Table 4.11. Key Ecological Attributes, Indicators, and Condition Parameters, Sagebrush Steppe 

(including other upland vegetation) 

Key Ecological 

Attributes 

Indicators Desired Conditions 

Patch 

Size/Connectivity 

Large contiguous tracts. Tract size >16 ha. (Altman and Holmes 2000; 

Reynolds et al. 1999) 

Hydrology/hydroperiod Snowpack and 

precipitation. 

Sufficient soil moisture for desired plant growth. 

Vegetation diversity 

and structure 

Vigorous and dense 

growth of native shrubs, 

forbs and grasses. 

Shrub layer cover 5-25%, >80 cm (31 inches) in 

height; other shrub cover <0%; herbaceous cover 

5-0% (Altman and Holmes 2000; Reynolds 1999). 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

4-70 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Table 4.11. Key Ecological Attributes, Indicators, and Condition Parameters, Sagebrush Steppe 

(including other upland vegetation) 

Key Ecological 

Attributes 

Indicators Desired Conditions 

For upland nesting ducks, and other birds, 

sufficient density to provide cover in patches ≥10 

ac. to avoid predators and ≤1 mi from brood 

habitat. 

Forage Early-mid successional. 

(moderate-high 

productivity-low biomass 

ratio)

Healthy, vigorous shrubs demonstrating ample 

leader growth. Abundant forbs and grasses filling 

shrub interstices, as well as providing shrub 

understory and grassland admixture. Limited dead 

and decadent components in shrub community. 

Abundant and diverse terrestrial invertebrates. 

Invasive species Few to no invasive plants 

present 

Little to no cheatgrass, tumble mustard, 

skeletonweed, knapweed, etc. 

Human use Little to none. Disturbance during spring and summer limited to 

necessary habitat manipulation (burning, weed 

control, fencing); low hunter density at selected 

sites with sanctuaries available during legal 

hunting seasons. 

Regional Distribution, Conditions, and Trends of Sagebrush-Steppe Habitats 

Regionally, threats to sagebrush and other shrub habitats include conversion to agriculture, improper 

grazing practices, invasive species, increased frequency and severity of fire (exacerbated in part by 

invasive species such as cheatgrass), and (in certain areas) residential and resort development. In 

some portions of the Snake River Plain, intervals between fires have increased from decades to every 

three to five years due to cheatgrass invasion. While cheatgrass is not as abundant in the cooler 

Eastern Snake River Plain, fire frequencies are nevertheless greater than historical levels. Widespread 

population and habitat declines have been projected for numerous sagebrush associated species 

(Knick and Rotenberry 1999, Knick et al. 2003, Wisdom et al. 2000). A growing sense of urgency 

over the outlook for sagebrush dependent wildlife has spawned numerous assessments and planning 

exercises at various scales (e.g., Nevada Division of Wildlife [NDOW] 2004; Partners in Flight 

Conservation Plans; Wisdom et al. 2000; Wisdom et al. 2003a, 2003b). As a result, hundreds of 

species associated with sagebrush habitats, including 28 species of birds, have been identified as 

being of conservation concern (Rich et al. 2005; Wisdom et al. 2002). 

In their recent range health survey of the Refuge, Germino et al. (2010) reported: 

“Only five of the 24 transects sampled in this habitat had more than 10% cover of sagebrush 

(transects #32, 33, 35, 48, 45), and - as an example for native bunchgrasses - five others had 

the needle-and-thread grass (#s 32, 34, 35, 38, and 48). Thus, three of the transects had an 

abundance of native sagebrush and native bunchgrass that are barely the state 1 condition of 

this habitat type (#32 with 19-25% cover of each, #35 with 13 and 24% cover, and #48 with 

11 and 14% cover). Rabbitbrush, a resprouting shrub that can occur after disturbance but also 

persists in later successional stages, was a co-dominant in 4 transects (#41, 35, 42, 53). The 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-71 

exotic but often desired western wheatgrass was also a co-dominant in 4 transects (#30, 31, 

45, 51). 

“Overall transects combined, cover of this habitat type was 17.5% crested wheatgrass (I), 

about 9% each of cheatgrass (I), needle and thread grass, and rabbitbrush; nearly 7% each of 

sagebrush and western wheatgrass; 4-5% of tumble mustard (I) and madwort (I); and 2-4% of 

skeletonweed (I), prickly lettuce (I), povertyweed (I), scurf-pea, clover (I), and prickly pear 

cactus. [Note: I=introduced species] 

“The floristics of this habitat type at Camas NWR, for all transects combined, was a blend of 

the three states in decreasing order of dominance: 

1) an irreversible transition to state 3 dominated by seeded species (crested wheatgrass, 

which may or may not have been seeded on site), 

2) state 2, annual exotics of cheatgrass, tumble mustard, skeletonweed, and clover, and 

3) state 1, shrubs and grasses. For state 1, there was no bitterbrush, yet this species should 

codominate the site with sagebrush and wheat grasses (needle and thread, thickspike, 

western) in the absence of fire and improper grazing. According to the NRCS (Appendix 4), 

frequent fire or improper grazing push the site to state 2, dominated by exotic annuals.” 

In summary, Germino found that all of the habitats, or ecological sites, his team sampled at Camas 

NWR had examples of “moderate to extreme condition of degradation.” These degraded areas were 

often characterized by high percentages of exotic, invasive plants. However, he also stated that the 

sandy upland habitats were the only sites where a majority of the sampling transects revealed healthy 

plant communities, or communities in “none-to-slight departure” class. While the Refuge’s 

sagebrush-steppe sites certainly did not contain pristine plant communities, they were generally in 

better condition than the other ecological site types. 

The recent vegetation mapping and Ecological Integrity Assessments (Kittel et al. 2012; Miewald et 

al. 2012) confirm Germino’s findings but provide a more nuanced picture of the Refuge’s upland 

habitats. Kittel et al. assessed the ecological integrity of 34 upland sites. Metrics for assessing 

ecological integrity of upland sites included relative cover or native and non-native plant species, 

vegetation composition (species composition and diversity), soil surface condition, patch diversity, 

native bunchgrass abundance, biological soil crust, and fire sensitive shrub composition. 

Seventy-four percent of the Refuge’s upland sites (25 sites) ranked fair to poor, with most of these 

(22 sites) ranking in the “poor” category. Many of the lowest ranked sites had undergone complete 

type conversion to crested wheatgrass, a non-native grass planted to prevent soil erosion. However 

about one-third of the sites (nine sites; 27 percent) ranked excellent to good. Overall, 26 of the 34 

sites were native habitat types (sagebrush-steppe, rabbitbrush shrubland, and desert grassland) while 

18 sites had undergone type conversion to ruderal dry shrubland (e.g., sagebrush-steppe with an 

understory of non-native grasses) and/or crested wheatgrass. While many areas of sagebrush-steppe 

and rabbitbrush shrubland had an understory of non-native grasses, relatively weed-free examples of 

sagebrush-steppe and desert grassland (“Good” condition) occurred in the west side and southeast 

corner of the Refuge. The single “excellent” example was southeast of Sandhole Lake. The “Good” 

and Excellent” ranked sites can be used as reference sites for these habitats on the Refuge. 

Southeastern Idaho, including Camas NWR, provides important habitat for sage grouse and other 

sagebrush obligate and facultative species. Threats to these species include: 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

4-72 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

 Loss, degradation, or fragmentation of sage-steppe habitats. 

 Development of sage-steppe and allied habitats to less suitable or unsuitable agricultural 

habitats. 

 Additional regional demands on surface and groundwater. 

 Wildlife diseases (especially Highly Pathenogenic Avian Influenza H5N1 and West Nile 

Virus). 

 Invasive and noxious weeds, which compete with or exclude desirable plant communities 

used by sage grouse and the suite of other sagebrush-dependent species. 

 Degradation of ecological integrity and function of breeding and foraging habitats for sagesteppe user species via invasive, exotic plants and animals and climatic change. 

Key Species Supported 

The refuge sagelands provide habitat for a diverse array birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. 

Of the 117 bird species known to occur at Camas NWR, 22 species typically use sagebrush-steppe 

habitat. Sagebrush-steppe provides both breeding and foraging habitat for greater sage-grouse, sage 

thrasher, Brewer’s sparrow, and loggerhead shrike. When close to water, sagebrush provides breeding 

habitat for long-billed curlew and northern pintail. The birds found in refuge sagebrush-steppe habitat 

include: 

 Greater sage grouse Centrocercus urophasianus

 Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus

 Short-eared owl Asio flammeus 

 Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia 

 Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos

 Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis

 Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus

 Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni 

 Turkey vulture Cathartes aura

 American kestrel Falco sparverius 

 Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum

 Northern flicker Colaptes auratus

 Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus 

 Western kingbird Tyrannus verticalis

 Eastern kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus

 Horned lark Eremophila alpestris

 Rock wren Salpinctes obsoletus 

 Sage sparrow Amphispiza belli

 Brewer’s sparrow Spizella breweri 

 Vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus

 Lark sparrow Chondestes grammacus

 Western meadowlark Sturnella neglecta

The majority of these species are known or suspected to breed on the Refuge. 

Although less diverse than birds, at least 20 species of mammals occur in the Refuge’s sage-steppe 

habitat, including elk, mule deer, pronghorn, coyote, badger, sagebrush vole, Idaho pocket gopher, 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-73 

black-tailed and white-tailed jackrabbits (Lepus californicus, townsendii), mountain cottontail 

(Sylvilagus nuttalli), pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis), Great Basin ground squirrel 

(Spermophilus mollis idahoensis), Wyoming ground squirrel (Spermophilus elegans), Townsend’s 

ground squirrel (Spermophilus townsendii), Ord’s kangaroo rat (Dipodomys ordii), and Merriam’s 

shrew (Sorex merriami). 

A subset of the herpetofauna reasonably expected to be encountered within the sagebrush-steppe of 

the lower Camas Creek floodplain consists of: common sagebrush lizard (Sceloporus graciosus), 

greater short-horned lizard (Phrynosoma douglassi),western rattlesnake (Crotalis viridus), gopher 

snake (Pituophis catenifer), racer (Coluber constrictor), terrestrial garter snake (Thamnophis 

elegans), Great Basin spadefoot toad (Spea intermontanus), and western toad (Bufo boreas). 

There are no known checklists of Camas NWR invertebrates. We recognize that these species 

are important ecologically and more invertebrate data are critically needed. 

Refuge Management Activities 

Sagebrush-steppe is a critical element to fulfilling all life history elements for many sage-steppe 

dependent wildlife species (e.g., sage-grouse) and certain life history elements for some wetland 

dependent wildlife species. While it is assumed that off-refuge habitats on adjacent private lands aid 

in supplementing this important habitat type, it is also important to note that much of the adjacent 

habitat is so significantly degraded as to diminish or negate its value for nesting wildlife. 

Consequently, refuge upland habitats are managed to provide the best vegetative composition, 

physiological condition and production possible. Control of invasive and noxious weeds is the 

primary management activity occurring in upland habitats. Refuge upland habitats are also managed 

consistent with a natural periodicity of ecological disturbance (e.g., fire) through artificial 

management techniques (prescribed fire). Concurrently, refuge management attempts to be consistent 

with a natural pattern of wetland and upland habitat interspersion to maximize ecotonal values, 

thereby fulfilling the greatest number of life cycle requirements for the largest number of wildlife 

species. To date, a limited amount of sagebrush-steppe habitat restoration (approximately 30 acres, 

with 113 acres of restoration planned) has been conducted on the Refuge. 

4.3.4 Agriculture (Hay Meadows and Crop Fields) 

Overview 

Currently approximately 160 acres of the Refuge are farmed via Cooperative Land Management 

Agreements (CLMAs) with local farmers, with up to 140 acres of alfalfa and 20 acres of small grains 

(winter wheat or barley) planted annually. 150 acres of formerly farmed lands which were allowed to 

revert to non-native grassland are currently managed as hay fields, also under CLMAs. These 

agricultural habitats constitute a small percentage of refuge lands but serve a critical function for 

migratory waterfowl and landbirds, and breeding Canada geese and sandhill cranes. At a point where 

carbohydrates are required for migration, species such as Canada geese, greater sandhill cranes, and 

dabbling ducks can find abundant grain to fulfill this life history requirement. Additional benefits are 

provided for spring/summer browsing by geese and cranes as new growth shoots become available. 

Considering recent off-refuge conversions from small grain to alfalfa and potato production, refuge 

grain crops provide a necessary supplement as well as a depredation-relief benefit to those local 

farmers still growing small grain crops. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

4-74 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

One purpose for establishing Camas NWR was to provide migration and breeding habitat for 

waterfowl, especially Canada geese. Additionally, the Refuge is identified within the Flyway goose 

management plan for its role in attracting and supporting breeding Canada geese. To meet these 

goals, a primary strategy is managing short pastures or grasslands. Migrating geese frequently 

browse upon large, short-grass pastures. These conditions afford the geese access to young green 

plants and forbs, improved sight distances for predator detection, reduced concealment cover for 

predators, and clear flight paths for escape. 

Most of the Refuge’s hay units have had a farming history. By 1947, 240 acres of the Refuge were 

being farmed for grain production. The intensity of the refuge farming program increased in the 

1950s. In 1950, 160 acres of new ground were broken for grain production. By the mid to late 1960s, 

approximately 500 acres of land on the Refuge had been leveled to increase the production of small 

grain crops to support the Animal Damage Control (ADC) program, and the trumpeter swan and 

whooping crane recovery programs at Red Rock Lakes NWR and Grays Lake NWR in the 1970s. 

When these programs ended in the mid-1970s Camas NWR scaled back on small grain production. 

Most grain fields on the Refuge were taken out of production and allowed to revert back to 

introduced pasture grasses. In most recent history these areas have been hayed through Cooperative 

Land Management Agreements. Currently, fifteen of the Refuge’s nineteen hay units (approximately 

150 acres) fall within the “active” wetland category, while four units (approximately 100 acres) are 

“inactive.” The decline in local water flow/supply, including aquifer depletion, has reduced the use of 

some units for haying, or at least increased the interval, in terms of years, between actual hay harvest, 

or mowing, in some units. Approximately 150 acres are hayed annually. 

As a result of their farming history, the Refuge’s hay meadows have large exotic vegetation 

components of either quackgrass, smooth brome, or both, among other species. Within the Natural 

Resources Conservation Service’s (NRCS’s) Ecological Site Classification System, the refuge hay 

meadows are classified as wet meadow ecological sites (Germino et al. 2010). In the 2009 range 

health survey of the Refuge, Germino et al. (2010) found that the condition of hay meadows had 

greatly departed from the expected natural condition. As described by Germino, “Much of the habitat 

classified as wet meadow at Camas NWR appears to be in the transition from state 2 to 3, or it is in 

an undescribed state that does not resemble typical wet meadows and instead has early-successional 

and exotic weedy species of upland habitats.” Tables 4.12 and 4.13 (below) describe key ecological 

attributes and desired conditions for hayfields and croplands managed to benefit waterfowl. 

Table 4.12. Key Ecological Attributes, Indicators, and Condition Parameters for 

Waterfowl—Uplands (including managed hayfields) 

Key Ecological 

Attributes 

Indicators Desired Conditions 

Hydrology/hydroperiod Snowpack and 

precipitation. 

Sufficient soil moisture for desired plant 

growth. 

Vegetation diversity 

and structure 

Vigorous and dense 

growth of native 

shrubs, forbs and 

grasses. 

Sufficient density to provide cover for upland 

nesting ducks, and other birds in patches ≥10 

ac to avoid predators and ≤1 mi. from brood 

habitat. 

Forage Short forbs, short 

growing grasses, and 

abundant terrestrial 

Early successional (high productivity-low 

biomass ratio) grasslands; hayed or burned 

fields ≥20 acres, with monotypic stands for 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-75 

invertebrates. Canada goose forage. 

Invasive species Few to no invasive 

plants present 

Little to no Canada or musk thistle, black 

henbane, knapweed, spurge, etc. 

Human use Little to none. Disturbance during spring and summer 

limited to necessary habitat manipulation 

(haying, burning, weed control, fencing); low 

hunter density at selected sites with 

sanctuaries available during legal hunting 

seasons. 

Table 4.13. Key Ecological Attributes, Indicators, and Condition Parameters for 

Waterfowl—Crops 

Key Ecological 

Attributes 

Indicators Desired Conditions 

Hydrology/hydroperiod Snowpack and 

precipitation. 

Sufficient soil moisture for desired plant 

growth but allowing equipment use. 

Vegetation diversity 

and structure 

Dependent on species 

planted. Barley 12-24 

in. high at maturity. 

Native grass and forbs 

acceptable if ≤25% 

(Frederickson and 

Drobney 1979) Grains 

should be knocked 

down for 100% use by 

geese and ducks. 

Sufficient yield to provide adequate grain for 

the number and duration of target species 

(e.g., 200 Canada geese for 60 days). Target 

100% use that growing season. 

Invasive species Few to no invasive 

plants present 

Little to no Canada thistle, musk thistle, 

knapweed, spurge, etc. 

Human use Much to none. Restrict human use in fields to necessary 

field preparation (i.e., discing, seeding) and 

management (i.e., weed control and mowing 

for waterfowl use). Do not open to hunting. 

Regional Distribution, Conditions, and Trends of Agricultural Lands 

As of 2007, 58 percent of the Beaver-Camas watershed (372,704 of 647,255 acres) was shrubland or 

rangeland; 19 percent (122,552 acres) was grass, pasture or hayland, 15 percent was forest, and 6 

percent (39,000 acres) was cropland. The remaining 1 percent was water, wetland, developed, or 

barren (Idaho NRCS 2007). Approximately 27,710 acres of private lands were in row crops, 11,000 

acres of private lands were in grain crops, 64,541 acres of private and 58,011 acres of public land in 

grass, pasture, and hay. Total irrigated lands in the watershed were 63,500 acres; of this 45 percent 

was irrigated pasture and 47 percent cultivated cropland. A large majority of the cropland (including 

extensive sprinkler and surface irrigated small grain, sugar beet, potato, and alfalfa) is located in the 

southern portion of the watershed, near Hamer and the Camas National Wildlife Refuge. While row 

crops provide little to no value for wildlife, irrigated pasture, alfalfa, and small grain crops do. 

Threats to agricultural habitats that provide habitat for migratory birds in the Camas NWR area (both 

on and off-refuge) include lack of funding, low precipitation, weeds, and off-refuge crop depredation 

in the Beaver-Camas subbasin. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

4-76 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Key Species Supported 

Refuge grain fields provide migrating sandhill cranes and waterfowl (primarily Canada geese and 

dabbling ducks) with an easily accessible, high-energy food source during late fall and early winter 

as wetlands freeze up. In spring and summer, geese and cranes forage in grainfields as new growth 

shoots become available. Legumes (alfalfa) also provide forage for Canada geese and mallards. In 

fall and winter, greater sage-grouse forage in open grain fields, especially if located near sage-steppe 

vegetation. Sage-grouse also use alfalfa fields for brood rearing. Long-billed curlews forage for 

earthworms and other invertebrates in bare fields in early spring immediately after their arrival, when 

fields are typically melted off but before snow cover is completely gone from grasslands. Likewise, 

greater sandhill cranes forage for waste grain and invertebrates in bare fields in early spring. 

Abundant invertebrates (especially earthworms) found in alfalfa fields also attract white-faced ibis. 

Alfalfa supports an abundant small mammal community that is exploited by various birds of prey, for 

example Swainson’s hawks. Ungulates, especially Rocky Mountain elk and white-tailed deer, also 

use the Refuge croplands. 

Although their vegetation has departed greatly from historic conditions, the Refuge’s hay meadows 

serve as valuable habitat for sage grouse broods, sandhill cranes, and long-billed curlews and as a 

migration stop for other migratory birds. When at peak of flood irrigation, the hay meadows provide 

good foraging habitat for waterfowl, as well as brood pair establishment areas, due to the abundant 

food resources available in the form of seeds and invertebrates. As plant phenology progresses, the 

hay meadows are also attractive to foraging waterfowl because of relatively dense cover. The hay 

units also support pronghorn, elk, and other refuge ungulates. 

Refuge Management Activities 

Crops (alfalfa and small grains) 

The Refuges uses Cooperative Land Management Agreements (CLMAs) with local farmers to 

implement the refuge farming program. Under these agreements, cooperators front the cost of small 

grain operations (e.g., mechanical preparations, watering, seeding, labor costs) in exchange for 

harvesting a portion of the refuge alfalfa crop. Currently, a total of 160 acres of planted agriculture is 

provided on the Refuge on two separate 80-acre refuge tracts. The Well #7 Field is an 80-acre tract 

with irrigation equipment owned entirely by the Refuge. Three units provide 60 acres of irrigated 

alfalfa and one unit provides 20 acres of small grain (winter wheat or barley) for wildlife use. Crops 

in the Well #7 Field are rotated between two years of small grain and six-years of alfalfa. The Well 

#9 Field is the second 80-acre tract, which contains a wheel-line irrigation system owned by the 

cooperator. The Well #9 Field has not proven to be conducive for growing irrigated small grain, so all 

80 acres are currently in alfalfa. Irrigated alfalfa is swathed and baled in late summer with the final 

timing of the harvest occurring at the discretion of the cooperator, based upon the maturity of the 

alfalfa. Herbicides are applied on farmed units by refuge personnel through force account refuge 

funding as needed to control invasive species. 

Hay Meadows 

Haying is conducted via Cooperative Land Management Agreements (CLMAs) as an alternative to 

force account farming, fencing and weed control. Ultimately, the Refuge achieves short grass 

conditions and additional improvements without the cost of performing these activities. In all the 

Refuge manages up to 250 acres of hayed land, divided into fifteen management units. Of this, 150 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-77 

acres are hayed annually. Hay units are rotated so that no unit is hayed two years in a row. Refuge 

fields are hayed after July 15 to avoid conflicts with ground nesting birds. 

The hay meadow wetlands of Camas NWR were originally arrayed along Camas Creek, except for 

units 10a and 10b, which are immediately west and south of Spring Pond. As discussed previously, 

these meadows would have historically been subject to overbank flows from Camas Creek during the 

spring, or other flood periods. Since the settlement of the Camas Creek floodplain and the conversion 

of these meadows to hay production, they have evolved into active and inactive wetlands. “Active” 

wetlands (meadows) are those that can still be, and are on some schedule irrigated, either for hay 

production and/or wildlife habitat needs. “Inactive” hay meadows (unit numbers 2a, 2b, 10a, and 

10b) are those that either cannot be irrigated due to lack of adequate water supply, water rights, or 

diversion infrastructure. These are evaluated in the “Inactive Wetland” section above. 

There are currently fifteen active hay meadow units at Camas NWR (units 2d-7b), although not all 

are irrigated or mowed (harvested) every year. They are all palustrine emergent vegetation, with 

persistent structure and temporary water regimes. Historically these would have been wet meadows, 

although as noted above they are currently dominated by non-native grasses. Two units, 5g and 5h, 

were also typed as having seasonal water in some portions. 

4.3.5 Cultural Woody Vegetation (Shelterbelt and Non-Native Plantings) 

Overview 

The Refuge also contains approximately 34 acres (from 2012 vegetation mapping) of cultural woody 

vegetation, with a significant component of tree and shrub species that are not native to the Camas 

area. The headquarters patch is multicanopied gallery with stringers of shrubs and shrub-trees 

radiating out from the main gallery stand, or adjacent to it with no direct, physical connection. 

Cottonwoods of varying ages from overmature to seedlings, are the dominant structural aspect of the 

gallery portion of the headquarters stand. The rest of the stand’s components include both native (to 

Idaho though not necessarily the Snake River Plain) and non-native species. Native species include 

black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), peachleaf willow (Salix amygdaloides), coyote or 

narrowleaf willow (Salix exigua), and Wood’s rose (Rosa woodsii), whereas exotic species include 

Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia), Siberian pea (Caragana arborescens), green ash (Fraxinus 

pennsylvanica), box elder (Acer negundo), and Plains cottonwood (Populus deltoides; also known as 

eastern and/or American cottonwood). Both box elder and Plains cottonwood are species native to 

portions of eastern Idaho but likely were not found historically on Camas NWR (Carlisle et al. 2008). 

Key Species Supported 

Camas NWR’s shelterbelt habitat has been recognized as a migration hotspot for decades, with 

numerous sightings of birds never previously documented in Idaho. Carlisle et al. (2008) documented 

an impressive abundance and diversity of spring and autumn migrants using the Refuge’s shelterbelt. 

Carlisle found that peak migration timing for all species combined occurred between early August 

and late September during fall migration, and mid-May to early June during spring migration. 

Seventy-four different songbird species were captured at the Camas NWR headquarters shelterbelt, 

including Wilson’s warbler, yellow warbler, yellow-rumped warbler, MacGillivray’s warbler, 

warbling vireo, and western wood-pewee. Moreover, recaptured birds at the site were experiencing 

substantial weight gain during their stop-over at the Refuge (see Section 4.4.3 below). The Refuge’s 

shelterbelt also provides breeding habitat for willow flycatcher, dusky flycatcher, and yellow 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

4-78 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

warblers, and foraging habitat for American kestrel and resident landbirds such as downy 

woodpecker and ruby-crowned kinglet. Refuge shelterbelt provides an important winter roost site for 

bald eagles. Since 2000, peak counts at the roost site have ranged from 30-40 eagles (see section 

4.4.4). 

Refuge Management Activities 

The Refuge currently pumps groundwater and flood irrigates shelterbelt habitat with existing ditch 

and water delivery network to maintain 55 acres of shelterbelt habitat. Non-native and/or invasive 

trees and shrubs (i.e., Russian olive, Siberian pea) have been replaced with plantings of trees and 

shrubs native to Idaho that provide similar habitat and food values for migratory birds. Cottonwood 

snags (standing dead trees) and fallen dead limbs are allowed to remain unless they pose an 

immediate danger to the public or refuge facilities, or inhibit natural or assisted regeneration of 

young cottonwoods. Many of the large cottonwoods are at the end of their lifespan and in need of 

replacement. Replacement in some areas has been initiated and is proving to be time, labor and 

money intensive. 

4.4 Major Species Groups 

Population data for major species groups (waterfowl, waterbirds, landbirds, and ungulates) or species 

of concern (bald eagles) are presented in this section. Much of this data has been collected by refuge 

staff. Data on waterbirds and landbirds was collected and analyzed by the IDFG’s Idaho Bird 

Inventory and Survey (IBIS) Program and the Idaho Bird Observatory. 

4.4.1 Waterfowl 

Overview 

Thousands of waterfowl use the Refuge during spring, summer, and fall. The most abundant species 

include Great Basin Canada geese, mallard, green-winged teal, canvasback, redhead, and ruddy 

ducks. Gadwall, northern pintail, cinnamon teal, and lesser scaup also occur in lower numbers. Some 

snow geese, trumpeter swans, and tundra swans migrate through the Refuge. Several species of duck 

nest on the Refuge. The most common nesting waterfowl species include gadwall, mallard, 

canvasback, redhead and ruddy duck. Trumpeter swans, lesser scaup, northern shoveler, cinnamon 

teal, green-winged teal, northern pintail, and American wigeon also nest in lesser numbers. Data on 

peak waterfowl numbers and production for the Refuge are summarized below. 

The Refuge is a locally important molting area for swans, geese and ducks, although numbers are 

modest. Sandhole Lake hosts the principal molting concentration, although the more permanent core 

wetlands also provide molting habitat for smaller numbers of waterfowl. 

Great Basin Canada geese are the only breeding goose on the Refuge. Geese arrive in March and 

depart in November, depending on weather and ice conditions. Arrival and departure trends for 

migratory waterfowl are not closely monitored and vary annually by species, regional and local 

weather patterns, and other climatic conditions. Typically the first permanent open water occurs in 

April, and freeze-up occurs in November. Smaller cadres of Canada geese will normally overwinter 

in the general area of the Refuge, perhaps roosting on the Henry’s Fork of the Snake River, 

approximately 20 miles to the east. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-79 

Condition and Trends 

Goose and duck surveys have been conducted by refuge personnel since the 1940s, but waned after 

the 1980s. Waterfowl populations on Camas NWR have been monitored using several different 

techniques (aerial surveys, boat based surveys, and ground based surveys) for total count, breeding 

pair, and brood counts. From review of the Camas NWR annual narrative reports, former refuge 

biologist Carl Mitchell concluded that the waterfowl count data in the Annual Narrative Reports from 

1941 to 1995 are not to be taken at face value. The observations and ‘data’ are very subjective, and 

were made and recorded inconsistently between managers and years. For example, some managers 

counted all waterfowl (swans, geese, ducks and coots) while others only estimated one or two species 

of ducks. In addition, early refuge reports on wildlife were primarily extrapolations based on limited 

field observations. Assumptions upon which these extrapolations were based could not always be 

verified. To be fair, this was the standard procedure for that time, and all that was generally possible 

to do given other refuge management priorities, limited staff and funding, and generally less robust 

standards for biological data. Therefore these figures do not provide “reliable knowledge” 

(Romesburg 1981, 1991) and the numbers should be considered to be very rough estimates. 

However, data from these surveys have been used to assess populations and their response to 

management actions. Data on waterfowl abundance and production from 1941-1991 are provided in 

Table 4.14 below. Spring migration peak dates range from 15 March to 20 April. Fall migration 

peaked between 15 September and 21 December. Figures 4.3 and 4.4 display peak waterfowl data by 

season. Note that “Zero” values have no estimates recorded for that year. 

Duck numbers counted fluctuate widely due to continental, regional, and local environmental, 

biological, and management effects. Peak counts/estimates on the Refuge during spring migration 

range from 10,000 to 197,000 birds, and peak fall migrant estimates range from 9,585 to 200,000. 

Thus density estimates of various species, or their annual production may not be the best metric to 

monitor management success. From the mid-1960s until the early 1990s when waterfowl surveys 

ended, peak spring estimates have traditionally run from 10,000 to over 30,000 waterfowl, while fall 

estimates range from 40,000 to 60,000+ waterfowl. 

Canada geese in the Camas NWR and southern Idaho region have shown a significant change in 

numbers and distribution (Knetter 2009), but little attention has been given to monitoring specific life 

history parameters because the population is well above objective. 

Table 4.14. Spring and Fall Peak Waterfowl Population Estimates and Annual Waterfowl 

Production Estimates at Camas NWR, Idaho, 1941-1991 

Year Peak Waterfowl 

Spring Date 

Peak Waterfowl 

Spring Estimates 

Estimated 

Waterfowl 

Production 

Peak 

Waterfowl Fall 

Estimates 

Peak 

Waterfowl 

Fall Date 

1941 03/15 13,000 18,500 10/21 

1942 04/15 19,000 11,000 22,500 10/01 

1943 03/21 75,000 18,000 37,000 10/01 

1944 04/01 100,000 16,000 127,500 11/08 

1945 03/15 45,000 13,700 120,000 11/10 

1946 04/01 175,000 10,600 200,000 

1947 03/15 37,500 7,600 62,500 11/05 

1948 03/28 8,000 6,100 100,000 11/01 

1949 03/25 10,500 4,500 18,500 09/15 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

4-80 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Table 4.14. Spring and Fall Peak Waterfowl Population Estimates and Annual Waterfowl 

Production Estimates at Camas NWR, Idaho, 1941-1991 

Year Peak Waterfowl 

Spring Date 

Peak Waterfowl 

Spring Estimates 

Estimated 

Waterfowl 

Production 

Peak 

Waterfowl Fall 

Estimates 

Peak 

Waterfowl 

Fall Date 

1950 04/01 10,500 3,300 61,000 10/26 

1951 48,500 5,432 70,000 11/06 

1952 03/05 45,700 5,240 52,631 10/20 

1953 04/20 70,000 29,720 10/21 

1954 55,500 2,732 28,400 11/15 

1955 04/01 38,400 2,930 26,125 11/15 

1956 04/01 17,240 1,165 23,520 11/07 

1957 04/01 14,125 1,100 32,395 11/09 

1958 03/29 17,650 1,265 33,380 11/15 

1959 03/31 19,000 905 20,450 10/23 

1960 13,504 1,445 16,380 11/01 

1961 04/01 16,050 1,581 17,900 10/21 

1962 10,470 3,930 9,585 12/01 

1963 04/01 24,000 3,143 11,085 

1964 4,055 75,840 11/11 

1965 04/07 64,275 2,270 112,650 11/21 

1966 04/06 48,030 2,500 48,850 11/15 

1967 04/28 52,250 3,065 138,070 11/07 

1968 03/27 102,915 3,375 40,475 12/21 

1969 3,660 

1970 4,650 

1971 2,620 

1972 04/15 34,310 1,233 54,940 10/01 

1973 3,665 

1974 4,510 

1975 6,335 

1976 3,050 

1977 2,200 

1978 4,410 

1979 197,000 2,575 

1980 6,650 

1981 8,765 

1982 25,000 6,330 

1983 5,335 

1984 4,315 

1985 5,010 

1986 6,295 

1987 20,000 4,000 

1988 1,785 

1989 1,835 

1990 1,980 

1991 10,000 1,760 65,000 

Source: Refuge Annual Narrative Reports 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-81 

0

40000

80000

120000

160000

200000

peakspr#

 1941 1946 1967 1979 1991 

 

Figure 4.3. Peak spring waterfowl migration counts at Camas NWR, 

1941-1991. (Source: Refuge Annual Narrative Reports)

0

40000

80000

120000

160000

200000

 1941 1946 1967 1991 

Figure 4.4. Peak fall waterfowl migration counts at Camas NWR, 

1941-1991. (Source: Refuge Annual Narrative Reports) 

Waterfowl Production 

In the past, aerial surveys, boat based surveys, and ground based surveys have been used to obtain 

breeding pair and brood counts. Some of this variation is due to interest, technique, visibility, and 

whether all waterfowl, or just ducks, were tallied. In 2005-2006, total counts, breeding pairs and 

brood counts were obtained using ground counts. Some additional, selected counts were conducted in 

2007, 2009, and 2010. Recent research suggests the ground counting technique currently employed 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

4-82 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

involves significant sampling bias, which limits its value to managers (see section 4.7, Wildlife and 

Habitat Monitoring and Research Efforts). 

According to recent waterfowl surveys and Annual Narrative Report data (Figure 4.5), annual 

waterfowl productivity is, and has always been, highly variable at Camas NWR. Production 

estimates between 1941 and 1991 ranged from 905 to 18,000. Annual productivity is based largely 

on water conditions on the Refuge and in the immediate vicinity. In wet years wetlands are fairly 

abundant around the Refuge, and waterfowl scatter to exploit local available habitats. In dry years 

breeding waterfowl concentrate on the Refuge and nearby, State wildlife management areas. Due to 

study design and limited staff time for surveys, nest success has not actually been calculated, but is 

assumed to also vary widely, as does brood survival. Inclement weather at high elevations, in 

addition to the usual perils of predation, water and forage abundance, often drastically reduces 

cygnet, gosling, and duckling survival. Some variation is also due to survey effort and technique, and 

observer experience. Most ground-based survey techniques tested show high levels of variation in 

sample data. 

0

4000

8000

12000

16000

20000

 1941 1953 1972 1981 1991 

Figure 4.5. Waterfowl production at Camas NWR, 1941-1991. 

(Source: Refuge Annual Narrative Reports)

Threats to Waterfowl 

Southern Idaho, including Camas NWR, provides important habitat for migrating and breeding 

waterfowl using the Pacific Flyway, and to colonial waterbirds. Threats associated with breeding and 

migration areas in Canada and Alaska are treated in detail in other documents. Threats to waterfowl 

and their associated habitats in this region include: 

 Loss, degradation, or fragmentation of wetland and grassland habitat. 

 Development of grasslands or conversion to less suitable or unsuitable agricultural habitats. 

 Additional regional demands on surface and groundwater. 

 Wildlife diseases (especially Highly Pathenogenic Avian Influenza H5N1 and West Nile 

Virus). 

 Invasive and noxious weeds, which compete with or exclude desirable grasses and forbs used 

by waterfowl and compromise ecological integrity and function. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-83 

4.4.2 Colonial Nesting Waterbirds and Other Waterbirds 

Overview 

Camas NWR hosts significant numbers of and diversity of waterbirds. The most notable species 

include sandhill cranes, white-faced ibis, Franklin’s gulls, California gulls, pied-billed grebes, eared 

grebes, western grebes, Clark’s grebes, white pelicans, double-crested cormorants, great blue herons, 

black-crowned night herons, snowy egrets, cattle egrets, Forster’s terns, Caspian terns, black terns, 

American bitterns, American coots, sora rails, Virginia rails, and Wilson’s snipe. The presence of a 

diverse and abundant suite of waterbirds makes this Refuge critical for their local conservation. 

Waterbirds use almost the entire range of habitats at Camas NWR, with the exception of shrubsteppe. Use concentrates in various wetland types, but species also use riparian vegetation (e.g., 

nesting herons) and croplands (e.g., foraging sandhill cranes, white-faced ibis, and long-billed 

curlew). The summaries of each unit provided above also serve to describe habitats for most 

waterbirds. 

Condition and Trends 

Early marshbird or waterbird surveys were crude estimates usually based on guesswork, but 

sometimes augmented by ground or aerial surveys. Therefore, undue reliance on the actual numbers 

reported in Camas NWR Annual Narrative reports is not warranted. Effort on individual species also 

varied with staff and other duties, so not all species were mentioned, let alone surveyed, each year. 

In 2005, the Southeast Idaho National Wildlife Refuge Complex began cooperating with IDFG’s 

Idaho Bird Inventory and Survey (IBIS) Program (Moulton and Sallabanks 2006). All data are taken 

from Moulton and Sallabanks 2006; Moulton 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010). 

Secretive Marsh Bird Playback Surveys 

Secretive Marsh Bird Playback Surveys are based on procedures outlined by Conway (2005). In 

2005, these surveys detected four the five target species (sora rail, Virginia rail, American bittern, 

coot, pied-billed grebe) at sixteen points (8 a.m., 8 p.m.) on three surveys. Only American bittern was 

not detected at Camas NWR. They found a mean of 1.08 birds/point/survey detected on morning 

surveys, and one bird/point/survey detected on evening surveys. 

American coots were abundant at all locations, and were difficult to track individually during 

surveys. This species is generally detected quite well during monthly aquatic bird surveys. Thus 

coots were dropped from these surveys, and Wilson’s snipe (Gallinago delicata) added. Wilson’s 

snipe is another secretive marsh bird species that is not readily detected visually during aquatic bird 

surveys. 

During 2006 Secretive Marsh Bird Playback Surveys IBIS crews detected all of the five target 

species (sora rail, Virginia rail, American bittern, pied-billed grebe, and Wilson’s snipe) on 28 points 

(14 a.m., 14 p.m.) on four surveys at Camas NWR. They detected 2.77 birds/point/survey on 

morning surveys, and 3.05 birds/point/survey on evening surveys. Of the ten secondary species (coot 

Fulica americana, brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater, common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas, 

eared grebe Podiceps nigricollis, marsh wren Cistothorus palustris, red-winged blackbird Agelaius 

phoeniceus, willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii, yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens, yellow-headed 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

4-84 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus, and yellow warbler Dendroica petechia), all, except the 

willow flycatcher and yellow-breasted chat were detected, for an 80 percent success rate at the 

Refuge. 

The 2007 Marsh Bird Playback Surveys were again successful in detecting all target species (sora 

rail, Virginia rail, American bittern, pied-billed grebe, Wilson’s snipe) at Camas Refuge. As in 2006, 

all secondary species except willow flycatcher and yellow breasted chat were also detected. Similar 

to the aquatic bird surveys, these surveys represented the completion of a three-year inventory 

period. 

Secretive Marshbird Playback Surveys were not conducted at Camas NWR in 2008, due to the IBIS 

program’s necessity of expanding sampling to new areas. For 2009, Secretive Marshbird Playback 

Surveys for six points on three surveys detected 1.44 birds/point/survey. That included all five 

primary species (sora rail, Virginia rail, American bittern, pied-billed grebe, and Wilson’s snipe). The 

secondary species list had substantially changed and now consists of American coot, marsh wren, 

yellow-headed blackbird, Clark’s grebe Aechmophorus clarkii, western grebe Aechmophorus 

occidentalis, Forster’s tern Sterna forsteri, long-billed curlew Numenius americanus, black tern 

Chlidonias niger, and red-necked grebe Podiceps grisegena). Species counted dropped from a total 

of ten species in 2007 to nine. Of this new secondary list, only 56 percent, or five species (American 

coot, long-billed curlew, marsh wren, western grebe and yellow-headed blackbird) were detected. 

The results of the 2010 Secretive Marsh Bird Playback Surveys are not available at this writing. 

Colonial Waterbird Counts 

Historically many of the waterbird species of Camas NWR nested colonially. These species included 

great blue heron, black-crowned night heron, California gulls, Franklin’s gulls, white-faced ibis, and 

eared grebes. Colonial nesting has been in long term decline on the Refuge due to declining water 

conditions and shrinking wetland habitat. IBIS surveys during 2005 through 2010, extensive 

waterfowl surveys in 2005 and 2006, and casual observation by the refuge staff detected no colonial 

nesting. Refuge staff discovered small colonies of white-faced ibis and Franklin’s gulls in 2012. 

Colonial nesting birds are therefore expected to use the Refuge sporadically and opportunistically 

based on water and vegetation conditions. 

Aquatic Waterbird Surveys 

In 2005, 2006, and 2007, IDFG also conducted Aquatic Waterbird Surveys, as recommended by the 

Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan. These consisted of actual counts from specific 

sites, in order to illustrate species occurrence, relative density, and diversity through time. This 

inventory period provided a useful baseline of aquatic bird use at these sites. 

Aquatic Waterbird Surveys were conducted in May, June, and July in 2005; April, May, June, and 

July in 2006 and 2007. In 2005, waterfowl species totaled seventeen, seventeen, and sixteen, for 

those months, respectively. Shorebird species totaled five, six, and five, respectively, and waterbird 

species totaled nine, eleven, and fifteen. In 2006, waterfowl species totaled 20, 20, nineteen, and 

nineteen, for those months, respectively. Shorebird species totaled five, twelve, nine, and thirteen 

respectively, and waterbird species totaled twelve, 21, 21, and 20. In 2007, Aquatic Bird Surveys 

detected seventeen, 20, seventeen, and seventeen waterfowl species in April, May, June and July, 

respectively. Shorebird species totaled six, nine, seven, and nine, and other waterbirds twelve, 

fourteen, thirteen, and eleven species, respectively. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-85 

Threats to Waterbirds 

Southeastern Idaho and the Refuge also provide important habitat for breeding waterbirds in the 

Great Basin and Pacific Flyway. Other threats are associated with breeding and migration areas in 

Canada and Alaska, and are treated in detail in other documents. Threats to waterbirds and their 

associated habitats in this region include: 

 Loss, degradation, or fragmentation of wetland habitats. 

 Development of wet meadows and shallow wetlands to less suitable or unsuitable agricultural 

habitats. 

 Additional regional demands on surface and groundwater. 

 Wildlife diseases (especially Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza H5N1 and West Nile 

Virus). 

 Invasive and noxious weeds, which compete with or exclude desirable plant communities 

used by waterbirds, and which and compromise ecological integrity and function of their 

breeding and foraging habitats. 

 Conflicts, real or imagined, between desirable sport fisheries and piscivorous birds. 

 Human disturbance to key foraging and roosting areas. 

4.4.3 Migratory Landbirds 

Overview 

Although the work of Carlisle et al. (2008) focused mainly on the gallery forest around and adjacent 

to refuge headquarters, migratory landbirds probably use the entire range of woody riparian habitats 

at Camas NWR. These species use the various woody riparian habitats for both migrant and resident 

purposes. The vast majority of individual landbirds are migrants and gain nutrients and shelter from 

the Refuge’s stream courses, groves, and thickets. However, an appreciable number of them are also 

nesting and fledging young at Camas NWR. One of the most important data sets from the migratory 

landbird project was the quantification of the fat reserves landbirds were able to achieve and maintain 

at the Refuge (Table 4.15). The superior body fat reserves that both transitory and resident landbirds 

generally demonstrated at Camas NWR theoretically reflect superior habitat availability at the 

Refuge (Carlisle et al. 2008). Intuitively the Refuge’s woody habitats appear to be providing 

particularly good foraging opportunities, but the shelter/cover aspects of the local woody riparian 

habitat cover quality may also be a factor. Superior refuge woody riparian structure, possibly due to 

woody riparian species composition and/or condition, may be contributing to good passerine 

condition via reduced exposure to climatic elements and predation. 

Condition and Trends 

From 2005 through 2007, Dr. Carlisle and his field crew conducted extensive banding operations in 

and around the refuge headquarters and all data are taken from Carlisle et al. 2005a,b, 2008. 

Songbird Mist Netting Surveys 

Songbird mist netting surveys procedures used in the project are described by Carlisle (2005a,b, 

2006, and 2008). 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

4-86 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

In 2005 a fall survey was conducted. The most commonly captured species were Wilson’s warbler 

(1,841), ruby-crowned kinglet (423), orange-crowned warbler (337), MacGillivray’s warbler (239), 

yellow warbler (158), hermit thrush (131), dark-eyed junco (120), Hammond’s flycatcher (119), and 

white-crowned sparrow (102) on 86 days over a total of approximately 4,021 net hours. The overall 

capture rate was 1.106 birds/net hour for 4,446 songbirds of 71 species, a particularly high species 

richness.During 2006, Songbird Mist Netting Surveys operated on 60 days in both spring and fall. 

These efforts totaled approximately 2,581 mist net hours. 2,322 birds of 73 different species were 

captured yielding an overall capture rate of 0.90 birds/mist net hour. Hermit thrush (348), Wilson’s 

warbler (280), ruby-crowned kinglet (220), western tanager (201), MacGillivray’s warbler (135), 

Swainson’s thrush (118), dusky flycatcher (105), yellow warbler (97), American robin (96), and 

willow flycatcher (68). Rare species captured in spring 2006 included ovenbird (four), black-throated 

gray warbler (two), Virginia’s warbler (one), and common grackle (three). 

The 2007 Camas NWR Songbird Mist Netting Surveys were again both a spring and fall operation. 

Mist nets were open on 60 different days for a total of 2,868.5 mist net hours. 1,891 birds of 56 

different species were captured for an overall capture rate of 0.66 birds/mist net hour. The most 

frequently captured species were hermit thrush Catharus guttatus (376), Wilson’s warbler Wilsonia 

pusilla (257), Swainson’s thrush Catharus ustulatus (191), MacGillivray’s warbler Oporornis tolmiei

(142), dusky flycatcher Empidonax oberholseri (137), yellow warbler Dendroica petechia (86), rubycrowned kinglet Regulus caledula (79), American robin Turdus migratorious (73), willow flycatcher 

Empidonax traillii (73), and western tanager Piranga ludoviciana (59). 

Point Count Surveys 

Songbird point count surveys procedures used in the project are described by Carlisle (2005a,b, 2006, 

2008). The 2005 Camas NWR point count survey was executed from July through October and 

produced 76 avian species of 2,696 individuals. The most abundant species were European starling 

(Sturnus vulgaris), Wilson’s warbler, yellow-rumped warbler (Dendroica coronata), American robin, 

ruby-crowned kinglet, black-billed magpie (Pica hudsonia), dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis), 

chipping sparrow (Spizella passerina), yellow warbler, and Brewer’s blackbird (Euphagus 

cyanocephalus). 

A spring survey was added to the 2006 Camas NWR point count and the summer-fall study started in 

2005 was also rerun. The two counts produced 65 avian species of 1,749 individuals. The most 

abundant species were mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), European starling, American robin, 

yellow warbler, American kestrel (Falco sparverius), and Brewer’s blackbird. 

The 2007 refuge point counts detected 65 species of 1,626 individuals. The most abundant species 

were European starling, American robin, mourning dove, Wilson’s warbler, yellow warbler, Brewer’s 

blackbird, Bullock’s oriole (Icterus bullockii), western kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis), black-billed 

magpie, brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater), and American kestrel. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-87 

Table 4.15. Weight gain by migratory landbirds during stop-over at Camas NWR, spring migration 

(2005, 2006) and fall migration (2006, 2007). 

From Carlisle et al. 2008. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

4-88 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

4.4.4 Bald Eagles 

Overview 

Another species associated with woody riparian habitat on the Refuge, particularly the gallery forest 

at headquarters, is the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). There is some sporadic bald eagle use 

of the Refuge for hunting or scavenging purposes, but the primary value of Camas NWR habitats to 

the species is as a roost site. That life cycle need is provided by the woody riparian habitat type, 

specifically the multi-canopy grove of mature cottonwood at the refuge headquarters. The upper 

canopy is the important facet in terms of eagle roosting. 

Condition and Trends 

Upward of 40 bald eagles use the headquarters cottonwood stand as a roost in recent years. Since 

2000, the average peak number of bald eagles observed at the headquarters stand has ranged from 32 

to a peak of 48 eagles in 2008 (Table 4.16). The birds’ use of the Refuge varies from year to year, 

depending on such variables as weather and prey populations. Eagles they generally begin arriving at 

Camas in November, or December, and the last bird has departed normally by mid-late April. Early 

arrivals may actually be using the Refuge to hunt, or scavenge, on waterfowl or small mammals, but 

as the population builds later in the winter the refuge water has frozen, forcing most waterfowl to 

leave and significantly reducing on-refuge foraging opportunities for bald eagles. Similarly, there is 

very limited upland game hunting on Camas NWR and no big game hunting, so scavenging 

opportunities for hunter-lost or wounded nonwaterfowl species are essentially nonexistent. Currently 

the Camas fishery is also very small, both in population and physical stature, and does not provide 

much potential eagle forage in terms of winter-killed suckers or minnows. Consequently, bald eagles 

use Camas NWR primarily for roosting, and hunt or scavenge off-Refuge. 

The eagles have been roosting in the refuge trees for many years and have been reported to have 

historically used the Refuge for hunting or scavenging. Numbers of eagles present fluctuated widely 

and the data prior to 1994 must be viewed cautiously, as observations and reports apparently 

followed only a general pattern, rather than actual protocol. The refuge manager during the 1970s 

and 1980s characterized the Camas bald eagle peak as “normally 10-30” birds (1991 Refuge Annual 

Narrative Report). 

He does mention a significant population spike of 80-85 bald eagles during 1983-1985 and attributes 

this to an irruption of black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus) locally. Richardson further states in 

several refuge annual narratives that the eagles were foraging on the Refuge and specifically taking 

advantage of large winterkills of native suckers in Camas Creek and some tributary wetland basins. 

Bald eagle peaks on Camas NWR for 1978 through 1993, taken from the annual narrative reports, are 

presented in Table 4.17. These data, again, are useful only in the context of a crude portrayal of the 

eagle population present on the Refuge. In some cases there is difficulty in interpreting the figures 

presented in the narrative reports due to uncertainty as to when birds were counted and whether the 

survey was of birds on the roost, or elsewhere on the Refuge, perched, hunting, or flying in transit. 

The overall picture presented by these data of an area with long-term presence of, and use by, bald 

eagles is nonetheless, useful and important. The very high counts (80-85 individuals) of 1983-1985 

are not used in comparisons due to uncertainty as to whether those figures reflect birds at roost, or 

off-roost hunting on the Refuge. Peak eagle numbers at the headquarters roost between 1978 and 

1993 (16 years) ranged from five to 31, and averaged eighteen. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-89 

Table 4.16. Recent Bald Eagle Roost Peak Counts, Camas NWR 

Date Peak Count 

2010 

2009 

2008 48 

2007 39 

2006 47 

2005 32 

2004 

2003 35 

2002 

2001 

2000 

1999 

1998 

1997 

1996 

1995 27 

1994 17 

Source: Refuge Annual Narrative Reports. 

Table 4.17. Historical Bald Eagle Roost Peak Counts, Camas NWR 

Date Peak Count 

1993 12 

1992 9 

1991 13 

1990 10 

1989 12 

1988 12 

1987 17 

1986 15 

1985 (80-85) 

1984 (80-85) 

1983 26 

1982 31 

1981 10 

1980 5 

1979 Unknown 

1978 7 

Source: Refuge Annual Narrative Reports. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

4-90 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

4.4.5 Ungulates (Deer, Elk, Pronghorn, and Moose) 

Condition and Trends 

Five ungulate species occur on the Refuge: elk, moose, mule deer, white-tailed deer, and pronghorn. 

As shown in Table 4.18 below, populations and densities of these five species have been highly 

variable since refuge establishment. Elk and moose have demonstrated similar patterns: initial 

records are of individuals, or complete absence for some periods, followed by a trend of slow growth 

over decades. 

Prior to the 1950s, there were few moose in the Camas NWR region. With continued growth of the 

population, lower portions of the drainage continue to be colonized by moose, and populations 

apparently are increasing (Toweill 2008). Moose occur commonly on the Camas Creek floodplain, 

although they can be absent from the Refuge for extended periods. Moose may be transitory or 

resident, and are presumably attracted by locally scarce riparian and wetland habitats and sanctuary 

from hunting. Moose may be using Mud Lake WMA and Camas NWR as disjunct refugia in an 

otherwise hostile environment. 

The elk population in this general area has increased dramatically from early historical records. 

Accounts of trappers in the mid-1800s suggest that elk were common, though buffalo and bighorn 

sheep were more numerous. Unregulated harvest of the late 1800s and early 1900s reduced 

populations to relatively low levels. By 1952, elk were believed to be numerous enough to warrant 

the first hunting season. 

A majority of the area currently surrounding Camas NWR would not normally be considered elk 

habitat, as it consists largely of agricultural fields, farmsteads, and a few, scattered, small 

communities. However, elk use much of this agricultural zone, despite the unnatural forage base and 

lack of traditional escape cover. In fact, the exotic forage base, i.e., agricultural crops and especially 

alfalfa, are often an attractant to elk and apparently have increased elk use and occurrence in the area 

surrounding Camas NWR. Consequently, these adjacent farmlands, normally dismissed as 

unsuitable, must be regarded as a type of elk habitat. Security levels of adjacent areas are low due to 

lack of cover, and the five-month elk hunting season (August 1-December 31) in the local game 

management unit (GMU 63). Additionally, human activity is relatively high on much of the offrefuge area, particularly in the active farm fields. The relatively high levels of disturbance (noise and 

movement) probably reduce the attractiveness of the agricultural lands around the Refuge to elk, at 

least during daylight hours. These Camas Creek floodplain elk appear to be using the Refuge as 

sanctuary from disturbance, both lethal (hunting) and nonlethal (e.g., noise and movement of vehicles 

and farm machinery). As noted in Section 4.3.2 above, willow stands at Rays Lake stands are heavily 

used by elk, probably for escape and thermal cover, as well as forage. 

Idaho’s mule deer population has fluctuated widely at least since the early 1800s, and likely previous 

to that time. Early accounts from that period indicated that deer were less numerous than buffalo, 

bighorn sheep, and elk. Deer declined through the early 1900s, probably due to unregulated harvest. 

By 1920 deer were quite rare. From 1920 to the early 1970s, deer numbers increased dramatically, 

interrupted briefly by significant winter mortality. Following a significant decline in numbers 

beginning in 1972, numbers again increased until the late 1980s. Mule deer populations increased 

more rapidly after refuge establishment than either elk or moose, culminating in much higher 

populations during the time period shown in this table. Ultimately, mule deer began to decline, 

although they still maintained a more robust herd size than either moose or elk through 1995. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-91 

Both on the Refuge and throughout Idaho, mule deer experienced high mortality in the winter of 

1992-1993. Mule deer throughout the western United States began a decline at that time from which 

they are only now recovering and the refuge herd followed that west-wide trend. More conservative 

management has led to a fluctuating, but slightly upward trend regionally, with more-or-less stable 

mule deer numbers (Compton 2009), but the Camas NWR mule deer herd never recovered. Mule 

deer are now rarely seen on the Refuge. 

White-tailed deer were absent from the Camas NWR area, or at least unobserved, until 1972 and then 

only sporadically recorded for approximately 10 more years. In the mid-1980s, reports of whitetailed deer began to increase rapidly and were beginning to surpass mule deer numbers by the mid1990s. 

Pronghorn were maintaining the largest herds of any of the ungulates at refuge establishment, and 

their numbers continued to be relatively stable for several decades. In the 1970s pronghorn began to 

decline on the Refuge, a trend which continued for the next 30 years. Unfortunately, refuge records 

are sketchy after 1976. Currently, pronghorn herds are the smallest of any refuge ungulate, excepting 

mule deer. There is currently a small herd of 20-50 pronghorn that can regularly be found within the 

Refuge. The herd splits and recombines into various groups, and also uses areas outside the Camas 

NWR boundary. When on-Refuge, the pronghorn can be found anywhere, but principally use the 

west and southwest quadrants where refuge alfalfa fields are located. 

Table 4.18. Camas NWR Ungulate Populations 

Year Elk Moose Mule 

Deer 

Whitetailed Deer Pronghorn Comments 

1941 1 2 60 

1942 1 88 

1943 150 

1944 150 

1945 175 

1946 100 

1947 150 

1948 3 150 

1949 1 300 

1950 1 1 150 1st Moose 

obs. 

1951 350 

1952 350 

1953 65 

1954 135 

1955 155 

1956 1 1 220 

1957 31 195 

1958 8 140 

1959 1 15 195 

1960 14 185 

1961 25 150 

1962 19 25 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

4-92 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Table 4.18. Camas NWR Ungulate Populations 

Year Elk Moose Mule 

Deer 

Whitetailed Deer Pronghorn Comments 

1963 40 116 

1964 65 98 

1965 46 125 

1966 65 150 

1967 65 160 

1968 59 155 

1969 3 1 116 138 

1970 3 140 170 

1971 1 3 65 150 

1972 4 75 1 100 1st WT Deer 

1973 

1974 75 75 

1975 125 50 

1976 

1977 

1978 

1979 

1980 

1981 110 1 

1982 

1983 2 200 3 

1984 2 6 200 2 

1985 1 11 13 

1986 9 50 17 

1987 8 50 

1988 8 30 28 

1989 4 12 200 38 

1990 3 100 20 

1991 1 12 150 42 

1992 4 9 200 56 

1993 

1994 27 9 55 65 1st elk calves 

obs. 

1995 20 9 55 65 

 Source: Camas NWR files 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-93 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

ELK

MOOSE

M DEER

WT DEER

PRONG

 ’41 ’50 ’72 ’90 

Figure 4.6. Camas NWR Ungulate Populations, 1941-2010. 

Source: Camas NWR files 

4.5 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species 

One goal of the Refuge System is “To conserve, restore where appropriate, and enhance all species of 

fish, wildlife, and plants that are endangered or threatened with becoming endangered.” In the policy 

clarifying the mission of the Refuge System, it is stated “We protect and manage candidate and 

proposed species to enhance their status and help preclude the need for listing.” In accordance with 

this policy, the CCP planning team considered species with Federal or State status, and other special 

status species, in the planning process. 

At present there are no known Threatened or Endangered Species occurring on Camas NWR (Laye 

2012). The Canada lynx is the only listed threatened species in the project area occurring in the 

eastern Snake River watershed; however, it occurs in high elevation habitat (subalpine forest) and 

therefore would be unlikely to occur on the refuge units (USFWS 2012a). 

Candidate species include the yellow-billed cuckoo, and the greater sage-grouse (USFWS 2012b, c). 

In cooperation with the State Ecological Services office, every effort would be made to remain 

current on any changes in status (e.g., sage grouse listing), and necessary monitoring and 

management would be implemented. 

The greater sage-grouse and northern leopard frog have a S2 State conservation status (imperiled; at 

high risk because of restricted range, few populations, rapidly declining numbers, or other factors 

that make it vulnerable to extirpation in the State of Idaho). The breeding populations of a number of 

bird species that breed at Camas NWR are included in the list of Idaho Species of Greatest 

Conservation Need. Species with S1 status breeding populations include: trumpeter swan, common 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

4-94 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

loon, great egret, Forster’s tern, and black tern, while species with S2 status breeding populations 

include: red-necked grebe, western grebe, Clark’s grebe, snowy egret, cattle egret, black-crowned 

night-heron, white-faced ibis, Franklin’s gull, California gull, and Caspian tern (IDFG 2005). 

4.6 Exotic, Invasive, and Nuisance Species 

One of the most striking features of the Refuge is the extent to which invasive plants and animals 

have taken hold. Invasive plant species displace native vegetation, altering the composition and 

structure of vegetation communities, affecting food webs, and modifying ecosystem processes 

resulting in considerable impacts to native wildlife (Olson 1999). The term invasive species refers to 

a subset of introduced or non-indigenous species that are rapidly expanding outside their native 

range. A species is regarded as invasive if it: 

1. Has been introduced by human action to a location where it did not previously occur naturally; 

2. Becomes capable of establishing a breeding population in the new location without further 

intervention by humans; and 

3. Spreads widely throughout the new location. 

Introduced species can become invasive for many reasons including: 

1. the insects, fungi, mammals or other fauna that kept the species in check within its native 

landscape do not exist in the region to which the species was introduced. 

2. the species is allelopathic (exudes chemicals which inhibit growth). Some species release 

chemicals which directly inhibit the growth of other plants, while others may release 

chemicals that negatively impact mycorrhizal fungi. 

3. the invasive species has a competitive advantage such as earlier leaf-out, asexual 

reproduction, deeper root system, etc. (Wildflower Association of Michigan 2007). 

Chemical, biological, or mechanical control of existing invasive species provides a competitive 

advantage for new growth of native species, which ultimately promotes healthy ecosystems through 

restoration of native plant communities. Early detection of new invasive species or new stands of 

existing invasive species greatly increases the efficacy of control measures (Bundy 2007). 

4.6.1 Exotic and Invasive Species 

Camas NWR hosts a variety of exotic (non-native) plants and animals, thanks in large measure its 

quasi-Mediterranean climate. Summers tend to emulate a Mediterranean model, while winters are of 

the very cold, continental type. Non-native species, especially plants, encountered in eastern Idaho 

typically are from the Mediterranean region and Eurasia. Consequently, except for the cold winters, 

the terminal region of Camas Creek provides very suitable sites for a host of non-native plant species. 

In many cases these species are well established and complete eradication is unlikely. The total plant 

taxa known to occur at Camas are 232 (combined 2008, 2009, and 2011 data). Of these, 150 are 

native to North America, 77 are non-native species, and five taxa are undetermined. This means that 

about half of plant species (51 percent) at Camas are introduced, non-native species (Miewald et al. 

2012). 

It is important to note that not all non-native species are considered invasive. For example, smooth 

brome was imported from Russia in the 1890s for forage and was widely planted. It has escaped 

cultivation and can be found in many natural areas in the western U.S. but in most situations, smooth 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-95 

brome would not be considered an invasive species because of its forage value for wildlife and 

livestock (National Invasive Species Council [NISC] 2006). The term “invasive species” is used here 

to denote: 

“a species that is non-native to the ecosystem under consideration and whose introduction 

causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.” 

(NISC 2008) 

Exotic Plants in Upland Habitats 

As Euro-Americans settled the West, they brought with them species of animals and plants from 

different parts of the world. Some of these species arrived in North America by accident, while others 

were brought here intentionally. Some animals were brought here for agricultural purposes, some 

were brought to make the settlers feel more at home, and some, such as fishes, were released for the 

intention of sport. Plant species were also brought here intentionally for agricultural, landscaping, 

ornamental, and medicinal purposes (Mack et al. 2000). 

The spread of invasive non-native plant species in upland habitats was facilitated by the rapid 

increase in land clearing and grazing that followed Euro-American settlement of the region. By the 

mid-1800s there were domestic livestock herds, including cattle and horses, both moving through and 

resident in the Upper Snake River Plain. Stock were being trailed across the eastern Snake River 

Plain in the 1860s, and by the late 1800s and early 1900s tens of thousands of domestic sheep 

wintered in the area. Livestock grazing is ecologically very different than grazing by bison, or other 

native ungulates. It is often a major factor in habitat change, because many native grasses and forbs 

are not adapted to heavy, prolonged, season-long grazing pressure and soil disturbance. Impacts of 

domestic herbivores were (and continue to be) pervasive and widespread. Historically, grazing 

utilization rates in this region have been much higher, and have persisted longer, than in natural 

systems. The introduction of domestic livestock therefore gave exotic grasses and forbs a competitive 

advantage over native species. In addition domestic livestock carry weed seeds from one site to 

another, increasing the rate of spread. 

Other factors that historically influenced the introduction and spread of exotic weeds on Camas 

NWR, were the wagon roads and railroad lines. The old wagon road and stage coach line between 

Salt Lake City and Helena, Montana, ran through the Refuge. A seasonal “swing station,” where 

teams were changed out, was located at Sandhole Lake (see Chapter 5). This road was well travelled 

after gold was discovered near Bannack City in Montana in 1863. The numbers of draught animals 

using this trail was significant; one Army officer wrote that between September 2 and 26, 1863, he 

met with “over a hundred wagons” going down to Salt Lake City for supplies (Historical Society of 

Montana 1917). Stagecoaching commenced in 1863 and ended in the 1880s with the coming of the 

railroad; however, homesteaders continued to use the wagon road into the early 1900s. 

In addition to freight wagons and stagecoaches coming through frequently during the active 

freighting season (April-November), the rest stop/way station at Sandhole Lake maintained various 

livestock on-site, including replacement horses and mules for the stage teams. The presence of the 

wagon road probably contributed to the development of farming in the area, since it created a ready 

market for grain and hay. By 1871 the small community of Hamer had been established. Resident 

herds of cattle and horses were kept on homesteads on and around the Refuge. For several decades, 

well into the 1930s, there were large winter feeding operations in the Hamer area for sheep that had 

spent the spring and summer in the upper Camas watershed. The presence of large livestock 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

4-96 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

populations may have aided the introduction and spread of noxious, nonnative plants to the Camas 

Creek watershed. 

The railroad touched only the eastern edge of the area now occupied by the Refuge, and continues to 

do so currently, but was more active in the late 1800s and early 1900s, than it is now. That nexus 

would certainly have been adequate to provide an avenue for weed introduction. The construction of 

Interstate Highway 15 created a much larger transportation corridor that further aided the spread of 

invasive plants. 

Due to the favorable climate and numerous avenues of introduction, the exotic plant community at 

Camas Refuge is diverse and robust. Ironically, Camas Creek itself is a primary conduit for invasive 

species. It washes seeds into the Refuge from infestations that have taken hold in pastures upstream. 

Each summer when the creek bed dries, a miles-long ribbon of leafy spurge appears. Other species 

that line the creek banks are black henbane, musk thistle, Scotch thistle, and houndstongue 

(discovered in 2009). 

The list of weeds found on the Refuge includes Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), musk thistle 

(Carduus nutans), Scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium), Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens), 

leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula), black henbane (Hyoscyamus niger), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), 

and field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis). In the 1940s, the main invasive plant species present on 

the Refuge were Russian knapweed, Canada thistle, sow thistle, and “morning glory” (field 

bindweed). The first mention of leafy spurge came in 1953. The 1956 Refuge Annual Narrative 

Report states: “The lowering water table has added to our weed acreage, sloughs that are now dry are 

heavily infested with several species.” Drying trends appear to be associated with increased 

prevalence of invasive species, and observation that still holds true today. The 1957 report declared 

that Canada thistle was the number one pest in the area. In 1960 white top was found on the Refuge 

as well. Musk thistle was first discovered on the Refuge in 1982. Leafy spurge was mentioned in the 

1983 annual narrative, suggesting that it was becoming more of a problem. Dodder (an invader of 

alfalfa fields) was first mentioned in 1985. 1986 brought the first sighting of mullein on the Refuge. 

Swainson’s pea was discovered some time after 2000, and houndstongue was discovered in 2009. 

Cheatgrass is considered an invasive species because of its capacity to cause environmental harm. 

Cheatgrass decreases the interval between the occurrences of wildfires in the Great Basin region 

from once every 70 to 100 years to every three to five years because it forms dense stands of fine fuel 

annually. The decrease in interval between wildfires causes increased risk to human life and property 

and also places at risk sage-steppe ecosystems and the wildlife that depend on them (Knapp 1996; 

Pimentel et al. 2000; USFWS 2003; Whisenant 1990). 

Cheatgrass is currently not as dominant on the Refuge, or the Eastern Snake River Plain in general, 

as in other portions of the Snake River Plain further west. Cheatgrass nonetheless is well established 

and probably increasing, or certainly poised to do so. In fact, Germino et al. (2010) state that, 

“Cheatgrass abundance at Camas NWR appears considerably greater than at the INL [Idaho National 

Laboratory] and also USSES [U.S. Sheep Experiment Station] to the north.” These authors further 

indicated that the Refuge is in a precarious position with regard to invasive, exotic species: “ ... there 

clearly are source populations of the exotics that should serve to provide propagule pressure that 

would likely lead to exotics on any disturbed areas in which substantive new plant establishment is 

likely.” 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-97 

Russian knapweed exudes toxins from its tissues that inhibit the growth of surrounding plants or 

eliminates them. Desirable plant communities are placed at risk from Russian knapweed invasion, 

which may result in decreased numbers of wildlife species or livestock that the invaded land 

otherwise could support. Russian knapweed also is very toxic to horses (Stevens 1986; Young et al. 

1970a, 1970b). Expansion of leafy spurge or other unpalatable invasive weeds displace desirable 

forage plants and may allow fewer grazing animals to survive in infested areas (DiTomaso 2001; 

Lym and Messersmith 1985; Lym and Kirby 1987). 

The Refuge has begun to develop maps showing the distribution of weed species being treated with 

pesticides. This delineation is accomplished either by direct and focused mapping-only efforts, or 

while actually applying pesticides to the infestations. Currently it is estimated that at least 4,000

refuge acres are infested, but not all acres have been inventoried at this time. Map 13 below shows the 

distribution of major weed species on the Refuge as of 2009. While distributions are fairly accurate at 

present, this does not mean that new communities have not become established since this map was 

prepared. As an objective, approximately 500 acres of known infested habitat should be treated 

annually (as limited refuge resources allow) while preventing the expansion of existing stands and 

identifying new species should remain a high priority. 

In the Refuge’s recent vegetation inventory (Miewald et al. 2012), approximately 3,800 acres were 

classified as “ruderal,” that is, dominated by non-native plant species to the extent that determining the 

original vegetation of the site is difficult. However, not all non-native species are considered noxious 

weeds, and some have value to wildlife. For example, exotic pasture and forage grasses have been 

intentionally introduced to the area, and in some areas have become dominant species. Today, most 

grasses on the Refuge are introduced “tame” pasture grasses, for example brome (Bromus spp. ), 

wheatgrass (Agropyron spp.), perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne), timothy (Phleum spp.), foxtails 

(Alopecurus spp.), bluegrasses (Poa spp.), orchardgrass (Dactylis spp.), and fescues (Festuca spp.). 

These grasses can, however, provide some benefits to some native wildlife. Short grazed or mowed 

pasture grasses are extensively browsed by Canada geese and are also used by foraging sandhill 

cranes and other waterbirds. Another introduced grass, which occupies significant acreages on the 

Refuge and forms some extensive monocultures, is crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum). This 

species was introduced to the area in the 1930s and 1940s as a conservation tool to stabilize soil, 

reduce erosion and in some instances to provide early season forage for native, or domestic, 

ungulates. Phenologically characterized by very early spring growth, crested wheatgrass is usually 

green before native grasses have even started to produce and can be valuable to ungulates, especially 

pre-parturition females, in early spring. 

Exotic Plants in Riparian and Wetland Systems 

Of the previously listed invasive species at Camas NWR, few other than Canada thistle are 

management concerns in active modified wetland s and deeper, more permanent basins such as 

Sandhole Lake. These are basically weed-free, other than the surrounding edges, including dikes, if 

present. However, the situation is quite different in shallower, more ephemeral wetland habitats (wet 

meadows) and “inactive” wetland basins that can no longer be hydrated. As noted in section 4.3.1 

above, more than 2,700 acres of the Refuge’s 4,700 acres of historic wet meadow habitat has 

undergone type conversion to lowland non-native (ruderal) vegetation. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

4-98 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Introduced Birds 

Exotic birds present at Camas NWR include European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris), house sparrows 

(Passer domesticus), Eurasian collared dove (Streptopelia decaocto), rock dove (Columba livia), 

gray partridge (Perdix perdix), ring-necked pheasants (Phasianus colchicus), and occasional feral 

waterfowl (Anas spp.). Pheasants and gray partridge are valued game birds. 

Collared-doves are a relatively recent immigrant to Idaho, with the first sighting near Pocatello in 

2003, but have been rapidly expanding since then. Their impact on native species is unknown. A 

recent study by Cornell University showed that native dove species were actually more common in 

areas where collared-doves were also present (Romagosa 2012). However the results of this study 

may not be applicable to this region. 

Starlings and house sparrows can be considered invasive in that they compete with native cavity 

nesting birds, including mountain bluebirds (Sialia currucoides), tree swallows (Tachycineta 

bicolor), house wrens (Troglodytes aedon), kestrels (Falco sparverius) for rare nest sites. Feral 

waterfowl risk carrying disease from captive flocks into wild ecosystems. All of these species could 

conceivably compete with native species for insect and seed forage, and all provide prey for native 

predators—for instance, kestrels, merlins (Falco columbarius), peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus),

and prairie falcons (Falco mexicanus). Control of non-native birds has not been conducted on the 

Camas NWR. 

Introduced Mammals 

There are no known exotic mammals on Camas NWR, although the probability exists that exotic 

mammals do occur at least sporadically. Candidates include feral dogs (Canis familiaris), feral cats 

(Felis catus), and possibly house mice (Mus musculus). None are known to be permanently present to 

any significant extent, although if house mice do occur they likely do so in large numbers at selected 

sites. Dogs and cats are potentially serious predators of native wildlife, although cats and house mice, 

if they occur, also may provide food for native predators (coyote, great horned owls, and other 

medium-sized raptors). 

Exotic Animals in Riparian and Wetland Systems 

There are no known exotic or invasive invertebrates, amphibians, or reptiles known to be present on 

Camas NWR. Common carp (Cyprinus carpio) are not known in the Camas Creek drainage, which is 

a rare and unique situation in Idaho, and an exceptionally positive one from an ecological and 

management perspective. Neither are the exotic trout species, rainbow (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and 

brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), normally present at Camas NWR or other local wildlife areas, 

since Camas Creek does not provide adequate flow for salmonid survival during the majority of the 

season. Rainbow and brook trout could enter the Refuge from populations in the upper Camas Creek 

Basin during high spring flows, but would perish as soon as the creek dried (normally mid-July to 

early August). 

4.6.2 Control Efforts 

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

on units of the Refuge System can be controlled to ensure balanced wildlife and fish populations in 

support of refuge-specific wildlife and habitat management objectives. An Integrated Pest 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-99 

Management (IPM) approach is used, which includes a variety of tools: prevention of new 

introductions or the spread of established pests to areas not infested, mechanical or physical control 

methods, cultural methods, biological controls, pesticides, and habitat restoration/maintenance. The 

current draft IPM program for the Refuge is included as Appendix F. Control efforts are planned 

annually and Pesticide Use Proposals (PUPs) are submitted to regional and/or national IPM 

coordinators for approval. Chemical, biological, or mechanical control of existing invasive species 

provides a competitive advantage for new growth of native species, which ultimately promotes 

healthy ecosystems through restoration of native plant communities. Early detection of new invasive 

species or new stands of existing invasive species greatly increases the efficacy of control measures 

(Bundy 2007). 

Noxious Weed Control 

Control efforts began soon after the establishment of Camas NWR. In 1946 the use of the herbicide 

2,4-D was first employed to treat weeds such as Russian knapweed, Canada thistle, sow thistle, and 

field bindweed (morning glory) (See History of Refuge Management). Refuge annual narrative 

reports document increasing numbers of exotic species, increased acreage and distribution of exotics, 

increased man-hours devoted to exotic plant control, and more use of chemicals and other control 

techniques over time. 

The Refuge has used an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach to control noxious weeds since 

1996. The Refuge’s current IPM Plan is included in this CCP (Appendix F). Camas NWR has 

employed the use of mechanical, cultural, chemical, and biological control methods, including 

farming (crop rotation, summer fallowing), mowing, and in limited cases, the use of prescribed fire 

and the release of biological control agents. 

An integral part of using an IPM approach to invasive species management is to also use an early 

detection/rapid response approach to control efforts. It is important that when new or small satellite 

infestations are found, that they be treated as soon as possible to prevent further spread. The first part 

of this approach is fieldwork to locate and map infestations of invasive plants. Camas NWR employs 

the use of volunteer labor to locate and map infestations using GPS and then records data into the 

Refuge Lands GIS system. Periodic mapping of infestations can also show whether the infestation is 

increasing or decreasing in size or time. This can help determine the effectiveness of our treatment 

procedures. 

Biological Control 

In 2009 and 2010, the Refuge also used biological control agents (insects) to treat infestations of 

Canada thistle. In 2009 there were four releases of stem mining weevils (Ceutorhynchus litura) and 

crown mining (seed head) weevils (Rhinocyllus conicus) on Camas NWR. In 2010 the 2009 releases 

were supplemented with fifteen releases of stem and crown mining weevils and fifteen releases of 

leaf defoliating beetles (Cassida rubiginosa). While biological controls may have resulted in reduced 

productivity of thistle, they have not resulted in significant reduction or control as of this writing. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

4-100 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

4.7 References 

Ackerman, D.J. 1995. Analysis of steady-state flow and advective transport in the eastern Snake 

River Plain aquifer system, Idaho. USGS Water Resources Investigations Report, 94-4257. U.S. 

Geological Survey, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID. 25 pp. 

Altman, B. 2000. Conservation strategy for landbirds in lowlands and valleys of western Oregon and 

Washington. Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight. Boring, OR. 169 pp. 

Altman, R. and A. Holmes. 2000. Conservation Strategy for Landbirds in the Columbia Plateau of 

Eastern Oregon and Washington. Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight. Point Reyes Bird 

Observatory, PRBO Conservation Science, Stinson Beach, CA, 97 pp.Anderson, A.C. 1940. 

Trails of early Idaho: the pioneer life of George W. Goodhart, and his association with the 

Hudson’s Bay and American Fur Company’s traders and trappers. Caldwell, ID: Caxton Press. 

Baldassarre, G.A. and E.G. Bolen. 2006. Waterfowl ecology and management. 2nd edition. Malabar, 

FL: Krieger Publishing Company. 

Bellrose, F.C. 1976. Ducks, geese and swans of North America. Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole Books. 

Bundy, R. 2007. Bear Lake NWR and Oxford Slough WPA draft habitat management plan. 

Unpublished manuscript on file, Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge. Montpelier, ID. 

Bureau of Land Management. n.d. General Land Office records, Survey plats and field notes. 

Available at: 

http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/search/default.aspx?searchTabIndex=0&searchByTypeIndex=1

Survey map, T7N R36E, 1882. Available at: 

http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/details/survey/default.aspx?dm_id=277467&sid=mbenedzg.m4b

#surveyDetailsTabIndex=1 

Survey map, T7N R36E, Boise Meridian, 1885. Available at: 

http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/details/survey/default.aspx?dm_id=42792&sid=sn1agpp5.zdo#su

rveyDetailsTabIndex=1

Survey map, T7N R35E, 1899. Available at: 

http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/details/survey/default.aspx?dm_id=112983&sid=ww4gywa0.q43

#surveyDetailsTabIndex=1. 

Carlisle, J.D., G.S. Kaltenecker, and D.L. Swanson. 2005a. Stopover ecology of autumn landbird 

migrants in the Boise Foothills of southwestern Idaho. Condor 107:244-258. 

Carlisle, J.D., G.S. Kaltenecker, and D.L. Swanson. 2005b. Molt strategies and age differences in 

migration timing among autumn landbird migrants in southwestern Idaho. Auk 122:1070-1085. 

Carlisle, J., R. Larranaga, and G. Kaltenecker. 2008. Migration monitoring of songbirds at Camas 

National Wildlife Refuge, Market Lake Wildlife Management Area, and Mud Lake Wildlife 

Management Area in eastern Idaho. Unpublished report, Idaho Bird Observatory. Boise, ID. 

Compton, B.B., compiler. 2009. Mule deer progress report, July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008. Project 

W-170-R-32. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Boise, ID. 110 pp. 

Conway, C.J. 2005. Standardized North American marsh bird monitoring protocols. Wildlife 

Research Report 2005-04. U.S. Geological Survey, Arizona Cooperative Fish and Wildlife 

Research Unit. Tucson, AZ. 28 pp. 

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. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service. Washington D.C. 131 pp. 

Dahl, T.E. 1990. Wetland losses in the United States 1780s to 1980s. U. S. Department of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington D.C. 21 pp. 

Derig, B. 1996. Roadside history of Idaho. Missoula, MT: Mountain Press Publishing Company. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-101 

DiTomaso, J. 2001. Element stewardship abstract: Centaurea solstitialis L. Weeds on the web: The 

Nature Conservancy wildland invasive species program. 20 pp. Available at: 

http://www.imapinvasives.org/GIST/ESA/esapages/centsols.html. 

Fredrickson, L.H. 1991. Strategies for water level manipulations in moist-soil systems. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service Leaflet No. 13.4.6. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Washington, D.C. 8 pp. 

Fredrickson, L.H. and T.S. Taylor. 1982. Management of seasonally flooded impoundments for 

wildlife. Resource Publication 148. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 31 pp. 

Fredrickson L.H. and R.D. Drobney. 1979. Habitat utilization by postbreeding waterfowl. Pages 119-

131 in: T.A. Bookhout, ed. Waterfowl and wetlands—an integrated review. La Crosse, WI: La 

Crosse Printing. 

Garren, D. 2010. Personal communication between Camas NWR Biologist and Dan Garren, Regional 

Fisheries Manager, Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game, March 18, 2010. 

Gerard, J.G. 1963. A compilation of information. Snake River Echoes 1975:4(2, 3). 

Germino, M., M. Walker, and J. Pink. 2010. Camas NWR range health inventory. Unpublished 

report. Department of Biological Sciences, Idaho State University. Pocatello, ID. 

Gowans, F.R. 2005. Rocky Mountain rendezvous: a history of fur trade rendezvous 1825-1840. 

Layton, UT: Gibbs Smith. 

Historical Society of Montana. 1917. A partial sketch of the civil and military service of Major 

Martin Maginnis. Pages 7-24 in: W.Y. Pemberton, compiler. Contributions of the Historical 

Society of Montana 8. Montana Historical and Miscellaneous Library. Helena, MT. Available at: 

http://archive.org/stream/agamemnonofaeschaesc00rich/agamemnonofaeschaesc00rich_djvu.txt. 

Hutchison, D.J. and L.R. Jones, eds. 1993. Emigrant trails of southern Idaho. Idaho Cultural 

Resource Series No. 1. Bureau of Land Management and Idaho State Historical Society. Boise, 

ID. 231 pp. 

IDFG (Idaho Department of Fish and Game). 2005. Idaho comprehensive wildlife conservation 

strategy. Idaho Conservation Data Center, Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Boise, ID. ## pp. 

Available at: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/tech/CDC/cwcs.cf. 

Idaho Department of Water Resources. 2010. Amended preliminary order denying Transfer No. 

73951. IDWR Eastern Region Office, Idaho Falls, ID. 14 pp. Available at: 

http://www.idwr.idaho.gov/WaterManagement/orders/PDFs/2010/20100122_MudLake_PrelimO

rder.pdf 

Idaho NRCS. 2007. Beaver-Camas rapid watershed assessment. Natural Resources Conservation 

Service, United States Department of Agriculture. 53 pp. Available at: ftp://ftpfc.sc.egov.usda.gov/ID/technical/watersheds/beaver_camas_revised.pdf. Accessed July 28, 2011. 

Idaho Office of the Attorney General. 1988. Attorney General Opinion 88-2, from the Idaho Attorney 

General to R. Keith Higginson, Director of Water Resources, regarding the Mud Lake dam. 

Boise, ID. 10 pp. Available at: http://www.ag.idaho.gov/publications/op-guide-cert/1988/OP88-

02.pdf 

Ivey, G.L. and C.P. Herziger. 2006. Intermountain West waterbird conservation plan, Version 1.2. 

Waterbird Conservation for the Americas Initiative, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pacific 

Region. Portland, OR. 205 pp. 

Jorgensen, W. 1979. Soil survey of Jefferson County, Idaho. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, 

D.C. 219 pp. 

Keigley, R.B. 2012. Evaluation of the effect of ungulate browsing on the Camas National Wildlife 

Refuge, Idaho (draft). Unpublished report on file, Camas NWR. Hamer, ID. 28 pp. 

Kittel, G., D. Faber-Langendoen, and P. Comer. 2012. Camas NWR: ecological integrity assessment, 

watershed analysis and habitat vulnerability climate change index. Contract #F11PX04463. 

NatureServe. Boulder, CO. 105 pp. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

4-102 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Knapp, P.A. 1996. Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum L.) dominance in the Great Basin Desert: history, 

persistence, and influences to human activities. Global Environmental Change 6(1):37-52. 

Knetter, J., compiler. 2009. Waterfowl fall and winter surveys, production, summer banding and 

harvest. October 1, 2008 to September 30, 2009. Project W-170-R-32. Idaho Department of 

Fish and Game. Boise, ID. 57 pp. 

Knick, S.T. and J.T. Rotenberry. 1999. Spatial distribution of breeding passerine bird habitats in a 

shrubsteppe region of southwestern Idaho. Studies in Avian Biology 19:104-111. 

Knick, S.T., D.S. Dobkin, J.T. Rotenberry, M.A. Schroeder, W.M. Vander Haegen, and C. Van Riper 

III. 2003. Teetering on the edge or too late? Conservation and research issues for avifauna of 

sagebrush habitats. Condor 105:611-634. 

Landstrom, Karl S. 1954. Reclamation under the Desert-Land Act. Journal of Farm Economics, 36(3) 

(August 1954): 500-508. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1233016 Accessed: 18/07/2008 14:05 

Laye, D. 2012. Personal communication between Doug Laye/USFWS Ecological Services, and 

Pam Johnson, Camas NWR Refuge Biologist, regarding Canada lynx. January 2012.

Lym, R.G. and C.G. Messersmith. 1985. Cost effectiveness of leafy spurge control during a five-year 

management program. North Dakota Farm Research 43(1):7-10. 

Lym, R.G. and D.R. Kirby. 1987. Cattle foraging behavior in leafy spurge infested rangeland. Weed 

Technology 1:314-318. 

Mack, R.N., D. Simberloff, W.M. Lonsdale, H. Evans, M. Clout, and F. Bazzaz. 2000. Biotic 

invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences and control. Issues in Ecology 5 (Spring). 

Ecological Society of America. Washington, D.C. 

Miewald, T., G. Kittel, and E. Stockenberg. 2012. Vegetation and habitat mapping: lessons learned 

from Camas National Wildlife Refuge. Internal report to Region 1 USFWS Inventory and 

Monitoring Program, Portland, OR. 

Mitchell, C.D. and M.W. Eichholz. 2010. Trumpeter swan Cygnus buccinator. In: A. Poole, ed. Birds 

of North America 105 (revised). Philadelphia: Academy of Natural Sciences, and Washington, 

D.C.: American Ornithologists Union. Available at: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/105. 

Moulton, C.E. and R. Sallabanks. 2006. Idaho bird survey and inventory (IBIS) 2005 annual report. 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Boise, ID. 40 pp. 

Moulton, C.E. 2007. Idaho bird survey and inventory (IBIS) 2006 annual report. Idaho Department 

of Fish and Game. Boise, ID. 39 pp. 

Moulton, C.E. 2008. Idaho bird survey and inventory (IBIS) 2007 annual report. Idaho Department 

of Fish and Game. Boise, ID. 42 pp. 

Moulton, C.E. 2009. Idaho bird survey and inventory (IBIS) 2008 annual report. Idaho Department 

of Fish and Game. Boise, ID. 37 pp. 

Moulton, C.E. 2010. Idaho bird survey and inventory (IBIS) 2009 annual report. Idaho Department 

of Fish and Game. Boise, ID. 36 pp. 

Myler, C. 2010. Personal communication between Camas NWR Biologist and Cary Myler, Fish and 

Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, March 16, 2010. 

NISC (National Invasive Species Council). 2006. Invasive species definition clarification and 

guidance white paper. Available at: 

http://www.invasivespecies.gov/global/ISAC/ISAC_documents/ISAC%20Definititions%20Whit

e%20Paper%20%20-%20FINAL%20VERSION.pdf. Accessed November 27, 2012. 

NISC. 2008. 2008-2012 National invasive species management plan. Available at: 

http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/council/mp2008.pdf. Accessed November 27, 2012. 

NDOW (Nevada Division of Wildlife). 2004. Sage grouse conservation plan for Nevada and portions 

of eastern California. Available at: http://www.ndow.org/wild/sg/plan/SGPlan063004.pdf. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-103 

Olson, B.E. 1999. Grazing and weeds. Chapter 8 in: R.L. Sheley and J.K. Petroff, eds. Biology and 

management of noxious rangeland weeds. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. 

Pimentel, D., L. Lach, R. Zuniga, and D. Morrison. 2000. Environmental and economic costs of nonindigenous species in the United States. Bioscience 50(1): 53-65. 

Rachael, J., compiler. 2010. Pronghorn progress report, July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010. Project W170-R-34. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Boise, ID. 76 pp. 

Reynolds, T. D., T. D. Rich, and D. A. Stephens. 1999. Sage Thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus). In 

The Birds of North America, No. 463, edited by A. Poole and F. Gill. Philadelphia: The Birds of 

North America, Inc. 

Rich, T.D., M.J. Wisdom, and V.A. Saab. 2005. Habitat trends, population trends and conservation 

status of priority birds in sagebrush ecosystems. Pages 589-606 in: C.J. Ralph and T.D. Rich, eds. 

2005. Bird conservation implementation and integration in the Americas: proceedings of the third 

international Partners in Flight conference, 2002 March 20-24, Asilomar, California. General 

Technical Report PSW GTR-191. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Research Station. Albany, CA. 651 pp. 

Romagosa, C.M. 2012. Eurasian collared-dove (Streptopelia decaocto). In: Birds of North America 

Online, A. Poole, ed. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Ithaca. Available at: 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/630. 

Romesburg, H.C. 1981. Wildlife science: gaining reliable knowledge. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 45(2):293-313. 

Romesburg, H.C. 1991. Ten years after “reliable knowledge”: are we gaining? Journal of Wildlife 

Management 55(4):757-799. 

Russell, O. 1965. Journal of a trapper, 1834-1843. A.L. Haines, ed. Lincoln, NE: University of 

Nebraska Press. 

Spinazola, J.M., A.M. Tungate, and T.L. Rogers. 1992. Geohydrologic and chemical data from wells 

in the Mud Lake area, eastern Idaho, 1988-91. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 92-133. 

U.S. Geological Survey and Idaho Department of Water Resources, Boise, ID. 92 pp. 

Spinazola, J.M. 1993. Geohydrology and simulation of flow and water levels in the Mud Lake area 

of the Eastern Snake River Plain, eastern Idaho. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 93-4227. Boise, ID. 78 pp. 

Stayley, M. and J. Hartwell. 1982. Interview: history of Mud Lake. Tape #26. Taped 1982, 

transcribed 2002 by Louis Clements. Upper Snake River Valley Historical Society. Rexburg, ID. 

Stearns, H.T. and L.L. Bryan. 1925. Preliminary report on the geology and water resources of the 

Mud Lake Basin, Idaho. USGS Water-Supply Paper 560-D. Washington, D.C. 134 pp. 

Stearns, H.T., L.L. Bryan, and L. Crandall. 1939. Geology and water resources of the Mud Lake 

Basin, Idaho, including the Island Park area. USGS Water-Supply Paper 818. Washington, D.C. 

125 pp. 

Stevens, K.L. 1986. Allelopathic polyacetylenes from Centaurea repens (Russian knapweed). 

Journal of Chemical Ecology 12:1205-1211. 

Stringham, T.K., W.C. Krueger, and P.L. Shaver. 2003. State and transition modeling: an ecological 

process approach. Journal of Range Management 56 (2):106-113. 

Toweill, D., compiler. 2008. Moose progress report. Project W-170-R-32. Idaho Department of Fish 

and Game. Boise, ID. 66 pp. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1994. Audubon et al. v. Babbitt—Final report: fulfilling 

the terms of the lawsuit settlement agreement (December 1994). U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington D.C. 

USFWS. 2003. Costly fires hurt wildlife habitat. Available at: 

http://www.fws.gov/deerflat/currfire.htm. Accessed October 5, 2012. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

4-104 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

USFWS 2009a. Independent prescribed fire Camas NWR: escaped prescribed fire review. Available 

at: http://wildfirelessons.net/documents/Independent_Rx_Escape_Final.pdf. Accessed October 5, 

2012. 

USFWS. 2009b. Fire management plan, Southeast Idaho National Wildlife Refuge Complex. 

Unpublished report on file, Camas NWR. Hamer, ID. 38 pp. 

USFWS. 2009c. Identifying refuge resources of concern and management priorities: a handbook 

(draft). U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Refuge 

System. Unpublished report on file, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Office. Portland, 

OR. 60 pp. 

USFWS. 2011. Camas NWR water resource inventory and assessment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Services Water Resources. Unpublished report on file, USFWS Regional Office. Portland, OR. 

53 pp. 

USFWS. 2012a. Environmental conservation online system (ECOS). Canada lynx. Available at: 

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A073. 

USFWS. 2012b. Environmental conservation online system (ECOS). Greater sage-grouse. Available 

at: http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B06W. 

USFWS. 2012c. Environmental conservation online system (ECOS). Yellow-billed cuckoo. 

Available at: http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B06R. 

Unnasch, R.S., D.P. Braun, P.J. Comer, and G.E. Eckert. 2009. The ecological integrity assessment 

framework: a framework for assessing the ecological integrity of biological and ecological 

resources of the National Park system. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 

Washington, D.C. 46 pp. 

Utley, R.M. 1997. A life wild and perilous: mountain men and the paths to the Pacific. New York: 

Henry Holt and Company. 

Weller, M.W. and C.E. Spatcher. 1965. Role of habitat in the distribution and abundance of marsh 

birds. Entomology Special Report 43. Iowa State University, Department of Zoology, 

Agriculture and Home Economics Experiment Station. Ames, IA. 31 pp. 

Whisenant, S.G. 1990. Changing fire frequencies on Idaho’s Snake River Plain: ecological and 

management implications. Pages 4-10 in: E.D. McArthur, E.M. Romney, S.D. Smith, and P.T. 

Tueller, eds. Proceedings—Symposium on cheatgrass invasion, shrub die-off, and other aspects 

of shrub biology and management, Las Vegas, NV, April 5-7, 1989. USDA Forest Service, 

Intermountain Research Station, General Technical Report INT-276. Ogden, UT. 

Wildflower Association of Michigan. 2007. Invasive plants. Available at: 

http://www.wildflowersmich.org/index.php?menu=10. 

Wisdom, M.J., R.S. Holthausen, B.C. Wales, C.D. Hargis, V.A. Saab, D.C. Lee, W.J. Hann, T.D. 

Rich, M. Rowland, W.J. Murphy, and M.R. Eames. 2000. Source habitats for terrestrial 

vertebrates of focus in the interior Columbia Basin: broad-scale trends and management 

implications. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-485. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. La Grande, OR. 3 vols, 529 pp. 

Wisdom, M.J., M.M. Rowland, B.C. Wales, M.A. Hemstrom, W.J. Hann, M.G. Raphael, R.S. 

Holthausen, R.A. Gravenmier, and T.D. Rich. 2002. Modeled effects of sagebrush-steppe 

restoration on greater sage-grouse in the interior Columbia Basin, USA. Conservation Biology 

16:1223-1231. 

Wisdom, M.J., M.M. Rowland, L.H. Suring, L. Schueck, C.W. Meinke, B.C. Wales, and S.T. Knick. 

2003a. Procedures for regional assessment of habitats for species of conservation concern in the 

sagebrush ecosystem. Version 1. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. La Grande, OR. 153 pp. 

Wisdom, M.J., L.H. Suring, M.M. Rowland, R.J. Tausch, R.F. Miller, L. Schueck, C.W. Meinke, 

S.T. Knick, and B.C. Wales. 2003b. A prototype regional assessment of habitats for species of 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-105 

conservation concern in the Great Basin Ecoregion and State of Nevada. Version 1.1. 

Unpublished report on file, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. La Grande, OR. 

Wishart, W.J. 1979. The fur trade of the American West 1807-1840: a geographical synthesis. 

Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. 

Wuerthner, G. 1986a. Idaho mountain ranges. Idaho Geographic Series No. 1. Helena, MT: 

American Geographic Publishing. 

Wuerthner, G. 1986b. Idaho wildlife. Idaho Geographic Series No. 2. Helena, MT: American 

Geographic Publishing. 

Young, J.C. 1980. Interview: a history of irrigation in Fremont, Madison, and Teton Counties. Tape 

#79. Taped 1980, transcribed 2003 by Joel Miyasaki, Brigham Young University. Rexburg, ID. 

Young, S., W.W. Brown, and B. Klinger. 1970a. Nigropallidal encephalomalacia in horses caused by 

ingestion of weeds of the genus Centaurea. Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association 

157:1602-1605. 

Young, S., W.W. Brown, and B. Klinger. 1970b. Nigropallidal encephalomalacia in horses fed 

Russian knapweed (Centaurea repens L.). American Journal of Veterinary Research 31:1393-

1404. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

4-106 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 
Chapter 5

Human Environment

Chapter 5HumanEnvironment

USFWS

Appendices

Chapter 4BiologicalEnvironment

Chapter 3PhysicalEnvironment

Chapter 1Introduction andBackground

Chapter 2ManagementAlternatives, Goals, Objectives and Strategies

Chapter 6Environmental Effects

Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-1 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 

5.1 Cultural Resources 

This section presents a brief outline of the rich history and cultural heritage of Camas NWR. 

Archaeological and other cultural resources are important components of our nation’s heritage. The 

Service is committed to protecting valuable evidence of plant, animal, and human interactions with 

each other and the landscape over time. These may include previously recorded or yet 

undocumented historic, cultural, archaeological, and paleontological resources as well as traditional 

cultural properties and the historic built environment. Protection of cultural resources is legally 

mandated under numerous Federal laws and regulations. Foremost among these are the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) as amended, the Antiquities Act, the Historic Sites Act, the 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) as amended, and the Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). The Service’s Native American Policy (1994) 

articulates the general principles guiding the Service’s relationships with Tribal governments in the 

conservation of fish and wildlife resources. Additionally, the Refuge seeks to establish and maintain 

a working relationship and consult on a regular basis with the Tribes that are or were traditionally 

tied to lands and waters within the Refuge. 

Since cultural resources encompass many elements and time periods, the following simple temporal 

divisions were used to distinguish and categorize this brief review of the following resources. 

 Native American Prehistory 

 Pre-Contact Native American Traditions 

 Post-Contact Traditions (Native American, British and United States) 

 Recent U.S. Settlement and Economic Development Period 

 Prehistoric and Historic Sites on the Refuge 

5.1.1 Native American Prehistory 

The southeastern Idaho region has a long history of human habitation that archaeologists often divide 

into specific periods based on the archaeological record, tool forms and types, and resources that 

were exploited. The region’s artesian springs and pot-hole lakes attracted large mammals and 

waterfowl, and also drew the attention of early hunters and gatherers. The archaeological evidence 

indicates 15,000 years or more of human occupation on the Snake River Plain and within the Pioneer 

Basin, of which the Refuge is a part (Butler 1968, 1978; Swanson et al. 1964). The following 

discussion is drawn largely from Harding 2005. 

Archaeological evidence of the region’s early big game hunters, known as Clovis people after their 

characteristic spear points, dates between about 12,000 to 11,000 years before present (B.P.) and is 

generally limited to isolated finds and deposits of cultural materials, and various caves such as 

Wilson Butte Cave, Jaguar Cave, and Kelvin’s Cave (Harding 2005:10). The Clovis people followed 

big game animals such as mammoth, horse, and camel. The transition to a smaller style of projectile 

point, known as the Folsom fluted projectile point, dates to between 10,000 and 9,000 years B.P. and 

indicates a shift to hunting archaic bison (Bison antiquus). Between 9,000 and 7,500 years B.P. there 

was a further transition to a lanceolate projectile point form. Sites associated with this transition 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

5-2 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

period include remains of both archaic and modern bison (Bison bison), as well as mountain sheep 

(Harding 2005:10). 

The Middle Prehistoric period dates from approximately 7,500 to 1,300 years B.P. People living 

during this time period appear to have used a broader array of resources that included bison, smaller 

game animals, and plants. Archaeologists theorize that a continuous population base in this region 

developed up to 8,000 years B.P. and continued to develop through the Middle Prehistoric period 

(Holmer 1994; Swanson 1972), and into the Late Prehistoric period (1,200 years B.P. to about 150 

years B.P.) (Harding 2005:12; Ringe et al. 1988). There also appears to be a heavy reliance on large 

animals because there is little evidence of plant processing tools (Harding 2005:12). New 

technologies such as the horse and European trade goods began to be introduced into the area as early 

as 300 years B.P and continue into the Northwest Fur Trade era. The prehistoric period shifts into the 

ethnographic period as the trade goods and Euroamericans entered Southeastern Idaho. 

5.1.2 Pre-contact Native American History 

The descendants of those prehistoric people are the Shoshone and Bannock people who lived in the 

vast geographic area within the Great Basin, the Plateau and into the Great Plains. The Shoshone and 

Bannock peoples lived in groups composed of highly mobile nuclear families or family clusters, 

egalitarian in nature, which practiced wide-spectrum subsistence activities. The general subsistence 

pattern consisted of seasonal rounds to areas where particular resources were abundant. Spring and 

summer were characterized by hunting, fishing, and gathering, while autumn was characterized by a 

move to the mountains to gather pinyon and other pine nuts, and in some areas, acorns. Winter was 

spent at low elevation camps along drainages. Foodstuffs were preserved by drying if they consisted 

of fish or meat, or by roasting if they consisted of nuts, then cached for use during the winter. Fish 

were primarily exploited in the spring, when the stores of bison meat were running low. After 

acquisition of the horse, resources were more efficiently exploited, and loosely cohesive bands were 

formed (Steward 1955). 

During the historic period, the Shoshone and Bannock speaking people lived and traveled in the 

southeast Idaho area. They included bands living in the high mountainous areas of Central Idaho, the 

Yellowstone Sheepeater bands to the east of the Camas NWR, the Eastern Shoshone in Wyoming, 

and the Fort Hall bands. Other tribes referred to the Shoshones and Bannocks as “Snake Indians.” 

Non-Indian fur traders picked up this name, and used it to refer to both the Shoshone and Bannock 

peoples. They are two distinct tribes, with different languages, but have lived with each other, with 

similar lifestyles and in the same general geographic locations sharing common resources (Albers 

1998). 

The Shoshone and Bannocks established winter village sites primarily around rivers and streams, but 

a particular favorite village area was at the Fort Hall bottoms of the Snake River, to the south and 

west of the Refuge area, which provided prime lands for wintering and forage for their horse herds. 

Social and economic relationships occurred between bands and other tribes, through trading, 

intermarriage and maintenance of extended families ties, religious and ceremonial activities. The 

Shoshone and Bannocks were the most frequent users of the lands within the Camas NWR as a travel 

corridor, utilizing the various subsistence resources along the way. Nez Perce bands passed through 

the area on the way from their traditional home in central and northern Idaho to the plains of central 

Montana to hunt buffalo. Raiding parties of the Crow and Blackfeet tribes occasionally used the area 

as a route when attacking the Bannocks to the south and the Lemhi Shoshone who made their home 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-3 

in the mountain ranges of central Idaho and southeast into Montana. The Flatheads of northwest 

Montana and north Idaho were also occasional visitors as both raiders and traders (Richardson n.d.). 

5.1.3 Post-contact Native American History 

The nineteenth century brought huge transformations in the subsistence cycle and lifestyle traditions 

of the Shoshone and Bannock people. The Lewis and Clark Expedition crossed through Idaho about 

100 miles north of the Camas NWR. Their reports of abundant fur bearing animals set the stage for 

an influx of fur trappers. The fur trade period reached its height in the late 1820s. By the 1840s 

aggressive trapping had nearly extinguished the beaver and other fur bearing animals. Big game 

populations in Idaho, but especially bison, declined during the fur trade era as well. After bison grew 

scarce in the Snake River Plains in the late 1830s, the Shoshone and Bannock people travelled the 

“Bannock Trail” to access bison hunting grounds in Montana and Wyoming (Haines 1964). The trail 

began at Camas Meadows in Idaho, crossed the Henry’s Fork and then over Targhee Pass to the 

Madison River in Montana, bisected the southern end of the Gallatin Range into the Gardner River 

drainage, and then proceeded eastward up the Yellowstone and Lamar Rivers in present-day 

Yellowstone National Park. The route then split into a number of connecting trails leading to buffalo 

hunting areas in the Madison, Gallatin, Yellowstone, Clark Fork, and Shoshone River valleys 

(Haines 1964). Since the present day Refuge lay along travel routes to both the camas meadows near 

present-day Kilgore, Idaho and the Bannock Trail, and had permanent water in an otherwise arid 

region, the area would have been an attractive campsite. 

The ever-increasing encroachment into the aboriginal lands of the Shoshone and Bannock resulted in 

reduced subsistence resources, which led to increased Indian resistance. By 1840 bison were rare in 

Idaho, and were extirpated by 1860. During the 1840s to 1870s, the Oregon Trail emigrants, miners, 

and railroad construction crews increased the competition for natural resources that the Shoshone and 

Bannock had relied on for hundreds of years. Not only were large game animals hunted out, but the 

emigrants’ herds of cattle and horses, and later herds of livestock being trailed between Oregon and 

Wyoming, denuded plants that were important foods as well (Harding 2005: 16). 

The loss of resources and sudden increase of non-Indian people moving into traditional hunting and 

gathering areas led to the Nez Perce War of 1877, the Bannock War of 1878, and the Sheepeater War 

of 1879 (Harding 2005:16). 

 

In an effort to control and limit the Shoshone and Bannocks’ use of traditional lands, and to provide 

lands for use by non-Indian settlers and ranchers, President Andrew Johnson signed an Executive 

Order establishing the Fort Hall Indian Reservation on June 14, 1867 (Madsen 1980: 51). The 

following year (1868), the Fort Bridger Treaty was signed between the United States government and 

the Eastern Shoshoni and Bannock Indians. Provisions of that treaty include the right to continue to 

hunt on the “unoccupied lands of the United States.” Immediately after the signing of the Treaty, 

Shoshoni and Bannock bands were moved to the new Reservation. The Office of Indian Affairs was 

to provide food, clothing and equipment for those Indian Reservation residents. But with the failure 

of the Indian Agents to provide rations, the Indians had no choice but to continue to conduct hunting 

and fishing excursions off reservation. 

 

Meanwhile, up north in Salmon River country, the Virginia City Treaty of 1868 was signed at 

Virginia City, Montana Territory, for the mixed bands of Shoshones, Bannocks, and Sheepeaters 

(Mann 2004: 28). This treaty was not ratified by Congress. Instead, in 1875, President Grant signed 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

5-4 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

the Executive Order establishing the Lemhi Valley Indian Reservation, which contained 100 square 

miles, along the Salmon River. This Reserve was in existence from 1875 to 1907, but the United 

States relentlessly attempted to remove residents from the Lemhi Reservation. During this time and 

until 1907, the Lemhi Reservation residents put up fierce resistance. Upon the death of Chief 

Tendoy, and facing deteriorating conditions at the Reservation, the Lemhis were finally forced to 

move to the Fort Hall Reservation. This opened the Lemhi Shoshone’s reservation lands to nonIndian Salmon area residents. 

Survivors of the forced removal relate stories of two routes. One route identified in history books is 

called “the Lemhi Trail of Tears” by the Lemhi descendants. (Mann 2004:35). They traveled 

northeast from the Salmon River over the Lemhi Pass into Montana, then south through the Snake 

River plain eventually arriving at the Fort Hall Reservation. Once they arrived at the Montana 

railroad, they were loaded into box cars and shipped to Fort Hall. As related by oral history by the 

Lemhi survivors, many people were reluctant to travel on train cars because “only prisoners of war 

were transported by rail,” and they escaped back to the Reservation on the Salmon River. The 

second removal occurred after the numerous Lemhis returned back to the Lemhi Reservation along 

with the escapees. This second removal came through a different route, as the remaining Lemhi 

Indians were forcibly removed, with their homes knocked down, and marched south through the 

Lemhi/Birch Creek valley through the desert to Fort Hall (Ariwite 2013). 

Today, the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes is a federally recognized tribe, and is headquartered on the Fort 

Hall Reservation, located adjacent to the communities of Pocatello and Blackfoot, Idaho. There are 

approximately 6,000 Tribal members who value their rich history, cultural practices, and their rights 

reserved by the Fort Bridger Treaty. 

5.1.4 Recent U.S. Settlement and Economic Development Period 

Following on the heels of the fur trappers were settlers who used established travel routes across the 

plains and through the Rocky Mountains. The westward migration of settlers through traditional 

Shoshone and Bannock territory increased throughout the 1840s and 1850s, primarily using the 

Oregon Trail. Adding to the traveling populace was the Mormon migration beginning in 1847. 

Many of the towns in southeastern Idaho were established by Mormon emigrants during the 1860s 

and 1870s (Harding 2005). 

The Montana Trail (also called the Corrine-Virginia City Trail or the Salt Lake City-Bannock Trail) 

was blazed in 1863 to connect Salt Lake City to the newly discovered Montana gold fields, following 

the general path of today’s Highway 15 that passes to the east of Camas NWR. It was the first 

important overland route to the goldfields in Montana. It followed the old fur trade routes, and 

connected the Utah settlements along the Oregon Trail with the mining communities to the north in 

western Montana (Ingram 1976; Montana Fish and Game Commission 1975). The Montana Trail led 

northward through Utah and Idaho (passing by the present-day Refuge), and crossed the Continental 

Divide into Montana over Monida Pass. The Trail split along the Beaverhead River: one fork went to 

Bannack and the Deerlodge Valley to the north, while the main fork led to Virginia City and on to 

Helena, connecting with the Mullan Road. Completion of the Union Pacific Railroad through 

Wyoming into northern Utah in the 1870s increased the dominance of this trail (Montana Department 

of Fish, Wildlife and Parks 2001). 

This road was heavily used by both freight wagons bringing supplies from Salt Lake City to the 

mining towns of Bannack and Virginia City, and by stagecoaches that carried passengers and “fast 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-5 

freight”: mail, medicines, and gold. In fact one Army officer wrote that between September 2 and 

26, 1863, he met with “over a hundred wagons” on this road, enroute to Salt Lake City for supplies 

(Historical Society of Montana 1917). By 1864, a seasonal “swing station” where teams of horses or 

mules were changed out, had been constructed on the present-day Refuge at Sandhole Lake. The 

station was called Sandhole, Sand Wells, or Desert Wells in various accounts and stagecoach 

timetables. Swing stations were small stations where teams were changed, located approximately 12 

miles apart, as opposed to the larger “home stations” 40-50 miles apart, where they would change 

drivers as well as horses. Home stations had more amenities for travelers. Sand Hole station was a 

humble affair, as this account attests: 

“May 1864—Montana was made a territory and in July the Government established a regular 

mail service, with stage transportation, between Bannack and Salt Lake City ... the trip took 

92 hours (4 days and 4 nights) ... at Sand Hole, the meal served at a log cabin for one dollar 

consisted of sagebrush tea, strong butter, heavy, sour bread, and greasy pork” (Judson 1909). 

In a 1984 interview, longtime resident Elvin Henninger, who was born in 1882, recalled: “Camas 

Station [was] just a little ways on [from Sand Hole] ... on this bend of Camas Creek. That was an all 

year station. That was built in 1864 when the holiday [Ben Holliday] took over the mail route. 

[General] Howard camped there the 19th of August [1877] and they described great stacks of hay on 

the ground [that] went through that battle [Battle of Camas Meadows] undisturbed too. Evidently the 

stage stations had gone in, the contractors and stacked hay for the stage stations” (Henninger 1984). 

The first stagecoach service from Salt Lake to Virginia City, Montana was by the Oliver and Conover 

Stage Company, which established a line in 1863. However, Ben Holliday’s Overland Stage 

Company proved too competitive and forced them out of business in 1864. The Overland Stage from 

Salt Lake to Virginia City, Montana ran triweekly and took 4 days (Idaho State Historical Society 

1970). In 1867, Wells Fargo purchased Ben Holliday’s Overland routes, including the Salt Lake to 

Helena, Montana route. In 1869, Wells Fargo sold its Ogden to Helena Line to Gilmer and Salisbury 

Company. Gilmer and Salisbury continued the service until the opening of the Utah and Northern 

railway in 1881 (Saunders 1915). However homesteaders continued to use this and other local wagon 

roads into the early 1900s. 

We know the names of two early station keepers at Sandhole. One was Maier Kaufman, a German 

immigrant who came to the United States in 1845 at age 15. In 1860 he became an express 

messenger for Ben Holliday’s Overland Stage Company. According to a biography, he left that 

company for the Fargo Express Company’s Corinne to Helena line, and “he was later employed by 

the Gilmore & Saullsbury [sic] Stage Company.” Following his marriage in 1862, “he kept stage 

stations for the firm of Gilmore & Saullsbury at Millerville, Wyoming, at Kaysville, Utah, at 

Centerville, Utah, at Sand Hole, Idaho, and Hole in the Rock, four miles above the present site of 

Dubois, Idaho, where he was stationed during the Nez Perce war.” A year later (1878), he left Hole in 

the Rock Station to become a farmer (Hawley 1920). 

Another station keeper was Charles Johnson Hitchcock, a Mormon emigrant from England who 

arrived in the U.S. with his wife Rosina Kathleen Jemmett and his recently widowed mother-in-law, 

Mary Ann Browning Jemmett, in 1865. Shortly after their arrival in New York, they travelled across 

the plains with the Miner Grant Atwood Company to Utah. A family genealogist writes that “Rosina 

[Kathleen Browning] married Charles Johnson who operated the Sand Hole Stage Station in Kamas 

Idaho” (deVore n.d.). 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

5-6 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

In 1874, “Sand Hole” was still a “little swing station” on Gilmer and Salisbury’s line from Corrine, 

Utah to Fort Benton, Montana. Sand Hole was in between McCammon, Idaho and Pleasant Valley, 

which under good conditions was a day’s travel. Alexander Toponce recalled that, when they stopped 

at noon at Sand Hole, after starting from McCammon in the morning (they were running late), “the 

station keeper was really a nurse for the stage mules and not an experienced cook” who could be 

expected to feed the travelers (Toponce 2006). 

In addition to the bustling activity of the freight wagons and stagecoaches coming through frequently 

during the active freighting season (April-November), the Sandhole station maintained various 

livestock on site, including replacement horses and mules for the stage teams. The presence of the 

wagon road probably contributed to the early development of farming in the area, since there was a 

ready market for grain and hay to feed the animals. Travelers noted that the small village of Hamer 

was in existence by 1871, and the farmers there were dependent on artesian wells to irrigate their 

crops. 

The road by Sand Hole was not only used by wagons and stagecoaches, but also by ranchers and 

sheepherders trailing their stock. Livestock production was a commercial industry along the Snake 

River Plain by the late 1860s, but it remained transient as cattle and sheep were trailed between the 

coastal states and grasslands east of the Rockies. In the early 1880s, many sheep were trailed to 

Wyoming from the west (Oregon), passing through Idaho enroute (Wentworth 1948). One 

sheepherder noted that “July 25th — Left band in morning and came on to Eagle Rock. From Mud 

Lake there are two trails; one leaving lake and going direct to Market Lake; the other following creek 

and going to Sand Holes. First is best and shortest trail, but the other not so far without water. 

Distance between two lakes by shortest trail good 20 miles” (Evans 1951). Today, archaeological 

remains of historic livestock drives and early grazing are embodied in numerous roads and trails that 

cross the Snake River Plain (Anderson 1999). 

The Utah and Northern Railroad (UNRR) paralleled the wagon road, eventually replacing stage stops 

with depots (Derig 1996:13). The UNRR was constructed as far as Franklin, Idaho with assistance 

from the LDS Church in the early 1870s. The Utah and Northern from Corinne, Utah, followed the 

old Corinne (Montana) Trail and reached Butte, Montana, in 1881, marking the effective end of 

stagecoaching along this route (Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 2001). In 1882, the 

UNRR was merged with the Union Pacific (Harding 2005:16). The UP track extends along the 

eastern boundary of the Refuge. However, the old wagon road north to Montana continued to be used 

by emigrants, lastly by an influx of Mormon emigrants enroute to new communities in Canada in the 

late 1800s/early 1900s. 

The General Land Office (GLO) surveyed the townships and ranges that comprise the current Camas 

NWR in 1882, 1884 and 1891. Their maps and notes identify roads, individual houses, and the 

railroad, but little agricultural development (Bureau of Land Management, GLO Records, Survey 

Maps). A small field with ditches, and further south a small stock pond, were noted on Camas Creek. 

A “house” (probably the stage station) was surveyed in 1884 between the “Montana Road” and a 

“slough.” Today the site is known as Sandhole Lake. The house was a stage station, and a woman 

visiting the Refuge in 1957 recalled living at the stage station near Sandhole Lake when she was a 

small child. She was able to identify several stone foundations as the ruin of the inn where she was 

born. She also was searching for graves of two brothers (Camas Migratory Waterfowl Refuge 

1957:3). Unfortunately, her name was not recorded. A later stage station, ca. 1890s, was located at 

the refuge headquarters and had a substantial blacksmith shop. An 1882 survey also shows a 

“Lawson’s House” on Camas Creek (Bureau of Land Management, GLO Records, Survey Maps). 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-7 

Real incentive to settle the eastern Snake River Plain came with the Homestead Act of 1862, the 

Desert Claim Act of 1877 (19 Stat. 377) which amended the Homestead Act, and the Carey Act of 

1894 (28 Stat. 422). In this era Idaho obtained one million acres of federal land for homesteading. 

The Camas area was surveyed in 1884 (east half) and 1899 (west half) (Bureau of Land 

Management, GLO Records). After the area was platted, parcels were acquired by settlers. The 

Desert Claim Act offered up to 640 acres (2.6 km2

) of land to an adult married couple, or 320 acres 

(1.3 km2

) to an individual, who would pay $1.25 an acre and promise to irrigate the land within three 

years. In the 1890s homesteaders began quickly claiming land within the Camas NWR boundary 

area. In some areas, family members patented adjacent lands in order to encompass extensive 

acreage for livestock grazing, agricultural crops, and water resources. In all, sixty-one land claim 

patents were filed on the present-day Camas NWR between 1890 and Refuge establishment. More 

than half were homesteads filed under the 1862 Homestead Act requirements; eighteen claims were 

cash entries whereby the settlers purchased the land; four were filed under the terms of the 1877 

Desert Claim Act; three were filed under the Stock-raising Homestead Act; and two were Forest 

exchanged lands. 

The first land patent on the Refuge was for 319 acres by Humphrey Toomey (for which Toomey 

Pond was named) in August 1889, under the Desert Land Act. He was soon followed by Omer T., 

Milo, and Ambrose Adams in March of 1890. They each claimed approximately 160 acres under the 

Homestead Act. In June 1890, Elias Ray homesteaded the E1⁄2W1⁄2 of T7N R36E Sec 30. The parcel 

containing the refuge headquarters was homesteaded by James H. Adams in 1892. In 1901 Louis 

Lienemann acquired 424 acres in sections 13, 18, 19, and 24 under the Desert Land Act of 1877. The 

NE1⁄4 of Sec 30 purchased by Claude Hixson in 1904. George and William Bird acquired the SE1⁄4 of 

section 30, which contains a portion of Rays Lake, in 1912 and 1914, respectively. Sarah Richardson 

purchased in E3⁄4S1⁄4 T7N R36E Section 18 in 1915 under the Homestead Act (Bureau of Land 

Management, GLO Records). 

When these homesteaders first arrived on the present day Refuge they found a predominantly dry 

landscape, except for a slough (Sand Hole) next to the stage station, which was fed by artesian flow. 

“Sand Hole” apparently varied in size; an 1882 survey map shows three “Sand Hole Ponds,” while 

the 1884 survey shows a “slough” at the site. The site of present day Ray’s Lake was a “Dry Lake,” 

hinting at wetter conditions in the not too distant past. Survey notes described willows here, 

indicating a water table close to the surface where wells could be dug. Likewise, in the late 1800s, 

Mud Lake was a shallow, intermittent body of water (Stearns et al. 1939). In 1900 herds of cattle 

being driven to Arco had to be divided in half to provide access to all (Gerard 1963). 

The Desert Land Act of 1894 (generally known as the Carey Act) and subsequent amendments 

encouraged the states, private investors, and the Federal government—the latter through the General 

Land Office (GLO)—to provide cooperatively the water-supply facilities necessary to make farming 

communities of previously arid habitat (Original act, August 18, 1894, Chapter 301, Section 4, 28 

Stat. 422 entitled “An act making appropriations of sundry civil expenses of the government for the 

fiscal year ending June 30, 1894, and other purposes”). During the first several decades of the 

twentieth century, several western states, and in particular Idaho and Wyoming, successfully used the 

Carey Act to create thousands of family farms. Across the West, more than one million acres were 

patented. More than half of that acreage was in Idaho alone (Lovin 1987). Mud Lake land was 

opened to settlers through the Carey Act. The Mud Lake area was developed by irrigating from 

Camas Creek, by pumping from Mud Lake, and by pumping from wells. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

5-8 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

In 1902, Idaho received funding through the Reclamation Act to build canals to “reclaim arid lands” 

(Reed et al. 1987). During the next three decades, hundreds of miles of irrigation canals were dug in 

the region. However, of these projects, only part of the Mud Lake project was successful (Anderson 

1999). In 1908 the first water filing was made on Mud Lake for irrigation and in 1921 more than 

150,000 acres was included in several projects for which it was planned to obtain water from Mud 

Lake and nearby lakes and sloughs. This acreage was divided among two large Carey Act projects 

aggregating about 30,000 acres, and numerous private irrigation enterprises. By 1929, 300 wells were 

in production (Jorgensen 1979). 

The hydrology of the Camas/Mud Lake area began to change in the early 1900s, due to subirrigation 

on the Egin Bench, 15 miles to the east. This subirrigation, intended to raise the local water table, 

created a huge body of subsurface water (estimated at 326,000 acre-feet), some of which leaked to 

the north and then to the west, ultimately arriving in the Mud Lake Basin (see Chapter 4). Some of 

the water leaking from Egin Bench flowed down Camas Creek into Mud Lake, while some of the 

water moved through a shallow aquifer, and emerged as artesian springs or wells. Subirrigation 

started in 1985, and by 1900 standing pools of water were noted near Hamer. From 1908 to 1914 

Mud Lake rose about 5 feet. Staley and Hartwell (1982) noted between about 1914 and 1920, many 

local farmers had left the Mud Lake/Camas area, as the rising water table caused their dikes to fail. 

In the 1920s Mud Lake farmers constructed dikes to halt flooding of their land, ultimately creating an 

impoundment that allowed Mud Lake to rise 8 feet (Idaho Office of Attorney General 1988). While 

this allowed farming to thrive in the Mud Lake area, it did not help the Camas farmers. If storage 

increased enough, water would flow up Camas Creek, where it would be redirected into what had 

been “Dry Lake” (present-day Rays Lake). This appears to have happened in June 1921 when storage 

reached 55,000 acre-feet (Stearns et al. 1939), and again in 1922, 1923, 1924, and 1926 (USGS data). 

By 1921, a substantial area of the present-day Refuge had become too wet to farm. Sandhole Lake 

and Rays Lake were more or less their present size, and lower swales had become marshy. The 

change from dry to wet appears to have happened rapidly. For example, Sarah Richardson acquired 

her property in 1915. Six years later, the area was a wetland, as shown on a map prepared in 1921 

(Stearns and Bryan 1925). 

While the area that eventually became Camas NWR was mostly too wet for crops, it continued to 

provide pasturage and hay fields for livestock. Indeed, seasonally wet areas (wet meadows) provided 

excellent “wild hay.” Stearns et al. (1939) noted that “During recent years the cattle industry of the 

Mud Lake region has been largely replaced by the sheep industry until now about a quarter of a 

million sheep are raised here annually.” The U.S. Sheep Experiment Station (which is still operating 

today) was established six miles north of Dubois in 1915. Here, efforts were made to breed sheep that 

produced both mutton and high quality wool. The Woods Livestock Company, founded by J.D. 

Woods in 1890, with headquarters at Spencer, and the Wool Growers Association of Sugar City 

controlled most of the range in the Camas NWR area. Hugh C. Woods, son of J.D. Woods, filed a 

patent on refuge lands in 1912 (Bureau of Land Management, GLO Records). H.C. Woods was 

known for pioneering such concepts as range reseeding, supplemental feeding at winter ranges, and 

the “blanket” system of herding which was novel then, but later became commonplace (Roberts 

1961). By the 1910s the ranch had grown and developed into a large stock raising operation. The 

ranch house and outbuildings were torn down when the refuge headquarters was built at the same 

location. The ranch’s blacksmith shop survived for many years after the Refuge was established but 

is no longer standing. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-9 

In the winter, sheep were fed at the irrigated tracts at Egin Bench, Roberts, and Mud Lake. Both 

alfalfa and wild hay (supplemented with protein concentrate) were fed. A large winter feeding 

operation existed at Hamer in the 1930s (USDA 1933). In the spring they were grazed on the lava 

plains at the foot of the Centennial Mountains. Later as the grass dried and water became scarce, the 

sheep were driven into the mountains for the summer. In the fall they returned over the same route 

using the spring range on the way to the feeding grounds (Stearns et al. 1939). The Woods Livestock 

Company liquidated in 1934; however, a grandson of J.D. Woods, Dave Hagenbarth, established his 

own outfit using some of the same range and brands formerly used by the Woods Livestock 

Company (Roberts 1961). By the time the Refuge was established much of its lands were owned by 

Idaho Livestock Lands Inc. (FWS Realty files). A 1936 map showed that both “wild hay” and about 

1,000 acres of “tame hay” were harvested on much of the refuge lands. The tame hay was “of good 

quality due to past drilling in redtop clover and timothy or broadcast seeding.” Some of the area was 

being grazed; managers noted that there was “well sodded grass adjacent to marshes [that] would 

produce hay if protected from grazing.” A relatively small acreage was planted in grain (perhaps 140 

acres total), near the present-day headquarters, on the east boundary of the Refuge, and along the 

northeast margin of Rays Lake. 

Development of Camas National Wildlife Refuge 

The Great Depression played a role in the development of the Camas NWR. In the winter of 1937-

1938, shortly after Camas NWR was established by Executive Order, the first of a series of Works 

Projects Administration (WPA) crews began working on the Refuge. The WPA program at the 

Refuge included between 24 and 50 men over the four years the program was active on the Refuge. 

The first projects were to clean up and fence the Refuge and improve a road to the headquarters site. 

Since the site chosen for the headquarters was the location of a previous ranch, most of the ranch 

buildings were torn down and the site prepared for the new buildings. At the same time, designs and 

plans for the new refuge headquarters were prepared by staff in the Washington D.C. office (see 

below). Most of the headquarters construction occurred between 1938 and 1939. The following is an 

account from the Camas Annual Report of 1939 (Camas Migratory Bird Refuge 1939): 

The Headquarters residence was 95% complete at end of June, 1939. Materials from NIR 

(National Industrial Recovery Act) funds, salvage from Camas Refuge and from Fort Peck, 

Montana. Service Building (Type 10 without basement) was 85% complete at the end of June 

1939 ... All labor WPA except services of plumber and plasterer. Three sheds and one frame 

house were razed to provide building materials. 10 loads of old iron and machinery were 

broken up and hauled either to dump if not usable or to site of building operations for use as 

reinforcing. 

5.1.5 Prehistoric and Historic Sites on the Refuge 

Archaeological evidence of Native American use on Camas NWR is limited to five sites and an 

isolated projectile point. Two of the sites (10JF144 and 145) are only referenced by their location, but 

there is no documentation available. Two sites (10JF146 and 147) are small lithic scatters that are 

probably ineligible to the NRHP (see Table 5.1 below). One site (10JF394) contains rock circles that 

may be the remnants of tipi rings and was recommended to be eligible to the NRHP (Harding 2005). 

The isolated projectile point is an Elko corner-notched type that was used for a rather long period 

over a wide area of the Great Basin and Plateau regions. Isolated artifacts are ineligible to the NRHP. 

There has never been a large scale village or Paleoindian site identified within the refuge boundaries. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

5-10 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

The presence of such a small number of sites relating to Native American people on the Refuge is 

probably due to the fact that less than half of the Refuge has been surveyed for archaeological 

evidence and because of the marshy condition of the refuge core area. Use of the area by Shoshone 

and Bannock people is expected. The occasional projectile point or tool may be found, but no Native 

American camps have been identified on the Refuge. Recorded prehistoric sites are summarized in 

Table 5.1. 

None of the archaeological sites recorded on Camas NWR are documented as containing human 

remains. However, if sites identified on the Refuge are found to contain human remains, funerary 

items, sacred objects, or items of cultural patrimony, then consideration under the Native American 

Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA) will be required. 

Table 5.1. Recorded Prehistoric Resources on Camas Refuge 

Site # Site Type Description/ 

Materials 

Condition/ 

Integrity 

Eligibility1-

A, B, C, D DOE2

Surveyor/ 

Report 

Author. 

Date 

Recorded 

10JF144 Prehistoric No site form. 

10JF145 Prehistoric No site form. 

10JF146 Lithic 

scatter 

100-200 flakes, 

mostly 

ignimbrite, no 

tools. 

Poor NE D. 

Corbett, 

BLM, 

1980 

10JF147 Small lithic 

scatter 

100-500 flakes, 

mostly 

ignimbrite, no 

tools. 

Poor NE D. 

Corbett, 

BLM, 

2005 

10JF393 Isolate Obsidian, Elko 

Corner-notched 

point. 

N/A NE N/A W. 

Harding, 

2005 

10JF394 Rock rings Protohistoric, 

flakes and 

glass, tipi rings 

(?). 

Fair D W. 

Harding, 

2005 

1

Criteria A, B, C, D based on NRHP. 

2

Determination of Eligibility with SHPO concurrence, need date and verification. 

Big Southern Butte and its associated sacred landscape are very important to the Tribes. Big Southern 

Butte is the largest and youngest (300,000 years old) of three rhyolitic domes formed over a million 

years near the center of the Eastern Snake River Plain in Idaho. It consists of two coalesced lava 

domes with a base diameter of 6.5 kilometers (4.0 miles). In essence, the Big Southern Butte sacred 

landscape consists of the area that can be observed from the top of Big Southern Butte, which rises 

approximately 2,500 vertical feet (762 meters) above the lava plain. The butte has not been formally 

evaluated as a traditional cultural property, but the butte is visible from the Refuge; major changes to 

the landscape should be considered in terms of this viewshed. 

Historic Period Sites. A number of known historical sites were tied to agricultural land claims. 

Sixty-one land claim patents were filed on the Camas NWR. There were 53 individuals who may 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-11 

have built homes, buildings, and fences on lands now encompassed by Camas NWR. The potential 

for finding archaeological evidence of nineteenth-century settlers is therefore very high. For 

instance, all seven historical archaeological sites identified to date are related to homestead 

settlement. 

The Camas NWR headquarters is composed of three primary buildings built by the WPA: the service 

building, which includes the office and four-bay vehicle storage and shop; the equipment shed; and 

the refuge manager’s residence. Plans for the service building and equipment shed were developed 

during the early 1930s by architects in Washington D.C for the Bureau of Biological Survey. They 

were originally designed for Hart Mountain Antelope Refuge in Oregon, but were slightly modified 

to fit the needs of Camas NWR. The residence was a new design, developed in the Washington D.C. 

office for the Refuge in 1938. Secondary buildings, such as the oil house, have been added to the 

headquarters. The oil house was constructed in the 1950s and built with CMU block; this building 

was determined to be ineligible to the NRHP (see Table 5.2 below). A new shop was added to the 

headquarters compound in 2005-2006 and a residence was constructed off-site for the refuge 

manager in 2001. 

A portion of the existing dikes, canals, bridges, culverts, and other infrastructure were built by the 

WPA workers between 1938 and 1941. There are currently 26 miles of dikes, 34 miles of canals, 9 

irrigation wells, 9 bridges, and 130 water control/irrigation structures (Camas NWR Real Property 

Inventory). One bridge (51-017946) has been recorded that was part of the 1930s development of the 

Refuge (Harding 2005). 

Another site that may have historical significance is the site of the old Stage Coach Inn near the shore 

of Sandhole Lake. The inn was occupied during the height of traffic that traveled to and from the 

gold mines in Montana. Building foundations and wagon wheel tracks are still visible at the site. 

Table 5.2 lists the historic-period resources on Camas NWR that have been recorded to date. 

Table 5.2. Recorded Historic Period Resources on Camas Refuge. 

Site/Resource 

Patent # Site Type Description Integrity Eligibility1

A,B,C,D 

DOE

2

Surveyor/ 

Report Author, 

Date Recorded 

10JF389 

320613 

HE, James 

Henrie 1913 

Glass, ceramic, 

cans, stove, 

horseshoes, 

barrel hoops. 

Poor NE Harding 2005 

10JF390 

356051 

HE, Thomas 

Gange, 1913 

Depression, 

ceramics, glass, 

cans, nails, etc. 

Poor NE Harding 2005 

10JF391 

655395 

HE, James 

Collins 1918 

Foundation, 

depression, 

ceramics, glass, 

cans, etc. 

Poor NE Harding 2005 

10JF392 

450917 

HE, William 

Dalton 1914 

Bottles and cans 

dump. Purex. 

Poor NE Harding 2005 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

5-12 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

Site/Resource 

Patent # Site Type Description Integrity Eligibility1

A,B,C,D 

DOE

2

Surveyor/ 

Report Author, 

Date Recorded 

10JF396 

1050 

CE, Charles 

Schmidt, 

1901 

Five Dumps: 

Household and 

farm equip., 

stoves, glass, 

cans, car parts, 

BS license plate. 

Fair A,D Harding 2005 

10JF398 

562395 

HE, William 

Henrie 1913 

Household and 

farm equip. dump 

Poor NE Harding 2005 

10JF399 

856094 

HE, Charles 

Perkins 1922 

Household and 

farm equip. 

dump, large 

assortment 

Poor NE Harding 2005 

51-017946 Bridge 1938 WPA 

bridge with basalt 

abutments, and 

wood stringers 

and decking. 

Fair NE Harding 2005 

51-017947 

(10JF388) 

Irrigation 

Ditch 

Wide shallow 

irrigation Ditch 

8" wide, 

truncated at 

either end. 

Poor NE Harding 2005 

51-017948 

(10JF395) 

Canal and 

lateral 

Canal 30" wide; 

lateral 12" wide 

Fair A Harding 2005 

51-017949 

(10JF397) 

Irrigation 

Ditch 

Lateral 12" wide 

next to road 

Fair A Harding 2005 

2706-14 Canal Independence 

Canal, 30" wide, 

still in use. 

Good A 

HQ Residence Camas NWR 

Headquarters, 

Refuge Manager 

House, 1938 

Good A,C 2002 Speulda 2002 

HQ Service 

Building 

Camas NWR 

Headquarters, 

Office and 

garage, 1938 

Good A,C 2002 Speulda 2002 

HQ Shop Camas NWR 

Headquarters, 

Shop, 1938 

Good A,C 2002 Speulda 2002 

HQ Oil Building Camas NWR 

Headquarters, 

Storage building, 

1950s 

Fair NE 2002 Speulda 2002 

Brown Farm Farm Garage, barn, 

equip. storage, 

root cellar, well, 

Fair NE 2007 Speulda-Drews 

2007 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-13 

Site/Resource 

Patent # Site Type Description Integrity Eligibility1

A,B,C,D 

DOE

2

Surveyor/ 

Report Author, 

Date Recorded 

corral—no house. 

Quarters #2 Residence, 

garage 

Bramwell house 

and garage, 

1930s, moved 

1952. 

Good NE 2007 Speulda-Drews 

2007 

1

Criteria A, B, C, D based on NRHP. 

2

Determination of Eligibility with SHPO concurrence, need date and verification. 

Cultural Resource Surveys 

Cultural resource surveys are required whenever the Refuge undertakes a project that will disturb the 

ground or likely to cause harm to any cultural resources that could potentially be impacted by a 

project. Archaeological fieldwork on Camas NWR has focused on compliance with Section 106 of 

the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) for a variety of undertakings including developing 

gravel borrow pits, levee/dike construction or maintenance, canal maintenance, prescribed burns, 

road development and maintenance, land exchanges, rehabilitation of the Headquarters buildings and 

Quarters #2, and demolition of buildings. Surveys have been completed by USFWS Cultural 

Resources Team, private contractors, Idaho Department of Transportation, Bureau of Land 

Management, and University of Idaho staff. Table 5.3 provides a summary of projects that have 

occurred on the Refuge. Reports generated by the surveys are cited, when applicable, in the 

References section of this document. Electronic copies of most of the reports are stored at the 

USFWS Region 1/Region 8 Cultural Resources Team Office in Sherwood, Oregon. However, 

reports prepared prior to 1989 or prepared by NRCS are not accessible to researchers at this time. 

Table 5.3. Cultural Resource Surveys on the Camas Refuge (by year) 

Surveyor/ 

Report 

Author 

Report # Date Type Acres 

Surveyed Project Title/Results 

Hill 1980 Survey 5 Class III Inventory for Proposed Dike 

Construction; lithic scatter, log building. 

Butler 1980 Survey 140 Proposed Grain Field Irrigation Improvements; 

Negative. 

Butler 1980 Survey 250 Proposed Marsh and Nesting Developments; 

Negative. 

Butler 1989/1004 1980 Survey 155 Cult. Res. Inventory of Proposed Land 

Exchange; Negative. 

Butler 1989/1006 1984 Survey 5 Cyclical Maintenance of Canals; Negative. 

Power 1989/5509 1985 Survey 120 CRCW, Medicine Lodge 3Rd Qtr, BLM; 

Negative. 

Johnson 1989/3214 1987 Survey 270 PSR, Hamer I.C.-Dubois I.C., IDOT; 

Negative. 

Johnson 1989/3215 1987 Survey 14 PSR, Hamer to Dubois Southbound Borrow 

#4, IDOT; Negative. 

Wilde 1987 Survey 1 Blacksmith Shop Removal. 

Sappington 1989/6002 1988 Survey 20 Recon. of Three Areas Adjacent to Mud Lake 

and Camas Creek, Letter Report 88-17. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

5-14 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

Surveyor/ 

Report 

Author 

Report # Date Type Acres 

Surveyed Project Title/Results 

Hill 1990/50 1989 Survey 40 Joseph Marty Family Trust Bureau Motion 

Sale, BLM; Negative. 

Hill 1991/79 1990 Survey 80 Mickelson Land Use Permit, BLM; Negative. 

Hill 1991/84 1991 Survey 80 Mickelson BLM land exchange; Negative. 

Hill 1992/422 1992 Survey 20 Buck Springs Livestock Well, BLM; Negative. 

Valentine 1994/2 1993 Survey 4 Well #4 Impoundment; Negative. 

Harvey 1997/570 1996 Survey 120 Cult. Res. Investigations, Sanders Land 

Exchange and Bybee Tract Projects; Negative. 

Bourdeaux 2000 Survey 1 New house location; Negative 

Blackmer 2001/803 2000 Survey 1 Robert Bybee Windbreak, NRCS; Negative. 

Burnside 2002/220 2000 Survey 8 Camas Refuge Road Repairs and Pullouts; 

Negative. 

Burnside 2001 Survey 150 Brindley Unit Prescribed Burn; Negative 

Burnside 2001/851 2001 Survey 1 New Apple Orchard Road; Negative. 

Burnside 2001/852 2001 Survey 3 New Dike Road; Negative. 

Burnside 2001/853 2001 Survey 25 Camas Refuge Borrow Areas; Negative. 

Sayer 2001/1020 2001 Survey 1 Nextel Partners Cell Tower; Negative. 

Harding 

and Green 2001/1026 2001 Survey 4 50 Clear Talk Cell Towers; Negative. 

Speulda 2002/456 2002 Survey 2 Headquarters Evaluation; DOE eligible (3) 

SpeuldaDrews 2003 

Advers

e 

Effect 

1 ADA Ramp on Residence. 

Valentine 2004/388 2003 Survey 11 Buck Springs Wild Fire Appendix B Report; 

Negative. 

Burnside 2004/385 2003 Survey 3 Interstate-15 Buried Power Line; Negative. 

Valentine 2004/386 2003 Survey 8 Independent Wild Fire; Negative. 

Harding 2006/289 2005 Survey 83 Camas NWR CRS-7; Negative. 

Harding 2006/290 2005 Survey 129 Camas NWR CRS-1 (Buck Springs 

Revegetation); Negative. 

SpeuldaDrews 2007/527 2007 Survey 3 Brown Tract and Quarters #2 Evaluation; DOE 

ineligible. 

Harding 2007/870 2005 Survey 2740 Camas NWR Prescribed Burn Parcels; 14 CRs 

Hill 2008/637 2008 Survey 1 Mud Lake Water users ROW, BLM; Negative. 

5.2 Refuge Facilities 

5.2.1 Entrance and Access Points 

The administrative facility of Camas NWR can be accessed from Interstate 15 via Exit 150 to the 

town of Hamer. From Hamer, the turnoff is about three miles north on the Old Butte Highway at an 

overpass and county road 2350 N. The refuge headquarters is approximately two miles west of the 

overpass. Two access points for vehicles currently exist: the main access point is from the north via 

the headquarters at a paved parking lot with an informational/orientation kiosk, brochure box, and 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-15 

comfort station that leads south to the auto tour route; and a second from the south on gravel Country 

Road 2200 E that connects to the southern portion of the auto tour route. 

5.2.2 Boundary Fences and Markers 

Currently Camas NWR encompasses 10,806 acres and is marked with refuge signs and a four-wire 

fence around most of the perimeter. Signs are placed at least one per quarter mile and corners are 

marked with multiple signs. At the south end of the Refuge, which borders a paved county road and 

agricultural fields, maintenance of fence has proved difficult over the years as strong spring winds 

and sand drifts have continually buried fence and signs. Currently the Refuge maintains only 

boundary signs in this area. Fences must be maintained yearly to prevent livestock on adjacent lands 

from entering the Refuge. The east side of the Refuge is directly adjacent to Interstate 15 and fences 

along this boundary prevent access from the Interstate. 

5.2.3 Roads and Parking Areas 

Camas NWR has a total of approximately 39 miles of roads. Most of these are dirt or gravel. In some 

stretches dikes built for impounding water act as roads. It appears that most of the roads on the 

Refuge were created for livestock access before the Service had purchased the property. After 

grazing was discontinued in 1993, all roads remained open to public vehicle traffic until 2006, when 

approximately 27 miles of service roads were closed to public vehicle traffic because of disturbance 

to wildlife. All roads closed to vehicular traffic remain open to hiking, biking, and jogging during the 

summer and snowshoeing and cross-country skiing in the winter. Horseback riding by grazing 

permittees was allowed under grazing permits, but has not been allowed since grazing on the Refuge 

was discontinued in 1993. 

A total of 12.8 miles of refuge roads are open to public vehicle traffic: a 6.3 mile auto tour route, 

which begins south of the paved parking lot at the headquarters site; and 6.5 miles of hunter access 

roads, which are open to public vehicle traffic during the hunting season. Four hunter access parking 

lots are provided along these roads. 

The auto-tour route has eight interpretive signs placed at strategic locations to enhance visitor 

knowledge of the surrounding area, history, wildlife, and wildlife management practices, as well as 

17 vehicle turnouts where visitors can stop along the way. The auto-tour route has a cutoff that 

allows visitors to take a shorter, three mile loop if desired. The auto tour route is open year-round to 

visitors, and the roads are currently maintained via snow plowing in the winter. 

5.2.4 Trails

Currently the Refuge has an asphalt walkway that starts at the main entrance parking lot and leads to 

the main office or continues on to a viewing platform that overlooks Camas Creek. This short (1/2 

mile) trail was designed to allow wheelchair access to the creek channel. The overlook is a wooden 

platform on the bank of the creek with two wooden benches that offer a place to sit and enjoy the 

creek and observe birds that use the riparian vegetation on the banks of Camas Creek. Also starting 

from the main entrance parking lot is an unfinished (1/2 mile) gravel walking trail that leads through 

the old shelterbelt trees at refuge headquarters and provides good access to some of the best birding 

on the Refuge. This trail was started in 2005 with volunteer labor and the entire loop still needs to be 

designed and constructed. With the help of volunteer labor the Refuge hopes to complete the 1.3 

mile loop within the next three years. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

5-16 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

5.2.5 Administrative and Visitor Facilities 

The refuge headquarters has three buildings that were constructed by WPA crews in the late 1930s 

and early 1940s: a welding shop with two storage bays, a heated maintenance building with four 

bays, and a combination manager’s office and residence. All these buildings are of wood 

construction with lava rock used for siding. Maintenance of the roof, windows and soffits has been 

done over the years and the buildings remain in reasonable shape. In 2001 a new manager’s 

residence was constructed on the Refuge about one mile from headquarters, and the old WPA-era 

manager’s residence has become the main office. A deck was added on the office’s south entrance 

which includes a ramp for wheelchair accessibility. The old office area is still currently used by 

seasonal employees and volunteers. The other shop areas are used as storage for refuge equipment. 

A new maintenance shop was completed in 2005 with two large vehicle or heavy equipment bays and 

one drive-through equipment bay. This building is used for most repairs on equipment and vehicles 

and storage for heavy equipment. Directly adjacent to the shop is a Hazmat building, and two 1,000-

gallon fuel storage tanks for unleaded and diesel fuel. 

Besides the refuge manager’s house, two other buildings exist on the Refuge, both within two miles 

of the main compound: a second residential building exists that is used as a bunkhouse to house 

seasonal employees and volunteers of the Refuge, and a cinder block storage building about 1/4 mile 

east of the Refuge. This building was acquired with the purchase of the property and is still used for 

extra storage when needed. 

A number of general visitor facilities have been constructed on the Refuge, including: an information 

kiosk; a comfort station with parking lot and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-accessible 

restrooms at the refuge headquarters; and six hunter parking areas . 

5.2.6 Easements and Rights-of-Way 

The Refuge has multiple right-of-way agreements with Rocky Mountain Power (formerly Utah 

Power and Light Company) for power lines that cross or provide electrical service to the Refuge. 

Periodic updates to these rights-of-way have been carried out for service lines that still exist. 

The Refuge also has two water supply ditches (Independent Ditch and Jacket Ditch) that are operated 

today by the Mud Lake Water Users, Inc. Independent Ditch was in use when the Refuge was 

established in 1937, and was then operated by the Independent Water Users of Mud Lake, Inc. who 

had an agreement with the former owner of this property, the Idaho Livestock Corporation. Water 

that flowed from the Bucks Springs wells (located on just outside the west boundary of the Refuge) is 

the headwater to Independent Ditch and was used to supply water for downstream irrigation. Water 

from the Independent Ditch eventually flows into the Camas Creek channel as it nears what is now 

the Mud Lake State Wildlife Area. Independent Water Users of Mud Lake, Inc. has maintained and 

deepened Independent Ditch since the Refuge was established. 

Jacket Ditch also starts at a well on private land and flows through the Refuge and eventually ties 

into Independent Ditch, supplying water for downstream irrigators. This ditch was dug sometime in 

the 1940s and was protested by the refuge manager at the time. For reasons that are unclear, the 

ditch was allowed to remain and still exists today. It is unclear if a current easement or right-of-way 

exists for either Independent Ditch or Jacket Ditch on the Refuge. An informal agreement with the 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-17 

Mud Lake Water Users, Inc. allows them vehicle access via refuge roads to perform maintenance 

work and regular checks of the Buck Springs wells. 

5.2.7 Dikes, Irrigation, and Water Control Structures 

As with many refuges, Camas NWR has a complicated network of water control structures. As the 

Refuge exists today, there are approximately 26 miles of dikes, 34 miles of water delivery ditches, 9 

bridges, and 130 water control and/or irrigation structures. Also present and still in use are nine 

irrigation wells, with seven of these being used exclusively for providing water for wetland habitat. 

Two irrigation wells are used for sprinkler irrigation of crops produced under cooperative farming 

agreements to provide short grass habitat and forage for wildlife. 

Map 12 (Chapter 4, page 4-53) shows 16 named ponds or sloughs and two lakes. Of these 18 bodies 

of water, all but four are managed intensively through the use of dikes, water control structures, and 

wells. A description of these management units is included in Chapter 4, Wetlands. 

5.3 Public Use Overview

5.3.1 Open and Closed Areas 

Open Areas. Camas NWR is open year round to visitors. The 6.3 mile auto tour route is plowed as 

needed during the winter to keep it open for vehicle traffic. 27 miles of service roads are open to 

hiking, biking, jogging, cross-country skiing, and snowshoeing year round, as conditions permit. 

Camas Refuge also has two public hunting areas for waterfowl and upland game birds. The two 

areas combined create a total of 2,510 acres of refuge lands open to public hunting. 

Seasonally Open Areas. Hiking is permitted off roads, throughout the Refuge, from July 16 through 

February 28. 

Closed Areas. Currently the Refuge does not have areas that are completely closed to public access. 

Access to some areas is limited by season or type of access (for example, motorized vehicles are 

limited to the 6.3 mile Auto Tour Route and 6.5 miles of hunter access roads) but the entire Refuge is 

accessible by some means for at least part of the year. 

5.3.2 Annual Recreation Visitors 

The area surrounding Camas NWR is composed of farms, ranches, and small rural towns. With a 

small local population base, it appears that most visitors to the Refuge come from Pocatello and 

Idaho Falls. Camas NWR is only five miles from Interstate 15 and also draws visitors that are 

traveling in the area to visit Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks. The city of Idaho Falls, 35 

miles south of the Refuge on Interstate 15, has been growing in part due to the influence and jobs 

provided by the Idaho National Laboratory (INL). 

Annual visitation before 2007 was estimated at approximately 3,500 visitors per year, however 

methods used in estimation were not documented. Carver and Caudill’s Banking on Nature study 

(2006) estimated visitation at 6,565 for that year (see Table 5.4 below). In 2007 visitation was 

estimated at over 6,300. In 2007, a traffic counter was installed at the main entrance to the Refuge. 

In 2007 visitation was estimated at over 6,300. The traffic counter malfunctioned in 2009 and only 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

5-18 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

provided data for part of the year. Still, the counter recorded 3,202 vehicles during its first five 

months of operation, and revealed an increase in public use from 2007 to 2009. A new traffic counter 

was acquired and was functional for the entire year of 2010. In 2010, visitation dropped from 2009. 

Visitation over the past five years appears to be relatively stable at approximately 6,500 visits 

annually. 

5.3.3 Annual Recreation Visits 

Recreational visits differ from overall annual visitors. A visitor is a member of the public coming to 

the Refuge to participate in an activity. In most instances, a visitor may engage in multiple activities. 

For example, one visitor may watch birds along the auto tour route, take a walk on the nature trail, 

and take pictures from various locations. In this example, the visitor actually visited three distinct 

locations. The activities of the visitor are considered visits. One visitor can register multiple visits in 

one trip and the annual sum of visits is always more than the number of visitors. Visits are measured 

by a variety of direct and indirect methods. Since 2007, vehicular visits have been measured by a 

counter installed at the entrance road. Hunting visits are measured by the number of vehicles parked 

where hunting areas are accessed. Scheduled tours and other special event visits are directly counted 

by staff conducting these activities. Other visit numbers may be estimated by staff via informal 

observations of the frequency of an activity. Also, the types of data and the methods used to capture 

those data have changed over time so that information collected in the 1970s may not translate well 

into databases used currently. 

Generally, the Refuge does not receive high visitation. Average annual visitation over 2007-2012 

was 6,600 (see Table 5.5). The majority of visitors engage in wildlife watching and wildlife 

photography. Bird watching appears to draw the most visitors, since the Refuge is known locally as a 

“birding hotspot.” More Idaho State birding records have been captured at the Refuge than at any 

other site in the State, attracting an increasing number of experienced birders. Wildlife 

photographers visit the Refuge year-round to photograph a variety of wildlife and scenic views, 

particularly looking east toward the Grand Tetons mountain range. Elk and white-tailed deer are 

popular subjects for wildlife photographers, especially during the fall rutting season. 

Recreation visits were recorded in 2006 as part of FWS’ Banking on Nature 2006: The Economic 

Benefits to Local Communities of National Wildlife Refuge Visitation report (Carver and Caudill 

2007). This is the only study on the Refuge to date, that separates visits from residents versus nonresidents. Approximately 60% of visits were by residents while 40% of visits were by nonresidents. 

In 2006, the Refuge had 6,565 visits, and almost all of the visits were for non-consumptive recreation 

(wildlife observation, photography, and interpretation). Table 5.4 shows the recreation visits for 

Camas NWR in 2006. Table 5.5 shows recreation visits and total visitation for the period 2007-2012 

from Refuge RAPP reports. 

Table 5.4. Camas Refuge 2006 Recreation Visits 

Activity Residents Non-Residents Total 

Nature Activities 

Nature Trails 225 150 375 

Observation Platforms 360 240 600 

Birding 1,200 800 2,000 

Other Wildlife Observation 585 390 975 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-19 

Table 5.4. Camas Refuge 2006 Recreation Visits 

Activity Residents Non-Residents Total 

Other recreation 1,560 1,040 2,600 

Hunting 

Small Game 5 0 5 

Migratory Birds 10 1 11 

Total Visitation 3,944 2,621 6,565 

Source: Carver and Caudill 2007. 

Table 5.5. Camas Refuge 2007-2012 Recreation Visits and Total Visitation 

Activity 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

Average 

2007-2012 

Wildlife 

Obs. (Auto) 4,500 4,800 4,000 5,600 5,500 6,100 5,083 

Wildlife 

Obs. (Foot) 475 650 850 1,000 1,350 1,200 921 

Photography 400 450 600 500 650 1,000 600 

Envir.Ed. 

(on site) 100 60 73 100 250 500 181 

Special 

Events 130 150 130 180 120 170 129 

Waterfowl 

Hunting 10 10 8 8 5 6 8 

Other migr. 

bird hunting -- -- -- 2 8 10 3 

Upland 

game 

hunting 

5 5 5 2 12 12 7 

Total 

hunting 15 15 13 12 25 28 18 

Total 

visitation 6,300 7,000 7,512 6,600 5,800 6,400 6,602 

Source: USFWS, Camas NWR, Multi-Year RAPP report, August 30, 2012. 

5.3.4 Recreation and Entrance Fee Program 

The Refuge does not charge entrance fees or other recreation fees. 

5.3.5 Accessibility of Recreation Sites and Programs for People with 

Disabilities 

The building now serving as the main office for Camas NWR has a deck built on the main entrance 

with an accessible ramp for use by people with disabilities. A paved path was constructed from the 

main entrance parking lot to an overlook of Camas Creek to provide universal access to for visitors to 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

5-20 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

see the creek, observe wildlife, and experience the riparian habitat. In addition to these facilities, a 

comfort station in the main parking lot is accessible by people with disabilities. 

5.3.6 Law Enforcement 

Camas NWR receives law enforcement coverage from a full-time officer stationed at the Southeast 

Idaho NWR Complex office in Chubbuck. This officer is also assigned to the Minidoka, Grays Lake, 

and Bear Lake NWRs as well as special assignments at other refuges in the region. Refuge Law 

Enforcement Officers enforce special refuge regulations via periodic patrols of refuge lands, protect 

resources, and maintain public safety. The most common law enforcement issues encountered are 

trespass into closed areas of the Refuge, hunting violations (bag limit violations and poaching), 

hunting without the proper licenses, vandalism (defacing signs), and littering. 

5.4 Wildlife-dependent Recreation 

5.4.1 Hunting

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act was passed by Congress in 1997 and 

identified hunting as a wildlife-dependent, priority public use for the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. At Camas NWR the waterfowl hunting and upland game hunting programs are operated in a 

manner that is consistent and compatible with the Refuge’s purposes and goals. These programs 

contribute to the continuation of America’s traditions and heritage in wildlife conservation and 

outdoor recreation. This section discusses both waterfowl and upland game hunting, as both 

programs are small and use the same facilities. 

Facilities 

The Refuge provides and maintains roads that provide hunters with vehicle access to two separate 

hunting units. The South Hunt Unit is 1,570 acres and has four mowed grass parking areas with 

brochure boxes at each area. The North Hunt Unit is 983 acres and has two designated parking spots 

in addition to mowed space. There are also 6.5 miles of unpaved hunter access roads on the Refuge. 

Hunt Program History 

Upon refuge establishment in 1937, hunting was not allowed on the Refuge. A 1,000-acre public 

hunting area was opened for the first time on Camas NWR in 1957 (22 FR 5898, July 25, 1957). In 

1960, waterfowl hunting was closed on the Refuge due to lack of hunting demand and some concern 

that pressure on the birds was sending them farther south and leaving less available later into the 

hunting season. However, in 1960 antelope hunting was allowed on the Refuge for the first time, due 

to high populations and the number of depredation complaints received by the Idaho Department of 

Fish and Game. In 1961, waterfowl hunting was reopened on the Refuge. Antelope hunting was 

allowed for another year, but closed in 1962. In 1962, approximately 2,240 acres of the Refuge were 

opened to the public for pheasant hunting for the first time. 

In 1965, there was a significant expansion of the hunting area on the Refuge with the opening of 

2,340 acres around Rays Lake; however, this fluctuated over the coming years. Both the waterfowl 

and pheasant hunting areas were combined for a total of approximately 3,440 acres open to hunting. 

Antelope hunting was again allowed on the Refuge in 1967 on approximately 1,100 acres, but was 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-21 

closed again in 1972 due to declining numbers on the Refuge. Since the closure of antelope hunting 

in 1972, no big game hunting has occurred on the Refuge. 

Sage-grouse were added to the species of upland game birds that were huntable on the Refuge in 

1969. In 1972, hunting around Rays Lake was closed to provide sanctuary for Canada geese. Since 

geese numbers were growing, hunters had ample opportunities to harvest birds as they left the 

Refuge to feed. 

Sixty chukar partridges were released on the Refuge in 1940 and 30 Hungarian partridge were 

released in 1941. The chukar partridges left the Refuge not long after the release and headed for 

higher country, and no other attempts were made to establish a population of this species on Camas 

NWR. Other releases of Hungarian partridges have occurred on the Refuge since 1941, although the 

birds have not consistently stayed on the Refuge. Many of the releases were done by groups that used 

the Refuge for dog trials over the years, especially in the 1960s and 1970s. Dog trials are no longer 

allowed on the Refuge. 

Number of Hunters and Harvest Statistics 

The first year waterfowl hunting opened on the Refuge (1957), refuge employees checked 130 

hunters, according to the annual narrative (Camas Migratory Waterfowl Refuge 1957). This level of 

use has not been sustained over time. Waterfowl hunting is a small program, and it is estimated that 

waterfowl hunters total less than 15 hunters per year. From 2007-2012, there were an average of 8 

waterfowl hunt visits per year. 

Current Hunt Program 

Waterfowl and upland game hunting are allowed on Camas NWR today, in two different units that 

total 2,510 acres. Ducks, geese, coots, mergansers, snipe, pheasants, and sage-grouse may be hunted. 

All other species of wildlife are protected and may not be harvested. Hunting is in accordance with 

Idaho, Federal, and refuge regulations. Approved non-toxic shot is required for hunting all species. 

During hunting season, waterfowl hunters may enter the Refuge one hour before legal hunting hours. 

Official shooting hours are from 1/2 hour before sunrise until sunset (Standard Time), in accordance 

with Idaho Department of Fish and Game regulations. Temporary blinds of natural vegetation may 

be constructed, but such blinds shall be available for general use on a first-come, first-served basis. 

Construction of permanent blinds is prohibited and all personal property, including decoys, must be 

removed from the Refuge at the end of each day. The Refuge allows a youth hunt according to Idaho 

State regulations. The youth hunt usually occurs on the weekend prior to the regular hunting season 

opener. 

Currently, hunting is not a popular activity on the Refuge. Waterfowl hunting opportunities are low 

to almost non-existent, since the lowering of the groundwater table has made it difficult to hold water 

in the hunt area during fall migration. When water is flowing through the main diversion or 

Independent Ditch, there are some opportunities to jump shoot waterfowl, and a handful of hunters 

may attempt this per year. Better opportunities exist when waterfowl leave the refuge wetlands in the 

morning and evening to feed on private agricultural fields. 

Opportunities to hunt upland game birds are also minimal due to low populations of sage-grouse, 

ring-necked pheasants, and Hungarian partridge. Sage-grouse still use the Refuge, but by the time 

the hunting season starts, most of the birds have moved off the Refuge to private irrigated alfalfa 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

5-22 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

fields to prepare for the coming winter. Populations of game birds are cyclical, and numbers of 

pheasants and partridges have been increasing in recent years. If the numbers continue to increase, 

hunters would again have opportunities to hunt upland game birds on the Refuge. 

Big game hunting has not been allowed since 1972. Very few requests for big game hunting have 

been made over the years. The Refuge currently acts as a sanctuary for elk during the regular State 

hunting season, and has hosted about 120-130 elk in the winter in recent years. A limited big game 

hunting program is proposed in the Preferred Alternative of the Draft CCP/EA (see Chapter 2). 

5.4.2 Fishing 

In 1954, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game officially opened Camas NWR to fishing; however, 

fishing was not allowed by the Refuge. In the same year, IDFG used liquid Rotenone to poison fish 

in Mud Lake, refuge lakes and ponds, and Camas Creek and then stocked Camas Creek and Mud 

Lake with trout the following year (1955). Sport fishing has never been opened as a public use on 

Camas NWR due to a lack of adequate fishing opportunities as a result of inconsistent water flows in 

Camas Creek and low water levels on the Refuge in lakes and ponds. 

5.4.3 Wildlife Observation and Photography 

The vast majority of visitors to Camas NWR today participate in wildlife observation and 

photography. Camas NWR is one of the premier birding spots in Idaho and has the distinction of 

more rare bird sightings than any other location in the State. Motorized vehicles (on the auto tour 

route only), hiking, bicycling, cross-country skiing, and snowshoeing are all available modes of 

engaging in wildlife observation and photography. Pets are allowed on the Refuge while on leash or 

under the control of the owner. 

Facilities 

There are a number of facilities that support wildlife observation and photography activities on the 

Refuge. There is a 1/2 mile birding trail at the headquarters. Shelterbelt habitat, consisting of both 

native and non-native trees and shrubs, is maintained to provide habitat for migrating songbirds. 

There is one observation platform on the banks of Camas Creek that offers visitors another 

opportunity to observe wildlife and unique refuge habitat. The 6.3-mile auto tour route is open to 

motorized vehicles and all non-vehicular uses. Along the auto tour route, there are six designated 

parking areas to allow visitors to pull off the road and observe wildlife from their vehicles safely. A 

number of panels and pullouts are also available for visitors. In addition to the auto tour route, there 

are also approximately 27 miles of dirt and/or gravel service roads that are open year-round to 

nonmotorized uses. Hiking off-road is allowed throughout the Refuge from July 15 through 

February 28; portable photography blinds may be used as long as users obey closure dates. 

Program Details 

A wildlife list brochure, produced in coordination with the Audubon Society and other subject 

material experts, is available at the headquarters and provides an excellent source of information for 

wildlife viewing. Along the auto tour route, visitors can observe wildlife around the core marsh 

areas, with views of several different habitat types and wetlands. Spring and fall migration provide 

the best opportunity to view and photograph wildlife. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-23 

One the highest visitor use periods on the Refuge is in late March, during spring migration when the 

waterfowl return to the area enroute north to their breeding grounds. Tundra swans numbering in the 

hundreds can be seen from various locations on the Refuge. The arrival of the snow geese is the 

most popular viewing opportunity for visitors, as 10,000 to 15,000 geese typically crowd into the 

limited open water in the Refuge’s core marsh area, and are visible from the auto tour route. 

Another popular opportunity occurs in late fall when the white tailed-deer begin their rutting activity 

on the Refuge. This event is particularly popular with photographers looking to photograph large 

bucks in daylight conditions. In addition to the spring and fall seasons, Camas NWR also has 

wildlife viewing in mid-winter when bald eagles return to their night roosts in large cottonwood trees 

near the refuge headquarters. Up to 85 eagles have been observed in these trees at one time, but 

typically numbers peak between 40 and 50. Visitors who are willing to brave the cold can enjoy the 

sights and sounds of bald eagles flying in to roost at sunset. 

5.4.4 Environmental Education 

Currently there is no dedicated refuge staff or facilities to support environmental education. Since 

the Refuge was established in 1937, it has been part of the refuge managers’ duties to schedule 

environmental education activities with schools and special interest groups to promote and educate 

groups about the Refuge. In the early years of refuge establishment, managers visited different club 

or organizational meetings (such as sportsmen’s groups, Rotary Clubs, etc.) and also conducted tours 

and school programs as requested. 

Currently, with no visitor services staff for the Refuge or the Refuge Complex, and a small number of 

volunteers, EE and interpretation programs on the Refuge are limited. Requests to accommodate both 

local and area public schools, university groups, and area community service organizations has 

increased substantially over the years, although total demand has been relatively low due to lack of 

promotion and travel funding in recent years by school districts. The refuge manager provides tours 

to Scout groups on request, providing 6-10 tours that serve approximately 150-200 Scouts annually. 

In the fall of 2010, a few retired teachers initiated a volunteer program at Camas NWR aimed at 

providing educational opportunities and primarily hosted Boy Scout groups, reaching an additional 

250 students and Scouts annually. In 2011, volunteers conducted environmental education for 250 

students and Scouts; in 2012 this number jumped to 500, which was due to an increase in group size 

(number of groups remained the same). Currently, the volunteers are continuing to conduct outreach 

to expand this program for the future. 

5.4.5 Interpretation 

Interpretive panels along the Refuge’s auto tour route provide opportunities for visitors to learn about 

to the Refuge’s wildlife and resources. Ten panels were installed along the route in 2004. Topics 

covered in the interpretation program include: farming for wildlife, wetlands management, sources of 

refuge water, geographic features, Brindley Barn, Camas Creek wildlife and habitats, swan nesting, 

muskrat management, cooperative habitat restoration, colonial nesting birds, and uplands ecology. 

As with environmental education programs, there is no dedicated refuge staff to conduct 

interpretation, but the refuge manager conducts interpretive programs upon request. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

5-24 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

5.5 Illegal Uses 

Camas NWR has a history of sporadic illegal activity. One of the major concerns is poaching of big 

game animals such as white-tailed deer and elk, particularly trophy class or larger-sized deer and elk; 

however this is a fairly small problem. Other issues include: trespass into closed areas of the Refuge; 

hunting in closed areas; driving vehicles on closed roads; visiting the Refuge after dark when closed; 

trespass of cattle belonging to nearby landowners onto refuge lands; off-road vehicle use; and 

vandalism to signs, gates and fences. Illegal uses persist partly because of the remoteness of the 

Refuge and limited law enforcement capability. 

5.6 Area Outdoor Recreational Opportunities and Trends

5.6.1 Nearby Recreational Opportunities 

The Refuge is located 35 miles north of the city of Idaho Falls and five miles west of Interstate 15 in 

Jefferson County and is within 100 miles of the entrances of Yellowstone National Park and Grand 

Teton National Park. These two major attractions lie just to the east in the States of Wyoming and 

Montana; the Grand Teton mountains are visible from the Refuge on clear days. Due to its location 

along a major highway and in close proximity to the national parks, Camas NWR receives a fair 

number of national and international visitors. 

Eastern Idaho provides vast opportunities for a variety of hunting and fishing activities. In particular, 

the area is known for its big game hunting opportunities, including white-tailed and mule deer, elk, 

moose, antelope, bear, and other species. The Snake River Plain also provides opportunities to hunt 

birds such as ducks, geese, cranes, and upland birds such as pheasants, Hungarian partridge, turkeys, 

and forest grouse. The area boasts rivers, lakes and streams that provide high quality fishing 

opportunities. Excellent fly-fishing opportunities for a variety of trout species exist on the Henry’s 

Fork, North Fork, and South Fork. The area also contains reservoirs such as Henry’s Lake, Island 

Park Reservoir, and Palisades Reservoir that provide opportunities for fishing, boating, and other 

water sports. 

Both the Forest Service (FS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) own thousands of acres within 

a short distance of the Refuge. In Jefferson County, about 51 percent of the land is public land 

(Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation [IDPR] 2006). A small portion of Jefferson County is 

included in the Targhee National Forest, which provides a variety of outdoor activities for the public, 

including off-road vehicle (ORV) use, hiking, horseback riding, hunting, fishing, camping, and 

photography. The BLM owns thousands of acres of high desert habitat within the Snake River Plain, 

including land adjacent to the western refuge boundary. Approximately 25 percent of Jefferson 

County is BLM land (IDPR 2006), where visitors can enjoy hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, ORV 

use, horseback riding, and photography. A popular BLM recreational opportunity with local 

residents is the St. Anthony Sand Dunes-Egin Lakes Access near St. Anthony, ID, about 30 miles east 

of Camas Refuge. This area of pure sand dunes is open in places to ORV use and attracts many 

enthusiasts during the summer. 

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game also operates various Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) 

within the region. Two that are very close to Camas NWR are Mud Lake WMA to the west, and 

Market Lake WMA to the southeast. Both of these WMAs provide opportunities to hunt waterfowl, 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-25 

deer, elk, and upland game birds, including pheasants. These areas are also frequented by birders and 

photographers. 

5.6.2 Outdoor Recreation Rates and Trends 

The Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation (IDPR) produces the Idaho Statewide Comprehensive 

Outdoor Recreation and Tourism Plan (SCORTP), under the direction of the Idaho SCORTP Task 

Force. The Task Force is comprised of representatives from public and private organizations 

statewide with interest in outdoor recreation. The plan, which is required by the National Park 

Service (NPS) in order to maintain eligibility for participation in the Federal Land and Water 

Conservation Fund (LWCF) program, is produced every five years. The plan includes a statewide 

assessment of outdoor recreation supply and demand, public involvement, and a wetlands 

component. For the 2006-2010 SCORTP (IDPR 2006), the IDPR surveyed Idahoans statewide to 

determine their participation in a wide range of recreational activities, and to get a sense of the 

public’s priorities on issues related to outdoor recreation. In addition, staff reviewed other statewide 

studies related to outdoor recreation conducted during the past five years. 

Current Participation Rates. The 2006-2010 Idaho SCORTP (IDPR 2006) and associated 

recreation survey identified a number of major categories (activity areas) of outdoor recreation, 

subdivided into recreational activities. Survey results were organized statewide as well as regionally, 

with Jefferson County included in the Region 6 study area for SCORTP. Walking was the most 

popular outdoor recreation activity in both Idaho and in Region 6, with 78.4 percent of adult 

Idahoans and 80.7 percent of Region 6 adult residents walking for exercise or pleasure. Idahoans 

also participate in wildlife-dependent recreational activities, including hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, and photography. Idahoans and residents in Region 6 participate in these activities 

about the same amount, although Region 6 had slightly higher participation in shore fishing due to 

the availability of rivers and streams to access (65.5 percent for Region 6 versus 57.5 percent for 

Idaho) and watching wildlife other than birds or fish (66.6 percent for Region 6 versus 63 percent for 

Idaho). Residents in Region 6 in particular had high participation in cross-country skiing, at 26.9 

percent for the region versus 16.6 percent for the State. Compared to national participation rates, 

Idahoans participate in waterfowl hunting nearly six times as often. Non-consumptive wildlife 

activities, such as wildlife viewing, were also higher than the national average. Table 5.6 shows 

statewide and Region 6 participation in activities that are currently allowed on the Refuge.

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

Region 6 (includes Jefferson County)

Recreation Activity Rank Idaho Adult Residents 

Participation 

Idaho Region 6 Adult 

Residents Participation 

Nature Activities 

Observe wildlife other than birds, fish 2 63.0% 66.6% 

Viewing fish 36.9% 40.3% 

Bird watching 5 46.5% 45.4% 

Outdoor photography 4 47.5% 47.6% 

Hunting 

Waterfowl hunting 12.9% 15.5% 

Upland or small game hunting 26.5% 24.5% 

Walking/Hiking 

Walking for exercise or pleasure 1 78.4% 80.7% 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

5-26 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

Note: Table includes those recreational activities which are currently allowed on the Refuge. 

Source: Idaho participation rates from 2004 Outdoor Recreation Needs Assessment, reported in Idaho SCORTP (2006). 

The most recent National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation (FHWAR) 

was conducted in 2006. The Survey collects information on the number of anglers, hunters, and 

wildlife watchers; how often they participate; and how much they spend on their activities in the 

United States. The 2006 Survey found that 1.0 million Idaho residents and nonresidents 16 years old 

and older fished, hunted, or watched wildlife in Idaho. Of the total number of participants, 350,000 

fished (35 percent), 187,000 hunted (18.7 percent), and the majority, 506,000 (50.6 percent), 

participated in wildlife watching activities, which include observing and photographing wildlife (see 

Table 5.7). The sum of anglers, hunters, and wildlife watchers exceeds the total number of 

participants in wildlife-related recreation because many individuals engaged in more than one 

wildlife-related activity. 

Table 5.7. Participation in Wildlife-dependent Recreational Activities in Idaho, 2006. 

Activity Residents and 

Nonresidents Idaho Residents Nonresidents 

Wildlife watching (away from home) 506,000 179,000 326,000 

Observe wildlife 441,000 175,000 265,000 

Photograph wildlife 265,000 110,000 156,000 

Freshwater Fishing 350,000 206,000 144,000 

Rivers and streams 240,000 132,000 107,000 

Ponds, lakes, and reservoirs 220,000 150,000 70,000 

Hunting 187,000 122,000 65,000 

Small game hunting 55,000 28,000 27,000 

Migratory bird hunting 42,000 22,000 -- 

Note: Activities are ranked by popularity by total participation, in descending order. --Residents/nonresidents grouped in these 

data sets. 

Source: 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation-Idaho (USFWS and U.S. Census Bureau 

2008). 

A comparison of national hunting and fishing estimates for 1991 to 2006 based on the FHWAR 

survey shows declining participation over the entire time period. In 1991 and 1996, the number of 

people who hunted and fished remained essentially unchanged. In 2001, the number of sportspersons 

fell compared to the two previous survey estimates. In 2006, the number of anglers continued to 

decline and the number of hunters was stable. There were differing trend lines from 1991 to 2006 for 

wildlife watching. The number of overall wildlife watchers decreased 17 percent from 1991 to 1996, 

increased 5 percent from 1996 to 2001, and increased 8 percent from 2001 to 2006. Away-fromhome wildlife watching dropped from 1991 to 2001 (21 percent from 1991 to 1996 and 8 percent 

from 1996 to 2001) and stayed level from 2001 to 2006 (the 5 percent increase was not statistically 

significant). 

Forecast of Future Regional Recreation Demand and Key Recreation Needs. Although the 2006 

Idaho Outdoor Recreation Survey established baseline data for recreational activities in the State, 

trend data have not yet been developed. Bowker et al. (1999) developed projection models for the 

publication Outdoor Recreation in American Life: A National Assessment of Demand and Supply 

Hiking 3 59.5% 63.4% 

Cross-country skiing 16.6% 26.9% 

Snowshoeing 16.5% 17.2% 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-27 

Trends (1999). It is the only ongoing, comprehensive assessment of outdoor recreation trends in the 

country. The researchers created models based on today’s behavior as sampled through the National 

Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE; NSRE 2000-2002). The following activity 

participation projections in Table 5.8 from that study are for the Rocky Mountain Region (state by 

state projections are not available).

Although projections should be viewed with caution, it seems likely that demand for many outdoor 

activities that are generally permitted on refuges will continue to increase over the next decade. 

Based on the 2002 Idaho recreation survey, walking, bicycling and recreation with dogs are 

increasing in popularity, and this trend is expected to continue long term. Data presented in the 2012-

2016 Idaho SCORP (IDPR 2012) shows that Bowker’s projection of increases in these activities were 

correct, however in most cases the amount of increase through 2011 was greater than projected (see 

Table 5.10 below). 

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

Mountain Region. (From Bowker et al. 1999) 

Activity 2010 2020 

Wildlife-related activities 

Nonconsumptive uses (wildlife obs./photography) +20% +30% 

Hunting +5% +12% 

Fishing +16% +26% 

Dispersed Land Activities 

Hiking +15% +24% 

Horseback riding +13% +23% 

Developed Land Activities 

Walking +18% +28% 

Biking +17% +26% 

Picnicking +18% +28% 

Winter Activities 

Cross-country skiing +31% +41% 

The IDPR began gathering baseline data on outdoor activities in 2002. Data used for the 2006-2010 

SCORTP (IDPR 2006) were gathered mostly in 2004 and 2005. Even in the short amount of time 

data was collected, public preferences changed in some areas. Participation in outdoor photography 

increased significantly (44 percent). Of Idahoans surveyed in 2005, 70 percent participated in 

outdoor photography. Additionally, more than half of Idahoans were considered “regular 

participants” or “enthusiasts.” This increase was likely due to the emergence of digital photography, 

which makes photography easier and less expensive than it was before digital cameras were readily 

available. The rise in popularity of digital cameras likely fed the increase in wildlife viewing (21 

percent) and bird watching (29 percent). Table 5.9 below illustrates these trends for selected 

activities occurring on the Refuge; only activities with at least a 10 percent increase or decrease in 

participation are listed. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

5-28 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

Table 5.9. Idaho SCORTP Statewide Trends in Selected Outdoor Recreation Activities, 2002-2005 

Activity Percent Change (2002-2005) 

Outdoor photography + 44% 

Bird watching + 29% 

Snowshoeing + 28% 

Watching wildlife (other than fish) + 21% 

Classic cross-country skiing + 15% 

Note: Table includes those recreational activities which are currently allowed on the Refuge. 

Source: Idaho SCORTP (IDPR 2006). 

Idaho’s 2012-2016 SCORP (IDPR 2012) compiled data on participation in various outdoor 

recreation activities in Idaho from the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE) 

from 1994 through 2011. The data show that participation in most outdoor activities increased over 

this period. The largest increases were in kayaking, use of personal watercraft, canoeing, anadromous 

fishing, snowboarding, sledding, and viewing and photographing fish. The few exceptions to the 

general trend of increasing participation in outdoor activities included inline skating (-75%), 

windsurfing (-7.4%), mountain biking on trails (-10%) and horseback riding on trails (-14.8%). Data 

for the activities permitted at Camas NWR are shown in Table 5.10 below. Of the activities permitted 

on Camas NWR, there were substantial increases in most activities, with the greatest increase in 

“viewing and photographing wildlife other than birds” (+102.8%). This would include viewing and 

photographing big game animals such as deer, elk, and moose. 

Table 5.10. Participation Trends of Idaho Region* Residents in Selected Outdoor Activities, 1994 to 

2011. Activities allowed at Camas NWR are listed. Source: IDPR 2012. 

Activity 

1994-1995 2000-2001 2005-2011 % 

change 

1994-

2011 

Sample 

size 

% Participants 

(1,000s) 

Sample 

size

% Participants 

(1,000s)

Sample 

size

% Participants 

(1,000s)

Migratory 

bird hunting 

3,015 3.0 331.2 3,003 4.3 531.0 2,199 4.1 611.2 +84.5

Big game 

hunting 

3,015 11.4 1,279.8 2,490 15.9 1,975.7 733 15.0 2,217.1 +73.2

View or 

photograph 

birds 

3,015 28.3 3,179.1 2,998 37.1 4,603.1 2,166 40.1 5,913.6 +86.0

View/photo 

other wildlife 

3,015 39.5 4,432.7 2,983 57.9 7,192.2 2,140 61.0 8,987.7 +102.8

Day hiking 3,015 37.2 4,166.6 2,999 48.1 5,969.0 1,256 53.4 7,872.7 +88.9

Bicycling (on 

improved 

roads) 

3,015 30.3 3,400.7 3,002 45.5 5,654.7 1,465 38.9 5,737.9 +68.7 

Snowshoeing 0 . . 753 3.9 488.3 734 5.1 758.3 +55.3

Cross country 

skiing 

3,015 5.8 651.2 2,489 7.3 903.9 1,484 5.2 767.1 +17.8

*Idaho Region = Idaho and surrounding states: Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wyoming. (Sample size, percent 

participating, number of people age 16 and older participating, and percent change, 1994-2011.) 1994-1995 number of 

participants based on 1995 estimate of 11.214 million people age 16 & older (Woods & Poole Economics, Inc.). 2000-2001 

number of participants based on 12.415 million people age 16 & older (2000 Census). 2005-2011 number of participants based 

on 14.745 million people age 16 & older (2009 Census estimate). 

Trends in Waterfowl Hunting in Idaho. The number of duck hunters in Idaho declined in the 

1980s, due to declines in duck populations due to low nesting success, and consequently more 

restrictive seasons and bag limits. As duck populations recovered, hunters returned to the sport, 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-29 

though not in the numbers seen in the 1960s and 1970s. Overall, the number of waterfowl hunters in 

Idaho has increased since the late 1980s. A near doubling of the length of the duck season in 1995-

1996, from 59 days in 1990 to 107 days in 1996, as well as more liberal daily bag limits (from 4 

ducks in 1994 to 7 ducks from 1996 on) led to larger numbers of ducks harvested, as well as 

increasing numbers of participants in waterfowl hunting. Although the length of the goose season 

and bag limits increased only slightly in the same period (from 93 days in 1990 to 107 days in 2003, 

daily bag limit from 3 to 4 geese) goose harvests also rose significantly. Numbers of Duck Stamps 

sold in Idaho rose from approximately 17,000 in the late 1980s and early 1990s, to approximately 

25,000 in the early to mid-2000s. Harvests rose from 113,000 ducks and 27,000 geese in 1988, to 

more than 200,000 ducks and 75,000 geese in the mid-2000s (Table 5.11, IDFG 2009). 

Table 5.11. Estimated Waterfowl Harvest Numbers from USFWS’s Waterfowl Hunter 

Survey for Idaho, 1988-2006. 

Year Duck Stamps 

Sold 

Estimated 

Adult 

Hunters 

Total Geese 

Harvested1 

Total Ducks 

Harvested1 

1988 16,597 14,271 26,600 112,900 

1989 16,894 14,073 30,500 119,600 

1990 17,036 13,443 36,800 96,700 

1991 17,151 14,144 39,500 117,880 

1992 17,717 14,132 31,700 126,700 

1993 21,761 17,972 45,600 153,200 

1994 21,229 17,418 61,100 141,300 

1995 21,097 18,395 46,900 203,400 

1996 22,382 19,751 61,100 245,800 

1997 23,697 22,241 40,700 248,600 

1998 23,515 21,006 56,700 254,700 

1999 26,709 20,795 28,500 228,300 

2000 28,206 23,306 86,200 173,200 

2001 26,173 12,000/14,9002 64,400 138,600 

2002 24,937 14,500/9,9002 36,700 160,600 

2003 24,878 18,200/15,4002 84,200 262,900 

2004 24,320 17,100/13,3002 62,700 188,500 

2005 23,724 18,500/16,0002 74,300 258,300 

20063 25,726 18,400/14,5002 77,800 278,000 

Source: IDFG 2009. 

Notes: 1Adjusted for exaggeration memory bias and juvenile hunter density. 2

The first number is estimated number of duck hunters and the second number is estimated number of goose hunters. 3

Preliminary estimate July 2007. 

5.7 Social/Economic Environment 

5.7.1 Population, Housing, and Income 

Camas NWR is located in eastern Idaho in Jefferson County. The Refuge is situated north of Idaho 

Falls, the largest city in eastern Idaho. Idaho Falls is the seat of Bonneville County, but Jefferson 

County is considered part of the Idaho Falls Metropolitan Statistical Area. Madison County borders 

Jefferson County and is close to the Refuge. As such, the local study area includes the tri-county area 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

5-30 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

of Jefferson, Bonneville, and Madison counties. Table 5.12 shows the population and demographic 

statistics for the area around the Refuge. 

Since 2000, Jefferson County’s population has steadily increased. Between the 2000 and 2010 

censuses Jefferson County was the fourth fastest growing county in the State. Since the county is 

part of the Idaho Falls Metropolitan Statistical Area, it sits between the high-growth counties of 

Bonneville and Madison, which affects Jefferson since it gets their overflow. Many new residential 

subdivisions and commercial developments have been added (Idaho Department of Labor 2011a). 

From 1998 to 2008, the population increased by 28 percent and the per capita income increased by 

nearly 53 percent (U.S. Department of Commerce 2010). By population, Bonneville County is the 

fourth largest in the State, and grew 26 percent from 2000 to 2010 (Idaho Department of Labor 

2011b). The county has experienced steady growth in the last decade. Idaho Falls, the county’s 

largest city, is the fourth largest city in the State. In addition to population growth, the per capita 

income in Bonneville County has increased nearly 60 percent from 1998 to 2008. There was also a 

12 percent increase in per capita income in Idaho, which matched the national change. Madison 

County’s population increased 37 percent between the 2000 and 2010 censuses, in large part due to 

growth in the local college’s enrollment (Idaho Department of Labor 2011c). Madison County 

ranked tenth in the State in population. 

Table 5.12. Summary of Population and Per Capita Income (population in thousands) 

County Population Per Capita Income 

20101 % Change 

2000-20101 20092 % Change 2000-2009 

Jefferson Co. 26.1 36% $25,333 30% 

Bonneville Co. 104.2 26% $34,386 48% 

Madison Co. 37.5 37% $17,543 23% 

Area Total 167.8 30% $25,7543 33%3 

Idaho 1,567.6 21% $31,857 29% 

United States 308,745.5 10% $ 39,138 33% 1

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010. 

2

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce 2010. 

3

 Source: Average from total area per capita income. 

According to 2010 census data, Idaho State population generally increased. From April 2000 to April 

2010 Idaho ranked fourth nationally in percentage of population growth (21 percent), compared to 10 

percent growth nationwide (U.S. Census Bureau 2010, 2011a; Idaho Department of Labor 2010). 

Along with population growth, population characteristics in Idaho also became more diversified from 

the 2000 Census to 2010 Census. Although both Idaho and its counties are still less ethnically 

diverse than the nation as a whole, population demographics diversified from 2000 to 2010, 

particularly with population growth of American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian, and Native 

Hawaiian and other Pacific Islanders, which often doubled their percentages. Still, these populations 

account for less than 10 percent of total population in the counties that also saw significant growth in 

White populations. Hispanic populations also increased in both Jefferson and Bonneville counties, 

and significantly in Bonneville County where it more than doubled from 2000 levels. Statewide, 

Hispanic concentrations have increased in counties within Idaho, as well as central Washington and 

within the States of Kansas, Idaho, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Colorado (U.S. Census Bureau 2011b). 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-31 

Jefferson and Bonneville counties’ homeownership rates (83.2 percent and 71.9 percent respectively) 

are higher than the State averages, while Madison County’s was lower (48.2 percent). In 2000, 

Madison County had more than double the other counties and State level for persons below poverty 

level (30.5 percent). Jefferson and Bonneville counties had at or below State level of persons with a 

disability (16.9 percent and 15.6 percent respectively), while Madison County had about half less 

(9.8 percent). In 2000, Jefferson County had the highest percentage of population with high school 

degrees in the study area (29.4 percent), while Bonneville County had a slightly higher percentage of 

population with bachelor degrees (17.3 percent). Table 5.13 shows selected demographic 

characteristics and social statistics for the study area counties and Idaho. 

Table 5.13. Selected Demographic and Social Statistics for Idaho. 

Population Parameter Jefferson 

County 

Bonneville

County 

Madison 

County Idaho 

% 

Change 

2000-

2010 

(Idaho) 

White persons, percent, 2010 91.2 % 90.6% 93.9% 89.1 % 18.6% 

Black persons, percent, 2010 0.2 % 0.6% 0.5% 0.6% 79.8% 

American Indian and Alaska Native 

persons, percent, 2010 0.8% 0.8% 0.3% 1.4% 21.5% 

Asian persons, percent, 2010 0.4% 0.8% 0.9% 1.2% 60.4% 

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific 

Islander, percent, 2010 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 77.1% 

Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, 

percent, 2010 10.7% 11.4% 5.9% 11.2% 73.0% 

Owner occupied housing units, 2010 83.2% 71.9% 48.2% 69.9% 19.1% 

High school graduates, percent of 

persons age 25+, 2000 29.4% 26.5% 22.3% 28.5% -- 

Bachelor degrees, percent of persons 

age 25+, 2000 11.6% 17.3% 14.4% 14.8% -- 

Persons below poverty level, percent, 

2008 10.4% 10.1% 30.5% 11.8% -- 

Persons with a disability age 21 to 64 

years, 2000 16.9% 15.6% 9.8% 16.7% -- 

Note: -- No data provided in 2010 Census. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010. 

5.7.2 Employment and Business 

Employment increased from 2000 to 2009 in all counties in the study area, although Jefferson County 

had a larger increase in employment than Bonneville and Madison counties and the State. The 

counties and State had a larger employment increase than the United States. In Jefferson County, 

many residents commute to neighboring Bonneville or Madison counties, where growth has been 

substantial. During the last decade, the labor force in Jefferson County grew almost 26 percent, and 

employment has grown almost 21 percent over the decade. In Bonneville County, the civilian labor 

force increased by over 21 percent during the decade. From 2000 to 2010, unemployment also 

increased significantly in all counties and the State, a reflection of the economic climate during the 

first decade of the twenty-first century. Madison County has maintained one of the lowest 

unemployment rates in the State. Table 5.14 shows a summary of employment from the study area. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

5-32 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

Table 5.14. Summary of Employment, 2008 (employment in thousands) 

County Employment1 Unemployment2

2009 % Change 2000-

2009 2010 % Change 

2000-2010 

Jefferson Co. 9.8 26% 7.8% 167% 

Bonneville Co. 59.9 12% 7.0% 152% 

Madison Co. 17.5 16% 6.3% 130% 

Area Total 87.2 15% 6.9% 150% 

Idaho 882.1 12% 9.3% 132% 

United States 173,809.2 5.1% -- -- 

Note: -- No data provided in Idaho Department of Labor Work Trend Profiles. 1

 Source: U.S. Department of Commerce 2010. 

2

 Source: Idaho Department of Labor 2011a, 2011b, 2011c. 

In Jefferson County, government (29 percent), trade (22 percent), manufacturing (16 percent) and 

construction (9 percent) are the largest industries, with government and trade providing half of the 

jobs (Idaho Department of Labor 2011b). The Department of Transportation, local officials, and 

several school districts account for government jobs while two of the area’s large potato fresh-pack 

plants employ many in wholesale trade. Most of the manufacturing jobs are at the two large potato 

processing plants, Idahoan Foods and Idaho Pacific. Grain, corn and potatoes are produced in the 

county. Tourism also makes up part of Jefferson County’s economy, as the county is a gateway for a 

number of opportunities: U.S. Highway 20 is a gateway for tourists heading to Island Park and 

Yellowstone National Park; The Riot Zone, which features recreational activities for the whole 

family, is situated next to Rigby Lake, which offers picnic sites, day use and swimming; and U.S. 

Highway 26 attracts tourists traveling to the Targhee National Forest, various ski resorts, Jackson 

Hole, Wyoming, and the Grand Teton National Park. From 2000 to 2010, total average employment 

increased by 655, while average annual wages increased by over $5,500. 

In Bonneville County, the county has one of the State’s largest employment sites, the Idaho National 

Laboratory (INL). Additionally, the county is a regional health care and retail hub, and the consumer 

and client bases extend beyond surrounding counties to Wyoming and Montana. A number of 

professional developments continue to revitalize the county and help diversify their economy. In the 

county, trade, utilities and transportation (26 percent), educational and health services (17 percent), 

government (14 percent), and professional and business services from INL (10 percent) are the 

largest industries, with trade and health services providing half of the jobs (Idaho Department of 

Labor 2011a). Leisure and hospitality (10 percent) is growing as the county becomes better known. 

From 2000 to 2010, total average employment increased by nearly 3,400, while average annual 

wages increased by over $5,700. 

In Madison County, trade generates one-fourth of the county’s jobs, strong in both retail and 

wholesale. Health care and education also play a large role, and the hospital sector is expanding as 

the number of clinics countywide increases. The university is still growing and adding more degree 

programs, fueling an increase in education employment. In the county, trade, utilities and 

transportation (22 percent), educational and health services (18 percent), government (14 percent), 

and professional and business services (12 percent) are the largest industries (Idaho Department of 

Labor 2011b). From 2000 to 2010, average employment increased by 10 percent and average wages 

increased by more than 45 percent, with most of the growth in financial activities, educational and 

health services, trade, utilities and transportation, and government. See Table 5.15 for industry 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-33 

employment averages for Bonneville, Jefferson, and Madison counties, ranked by largest 

employment sectors for the tri-county study area. 

Table 5.15. Average Industry Employment and Wages of Bonneville, Jefferson, and Madison 

Counties, Idaho. 

Industry 

Average 

Employment

2010 

Average 

Wages 

2010 

Average 

Employment 

% Change 

2000-2010 

Average 

Wages % 

Change 

2000-2010 

Trade, Utilities, and 

Transportation 5,185 $27,233 11.8% 41.7% 

Educational and Health 

Services 3,348 $34,658 54.2% 51.9% 

Government 3,061 $29,921 14.8% 19.6% 

Professional and Business 

Services 1,997 $31,499 −25.1% 21.1% 

Leisure and Hospitality 1,960 $10,160 20.9% 30.3% 

Manufacturing 1,180 $32,077 −9.1% 38.0% 

Construction 1,174 $33,469 −1.8% 49.1% 

Financial Activities 789 $33,216 24.2% 43.3% 

Agriculture 528 $27,584 −24.2% 43.3% 

Other Services 475 $22,392 −2.5% 34.2% 

Information 425 $26,622 30.5% 80.1% 

Total Covered Wages 20,142 $28,445 9.4% 30.8% 

Sources: Idaho Department of Labor 2011a, 2011b, 2011c. 

5.7.3 Refuge Impact on Local Economies 

From an economic perspective, Camas NWR provides a variety of environmental and natural 

resource goods and services used by people either directly or indirectly (Carver and Caudill 2007). 

The use of these goods and services may result in economic impacts to both local and State 

economies. The various services the Refuge provides can be grouped into five broad categories: 

1. Maintenance and conservation of environmental resources, services and ecological 

processes; 

2. Production and protection of natural resources such as fish and wildlife; 

3. Production and protection of cultural and historical sites and objects; 

4. Provision of educational and research opportunities; and 

5. Outdoor and wildlife-related recreation. 

People who use these services benefit in the sense that their individual welfare or satisfaction level 

increases with the use of a particular good or service. One measure of the magnitude of the change 

in welfare or satisfaction associated with using a particular good or service is economic value. Aside 

from the effect on the individual, use of the good or service usually entails spending money in some 

fashion. These expenditures, in turn, create a variety of economic effects collectively known as 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

5-34 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

economic impacts. For this report, the term economic effects encompasses both economic value and 

economic impacts. 

Economic value is the economic trade-off people would be willing to make in order to obtain some 

good or service. It is the maximum amount people would be willing to pay in order to obtain a 

particular good or service minus the actual cost of acquisition. In economic theory this is known as 

net economic value or consumer surplus (see Freeman 1993 and Boyle et al. 1990 for a more detailed 

discussion). In the context of this report, estimates of the economic value of particular recreational 

activities are used to determine the aggregate value of recreational use of Camas NWR. 

Economic impacts refer to employment, employment or labor earnings, industrial or economic 

output, and Federal, local, county, and state tax revenue that occur as the result of consumer 

expenditures on refuge-related goods and services. For this report, two types of impacts are 

addressed: (1) impacts associated with annual consumer expenditures on refuge-related recreation; 

and (2) impacts associated with refuge budget expenditures. 

A comprehensive economic profile (baseline) of the refuges and estimates of the economic effects of 

alternative management strategies would address all applicable economic effects associated with the 

use of refuge-produced goods and services. However, for those goods and services having nebulous 

or non-existent links to the market place, economic effects are more difficult or perhaps even 

impossible to estimate. Some of the major contributions of the refuges to the natural environment, 

such as watershed protection, maintenance and stabilization of ecological processes, and the 

enhancement of biodiversity would require extensive on-site knowledge of biological, ecological and 

physical processes and interrelationships even to begin to formulate economic benefit estimates. 

This is beyond the scope of this section. 

This section focuses on a limited subset of refuge goods and services, primarily those directly linked 

in some fashion to the marketplace, such as recreation use and refuge budget expenditures. It should 

be kept in mind that the emphasis on these particular market-oriented goods and services should not 

be interpreted to imply that these types of goods and services are somehow more important or of 

greater value (economic or otherwise) than the non-market goods and services previously discussed. 

The economic area for the Refuge is the two-county area including Jefferson and Bonneville 

counties. It is assumed that visitor expenditures occur primarily within this area. Visitor recreation 

expenditures for 2006, the last available information, are shown in Table 5.16. Total expenditures 

were $107,300 with non-residents accounting for $75,800 or 71 percent of total expenditures (Carver 

and Caudill 2007). Expenditures on non-consumptive activities accounted for almost all of the 

expenditures. 

Table 5.16. Visitor Recreation Expenditures at Camas Refuge (2006 $,000) 

Activity Residents Non-Residents Total 

Total Non-Consumptive $31.2 $75.7 $106.9 

Total Hunting $0.3 $0.1 $0.4 

Total Fishing -- -- -- 

Total Expenditures $31.5 $75.8 $107.3 

Input-output models were used to determine the impact of expenditures on the local area. Table 5.17 

summarizes the local economic effects associated with recreation visits. In 2006, final demand 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-35 

totaled $110,800 with associated employment of two jobs, $91,900 in employment income, and 

$14,400 in total tax revenue (Carver and Caudill 2007). 

Table 5.17. Local Economic Effects Associated with Recreation Visits at Camas Refuge (2006 

$,000). 

Residents Non-Residents Total 

Final Demand $33.1 $77.7 $110.8 

Jobs 1 1 2 

Job Income $14.2 $77.8 $91.9 

Total Tax Revenue $4.5 $9.9 $14.4 

5.8 References 

Anderson, Jay E. 1999. The Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory: an 

ecological treasure of the upper Snake River plain. Rangelands 21(5): October 1999. 

Ariwite, Leo T. 2013. Personal communication with Yvette Tuell, Environmental coordinator, 

Shoshone-Bannock Tribe, May 15, 2013. 

Bowker, J.M., D.B.K. English, and H.K. Cordell. 1999. Projections of outdoor recreation 

participation to 2050. Pages 323-350 in: H.K. Cordell, C.J. Betz, J.M. Bowker, D.B.K. 

English, S.H. Mou, J.D. Bergstrom, R.J. Teasley, M.A. Tarrant, and J. Loomis, eds. Outdoor 

recreation in American life: a national assessment of demand and supply trends. Champaign, 

IL: Sagamore Publishing. Boyle, Kevin J. 1990. “Design of Contingent-Valuation Questions 

for the 1991 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation: Final 

Report.” Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Bureau of Land Management. N.d. General Land Office Records. Available at: 

http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/search/default.aspx 

Bureau of Land Management. N.d. Survey plats and field notes. Available at: 

http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/search/default.aspx?searchTabIndex=0&searchByTypeIndex

=1

Survey map, T7N R36E, 1882. Available at: 

http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/details/survey/default.aspx?dm_id=277467&sid=mbenedzg.

m4b#surveyDetailsTabIndex=1 

Survey map, T7N R36E, Boise Meridian, 1885. Available at: 

http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/details/survey/default.aspx?dm_id=42792&sid=sn1agpp5.zd

o#surveyDetailsTabIndex=1

Survey map, T7N R35E, 1899. Available at: 

http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/details/survey/default.aspx?dm_id=112983&sid=ww4gywa0.

q43#surveyDetailsTabIndex=1

Butler, B.R. 1968. A Guide to Understanding Idaho Archaeology (2nd edition). Special Publication 

of the Idaho State University Museum. 

Butler, B.R. 1978. A guide to understanding Idaho archaeology (third edition): the Upper Snake and 

Salmon River country. Idaho Museum of Natural History. Pocatello, ID. 

Butler, B.R. 1986. Prehistory of the Snake and Salmon River area. Pages 127-134 in: Warren L. 

d'Azevedo, ed. Great Basin. Handbook of North American Indians Vol.11, William C. 

Sturtevant (gen. ed.). Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. 

Camas Migratory Waterfowl Refuge.1939. 1939 Camas Migratory Waterfowl Refuge: Annual 

Report. Unpublished report, on-file at refuge, Hamer, Idaho. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

5-36 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

Camas Migratory Waterfowl Refuge. 1957. 1957 Camas migratory waterfowl refuge: annual report. 

Unpublished report on file, Camas Refuge. Hamer, Idaho. Carver, E. and J. Caudill. 2007. 

Banking on nature 2006: the economic benefits to local communities of national wildlife 

refuge visitation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division on Economics, Washington, D.C. 

Derig, B. 1996. Roadside history of Idaho. Missoula, MT: Mountain Press Publishing 

Company. 

DeVore, Jim. n.d. Biography of Mary Ann Browning. Kent Family Garden. Available at: 

http://www.kent-opc.org/opcfamilydata/getperson.php?personID=I7551&tree=1. Accessed 

November 9, 2010. 

Evans, H.K. 1951. Sheep trailing from Oregon to Wyoming. In: R.H. Burns, ed. Annals of Wyoming 

23:1. Available at: http://archive.org/details/annalsofwyom23121951wyom. Accessed May 2, 

2012. 

Freeman, A. Myrick. 1993. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and 

Methods. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC. 

Gerard, J.G. 1963. A compilation of information published in Snake River Echoes. 1975. 4(2, 3). 

Haines, Aubrey L. 1964. The Bannock Indian trail. Yellowstone National Park, WY: Yellowstone 

Library and Museum Association. 

Harding, W.M. 2005. Archaeological investigations at the Camas National Wildlife Refuge, 

Jefferson County, Idaho. Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. North Wind, Inc. Idaho 

Falls, ID. Hawley, J.H. 1920. History of Idaho: the gem of the mountains, Volume 3. 

Chicago, IL: S. J. Clarke Publishing Company. 

Henninger, E.W. 1984. Oral interview conducted by Harold Forbush April 3, 1984. Transcribed by 

Luke Kirkham July 2003. BYU Special Collections, Brigham Young University—Idaho. 

Available at: 

http://abish.byui.edu/specialCollections/manuscripts/Collections/Voices%20From%20the%2

0Past/Elvin%20W.%20Henninger.pdf. Accessed November 8, 2010. 

Historical Society of Montana, 1917. A partial sketch of the civil and military service of Major 

Martin Maginnis. Pages 7-24 in: Pemberton, W.Y. (compiler). Contributions of the Historical 

Society of Montana, vol 8. Montana Historical and Miscellaneous Library, Helena MT. 

Available at: 

http://archive.org/stream/agamemnonofaeschaesc00rich/agamemnonofaeschaesc00rich_djvu.

txt 

Holmer, R.N. 1994. In search of the ancestral Northern Shoshone. Pages 179-187 in: D.B. Madsen 

and D. Rhode, eds. Across the West: human population movement and the expansion of the 

Numa. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. 

IDFG (Idaho Department of Fish and Game). 2009. Waterfowl fall and winter surveys, production, 

summer banding, and harvest, July 1, 2007 to June 2008. 57 pp. Available at: 

https://research.idfg.idaho.gov/wildlife/Wildlife%20Technical%20Reports/Waterfowl%20PR

08.pdf. Accessed June 2010. 

Idaho Department of Labor. 2010. Idaho ranks fourth in fastest growing states in 2010 census. Press 

release. Available at: 

http://labor.idaho.gov/news/NewsReleases/tabid/1953/ctl/PressRelease/mid/2527/itemid/228

4/Default.aspx. Accessed May 2011. 

Idaho Department of Labor. 2011a. County profiles of Idaho: Bonneville. Available at: 

http://labor.idaho.gov/publications/lmi/pubs/BonnevilleProfile.pdf. Accessed June 2011. 

Idaho Department of Labor. 2011b. County profiles of Idaho: Jefferson. Available at: 

http://labor.idaho.gov/publications/lmi/pubs/JeffersonProfile.pdf. Accessed June 2011. 

Idaho Department of Labor. 2011c. County profiles of Idaho: Madison. Available at: 

http://labor.idaho.gov/publications/lmi/pubs/MadisonProfile.pdf. Accessed June 2011. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-37 

IDPR (Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation). 2012. Idaho Outside: Idaho Statewide 

Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation and Tourism Plan, 2012-2016. 367 pp. Available at: 

http://www.recpro.org/assets/Library/SCORPs/id_scorp_2012.pdf Accessed May 1, 2013. 

IDPR (Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation). 2010. Recreation Next: Idaho’s 2006-2010 

statewide comprehensive outdoor recreation plan. Available at: 

http://parksandrecreation.idaho.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/SCORTP/SCORTP

%202006-2010%20Revised.pdf

IDPR (Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation). 2006. Idaho statewide comprehensive outdoor 

recreation and tourism plan (SCORTP), 2006-2010. Available at: 

http://parksandrecreation.idaho.gov/assets/content/docs/Comp Planning/Final Plan 2006-

2010.pdf. 

IDPR (Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation). 2002. Idaho Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor 

Recreation and Tourism Plan (SCORTP), 2003-2007. Available at: 

http://parksandrecreation.idaho.gov/assets/content/docs/2003-2007_final.pdf. IDPR. 2007. 

Idaho Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation and Tourism Plan (SCORTP), 2006-

2010. Available at: http://parksandrecreation.idaho.gov/assets/content/docs/Comp 

Planning/Final Plan 2006-2010.pdf. 

Idaho State Historical Society. 1970. Stage coach travel times. Idaho State Historical Society 

reference series, No. 150. Boise, ID. 4 pp. Available at: 

http://history.idaho.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/reference-series/0150.pdf

Ingram, Patricia M. 1976. Historic transportation routes through southwestern Montana. Resources 

Development Internship Program. Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education. 

Bureau of Land Management. Dillon, Montana.

Jorgensen, W. 1979. Soil Survey of Jefferson County, Idaho. Soil Conservation Service, 

Washington, D.C. 

Judson, K.B. 1909. Montana: land of the shining mountains. Chicago, IL: A.C. McClurg and 

Company. 

Lovin, Hugh T. 1987. The Carey Act in Idaho, 1895-1925: An. Experiment in Free Enterprise 

Reclamation. Pacific Northwest Quarterly 78(4, Winter 1987): 122. 

Madsen, Brigham D. 1980. The Northern Shoshoni. The Caxton Printers, Ltd., Caldwell, Idaho. 

Mann, John W.W. 2004. Sacajawea’s People: The Lemhi Shoshones and the Salmon River Country. 

University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 2001. Montana State Trail Plan. Available at: 

http://fwp.mt.gov/recreation/management/stateTrailsPlan.html

Montana Fish and Game Commission. 1975. Montana Historic Preservation Plan With Historic Sites 

Compendium, Volumes I, II, and III. 2nd edition. July. 

NSRE (National Survey on Recreation and the Environment). 2000-2002. Interagency National 

Survey Consortium. USDA Forest Service Recreation, Wilderness, and Demographics 

Trends Research Group, Athens, GA, and the Human Dimensions Research Laboratory, 

University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN. Available at: 

http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/trends/Nsre/nsre2.html. Accessed June 2011. 

Reed, W.G., J.W. Ross, B.L. Ringe, and R.N. Holmer. 1987. Archaeological investigations on the 

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. SCARLab Reports of Investigations 87-1. Idaho 

State University, Pocatello, Idaho. 

Richardson, Jack (Refuge Manager, Camas NWR). n.d. A brief history of Camas. Unpublished 

report, on file at Camas NWR. 

Ringe, B.L., W.G. Reed, and R.N. Homer. 1988. Current perspectives on the prehistory of the eastern 

Snake River plain. Paper presented at the 41st Annual Northwest Anthropological 

Conference. Tacoma, WA. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

5-38 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

Roberts, P.H. 1961. Hoof prints on forest ranges: the early days of national forest range 

administration. San Antonio, TX: The Naylor Company. Available at: 

http://books.google.com/books?id=GO82bMkkn30C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f

=false. Accessed October 4, 2012. 

Saunders, A.C. 1915. The history of Bannock County Idaho. Pocatello, ID: The Tribune Company 

Limited. 

Stearns, H.T., L.L. Bryan, and L. Crandall. 1939. Geology and water resources of the Mud Lake 

region, Idaho, including the Island Park Area. U.S. Department of the Interior Geological 

Survey Water Supply Paper 818. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. Available 

at: http://books.google.com/books?id=QM7UAAAAMAAJ&pg=RA3-PA118&lpg=RA3-

PA118&dq=sandhole+%22camas+creek%22&source=bl&ots=HQQ3o12job&sig=rKd_Up2

PI0MhmPYOV-AzUv_f-0E&hl=en#v=snippet&q=mud%20lake&f=false. Accessed 

September 13, 2012. 

Steward, J.H. 1955. Theory of culture change: the methodology of multilinear evolution. Urbana, IL: 

University of Illinois Press. 

Swanson, E.H., Jr. 1972. Birch Creek: human ecology in the cool desert of the northern Rocky 

Mountains, 9000 B.C.-A.D. 1850. Pocatello, ID: Idaho State University Press. 

Swanson, E.H., Jr., B.R. Butler, and R, Bonnichsen. 1964. Birch Creek Papers No. 2, Natural and 

Cultural Stratigraphy in the Birch Creek valley of eastern Idaho. Idaho State University 

Occasional Papers No. 14, Idaho State University, Pocatello. 

Toponce, A. 2006. Reminiscences of Alexander Toponce: pioneer 1839-1923. Whitefish, MT: 

Kessinger Publishing. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. Census data. Available at: http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/. 

Accessed May 2011. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2011a. Population distribution and change: 2000 to 2010. 2010 Census Briefs. 

Available at: http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-01.pdf. Accessed May 

2011. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2011b. The Hispanic population: 2010. 2010 Census Briefs. Available at: 

http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-04.pdf. Accessed June 2011. 

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 1933. Range sheep production. Farmer’s Bulletin 1710. 

Washington D.C. 34 pp. Available at: 

http://books.google.com/books?id=kqA8r1FjAVcC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_su

mmary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false. Accessed October 4, 2012. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. 2010. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Accounts. 

Washington, D.C. Available at: www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/data.htm. Accessed 

November 2010. 

USDI (U.S. Department of the Interior), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Department of 

Commerce. 2007. 2006 National survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated 

recreation. Washington D.C. 168 pp. 

Wentworth, E.N. 1948. America’s sheep trails. Ames, IA: Iowa State College Press. 
Chapter 6

 Environmental

Effects

Chapter 5HumanEnvironment

Chapter 4BiologicalEnvironment

Chapter 3PhysicalEnvironment

Chapter 1Introduction andBackground

Chapter 6Environmental Effects

Farrel Downs/USFWS

Chapter 2ManagementAlternatives, Goals, Objectives and Strategies

Appendices

Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-1 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

This chapter provides an analysis of the environmental consequences of implementing the 

alternatives described in Chapter 2. Impacts are described for the main aspects of the environments 

described in Chapters 3 through 5, including the effects to physical, biological, cultural, and socioeconomic resources. The alternatives are compared “side by side” under each topic, and both the 

adverse and beneficial effects of implementing each alternative are described. 

The overall cumulative effect on the environment from implementing the various alternatives is 

summarized in section 6.17. Cumulative impacts include a) impacts to refuge resources from 

reasonably foreseeable events; and b) impacts resulting from interaction of refuge actions with 

actions taking place outside the Refuge. This discussion includes a brief discussion on potential 

impacts of climate change to refuge resources. More detailed assessments of the Refuge’s cumulative 

effects for relevant impact topics are presented section by section. 

6.1 Overview of Effects Analysis

The effects analysis has been developed by a) identifying the species groups, habitats, refuge users, 

aspects of the physical environment, and other resources of interest; and b) identifying effects to 

these resources that could potentially result from implementing the actions described under each 

alternative. Effects are described in terms of the change from current conditions. Although minimal 

or no changes to management programs would occur under Alternative 1 (the no-action alternative), 

there are still effects because changes from current conditions would be expected over the next 

fifteen years if current management programs continue. “Neutral effect” in the table and discussion 

below refers only to cases where conditions are expected to be static over the next fifteen years. 

More details on effects from recreational or economic uses are contained within Appendix B, 

Compatibility Determinations. 

The information used in this Draft CCP/EA was obtained from relevant scientific literature, existing 

databases and inventories, consultations with other professionals, professional knowledge of 

resources based on field visits, and experience. 

The terms identified below were used to describe the scope, scale, and intensity of effects on natural, 

cultural, social, and economic (including recreational) resources. Effects may be identified further as 

beneficial or negative. 

 Neutral/Negligible. Resources would not be affected, or the effects would be at or near the 

lowest level of detection. Resource conditions would not change from current conditions, or 

would be so slight there would not be any measurable or perceptible consequence to a 

Significant Moderate Minor Neutral / Minor Moderate Significant 

 Negligible 

Negative Beneficial 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

6-2 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

population, wildlife or plant community, recreation opportunity, visitor experience, or 

cultural resource. If an impact is not discussed, it is assumed to be neutral. 

 Minor. Effects would be detectable but localized, slight, small, and of little consequence to a 

population, wildlife or plant community, other natural resources; social and economic values, 

including recreational opportunity, and visitor experience; or cultural resources. Mitigation, if 

needed to offset adverse effects, would be easily implemented and successful, based on 

knowledge and experience. 

 Moderate. Effects would be readily detectable and localized with measurable consequences 

to a population, wildlife, or plant community or other natural resources; social and economic 

values, including recreational opportunity, and visitor experience; or cultural resources. 

Mitigation measures would likely be needed to offset adverse effects. These measures could 

be extensive, moderately complicated to implement, and probably successful based on 

knowledge and experience. 

 Significant (major). Effects would be obvious and would result in substantial consequences 

to a population, wildlife or plant community or other natural resources; social and economic 

values including recreation opportunity and visitor experience; or cultural resources within 

the local area or region. Extensive mitigating measures may be needed to offset adverse 

effects and they would be large-scale in nature, possibly complicated to implement, and may 

not have a high degree of probability for success. In some instances, major negative effects 

would include the irretrievable loss of the resource. 

Time and duration of effects have been defined as follows: 

 Short term or Temporary. An effect that generally would last less than a year or season. 

 Long term. A change in a resource or its condition that would last longer than a single year 

or season. 

6.2 Summary of Effects 

Table 6.1 provides an overview of the effects under each alternative by indicator. Effects are 

described in terms of the change from current conditions. Although the analysis shows that none of 

the alternatives would be expected to result in significant effects, some positive (beneficial) or 

negative effects are expected. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-3 

Table 6.1. Summary of Effects under CCP Alternatives 

Alternative 1 

(Current 

Management)

Alternative 2

(Preferred)

Alternative 3

Effects to Wildlife and Habitats

Effects to 

waterfowl 

and 

waterbirds 

Minor negative effect 

to waterfowl 

production on the 

Refuge due to 

declining wetland 

productivity and 

increased difficulty in 

hydrating ponds 

through brood-rearing 

season 

Minor negative effect from a decline in local waterfowl 

production from the decrease in hemi-marsh habitat; minor 

positive effect to diversity and abundance of breeding 

waterfowl and waterbirds from changes to habitat structure 

and productivity in remaining hemi-marsh. Overall, minor to 

moderate positive effects to waterfowl and waterbird 

populations in the Refuge, but no significant effects to local, 

regional, or flyway waterfowl populations

Minor to moderate 

negative effect from 

declining availability 

and/or habitat quality 

of seasonal wetlands 

Moderate positive beneficial effects to migratory waterbirds 

through increased availability and productivity of seasonal 

and moist soil wetlands; increased availability of 

invertebrates and moist soil plants 

Neutral effect—same 

agricultural crop 

management as 

present. 

Negligible effect to migratory 

waterfowl from change from 

80 acres of irrigated alfalfa to 

dryland alfalfa/grain rotation 

Minor effect to migratory 

waterfowl from change 

from 80 acres of irrigated 

alfalfa to 80 acres shrubsteppe 

Minor negative 

impacts from 

increased public 

visitation, wildlife 

observation and 

photography; minor to 

moderate negative 

impacts from allowing 

off-road hiking 

throughout the Refuge 

July 15-Feb 28 

Minor negative impacts from 

increased public visitation, 

wildlife observation and 

photography; minor positive 

effect from prohibiting off 

road hiking, requiring leash or 

electronic collars on dogs 

Minor to moderate negative 

impacts from increased 

public visitation, wildlife 

observation and 

photography; reopening 

Sandhole Lake road to 

vehicle traffic; allowing off 

road hiking on 2,510 acres 

of the Refuge 

Negligible impacts 

from refuge waterfowl 

and upland game bird 

hunting programs. 

Negligible impacts from refuge waterfowl and upland game 

bird hunting programs; minor negative impacts (disturbance) 

from elk hunting program 

Effects to 

threatened 

and 

endangered 

species 

No effect 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

6-4 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

Table 6.1. Summary of Effects under CCP Alternatives 

Alternative 1 

(Current 

Management)

Alternative 2

(Preferred)

Alternative 3

Effects to 

wetland 

habitats and 

wildlife 

Minor to moderate 

negative effect— 

declining productivity 

of permanent wetlands 

due to static 

management and lack 

of late season water 

Moderate positive effects from mimicking more dynamic 

natural processes that shaped the marsh and managing 

impoundments that have better capability to use diverted or 

pumped water, to provide late season water. 

Minor to moderate 

negative effect—

declining availability 

and habitat quality of 

seasonal and moist 

soil wetlands, wet 

meadows 

Moderate positive effects from providing seasonal wetland 

habitat and important feeding and resting habitat for spring 

migratory waterbirds. 

Moderate positive effect from increasing temporarily and 

seasonally flooded smartweed habitat (moist soil) and 

foraging resources (smartweeds, invertebrates) 

Negligible effect to 

short-cover foraging 

and grazing meadow 

wildlife from 

continuation of haying 

and irrigation of hay 

fields 

Negligible to minor effect to 

short-cover foraging and 

grazing meadow wildlife from 

reduction acres of irrigated 

hay fields 

Minor negative effect to 

short-cover foraging and 

grazing meadow wildlife 

from eliminating irrigation 

of hayed lands. 

Minor to moderate 

negative effects from 

encroachment of 

upland and non-native 

vegetation due to 

altered hydrology 

Moderate positive benefits from reducing encroachment of 

upland vegetation and restoring wet meadow hydrology 

Minor to moderate 

negative effects to 

wetland habitats from 

altered hydrologic 

processes, lack of 

overbank flows 

Moderate positive effects from implementation of the 

Wetland and Riparian Rehabilitation Plan to mimic natural 

variability in hydrologic processes, while simultaneously 

conserving groundwater resources and rehabilitating partial 

riparian habitat function. 

Effects to 

riparian 

woodland 

and stream 

habitats and 

wildlife 

Minor to moderate 

negative effect to 

riparian habitat. 

Incision of Camas 

Creek will continue to 

occur, and the water 

table will continue to 

drop. As a result all or 

Moderate positive effects from 

the management emphasis on 

riparian habitat rehabilitation. 

Minor positive effect from 

a co-equal emphasis on 

upland and riparian habitat 

rehabilitation 

Moderate positive beneficial effect to riparian habitat by 

implementing pilot project by 2017 to lower the banks of 

Camas Creek at strategic locations to increase the occurrence 

of natural overbank flooding into refuge wetlands. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-5 

Table 6.1. Summary of Effects under CCP Alternatives 

Alternative 1 

(Current 

Management)

Alternative 2

(Preferred)

Alternative 3

part of the Refuge’s 

natural wet meadow 

wetlands would 

eventually transition 

to a new drier 

ecological type. 

Moderate positive effect to riparian habitat from the 

collection of inventory and monitoring data from 2014-2017 

to better inform management (e.g., Hydrogeomorphic 

Assessment, LiDar, digital elevation model) 

Minor positive effect to riparian habitat from seeking 

collaborative common ground solutions with the Mud Lake 

Water Users to ensure the rightful conveyance of Camas 

Creek waters to Mud Lake while maintaining in-stream 

woody debris. 

No riparian 

restoration; minor to 

moderate negative 

effects to riparian 

obligate species from 

declining quality of 

riparian habitat 

Moderate positive beneficial effect to riparian obligate 

species from restoring 80-130 acres of willow riparian 

habitat associated with Camas Creek. 

Moderate long-term 

negative effects to 

riparian habitat due to 

continuing incision, 

headcuts, and gully 

formation on Camas 

Creek 

Moderate long-term positive effects from the development 

and implementation of the Camas NWR Wetland and 

Riparian Rehabilitation Plan and the subsequent stabilization 

and rehabilitation of Camas Creek incision, headcuts, and 

gully formation. 

Neutral effect, 

environmental 

education activities 

limited (same as 

present) 

Minor direct negative effect from increased environmental 

education activities, but moderate indirect positive effect 

from increased environmental education upon public 

appreciation and support for riparian conservation. 

Minor to moderate 

negative effect from 

allowing off road 

hiking July 15-

February 28 

Minor negative effect to 

riparian habitat and wildlife 

from increased wildlife 

observation and photography; 

minor positive effect from 

eliminating off road hiking 

Minor negative effect to 

riparian habitat and wildlife 

from increased wildlife 

observation and 

photography (opening 

Sandhole Lake loop); minor 

positive effect from 

reducing off-road hiking to 

2,510 acres 

No effect; big game 

hunting currently 

prohibited on Refuge 

Minor to moderate positive effect to riparian habitat from 

reduced elk browsing pressure due to elk hunting. Minor 

negative disturbance effect to riparian habitat and wildlife 

from elk hunting 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

6-6 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

Table 6.1. Summary of Effects under CCP Alternatives 

Alternative 1 

(Current 

Management)

Alternative 2

(Preferred)

Alternative 3

Effects to 

shrub steppe 

habitat and 

wildlife 

Neutral effect from 

approximately the 

same amount of 

habitat 

restoration/rehabilitati

on and invasive 

species control as 

present, and the same 

level of public use 

disturbance as at 

present. 

Minor positive effects from 

emphasizing wetland and 

riparian rehabilitation while 

moving forward strategically 

with limited upland habitat 

rehabilitation efforts 

Moderate positive effects 

from the elevation of 

upland habitat restoration 

as a coequal to 

wetland/riparian 

rehabilitation 

Negligible effect from 

maintaining stable crested 

wheatgrass monocultures and 

only rehabilitating small test 

plot areas of crested 

wheatgrass 

Moderate positive 

beneficial effect from 

rehabilitation of crested 

wheatgrass monocultures 

Minor negative impact and loss of habitat from increased 

public use infrastructure; minor positive effect from reducing 

off-road hiking 

Effects to 

shelterbelt 

habitat and 

wildlife 

Minor negative effect 

through gradual loss 

of large cottonwood 

trees; and increasing 

difficulty in supplying 

irrigation water 

Negligible effect from 

maintaining shelterbelt 

habitats at 34 acres 

Moderate positive effect 

from expanding shelterbelt 

habitats to 50 acres 

Moderate positive effect to 

shelterbelt habitats from 

partial groundwater irrigation 

and development of drip 

irrigation infrastructure 

Minor to moderate positive 

effect to shelterbelt habitats 

from use of groundwater 

irrigation 

Minor negative effect to migrant landbirds from resumption 

of banding efforts; moderate positive effect from site-specific 

information acquired from avian response to shelterbelt 

restoration, allowing adaptive management 

Minor negative effect from increased recreational access, 

wildlife observation, hiking, and photography 

Effects to Physical Environment 

Effects to soil 

resources 

Neutral effect; 

agriculture remains at 

same level as present. 

Minor to moderate positive 

effect due to decreased soil 

compaction from riparian 

restoration 

Moderate positive effect 

due to decreased soil 

compaction from riparian 

and upland restoration, and 

reduction of agriculture 

Effects to 

water 

resources 

Minor local negative effects from herbicide use on restored uplands, riparian, and 

aquatic areas. 

Neutral effect to 

groundwater recharge; 

Moderate positive effect to 

water conservation and 

Minor negative effect to 

water conservation and 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-7 

Table 6.1. Summary of Effects under CCP Alternatives 

Alternative 1 

(Current 

Management)

Alternative 2

(Preferred)

Alternative 3

water management 

same as present. 

groundwater recharge from 

the development of drip 

irrigation infrastructure for 

shelterbelt habitats 

groundwater recharge from 

use of groundwater 

irrigation of shelterbelt 

habitats 

Minor negative effects from ash runoff due to prescribed burns. 

Minor negative effects from smoke and particulate emissions due to prescribed burns. 

Effects to air 

quality 

Minor, short-term effects from use of prescribed fire. Negligible to minor negative 

effects from increased vehicle emissions associated with increased visitation. 

Effects to Social Environment 

Overall 

visitation 

Minor negative effect 

due to increased 

demographic trends 

and rising demand for 

outdoor recreation, 

without increase in 

staffing/facilities 

Minor positive effect due to enhanced facilities and staffing 

to support projected increase in demand for wildlifedependent recreation. 

Opportunities 

for quality 

wildlife 

observation 

and 

photography 

Neutral effect—no 

increase in the number 

of acres available for 

wildlife observation 

and photography; 

habitat management 

same as present, no 

conflicts with elk 

hunting 

Moderate positive effect for 

quality wildlife observation 

and photography opportunities 

from maintaining existing 

access, expanding birding 

trail, and increased wildlife 

tours 

Moderate positive effect for 

quality wildlife observation 

and photography 

opportunities from 

increased road access, trail 

grooming, expanding 

birding trail, construction of 

blinds, and increased 

wildlife tours 

Minor negative effect from decreased opportunities and user 

conflicts associated with elk hunt 

Opportunities 

for quality 

environmental 

education 

Neutral effect, no 

changes to EE 

program. 

Moderate positive effect because of additional visitor contact 

station and multipurpose facilities dedicated to 

environmental education, and staffing strategies that could 

result in enhanced volunteer support for the program and 

increased environmental education opportunities 

Opportunities 

for quality 

interpretation 

Neutral effect, no 

changes to interpretive 

facilities, tours. 

Moderate positive effects from development of new 

interpretive materials (print and electronic media), and 

increase in guided tours 

Opportunities 

for quality 

waterfowl 

and upland 

game hunting 

Neutral effect due to 

hunting acres and 

habitat management 

remaining the same as 

present. 

Slight positive effect; hunting acres remain same as present 

but changes to habitat management may improve hunting 

opportunities over time. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

6-8 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

Opportunities 

for quality 

big game 

hunting 

No effect—no big 

game hunting 

currently allowed on 

Refuge 

Moderate positive effect to big game hunting opportunities 

both on and off Refuge from initiation of refuge elk hunt. 

Dispersal of elk from the Refuge may result in increased 

hunting success by off-refuge hunters 

Effects to Cultural Resources 

Effects to 

cultural and 

historic 

resources 

Minor potential for 

negative effects from 

habitat management. 

Minor positive effects 

from various proactive 

measures taken for 

protection and 

management of 

cultural resources. 

Minor potential for negative effects from increased habitat 

management and restoration, including wetland restoration 

work; upland restoration; disking associated with invasive 

species control and moist soil management; and from 

increased trails and public use facilities. Minor positive 

effects from various proactive measures taken for protection 

and management of cultural resources. 

Other Effects 

Economic 

effects 

Neutral effect. Minor positive effect due to 

increased staffing, operational, 

and visitor expenditures. 

Minor positive effect due to 

reduction in elk depredation 

within GMU 63. 

Minor positive effect due to 

increased staffing, 

operational, and visitor 

expenditures. Minor 

negative effect due to 

decreased production of 

alfalfa and hay. Minor 

positive effect due to 

reduction in elk depredation 

within GMU 63.

Cumulative 

effects 

Negligible to minor positive effects from refuge anticipation and adaptive 

management responses to climate change. 

Moderate negative effect from reduced habitat integrity from climate change impacts 

Minor positive effect 

from increased use of 

conservation 

partnerships 

Moderate positive effects from increased regional 

conservation partnerships 

Moderate negative effect from continuation of groundwater pumping, over 

adjudication, and depletion of groundwater within the Snake River Aquifer 

Minor negative effect from surrounding land uses of genetically modified organisms 

and pesticides 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-9 

6.3 Effects to Waterfowl and Waterbird Species 

Actions within the proposed alternatives that could potentially affect waterfowl and waterbird species 

or populations include: management of wetlands, uplands, shelterbelt, fire, agricultural (crops and 

haying), hunting, and non-consumptive public uses. Non-consumptive uses may directly affect 

habitats through physical alterations or have indirect effects by placing the public in close proximity 

to waterfowl, thus increasing the potential for disturbance. 

6.3.1 Effects to Waterfowl and Waterbirds from Habitat Actions 

Wetland Management 

The artificially enhanced wetlands of Camas NWR provide important habitats for native waterfowl 

and waterbirds. These managed refuge habitats are even more important now due to the altered 

hydrology and continued degradation of many of the natural wetlands and water sources within the 

Snake River Basalts Region and the Sinks Watersheds. Alternative 1 (Current Management) would 

maintain 840 acres (range 500-700) acres of consistently deep flooded hemi-marsh wetland habitats, 

40-60 acres of seasonally flooded shallow marsh (moist soil), and enhance 60-70 acres of wet 

meadows over the lifetime of the plan. Both Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) and Alternative 3 

emphasize managing for more diverse and variable migratory waterbird habitat. These two 

alternatives would decrease the extent of deep hemi-marsh habitat in the next four years (2014-2017), 

but increase the extent of shallow marsh and wet meadow habitat. In Alternatives 2 and 3 wetland 

management practices from 2014-2017 would cause a moderate (250-400 acre) decrease in hemimarsh habitat, a corresponding 250-400 acre increase in shallow marsh habitat, a moderate 110-160 

acre increase in seasonally flooded shallow marsh (moist soil) habitat, and a minor 20-40 acre 

increase in acres of wet meadow habitat enhanced over the lifetime of the plan. Total acres of open 

water (736 acres, primarily Sandhole Lake) would remain the same in all alternatives. 

Providing deep flooded marsh habitat is the primary management emphasis of Alternative 1 (Current 

Management). While this would benefit overwater nesting waterbirds (diving ducks and grebes, for 

example), this management approach would likely occur at the expense of improving riparian habitat 

function for species such as American avocet, willow flycatcher, greater sage-grouse, and yellow 

warbler. In Alternative 1, the Refuge would continue to use Camas Creek surface water rights and 

refuge groundwater pumping rights to spring flood and maintain permanent to semipermanently 

flooded hemi-marsh wetlands through the summer and fall. The Refuge would continue to deeply 

flood wetlands in Alternative 1 through a full diversion of Camas Creek surface flow (58.1 cfs from 

April through July in an average flow year). The Refuge would continue to compensate for surface 

water seepage into the ground in Alternative 1 with supplemental groundwater pumping to maintain 

deep wetland habitat through October. Alternative 1 would therefore consistently provide six reliably 

flooded wetland impoundments for waterfowl and waterbirds (Big, Redhead, Toomey, Spring, 

Center, and Two-way Ponds). Refuge waterfowl and waterbirds expected to benefit from this 

approach would include Canada goose, redhead, mallard, and American pelican. While this approach 

provides “consistent” availability of habitat for deep marsh waterfowl, it does not necessarily provide 

high quality or “healthy” habitat, as there is little annual variability or diversity in refuge flooding 

regimes (see section 6.4.1). As a result, productivity of deepwater wetland habitat would be expected 

to decrease over time under current management, resulting in reduced food resources for waterfowl 

and waterbirds. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

6-10 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

In Alternatives 2 and 3 we would make changes to the depth, duration, and inundation in refuge 

impoundments in the short term (2014-2017) to increase the variability and productivity of wetlands. 

The Refuge’s hemi-marshes would experience periodic drying or drawdown cycles, which regulate 

vegetation growth. Ideally, a higher number of smaller open pools (1-25 acres) within emergent 

vegetation would replace the few large pools (greater than100 acres) ringed by emergent vegetation 

that result from current management (Alternative 1). An increased interspersion of emergent 

vegetation and open water would be expected to increase both diversity and abundance of breedingbird species, especially overwater nesting waterfowl and waterbirds (Kaminski and Prince 1984; 

Murkin et al. 1982; Weller and Fredrickson 1974; Weller and Spatcher 1965). 

Due to changes in water management needed to increase riparian streamflow in Alternative 2 

(Preferred Alternative) and Alternative 3, hemi-marsh habitats would decrease by approximately 530-

590 acres (64-70 percent decrease from present) from 2014 to 2017. Hemi-marsh would occur within 

only three of six of the Refuge’s “core” wetland basins (Big, Redhead, and Toomey Ponds). These 

three basins were historically composed of deep marsh habitat before refuge impoundment 

construction and are presumed to have tighter pockets of hydric soils, which held permanent water 

when groundwater levels were higher (about 1915 through 1980). However, there would be a 

corresponding increase in shallow marsh habitat, from current (1,213 acres) to 1,743-1,803 acres, a 

44-49 percent increase compared to current conditions. 

In Alternatives 2 (Preferred Alternative) and 3, we would perform site-specific assessments, 

hydrogeomorphic (HGM) modeling, and pilot projects to assemble data and test hypotheses needed 

to develop a long-term Wetland and Riparian Rehabilitation Plan (WRRP) by 2017. The WRRP, 

when implemented, would create wetland habitat for a more diverse suite of waterbirds, while 

simultaneously conserving refuge groundwater resources and rehabilitating partial riparian habitat 

function of Camas Creek. 

In comparison to Alternative 1, the action alternatives (Alternatives 2 and 3) would increase habitat 

for waterfowl and waterbirds that benefit from shallow wetlands and wet meadows. Alternative 2 

(Preferred Alternative) and Alternative 3 would increase seasonally flooded habitat for foraging and 

breeding migratory birds. In the Action Alternatives (Alternatives 2 and 3) the acreage of shallow 

seasonally flooded (moist soil) habitat would increase 250-500 percent in comparison to Alternative 

1 (150-200 acres in Alts 2 and 3 compared to 40-60 acres in Alt 1). This would increase the 

availability of moist-soil plants such as smartweed, which provides fall-migrating waterfowl with a 

quality food source (Gray et al. 1999), and increases production of aquatic invertebrates in spring 

(Fredrickson and Taylor 1982). Shallow moist-soil wetlands adjacent to hemi-marsh that provides 

security cover would be expected to receive heavy usage by dabbling ducks, particularly mallards, 

and result in both increased Refuge populations and increased production of these species. Periodic 

soil disturbance, as described in the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2), would substantially 

increase smartweed production (Gray et al. 1999; Rundle 1981), benefitting both migrating and 

breeding waterfowl. 

Alternative 1 would provide deep marsh nesting waterfowl with ample protection from predators, but 

lower foraging opportunities for waterfowl and waterbirds, since seasonal wetlands usually supply a 

much greater abundance of invertebrates (De Szalay and Resh 2000; Euliss et al. 2004). Since 

invertebrate populations decline with prolonged flooding, the proposed drawdowns of at least two 

months each year in seasonal wetlands, as proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3, would maintain abundant 

populations of invertebrates (Fredrickson and Taylor 1982; Reid et al. 1989). 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-11 

Many studies have indicated that water depth is an important variable affecting the use of wetland 

habitats by waterbirds (Colwell and Taft 2000; Elphick and Oring 1998; Isola et al. 2002; Velasquez 

1992), and this relationship has served as the basis for the guidelines of wetland management 

(Bolduc and Afton 2004). Water depth directly determines the accessibility of foraging habitats for 

waterbirds because of the restrictions of their morphology, such as the lengths of legs (for wading 

birds, Baker 1979; Collazo et al. 2002; Darnell and Smith 2004; Ntiamoa-Baidu et al. 1998; Powell 

1987) or necks (for dabbling ducks, Poysa 1983). Larger species, with longer necks, bills, and legs, 

can feed in deeper habitats than smaller species. 

In Alternative 2, non-diving waterbirds, such as wading and dabbling birds, would moderately 

benefit from 110-160 acre (250-500 percent) increase in seasonally flooded shallow marsh (moist 

soil) habitat, and the 220-300 acre (11-15 percent) increase in wet-meadow habitats, as they generally 

require shallow water to forage. In contrast, diving waterbirds require deep water, and would 

subsequently incur a minor negative impact in Alternative 2. Because wading and dabbling birds are 

the dominant waterbird groups in the region, the greatest refuge waterbird diversity and density will 

occur by providing an increase in shallow water, where the depth requirements of different waterbird 

groups overlap (e.g., 10-20 centimeter [cm; 3.9-7.9 inches]) (Colwell and Taft 2000; Elphick and 

Oring 1998, 2003; Isola et al. 2002; Taft et al. 2002). Conversely, habitats with deeper water support 

the greatest density of waterbirds when diving birds are dominant (Stapanian 2003), and where the 

wetlands provide roosting sites for waterfowl (Hattori and Mae 2001). From a management 

perspective, the overlap of water depth requirements among waterbird groups suggests that refuge 

wetlands can be managed to meet the needs of different waterbird groups best in Alternative 2 

(Preferred Alternative). At the same time, the Refuge will need to manage certain wetlands 

exclusively for species associated with the extreme ends of the depth spectrum (e.g., diving 

waterbirds and small shorebirds), especially where such species constitute a large component of the 

waterbird community (Taft et al. 2002). The desired future conditions of Alternative 2 allow for a 

wide range of annual variation in hydroperiod (depth, duration inundation) to occasionally 

accommodate the life-history needs of waterbirds that require extremely deep or shallow wetlands. 

Additionally, wetland productivity is anticipated to increase in Alternatives 2 and 3, due to a more 

dynamic and variable water management approach. The static water regimes of Alternative 1 would 

be expected to result in decreasing wetland productivity over time. In comparison to Alternative 1, 

minor to moderate positive effects are anticipated to both breeding and migratory populations of 

waterfowl and waterbirds in Alternatives 2 and 3. In Alternatives 2 and 3 refuge wetlands would be 

managed at different successional stages, thereby positively benefitting waterbird species (Lor and 

Malecki 2006). 

In all alternatives the Refuge will disk and mow either alone, or in combination with herbicide 

applications to suppress dense emergent vegetation that cannot be controlled with water level 

management. Mowing and disking can cause direct mortality to various wetland birds, small 

mammals, reptiles, and amphibians, and indirect mortality or reduced fitness due to loss of cover 

when dense vegetation cover is removed, until wetland plants re-establish. Disking is only performed 

when needed to control emergent vegetation and improving wetland plant diversity. The Refuge 

would reduce impacts of management by delaying disking and mowing operations until after most 

wetland bird species have completed nesting (approximately July 15). 

Overall Effects of Wetland Management to Waterfowl and Waterbirds: While there would be less 

deepwater and hemi-marsh habitat in Alternatives 2 and 3 than under current management, improved 

habitat conditions and productivity in the remaining hemi-marsh would support both increased 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

6-12 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

abundance and diversity of overwater nesting waterfowl and waterbirds. The restoration and increase 

in productivity of seasonal wetland habitat would provide breeding habitat for several species, 

including mallards, Canada geese, northern shovelers, gadwalls, cinnamon teal, and blue-winged teal. 

Increased availability and productivity of moist-soil wetlands in fall would be expected to increase 

foraging opportunities for both breeding and fall migrating waterfowl. Therefore, in comparison to 

Alternative 1, Alternatives 2 and 3 would improve the quality of wetland habitats for waterfowl and 

waterbirds while strategically applying reduced water resources. This would be expected to result in 

minor to moderate increases in productivity, overall abundance, and species diversity of waterfowl 

and waterbirds on the Refuge. 

Upland Management 

Few waterfowl and even fewer waterbirds rely upon shrub uplands as nesting or foraging habitat. In 

Alberta northern pintails have been documented to nest in sagebrush uplands as far away as 1-2 

kilometers (km; 0.6-1.2 miles) from water, presumably to avoid nest predators near the water body 

(Duncan 1987). While long-billed curlews have been noted to nest and forage in sagebrush (Pampush 

1980), a general preference for upland habitats of low vertical profile and low vertical density (plant 

parts/volume/height) was observed; habitats with tall, dense shrubs or weedy annual vegetation were 

generally avoided (Campbell et al. 1990; Pampush 1993). 

In both Alternatives 1 and 2, 113 acres of sagebrush-steppe habitat would be restored, a 4 percent 

increase over existing conditions. In Alternative 2, the Refuge would not dismiss opportunities for 

large-scale efforts (as described in Alternative 3), but large-scale upland habitat management would 

occur only as additional funding and time allows. In Alternative 3, management of upland habitats 

(sage-steppe and native grassland) would receive equivalent emphasis with wetland and riparian 

management. A total of 425 acres of upland habitat would be restored, representing a 16 percent 

increase in this habitat type compared to current conditions. There would be greater positive effects 

to waterfowl or waterbird species that benefit from the upland management under Alternative 3 than 

under Alternatives 1 and 2; however, the overall effect would be negligible to minor. 

Shelterbelt Management 

According to Reinert (1984), the importance of perches for hunting, resting, and feeding of raptors 

has been documented by several investigators. Gatz and Hegdal (1987) theorized in Colorado that 

numerous suitable perch sites in immediate proximity to vulnerable prey bases accounted for most 

use of raptors in tall deciduous trees within riparian corridors. At Camas NWR, bald eagles and other 

raptors have demonstrated a strong preference for large cottonwood snags as daytime perches. 

“Healthy” second-growth forests that open along rivers and lakes may appear lush, but provide 

marginal perch habitat for eagles and other large-bodied raptors. Bald eagles for example, need tall, 

open perches from which to locate prey. Typically, early-seral hardwood forests, such as smalldiameter (less than 30 cm [12 inches]) and black cottonwood are densely branched and not useful as 

raptor perches (Brown 2002). 

Maintaining (Alternatives 1 and 2) or increasing (Alternative 3) cottonwood shelterbelt habitats 

provides perches or cover for raptors, corvids, or mammals that would prey on refuge waterfowl 

(Payne 1992). Over the course of the next fifteen years mature cottonwood roost sites would increase 

as the Refuge manages for over 40 percent composition of mature (greater than 60 feet tall) 

cottonwoods within refuge shelterbelt habitats. While raptor perches in shelterbelt habitats would 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-13 

increase in Alternatives 2 and 3, only minor increases in predation to refuge waterfowl and 

waterbirds would be expected. 

Fire Management 

In all alternatives, prescribed fire would be used in refuge wetlands to reduce stands of dense 

emergent vegetation and maintain or create areas of open water for birds to forage. Under current 

management, burning of wetland occurs in spring (March 1-April 15) and fall (September 20-

October 30.) Early spring burns (March) are generally ineffective in removing dense emergent 

vegetation. A shift toward late spring and summer burns followed by floodup, as proposed in 

Alternatives 2 and 3, would be more effective in controlling tall emergent vegetation. A change in 

fire management as proposed under Alternatives 2 and 3 would create a more open marsh which will 

remain free of emergent vegetation for a significantly longer time and increase foraging areas for 

waterfowl and waterbirds. 

Agricultural Crops 

All alternatives provide supplemental refuge crops for migratory waterfowl within the Pacific and 

Snake River migratory corridor. Under all alternatives, croplands would be managed primarily to 

benefit waterfowl and sandhill cranes, but also other species (e.g. long-billed curlew, Swainson’s 

hawk, sage-grouse, and white-faced ibis). The Refuge would continue to cultivate small grains crops 

in all alternatives, since they are less labor and water intensive than a high-energy crop such as corn. 

In all alternatives, we would continue to grow 20 acres of small grains to both alleviate local crop 

depredation problems and provide carbohydrate reserves to migratory birds with the Pacific Flyway. 

Changes to harvest strategies under Alternatives 2 and 3 (e.g. alternating mowed and unmowed 

swaths to create a “snow fence,” and planting blocks of rows running perpendicular to one another to 

ensure that the tops of some rows would be exposed by the prevailing winds during heavy snow) 

would ensure that grain is more consistently available to wildlife longer into the fall season. There 

would be a minor positive effect to fall migrating waterfowl and sandhill cranes that forage in grain 

fields due to changes in mowing practices that would increase availability of grain later in the season. 

In current management (Alternative 1) and the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2), 140 irrigated 

acres of alfalfa would benefit a variety of species, including white-faced ibis, long-billed curlew, and 

Swainson’s hawk. However, in Alternative 2 we would convert the Well#9 field to a rotation of 

dryland small grains and alfalfa, if we lost our cooperative farmer, which would result in an increase 

in grain production but lower production of alfalfa. In Alternative 3, the Well #9 field would be 

retired and converted to native sage-steppe habitat. Therefore, there could be a slight negative effect 

to species such as white-face ibis, long-billed curlew, and Swainson’s hawk that forage in alfalfa 

under Alternative 2, and a minor effect to these species under Alternative 3. There would be a minor 

positive effect to fall migrating waterfowl and sandhill cranes that forage in grain fields due to 

changes in mowing practices that would increase availability of grain later in the season. 

Agricultural Haying 

In all alternatives, a total of 150 acres of early successional short-stature habitats would be created 

annually by haying. Under Alternative 1 (Current Management), approximately 330 acres of 

formerly farmed fields would be flood-irrigated annually, and 150 acres of these fields would be 

hayed annually. Under Alternative 2, only half of this acreage would be flood irrigated, but 150 acres 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

6-14 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

would continue to be hayed annually. Under Alternative 3 we would cease irrigation of formerly 

farmed fields and hay 150 dryland acres annually. Potential wildlife benefits of haying include: 

increased palatability of grasses for grazers, increased invertebrate forage availability and detection 

rates, reduced physical obstruction, and increased security from predators during grazing or foraging 

activity (Devereux et al. 2006). 

Haying would benefit birds that prefer to forage in short-cover habitat, including species in the 

Meadow Foraging Guild (e.g., greater sandhill crane, long-billed curlew, Canada goose, western 

meadowlark, American robin, cattle egret; Grazing Waterfowl Guild (e.g., American widgeon, 

American coot, gadwall, Canada geese); and Upland Nesting Guild (e.g., long-billed curlew, blacknecked stilt, killdeer). Conversely, haying would reduce habitat for birds that select dense cover for 

foraging and nesting, including species in the Upland Nesting Waterfowl Guild (i.e., northern pintail, 

mallard, cinnamon teal, northern shoveler, gadwall); the Meadow Nesting Shorebird Guild (i.e., 

Wilson’s phalarope, willet, common snipe); the Secretive Marsh Bird Guild (i.e., American bittern, 

Virginia rail, sora rail); and the Shallow Over-water Nesting Marsh Bird Guild (i.e., black tern, marsh 

wren, red-winged blackbird, yellow-headed blackbird, northern harrier). 

While increased access to invertebrates is the principal advantage cited for short-cover management 

practices (Schekkerman and Beintema 2007), an unanticipated effect of short-cover haying is 

productivity to due reductions in detritus, which sustains much of the biomass and structure of the 

community (van der Valk 1989). Invertebrate production may also be impeded by litter removal 

(Magee 1993). 

The Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2) is to hay 150 acres annually, and rotate haying operations 

through different parcels, so that the same units would not get hayed two years in a row. By allowing 

some time for units to recover, the forage quality and quantity would increase, while unhayed parcels 

would provide denser nesting cover for wildlife. Under Alternative 2, Canada geese, greater sandhill 

cranes, snow geese, curlews, and ducks would benefit from refuge haying operations. These groups 

of birds regularly use refuge habitats during the fall migration. Refuge hay grounds supplement 

natural food sources and provide undisturbed/safe areas where migrating birds can forage. Under 

Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) we would use less groundwater than Alternative 1 (only 150 

acres would be flood irrigated annually) and we would reseed hay meadows that are dominated by 

quack and brome grass to a more palatable and desirable mix of grasses for foraging and nesting 

wildlife. Alternative 2 strikes a balance between water conservation and providing short-cover 

habitat for the wildlife species that benefit from it. Alternative 3 would eliminate irrigation of 

hayfields, thereby conserving groundwater resources for higher-priority uses. Forage quality and 

quantity, and invertebrate populations, would be expected to decline. Therefore, mowed dryland 

hayfields would be expected to be less productive and attractive to wildlife than irrigated fields. 

All haying operations involve the use of farm equipment to mow, rake, bale, and transport hay. 

Several studies show a direct and often substantial impact of the harvesting process on wildlife, 

especially from the mowing stages, and that this impact depends on the techniques and equipment 

used, as well as the equipment settings, and the habitat and ecology of each species (Humbert et al. 

2009). Birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles may be temporarily or permanently displaced, 

injured, or killed. Several studies (e.g. Paullin et al. 1977) suggest that hay mowing mortality is 

greatest during the first two weeks of July, and that early nesting species are directly vulnerable to 

mowing. Currently, refuge hay operators cannot initiate mowing or harvest of refuge hay until July 

15 to ensure that cutting occurs after the nesting season for grassland species is complete. 

Alternatives 1 and 2 impart only a slight disturbance and low levels of mortality to nesting birds from 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-15 

haying 150 acres annually after July 15, while still providing habitat for those species that prefer to 

nest and forage in short cover areas. Unhayed areas would provide rich seed and invertebrate food 

resources, and taller, denser habitat for upland nesting waterfowl, secretive marsh birds, and shallow 

over-water nesting birds. Continuation of haying irrigated meadows, as proposed in Alternatives 1 

and 2, would predominantly benefit common bird species such as meadow foragers and grazers 

(Lefranc 1997). Reductions in irrigation of hay meadows (from 330 to 150 acres in Alternative 2 and 

from 330 to 0 acres in Alternative 3) would reduce productivity of these meadows as well as the 

quantity and quality of forage and invertebrate resources for meadow foragers and grazers. However 

a reduction in irrigation would conserve water resources for higher priority uses. 

6.3.2 Effects to Waterfowl and Waterbirds from Public Recreational Use (not 

including hunting) 

Conflicts arise when migratory birds and humans are present in the same areas (Boyle and Samson 

1985). Anticipated direct impacts of wildlife observation and photography, interpretation, and 

environmental education include disturbance to wildlife by human presence which typically results in 

a temporary displacement of individuals or groups. Immediate responses of birds to human activities 

include departure from site or nest abandonment (Burger 1981; Henson and Grant 1991; Klein 1993; 

Korschgen et al. 1985; Owens 1977; Taylor and Knight 2003), use of suboptimal habitat (Erwin 

1980; Williams and Forbes 1980), altered behavior (Burger 1981; Havera et al. 1992; Klein 1993; 

Korschgen et al. 1985; Morton et al. 1989; Ward and Stehn 1989), and increase in energy expenditure 

(Belanger and Bedard 1990; Morton et al. 1989), and physiological changes such as elevated heart 

rates due to flight, or even death (Knight and Cole 1995b). Numerous studies have confirmed that 

people on foot can cause a variety of disturbance reactions in waterfowl and waterbirds, including 

flushing or displacement (Erwin 1989; Fraser et al. 1985; Freddy 1986), heart rate increases 

(MacArthur et al. 1982), altered foraging patterns (Burger and Gochfeld 1991), and even, in some 

cases, diminished reproductive success (Boyle and Samson 1985). McNeil et al. (1992) found that 

many waterfowl species avoid disturbance by feeding at night instead of during the day. 

The long-term effects of disturbance are more difficult to assess but may include altered behavior, 

vigor, productivity, or death of individuals; altered population abundance, distribution, or 

demographics; and altered community species composition and interactions. 

Knight and Cole (1991) found that wildlife responses to human disturbance include avoidance, 

habituation, and attraction. The magnitude of wildlife avoidance response may depend on a number 

of factors including the type (e.g., photographers, birders, hikers), distance, movement pattern, 

predictability, speed, frequency, visibility, and duration of the disturbance, as well as the time of day, 

time of year, weather; the animal’s access to food and cover, energy demands, and reproductive status 

(Gabrielsen and Smith 1995; Knight and Cole 1991). For example, Burger (1986) found that 

shorebird reactions to disturbance increased (fewer remained, more flew) the more they were 

disturbed, the larger the group size, and the closer they came to the flock. Knight and Cole (1991) 

also suggested that sound may elicit a much milder response from wildlife if animals are visually 

buffered from the disturbance. 

Variables that typically have the greatest influence on wildlife behavior are the distance and duration 

of the disturbance. Several researchers have looked at the question of proximity: at what distance do 

humans on foot elicit a disturbance response? From an examination of the available studies, it 

appears that the distance varies dramatically from species to species. In a review of several studies of 

the reaction of waterfowl and other wetland birds to people on foot, distances greater than 328 feet 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

6-16 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

(100 meters [m]) generally did not result in a behavioral response (DeLong 2002). Stolen (2003) 

found that the proximity of wading birds to a roadway influenced the probability that a given bird 

would flush. Migratory waterfowl at J.N. “Ding” Darling NWR remained more than 80 m (262 feet) 

from the auto tour route, even when human visitation was low (Klein 1995). Burger and Gochfeld 

(1991) found that sanderlings foraged less during the day and more during the night as the number of 

people within 100 m (328 feet) increased. Erwin (1989) found that mixed colonies of common terns 

and black skimmers responded at the greatest distances, with respective means of 142 m (466 feet) 

and to 130 m (427 feet); while mixed wading bird species were more reluctant to flush (30-50 m [98-

164 feet] average). Klein (1989) found that resident waterbirds were less sensitive to human 

disturbance than migrants. Migrant ducks were particularly sensitive when they first arrived on-site 

in the fall. They usually remained more than 80 m (262 feet) from a visitor footpath on a dike, even 

at very low visitor levels. Herons, egrets, brown pelicans, and anhingas were most likely to habituate 

to humans, while shorebirds showed moderate sensitivity. Strauss (1990) found that piping plover 

chicks spent significantly less time feeding and more time running and standing alert when 

pedestrians or moving vehicles were closer than 100 m (328 feet) than when they were undisturbed. 

In addition the plover chicks spent less time in open feeding areas and more time in cover during 

periods of human disturbance. 

Burger (1999 as cited by Oberbillig 2001) suggests that viewing distances that minimize disturbance 

can serve as useful guides for managers lacking good site-specific information and serve as a starting 

point in determining what is appropriate elsewhere. Some factors that affect viewing distances 

include the numbers of viewers, the time of day, and noise level. When exposing nonbreeding 

waterbirds to four types of human disturbances (walking, all-terrain vehicle, automobile, and boat), 

Rodgers and Smith (1997) concluded that a buffer zone of 100 m (328 feet) would minimize 

disturbance to most species of waterbirds. Vos et al. (1985) recommended buffer zones of 250 m (820 

feet) on land and 150 m (492 feet) in water for great blue herons. 

Habituation is defined as a form of learning in which individuals stop responding to stimuli that carry 

no reinforcing consequences for the individuals that are exposed to them (Alcock 1993). A key factor 

in predicting how wildlife would respond to disturbance is its predictability. Often, when a use is 

predictable, following a trail or boardwalk or at a viewing deck, wildlife will accept human presence 

(Oberbillig 2001). Conversely, a number of species show greater reactions when pedestrian use 

occurs off trail (Miller et al. 1998; Taylor and Knight 2003). Gabrielsen and Smith (1995) suggest 

that most animals seem to have a greater defense response to humans moving unpredictably in the 

terrain than to humans following a distinct path. In areas where human activity is common, birds 

tolerated closer approaches than in areas receiving less activity. Dwyer and Tanner (1992) noted that 

nesting sandhill cranes in Florida habituated best to disturbance that is somewhat predictable or 

background. Cranes nested within 400 m (1,312 feet) of highways, railroads, and mines; and were 

also tolerant of helicopter flyovers. Even so, investigator visits to nests (which were presumably less 

predictable) and development-induced alterations of surface water drainage were implicated in 24 

percent of the nest failures. 

In all alternatives use of the auto tour route, service and hunter access roads, trails, and associated 

facilities provides potential avenues for human disturbance of wildlife and habitat on the Refuge. 

Impacts from non-consumptive uses can be controlled most effectively, mitigating the effect on 

refuge wildlife, by managing these uses in time and space. In all alternatives the Refuge would 

minimize disturbance to wildlife and their habitats, by only being open to the public from 1⁄2 hour 

before and after sunrise and sunset. To minimize disturbance during formal education programs the 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-17 

refuge staff would manage group size, timing, and locations in Alternatives 2 and 3. Refuge law 

enforcement will be used in all alternatives to ensure visitors compliance with refuge rules. 

In all alternatives, vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian access would be allowed year round on the 6.3-

mile auto tour route, and bicycle and pedestrian access would allowed year-round on 27 miles of 

service roads. An additional 6.5 miles of hunter access roads leading to the north and south hunt units 

would be open to vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian access during the waterfowl and upland game 

hunting seasons. The birding trail, which does not go through waterfowl habitat, would be open to 

pedestrian use only. The zone of influence of the auto tour route would include the edges of core 

wetlands, however this zone is small compared to the overall wetland area. The effects of the tour 

route to waterfowl use and production on these wetlands would be minor, while providing the public 

with good opportunities to participate in wildlife observation and photography. The service roads and 

hunter access roads primarily go through upland habitat. In Alternative 3, the 7.5 mile Sandhole Lake 

service road would be opened to vehicle traffic seasonally (July 1-Nov 1). This could result in 

moderate negative impacts to waterfowl that use the Sandhole Lake area during the breeding and fall 

migration seasons. 

Alternative 1 (Current Management) has the greatest potential for wildlife disturbance, since the 

entire 10,806-acre Refuge open to off-road hiking from July 15-February 28. While this is outside the 

breeding or nesting season for most wetland wildlife, there is the potential for disturbance to 

waterfowl and waterbirds with long brood rearing periods (e.g. swans, some colonial nesting birds) 

or staging sandhill cranes. To reduce disturbance, Alternative 3 would restrict off-road hiking to 

2,510 acres (the north and south waterfowl hunting units), while Alternative 2 would prohibit offroad hiking, except by hunters in pursuit of game during the hunt seasons. By increasing 

predictability of human presence and restricting (Alt 3) or eliminating (Alt 2) off-trail travel, both 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in lower levels of disturbance to waterfowl and waterbirds than 

Alternative 1. 

The Refuge is currently very popular with wildlife photographers, with an average of 600 visits per 

year and 1,000 visits for the purpose of photography in 2012. Wildlife photography is likely more 

disturbing, per instance, than wildlife observation because photographers tend to approach animals 

more closely (Klein 1993; Morton 1995). Klein (1993) observed at Ding Darling NWR, that of all 

the non-consumptive uses, photographers were the most likely to attempt close contact with birds, 

and that even a slow approach disrupted waterbirds. Under Alternatives 2 and 3 we would allow the 

use of up to five portable photography blinds within 100 feet of roads at any given time (Alternatives 

2 and 3). While this could result in minor short-term disturbance to wildlife in the vicinity of the 

blinds, overall impacts would be lower than Alternative 1 which would allow off road hiking 

throughout the Refuge from July 15-February 28. Use of blinds would able be less disturbing to 

wildlife than photographers on foot leaving established roads and trails. 

Dogs elicit a greater response from wildlife than pedestrians alone (Hoopes 1993; MacArthur et al. 

1982). In the case of birds, the presence of dogs may flush incubating birds from nests (Yalden and 

Yalden 1990), disrupt breeding displays (Baydack 1986), disrupt foraging activity in shorebirds 

(Hoopes 1993), and disturb roosting activity in ducks (Keller 1991). Despite thousands of years of 

domestication, dogs still retain instincts to hunt and chase. Given the appropriate stimulus, those 

instincts can be triggered. Dogs that are unleashed or not under the control of their owners may 

disturb or potentially threaten the lives of some wildlife. In effect, off-leash dogs increase the radius 

of human recreational influence or disturbance beyond what it would be in the absence of a dog. 

Both the Preferred Alternative (2) and Alternative 3 would require persons hiking or walking with 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

6-18 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

dogs to maintain control of their animal while on the Refuge by use of a short leash or electronic 

collar, thereby reducing the potential and severity of these impacts to wildlife. In Alternatives 2 and 

3, dog-walking would be restricted to the Auto Tour Route and designated service roads, and would 

be prohibited on the 1.3 mile birding trail, further reducing the potential for disturbance to waterfowl 

and waterbirds. 

Overall, Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in slight negative impacts to waterfowl and waterbirds; 

however impacts would be lower than in Alternative 1 due to the elimination (Alt 2) or reduction (Alt 

3) in off road hiking, which could take visitors into sensitive resource areas. The Preferred 

Alternative (Alternative 2) would focus public use to occur within manageable areas and reduce the 

potential for human activities to disturb wildlife. 

6.3.3 Effects to Waterfowl and Waterbirds from Hunting 

Effects from Waterfowl Hunting 

In all alternatives waterfowl hunting would occur on 2,510 acres of Camas NWR. The Refuge has a 

history of providing quality waterfowl and upland game hunting opportunities. In the 1950s and 

1960s, when plentiful water resources allowed the Refuge to keep ponds flooded well into the fall, 

local hunters viewed the Refuge among best the waterfowling in the area. Over the past 20 years, due 

to the declining water table in the area, waterfowl hunting opportunities on the Refuge have declined, 

to the point where they are almost non-existent today. Even though proposed changes in water 

management within Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) and Alternative 3 may increase the 

productivity of wetlands on the Refuge, it is unlikely if these changes would allow wetlands to hold 

water late enough in the season to improve water hunting opportunities compared to current 

conditions. 

Belanger and Bedard (1995) concluded that disturbance caused by hunting can modify the 

distribution and use of various habitats by birds (Madsen 1985; Owens 1977; White-Robinson, 

1982). In Denmark, Madsen (1995) tested disturbance effects of hunting by the establishment of two 

experimental reserves where hunting activity was manipulated such that sanctuary areas were created 

in different parts of the study area in different hunting seasons. In both reserves, waterbird numbers 

increased most strongly in hunted species (threefold to fortyfold), with highest densities found in 

sanctuary areas, irrespective of where these sanctuaries were sited. At Sacramento National Wildlife 

Refuge, in California, researchers found statistically significant differences in the densities of 

northern pintails among hunting units, units adjacent to hunting units, units adjacent to auto tour 

route, and units isolated from disturbance (Wolder 1993). Prior to the opening of hunting season, 

pintail used units in proportion to their availability, indicating no preference to particular areas. 

During the hunting season, 50-60 percent of the pintails on the Refuge were located on the isolated 

units that contained 26-28 percent of the refuge wetlands, suggesting a strong waterfowl preference 

for areas of little human activity. Units along the auto tour route and adjacent to hunting units 

maintained pintails at similar proportions to their availability. Three to sixteen percent of the pintails 

on the Refuge were located on hunted units (36-40 percent of the available habitat) during non-hunt 

days (four days per week) and almost entirely absent on days when hunting was taking place, 

indicating an avoidance of the hunted areas. 

Belanger and Bedard (1989) studied the effect of disturbances to staging greater snow geese in a 

Quebec bird sanctuary over 471 hours of observation. They found that the level of disturbance 

(defined as any event causing all or part of the goose flock to take flight) that prevailed on a given 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-19 

day in fall influenced goose use of the sanctuary on the following day. When disturbance exceeded 

two events per hour, it produced a 50 percent drop in the mean number of geese present in the 

sanctuary the next day. 

Waterfowl hunting as proposed in all alternatives would have a negligible effect on local, regional, or 

Pacific Flyway waterfowl populations because the number of waterfowl taken on the Refuge 

represents only a tiny fraction of the total estimated harvest. In addition, overall populations would 

continue to be monitored and future harvests would be adjusted as needed under the existing flyway 

and State regulatory processes. As discussed in the Compatibility Determination (Appendix B), 

although disturbance to wintering waterfowl would occur during the hunting period, this disturbance 

would be minimal because of the small area available for hunting and the short time frame of the 

hunt before freezing conditions cause waterfowl to leave the Refuge and continue migrating south. 

National waterfowl experts who have looked at the cumulative impact of disturbance stemming from 

hunting on national wildlife refuges (U.S. DOI 2009) concluded that hunting disturbance has less 

impact than the direct mortality caused by hunting. Further, since the direct impacts of hunting 

cannot be clearly demonstrated to be detrimental at most population levels, then disturbance has not 

been demonstrated to result in any population level effects on waterfowl (U.S. DOI 2009). 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) considerations by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Service; USFWS) for hunted migratory game bird species are addressed by the programmatic 

document, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Issuance of Annual Regulations 

Permitting the Sport Hunting of Migratory Birds (FSES 88-14), filed with the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) on June 9, 1988. A Notice of Availability was published in the Federal 

Register on June 16, 1988 (53 FR 22582), and a Record of Decisions (ROD) was signed on August 

18, 1988 (53 FR 31341). Current year NEPA considerations for waterfowl hunting frameworks are 

covered under a separate Environmental Assessment—Duck Hunting Regulations for 2006-2007, and 

an August 24, 2006, Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). Further, in a notice published in the 

September 8, 2005, Federal Register (70 FR 53376); the Service announced its intent to develop a 

new supplemental environmental impact statement for the migratory bird hunting program. Public 

scoping meetings were held in the spring of 2006, as announced in a March 9, 2006, Federal Register 

notice (71 FR 12216). 

The waterfowl harvest in Idaho is presented in Table 6.2, below. This includes waterfowl harvested 

on other national wildlife refuges, other public lands and waters, and private lands. Table 6.2 details 

the current harvest rates and populations (where available) or population trends at various levels for 

ducks, geese, and other migratory birds. Wintering populations are not accurately measurable for 

migratory birds at small scales such as at the Refuge or refuge management unit level. This is 

because birds can easily move from one site to another and even make long distance journeys from 

day to day while the survey is underway. Regional and local population surveys are best understood 

as an “index” (best used to measure trends over time) and not a true census at any particular time. 

Waterfowl hunting would occur under all three alternatives. Total harvest could be similar in all 

alternatives. In comparison with statewide harvests, the harvest of migratory birds on the Refuge is 

minimal. Although refuge hunt statistics are not available, the low number of annual hunt visits 

means that only a few dozen birds may be harvested annually, even assuming that all waterfowl 

hunters reach their bag limits. Therefore, the Refuge’s role in the cumulative impact of migratory 

bird harvest, even solely on a statewide basis, is insignificant. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

6-20 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

Table 6.2. Waterfowl Harvest and Population at Flyway and State Levels 

Area Total 

Harvest—

2008/2009 

Total 

harvest—

2009/2010 

Area Population 

Duck

Pacific Flyway 

Total 

3,300,600±10% 2,781,900±12% Mid-winter survey (Pacific 

Flyway): 5,356,550 (2008); 

5,235,386 (2009); 5,679,473 

(long-term average 1955-

2009) 

State of Idaho 257,700±22% 228,300±22% Mid-winter survey: 21,894 

ducks in area 33-1N (North 

Idaho) (2009) 

Goose

Pacific Flyway 

Total 

555,100±22% 430,700±10% Mid-winter survey: 1,777,400 

(2009); 1,000,652 (long-term 

average 1955-2009) 

State of Idaho 64,500±25% 58,300±25% Mid-winter survey: 7,824 

geese in area 33-1N (north 

Idaho) (2009) 

Effects to Waterfowl and Waterbirds from Elk Hunting 

Alternative 1 would not open the Refuge to elk hunting. Proposed elk hunts in Alternative 2 

(Preferred Alternative) and Alternative 3 would open 4,112 acres of the Refuge to elk hunting and 

could cause some degree of disturbance to migratory birds in the fall on the south 1,530 acre 

waterfowl hunt unit, as well as the Rays Lake area, which is outside the waterfowl hunt unit but 

within the proposed elk hunt area. 

The amount and degree of disturbance to waterfowl would depend on the condition of the refuge 

wetlands, in particular Rays Lake and Sandhole Lake. If late season water is present in Rays Lake, 

waterfowl, mostly Canada geese, will use the lake for roosting during the elk season. As fall 

approaches Canada geese tend to congregate in larger flocks and will look for larger bodies of water 

to roost upon. Both Rays Lake and Sandhole Lake can hold large numbers of geese in fall; Rays Lake 

is located within the proposed elk hunting area. Typically these geese leave the Refuge shortly after 

first light to feed and may return to rest and drink about mid-morning. They will typically leave again 

in late afternoon to feed, and return at dark daily. 

Periodic shooting, or hunters walking in close proximity to these wetlands, could temporarily 

disperse birds. This disturbance would be limited in scope by the low number of elk hunters at any 

given time (maximum of two daily) and over the entire season (a maximum of 20 refuge access 

permits for elk hunting would be issued per season). The rate of gunfire discharge is expected to be 

infrequent and random based upon opportunistic individual shots at elk in range. The frequency of 

gunfire may be only a few shots per day at most, causing temporary and short-term disturbance to 

waterfowl. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-21 

Disturbance of trumpeter swans with broods is a potential concern during the early portion of the elk 

hunting season. The young of trumpeter swans typically hatch in late June, however nesting, laying, 

hatching, and fledging dates of trumpeter swans vary widely even within areas, due to annual 

weather patterns. For example, Gale et al. (1987) give first hatching dates at Red Rock Lakes NWR, 

MT between May 30 and July 1 in different years, while within-year hatching dates varying by one to 

three, and exceptionally six, weeks. In typical years swans would be fledged by mid-October, but in 

years with late nesting, swans with cygnets could be present as late as November 1, although this is 

unlikely given the lack of late season water in the areas of the Refuge used by swans for brood 

rearing. While the proposed elk hunt could disturb trumpeter swans and their broods during the early 

portion of the hunting season, disturbance of swans by elk hunters is unlikely due to the fact that the 

hunt area, and the area where elk spend the bulk of their time, lies outside the area where swan 

nesting and brood rearing have historically occurred. 

There is little information about the effects of human activities to swans on wintering or migratory 

staging grounds. However, those human activities that disturb swans on breeding grounds likely 

affect swan behavior on wintering or migratory staging grounds. Disturbances to swans that disrupt 

winter or migratory foraging activities or cause frequent movements from resting areas may decrease 

overall condition or even cause mortality (Mitchell 1994). Swans in poorer condition during 

migration or on the wintering grounds may have higher mortality during a severe winter event or 

epizootic outbreaks (Anderson et al. 1986). In a particularly wet year, pedestrian access from elk 

hunters could disturb some foraging swans in the Rays Lake area. However, there is seldom enough 

water in Rays Lake in an average or dry year to be attractive to swans, and swans collectively spend 

little time in the 4,112 acre elk hunting area. There is no documentation of swans nesting or rearing 

broods in the proposed elk hunt area. Furthermore, during the required pre-hunt orientation hunters 

would be advised of the current locations of swans. Elk hunters must maintain at least a 400 meter (1⁄4 

mile) distance from wetlands where swans are rearing their broods. As noted above, the framework 

of the refuge hunt allows the Refuge to selectively close areas, as detected, to protect sensitive 

wildlife resources within the hunt area with spatial buffers. Due to these stipulations, impacts to 

swans would be negligible. 

The controlled elk hunt has the potential to disturb greater sandhill cranes, which use Rays Lake 

(within the proposed elk hunting area) and to a lesser degree, Sandhole Lake (which lies outside the 

proposed elk hunting area) as roost sites during pre-migration staging. Sandhill cranes present at 

Camas NWR are from the Rocky Mountain population, which stage in specific locations throughout 

their summer range during late August to early October. In typical years, crane numbers at Camas 

NWR peak in mid-September and the majority of cranes have left the Refuge by early October. 

However, during open winters (no snow), low numbers of cranes have been observed on the Refuge 

into December. Staging cranes can be found on various types of habitat on the Refuge including dry 

upland sites, hayed areas, and agricultural fields. In September, large numbers of cranes roost on 

Rays Lake; lower numbers may use Sandhole Lake. Typically, cranes prefer Rays Lake for roosting 

due to its shallower water. Cranes typically leave the Refuge twice a day (early morning and again in 

the evening) to forage in grain fields in the local area and return to the Refuge to roost. A smaller 

number feed in agricultural fields located on Refuge (refuge grain fields are located outside the hunt 

area). The existing migratory and upland game bird hunting programs have minimal impacts to 

sandhill cranes due to the low numbers of hunters pursuing these species, and the fact that Rays Lake 

and Sandhole Lake lie outside the north and south hunt units. 

Sandhill cranes have shown susceptibility to even low levels of disturbance at roost sites (Bettinger 

and Milner 2000; Littlefield and Ivey 2000). Observations of numerous roosting sites by Lewis 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

6-22 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

(1976) and Lovvorn and Kirkpatrick (1981) indicated that roosts were characterized by level terrain, 

shallow water bordered by a shoreline either devoid of vegetation or sparsely vegetated, and an 

isolated location that reduces potential for disturbance by humans. Pedestrian and vehicle traffic can 

potentially disturb breeding and roosting cranes (Engler 2000; Kramer et al. 1983; Norling et al. 

1992). Bettinger and Milner (2000) recommend that “Hunting activity should be avoided near 

established roosts, or restricted to 4 hours after sunrise until 2 hours before sunset.” 

Because of the sensitivity of roosting cranes to disturbance, elk hunters would be advised of the 

location of sandhill cranes during their pre-hunt orientation. Hunters must maintain a distance of at 

least 400 m (1⁄4 mile) of roosting cranes while in pursuit of elk. The framework of the refuge hunt 

also allows the Refuge to selectively close areas, as detected, to protect sensitive wildlife resources 

within the hunt area with spatial buffers. Resource buffers would be used to sufficiently safeguard 

sandhill crane roost sites from abandonment. Due to the stipulations associated with the elk hunt, 

impacts to sandhill cranes would be expected to be minor. 

6.3.4 Overall Effects to Waterfowl and Waterbird Species 

Changes to habitat management in Alternatives 2 and 3 would not cause any significant adverse 

effects to local, regional, or flyway waterfowl populations. Changes in the type of habitat (a lower 

quantity but higher quality of deepwater and hemi-marsh habitat, and greater quantity and quality of 

shallow seasonal wetland habitat and wet meadows) would occur under Alternative 2 (Preferred 

Alternative) and Alternative 3. The reduction of deepwater wetlands in Alternatives 2 and 3 may 

cause a minor decline in local waterfowl production; however it is also possible that minor to 

moderate increases in production may occur due to increased quality and productivity of both 

deepwater and seasonal wetland habitats. Proposed management in the Preferred Alternative and 

Alternative 3 would provide moderate positive beneficial effects to migratory waterbirds through 

increased seasonal wetland availability, when compared to Alternative 1. Supplemental crops would 

be provided in all alternatives. The amount of grain would be the same under all alternatives; 

however changes to mowing practices in Alternatives 2 and 3 would increase availability of grain to 

migrating birds late in the season. Reductions in irrigation of hay meadows would likely reduce 

quality and quantity of forage available to select wildlife species; however this only affects a small 

area (150 acres in Alt 2 and 330 acres in Alt 3) and would likely be more than counterbalanced by 

increases in seasonal and moist-soil wetlands under these alternatives. 

With the continuation of existing public use activities and facilities under Alternative 1, a projected 

increase in refuge visitation is expected to have a minor negative impact on waterfowl usage of 

refuge habitats in the future. Effects of nonconsumptive public uses to waterfowl and waterbirds 

would be lower in Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) than Alternative 1 (Current Management) or 

Alternative 3, due to the prohibition of off road hiking and limitation on placement of photo blinds to 

a maximum of five at any given time, within 100 feet of roads. The impacts of continuing the 

recreational waterfowl hunting program under all alternatives would be negligible. Overall waterfowl 

harvest levels on the Refuge represent a very small portion of the State and flyway harvest and are 

not expected to increase or decrease significantly under any alternative. Waterfowl harvest on the 

Refuge also accounts for a very small portion of the overall waterfowl production and the number of 

birds available to hunt at both the flyway and State levels. The elk hunt proposed in Alternatives 2 

and 3 has the potential to disturb migrating Canada geese, late-nesting swans, and staging sandhill 

cranes; however, due to the stipulations associated with the elk hunt, impacts to these species would 

be expected to be minor. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-23 

6.4 Effects to Threatened and Endangered Species 

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544, December 28, 1973, as amended 

1976-1982, 1984, and 1988) states in SEC. 8A.(a) that “The Secretary of the Interior ... is designated 

as the Management Authority and the Scientific Authority for purposes of the Convention and the 

respective functions of each such Authority shall be carried out through the United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service.” The Act also requires that “all Federal departments and agencies shall seek to 

conserve endangered species and threatened species and shall utilize their authorities in furtherance 

of the purposes of this Act.” 

The following federally listed or Federal candidate species are considered to occur within the 

surrounding landscape of the Refuge: 

 Threatened 

a. Ute ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) 

 Camas NWR is within the historic range for Ute ladies’-tresses. The plant grows along 

riparian edges, gravel bars, old oxbows, high flow channels and moist to wet meadows 

along perennial streams. It typically occurs in stable wetland and seep areas associated 

with old landscape features within historical floodplains of major rivers (USFWS 2010). 

There is no known occurrence of Ute ladies’-tresses on the Refuge and no effect to Ute 

ladies’ tresses would occur from proposed refuge activities in this CCP. 

b. Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) 

Camas NWR is within the historic range for Canada lynx. The lynx is a secretive forest 

dwelling cat historically found throughout much of Canada, the forests of northern tier 

states, and subalpine forest of the central and southern Rocky Mountains. There have 

been known occupancies in Jefferson County, but the refuge wetlands and sage-steppe 

habitats are not lynx habitat and there are no documented records of lynx on the Refuge 

(Laye 2012). No direct or indirect effect to Canada lynx would occur through 

implementation of this CCP. 

 

Due to the lack of presence of any listed species on the Refuge, there would be no effects to listed 

species under all alternatives. 

Candidate 

a. Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) 

 Camas NWR is within the historic summer and breeding range for yellow-billed cuckoos. 

The birds prefer open woodlands with clearings and dense scrubby vegetation, often 

along water (Cornell University 2011). Yellow-billed cuckoos have been documented on 

Camas NWR in the spring and summer. It is listed as rare (known to be present but not 

every year) for the Refuge. Riparian habitat management strategies in the Preferred 

Alternative (Alternative 2) would provide a positive beneficial improvement in habitat 

quality for yellow-billed cuckoo. Although the birds may be present during periods of 

public summer visitation and during the fall hunting season, disturbance from these 

activities would be minimal. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

6-24 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

b. Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) 

 Camas NWR is within the historic range for sage grouse and offers about 4,000 acres of 

preferred shrub-steppe habitat. Sage-grouse have been observed during all seasons and 

are known to nest on the Refuge. The greatest positive benefits to sage-grouse and would 

occur through Alternative 3, which places an equal emphasis upon upland and wetland 

habitat objectives and would actively seek to restore landscape connectivity within 

sagebrush ecosystems to support and maintain integrated sage-steppe wildlife 

communities. Although sage-grouse are present during the summer and fall, interaction 

with visiting public and hunters would be minimal in all alternatives. With the limited 

number of access permits given for the elk hunt and the low density of upland game bird 

hunters, the negative impacts on greater sage-grouse from either elk hunting or upland 

game bird hunting should be minimal.

Effects to Sage-grouse from Upland Game Bird Hunting Program 

On March 5, 2010 the USFWS announced its determination that a range-wide listing of the greater 

sage-grouse as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 was warranted, 

but precluded by higher priority listing actions (USFWS 2010). Therefore, sage-grouse are a 

“candidate” species under the Endangered Species Act, but remain a State-managed species. In light 

of this decision, concerns have been expressed about the potential impacts that hunting greater sagegrouse may have on their long-term conservation and annual status reviews conducted by the 

USFWS. Harvest of greater sage-grouse currently occurs in nine of the eleven states in which they 

reside, including Idaho. All of Southeast Idaho, including all portions (open to hunting) of the Refuge 

in Jefferson County, was open to a conservative seven-day hunt from October 1-7, 2011. Just over 

4,000 birds were harvested statewide in 2011. 

Under all alternatives, upland game bird hunting would continue to be allowed on 2,510 acres of the 

Refuge. Upland game bird hunting is expected to remain a low intensity use in all alternatives. The 

March 2010 listing decision (USFWS 2010) supports continued hunting in Alternative 1, by 

concluding that the key threats to the continued survival of sage-grouse are 1) habitat loss, 

fragmentation, and modification and 2) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, particularly in 

relation to energy and other development. The USFWS also evaluated the “utilization” (e.g., hunting) 

of sage-grouse and concluded that “the greater sage-grouse is not threatened by overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes now or in the foreseeable future”. This 

finding was similar to a January 2005 finding whereby the USFWS determined that hunting, as 

currently regulated by state wildlife agencies, was not a significant threat to the conservation of sagegrouse. The expert panel used by the USFWS to make this determination ranked hunting seventeenth 

out of nineteen potential threats considered (USFWS 2005). 

Conversely, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBC), who petitioned the sage-grouse for listing in 

2009, while acknowledging that hunting is not a major contributor to the causes of the grouse’s 

decline, still recommends hunting season closures to reduce all controllable risks to the species to 

maximize its chances for recovery. Others, such as the American Land Alliance (ALA), which 

petitioned the bird for ESA listing in 2003, states that due to allee effects, sage-grouse population size 

decreases are unlikely to be linear and easily detectable. The term allee effect refers to the negative 

effects on population processes of low population size or density (Allee 1938, 1951; Drickamer and 

Vessey 1992). The ALA contends that as localized sage-grouse population size decreases to some 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-25 

threshold value, rapid sage-grouse declines and extirpation are likely. Such declines may be so rapid 

as to be undetectable before they actually occur, or if detected, extirpation may not be preventable by 

that point. ALA argued that hunting of sage grouse can greatly increase local extinction risk, and this 

risk will not be accounted for in conventional models of population harvest (ALA 2003). 

Many states subsequently implemented cautionary hunting seasons (Christiansen 2010) in line with 

recommendations outlined in the sage-grouse management guidelines (Connelly et al. 2000). The 

Idaho season is now only seven days in length, occurs outside the breeding season in late fall, and 

has a bag limit of one bird per day and possession limit of two birds. Wyoming, Nevada, and Idaho 

contend that sage-grouse hunting regulations take into account biology, formal public involvement 

via state and local planning efforts, and informal public perceptions, and that the consequences of 

deviating from established management guidelines and conservation plans could undermine local 

sage-grouse conservation efforts (Christiansen 2010). Wyoming Fish and Game (2010) further 

concluded that closing hunting seasons where biological data do not justify such a management 

decision would create a public perception that sage-grouse populations in Wyoming may indeed 

require protection under the Endangered Species Act and that by recognizing unfounded concerns 

about hunting impacts, hunting closures would threaten voluntary conservation initiatives. 

The Refuge does not believe that the associated reduction in sage-grouse harvest from eliminating 

refuge hunts would have even a minor positive benefit to the local grouse population. Although sagegrouse hunting is currently open to hunting on the Refuge, eliminating this hunt would have a 

negligible effect on local hunting opportunities because bird densities are low, the hunting season 

established by IDFG in this area is brief (usually one week), and there is very little local hunter 

interest in this species. Therefore, sage grouse hunting would continue to be allowed in all 

alternatives but would be expected to have a negligible impact on the local grouse population. 

6.5 Effects to Wetland Habitats and Associated Species 

Differences between alternatives in effects to wetland habitat and associated wildlife are the result of 

changes in the quantity and quality of wetlands through changes in the management of water and 

wetland vegetation, riparian management and rehabilitation, fire management, control of invasive 

species, and management of public uses (hunting, wildlife observation and photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation). 

Wetland habitats are composed of five distinct habitat types at Camas NWR: Open water, Hemimarsh (open water, submerged aquatic, and deep emergent); shallow marsh (which includes shallow 

seasonally flooded wetlands or “moist soil” units, seasonal to semipermanent emergent wetlands, and 

palustrine scrub-shrub wetland); wet meadow; and riparian (in-stream and willow riparian habitat). 

Continuation of current management (Alternative 1) would provide approximately 736 acres of open 

water (primarily Sandhole Lake), 840 acres of hemi-marsh habitat, 1,213 acres of shallow marsh 

habitat, 40-60 acres of moist soil wetlands, 239-259 acres of willow scrub-shrub wetlands, 1,958 

acres of wet meadow habitat (with an additional 60-70 acres targeted for restoration), 20-40 acres of 

willow riparian habitat associated with Camas Creek, and would maintain four miles of riparian instream habitats. Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) and Alternative 3 would provide more diverse 

and variable refuge wetlands: approximately 285 acres (range 250-300 acres) of hemi-marsh habitat, 

1,743-1,803 acres of shallow marsh, 150-200 acres of moist soil wetlands, 2,178-2,258 acres of wet 

meadows (maintain 1,958 acres and restore 220-300 acres), 100-150 acres of willow riparian habitat 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

6-26 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

associated with Camas Creek, and would maintain and restore 8 miles of in-stream riparian habitats. 

Acres of open water would remain the same as in Alternative 1. 

The action alternatives (Alternatives 2 and 3) would therefore decrease the extent of deep hemimarsh habitat in the next four years (2014-2017), but increase the extent of the shallow marsh, wet 

meadow, willow riparian, and in-stream habitat. In Alternatives 2 and 3, wetland management 

practices from 2014-2017 would cause a sizable 530-590 acre decrease in hemi-marsh habitat (64-70 

percent decrease), a sizable 530-590 acre increase in shallow wetlands (44-49 percent increase), a 

sizable 110-160 acre increase (250-500 percent increase) in seasonally flooded shallow marsh (moist 

soil), a moderate 150-240 acre increase (314-500 percent increase) in the acres of wet meadow 

habitat restored over the lifetime of the CCP, a minor increase in total wet meadow habitat (11-15 

percent), a sizable 80-110 acre increase (400-650 percent increase) in willow riparian habitat 

associated with Camas Creek, and a 4 mile increase (100 percent increase) in riparian in-stream 

habitat. Acres of willow scrub-shrub wetlands and open water habitat would remain unchanged from 

current management. 

6.5.1 Effects to Wetland Habitats and Wildlife from Habitat Actions 

Wetland Management 

For most of the 20th century, between about 1915 and 1980, Camas National Wildlife Refuge was 

composed of a diverse mosaic of shallow seasonal and semipermanent wetland and wet meadow 

habitats, surrounded by an expansive sea of sagebrush. The wetlands and wet meadows were fed 

surface water via overbank flooding of Camas Creek, while artesian wells discharged perched 

groundwater, continually flooding the wetlands through the drier summer and fall months. Prior to 

1915, artesian discharge was confined to Sandhole Lake area. Discharge increased in the early 1900s 

due to subirrigation of the Egin Bench, 15 miles to the east. Although Regional surface water 

hydrology has been highly altered from historic conditions, and groundwater levels have dropped 

since 1980, when subirrigation of the Egin Bench ceased, providing a diversity of wetlands is still 

vital to the Refuge’s purpose of providing safe haven for a variety of breeding and migrating 

waterbirds. 

The Refuge is now faced with management limitations associated with water availability due to the 

lowering of the water table in the Eastern Snake River aquifer over the past 30 years. The cumulative 

effects of agricultural irrigation diversion and groundwater pumping have combined to impact 

groundwater discharge wetlands within the Camas and Beaver watersheds (IDEQ 2005), and many 

wetlands have been placed in inactive status due to their inability to hold water. 

Today the quantity and quality of wetland habitats at Camas NWR are determined by how the Refuge 

uses surface and groundwater rights and its water delivery infrastructure to manage water levels 

within a series of wetland impoundments. In Alternative 1, the Refuge would continue to work within 

the constraints of its current wetland infrastructure, which dates to the 1960s. This water control 

infrastructure was designed to provide deep marsh habitat to support waterfowl production in a time 

of abundant surface and groundwater supplies. The construction of dikes and water control structures 

at Camas NWR allowed for improved hydrology and wetland function through precise manipulation 

of water levels. At the time of Refuge establishment, Camas NWR wetlands were flooded by artesian 

groundwater discharges. Currently, due to the lowered water table, groundwater pumping is 

necessary to maintain wetlands through the summer. In Alternative 1, the main refuge point of 

diversion from Camas Creek remains in its original location, with only one groundwater well being 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-27 

moved since the original drilling of the seven irrigation wells. From this main diversion point on 

Camas Creek, water must flow two miles in order to reach the first managed wetland basin. The 

prescriptive management conditions of Alternative 1, to provide consistent deepwater wetlands, has 

led to relatively static and unproductive conditions in those deepwater wetlands that can be 

maintained. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would simulate historic hydrologic processes within the Camas Creek 

floodplain, while retaining adequate wetland acreage for the wetland-dependent species. Wetlands 

would be managed within six impounded basins that have tighter pockets of natural hydric soils (Big, 

Redhead, Toomey, Spring, Center and Two-way Ponds). However, only three to four of these basins 

would be managed for hemi-marsh habitat. Under this approach, wetlands would be anticipated to 

hold water longer, making more efficient use of refuge resources and water. Further efficiencies in 

water use would be realized by moving the main point of diversion and irrigation wells downstream 

closer to the wetlands, which would reduce water losses through evapotranspiration and groundwater 

seepage. 

The reduced productivity caused by static water regimes in Alternative 1 would be remedied in 

Alternatives 2 and 3. In these alternatives, water levels would be managed to meet seasonal life 

history requirements of focal species, but wetlands would also be managed dynamically to maintain 

and enhance their productivity over time. We would use flooding, drawdown, prescribed fire, and 

disturbance (e.g. disking), in rotation among different management units to create desirable hemimarsh conditions, while still maintaining essentially the same acreage from year to year. Periodic 

drying or drawdown cycles would mimic natural variability and regulate vegetation growth, 

preventing wetlands from becoming dominated by dense stands of emergent vegetation. Disking 

would only be performed when needed to control reed canarygrass and improve wetland plant 

diversity by opening up dense stands of cattail and bulrush. The Refuge would reduce impacts of 

management by delaying disking and mowing operations until after most wetland bird species have 

completed nesting (approximately August 1). Due to these management changes, foraging resources 

(submerged aquatic vegetation, invertebrates) are expected to dramatically increase. Degraded and 

unproductive expanses of open water habitat would decrease, while submerged aquatic foraging 

habitat would increase. 

In comparison to Alternative 1, Alternatives 2 and 3 would provide decreased deep emergent 

breeding waterfowl habitat, but increased seasonal shallow wetlands and wet meadows for migratory 

waterbird breeding and foraging habitats. In Alternatives 2 and 3, shallow wetlands would increase 

by 44-49 percent, and shallow seasonally flooded (moist soil) wetlands would increase by 250-500 

percent. As noted in Section 6.2.1 above, these habitats are highly productive for waterfowl, and 

abundance and productivity of dabbling ducks and waterbirds that forage in these habitats would be 

expected to increase. 

In Alternatives 2 and 3, approximately 80-100 acres of selected fields containing cool-season nonnative grass monocultures would be rehabilitated to wet meadow habitat over the lifetime of the 

CCP. Management strategies, including wetland flooding and water schedule adjustments, the 

designation of alternative suitable acres to meet irrigation prescriptions, cool-season grass treatments, 

disking, mowing, chemical applications, and/or prescribed fire would reduce non-native cover and 

increase native grass and forb species. 

In Alternatives 2 and 3, an integrated Wetland and Riparian Rehabilitation Plan (WRRP) and 

associated NEPA document would be developed by 2017 to guide long term habitat restoration and 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

6-28 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

management (see Section 6.6.1 below). In comparison to Alternative 1’s prescriptive management, 

the WRRP would attempt to mimic natural variability in hydrologic processes, while simultaneously 

conserving groundwater resources and rehabilitating partial riparian habitat function. An engineering 

feasibility study, using the results of HGM modeling (scheduled for completion in the next two 

years) would be used to determine the best engineering solution to achieve this goal. Using the 

results of these studies, the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2) would remove, modify, or relocate 

wetland infrastructure (e.g., dikes, levees, ditches) to restore, where possible, the partial historic 

extent of some shallow marsh and wet meadow habitats. New diversion structures and additional 

points of diversion would be constructed to increase the efficacy of water delivery. This 

infrastructure would only partially deflect Camas Creek flows into managed wetland areas, while 

simultaneously allowing partial flow to remain in the Camas Creek channel. As in Alternative 1, 

groundwater pumping would still be used in the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2) to compensate 

for losses of surface water to groundwater seepage. However, supplemental pumping efforts would 

attempt to mimic shallower historical artesian wetlands, rather than an expansive deep hemi-marsh. 

In the interim period from 2014-2017, active management of former wet meadow sites would be 

used to improve the ecological condition of these sites and to prevent them from transitioning into 

dry or shrub meadows with weedy species invasions or undesirable species compositions (Wright 

and Chambers 2002). In managing wet meadow habitat within impounded wetlands, the Refuge 

would take into account the hydrological gradients that can drive plant community expression, and 

therefore both habitat quality and availability for a number of target wildlife species. In Alternatives 

2 and 3 the Refuge would establish flooding prescriptions that better accommodate the habitat needs 

of focal wet meadow species. The Refuge would carefully identify priority areas with successional 

characteristics needed by focal wet meadow species. In comparison to Alternative 1 (Current 

Management), the more variable management of Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) and Alternative 

3 would maintain or enhance the integrity of wet meadow habitats in areas where historical subtle 

variation in topography has been compromised, where overbank flooding of Camas Creek no longer 

occurs, or an where an unacceptable percentage of plant assemblages is shifting toward undesirable 

species. 

Upland Management 

Under both Alternatives 1 and 2, upland management and habitat restoration would be subordinate to 

wetland management (Alternative 1) or wetland and riparian management and rehabilitation 

(Alternative 2). Under Alternative 3, upland habitat restoration and wetland/riparian rehabilitation 

would receive equal management emphasis. Therefore, upland habitat restoration would likely 

compete with wetland and riparian rehabilitation for limited resources (refuge staff time, as well as 

grant opportunities and partnership involvement). Such an approach would be analogous to fighting a 

war on two fronts (Wu et al. 2000), possibly compromising the success of either effort (Bottrill et al. 

2008; Mackenzie 2008). Therefore, in comparison to Alternatives 1 and 2, upland management 

proposed in Alternative 3 could have minor to moderate indirect negative effects on wetlands and 

associated wildlife, through diversion of limited resources. 

Riparian Management

Refuge wetlands are influenced by incision of Camas Creek, groundwater lowering, and vegetation 

degradation (invasive species and conversions to drier ecological types.) Under Alternatives 2 and 3, 

the Refuge would develop a Wetland and Riparian Rehabilitation Plan (WRRP) by 2017 (see Section 

6.6.1 below). The WRRP would identify long term management objectives for wetland and riparian 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-29 

habitats, as well as the most appropriate strategies for achieving these objectives. The first two years 

(2014-2015) would be spent collecting necessary information (geomorphological, hydrological, and 

biological assessments). The Refuge’s wet meadow complexes are groundwater features closely tied 

to the riparian surface channel systems. Therefore, the HGM assessment proposed in Alternatives 2 

and 3 is of utmost importance in assessing the effect of channel incision on groundwater levels, and 

determining the linkage between the channel and groundwater flow systems (Chambers and Miller 

2011; Currier 1989; Galatowitsch et al. 2000). Concurrently (2014-2017), the Refuge would 

implement and monitor rehabilitation pilot projects to gain a better understanding of system response 

to enhancement activities. By conducting assessments and pilot studies, the Refuge would better 

understand how the riparian system and adjacent wetland habitats may respond to larger scale 

rehabilitation efforts. Using results from the pilot projects, a comprehensive plan would be crafted by 

2017, and implementation of long-term rehabilitation efforts would be conducted from 2017-2027. 

This tiered approach is more likely to result in sustainable long term management that makes the best 

use of limited water resources to meet wetland objectives. 

Fire Management 

The practice of prescribed burning, in upland habitats, as a restoration and management tool is 

widespread and the ecological processes involved are becoming more fully understood as literature 

and practical experience develop on the subject. However, the equally-widespread practice of 

burning in wetlands has remained largely unresearched, its techniques borrowed from upland 

prescriptions, and its effects unmonitored. Unlike the literature on fire in terrestrial upland 

communities, however, specific fire prescriptions, knowledge of fire behavior under different fuel 

loadings and environmental conditions, and the detailed consequences of differing fire frequencies, 

fire intensities, and fire severities in wetlands are largely unknown (Kirby et al. 1988:10). 

When combined with water level control, prescribed fire is likely the most effective tool for directing 

widespread succession in palustrine emergent marsh habitat types. Its primary utility is in altering 

residual vegetation coverage in deep and shallow emergent marsh habitats, or more simply, setting 

back vegetative succession. Controlled burns require extensive preparation time and are typically the 

most expensive management actions in terms of the cost of equipment and manpower. But to effect 

widespread change in wetland emergent communities, prescribed fire is a capable tool to accomplish 

the task. Three types of burns usually occur in refuge wetlands, including residual burn, mosaic burn, 

and fire break/wildlife urban interface burns. Each type of burn has a specific utility and use in all 

wetland habitat types, except for open water and submergent habitat types. A Wildlife Urban 

Interface (WUI) burn is used specifically to protect off-refuge lands from a wildfire originating on a 

refuge and is discussed in greater detail in Section 6.7.1 (Effects to Upland Habitats and Wildlife 

from Habitat Actions). 

Residual burns are an effective means of removing excess residual vegetation and create long-term 

openings in hemi-marsh habitats, but have been deemed impractical on Camas NWR in the past 

because of its proximity to human habitation. Deep emergent marsh habitats have a target 

distribution based on the amount of residual cover (standing vegetation from the previous year 

growth). As time goes by, without some form of physical disturbance, residual coverage percentage 

increases, often to a point where the existing community is nearly 100 percent residual vegetation. 

While habitats in this condition are used by some species, they are generally considered unsuitable 

when they exceed 20 percent of a given habitat type. When this occurs, residual burns (burns targeted 

to remove 90-100 percent of the biomass) are applied. Through this action, all the residual coverage 

is eliminated and new vegetation growth begins to emerge. In this way, late successional habitat is 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

6-30 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

converted to early successional habitat, which typically lasts for about two years before it reenters a 

mid-successional phase (30-90 percent residual cover). 

While mechanical disturbance techniques are longer lasting, burning covers a greater area in a shorter 

time. Often, mechanical disturbance will be applied following a burn to increase the successional 

benefits of the tool. For example, most burns at Camas NWR occur during spring while snow cover 

is still on the ground. During this time the root mass is so wet that it remains unharmed by fire. As 

such, emergent vegetation returns quite rapidly and moves toward late successional status in a period 

of seven to ten years. By including disking sections of the burn area, open pools can be maintained 

when the area is reflooded. Residual burns are most effective in deep or shallow emergent habitat 

types; however, they can also be used in meadow grass or agricultural habitat types. In residual burns 

the objective is to remove all extant vegetation and allow the community to completely regenerate. In 

all alternatives the Refuge would use residual burns in hemi-marsh habitat. Under current 

management (Alternative 1), burning of wetland occurs in spring (March 1-April 15) and fall 

(September 20-October 30.) Summer burns are more effective in controlling tall emergent vegetation, 

whereas fall or spring burns promote rejuvenation of reed canarygrass (Apfelbaum and Sams 1987), 

cattail (Mallik and Wein 1986), phragmites (Thompson and Shay 1985) and cordgrass (Johnson and 

Knapp 1995). Early spring burns (March) are generally ineffective in removing dense emergent 

vegetation, and may even promote vegetation growth. In Alternatives 2 and 3, we would attempt to 

shift toward late spring and summer burns in hemi-marsh habitat, immediately followed by floodup 

to prevent soil erosion, where feasible. Although prescribed burns of hemi-marsh habitat would be 

used more in Alternative 1 than in Alternatives 2 and 3 due to the more prescriptive nature of wetland 

management, adjustments in the timing of burns in Alternatives 2 and 3 would be more likely to meet 

habitat objectives. 

In most situations and habitat types, mosaic burns are the more practical and beneficial tool to apply. 

Designed to remove up to 70 percent of the residual biomass, this type of burn leaves some areas of 

dense residual vegetation unburned which adds to the diversity of the community. Mosaic burns are 

most effective in wet meadow habitats where the past years accumulated growth of Baltic rush has 

accumulated. Topographic variation in the unit (often referred to as microtopography) often results in 

small depressions where water stands for extended periods of time. When these depressions are 

interspersed with slightly higher areas that dry more quickly, this results in differing levels of 

residual growth that allows the fire to carry through some patches and bypass others. The result is a 

mixed burn, with anywhere from 0-100 percent of the residual vegetation removed. A typical target 

for residual burns is to consume about 70 percent of the vegetation within the burn area; however, 

distribution of residual vegetation and microtopography typically controls what the final percentage 

will be. Below 50 percent residual coverage, it is not necessary to burn. Unlike residual burns, 

mosaic burns can be used in any habitat type except open water and submergent, but are most 

effective in wet meadow habitats. In all alternatives, we would use prescribed fire to create mosaic 

burns in wet meadow habitats. The burning program as described would result in moderate 

improvements to habitat conditions in Refuge wetlands in all alternatives. 

Agricultural Crops and Haying 

Alternative 1 (Current Management) would irrigate 330 acres of grassland habitat and annually 

harvest 150 acres (50 percent) of irrigated grasslands through cooperative farming agreements. 

Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) would reduce irrigation by 55 percent to irrigate 150 acres and 

harvest 150 acres of hay from refuge-irrigated grasslands annually. Alternative 3 would eliminate 

irrigation of refuge meadow habitats. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-31 

In assessing the positive and negative effect from irrigation and haying on the Refuge, it is important 

to recognize the valuable role that temporarily flooded meadows play within refuge ecosystems of 

larger seasonally and semipermanently flooded habitats and upland dry meadows and upland shrub 

habitats. Flooded meadow habitat mosaics, where proximate to both tall emergent wetland and 

upland habitat, create a richness of habitat biodiversity that would not occur if the habitats existed in 

isolation from one another. By decreasing irrigated alfalfa by 80 acres and eliminating upland hay 

irrigation operations on 300 acres, Alternative 3 would prioritize the use limited water resources 

towards achieving wetland objectives and regaining as much of the historic wetland hydrograph as 

possible. Alternative 3 would moderately reduce meadow and upland haying operations to maintain 

inundation of wetland shallow marsh and wet meadow habitat through the summer. Alternative 2 

(Preferred Alternative) would still use groundwater pumping to flood irrigate hay meadows, but in 

comparison to Alternative 1 (Current Management), Alternative 2 would irrigate 150 less acres 

annually, and use less groundwater to provide irrigated short-cover habitat for focal wildlife. 

Alternative 2 therefore strikes a balance between water conservation and providing short-cover 

habitat for select wildlife species. 

Invasive Species Management 

In all alternatives, an integrated pest management (IPM) approach would be used, where practicable, 

to eradicate, control, or contain pest and invasive species (herein collectively referred to as pests) on 

refuge lands. IPM would involve using methods based upon effectiveness, cost, and minimal 

ecological disruption, which considers minimum potential effects to non-target species and the refuge 

environment. 

For wetland weed species that are or become established, mechanical, cultural, biological, and 

chemical control methods would be evaluated (see Appendix F). Chemical usage would be subject to 

provisions of the refuge IPM plan (Appendix F). Among other provisions, this plan provides 

direction that “the most efficacious pesticide available with the least potential to degrade 

environmental quality (soils, surface water and groundwater) as well as least potential effect to native 

species ... would be acceptable for use on the Refuge.” Each approved pesticide would undergo a 

chemical profile analysis; active ingredients would be analyzed for their risk quotient and this value 

compared to a Level of Concern for surrogate species, as established by the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA). All applications of herbicides would conform to the specific pesticide label 

requirements for wetland habitats to ensure that toxic levels of pesticides would not accumulate or 

affect wetland habitats. 

Within all alternatives, use of herbicides would create a moderate to minor risk from chemical 

exposure. However, unquantified risks may still occur via factors not assessed under current 

protocols, such as intermingling of unlike chemicals in the field; species-specific sensitivity that 

differs from surrogate species sensitivity; exposure through inhalation, exposure through ingestion of 

pesticide-contaminated soil, and other factors (see Appendix F). 

Wetland habitats can also be affected by invasive species being spread by moving wetland 

management equipment or boats from site to site. Under all alternatives, invasive species may also 

become established where soils and existing plant cover is disturbed. In all alternatives, refuge 

equipment operators are required to clean equipment before moving between sites to reduce the 

spread of seeds and plant parts. The Refuge would continue to monitor wetlands for invasive weeds, 

aggressively control invasive plants, and restore sites to vegetation with a high wildlife value. To 

minimize the risk of contamination, refuge equipment is regularly maintained and inspected before 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

6-32 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

each use. Under all alternatives, use of herbicides in wetland habitats, as described in the IPM Plan, 

would have negligible to minor effects on wetland habitats and associated wildlife. 

6.5.2 Effects to Wetland Habitats and Wildlife from Public Recreational Use 

Waterfowl and Upland Game Bird Hunting 

Waterfowl and upland game bird hunting are allowed on 2,510 acres of the Refuge under all 

alternatives. Effects to waterfowl and waterbirds are discussed in Section 6.3.3 above. Direct effects 

to wetland habitat and wildlife from the waterfowl and upland game bird hunting are difficult to 

measure, but would likely be minimal for the following reasons: 

1) A small percentage of the Refuge’s fall waterfowl habitat lies within either the waterfowl 

hunt areas, and currently the Refuge cannot reliably maintain water in the hunt area in the 

fall. 

2) Although hunters would access their positions via cross-country travel which can trample 

vegetation and disturb wildlife, this impact is expected to be low because of small numbers of 

hunters and the time of the year. 

3) Breeding wildlife are not present, and most vegetation is dormant and resistant to damage, 

during the waterfowl and upland game bird hunting seasons. 

Migratory and resident birds of various species and other wildlife may be interrupted while foraging 

or forced out of resting habitat or thermal cover, causing an unnecessary expenditure of energy and 

possibly subjecting them to increased risk of predation or weather-related stresses. These 

disturbances are quite difficult to measure, and are likely minor, since waterfowl hunters typically 

will follow an established route or trail to blinds, and most distances to hunting locations are short. 

Periodic firearm discharge in close proximity to wetlands can result in behavioral responses by 

waterfowl and other wetland birds; however, due to the low numbers of waterfowl and upland game 

bird hunters using the Refuge, this disturbance would be expected to be infrequent. There is also 

some trampling of vegetation associated with accessing blinds, setting up decoys, and retrieving 

downed birds, but this is primarily restricted to trails leading to blinds and the immediate vicinity of 

the blinds and is considered to be negligible on a refuge level. 

Elk Hunting 

Big game hunting is prohibited in Alternative 1 (Current Management). In Alternatives 2 and 3 we 

propose to establish an elk hunt on 4,112 acres of the Refuge, in line with State seasons and 

regulations for GMU 63. The season for GMU 63 runs for five months (August 1-December 31). 

While elk hunting would occur within or adjacent to wetlands, meadows, sage-steppe, and riparian 

habitats, negative impacts to these habitats and their associated species are likely to be minor because 

the elk hunting program would involve a small number of widely dispersed individuals over a broad 

period of time (a maximum of 20 hunters over the five-month hunt season and a maximum of two elk 

hunters allowed on the Refuge at any given time). Hunters can spread invasive species by varied 

mechanisms, such as transport on equipment, clothing, footwear, and hunting dogs. These impacts 

are very limited in scope and duration and would result in minor impacts to the Refuge’s wetland 

habitat. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-33 

Elk hunting on the Refuge could also disturb some non-target wildlife species. Disturbance to the 

daily activities, such as feeding and resting, of migrating or wintering non-hunted birds and other 

wildlife might occur. Hunting causes disturbance to non-target species because of noise (most 

notably the report of a firearm), human presence and general disturbance associated with the activity. 

These disturbances are manifested by alertness, fright (obvious or unapparent), flight, swimming, 

disablement or death in non-target species (Dahlgren and Korschgen 1992). This effect is likely a 

minor negative effect due to the low numbers of hunters using the Refuge (both at any given time, 

and total over the season). The majority of elk hunting would occur in the fall, after the nesting and 

rearing season for most birds and other wildlife has been completed; therefore, reproduction of most 

species would not be directly impacted by hunting. The amount and degree of disturbance to other 

wetland-dependent wildlife would depend on the condition of the refuge wetlands, in particular Rays 

Lake and Sandhole Lake. Effects to migrating waterfowl and sandhill cranes are discussed in Section 

6.3.3 above. Periodic shooting, or hunters walking in close proximity to these wetlands, could 

temporarily disperse wildlife. This disturbance would be limited in scope by the low number of 

hunters at any given time (maximum of 2 two daily). The rate of gunfire discharge is expected to be 

infrequent and random based upon opportunistic individual shots at elk in range. The frequency of 

gunfire may be only a few shots per day at most, causing temporary and short- term disturbance. 

Refuge regulations further mitigate possible disturbance by hunters to non-hunted wildlife. Vehicles 

(except refuge-owned utility terrain vehicles used to transport disabled hunters and retrieve game 

harvested by disabled hunters) are restricted to roads. Refuge personnel or a designated volunteer 

would take disabled hunters to and from hunting blinds and assist in retrieval of game, which may 

require off-road travel; however they would use travel routes that minimize off road travel and 

disturbance to non-hunted wildlife. 

Because the number of elk hunters on the Refuge is limited to two at any given time, and a total of 20 

over the hunting season (August 1-December 31), disturbance to wildlife that use wetlands within the 

elk hunt area is expected to be infrequent, and of a minor and temporary nature. Additional hunt 

stipulations, including a required orientation and selective closures of areas were sensitive wildlife 

resources are present, the elk hunt proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3 would be expected to have only 

minor negative effects on wetland habitat and wildlife. 

Wildlife Observation, Wildlife Photography, Interpretation, and Environmental Education 

Wildlife observation from the auto tour route, roads, off-road hiking, birding, and walking trails, 

wildlife observation platforms, photo blinds, and refuge-led wildlife-based tours have direct and 

indirect impacts on wildlife use of wetland habitats. Wildlife observers traveling along trails and 

roads can disturb migratory and resident birds of various species and other wildlife by interrupting 

foraging or forcing animals out of resting habitat or thermal cover, causing an unnecessary 

expenditure of energy and possibly subjecting them to increased risk of predation or weather-related 

stresses. These disturbances are quite difficult to quantify. However, research indicates that wildlife 

avoid wetland habitats in close proximity to public use facilities, such as the auto tour route, due to 

the frequent presence of visitors (Cline et al. 2007; Klein 1993). A detailed discussion of the 

disturbance effects of nonconsumptive recreation to waterfowl and waterbirds is included in Section 

6.3.2 above. 

Under all alternatives, public use is expected to increase over time as a result of increasing regional 

populations, increasing demand for wildlife-dependent recreation, and a greater awareness of the 

Refuge. Increasing visitation would cause greater impacts to wildlife and habitat in Alternative 1 than 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

6-34 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

in Alternatives 2 and 3, in part because off-road hiking is allowed throughout the Refuge from July 

15-February 28 in Alternative 1, and because Alternatives 2 and 3 provide for additional staffing and 

facilities to manage visitor use. As noted in Section 6.3.2 above, under all alternatives, vehicle, 

bicycle, and pedestrian access would be allowed year round on the 6.3-mile auto tour route, and 

bicycle and pedestrian access would allowed year-round on 27 miles of service roads. An additional 

6.5 miles of hunter access roads leading to the north and south hunt units would be open to vehicle, 

bicycle, and pedestrian access during the waterfowl and upland game hunting seasons. Alternative 1 

(Current Management) has the greatest potential for wildlife disturbance, since the entire 10,806-acre 

Refuge open to off-road hiking from July 15-February 28. In the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 

2), off-road hiking would be prohibited. Up to five personal portable photo blinds would be allowed 

within 100 feet of roadways at any given time. Eight refuge-led wildlife-based tours would be 

conducted annually. Alternative 2 would increase refuge environmental education and interpretation 

programs, to increase visitor success in seeing wildlife and provide access to areas that are otherwise 

closed to the public. Alternative 2 would provide opportunities to serve a targeted audience while 

minimizing undesirable impacts to wetland wildlife. At Camas NWR there are several key periods 

when birds or other wildlife are reliably present and active enough to warrant regular guided tours, 

for example the snow goose migration, the fall rut (elk, white tailed deer), and bald eagle roosting in 

winter. While some degree of wetland wildlife disturbance would occur from implementation of the 

public use program in the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2), the increases in public awareness of 

wetland and upland species diversity and ecology, understanding of Camas NWR habitat 

management actions, interpretation of refuge energy and water conservation actions, and appreciation 

for the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, combined with elimination of off road 

hiking, would offset these minor impacts to wetland-dependent species. 

Alternative 3 would have a greater impact to wetland habitats and associated wildlife than 

Alternative 2, primarily due to re-opening of the 7.5 Sandhole Lake loop road to vehicle traffic, but 

also from construction of three permanent photo blinds, and conducting more guided wildlife-based 

refuge tours (up to twelve annually). However the reduction in free roam hiking (allowed on 2,510 

acres only in Alt 3), allowing a maximum of five portable photography blinds on the Refuge at any 

given time, and requiring that these blinds be placed no more than 100 feet from roads, would at least 

partially offset these impacts. 

Overall wetland habitat and wildlife impacts from wildlife observation and wildlife photography 

activities associated with Alternative 2 are likely to slightly less than those associated with the No 

Action alternative, primarily due to the prohibition of off road hiking in Alternative 2. Alternative 3’s 

effects would be intermediate between those of Alternatives 1 and 2, primarily due to opening the 7.5 

mile Sandhole Lake road to vehicular traffic. However this would be at least partially offset by 

prohibiting off road hiking on most of the Refuge. 

6.5.3 Overall Effects to Wetland Habitats and Wildlife 

Considering the relationships of wetland habitat and quality characteristics, Alternative 2 would best 

simulate a natural range of deep and shallow marsh and promote high wetland productivity over the 

lifetime of the CCP. Alternative 1 water management strategies are more prescriptive in nature to 

provide consistent deep marsh habitat, and require constant mechanical (e.g prescribed fire) or 

physical disturbance regimes across the Refuge to break up monotypic stands of emergent vegetation. 

Prescribed fire would be used in all alternatives to break up dense stands of emergent vegetation, 

remove residual vegetation, and create habitat mosaics. We expect greater use of prescribed fire in 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-35 

hemi-marsh habitat in Alternative 1 than Alternatives 2 and 3; however changes in timing of 

prescribed fire under Alternatives 2 and 3 may provide longer term habitat improvement. 

While management actions described under Alternative 1 would improve habitat conditions in 

wetlands, wetlands would remain relatively static over time, and productivity would be lower than is 

more dynamically managed wetlands proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3. It is also likely that over time, 

maintaining a consistent availability of deepwater wetlands throughout the breeding season, and from 

year to year, would become less attainable due to the region’s lowering water table. The 

implementation of Alternatives 2 and 3 would mimic the natural processes that shaped the marsh, 

while still providing dynamic and variable hydrology. By increasing seasonal wetland habitat at 

Camas NWR, the Refuge would be able to provide diverse and critical migration and breeding 

habitat to waterfowl, wading birds and other wildlife species. Of particular importance, the shallow, 

extensive wetland habitats on this site would provide important feeding and resting habitat for spring 

migratory waterbirds that breed in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Alaska and other northern breeding areas 

(Ivey and Herziger 2006). The restoration and increase of seasonal wetland habitat will provide 

breeding habitat for several species at Camas NWR, including mallards, Canada geese, northern 

shovelers, gadwalls, cinnamon teal, and blue-winged teal. 

Finally, implementation of the Wetland and Riparian Rehabilitation Plan in Alternatives 2 and 3 

would likely result in an increase wetland productivity from 2017 to 2027, while conserving water 

resources. By conducting geomorphological, hydrological, and biological assessments and pilot 

projects prior to developing the Plan, the Refuge would better understand how the riparian system 

and adjacent wetland habitats may respond to larger scale rehabilitation efforts, leading to the 

development of realistic and achievable objectives. Overall, the actions under Alternative 2 would 

likely result in a moderate positive effect to both wetland habitat quantity and quality for associated 

species. Wetland management in Alternative 3 would be the same as Alternative 2, however the equal 

emphasis of upland and wetland management in Alternative 3 would reduce resources available for 

wetland management compared to Alternative 2. 

Under all alternatives, the refuge hunt and public-use programs would have negative effects on 

wildlife (primarily through disturbance) and habitat (e.g. trampling of vegetation), but these effects 

are considered minor to moderate in Alternative 1, and minor in Alternatives 2 and 3. 

6.6 Effects to Riparian Habitats and Associated Species 

There are two main riparian drainages in the Beaver-Camas sub-basin: the Beaver Creek drainage 

and the Camas Creek drainage. Both of the drainages receive their flow from the mountainous 

regions in the upper watershed. Due to natural infiltration and diversion for irrigation streams in the 

lower two-thirds of the sub-basin are seasonal or intermittent. Three streams, Camas Creek, Beaver 

Creek, and Warm Creek, flow through the Refuge. The major refuge stream is Camas Creek, which 

flows through the entire Refuge before exiting and terminating west of the Refuge at Mud Lake, the 

endpoint for all drainage in the subbasin. Beaver Creek is a small tributary of Camas Creek that 

enters the Refuge just before its confluence with Camas Creek. Warm Creek branches off of Camas 

Creek just upstream of the refuge boundary and flows onto the Refuge to terminate at Mallard 

Slough. 

Camas Creek is the heart of a complex irrigation system where groundwater is pumped into the 

modified creek channel to supply irrigated agriculture. Camas Creek is a degraded, incised, and 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

6-36 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

highly unstable riparian corridor, heavily influenced by anthropogenic modification and adjacent land 

use practices. The effects of dredging and channelization on the Camas Creek corridor by various 

water users is substantial and obvious, and include: reduction in frequency of overbank flooding 

(floodplain inundation); reduction or elimination of natural channel migration; elimination of 

sediment beds used as plant recruitment areas; reduction or elimination of large woody debris in the 

channel; and lowering of groundwater tables. 

Approximately 278 acres (2.6 percent) of Camas NWR is classified as willow riparian or wetland 

(scrub-shrub) habitat. This includes both linear bands of willows along Camas Creek (20-40 acres), 

more extensive areas of willow in the Rays Lake/Sandhole Lake areas. The Rays Lake/Sandhole 

Lake willow stands are considered wetland (palustrine scrub/shrub) habitat types and are considered 

in Section 6.3.1 above. Willow riparian habitat associated with Camas Creek is specifically 

considered in this section. Differences between alternatives in effects to riparian habitat and 

associated wildlife are the result of changes in the quantity and quality of riparian streams and 

woodlands through changes in the management of riparian and wetland habitat, fire, invasive species, 

and public use (hunting, wildlife observation, photography, and environmental education). 

6.6.1 Effects to Riparian Habitats and Wildlife from Habitat Actions 

Effects from Riparian Habitat Management 

Alternative 1 (Current Management) would maintain 4 miles of in-stream habitat and the existing 20-

40 acres of willow riparian habitat along Camas Creek. Both Alternatives 2 (Preferred Alternative) 

and 3 would increase in-stream and willow riparian habitat along Camas Creek, and would extend 

and augment streamflow to increase in-stream habitats from 4 to 8 miles in the summer. These 

alternatives would attempt to restore up to 80-130 acres of native willow woodlands. This represents 

a 250-750 percent increase in refuge willow riparian habitat in Alternatives 2 and 3. The increased 

acres would provide nesting habitat for additional pairs of riparian dependent passerines (e.g., willow 

flycatcher, yellow warbler) and stop-over habitat for hundreds of migrants annually. 

In Alternatives 2 and 3, suitable areas of willow riparian habitat would be managed for increased 

recruitment and regeneration of woody vegetation. These alternatives would maximize shrub density 

while managing for periodic disturbance to reinvigorate woody riparian stands. The greatest negative 

impact to riparian shrub habitat over the last century has been past grazing practices and the 

purposeful eradication of riparian habitats (e.g. mowing willows in the Camas Creek channel) as to 

not impede water delivery. Impacts to woody riparian communities at Camas NWR have been 

reduced through the removal of on-refuge grazing in 1993. The result has been an increase in both 

the quantity and quality of this habitat type on the Refuge. To continue this upward trend, existing 

and potential willow riparian habitat would be protected from unnecessary impacts. In target areas 

that are either disconnected from the floodplain, or lie outside of floodplain areas, supplemental soil 

moisture via flood irrigation would be used to sustain existing acres of this habitat and promote 

expansion. Strategic plantings would be used to increase shrub species diversity. Prescribed fire and 

mowing treatments would occur within riparian woodlands, but would be infrequent and balanced by 

the need for older stands of dense, undisturbed willow/shrub areas according to focal species needs 

and designated acreages. Due to these management changes, yellow warblers, willow flycatchers, 

and other species that require dense thickets of deciduous riparian shrubs for feeding and/or 

reproduction would receive moderate positive benefits from Alternatives 2 and 3. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-37 

Riparian systems may attract up to 10.6 times the number of migratory birds found in surrounding 

upland sites in the spring (Stevens et al. 1977) and fourteen times the number of species recorded 

during fall migration (Hehnke and Stone 1979). These differences occurred almost exclusively in the 

insectivorous bird foraging guild, with granivorous species being associated more with upland 

(Stevens et al. 1977) or altered (Heller 1978) sites. However, granivorous species do use riparian 

sites extensively during winter for foraging and thermal cover (Samson and Knopf, unpubl. data, 

reported in Knopf et al. 1988). The high value of restored riparian habitat in Alternative 2 (Preferred 

Alternative) extends beyond the values to birds, and includes positive benefits to amphibians and 

reptiles (Brode and Bury 1984; Bury 1988), small mammals (Cross 1985; Doyle 1990), and biggame (Collins and Urness 1983). Overall, there would be a moderate positive effect to species that 

benefit from riparian habitat (e.g. breeding landbirds, spring and fall migrant landbirds) due to the 

increase in willow riparian habitat. 

Effects from Development and Implementation of Wetland and Riparian Restoration Plan 

As noted above, Camas Creek and its associated floodplain have undergone numerous anthropegenic 

changes since the late 1800s, including reduction in frequency of overbank flooding (floodplain 

inundation); reduction or elimination of natural channel migration that leads to formation of point 

bars that provide bare soils for plant recruitment; reduction on instream and streambank woody 

vegetation due to livestock grazing or intentional removal; reduction or elimination of large woody 

debris in the channel; and lowering of groundwater tables. These changes have combined to create 

major effects to riparian ecosystems, for example, shifts in plant composition from mesic to xeric 

species and decreases in the overall extent of riparian ecosystems. The loss of riparian vegetation in 

turn, can affect stream channel stability by increasing bank erosion and resulting in channel 

degradation or aggradation (Rosgen 1996). 

Overbank flooding is a key hydrologic process that affects riparian water table dynamics and 

ecological processes such as biogeochemical cycling and plant diversity (Naiman and Décamps 

1997). Overbank flooding typically occurs for a few days to weeks once every one to two years for 

most natural rivers (Wolman and Leopold 1957); this alternation of wet and dry phases enhances 

biotic diversity and productivity in riparian areas (Junk et al. 1989). Confinement of flood flows to 

the channel eliminates the periodic inundation of the floodplain, and thereby decreases the level of 

soil moisture in the riparian zone. Currently, minimal overbank flooding occurs about once every six 

years, and inundation of the floodplain occurs only infrequently on the Refuge (about once every 20 

years). 

Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) and Alternative 3 attempt to address an urgent need to 

rehabilitate channel integrity, to not only stabilize Camas Creek’s altered morphology, but improve 

habitat diversity and the ecological and amenity value of refuge riparian habitat. Restoration and 

management objectives and approaches are most effective when based on an understanding of 

ecosystem processes and the long- and short-term causes of disturbance (Wohl et al. 2005). Before 

management objectives for wetland and riparian habitats can be developed, the Refuge must first 

assess its physical setting to determine the most appropriate strategies and tools for wetland 

management. 

Therefore, in Alternatives 2 and 3 we propose to develop a Wetland and Riparian Rehabilitation Plan 

(WRRP) and associated NEPA document by 2017. The long term goal of the Plan would be to work 

within Idaho water law and existing water rights to restore the structure and ecological function of 

the Refuge reach of Camas Creek. The Plan would be developed in three phases. In the first phase 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

6-38 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

(assessment; 2014-2015) we would collect data (geomorphological, hydrological, and biological 

assessments) in order to better characterize current conditions and evaluate watershed-scale data 

(Munro et al. 2007). Concurrently (2014-2017), the Refuge would implement and monitor pilot 

rehabilitation projects over the next four years to gain a better understanding of how the riparian 

system and adjacent wetland habitats may respond to larger scale rehabilitation efforts, and assess the 

efficacy of potential refuge water conservation and delivery projects. For example, between 2014 and 

2017, the banks of Camas Creek would be lowered in strategic locations to increase the occurrence of 

natural overbank flooding into refuge wetlands and evaluate effects on habitat condition and wildlife 

use of these habitats. 

Using the results of data collection and pilot projects, we would draft a Wetland and Riparian 

Rehabilitation Plan (and associated NEPA document) by 2017. The Plan would include long-term 

management objectives to support an integrated approach to rehabilitating wetland and riparian 

habitats. The Plan would be based on a careful assessment both of the dominant geomorphic and 

hydrologic controls and of the causes of disturbance at watershed, valley segment, and site scales. 

This plan would also consider the current magnitude of incision or degradation and the potential for 

stream stabilization and vegetation management (Chambers and Miller 2011). Implementation of 

long-term rehabilitation efforts would be conducted from 2017-2027. The Preferred Alternative 

(Alternative 2) and Alternative 3 would provide a realistic timeline to complete and implement the 

WRRP within the lifetime of the CCP. Alternatives 2 and 3 also offer the advantage of using other 

available resources if they become available through agency funding, partnerships, etc. to conduct 

assessments and pilot projects necessary for developing the WRRP. 

The Wetland and Riparian Restoration Plan would identify strategies to restore overbank flooding of 

Camas Creek on the Refuge, guided by results of the pilot project to lower banks in strategic 

locations. Restoration of overbank flooding may be accomplished by restoring the channel of Camas 

Creek within the Refuge to its historic depth, either by lowering the banks of Camas Creek to the 

mean high water mark, or raising the bottom of the channel, which is currently deeply incised. This 

restoration would re-initiate natural periodic overbank flooding events to refuge riparian habitats, and 

would impart substantial positive benefits to both riparian habitat and associated wildlife. Riparian 

soil water and groundwater recharge would be greater during overbank flooding in Alternative 2, 

than recharge due to precipitation events in Alternative 1 (Girard et al. 2003; Kingsford 2000; 

Stanford and Ward 1988; Workman and Serrano 1999). By contrast, Alternative 1 (Current 

Management) would allow the banks of Camas Creek to remain altered (diked and incised) with 

substantial overbank flows occurring only occasionally (once in 20 years) during severe flood events. 

Overbank flood events have generally been regarded as the main hydrologic mechanism for 

replenishing groundwater and soil water in riparian areas (Girard et al. 2003; Workman and Serrano 

1999); however, this would continue to rarely occur in Alternative 1. 

In Alternative 1, the Mud Lake irrigators would continue to be allowed to remove all “debris” and 

regenerating willows within refuge stream channels, as allowed under State regulations (Alteration of 

Channels and Streams, Title 42; Chapter 38). The Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2) and 

Alternative 3 would seek collaborative common ground solutions with the Mud Lake Water Users to 

ensure the rightful conveyance of Camas Creek waters to Mud Lake while restoring important 

riparian habitat processes, such as in-stream debris maintenance. If such a solution is reached, this 

would result in a number of benefits to Refuge riparian habitat and associated wildlife, including 

increased habitat complexity, a more natural channel profile, and increased storage of sediment and 

organic matter (Bisson et al. 1987). This combination of structural complexity and increased nutrient 

availability would be expected to result in increased populations and species diversity of 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-39 

invertebrates, fish, amphibians, birds, and mammals (Bartels et al. 1985; Bilby and Bisson 1998; 

Maser and Sedell 1994; Steel et al. 1999). 

The Plan would also attempt to restore, to the degree possible, the historic channel configuration of 

Camas Creek within the refuge boundary. Effective management practices designed to reduce, rather 

than eliminate, channelization would likely be required (Brookes 1988; Henderson 1986). While an 

engineered solution may be necessary to rehabilitate channel integrity, the approach of Alternatives 2 

and 3 is likely to be sustainable and, therefore, more cost effective than some traditional heavy 

handed engineering solutions (Hey 2006; Rosgen 1994). Because riparian ecosystems are dependent 

on their watersheds, larger scale watershed and river basin approaches to restoration may be 

necessary to solve process oriented problems within Camas Creek (DeBano and Schmidt 1989a,b, 

1990; McGlothlin et al. 1988). In addition to watershed treatments, in-channel structures may be 

required to stabilize channels, reduce sediment, and extend the duration of streamflow (DeBano and 

Schmidt 1989a,b). If the watershed cannot be restored, the stream channel and riparian zone must be 

rehabilitated to a state in equilibrium with the watershed’s ongoing water-sediment production 

regime (Brookes 1987; Morris 1995). 

The rehabilitation of aggraded Camas Creek gullies would be extremely challenging and expensive. 

Treatment options identified in the Camas NWR Wetland and Riparian Rehabilitation Plan must 

include measures to deal with multiple mechanisms of erosion that may occur at different times and 

under different hydrologic conditions (Ponce and Lindquist 1990). 

Although the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2) and Alternative 3 have an ecologically based 

approach to riparian rehabilitation of Camas Creek geomorphic form, neither alternative guarantees 

restoration of all geomorphic processes. For example, the level of restoration that may be achievable 

through refuge rehabilitation efforts would be constrained by the need to prevent flooding of private 

lands and structures. Consequently, return to pre-settlement conditions is an unrealistic goal for the 

CCP within this dynamic refuge riparian ecosystem (Chambers and Miller 2011). Still, the Wetlands 

and Riparian Rehabilitation Plan outlined in Alternatives 2 and 3 is based on a sound scientific 

approach, allows for testing of hypotheses on smaller scales before investing in large projects, and 

offers high potential for preventing further degredation and at least partially restoring natural 

hydrogeologic function of Camas Creek.

Wetland Management 

Alternative 1 (Current Management) would continue to divert 58.1 cfs (almost all of Camas Creek 

surface waters in an average water-year) from April-July to inundate and manage extensive hemimarsh habitats within the Refuge’s six core wetland impoundments. Riparian habitats within the 

Camas Creek floodplain would only receive surface flows below the refuge diversion point for only 

three to six weeks/year, when flows actually exceed 58.1 cfs. The Refuge would continue to allow 

the banks of Camas Creek to remain altered (diked and incised) and minimal overbank flooding 

would occur into refuge wetland and riparian habitat. Incision of Camas Creek would continue to 

occur, and the water table would continue to drop. As a result of these processes, all or part of the 

Refuge’s natural wet meadow wetlands would eventually transition to a new drier ecological type 

with a new site potential (Leopold et al. 1964). Shifts to drier ecological types are likely to 

exacerbate the spread of weeds. Under Current Management (Alternative 1), stream diversions, 

modifications of springs and seeps, and extensive groundwater pumping, would continue to occur, 

with direct and indirect effects on wet meadow water tables. Further water-table declines would be 

expected due to management emphasis on extensive deep hemi-marsh wetlands. Due to water table 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

6-40 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

declines, inefficient water applications, and outdated infrastructure, shifts in meadow plant 

composition from mesic to xeric species and a decrease in the overall extent of the wet meadow 

wetland ecosystem would be expected under Alternative 1 (Rosgen 1996). 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would decrease the refuge emphasis upon hemi-marsh habitats and increase the 

extent of shallow wetlands annually within two of the six impounded wetland basins (i.e., Big, 

Redhead, Toomey, Spring, Center and Two-way Ponds). Since some wetland impoundments possess 

tighter pockets of natural hydric soils, they are anticipated to hold water longer and therefore can be 

managed for deeper hemi-marsh habitats while making more efficient use of refuge diversions of 

riparian surface waters. By reducing the number of wetlands that are maintained as deepwater 

habitat, more of Camas Creek flows would be available for application to riparian habitat. In 

Alternatives 2 and 3 we would move the main point of diversion and the irrigation wells downstream, 

closer to the managed wetlands. By lessening the distance water would need to travel from point of 

diversion to the wetland impoundments, the Refuge would decrease water losses from ground 

subsidence and evaporation, and increase cfs flows within the riparian corridor. Overall, in 

comparison to Alternative 1, wetland management under Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in 

moderate positive effects to the riparian habitats of Camas NWR due to a more efficient application 

of surface water and reduced emphasis on hemi-marsh management. 

Upland Management 

Management and rehabilitation of upland habitats would be minimal in Alternative 1 (Current 

Management), and predominantly consist of invasive species control and access restrictions. The 

Refuge would continue implementation of small sagebrush restoration projects on approximately 90 

acres in areas currently dominated by non-native grasses. 

Alternative 3 elevates upland habitat restoration as coequal to wetland/riparian rehabilitation, and 

would likely compete for limited resources (refuge staff time, as well as grant opportunities and 

partnership involvement). Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) emphasizes wetland/riparian 

rehabilitation while moving forward strategically with more limited upland habitat rehabilitation. 

Alternative 2 allows for flexibility in the amount of progress that is made in upland habitat 

management, depending on the availability of resources (see section 6.7.1 below). 

Shelterbelt Management 

In both Alternatives 1 and 3 a combination of surface water diversions and groundwater pumping 

would be used to surface irrigate shelterbelt habitats. This is an inefficient use of water, since only 

about half of applied water actually reaches plantings. In addition, Alternative 3 would expand 

shelterbelt from 34 to 50 acres, a 40 percent increase. Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) would use 

a combination of partial groundwater irrigation and a highly efficient micro-drip irrigation system to 

provide water to newly established shelterbelt plantings within the current footprint (34 acres). Of the 

three CCP alternatives, Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) provides the most water efficient 

management for naturalized shelterbelt habitat, while not compromising refuge objectives for the 

rehabilitation of Camas Creek riparian habitat functions. 

Fire Management 

Under natural fire regimes the perennial stream woodlands of the upper Great Basin, such as Camas 

Creek, probably burned infrequently. In eastern Idaho, the mean fire return interval was estimated to 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-41 

be 48 years in some riparian communities (Barrett 1988). In the Klamath Mountains of northern 

California, Skinner and Chiru (1996) found that the median fire return intervals were twice as long in 

riparian reserves as in upland sites, suggesting that fires occurred less frequently in riparian areas. 

During very dry years, if the vegetation was sufficiently stressed, the natural riparian meadows and 

willow stands may have burned. More often in healthy riparian communities, fires would probably 

stop at the edge of the wet meadow riparian zone, as was observed by DeBenedetti and Parsons 

(1979) in a similar riparian ecosystem. The continuous stream channel probably functioned as a 

natural fire break, particularly along alluvial reaches where extensive, unvegetated gravel bars may 

slow or halt an advancing fire front. 

Higher soil moisture content can curtail and slow the rate of fire spread within riparian zones. For 

example, wet meadows, where moisture content of fuels and soils are generally higher than in 

surrounding uplands, may serve as fire breaks until late in the fire season (Dwire and Kauffman 

2003). Because fire behavior is influenced by fuel characteristics, the variation in riparian vegetation 

likely contributes to the tendency for many fires to burn in a patchy manner through riparian areas. 

These speculations are tentative, however, since few data are available on fuel loads, fuel chemistry, 

or fuel moisture for most common riparian plant communities, and on how the distribution of fuels 

influences fire behavior in stream-riparian corridors (Dwire and Kauffman 2003). 

Impacts of current land use practices (i.e., groundwater pumping) may now strongly influence fire 

properties in some riparian areas. Where streams and riparian areas have been degraded by land and 

water use, fire properties may begin to resemble the drier uplands. For riparian-stream corridors, 

some models predict that human alterations in vegetation, hydrology, and geomorphology increase 

the probability of high severity fires and reduce the capacity of riparian features to act as natural fire 

breaks (Dwire and Kauffman 2003). In the Southwest, Busch (1995) documented that the current 

frequency and intensity of fires in riparian habitats is greater than what occurred historically because: 

(1) a greater accumulation of fuels due to a reduced frequency of scouring floods and; (2) the 

expansion and dominance in many areas of invasive species which are more flammable. 

The strategies outlined in Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) and Alternative 3 would mimic the 

effects of natural low to moderate-intensity fires that once occurred in Camas Creek woodlands. We 

would promote natural willow regeneration in established stands by physically, biologically, or 

mechanically treating 10 percent of large old stands per season to create diverse willow patches with 

both mature and early successional states. This may involve the use of patchy, low intensity 

prescribed fire, or other techniques. Most shrub willow species are able to re-sprout after low to 

moderate-intensity fires that kill only the aboveground plant parts. Riparian species exhibit a range of 

adaptations to disturbance that contribute to the rapid recovery of streamside habitats following fire. 

These include adaptations that facilitate the survival of plants on-site, such as sprouting and thick 

bark, and those that contribute to recolonization of burned sites, including wind and water dispersal, 

reproductive responses, and the capacity to establish in post-fire environments (Kauffman 1990; 

Miller 2000; Stickney 1986). In uplands, shrub survival is related to fuel consumption (Kauffman 

and Martin 1990). Fire-caused tree and shrub mortality is highest when the litter layer and soil 

organic horizons are consumed by fire, and root crowns and other belowground tissue are killed 

(Kauffman and Martin 1990; Stickney 1986). In riparian areas, higher levels of soil moisture may 

prevent the combustion of soil organic matter and protect belowground tissues, thus increasing the 

probability of shrub survival. Most riparian sedge (Carex spp.) and grass species recover rapidly 

following light surface fires through regeneration from roots and rhizomes (Racine et al. 1987: 

Figure 5). Under the low intensity prescribed fire regimes of Alternatives 2 and 3, thick bark would 

protect the cambium of tree species that occur in riparian areas and allow natural re-sprouting (Miller 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

6-42 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

2000). The post-burn re-sprouts of many willows have a high growth rate and are preferentially 

foraged upon by elk (Leege 1979; Stein et al. 1992). In Alternatives 2 and 3 we propose to use patchy 

low intensity fires to create mosaics of shrub stands with different canopy heights and stem densities. 

Summer prescribed burns in riparian habitats would be avoided, as they can result in high-intensity 

fires that burn deeply into the soils and kill the willow roots, thereby eliminating the possibility of 

basal sprouting (Finch and Stoleson 2000; Uchytil 1989; USFWS 2002). In summary, under 

Alternative 1 willow stands would continue to progress toward late successional stages. Management 

proposed under Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in a mosaic of willow habitat in various 

successional stages, which would benefit a wide array of wildlife species, including migratory 

landbirds and ungulates. 

Invasive Species Management 

Increased effort to control invasive species would be undertaken in Alternatives 2 and 3 to protect 

and maintain existing riparian woodlands and aquatic in-stream habitat. Riparian management in 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would entail controlling invasive species to increase establishment of native 

understory vegetation, and enhancing recruitment of native trees. All invasive plant treatment 

methods have the potential to temporarily disturb, displace, or directly harm various wildlife species. 

All weed control, mechanical, cultural, chemical, and biological control methods would be 

individually evaluated (see Appendix F, for descriptions of general weed control methods) before use 

and application. Chemical usage would be subject to provisions of the refuge IPM plan (Appendix 

F). Among other provisions, the IPM plan provides direction that “the most efficacious pesticide 

available with the least potential to degrade environmental quality (soils, surface water and 

groundwater) as well as least potential effect to native species ... would be acceptable for use on the 

Refuge.” Each approved pesticide would undergo a chemical profile analysis; active ingredients 

would be analyzed for their risk quotient and this value compared to a Level of Concern for surrogate 

species, as established by the EPA. Adverse negative effects would be avoided by the Refuge’s 

standard operating procedures for the use of only registered and labeled aquatic herbicides in riparian 

habitats and strict conformity to the specific pesticide label requirements. Although IPM would be 

used to control invasive species under all alternatives, Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in greater 

positive effects to riparian habitat than Alternative 1. 

6.6.2 Effects to Riparian Habitats and Wildlife from Public Recreational Use 

Alternative 3 supports the largest increases in public uses of Camas NWR. In comparison to 

Alternative 1 (Current Management), the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2) accounts for a small 

increase in public recreational opportunities affecting riparian habitat and wildlife. 

Recreational use of the riparian zone is usually many times that of other habitats, particularly in areas 

proximate to more suburban and urban areas (North Central Forest Experiment Station 1977; Sachet 

1988). Vegetation alteration at recreation sites occurs as a result of trampling, with herbaceous and 

shrub layers usually the most affected (Reese and Blakesley 1987; Settergren 1977). These layers are 

particularly important to nesting songbirds, amphibians, small mammals, and other species that 

require thick and multi-layered vegetation for protective cover, food gathering, and microclimate 

control (Bull and Skovlin 1982; Doyle 1990; Weaver et al. 1979). Riparian shrub-oriented species 

such as McGillivray’s warbler and lazuli bunting may be fewer in number or absent at recreational 

sites. But species that nest and feed within tree canopies, such as squirrels and warbling vireo, may 

be unaffected by recreational development because mature trees are often spared at recreation sites 

(Reese and Blakesley 1987). 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-43 

Although information found in a literature review provided by Sachet (1988) was not specific to 

riparian areas, it does provide some insight to potential impacts in riparian areas as a consequence 

pedestrian based recreation. General conclusions of wildlife habitat impacts by forms of recreation 

have been summarized by Sachet (1988) and include: 

Indirect Effects of Riparian Recreation 

 Increased bare ground, trail width, trail depth, soil compaction, and soil bulk density; 

 Increased potential for soil erosion; 

 Reduced trailside vegetation, vegetative cover, and organic matter in the soil; 

 Tree damage. 

Direct Effects of Riparian Recreation 

 Disruption of normal activity patterns and habitat selection of big game; 

 Human disturbance of all wildlife. 

Aquatic and near-shore riparian habitats are especially vulnerable to physical disturbance. Trampling 

and removal of emergent vegetation and woody debris all contribute to the direct degradation of 

these habitats (Aitchison et al. 1977). Recreation can impact riparian vegetation through damage or 

destruction of plants, elimination of seedlings, promoting invasion by exotic species, increased 

incidence of fires, indirect effects from soil compaction, and bank erosion (Johnson and Carothers 

1982). Noise and the approach of human beings to breeding sites, spawning reaches, feeding areas, or 

resting cover is distressing to most wild animals (Braun et al. 1978; Skagen 1980). Disturbance from 

human recreation can reduce both the density and diversity of avian communities (Aitchison et al. 

1977; Riffell et al. 1996; Szaro 1980; Taylor 1986). In riparian areas in Utah, the presence of willow 

flycatchers was negatively correlated with high traffic areas (e.g., parking areas, trail heads, 

restrooms, campgrounds (Blakesley and Reese 1988). Food scraps and garbage in areas of high 

recreational use attract larger birds (e.g., jays, ravens) and small mammals (skunks, squirrels) which 

prey on bird nests and recently-fledged young (Blakesley and Reese 1988; Johnson and Carothers 

1982). Abandonment of the habitat due to human disturbance may occur even in the presence of 

suitable vegetative conditions (Taylor 1986). Negative reactions to disturbance are heightened when 

animals are also stressed by malnutrition, parasites, or inclement weather, and also when suitable 

habitat is fragmented and/or limited in size (Harris 1988). 

Alternative 1 (Current Management) offers the greatest public recreational access to riparian habitats, 

with the entire 10,806-acre Refuge open to off-road hiking from July 15-February 28, which includes 

part of the breeding season for migratory birds that use this habitat. All refuge riparian habitat would 

be accessible to off-trail dispersed recreation under Alternative 1. In comparison to Alternative 2 

(Preferred Alternative) and Alternative 3, Alternative 1 (Current Management) would result in the 

greatest riparian wildlife disturbance. While the 1997 Refuge Improvement Act recognizes that 

wildlife-dependent recreation is an appropriate use of Refuge System lands, the Act also mandates 

that the needs of wildlife come first on refuges. Allowing unrestricted access to portions of refuge 

riparian areas during the end of the breeding season in Alternative 1 could cause unacceptable levels 

of disturbance to migratory birds within riparian habitats. 

Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) would allow the use of personal portable photo blinds within 

100 feet of roadways and increase the number of refuge-led wildlife observation tours, but would 

prohibit off road hiking completely. Alternative 3 contains the most provisions to increase public use 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

6-44 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

facilities and activities, including opening the 7.5 mile Sandhole Lake road to vehicle traffic, 

constructing three permanent photo blinds in riparian woodlands and the use of personal portable 

photo blinds within 100 feet of roadways, and moderate increases to refuge-led wildlife observation 

tours. However, Alternative 3 limits off-road hiking to 2,510 acres (the north and south waterfowl 

hunting units). Under both Alternatives 2 and 3, the current half-mile long birding trail, which takes 

visitors through shelterbelt and willow riparian habitat, would be lengthened to 1.3 miles. By limiting 

off road hiking or eliminating it entirely, both Alternatives 2 and 3 would minimize disturbance from 

wildlife based recreation to riparian habitat and wildlife. 

Refuge riparian habitats provide ample winter cover for big game species such as moose, white-tailed 

deer, and elk. Compared to the open sagebrush and agricultural habitats, which surround refuge 

lands, the proportional quantity and quality of refuge security habitat is of a higher value and quality 

for wintering big-game than the adjoining private property. In the past two decades incidental counts 

of the number of elk using Camas NWR in the fall and winter have been on the increase. Elk use the 

protection of refuge habitats from human disturbance and hunting pressure during the day and forage 

on private hay pastures and hay stacks at night. Unfortunately, this has caused conflicts between elk 

and people (e.g., depredation to farms and feedlots). 

In Alternatives 2 (Preferred Alternative) and 3, a new hunt unit would be established for elk hunting. 

This unit would be approximately 4,112 acres in size and would be located in the southern and 

western portion of the Refuge, south of the core wetlands and auto tour route, and west of Camas 

Creek. This area includes sagebrush-steppe, willow riparian and scrub-shrub, and wetland habitat. 

This area includes, and overlaps with, the current south waterfowl and upland game hunt unit (1,530 

acres). The Refuge would issue up to 20 refuge access permits annually to hunters within GMU 63. 

An any-elk (bull and antlerless) hunt would be conducted from August 1 through August 31, and an 

antlerless hunt would be conducted from September 1 through December 31. Fall elk hunts proposed 

in Alternatives 2 (Preferred Alternative) and 3 would occur within the majority of the Refuge’s 

palustrine scrub-shrub willow habitat (primarily the Rays Lake area). Stankowich (2008) 

demonstrated through results of both a literature review and meta-analyses, that environmental 

factors and experience with humans and their recreational activities have effects on ungulate 

behavior. Disturbance from the limited elk hunting opportunities proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3 

would cause a decrease in the value of refuge riparian habitats as security cover for ungulates and 

possibly disperse some refuge moose, elk, and deer off of the Refuge from August 1 through 

December 31. While the proposed elk hunt would impart negative effects upon fall migratory 

landbirds within refuge riparian and palustrine scrub-shrub habitats, the overall impacts are expected 

to be minor due to the low total number of hunters and the fact that a maximum of two hunters would 

be allowed on the Refuge at a given time. 

Conversely, the elk hunt potentially could cause minor to moderate positive effects to willow riparian 

and scrub-shrub habitat through reduced browsing pressure. The removal/elimination of large 

predators in many areas has allowed populations of some prey species, including elk, to increase. By 

working with IDFG to develop a refuge elk hunting program, Alternatives 2 and 3 can mimic the 

ecological role that large predators once served, in both removing a segment of the population and 

also causing disturbance and animal movement. Hunting is not a direct ecological substitute for 

predators, however, as predators would naturally remove the sick, weak, or injured animals, whereas 

hunters often target the healthiest, largest animals for removal. Yet, in the absence of large predators, 

hunting may provide as a source of disturbance that modifies animal use patterns. Providing some 

hunting pressure on the Refuge may deter elk from using the Refuge as a safe haven and disperse 

them onto areas open to all hunters in GMU 63. By controlling the herd size and/or dispersing the 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-45 

herd from the Refuge, hunting may reduce damage to refuge riparian habitat and result in improved 

habitat conditions for a wide suite of species. 

6.6.3 Overall Effects to Riparian Habitats and Wildlife 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would provide a major increase in both the quality and quantity of willow 

riparian habitat on the Refuge, benefitting a suite of species that depend on this habitat for breeding, 

migration, or thermal cover. Alternative 1 would provide minor benefits to these species through 

maintaining the Refuge’s limited existing willow riparian habitat; however habitat quality would be 

expected to decline over time under this alternative. Camas Creek would remain diked and incised, 

and overbank flooding would continue to be a rare event. Continuation of current management would 

likely exacerbate the effects of a lowering water table and fuel the conversion of wetland habitat to 

mesic and xeric habitat types. 

An emphasis on increasing riparian habitat functions, through development of a process oriented 

Wetland and Riparian Rehabilitation Plan (WRRP) in Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) and 

Alternative 3, would be expected to result in moderate beneficial effects to riparian habitats and 

associated wildlife (e.g. breeding and migratory landbirds) over the course of the fifteen-year CCP. 

The WRRP would address and seek solutions to the primary causes of riparian habitat degredation, 

for example loss of overbank flooding. Alternative 2 would have the greatest (moderate) effect to 

riparian habitat and associated wildlife through carefully planned restoration strategies based on up to 

date scientific data, making the most efficient use of water, and prioritizing limited resources to focus 

on wetland and riparian rehabilitation. Alternative 3 would have a moderate, but lesser positive effect 

than Alternative 2 because of its equal emphasis on wetland/riparian and upland management. 

The strategies of Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) for constrained public recreational use would 

result in negligible negative effects to riparian habitats, while still providing ample opportunities for 

wildlife observation and photography. Allowing big game (elk) hunting in Alternatives 2 and 3 would 

convey a slight negative effect upon refuge riparian big game and migratory wildlife, which could 

potentially be counterbalanced by reduced browsing pressure on willows and improved habitat 

condition. 

Overall, a minor to moderate negative effect to riparian habitat would result through continuation of 

current management (Alternative 1); a moderate positive effect would result for riparian habitats and 

associated species through implementation of Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative); and a minor to 

moderate positive effect from Alternative 3. 

6.7 Effects to Upland Habitats and Associated Species

Differences between alternatives in effects to upland habitat (semi-desert shrub-steppe and grassland) 

and associated wildlife are the result of changes in the emphasis for upland restoration, agricultural 

plantings (crops and haying), control of invasive species, and management of public uses (hunting, 

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

Sage-steppe habitats occur on 2,623 acres (24 percent) of the 10,806-acre Refuge. Of this, 471 acres 

are green rabbitbrush shrubland, which is considered an early seral stage of sagebrush steppe. An 

additional 1,113 acres which were historically likely a mixture of sage-steppe and native grassland 

habitat, are now classified as upland non-native vegetation, the majority of which is crested 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

6-46 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

wheatgrass. Alternative 1 (Current Management) and Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) would 

rehabilitate and restore approximately 113 acres of sage-steppe habitat. An emphasis for restoring 

resiliency to late successional uplands would be undertaken in action Alternative 3. Alternative 3 

would undertake 425 acres of habitat rehabilitation and restoration within the refuge sagebrush 

ecosystem. 

6.7.1 Effects to Upland Habitats and Wildlife from Habitat Actions 

Upland Management 

Over time, more than half of the sagebrush habitat at Camas NWR has been highly degraded by 

altered fire regimes, livestock grazing, and invasive species. Some areas of the Refuge that once 

supported sagebrush habitat (984 acres) now are monocultures of crested wheatgrass, with minimal 

value to wildlife. However, some areas of high quality habitat remain, that are far superior to any 

shrub habitat on adjacent private land. Efforts to stabilize and rehabilitate upland habitats (sagesteppe and native grassland) would increase in Alternative 3 in comparison to Alternative 1 (Current 

Management) and Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative). In Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) the 

Refuge would undertake sage-steppe restoration, but the emphasis on upland habitats would be lower 

priority and subordinate to wetland management. In Alternative 2, the Refuge would not dismiss 

opportunities for large-scale efforts to restore habitat connectivity, function, and processes (as 

described in Alternative 3), but wetland and riparian rehabilitation would remain the management 

priority. Therefore, large-scale upland habitat management would occur only as additional funding 

and time allows. In Alternative 3, management of upland habitats (sage-steppe and native grassland) 

would receive equivalent emphasis with wetland and riparian management. The Refuge would 

emphasize restoring landscape connectivity within sagebrush ecosystems to support and maintain 

integrated wildlife communities. 

Under all alternatives we would use a suite of strategies (physical, mechanical, and chemical 

treatments) to attain desired vegetative conditions on either existing or restored upland habitats. In all 

alternatives we would use various methods to suppress crested wheatgrass in order to establish 

sagebrush and enhance these areas for wildlife. The methods selected would be based on the most 

current scientific literature and knowledge (Pehrson and Sowell 2011). In all alternatives, increasing 

plant diversity in grass monocultures would lead to improved habitat, greater species richness and 

community diversity, improved aesthetics, more soil cover (Stevens 1994), and increased diversity of 

birds, mammals, reptiles, and insects (Reynolds 1980). 

Alternative 1 would rely on a “passive” approach to, maintaining and protecting existing uplands 

through invasive species containment and limiting access. In some cases previous protective and 

passive restrictions (for example, removing livestock from the Refuge in 1994) have greatly 

enhanced upland habitats, facilitated regeneration in previously disturbed areas, and minimized the 

need for active management. While the “passive” approach of Alternative 1 would maintain existing 

refuge sagebrush communities that are highly resistant and resilient (Wisdom et al. 2005; see Chapter 

2), and at low risk for transitioning to undesirable states, it is highly unlikely that small refinements 

in current management practices will maintain existing, desirable conditions in areas where 

sagebrush communities have low resistance and resiliency (Hemstrom et al. 2002). 

Before undertaking broad restorative sage-steppe efforts, Alternatives 2 and 3 would initiate 

inventories to determine which sagebrush communities are currently resistant and resilient, versus 

those that have low resistance and resilience, as well as those with characteristics intermediate to 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-47 

these extremes (Wisdom et al. 2005). Many sagebrush communities that have intermediate levels of 

resistance and resiliency require restoration and management, as identified in Alternatives 2 and 3, to 

prevent undesirable transitions that are likely to occur under current management (Alternative 1). In 

some areas, areas past grazing has impacted sagebrush shrub habitat to the point where transitional 

thresholds were reached and degraded habitats are now dominated by late successional sagebrush 

with little grass or forb understory. These areas are now at risk from catastrophic wildfire and 

conversion to an annual cheatgrass state. Active restoration (as proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3) 

would be required to restore these altered habitats. Alternative 3 would require more active 

management to attain restoration objectives, entailing more cost than Alternatives 1 (Current 

Management) and 2 (Preferred Alternative). 

Preventing undesirable transitions across thresholds is a high priority in Alternative 3, and would 

require comprehensive and effective management of all anthropogenic disturbances that operate at 

broader scales in the sagebrush ecosystem. However, the funds needed to fully implement all 

prescriptions on regional sagebrush ecosystems are scarce, and considerations of current natural 

resource management budgets makes implementation of Alternative 3 difficult at best (Wisdom et al. 

2005). Due to refuge budget and resource constraints, Alternative 2 would apply the concept of 

“triage” according to a system of priorities designed to maximize habitat function (Wisdom et al. 

2005). Under this alternative, occupied sage-grouse habitat which has moderate or high potential to 

be maintained would be prioritized for management. This would concentrate management where 

populations of sagebrush focal species are largest and declining least (Connelly et al. 2004). 

Alternative 2 would therefore result in a higher cost to benefit ratio than Alternative 3, and be more 

achievable in the long term. 

Refuge participation in Land Protection Planning would occur in all alternatives. Under all 

alternatives, a Preliminary Project Proposal (PPP) would be developed within three years of CCP 

completion. If the PPP by the USFWS Director is approved, a more detailed Land Protection 

Planning (LPP) process would then be initiated to address large-scale land protection alternatives and 

help to prioritize adjoining lands that are most critical for protection of refuge water quality and 

quantity; have the highest quality sage-steppe and wetland habitat; and provide the best opportunities 

for habitat restoration. This approach would cultivate working relationships with county, State, and 

Federal agencies to stay abreast of current and potential developments, and would use outreach and 

education as needed to raise awareness of refuge resources and dependence on the local environment. 

Wetland and Riparian Management 

Until more natural hydrologic processes can be reinstated, encroaching upland shrubs in wet meadow 

habitat would be removed under Alternatives 2 and 3. However wetland and riparian management 

would have a neutral effect on native sagebrush-steppe and semidesert grassland sites. 

Fire Management 

Under all alternatives, the Refuge would control wildfires in sagebrush steppe habitat. Wildlife Urban 

Interface (WUI) burns would be initiated when needed to protect off-refuge lands from a wildfire 

originating on a refuge. WUI burns are typically conducted in Meadow Grass and Shrub Habitat 

types, but can occur in any habitat type that could potentially threaten private residences. In many 

cases, homes or personal property immediately abuts refuge lands. If a fire were to start on the 

Refuge and carry through to these private residences, the Refuge may be held liable. Wildlife habitat 

on the Refuge is typically denser than vegetation on adjacent private lands, thus there is more fuel to 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

6-48 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

carry a fire. This may result in a more intense fire by the time it reaches the refuge boundary. To 

counteract this problem, a blackline, or area where all vegetation and fuel has been removed with 

fire, can be created along the refuge boundary, adjacent to areas where private property could be at 

risk. These blacklines are typically 50-100 feet in width and are intended to protect private land, not 

to enhance wildlife habitat. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 include preventative physical, mechanical and chemical treatments to reduce 

fuel loads and reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires in sagebrush-steppe habitat. Prescribed fire 

may be used to reduce fuel loads, but would not be implemented unless strategies are in place to 

reduce risk of post fire invasion by nonnative plants. The use of prescribed fire would be restricted to 

less than 120 acres or 20% of sage-grouse habitat within a 20-30 year fire return interval. In concert 

with other habitat management strategies, this would be expected to provide minor positive benefits 

to sagebrush-steppe habitat. 

Invasive Species Management 

Under all alternatives, mechanical, cultural, chemical, and biological weed control methods would be 

evaluated in accordance with the refuge IPM plan (Appendix F). Chemical usage will be subject to 

provisions of the IPM plan. Potential effects to the biological and physical environment associated 

with the proposed site-, time-, and target-specific use of pesticides (Pesticide Use Proposals [PUPs]) 

on refuge lands would be evaluated using scientific information and analyses documented in 

“Chemical Profiles” (see Appendix F). Chemical profiles provide quantitative assessment/screening 

tools and threshold values to evaluate potential effects to species groups (birds, mammals, and fish) 

and environmental quality (water, soil, and air). 

PUPs (including appropriate Best Management Practices) would be approved where the Chemical 

Profiles provide scientific evidence that potential impacts to refuge biological resources and its 

physical environment are likely to be only minor, temporary, or localized in nature. Along with the 

selective use of pesticides, PUPs would also describe other appropriate IPM strategies (biological, 

physical, mechanical, and cultural methods) to eradicate, control, or contain pest species in order to 

achieve resource management objectives. 

Based on scientific information and analyses documented in “Chemical Profiles” (see Appendix F), 

most pesticides allowed for use on refuge lands would be of relatively low risk to non-target 

organisms as a result of low toxicity or short-term persistence in the environment. Thus, potential 

impacts to refuge resources and neighboring natural resources from pesticide applications would be 

expected to be minor, temporary, or localized in nature under all alternatives. 

Agricultural Crops

In all alternatives, the Refuge would provide supplemental crops for migratory waterfowl and 

sandhill cranes using the Snake River migratory corridor. Current Management (Alternative 1) and 

Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) would cooperatively farm about 140 acres of irrigated alfalfa 

and 20 acres of irrigated small grain. This would not only benefit waterfowl, but also upland game 

birds and big game species that inhabit the Refuge. Under Alternative 2 alfalfa plantings would be 

reduced by 20-40 acres (to 100-120 acres) if the Refuge loses its cooperative farmer for the Well #9 

field and cannot acquire irrigation equipment; however dryland grain would increase by 20-40 acres 

annually. Alternative 3 would reduce agricultural plantings of small grains and alfalfa from 160 acres 

to 80 acres (60 of irrigated alfalfa and 20 acres of irrigated small grain), and 80 acres of farmland in 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-49 

the Well #9 field would be slowly restored back to a native sage-steppe community. Over the fifteenyear CCP, the increase in sagebrush habitat restored under Alternative 3 would constitute a minor 

positive increase in available sage-steppe habitats for sagebrush facultative and obligate species. 

Decreased migratory bird population fitness would not be anticipated to occur due to the small 

reduction in agricultural crops in Alternative 3; however, the Refuge may experience increased 

depredation complaints at times from private landowners due to a reduction in agricultural refuge 

practices. 

Refuge alfalfa supports an abundant small mammal community that is often exploited by various 

birds of prey. Swainson’s hawks will hunt for mice and voles in alfalfa which provides a long-term, 

stable habitat for prey and good hunting conditions year round (Estep 1989). The optimal time for 

Swainson’s hawks to use alfalfa is when prey is easily accessible, especially after a cutting or 

irrigation and when field vegetation is less than 15 inches tall (Swolgaard et al. 2008). Swainson’s 

hawks rely heavily on the current agriculture landscape in southeast Idaho to provide adequate 

hunting grounds and safe nesting sites along riparian corridors. Compared to Alternatives 1 and 2, 

Alternative 3 provides less benefit to Swainson’s hawks due to a reduction in prime foraging habitat. 

However, frequent early alfalfa cutting on private lands changes the amount and structure of 

vegetation used by many birds for nesting and also destroys nests and eggs of ground nesting birds. 

(CPIF 2000; Frawley and Best 1991). Because the Refuge limits alfalfa harvests to late summer, 

refuge alfalfa operations will not impact birds that select alfalfa fields as nest sites. 

Establishing and maintaining alfalfa crops on refuge sage-steppe habitats would require the most cost 

and oversight in Alternatives 1 and 2, which farm 140 acres of alfalfa versus the 60 acres in 

Alternative 3. In all alternatives, a combination of agricultural best management practices, including 

crop rotation, mowing, plowing and disking of agricultural fields will be timed to reduce the need for 

pesticides and fertilizers while ensuring adequate alfalfa production for wildlife. Timing of alfalfa 

plantings would be based on the types of weeds present. In Alternatives 2 and 3, winter wheat or rye 

plantings would be used as companion crops with legumes because they release chemicals that 

suppress the development of weeds, reducing the need for pesticide use. Because of the aggressive 

nature of some weed species, they can become established despite preventive efforts. Therefore in all 

alternatives, approved refuge herbicide treatments might be necessary to combat some weed 

problems in agricultural fields. 

Agricultural Haying 

Alternatives 1 (No Action) and 2 (Preferred) would both hay 150 irrigated acres annually. In 

Alternative 3, the Refuge would not irrigate hay fields, and hay 150 dryland acres annually. As noted 

in Section 6.3.1 above, haying during the first two weeks of July can cause disturbance and direct 

mortality to ground nesting birds, small mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. In all alternatives, 

Refuge haying would not be allowed to begin until after July 15, minimizing impacts to ground 

nesting birds. However minor impacts would be expected to species that raise multiple broods. 

However, this effect would be minor given the relatively small acreage and limited distribution of 

hayed habitat on the Refuge. 

Habitat fragmentation from human land-uses, such as haying, tends to increase the amount of edge 

adjacent to uplands (Laurance and Yensen 1991), thus subjecting upland wildlife populations to new 

or increased ecological interactions (e.g., predation, parasitism) associated with these edges (Wilcove 

et al. 1986). The prevailing principle of wildlife management is that increased edge and 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

6-50 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

fragmentation of habitat negatively affect numerous species of nesting birds by increasing 

depredation or parasitism rates of nests (Paton 1994). Several specific studies report elevated rates of 

nest predation in fragmented forested and wetland landscapes (Donovan et al. 1997; Hartley and 

Hunter 1998; Robinson et al. 1995) and in small habitat remnants (Small and Hunter 1988; Wilcove 

1985). Again, this effect would be minor given the relatively small acreage and limited distribution 

of hayed habitat on the Refuge. 

Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) would continue to hay 150 acres and reseed current hay 

meadows, currently non-native quack and brome grass, to a more palatable and desirable mix of 

grasses for foraging and nesting wildlife. Alternative 2 would therefore improve the composition of 

upland grassland habitats for a suite of nesting and foraging wildlife (Bishop and Vrtiska 2008; Fefer 

1977; Jarvis and Harris 1971). 

6.7.2 Effects to Upland Habitats and Wildlife from Public Recreational Use 

As noted in Section 6.5.2 above, under all alternatives, public use is expected to increase over time as 

a result of increasing regional populations, increasing demand for wildlife-dependent recreation, and 

a greater awareness of the Refuge. Increasing visitation would cause greater impacts in Alternative 1 

than in Alternatives 2 and 3, in part because of the more dispersed nature of recreation in Alternative 

1, and because Alternatives 2 and 3 provide for additional staffing and facilities to manage visitor 

use. However, enhanced public use facilities and visitor service programs under Alternatives 2 and 3 

could draw additional visitors over the baseline increase expected due to population increases and 

general recreation trends. In general, the highest number of visitors is anticipated for Alternative 3, 

because this Alternative would result in the highest number of facilities and program offerings. 

As visitation increases, there will be the potential for a degree of additional trampling of native 

upland habitats from off-trail usage as well as some additional disturbance to upland species. 

However, these negative effects (explored in more detail in the Compatibility Determinations—see 

Appendix B) are considered relatively minor except around and near concentration areas such as 

kiosks/viewing sites or trails. 

As noted in Sections 6.3.2 and 6.5.2 above, anticipated direct impacts of wildlife observation and 

photography, interpretation, and environmental education include disturbance to wildlife by human 

presence which typically results in a temporary displacement of individuals or groups. In all 

alternatives use of the auto tour route, service and hunter access roads, trails, and associated facilities 

provides potential avenues for human disturbance of wildlife and habitat on the Refuge. The auto 

tour route primarily skirts the edges of wetland habitat, while service roads (which would remain 

open to hiking, bicycling, cross country skiing, and snowshoeing in all alternatives) primarily run 

through upland habitat. 

Miller et al. (1998) found that the trail zone of influence for forest and grassland birds appears to be 

approximately 75-100 m (246-328 feet). Beyond this distance, bird abundance, species composition, 

and nest predation was not affected by even heavily used recreational trails. Linear effects from trail 

and roadway disturbance would be slightly greater, overall, in Alternative 3 than in Alternatives 1 

and 2. Total roads open to vehicular traffic are 12.8 miles in Alternatives 1 and 2 (6.3-mile Auto Tour 

Route, open year round; 6.5 miles of hunter access roads open during the hunt season) while 

Alternative 3 has an additional 7.5 miles of roads seasonally open to vehicular traffic due to the reopening of the Sandhole Lake loop road (July 1-Nov 1). Both Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) 

and Alternative 1 (Current Management) would reduce wildlife disturbance due to vehicular traffic 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-51 

by continuing to provide only 6.5 miles of seasonally available roads for wildlife observation and 

photography, while keeping the Sandhole Lake loop road closed to vehicle travel. Disturbance due to 

pedestrian and bicycle traffic on the Refuge’s 27 miles of service roads would be the same in all 

alternatives. Currently, the use of these roads for hiking, bicycling, cross-country skiing, and 

snowshoeing is low and therefore, disturbance would be expected to be infrequent and short-lived. 

We expect that in the near future most public use would continue to occur on the Auto Tour Route 

and 1.3 mile birding trail, while visitor use of service roads, which mostly run through upland 

habitats, would remain low. Grooming of 10 miles of service roads for cross-country skiing under 

Alternative 3 may result in an increase in this use; however, this use would have a relatively small 

impact since it is limited to roadways and occurs after the breeding season for all forms of wildlife. 

A number of species show greater reactions when pedestrian use occurred off trail (Miller et al. 1998; 

Taylor and Knight 2003). Alternative 1 (Current Management) offers the greatest public recreational 

access, with the entire 10,806-acre Refuge open to off-road hiking from July 15-February 28. 

Alternative 3 restricts off-road hiking to 2,510 acres (the north and south waterfowl hunting units). 

Alternative 2 would not allow off-road hiking to occur anywhere or anytime on the Refuge. Of the 

three alternatives, Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) offers the most restrictive access and 

opportunity for wildlife observation and photography, but the most positive benefit to refuge wildlife 

by minimizing wildlife disturbance through restricting public access to roads and trails (except for 

hunters pursuing game in the hunt areas). In addition, Alternatives 2 and 3 would restrict dog walking 

to roads and require short leashes or electronic collars. Currently dogs can accompany owners off 

trail from July 15-February 28, and regulations allow off leash dogs if they are under “close control.” 

Overall, Alternative 1 would result in the greatest (minor to moderate) impacts to upland habitat and 

wildlife; Alternative 2 would have the lowest impact; and Alternative 3 would be intermediate 

between the two, but still minor. 

Effects to Elk and Other Ungulates from Elk Hunting Program 

Currently big game hunting is prohibited on the Refuge (Alternative 1, Current Management). Under 

Alternatives 2 and 3 we propose to allow elk hunting on 4,112 acres of the Refuge, in line with Idaho 

GMU 53 seasons and regulations. A maximum of 20 elk hunting permits would be issued annually, 

and a maximum of 2 elk hunters would be allowed on the Refuge at any given time. 

The first elk sighting documented on the Refuge was that of two elk in September 1937, near Rays 

Lake. Until the 1990s elk sightings were sporadic, ranging from one to four animals every five to ten 

years. The first year that elk were documented in a group larger than four animals was 1994, when 27 

animals were reported. Using monthly surveys in 2008-2009 and other recent general observations, 

we estimate that the Refuge holds up to 150 elk at any one time in the fall and winter, when numbers 

are typically highest. The bulk of the elk spend their time south of the auto tour route, primarily in 

willow riparian habitat around Rays Lake. Some of these elk may be a resident herd, while other elk 

use the area solely as a wintering ground. It has been speculated that elk come into GMU 63 from 

two directions: from the Beaverhead Range, across Highway 22, and from the Island Park area, 

crossing Interstate 15. 

Typically refuges work with states to provide quality big game hunts in-line with state objectives and 

in consideration of herd health, and undue disturbance from concentrated hunting pressure. 

The Draft Idaho Elk Management Plan 2014-2024 (IDFG 2013) does not specify a numeric 

population objective for elk in the Snake River Zone. IDFG’s proposed 10-year management 

direction for the Snake River Zone is as follows: “Management direction in the Snake River Zone 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

6-52 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

involves decreasing the current elk population. The zone is dominated by agricultural lands and 

small communities that are not compatible with large numbers of resident elk. It is proposed to 

continue managing for minimal elk numbers by using long, liberal hunting seasons and prompt 

responses to crop and property damage on agricultural lands” (IDFG 2013). 

For the past fifteen years or so this unit has had one of Idaho’s longest and most liberal (five months 

long) elk hunting seasons. Between 2006 and 2011 harvest in the unit has ranged from 70 in 2011 to 

257 in 2010. In the proposed hunt up to 20 Refuge permits would be issued to harvest elk annually, 

and we assume that not all hunts will be successful. Therefore the Camas hunt would represent only a 

fraction of the total harvest in the GMU 63 and would not result in significant cumulative impacts to 

elk populations regionally or statewide. Nevertheless, an increase in harvest in GMU 63 would help 

reduce the local population to levels that are socially acceptable, by reducing direct financial losses 

to farmers. As reproductive cows are removed from the local population during the antlerless hunt, it 

is assumed that the Camas NWR elk hunt may assist IDFG in achieving its desired population 

reduction in the Snake River Zone. Direct reductions in population through hunting, combined with 

lower reproductive rates, could contribute to a decline in long-term herd productivity in GMU 63. 

However this would be in line with the IDFG’s elk management objective for the Snake River Zone, 

including GMU 63, which is to reduce the current population through long, liberal hunting seasons 

and response to crop and property damage.

Disturbance effects of elk hunting to upland wildlife 

Wildlife may respond to hunter activity in Alternatives 2 and 3 in a variety of ways, depending on the 

range of variables associated with the activity. Examples of such variables include type, distance, 

direction of movement, speed, predictability, frequency, magnitude, and location of the activity 

(Knight and Cole 1995a). Wildlife disturbance can precipitate behavioral changes, such as avoidance, 

habituation, or attraction (Knight and Temple 1995). Disturbance of wildlife species that habituate to 

human use tends to be greater when recreational activities occur away from established use areas 

such as parking areas and trails (Cole 2004; Gutzwiller et al. 1994; Gutzwiller and Marcum 1997; 

MacArthur et al. 1982; Riffell et al. 1996). Conversely, disturbance effects may be somewhat 

minimized by establishing designated sites and routes for visitor activities in relation to such species 

(except for habituation, which is a disturbance response, and which would be exacerbated in 

established use areas). Physiological responses can include the “fight or flight” response, with 

elevated heart and respiratory rates, or the “freeze” response, with inhibition of activity and reduced 

heart and respiratory rates. The implications of disturbance are often heightened during sensitive life 

stages, such as breeding, overwintering and rearing of dependent young. Depending on the 

disturbance variables listed above, the long-term effects on individual animals can be altered 

behavior, reduced vigor, lower reproductive success, and/or death (Knight and Cole 1995a). 

The elk hunt proposed in Alternatives 2 (Preferred Alternative) and 3 can exert a variety of effects on 

both targeted and non-targeted ungulates. Most big game ungulates either run or hide in response to 

hunting pressure. If animals successfully elude hunters by running, the energetic cost may deplete fat 

reserves needed for survival during winter in temperate regions. If animals successfully elude hunters 

by hiding, there may be an energetic cost from lost foraging opportunities. Most studies of ungulate 

responses to hunting have focused on changes in habitat selection. Ungulates typically respond to 

hunting by seeking areas of security (Edge and Marcum 1985; Irwin and Peek 1979; Knight 1980; 

Millspaugh et al. 2000; Naugle et al. 1997), by altering activity patterns (Naugle et al. 1997), by 

adjusting home ranges (Kufield et al. 1988; Root et al. 1988) or by moving long distances (Conner et 

al. 2001; Vieira et al. 2003). In the general sense, elk respond to disturbance by fleeing; whereas, 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-53 

deer eluded hunters by hiding (Johnson et al. 2005). However, the difficulty of monitoring hunter 

density and elk and deer populations on large landscapes has prevented the collection of sufficient 

data to develop models of energetic costs associated with hunting or with other recreational activities. 

Variation in weather, hunter density, herd dynamics and seasonal conditions can likely bring about 

changes in the interactions between hunters and animals, making generalizations tenuous at best. 

Quantitative relationships between levels of hunting pressure and energy expenditure can be used to 

evaluate potential secondary effects of activities on nutritional condition of ungulates. For instance, 

frequent hunter disturbance from elk hunt in Alternatives 2 and 3 could result in high energy 

expenditure by ungulates adversely affecting animal weight dynamics in winter, when forage is 

scarce, or in summer, when energy requirements are high for lactation and rebuilding body mass 

following winter (Cook et al. 2004). During hunting seasons, disturbance increases energetic costs 

for elk (Johnson et al. 2005). Elk within GMU 63 may incur higher energy costs due to hunter 

disturbance from the proposed elk hunt on Camas NWR, as the Refuge would cease to serve as a 

sanctuary from human disturbance and hunting pressure. This could indirectly lead to reduced body 

condition and reproductive fitness, as elk may deplete stored fat reserves to avoid hunters and forage 

on more remote and less secure BLM rangelands. It is unlikely, however, that the proposed hunt 

would increase winter mortality since this is not a limiting factor of the GMU 63 elk herd (Schmidt 

2013). 

6.7.3 Overall Effects to Upland Habitats and Wildlife 

In summary, the use of the specified habitat management techniques is expected to improve the 

composition and structure of the upland plant communities. Minor, temporary, localized disturbance 

and damage could occur as a result of using these habitat management techniques, but these effects 

would be temporary and shortly eclipsed by enhanced habitat structure and composition. Considering 

the total acres managed together with the intensiveness of strategies proposed, Alternative 3 presents 

the option that may result in the highest quality of upland habitat, but would entail high cost and limit 

advancements in wetland and riparian rehabilitation. Alternative 2 presents the option that may 

ultimately result in a minor positive direct improvement in sagebrush-steppe habitat, but would better 

balance limited refuge resources (staff and finances) for attainment of refuge management objectives 

for wetland and riparian rehabilitation. Alternative 1 would maintain existing high quality sagebrushsteppe habitat but would not reverse transitions to undesirable states in habitat that is less resistant 

and resilient. 

Overall, Alternative 1 would result in the greatest (minor to moderate) negative impacts to upland 

habitat and wildlife due to public use, primarily due to allowing free roam hiking throughout the 

Refuge. Alternative 2 would have the lowest impact, primarily due to eliminating free-roam hiking. 

Impacts of Alternative 3 would be intermediate that of Alternative 1 and 2, primarily due to elk 

hunting and opening the Sandhole Lake loop to vehicular traffic, but still minor. Overall, a minor 

positive effect would occur for upland sage-steppe associated species under Alternatives 1 and 2 and 

a moderate positive effect from Alternative 3. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

6-54 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

6.8 Effects to Shelterbelt Habitats and Associated Species

Only 34 acres (less than 1 percent) of the total 10,806-acre Refuge is shelterbelt habitat. The tall 

canopy trees are Plains cottonwoods planted as windbreaks when the Refuge was commissioned in 

1937, and the shorter sub-canopy trees and shrubs are predominantly native coyote (narrowleaf) 

willow, and non-native Russian olive and Siberian pea. However, this small area is extremely 

important to migratory landbirds. Carlisle et al. (2008) documented an impressive abundance and 

diversity of spring and autumn migrants using the headquarters shelterbelt, and showed that birds 

were gaining mass during stop-over (see Chapter 4). 

6.8.1 Effects to Shelterbelt Habitats and Wildlife from Habitat Actions 

Shelterbelt Management 

In all alternatives, existing naturalized shelterbelt habitat would continue to be maintained to provide 

habitat quality stop-over habitat for migratory landbirds and maintain quality wildlife viewing and 

photography opportunities. In all alternatives, the Refuge would continue to replace large 

cottonwoods lost from mortality and replace non-native understory trees and shrubs (e.g., Russian 

olive, Siberian pea) with native understory components. Differences between alternatives in their 

effects to shelterbelt habitat and associated wildlife are the result of differences in the area and rate of 

replanting, irrigation systems, invasive species control, and public uses (wildlife observation and 

photography, interpretation, and environmental education). Hunting does not occur within the 

Refuge’s shelterbelt. 

Under Alternative 1 (Current Management) we would continue to irrigate cottonwood trees using 

groundwater, and replace mature trees near the end of their life-span. Annually, 5-10 percent of the 

cottonwood overstory and understory of non-native shelterbelt trees and shrubs would be replaced 

with species that are native to Idaho. Replacement of trees and shrubs has been initiated in some 

areas and is proving to be time, labor, and money intensive. With the lowering of the water table, 

must be irrigated for several years, until their root systems are well established. Alternative 1 uses 

surface water diversions and groundwater pumping to surface irrigate shelterbelt habitats. While 

surface irrigation is appropriate in areas with sandy soils (Letey 1985; Sijali 2001) only half of 

applied water actually reaches Refuge plantings because of inefficient irrigation infrastructure. 

Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) would manage shelterbelt habitats within the current 34-acre 

footprint, but would increase efforts to replace mature cottonwoods from 5-10 percent of the 

overstory to 10-15 percent annually. The rate of non-native understory plantings would be reduced 

from 5-10 percent to 1-5 percent annually. However, additional supplemental funding sources would 

need to be secured to implement Alternative 2, since the Refuge would not use refuge base funds to 

replace tall mature cottonwood trees or native understory trees and shrubs. Refuge soils are 

predominantly sandy and therefore flood irrigation is a highly inefficient use of water due to rapid 

drainage. Therefore, Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) would use a combination of partial 

groundwater irrigation and a highly efficient micro-drip irrigation system (Griggs 2009) to provide 

water to newly established shelterbelt plantings within the current footprint. Drip irrigation makes it 

possible to place water precisely where and when needed with a high degree of uniformity and 

efficiency (90 percent or more). Losses to runoff, deep percolation and evaporation are minimal 

(Sijali 2001) and most of the irrigation water is taken up by the plant. The use of drip irrigation 

would therefore greatly enhance survival of tree plantings, while simultaneously conserving water. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-55 

Although this system would entail a high initial cost, it would result in water conservation and cost 

savings in the long term. 

In Alternative 3, non-native understory trees and shrubs replacement would be vastly accelerated. 

The Refuge would dramatically increase cottonwood overstory rehabilitation from 5-10 percent in 

Alternative 1, to 20-25 percent annually in Alternative 3. Non-native understory replacement with 

natives would correspondingly increase as well, from 5-10 percent in Alternative 1, to 10-20 percent 

in Alternative 3. As in Alternative 1, a combination of surface water diversions and groundwater 

pumping would be used to surface irrigate shelterbelt habitats, reducing mortality of mature trees and 

increasing survivability of planted trees. The Refuge would use both base and outside funding 

sources to expand this habitat by 36 acres to 50 acres (a 40 percent increase). 

Several factors influence bird abundance and species diversity in shelterbelts, including distance 

from nearest shelterbelt, patch size, width (number of rows), and vegetative structure, complexity, 

and species composition (Cassel and Wiehe 1980, Hudson 2000, Martin 1981, Martin and Vohs 1978, 

Yahner 1983). In general increasing bird abundance and species diversity is associated with 

increasing patch size, width, and complexity. Strategies within Alternative 1 (Current Management) 

and Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) would improve structural complexity within the shelterbelt 

canopy and understory habitats. However the greatest positive effect for migratory landbirds would 

occur in Alternative 3, which would not only replant structural components lost to mortality within 

the current shelterbelt area (34 acres), but increase the size of the headquarters shelterbelt by 15 acres 

from Alternatives 1 and 2, increasing the amount of this habitat on the Refuge by 40 percent. 

While bird use of shelterbelts may be affected by the isolation of the belts or by the presence of 

barriers to dispersal between belts, the effects of these factors were minimal in Martin’s (1981) study 

of South Dakota shelterbelts, suggesting that isolation or dispersal were insignificant factors. No 

CCP alternative would attempt to create an additional shelterbelt habitat site other than the one 

established at the refuge headquarters. Effects to abundance and diversity are anticipated to be 

negligible to migratory landbirds, since the current, and relatively long mean distance between 

shelterbelt stands would be maintained. 

At Camas NWR, non-native species such as Russian olive and Siberian pea provide much of the 

cover available to migrants during stop-over. The fact that the majority of refuge migrants were able 

to gain mass during stop-over at Camas NWR within mixed native/non-native vegetation suggests 

that, either in spite of or with the help of non-native vegetation, migrants are able to stop-over 

successfully in these oases (Carlisle et al. 2008). Hudson (2000) found that species richness of fall 

migrant landbirds was greatest in willow but that short distance migrants such as yellow-rumped 

warbler and white-crowned sparrow were more common in Russian olive. These data stress the 

importance of native riparian habitats but also suggest that Russian olive habitats can be important to 

certain migrant species. Therefore the systematic long-term approach of Alternative 2, to gradually 

restore 1-5 percent of the non-native vegetation per year with native trees and shrubs, versus the 

more rapid approaches proposed in Alternatives 1 and 3, is not only warranted but likely to result in 

positive effects to migratory landbirds. 

Assuming continued habitat restoration occurs at Camas NWR in Alternative 2, and/or there is 

sufficient interest, the Refuge would also resume mist netting to measure response of landbirds to 

restoration efforts. Three consecutive years of monitoring would allow us to account for annual 

fluctuations in analyses. Monitoring would allow the Refuge to employ adaptive management and 

better ensure that shelterbelt management is benefitting migratory landbirds. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

6-56 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

Invasive Species Management 

Russian olive was promoted as an excellent species for windbreaks, erosion control, and wildlife 

enhancement as early as 1939 (Van Dersal 1939) and planted as such at Camas NWR. Russian olive 

was one of the very few medium-height trees that were commercially available for use in dryland 

windbreaks and shelterbelts up until the 1970s. Many agencies recommended landowners use 

Russian olive and Siberian pea for conservation plantings in cropland environments that required 

trees and shrubs that tolerated arid to semi-arid conditions. Some of the same agencies that promoted 

it years ago are now spending large amounts of time and money to control it. In all alternatives, 

refuge riparian areas will be revegetated with native species in order to maximize habitat function. 

The first documentation of Russian olive escaping cultivation occurred in 1924 in Utah, and by 1954 

it had escaped cultivation in all adjoining states (Christiansen 1963; Knopf and Olsen 1984). It has 

been especially invasive in wet-saline riparian environments. Russian olive is not listed on the 

Federal Noxious Weed List or the Idaho Noxious Weed List. New Mexico and Colorado are the only 

states currently listing it as legally noxious. Utah has also listed it as a noxious weed in several 

counties. 

Brown (1990) compared native willow sites to Russian olive sites along the Snake River in Idaho. 

Willow sites had higher species richness and density, and more foraging and nesting guilds of birds 

than Russian-olive sites. Brown implicated a lower abundance of insects in Russian olive sites as the 

cause of negative effects on avian communities. Therefore, the shift from native to exotic dominated 

riparian habitats may result in regional loss of avifaunal diversity. Knopf and Olson (1984) compared 

wildlife use of stands dominated by Russian-olive versus use in adjacent native riparian communities 

in Colorado and Utah. They observed 505 individuals of 56 species in native riparian vegetation, and 

458 individuals of 40 species in Russian-olive. Clearly, avian species richness and diversity is lower 

in Russian-olive stands than in native riparian vegetation. Although Russian-olive provides food and 

cover for many species, it negatively impacts cavity-nesting birds (Olson and Knopf 1986). Lesica 

and Miles’ (1999) study conducted in north-central Montana showed limited use of Russian-olive by 

beaver. Beavers prefer cottonwoods (Populus spp.), (Lesica and Miles 1999), quaking aspen (P. 

tremuloides), and willow (Salix spp). Lesica and Miles proposed that this preference might accelerate 

the replacement of cottonwood by Russian olive. 

Reduction of top growth and containment of spread is usually practiced in areas where Russian olive 

infestations are large and eradication is cost prohibitive. Complete eradication of Russian olive is 

frequently impractical. However, eradication is practical for small isolated stands, such as Camas 

NWR, where the total cost of control and time investment is manageable. Strategies for non-native 

shelterbelt understory control or eradication will include a variety of IPM techniques in all 

alternatives, and will include: mowing; cutting; girdling; flooding; chemical; shading; burning; 

tillage; biocontrol; chaining; and dozing (Stannard et al. 2002). 

If substantial disturbance to wet riparian sites occur during the removal of woody debris, stumps, and 

roots, the site should be seeded with well-adapted herbaceous species to reduce weed invasion. If the 

disturbance is minimal, it may be possible to plant tree and shrub seedlings directly. Russian olive is 

less likely to become invasive on dry upland sites. It is well adapted to this environment and local 

recruitment is minimal, however, dryland plantings may serve as a seed source for more vulnerable 

sites during flood events (Stannard et al. 2002). While in all alternatives it is necessary to remove 

Russian olive trees from windbreak and shelterbelt systems and replace them with more desirable 

species, each alternative takes a different approach to the timeline for achieving replacement of non-
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-57 

native Russian olive and Siberian pea. Depending on the design of the windbreak, wildlife values 

may decrease dramatically in Alternative 3, with up to 20 percent of the understory being replaced 

annually, until the replacement trees reach a functional size. In Alternative 2 the replacement of nonnative trees within the understory would occur at a reduced rate (1-5 percent annually), to allow 

replacement growth to reach a medium-sized component (~15 to 20 feet in height) within the 

shelterbelt understory before too much of larger understory of non-native trees are removed. 

People can be vectors for invasive plants by moving seeds or other propagules from one area to 

another. Once established, invasive plants can out-compete native plants, thereby altering habitats 

and indirectly impacting wildlife. In all alternatives the threat of invasive plant establishment from 

refuge and recreational activities will always be an issue requiring annual monitoring and treatment 

when necessary. Refuge staff will continue work at eradicating invasive plants and educating the 

visiting public about the impacts these species have on shelterbelt and other refuge habitats. 

6.8.2 Effects to Shelterbelt Habitats and Wildlife from Public Recreational 

Use 

Eastern Idaho birders have recognized the wooded area at Camas NWR as a migration hotspot for 

decades. Increased birding attention in the past decade has yielded numerous sightings of birds never 

previously documented in Idaho in addition to impressive numbers of more common species. For 

these reasons, the CCP is attempting to address the means for Camas NWR to simultaneously 

provide migrant bird habitat, while serving as a high quality recreational and educational opportunity 

for people across the region. 

Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) and Alternative 3 would increase public recreational 

infrastructure and opportunities for wildlife observation and photography through the construction of 

the visitor contact station, kiosks, wildlife observation platform, expansion of the current half-mile 

birding trail to 1.3 miles, and increased refuge tours. Alternative 3 also includes the construction of 

three semipermanent photo blinds. Construction of the birding trail near refuge headquarters was 

initiated about five years ago. Currently the birding tail is only about one half mile long and does not 

have a defined or complete loop. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, a 1.3 mile loop would be completed 

that takes visitors through the best landbird habitat the Camas NWR has to offer. The expanded 

birding trail in Alternatives 2 and 3 would occur within and/or run parallel to shelterbelt adjacent to 

the headquarters and visitor kiosk and parking area. Dog walking would be prohibited on this trail 

under Alternatives 2 and 3. 

As noted in Section 6.3.2 above, negative impacts have been shown to arise when migratory birds 

and humans are present in the same areas (Boyle and Samson 1985). Response of wildlife to human 

activities includes: departure from site, use of suboptimal habitat, altered behavior (Burger 1981; 

Klein 1993; Morton et al. 1989), and increase in energy expenditure (Belanger and Bedard 1990; 

Morton et al. 1989). Gutzwiller et al. (1997) found that singing behavior of some songbirds was 

altered by low levels of human intrusion. Pedestrian travel can impact normal behavioral activities, 

including feeding, reproductive, and social behavior. 

Resource managers should be aware of responses by the avian community to small, incremental 

changes in recreation use. Miller et al. (1998) found that nesting success of landbirds was lower near 

recreational trails than at greater distances from the trails; and that species composition and 

abundance was influenced by trails (the zone of influence was as high as 100m for some forest 

species). Croonquist and Brooks (1993) noted that bird species richness and abundance generally 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

6-58 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

decreased with distance from disturbed segments of habitat, but remained relatively constant through 

the reference watershed. At disturbed sites most neotropical migrant birds with specific habitat 

requirements were recorded only during migration. Available surface water is an important habitat 

attribute for some species, and an impoverished bird community with tolerance to disturbance can 

exist in the vicinity of water with less than 10 m (30 feet) of natural riparian or shelterbelt vegetation; 

however, sensitive species will not occur unless an undisturbed corridor greater than 25 m (82 feet) 

in width is present. Presence of narrow 2 m (7 feet) bands of woody vegetation along riparian 

corridors and fence rows seemed to be important in maintaining portions of the bird community in 

disturbed areas (Croonquist and Brooks 1993). 

Roosting bald eagles use refuge shelterbelts extensively during the winter season. The response of 

bald eagles to human activities is variable. Reported responses have included spatial avoidance of 

activity and reproductive failure (Anthony et al. 1995; Buehler et al. 1991; Hamann et al. 1999; 

McGarigal et al. 1991; Watson 1993), although in some cases, eagles tolerate human disturbances 

(Harmata and Oakleaf 1992). Public use of refuge roads and recreational trails has the potential to 

cause disturbance to wintering bald eagles (Skagen et al. 1991; Stalmaster and Newman 1978). Bald 

eagles seem to be more sensitive to humans afoot than to vehicular traffic (Grubb and King 1991; 

Hamann et al. 1999; Skagen et al. 1991; Stalmaster and Newman 1978). Fletcher et al. (1999) 

reported that the abundance of bald eagles was lower in riparian habitats with nonmotorized trails 

compared to riparian habitats without trails. However, no model has been developed for assessing the 

cumulative effects of linear recreation routes on bald eagle habitats. Wildlife photography, 

observation, interpretation, and environmental education, when compatible, are wildlife-dependent 

recreational activities, and when compatible, considered priority public uses for the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. Disturbance to shelterbelt migratory birds from wildlife observation along the 

birding trail is expected cause a moderate negative effect to understory nesting and foraging birds 

within 100m of the trail, and a minor negative effect to birds that carry-out life history events in the 

more secure overstory of the mature cottonwoods. The prohibition of off road hiking on all (Alt 2) or 

most (Alt 3) of the Refuge, and limiting the use of portable photo blinds to within 100 feet of roads, 

and no more than five total blinds on the Refuge at any given time, would likely reduce levels of 

disturbance to migratory birds in shelterbelt habitats. Overall, disturbance to birds that use shelterbelt 

habitat in the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2) and Alternative 3 would be minor, because there is 

a sufficient amount of undisturbed shelterbelt available to refuge wildlife for foraging, and escape 

and breeding cover. 

6.8.3 Overall Effects to Shelterbelt Habitats and Wildlife

In all alternatives tall cottonwood trees lost to mortality would be replaced and native understory 

trees and shrubs would be used to replace non-native understory. However Alternative 1 and 

Alternative 3 would not wait to develop supplemental funding sources to support shelterbelt 

management and would provide more immediate benefits that Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative). 

Alternative 3 would provide additional shelterbelt habitats and a moderate positive benefit to 

associated wildlife (neo-tropical migrant landbirds), but at a much increased management cost to the 

Refuge. Water conservation strategies within Alternative 2 would not only make the most efficient 

application of refuge water resources of all the alternatives, but would also increase survivability of 

shelterbelt plantings. 

Disturbance to shelterbelt wildlife due to wildlife observation and photography would continue to 

occur in all alternatives, due to public interest in rare Idaho bird occurrences within the refuge 

shelterbelts. However, negative effects to breeding birds and neo-tropical migrants that use 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-59 

shelterbelt habitats are expected to be less (minor) in Alternatives 2 and 3 due to the prohibition of 

off road hiking on all (Alt 2) or most (Alt 3) of the Refuge, and limiting the use of portable photo 

blinds to within 100 feet of roads. 

6.9 Effects to Soil Resources

Soil is formed as a product of the continual interactions among the biotic (faunal and floral), climatic 

(atmospheric and hydrologic), topographic, and geologic features of the environment over long 

periods (Jenny 1941; Singer and Munns 1996). Soils are important components of refuge ecosystem 

sustainability because they supply air and water, nutrients, and mechanical support for the sustenance 

of plants. 

Refuge operations have the potential to affect soil resources as a result of contamination, compaction, 

and erosion from wetland, upland, riparian, fire, and agricultural management. 

6.9.1 Effects to Soil Resources from Habitat Actions 

Wetland Management 

Wetland soils of Camas NWR consist of very deep, very poorly drained soils on old lakebeds. Before 

ground and surface water alterations occurred from irrigators, these soils were inundated between 

May and October. Levelton clay loam, Medano sandy loam, and small areas of Psammaquents 

constitute most of the wetland soil complex. The Medano soil is in the slightly elevated areas 

adjacent to areas of Psammaquents. The Psammaquents are in the depressional areas and were 

frequently covered with water when overbank flooding of Camas Creel and artisanal groundwater 

discharges occurred. Included within Psammaquents are small areas of Fluvaquents, typically 

occurring on nearly level sites and are erratically stratified and variable. 

Permeability of the Medano wetland soils is moderately rapid. Effective rooting depth is 60 inches or 

more. Available water capacity is moderate. Surface runoff is ponded or very slow, and the hazard of 

erosion is slight. The water table is at a depth of 0 to 2 feet during April through June. Psammaquents 

are very deep, sandy, and very poorly drained. They formed in alluvial outwash. They consist of 

marsh areas that are usually inundated between May and October. 

In all alternatives, the Refuge would use heavy equipment in wetlands and uplands to accomplish 

various habitat management practices. On uplands, heavy equipment would generally be used only 

during the dry season. In wetlands, heavy equipment would be used only after the wetland has been 

drained. 

Indicators of soil quality are listed in Table 6.3. Mechanical tillage of emergent cattail and bulrush 

often leaves wetland soils bare for portions of the year, which negatively affects soil quality 

indicators (Nelson et al. 2006), such as aggregate stability, infiltration rates, and available water 

capacity. Compaction can result from the use of heavy equipment, causing undesirable increases in 

bulk density while tilling may also prevent the accumulation or accelerate the decomposition of 

organic matter and can diminish earthworm populations (USDA NRCS 2012). 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

6-60 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

Table 6.3. Soil Quality Indicators

Indicator Relationship to Soil Health 

Soil Organic Matter (SOM) Soil fertility, structure, stability, nutrient 

retention; soil erosion 

Physical: soil structure, depth of soil, 

infiltration and bulk density; water holding 

capacity 

Retention and transport of water and nutrients; 

habitat for microbes; estimate of crop 

productivity potential; compaction, plow pan, 

water movement; porosity; workability 

Chemical: pH; electrical conductivity; 

extractable N-P-K 

Biological and chemical activity thresholds; 

plant and microbial activity thresholds; plant 

available nutrients and potential for N and P loss 

Biological: microbial biomass C and N; 

potentially mineralizable N; soil respiration. 

Microbial catalytic potential and repository for C 

and N; soil productivity and N supplying 

potential; microbial activity measure 

Source: USDA NRCS 2012. 

In all alternatives, some minor impacts to soil quality are likely to occur due to the use of heavy 

equipment. Soils would experience some ground disturbance from tillage, mowing, or fire for site 

preparation in areas restored to native habitats in Alternatives 2 and 3. Compaction could produce 

temporary impacts to soil quality, such as reduced water infiltration, and some loss of soil organic 

matter, but over time, these areas would likely undergo a positive trend toward more stable ground 

cover, increased organic matter, and increased soil health. 

Biological resources cannot be successfully managed without knowledge of the underlying abiotic 

resources upon which they ultimately depend and inhabit. The preferred alternative would provide a 

realistic timeline to complete and implement a wetland rehabilitation plan within the lifetime of the 

CCP. Local-scale knowledge of soils, hydrography, topography, and geomorphology would be of 

primary interest to the Refuge as it collects and synthesizes information to initiate a Wetland and 

Riparian Restoration Plan by 2017. Alternatives 2 and 3 would spend the first three years of the CCP 

collecting necessary information (geomorphological, hydrological, and biological assessments). 

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, the Refuge would provide a foundation for abiotic ecosystem 

components, such as soils, to guide refuge management into the future. 

Upland Management 

Grassy Butte loamy sand makes up about 60 percent of the upland soils complex, and Medano loamy 

sand makes up 20 percent. The Grassy Butte soil is in the higher lying areas on dunes, and the 

Medano soil is in concave and depressional areas. The Grassy Butte soil is deep and somewhat 

excessively drained. It formed in sandy eolian deposits. Permeability of the Grassy Butte soil is 

rapid. Effective rooting depth is 60 inches or more. Available water capacity is low. Surface runoff is 

very slow or slow, and the hazard of erosion is slight. The hazard of soil blowing is very high.

Upland restoration and rehabilitation practices will occur in all alternatives, but in greater magnitude 

in Alternative 3, when compared to Alternatives 1 and 2. Under all alternatives rehabilitation 

treatments (e.g., herbicides, tilling, brush cutting, prescribed fire) will coincide with restorative inter-
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-61 

seeding or out-planting practices to increase herbaceous and shrub establishment in treated areas and 

reduce the occurrence of soil erosion. To reduce non-native grasses the Refuge will inter-seed native 

grasses and forbs with a minimal till drill (e.g., Truax or Brillion). Minimal till drills substantially 

reduce soil disturbances that would result from the option of using a deep-furrow rangeland drill in 

highly erodible Grassy Butte soils. 

Riparian Management 

Under both the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2) and Alternative 3 the Refuge would develop and 

implement a Riparian and Wetland Rehabilitation Plan. In the implementation phase (2017-2027) we 

would rehabilitate Camas Creek to at least partially restore natural geomorphic forms and processes 

and create a sustainable fluvial ecosystem. Restoration of geomorphic form, however, does not 

necessarily restore geomorphic process, such as soil erosion, transport, and deposition. Still, 

implementation of Alternatives 2 and 3 has the potential to create moderate positive effects to the 

conservation of riparian soil resources. 

Fire Management 

In all alternatives, prescribed fire would be used as a management tool in wetlands and occasionally 

uplands. Fire does not necessarily result in decreases in soil nitrogen (MacDougall and Turkington 

2007). When conducted properly, prescribed burning can result in faster nutrient recycling to soils. In 

some cases, prescribed fires can burn hot enough to scorch the top layers of soils, which can 

negatively affect water infiltration. In general, the only occurrences of such hot fires exist under burn 

piles created from woody vegetation disposal piles. The Refuge mitigates the effects by hot burns on 

burn piles by mixing soils after the burn and by reusing burn pile areas in subsequent years. Fire 

prescriptions would avoid overly hot fires that can scorch soils, and given the lightness of the fuel in 

these habitats, overly hot fires are unlikely. 

Wind erosion of soil can be extreme following fires in the northern Snake River Plain. In all 

alternatives, increased wind erosion is expected to occur following fall or spring prescribed fires, 

especially in areas also affected by previous grazing practices (Vermeire et al. 2005), and at various 

intervals following summer wildfire (Whicker et al. 2002; Zobeck et al. 1989). Prescribed fire to 

reduce emergent cover in wetlands must be timed carefully to limit wind erosion. Either wetlands 

must be reflooded immediately following fire, or late fall burns should be timed with snowfall to 

limit soil exposure. 

Agricultural Crops

Agricultural practices in Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would include disking fields (prior to seeding), 

seeding in fall (spring seeding may be used for perennial crops), and tilling. Under current 

management, crop residues are generally removed by fall tilling, but some fields are left fallow over 

the next summer. 

In Alternatives 2 and 3 we would implement a conservation tillage system that plants with the slope 

rather than up and down a slope and avoiding fall tillage for spring plantings. This would improve 

soil retention, reduce fertilizer costs, and reduce erosion. Planting field border strips around refuge 

small grain fields, as proposed in Alternative 2, would reduce erosion in end rows, reduce non-point 

source pollutants and sediments, improve water quality, and provide an element of safety for 

machinery operations (Haufler 2007). Among the benefits of the rotational practices proposed by the 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

6-62 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

Refuge in Alternatives 2 and 3 are higher soil organic matter and nitrogen, lower fossil energy inputs, 

yields similar to those of conventional systems, and conservation of soil moisture and water 

resources, which is especially advantageous under drought conditions (Pimentel et al. 2005). 

In all alternatives the Refuge will amend soils with lime and appropriate fertilizers. Liming can be an 

effective method of reducing soil acidity in alfalfa fields. Alfalfa requires high levels of phosphorus 

and potassium and soil pH in the 6.6 to 7.2 range to ensure nutrient availability (Dionne et al. 1989; 

Rechcigl et al. 1986; Tsakelidou 2000). Studies suggest that surface liming can ameliorate subsoil 

acidity fifteen to seventeen years after application, and that surface liming provides a good strategy 

to combat subsoil acidity (Dolling and Porter 1994; Tang et al. 2003). Soil testing proposed in 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would ensure that lime is added as needed to maintain soil pH at optimal levels, 

ensuring maximum nutrient availability and reducing the need for fertilizers. Soil tests would also be 

used to determine nutrient deficiencies and needs for small grain production. While nitrogen 

application almost universally increases cereal yield in all precipitation zones on soils with low 

available soil N (Schillinger 2006), excessive nitrogen can intensify S deficiency and decrease yield 

under severe S deficiency (Rasmussen and Douglas 1992). Should soil testing indicate a need for 

lime or fertilization, the Refuge and the cooperative farmer would work together to decide on the best 

strategies to achieve desired soil conditions. 

Most local commercial growers prefer to apply anhydrous ammonia or urea-ammonium-nitrate 

solution in combination with P fertilizers in a tillage operation prior to planting grain crops. 

However, in Alternatives 2 and 3 the Refuge would not allow cooperative farmers to apply anhydrous 

ammonia fertilizers in order to minimize excessive environmental N accumulations. Accumulation of 

anhydrous ammonia fertilizers can lead to soil and water acidification, contamination of surface and 

groundwater resources, increased ozone depletion and increased greenhouse gas levels associated 

with the production of these highly reactive enhanced N fertilizers (Motavalli et al. 2008). Therefore, 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in better soil health in comparison to Alternative 1, by reducing soil 

acidification. 

Agricultural Haying 

Soil compaction is the reduction of soil volume due to external factors; this reduction lowers soil 

productivity and environmental quality. Haying operations in wet soil types are noted to cause greater 

impacts to soil compaction and vegetation damage than on drier upland sites (Gilley et al 1996). 

Gilley et al. (1996) further documented that soil roughness was significantly greater and bulk density 

significantly less on undisturbed long-term idle sites than hayed areas. The relatively large bulk 

densities measured on the hay fields imply that considerable compaction occurs at or near the soil 

surface from those operations (Murphy et al. 2004). Recent trends for increased size and use of 

tractors and agricultural machinery has additionally increased the probability of soil compaction 

during farm operations (Martel and MacKenzie 1980). Soil compaction by machinery has an indirect 

effect on soil invertebrates. Some earthworms can burrow into compacted soil (Joschko et al. 1989) 

but others have their activity restricted by compaction under conditions of high water (Kretzschmar 

1991). Soil compaction has also been shown to decrease slug populations (Ferguson et al. 1988). 

Rabotnov (1974) found a decrease in proportion of soil geophytic grass in Russia, which could be 

partially explained by soil compaction as a result of hay collection. 

Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative) would eliminate haying in wet or moist meadows, where 

equipment may adversely impact vegetation and soil. Only dryland haying would be conducted. 

Additionally, haying occurs on the Refuge in mid-August and early September, some of the driest 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-63 

months of the year. To further minimize soil compaction or damage in Alternative 2, fields that have 

been saturated by rain would not be hayed until soil conditions can support the required haying 

equipment. Since the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2) calls for haying to occur in a drier time of 

the year for warm-season grasses on well-drained soil types, impacts from soil compaction would be 

decreased in comparison to Alternative 1 (Murphy et al. 2004). 

6.9.2 Overall Effects to Soil Resources 

Overall reduction in haying and agricultural practices in Alternative 3 would produce the strongest 

trend toward increased soil health, with a moderately beneficial effect on refuge soil resources. 

Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) would create a minor beneficial effect for refuge soil resources 

from agricultural best management practices, riparian restoration, and haying reductions, while 

Alternative 1 would have a minor beneficial effect for refuge soil resources from agricultural best 

management practices. 

6.10 Effects to Water Resources and Water Quality 

Refuge operations have the potential to affect water quality stemming from pollutants, sediment, or 

elevated water temperatures. 

6.10.1 Effects to Water Quality from Habitat Actions 

Wetland Management 

Camas NWR wetlands were historically flooded by artesian groundwater discharges, but are 

currently dependent upon continued groundwater pumping to maintain wetlands through the summer. 

In Alternative 1 (Current Management) the main refuge point of diversion from Camas Creek 

remains in its original location and only one groundwater well has been moved since the original 

drilling of the seven irrigation wells. From this main diversion point on Camas Creek, water must 

flow 2 miles in order to reach the first managed wetland basin in Alternative 1, resulting in losses to 

seepage and evapotranspiration. Alternatives 2 and 3 would target wetlands with tighter pockets of 

natural hydric soils for management as permanent and semipermanent water regimes. Therefore, 

Camas NWR wetlands are anticipated to hold water longer and make more efficient use of refuge 

resources and water under Alternatives 2 and 3. We would no longer attempt to maintain late season 

wetlands in basins with porous soils. By moving the main point of diversion and irrigation wells 

downstream closer to the wetlands, as proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3, losses to evapotranspitation 

and seepage would be reduced, and the Refuge would make more efficient application of limited 

water resources. 

In all alternatives, the wetlands of Camas NWR would continue to remove some portion of Total 

Suspended Solids (TSS) and Total Phosphorous (TP) from Camas Creek prior to entering Mud Lake. 

However Camas Creek sediment and phosphorus would continue to accumulate in refuge wetlands. 

An emphasis and management approach for increasing shallow ephemeral refuge wetlands in 

Alternatives 2 (Preferred Alternative) and 3 may increase TP and TSS in the Mud Lake, but only 

slightly less than Alternative 1 (Current Management). 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

6-64 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

Upland Management 

The ambient water quality of the regional aquifer is considered to be very good because of its large 

volume and high recharge rate (Jehn 1989). Locally however, it is vulnerable to contamination. The 

porous and permeable nature of the aquifer layers, and the discontinuous overlying soils, provide 

little opportunity for filtration, sorption or other attenuating effects on upland pollutants (IDWR 

1998). The Eastern Snake River Plain Aquifer is also a sole source of drinking water for many of the 

400,000 people living in the basin, and was designated by the Environmental Protection Agency as a 

Sole Source Aquifer in 1991 (U.S. EPA 1991).

The Refuge would comply with Service policies in all alternatives regarding pollution control at all 

of its facilities, including wildlife refuges. These policies direct all Service employees 1) to comply 

with all applicable environmental laws and regulations; 2) to reduce pollution; 3) to inventory and 

properly treat or handle any hazardous substances; and 4) to clean up or remove hazardous materials 

on contaminated sites. These policies are discussed in the Service’s Manual in the 500 Series, which 

can be accessed at http://www.fws.gov/policy/manuals/. 

Riparian Management 

The Beaver-Camas Subbasin of southeastern Idaho is the easternmost in a series of five sinks 

drainages in the Upper Snake River Basin. The hydrology of the subbasin is dominated by both 

natural and human caused flow alterations, which contribute to limited beneficial use attainment in 

several 303(d) listed reaches in the watershed (IDEQ 2005). 

The complex system of gaining reaches in the upper, mountainous regions, and losing reaches in the 

lower basalt dominated regions of the subbasin contribute to divergent stream characteristics between 

the upper and lower sections of the basin. As the subbasin assessment shows, natural flow losses 

coupled with irrigation water removal from the stream make it difficult to attain beneficial use 

support in select streams. Where flow limitations do not completely impede beneficial use support, 

IDEQ (2005) developed temperature Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for the streams with 

documented exceedances in the temperature criteria. 

Camas Creek is degraded, incised, and highly unstable, heavily influenced by anthropogenic 

modification and adjacent land use practices. Camas Creek is 303(d) listed from headwaters (Spring 

Creek confluence) to mouth, in two segments. The listed pollutants for the upper segment of Camas 

Creek are flow alteration, nutrients, and sediment. Part of this segment, above T9N, R37E, Section 

16 (N44.19270°, W−111.98284°), is perennial. Sediment and temperature TMDLs have been 

calculated to address the pollutants of concern above this point. IDEQ (2005) determined that 

riparian grazing has contributed to bank erosion and elevated stream temperatures. The lower section 

of Camas Creek, including the reach within Camas NWR, is 303(d) listed for flow alteration, habitat 

alteration, sediment, nutrients, and temperature. This section of Camas Creek is intermittent and flow 

altered for irrigation, therefore IDEQ (2005) recommended this segment to be de-listed for sediment, 

nutrients, and temperature and re-listed as a flow altered reach. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would partially restore riparian function through development and 

implementation of the Wetland and Riparian Rehabilitation Plan (see Section 6.5 above). Riparian 

management would have a minor positive effect on water quality on Camas Creek. However, water 

quality in the creek is largely determined by factors outside the Refuge and it is likely that the lower 

reach of the creek would remain 303(d) listed for sediment, nutrients, and temperature. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-65 

Shelterbelt Management 

As noted in Section 6.8 above, many of the tall shelterbelt trees (i.e., Plains cottonwood) around 

headquarters are at the end of their life span and are in need of replacement. Replacement in some 

areas has been initiated and is proving to be time, labor and money intensive. In Alternative 3, 

shelterbelt habitats would be expanded to 50 acres, a 15 acre increase from Alternative 1 (Current 

Management). In both Alternatives 1 and 3, groundwater would continue to be used to irrigate 

shelterbelt habitats. Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) would be a compromise between providing 

important neotropical migrant bird habitat, and conserving refuge water resources. The Refuge would 

use a combination of partial groundwater irrigation and a highly efficient micro-irrigation system to 

provide water to newly established plantings on the same footprint (34 acres) that shelterbelt habitats 

currently occupy. Of the three CCP alternatives, Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) provides the 

most water efficient management for naturalized shelterbelt cottonwoods, willows, and other trees 

and shrubs. 

Fire Management 

Fires affect water quality and water cycle processes to a greater or lesser extent depending on fire 

severity. When a fire occurs, changes in water quality are primarily the result of soil erosion and 

deposition of soil materials into water (Neary et al. 2005). Fires may cause suspended sediment, 

elevated streamflow temperatures, increased pH values, and changed chemical concentrations and 

aquatic organism populations. 

Severe wildfire can produce substantial effects on the streamflow regime of small streams and rivers 

(Neary et al. 2005). The effects of low severity prescribed fires on water resources are generally 

minimal and short-lived. Additionally, the Refuge would minimizes fire effects upon water quality in 

Alternatives 2 and 3 by restricting prescribed fire applications to over 200 m (656 feet) from riparian 

and wet meadow habitat. 

Agricultural Crops and Haying 

Agricultural practices are considered sources of pollutants in the Beaver-Camas Subbasin (IDEQ 

2005). Elimination of irrigation of hay fields and reduction of alfalfa farming practices in Alternative 

3, and proposed changes in agricultural practices in the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2) would 

improve aquatic habitats of Camas Creek, but the lower stream reach would remain on the §303(d) 

list for excessive temperature, suspended solids, and nutrients (phosphorus). 

Sediment and pollutant entry to streams from runoff and erosion would likely diminish under the 

action alternatives (Alternatives 2 and 3). This is especially true under Alternative 3, since 150 acres 

of hay ground and an 80 acre field used for alfalfa would be retired and restored to native habitats by 

2027, with attendant reductions in water diversion and erosion. A lesser, but still moderate benefit 

would result for water quality under Alternative 2, with the decrease in refuge irrigation for hay 

production, and for alfalfa planting should we lose the cooperator for the Well #9 field. 

As noted in Section 6.9 above (Effects to Soils), in Alternatives 2 and 3 the Refuge would not allow 

cooperative farmers to apply anhydrous ammonia fertilizers. Accumulations of these fertilizers can 

lead to soil and water acidification, contamination of surface and groundwater resources (Motavalli 

et al. 2008). Therefore, Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in improved water quality compared to 

Alternative 1, although the effect would be minor in the context of the Camas Creek watershed. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

6-66 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

Invasive Species Management 

The use of herbicides or pesticides to control invasive plants or animals, or to control weeds or pests 

in croplands, also poses several environmental risks, including drift, volatilization, and persistence in 

the environment, water contamination, and harmful effects to wildlife (Bossard et al. 2000). 

Herbicide use may diminish or remain approximately the same under Alternatives 2 and 3, because 

acres that would be taken out of farming and haying would require weed control to prevent unwanted 

invasives. For weed species that are or become established, mechanical, cultural, chemical, and 

biological control methods would be evaluated in accordance with the refuge IPM plan. This plan 

provides direction that “the most efficacious pesticide available with the least potential to degrade 

environmental quality (soils, surface water and groundwater) as well as least potential effect to native 

species ... would be acceptable for use on the Refuge.” Each approved pesticide would undergo a 

chemical profile analysis; active ingredients would be analyzed for their risk quotient and this value 

compared to a Level of Concern for surrogate species, as established by the EPA. 

Although there are a large number of acres on the Refuge potentially subjected to herbicide treatment 

in the Proposed Action Alternative (Alternative 2), the potential for negative impacts to water quality 

are considered minimal due to the types of herbicides used (non-persistent), the limited number of 

acres that would be exposed in riparian habitat, and the precautionary measures taken during 

application (Appendix F). 

6.10.2 Overall Effects to Water Quality 

Overall, Alternatives 2 and 3 would be expected to result in a minor beneficial effect to water quality, 

compared to Alternative 1, based on expected changes in potential pollutants entering streams or the 

groundwater table within the Refuge. However, the lower reach of Camas Creek is likely to remain 

303(d) listed for sediments, nutrients, and temperature. 

6.11 Effects to Air Quality 

Air quality over the Refuge is occasionally subject to temporary, localized negative impacts. These 

arise primarily from prescribed burning for habitat management purposes. In addition, dust is 

generated locally from traffic during the dry season on unpaved refuge roads and from tilling or 

haying of agricultural fields. 

6.11.1 Effects to Air Quality from Habitat Actions 

Wetland and Upland Management 

During refuge prescribed fires, smoke may be present in increased quantities in the local area during 

limited periods of time. In comparison to Alternatives 2 (Preferred Alternative) and 3, continuation of 

current management (Alternative 1) would need to rely upon prescribed burning more frequently. 

Proposed management within Alternative 1 relies on a more predictive and static hydroperiod in 

wetlands, therefore the density and distribution of shallow bulrush and cattail communities would 

increase and require additional physical or mechanical disturbance to reduce its dominance within the 

wetland community. Prescribed fire would be used more frequently in willow riparian communities 

under Alternatives 2 and 3, and would continue to be used infrequently in upland communities under 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-67 

all alternatives. These would be expected to result in minor negative effects to local air quality in all 

alternatives. 

Fire Management 

According to Service Clean Air Act directives, “Our policy is to protect and enhance the quality of 

the Nation’s air resources to promote the conservation of fish and wildlife resources, and to protect 

the public health and welfare and the productive capacity of populations. In order to accomplish this, 

we will comply with all applicable Federal, interstate, State, regional, and local air quality 

regulations” (561 FW 2, Clean Air Act 2.2). In addition, the prescribed fire management directive 

states: “Visibility is a major consideration in smoke management. Your planning for prescribed fire 

must include the potential for hazardous situations, including impaired visibility created by smoke 

both on and off our lands. You must meet the provisions of the Clean Air Act and the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP)” (621 FW 3, Prescribed Fire Management 3.4). 

Acceptance of refuge decisions to use prescribed fire and tolerance of short-term impacts to air 

quality by local residents sometimes depend on the areal extent of the treatment, the degree of 

planning that precedes implementation, the adequacy of the resources (human, equipment, and fiscal) 

available to the managing agency, and the proximity of the fuel treatment to developed areas (Winter 

et al. 2002). In all alternatives, the Service will work with the local communities and minimize 

adverse air quality impacts through participation in the Montana/Idaho Airshed Group. The group 

members include Federal, Tribal, State, and private land managers in Idaho and Montana. The intent 

of the Airshed Group smoke management program is to minimize or prevent smoke impacts while 

using fire to accomplish land management objectives. 

The combustion products (smoke) from wildfires or prescribed burns can affect visibility and the 

quality of life of smoke-sensitive individuals, including those with respiratory ailments such as 

asthma (Winter et al. 2002). These impacts can be minimized by proper timing and preparation for 

burning (Brunson and Kruger 1996). Under all alternatives, the Southeast Idaho NWRC Fire 

Management Officer submits a list of planned burn projects to the Smoke Management Unit (SMU) 

in Missoula, Montana via internet. This information creates a database describing the type of burn, 

fuel type and loading, number of acres in each unit, legal location and elevation. Each burn unit is 

assigned an identification number. The day before the planned ignition, the burn boss accesses the 

SMU internet database to submit a proposed prescribed burn for the following day. 

The SMU meteorologist then develops a daily smoke dispersion forecast by airshed and posts to the 

SMU website. The SMU Smoke Management Program Coordinator develops daily burn unit 

recommendations during spring and fall and posts to the SMU website. In addition the Idaho 

Department of Environmental Quality may review the dispersion forecast and burn proposals daily 

and relay any issues or concerns to the SMU. 

The SMU issues daily decisions which can recommend against burning when atmospheric conditions 

are not conducive to good smoke dispersion. Restrictions may be directed by airshed, elevation or by 

special impact zones around populated areas. The burn boss would access the daily decision notice 

from the SMU via the internet the day before planned ignition. In all alternatives, prescribed burn 

projects will only be conducted when the SMU does not post a burning restriction for the airshed in 

which the Refuge is located. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

6-68 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

No non-attainment areas are located in or near the Refuge and specific smoke sensitive areas area 

identified in individual burn plans and appropriate mitigation measures have been identified for all 

alternatives. 

Agricultural Crops

Tilling of agricultural fields would decrease in Alternative 3, compared to Alternatives 1 and 2. In 

Alternative 3 agricultural plantings on the Refuge would occur on 80 acres in comparison to 160 

acres in Alternatives 1 and 2. 

Dust is particulate matter (PM) consisting of very small liquid and solid particles. Fugitive dust is 

PM suspended in the air primarily from soil that has been disturbed by wind or human activities, 

such as earthmoving and vehicular/equipment traffic on unpaved surfaces (IDEQ 2011). Due to the 

small size and weight of particulate matter (10 micrometers or less in diameter, compared to 70 

micrometers for the average human hair), it can remain airborne for weeks. When inhaled, it can 

travel easily to deep parts of the lungs and may remain there, causing respiratory illness, lung 

damage, and even premature death in sensitive individuals (IDEQ 2011). 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidance for estimating PM emissions from 

agricultural crop tilling involves combining a constant emission factor with county-level activity 

data, including the silt content of surface soils, the number of tillings performed in a year for each 

crop type, and the acres of each crop type (EPA 2001, 2004). The Idaho Department of 

Environmental Quality (IDEQ) is responsible for regulating fugitive dust emissions in Idaho. 

Authority is based on the Rules for the Control of Air Pollution in Idaho (IDAPA 58.01.01, Section 

651), which require that all “reasonable precautions” be taken to prevent particulate matter from 

becoming airborne. While no PM emissions data exist for Southeastern Idaho, it is estimated that the 

refuge contribution to PM emissions would not significantly improve local or regional air quality in 

Alternative 2 or 3. Under all alternatives the Refuge follows IDEQ guidance to minimize the surface 

area disturbed, reduce public speed limits, limit dusty work on windy days, and supply dust 

suppression measures when needed. In all alternatives, fugitive dust problems from proposed refuge 

activities are anticipated to be negligible to local or regional air quality standards. 

6.11.2 Effects to Air Quality from Public Recreational Use 

Under all alternatives, we would expect a slight increase in PM emissions due to increased public 

visitation and additional traffic on local and refuge roads. The Refuge would experience increases in 

visitation over the fifteen-year time horizon of the CCP under all alternatives, due to a combination 

of increasing local population and increase in recreation demand. There would likely be a minor 

increase in visitation under Alternatives 2 and 3 over this baseline, due to increased public use 

staffing and facilities. A minor increase in vehicular visitation may occur in Alternative 3 due to reopening the Sandhole loop road and increased refuge guided tours. Anticipated auto tour traffic is not 

anticipated to exceed 60 vehicles per day or 400 vehicles per month in Alternatives 2 and 3. This 

increase is small compared to Alternative 1 and would cause negligible effects local air quality. 

6.11.3 Overall Effects to Air Quality 

Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would be expected to have a negligible to minor negative effect on local air 

quality. Impacts of prescribed fire would be short-term and localized, and minimized by proper 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-69 

timing and preparation of burns in coordination with the Missoula, Montana Smoke Management 

Unit (SMU). 

6.12 Social Effects—General

Welcoming visitors and providing opportunities for visitors to enjoy wildlife-dependent public uses, 

such as wildlife observation, interpretation, wildlife photography, hunting, and environmental 

education, is an important part of the NWRS mission. 

6.12.1 Effects from New Facilities 

Alternative 2 would entail a moderate increase in new facilities and infrastructure to accommodate 

projected increases in demand for wildlife-dependent recreation. These would include a small visitor 

contact station; updated informational panels at the headquarters kiosk; lengthening the current halfmile long birding trail to 1.3 miles; and an observation platform on Camas Creek. The visitor contact 

station would house an environmental education multi-purpose room and refuge offices. Exact 

dimensions and locations for new facilities would be determined at the site design stage prior to 

construction. The Refuge would pursue funding for the purchase, leasing, or construction of these 

facilities. 

Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative) includes all facilities identified in Alternative 2, with the 

additional maintenance of the 7.5-mile Sandhole loop road for vehicular access, and construction of 

three semipermanent photo blinds for wildlife photography. 

New facilities and infrastructure under Alternatives 2 and 3 would be expected to result in 

irretrievable loss of approximately 2 acres of habitat over the Refuge as a whole. About 1.5 acres of 

habitat loss in each action alternative is associated with the construction of the new office and visitor 

contact facility on Camas NWR. 

6.12.2 Projected User Numbers in Fifteen Years 

In order to assess the social effects of the alternatives, it is important to understand the broader 

context of the Refuge within the region and how recreational demand and public use is expected to 

change over time. The 2010 census (U.S. Census Bureau 2010) reported a 21.1 percent increase in

Idaho’s population. In addition, Jefferson, Bonneville and Madison counties, including the Idaho 

Falls MSA (Metropolitan Statistical Area) have been experiencing rapid growth between 2002 and 

2012. During this period, Jefferson County was the second fastest growing county in the state (Idaho 

Department of Labor 2013a). Bonneville County grew 25 percent (from 85,060 to 106,684 in 2012, 

while Madison County’s population increased 32 percent. Over the last decade Madison County was 

the fourth fastest growing county in the state (Idaho Department of Labor 2013b, c). The growing 

Idaho population coupled with an increasing interest in nature-based recreation and tourism within 

the State would be expected to increase visitation to Camas NWR under all management alternatives. 

A growing visitor presence on the Refuge can be expected in the future (Table 6.4). Many of the 

public use opportunities currently provided at the Refuge are very popular within the State, and are 

forecast to attract new participants in the coming years. 

Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation (IDPR) began tracking outdoor recreation trends in 2002 

and published their information in the Idaho Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation and 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

6-70 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

Tourism Plan (Idaho SCORP) for 2003-2006 (IDPR 2006). Their most recent survey data from 2006 

and 2010 (Idaho SCORP) show that since 2002, trends are emerging that are likely to influence 

visitation and use at Camas NWR, including increased demands for the following activities: outdoor 

photography (+44 percent), bird watching (+29 percent), snowshoeing (+28 percent), walking for 

exercise (+22 percent), watching wildlife other than fish (+21 percent), and cross-country skiing (+15 

percent). Other noteworthy changes include a 22 percent decrease in running. Of the Idahoans 

surveyed in 2005, 70 percent participated in outdoor photography, with more than half described as 

regular participants or enthusiasts. This increase was attributed in part to the affordability and ease of 

digital photography. 

The 2002 Idaho Outdoor Recreation Survey established baseline information for Idaho outdoor 

recreation trends (IDPR 2002). IDPR considered the trends from the National Survey on Recreation 

and the Environment (NSRE) as well as how these national rates of participation compared to Idaho’s 

population. IDPR noted in the 2002 Idaho Outdoor Recreation Demand Assessment that Idahoans 

participate more than the rest of the nation in wildlife activities, particularly hunting. Idahoans are 

four times more likely to hunt big game and six times more likely to hunt waterfowl than the national 

average. 

Almost 13 percent of Idahoans surveyed in 2004 participate in waterfowl hunting, 37 percent in big 

game hunting with rifles, and about 27 percent in small game hunting. Region 6 (Upper Snake) 

participation rates for waterfowl hunting were estimated to be 15.5 percent of those surveyed and 

ranked second of the six regions in Idaho. On average 37.3 percent of adult Idahoans participated in 

big game hunting, with 37.9 percent of Region 6 sportsmen and women identifying themselves as 

big-game hunters, ranking the Region third of the six Idaho regions in big game hunting participants. 

Results for small-game hunting was similar to the State average of 26.5 percent, with 24.5 percent of 

Region 6 adults identifying themselves as upland or small game hunters. 

Cordell (2008) described general trends in nature-based recreation on National Forests, comparing 

data from the NSRE in 2000 and 2007. Six of the top seventeen fastest growing activities involved 

viewing, photographing, identifying, visiting or otherwise observing elements of nature. Viewing and 

photographing increased most dramatically at 78 percent and 60 percent respectively. He also noted 

that visitation at national wildlife refuges grew from 33 million in 1998 to over 40 million in 2007, 

an increase of 21 percent. Conversely, Cordell noted a decline in migratory bird hunting by 10 to 20 

percent. 

The 2000-2004 NSRE described the following rates of participation by activity for Idahoans 

surveyed: 77 percent view or photograph natural scenery, 64.7 percent view or photograph other 

wildlife, 57.8 percent view or photograph wildflowers and trees, and 40.9 percent view or 

photograph birds. 

The 2002 Idaho Outdoor Recreation Survey showed higher Region 6 participation than the State 

averages for cross-country skiing (Region 6: 26.9 percent; Idaho: 16.6 percent); canoeing (Region 6: 

22.8 percent; Idaho 18.9 percent); walking for exercise (Region 6: 80.7 percent; Idaho 78.4 percent); 

hiking (Region 6: 63.4 percent; Idaho 59.5 percent); watching wildlife (Region 6: 66.6 percent; Idaho 

63 percent). Participation in outdoor photography in Region 6 (47.6 percent) was almost identical to 

the State average of 47.5 percent. In 2002 Region 6 adult participation in bird watching (45.5 

percent) was second lowest, which averaged 46.5 percent participation statewide. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-71 

Table 6.4. Camas NWR’s Projected Annual Visitation in Fifteen Years 

Recreational Activity Average 

Visitation* 

(2007-2012) 

Current 

Visitation* 

(2012) 

Projected 

Change from 

2012 (%) 

Projected 

Visitation 

(2025) 

Wildlife Observation 

 Auto 

 Foot 

 +25 

5,083 6,100 7,625 

921 1,200 1,500 

Photography 600 1,000 +25 1,250 

Environmental 

Education 

181 500 

Hunting Total 18 

Waterfowl/other 

migratory birds 

 11 +8 12 

Upland 7 +8 8 

*Figures from 2007 onward are more accurate than previous years due to installation of a traffic counter on the entrance 

road. 

** From 2012 Refuge Annual Performance Plan database. Projected change is an estimate based in part on the 1999 

models for the Rocky Mountain Region published in Bowker et al. 1999, as described in IDPR 2002, and Idaho SCORP 

data from 2006-2010 (IDPR 2010). 

6.13 Effects to Opportunities for Quality Wildlife Observation, 

Photography, Interpretation, and Environmental Education

6.13.1 Effects from Habitat Actions 

Alternatives 2 and 3 both increase native habitats relative to Alternative 1. The result of these 

changes would generally be positive, as the increasing availability and connectivity of wetlands, 

riparian habitat, and uplands would likely result in enhanced opportunities to observe a variety of 

native wildlife in fifteen years. There may be some negative short-term effects to the visitor 

experience as habitat restoration work is undertaken in wetland and riparian habitats, but these are 

expected to be temporary and minor. 

Wetland Management 

When compared to Alternative 1 (Current Management) both the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 

2) and Alternative 3 would provide decreased deep emergent wetland habitat (285 acres of core 

wetlands managed as hemi-marsh versus 783 acres currently), but increased shallow wetlands, 

seasonally flooded shallow wetlands (moist soil units), and wet meadows for migratory waterbird 

breeding and foraging habitats. 150-200 acres of moist soil units would be provided in Alternatives 2 

and 3 compared to 40-60 acres in Alternative 1. 140-200 acres of wet meadow habitat associated with 

Camas Creek and 80-100 additional acres of wet meadow would be restored under Alternatives 2 and 

3, an approximately 11-15 percent increase in total wet meadow habitat compared to current 

management. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

6-72 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

Alternative 1 would provide increased “consistency” in available habitats for wildlife viewing. 

However, stable water regimes, which provide site “consistency” to public recreation interests, lead 

to long-term declines in wetland ecosystem function (Fredrickson and Reid 1990; Weller 1999). 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would substantially increase the integrity and quality of wetland habitats by 

mimicking natural variability and dynamic ecosystem processes (e.g., drought, flood, fire). Therefore 

reliable wildlife observation may not be consistently available at wetland sites, or some areas may 

not hold high concentrations of wildlife in years when water level management is mimicking extreme 

drought or flood scenarios. While dynamic wetland management proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3 

would cause “irregularity” in wetland habitats on a site-by-site basis in the short term, it would 

increase productivity and observational opportunity of the refuge marsh habitats in the long term 

(Fredrickson and Reid 1990; Hammer and Kadlec 1986; Middleton 2002; Reid 1989). 

Upland Management 

Alternative 3 would provide the most substantial long-term improvements to wildlife observation and 

viewing opportunities for upland wildlife. In this alternative the Refuge would not only work to 

restore refuge uplands, but emphasize restoring landscape connectivity within sagebrush ecosystems 

to support and maintain integrated wildlife communities. In Alternative 3, upland management would 

strongly emphasize maintaining and restoring structural and functional attributes of sage-steppe 

habitat, thereby increasing wildlife observation and photography opportunities for upland species, 

both on and off the Refuge. 

Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) takes a more conservative approach than Alternative 3. In 

comparison to Alternative 1, Alternative 2 increases efforts to stabilize and rehabilitate upland 

habitats, but this would be a lower priority and subordinate to the primary refuge emphasis for 

wetland and riparian management. Large-scale upland habitat management would occur only as 

additional funding and time allows and would provide a negligible difference in wildlife viewing 

opportunities when compared to Alternative 1. 

Riparian Management 

The riparian zone is a bridge between Camas Creek and upland habitats. Its combination of high 

moisture, rich soils, and diverse vegetation makes it an exceptionally productive area for wildlife. 

Because riparian zones have more habitat niches than any other refuge plant community, they support 

not only a greater abundance of wildlife, but a greater variety as well. Riparian systems may attract 

up to 10.6 times the number of migratory birds found in surrounding upland sites in the spring 

(Stevens et al. 1977) and fourteen times the number of species recorded during fall migration 

(Hehnke and Stone 1979). 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would increase efforts to restore the Refuge’s willow riparian habitat along 

Camas Creek. These alternatives attempt to restore up to 100-150 acres of native willow woodlands 

associated with Camas Creek, while managing suitable areas for increased recruitment and 

regeneration of existing willow habitat. This represents a 250-750 percent increase in willow riparian 

habitat along Camas Creek compared to Alternative 1 (Current Management). This would be 

expected to result in increased species diversity and abundance and therefore, moderately positive 

effect to quality wildlife observation and photography opportunities. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-73 

Shelterbelt Management 

A study by Carlisle (2008) found that abundance and diversity of migratory landbirds was quite high 

in the Refuge’s shelterbelt and riparian woodlands, and the Refuge is a well-known destination for 

local birders. Non-native species such as Russian olive and Siberian pea provide much of the cover 

available to migrant birds during stop-over and the use and importance of the non-native understory 

has been documented (Carlisle 2008). Although Russian olive does provide food and cover for many 

species, it can negatively reduce larger structured native habitat from developing and decrease 

available habitat for cavity-nesting birds (Olson and Knopf 1986). 

In all alternatives, the Refuge would continue to replace large cottonwoods lost from mortality and 

replace non-native understory trees and shrubs (e.g., Russian olive, Siberian pea) with native 

understory components. The rate at which overstory and understory vegetation is rehabilitated is 

different by Alternative. Under Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) we would replace 1-5 percent of 

the non-native vegetation per year with native trees and shrub. This would have only minor negative 

short-term effects and moderate long-term positive benefits to quality wildlife observation and 

photography opportunities. Alternatives 1 and 3 would undertake a more accelerated effort to the 

restoration of shelterbelt understory, annually replacing 5-10 percent and 10-20 percent respectively 

of the non-native components. Disturbance from restoration activities and rapid changes in 

understory composition and structure in the fast-tracked approach of Alternatives 1 and 3 would have 

a moderate negative short-term (one to ten years) effect to the quality of the wildlife observation and 

photography experience. However, the long-term (over 10 years) positive benefits to observation and 

photography would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Agricultural Crops and Haying 

In all alternatives the Refuge would farm 20 acres of irrigated small grain crops. Refuge small grain 

production, and a corresponding change in wildlife observation opportunities from wildlife use of 

refuge crops, would not change by alternative. 

Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) would maintain the current 140 acres of alfalfa plantings unless 

the cooperative farmer should cease operations, in which case 80-100 acres of alfalfa would be 

planted. Alternative 3 would reduce refuge alfalfa plantings to 60 acres. Reductions in alfalfa 

plantings in the action alternatives are expected to have only a minor negative effect on the quality of 

wildlife observation and photography on the Refuge; however, certain species that preferentially 

forage in alfalfa (e.g. Swainson’s hawk, white faced ibis) may become less abundant. 

Alternative 2 would provide the same hayed acres as Current Management (Alternative 1) and 

therefore, the same degree of quality wildlife observation and photography experiences. Irrigated 

haying would be discontinued under Alternative 3, thereby causing a minor negative impact to 

observational opportunities for species that readily forage in short cover grasslands (e.g., greater 

sandhill crane, Canada goose, long-billed curlew, white-faced ibis, Franklin’s gull). 

6.13.2 Effects from Management of Non-Consumptive Public Recreational 

Use 

As noted in Section 6.12.2, a growing visitor presence on the Refuge can be expected in the future. 

Many of the public use opportunities currently provided at the Refuge, particularly birding and 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

6-74 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

photography, are very popular within the State, and are forecasted to attract increasing amounts of 

participants in the coming years. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Eastern Idaho birders have recognized the wooded area at Camas NWR as a migration hotspot for 

decades. Increased birding attention in the past decade has yielded numerous sightings of birds never 

previously documented in Idaho in addition to impressive numbers of more common species. 

Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 provide a moderate increase in non-consumptive recreational 

opportunities at the Refuge compared to the present. Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) would 

increase public recreational infrastructure and opportunities for wildlife observation and photography 

through the construction of the visitor contact station, kiosks, 1.3 mile birding trail, and wildlife 

observation platform. Alternative 3 would provide even more non-consumptive recreational 

opportunities, compared to Alternative 2, with more roads open to vehicular access (the 7.5 mile 

Sandhole Lake loop), groomed trails for cross-country skiing and snowshoeing, and three permanent 

photo blinds. A Complex visitor services position would allow the Refuge to recruit and train more 

volunteers to provide expanded visitor services programs, including more wildlife-based refuge 

tours. Off road hiking (which is currently allowed throughout the Refuge July 15-February 28) would 

be prohibited in Alternative 2 and limited to 2,510 acres (the north and south waterfowl hunting 

units) in Alternative 3. However 27 miles of service roads would continue to be open to pedestrians 

and bicyclists. 

Currently (Alternative 1) the auto tour route is open to vehicle traffic (vehicles licensed for highway 

use only), bicycling, walking, dog walking (under control of owner), cross-country skiing, and snow 

shoeing. Few visitors have been observed walking or bicycling on the auto tour route and currently 

conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians, bicyclists, or any other visitor uses are negligible to 

nonexistent. Based upon data gathered from a vehicle traffic counter installed on the auto tour route 

in 2009, 50 to 370 vehicles per month used the route, with the peak occurring from March to June. To 

date no accidents or incidents on the auto tour route have been reported or observed by refuge staff. 

The auto tour route is currently maintained in winter to the best of the Refuge’s abilities to keep the 

road open. In the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2) maintaining the auto tour route for one-way 

traffic would eliminate many of the issues with cars trying to pass on the narrow roads with steep 

ditches. 

Interpretation and Environmental Education 

Environmental interpretation is a process that forges emotional and intellectual connections between 

the interests of the audience and the resource. Interpretation includes those activities and 

infrastructure that explain management activities, fish and wildlife resources, ecological processes, 

and cultural history to the visiting public. Environmental education is a more formal process with 

activities conducted by refuge staff, volunteers, teachers, or other leaders. Environmental education 

strives to increase people’s knowledge and awareness about the refuge environment, resource 

management challenges, wildlife and their habitats, the human environment, and human impacts on 

wildlife and habitats. 

Alternative 1 (Current Management) would continue to provide a small self-service visitor contact 

station and use refuge volunteers to provide environmental education programs. Alternative 1 

(Current Management) would not increase environmental education staffing or construct an 

environmental education facility. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-75 

Alternatives 2 and 3 both enhance environmental educational opportunities at Camas NWR, with a 

strong emphasis on partnerships, increased staffing, volunteer coordination, and the addition of a 

visitor contact station and multi-purpose room. Increased environmental education and interpretation 

opportunities arise from implementation of Alternatives 2 and 3 through an emphasis on increased 

viewing facilities and increased offerings of interpretive and educational programs. Guided wildlife 

viewing tours would increase from a few in Alternative 1 (Current Management) to eight guided 

tours annually in Alternative 2, and twelve guided tours annually in Alternative 3. 

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, a Park Ranger would be hired for Camas NWR and to expand the 

environmental education program and a Visitor Service Manager position would be stationed in the 

Southeast Idaho NWRC office in Pocatello to expand refuge volunteer opportunities. This staff 

position would recruit volunteers and work with the local schools to develop and grow the 

environmental education program. The Visitor Service Manager and Park Ranger would tie refuge 

environmental education programs directly into curricula for local schools. Alternatives 2 and 3 

could use refuge programs to assist the schools with State education requirements, and teach-theteacher programs would be initiated, thus reducing the amount of refuge staff and volunteer time 

required to facilitate classes. Alternatives 2 and 3 would subsequently provide high quality 

environmental education programs without having to invest heavily in curriculum development. 

Interpretation and education programs proposed under Alternatives 2 and 3 would have moderate 

positive beneficial effects on opportunities for environmental education and interpretation. 

Moreover, these programs would have positive effects on refuge resources by increasing public 

awareness of, and appreciation for, these resources; informing visitors about proper resource use; and 

instilling a sense of stewardship in both visitors and the regional public. 

6.13.3 Effects from Consumptive Public Recreational Use 

Waterfowl and Upland Game Bird Hunting 

Hunting has the potential to conflict with and decrease the quality of wildlife observation, 

photography, and environmental education. The estimated 6,000 to 7,000 annual visitors to Camas 

NWR are principally interested in non-hunting wildlife experiences. The Refuge offers a mix of 

wildlife-dependent uses, i.e., wildlife observation, photography, hunting, interpretation and 

education, and non-wildlife-dependent uses (i.e., hiking, biking, snowshoeing, and cross-country 

skiing) that can be negatively impacted by hunting, particularly the increased hunting activity in the 

proposed elk hunt. 

No changes to the waterfowl hunting program are proposed in any alternative in the CCP. Moreover, 

numbers of waterfowl hunters using the Refuge are low and not expected to increase dramatically 

due to the lack of late season water in most years. The waterfowl hunt area gets relatively little use by 

nonconsumptive users during the waterfowl hunt season. Therefore the impacts to the quality of the 

wildlife observation, photography, interpretation, and environmental education opportunities on 

Camas NWR would be negligible. 

No changes to the upland game bird hunting program are proposed in any alternative in the CCP. As 

with waterfowl hunting, numbers of upland game bird hunters are low, and few visitors use the hunt 

area during the hunting season. Therefore the impacts of upland game bird hunting to wildlife 

observation, photography, interpretation, and environmental education opportunities on Camas NWR 

would be negligible. However, changes in wetland management in Alternative 2 (Preferred 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

6-76 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

Alternative) and Alternative 3 may improve vegetation cover and winter survival of pheasants, 

thereby potentially improving pheasant hunting opportunities and providing minor negative conflicts 

and effects to non-consumptive recreationists interested in fall wildlife viewing and photography on 

the Refuge. 

Big-Game Hunting

Big game hunting would not be allowed in Alternative 1 (Current Management). In Alternatives 2 

and 3 we propose to establish a limited elk hunt in line with State seasons (August 1-December 31) 

and regulations for GMU 63. A maximum of 20 big game hunters would be permitted on the Refuge 

annually, with a maximum of two hunters on the Refuge at any one time. To minimize the potential 

conflict between elk hunting and other public uses and ensure visitor safety, the Refuge would 

designate a 4,112-acre hunting area in Alternatives 2 and 3 (see Chapter 2, Maps 7 and 8). Public use 

roads within the elk hunt area would remain open to non-hunting visitors and would be clearly signed 

to alert all visitors that they are entering a hunt area. Under Alternative 2, off road hiking would not 

be allowed on the Refuge, except for hunters in possession of valid permits and licenses, during the 

hunt season. In Alternative 3, the south waterfowl hunt area, which lies within the elk hunting area, 

would be closed to off road hiking, other than by hunters, during the elk hunting season. This effect is 

considered minor in the context of refuge wildlife observation areas available over the course of the 

year, and the fact that few visitors currently use the proposed elk hunt area. We expect that the 

majority of nonconsumptive use would continue to occur on the 6.3-mile refuge auto tour route and 

1.3 mile birding trail and observation deck which are in the “no hunting” area and outside the elk 

hunt unit boundary. For these reasons, we also expect conflicts between hunters and nonconsumptive users to be minimal. Requiring orientation sessions for all hunters would also help 

eliminate possible use conflicts. Maps, signage, and enforcement of existing State regulations that 

prohibit discharge of firearms from or across public right of ways, would minimize risk of 

trajectories into the non-hunting portion of the Refuge. 

While the general assumption is that elk hunting may have a minor negative effect on refuge wildlife 

observation and photography opportunities, it is also possible that wildlife observation and 

photography opportunities could be increased as elk move away from the hunted zones toward no 

hunting zones. However, it is also possible that hunters could move elk off the Refuge entirely, 

decreasing opportunities to observe and photograph elk during the hunt season. Due to uncertainties 

in the response of wildlife to refuge hunting disturbance, the Refuge has developed strategies to work 

with Idaho Department of Fish and Game to re-assess the effectiveness of the elk hunt every five 

years and re-evaluate the hunt related to both consumptive and non-consumptive recreational 

objectives for the Refuge. Refuge personnel would also meet in January to evaluate the safety and 

quality aspects of this hunt and make adjustments to number of hunters and area closures if necessary 

to minimize impacts to sensitive non-target wildlife resources. If refuge closures do occur, the 

general public would be notified of closure dates via press releases to local media and the refuge 

website. With these strategies in place, and a maximum of 20 big game hunters permitted annually 

and only two hunters being allowed on the Refuge at any one time, conflicts with non-consumptive 

users should be minimal and only impart a minor negative effect to recreational wildlife observation 

and photography opportunities. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-77 

6.13.4 Overall Effects to Wildlife Observation, Photography, Interpretation, 

and Environmental Education 

Overall, a moderate positive effect would occur for visitor opportunities to enjoy quality wildlife 

observation, photography, interpretation, and environmental education under Alternatives 2 and 3. 

Waterfowl and upland game bird hunting effects to wildlife observation, photography, interpretation 

and environmental education would remain low in all alternatives. Alternative 1 would not open the 

Refuge to big-game hunting and no negative effects to non-consumptive wildlife observation 

opportunities or users would occur in this Alternative. The proposed new elk hunt in Alternatives 2 

and 3 would cause a minor negative effect to non-consumptive recreational uses during the fall 

season. 

6.14 Effects to Opportunities for Quality Hunting Experiences

Hunting, trapping and fishing are considered by many to be a legitimate, traditional recreational use 

of renewable natural resources. The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, 

other laws, and the Fish and Wildlife Service’s policy permit hunting on a national wildlife refuge 

when it is compatible with the purposes for which the Refuge was established and acquired. 

National wildlife refuges exist primarily to safeguard wildlife populations through habitat 

preservation. The word “refuge” includes the idea of providing a haven of safety for wildlife, and as 

such, hunting might seem an inconsistent use of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge 

System). However, habitat that normally supports healthy wildlife populations produces harvestable 

surpluses that are a renewable resource. 

The decision to permit hunting, trapping, and fishing on national wildlife refuges is made on a caseby-case basis that considers biological soundness, economic feasibility, effects on other refuge 

programs, and public demand (See Compatibility Determinations: Appendix B). 

6.14.1 Effects from Habitat Actions 

Wetland Management 

Due to the declining water table in the area over the last 20 years, waterfowl hunting opportunities 

have declined to the point where they are almost non-existent at Camas NWR. Alternative 1 uses a 

more prescriptive approach to wetland management, with stable water regimes that provide site 

“consistency” to public recreation interests. However, stable water regimes also lead to long-term 

declines in wetland productivity and therefore, reduced availability of huntable wildlife (Fredrickson 

and Reid 1990; Weller 1999). Currently the Refuge cannot reliably maintain water in the hunt units 

in the fall and therefore waterfowl hunting opportunities are limited and variable from year to year. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would improve wetland habitat conditions as compared to Alternative 1. These 

alternatives would substantially increase the integrity and quality of wetland habitats by mimicking 

natural variability and dynamic ecosystem processes (e.g., drought, flood, fire). The more dynamic 

and variable wetland management proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3 would cause “irregularity” in 

wetland habitats on a site-by-site basis in the short term. For example, the Refuge may keep some 

units drawn down for longer periods of time to promote either submerged aquatic vegetation for next 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

6-78 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

spring or annual wetland plants with lower tolerance for inundation, but a high wildlife forage value. 

Reliable waterfowl hunting areas may not be consistently available or hold high concentrations of 

waterfowl in years when water level management is mimicking extreme drought or flood scenarios. 

However, an increase in productivity of the refuge marsh habitats would occur in the long term 

(Fredrickson and Reid 1990; Hammer and Kadlec 1986; Middleton 2002; Reid 1989), which may 

increase public waterfowl hunting opportunities in the long term. If the implementation of the 2017 

Camas NWR Wetland and Riparian Rehabilitation Plan is successful in improving refuge wetland 

habitats, the effect could be particularly pronounced for waterfowl. 

Overall, Alternatives 2 and 3 would be expected to have a higher likelihood of improving 

opportunities for waterfowl and upland game bird hunting than Alternative 1. However, opportunities 

would be variable from year to year. 

Changes in wetland management in Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) and Alternative 3 may 

improve vegetation cover and winter survival of pheasants, thereby potentially improving pheasant 

hunting opportunities. 

Upland Management 

Upland game hunting opportunities are currently minimal on the Refuge. With overall drier 

conditions and a less consistent hydroperiod from year to year, pheasant numbers have never 

rebounded to the high populations of the 1960s. Loss of quality sagebrush habitat in the surrounding 

area has led to a decline in the number of sage grouse on the Refuge. Upland management under 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would be likely to improve habitat conditions for sage-grouse. This would be 

more pronounced under Alternative 3 with its greater emphasis on restoration of sagebrush-steppe 

habitat. This may lead to a minor positive effect to opportunities for upland game bird hunting. 

6.14.2 Effects from Management of Consumptive Public Recreational Use 

Waterfowl and Upland Game Bird Hunting 

The total number of hunt days, hunt units, hunting acres, and facilities available for waterfowl and 

upland game bird hunting would remain the same in all alternatives. No increase or decrease in 

opportunities for waterfowl and upland game bird hunting would occur through implementation of 

the Preferred Alternative 2, or Alternative 3. 

Big-Game Hunting 

The Refuge is currently closed to big game hunting (Alternative 1, Current Management). At the 

request of IDFG, Camas NWR would offer a refuge recreational elk hunt to assist in minimizing elk 

depredation complaints in the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2) and Alternative 3. The Refuge’s 

primary objectives for an elk hunt are to offer quality recreational hunting opportunities, with priority 

to youth and mobility impaired hunters, and to assist the IDFG with depredation issues on 

surrounding private lands. 

The proposed elk hunt unit would be approximately 4,112 acres in size and located in the southern 

and western sections of the Refuge, south of the Auto Tour Route and west of Camas Creek. The 

Refuge would issue up to 20 refuge access permits annually within GMU 63. An any-elk hunt would 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-79 

be conducted from August 1 through August 31 and an antlerless-only hunt from September 1 

through December 31. Access permits would allow hunters to hunt elk on the Refuge five days a 

week for a two-week period, until an elk is harvested. No more than two hunters may be present on 

the Refuge at any given time. 

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) manages the elk in GMU 63 primarily reduce crop 

depredation and secondarily, to provide recreational opportunities. For the past fifteen years or so this 

unit has had one of Idaho’s longest and most liberal (five months long) elk hunting seasons. Between 

2006 and 2011 harvest in the unit has ranged from 70 in 2011 to 257 in 2010. Assuming that a 

maximum of 20 elk would be harvested on the Refuge annually, Alternatives 2 and 3 would provide a 

minor increase in elk hunting opportunities in GMU 63. The controlled Refuge hunt would provide a 

high quality opportunity since only two hunters would be allowed on the Refuge at a given time. 

Providing some hunting pressure on the Refuge may deter elk from using the Refuge as a safe haven 

and disperse them onto areas open to all hunters in GMU 63, thereby increasing hunter success in 

areas adjacent to the Refuge. The Refuge would work with IDFG to re-assess the effectiveness of the 

elk hunt every five years and re-evaluate the hunt related to both IDFG depredation issues and the 

recreational objectives of both IDFG and the Refuge. 

6.14.3 Effects to Hunting Opportunities from Non-Consumptive Public 

Recreational Use 

Wildlife Observation, Photography, Interpretation, and Environmental Education 

These four priority public uses would largely be self-guided and would be allowed on the auto tour 

route, trails, and facilities described above. Users would include the general public, as well as 

organized groups, including schools and youth groups. 

Wildlife watchers, birders, and photographers have the potential to disturb wildlife that hunters are 

pursuing and lessen the quality of the hunting opportunity. To minimize this potential conflict, the 

Refuge has designated defined hunting areas in Alternatives 2 and 3 that would be separated spatially 

from areas where most nonconsumptive uses occur (hiking trails, the Auto Tour Route, and 

associated facilities). The elk hunt area (which overlaps with and includes the 1,530 acre south 

waterfowl hunting unit) would remain open to non-hunting public uses during the elk hunt season 

(August 1-Dec 31) In Alternative 2, off road hiking would be prohibited, except by hunters in pursuit 

of game. In Alternative 3 off road hiking would be allowed in waterfowl hunt units, which partially 

overlap the elk hunting area, but only after the close of the elk hunting season. Therefore other uses 

would be limited to service roads within the hunt area in both Alternatives 2 and 3. As noted in 

Section 6.13.3 above, few visitors currently use the proposed elk hunt area, and conflicts between elk 

hunters and other users would be expected to be minor. Additional measures taken in Alternatives 2 

and 3 to reduce potential conflicts between user groups would include providing information at the 

parking lots, refuge headquarters and in the Refuge’s brochure (available both at headquarters and 

kiosks, and on the refuge website) that clearly indicates permitted uses and rules of conduct. In all 

alternatives, hunt areas would be clearly signed and maps and regulations would be included in 

brochures and the Refuge Web site. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

6-80 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

6.14.4 Overall Effects 

Overall, there would be a moderate positive effect to hunting opportunities under Alternatives 2 and 

3, compared to current opportunities. 

6.15 Effects to Cultural Resources

The Service is committed to protection of known cultural resources under all alternatives of the 

Camas NWR CCP. The Refuge Cultural Resource Management Plan (Appendix H) is an integral part 

of Camas National Wildlife Refuge management, not just because the law mandates it, but for the 

unique information it can bring to understanding our environment. In general this plan will help to 

strengthen long-term protection and preservation of all cultural resources on the Refuge. 

6.15.1 Paleontological Resources 

There are no known paleontological resources on Camas NWR. Because of the active volcanic basalt 

flows across the region it is unlikely that paleontological resources would be found with the refuge 

boundaries (USFWS 2011). Under all alternatives, should paleontological specimens be discovered, 

the collection and curation of paleontological resources should be managed under the Department of 

the Interior’s Museum Property program and the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act (PRPA) 

of 2009. 

6.15.2 Prehistoric/Ethnographic Resources 

Prehistoric Sites and Artifacts 

Although archaeological evidence of Native American use on Camas NWR is limited to five sites 

and an isolated projectile point, the use of the area by Shoshone and Bannock people is expected. 

One site contains rock circles that may be the remnants of tipi rings and was recommended to be 

eligible to the NRHP (Harding 2005). There has never been a large scale village, burials, or 

Paleoindian site identified within the Camas NWR boundaries. 

The presence of such a small number of sites relating to Native American people on the Refuge is 

probably due to the fact that less than half of the Refuge has been surveyed for archaeological 

evidence, because of the marshy condition of the refuge core area and historic agricultural activities 

that included building irrigation canals and plowing fields. 

Under all alternatives the Refuge would develop, in partnership with the Tribes and other 

preservation partners, a program for the education and interpretation of cultural resources of the 

Refuge. Since cultural resources are not renewable, interpretation of cultural resources can instill a 

conservation ethic among the public and others who encounter or manage them. Once implemented, 

the cultural resource education and interpretive program (Appendix H) would improve the 

management of refuge cultural resources, by: (1) translating the results of cultural research into 

media that can be understood and appreciated by a variety of people, (2) relating the connection 

between cultural resources and natural resources and the role of humans in the environment, (3) 

fostering an awareness and appreciation of native cultures, and (4) instilling an ethic for the 

conservation of our cultural heritage. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-81 

Traditional Cultural Properties 

The Big Southern Butte and its associated sacred landscape are very important to the Tribes. In 

essence, the Big Southern Butte sacred landscape consists of the area observed from the top of Big 

Southern Butte. This butte is visible from Camas NWR, and under all alternatives, effects to the Big 

Southern Butte viewshed would be included when changes to landscape appearance are proposed. 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

None of the archaeological sites recorded on Camas NWR are documented as containing human 

remains. However, if sites identified on the Refuge are found to contain human remains, funerary 

items, sacred objects, or items of cultural patrimony then consideration under the Native American 

Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA) will be required. 

In all alternatives, a proactive approach to management of sites with human remains would be to 

follow the NAGPRA consultation process prior to any inadvertent discovery. This process should 

result in a Memorandum of Understanding that specifies the appropriate individual(s) or group(s) to 

contact if there is an inadvertent discovery or intentional excavation (See Appendix H: Cultural 

Resources Plan). The document should describe the appropriate treatment of human remains and 

burial objects. The Refuge will enter into discussions to identify and describe other items of 

NAGPRA concern: funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony. Development 

of a Memorandum of Understanding prior to an inadvertent discovery is strongly suggested by the 

NAGPRA implementing regulations (NAGPRA 1990). Such an agreement would not only greatly 

facilitate and speed up consultations as required by law after an inadvertent discovery, but build trust 

and respect between the Service and Native American groups (Cryne 2010). Without an agreement 

document, an inadvertent discovery of human remains on the Refuge would trigger a similar process 

but would require completion under pressure in a matter of days. 

6.15.3 Historic Resources 

Under all alternatives, we would develop preservation plans prior to restoration of significant historic 

buildings and structures to ensure that repairs are cost effective and historically appropriate. Adaptive 

reuse will be considered as a way to preserve and interpret historic buildings. In all alternatives, 

consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) regarding changes that affect sites, 

buildings, or WPA structures listed on or determined eligible to the NRHP will be undertaken. 

In all alternatives, the Refuge will conduct cultural resource surveys before any major construction or 

habitat restoration project. These projects may include, but are not limited to, the construction of 

roads, trails, bridges, dikes, and visitor facilities. Earth moving activities occurring in proximity to 

known sites would be monitored because of the potential for buried cultural material in these areas. If 

any cultural materials are uncovered during excavation, the Regional Historic Preservation Officer 

would be contacted to review the materials and recommend a treatment that is consistent with 

applicable laws and policies. Any new cultural resources identified during the survey would be 

recorded and evaluated for eligibility to the NRHP. If any sites are determined to be eligible to the 

NRHP, restoration plans would need to be assessed for potential effects to the historic property. If 

effects are possible, the proposal would be reviewed to ensure that the effects have the least impact to 

original materials and are in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties. Changes that comply with the Secretary’s Standards would have no 

adverse effect on historic properties. Once an assessment has been completed, the findings would be 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

6-82 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

forwarded to SHPO for concurrence. Implementation of the procedures described above is expected 

to avoid adverse effects to historic resources; however, additional analysis under NEPA may be 

required once specific details are known. 

The construction of public use facilities proposed under Alternatives 2 and 3 would not be expected 

to have an adverse effect on historic resources. Major disturbance would be avoided by the survey 

and consultation process as described in Section 106 of NHPA described above. Expansion of 

facilities and trails under the alternatives would receive the same scrutiny, to ensure they would not 

detract from cultural resources; therefore, no adverse effects to cultural resources as a result of 

human activity within the Refuge are anticipated. 

Under all alternatives, the Service would implement a proactive cultural resources management 

program that focuses on meeting the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act, 

including consultation, identification, inventory, evaluation, and protection of cultural resources 

(Appendix H). Various Federal historic preservation laws and regulations require the Service to 

implement the kind of program described under this objective (ARPA 1979 [U.S.C. 1979]; NHPA 

1966 [U.S.C. 1966]; NAGPRA 1990 [U.S.C. 1990]). Furthermore, inattention to these 

responsibilities could obstruct the Refuge in its other land, habitat, and wildlife management efforts. 

6.15.4 Cultural Resource Survey and Future Management 

Under all alternatives, we would continue to survey cultural resources in response to implementation 

of refuge projects and activities that had the potential to affect those resources. In addition, we would 

initiate a program for systematic archaeological survey and site inventory to better assist the Refuge 

in developing a better understanding of which areas of the Refuge may be sensitive for the presence 

of cultural resources. The program should include evaluating through a formal Determination of 

Eligibility process to highlight the significant properties. Then, based on the historic properties, a 

program for interpreting, monitoring, and protecting these cultural resources can be implemented into 

refuge management. 

6.15.5 Overall Effects 

Based on the criteria for assessing adverse effects that are provided in the NHPA, all of the 

alternatives are considered to be a “No Adverse Effect” undertaking as per 36 CFR Part 800.5(3)(b), 

hence none of the alternatives would have a significant impact to cultural resources. The Service’s 

determination of no adverse effect would be submitted to SHPO for concurrence. No mitigation 

would be required. 

6.16 Economic Effects

The economic influence area is mainly rural Jefferson County, Idaho, where the Refuge is located, 

and Bonneville County Idaho and Idaho Falls where most refuge transactions occur. Many refuge 

visitors live within these counties and are assumed to make most of their purchases within those 

counties. A detailed comparison of salaries, annual expenses, and one time expenses by alternative 

can be found in Appendix C, Implementation.

Refuge Salaries: Camas National Wildlife Refuge has both direct and indirect economic impacts on 

the local economy. The refuge budget supports employee salaries, operations and maintenance costs, 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-83 

and various programs. Current staffing consists of 2.5 permanent full time employees stationed on 

the Refuge, whose annual payroll (including salaries and benefits) totaled 222,000 in 2012. (The 

Refuge Biologist position is shared with Grays Lake NWR.) Under Alternatives 2 and 3 we propose 

to add two permanent full time employees (Park Ranger and Engineering Equipment Operator) to the 

refuge staff. The annual refuge payroll under Alternatives 2 and 3 would total $363,500. Currently, a 

number of positions are shared among the four refuges in the SE Idaho Complex. These positions are 

stationed in Chubbuck, Idaho. Camas’s share of these positions currently totals 1.5 FTEs (full time 

equivalents), with the Refuge’s share of the annual payroll totaling $146,000. In Alternatives 2 and 3 

we propose an additional Complex position (Visitor Services Manager) that would be shared among 

the four refuges in the Complex. This would bring Camas’s share to 1.75 FTEs, with the Refuge’s 

portion of the annual payroll totaling $171,000. 

Since refuge operational expenditures would vary by alternative based on staffing levels and 

programs associated with each alternative (see Implementation Plan: Appendix C), each alternative 

would result in a different degree of economic effect. One-time expenses for maintenance and 

improvement of habitat and facilities would be approximately $78,000 under Alternative 1, with 

annual recurring costs of approximately $350,000. Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) would have 

recurring costs of approximately $500,000 annually, and one-time expenditures for habitat 

restoration and public use facilities of approximately $1,161,000. Alternative 3 would have recurring 

costs of $511,000 annually, and one-time expenditures for habitat restoration and public use facilities 

of approximately $1,195,000. 

Refuge Expenditures: Most infrastructure improvements would be one-time costs through increased 

spending by the Refuge related to improvements to infrastructure and public use facilities (e.g., autotour route, Visitor Contact Station, interpretation kiosks). Effects are considered significant if the 

gain or loss in total personal income stemming from expenditures associated with the Refuge exceed 

5 percent of the total personal incomes of the counties in the economic influence area.

At times the Refuge receives funding allocations for capital improvements for facilities including but 

not limited to buildings, water management infrastructure, and roads. Spending associated with these 

activities results in local economic effects. In addition to providing salaries and benefits, the Refuge 

purchased goods and services totaling $128,000 in 2012, approximately 25% of which was spent 

locally in the Jefferson County economy. Under Alternative 1, an additional $78,000 would be spent 

on one-time project costs over the 15 year lifetime of the CCP. Alternatives 2 and 3 require a higher 

level of staffing and expenditure on habitat restoration, public use programs, and infrastructure than 

Alternative 1. In Alternatives 2 and 3, $137,500-$148,000 (an additional $10,000-$20,000) would be 

spent annually on goods and services. Expenditures for one time projects, including infrastructure 

and capital improvements (Refuge office and Visitor Contact Center), habitat restoration projects, 

and scientific studies needed to accomplish habitat restoration and adaptive management of the 

Refuge, total $1,161,000 (Alternative 2) and $1,195,000 (Alternative 3). 

All alternatives would have a minor positive effect on the local economy. Expenditures over the 15-

year lifetime of the CCP would total $5.3M under Alternative 1, $8.6M under Alternative 2, and 

$8.9M under Alternative 3. All alternatives would have a positive economic benefit; however, 

Alternative 1 would have the least economic benefit locally as a direct result of Refuge expenditures, 

with fewer jobs and less personal income generated than Alternatives 2 and 3. The effect of 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would still be minor in terms of the overall economy of Jefferson County. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

6-84 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

Payment in Lieu of Taxes: Under Federal law, local governments may be directly compensated 

through various programs for losses to their property tax bases due to the presence of federally 

owned land. These lands cannot be taxed, though they may create demand for services such as fire 

protection, or police cooperation. The most applicable program, administered by the Department of 

the Interior (DOI), is called “Payments in Lieu of Taxes,” or PILT. Lands within the National 

Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) that are withdrawn from the public domain are eligible for PILT, 

and those that are acquired are not (Corn 1998). There are no NWRS lands within the State of Idaho 

that are eligible for PILT (Corn 1998). 

Refuge Recreation: The Refuge also provides an indirect economic impact on the local economy 

through the recreational activities that it offers. These activities—wildlife viewing, photography, 

environmental education and interpretation, waterfowl and upland game bird hunting, hiking, bicycle 

riding, cross-country skiing, and snowshoeing—would all continue under all alternatives. In 

Alternatives 2 and 3 a limited elk hunt would be established on the Refuge. People that participate in 

these activities on the Refuge frequently buy goods and services in nearby towns (e.g., food, lodging, 

fuel, equipment) and are contributing to the local economy. The action alternatives (2 and 3) would 

provide a minor positive effect to the local economy through the increased visitation that would 

result from better facilities and additional programs. 

It is estimated that visitors to a single refuge spend about $1.7 million per year in the local economy 

(Caudill and Henderson 2005). Every $1 in the refuge budget, the authors estimate, generates $4.29 

in economic benefit locally. Note that this ratio broadly compares the magnitude of recreational 

benefits and the refuge budget and should not be used as a benefit-cost ratio (Caudill and Henderson 

2005). 

Future visitation will be affected by demographic changes and recreation trends as well as the 

facilities and programs offered by the Refuge. Based on current visitation patterns and predicted 

trends, we predict that the greatest increase in visitation to Camas National Wildlife Refuge, both by 

percentage increase and total number of visitors, will be from visitors who engage in wildlife 

observation and photography. With additional support for environmental education and interpretation 

in the Action Alternatives, participation in these programs would also be expected to increase. 

Overall recreational visitation is expected to increase similarly in Alternatives 2 and 3, because of 

improvements to visitor facilities and expanded capability to offer visitor programs. As a result, these 

alternatives may generate a few local jobs and have a slightly greater local economic effect, than 

Alternative 1. 

Visitors from outside of the local area spend more money in the local area (motels, restaurants) while 

recreating on the Refuge than local residents do. Spending by nonresidents due to choosing the 

Refuge as a recreation destination thus represents an infusion of money into the local economy that 

would not occur if the Refuge were not there. If the Refuge did not exist, local residents would 

possibly take advantage of similar recreational opportunities nearby, such as local state parks. To the 

extent that nearby areas could replicate the recreational experiences provided at the Refuge, the

expenditures made by these visitors may have taken place inside the county regardless of the 

Refuge’s existence. Hence, the analysis may overestimate somewhat the contribution of the Refuge 

to the local economy. The establishment of an elk hunt on Camas NWR may have a small positive 

impact on the local economy both by sales of goods and services to hunters, and by reducing 

agricultural depredation on adjacent private lands. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-85 

Refuge Agriculture: Agriculture and food processing are the largest basic industries and dominate 

the economy of Jefferson County; however, government and trade sectors provide the largest 

employment (Idaho Department of Commerce 2010). 

The majority of the small grain farming undertaken on the Refuge is conducted by local area farmers 

working under cooperative farming agreements with the refuges. The basic premise for the 

cooperative farming program is that the Refuge is able to provide green alfalfa forage crops for 

migratory birds and the local area farmers are then able to harvest alfalfa hay during the summer 

months. Cost is always a consideration when planting cereal grain crops. In exchange for being able 

to harvest the alfalfa, cooperative farmers plant 20 acres of small grain, which is left for wildlife. The 

Refuge would like to continue the cooperative farming program, but rising costs associated with 

farming as well as increased wildlife browsing may lead to declining profits for cooperative farmers 

on the Refuge. Should cooperative farming no longer be practical for local farmers, the Refuge 

would continue to farm the acres indicated in Alternative 2 with refuge personnel, equipment, and 

funding. 

Agriculture yields are higher with irrigation, but crops grown without irrigation will always be less 

expensive. Should cooperative farming become less attractive to local farmers or not cost effective 

for the Refuge, the Refuge would transition from irrigated alfalfa to the dry land grain and alfalfa in 

the Preferred Alternative. 

In the State of Idaho the price of hay and the number of acres harvested has remained fairly stable 

over the last 20 years. Total hayed acres harvested have fluctuated between 900,000 and 1.2 million 

acres over the time period of consideration. Hay prices have remained quite stable in the $80-$100 

per ton range until 2007 when the price of alfalfa hay began to skyrocket. By 2008 the price of hay in 

Idaho had peaked in excess of $200/ton and by 2009 hay prices had once again come into check at 

values of $115/ton (Greenway and Gray 2011). 

Haying would occur on 150 irrigated acres annually in Alternatives 1 and 2, and 150 dryland acres in 

Alternative 3. Extrapolating the yield of approximately 0.50 tons/acre from Camas NWR generates 

an estimated annual yield of 75 tons of hay from 150 acres in Alternatives1 and 2, and 35 tons or less 

in Alternative 3, since hayfields would no longer be irrigated under this alternative. Therefore, the 

total annual production in Alternatives 1 and 2 is approximately worth $6,500. Alternative 3 would 

generate $3,250 or less in hay value or revenues. 

The IDFG has not established elk population goals or bull:cow ratio objectives for GMU 63, and 

essentially conducts depredation control of the elk herd through recreational hunting, by offering 

general tag opportunities. Currently, elk hunting is not allowed on the Refuge. At the request of 

IDFG, Camas NWR would offer a refuge recreational elk hunt to assist in minimizing elk 

depredation complaints in the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2) and Alternative 3. Up to 20 elk 

could be harvested on the Refuge, but total harvest in GMU 63 may increase because elk are being 

dispersed off the Refuge, onto areas open to all hunters. This may result in reduction of herd size, 

reduction in depredation, and minor economic benefits to local farmers. 

Regional Economy: In 2011, Idaho had a total personal income (TPI) of approximately $52.1 billion 

with a 2per capita income of $32,881 among a population of 1,584,985 people. In comparison to the 

State of Idaho, the per capita income in Jefferson County, Idaho (population 26,301) was $27,612 

(Idaho Department of Labor 2011). A detailed economic analysis of the alternatives was not 

completed to determine the multiplier effects the alternatives would have on the county. Based on the 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

6-86 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

background information presented above and the estimated changes in refuge spending under 

Alternatives 2 and 3, the Refuge’s effect on total personal income in Jefferson County under 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would be minor because the effect of refuge expenditures on the county TPI 

would not exceed 5 percent of the total. 

6.17 Cumulative Effects 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, which implement the provisions of NEPA, 

define several different types of effects that should be evaluated in an environmental document, 

including direct, indirect, and cumulative effects (40 CFR § 1508.7). Direct and indirect effects are 

addressed in the resource-specific sections of this chapter (Sections 6.1-6.15). This section addresses 

cumulative effects. 

According to the CEQ, cumulative effects can result from the incremental effects of a project when 

added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the area, regardless of the 

entity undertaking the action. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but 

cumulatively significant actions over a period of time. This analysis is intended to consider the 

interaction of activities at Camas NWR and with other actions occurring over a larger spatial and 

temporal frame of reference. 

It should be noted that the cumulative effects analysis has essentially been completed by virtue of the 

comprehensive nature by which the direct and indirect effects associated with implementing the 

various alternatives has been presented in the previous sections of this chapter and in the 

Compatibility Determinations (Appendix B). The analysis in this section primarily focuses on effects 

associated with reasonably foreseeable future events and/or actions regardless of what entity 

undertakes that action. 

6.17.1 Effects from Reasonably Foreseeable Future Refuge Activities 

The potential for more benefit to conservation of native species of the Upper Snake Region exists 

under all alternatives, because the Service would develop a land protection plan. Under all 

alternatives, a Preliminary Project Proposal (PPP) would be developed within three years of CCP 

completion. If the PPP by the USFWS Director is approved, a more detailed Land Protection 

Planning (LPP) process would then be initiated to address large-scale land protection alternatives and 

help to prioritize adjoining lands that are most critical for protection of refuge water quality and 

quantity; have the highest quality sage-steppe and wetland habitat; and provide the best opportunities 

for habitat restoration. This plan would provide a mechanism for further protection and restoration of 

habitats outside the current refuge area via easements, acquisition, cooperative agreement, and/or 

other means, for further protection and restoration of native habitats that may presently, or could in 

the future, support rare species. 

On a smaller scale the Refuge would actively pursue land protection and acquisition within and 

adjacent to the boundary of Camas NWR. Land protection actions would be prioritized for: lands 

with existing commitments to purchase or protect; lands with active water rights attached to them; 

biological important habitat for wildlife species; significance of the area to refuge management and 

administration; and lands with existing or potential threats to wildlife habitat, which need to be 

remediated. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-87 

6.17.2 Potential Effects from Climate Change 

Climate change in the western United States has been particularly noticeable in the last century, with 

increases averaging 0.5-2°C (0.9-3.6°F) in mean annual temperatures, depending on elevation (Diaz 

and Eischeid 2007; Pederson et al. 2010). Warmer winters and springs have resulted in more 

precipitation falling as rain instead of snow, reduced snowpack, earlier snowmelt, earlier streamflow 

from snowmelt, an eight to ten day advance in the onset of spring on average across the West, more 

frequent large fires, and possibly an increase in insect outbreaks and plant mortality (Breshears et al. 

2005; Cayan et al. 2001; Knowles et al. 2006; Mote et al. 2005; Pederson et al. 2010; Raffa et al. 

2008; Stewart et al. 2005; Westerling et al. 2006). The preponderance of evidence suggests that the 

magnitude of these changes has been influenced by human activity. Barnett et al. (2008) used nested 

climate and hydrological models to attribute most of these changes in the West to greenhouse gas 

emissions and their impact on global and regional climate. Another modeling study suggests that 

these changes are caused by a blend of anthropogenic forces Pacific and Atlantic decadal variability 

(Wang et al. 2008). 

Projected rise in temperature for the coming century is expected to increase the proportion of winter 

precipitation falling as rain, increase the frequency of winter flooding, reduce snowpack, increase 

winter streamflow, result in earlier peak streamflow, and decrease late spring and summer 

streamflows (Hamlet and Lettenmaier 1999; Hamlet et al. 2007; Mote 2003, Mote et al. 2005; Payne 

et al. 2004; Tague et al. 2008). 

Unless otherwise noted, the projected trends, cumulative effects to wetland, riparian, upland, and fire 

regimes from climate change were abridged from Ashton (2010); “Observed and Projected 

Ecological Responses to Climate Change in the Rocky Mountains and Upper Columbia Basin”. 

Potential Effects of Warming to Hydrology and Wetland Habitats 

Wetlands are among the most significantly altered ecosystems in North America due to stressors such 

as changes in hydrology from flow regulation, groundwater pumping, fill placement, overgrazing, 

atmospheric deposition, and biological invasion (Patten 1998; Zedler and Kercher 2005). Over the 

last 200 years, wetland areas have declined approximately 56 percent in Idaho (OTA 1993). Like 

other freshwater ecosystems, wetlands are considered extremely vulnerable to climate change, which 

is projected to diminish their number and extent and cause a decline in associated flora and fauna 

(Field et al. 2007). Wetlands are already facing widespread degradation so that even small reductions 

in precipitation could exacerbate wetland loss. 

Greater changes in wetlands are expected to result from altered precipitation affecting soil and 

vegetation conditions (Winter 2000). Many models project wetter winters in the region, but any 

positive effect of increased winter flows for wetlands is expected to be outweighed by drier summers 

and warmer temperatures. It is predicted that wetland response will first become evident in water 

table changes and alterations in the formation and duration of soil anoxic conditions. Alterations in 

the composition of short-lived and then longer-lived perennial plants will follow. Soils may be 

altered after many decades unless fire occurs. Alterations of plant cover and soil permeability may 

act in a feedback loop to further modify the hydrological cycle. Some wetlands, such as wet 

meadows, are particularly sensitive to hydrological changes and a reduction in the water table of a 

few inches could convert wetlands to upland habitats (Kusler 2006). 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

6-88 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

Potential Effects of Warming to Upland Native Habitats 

Experimental work suggests that warming, particularly when coupled with drier conditions, can 

decrease sagebrush and grassland productivity and alter species composition (Poore et al. 2009). 

However, productivity is influenced by species diversity and grazing intensity (De Valpine and Harte 

2001). Warming experiments in montane grassland enhanced the growth of sagebrush compared to 

herbaceous species (Perfors et al. 2003). However, grasslands do not appear to be as responsive to 

warming as other community types such as tundra and forests (Rustad et al. 2001). Because 

grasslands are primarily limited by water and nutrient availability, an alteration in precipitation and 

fertilization may have larger effects than does temperature change (Parton et al. 1994). Changes in 

the frequency, duration, or quantity of precipitation can cause large changes in productivity, 

composition, and associated fire regimes (Knapp et al. 2002). Precipitation increases may favor 

invasive species. For example, increases in snow were shown to increase the invasion of forbs into 

mixed grass prairie (Blumenthal et al. 2008). The invasion of sagebrush steppe by cheatgrass has 

been shown to be strongly influenced by temperature and precipitation (Chambers et al. 2009). 

Climate variability has been shown to promote stability in grasslands by facilitating the coexistence 

of different plant species (Adler et al. 2006). Increased atmospheric CO2 may promote species 

compositional changes (Smith et al. 2000). There has been much work suggesting that rising CO2

concentrations may differentially affect grasses. Enrichment experiments in the shortgrass steppe 

have seen moderate increases in grasses (Morgan et al. 2004) and a large increase in shrub biomass 

(Morgan et al. 2007). Weed invasion may also be driven by atmospheric CO2 in semiarid ecosystems 

(Smith et al. 2000). 

Potential Effects to Riparian Habitat and Camas Creek 

Climate change may reduce water quality due to increased erosion and decreased dilution of 

pollutants. Decreases in snow cover and more winter rain on bare soil are likely to lengthen the 

erosion season, which could lead to average phosphorus concentrations in streams increasing 25 to 

35 percent (Walker et al. 2001). Predicted increases in the severity and frequency of floods may also 

contribute to increases in erosion. This will affect ecological processes that are sensitive to the 

changes of high flow events, such as habitat stability, biodiversity, and trophic structure (Hamlet and 

Lettenmaier 2007; Konrad and Booth 2005). Degradation of water quality will likely lead to a 

reduction in or loss of sensitive stream species (Waters 1995). 

Increased air and water temperatures and subsequent changes in hydrologic regime—especially 

changes in the timing, magnitude, and duration of high and low flows—are the principal sources of 

climate change impacts to Camas Creek. However, several other potential climate change effects are 

perhaps not as intuitively obvious. An example of such an indirect impact is increased sediment 

transport from tributary watersheds, leading to either direct fish mortality or additive physiological 

stress (SWCCI 2010). Another subtle but perhaps very significant impact is increased dust deposition 

due to climate change and poor watershed management. Research done in the central Rocky 

Mountains shows that increased dust deposition leads to earlier snowmelt and altered streamflow 

hydrology (Painter et al. 2007). 

Potential Effects from Wildfires 

Most evidence supports the postulate that future climate changes will cause increases in the 

frequency, intensity, severity, and average annual extent of wildland fires (Field et al. 2007; Ryan et 

al. 2008). Models project that numerous aspects of fire behavior will change, including longer fire 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-89 

seasons, more days with high fire danger, increased natural ignition frequency and fire severity, more 

frequent large fires, and more episodes of extreme fire behavior (Bachelet et al. 2007; Brown et al. 

2004; Westerling and Bryant 2008). The best evidence, however, points to increases in the average 

annual area burned (Bachelet et al. 2007; Flannigan et al. 2006; McKenzie et al. 2004). For instance, 

McKenzie and colleagues (2004) predict that a mean temperature increase of 2.2°C (4.0°F) will 

increase the annual area burned by wildfire by factor of 1.5 to five. In another study, it is predicted 

that the median annual acres burned in the Upper Columbia Basin and northern Rockies would 

increase from about 0.5 million acres (0.2 million ha) in 2006 to 0.8 million acres (0.3 million ha) in 

the 2020s, 1.1 million acres (0.4 million ha) in the 2040s, and 2.0 million acres (1 million ha) in the 

2080s (Littell et al. 2009). 

While there is strong evidence that climate change will increase the number of fires, and particularly 

the area burned each year, uncertainties remain. First, historical patterns of precipitation are linked to 

fire and broad weather patterns that drive fire growth, such as high pressure ridges and wind patterns, 

and models differ in their projections for these climate variables. Other factors, such as increases in 

non-native, annual grass invasions, may alter fire dynamics, making predictions based on climate 

alone difficult. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, if fires and other stand-replacing disturbances 

occur more frequently, the resulting landscape pattern may limit the size of future fires and total area 

burned (Collins et al. 2009). 

6.17.3 Other Reasonably Foreseeable Events and Activities from Others 

Development and Population Growth in Jefferson, Bonneville and Madison Counties 

Communities in the Upper Snake basin are presently encountering various intensities of growth and 

development due to new government (DOE Idaho National Laboratory), residential, commercial, and 

agricultural development. Since 2002 Jefferson County’s population has steadily increased to 26,684 

in 2012. Between 2002 and 2012 Jefferson County was the second fastest growing county in the 

state. The county is part of the Idaho Falls Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) and sits between the 

high-growth counties of Bonneville and Madison, which affects Jefferson since it gets their overflow 

(Idaho Department of Labor 2013a).

Bonneville County grew 25 percent from 85,060 in 2002 to 106,684 in 2012. The county has 

experienced steady growth in the last decade with an average population increase of 1,759 a year for 

the past five years. The largest increase was 3.12 percent between 2006 to 2007. Besides being a 

medical and retail hub for a large geographic area, diversity and an emphasis on economic 

development help the area grow (Idaho Department of Labor 2013b).

Madison County’s population increased 32 percent between 2002 and 2012, primarily because of the 

2004 conversion of two-year Ricks College to Brigham Young University-Idaho. The recordbreaking enrollment the school had been experiencing has continued, pushing economic growth, 

especially through construction of student housing and campus expansion. BYU-Idaho plans to 

further expand its student population through 2015. The county has experienced tremendous growth 

since 2002, increasing by almost 9,000. A quarter of that occurred between 2003 and 2004. Over the 

last decade Madison County was the fourth fastest growing county in the state (Idaho Department of 

Labor 2013c). 

The Camas NWR CCP does not directly address the above mentioned growth issues associated with 

the Idaho Falls MSA. However, refuge support and involvement in regional conservation initiatives 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

6-90 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

will help maintain important habitat for a variety of fish, mammals, and migratory birds threatened 

by increasing cumulative habitat losses from development pressures and dispersed recreation. 

Effects of Endangered Species 

On March 10, 2010, the USFWS completed a court ordered assessment for the listing of the greater 

sage-grouse under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and issued a “warranted, but precluded” ruling. 

The USFWS determination is based upon the latest scientific information from the U.S. Geological 

Society (USGS) published in Studies in Avian Biology that details sage-grouse population declines, 

habitat loss and fragmentation of sagebrush ecosystems resulting from the cumulative effects of a 

variety of causes. 

While the sage-grouse’s decline warrants ESA listing, it must be delayed due to the backlog of other 

species that are already candidates for ESA listing. The decision means that the status of the greater 

sage-grouse will be evaluated every twelve months along with the status of the 279 other ESA 

candidate species. Making the greater sage-grouse a candidate species allows agencies like the 

Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service to treat the bird as if it were an endangered species, 

and requires state and Federal land management agencies to consult with USFWS whenever a 

proposed development would encroach upon greater sage-grouse habitat. 

If the status of the greater sage grouse is more perilous in subsequent years, USFWS will be more 

likely formally list the bird under the ESA. When a species is formally proposed for listing, the 

endangered species designation process lasts about a year. While a species remains a candidate for 

listing, it still is possible to keep it off of the endangered species list if it shows recovery progress. 

Effects of Local Conservation Partnerships 

Friends Groups within the National Wildlife Refuge System have become numerous over the past ten 

years. Friends Groups essentially “adopt” individual refuges or complexes, advocate for their needs, 

and provide both financial and volunteer support to accomplish many essential tasks and projects. 

Friends Groups not only directly benefit refuges, but also empower members to become advocates 

for refuges, and conduct outreach that increases public awareness of, and involvement with, national 

wildlife refuges. This occurs both through direct contact and increasingly, through the Web and social 

media. Historically, Camas NWR has had many “friends” that performed a variety of tasks and work 

projects, but no official Friends Group. In 2011, a Friends Group for Camas NWR was formed and 

has received their 501(c)3 nonprofit status. It is important for the Refuge to support this new Friends 

Group since it will play a critical role in providing volunteer support for the Refuge’s biological and 

public use programs, and as an advocate for protecting refuge wildlife and habitat. 

Regional Conservation Partnerships 

Several conservation initiatives and partnerships have gained momentum in the Upper Snake River 

watershed or have potential for development. The aggregate effect of these partnerships will have a 

positive influence in implementation of site-specific and landscape scale conservation of imperiled 

resources within the watershed. 

 Idaho Fish and Game: Cooperatively managing the Refuge and WPAs and the Marty tract to 

preserve winter grounds for elk and mule deer in the area and preserve sage-grouse habitat. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-91 

 Pheasants Forever: Management of the recently acquired Marty tract to be managed 

cooperatively for wildlife. 

 North American Grouse Partnership: Upland habitat management partnerships for the benefit 

and conservation of greater sage-grouse. 

 Ducks Unlimited, Inc.: Wetland habitat management partner in restoration of Camas Creek 

riparian channel and associated wetlands within refuge boundary. 

 Audubon Society: Protect, preserve and enhance habitat important to neo-tropical migrants. 

 Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation: Partnerships to preserve and enhance elk habitat, esp. 

wintering grounds. 

 Local Photography Clubs: Cooperatively develop a refuge-wide code of photographer’s 

ethics to continue to provide quality wildlife observation experiences, protect sensitive 

wildlife, and enhance the experience for all who visit the Refuge. 

 Continental Divide Cooperative Weed Management Area: Cooperatively using IPM 

approaches to treat noxious weeds within the Camas/Beaver Creek Watersheds. 

 Dubois Grouse Days: Working to preserve sage-grouse and habitat through environmental 

education and interpretation. 

 Upper Snake River sage-grouse Working Group: Preservation of sage-grouse and associated 

habitat. 

 Great Basin LLC: To enhance understanding of the effects of climate change and other 

natural and human disturbances across the region and promotes coordinated science-based 

actions to enable human and natural communities to respond and/or adapt to those conditions. 

 Friends of Camas NWR: The Refuge Friends Group has “adopted” Camas NWR and 

advocates for the Refuge’s needs, and provides both financial and volunteer support to 

accomplish many essential tasks and projects. 

 State Department of Water Resources: Seeking collaborative solutions to assuring riparian 

water rights in perpetuity and undertaking habitat restoration efforts within Camas Creek. 

Groundwater Pumping and Snake River Aquifer Depletion 

The purpose of water right adjudication is to catalog and confirm through the court all water rights 

and to which property those water rights belong, binding all property owners and parties to the court 

decree of those water rights. A massive administrative and legal process began in 1987 designed to 

sort out more than 150,000 individual claims for water rights in the Snake River Basin area. 

The State of Idaho administers water rights according to the Prior Appropriation Doctrine. Idaho 

fully recognized the need to implement conjunctive management of its water resources in 1984 when 

the Idaho Supreme Court determined that hydropower water rights of Idaho Power Company at Swan 

Falls Dam were not subordinated to junior upstream irrigation rights. The case alerted water users in 

the basin that groundwater pumping for irrigation was impacting spring discharge and flow in the 

Snake River, and that surface and groundwater rights were to be jointly administered. In 1992, a 

moratorium was imposed on new irrigation pumping on the eastern Snake River Plain (Idaho 

Department of Water Resources [IDWR] 1996), which is still in place. Subsequently, IDWR 

promulgated conjunctive management rules to provide a mechanism to stem conflicts between 

surface and groundwater users when water supplies are limited. IDWR has also formed water 

measurement districts in the Eastern Snake River Plain that require the measurement and reporting of 

groundwater pumping at rates exceeding 0.24 cfs, or irrigating areas greater than 5 acres. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

6-92 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

Depletion of spring flows and declining groundwater levels are a collective effect of drought, 

changes in surface-water irrigation acreage and practices, and groundwater pumping. A recent model 

study (IDWR 1997) indicates that the collective effects of all groundwater pumping within the 

boundaries of the eastern Snake River Plain depletes spring discharge and flow of the Snake River by 

about 900,000 acre-feet per year (1,200 cfs). The same study projects that changes in surface water 

irrigation practices have depleted the spring discharge by about 500,000 acre-feet per year (700 cfs). 

IDWR and the courts are placed in the position of determining the degree to which junior 

groundwater users have injured senior surface-water users. Isolating cause and effect relationships on 

a case by case basis will be difficult and costly. 

Although most water users and managers accept the concept that groundwater use depletes surface 

water supplies, it is not necessarily accepted that depletion constitutes legal injury. The conjunctive 

management rules provide for weighing the time of year in which depletion is experienced, the 

efficiency of use of the senior water users, and the maximum economic benefits of all uses, against 

the possibility of a “futile call.” 

The State’s conjunctive management rules allow junior priority water users to mitigate injury to 

senior surface and groundwater users. One of the mechanisms is to provide supplemental recharge to 

the aquifer. Both surface and groundwater users have embraced artificial or managed recharge as a 

means of avoiding future conflicts and litigation. 

Genetically Modified Organisms 

Pollen blowing in the wind or carried by pollinator species may be capable of transferring genetically 

engineered traits, such as herbicide resistance and pest resistance, to closely related wild plants. 

Genetically engineered plants with weedy wild relatives are of particular concern. If expressed in the 

genetic background of a weed species, a transgene could increase the fitness of the weed in nature 

(Stewart et al. 2000). Laboratory studies have shown non-target pollinator species may also be 

harmed by wind-blown pollen. Monarch butterfly larvae have been shown in both laboratory and 

field tests (Jesse and Obrycki 2000; Losey et al. 1999) to suffer growth and mortality effects after 

feeding on milkweed plants dusted by corn pollen that was genetically engineered to express a Bt, a 

bacterial toxin. 

Pesticides

The Refuge can select less toxic pesticides and standardize operational procedures to minimize the 

immediate and accumulative effect of pesticides in the environment. However, the Refuge has no 

control over surrounding land-use and agricultural practices, thereby increasing the risk of acute and 

chronic exposures to wildlife from herbicides. Acute exposure is a single exposure or multiple brief 

exposures occurring within a short time (e.g., 24 hours or less in humans). Chronic exposures are 

those that extend over the average lifetime or for a significant portion of the lifetime of the species 

(USFS 2005). Herbicides from the Refuge would result in a moderate to minor risk from acute 

chemical exposure. However, unquantified and increasing risks from acute and chronic exposure may 

occur via the aggregate impacts from refuge herbicide applications when combined with private, 

county, and State herbicide applications within the Upper Snake River Plain. 

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-93 

6.18 References

Adler, P. B., J. HilleRisLambers, P. C. Kyriakidis, Q. F. Guan, and J. M. Levine. 2006. Climate 

variability has a stabilizing effect on the coexistence of prairie grasses. Proceedings of the 

National Academy of Sciences (USA) 103:12793–12798. 

Aitchison, S.W., S.W. Carothers, and R.R. Johnson. 1977. Some ecological considerations associated 

with river recreation management. Pages 222-225 in: Proc.: symposium on river recreation 

management and research. General Technical Report NC-28. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central For. Exp. Sta., St. Paul. MN. 455 pp. 

ALA (American Lands Alliance). 2003. Status review and petition to list the greater sage-grouse 

(Centrocercus urophasianus) as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. 

American Lands Alliance. Chandler, AZ. 218 pp. 

Alcock, J. 1993. Animal behavior: an evolutionary approach. 5th edition. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer 

Associates. 

Allee, W.C. 1951. Cooperation among animals, with human implications. Henry Schuman, New 

York. 233 pp. 

Allee, W.C. 1938. The social life of animals. Norton, New York. 293 pp. 

Anderson, D.R., R.C. Herron, and B. Reiswig. 1986. Estimates of annual survival rates of trumpeter 

swans banded 1949-82 near Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, Montana. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 50:218-221. 

Anthony, R.G. and F.B. Isaacs. 1989. Characteristics of bald eagle nest sites in Oregon. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 53:148-159. 

Anthony, R.G., R.J. Steidl, and K. McGarigal. 1995. Recreation and bald eagles in the Pacific 

Northwest. Pages 223-241 in: R.L. Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and 

recreationists: coexistence through management and research. Washington, D.C.: Island 

Press. 

Apfelbaum, S.I. and C.E. Sams. 1987. Ecology and control of reed canary grass. Natural Areas 

Journal 7(2):69-72. 

Ashton, I.W. 2010. Observed and projected ecological response to climate change in the Rocky 

Mountains and Upper Columbia Basin: a synthesis of current scientific literature. Natural 

Resource Report NPS/ROMN/NRR—2010/220. National Park Service. Fort Collins, CO. 81 

pp. 

Bachelet, D., J. Lenihan, R. Drapek, and R. Neilson. 2007. VEMAP vs. VINCERA: A DGVM 

sensitivity to differences in climate scenarios. Global and Planetary Change 64:38-48. 

Baker, M.C. 1979. Morphological correlates of habitat selection in a community of shorebirds 

(Charadriiformes). Oikos 33:121-126. 

Barnett, T.P., D.W. Pierce, H.G. Hidalgo, C. Bonfils, B.D. Santer, T. Das, G. Bala, A.W. Wood, T. 

Nozawa, A.A. Mirin, D.R. Cayan, and M.D. Dettinger. 2008. Human-induced changes in the 

hydrology of the western United States. Science 319:1080-1083. 

Barrett, S.W. 1988. Fire suppression’s effects on forest succession within a central Idaho wilderness. 

West. J. Appl. For. 3, 76-80. 

Bartels, R., J.D. Dell, R.L. Knight, and G. Schaefer. 1985. Dead and down woody material. Pages 

172-186 in: E.R. Brown, ed. Management of wildlife and fish habitats in forests of western 

Oregon and Washington. Publication Number R6-F&WL-192-1985. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, OR. 

Baydack, R.K. 1986. Sharp-tailed grouse response to lek disturbance in the Carberry Sand Hills of 

Manitoba. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. 83 pp. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

6-94 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

Belanger, L. and J. Bedard. 1989. Responses of staging greater snow geese to human disturbance. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 53:713-719. 

Belanger, L. and J. Bedard. 1990. Energetic cost of man-induced disturbance to staging snow geese. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 54(1):36-41. 

Belanger, L. and J. Bedard. 1995. Hunting and waterfowl. Pages 243-256 in: R.L. Knight and K.J. 

Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through management and research. 

Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 

Bettinger, K.A. and R. Milner. 2000. Sandhill crane (Grus canadensis). In: E.M. Larsen and N. 

Nordstrom, eds. Management recommendations for Washington’s priority species, Volume 

IV: Birds. Available at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00026/wdfw00026.pdf.

Accessed December 18, 2012. 

Bilby, R.E. and P.A. Bisson. 1998. Function and distribution of large woody debris. Pages 324-346 

in: R.J. Naiman and R.E. Bilby, eds. River ecology and management: lessons from the 

Pacific Coastal ecoregion. New York: Springer-Verlag. 

Bishop, A. A. and M. Vrtiska. 2008. Effects of the Wetland Reserve Program on waterfowl carrying 

capacity in the Rainwater Basin region of southcentral Nebraska. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. Grand Island, NE. 54 pp. 

Bisson, P.A., R.E. Bilby, M.D. Bryant, C.A. Dolloff, G.B. Grette, R.A. House, M.L. Murphy, K.V. 

Koski, and J.R. Sedell. 1987. Large woody debris in forested streams in the Pacific 

Northwest: past, present and future. Pages 143-190 in: E.O. Salo and T.W. Cundy, eds. 

Streamside management: forestry and fisheries interactions. Contribution No. 57. Institute of 

Forest Resources, University of Washington. Seattle. 

Blakesley, J.A. and K.P. Reese. 1988. Avian use of campground and noncampground sites in riparian 

zones. Journal of Wildlife Management 52:399-402. 

Blumenthal, D., R.A. Chimner, J.M. Welker, and J.A. Morgan. 2008. Increased snow facilitates plant 

invasion in mixedgrass prairie. New Phytologist 179:440-448. 

Bolduc, F. and A.D. Afton. 2004. Relationships between wintering waterbirds and invertebrates, 

sediments and hydrology of coastal marsh ponds. Waterbirds 27:333-341. 

Bollinger E.K., P.B. Bollinger, and T.A. Gavin. 1990. Effects of hay-cropping on eastern populations 

of the bobolink. Wildlife Society Bulletin 18(2):142-150. 

Bossard, C.C., J.M. Randall, and M.C. Hoshovsky. 2000. Invasive plants of California wildlands. 

University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. URL: 

http://groups.ucanr.org/ceppc/Invasive_Plants_of_California's_Wildlands/

Bottrill, M., L.N. Joseph, J. Carwardine, M. Bode, C. Cook, E.T. Game, H. Grantham, S. Kark, S. 

Linke, E. McDonald-Madden, R.L. Pressey, S. Walker, K.A. Wilson, and H.P. Possingham. 

2008. Is conservation triage just smart decision-making? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 

24:183-184. 

Bowker, J.M., D.B.K. English, and H.K. Cordell. 1999. Outdoor recreation participation and 

consumption: projections 2000 to 2050. Pages 323-350 in: H.K. Cordell, C.J. Betz, J.M. 

Bowker, and others. Outdoor recreation in American life: a national assessment of demand 

and supply trends. Champagne, IL: Sagamore Press, Inc. 

Boyle, S.A. and F.B. Samson. 1985. Effects of nonconsumptive recreation on wildlife: a review. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 13:110. 

Braun, C.E., K.W. Harmon, J.A. Jackson, and C.D. Littlefield. 1978. Management of national 

wildlife refuges in the United States: its impacts on birds. Wilson Bulletin 90(2):309-321. 

Breshears, D.D., N.S. Cobb, P.M. Rich, K.P. Price, C.D. Allen, R.G. Balice, W.H. Romme, J.H. 

Kastens, M.L. Floyd, J. Belnap, J.J. Anderson, O.B. Myers, and C.W. Meyer. 2005. Regional 

vegetation die-off in response to global-change-type drought. Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102:15,144-15,148. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-95 

Brickle, N.W., D.G.C. Harper, N.J. Aebischer, and S.H. Cockayne. 2000. Effects of agricultural 

intensification on the breeding success of corn buntings Miliaria calandra. Journal of 

Applied Ecology 37:742-755. 

Brode, J.M. and R.B. Bury. 1984. The importance of riparian systems to amphibians and reptiles. 

Pages 30-36 in: R.E. Warner and K.M. Hendrix, eds. California riparian systems. Berkeley: 

University of California Press. 

Brookes, A. 1988. Channelized Rivers: Perspectives for Environmental Management. John Wiley 

and Sons. Chichester, U.K. 

Brookes, A. 1987. Restoring the sinuosity of artificially straightened stream channels. Environmental 

Geology and Water Sciences 10(1): 3-41. 

Brown, C.R. 1990. Avian use of native and exotic riparian habitats on the Snake River, Idaho. M.S. 

thesis. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. 60 pp. 

Brown, T.K. 2002. Creating and maintaining wildlife, insect, and fish habitat structures in dead 

wood. Pages 883-892 in: W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr, P.J. Shea, B.E. Valentine, C.P. 

Weatherspoon, and T.E. Lisle, technical coordinators. Proceedings of the symposium on the 

ecology and management of dead wood in western forests, November 2-4, 1999, Reno, NV. 

General Technical Report PSW-GTR-181. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Research Station. Albany, CA. 

Brown, T.J., B.L. Hall, and A.L. Westerling. 2004. The impact of twenty-first century climate change 

on wildland fire danger in the western United States: an applications perspective. Climatic 

Change 62:365-388. 

Brunson, M.W. and L.E. Kruger. 1996. Introduction: social acceptability in ecosystem management. 

Pages 7-16 in: M.W. Brunson, L.E. Kruger, C.B. Tyler, and S.A. Schroeder, eds. Defining 

social acceptability in ecosystem management: a workshop proceedings. General Technical 

Report PNW-GTR 369. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. Portland, OR. 

Bryant, M.D. 1980. Evolution of large, organic debris after timber harvest: Maybeso Creek, 1949 to 

1978. General Technical Report PNW-69. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 

Buehler, D.A., T.J. Mersmann, J.D. Fraser, and J.K.D. Seegar. 1991. Non-breeding bald eagle 

communal and solitary roosting behavior and roost habitat on the northern Chesapeake Bay. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 55:273-281. 

Bull, E.L. and J. M. Skovlin. 1982. Relationships between avifauna and streamside vegetation. 

Transactions of the North American Wildlife Conference 47:496-506. 

Bunting, S.C., J.L. Kingery, M.A. Hemstrom, M.A. Schroeder, R.A. Gravenmier, and W.J. Hann. 

2002. Altered rangeland ecosystems in the interior Columbia Basin. General Technical 

Report PNW-GTR-553. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Portland, Oregon. 

69 pp. 

Burger, J. 1999. Shorebird squeeze: The pressures of public recreation on waterbird populations. 

1999 Watchable Wildlife Conference in Ft. Myers, Fl. Abstract available from the Florida 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 

Burger, J. 1986. The effect of human activity on shorebirds in two coastal bays in northeastern 

United States. Environmental Conservation 13:123-130. 

Burger, J. 1981. The effect of human activity on birds at a coastal bay. Biological Conservation 

21:231-241. 

Burger, J. and Gochfeld, M. 1991. Human activity influence and diurnal and nocturnal foraging of 

sanderlings (Calidris alba). Condor 93: 259-265. 

Bury, R.B. 1989. Habitat relationships and ecological importance of amphibians and reptiles. Pages 

61-76 in: K.J. Raedeke, ed. Streamside management: riparian wildlife and forestry 

interactions. College of Forest Resources, University of Washington. Seattle. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

6-96 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

Busch, D.E. 1995. Effects of fire on southwestern riparian plant community structure. Southwestern 

Naturalist 40:259-267. 

Butler, S.J. and S. Gillings. 2004. Quantifying the effects of habitat structure on prey detectability 

and accessibility to farmland birds. Ibis 146 (S2):123-130. 

Campbell, R.W., N.K. Dawe, I. McTaggart-Cowan, J.M. Cooper, G.W. Kaiser, et al. 1990. The birds 

of British Columbia. Volume 2: diurnal birds of prey through woodpeckers. Victoria, BC: 

Royal British Columbia Museum. 

Carlisle, J., R. Larranaga, and G. Kaltenecker. 2008. Migration monitoring of songbirds at Camas 

National Wildlife Refuge, Market Lake Wildlife Management Area, and Mud Lake Wildlife 

Management Area in eastern Idaho. Unpublished report, Idaho Bird Observatory. Boise, ID. 

Cassel, J.F. and J.M. Wiehe. 1980. Uses of shelterbelts by birds. Pages 78-87 in: R.M. DeGraaf, 

technical coordinator. Management of western forests and grasslands for nongame birds. 

General Technical Report INT-GTR-86. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. 535 p. 

Caudill, J. and E. Henderson. 2005. Banking on nature 2004: the economic benefits to local 

communities of national wildlife refuge visitation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division 

of Economics. Washington, D.C. 435 pp. 

Cayan, D.R., S.A. Kammerdiener, M.D. Dettinger, J. Caprio, and D.H. Peterson. 2001. Changes in 

the onset of spring in the western United States. Bulletin of the American Meteorological 

Society 82:399-415. 

Chambers, J.C. and J.R. Miller, eds. 2011. Geomorphology, hydrology, and ecology of Great Basin 

meadow complexes—implications for management and restoration. General Technical 

Report RMRS-GTR-258. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. Fort Collins, CO. 12 pp. 

Chambers, J., E. Leger, and E. Goergen. 2009. Cold desert fire and invasive species management: 

resources, strategies, tactics and responses. Rangelands 31:14–20. 

Christiansen, E.M. 1963. Naturalization of Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia L.) in Utah. 

American Midland Naturalist 70:133-137. 

Christiansen, T. 2010. Hunting and sage-grouse: a technical review of harvest management on a 

species of concern in Wyoming. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, 

Wyoming. 19 pp. 

Cline, R., N. Sexton, and S.C. Stewart. 2007. A human dimensions review of human-wildlife 

disturbance: a literature review of impacts, frameworks, and management solutions. OpenFile Report 2007-1111. U.S. Geological Survey. 88 p. 

Cole, D.N. 2004. Environmental impacts of outdoor recreation in wildlands. Pages 107-116 in: M.J. 

Manfredo, J.J. Vaske, B.L. Bruyerre, D.R. Field, and P.J. Brown, eds. Society and natural 

resources: a summary of knowledge. Jefferson, MO: Modern Litho. 

Collazo J.A., D.A. O’Harra, and C.A. Kelly. 2002. Accessible habitat for shorebirds: factors 

influencing its availability and conservation implications. Waterbirds 25(Suppl. 2):13-24. 

Collins, B., J. Miller, A. Thode, M. Kelly, J. van Wagtendonk, and S. Stephens. 2009. Interactions 

among wildland fires in a long-established Sierra Nevada natural fire area. Ecosystems 

12:114-128. 

Collins, W.B. and P.J. Urness. 1983. Feeding behavior and habitat selection of mule deer and elk on 

northern Utah summer range. Journal of Wildlife Management 47(3):646-663. 

Colwell, M.A. and O.W. Taft. 2000. Waterbird communities in managed wetlands of varying water 

depth. Waterbirds 23:45-55. 

Connelly, J. W., S. T. Knick, M. A. Schroeder, and S. J. Stiver. 2004. Conservation assessment of 

Greater sage-grouse and sagebrush habitats. Unpublished report, Western Association of Fish 

and Wildlife Agencies, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-97 

Connelly, J.W., M.A. Schroeder, A.R. Sands, and C.E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to manage sage 

grouse populations and their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(4):967-985. 

Conner, M.M., G.C. White, and D.J. Freddy. 2001. Elk movement in response to early-season 

hunting in northwest Colorado. Journal of Wildlife Management 65:926-940. 

Cook, J.G., B.K. Johnson, R.C. Cook, R.A. Riggs, T. Del Curto, L.D. Bryant, and L.L. Irwin. 2004. 

Effects of summer-autumn nutrition and parturition date on reproduction and survival of elk. 

Wildlife Monographs 155:1-61. 

Cordell, H.K. 2008. The latest on trends in nature-based outdoor recreation. Forest History Today 

(Spring):4-10. Available at: 

http://www.foresthistory.org/Publications/FHT/FHTSpring2008/Cordell.pdf. 

Corn, M.L. 1998. 98-574: PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): somewhat simplified. Congressional 

Research Service Report for Congress, June 24, 1998. Available at: 

http://cnie.org/NLE/CRSreports/risk/rsk-20.cfm

Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2011. Yellow-billed Cuckoo. In All About Birds, URL: 

http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Yellow-billed_Cuckoo/id/ac. 

CPIF (California Partners in Flight). 2000. The draft grassland bird conservation plan: a strategy for 

protecting and managing grassland habitats and associated birds in California. Version 1.0. 

Point Reyes Bird Observatory. Stinson Beach, CA. Available at: 

http://www.prbo.org/calpif/plans.html. 

Crescimanno, G. and K.B. Marcum, editors. 2009. Irrigation, salinization and desertification. 

Evolution of cropping systems as affected by climate change. Aracne Editrice, Roma, Italy. 

Croonquist, M. and R.P. Brooks. 1993. Effects of habitat disturbance on bird communities in riparian 

corridors. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 48:65-70. 

Cross, S.P. 1985. Responses of small mammals to forest riparian perturbations. Pages 269-275 in: 

R.R. Johnson, C.D. Ziebell, D.R. Patten, P.F. Folliot, and R.H. Hamre, technical 

coordinators. Riparian ecosystems and their management: reconciling conflicting uses. 

General Technical Report RM-120. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ft. Collins, CO. 523p. 

Cryne, J.A. 2010. NAGPRA revisited: A twenty-year review of repatriation efforts. American Indian 

Law Review 34(1) (2009-2010):99-122. 

Currier, P.J. 1989. Plant species composition and groundwater levels in a Platte River wet meadow. 

Pages 19-24 in: Prairie pioneers: ecology, history and culture: proceedings of the eleventh 

North American prairie conference. Lincoln, NE. 

Dahlgren, R.B. and C.E. Korschgen. 1992. Human disturbances of waterfowl: an annotated 

bibliography. Resource Publication 188. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Northern Prairie 

Wildlife Research Center. Jamestown, ND. Available at: 

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/disturb/index.htm. Version 16JUL1997. 

Dale, B.C., P.A. Martin, and P.S. Taylor. 1997. Effects of hay management on grassland songbirds in 

Saskatchewan. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25(3):616-626. 

Darnell, T. and E.H. Smith. 2004. Avian use of natural and created salt marsh in Texas, USA. 

Waterbirds 27:355-361. 

DeBano, L. F., and L. J. Schmidt. 1990. Potential for enhancing riparian habitats in the southwestern 

United States with watershed practices. Forest Ecology and Management 33/34385-403. 

DeBano, L. F., and L. J. Schmidt. 1989. Improving southwestern riparian areas with watershed 

management. General Technical Report RM-182. U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain 

Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

De Valpine, P. and J. Harte. 2001. Plant responses to experimental warming in a montane meadow. 

Ecology 82:637-648. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

6-98 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

De Szalay, F.A., and V.H. Resh. 2000. Factors influencing macroinvertebrate colonization of 

seasonal wetlands: responses to emergent plant cover. Freshwater Biology 45(3):95-308. 

DeBano, L. F., and L. J. Schmidt. 1990. Potential for enhancing riparian habitats in the southwestern 

United States with watershed practices. Forest Ecology and Management 33/34: 385-403. 

DeBano, L.F. and L.J. Schmidt. 1989a. Improving southwestern riparian areas through watershed 

management. General Technical Report RM-182. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins, CO. 33 pp. 

DeBano, L.F. and L.J. Schmidt. 1989b. Interrelationship between watershed condition and health of 

riparian areas in southwestern United States. Pages 45-52 in: R.E. Gresswell, B.A Barton, 

and J.L. Kershner (Editors). Practical approaches to riparian resource management, and 

educational workshop: proceedings, May 8-11, 1989.. Bureau of Land Management, Billings, 

MT. 

DeBenedetti, S.H. and D.J. Parsons. 1979. Natural fire in subalpine meadows: a case description 

from the Sierra Nevada. Journal of Forestry 77:477-479. 

Dechant, J.A., M.F. Dinkins, D.H. Johnson, L.D. Igl, C.M. Goldade, and B.R. Euliss. 2003. Effects 

of management practices on grassland birds: vesper sparrow. Northern Prairie Wildlife 

Research Center, Jamestown, ND. Available at: 

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/grasbird/vesp/vesp.htm. 

DellaSala, D.A., A. Martin, R. Spivak, T. Schulke, B. Bird, M. Criley, C. van Daalen, J. Kreilick, R. 

Brown, and G. Aplet. 2003. A Citizen’s Call for Ecological Forest Restoration: Forest 

Restoration Principles and Criteria. Ecological Restoration. 21(1):14-23. 

DeLong, A.K. 2002. Managing visitor use and disturbance of waterbirds—a literature review of 

impacts and mitigation measures. Prepared for Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge. 

Appendix L in: Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge Complex final environmental impact 

statement for the comprehensive conservation plan and boundary revision, Vol. II. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1. Portland, OR. 114 pp. 

Available at: www.fws.gov/stillwater/litreview. 

Devereux, C.L., M.J. Whittingham, J.R. Krebs, E. Fernandez-Juricic, and J.A. Vickery. 2006. What 

attracts birds to newly mown pasture? Decoupling the action of mowing from the provision 

of short swards. Ibis 148:302-306. 

Devereux, C.L., McKeever, C.U., Benton, T.G., Whittingham, M.J., 2004. The effect of sward height 

and drainage on common starlings Sturnus vulgaris and northern lapwings Vanellus vanellus 

foraging in grassland habitats. Ibis 146 (S2), 115–122. 

Diaz, H.F. and J.K. Eischeid. 2007. Disappearing “alpine tundra” Köppen climatic type in the 

western United States. Geophysical Research Letters 34:L18707. 

Dionne, J.L., A.R. Peasant, G.M. Barnett, and W.N. Mason. 1989. Effect of temperature and 

moisture regimes and soil pH on alfalfa response to phosphorus applications. Canadian 

Journal of Plant Science 69:1149-1163. 

Dolling, P.J. and W. M. Porter. 1994. Acidification rates in the central wheatbelt of Western 

Australia. On a deep yellow sand. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 34: 1155-

1164. 

Donovan, T.M., P.W. Jones, E.M. Annand, and F.R. Thompson III. 1997. Variation in local-scale 

edge effects: mechanisms and landscape context. Ecology 78:2064-2075. 

Doyle, A.T. 1990. Use of riparian and upland habitats by small mammals. Journal of Mammalogy 

71(1):14-23. 

Drickamer, L.C. and S.H. Vessey. 1992. Animal behavior: mechanism, ecology, and evolution. 

Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Publishers. 479 pp. 

Duncan, D.C. 1987. Nest-site distribution and overland brood movements of northern pintails in 

Alberta. Journal of Wildlife Management 51(4):716-723. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-99 

Dwire, K.A. and J.B. Kauffman. 2003. Fire and riparian ecosystems in landscapes of the western 

USA. Forest Ecology and Management 178:61-74. 

Dwyer, N.C. and G.W. Tanner. 1992. Nesting success in Florida sandhill cranes. Wilson Bulletin 

104:22-31. 

Edge, W.D. and C.L. Marcum. 1985. Movements of elk in reaction to logging disturbances. Journal 

of Wildlife Management 49:926-930. 

Eldred, T. 2009. Vigilance behavior and land use by sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis). M.S. thesis, 

Department of Biology, Eastern Michigan University. Ypsilanti, MI. Available at: 

http://commons.emich.edu/theses/238. Elphick, C.S. and L.W. Oring. 1998. Winter 

management of Californian rice fields for waterbirds. Journal of Applied Ecology 35:95-108. 

Epperson, W.L., J.M. Edie, D.B. Marcum, E.L. Fitzhugh, and R.E. Delmas. 1999. Late season hay 

harvest provides habitat for marshland birds. California Agriculture 53:12-17. 

Erwin, R.M. 1980. Breeding habitat use by colonially nesting waterbirds in two mid-Atlantic U.S. 

regions under different regimes of human disturbances. Biological Conservation 18:39-51. 

Erwin, R. M. 1989. Responses to human intruders by birds nesting in colonies: experimental results 

and management guidelines. Colonial Waterbirds. 12(1):104-108. 

Estep, J.A. 1989. Biology, movements, and habitat relationships of the Swainson’s hawk in the 

Central Valley of California, 1986-87. California Department of Fish and Game, Nongame 

Bird and Mammal Section. Sacramento, CA. 60 pp. 

Euliss, N.H., Jr., J.W. LaBaugh, L.H. Fredrickson, D.M. Mushet, M.K. Laubhan, G.A. Swanson, 

T.C. Winter, D.O. Rosenberry, and R.D. Nelson. 2004. The wetland continuum: a conceptual 

framework for interpreting biological studies. Wetlands 24:448-458. 

Fefer, S.I. 1977. Waterfowl populations as related to habitat changes in bog wetlands of the 

Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge. Maine Agricultural Experiment Station Technical 

Bulletin 86. University of Maine, Orono, ME. 19 pp. 

Ferguson, C.M., B.I.P. Barratt, and P.A. Jones. 1988. Control of the grey field slug (Deroceras 

reticulatum (Müller)) by stock management prior to direct-drilled pasture establishment. 

Journal of Agricultural Science 111:443-449. 

Field, C.B., L.D. Mortsch, M. Brklacich, D.L. Forbes, P. Kovacs, J.A. Patz, S.W. Running, and 

M.J. Scott. 2007. North America: contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment 

report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Pages 617-652 in: M.L. Parry, 

O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson, eds. Climate change 

2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Cambridge, UK; Cambridge University Press. 

Finch, D.M. and S.H. Stoleson. 2000. Status, ecology, and conservation of the southwestern willow 

flycatcher. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-60. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Ogden, UT. 132 pp. 

Flannigan, M., B. Amiro, K. Logan, B. Stocks, and B. Wotton. 2006. Forest fires and climate change 

in the 21st century. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 11:847-859. 

Fletcher, R.J., S.T. McKinney, and C.E. Bock. 1999. Effects of recreational trails on wintering 

diurnal raptors along riparian corridors in a Colorado grassland. Journal of Raptor Research 

33(3):233-239. 

Fraser, J.D., L.D. Frenzel, and J.E. Mathisen. 1985. The impact of human activities on breeding bald 

eagles in north-central Minnesota. Journal of Wildlife Management 49:585-592. 

Frawley, B.J. and L.B. Best. 1991. Effects of mowing on breeding bird abundance and species 

composition in alfalfa fields. Wildlife Society Bulletin 19:135-142. 

Freddy, D.J. 1986. Responses of adult mule deer to human harassment during winter. Page 286 in: 

R.D. Comer, T.G. Baumann, P. Davis, J.W. Monarch, J. Todd, S. VanGytenbeek, D. Wills, 

and J. Woodling, eds. Issues and technology in the management of impacted western 

wildlife: proceedings of a national symposium. Boulder, CO: Thorne Ecological Institute. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

6-100 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

Fredrickson, L.H. 1988. Invertebrate response to wetland management. In: D.H. Cross and P. Vohs, 

eds. Waterfowl Management Handbook. Paper 13. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Fort 

Collins, CO. Available at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdmwfm/13. 

Fredrickson, L.H. and F.A. Reid. 1988. Nutritional values of waterfowl foods. Fish and Wildlife 

Leaflet 13.1.1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 6 pp. 

Fredrickson, L.H. and F.A. Reid. 1990. Impacts of hydrologic alteration on management of 

freshwater wetlands. Pages 71-90 in: J.M. Sweeney, ed. Management of Dynamic 

Ecosystems. The Wildlife Society, West Lafayette, IN. 

Fredrickson, L.H. and T.S. Taylor. 1982. Management of seasonally flooded impoundments for 

wildlife. Resource Publication 148. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 31 pp. 

Gabrielsen, G.W. and E.N. Smith 1995. Physiological responses of wildlife to disturbance. Pages 95-

107 in: R.L. Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through 

management and research. Washington, D.C: Island Press. 

Galatowitsch, S.M., D.C. Whited, R. Lehtinen, J. Husveth, and K. Schik. 2000. The vegetation of wet 

meadows in relation to their land-use. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 60(2):121-

144. 

Gale, R.S., E.O. Garton, and I.J. Ball. 1987. The history, ecology, and management of the Rocky 

Mountain population of trumpeter swans. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Montana 

Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit. Missoula, MT. 314 pp. 

Gatz, T.A. and P.L. Hegdal. 1986. Local winter movements of four raptor species in central 

Colorado. Western Birds 17(3):107-114. 

Gilley, J.E., B.D. Patton, P.E. Nyren, and J.R. Simanton. 1996. Grazing and haying effects on runoff 

and erosion from a former Conservation Reserve program site. Applied Engineering in 

Agriculture 12:681-684. 

Girard, P., C.J. da Silva, and M. Abdo. 2003. River-groundwater interactions in the Brazilian 

Pantanal. Journal of Hydrology 783:57-66. 

Gray, M.J., R.M. Kaminski, G. Weerakkody, B.D. Leopold, and K.C. Jensen. 1999. Aquatic 

invertebrate and plant responses following mechanical manipulations of moist-soil habitat. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 27: 770−779. 

Greenway, G. and C.W. Gray. 2011. Feed cost comparisons: back of the envelope techniques. Pages 

8-13 in: Proceedings, Idaho Alfalfa and Forage Conference 22-23 February 2011, Burley, ID, 

University of Idaho Extension. Available at: 

http://www.extension.uidaho.edu/forage/Proceedings/2011%20Proceedings/3%20Feed%20C

ost%20Comparison-WGray_2011l.pdf

Griggs, F.T. 2009. California riparian habitat restoration handbook. 2nd edition. California Riparian 

Habitat Joint Venture. 83 pp. 

Grubb, Teryl G. and King, Rudy M. 1991. Assessing human disturbance of breeding bald eagles with 

classification tree models. Journal of Wildlife Management 55(3): 500-511. 

Gutzwiller, K.J. and H.A. Marcum. 1997. Bird reactions to observer clothing color: implications for 

distance-sampling techniques. Journal of Wildlife Management 61:935-947. 

Gutzwiller, K.J., R.T. Wiedenmann, and K.L. Clements. 1997. Does human intrusion alter the 

seasonal timing of avian song during breeding periods? Auk 114:55-65. 

Gutzwiller, K.J., R.T. Wiedenmann, K.L. Clements, and S.H. Anderson. 1994. Effects of human 

intrusion on song occurrence and singing consistency in subalpine birds. Auk 111:28-37. 

Hamann, B., H. Johnston, G. Gobielle, M. Hillis, S. Johnson, L. Kelly, and P. McClelland. 1999. 

Birds. Pages 3.1-3.34 in: G. Joslin and H. Youmans, coordinators. Effects of recreation on 

Rocky Mountain wildlife: a review for Montana. Helena, MT: Committee on Effects of 

Recreation on Wildlife, Montana Chapter of The Wildlife Society. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-101 

Hamlet, A.F. and D.P. Lettenmaier. 2007. Effects of 20th century warming and climate variability on 

flood risk in the western US. Water Resources Research 43:W06427. 

Hamlet, A.F., P.W. Mote, M.P. Clark, and D.P. Lettenmaier. 2007. Twentieth-century trends in 

runoff, evapotranspiration, and soil moisture in the western United States. Journal of Climate 

20:1468-1486. 

Hamlet, A.F., P.W. Mote, M.P. Clark, and D.P. Lettenmaier. 2005. Effects of temperature and 

precipitation variability on snowpack trends in the western United States. Journal of Climate 

18:4545-4561. 

Hammer, D.E. and R.H. Kadlec. 1986. A model for wetland surface water dynamics. Water 

Resources Research 22(13):1951-1958. Available at: doi:10.1029/WR022i013p01951. 

Hansson, A.C., R. Pettersson, and K. Paustian. 1987. Shoot and root production and nitrogen uptake 

in barley, with and without nitrogen fertilization. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 

158(3):163-171. 

Harding, W.M. 2005. Archaeological investigations at the Camas National Wildlife Refuge, 

Jefferson County, Idaho. Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. North Wind, Inc., 

Idaho Falls. 

Harmata, A.R. and B. Oakleaf. 1992. Bald eagles in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem: an 

ecological study with emphasis on the Snake River, Wyoming. Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department. Cheyenne, WY. 232 pp. 

Harris, A.S. 1988. The nature of cumulative impacts on biotic diversity of wetland vertebrates. 

Environmental Management 12(5):675-693. 

Hartley, M.J. and M.L. Hunter Jr. 1998. A meta-analysis of forest cover, edge effects, and artificial 

nest predation rates. Conservation Biology 12:465-469. 

Hattori, A. and S. Mae. 2001. Habitat use and diversity of waterbirds in a coastal lagoon around Lake 

Biwa, Japan. Ecological Research 16:543-553. 

Haufler, J.B., ed. 2007. Fish and wildlife response to Farm Bill conservation practices. Wildlife 

Society Technical Review 07-1. The Wildlife Society. Bethesda, MD. 118 pp. 

Havera, S.P., L.R. Boens, M.M. Georgi, and R.T. Shealy. 1992. Human disturbance of waterfowl on 

Keokuk Pool, Mississippi River. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20:290-298. 

Hehnke, M. and C. Stone. 1979. Value of riparian vegetation to avian populations along the 

Sacramento River system. Pages 228-235 in: R. Johnson and J.F. McCormick, technical eds. 

Strategies for protection and management of floodplain wetlands and other riparian 

ecosystems. General Technical Report WO-12. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Washington, D.C. 410 pp. 

Heller, V.J. 1978. The effects of stream alteration and associated land use changes on a riparian 

avifauna in south central Oklahoma. M.S. thesis. Oklahoma State University, Stillwater. 

Hemstrom, M. A., M. J. Wisdom, M. M. Rowland, B. Wales, W. J. Hann, and R. A. Gravenmier. 

2002. Sagebrush-steppe vegetation dynamics and potential for restoration in the Interior 

Columbia Basin, USA. Conservation Biology 16:1243-1255. 

Henderson, I.G. and A.D. Evans. 2000. Responses of farmland birds to set-aside and its management. 

Pages 69-76 in: N.J. Aebischer, A.D. Evans, P.V. Grice, and J.A. Vickery, eds. Ecology and 

Conservation of Lowland Farmland Birds. Tring, UK: British Ornithologists’ Union. 

Henderson, I.G., N.R. Critchley, J. Cooper, and J.A. Fowbert. 2001. Breeding season responses of 

skylarks Alauda arvensis to vegetation structure in set-aside (fallow arable land). Ibis 

143:317-321. 

Henderson, J. E. 1986. Environmental Designs for Streambank Protection Projects. Water Resources 

Bulletin 22: 549-558. 

Henson, P. and T.A. Grant. 1991. The effects of human disturbance on trumpeter swan breeding 

behavior. Wildlife Society Bulletin 19:248-257. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

6-102 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

Hey, R.D. 2006. Fluvial geomorphological methodology for natural stable channel design. Journal of 

the American Water Resources Association 42(2):357-374. 

Hoopes, E.M. 1993. Relationships between human recreation and piping plover foraging ecology and 

chick survival. M.S. thesis. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA. 106 pp. 

Hudson, S.E. 2000. Avian use of riparian areas in the mid-Columbia River basin during fall 

migration. M.S. thesis. University of Idaho, Moscow, ID. 

Hull, A.C., Jr. 1948. Depth, season, and row spacing for planting grasses on southern Idaho range 

lands. Journal of the American Society of Agronomy 40:960-969. 

Hull, A.C., Jr. and G. Stewart. 1948. Replacing cheatgrass by reseeding with perennial grass on 

southern Idaho ranges. American Society of Agronomy Journal 40:694-703. 

Humbert, J.A., J. Ghazoul, and T. Walker. 2009. Meadow harvesting techniques and their impacts on 

field fauna. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment 130(1-2):1-8. 

IDEQ (Idaho Department of Environmental Quality). 2005. Beaver-Camas subbasin assessment and 

total maximum daily loads. IDEQ. Idaho Falls, ID. 251 pp. Available at: 

http://www.deq.idaho.gov/water-quality/surface-water/tmdls/table-of-sbas-tmdls/beavercamas-subbasin.aspx. 

IDEQ. 2011. Fugitive dust. Available at: http://www.deq.idaho.gov/air-quality/airpollutants/fugitive-dust.aspx. 

IDFG (Idaho Department of Fish and Game). 2013. Idaho Elk Management Plan 2014-2024 (Draft). 

Available at: https://fishandgame.idaho.gov/content/webform/2013-draft-elk-plan Accessed 

Sept. 20, 2013. 

Idaho Department of Labor 2013b. Bonneville County. URL: 

http://labor.idaho.gov/publications/lmi/pubs/bonnevilleProfile.pdf

Idaho Department of Labor 2013a. Jefferson County. URL: 

http://labor.idaho.gov/publications/lmi/pubs/jeffersonProfile.pdf

Idaho Department of Labor 2013c. Madison County. URL: 

http://labor.idaho.gov/publications/lmi/pubs/madisonProfile.pdf 

Idaho Department of Labor. 2011. Idaho Counties Personal Per Capita Income and Population 1969-

2011. Available at: http://lmi.idaho.gov/WagesIncome/Income.aspx. Accessed July 31, 2013. 

IDPR (Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation). 2010. Recreation Next: Idaho’s 2006-2010 

statewide comprehensive outdoor recreation plan. Available at: 

http://parksandrecreation.idaho.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/SCORTP/SCORTP

%202006-2010%20Revised.pdf

IDPR (Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation). 2006. Idaho statewide comprehensive outdoor 

recreation and tourism plan (SCORTP), 2006-2010. Available at: 

http://parksandrecreation.idaho.gov/assets/content/docs/Comp Planning/Final Plan 2006-

2010.pdf. 

IDPR (Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation). 2002. Idaho Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor 

Recreation and Tourism Plan (SCORTP), 2003-2007. Available at: 

http://parksandrecreation.idaho.gov/assets/content/docs/2003-2007_final.pdf. IDPR. 2007. 

Idaho Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation and Tourism Plan (SCORTP), 2006-

2010. Available at: http://parksandrecreation.idaho.gov/assets/content/docs/Comp 

Planning/Final Plan 2006-2010.pdf. 

IDWR (Idaho Department of Water Resources). 1997. Upper Snake River Basin study. IDWR, 

Boise, ID. 85 pp. 

IDWR. 1998. Resource inventory: Upper Snake River Basin. Idaho Department of Water Resources 

Water Planning Bureau. 159 pp. URL: 

http://www.idwr.idaho.gov/waterboard/WaterPlanning/PDFs/Resource_Inventory_Upper_SR

B.pdf 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-103 

IDWR. Idaho Department of Water Resources. 1999. Feasibility of large-scale managed recharge of 

the Eastern Snake River Plain aquifer system. IDWR. 264 pp. 

IDWR. 1998. Resource inventory: Upper Snake River Basin. Idaho Department of Water Resources 

Water Planning Bureau. URL: 

http://www.idwr.idaho.gov/waterboard/WaterPlanning/PDFs/Resource_Inventory_Upper_SR

B.pdf

Irwin, L.L. and J.M. Peek 1979. Relationships between road closures and elk behavior in northern 

Idaho. Pages 199-204 in: M.S. Boyce and L.D. Hayden-Wing, eds. North American elk: 

ecology, behavior and management. Laramie: University of Wyoming. 

Isola, C.R., M.A. Colwell, O.W. Taft, and R.J. Safran. 2002. Interspecific differences in habitat use 

of shorebirds and waterfowl foraging in managed wetlands of California’s San Joaquin 

Valley. Waterbirds 25(2):196-203. 

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, OR. 205 pp. 

Jarvis R.L. and S.W. Harris. 1971. Land-use patterns and duck production at Malheur National 

Wildlife Refuge. Journal of Wildlife Management 31(4):767-773. 

Jehn, P. 1989. Eastern Snake Plain aquifer management strategy implementation plan. Idaho 

Department of Health and Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality, and the Snake Plain 

Aquifer Advisory Committee. ## pp. 

Jenny, H. 1941. Factors of soil formation. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. 

Jesse, L.C.H. and J.J. Obrycki. 2000. Field deposition of Bt transgenic corn pollen: lethal effects on 

the monarch butterfly. Oecologia 125(2):241-248. 

Johnson, B.K., A.A. Ager, J.H. Noyes, and N. Cimon. 2005. Elk and mule deer responses to variation 

in hunting pressure. Pages 127-138 in: M.J. Wisdom, ed. The Starkey Project: a synthesis of 

long-term studies of elk and mule deer. Reprinted from the 2004 Transactions of the North 

American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, Alliance Communications Group. 

Lawrence, KS. 

Johnson, R.R. and S.W. Carothers. 1982. Riparian habitats and recreation: interrelationships and 

impacts in the Southwest and Rocky Mountain region. Eisenhower Consortium Bulletin 12. 

U.S Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station. Fort Collins, CO. 31 pp. 

Johnson, S.R. and A.K. Knapp. 1995. The influence of fire on Spartina pectinata wetland 

communities in a northeastern Kansas tallgrass prairie. Canadian Journal of Botany 73:84-90. 

Joschko, M., H. Diestel, and O. Larink. 1989. Assessment of earthworm burrowing efficiency in 

compacted soil with a combination of morphological and soil physical measurements. 

Biology and Fertility of Soils 8:191-196. 

Junk, W J., P. B. Bayle, and R. E. Sparks. 1989. The flood pulse concept in river-floodplain systems. 

Pages 110-127 in: D.P. Doge, ed. Proceedings of the Intermountain Large River Symposium. 

Canadian Fisheries and Aquatic Science Special Publication 106. Department of Fish and 

Oceans, Ottawa. 

Kaminski, R.M. and H.H. Prince. 1984. Dabbling duck habitat associations during spring in Delta 

Marsh, Manitoba. Journal of Wildlife Management 48:37-50. 

Kantrud, H.A., J.B. Millar, and A.G. van der Valk. 1989. Vegetation of wetlands of the prairie 

pothole region. Pages 132-187 in: A.G. van der Valk. Northern prairie wetlands. Ames: Iowa 

State University Press. 

Kauffman, J.B., R.L. Beschta, N. Otting, and D. Lytjen. 1997. An ecological perspective of riparian 

and stream restoration in the western United States. Fisheries 22:12-24. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

6-104 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

Kauffman, J.B. 1990. Ecological relationships of vegetation and fire. In: J.D. Walstad, S.R. 

Radosevich, and D.V. Sandberg, (Eds.), Prescribed Fire in Pacific Northwest Forests. 

Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR, pp. 39-51. 

Kauffman, J. B. and R.E. Martin. 1990. Sprouting shrub response to varying seasons and fuel 

consumption levels of prescribed fire in Sierra Nevada mixed conifer ecosystems. For. Sci. 

36, 748-764. 

Keller, E.A. and F.J. Swanson. 1979. Effects of large organic material on channel form and fluvial 

processes. Earth Surface Processes 4:361-380. 

Keller, E.A. and T. Tally. 1979. Effects of large organic debris on channel form and fluvial processes 

in the coastal redwood environment. Pages 169-197 in: D.P. Rhodes and G.P. Williams, eds. 

Adjustments of the fluvial system. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. 

Keller, V.E. 1991. Effects of human disturbance on eider ducklings Somateria mollissima in 

estuarine habitat in Scotland. Biological Conservation 58(2):213-228. 

Kingsford, R.T. 2000. Ecological impacts of dams, water diversions and river management on 

floodplain wetlands in Australia. Australian Ecology 25:109-127.Kirby, R. E., S. J. Lewis, 

and T. N. Sexson. 1988. Fire in North American wetland ecosystems and fire-wildlife 

relations: An annotated bibliography. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, Biological Report 

88(1):1-146. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center 

Online. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/firewild/index.htm 

(Version 30SEP2002). 

Klein, M.L. 1989. Effects of high levels of human visitation on foraging waterbirds at J.N. “Ding” 

Darling National Wildlife Refuge. Final research report. University of Florida, Cooperative 

Fish and Wildlife Research. Gainesville, FL. 208 pp. 

Klein, M.L. 1993. Waterbird behavioral responses to human disturbances. Wildlife Society Bulletin 

211(1):31-39. 

Klein, M.L. 1995. Effects of ecotourism on the distribution of waterbirds on a wildlife refuge. 

Conservation Biology 9:1454-1465. 

Knapp, A.K., P.A. Fay, J.M. Blair, S L. Collins, M.D. Smith, J.D. Carlisle, C.W. Harper, B.T. 

Danner, M.S. Lett, and J.K. McCarron. 2002. Rainfall variability, carbon cycling, and plant 

species diversity in a mesic grassland. Science 298:2202-2205. 

Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole. 1991. Effects of recreational activity on wildlife in wildlands. Pages 

238-247 in: Transactions of the 56th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources 

Conference 56:238-247. 

Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole 1995a. Wildlife responses to recreationists. Pages 51-70 in: R.L. Knight 

and K.J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through management and 

research. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 372 p. 

Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole. 1995b. Factors that influence wildlife responses to recreationists. Pages 

71-80 in: R.L. Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence 

through management and research. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 372 p. 

Knight, R.L., and S.A. Temple. 1995. Origin of wildlife responses to recreationists. Pages 81-91 in: 

R.L. Knight and K. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and recreationists–Coexistence through 

management and research: Washington, D.C., Island Press, 372 p. 

Knight, R.R. 1980. The Sun River elk herd. Wildlife Monographs 23. 

Knopf, F.L., R.R. Johnson, T. Rich, F.B. Samson, and R.C. Szaro. 1988. Conservation of riparian 

ecosystems in the United States. Wilson Bulletin 100(2): 272-284. 

Knopf, F.L. and T.E. Olson. 1984. Naturalization of Russian-olive: implications to Rocky Mountain 

wildlife. Wildlife Society Bulletin 12:289-298. 

Knowles, N., M.D. Dettinger, and D.R. Cayan. 2006. Trends in snowfall versus rainfall in the 

western United States. Journal of Climate 18(4):545-544,559. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-105 

Konrad, C.P. and D.B. Booth. 2005. Ecological significance of hydrologic changes in urban streams. 

Pages 157-177 in: L.R. Brown, R.H. Gray, R.M. Hughes, and M.R. Meador, eds. Effects of 

urbanization on stream ecosystems. American Fisheries Society Symposium 47. Bethesda, 

MD. 

Korschgen, C.E., L.S. George, and W.I. Green. 1985. Disturbance of diving ducks by boaters on a 

migrational staging area. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13:290-296. 

Kramer, G.W., B. Conant, G. Kaiser, C.D. Littlefield, R.W. Schlorff, and D.E. Timm. 1983. Pacific 

Flyway management plan for the Pacific Flyway population of lesser sandhill cranes. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird Management Office, Pacific Flyway Council. 

Portland, Oregon. 27 pp. 

Krapu, G.L., P.J. Pietz, D.A. Brandt, and R.R. Cox Jr. 2000. Factors limiting mallard brood survival 

in prairie pothole landscapes. Journal of Wildlife Management 64(2):553-561. 

Kretzschmar, A. 1991 Burrowing ability of the earthworm Aporrectodea longa limited by soil 

compaction and water potential. Biology and Fertility of Soils 11:48-51. 

Kufield, R.C., D.C. Bowden, and D.L. Schrupp. 1988. Influence of hunting on movements of female 

mule deer. Journal of Range Management 41:70-72. 

Kusler, J. 2006. Common questions: wetlands, climate change, and carbon sequestering. Association 

of State Wetland Managers, Berne, New York. 

La Sorte, F.A. and W.J. Boecklen. 2005. Temporal turnover of common species in avian assemblages 

in North America. Journal of Biogeography 32(7):1151-1160. 

Labisky, R.F. 1957. Relation of hay harvesting to duck nesting under a refuge-permittee system. The 

Journal of Wildlife Management 21(2):194-200. 

Laurance, W.F. and E. Yensen. 1991. Predicting the impacts of edge effects in fragmented habitats. 

Biological Conservation 55:77-92. 

Laye, D. 2012. Personal communication between Doug Laye/USFWS Ecological Services, and Pam 

Johnson, Camas NWR Refuge Biologist, regarding Canada lynx. January 2012. 

LeCain, D.R., J.A. Morgan, G.E. Schuman, J.D. Reeder, and R.H. Hart. 2000. Carbon exchange rates 

in grazed and ungrazed pastures of Wyoming. Journal of Range Management 53:199-206. 

Leege, T.A. 1979. Effects of repeated prescribed burns on northern Idaho elk browse. Northwest 

Science 53:107-113. 

Lefranc, N. 1997. Shrikes and the farmed landscape in France. Pages 236-268 in: D.J. Pain and M.W. 

Pienkowski, eds. Farming and birds in Europe: the common agricultural policy and its 

implications for bird conservation. London: Academic Press.

Leopold, L.B., M.G. Wolman, and J.B. Miler. 1964. Fluvial processes in geomorphology. San 

Francisco: W.H. Freeman. 

Lesica, P. and S. Miles. 1999. Russian olive invasion into cottonwood forests along a regulated river 

in north-central Montana. Canadian Journal of Botany 77:1077-1083. 

Letey, J. 1985. Relationship between soil physical properties and crop production. Advances in Soil 

Science 1:277-294. 

Lewis, J.C. 1976. Roost habitat and roosting behavior of sandhill cranes in the southern central 

flyway. Pages 93-104 in J. C. Lewis, ed. Proc. Int. Crane Workshop. Oklahoma State Univ., 

Stillwater. 

Licht, D.S. 1997. Ecology and economics of the Great Plains. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. 

Lines, I.L. and C.J. Perry. 1978. A numerical wildlife habitat evaluation procedure. Transactions of 

the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 43:284-301. 

Littell, J.S., D. McKenzie, D.L. Peterson, and A.L. Westerling. 2009. Climate and wildfire area 

burned in western U.S. ecoprovinces, 1916-2003. Ecological Applications 19:1003-1021. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

6-106 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

Littlefield, C.D. and G.L. Ivey. 2000. Conservation assessment for greater sandhill cranes wintering 

on the Cosumnes River floodplain and delta regions of California. The Nature Conservancy. 

Galt, CA. 27 pp. 

Lor, S. and R.A. Malecki. 2006. Breeding ecology and nesting habitat associations of five marsh bird 

species in western New York. Waterbirds 29(4):427-436. 

Losey, J.E, L.S. Rayor, and M.E. Carter. 1999. Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae. Nature 

399:214. Available at: 

http://ag.arizona.edu/ENTO/courses/ento446_546/readings/Losey_1999.pdf. 

Lovvorn, J.R. and C.M. Kirkpatrick. 1981. Roosting behavior and habitat of migrant greater sandhill 

cranes. Journal of Wildlife Management 45:842-856. 

MacArthur, R.A., V. Geist, and R.H. Johnston. 1982. Cardiac and behavioral responses of mountain 

sheep to human disturbance. Journal of Wildlife Management 46:351-358. 

MacDougall, A.S. and R. Turkington. 2007. Does the type of disturbance matter when restoring 

disturbance-dependent grasslands? Restoration Ecology 15:263-272. 

MacKenzie, D.I. 2008. Getting the biggest bang for our conservation buck. Trends in Ecology and 

Evolution 24(4):175-177. 

Madsen, J. 1985. Impact of disturbance on field utilization of pink-footed geese in West Jutland, 

Denmark. Biological Conservation 33:53-63. 

Madsen, J. 1995. Impacts of disturbance on migratory waterfowl. Ibis 137:S67-S74. 

Magee, P.A. 1993. Detrital accumulation and processing in wetlands. Fish and Wildlife Leaflet 

13.3.14. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. 7 pp. 

Mallik, A.U. and R.W. Wein. 1986. Response of a Typha marsh community to draining, flooding, 

and seasonal burning. Canadian Journal of Botany 64:2136-2143. 

Martel Y.A. and A.F. Mackenzie. 1980. Long-term effects of cultivation and land use on soil quality 

in Quebec. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 60:411-420. 

Martin T.E. 1981. Limitation in small habitat islands: chance or competition? Auk 98:715-734. 

Martin, T.E. and P.A. Vohs. 1978. Configuration of shelterbelts for optimum utilization by birds. 

Pages 79-88 in: R.W. Tinus, ed. Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of the Forestry 

Committee, Great Plains Agricultural Council. Great Plains Agricultural Count. Publication 

No. 87. Tulsa, OK. 

Maser, C. and J.R. Sedell. 1994. From the forest to the sea: the ecology of wood in streams, rivers, 

estuaries, and oceans. Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press. 

McCracken, D.I. and J.R. Tallowin. 2004. Swards and structure: the interactions between farming 

practices and bird food resources in lowland grasslands. Ibis 146(Suppl. 2):108-114. 

McGarigal, K. 1988. Human-eagle interactions on the lower Columbia River. M.S. thesis. Oregon 

State University, Corvallis, OR. 115 pp. 

McGarigal, K., R.G. Anthony, and F.B. Isaacs. 1991. Interactions of humans and bald eagles on the 

Columbia River estuary. Wildlife Monographs 115:1-47. 

McGlothlin, D., W.L. Jackson, and P. Summers. 1988. Ground water, geomorphic processes, and 

riparian values: San Pedro River, Arizona. Pages 537-544 in: M. Waterstone and R.J. Burt, 

eds. Proceedings of the symposium on water-use data for water resources management, 1988, 

Tucson, Arizona. American Water Resources Association. Bethesda, MD. 

McKenzie, D., Z. Gedalof, D.L. Peterson, and P. Mote. 2004. Climatic change, wildfire, and 

conservation. Conservation Biology 18:890-902. 

McNeil, R., P. Drapeau, and J.D. Goss-Custard. 1992. The occurrence and adaptive significance of 

nocturnal habits in waterfowl. Biological Reviews 67:381-419. 

Megahan, W.F. 1982. Channel sediment storage behind obstructions in forested drainage basins 

draining the granitic bedrock of the Idaho batholith. Pages 114-121 in: F.J. Swanson, R.J. 

Janda, T. Dunne, and D.N. Swanston, eds. Sediment budgets and routing in forested drainage 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-107 

basins. General Technical Report PNW-141. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. Portland, OR. 

Middleton, B.A. 2002. The flood pulse concept in wetland restoration. Pages 1-10 in: B.A. 

Middleton, ed. Flood pulsing in wetlands: restoring the natural hydrological balance. New 

York: John Wiley. 

Miller, M., 2000. Fire autecology. In: Brown, J.K., Smith, J.K. (Eds.), Wildland fire and ecosystems: 

effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-412-vol 2, USDA Forest Service, 

Ogden, UT, pp. 9-34. 

Miller, S.G., R.L. Knight, and C.K. Miller. 1998. Influence of recreational trails on breeding bird 

communities. Ecological Applications 8(1):162-169. 

Millspaugh, J.J., G.C. Brundige, R.A. Gitzen, and K.J. Raedeke. 2000. Elk and hunter space-use 

sharing in South Dakota. Journal of Wildlife Management 64:994-1003. 

Miranowski, J.A. and R.L. Bender. 1982. Impact of erosion control policies on wildlife habitat on 

private lands. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 37:288-291. 

Mitchell, C.D. 1994. Trumpeter swan (Cygnus buccinator). In: A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. The birds of 

North America, Vol. 105. Philadelphia, PA: Academy of Natural Sciences and Washington, 

D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union. 

Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands. 2nd edition. New York: John Wiley. 

Montopoli, G.J. and D.A. Anderson. 1991. A logistic model for the cumulative effects of human 

intervention on bald eagle habitat. Journal of Wildlife Management 55(2):290-293. 

Moorcroft, D., M.J. Whittingham, R.B. Bradbury, and J.D. Wilson. 2002. The selection of stubble 

fields by wintering granivorous birds reflects vegetation cover and food abundance. Journal 

of Applied Ecology 39:535-547. 

Morgan, J.A., D.G. Milchunas, D.R. LeCain, M. West, and A.R. Mosier. 2007. Carbon dioxide 

enrichment alters plant community structure and accelerates shrub growth in the shortgrass 

steppe. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 

104:14724-14729. 

Morgan, J.A., A.R. Mosier, D.G. Milchunas, D.R. LeCain, J.A. Nelson, and W.J. Parton. 2004. CO2

enhances productivity, alters species composition, and reduces digestibility of shortgrass 

steppe vegetation. Ecological Applications 14:208-219. 

Morris, S.E. 1995. Geomorphic aspects of stream channel restoration. Physical Geography 

16:444459. 

Morton, J.M. 1995. Management of human disturbance and its effects on waterfowl. Pages F59-F86 

in: W.R. Whitman, et al., (eds). Waterfowl habitat restoration, enhancement and management 

in the Atlantic Flyway (3rd ed.). Dover, Del., Environmental Management Committee, 

Atlantic Flyway Council Technical Section, and Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife. 

Morton, J.M., A.C. Fowler, and R.L. Kirkpatrick. 1989. Time and energy budgets of American black 

ducks in winter. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:401-410. 

Motavalli, P.P., K.W. Goyne, and R.P. Udawatta. 2008. Environmental impacts of enhancedefficiency nitrogen fertilizers. Crop Management doi:10.1094/CM-2008-0730-02-RV. 

Mote, P.W. 2003. Trends in snow water equivalent in the Pacific Northwest and their climatic 

causes. Geophysical Research Letters 30:1601. 

Mote, P.W., A.F. Hamlet, M.P. Clark, and D.P. Lettenmaier. 2005. Declining mountain snowpack in 

western North America. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 86 (1):39-49. 

Munro, D., T. Bohle, D. Chapin, A. LaBarge, S. Nickelson, and M. Joselyn. 2007. Watershed 

characterization strategic plan. 

Munro, D., Bohle, T., Chapin, D.C., Joselyn, M., LaBarge, A.K., and Nickelson, S. 2007. Watershed 

Characterization Strategic Plan. An unpublished report by Seattle Public Utilities Watershed 

Services Division, Seattle, WA. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

6-108 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

Murkin, H. R., R. M. Kaminski, and R. D. Titman. 1982. Responses by dabbling ducks and aquatic 

invertebrates to an experimentally manipulated cattail marsh. Canadian Journal of Zoology 

60:2424-2332. 

Murphy, C.A., B.L. Foster, M.E. Ramspott, and K.P. Price. 2004. Grassland management effects on 

soil bulk density. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science 107:45-54. 

Naiman, R.J. and H. Décamps. 1997. The ecology of interfaces—riparian zones. Annual Review of 

Ecology and Systematics 28:621-658. 

Naiman, R.J., K.L. Fetherston, S.J. McKay, and J. Chen. 1998. Riparian forests. Pages 289-323 in: 

R.J. Naiman and R.E. Bilby, eds. River ecology and management: lessons from the Pacific 

Coastal Ecoregion. New York: Springer-Verlag. 

Naiman, R.J., R.E. Bilby, and P.A. Bisson. 2000. Riparian ecology and management in the Pacific 

coastal rain forest. BioScience 50:996-1011. 

Naugle, D.E., J.A. Jenks, B.J. Kernohan, and R.R. Johnson. 1997. Effects of hunting and loss of 

escape cover on movements and activity of female white-tailed deer, Odocoileus virginianus. 

Canadian Field-Naturalist 111:595-600. 

Neary, D.G., K.C. Ryan, and L.F. DeBano, eds. 2005. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on 

soils and water. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 4. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Ogden, UT. 250 pp. 

Nelson, M.A., S.M. Griffith, and J.J. Steiner. 2006. Tillage Effects on nitrogen dynamics and grass 

seed crop production in western Oregon, USA. Soil Science Society of America Journal 

70:825-831. 

Norling, B.S., S.H. Anderson, and W.A. Hubert. 1992. Roost sites used by sandhill crane staging 

along the Platte River, Nebraska. Great Basin Naturalist 52:253-261. 

North Central Forest Experiment Station. 1977. Proceedings: symposium on river recreation 

management and research. General Technical Report NC-28. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest ServIce, St. Paul. MN. 455 pp. 

NSRE (National Survey on Recreation and the Environment). 2000-2002. National Survey on 

Recreation and the Environment. Interagency National Survey Consortium. USDA Forest 

Service, Recreation, Wilderness, and Demographics Trends Research Group, Athens, GA, 

and Human Dimensions Research Laboratory, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. 

Ntiamoa-Baidu, Y., T. Piersma, P. Wiersma, M. Poot, P. Battley, and C. Gordon. 1998. Water depth 

selection, daily feeding routines and diets of waterbirds in coastal lagoons in Ghana. Ibis 

140:89-103. 

Oberbillig, D.R. 2001. Providing positive wildlife viewing experiences. Missoula, MT: Deborah 

Richie Communications. 

Olson, T. E. and F. L. Knopf. 1986. Naturalization of Russian-olive in the western United States. 

West. J. Appl. Forest. 1: 65–69. 

OTA (U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment). 1993. Wetlands. Pages 153-218 in: 

Preparing for an uncertain climate, Vol. II. OTA-O-568. U.S. Government Printing Office, 

Washington, D.C. 

Owens, N.W. 1977. Responses of wintering Brent geese to human disturbance. Wildfowl 28:5-14. 

Painter, T. H., Barrett, A. P., Landry, C. C., Neff, J. C., Cassidy, M. P., Lawrence, C. R., McBride, 

K. E., and Farmer, G. L. 2007. Impact of disturbed desert soils on duration of mountain 

snow cover. Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L12502, doi:10.1029/2007GL030284. 

Pampush, G.J. 1980. Breeding chronology, habitat utilization and nest-site selection of the longbilled curlew in northcentral Oregon. M.S. thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. 

Pampush, G.J. 1993. Nest success, habitat utilization and nest-site selection of long-billed curlews in 

the Columbia Basin, Oregon. Condor 95(4):957-967. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-109 

Parton, W.J., D.S. Ojima, and D.S. Schimel. 1994. Environmental change in grasslands: assessment 

using models. Climatic Change 28:111-141. 

Paton, P.W.C. 1994. The effect of edge on avian nest success how strong is the evidence? 

Conservation Biology 8:17-26. 

Patten, D.T. 1998. Riparian ecosystems of semi-arid North America: diversity and human impacts. 

Wetlands 18:498-512. 

Paullin, D. G., C. D. Littlefield and R. E. Vorderstrasse. 1977. Malheur-Harney Lakes Basin Study, 

Oregon. Report No. 1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 47 pages. 

Payne, J. T., Wood, A. W., Hamlet, A. F., Palmer, R. N., and Lettenmaier, D. P. 2004. Mitigating the 

effects of climate change on the water resources of the Columbia River basin, Climatic 

Change 62: 233–256. 

Payne, R.B. 1992. Indigo bunting. No.4 in: A. Poole, P. Stettenheim, F. Gill, eds. The birds of North 

America: life histories for the 21st century. Philadelphia, PA: Academy of Natural Sciences. 

Pearce, A.J. and A. Watson. 1983. Medium-term effects of two landsliding episodes on channel 

storage of sediment. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 8:29-39. 

Pederson, G.T., L.J. Graumlich, D.B. Fagre, T. Kipfer, and C.C. Muhlfeld. 2010. A century of 

climate and ecosystem change in western Montana: What do temperature trends portend? 

Climatic Change 98:133-154. 

Pehrson, K.A. and B.F. Sowell. 2011. Converting crested wheatgrass stands to enhance big 

sagebrush: a literature review. Natural Resources and Environmental Issues 16(16). 

Perfors, T., Harte, J. and Alter, S.E. 2003. Enhanced growth of sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) in 

response to manipulated ecosystem warming. Global Change Biology 9: 736-742. 

Perkins, A.J., M.J. Whittingham, R.B. Bradbury, J.D. Wilson, A.J. Morris, and P.R. Barnett. 2000. 

Habitat characteristics affecting use of lowland agricultural grassland by birds in winter. 

Biological Conservation 95:279-294. 

Perlut, N.G., A.M. Strong, T.M. Donovan, and N.J. Buckley. 2006. Grassland songbirds in a 

dynamic management landscape: behavioral responses and management strategies. 

Ecological Applications 16:2235-2247. 

Pimentel, D., P. Hepperly, J. Hanson, R. Seidel, and D. Douds. 2005. Environmental, energetic, and 

economic comparisons of organic and conventional farming systems. Bioscience 55(7):573-

582. 

Ponce, V.M., and D.S. Lindquist. 1990. Management strategies for baseflow augmentation. 

Proceedings, ASCE Irrigation and Drainage Division, Watershed Management Symposium, 

Durango, Colorado, July 9-11, 1990. URL: 

http://saltonsea.sdsu.edu/watershedplanbaseflowaug313.html

Poore, R.E., C.A. Lamanna, J.J. Ebersole, and B.J. Enquist. 2009. Controls on radial growth of 

mountain big sagebrush and implications for climatic change. Western North American 

Naturalist 69:556-562. 

Powell, G.V.N. 1987. Habitat use by wading birds in a subtropical estuary: implications of 

hydrography. Auk 104:740-749 

Poysa, H. 1983. Resource utilization pattern and guild structure in a waterfowl community. Oikos 

40:295-307. 

Pyke, D.A. 1994. Rangeland seedings and plantings: exotics or natives. Pages 32-44 in: W.D. Edge 

and S.L. Olson-Edge, eds. Proceedings— symposium on sustaining rangeland ecosystems. 

Special Report 953. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 

Rabotnov, T.A. 1974. Lugovedenie (in Russian). Moscow State University. 

Racine, C.H., Johnson, L.A., Viereck, L.A., 1987. Patterns of vegetative recovery after tundra fires in 

northwestern Alaska, USA. Arctic Alpine Res. 19, 461-469. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

6-110 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

Raffa, K.F., B.H. Aukema, B.J. Bentz, A.L. Carroll, J.A. Hicke, M.G. Turner, and W.H. Romme. 

2008. Cross-scale drivers of natural disturbances prone to anthropogenic amplification: 

dynamics of biome-wide bark beetle eruptions. BioScience 58:501-517. 

Rasmussen, P.E. and C.L. Douglas Jr. 1992. The influence of tillage and cropping-intensity on cereal 

response to nitrogen, sulfur, and phosphorus. Fertilizer Research 31:15-19. 

Rechcigl, J.E., R.B. Reneau Jr., D.C. Wolf, W. Kroontje and S.W. Van-Scoyoc. 1986. Alfalfa 

seedling growth in nutrient solutions as influenced by aluminum, calcium, and pH. 

Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 17:27-44. 

Reese, K.P. and J.A. Blakesley. 1987. Avian use of riparian habitats studied in northern Utah. Focus 

on renewable natural resources--University of Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment 

Station. 12: 13. 

Reid, F.A. 1989. Differential habitat use by waterbirds in a managed wetland complex. Ph.D. 

dissertation, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO. 51 pp. 

Reid, F.A., J.R. Kelley Jr., T.S. Taylor, and L.H. Fredrickson. 1989. Upper Mississippi Valley 

wetlands-refuges and moist soil impoundments. Pages 181-202 in: L.M. Smith, R.L. 

Pederson, and R.M. Kaminski, eds. Habitat management for migrating and wintering 

waterfowl in North America. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University Press. 

Reinert, S.E. 1984. Use of introduced perches by raptors: Experimental results and management 

implications. Raptor Sci. 18(l): 25-29. 

Reynolds, T. 1980. Save some sage. Idaho Wildlife 2:10-13. 

Rieman, B.E. and D.J. Isaak. 2010. Climate change, aquatic ecosystems, and fishes in the Rocky 

Mountain West: implications and alternatives for management. General Technical Report 

RMRS-GTR-250. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. Fort Collins, CO. 46 pp. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr250.pdf. 

Accessed January 2011. 

Riffell, S.K., K.J. Gutzwiller, and S.H. Anderson. 1996. Does repeated human intrusion cause 

cumulative declines in avian richness and abundance? Ecological Applications 6:492-505. 

Robinson, R.A. and W.J. Sutherland. 1999. The winter distribution of seed-eating birds: habitat 

structure, seed density and seasonal depletion. Ecography 22:447-454. 

Robinson, S.K., F.R. Thompson III, T.M. Donovan, D.R. Whitehead, and J. Faaborg. 1995. Regional 

forest fragmentation and the nesting success of migratory birds. Science 267:1987-1990. 

Rodgers J.A., Jr. and H.T. Smith. 1997. Buffer zone distances to protect foraging and loafing 

waterbirds from human disturbance in Florida. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:139-145. 

Root, B.G., E.K. Fritzell, and N.F. Giessman. 1988. Effects of intensive hunting on white-tailed deer 

movements. Wildlife Society Bulletin 16:145-151. 

Rosgen, D. L. 1996. Applied river morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO, USA: Wildland Hydrology. 

Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22: 169-199. 

Rundle, D.W. 1981. Habitat selection by fall migrant snipe in southeastern Missouri. Southeastern 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 35:20-26. 

Rustad, L.E., J.L. Campbell, G.M. Marion, R.J. Norby, M.J. Mitchell, A.E. Hartley, J.H.C. 

Cornelissen, J. Gurevitch, and GCTE-NEWS. 2001. A meta-analysis of the response of soil 

respiration, net nitrogen mineralization, and aboveground plant growth to experimental 

ecosystem warming. Oecologia 126:543-562. 

Ryan, M.G., S.R. Archer, R. Birdsey, C. Dahm, L. Heath, J. Hicke, D. Hollinger, T. Huxman, G. 

Okin, R. Oren, J. Randerson, and W.H. Schlesinger. 2008. Land resources: Forests and arid 

lands. Pages 75-120 in: The effects of climate change on agriculture, land resources, water 

resources, and biodiversity in the United States. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change 

Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. Washington, DC., 

USA, 362 pp. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-111 

Sachet G.A. 1988. Wildlife evaluation processes for ORV, hiking, and horse backcountry recreation 

use in Washington forests. Washington Department of Wildlife. Olympia, WA. 87 pp. 

Sargeant, A.B. and D.G. Raveling. 1992. Mortality during the breeding season. Pages 396-422 in: 

B.D.J. Batt, A.D. Afton, M.G. Anderson, C.D. Ankney, D.H. Johnson, J.A. Kadlec, and G.L. 

Krapu, eds. Ecology and management of breeding waterfowl. Minneapolis: University of 

Minnesota Press. 

Schekkerman, H. and A.J. Beintema. 2007. Abundance of invertebrates and foraging success of 

black-tailed godwit (Limosa limosa) chicks in relation to agricultural grassland management. 

Netherlands Ornithologists Union 95(1):39-54. 

Schillinger, W.F., R.I. Papendick, S.O. Guy, P.E. Rasmussen, and C. van Kessel. 2006. Dryland 

cropping in the western United States. Pages 365-393 in: G.A. Peterson, P.W. Unger, and 

W.A. Payne, eds. Dryland agriculture. Agronomy Monograph 23. 2nd ed. American Society 

of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America. 

Madison, WI. 

Schmidt, Steve. 2013. Personal communication between Steve Schmidt, Regional Supervisor, Idaho 

Department of Fish and Game, and Brian Wehausen, Camas NWR Refuge Manager, 

regarding elk objectives for GMU 63, and winter mortality, September 2013. 

SER (Society for Ecological Restoration). 2002. SER primer on restoration ecology. Posted on 

website at http://www.ser.org/work.php?pg=primer1 

Settergren, C.D. 1977. Impacts of river recreation use on stream bank soils and vegetation: state-ofthe knowledge. Pages 55-59 in: Proceedings of the symposium on river recreation 

management and research. General Technical Report NC-28. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central For. Exp. Sta., St. Paul. MN. 

Sijali, I.V. 2001. Drip Irrigation. Options for smallholder farmers in eastern and southern Africa. 

Technical Handbook No. 24. RELMA. 

Skagen, S.K. 1980. Behavioral responses of wintering bald eagles to human activity on the Skagit 

River, Washington. Pages 216-226 in: R.L. Knight, G.T. Allen, M.V. Stalmaster, and C.W. 

Servheen, eds. Proceedings of the Washington bald eagle symposium. Seattle Aquarium, 

Seattle. 

Skagen, S.K., R.L. Knight, and G.H. Orians. 1991. Human disturbance of an avian scavenging guild. 

Ecological Applications 1(2):215-225. 

Skinner, C.N. and C. Chang. 1996. Fire regimes, past and present. Pages 1041-1069 in: Sierra 

Nevada ecosystem project: final report to Congress, Vol. II, Assessments and scientific basis 

for management options. Wildland Resources Center Report No. 37. Centers for Water and 

Wildland Resources, University of California, Davis. 

Singer, M.J. and D.N. Munns. 1996. Soils: an introduction. 3rd edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: 

Prentice Hall. 

Small, M.F. and M.L. Hunter Jr. 1988. Forest fragmentation and avian nest predation in forested 

landscapes. Ocecologia 76:62-64. 

Smith, S.D., T.E. Huxman, S.F. Zitzer, T.N. Charlet, D.C. Housman, J.S. Coleman, L.K. 

Fenstermaker, J.R. Seemann, and R.S. Nowak. 2000. Elevated CO2 increases productivity 

and invasive species success in an arid ecosystem. Nature 408:79-82. 

Stalmaster, M.V. 1987. The bald eagle. New York: Universal Books. 

Stalmaster, M.V. and J.R. Newman. 1978. Behavioral responses of wintering bald eagles to human 

activity. Journal of Wildlife Management 42(2):506-513. 

Stanford, J.A. and J.V. Ward. 1988. The hyporheic habitat of river ecosystems. Nature 335:64-66. 

Stankowich, T. 2008. Ungulate flight responses to human disturbance: A review and meta-analysis. 

Biological Conservation 141: 2159-2173. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

6-112 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

Stannard, M., D. Ogle, L. Holzworth, J. Scianna, and E. Sunleaf. 2002. History, biology, ecology, 

suppression and revegetation of Russian-olive sites. Plant Materials Technical Note No. MT43. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Bridger Plant 

Materials Center, Bridger, MT. 14 pp. 

Stapanian, M.A. 2003. Species density of waterbirds in offshore habitats in western Lake Erie. 

Journal of Field Ornithology 74:381-393. 

Steel, E.A., R.J. Naiman, and S.D. West. 1999. Use of woody debris piles by birds and small 

mammals in a riparian corridor. Northwest Science 73:19-26. 

Stein, S.J., P.W. Price, W.G. Abrahamson, and C.F. Sacchi. 1992. The effect of fire on stimulating 

willow regrowth and subsequent attack by grasshoppers and elk. Oikos 65:190-196. 

Stevens, L.E., B.T. Brown, J.M. Simpson, and R.R. Johnson. 1977. The importance of riparian 

habitat to migrating birds. Pages 156-164 in: R.R. Johnson and D.A. Jones Jr., technical 

coordinators. Importance, preservation and management of riparian habitat: a symposium. 

General Technical Report RM-43. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 

Stevens, R. 1994. Interseeding and transplanting to enhance species composition. Pages 300-306 in: 

S.B. Monsen and S.G. Kitchen, compilers. Ecology and management of annual rangelands: 

proceedings; 1992 May 18-21; Boise, ID. General Technical Report INT-GTR-313. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. Ogden, UT. 

Stewart, C.N., H.A. Richards, and M.D. Halfhill. 2000. Transgenic plants and biosafety: science, 

misconceptions and public perceptions. Biotechniques 29:832-843. 

Stewart, I.T., D.R. Cayan, and M.D. Dettinger. 2005. Changes toward earlier streamflow timing 

across western North America. Journal of Climate 18:1136-1155. 

Stickney, P.F., 1986. First decade plant succession following the Sundance Forest Fire, northern 

Idaho. Gen. Tech. Rep. GTR-INT-197. USDA Forest Service, Ogden, UT, 26 pp. 

Stolen, E.D. 2003. The effects of vehicle passage on foraging behavior of wading birds. Waterbirds 

26(4):429-436. 

Strauss, E. 1990. Reproductive success, life history patterns, and behavioral variation in a population 

of piping plovers subjected to human disturbance. Ph.D. dissertation, Tufts University, 

Boston, MA. 

Swanson, F.J. and C.T. Dyrness. 1975. Impact of clearcutting and road construction on soil erosion 

by landslides in the western Cascade Range, Oregon. Geology 33:393-396. 

SWCCI (Southwest Climate Change Institute). 2010. Bear River Climate Change Adaptation 

Workshop Summary. May 26 and 27, 2010, Salt Lake City, Utah. URL: 

http://nmconservation.org/dl/SWCCI-BearRiver-Climate-Adaptation-Wkshp-FINAL-ReportNov-2010.pdf 

Swolgaard, C.A., K.A. Reeves, and D.A. Bell. 2008. Foraging by Swainson’s hawks in a vineyarddominated landscape. Journal of Raptor Research 42:188-196. 

Szaro, R.C. 1980. Factors influencing bird populations in southwestern riparian forests. Pages 403-

433 in: DeGraaf, R. M., tech. coord. Proceedings of the workshop on management of western 

forests and grasslands for nongame birds. General Technical Report INT-86. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment 

Station, Ogden, UT. 

Taft O.W., M.A. Colwell, C.R. Isola, and R.J. Safran. 2002. Waterbird responses to experimental 

drawdown: implications for multispecies management of wetland mosaics. Journal of 

Applied Ecology 39:987-1001. 

Tague, C., Grant G.E., Farrell M. Choate J., Jefferson A. 2008. Deep groundwater mediates 

streamflow response to climate warming in the Oregon Cascades. Climatic Change 86: 189–

210. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-113 

Tang, C., Z. Rengel, E. Diatloff, and C. Gazey. 2003. Responses of wheat and barley to liming on a 

sandy soil with subsoil acidity. Field Crops Research 80(3):235-244. 

Taylor, D.M. 1986. Effects of cattle grazing on passerine birds nesting in riparian habitat. Journal of 

Range Management 39:254-258. 

Taylor, A.R. and R.L. Knight. 2003. Wildlife responses to recreation and associated visitor 

perceptions. Ecological Applications 13(4):951-963. 

Thompson, D.R. and J.M. Shay. 1985. The effects of fire on Phragmites australis in the Delta Marsh, 

Manitoba. Canadian Journal of Botany 63:1864-1869. 

Tsakelidou, K. 2000. Effect of calcium carbonate as determined by lime requirement buffer pH 

methods on soil characteristics and yield of sorghum plants. Communications in Soil Science 

and Plant Analysis 31(9-10):1249-1260. 

Uchytil, R.J. 1989. Salix exigua. In: W.C. Fischer, compiler. The fire effects information system 

[database]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, 

Intermountain Fire Science Laboratory, Missoula, MT. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. Census data. Available at: http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/. 

Accessed May 2011. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2011. Population distribution and change: 2000 to 2010. Census briefs. 

Available at: http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-01.pdf. Accessed May 4, 

2011. 

U.S. Code (U.S.C.). 1979. Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979. 16 U.S.C. 470. 43 Code 

of Federal Regulations 7. 

U.S.C. 1966. National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966. 16 U.S.C. 470, 36 Code of Federal 

Regulations 800. 

U.S.C. 1990. Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGRPA). 25 

U.S.C. 3001, 43 Code of Federal Regulations 10. 

USDA NRCS. 2012. Soil quality/soil health assessment. Available at: 

http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/assessment/assessment.html. Accessed February 6, 2012. 

USDOI (U.S. Department of the Interior). 2010. Draft supplemental environmental impact statement: 

issuance of annual regulations permitting the hunting of migratory birds. U. S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Washington, D. C. 305pp. Available at: 

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewReportsPublications/Hunting/SEIS%207%20June%

20b%202010.pdf. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2004. Fugitive dust from agricultural tilling. In: 

Emission Inventory Improvement Program, Technical Report Series Volume 9, Particulate 

Emissions. Web site of the Technology Transfer Network Clearinghouse for Inventories and 

Emission Factors. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiip/techreport/volume09/agtilling.pdf

USEPA. 2001. Procedures document for National Emission Inventory, criteria air pollutants, 1985-

1999. Prepared by the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, 

NC, EPA-454/R-01-006, March. 

USEPA. 1991. Sole source designation of the Eastern Snake River Plain aquifer, southern Idaho. 

Federal Register 56(194). 

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 2005. Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

for the Pacific Northwest Invasive Plant Program – preventing and managing invasive plants. 

R6-NR FHP-PR-02-05. April 2005. Record of Decision document signed October 2005. 

Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR.

USFWS. 2002. Southwestern willow flycatcher recovery plan. Appendix L, Riparian Ecology and 

Fire Management. USFWS. Albuquerque, NM. i-ix + 210 pp. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

6-114 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

USFWS. 2005. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 12-month finding for a petition to list 

the greater sage-grouse as threatened or endangered; proposed rule. Federal Register 70: 

2244-2282. 

USFWS. 2006. National survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation. USFWS. 

Washington, D.C. 

USFWS and U.S. Census Bureau. 2007. 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and WildlifeAssociated Recreation. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 168 pp.

USFWS. 2010. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 12-month findings for petitions to list 

the greater sage-grouse as threatened or endangered; proposed rule. Federal Register 

75:13,910-14,014. 

USFWS. 2010. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mountain-Prairie Website. URL: 

http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/plants/uteladiestress/ 

USFWS. 2011. Camas National Wildlife Refuge: cultural resources review. USFWS. Portland, OR. 

35 pp. 

Laye, D. 2012. Personal communication between Doug Laye/USFWS Ecological Services, and Pam 

Johnson, Camas NWR Refuge Biologist, regarding Canada lynx. January 2012. 

Van Dersal, W.R. 1939. Birds that feed on Russian olive. Auk 56:483-484. 

Van der Valk, A.G. 1989. Northern prairie wetlands. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. 

Velasquez, C.R. 1992. Managing artificial saltpans as a waterbird habitat: species responses to water 

level manipulation. Colonial Waterbirds 15:43-55. 

Vermeire, L.T., D.B. Wester, R.B. Mitchell, and S.D. Fuhlendorf. 2005. Fire and grazing effects on 

wind erosion, soil water content, and soil temperature. Journal of Environmental Quality 

34:1559-1565. 

Vieira, M.E.P., M.M. Conner, G.C. White, and D.J. Freddy. 2003. Effects of archery hunter numbers 

and opening dates on elk movement. Journal of Wildlife Management 67:717-728. 

Vos, D.K., R.A. Ryder, and W.D. Gram. 1985. Responses of breeding great blue herons to human 

disturbance in north central Colorado. Colonial Waterbirds 8:13-22. 

Walker, M.D., D.A. Walker, T.A. Theodose, and P.J. Webber. 2001. The vegetation: hierarchical 

species-environment relationships. Pages 99-127 in: W.D. Bowman and T. Seastedt, eds. 

Structure and function of an alpine ecosystem: Niwot Ridge, Colorado. New York: Oxford 

University Press. 

Wang, H., S. Schubert, M. Suarez, J. Chen, M. Hoerling, A. Kumar, and P. Pegion. 2008. Attribution 

of the seasonality and regionality in climate trends over the United States during 1950-2000. 

Journal of Climate 22:2571-2590. 

Ward, D.H. and R.A. Stehn. 1989. Response of Brant and other geese to aircraft disturbance at 

Izembek Lagoon, Alaska. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Fish and Wildlife Research 

Center. Final report to the Minerals Management Service. Anchorage, Alaska. 193 pp. 

Warner, R.E. and S.L. Etter. 1989. Hay cutting and the survival of pheasants: a long-term 

perspective. Journal of Wildlife Management 53(2):455-461. 

Warren, K.A. and J.T. Anderson. 2005. Grassland songbird nest-site selection and response to 

mowing in West Virginia. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33:285-292. 

Waters, T.F. 1995. Sediment in streams: sources, biological effects, and control. American Fisheries 

Society Monograph 7. 

Watson, J.W. 1993. Responses of nesting bald eagles to helicopter surveys. Wildlife Society Bulletin 

21:171-178. 

Weaver, T., D. Dale, and E. Hartley. 1979. The relationship of trail condition to use, vegetation, user, 

slope, season and time. Pages 94-99 in: R. Ittner, D.R. Potter, J.K. Agee, and S. Anschell, 

eds. Recreational impact on wildlands. U.S. Forest Service R-6-001-1979. Seattle, WA. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 6-115 

Weller, M.W. 1994. Freshwater marshes: ecology and wildlife management. 3rd edition. 

Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 

Weller, M.W. 1999. Wetland birds: habitat resources and conservation implications. Cambridge, UK: 

Cambridge University Press. 

Weller, M.W. and L. H. Fredrickson. 1974. Avian ecology of a managed glacial marsh. Living Bird 

12:269-291. 

Weller, M.W. and C.E. Spatcher. 1965. Role of habitat in the distribution and abundance of marsh 

birds. Entomology Special Report 43. Iowa State University, Department of Zoology, 

Agriculture and Home Economics Experiment Station. Ames, IA. 31 pp. 

Westerling, A. and B. Bryant. 2008. Climate change and wildfire in California. Climatic Change 

87:231-249. 

Westerling, A.L., H.G. Hidalgo, D.R. Cayan, and T.W. Swetnam. 2006. Warming and earlier spring 

increase western US forest wildfire activity. Science 313:940-943. 

Williams, G. and J.E. Forbes. 1980. The habitat and dietary preferences of dark-bellied Brent geese 

and widgeon in relation to agricultural management. Wildfowl 31:151-157. 

Winter, G.J., C. Vogt, and J. Fried. 2002. Fuel treatments at the wildland-urban interface: common 

concerns in diverse regions. Journal of Forestry 100(1): 15-21. 

Winter, T.C. 2000. The vulnerability of wetlands to climate change: a hydrologic landscape 

perspective. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 36:305-311. 

Whicker, J.J., D.D. Breshears, P.T. Wasiolek, T.B. Kirchner, R.A. Tavani, D.A. Schoep, and J.C. 

Rodgers. 2002. Temporal and spatial variation of episodic wind erosion in unburned and 

burned semiarid shrubland. Journal of Environmental Quality 31:599-612. 

Whitehead, S.C., J. Wright, and P.A. Cotton. 1995. Winter field use by the European starling Sturnus 

vulgaris—habitat preferences and the availability of prey. Journal of Avian Biology 26:193-

202. 

White-Robinson, R. 1982. Inland and salt marsh feeding of wintering Brent geese in Essex. Wildfowl 

33:113-118. 

Whittingham, M.J. and K.L. Evans. 2004. The effects of habitat structure on predation risk of birds in 

agricultural landscapes. Ibis 146 (S2):210-220. 

Whittingham, M.J. and H.M. Markland. 2002. The influence of substrate on the functional response 

of an avian granivore and its implications for farmland bird conservation. Oecologia 

130:637-644. 

Wilcove, D.S. 1985. Nest predation in forest tracts and the decline of migratory songbirds. Ecology 

66:1211-1214. 

Wilcove, D.D., C.H. McLellan, and A.P. Dobson. 1986. Habitat fragmentation in the temperate zone. 

Pages 237-256 in: M.E. Soule, ed. Conservation biology. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer 

Associates. 

Wilson, J.D., M.J. Whittingham, and R.B. Bradbury. 2005. The management of crop structure: a 

general approach to reversing the impacts of agricultural intensification on birds? Ibis 

147:453-463. 

Wisdom, M.J., M.M. Rowland, and R.J. Tausch. 2005. Effective management strategies for sagegrouse and sagebrush: a question of triage? Transactions of the North American Wildlife and 

Natural Resources Conference 70:134-141. 

Wisdom, M. J., M. M. Rowland, B. C. Wales, M. A. Hemstrom, W. J. Hann, M. G. Raphael, R. S. 

Holthausen, R. A. Gravenmier, and T. D. Rich. 2002. Modeled effects of sagebrush-steppe 

restoration on Greater sage-grouse in the interior Columbia Basin, USA. Conservation 

Biology 16:1223-1231. 

Wolder, M. 1993. Disturbance of wintering northern pintails at Sacramento National Wildlife 

Refuge, California. M.S. thesis. Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA. 62 pages. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

6-116 Chapter 6. Environmental Effects 

Wolman, M.G. and L.B. Leopold. 1957. River flood plains: Some observations on their formation. 

U.S Geological Society Professional Paper 282-C. 30 pp. 

Workman, S.R. and S.E. Serrano. 1999. Recharge to alluvial valley aquifers from overbank flow and 

excess infiltration. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 35(2):425-432. 

Wright, M.J. and J.C. Chambers. 2002. Restoring riparian meadows currently dominated by 

Artemisia using threshold and alternative state concepts—aboveground vegetation response. 

Applied Vegetation Science 5:237-246. 

Wu, J., R.M. Adams, and W.G. Boggess. 2000. Cumulative effects and optimal targeting of 

conservation efforts: steelhead trout habitat enhancements in Oregon. American Journal of 

Agricultural Economics 82 (May):400-413. 

Yalden, P.E. and D.W. Yalden. 1990. Recreational disturbance of breeding golden plovers Pluvialis 

apricarius. Biological Conservation 51:243-263. 

Yahner, R.H. 1983. Seasonal dynamics, habitat relationships, and management of avifauna in 

farmstead shelterbelts. Journal of Wildlife Management 47:85-104. 

Zedler, J.B. and S. Kercher. 2005. Wetland resources: status, trends, ecosystem services, and 

restorability. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30:39-74. 

Zobeck, T.M., D.W. Fryrear, and R.D. Pettit. 1989. Management effects on wind-eroded sediment 

and plant nutrients. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 44:160-163. 
Appendices

 A-M

Chapter 5HumanEnvironment

Chapter 4BiologicalEnvironment

Chapter 3PhysicalEnvironment

Chapter 1Introduction andBackground Appendices

©Donn Larsen

Chapter 2ManagementAlternatives, Goals, Objectives and Strategies

Chapter 6Environmental Effects

Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations A-1 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

A.1 Introduction 

The Appropriate Refuge Uses Policy outlines the process that the Service uses to determine when 

general public uses on refuges may be considered. Priority public uses previously defined as wildlifedependent uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education 

and interpretation) under the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 are 

generally exempt from appropriate use review. Other exempt uses include situations where the 

Service does not have adequate jurisdiction to control the activity and refuge management activities. 

In essence, the appropriate use policy, 603 FW 1 (2006), provides refuge managers with a consistent 

procedure to first screen and then document decisions concerning a public use. When a use is 

determined to be appropriate, a refuge manager must then decide if the use is compatible before 

allowing it on a refuge. The policy also requires review of existing public uses. During the CCP 

process the refuge manager evaluated all existing and proposed refuge uses at Camas National 

Wildlife Refuge using the following guidelines and criteria as outlined in the appropriate use policy: 

 Do we have jurisdiction over the use? 

 Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal and local)? 

 Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? 

 Is the use consistent with public safety? 

 Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

 Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first the use has been 

proposed? 

 Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? 

 Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? 

 Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the Refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the Refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

 Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality, compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation 

into the future? 

Using this process and these criteria, and as documented on the following pages, the refuge manager 

determined that the following refuge use(s) are appropriate at Camas NWR, and directed that 

compatibility determinations be completed for each use: agricultural practices (farming and haying); 

research; dog walking; and non wildlife-dependent recreation (bicycling, cross-country skiing, 

snowshoeing and jogging). 

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

A-2 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

This page intentionally left blank. 

 
 FWS Form 3-2319 

 02/06

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE

Refuge Name: ____________________________________________________________________________ 

Use: ____________________________________________________________________________________ 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already 

described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and 

local)? 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service 

policies? 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for 

description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot 

control the use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be 

found appropriate. If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes ___ No ___ 

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager 

must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate_____ 

Refuge Manager:____________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use.

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence.

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence.

Refuge Supervisor:___________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.

Camas National Wildlife Refuge

Agricultural Practices

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

______________________________________________________________________________________________ Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations

______________________________________________________________________________________________

A-3
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

A-4 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

Appropriate Uses Justification, Attachment 1 

Date: 

Refuge: Camas National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) 

Use: Agriculture (farming and haying) to provide habitat and forage for wildlife 

Summary: A variety of agricultural practices have been used on Camas NWR since it was created 

by Executive Order in 1937. Two of those practices, growing crops and haying of wild or natural 

vegetation, are still being used today. Currently on the Refuge two separate tracts of 80 acres are 

farmed through Cooperative Land Management Agreements (CLMA). A total of 140 of these acres 

are irrigated alfalfa harvested by the cooperator and 20 are grain that is left in the field for wildlife. 

Our “wild hay” program also includes a cooperator that is managed through a CLMA. The 

cooperator is allowed to hay 150 acres of wild grasses and in turn either pays cash or provides goods 

or services to the Service in exchange for the hay. 

The primary objective of haying and farming is to manage vegetation to maintain or increase its 

value to wildlife at a minimal cost to the government. The 20 acres of grain provide a food source on 

the Refuge for a variety of species including geese, ducks, sandhill cranes, white-tailed deer and elk. 

The irrigated alfalfa also provides a protein rich food source for these species, and may reduce 

depredation on adjacent private lands. Haying also provides a short grass habitat that species such as 

sandhill cranes, Canada geese, greater sage-grouse, and others use for foraging and loafing sites. 

Haying provides a more economical means of providing this type of habitat than mowing via force 

account, or prescribed fire. 

For each of the findings listed on FWS Form 3-2319, a justification has been provided below: 

a. Do we have jurisdiction over the use? 

Yes. All proposed activities would take place within refuge boundaries and under the supervision 

of refuge staff. 

b. Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? 

Yes. 

c. Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? 

The proposed use would provide high energy and readily available forage and cover for 

wintering and migrating waterfowl and cranes within close proximity to other natural food 

sources and high quality resting habitat. Crops can provide wildlife with easily accessible highenergy foods that are more digestible than native plants, and can reduce foraging time required to 

meet caloric demands (Alisauskas and Ankney 1992; Baldassarre and Bolen 2006; Raveling 

1979). Because it would be difficult to meet these conditions by managing natural foods alone, 

the production of non-genetically modified crops is consistent with the Service’s Biological 

Integrity, Diversity and Environmental Health Policy (601 FW 3) and would help achieve the 

refuge purposes. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations A-5 

d. Is the use consistent with public safety? 

The proposed use is consistent with public safety and, on Bear Lake NWR, would be sited in 

areas closed to the general public. 

e. Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

In the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for Camas NWR, specific goals, objectives 

and strategies have been established for the farming and haying program at Camas NWR. The 

planning team decided that the agricultural practices still in place on the Refuge provided benefits 

to enough wildlife species that they should remain in place at the current acreage. 

f. Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

In 1994 an Environmental Assessment was completed for haying on the Refuge and a subsequent 

compatibility determination found that the use was compatible. A revised compatibility 

determination was done on haying and farming in 2005 and both uses were found to be 

compatible. 

g. Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? 

The proposed use is manageable with available budget and staff. The use of a cooperator may save 

staff time and resources and increase the quality of wetland and grassland habitats over what could 

be achieved by only mowing with refuge staff. 

h. Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? 

Yes. This use would continue to be manageable with future resources as long as the acreages 

being farmed or hayed do not increase dramatically. 

i. Does the uses contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the Refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the Refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

The proposed use can contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the Refuge 

because hay and crop fields are situated adjacent to refuge roads where the public can view 

wildlife. 

j. Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for 

description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

The proposed use does not and would not impair existing or future wildlife-dependent 

recreational use of the Refuge. Approximately 20 acres would be used for grain production, 140 

acres for alfalfa production, and 150 acres (annually) for hay. These areas are closed to the 

general public, but viewable from adjacent roads. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

A-6 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

Literature Cited 

Alisauskas, R.T. and C.D. Ankney. 1992. The cost of egg laying and its relationship to nutritional 

reserves in waterfowl. Pages 30-61 in: B.D.J. Batt, A.D. Afton, M.G. Anderson, C.D. Ankney, 

D.H. Johnson, J.A. Kadlec, and G.L. Krapu, eds. Ecology and management of breeding 

waterfowl. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. 

Baldassarre, G.A. and E.G. Bolen. 2006. Waterfowl ecology and management. New York, NY: John 

Wiley and Sons. 

Raveling, D.G. 1979. The annual energy cycle of the cackling Canada goose. Pages 81-93 in: R.I. 

Jarvis and J.C. Bartonek, eds. Management and biology of Pacific Flyway geese. Corvallis, OR: 

Oregon State University. 

 
 FWS Form 3-2319 

 02/06

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE

Refuge Name: ____________________________________________________________________________ 

Use: ____________________________________________________________________________________ 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already 

described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and 

local)? 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service 

policies? 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for 

description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot 

control the use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be 

found appropriate. If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes ___ No ___ 

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager 

must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate_____ 

Refuge Manager:____________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use.

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence.

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence.

Refuge Supervisor:___________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.

Camas National Wildlife Refuge

The use of Research on Refuge lands and waters,

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

______________________________________________________________________________________________ Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations

______________________________________________________________________________________________

A-7
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

A-8 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

Appropriate Uses Justification, Attachment 2 

Date: 

Refuge: Camas National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) 

Use: Conducting research on refuge lands and waters 

Summary: The Refuge receives requests to conduct scientific research on refuge lands and waters. 

Research applicants must submit a proposal that outline: 1) study objectives; 2) justification for the 

study; 3) detailed methodology and schedule; 4) potential impacts on refuge wildlife and/or habitat, 

including disturbance (short- and long-term), injury, or mortality; 5) personnel required; 6) costs to 

Refuge, if any; and 7) end products (i.e., reports, publications). Research proposals would be 

reviewed by refuge staff and others as appropriate prior to the issuance of a special use permit (SUP). 

Projects would not be open-ended, and at a minimum, would be reviewed annually. 

For each of the findings listed on FWS Form 3-2319, a justification has been provided below: 

a. Do we have jurisdiction over the use? 

The Refuge has jurisdiction over those research projects that are sited within the Refuge’s 

boundaries. 

b. Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? 

All approved research activities would comply with all applicable laws and regulations. A SUP 

would be issued, with stipulations and restrictions to ensure compliance with relevant laws and 

regulations. 

c. Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? 

Through the review of individual projects, the Refuge would ensure that research projects are 

consistent with applicable policies, especially Research on Service Lands Policy (803 FW 1). 

d. Is the use consistent with public safety? 

Through individual project review, the Refuge would ensure that each project is consistent with 

public safety. If necessary, stipulations to ensure public safety would be included in the project’s 

SUP. 

e. Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

Research activities are approved in instances where they can provide meaningful data that may 

contribute to refuge management and public appreciation of natural resources. 

f. Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

This is the first time the use has undergone an appropriate use determination although research 

has occurred on the Refuge since establishment. Currently, research projects are reviewed and 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations A-9 

approved individually to ensure compliance law and policy (Research on Service Lands Policy, 

803 FW 1). 

g. Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? 

The Refuge receives less than four research requests per year. Only projects that are manageable 

within the current budget and staffing would be approved. 

h. Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? 

The proposed activity at current levels would be manageable in the future with the existing 

resources (see above). 

i. Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the Refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the Refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

The proposed use is beneficial to the Refuge’s natural and cultural resources because the types of 

research projects approved are those which are likely to help the Refuge achieve its purposes by 

providing information useful for the management of trust resources, and may contribute to the 

public’s understanding and appreciation of natural and/or cultural resources. 

j. Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for 

description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

The Refuge would ensure that the research activities would not impair existing or future wildlifedependent recreational use of the Refuge during individual project review, prior to issuing a SUP 

for the project. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

A-10 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

This page intentionally left blank. 

 
 FWS Form 3-2319 

 02/06

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE

Refuge Name: ____________________________________________________________________________ 

Use: ____________________________________________________________________________________ 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already 

described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and 

local)? 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service 

policies? 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for 

description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot 

control the use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be 

found appropriate. If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes ___ No ___ 

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager 

must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate_____ 

Refuge Manager:____________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use.

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence.

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence.

Refuge Supervisor:___________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.

Camas National Wildlife Refuge

Dog Walking

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

______________________________________________________________________________________________ Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations

______________________________________________________________________________________________

A-11
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

A-12 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

Appropriate Uses Justification, Attachment 3 

Date: 

Refuge: Camas National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) 

Use: Dog walking 

Summary: Dog walking is currently allowed on the Refuge as long as the dog is on a leash or under 

close control of the owner and is in an area where public use is allowed. Dog walking is an 

occasional use on Camas NWR and is spread out from spring to fall. Overall visitation to the Refuge 

is relatively low (estimated at 6,000 to 7,000 visits per year) and based upon staff observations a very 

small portion of these visitors bring pets. The uses associated with dogs seem to be biking and 

hiking. Few waterfowl and upland game bird hunters use the Refuge, so use of dogs for hunting is 

currently minimal. This use is considered appropriate, with stipulations to reduce wildlife disturbance 

and ensure public safety. 

For findings listed on FWS Form 3-2319 and if deemed necessary a justification has been provided 

below: 

a. Do we have jurisdiction over the use? 

Yes.

b. Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations? 

Yes.

c. Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? 

Yes.

d. Is the use consistent with public safety? 

Dogs have the potential to present a safety hazard to others visitors, especially if they are not 

properly controlled by the owner. Uncontrolled dogs that are not conditioned to be around 

strangers pose a potential risk to unsuspecting visitors. 

The Refuge’s relatively low visitation, combined with the fact that, based upon staff 

observations, very few visitors actually bring dogs to the Refuge, suggests that interaction 

between dogs and visitors other than their owners would be infrequent. Requiring dogs to be 

under close control, via leash or an electronic collar, will also reduce the risk of negative 

interactions with visitors to the Refuge. 

e. Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

Yes.
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations A-13 

f. Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

Currently dogs are allowed on the Refuge, and the current refuge brochure reads: “Pets are 

allowed if on leash or under close control.” However, a compatibility determination has not been 

done for this use. Use of dogs for waterfowl and upland game bird hunting is considered in the 

compatibility determinations for those uses. 

g. Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? 

Yes. Given the current and projected public use on the Refuge this use is manageable with 

available budget and staff. Management of this use would likely occur when staff is involved 

with other projects on the Refuge. 

h. Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? 

Yes (see above).

i. Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the Refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the Refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

Although dog-walking is not strictly being performed to understand or appreciate the wildlife on 

the Refuge, it is likely some visitors like to see and enjoy the Refuge and its wildlife while 

exercising their pets. 

j. Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1 for 

description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

Several studies indicate that the presence of dogs (even if on a leash) increase disturbances to 

wildlife, compared to people that are not accompanied by dogs (Hoopes 1993; MacArthur et al. 

1982). Unrestrained dogs also may kill, chase, or harass wildlife. Therefore, dogs can interfere 

with the ability of wildlife to feed and rest, as well as interfere with the experiences of other 

visitors who come to see or photograph wildlife. At the current levels of visitation and the low 

number of dogs brought to the Refuge, this use can be accommodated with minimal impacts to 

wildlife, and without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses. If visitation or the 

number of dogs being brought to the Refuge dramatically increases in the future, the Refuge will 

need to re-evaluate the use for appropriateness and compatibility. 

Literature Cited 

Hoopes E.M. 1993. Relationships between human recreation and piping plover foraging ecology and 

chick survival. M.S. thesis. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA. 106 pp. 

MacArthur, R.A., V. Geist, and R.H. Johnston. 1982. Cardiac and behavioral responses of mountain 

sheep to human disturbance. Journal of Wildlife Management 46:351-358. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

A-14 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

This page intentionally left blank. 

 
 FWS Form 3-2319 

 02/06

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE

Refuge Name: ____________________________________________________________________________ 

Use: ____________________________________________________________________________________ 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already 

described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and 

local)? 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service 

policies? 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for 

description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot 

control the use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be 

found appropriate. If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes ___ No ___ 

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager 

must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate_____ 

Refuge Manager:____________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use.

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence.

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence.

Refuge Supervisor:___________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.

Camas National Wildlife Refuge

Bicycling, jogging, cross-country skiing, and snow shoeing

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

______________________________________________________________________________________________ Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations

______________________________________________________________________________________________

A-15
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

A-16 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

Appropriate Uses Justification, Attachment 4 

Date: 

Refuge: Camas National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) 

Use: Bicycling, jogging, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing 

Summary: Bicycling and jogging currently occur infrequently on Refuge roads. A local bicycling 

group uses the Refuge for one ride per year. Because jogging, and use of bicycles, are limited to the 

road system, which limits disturbance of wildlife, and because of the infrequency of these uses, 

bicycling and jogging have been determined to be appropriate. Cross-country skiing and 

snowshoeing have also been allowed on Refuge roads. This use is very infrequent and is dependent 

upon having enough snow to make the use feasible. This use also occurs in winter when most of our 

wildlife species have moved further south. Due to the low occurrence of these uses and the limited 

amount of wildlife on the Refuge during this period, snowshoeing and cross-country skiing have 

been determined to be appropriate. 

For findings listed on FWS Form 3-2319 and if deemed necessary a justification has been provided 

below: 

a. Do we have jurisdiction over the use? 

Yes 

b. Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations? 

Yes 

c. Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? 

Yes 

d. Is the use consistent with public safety? 

Bicycling, jogging, cross-country skiing, and snowshoeing are infrequent uses on Camas NWR. 

Management has no observations or reports of conflicts with vehicle traffic, pedestrians, or 

wildlife. 

e. Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

Bicycling, jogging, cross-country skiing, and snowshoeing are consistent with Refuge goals and 

objectives as long as they are restricted to refuge roads, group size is limited, and they remain 

infrequent uses. 

f. Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

This is the first time these uses have undergone an appropriate use determination, although the 

uses have traditionally occurred infrequently. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations A-17 

g. Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? 

Refuge staff has not had to put any extra time or effort into managing these uses due to their low 

frequency. Therefore, these uses are currently manageable within available budget and staff. 

h. Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? 

At current levels, the proposed activity would be manageable in the future with the existing 

resources (see above). 

i. Does the uses contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the Refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the Refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

Generally bicycling and jogging are performed for exercise and enjoyment. Although participants 

may find these activities more enjoyable when done in a natural setting, these uses would not be 

expected to contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of natural and cultural 

resources. However, because the Refuge has graveled (not paved) roads, bicyclists move at a 

relatively slow pace. Those bicycling strictly for exercise would probably not use the Refuge for 

that function. It may be postulated that bicyclists coming to the Refuge are doing so to enjoy 

nature and watch wildlife, in addition to exercise. Because staff interactions with bicyclists and 

joggers occur so infrequently, no data are currently available to determine their actual 

motivations. 

Snowshoeing is a leisurely activity that is conducive to stopping and watching winter wildlife. 

Because the Refuge is basically flat, cross-country skiing is also a leisurely activity, although 

faster paced than the snowshoeing. Cross-country skiing also lends itself to stopping and 

enjoying wildlife. 

j. Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1 for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

At the present time bicycling and jogging, due to their infrequency, are not impairing existing 

wildlife-dependent recreational uses. These uses should be carefully monitored to reassess 

appropriateness before the use increases to the point of causing conflicts with wildlife and other 

visitors. 

Due to relatively low numbers of visitors participating in snowshoeing and cross-country skiing, 

and the fact that they occur in winter when wildlife numbers and wildlife-dependent recreation 

visitors are at their lowest, these activities can be accommodated without impairing other uses. 

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

A-18 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-1 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

B.1 Introduction 

The compatibility determinations (CDs) developed during the CCP planning process evaluate uses 

projected to occur under Alternative 2, the Preferred Alternative in the Draft CCP/EA for the Camas 

National Wildlife Refuge. 

The evaluation of funds needed for management and implementation of each use also assumes 

implementation as described under Alternative 2. Chapter 6 of the Draft CCP/EA also contains 

analysis of the impacts related to public use, wildlife, and habitats. 

B.2 Uses Evaluated at This Time 

The following section consists of CDs for all refuge uses that are required to be evaluated at this 

time. According to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS; Service) policy, compatibility 

determinations would be completed for all uses proposed under a CCP. Existing wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses must also be re-evaluated and new CDs prepared during development of a CCP or 

every five years, whichever comes first. Uses other than wildlife-dependent recreational uses are not 

explicitly required to be re-evaluated in concert with preparation of a CCP, unless conditions of the 

use have changed or unless significant new information relative to the use and its effects have 

become available or the existing CDs are more than ten years old. However, the Service planning 

policy recommends preparing CDs for all individual uses, specific use programs, or groups of related 

uses associated with the proposed action. Accordingly, the following CDs are included in this 

document for public review. 

Refuge Use Compatible Next Year Due for 

Re-evaluation

Camas NWR

Environmental Education, Interpretation, Wildlife Observation, 

and Photography 

Yes 2029 

Migratory Bird Hunting Yes 2029 

Upland Game Bird Hunting Yes 2029 

Big Game (Elk) Hunting Yes 2029 

Research Yes 2024 

Agricultural Practices Yes 2024 

Dog Walking Yes 2024 

Non-Wildlife-Dependent Recreation (Bicycling, Jogging, CrossCountry Skiing, Snowshoeing) Yes 2024 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-2 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

B.3 Compatibility—Legal and Historical Context 

Compatibility is a tool refuge managers use to ensure that recreational and other uses do not interfere 

with wildlife conservation, the primary focus of refuges. Compatibility is not new to the Refuge 

System; the concept dates back to 1918. As policy, it has been used since 1962. The Refuge Recreation 

Act of 1962 directed the Secretary of the Interior to allow only those public uses of refuge lands that 

were “compatible with the primary purposes for which the area was established.” If a general public 

use is determined to be appropriate, the use must then undergo a compatibility review. A compatibility 

review is required for all appropriate public uses, including wildlife-dependent recreational uses. 

The term “compatible use” is defined as a wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other use of a 

refuge that, in the sound professional judgment of the refuge manager, would not materially interfere 

with or detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the 

refuge. 

The Administration Act defines sound professional judgment as a finding, determination, or decision 

that is consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife management and administration, available 

science and resources, and adherence to other applicable laws. Included in this finding, 

determination, or decision is a refuge manager’s field experience and knowledge of the particular 

refuge’s resources. 

Part 603 FW 2 of the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual sets forth the policy and guidelines for 

determining compatibility of proposed uses and provides procedures for documentation and periodic 

review of existing uses. In addition, the policy requires an opportunity for public review and 

comment on all compatibility determinations. When prepared in conjunction with a CCP, 

compatibility determinations are distributed for public review along with the draft CCP and 

environmental assessment (EA). 

Under compatibility policy, uses are defined as recreational, economic/commercial, or management 

use of a refuge by the public or a non-Refuge System entity. Uses generally providing an economic 

return (even if conducted for the purposes of habitat management) are also subject to compatibility 

determinations. The Service does not prepare compatibility determinations for uses when the Service 

does not have jurisdiction. For example, the Service may have limited jurisdiction over refuge areas 

where property rights are vested by others; where legally binding agreements exist; or where there 

are treaty rights held by tribes. In addition, aircraft over-flights, emergency actions, some activities 

on navigable waters, and activities by other Federal agencies on “overlay refuges” are exempt from 

the compatibility review process. 

New compatibility policy, developed in response to the 1997 amendments to the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Administration Act (Administration Act), was adopted by the Service in October 

2000 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000). The policy requires that a use must be compatible with 

both the mission of the System and the purposes of the individual refuge. This standard helps to 

ensure consistency in application across the Refuge System. 

The Service recognizes that compatibility determinations are complex. For this reason, refuge 

managers are required to consider “principles of sound fish and wildlife management” and “best 

available science” in making these determinations (House of Representatives 1997). Evaluations of 

the existing uses on Camas NWR are based on the professional judgment of refuge personnel 

including observations of refuge uses and reviews of appropriate scientific literature. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-3 

The refuge manager has the authority to determine, by exercising sound professional judgment, what 

is a compatible use. In addition to determining if a use would materially interfere with or detract 

from the fulfillment of the System mission or the purposes of the refuge, the refuge manager must 

also evaluate the direct and indirect impacts of a use on refuge resources. Further, the cumulative 

impacts of the use when conducted in conjunction with other existing or planned uses of the refuge 

must also be considered. After evaluating the anticipated impacts of a proposed use and determining 

if any stipulations (terms or conditions) are needed to avoid or minimize potential adverse impacts, 

the refuge manager would determine whether or not the use is compatible. This determination is 

documented in writing and is available for review by the public. 

A proposed use can be denied without determining compatibly under certain circumstances, such as 

instances in which: 

1. A proposed use would conflict with other applicable laws or regulations; 

2. The use would result in conflicts with the goals or objectives of an approved CCP; or 

3. A use is determined to be inconsistent with public safety. 

Refuges are closed to all public uses until officially opened. Regulations require that adequate funds 

be available for administration and protection of refuges before opening them to any public uses. 

However, wildlife-dependent recreational uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, and environmental education and interpretation) are to receive enhanced consideration 

and cannot be rejected simply for lack of funding resources unless the refuge has made a concerted 

effort to seek out funds from all potential partners. Once found compatible, wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses are deemed the priority public uses at a refuge. If a proposed use is found not 

compatible, the use must be modified to be compatible or if the use cannot be modified to be 

compatible, then the use may not be allowed. Economic uses that are conducted by or authorized by 

the refuge also require compatibility determinations. 

References 

House of Representatives. 1997. Committee Report - House Report 105-106 National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. Available at: 

http://www.fws.gov/refuges/policiesandbudget/HR1420_part1.html. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. National Wildlife Refuge System Policies. Compatibility 

regulations adopted by the Service in October 2000. Available at: 

http://refuges.fws.gov/policymakers/nwrpolicies.html. 

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-4 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

This page intentionally left blank. 

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-5 

B.4 Draft Compatibility Determination for Wildlife Observation 

and Photography, Interpretation, and Environmental Education 

on Camas National Wildlife Refuge 

RMIS Database Uses: Wildlife Observation, Wildlife Photography, Interpretation, and 

Environmental Education 

Refuge Name: Camas National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) 

Location: Jefferson County, Idaho 

Date Established: 1937 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

 Executive Order 7720, signed October 8, 1937, dated October 8, 1937 

 Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 715 et seq.) 

 National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (16 U.S.C. § 668dd et seq.) 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

 “... as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife.” (Executive 

Order 7720, dated Oct. 8, 1937) 

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

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

 “... conservation, management, and ... restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources 

and their habitats ... for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans... ” 16 

U.S.C. § 668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

“The mission of the [National Wildlife Refuge] System is to administer a national network of lands 

and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, 

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

generations of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as 

amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee]). 

Description of Use(s): 

Non-consumptive wildlife-dependent recreation (defined here as wildlife observation, photography, 

environmental education and interpretation) are designated as priority public uses under the Refuge 

Improvement Act and can enhance the users’ appreciation of the Refuge, the National Wildlife 

Refuge System, wildlife, their habitats, and the human environment. 

Current Use: 

Currently, most use is self-guided and occurs on roads and trails. Due to the often harsh and long 

winters in the Camas area, most of this use occurs during the late spring, summer, and early fall, 

although winter viewing of bald eagles at their roost near refuge headquarters also occurs. An 

estimated 6,000-7,000 people visit the Refuge annually; of these, most are engaged in wildlife 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-6 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

observation and photography, while an estimated 400-500 visitors engage in interpretation and 

environmental education (tour participants, and school and Scout groups). Wildlife photography and 

observation are self-conducted activities and are facilitated through the availability of the 6.3-mile 

Auto Tour Route with nine pullouts and associated interpretive panels; 27 miles of dirt/gravel service 

roads; a 0.5-mile Architectural Barriers Act (ABA)-accessible trail with viewing platform 

overlooking Camas Creek; a small visitor contact station at the refuge office; and an orientation 

kiosk, restrooms, and parking located adjacent to the refuge office. Wildlife viewing tours are 

conducted occasionally by the refuge manager upon request. 

The 6.3-mile, two-way Auto Tour Route (ATR) is open to vehicle, pedestrian (hiking, jogging, crosscountry skiing, and snowshoeing), and bicycle traffic year round, although it may be impassable in 

winter. Based upon data gathered from a vehicle traffic counter installed on the ATR in 2009, from 

50 to 370 vehicles used the ATR per month, with the peak occurring from March to June. An 

additional 6.5 miles of roads leading to, and within the Refuge’s waterfowl and upland game hunt 

units are open to vehicles and pedestrian traffic during the waterfowl and upland game bird hunting 

seasons (Sept 21-Jan 31). These roads are not maintained throughout the winter, and therefore, may 

be impassable at times. 

The 0.5-mile birding trail is open year round to pedestrian use only, however, most use is spring 

through early fall. Hiking, jogging, bicycling, cross-country skiing, and snowshoeing are permitted 

year round on an additional 27 miles of dirt and gravel service roads that are un-maintained and 

ungroomed in winter. Off-road hiking is permitted throughout the entire Refuge from July 15-

February 28. 

The auto tour route, parking lot, and pedestrian trail/viewing platform are open daily from 1⁄2 hour 

before sunrise to 1⁄2 hour after sunset throughout the year. Any refuge public use programs or 

activities that may require access after sunset or before sunrise are managed by the refuge staff and 

may require Special Use Permits. 

Interpretation includes activities and infrastructure that explain management activities, fish and 

wildlife resources, ecological processes and cultural history to the visiting public. This information is 

provided through interpretive signs at the informational kiosk and on the Auto Tour Route, 

brochures, and infrequent scheduled tours or talks led by refuge staff and/or volunteers. These tours 

reach 150-200 participants annually. 

Currently, environmental education programs are limited and conducted for local school and Scout 

groups upon request, reaching an estimated 250 students annually. 

Proposed Use: 

The Refuge would maintain facilities for self-guided wildlife observation and photography, including 

the 6.3-mile Auto Tour Route, visitor contact station, information kiosk, restrooms, and paved 

parking lot. The 0.5-mile pedestrian birding trail would be lengthened to 1.3 miles. Vehicle access 

would continue to be allowed year round on the Auto Tour Route, except that the route would be 

changed to one-way to promote visitor safety. 6.5 miles of additional roads leading to and within the 

north and south waterfowl and upland game bird hunt units would continue to be open to vehicle and 

pedestrian traffic during hunting seasons. To promote visitor safety and limit disturbance to wildlife, 

we propose to eliminate free-roam hiking in the Preferred Alternative. Hiking, jogging, bicycling, 

cross-country skiing, and snowshoeing would continue to be allowed year round, weather and 

conditions permitting, on the Refuge’s 6.3-mile auto tour route and 27 miles of service roads, 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-7 

including 5 miles of service roads within the elk hunting area. Photographers would be allowed to 

place their portable blinds within 100 feet of roads. No more than five portable photo blinds would 

be allowed on the Refuge at any given time. Blind space must be reserved in advance. 

Additional opportunities for wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and 

interpretation would be provided under the Preferred Alternative, via an increased number of wildlife 

viewing tours and an enhanced environmental education program conducted by refuge staff, 

volunteers, teachers, or other leaders. These programs would assist in the development of the skills 

and understanding to make informed decisions regarding natural resource management and 

encourage participation in resource management and protection. Environmental education classes or 

events would be scheduled by the refuge staff and/or volunteers. Eight wildlife viewing tours (200-

300 participants annually) and ten to fifteen educational tours (800 students annually within ten 

years) would be conducted annually by refuge staff and volunteers. Funding would be sought for a 

new Visitor Contact station and EE classroom to support these enhanced programs. 

Need and Availability of Resources: 

Category and Itemization One-time 

($000) 

Annual 

($000/yr) 

New visitor contact station/EE classroom $350,000 

Extension of birding trail $25,000 

Additional interpretive and administrative signs $10,000 

New refuge brochures and/or tear sheets, website, other digital products $8,500 

Salary for dedicated Park Ranger/Visitor Services Manager position $75,000 

Salary for Complex Visitor Services/Volunteer Coordinator position (.25 

FTE) 

 $18,750 

Maintenance of public use facilities (roads, trails, parking lots, restrooms, 

exhibits) 

 $5,500 

Other program operations (administration and management, law 

enforcement, biological monitoring 

 $25,000 

TOTAL $393,500 $124,250 

 

Once the CD is approved through the CCP process, Federal funds would be requested through the 

Service budget process. Other sources (monetary and non-monetary) would be sought through 

strengthened partnerships, grants, coordination with other agencies, and additional refuge operations 

funding to support a safe, quality public use program. Existing staff and resources are not currently 

adequate to meet the potential need for environmental education opportunities that exist in the area. 

A staff member dedicated to this purpose would greatly increase the number of participants in this 

use on Camas NWR. The use of volunteer assistance has been initiated and has had a positive impact 

on the number of students visiting Camas NWR. Increased volunteer assistance, strengthened 

existing partnerships, and new partnerships would be sought to support environmental education and 

interpretation programs in an effective, safe, and compatible manner. Refuge staff would increase 

volunteer recruiting efforts. Volunteers, interns, and various user groups when provided appropriate 

training can assist the Refuge with monitoring, education and interpretation programs, and 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-8 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

maintenance projects. With additional assistance as described above, staffing and funding is expected 

to be sufficient to manage these uses. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use(s): 

Impacts resulting from the proposed use include both direct and indirect impacts to wildlife resources 

and the associated habitat. Direct impacts have an immediate effect on wildlife and generally result 

from the public’s interaction with wildlife. Indirect impacts would include actions taken by the public 

that would impact habitat or reduce access to habitat. 

Effects to Habitat: 

The primary impact visitors engaged in wildlife observation and photography have on habitat is the 

trampling of vegetation and creation of social trails. Trail widening and creation of social trails 

increases the area of disturbed land (Adkison and Jackson 1996; Dale and Weaver 1974; Liddle 

1975). Pedestrians can potentially cause structural damage to plants and increase soil compaction and 

erosion (DeLuca et al. 1998; Whittaker 1978). These impacts are unlikely to occur on the welldefined, gravel surface of refuge trails; however, social trails associated with off-trail use remain an 

issue for refuge managers as plants are trampled and wildlife is disturbed. Control of invasive plant 

species on the Refuge is a difficult and never-ending battle. Roads and trails often function as 

conduits for movement of plant species, including non-native, invasive species (Benninger-Truax et 

al. 1992; Hansen and Clevenger 2005). Propagules of non-native plants can be transported into new 

areas on hikers’ boots, clothing, and equipment (Benninger-Traux et al. 1992). Once established, 

invasive plants can out-compete native plants, thereby altering habitats and indirectly impacting 

wildlife. Invasive plants and animals would be controlled and monitored as part of the Refuge’s 

Integrated Pest Management Plan. 

Effects to Wildlife: 

Anticipated direct impacts include disturbance to wildlife by human presence which typically results 

in a temporary displacement of individuals or groups. Immediate responses by wildlife to 

recreational activity can range from behavioral changes including nest abandonment, altered nest 

placement, change in food habits, physiological changes such as elevated heart rates and increased 

energetic costs due to flight or flushing, or even death (Belanger and Bedard 1990; Knight and Cole 

1995; Knight and Swaddle 2007; Miller et al. 1998; Miller and Hobbs 2000; Morton et al. 1989; 

Smith-Castro and Rodewald 2010). The long-term effects are more difficult to assess but may 

include altered behavior, vigor, productivity or death of individuals; altered population abundance, 

distribution, or demographics; and altered community species composition and interactions. 

According to Knight and Cole (1991), there are three wildlife responses to human disturbance: 1) 

avoidance; 2) habituation; and 3) attraction. The magnitude of the avoidance response may depend 

on a number of factors including the type, distance, movement pattern, speed, and duration of the 

disturbance, as well as the time of day, time of year, weather; and the animal’s access to food and 

cover, energy demands, and reproductive status (Fernandez-Juricic et al. 2007; Gabrielsen and Smith 

1995; Knight and Cole 1991). 

Habituation is defined as a form of learning in which individuals stop responding to stimuli that carry 

no reinforcing consequences for the individuals that are exposed to them (Alcock 1993). A key factor 

for predicting how wildlife would respond to disturbance is predictability. Often, when a use is 

predictable—following a trail or boardwalk or at a viewing deck—wildlife would habituate to and 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-9 

accept human presence (Oberbillig 2000). Gabrielsen and Smith (1995) suggest that most animals 

seem to have a greater defense response to humans moving unpredictably in the terrain (e.g., off-trail 

hikers) than to humans following a distinct path. 

Direct impacts: Negative impacts to wildlife have been documented when migratory birds and 

humans are present in the same areas (Boyle and Samson 1985). Response of birds to human 

activities includes departure from site (Burger 1981; Henson and Grant 1991; Klein 1993; Korschgen 

et al. 1985; Owens 1977; Taylor and Knight 2003), use of suboptimal habitat (Erwin 1980; Williams 

and Forbes 1980), altered behavior (Burger 1981; Havera et al. 1992; Klein 1993; Korschgen et al. 

1985; Morton et al. 1989; Ward and Stehn 1989), and increase in energy expenditure (Belanger and 

Bedard 1990; Morton et al. 1989). McNeil et al. (1992) found that many waterfowl species avoid 

disturbance by feeding at night instead of during the day. 

The location of recreational activities impacts species in different ways. Miller et al. (1998) found 

that nesting success was lower near recreational trails, where human activity was common, than at 

greater distances from the trails. Stolen (2003) found that the proximity of wading birds to a roadway 

influenced the probability that a given bird would flush. Migratory waterfowl at J.N. “Ding” Darling 

NWR remained more than 80 meters (m; 262 feet) from the auto tour route, even when human 

visitation was low (Klein 1995). 

Wildlife species also vary in their sensitivity to disturbance. Klein (1989) found that migratory 

dabbling ducks to be the most sensitive to disturbance, and that migrant ducks were more sensitive 

when they first arrived, in the late fall, than later in winter. She also found gulls and sandpipers to be 

apparently insensitive to human disturbance, with Burger (1981) finding the same to be true for 

various gull species. However, while gulls are relatively insensitive to disturbance while foraging 

away from breeding colonies, they can be extremely sensitive to human disturbance at nesting sites. 

Guay (1968) found that Franklin’s gulls are particularly sensitive to human disturbance early in the 

breeding cycle and again during the chick phase, and would abandon with excessive human 

exposure. Likewise, Burger (1981) found that wading birds were extremely sensitive to disturbance 

in the northeastern United States. Disturbance during critical times in the breeding cycle may cause 

colony abandonment in colonial-nesting waterbirds. White-faced ibis are susceptible to colony 

abandonment resulting from human intrusion into colonies during the early nesting period (Ryder 

and Manry 1994). Abandonment of nests is less likely with young than eggs but may still occur with 

repeated disturbance (Burger and Gochfeld 1994). 

Gutzwiller et al. (1997) found that singing behavior of some songbirds was altered by low levels of 

human intrusion. Resident waterbirds that are regularly exposed to human disturbance tend to be less 

sensitive than migrants, especially when migrants first arrive at a site (Klein 1993). In areas where 

human activity is common, birds tolerated closer approaches than in areas receiving less activity. 

Knight and Cole (1991) also suggested that sound may elicit a much milder response from wildlife if 

animals are visually buffered from the disturbance. 

Pedestrian travel can impact normal behavioral activities, including feeding, reproductive, and social 

behavior. Studies have shown that ducks and shorebirds are sensitive to pedestrian activity (Burger 

1981, 1986). A number of species have shown greater reactions when pedestrian use occurred off 

trail (Miller et al. 1998; Taylor and Knight 2003). Wildlife photographers tend to have larger 

disturbance impacts than those viewing wildlife since they tend to approach animals more closely 

(Klein 1993; Morton 1995). Burger (1999 as cited by Oberbillig 2000) suggests that viewing 

distances that minimize disturbance can serve as useful guides for managers lacking good site-
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-10 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

specific information and serve as a starting point in determining what is appropriate elsewhere. Some 

factors that affect viewing distances include the numbers of viewers, the time of day, and noise level. 

When exposing nonbreeding waterbirds to four types of human disturbances (walking, all-terrain 

vehicle, automobile, and boat), Rodgers and Smith (1997) concluded that a buffer zone of 100 m 

(328 feet) would minimize disturbance to most species of waterbirds. 

The use of the auto tour route, roads, trail, and associated facilities on the Refuge provides potential 

for human disturbance of wildlife. A good way to control the impacts of non-consumptive wildlifedependent uses is to mitigate the effect on wildlife by managing these uses in time and space. To 

minimize disturbance to wildlife, the Refuge would only be open from 1⁄2 before sunrise to a 1⁄2 hour 

after sunset. Wildlife observation and photography, interpretation, and environmental education 

would be allowed only on the 1.3-mile pedestrian trail, the 6.3-mile Auto Tour Route and 27 miles of 

dirt and gravel service roads (year round). Vehicles would be allowed only on the access road, 6.3-

mile Auto Tour Route year round, and 6.5 miles of additional roads leading to the north and south 

waterfowl hunt unit during the hunting season. The existing auto tour route, roads and trail are 

located at a sufficient distance from important wildlife use areas that minimal disturbance would 

occur. Off-road hiking would be prohibited, and the use of portable photography blinds would be 

limited to a maximum of five blinds on the Refuge at any given time, with all blinds within 100 feet 

of roads. Refuge staff would manage group size, timing, and location of formal interpretive and 

environmental education programs to minimize disturbance. Wildlife tours and school groups would 

be led by refuge staff or trained volunteers to minimize disturbance or other impacts to wildlife. 

Cumulative and indirect/secondary impacts: Indirect impacts of wildlife-dependent activities depend 

on a number of variables, such as season of use, duration of activity, location and number of users. 

People can be vectors for invasive plants by moving seeds or other propagules from one area to 

another. Once established, invasive plants can out-compete native plants, thereby altering habitats 

and indirectly impacting wildlife. The threat of invasive plant establishment would always be an 

issue requiring annual monitoring and treatment when necessary. Refuge staff would work at 

eradicating invasive plants and educating the visiting public. Providing and maintaining access points 

to the Refuge indirectly impacts wildlife by creating barriers to movement, through vegetation 

removal and management, and abrupt edge creation that may lead to increased predation (Ratti and 

Reese 1988). Trail edges may concentrate prey species and may be used by predators as travel 

corridors. Other indirect impacts may include trampling of vegetation, erosion, littering, removal of 

vegetation, and vandalism. These adverse impacts are expected to be short term and limited to 

locations along the auto tour route, roads, trail, parking/pullouts, and associated facilities. 

Despite the potential for the above effects to result from public visitation, the physical impacts, 

disturbance to wildlife and habitat, and disturbances on the Refuge are expected to be intermittent, 

minor, and short term, and in the context of the amount of the Refuge closed to public use 

(sanctuary) allowing these uses on the Refuge are not expected to diminish the value of the Refuge 

for its stated purposes. 

Summary and application to Camas NWR: Since Camas provides important breeding habitat for 

migratory waterfowl and waterbirds, the primary concern on Camas NWR would be disturbance to 

wildlife (especially waterfowl and waterbirds) during the nesting and brood-rearing season, which 

coincides with the peak season for public use on the Refuge (March-June). In addition there are 

concerns regarding disturbance to waterfowl, waterbirds, and landbirds during migration, and to bald 

eagles at their winter roost in the cottonwoods near the refuge headquarters. Most wildlife 

observation and photography takes place on the Auto Tour Road, the refuge entrance road, and the 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-11 

1.3 mile pedestrian birding trail. In the seasonally open waterfowl and upland game hunting areas of 

the Refuge (2,510 acres), access for wildlife observation and photography, interpretation, and 

environmental education would be restricted to pedestrian and vehicle use of 6.5 miles of service 

roads on and leading to the north and south waterfowl and upland game hunting units during the 

hunting season. Confining pedestrian and vehicle access to designated roads and trails, and 

prohibiting off-road hiking allows wildlife to habituate to the presence of humans. 

Public Review and Comment: 

Public review and comments are being solicited in conjunction with release of this Draft CCP/EA 

(USFWS 2013) in order to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and with Service 

policy. 

Determination: (check one below) 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

 Activities associated with this proposed use are restricted to those portions of the Refuge that 

are open to the general public during daylight hours. 

 Adherence to seasonal use restrictions to reduce disturbance to nesting waterfowl and other 

wildlife. 

 Vehicle access is allowed only on the entrance road (year round), Auto Tour Route (year 

round) and designated hunter access roads (open during hunting seasons only). Only street 

legal vehicles, as defined under Idaho regulations, and bicycles are allowed on the auto tour 

route and hunter access roads. 

 Hiking, bicycling, jogging, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, and dog walking (on leash 

only) are allowed year round, and only on the Auto Tour Route and 27 miles of designated 

service roads. Pedestrian use only allowed on the birding trail. Dogs are prohibited. 

 Portable blinds for the purposes of wildlife observation and photography may be used. They 

must be placed no further than 100 feet from roadways and must be removed at the end of the 

day. 

 A maximum of five portable blinds would be allowed on the Refuge daily. Blinds space must 

be reserved in advance. 

 Camping, overnight use, and fires are prohibited. 

 Littering is prohibited. 

 Harassment of wildlife or excessive damage to vegetation is prohibited. 

 Collection of plants and animals is prohibited unless a Special Use Permit is obtained from 

the Refuge (except wildlife captured while engaged in fishing and hunting). 

 Activities requiring off road/trail access or access between 1⁄2 hour after sunset and 1⁄2 hour 

before sunrise would require a Special Use Permit or be managed by refuge staff. 

 The Refuge would provide signs and brochures. These materials would clearly state pertinent 

refuge-specific regulations. Verbal instructions from refuge staff would promote appropriate 

use of trails and blinds to minimize wildlife and habitat disturbance. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-12 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

 The Refuge would periodically monitor and evaluate sites and programs to determine if 

objectives are being met and the resource is not being degraded. 

Justification: 

Wildlife photography, observation, interpretation, and environmental education are listed as priority 

wildlife-dependent uses for the National Wildlife Refuge System through which the public can 

develop an appreciation for fish and wildlife (Executive Order 12996, March 25, 1996 and the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57). The Service’s 

policy is to provide expanded opportunities for wildlife-dependent uses when compatible and 

consistent with sound fish and wildlife management and to ensure that they receive enhanced 

attention during planning and management. Facilitating these uses on the Refuge would increase 

visitor knowledge and appreciation of fish and wildlife resources. This enhanced understanding 

would foster increased public stewardship of natural resources and support for the Service’s 

management actions in achieving the refuge purposes and the mission of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. 

There is more than an adequate amount of undisturbed habitat available to the majority of waterfowl, 

waterbirds, and other wildlife for escape and cover, such that their abundance and use of the Refuge 

would not be measurably lessened from allowing wildlife observation and photography, 

interpretation, and environmental education to occur. There is no evidence that these uses at current 

participation levels materially interfere with the purposes of the Refuge. Stipulations would help 

reduce or eliminate any unwanted impacts of these uses. The relatively limited number of individual 

animals expected to be adversely affected due to these uses would not cause wildlife populations to 

materially decline, the physiological condition and production of wildlife species would not be 

impaired, their behavior and normal activity patterns would not be altered dramatically, and their 

overall welfare would not be negatively impacted. Thus, allowing wildlife observation and 

photography, interpretation, and environmental education would not materially interfere with or 

detract from the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System or the purposes for which the 

Refuge was established. 

Mandatory 10- or 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: (provide month and year for “allowed” 

uses only) 

2029 Mandatory 15-year reevaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses) 

 Mandatory 10-year reevaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public uses) 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: (check one below) 

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-13 

References: 

Adkison, G.P. and M.T. Jackson. 1996. Changes in ground-layer vegetation near trails in midwestern 

U.S. forests. Natural Areas Journal 16:14-23. 

Alcock, J. 1993. Animal behavior: an evolutionary approach. 5th edition. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer 

Associates. 

Belanger, L. and J. Bedard. 1990. Energetic cost of man-induced disturbance to staging snow geese. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 54:36. 

Benninger-Truax, M., J.L. Vankat, and R.L. Schaefer. 1992. Trail corridors as habitat and conduits 

for movement of plant species in Rocky Mountain National Park, CO. Landscape Ecology 

6(4):269-278. 

Boyle, S.A. and F.B. Samson. 1985. Effects of nonconsumptive recreation on wildlife: a review. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 13:110. 

Burger, J. 1981. The effect of human activity on birds at a coastal bay. Biological Conservation 

21:231-241. 

Burger, J. 1986. The effect of human activity on shorebirds in two coastal bays in northeastern 

United States. Environmental Conservation 13:123-130. 

Burger, J. and M. Gochfeld. 1994. Franklin’s gull (Larus pipixcan). In: A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. The 

birds of North America, No. 116. Philadelphia: Academy of Natural Sciences and Washington, 

D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union. 

Burger, J. 1999. Shorebird squeeze: The pressures of public recreation on waterbird populations. 

Talk presented at the 1999 Watchable Wildlife Conference in Ft. Myers, FL. (Abstract available 

from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission).

Dale, D. and T. Weaver. 1974. Trampling effects on vegetation of the trail corridors of north Rocky 

Mountain forests. Journal of Applied Ecology 11:767-772. 

DeLuca, T.H., W.A. Patterson, W.A. Freimund, and D.N. Cole. 1998. Influence of llamas, horses, 

and hikers on soil erosion from established recreational trails in western Montana, USA. 

Environmental Management 22(2):255-262. 

Erwin, R.M. 1980. Breeding habitat use by colonially nesting waterbirds in two mid-Atlantic U.S. 

regions under different regimes of human disturbances. Biological Conservation 18:39-51. 

Fernández-Juricic, E., P.A. Zollner, C. LeBlanc, and L.M. Westphal. 2007. Responses of nestling 

black-crowned night herons (Nycticorax nycticorax) to aquatic and terrestrial recreational 

activities: a manipulative study. Waterbirds 30(4):554-565. 

Gabrielson, G.W. and E.N. Smith. 1995. Physiological responses of wildlife to disturbance. Pages 

95-107 in: R.L. Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through 

management and research. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 

Guay, J.W. 1968. The breeding biology of Franklin’s gull (Larus pipixcan). Ph.D. dissertation. 

University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada. 

Gutzwiller, K.J., R.T. Wiedenmann, and K.L. Clements. 1997. Does human intrusion alter the 

seasonal timing of avian song during breeding periods? Auk 114:55-65. 

Hansen, M.J. and A.P. Clevenger. 2005. The influence of disturbance and habitat on the presence of 

non-native plant species along transport corridors. Biological Conservation 125:249-259. 

Havera, S.P., L.R. Boens, M.M. Georgi, and R.T. Shealy. 1992. Human disturbance of waterfowl on 

Keokuk Pool, Mississippi River. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20:290-298. 

Henson, P., and T.A. Grant. 1991. The effects of human disturbance on trumpeter swan breeding 

behavior. Wildlife Society Bulletin 19:248-257. 

Klein, M.L. 1989. Effects of high levels of human visitation on foraging waterbirds at J.N. “Ding” 

Darling National Wildlife Refuge. Final research report. University of Florida, Cooperative Fish 

and Wildlife Research. Gainesville, FL. 208 pp. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-14 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Klein, M.L. 1993. Waterbird behavioral responses to human disturbances. Wildlife Society Bulletin 

21:31-39. 

Klein, M.L. 1995. Effects of ecotourism on the distribution of waterbirds on a wildlife refuge. 

Conservation Biology 9:1454-1465. 

Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole. 1991. Effects of recreational activity on wildlife in wildlands. 

Transactions of the 56th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 56:238-

247. 

Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole. 1995. Wildlife responses to recreationists. Pages 71-79 in R.L. Knight 

and K.J. Gutzwiller, editors. Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through management and 

research. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 

Knight C.R. and J.P. Swaddle. 2007. Associations of anthropogenic activity and disturbance with 

fitness metrics of eastern bluebirds (Sialia sialis). Biological Conservation 138(1-2):189-197. 

Korschgen, C. E., L. S. George, and W. L. Green. 1985. Disturbance of diving ducks by boaters on a 

migrational staging area. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13: 290-296. 

Liddle, M.J. 1975. A selective review of the ecological effects of human trampling on natural 

ecosystems. Biological Conservation 7:17-36. 

McNeil, R., P. Drapeau, and J.D. Goss-Custard. 1992. The occurrence and adaptive significance of 

nocturnal habitats in waterfowl. Biological Review 67:381-419. 

Miller, J.R. and N.T. Hobbs. 2000. Recreational trails, human activity, and nest predation in lowland 

riparian areas. Landscape and Urban Planning 50(4):227-236. 

Miller, S.G., R.L. Knight, and C.K. Miller. 1998. Influence of recreational trails on breeding bird 

communities. Ecological Applications 8(1):162-169. 

Morton, J.M. 1995. Management of human disturbance and its effects on waterfowl. Pages F59-F86 

in: William Raymond Whitman, ed. Waterfowl habitat restoration, enhancement and 

management in the Atlantic Flyway, 3rd ed. Dover, DE: Environmental Management Committee, 

Atlantic Flyway Council Technical Section, and Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife. 

Morton, J.M., A.C. Fowler, and R.L. Kirkpatrick. 1989. Time and energy budgets of American black 

ducks in winter. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:401-410. 

Oberbillig, D.R. 2000. Providing positive wildlife viewing experiences. Missoula, MT: Deborah 

Richie Communications. 68 pp. 

Owens, N.W. 1977. Responses of wintering Brent geese to human disturbance. Wildfowl 28:5-14. 

Ratti, J.T. and K.P. Reese. 1988. Preliminary test of the ecological trap hypothesis. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 52:484-491. 

Rodgers J.A., Jr. and H.T. Smith. 1997. Buffer zone distances to protect foraging and loafing 

waterbirds from human disturbance in Florida. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:139-145. 

Ryder, R.R. and D.E. Manry. 1994. White-faced ibis (Plegadis chihi). In: A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. 

The birds of North America, No. 130. Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences and 

Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union. 

Smith-Castro, J.R. and A.D. Rodewald. 2010. Behavioral responses of nesting birds to human 

disturbance along recreational trails. Journal of Field Ornithology 81(2):130-138. 

Stolen, E.D. 2003. The effects of vehicle passage on foraging behavior of wading birds. Waterbirds 

26(4) 429-436. 

Taylor, A.R. and R.L. Knight 2003. Wildlife responses to recreation and associated visitor 

perceptions. Ecological Applications 13(4):951-963. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2013. Environmental assessment for the draft refuge 

comprehensive conservation plan, Camas National Wildlife Refuge. On file at Camas Refuge. 

Hamer, ID. Ward, D.H. and R.A. Stehn. 1989. Response of Brant and other geese to aircraft 

disturbance at Izembek Lagoon, Alaska. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Fish and 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-15 

Wildlife Research Center. Final report to the Minerals Management Service. Anchorage, Alaska. 

193 pp. 

Whittaker, P.L. 1978. Comparison of surface impact by hiking and horseback riding in the Great 

Smoky Mountain National Park. Report 24. National Park Service, Southeast Region. Atlanta, 

GA. 32 pp. 

Williams, G. and J.E. Forbes. 1980. The habitat and dietary preferences of dark-bellied Brent geese 

and widgeon in relation to agricultural management. Wildfowl 31:151-157. 

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-16 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Signatures for Compatibility Determination 1, Wildlife Observation, Photography, 

Environmental Education, and Interpretation at Camas NWR: 

Prepared by: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Refuge Manager/ 

Project Leader 

Approval: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Concurrence 

 

Refuge Supervisor: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System (for 

HI, ID, OR, 

PI, and WA): ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-17 

B.5 Draft Compatibility Determination for Waterfowl Hunting on 

Camas National Wildlife Refuge 

RMIS Database Uses: Waterfowl Hunting 

Refuge Name: Camas National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) 

Location: Camas County, Idaho 

Location: Jefferson County, Idaho 

Date Established: 1937 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

 Executive Order 7720, signed October 8, 1937, dated October 8, 1937 

 Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 715 et seq.) 

 National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (16 U.S.C. § 668dd et seq.) 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

 “... as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife.” (Executive 

Order 7720, dated Oct. 8, 1937) 

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

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

 “... conservation, management, and ... restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources 

and their habitats ... for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans... ” 16 

U.S.C. § 668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: “To administer a national network of lands and waters 

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

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

of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 

U.S.C. 668dd et seq.). 

Description of Use(s): 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) proposes to continue to allow hunting of waterfowl 

(ducks, geese, mergansers), American coots, and Wilson’s snipe on Camas NWR in accordance with 

State and Federal regulations. Waterfowl and migratory bird hunting in the United States is guided 

by an established regulatory process that involves numerous sources of waterfowl population and 

harvest data. Harvest data are reported by hunters to the State, and season and bag limits are adjusted 

accordingly to ensure that overall populations of game species remain healthy into the future. 

Hunting of ducks, geese, mergansers, American coots, and Wilson’s snipe is allowed. Migratory 

game bird seasons run in accordance with State of Idaho regulations. Hunting is permitted seven days 

per week. Shooting hours correspond to State regulations (1⁄2 hour before sunrise until sunset). 

Hunters are allowed entry to the hunt units one hour before legal hunting hours. Non-toxic shot must 

be used for all migratory bird hunting, and hunters may not possess lead shot in the field. A valid 

State license and appropriate Federal and State stamps applicable to the hunted species are required 

to hunt on the Refuge. No refuge-specific permits or hunter check-in procedures are required. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-18 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Hunting of ducks, geese, coots, mergansers, and snipe is allowed on approximately 2,510 acres of the 

Refuge, which is divided between two separate hunt units: the north unit (980 acres) and the south 

unit (1,530 acres). Duck and goose hunting is allowed during the State youth waterfowl hunt and all 

species listed above during State seasons. Seasons are as follows: 

Species State Hunting Season

Waterfowl October 13-January 25 

Dark and Light Geese October 13-January 25 

Wilson’s Snipe October 13-January 25 

American Coot October 13-January 25 

Source: IDFG 2012. 2012 Waterfowl Seasons and Rules. URL: 

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/rules/waterfowlRules.pdf 

Because they reduce the loss of waterfowl to the hunter’s bag and hence can reduce the overall 

impact to the resource, dogs used in support of hunting are allowed on the Refuge. Temporary blinds 

of natural vegetation may be constructed, but such blinds are available for general use on a firstcome, first served basis. Construction of permanent blinds is prohibited. 

Currently the Refuge has limited infrastructure to support its hunting program. Supporting access to 

the hunting units are 6.5 miles of refuge roads are open to vehicle traffic, and six parking areas (two 

parking lots in the north hunt unit and four parking lots in the south unit). Both units have signs 

(Open to Public Hunting) that mark the boundary of the hunt units. 

Historically the Refuge provided good waterfowl hunting opportunities. Currently the hunt units 

rarely hold water during the waterfowl hunting season. Due to the drop in the water table all of the 

wetlands on Camas NWR are dry by late summer, unless water is pumped from wells. When water is 

flowing through the main diversion or Independent Ditch, there are some opportunities to jump shoot 

waterfowl, and a handful of hunters may attempt this per year. Better opportunities exist when 

waterfowl leave the refuge wetlands in the morning and evening to feed on private agricultural fields. 

Due to lack of reliable fall water, use of Camas NWR for migratory game bird hunting is very 

limited, estimated at four to eight hunter visits per season. 

In 2018, after the changes in water management described in the CCP are initiated, we would reevaluate the size and location of the waterfowl hunt area. Depending upon wetland response to 

changes in water management, we would consider shifting the waterfowl hunt units into areas with 

more reliable fall water, or enlarging the waterfowl hunt area. Areas open to migratory bird hunting 

would not exceed 40 percent of the total refuge acres. If the hunt area is expanded we would conduct 

a new compatibility determination. 

Need and Availability of Resources: 

The following funds would be required to run the migratory bird and upland game bird hunting 

programs as designed under the CCP. Costs for both programs are combined here. 

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-19 

Annual Hunt Program Cost for Migratory and Upland Game Birds. 

Position Activity or Product Reccurring 

Refuge Manager Program Management $600*

Wildlife Biologist Resource Monitoring (e.g.sage grouse 

surveys)

$2,500*

SE ID Complex Park 

Ranger (LEO)*

Service LE patrols $3,343*

Regional Office staff,* 

Eng. Equip. Operator*

Modify existing outreach/regulatory 

materials; signage upkeep.

$ 500*

Total $6,943 

*Covered under existing funding/salaries 

Once the CD is approved through the CCP process, Federal funds would be requested through the 

Service budget process. Other sources (monetary and non-monetary) would be sought through 

strengthened partnerships, grants, coordination with other agencies, and additional refuge operations 

funding to support a safe, quality public use program. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use(s): 

Impacts to Habitat: 

The primary impact hunters have on habitat is the trampling of vegetation and creation of social 

trails, which in turn often function as conduits for movement of plant species, including non-native, 

invasive species (Benninger-Truax et al. 1992; Hansen and Clevenger 2005). The impacts of 

waterfowl hunters on refuge habitat are expected to be minor. The hunting season on the Refuge 

starts and ends outside of the growing season of most plants, and numbers of waterfowl hunters are 

low, so trampling and the spread of invasive plants is not a major issue. Spread of aquatic invasive 

plants is unlikely since hunting cannot be accessed via boat. Invasive species could however, be 

spread via contaminated equipment (e.g., decoys or waders). 

Impacts to Wildlife (General): 

Hunting, by its nature, results in the intentional take of individual animals, as well as wounding and 

disturbance (DeLong 2002). It can also alter behavior (e.g., foraging time), population structure, and 

distribution patterns of wildlife (Bartelt 1987; Cole and Knight 1990; Madsen 1985; Owens 1977; 

Raveling 1979; Thomas 1983; White-Robinson 1982). Waterfowl are wary, seeking refuge from all 

forms of disturbance, but particularly those associated with loud noise and rapid movement 

(Dahlgren and Korschgen 1992). Numerous studies show human activities associated with hunting 

(boating, vehicle disturbance, human presence) cause increased flight time in waterfowl species, 

which requires a considerable amount of energy (Havera et al. 1992; Kahl 1991; Kenow et al. 2003; 

Knapton et al. 2000). Human disturbance compels waterfowl to change feeding habits, for example, 

feeding only at night or deserting feeding areas entirely, resulting in weight loss (Dahlgren and 

Korschgen 1992). 

In addition to loss of individuals of target species, hunting causes disturbance to non-target species 

because of noise (most notably the report of a firearm), human presence, and general disturbance 

associated with the activity. Hunting results in the increase of non-target species being injured or 

killed (accidentally or intentionally) in addition to waterfowl being crippled or killed and not 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-20 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

retrieved. These disturbances are manifested by alertness, fright (obvious or unapparent), flight, 

swimming, disablement or death in non-target species (Dahlgren and Korschgen 1992). 

Hunting can contribute to the well-being of wildlife by giving people a deeper appreciation of 

wildlife and a better understanding of the importance of wildlife and habitat conservation, which 

ultimately contributes to the NWRS mission. The hunting community remains the largest support 

base for funding wildlife management programs, and refuges provide an opportunity for a highquality waterfowl hunting experience to all citizens regardless of economic standing. Many 

individual refuges have developed extensive public information and education programs bringing 

hunters into contact with refuge activities and facilitating awareness of wildlife issues beyond 

hunting. Hunting is one of the six priority public uses of the NWRS. 

Impacts of Hunting on Waterfowl 

Impacts on waterfowl populations. The hunting of waterfowl in the United States is based upon a 

thorough regulatory setting process that involves numerous sources of waterfowl population and 

harvest monitoring data. Waterfowl populations throughout the United States are managed through 

an administrative process known as flyways, of which there are four (Pacific, Central, Mississippi, 

and Atlantic). Idaho is included in the Pacific Flyway. A review of the policies, processes, and 

procedures for waterfowl hunting is covered in a number of documents. 

Because the Migratory Bird Treaty Act stipulates that all hunting seasons for migratory game birds be 

closed unless specifically opened by the Secretary of the Interior, the Service annually promulgates 

regulations (50 CFR 20) establishing the Migratory Bird Hunting Frameworks. The frameworks are 

essentially permissive, in that hunting of migratory birds would not be permitted without them. Thus, 

in effect, annual Federal regulations both allow and limit the hunting of migratory birds. The 

Migratory Bird Hunting Frameworks provide season dates, bag limits, and other options for states to 

select from, which should result in the level of harvest determined to be appropriate based upon 

Service-prepared annual biological assessments detailing the status of migratory game bird 

populations. In North America, the process for establishing waterfowl hunting regulations is 

conducted annually. In the United States, the process involves a number of scheduled meetings 

(Flyway Study Committees, Flyway Councils, Service Regulations Committee, etc.) in which 

information regarding the status of waterfowl populations and their habitats is presented to individuals 

within the agencies responsible for setting hunting regulations. In addition, public hearings are held 

and the proposed regulations are published in the Federal Register to allow public comment. 

For waterfowl, annual assessments used in establishing the Frameworks include the Breeding 

Population and Habitat Survey, which is conducted throughout portions of the United States and 

Canada. This survey is used to establish an annual Waterfowl Population Status Report. In addition, 

the number of waterfowl hunters and resulting harvest are closely monitored through both the 

Harvest Information Program (HIP) and the Parts Survey (Wing Bee). Since 1995, such information 

has been used to support the adaptive harvest management (AHM) process for setting duck-hunting 

regulations. Under AHM, a number of decision-making protocols determine the choice (package) of 

pre-determined regulations (appropriate levels of harvest) that constitute the framework offered to 

states that year. Each state’s wildlife commission then selects season dates, bag limits, shooting 

hours, and other options from the their prospective Flyway package. Their selections can be more 

restrictive, but cannot be more liberal than AHM allows. Thus, the level of hunting opportunity 

afforded each state increases or decreases each year in accordance with the annual status of 

waterfowl populations. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-21 

Season dates and bag limits for national wildlife refuges open to hunting are never longer or larger 

than the state regulations. In fact, based upon the findings of an environmental assessment developed 

when a refuge opens a new hunting activity, season dates and bag limits may be more restrictive than 

the state allows. Each national wildlife refuge considers the cumulative impacts to hunted migratory 

species through the Migratory Bird Frameworks published annually in the Service’s regulations on 

Migratory Bird Hunting. 

Hunting on refuges as a whole, or Camas NWR specifically, is not likely to have an adverse effect on 

the status of any recognized waterfowl population in North America. Several points support this 

contention including (1) the proportion of national waterfowl harvest that occurs on national wildlife 

refuges is small; 2) there are no waterfowl populations that occur wholly or exclusively on national 

wildlife refuges; 3) annual hunting regulations within the United States are established to levels 

consistent with the current population status; 4) refuges cannot permit more liberal seasons than 

provided for in Federal frameworks; and 5) refuges purchased with funds derived from the Federal 

Duck Stamps must limit hunting to 40 percent of the available area. While Camas NWR does not fall 

into this final category, there is sufficient sanctuary area on the Refuge to allow for undisturbed 

feeding and resting, even in the midst of the hunting season. Refuge-specific regulations are designed 

to minimize impacts. Both hunt regulations and sanctuary would be continually monitored and 

evaluated to ascertain their value in balancing the disturbance caused by allowing hunting on the 

Refuge. Under the stipulations outlined above, this activity does not materially detract from meeting 

refuge purposes or the Refuge System mission. 

Local impacts to waterfowl populations: The Federal Harvest Information Program estimates that 

16,800 hunters in Idaho spent an average of 102,700 days hunting and harvested 225,100 ducks 

annually during 2001-2010. Over that same time period, the harvest information program estimates 

Idaho hunters harvested 59,800 Canada geese annually. This is the third highest total in the Pacific 

Flyway, behind Oregon and Washington, respectively. The number of waterfowl currently harvested 

on the Refuge is unknown, but based on the low numbers of hunters using the Refuge, it is likely to 

be extremely low, representing a negligible percentage of total numbers harvested in the State and 

flyway. 

Effect on waterfowl distribution and use of habitat: Belanger and Bedard (1995) concluded that 

disturbance caused by hunting can modify the distribution and use of various habitats by birds. In 

Denmark, Madsen (1995) experimentally tested disturbance effects of hunting by the establishment of 

two experimental reserves where hunting activity was manipulated such that sanctuary areas were 

created in different parts of the study area in different hunting seasons. In both areas, waterbird 

numbers increased, most strongly in hunted species (a three- to 40-fold increase), with highest densities 

found in sanctuary areas, regardless of where these sanctuaries were sited. At Sacramento National 

Wildlife Refuge, in California, researchers found statistically significant differences in the densities of 

northern pintails among hunting units, units adjacent to hunting units, units adjacent to auto tour route, 

and units isolated from disturbance (Wolder 1993). Prior to the opening of hunting season, pintail used 

units in proportion to their availability, indicating no preference to particular areas. During the hunting 

season, 50 to 60 percent of the pintails on the Refuge were located on the isolated units that 

contained 26 to 28 percent of the refuge wetlands, suggesting a strong waterfowl preference for areas 

of little human activity. Units along the auto tour route and adjacent to hunting units maintained 

pintails at similar proportions to their availability. Three to sixteen percent of the pintails on the 

Refuge were located on hunted units (36 to 40 percent of the available habitat) during non-hunt days 

(four days per week) and almost entirely absent on days when hunting was taking place, indicating an 

avoidance of the hunted areas. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-22 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Belanger and Bedard (1989) studied the effect of disturbances to staging greater snow geese in a 

Quebec bird sanctuary over 471 hours of observation. They found that the level of disturbance 

(defined as any event causing all or part of the goose flock to take flight) that prevailed on a given 

day in fall influenced goose use of the sanctuary on the following day. When disturbance exceeded 

two events per hour, it produced a 50 percent drop in the mean number of geese present in the 

sanctuary the next day. 

Effects on energetics and survival: Hunting limits access of waterfowl to food resources and may 

modify migration timing. Madsen (1988 as cited by Dahlgren and Korschgen 1992) suggested that 

hunting on the coastal wetlands of Denmark modified waterfowl movements and caused birds to 

leave the area prematurely. However, Kahl (1991) suggested that lack of adequate access to food 

may decrease survival of canvasbacks by causing birds to remain on a staging site longer and forage 

under suboptimal conditions, or by causing birds to migrate in shorter flights with more frequent 

stops. 

Disturbance due to hunting has caused waterfowl to cease feeding or resting activities, thus 

decreasing energy intake and increasing energy expenditure. At Chincoteague NWR, Morton et al. 

(1989) found that wintering black ducks experienced reduced energy intake while doubling energy 

expenditure by increasing the time spent in locomotion in response to disturbance. Belanger and 

Bedard (1995) in a quantitative analysis, estimated that neither the response to disturbance by flying 

away and promptly returning to the foraging site to resume feeding, nor the response of flying away 

(leaving the foraging site for a roosting site—thus interrupting feeding) allowed snow geese to 

balance their daytime energy budget. 

At high disturbance rates (over two/hour—these included hunting and transport related disturbance), 

Belanger and Bedard estimated that an increase in night feeding as a behavioral compensation 

mechanism could not counterbalance energy lost during the day. Likewise, geese could not 

compensate for a loss in feeding time by increasing their daily foraging behavior to maximize food 

intake during undisturbed periods. Belanger and Bedard suggested mitigation with spatial or 

temporal buffer zones. 

Considerations for design of hunt units: Fox and Madsen (1997) found that mobile hunting activity 

close to roosting and or feeding areas is more disturbing than hunting from fixed points or where 

birds are shot moving between such areas. For sanctuary areas, they recommended areas with regular 

shape, maximum practicable size, and with a diameter of three times the escape flight distance (at a 

minimum) of the most sensitive species present. Flock size also affects flush distance, larger flocks 

tending to react at a greater distance. Based on estimated flight distances from boats, Kahl (1991) 

recommended that sanctuaries should be at least 1.5-2.0 km square (0.5-0.7 square miles) and 

encompass as much of a feeding area as feasible. 

Application to Camas NWR: The studies cited above display the variety and scale of negative impacts to 

waterfowl from hunting. The most likely effect would be a shift in waterfowl populations away from 

hunted areas to non-hunted areas of the Refuge. Under the proposed CCP, approximately 2,510 acres of 

the Refuge would be open to waterfowl hunting seven days per week. The sanctuary area provided for 

waterfowl (areas of the Refuge closed to hunting) is more than 8,000 acres, exceeding the size (0.5-0.7 

square miles) recommended by Kahl (1991), and it has a low edge-to-area ratio. 

The fall waterfowl habitat (permanent open water for loafing, deep and shallow emergent wetland, 

and croplands) available to migratory birds on the Refuge is limited and currently estimated at 

approximately 800 acres. Most of this is permanent and semipermanent wetlands in the closed area 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-23 

of the Refuge. Some open water is available early in the hunt season; however, later in the season 

little open water is available on the Refuge. Under proposed management, only 285 acres of the 

Refuge would be managed as permanent and semipermanent wetlands—again, all acres would be 

within the closed area. Within the hunt area, only small areas of water are available in fall. All grain 

fields (20 acres) are located in the sanctuary area. Under the habitat management proposed in this 

CCP, fall wetland habitat may increase slightly but the majority of fall wetland habitat would remain 

within the closed area. Distribution of crops between hunted and non-hunted areas would remain the 

same. Therefore overall, habitat changes under proposed management would change the acreage and 

distribution of habitat types, but adequate loafing and feeding areas would exist outside the hunt area. 

In addition to considerations concerning habitat availability, only non-toxic shot is permitted. 

Given the small number of waterfowl hunting visits to the Refuge (currently estimated at 

approximately four to eight hunter visits per season) disturbance rates would be expected to be low. 

Impacts to other wildlife-dependent recreational uses: Public lands attract a variety of user groups who 

often have conflicting needs. Hunting (especially gunshot noise) has the potential to disturb refuge 

visitors engaged in other wildlife-dependent recreational uses. There may be safety concerns associated 

with hunters using the same areas accessed by wildlife observers and photographers. Other uses that 

may occur at the same time and/or place as waterfowl hunting include vehicle and pedestrian traffic 

on the 6.5 miles of service roads that lead to or are within the north and south hunt unit for the 

purposes of wildlife observation and photography. With the limited number of upland and migratory 

bird hunters using the Refuge at this time, conflicts between bird hunters and non-consumptive users 

should be minimal. 

Conflicts between waterfowl hunters and other refuge users have never been documented and would 

likely remain negligible for the near future. The current low level of use does not warrant a spatial or 

temporal separation of hunting from non-hunting public uses at this time. If the number of nonhunters using the hunt area during the hunt season increases significantly, the potential for accidents 

or user group conflicts may also increase. Conflicts between hunters and non-hunters, and between 

different types of hunters, would be monitored and addressed if necessary. No significant effects to 

roads, trails, or other infrastructure from the hunting program are foreseen. Normal road, trail, and 

facility upkeep and maintenance would continue to be necessary. 

By its very nature, waterfowl hunting has very few if any positive effects on waterfowl and other 

birds while the activity is occurring, but it is well recognized that this activity has given many people 

a deeper appreciation of wildlife and a better understanding of the importance of conserving their 

habitat, which has ultimately contributed to the Refuge System mission. 

Public Review and Comment: 

Public review and comments are being solicited in conjunction with release of this Draft CCP/EA 

(USFWS 2013) in order to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and with Service 

policy. Public review of the step down Hunt Plan (see Stipulations), as required under Service policy, 

is being conducted concurrently with the release of the Draft CCP/EA before implementing changes 

to the refuge waterfowl hunting program. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-24 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Determination: 

____ Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

 Each hunter will secure and possess the required State and Federal licenses, tags, stamps or 

permits.

 Each hunter will comply with the applicable provisions of all State and Federal laws as well 

as hunting regulations of the State of Idaho.

 Hunters may enter the Refuge 1 hour before shooting time and must leave within 1 hour after 

shooting time ceases.

 Only those firearms identified for that specific hunting season are allowed.

 It is unlawful to shoot from or across the traveled portion, shoulders, or embankments of any 

road maintained by any government entity.

 Motorized vehicles will be limited to designated parking areas, with access walk-in from 

parking lots, except as may be permitted on open roads to remove harvested elk.

 Camping, overnight use, and fires are prohibited.

 No ATVs are allowed on the Refuge.

 No overnight parking is allowed.

 No trapping is allowed.

 It is unlawful to use or possess alcoholic beverages or drugs while on Camas National 

Wildlife Refuge.

 Individuals may possess, carry and transport, concealed, loaded and operable firearms on the 

Refuge in accordance with all provisions of state and local law.

 Persons may only use (discharge) firearms in accordance with Refuge regulations (50 CFR 

27.42 and specific Refuge regulations in 50 CFR 32).

 Target shooting and sighting-in weapons are not permitted.

 Unless declared as open, all other forms of hunting are prohibited.

 Unless a valid permit (migratory or upland game bird hunting license or big game access 

permit) allows legal entry on to the Refuge for that season, retrieval of the animal is 

prohibited. 

Migratory Game Bird Regulations Specific to Camas NWR: 

 Waterfowl hunting is allowed only in the two designated migratory and upland game bird 

hunt units. 

 Only ducks, geese, coots, mergansers, and snipe may be hunted. Dates, hunting hours and 

bag limits for these species correspond to State regulations. 

 Migratory Game Bird hunters may enter the Refuge 1 hour before shooting time and leave 

within 1 hour after shooting time ceases.

 Temporary blinds of natural vegetation may be constructed, but such blinds shall be available 

for general use on a first-come, first-served basis.

 Construction of permanent blinds is prohibited.

 All personal property including decoys must be removed from the Refuge at the end of each 

day. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-25 

 Nontoxic shot is required for all waterfowl and upland game bird hunting and must be 0.20 

inches in diameter (T size) or smaller. 

 Use of retriever and flushing dogs is allowed. Dogs must be under control of their owners at 

all times.

 Hunters must pick up spent shotgun shells and all other trash.

Other Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

 Hunt areas and no hunting zones would be posted at least two weeks before the hunting 

season begins. 

 Refuge staff would conduct law enforcement, maintain hunting facilities, and monitor 

wildlife impacts. 

Justification: 

Hunting is a priority wildlife-dependent use for the National Wildlife Refuge System through which 

the public can develop an appreciation for fish and wildlife (Executive Order 12996, March 25, 1996 

and the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57). The 

Service’s policy is to provide expanded opportunities for these wildlife-dependent uses when 

compatible and consistent with sound fish and wildlife management and ensure that they receive 

enhanced attention during planning and management. Facilitating hunting on the Refuge would 

increase visitor knowledge and appreciation of fish and wildlife resources. This enhanced 

understanding would foster increased public stewardship of natural resources and support for the 

Service’s management actions in achieving the refuge purposes and the mission of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. 

Waterfowl hunting at Camas NWR as described in this CD contributes to the mission of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System by providing a wildlife-oriented recreational benefit to Americans. Because 

sanctuary from human disturbance is provided in other areas of the Refuge, this waterfowl hunting 

program would not interfere with the Refuge achieving its purposes of providing “a refuge and 

breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife” and the “... conservation, management, and 

... restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats ... for the benefit of present 

and future generations of Americans....” It is anticipated that wildlife populations would find 

sufficient food resources and resting places such that their abundance and use of the Refuge would 

not be measurably lessened from allowing hunting to occur on the Refuge. The relatively limited 

number of individuals expected to be adversely affected due to hunting would not cause wildlife 

populations to materially decline, the physiological condition and production of wildlife species 

would not be impaired, their behavior and normal activity patterns would not be altered dramatically, 

and their overall welfare would not be negatively impacted. Thus, allowing hunting to occur with 

stipulations would not materially detract or interfere with the purposes for which the Refuge was 

established or the Refuge System mission. 

This program as described was determined to be compatible because: hunter use levels on Camas 

NWR are relatively low during most days of the waterfowl hunting season (October through 

November) and sufficient restrictions would ensure that high-quality feeding and resting habitat 

would be available in relatively undisturbed areas to accommodate the needs of the waterfowl and 

other wetland birds. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-26 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only): 

2029 Mandatory 15-year Re-evaluation date (for priority public uses) 

 Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation date (for all uses other than priority public uses) 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: 

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

References: 

Bartelt, G.A. 1987. Effects of disturbance and hunting on the behavior of Canada goose family 

groups in east central Wisconsin. Journal of Wildlife Management 51:517-522. 

Belanger, L. and J. Bedard. 1989. Responses of staging greater snow geese to human disturbance. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 53:713-719. 

Belanger, L. and J. Bedard. 1995. Hunting and waterfowl. Pages 243-256 in: R.L. Knight and K.J. 

Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through management and research. 

Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 

Benninger-Truax, M., J.L. Vankat, and R.L. Schaefer. 1992. Trail corridors as habitat and conduits 

for movement of plant species in Rocky Mountain National Park, CO. Landscape Ecology 

6(4):269-278. 

Cole, David N. and Knight, Richard L. 1990. Impacts of recreation on biodiversity in wilderness. 

Natural Resources and Environmental Issues 0:6. 

Available at: http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/nrei/vol0/iss1/6. 

Dahlgren, R.B. and C.E. Korschgen. 1992. Human disturbances of waterfowl: an annotated 

bibliography. Resource Publication 188. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Northern Prairie 

Wildlife Research Center. Jamestown, ND. Available at: 

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/disturb/index.htm. Version 16JUL1997. 

DeLong, A.K. 2002. Managing visitor use and disturbance of waterbirds—a literature review of 

impacts and mitigation measures. Prepared for Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge. Appendix L 

in: Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge Complex final environmental impact statement for the 

comprehensive conservation plan and boundary revision, Vol. II. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1. Portland, OR. 114 pp. 

Fox, A.D. and J. Madsen. 1997. Behavioral and distributional effects of hunting disturbance on 

waterbirds in Europe: implications for refuge design. Journal of Applied Ecology 34:1-13. 

Hansen, M.J. and A.P. Clevenger. 2005. The influence of disturbance and habitat on the presence of 

non-native plant species along transport corridors. Biological Conservation 125:249-259. 

Havera, S.P., L.R. Boens, M.M. Georgi, and R.T. Shealy. 1992. Human disturbance of waterfowl on 

Keokuk Pool, Mississippi River. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20(3):290-298. 

IDFG (Idaho Department of Fish and Game). 2012. 2012 Waterfowl seasons and rules. Available at: 

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/rules/waterfowlRules.pdf. 

Kahl, R. 1991. Boating disturbance of canvasbacks during migration at Lake Poygan, Wisconsin. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 19:242-248. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-27 

Kenow, K.P., C.E. Korschgen, J.M. Nissen, A. Elfessi, and R. Steinbach. 2003. A voluntary program 

to curtail boat disturbance to waterfowl during migration. Waterbirds 26(1):77-87. 

Knapton, R.W., S.A. Petrie, and G. Herring. Human disturbance of diving ducks on Long Point Bay, 

Lake Erie. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(4):923-930. 

Madsen, J. 1985. Impact of disturbance on field utilization of pink-footed geese in West Jutland, 

Denmark. Biological Conservation 33:53-63. 

Madsen, J. 1988. Autumn feeding ecology of herbivorous wildfowl in the Danish Wadden Sea, and 

impact of food supplies and shooting on movements. Danish Review of Game Biology 13:1-32. 

Madsen, J. 1995. Impacts of disturbance on migratory waterfowl. Ibis 137:S67-S74. 

Morton, J.M., A.C. Fowler, and R.L. Kirkpatrick. 1989. Time and energy budgets of American black 

ducks in winter. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:401-410. 

Owens, N.W. 1977. Responses of wintering Brant geese to human disturbance. Wildfowl 25:5-14. 

Raveling, D.G. 1979. The annual cycle of body composition of Canada geese with special reference 

to control of reproduction. Auk 96:234-252. 

Thomas, V.G. 1983. Spring migration: The prelude to goose reproduction and a review of its 

implication. Pages 73-81 in: H. Boyd, ed. Fourth western hemispheric waterfowl and waterbird 

symposium. Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Canada. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2013. Environmental assessment for the draft refuge 

comprehensive conservation plan, Camas National Wildlife Refuge. On file at Camas Refuge. 

Hamer, ID. 

White-Robinson, R. 1982. Inland and saltmarsh feeding of wintering Brent geese in Essex. Wildfowl 

33:113-118. 

Wolder, M. 1993. Disturbance of wintering northern pintails at Sacramento National Wildlife 

Refuge, California. M.S. thesis. Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA. 62 pp. 

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-28 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Signatures for Compatibility Determination 2, Waterfowl Hunting on Camas National Wildlife 

Refuge: 

Prepared by: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Refuge Manager/ 

Project Leader 

Approval: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Concurrence 

 

Refuge Supervisor: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-29 

B.6 Draft Compatibility Determination for Upland Game Hunting 

on Camas National Wildlife Refuge 

RMIS Database Uses: Upland Game Hunting 

Refuge Name: Camas National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) 

Location: Jefferson County, Idaho 

Date Established: 1937 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

 Executive Order 7720, signed October 8, 1937, dated October 8, 1937 

 Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 715 et seq.) 

 National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (16 U.S.C. § 668dd et seq.) 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

 “... as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife.” (Executive 

Order 7720, dated Oct. 8, 1937) 

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

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

 “... conservation, management, and ... restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources 

and their habitats ... for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans... ” 16 

U.S.C. § 668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

“The mission of the [National Wildlife Refuge] System is to administer a national network of lands 

and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, 

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

generations of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as 

amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee]). 

Description of Use(s): 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) proposes to continue to allow hunting of upland game 

birds (ring-necked pheasant, gray partridge, and sage-grouse) on Camas NWR in accordance with 

State and Federal regulations. Hunting of game as an activity is conducted by the general public 

under regulatory authority of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. Hunting of 

upland game is allowed throughout the two units open to waterfowl hunting (2,510 acres total). 

Hunting would be allowed on all days coinciding with the current Idaho Fish and Game pheasant 

gray partridge, and sage-grouse seasons. Bag limits and lawful methods of take are those documented 

in the current Idaho Fish and Game Upland Game, Furbearer and Turkey Seasons and Rules 

brochure (IDFG 2012b). Upland game hunters would be allowed to enter the Refuge one hour before 

legal hunting hours and remain for one hour after sunset. The 2013-2014 seasons are as follows: 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-30 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Species Hunting Season 

Gray partridge September 21-January 31 

Sage-grouse Set by IDFG in August based on lek counts (in 2012 the season in Jefferson 

County was September 15-September 21.) 

Ring-necked 

Pheasant 

October 19-November 30 

Source: IDFG 2012. Upland Game, Furbearer, Turkey Seasons and Rules, 2012-13 and 2013-14. URL: 

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/rules/uplandRules.pdf 

Upland game hunting on refuge lands is an extension of the activity already occurring on adjacent 

public and private lands. No refuge-specific permits or hunter check-in procedures are required. 

Hunter access would be from the 6.5 miles of road open for hunter access and six existing parking 

areas located within the hunt units. 

To ensure a quality hunt and visitor and staff safety, all hunting activities are in accordance with 

Federal, State, and refuge-specific regulations. Hunting is a priority public use identified in the 

National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 and it has traditionally occurred at the Refuge 

without adverse impacts to the purposes for which the Refuge was established. The hunt program is 

administered in accordance with sound wildlife management principles and the utmost concern for 

public safety. Because they can reduce the loss of injured game and hence can reduce the overall 

impact to the resource, dogs used in the act of hunting upland game birds are allowed on the Refuge. 

Non-toxic shot must be used for hunting upland birds within the refuge boundary. 

Populations of pheasant and gray partridge in the Camas area has been low for several decades, 

following widespread adoption of center-pivot irrigation, which reduced the field edge habitat used 

by these species for thermal and security cover. In recent years an estimated six to twelve hunter 

visits come to the Refuge to hunt pheasant. In general most partridge hunting on the Refuge is 

opportunistic, not targeted. In recent years the Refuge has not supported many sage-grouse within its 

boundary during the hunting season. For this reason Camas NWR may only receive one or two visits 

annually by hunters pursuing sage-grouse. 

Need and Availability of Resources: 

The following funds would be required to run the migratory bird and upland game bird hunting 

programs as designed under the CCP. Costs for both programs are combined here. 

Annual Hunt Program Cost for Migratory and Upland Game Birds. 

(*Covered under existing funding/salaries) 

Position Activity or Product Reccurring 

Refuge Manager Program Management $600*

Wildlife Biologist Resource Monitoring (e.g.sage grouse 

surveys)

$2,500*

SE ID Complex Park 

Ranger (LEO)*

Service LE patrols $3,343*

Regional Office staff,* 

Eng. Equip. Operator*

Modify existing outreach/regulatory 

materials; signage upkeep.

$ 500*

Total $6,943 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-31 

Anticipated Impacts of Described Use: 

Impacts to Hunted Species: 

The direct effect of hunting on upland game species is mortality, wounding, and disturbance. Hunting 

seasons and bag limits for upland game are set by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game with the 

goal of providing hunting opportunities while managing for sustainable wildlife populations. 

Ring-necked pheasant (another introduced species) have undergone a long-term decline as a result of 

declining habitat quality due to changes in farming practices. In the 1970s and 1980s pheasant 

numbers were high, but have declined in the last several decades. One of the reasons for this decline 

is the change in agricultural practices in the area. Prior to the 1990s most agriculture in the Camas 

area was flood irrigated with ditches, relatively small fields, and consequently, abundant edge habitat 

(e.g., brush and tall grass) used by pheasants for thermal and security cover. With the shift to centerpivot irrigation, fields are larger with fewer ditches. Consequently, there is very little edge habitat. 

This has had a devastating effect on the pheasant population and it has not recovered to the high 

populations of the earlier years. Despite the fact that the population is low compared to historic 

highs, it is stable, in the cyclic pattern of this species. The Refuge does not actively manage for this 

species nor would it enhance habitat for the sole benefit of pheasants. Changes in wetland 

management called for in the CCP may bring a change in vegetation cover that may improve winter 

survival of pheasants and thus might potentially improve hunting opportunities. 

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game’s 2010 Upland Game Progress Report (Knetter et al. 2010) 

notes that of the species of upland game birds that are legal to hunt on Camas NWR, populations of 

gray partridge (an introduced species) are considered stable or increasing in Idaho’s Southeast 

Region over the past ten to fifteen years. However, populations of gray partridge in the Camas area 

have met the same fate as pheasants, with local changes in agricultural practices. As with most 

upland game bird species, gray partridge populations are cyclic and in recent years, populations on 

the Refuge have been low but stable. As with pheasants, upswings in populations are likely to occur 

due to changes to habitat management proposed in the CCP, and could provide some quality hunting 

opportunities in the future. 

Greater sage-grouse are a resident native game species. Loss of quality sagebrush habitat in the 

surrounding area has led to a decline in the number of sage-grouse on the Refuge. Greater sagegrouse populations are cyclic and the Table Butte population, which uses Camas NWR as part of 

their range, demonstrates this with total male count on lek varying from 77 to 343 over a fifteen year 

time frame (IDFG 2011). Sage-grouse are listed as a Candidate Species by the USFWS but are still 

hunted throughout most of their range. Although literature is mixed on whether hunting is 

compensatory (the proportion of the population that was harvested would die from some other factor 

if hunting did not occur) or additive (number harvested adds to those that die from other causes), 

hunting of sage-grouse is permitted in Idaho. IDFG has instituted more restrictive seasons and bag 

limits in recent years. In 2012, IDFG Area 1 was closed to sage-grouse hunting, while IDFG Area 2 

(including Jefferson County) had a one-week season (September 15-21) with a one bird per day limit 

(two in possession) (IDFG 2012a). 

Presently IDFG sets the hunting season every August after examining population data and comparing 

them to the thresholds set in the statewide conservation plan. The thresholds are as follows: Closed: 

if less than 100 males observed; or lek counts are less than 50 percent of 1996-2000 average counts; 

or lek data not gathered for population. Restrictive: if lek counts are between 50 percent and 150 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-32 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

percent of the 1996-2000 average. Standard: if lek counts exceed 150 percent of the 1996-2000 

average. The State goal for hunting greater sage grouse is to: “Manage hunting to support the 

increase of sage-grouse populations in Idaho and for the sustainability of smaller, more isolated 

populations that may be more vulnerable to overharvest” (Idaho Sage-Grouse Advisory Committee 

2006). IDFG also receives input from the nine local sage-grouse working groups that have been 

established in Idaho. Each local working group considers a variety of factors to make a written 

suggestion to the IDFG on how each season should be handled. 

The most likely effect would be disturbance to upland game birds and movement away from hunted 

areas to non-hunted areas of the Refuge or off-Refuge. Under the proposed CCP, approximately 2,510 

acres of the Refuge would be open to upland game bird hunting seven days per week. The sanctuary 

area (areas of the Refuge closed to hunting) is more than 8,000 acres, and it has a low edge-to-area ratio. 

Approximately 40 acres of hayfields (15 percent) are located within the north hunt area. A total of 80 

acres of Refuge croplands (50 percent) are located in the south hunt area; however these are alfalfa 

fields; all grain fields are located in the sanctuary area. Under the habitat management proposed in 

this CCP, distribution of crops and hayfields between hunted and non-hunted areas would remain the 

same and adequate cover and feeding habitat would exist outside the hunt area. In addition to 

considerations concerning habitat availability, only non-toxic shot is permitted. 

The impacts to populations of upland game, both locally and regionally, caused by hunting of upland 

game on Camas NWR are likely inconsequential due to the paucity of these species on the Refuge, 

and the low numbers of hunters pursuing those species. The most frequently hunted upland game 

species on the Refuge are gray partridge and ring-necked pheasant. Populations of grouse, partridge, 

and pheasant are low in the refuge area, and few grouse, partridge, or pheasant are harvested on the 

Refuge each year. The low numbers of grouse, partridge, and pheasant, and the subsequent lack of 

hunter pursuit, means there is little impact to these species related to hunting on the Refuge. 

Impacts to Other Wildlife Species: 

Upland game bird hunters are allowed to use flushing and retrieving dogs. Upland game hunting 

dogs are typically used to detect and retrieve birds. Any dog, particularly when free roaming and not 

under some type of control, may have a serious impact on non-target wildlife, especially in the spring 

(Sime 1999). However, partridge and pheasant hunting are only allowed in the fall, and bird hunting 

by its nature requires close control of the dog by the hunter. Because of the limited number of hunters 

pursuing upland game birds, the very small percentage of those using dogs and the season of use, any 

impact to other wildlife would be very small. 

Upland game hunting occurs in the fall and winter, after the nesting season for birds and the rearing 

season for all forms of wildlife. While the presence of hunters can temporarily influence resident 

game and non-game wildlife by increasing their level of stress and possibly causing them to flee in 

alarm, it is expected that impacts to non-target species would be minimal because hunting seasons do 

not coincide with nesting seasons, so reproduction would not be reduced by hunting. Disturbance to 

the daily activities, such as feeding and resting, of wintering non-hunted birds and other wildlife 

might occur. However, these occurrences are infrequent and short lived, and limited to 24 percent of 

the Refuge (2,510 acres on the west side of the Refuge). The impacts caused by upland game hunting 

to other species inhabiting the Refuge are likely inconsequential due to the limited area where this 

use occurs and the low number of hunters engaged in this use. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-33 

Refuge regulations further mitigate possible disturbance by hunters to non-hunted wildlife. Vehicles 

are restricted to roads and the harassment or taking of any non-target wildlife is not permitted. 

Although ingestion of lead shot by non-hunted wildlife could be a cumulative impact, it is not 

relevant at the Refuge because non-toxic shot is required. 

Impacts to Other Wildlife-dependent Recreational Uses: 

Public lands attract a variety of user groups who often have conflicting needs. Hunting (especially 

gunshot noise) has the potential to disturb refuge visitors engaged in other wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses. There may be safety concerns associated with hunters using the same areas accessed 

by wildlife observers and photographers. Other uses that may occur at the same time and/or place as 

upland game bird hunting include vehicle and pedestrian traffic on the 6.5 miles of service roads that 

lead to or are within the north and south hunt units for the purposes of wildlife observation and 

photography. With the limited number of upland game bird hunters using the Refuge at this time, 

conflicts between hunters and non-consumptive users should be minimal. 

Conflicts between upland game bird hunters and other refuge users have never been documented and 

would likely remain negligible for the near future. The current low level of use does not warrant a 

spatial or temporal separation of hunting from non-hunting public uses at this time. If the number of 

non-hunters using the hunt area during the hunt season increases significantly, the potential for 

accidents or user group conflicts may also increase. Conflicts between hunters and non-hunters, and 

between different types of hunters, would be monitored and addressed if necessary. No significant 

effects to roads, trails, or other infrastructure from the hunting program are foreseen. Normal road, 

trail, and facility upkeep and maintenance would continue to be necessary. 

Summary and Application to Camas NWR: 

While upland game hunting has no positive effects on these species as the activity is occurring, it is 

well recognized that this activity has given many people a deeper appreciation of wildlife and a better 

understanding of the importance of conserving their habitat, which has ultimately contributed to the 

Refuge System mission. To date, this activity has shown no assessable environmental impact to the 

Refuge, its habitats or wildlife species. 

Public Review and Comment: 

Public review and comments are being solicited in conjunction with release of this Draft CCP/EA 

(USFWS 2013) in order to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and with Service 

policy. Public review of a step-down Hunt Plan (see Stipulations), as required under Service policy, 

is being conducted concurrently with public review of the Draft CCP/EA, before implementing 

changes to the refuge upland game hunting program. 

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-34 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

 Each hunter will secure and possess the required State and Federal licenses, tags, stamps or 

permits.

 Each hunter will comply with the applicable provisions of all State and Federal laws as well 

as hunting regulations of the State of Idaho.

 Hunters may enter the Refuge 1 hour before shooting time and must leave within 1 hour after 

shooting time ceases.

 Only those firearms identified for that specific hunting season are allowed.

 It is unlawful to shoot from or across the traveled portion, shoulders, or embankments of any 

road maintained by any government entity.

 Motorized vehicles will be limited to designated parking areas, with access walk-in from 

parking lots, except as may be permitted on open roads to remove harvested elk.

 Camping, overnight use, and fires are prohibited.

 No ATVs are allowed on the Refuge.

 No overnight parking is allowed.

 No trapping is allowed.

 It is unlawful to use or possess alcoholic beverages or drugs while on Camas National 

Wildlife Refuge.

 Individuals may possess, carry and transport, concealed, loaded and operable firearms on the 

Refuge in accordance with all provisions of state and local law.

 Persons may only use (discharge) firearms in accordance with Refuge regulations (50 CFR 

27.42 and specific Refuge regulations in 50 CFR 32).

 Target shooting and sighting-in weapons are not permitted.

 Unless declared as open, all other forms of hunting are prohibited.

 Unless a valid permit (migratory or upland game bird hunting license or big game access 

permit) allows legal entry on to the Refuge for that season, retrieval of the animal is 

prohibited.

Upland Game Bird Regulations Specific to Camas NWR: 

 Upland game bird hunting is allowed only on the two designated waterfowl and upland game 

hunt units. 

 Only ring-necked pheasant, gray partridge, and sage-grouse may be hunted. Dates, hunting 

hours and bag limits for these species correspond to State regulations. 

 Upland Game Bird hunters may enter Refuge 1 hour before shooting time and leave within 1 

hour after shooting time.

 Firearms used in upland game bird hunting are restricted to the use of shotguns only.

 Use of retriever and flushing dogs is allowed. Dogs must be under control of their owners at 

all times.

 Hunters must pick up spent shotgun shells and all other trash. 

 Nontoxic shot is required for all waterfowl and upland game bird hunting and must be 0.20 

inches in diameter (T size) or smaller. 

Other Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

 Refuge staff would conduct law enforcement, maintain hunting facilities, and monitor 

wildlife impacts. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-35 

Justification: 

This use has been determined compatible provided the above stipulations are implemented. Upland 

game hunting would contribute to the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System by providing a 

wildlife-oriented recreational benefit to Americans. Hunting is also one of the six wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System as stated in the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997. The hunting program follows all applicable laws, regulations, and 

policies including: 50 CFR, National Wildlife Refuge System Manual, National Wildlife Refuge 

System goals and objectives, and Camas NWR goals and objectives. Conducting this program does 

not alter the Refuge’s ability to meet habitat goals, provide for public safety, and support several 

primary objectives of the Refuge. 

Upland game hunting seasons and bag limits are established by the State of Idaho, ensuring the 

continued well-being of overall populations. Hunting does result in the taking of individuals within 

the overall population, but restrictions are designed to safeguard an adequate breeding population 

from year to year. It is anticipated that wildlife populations would find sufficient food resources and 

resting places such that their abundance and use of the Refuge would not be measurably lessened 

from allowing upland game hunting to occur on the Refuge. The relatively limited number of 

individuals expected to be adversely affected by hunting would not cause wildlife populations to 

materially decline, the physiological condition and production of wildlife species would not be 

impaired, their behavior and normal activity patterns would not be altered dramatically, and their 

overall welfare would not be negatively impacted. Thus, allowing upland game hunting to occur with 

stipulations would not materially detract or interfere with the purposes for which the Refuge was 

established or the Refuge System mission. 

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only): 

2029 Mandatory 15-year Re-evaluation date (for priority public uses) 

 Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation date (for all uses other than priority public uses) 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: 

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

References: 

IDFG (Idaho Department of Fish and Game). 2011. Statewide sage-grouse lek database. Unpublished 

data. On file at Camas Refuge. Hamer, ID. 

IDFG. 2012a. Sage-grouse seasons and rules 2012. Available at: 

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/rules/uplandSage-grouse.pdf. IDFG. 2012b. Upland 

game, furbearer, turkey seasons and rules 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. Available at: 

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/rules/uplandRules.pdf. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-36 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Idaho Sage-grouse Advisory Committee. 2006. Conservation Plan for the Greater Sage-grouse in 

Idaho. 358 pp. Available at: 

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/sageGrouse/conservPlan.pdf

Knetter, J., J. Hayden, J. Crenshaw, S. Nadeau, R. Smith, T. Boudreau, D. Meints, and T. Keegan. 

2010. Upland game progress report, July 1 2009 to June 30, 2010. Idaho Department of Fish and 

Game. Available at: 

https://research.idfg.idaho.gov/wildlife/Wildlife%20Technical%20Reports/Upland%20Game%2

0Statewide%20PR10.pdf. 

Sime, C.A. 1999. Domestic dogs in wildlife habitats. Pages 8.1-8.17 in: G. Justin and H. Youmans, 

coordinators. Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife: a review for Montana. 

Committee on Effects of Recreation on Wildlife. Montana Chapter of the Wildlife Society. 307 

pp. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2013. Environmental assessment for the draft refuge 

comprehensive conservation plan, Camas National Wildlife Refuge. On file at Camas Refuge. 

Hamer, ID. 

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-37 

Signatures for Compatibility Determination 3, Upland Game Hunting on Camas National 

Wildlife Refuge: 

Prepared by: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Refuge Manager/ 

Project Leader 

Approval: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Concurrence 

 

Refuge Supervisor: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

   
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-38 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

This page left blank intentionally. 

   
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-39 

B.7 Draft Compatibility Determination for Big Game (Elk) 

Hunting at Camas NWR 

RMIS Database Uses: Big Game Hunting (Elk) 

Refuge Name: Camas NWR 

Location: Jefferson County, Idaho 

Date Established: 1937 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

 Executive Order 7720, signed October 8, 1937, dated October 8, 1937 

 Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 715 et seq.) 

 National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (16 U.S.C. § 668dd et seq.) 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

 “... as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife.” (Executive 

Order 7720, dated Oct. 8, 1937) 

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

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

 “... conservation, management, and ... restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources 

and their habitats... for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans... ” 16 

U.S.C. § 668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

“The mission of the [National Wildlife Refuge] System is to administer a national network of lands 

and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, 

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

generations of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as 

amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee]). 

Description of Use(s): 

Current Use: 

Currently, big game hunting is not allowed on Camas NWR. 

Proposed Use: 

Beginning in the fall of 2014, the Refuge proposes to implement a controlled hunt season on a 

portion of the Refuge consistent with Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) seasons, bag 

limits, and special conditions of Game Management Unit (GMU) 63, which surrounds the Refuge. 

The hunt would occur on 4,112 acres of Service-owned lands, generally described as the southern 

and western portion of the Refuge, south of the core wetlands and auto tour route, and west of Camas 

Creek. This area includes sagebrush-steppe, willow riparian, and wetland habitat. This area includes 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-40 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

and overlaps with one of the current waterfowl and upland game bird hunting areas. The elk hunt 

area would be closed to public uses other than hunting during the hunting season. Map 7 of the Draft 

CCP (page 2-25) illustrates the area proposed to be opened to elk hunting. 

The hunt would create a safe and quality recreational opportunity, providing a reasonable opportunity 

to harvest elk. Additionally, the hunt would be predominantly for antlerless elk, the goal of which is 

to reduce local depredation complaints. An antlerless elk hunt would be conducted from Sept 1-

December 31. The controlled any-elk hunt (August only) would provide hunters with a quality hunt 

opportunity for bulls, while the antlerless hunt is designed to reduce localized depredations. The 

season dates for hunting elk on Camas NWR, would coincide with the rules for the Game 

Management Unit (GMU) 63 hunt as specified in the IDFG publication Big Game Hunting Rules. 

Elk hunting seasons for GMU 63 are listed in the table below. 

Proposed Controlled Hunt Season for Camas NWR 

Type of Hunt Period Refuge Access 

Permits Issued 

Duration

Any Elk Aug 1-August 31 Up to 4 * 31 days 

Antlerless Elk Sept 1-Dec 31 Up to 16* 122 days 

Source: Elk General Zone Seasons. URL: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/rules/bgElk.pdf 

The Refuge would issue up to 20 access permits for elk hunting annually. The number of access 

permits issued may vary from year to year and would be determined by the staff of Camas NWR in 

coordination with the IDFG before the beginning of each season. By using an access permit process 

for the elk hunt, the Refuge can ensure safety and prevent conflicts with other refuge activities. A 

limited number of access permits allows for low hunter density, providing a safe, uncrowded, quality 

hunt. 

To be eligible to apply for refuge elk hunting access permits, hunters must hold valid State elk tags 

for GMU 63. Mobility impaired hunters must hold a valid State disabled combination hunting 

license, and must also meet at least one the following refuge-specific criteria: 1) Must have a 

mobility impairment resulting from permanent medical conditions which makes it physically 

impossible for them to hunt without the assistance of an attendant; 2) Need a medically prescribed 

assistive device for mobility; or 3) Must be at least 65 percent disabled. 

Applications for permits would be available at the refuge office and on the refuge website. 

Applications for a refuge elk hunting access permit must be submitted by the second Friday in July of 

each year. Selection for refuge access permits would be made by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

by random draw. The draw for permits would occur on the following Monday. Priority for the access 

permits would be given to youth hunters (age 12-17 at the time of application), and disabled hunters 

who have a mobility impairment. However, hunters that do not meet the criteria of youth or mobility 

impaired are encouraged to apply for access permits. If the number of youth and mobility impaired 

hunter applicants is less than the total number of access permits being issued in a given season, other 

applications would be included in the drawing for access permits. After the first season, preference 

would be given to those whom have not previously been issued access permits. Youth hunters must 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-41 

be accompanied by an adult. Mobility impaired hunters may be accompanied by a non-hunting 

companion designated in writing in accordance with State regulations. They may be assisted by 

refuge staff or a trained refuge volunteer upon request. 

The access permit would allow hunting on certain days of the week as follows: Friday, Saturday, 

Sunday, Monday and Tuesday. Hunters would be assigned a two-week hunt period that would be 

determined by random draw. Therefore, ten (10) two-week hunt periods would be established 

throughout the season, with a maximum of two hunters allowed on the Refuge per period. Applicants 

for access permits may request specific hunt periods. Priority hunting dates would be given to youth 

hunters and mobility impaired hunters. Within the season noted above, hunting dates must be 

coordinated by the permit holder with the refuge manager at least seven days prior to arrival. Hunters 

may hunt as many days as necessary to harvest an animal within the two-week timeframe allowed 

under the access permit; therefore a permit would allow hunters to access the Refuge for up to ten 

days. Specific regulations are described below in Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility, 

below, and hunting dates are listed in the previous table. 

The season dates for hunting elk on Camas NWR, would coincide with the rules for the Unit 63 hunt 

as specified in the Idaho Fish and Game publication Big Game Hunting Rules. Therefore, hunters 

who draw an access permit for August would have a chance to harvest a bull elk as per State 

regulations. After the drawing for access permits has occurred, hunters must attend a pre-hunt 

orientation with refuge staff or trained volunteers, where they would be briefed on the hunt area 

boundary, safety, and other special regulations or issues that may affect the hunt (for example, 

avoiding disturbance to staging migratory bird flocks). Hunters would be advised to maintain at least 

a 400 meter (1⁄4 mile) distance from sandhill crane roosts and sandhill cranes or trumpeter swans with 

broods. 

Weapons used must be shoulder fired, center fire with cartridges larger than 20 caliber. No 

permanent structures may be constructed on Service lands. Mobility impaired hunters may use 

temporary hunting blinds. They would be taken to and from hunting blinds by refuge personnel or a 

trained refuge volunteer using a refuge-owned utility terrain vehicle (UTV). Hunting from vehicles is 

prohibited. 

Hunters would be asked to make every effort to retrieve wounded game. Successful hunters (or 

designated assistants of mobility impaired hunters) would be allowed to move a harvested elk to the 

nearest established, designated refuge road by foot. Vehicles can then be used to remove the elk from 

the Refuge. If a mobility impaired hunter does not an assistant, Refuge personnel or a trained 

volunteer would aid in the removal of elk and would determine the best route for removal of game. If 

a wounded animal leaves the area open to elk hunting on the Refuge and enters an area that is closed 

to hunting, the hunter or assistant would be escorted by refuge staff or trained volunteer to retrieve 

the game. If a wounded animal leaves the refuge and enters private land, permission must by granted 

by private landowners to attempt retrieval, in accordance with Idaho laws. 

Refuge personnel would meet in January to evaluate the safety and quality aspects of this hunt and 

make adjustments to number of hunters and area closures if necessary to ensure a safe, quality hunt 

that minimizes impacts to sensitive non-target wildlife resources. The refuge manager would meet 

with the regional IDFG staff annually in May to discuss elk population levels in the general area and 

decide on the number of access permits that would be allowed for the Refuge based upon the 

effectiveness of the previous season’s elk hunt. The Refuge would implement, as needed, spatial or 

temporal closures to protect sensitive non-target wildlife resources such as sandhill crane roosts, or 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-42 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

crane and trumpeter swan pairs with broods. Of specific concern is Rays Lake, which is used as a 

pre-migration staging area by greater sandhill cranes. There is a low possibility of sandhill crane 

pairs with colts, and trumpeter swans with broods, being present in the hunt area early in the hunt 

season. Upon detection, sensitive resources would be mapped and closure areas established to buffer 

the resource. A buffer area of 400 meters (1⁄4 mile) around sandhill crane roosts and wetlands with 

swan broods is considered necessary and appropriate should these resources be present during the 

hunting season. 

Why this use is being proposed: Hunting is one of the six priority public uses on national wildlife 

refuges, as defined by the 1997 amendments to the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act of 

1966. If compatible, these six priority uses are to receive enhanced consideration over other general 

public uses in refuge planning and management. Hunting can also be a valuable management tool to 

help regulate wildlife populations. Hunting has given many people a deeper appreciation of wildlife 

and a better understanding of the importance of wildlife and habitat conservation, which ultimately 

contributes to the National Wildlife Refuge System mission. 

The objectives of the proposed elk hunt on Camas NWR are: 1) To offer quality recreational hunting 

opportunities; 2) to maintain and improve riparian habitat condition on the Refuge; and 3) to assist 

the IDFG in reducing the elk population locally, in order to alleviate depredation on surrounding 

private lands. The proposed hunt is intended to offer a quality and unique elk hunting opportunity to 

mobility impaired and youth hunters. The hunt would offer a reasonable opportunity to harvest elk. 

Hunting may improve riparian habitat condition on the Refuge, both by direct reduction of herd size 

and by dispersing elk from riparian habitat. The controlled elk hunt would help alleviate localized 

depredation issues on nearby agricultural lands by reducing the elk population, and/or dispersing elk 

onto adjacent private or public (BLM) lands where they may be hunted. 

Need and Availability of Resources: 

The proposed elk hunt would not require any additional infrastructure. Hunter access to the Refuge 

would be accommodated by existing parking areas and roads. Administration of the hunt plan would 

add some workload to existing staff with many of the demands (education, outreach, recruiting and 

training volunteers) occurring in the first years of the elk hunt. Signs would require updating and 

existing brochures would need to be modified. Annual expenses include receiving applications for 

and issuing permits; conducting hunter orientation; monitoring the impacts of the hunt program; 

addressing public inquiries; interagency coordination; and additional law enforcement patrols. The 

number of elk hunt access permits issued during the first few years of program implementation 

would be low (an estimated eight to ten permits would be issued for each season) to allow the Refuge 

to evaluate the staff time needed to administer the hunts, as well as safety, law enforcement, and 

resource issues. Existing staff (management, biological, law enforcement, maintenance) and funding 

available to administer the proposed elk hunt are limited but sufficient. The approximate expenses for 

implementation and management of the elk hunt program shown in the table below. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-43 

Estimated Initial and Annual Cost for Elk Hunt Program 

Position Activity or Product Initial Reccurring 

Refuge Manager* Coordination with IDFG and program 

management; hunt plan updates 

$1800*

Wildlife Biologist* Resource monitoring (e.g. , elk surveys, 

willow habitat) (Refuge Biologist)

$3500*

SE ID Complex 

Park Ranger 

(LEO)*

Service LE patrols (3 per week for 5 

months)

$13,372*

Refuge Manager,* 

Park Ranger 

Provide hunter orientation; assist mobility 

impaired hunters, assist with game 

retrieval outside hunt area (Refuge staff)

$3500

Regional Office 

staff* 

Develop updated information/outreach 

materials (print and Web)

$1000*

Regional Office 

staff,* Eng. Equip. 

Operator*

Sign access points to elk hunt area $1800*

SE ID Complex 

Visitor Services 

Manager; Park 

Ranger

Recruit/train volunteers to assist mobility 

impaired hunters

$ 3000 $1,600

Total $5,800 $23,772

*Covered under existing funding/salaries

Federal funds would be requested through the Service budget process to administer the hunt. Other 

sources (monetary and non-monetary) would be sought through strengthened partnerships, grants, 

coordination with other agencies, and additional refuge operations funding to support a safe, quality 

public use program. 

Anticipated Impacts of Described Use: 

Impacts to Habitats: 

Foot travel associated with elk hunting could potentially result in trampling of vegetation and minor 

impacts to subcanopy riparian cover. Since elk hunting would involve small numbers of spatially 

dispersed hunters, and primarily takes place during the time of year when most understory and 

wetland plants are dormant, this activity would likely have little direct impact on vegetation. 

Providing opportunities for mobility impaired hunters may require the use of temporary blinds and 

utility terrain vehicles (UTVs) to transport them to hunting sites. Impacts to vegetation would be 

limited because of the small number of mobility impaired participants each hunting season. Mobility 

impaired hunters would be taken to and from hunting blinds by refuge personnel or a designated 

volunteer, who would use refuge-owned UTVs and travel routes that minimize off-road travel and 

cause the least amount of damage to vegetation. 

The inadvertent introduction of non-native plants into new areas via hunters’ boots, clothing, and 

equipment may also occur (Benninger-Traux et al. 1992). Once established, invasive plants can outcompete native plants, thereby altering habitats and indirectly impacting wildlife. Educational 

materials and orientation provided to hunters would advise them of the potential to introduce 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-44 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

invasive species and steps the can take to minimize risk of introduction. Invasive plants would be 

monitored and controlled as part of the Refuge’s Integrated Pest Management Plan. 

Minor impacts to soil and water are anticipated due to the low total number of hunters and the 

dispersed nature of the activity. Additionally, the proposed hunt uses existing infrastructure for 

parking, vehicle, and pedestrian access. 

Although impacts to habitats within the hunt areas due to hunter activity are expected to be minor, 

redistribution of elk due to hunting could cause impacts to habitat. Within the hunt area, impacts are 

likely to be beneficial through reduced browsing pressure on willows, allowing for willow 

regeneration on the south end of the Refuge around Rays Lake where the elk herd spends the bulk of 

its time. A browse survey was conducted in the fall of 2012 to see what effect elk were having on 

willow habitat on the Refuge (Keigley 2012). The results of the survey indicate that the willows in 

and around Rays Lake are being browsed to a point where minimal regeneration is occurring. This in 

turn, is a concern because willows provide important habitat for landbirds on the Refuge during 

migration. Conversely, habitat condition could be reduced in non-hunting areas of the Refuge 

through trampling and direct herbivory. Higher densities over prolonged periods can have impacts to 

habitat structure, as young plants are consumed, suppressing the number of potential recruits into 

older age classes. Vegetation monitoring would be conducted to determine if this elk hunt causes 

changes to elk use of the Refuge and therefore, changes in riparian habitat condition. 

Impacts to Elk: 

Hunting by its nature, results in the direct take of individuals animals, as well as wounding and 

disturbance (DeLong 2002). It can also alter behavior (e.g., foraging time), population structure, and 

distribution patterns of wildlife (Bartelt 1987; Cole and Knight 1990; Madsen 1985; Owens 1977; 

Raveling 1979; Thomas 1983; White-Robinson 1982). The Refuge has coordinated closely with the 

State in developing an elk hunt that falls within frameworks for the general elk hunt within GMU 63. 

The Preferred Alternative would provide a quality hunting experience while supporting IDFG’s in 

objectives for the Snake River Management Zone (which includes GMUs 53, 63, 63A, 68A), 

specifically as it applies to alleviating depredation to agricultural croplands. IDFG’s proposed 10-

year management direction for the Snake River Zone is as follows: “Management direction in the 

Snake River Zone involves decreasing the current elk population. The zone is dominated by 

agricultural lands and small communities that are not compatible with large numbers of resident 

elk. It is proposed to continue managing for minimal elk numbers by using long, liberal hunting 

seasons and prompt responses to crop and property damage on agricultural lands.” (IDFG 2013, 

Draft Idaho Elk Management Plan 2014-2024). 

Historically GMU 63 had depredation hunts but since these hunts were occurring every year, IDFG 

decided to initiate an annual controlled hunt (Meints 2012). For the past fifteen years or so this unit 

has had one of Idaho’s longest, most liberal (5 months long) elk hunting seasons. The liberal hunting 

season in GMU 63 makes this hunt essentially function as a depredation hunt. 

IDFG estimated a population of 380 elk in the Snake River Zone in 2011 (IDFG 2011). Total harvest 

on GMU 63 has ranged from 70 to 257 annually, and the harvest increased annually until 2010 

(Meints 2012). The harvest dropped markedly in 2011; however, one factor influencing the 2011 

harvest may have been mild weather conditions; therefore harvest data do not necessarily indicate 

lower population levels. Harvest data for GMU 63 are tabulated below in the table below. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-45 

GMU 63 Elk Harvest Data 

Year Hunters Total 

Harvest 

Bulls Cows 

2011 684 70 27 43 

2010 755 257 58 199 

2009 603 138 39 99 

2008 598 155 37 118 

2007 496 112 47 65 

2006 327 107 22 85 

Source: IDFG 2012b.

Disease issues (e.g., brucellosis) are also a concern with the elk in Unit 63. Brucellosis has been 

found in the Island Park herd and IDFG is working with cattle ranchers to address this threat. At this 

time IDFG have no documentation of brucellosis on the west side of Interstate 15. However IDFG 

continues to opportunistically test elk from GMU 63, often requesting samples from hunters. Chronic 

wasting disease has not been documented in Idaho but approximately 400 animals are tested every 

year in Southeastern Idaho (Meints 2012). 

The first elk sighting documented on the Refuge was that of two elk in 1937, seen near Rays Lake in 

September. Throughout the years elk were sporadically documented on the Refuge ranging from one 

to four animals every five to ten years. The first year that elk were documented in a group larger than 

four animals was 1994, when 27 animals were reported. Elk population surveys were first initiated in 

2008 with visual surveys attempted several times a month (see table below). 

Camas NWR Elk Survey 2008-2009. Number of counts conducted per month in parentheses. 

Date Sept 

08 

(1) 

Oct 08 

(5) 

Nov 08

(1) 

Dec 08 

(1) 

Jan 09 

(3) 

Feb 09 

(3) 

Mar 

09 

(1) 

Apr 09 

(3) 

May 

09 

(2) 

High Count 64 99 105 130 117 105 78 46 50 

Low Count 64 92 105 130 38 90 78 0 6 

Using the above survey data and other recent general observations, it is estimated that the Refuge 

supports from zero to 150 elk seasonally. The numbers are typically highest in the fall and winter and 

lower in the spring and summer. The bulk of the elk spend their time south of the auto tour route, 

primarily around Rays Lake. It is felt that some of these elk are a resident herd while other elk use 

the area solely as a wintering ground. It has been speculated that elk migrate into GMU 63 from two 

directions: animals coming south across Highway 22 out of the Beaverhead Mountain Range, and 

animals coming from the Island Park/Yellowstone area and crossing Interstate 15. 

In the proposed hunt up to 20 refuge permits would be made available to harvest elk annually, and 

we assume that not all hunts would be successful. Therefore the Camas hunt would represent only a 

small fraction of the total harvest in the GMU and would not result in significant cumulative impacts 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-46 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

to elk populations regionally or statewide. Nevertheless, an increase in harvest in GMU 63 would 

help reduce the local population to levels that are socially acceptable, by reducing direct financial 

losses to farmers. As reproductive cows are removed from the local population by the antlerless hunt, 

it is assumed that the controlled elk hunt may assist IDFG in achieving IDFG’s desired population 

reduction in the Snake River Zone. 

Hunting is the traditional means used by IDFG to manage elk populations. The influence of hunting 

on population dynamics of Idaho elk populations is understood and well documented (Hayes et al. 

2002; Hughbanks 1993; Unsworth et al. 1993). By working with IDFG to develop a refuge elk 

hunting program, the proposed elk hunt may mimic the ecological role that large predators once 

served, in both removing a segment of the population and also causing disturbance and animal 

movement. The Refuge acknowledges that hunting is not a direct ecological substitute for predators 

(Darimont et al. 2008), as predators would naturally remove the sick, weak, or injured animals, 

whereas hunters often target the healthiest, largest animals for removal (Coltman et al. 2003; Edeline 

2007; Milner and Andreassen 2006). Yet, in the absence of many large predators, elk hunting on 

Camas NWR may provide some population level regulation for IDFG, as well as a source of 

disturbance that modifies animal use patterns. Providing some hunting pressure on the Refuge may 

deter the elk from using the Refuge as a safe haven and disperse them off the Refuge onto other 

public or private lands that surround the Refuge where hunting may occur. 

As well as causing direct mortality, hunting may be an indirect cause of mortality or reduced herd 

productivity. Depending on the range of variables associated with hunting activity, the Refuge can 

anticipate a variety of elk behavioral responses to hunter activity associated with the refuge elk hunt. 

Examples of disturbance variables that affect elk behavior include type, distance, direction of 

movement, speed, predictability, frequency, magnitude, and location of the activity (Knight and Cole 

1995). Wildlife disturbance can precipitate behavioral changes, such as avoidance, habituation, or 

attraction (Knight and Temple 1995). Disturbance of wildlife species that habituate to human use 

tends to be greater when recreational activities occur away from established use areas such as parking 

areas and trails (Cole 2004). Wildlife physiological responses can include the “fight or flight” 

response, with elevated heart and respiratory rates, or the “freeze” response, with inhibition of 

activity and reduced heart and respiratory rates (Millspaugh 1999). Most big game ungulates either 

run (flight) or hide (freeze) in response to hunting pressure. If animals successfully elude hunters by 

running, the energetic cost may deplete fat reserves needed for survival during winter in temperate 

regions. If animals successfully elude hunters by hiding, there may be an energetic cost from lost 

foraging opportunities. Most studies of ungulate responses to hunting have focused on changes in 

habitat selection. Ungulates typically respond to hunting by seeking areas of security (Edge and 

Marcum 1985; Irwin and Peek 1979; Knight 1980; Millspaugh et al. 2000; Naugle et al. 1997), by 

altering activity patterns (Naugle et al. 1997), by adjusting home ranges (Kufield et al. 1988; Root et 

al. 1988) or by moving long distances (Conner et al. 2001; Vieira et al. 2003). Generally, elk respond 

to disturbance by fleeing; whereas, deer elude hunters by hiding (Johnson et al. 2005). However, the 

difficulty of monitoring hunter density and elk and deer populations on large landscapes has 

prevented the collection of sufficient data to develop models of energetic costs associated with 

hunting or with other recreational activities. Variation in weather, hunter density, herd dynamics and 

seasonal conditions can likely bring about changes in the interactions between refuge hunters and 

animals, making generalizations tenuous at best. 

Quantitative relationships between levels of hunting pressure and energy expenditure can be used to 

evaluate potential secondary effects of activities on nutritional condition of ungulates. For instance, 

frequent hunter disturbance from the proposed refuge elk hunt could result in high energy 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-47 

expenditure by ungulates adversely affecting animal weight dynamics in winter, when forage is 

scarce, or in summer, when energy requirements are high for lactation and rebuilding body mass 

following winter (Cook et al. 2004). During hunting seasons, energetic consequences of the increased 

disturbance include increased energetic costs associated with movements (Johnson et al. 2005) and 

perhaps shifts to habitats where foraging conditions are diminished. The implications of disturbance 

are often heightened during sensitive life stages, such as elk migration and overwintering (Unsworth 

et al. 1993). Depending on the disturbance variables listed above, the long-term effects on individual 

animals can be altered behavior, reduced vigor, lower reproductive success, and/or death (Knight and 

Cole 1995). Disturbance during parturition and calf rearing resulted in higher calf mortality (Phillips 

and Alldredge 2000) or decreased reproductive performance of mule deer in the following year 

(Yarmoloy et al. 1988). 

Elk within GMU 63 would likely indirectly incur higher energy costs due to hunter disturbance from 

the proposed elk hunt on Camas NWR, as the Refuge would cease to serve as safe sanctuary from 

disturbance and hunting pressure. This could indirectly lead to reduced body condition and 

reproductive fitness as elk may have to deplete stored fat reserves to avoid hunters and forage on 

more remote and less secure BLM rangelands. It is unlikely, however that hunting would exacerbate 

winter mortality, since this is not a limiting factor of the GMU 63 elk herd (Schmidt 2013). 

In summary, the refuge hunt would result in a minor increase in direct mortality of the elk herd in 

GMU 63, and could cause a slight decrease reproductive fitness of individual animals. Therefore the 

hunting program could contribute to a decline in long-term herd productivity in GMU 63. However 

this would be in line with the IDFG’s elk management objective for the Snake River Zone, including 

GMU 63, which is to reduce the current population through a long, liberal hunting seasons and 

response to crop and property damage. 

Impacts to Other Wildlife Species: 

Elk hunting on the Refuge could also disturb some non-target wildlife species. Disturbance to the 

daily activities, such as feeding and resting, of migrating or wintering non-hunted birds and other 

wildlife might occur. Hunting causes disturbance to non-target species because of noise (most 

notably the report of a firearm), human presence, and general disturbance associated with the 

activity. These disturbances are manifested by alertness, fright (obvious or unapparent), flight, 

swimming, disablement or death in non-target species (Dahlgren and Korschgen 1992). This effect is 

likely a minor negative effect due to the low numbers of hunters using the Refuge (both at any given 

time, and total over the season). Refuge regulations further mitigate possible disturbance by hunters 

to non-hunted wildlife. Vehicles (except refuge-owned utility terrain vehicles used to transport and 

retrieve game harvested by mobility impaired hunters) are restricted to roads. Refuge personnel or a 

designated volunteer would take mobility impaired hunters to and from hunting blinds and assist in 

retrieval of game, which may require off-road travel; however they would use travel routes that 

minimize off road travel and disturbance to non-hunted wildlife. 

The majority of elk hunting would occur in the fall, after the nesting and rearing season for most 

birds and other wildlife has been completed; therefore, reproduction of most species would not be 

directly impacted by hunting. However, trumpeter swans are a potential exception due to their long 

brood-rearing period (see below). The main concerns would be for wildlife that use the Refuge for 

foraging in preparation for, or during, fall migration (e.g., sandhill cranes); wildlife that use that 

Refuge for roosting (e.g., Canada geese); and wildlife that use the Refuge for winter foraging and 

thermal cover (e.g., white-tailed deer). 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-48 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

For example, white-tailed deer use some of the same habitats that are used by elk. Numbers of whitetailed deer are usually low during the beginning of the elk season. Most the white-tailed deer that use 

Camas NWR do so during the rut (late October and November) and throughout the winter months. 

Also, white-tailed deer spend the majority of their time in the central part of the Refuge, outside of 

the elk hunting area. The elk spend the bulk of the time in the southern half of the Refuge and appear 

to mix only when feeding after dark, after shooting hours. While disturbance to white-tailed deer may 

occur, these occurrences would short lived and relatively rare given the low numbers of hunters that 

would be present on the Refuge at any given time and the low total number of permits that would be 

issued during the hunt season (20 maximum). 

The amount and degree of disturbance to waterfowl would depend on the condition of the refuge 

wetlands, in particular Rays Lake and Sandhole Lake. If late season water is present, waterfowl, 

mostly Canada geese, will use these areas for roosting during the elk season. As fall approaches 

Canada geese tend to congregate in larger flocks and look for larger bodies of water to roost upon. 

Both Rays Lake and Sandhole Lake can hold large numbers of geese in fall; Rays Lake is located 

within the proposed elk hunting area. Typically these geese leave the Refuge shortly after first light 

to feed and may return to rest and drink about mid-morning. They will typically leave again in late 

afternoon to feed, and return at dark daily. 

Periodic firearm discharge in close proximity to wetlands can result in behavioral responses by 

waterfowl and other wetland birds. Portions of the Refuge proposed to be open to elk hunting would 

include Rays Lake, which holds Canada geese in late summer and early fall. Periodic shooting, or 

hunters walking in close proximity to these wetlands, could temporarily disperse birds. This 

disturbance would be limited in scope by the low number of hunters at any given time (maximum of 

two daily). The rate of gunfire discharge is expected to be infrequent and random based upon 

opportunistic individual shots at elk in range. The frequency of gunfire may be only a few shots per 

day at most, causing temporary and short-term disturbance to waterfowl. 

The controlled elk hunt has the potential to disturb greater sandhill cranes, which use Rays Lake 

(which is located in the proposed hunt area) and to a lesser extent, Sandhole Lake (outside the hunt 

area) as roost sites during pre-migration staging. Sandhill cranes present at Camas NWR are from the 

Rocky Mountain population, which stage in specific locations throughout their summer range during 

late August to early October. Normally, crane numbers peak at specific staging areas in September 

but timing varies somewhat by area and year. The September pre-migration survey is the best 

opportunity to survey the population (Subcommittee on Rocky Mountain Greater Sandhill Cranes 

2007). Since 1995, the IDFG has gathered data on summer populations and September staging areas 

to comply with management plan requirements. The largest staging areas in Idaho are the Teton 

Basin, Grays Lake, and the Ashton-St. Anthony area (1992-2005 data). Camas NWR is a mid-sized 

staging area and one of only six staging areas in Idaho with pre-migration survey counts of more than 

500 cranes. 1992-2009 data from Camas NWR, which combine both aerial and ground count (except 

for 2006 when aerial surveys were not conducted), are provided in the table below. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-49 

September Population Estimates of Greater Sandhill 

Cranes at Camas NWR, from Fall Pre-migration Surveys 

Year Crane Count 

1992 131 

1995 229 

1996 212 

1997 418 

1998 268 

1999 192 

2000 429 

2001 257 

2002 331 

2003 347 

2004 381 

2005 532 

2006 313* 

2007 632 

2008 475 

2009 806 

*Aerial surveys not conducted in 2006. 

Source: IDFG 2009.

In typical years, crane numbers at Camas NWR peak in mid-September and the majority of cranes 

have left the Refuge by early October. However, during open winters (no snow), low numbers of 

cranes have been observed on the Refuge into December. Staging cranes can be found on various 

types of habitat on the Refuge including dry upland sites, hayed areas, and agricultural fields. In 

September, large numbers of cranes roost on Rays Lake; lower numbers may use Sandhole Lake. 

Typically, cranes prefer Rays Lake for roosting due to its shallower water. Cranes typically leave the 

Refuge twice a day (early morning and again in the evening) to forage in grain fields in the local area 

and return to the Refuge to roost. A smaller number feed in agricultural fields located on the Refuge 

(refuge grain fields are located outside the hunt area). 

Sandhill cranes have shown susceptibility to even low levels of disturbance at roost sites (Bettinger 

and Milner 2000; Littlefield and Ivey 2000). Observations of numerous roosting sites by Lewis 

(1976) and Lovvorn and Kirkpatrick (1981) indicated that roosts were characterized by level terrain, 

shallow water bordered by a shoreline either devoid of vegetation or sparsely vegetated, and an 

isolated location that reduces potential for disturbance by humans. Pedestrian and vehicle traffic can 

potentially disturb breeding and roosting cranes (Engler 2000; Kramer et al. 1983; Norling et al. 

1992). Bettinger and Milner recommend that “Hunting activity should be avoided near established 

roosts, or restricted to 4 hours after sunrise until 2 hours before sunset.” 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-50 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Because of the sensitivity of roosting cranes to disturbance, hunters would be advised of the location 

of sandhill cranes during their pre-hunt orientation and would be required to maintain a distance of at 

least 400 meters (1⁄4 mile) from roosting cranes while in pursuit of elk. The framework of the refuge 

hunt additionally allows the Refuge to selectively close areas, as detected, to protect sensitive 

wildlife resources within the hunt area with spatial buffers. Resource buffers would be used to 

sufficiently safeguard sandhill crane roost sites from abandonment. As closures are implemented, the 

Refuge would supply hunt permit holders with maps of closures to hunting activity. 

Disturbance of trumpeter swans with broods is a potential concern during the early portion of the elk 

hunting season. The young of trumpeter swans typically hatch in late June, however nesting, laying, 

hatching, and fledging dates of trumpeter swans vary widely even within areas, due to annual 

weather patterns. There is as much variation between years at individual sites as between different 

regions (Mitchell and Eichholz 2010). For example, Gale et al. (1987) give first hatching dates at Red 

Rock Lakes NWR, MT, between May 30 and July 1 in different years, while within-year hatching 

dates varying by 1-3 and, exceptionally, 6 weeks. Nesting and laying is delayed in cold, wet years 

(Cooper 1979; Page 1976; Shea 1979). Cygnets fledge at 84-122 days, typically at 99-102 days 

(Banko 1960; Hansen et al. 1971; Kraft 1991; Simon 1952; Wilmore 1979), and remain with their 

parents through their first winter (Ehrlich et al. 1988; Gale 1989). Therefore in typical years swans 

would be fledged by mid-October, but in years with late nesting, swans with cygnets could be present 

as late as November 1, although this is unlikely given the lack of late season water in the areas of the 

Refuge used by swans for brood rearing. 

Due to swan sensitivity to human disturbance, wetlands otherwise suitable for trumpeter swan but 

subject to disturbance by human activity, are likely to be avoided by swans, reducing overall habitat 

availability. Loud noise from motorized recreational activities, such as boats, all-terrain vehicles, 

float planes, and motorcycles, can disturb nesting swans (Gale et al. 1987; Henson and Grant 1991). 

If breeding areas are intruded on frequently, swans may abandon their nest and eggs (Mitchell 1994). 

Motorized disturbances from public visitation and hunters, if sustained and excessively loud, could 

alter swan behavior, particularly of females, leading to increased probability of nest predation, egg 

mortality, delayed development of exposed eggs, or insufficient care to cygnets. Henson and Grant 

(1991) found that undisturbed females always covered eggs prior to leaving the nest, took shorter 

recesses from the nest, and spent more time feeding and preening while away from the nest compared 

to disturbed females who failed to cover eggs 26 of 28 times they recessed from the nest. A frequent 

cause of disturbance occurs when vehicles stop along roadsides or honk their horns; however, vehicle 

traffic alone is probably not a serious problem in most locations (Henson and Grant 1991) and is not 

expected to increase greatly at Camas NWR from issuance of up to 20 annual refuge elk hunting 

access permits. 

Non-motorized human activities elicit the greatest response by swans during the breeding season 

(Henson and Grant 1991). Pedestrians cause disturbance to trumpeter swans by disrupting adults, 

causing short- or long-term nest abandonment, and resulting in displacement from breeding areas 

(Bangs et al. 1982; Banko 1960; Hansen et al. 1971; Henson and Grant 1991; Page 1976; Shea 

1979). Pedestrian hunters can also influence incubation and brood rearing behavior and contribute to 

nest failure or death of cygnets (Gale et al. 1987; Henson and Grant 1991; Holton 1982). Although 

visual barriers such as vegetation and hills situated between sources of disturbance and nesting swans 

may serve to decrease the impact of disturbances, swans are known to respond to noises made by 

humans even when they were not visible (Henson and Grant 1991). Henson and Grant (1991) 

recommend that wildlife viewing areas should be concealed in vegetation, designed to minimize 

noise of users, and located at a distance greater than 300 m (984 feet) from swan nests. The proposed 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-51 

elk hunt could disturb trumpeter swans and their broods during the early portion of the hunting 

season. However, disturbance of trumpeter swans by elk hunters is unlikely due to the fact that the 

hunt area, and the area where elk spend the bulk of their time, lies outside the area where swan 

nesting and brood rearing has historically occurred. 

There is little information about the effects of human activities to swans on wintering or migratory 

staging grounds. However, those human activities that disturb swans on breeding grounds likely 

affect swan behavior on wintering or migratory staging grounds. Disturbances to swans that disrupt 

winter or migratory foraging activities or cause frequent movements from resting areas may decrease 

overall condition or even cause mortality (Mitchell 1994). Swans in poorer condition during 

migration or on the wintering grounds may have higher mortality during a severe winter event or 

epizootic outbreaks (Anderson et al. 1986). In a particularly wet year the Refuge anticipates that 

pedestrian access from elk hunters could disturb some foraging swans in the Rays Lake area. 

However, water is seldom in Rays Lake on an average or dry year and swans collectively spend little 

time in the 4,112 acre elk hunting area. There is no documentation of swans nesting or rearing broods 

in the proposed elk hunt area. Furthermore, during the required pre-hunt orientation hunters would be 

advised of the current locations of swans. Elk hunters would be required to maintain at least a 400 

meter (1⁄4 mile) distance from wetlands where swans are rearing their broods. As noted above, the 

framework of the refuge hunt allows the Refuge to selectively close areas, as detected, to protect 

sensitive wildlife resources within the hunt area with spatial buffers. 

Impacts to Other Wildlife-dependent Recreational Uses: 

Hunting (especially gunshot noise) has the potential to disturb refuge visitors engaged in other 

priority public uses. Camas NWR also provides a variety of recreational opportunities for an 

estimated 6,000 to 7,000 annual visitors, who are principally interested in non-hunting wildlife 

experiences. Camas NWR has its highest visitation during the spring waterfowl migration, in 

particular when good numbers of snow geese are roosting on refuge wetlands. The second highest 

visitation seasons appears to happen during the white-tailed deer breeding season as many 

photographers visit to take photos of the deer as they are highly visible during the rut. 

The Refuge offers a mix of wildlife-dependent uses, i.e., wildlife observation, photography, hunting, 

interpretation and education, and non-wildlife-dependent uses (i.e., hiking, biking, snowshoeing, and 

cross-country skiing) that can be negatively impacted by the proposed elk hunt. The 6.3-mile refuge 

auto tour route, 1.3-mile birding trail and observation deck where the majority of nonconsumptive 

uses occur are all in the “no hunting” area and outside the elk hunt unit boundary. Wildlife 

observation and photography, walking, bicycling, snowshoeing, and cross-country skiing may occur 

on approximately 5 miles of service roads and 5 miles of hunter access roads within the hunt area. To 

ensure visitor safety, these roads would be clearly marked to inform visitors that they are entering an 

elk hunting area and do so at their own risk. We would expect that this would discourage some 

visitors from using the hunt area during the hunting season; however, this effect is considered minor 

in the context of refuge wildlife observation areas available over the course of the year; the yearround availability of approximately 22 miles of service roads outside the elk hunt area; and the fact 

that few visitors currently use the proposed elk hunt area. 

Providing orientation to all hunters would also help eliminate possible use conflicts. Enforcement of 

existing State regulations that prohibit discharge of firearms from or across public right of ways, 

would minimize risk of trajectories into the non-hunting portion of the Refuge. With a maximum of 

20 big game hunters permitted annually and only a maximum of two hunters using the Refuge at any 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-52 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

one time, conflicts with non-consumptive users should be minimal and only result in a minor 

negative effect to recreational wildlife observation and photography opportunities. 

While the general assumption is that elk hunting may have a minor negative effect on refuge wildlife 

observation and photography opportunities, it is also possible that wildlife observation and 

photography opportunities could be increased as animals move away from the hunted zones toward 

no hunting zones. However, it is also possible that hunters could move animals off the Refuge 

entirely, decreasing opportunities to observe and photograph elk during the hunt season. Due to 

uncertainties in the response of wildlife to refuge hunting disturbance, the Refuge has developed 

strategies to work with Idaho Department of Fish and Game to re-assess the effectiveness of the elk 

hunt every five years and re-evaluate the hunt related to both consumptive and non-consumptive 

recreational objectives for the Refuge. 

Impacts to Adjacent Lands 

The initiation of an elk hunting program on Camas National Wildlife Refuge would result in 

additional localized gunfire along the southern and western portions of the Refuge, adjacent to 

private farmlands (south border) and BLM lands on the western border where hunting already occurs. 

Hunting on the Refuge would occur simultaneously with the local off-refuge controlled elk hunt, 

representing a slight increase in gunfire above the current baseline. Enforcement of existing State 

regulations that prohibit discharge of firearms from or across public right of ways, would minimize 

risk of trajectories into non-hunting portions of the Refuge or onto adjacent private property. The 

requirement that hunters use only shoulder fired, center fire weapons with cartridges larger than 20 

caliber is intended to ensure clean kills and reduce the likelihood of wounded game moving off the 

Refuge. 

The proposed hunt would help reduce the local elk population to alleviate agricultural depredation to 

lands surrounding the Refuge. The elk hunt is anticipated to have a minor positive economic impact 

by reducing financial losses due to crop depredation. 

Summary and Application to Camas NWR: 

The proposed elk hunt on Camas NWR may cause declines in the local elk population (GMU 63). 

However this is consistent with IDFG management of the GMU 63 elk herd, with liberal hunting 

seasons directed at lowering herd size and thereby lowering depredation complaints. The impact of 

the refuge hunting program on regional or statewide elk populations is likely to be inconsequential. 

While hunting has no positive effects on elk as the activity is occurring, it is well recognized that this 

activity has given many people a deeper appreciation of wildlife and a better understanding of the 

importance of conserving their habitat, which has ultimately contributed to the Refuge System 

mission. 

Public Review and Comment: 

Public review and comments are being solicited in conjunction with release of this Draft CCP/EA 

(USFWS 2013) in order to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and with Service 

policy. Public review of a step down Hunt Plan (see Stipulations), as required under Service policy, 

is being conducted concurrently with public review of the Draft CCP/EA, before implementing the 

refuge elk hunting program. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-53 

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

User Stipulations for All Elk Hunters: 

 Each hunter will secure and possess the required State hunting licenses and elk tags.

 Each hunter will comply with the applicable provisions of all State and Federal laws as well 

as hunting regulations of the State of Idaho.

 Hunters may enter the Refuge 1 hour before shooting time and must leave within 1 hour after 

shooting time ceases.

 Only those firearms identified for that specific hunting season are allowed.

 It is unlawful to shoot from or across the traveled portion, shoulders, or embankments of any 

road maintained by any government entity.

 Motorized vehicles will be limited to designated parking areas, with access walk-in from 

parking lots, except as may be permitted on open roads to remove harvested elk.

 Camping, overnight use, and fires are prohibited.

 No ATVs are allowed on the Refuge.

 No overnight parking is allowed.

 No trapping is allowed.

 It is unlawful to use or possess alcoholic beverages or drugs while on Camas National 

Wildlife Refuge.

 Individuals may possess, carry and transport, concealed, loaded and operable firearms on the 

Refuge in accordance with all provisions of state and local law.

 Persons may only use (discharge) firearms in accordance with Refuge regulations (50 CFR 

27.42 and specific Refuge regulations in 50 CFR 32).

 Target shooting and sighting-in weapons are not permitted.

 Unless declared as open, all other forms of hunting are prohibited.

 Unless a valid permit (migratory or upland game bird hunting license or big game access 

permit) allows legal entry on to the Refuge for that season, retrieval of the animal is 

prohibited. 

Big Game Regulations Specific to Camas NWR: 

 State of Idaho hunting license, GMU 63 elk tag, and Refuge access permit are required.

 Elk hunting access permit information and applications for the drawing will be available at 

Camas NWR office. Elk hunting access permit applications must be submitted by the second 

Friday in July of each year. The draw for permits will occur on the following Monday. 

Selections will be made by a random draw.

 Refuge access permits for elk hunting allow access on Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays, Mondays 

and Tuesdays within an assigned two-week period, until an elk is harvested. Upon receiving 

the permit, the permittee must contact the Refuge to set up a hunt date at least seven days 

before the hunter’s arrival. Hunt dates will be reserved on a first come, first serve basis with 

priority going to disabled, mobility impaired hunters and youth hunters (hunters aged 12-17). 

Permits may not be transferred.
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-54 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

 Before each hunt, Refuge staff or a trained Refuge volunteer will provide an orientation 

describing the hunt procedures, description of hunt area, an overview of special Refuge 

regulations, safety reminders, description of non-target wildlife and a check of 

licenses/permits.

 Elk hunters may enter Refuge 1 hour before shooting time begins and must leave within 1 

hour after shooting time ceases, unless retrieving an elk. 

 Refuge elk hunting hours will coincide with the state hunting hours for big game, currently 1⁄2 

hour before sunrise to 1⁄2 hour after sunset.

 No dogs are allowed for elk hunting activities.

 Shooting into any Closed Area is prohibited.

 Hunters (or designated assistants of mobility impaired hunters) must be accompanied by 

Refuge staff or trained volunteer when entering areas of the Refuge that are closed to hunting 

in order to retrieve elk.

 Elk hunters may only use a shoulder fired weapon, using only center fire cartridges larger 

than 20 caliber.

 All persons participating in the hunt must wear a minimum of 500 square inches of 

fluorescent orange material above the waistline, which is visible, from all directions. A vest 

and hat normally meet this requirement, a hat alone does not.

Youth Elk Hunt Regulations Specific to Camas NWR: 

 Participants in the youth hunt must be accompanied by, and in the immediate presence of a 

non-hunting adult. 

 Applicants must be at least 12 years of age but not 18 years of age at the time of the hunt 

application.

Mobility Impaired Elk Hunt Regulations Specific to Camas NWR: 

 State of Idaho disabled hunting license, GMU 63 elk tag and Refuge mobility impaired 

access permit is required.

 To receive a Refuge mobility impaired access permit, hunters meet at least one of the 

following Refuge-specific criteria: 1) Mobility impairment resulting from permanent medical 

conditions which makes it physically impossible for them to hunt without the assistance of an 

attendant; 2) Need a medically prescribed assistive device for mobility; or 3) be at least 65 

percent disabled.

 Mobility impaired hunters may be accompanied by a non-hunting assistant, designated in 

writing in accordance with State regulations.

 Mobility impaired hunters may use portable blinds. Hunting from vehicles is prohibited.

Other Stipulations: 

 Hunt areas would be posted at least two weeks before the hunting season begins. 

 Southeast Idaho Refuge Complex staff would conduct law enforcement, maintain hunting 

facilities, and monitor wildlife impacts. 

Justification: 

This use has been determined compatible provided the above stipulations are implemented. This use 

is being permitted as it is a priority public use and would not interfere with the Refuge achieving its 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-55 

purposes of providing “a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife” and the 

“... conservation, management, and ... restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their 

habitats ... for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans....” The hunting of elk on 

the Camas NWR would contribute to the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System by 

providing a wildlife-oriented recreational benefit to Americans. Hunting is also one of the six 

wildlife-dependent recreational uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System as stated in the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 

Hunting does result in the taking of individuals within the overall population; however, resident 

game hunting seasons and bag limits are established by the State of Idaho, ensuring the continued 

well-being of overall populations within the State. Consistent with the System mission, hunting on 

NWRs results in management of populations and is not a “control” program intending to eliminate 

certain species for the benefit of others; however we may conduct hunting programs for resident 

wildlife species in accordance with State objectives (which in this case includes reducing depredation 

complaints) if this does not materially detract from or interfere with the purposes for which the 

Refuge was established. 

It is anticipated that wildlife populations would find sufficient food resources and resting places such 

that their abundance and use of the Refuge would not be measurably lessened from allowing elk 

hunting to occur on the Refuge. The relatively limited number of individuals expected to be 

adversely affected by elk hunting on Camas NWR would not cause wildlife populations to materially 

decline, the physiological condition and production of wildlife species would not be impaired, their 

behavior and normal activity patterns would not be altered dramatically, and their overall welfare 

would not be negatively impacted. Thus, allowing elk hunting to occur with stipulations would not 

materially detract or interfere with the Refuge’s purposes or the Refuge System mission. 

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only): 

2029 Mandatory 15-year Re-evaluation date (for priority public uses) 

 Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation date (for all uses other than priority public uses) 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: 

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-56 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

References: 

Anderson, D.R., R.C. Herron, and B. Reiswig. 1986. Estimates of annual survival rates of trumpeter 

swans banded 1949-82 near Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, Montana. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 50:218-221. 

Bangs, E.E., T.H. Sparker, T.N. Bailey, and V.D. Berns. 1982. Effects of increased human 

populations on wildlife resources of the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. Transactions of the North 

American Wildlife Natural Resources Conference 47:605-616. 

Banko, W. E. 1960. The trumpeter swan. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA. 

Bartelt, G.A. 1987. Effects of disturbance and hunting on the behavior of Canada goose family 

groups in east central Wisconsin. Journal of Wildlife Management 51:517-522. 

Benninger-Truax, M., J.L. Vankat, and R.L. Schaefer. 1992. Trail corridors as habitat and conduits 

for movement of plant species in Rocky Mountain National Park, CO. Landscape Ecology 

6(4):269-278. 

Bettinger, K.A. and R. Milner. 2000. Sandhill crane (Grus canadensis). In: E.M. Larsen and N. 

Nordstrom, eds. Management recommendations for Washington’s priority species, Volume IV: 

Birds. Available at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00026/wdfw00026.pdf. 

Accessed December 18, 2012. 

Cole, D.N. 2004. Environmental impacts of outdoor recreation in wildlands. Pages 107-116 in: M.J. 

Manfredo, J.J. Vaske, B.L. Bruyerre, D.R. Field, and P.J. Brown, eds. Society and natural 

resources: a summary of knowledge. Jefferson, MO: Modern Litho. 

Cole, D.N. and R.L. Knight. 1990. Impacts of recreation on biodiversity in wilderness. Natural 

Resources and Environmental Issues 0(6). 

Available at: http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/nrei/vol0/iss1/6. 

Coltman, D.W., P. O’Donoghue, J.T. Jorgenson, J.T. Hogg, C. Strobeck, and M. Festa-Bianchet. 

2003. Undesirable evolutionary consequences of trophy hunting. Nature 426:655-658. 

Conner, M.M., G.C. White, and D.J. Freddy. 2001. Elk movement in response to early-season 

hunting in northwest Colorado. Journal of Wildlife Management 65:926-940. 

Cook, J.G., B.K. Johnson, R.C. Cook, R.A. Riggs, T. DelCurto, L.D. Bryant, and L.L. Irwin. 2004. 

Effects of summer-autumn nutrition and parturition date on reproduction and survival of elk. 

Wildlife Monographs 155:1-61. 

Cooper, J.A. 1979. Trumpeter swan nesting behaviour. Wildfowl 30:55-71. 

Dahlgren, R.B. and C.E. Korschgen. 1992. Human disturbances of waterfowl: an annotated 

bibliography. Resource Publication 188. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Northern Prairie 

Wildlife Research Center. Jamestown, ND. Available at: 

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/disturb/index.htm. Version 16JUL1997. 

Darimont, C. T., P. C. Paquet, and T. E. Reimchen. 2008. Spawning salmon disrupt trophic coupling 

between wolves and ungulate prey in coastal British Columbia. BMC Ecology 8:14 (12 pp). 

DeLong, A.K. 2002. Managing visitor use and disturbance of waterbirds—a literature review of 

impacts and mitigation measures. Prepared for Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge. Appendix L 

in: Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge Complex final environmental impact statement for the 

comprehensive conservation plan and boundary revision, Vol. II. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1. Portland, OR. 114 pp. 

Edeline E., Carlson, S.M., Stige, L.C., et al. 2007. Trait changes in a harvested population are driven 

by a dynamic tug-of-war between natural and harvest selection. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 

104:15799–15804. 

Edge, W.D. and C.L. Marcum. 1985. Movements of elk in reaction to logging disturbances. Journal 

of Wildlife Management 49:926-930. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-57 

Ehrlich, P., D. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1988. The birder’s handbook: a field guide to the natural 

history of North American birds. New York: Simon and Schuster. 

Engler, Joe (Refuge Biologist, Ridgefield NWR, WA.). 2000. Personal communication in Bettinger 

and Milner 2000. 

Gale, R.S. 1989. Trumpeter Swan. Pages 59-60 in: T.W. Clark, A.H. Harvey, R.D. Dorn, D.L. 

Genter, and C. Groves, eds. Rare, sensitive, and threatened species of the Greater Yellowstone 

ecosystem. Northern Rockies Conservation Cooperative, Montana Natural Heritage Program, 

The Nature Conservancy, and Mountain West Environmental Services. Jackson, WY. 

Gale, R.S., E.O. Garton, and I.J. Ball. 1987. The history, ecology, and management of the Rocky 

Mountain population of trumpeter swans. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Montana Cooperative 

Wildlife Research Unit. Missoula, MT. 

Hansen, H.A., P.E.K. Shepard, J.G. King, and W.A. Troyer. 1971. The trumpeter swan in Alaska. 

Wildlife Monographs 26:1-83. 

Hayes, S.G., D.J. Leptich, and P. Zager. 2002. Proximate factors affecting male elk hunting mortality 

in northern Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management 66:491-499. 

Henson, P. and T.A. Grant. 1991. The effects of human disturbance on trumpeter swan breeding 

behavior. Wildlife Society Bulletin 19:248-257. 

Holton, G. 1982. Habitat use by trumpeter swans in the Grande Prairie region of Alberta. M.S. thesis. 

University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 

Hughbanks, D.L. 1993. Evaluation of a spike only regulation in southeastern Idaho. M.S. thesis. 

Montana State University, Bozeman, MT. 

IDFG. 1999. Elk management plan. Status and objectives of Idaho’s elk resources. 100 pp. Available 

at: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/planElk.pdf. Accessed December 5, 2012. 

IDFG (Idaho Department of Fish and Game). 2009. 2009 waterfowl progress report. Waterfowl fall 

and winter surveys, production, summer banding, and harvest, Study II, Jobs 2 and 3, October 1, 

2008 to September 30, 2009. Available at: 

https://research.idfg.idaho.gov/wildlife/Wildlife%20Technical%20Reports/Waterfowl%20Statew

ide%20PR09.pdf. 

IDFG. 2011. Deer and elk status overview, January 27, 2011. Available at: 

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/hunt/2010deerElkStatus.pdf. Accessed January 11, 2013. 

IDFG. 2012a. Elk general zone seasons. Available at: 

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/rules/bgElk.pdf. Accessed June 2012. 

IDFG. 2012b. General hunt harvest statistics, elk (Wapiti) 2006-2011. Available at: 

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/ifwis/huntplanner/stats.aspx#elk. Accessed Dec 5, 2012. 

IDFG. 2013. Idaho Elk Management Plan 2014-2024 (Draft). Available at: 

https://fishandgame.idaho.gov/content/webform/2013-draft-elk-plan Accessed Sept. 20, 2013. 

Irwin, L.L. and J.M. Peek. 1979. Relationships between road closures and elk behavior in northern 

Idaho. Pages 199-204 in: M.S. Boyce and L.D. Hayden Wing, eds. North American elk: ecology, 

behavior and management. Laramie: University of Wyoming. 

Johnson, B.K., A.A. Ager, J.H. Noyes, and N. Cimon. 2005. Elk and mule deer responses to variation 

in hunting pressure. Pages 127-138 in: M.J. Wisdom, tech ed. The Starkey Project: a synthesis of 

long-term studies of elk and mule deer. Reprinted from the 2004 Transactions of the North 

American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, Alliance Communications Group. 

Lawrence, Kansas. 

Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole. 1991. Effects of recreational activity on wildlife in wildlands. 

Transactions of the 56th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 56:238. 

Keigley, R.B. 2012. Evaluation of the effect of ungulate browsing on the Camas National Wildlife 

Refuge, Idaho (draft). Unpublished report on file, Camas NWR. Hamer, ID. 28 pp. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-58 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole. 1995. Factors that influence wildlife responses to recreationists. Pages 

71-79 in: R.L. Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through 

management and research. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 

Knight, R.L., and Temple, S.A. 1995. Origin of wildlife responses to recreationists. In: Wildlife and 

recreationists–Coexistence through management and research. Washington, D.C., Island Press, p. 

81–91. 

Knight, R.R. 1980. The Sun River elk herd. Wildlife Monographs 23. 

Kraft, R.H. 1991. Status report of the Lacreek trumpeter swan flock. Pages 88-90 in: J. VoigtEnglund, ed. Proceedings and Papers of the 12th Trumpeter Swan Society Conference. 

Trumpeter Swan Society, Maple Plain, MN. 

Kramer, G.W., B. Conant, G. Kaiser, C.D. Littlefield, R.W. Schlorff, and D.E. Timm. 1983. Pacific 

Flyway management plan for the Pacific Flyway population of lesser sandhill cranes. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird Management Office, Pacific Flyway Council. Portland, 

Oregon. 

Kufield, R.C., D.C. Bowden, and D.L. Schrupp. 1988. Influence of hunting on movements of female 

mule deer. Journal of Range Management 41:70-72. 

Lewis, C.J. 1976. Roost habitat and roosting behavior of sandhill cranes in the southern Central 

Flyway. Proceedings of the International Crane Workshop. 2:1-5. 

Littlefield, C.D. and G.L. Ivey. 2000. Conservation assessment for greater sandhill cranes wintering 

on the Cosumnes River floodplain and delta regions of California. The Nature Conservancy. 

Galt, CA. 

Lovvorn, J.R. and C.M. Kirkpatrick. 1981. Roosting behavior and habitat of migrant greater sandhill 

cranes. Journal of Wildlife Management 45:842-856. 

Madsen, J. 1985. Impact of disturbance on field utilization of pink-footed geese in West Jutland, 

Denmark. Biological Conservation 33:53-63. 

Meints, D. 2012. Personal communication between Daryl Meints, Regional Wildlife Manager, Idaho 

Department of Fish and Game, and Pam Johnson, Camas NWR Refuge Biologist, regarding elk 

depredation and hunting regulations in GMU 63, and brucellosis issues, January 24, 2012. 

Milner, J.M. and H.P. Andreassen. 2006. Demographic side effects of selective hunting in ungulates 

and carnivores. Conservation Biology 21(1):36-47. 

Millspaugh, J.J. 1999. Behavorial and physiological responses of elk to human disturbances in the 

southern Black Hills, South Dakota. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Washington. 274 pp. 

Millspaugh, J.J., G.C. Brundige, R.A. Gitzen, and K.J. Raedeke. 2000. Elk and hunter space-use 

sharing in South Dakota. Journal of Wildlife Management 64:994-1003. 

Mitchell, C.D. 1994. Trumpeter swan (Cygnus buccinator). In: A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. The birds of 

North America, Vol. 105. Philadelphia, PA: Academy of Natural Sciences and Washington, 

D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union. 

Mitchell, C.D. and M.W. Eichholz. 2010. Trumpeter swan (Cygnus buccinator). In: A. Poole, ed. 

The Birds of North America Online. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca. Available at: 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/105. Accessed December 4, 2012. 

Naugle, D.E., J.A. Jenks, B.J. Kernohan, and R.R. Johnson. 1997. Effects of hunting and loss of 

escape cover on movements and activity of female white-tailed deer, Odocoileus virginianus. 

Canadian Field-Naturalist 111:595-600. 

Norling, B.S., S.H. Anderson, and W.A. Hubert. 1992. Roost sites used by sandhill crane staging 

along the Platte River, Nebraska. Great Basin Naturalist 52:253-261. 

Owens, N.W. 1977. Responses of wintering Brent geese to human disturbance. Wildfowl 28:5-14. 

Page, R.D. 1976. The ecology of the trumpeter swan on Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, 

Montana. Ph.D. thesis. University of Montana, Missoula. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-59 

Phillips, G.E. and A.W. Alldredge. 2000. Reproductive success of elk following disturbance by 

humans during calving season. Journal of Wildlife Management 64(2): 521-530. 

Raveling, D.G. 1979. The annual cycle of body composition of Canada geese with special reference 

to control of reproduction. Auk 96:234-252. 

Root, B.G., E.K. Fritzell, and N.F. Giessman. 1988. Effects of intensive hunting on white-tailed deer 

movements. Wildlife Society Bulletin 16:145-151. 

Schmidt, Steve. 2013. Personal communication between Steve Schmidt, Regional Supervisor, Idaho 

Department of Fish and Game, and Brian Wehausen, Camas NWR Refuge Manager, regarding 

elk objectives for GMU 63, and winter mortality, September 2013. 

Shea, R.E. 1979. The ecology of trumpeter swans in Yellowstone National Park and vicinity. 

Master’s thesis. University of Montana, Missoula. 

Simon, J.R. 1952. First flight of trumpeter swans, Cygnus buccinator. Auk 69(4):462. 

Subcommittee on Rocky Mountain Greater Sandhill Cranes. 2007. Management plan of the Pacific 

and Central Flyways for the Rocky Mountain population of greater sandhill cranes. [Joint] 

Subcommittees, Rocky Mountain Population Greater Sandhill Cranes, Pacific Flyway Study 

Committee, Central Flyway Webless Migratory Game Bird Tech. Committee. Portland, OR. 97 

pp. Available at: http://pacificflyway.gov/documents/rmsc_plan.pdf. Accessed December 19, 

2012. 

Thomas, V.G. 1983. Spring migration: the prelude to goose reproduction and a review of its 

implication. Pages 73-81 in: H. Boyd, ed. Fourth western hemispheric waterfowl and waterbird 

symposium. Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Canada. 

Unsworth, J.W., L. Kuck, E.O. Garton, B.R. Butterfield. 1998. Elk habitat selection on the 

Clearwater National Forest, Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management 62 (4) (Oct):1255-1263. 

Unsworth, J.W., L. Kuck, M.D. Scott, and E.O. Garton. 1993. Elk mortality in the Clearwater 

drainage of northcentral Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management 57:495-502. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2013. Environmental assessment for the draft refuge 

comprehensive conservation plan, Camas National Wildlife Refuge. On file at Camas Refuge. 

Hamer, ID. 

Vieira, M. E. P., M. M. Conner, G. C. White, and D. J. Freddy. 2003. Effects of archery hunter 

numbers and opening dates on elk movement. Journal of Wildlife Management 67:717:728. 

White-Robinson, R. 1982. Inland and saltmarsh feeding of wintering Brent geese in Essex. Wildfowl 

33:113-118. 

Wilmore, S.B. 1979. Swans of the world. New York: Taplinger. 

Yarmoloy, C., M. Bayer, and V. Geist. 1988. Behavior responses and reproduction of mule deer, 

Odocoileus hemionus, does following experimental harassment with an all-terrain vehicle. 

Canadian Field-Naturalist 102:425-9. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-60 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Signatures for Compatibility Determination 4, Elk Hunting on Camas NWR: 

Prepared by: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Refuge Manager/ 

Project Leader 

Approval: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Concurrence 

 

Refuge Supervisor: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System (for 

HI, ID, OR, 

PI, and WA): ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-61 

B.8 Draft Compatibility Determination for Research and 

Monitoring on Camas National Wildlife Refuge 

RMIS Database Uses: Research and Monitoring 

Refuge Name: Camas National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) 

Location: Jefferson County, Idaho 

Date Established: 1937 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

 Executive Order 7720, signed October 8, 1937, dated October 8, 1937 

 Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 715 et seq.) 

 National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (16 U.S.C. § 668dd et seq.) 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

 “... as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife.” (Executive 

Order 7720, dated Oct. 8, 1937) 

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

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

 “... conservation, management, and ... restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources 

and their habitats ... for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans... ” 16 

U.S.C. § 668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

“The mission of the [National Wildlife Refuge] System is to administer a national network of lands 

and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, 

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

generations of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as 

amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee]). 

Description of Use: 

The refuge staff receives periodic requests from non-Service entities (e.g., universities, State 

agencies, other Federal agencies, nongovernmental organizations) to conduct research, scientific 

collecting, and surveys on refuge lands. These project requests can involve a wide range of natural 

and cultural resources as well as public-use management issues including basic absence/presence 

surveys, collection of new species for identification, habitat use and life-history requirements for 

specific species/species groups, practical methods for habitat restoration, extent and severity of 

environmental contaminants, techniques to control or eradicate pest species, effects of climate 

change on environmental conditions and associated habitat/wildlife response, identification and 

analyses of paleontological specimens, modeling of wildlife populations, bioprospecting, and 

assessing response of habitat/wildlife to disturbance from public uses. Projects may be speciesspecific, refuge-specific, or evaluate the relative contribution of the refuge lands to larger landscapes 

(e.g., ecoregion, region, flyway, national, international) issues and trends. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-62 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

The Service’s Research and Management Studies (4 RM 6) and Appropriate Refuge Uses (603 FW 

1.10D(4)) policies indicate priority for scientific investigatory studies that contribute to the 

enhancement, protection, use, preservation, and management of native wildlife populations and their 

habitat as well as their natural diversity. Projects that contribute to refuge-specific needs for resource 

and/or wilderness management goals and objectives, where applicable, would be given a higher 

priority over other requests. 

Availability of Resources: 

Refuge staff responsibilities for projects by non-Service entities would be primarily be limited to the 

following: review of proposals, prepare SUP(s) and other compliance documents (e.g., Section 7 of 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act), and 

monitor project implementation to ensure that impacts and conflicts remain within acceptable levels 

(compatibility) over time. Additional administrative support, logistical and operational support may 

also be provided depending on each specific request. Estimated costs for one-time (e.g., prepare 

SUP) and annually re-occurring tasks by refuge staff and other Service employees would be 

determined for each project. Sufficient funding in the general operating budget of the Refuge must be 

available to cover expenses for these projects. The terms and conditions for funding and staff support 

necessary to administer each project on the Refuge would be clearly stated in the SUP(s). 

The Refuge has the following staffing and funding to administratively support and monitor research 

that is currently taking place on refuge lands (see table below). Any substantial increase in the 

number of projects would create a need for additional resources to oversee the administration and 

monitoring of the investigators and their projects. Any substantial additional costs above those 

itemized below may result in finding a project not compatible unless expenses are offset by the 

investigator(s), sponsoring agency, or organization. 

Category and Itemization One-time 

($) 

Annual 

($/yr) 

Administration and management $1,000 

Maintenance $1,000 

Monitoring $1,000 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvement $0 

Offsetting revenues $0 

Itemized costs in the previous table are current estimates calculated using a 3 percent base cost of a GS-12 refuge manager. 

Anticipated Impacts of Described Use: 

Use of the Refuge to conduct research, scientific collecting, and surveys would generally provide 

information that would benefit fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats. Scientific findings gained 

through these projects provide important information regarding life-history needs of species and 

species groups as well as identify or refine management actions to achieve resource management 

objectives in refuge management plans (especially CCPs). Reducing uncertainty regarding wildlife 

and habitat responses to refuge management actions in order to achieve desired outcomes reflected in 

resource management objectives is essential for adaptive management in accordance with 522 DM 1. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-63 

If project methods impact or conflict with refuge-specific resources, priority wildlife-dependent 

public uses, other high-priority research, wilderness, and refuge habitat and wildlife management 

programs, then it must be clearly demonstrated that its scientific findings would contribute to 

resource management and that the project cannot be conducted off refuge lands for the project to be 

compatible. The investigator(s) must identify methods/strategies in advance required to minimize or 

eliminate the potential impact(s) and conflict(s). If unacceptable impacts cannot be avoided, then the 

project would not be compatible. Projects that represent public or private economic use of the natural 

resources of any national wildlife refuge (e.g., bioprospecting), in accordance with 16 U.S.C. 715s, 

must contribute to the achievement of the national wildlife refuge purposes or the National Wildlife 

Refuge System mission to be compatible (50 C.F.R. 29.1). 

Impacts would be project- and site-specific, where they would vary depending upon nature and scope 

of the fieldwork. Data collection techniques would generally have minimal animal mortality or 

disturbance, habitat destruction, no introduction of contaminants, or no introduction of nonindigenous species. In contrast, projects involving the collection of biotic samples (plants or animals) 

or requiring intensive ground-based data or sample collection would have short-term impacts. To 

reduce impacts, the minimum number of samples (e.g., water, soils, vegetative litter, plants, 

macroinvertebrates, vertebrates) would be collected for identification and/or experimentation and 

statistical analysis. Where possible, researchers would coordinate and share collections to reduce 

sampling needed for multiple projects. For example, if one investigator collects fish for a diet study 

and another research examines otoliths, then it may be possible to accomplish sampling for both 

projects with one collection effort. 

Investigator(s) obtaining required State and Federal collecting permits would also ensure minimal 

impacts to fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats. If after incorporating the above strategies, projects 

would not be compatible if they would result in long-term or cumulative effects. A Section 7 

consultation under the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 Stat. 884, as amended 

Public Law 93-205) would be required for activities that may affect a federally listed species and/or 

critical habitat. Only projects which have no effect or would result in not likely to adversely affect 

determinations would be considered compatible. Currently, no listed species occur on Camas NWR. 

Spread of invasive plants and/or pathogens is possible from ground disturbance and/or transportation 

of project equipment and personnel, but it would be minimized or eliminated by requiring proper 

cleaning of investigator equipment and clothing as well as quarantine methods, where necessary (see 

Attachment 4). If after all practical measures are taken and unacceptable spread of invasive species is 

anticipated to occur, then the project would be found not compatible without a restoration or 

mitigation plan. 

There also could be localized and temporary effects from vegetation trampling, collecting of soil and 

plant samples, or trapping and handling of wildlife. Impacts may also occur from infrastructure 

necessary to support projects (e.g., permanent transects or plot markers, exclosure devices, 

monitoring equipment, solar panels to power unattended monitoring equipment). Some level of 

disturbance is expected with these projects, especially if investigator(s) enter areas closed to the 

public and collect samples or handle wildlife. However, wildlife disturbance (including altered 

behavior) would usually be localized and temporary in nature. Where long-term or cumulative 

unacceptable effects cannot be avoidable, the project would not be found compatible. Project 

proposals would be reviewed by refuge staff and others, as needed, to assess the potential impacts 

(short term, long term, and cumulative) relative to benefits of the investigation to refuge management 

issues and understanding of natural systems. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-64 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

At least six months before initiation of fieldwork (unless an exception is made by prior approval of 

the refuge manager), project investigator(s) must submit a detailed proposal using the format 

provided in Attachment 1. Project proposals would be reviewed by refuge staff and others, as needed, 

to assess the potential impacts (short term, long term, and cumulative) relative to benefits of the 

investigation to refuge management issues and understanding of natural systems. This assessment 

would form the primary basis for allowing or denying a specific project. Projects which result in 

unacceptable refuge impacts would not be found compatible. If allowed and found compatible after 

approval, all projects also would be assessed during implementation to ensure impacts and conflicts 

remain within acceptable levels. 

If the proposal is approved, then the refuge manager would issue a SUP(s) with required stipulations 

(terms and conditions) of the project to avoid and/or minimize potential impacts to refuge resources 

as well as conflicts with other public-use activities and refuge field management operations. After 

approval, projects also are monitored during implementation to ensure impacts and conflicts remain 

within acceptable levels based upon documented stipulations. 

The combination of stipulations identified above and conditions included in any SUP(s) would 

ensure that proposed projects contribute to the enhancement, protection, conservation, and 

management of native wildlife populations and their habitats on the Refuge. As a result, these 

projects would help fulfill refuge purpose(s); contribute to the Mission of the NWRS; and maintain 

the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge. 

Projects which are not covered by the Refuge’s Inventory and Monitoring Plan, or inventory and 

monitoring strategies under the objectives in this CCP would require additional NEPA 

documentation. 

Public Review and Comment: 

Public review and comments are being solicited in conjunction with release of this Draft CCP/EA 

(USFWS 2013) in order to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and with Service 

policy. 

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

Each project would require a SUP. Annual or other short-term SUPs are preferred; however, some 

permits would be a longer period, if needed, to allow completion of the project. All SUPs would have 

a definite termination date in accordance with 5 RM 17.11. Renewals would be subject to refuge 

manager review and approval based on timely submission of and content in progress reports, 

compliance with SUP stipulations, and required permits. 

 Projects would adhere to scientifically defensible protocols for data collection, where 

available and applicable. 

 Investigators must possess appropriate and comply with conditions of State and Federal 

permits for their projects. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-65 

 If unacceptable impacts to natural resources or conflicts arise or are documented by the 

refuge staff, then the refuge manager can suspend, modify conditions of, or terminate an ongoing project already permitted by SUP(s) on the Refuge. 

 Progress reports are required at least annually for multiple-year projects. The minimum 

required elements for a progress report would be provided to investigator(s) (see Attachment 

2). 

 Final reports are due one year after completion of the project unless negotiated otherwise 

with the refuge manager. 

 Continuation of existing projects would require approval by the refuge manager. 

 The refuge staff would be given the opportunity to review draft manuscript(s) from the 

project before being submitted to a scientific journal(s) for consideration of publication. 

 The refuge staff would be provided with copies (reprints) of all publications resulting from a 

refuge project. 

 The refuge staff would be provided with copies of raw data (preferably electronic database 

format) at the conclusion of the project. 

 Upon completion of the project or annually, all equipment and markers (unless required for 

long-term projects), must be removed and sites must restored to the refuge manager’s 

satisfaction. Conditions for clean-up and removal of equipment and physical markers would 

be stipulated in the SUP(s). 

 All samples collected on refuge lands are the property of the Service even while in the 

possession of the investigator(s). Any future work with previously collected samples not 

clearly identified in the project proposal would require submission of a subsequent proposal 

for review and approval. In addition, a new SUP would be required for additional project 

work. For samples or specimens to be stored at other facilities (e.g., museums), a 

memorandum of understand would be necessary (see Attachment 3). 

 Sampling equipment as well as investigator(s) clothing and vehicles (e.g., ATV, boats) would 

be thoroughly cleaned (free of dirt and plant material) before being allowed for use on refuge 

lands to prevent the introduction and/or spread of pests. Where necessary, use quarantine 

methods (see Attachment 4). 

 The NWRS, the specific Refuge, names of refuge staff and other Service personnel that 

supported or contributed to the project would be appropriately cited and acknowledged in all 

written and oral presentations resulting from projects on refuge lands. 

 At any time, refuge staff may accompany investigator(s) in the field. 

 Investigator(s) and support staff would follow all refuge-specific regulations that specify 

access and travel on the Refuge. 

Justification: 

Research, scientific collecting, and surveys on refuge lands are inherently valuable to the Service 

because they would expand scientific information available for resource management decisions. In 

addition, only projects that directly or indirectly contribute to the enhancement, protection, use, 

preservation, and management of refuge wildlife populations and their habitats generally would be 

authorized on refuge lands. In many cases, if it were not for the refuge staff providing access to 

refuge lands and waters along with some support, the project would never occur and less scientific 

information would be available to the Service to aid in managing and conserving the refuge 

resources. By allowing the use to occur under the stipulations described above, it is anticipated that 

wildlife species which could be disturbed during the use would find sufficient food resources and 

resting places so their abundance and use would not be measurably lessened on the Refuge. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-66 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Additionally, it is anticipated that monitoring, as needed, would prevent unacceptable or irreversible 

impacts to fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats. As a result, these projects would not materially 

interfere with or detract from fulfilling refuge purpose(s); contributing to the mission of the NWRS; 

and maintaining the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge. 

Mandatory Re-evaluation Date: (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only) 

 Mandatory 15-year Re-evaluation date (for priority public uses) 

2024 Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation date (for all uses other than priority public uses) 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: 

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision

References: 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2013. Environmental assessment for the draft refuge 

comprehensive conservation plan, Camas National Wildlife Refuge. On file at Camas Refuge. 

Hamer, ID. 

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-67 

Signatures for Compatibility Determination 5, Research and Monitoring on Camas 

National Wildlife Refuge: 

Prepared by: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Refuge Manager/ 

Project Leader 

Approval: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Concurrence 

 

Refuge Supervisor: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-68 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-69 

Attachment 1 

FORMAT FOR PROPOSALS TO CONDUCT RESEARCH OR LONGTERM MONITORING ON NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES 

A Special Use Permit (SUP) is required to conduct research and/or long-term monitoring on refuge 

lands. To receive a SUP, a detailed project proposal using the following format must be submitted to 

the Refuge Manager approximately six months prior to the start of the project. 

Title: 

Principal Investigator(s): 

Provide the name(s) and affiliation(s) of all principal investigator(s) that would be responsible for 

implementation of the research and/or long-term monitoring described in the proposal. In addition, 

provide a brief description or attach vitae of expertise for principal investigator(s) germane to work 

described in the proposal. 

Background and Justification: 

In a narrative format, describe the following as applicable: 

 The resource management issue (e.g., decline in Pisonia rainforest) and/or knowledge gap 

regarding ecological function that currently exists with any available background 

information. 

 Benefit of project findings (e.g., management implications) to resources associated with the 

Refuge. 

 Potential consequences if the conservation issue and/or knowledge gap regarding ecological 

function is not addressed. 

Objectives: 

Provide detailed objective(s) for the proposed project. 

Methods and Materials: 

Provide a detailed description of the methods and materials associated with field and laboratory 

work (if applicable) to be conducted for the project. Methods should include the following: 

 study area(s) 

 number of samples; 

 sampling dates and locations 

 sampling techniques 

 data analyses including statistical methods and significance levels. 

Previously published methods should be cited without explanation; whereas, new or modified 

techniques should be described in detail. Include number of personnel as well as all facilities and 

equipment (e.g., vehicles, boats, structures, markers) required to collect samples/data. Provide a 

clear description of the relationships among study objectives, field methods, and statistical analyses. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-70 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Permits: 

Identify all State or Territorial and Federal permits required if applicable. 

Potential Impacts to Refuge Resources: 

Describe potential impacts to threatened or endangered species as well as other refuge plants, 

wildlife, and fish species that could result from the implementation of project activities on the Refuge. 

Consider the cumulative impacts associated with this project. 

Animal Welfare Plan: 

If appropriate, attach a copy of the Institutional Animal Care and Use review and/or animal welfare 

plans that are required by the principal investigator’s affiliation. 

Partnerships and Funding Sources: 

List other participating institutions, agencies, organizations, or individuals as well as the nature and 

magnitude of their cooperative involvement (e.g., funding, equipment, personnel). 

Project Schedule: 

Provide estimated initiation and completion dates for field sampling, laboratory work, data analyses, 

and report/manuscript preparation. If the project is divided into phases to be accomplished 

separately provide separate initiation and completion dates for each phase. 

Reports and Raw Data: 

Establish a schedule for annual progress and final reports; include adequate time for peer review of 

the final report/manuscript. Draft reports/manuscripts should be submitted to the Refuge Manager 

for review prior to submission for consideration of publication. At the conclusion of a research study 

(manuscripts accepted for publication), an electronic copy of the data (e.g., GIS vegetation layers, 

animal species composition and numbers, genetics) should be provided to the Refuge Manager. For 

long-term monitoring projects, the Service also requires raw data for management and planning 

purposes for the Refuge. 

Publications: 

Describe the ultimate disposition of study results as publications in scientific journals, presentation 

at professional symposiums, or final reports. 

Disposition of Samples: 

If the project entails the collection of biotic and/or abiotic (e.g., sediment) samples, then describe 

their storage. Although the samples may be in the possession of scientists for the purposes of 

conducting the project in accordance with the SUP, the Service retains ownership of all samples 

collected on refuge lands. If the samples would be used for subsequent research activities that are 

not described within the original proposal, a new proposal must be submitted to the Refuge Manager 

to obtain a SUP before initiation of the follow-up project. After conclusion of the research activities, 

consult with the Refuge Manager regarding the final disposition of the samples. If specimens would 

be curated at a museum, then prepare a MOU using the format provided in Attachment 3. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-71 

Attachment 2 

ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORTS FOR REFUGE RESEARCH AND 

LONG-TERM MONITORING PROJECTS 

Study title: 

Fiscal year: 

Progress: 

In a narrative format, summarize the work that was completed on the study including the number and 

types of samples collected and/or data analyses. 

Important findings: 

In narrative format, generally describe any conclusions and/or management recommendations that 

may be drawn from the work completed to date. 

Describe problems encountered: 

In narrative format, describe any problems that were encountered during the year and their effects 

upon the study. 

Proposed resolution to problems: 

For each problem encountered, describe the actions that have been taken to remediate it. 

Preparer: 

Date prepared: 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-72 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Attachment 3 

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING 

FOR CURATORIAL SERVICES 

BETWEEN THE 

(Name of the Federal agency) 

AND THE 

(Name of the Repository) 

This Memorandum of Understanding is entered into this (day) day of (month and year), between 

the United States of America, acting by and through the (name of the Federal agency), hereinafter 

called the Depositor, and the (name of the Repository), hereinafter called the Repository, in the 

State/Territory of (name of the State/Territory). 

The Parties do witnesseth that 

WHEREAS, the Depositor has the responsibility under Federal law to preserve for future use certain 

collections of paleontological specimens and/or biological samples as well as associated records, 

herein called the Collection, listed in Attachment A which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, 

and is desirous of obtaining curatorial services; and 

WHEREAS, the Repository is desirous of obtaining, housing and maintaining the Collection, and 

recognizes the benefits which would accrue to it, the public and scientific interests by housing and 

maintaining the Collection for study and other educational purposes; and 

WHEREAS, the Parties hereto recognize the Federal Government’s continued ownership and control 

over the Collection and any other U.S. Government-owned personal property, listed in Attachment B 

which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, provided to the Repository, and the Federal 

Government’s responsibility to ensure that the Collection is suitably managed and preserved for the 

public good; and 

WHEREAS, the Parties hereto recognize the mutual benefits to be derived by having the Collection 

suitably housed and maintained by the Repository; 

NOW THEREFORE, the Parties do mutually agree as follows: 

1. The Repository shall: 

a. Provide for the professional care and management of the Collection from the (names of the 

resources) sites, assigned (list site numbers) site numbers. The collections were recovered in 

connection with the (name of the Federal or federally authorized project) project, located in 

(name of the nearest city or town), (name of the county, if applicable) county, in the 

State/Territory of (name of the State/Territory) 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-73 

b. Assign as the Curator, the Collections Manager and the Conservator having responsibility for the 

work under this Memorandum, persons who are qualified museum professionals and whose expertise 

is appropriate to the nature and content of the Collection. 

c. Begin all work on or about (month, date and year) and continue for a period of (number of 

years) years or until sooner terminated or revoked in accordance with the terms set forth herein. 

d. Provide and maintain a repository facility having requisite equipment, space and adequate 

safeguards for the physical security and controlled environment for the Collection and any other U.S. 

Government-owned personal property in the possession of the Repository. 

e. Not in any way adversely alter or deface any of the Collection except as may be absolutely 

necessary in the course of stabilization, conservation, scientific study, analysis and research. Any 

activity that would involve the intentional destruction of any of the Collection must be approved in 

advance and in writing by the Depositor. 

f. Annually inspect the facilities, the Collection and any other U.S. Government-owned personal 

property. Every (number of years) years inventory the Collection and any other U.S. Governmentowned personal property. Perform only those conservation treatments as are absolutely necessary to 

ensure the physical stability and integrity of the Collection, and report the results of all inventories, 

inspections and treatments to the Depositor. 

g. Within five days of discovery, report all instances of and circumstances surrounding loss of, 

deterioration and damage to, or destruction of the Collection and any other U.S. Government-owned 

personal property to the Depositor, and those actions taken to stabilize the Collection and to correct 

any deficiencies in the physical plant or operating procedures that may have contributed to the loss, 

deterioration, damage or destruction. Any actions that would involve the repair and restoration of any 

of the Collection and any other U.S. Government-owned personal property must be approved in 

advance and in writing by the Depositor. 

h. Review and approve or deny requests for access to or short-term loan of the Collection (or a part 

thereof) for scientific and educational uses. In addition, refer requests for consumptive uses of the 

Collection (or a part thereof) to the Depositor for approval or denial. 

i. Not mortgage, pledge, assign, repatriate, transfer, exchange, give, sublet, discard or part with 

possession of any of the Collection or any other U.S. Government-owned personal property in any 

manner to any third party either directly or indirectly without the prior written permission of the 

Depositor, and redirect any such request to the Depositor for response. In addition, not take any 

action whereby any of the Collection or any other U.S. Government-owned personal property shall or 

may be encumbered, seized, taken in execution, sold, attached, lost, stolen, destroyed or damaged. 

2. The Depositor shall: 

a. On or about (month, date and year), deliver or cause to be delivered to the Repository the 

Collection, as described in Attachment A, and any other U.S. Government-owned personal property, 

as described in Attachment B. 

b. Assign as the Depositor’s Representative having full authority with regard to this Memorandum, 

a person who meets pertinent professional qualifications. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-74 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

c. Every (number of years) years, jointly with the Repository’s designated representative, have the 

Depositor’s Representative inspect and inventory the Collection and any other U.S. Governmentowned personal property, and inspect the repository facility. 

d. Review and approve or deny requests for consumptively using the Collection (or a part thereof). 

3. Removal of all or any portion of the Collection from the premises of the Repository for scientific 

or educational purposes; any conditions for handling, packaging and transporting the Collection; and 

other conditions that may be specified by the Repository to prevent breakage, deterioration and 

contamination. 

4. The Collection or portions thereof may be exhibited, photographed or otherwise reproduced and 

studied in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated in Attachment C to this Memorandum. 

All exhibits, reproductions and studies shall credit the Depositor, and read as follows: “Courtesy of 

the (name of the Federal agency).” The Repository agrees to provide the Depositor with copies of 

any resulting publications. 

5. The Repository shall maintain complete and accurate records of the Collection and any other 

U.S. Government-owned personal property, including information on the study, use, loan and 

location of said Collection which has been removed from the premises of the Repository. 

6. Upon execution by both parties, this Memorandum of Understanding shall be effective on this 

(day) day of (month and year), and shall remain in effect for (number of years) years, at which 

time it would be reviewed, revised, as necessary, and reaffirmed or terminated. This Memorandum 

may be revised or extended by mutual consent of both parties, or by issuance of a written amendment 

signed and dated by both parties. Either party may terminate this Memorandum by providing 90 days 

written notice. Upon termination, the Repository shall return such Collection and any other U.S. 

Government-owned personal property to the destination directed by the Depositor and in such 

manner to preclude breakage, loss, deterioration and contamination during handling, packaging and 

shipping, and in accordance with other conditions specified in writing by the Depositor. If the 

Repository terminates, or is in default of, this Memorandum, the Repository shall fund the packaging 

and transportation costs. If the Depositor terminates this Memorandum, the Depositor shall fund the 

packaging and transportation costs. 

7. Title to the Collection being cared for and maintained under this Memorandum lies with the 

Federal Government. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Memorandum. 

Signed: (signature of the Federal Agency Official) Date: (Date)

Signed: (signature of the Repository Official) Date: (Date)
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-75 

Attachment 3A: Inventory of the Collection 

Attachment 3B: Inventory of any other U.S. Government-owned Personal Property 

Attachment 3C: Terms and Conditions Required by the Depositor 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-76 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Attachment 4 

ALIEN SPECIES QUARANTINE RESTRICTIONS 

FOR NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES 

A. Introduction 

Thank you for your interest in conducting research/monitoring on the Refuge(s). To protect wildlife 

and habitat communities found on the Refuge, visitation is carefully regulated and requires that each 

individual, or group, secure a Special Use Permit (SUP) to gain access to the Refuge. Each SUP 

clearly outlines the responsibilities of each permittee, including specific quarantine policies, which 

may be more detailed than the policies listed within this document. Details for securing a SUP can be 

found by contacting the Refuge Manager. Prospective scientific researchers must apply for the SUP 

at least six months prior to their proposed study period. 

One of the gravest threats to the Refuge(s) is the introduction of alien plant and animal species. The 

practices described below are complex, but the Service has found them to be effective at greatly 

reducing additional introductions of invasive species on Refuge(s). 

B. Definitions 

1. Clothing: all apparel, including shoes, socks, over and under garments. 

2. Soft gear: all gear such as books, office supplies, daypacks, fannypacks, packing foam, or 

similar material, camera bags, camera/binocular straps, microphone covers, nets, holding or 

weighing bags, bedding, tents, luggage, or any fabric or material capable of harboring seeds 

or insects. 

3. New Clothing/Soft Gear: new retail items, recently purchased and never used. 

4. Refuge Dedicated Clothing/Soft Gear: items that have ONLY been used at the Refuge(s), 

and which have been stored in a quarantined environment between trips to the Refuge(s).

5. Sensitive Gear: computers, optical equipment, and other sensitive equipment. 

6. Non-Sensitive Equipment and Construction Materials: building materials, power and 

hand tools, generators, misc. machinery, etc. 

7. Suitable Plastic Packing Container: packing containers must be constructed of smooth, 

durable plastic which can be easily cleaned and would not harbor seeds or insects. Packing 

containers may be re-used for multiple trips to the Refuge(s), but must be thoroughly cleaned 

before each trip and strictly dedicated to refuge-related projects. 

a. Examples of APPROPRIATE plastic packing containers are 5-gallon plastic buckets 

and plastic totes constructed with a single layer and having a smooth surface. All 

appropriate packing containers must have tight fitting plastic lids. 

b. An example of an INAPPROPRIATE plastic packing container is US mail totes. Mail 

totes are typically constructed of cardboard-like plastic that provides a porous multilayered surface, allowing seeds and insects to easily hitch-hike. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-77 

C. Special Use Permit (SUP) 

All persons requesting use of the Refuge(s) must secure a SUP, as described in Section A above, and 

agree to comply with all refuge requirements to minimize the risk of alien species introductions.

D. Quarantine Inspections 

All personal gear, supplies, equipment, machinery, vehicles (e.g., ATVs, trucks, trailers), and vessels 

(e.g., planes, boats, ships, barges) would be inspected for quarantine compliance by Service staff 

prior to entering the Refuge(s) and again before departing the Refuge(s). A concerted effort would be 

made to ensure that alien pests are not transported. Service staff on the Refuge(s) would inspect 

outbound cargo prior to transport. 

E. Prohibited Items (Transport of the following items are strictly prohibited) 

1. Rooted plants, cuttings, flowers, and seeds (raw or propagative). 

2. Soil, sand, gravel, or any other material that may harbor unwanted plant and animal species. 

3. Animals (no exceptions). 

4. Cardboard (paper and plastic cardboard harbors seeds and insects). 

F. Regulated Items (Transport of the following items are strictly regulated) 

1. Food items have the potential to carry alien pests and are therefore selected, packed and 

shipped with great care for consumption on the Refuge(s). Foods would not be allowed on 

the Refuge(s) without prior authorization. 

2. Because wood products often harbor seeds and insect, only treated wood that has been 

painted or varnished may be allowed on the Refuge(s). Approved wood products must also 

be frozen for 48 hours or fumigated as described in Section K below. 

G. Packing Procedures 

Ensure that the environment selected for packing has been well cleaned and free of seeds and insects. 

Keep packing containers closed as much as possible throughout the packing process so insects cannot 

crawl in before the containers have been securely closed. Quarantine procedures should be performed 

as close to the transportation date as possible to ensure that pests do not return as hitch-hikers on the 

packing containers. 

H. Packing Containers 

1. All supplies and gear must be packed and shipped in SUITABLE PLASTIC PACKING 

CONTAINERS (see Section A for definitions of packing containers). Packing containers 

must be constructed of smooth, durable plastic that has been thoroughly cleaned prior to use. 

2. Packing containers may be re-used for multiple trips to the Refuge(s), but must be thoroughly 

cleaned before each trip and strictly dedicated to refuge-related projects. Cardboard 

containers are strictly prohibited because they can harbor seeds and insects. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-78 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

I. Clothing and Soft Gear 

1. All persons entering the Refuge(s) must have NEW or REFUGE DEDICATED clothing and 

soft gear (including all footwear). 

a. Freeze all clothing and soft gear for 48 hours (including both new and refuge 

dedicated). 

b. Fumigation under a tarp or in a large container is also an option. 

J. Sensitive Equipment 

All sensitive gear (e.g., optical equipment, computers, satellite phones, other electronic equipment) 

must be thoroughly inspected and cleaned. 

K. Non-Sensitive Equipment and Construction Materials 

1. All non-sensitive equipment, machinery, and construction materials that are water resistant 

must be steam cleaned or pressure washed to ensure the removal of all dirt, insects, and seeds 

from external surfaces. 

2. All non-water resistant items must be tented and fumigated to kill unwanted pests or frozen 

for 48 hours. 

3. Quarantine procedures should be performed as close to the transportation date as possible to 

ensure that pests do not return to the equipment or packing containers. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-79 

B.9 Draft Compatibility Determination for Agricultural Practices 

(Farming and Haying) on Camas National Wildlife Refuge 

RMIS Database Uses: Agriculture (Farming and Haying) 

Refuge Name: Camas National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) 

Location: Jefferson County, Idaho 

Date Established: 1937 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

 Executive Order 7720, signed October 8, 1937, dated October 8, 1937 

 Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 715 et seq.) 

 National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (16 U.S.C. § 668dd et seq.) 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

 “... as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife.” (Executive 

Order 7720, dated Oct. 8, 1937) 

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

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

 “... conservation, management, and ... restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources 

and their habitats ... for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans... ” 16 

U.S.C. § 668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

“The mission of the [National Wildlife Refuge] System is to administer a national network of lands 

and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, 

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

generations of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as 

amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee]). 

Description of Use: 

Camas NWR began to produce crops for waterfowl and forage for livestock in the early 1940s, and 

by 1947, 240 acres of the Refuge were being farmed for grain production. The intensity of the refuge 

farming program increased in the 1950s. In 1950, 160 acres of new ground were broken for grain 

production. By the mid to late 1960s, approximately 500 acres of land on the Refuge had been 

leveled to increase the production of small grain crops. One of the reasons for this major increase in 

cropping was to support the Animal Damage Control (ADC) program, and the trumpeter swan and 

whooping crane recovery programs at Red Rock Lakes NWR and Grays Lake NWR in the 1970s. In 

1977 Camas NWR was relieved of these duties, and grain production was immediately reduced. By 

1981 only 160 acres of refuge lands were still in crop production. By the late 1980s cropped acres 

had been further reduced to 70 acres. From the late 1980s to the present day, acres in crop production 

have ranged from 120 to 160 acres, with most of the acreage in alfalfa. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-80 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Most of the Refuge’s fifteen active hay units (250 acres) have had a farming history associated with 

the production of small grains to support trumpeter swan and whooping crane recovery projects. 

When these programs ended in the mid-1970s Camas NWR scaled back on small grain production. 

Formerly farmed fields on the Refuge were taken out of production and allowed to revert back to 

introduced pasture grasses (e.g., smooth brome and quackgrass). In most recent history these areas 

have been hayed through Cooperative Land Management Agreements. 

Current Management: 

Cooperative agriculture (farming and haying) is a management tool that allows the Refuge to provide 

forage and habitat for migratory birds and resident wildlife. The Refuge uses Cooperative Land 

Management Agreements (CLMAs) for crop production. CLMAs are negotiated agreements between 

the Refuge and a private party, and are used to implement cooperative programs that help achieve 

refuge purposes as well as provide an economic benefit to the farmer. Under refuge CLMAs, private 

farmers (cooperators) raise a refuge-specified crop in a designated field or fields, and are entitled to 

remove a portion of the crop from the Refuge in exchange for farming the agricultural crop. CLMA 

holders use their own farm equipment such as tractors, swathers, balers, and diskers. The cooperator 

is responsible for all the costs of production. 

Current cooperative farming use: Currently, the Refuge uses CLMAs with local farmers to 

implement the refuge farming program. Cooperators front the cost of small grain operations (e.g., 

mechanical preparations, watering, seeding, labor costs) in exchange for harvesting a portion of the 

refuge alfalfa crop. 

Cooperative farming occurs on two separate 80-acre tracts of land. The northernmost field (Well #7 

field) has 60 acres of irrigated alfalfa and 20 acres of irrigated small grain. The field in the 

southwestern corner of the Refuge (Well #9 field) is currently 80 acres of irrigated alfalfa only. 

Cooperative farmers use refuge-owned irrigation equipment (wheel lines and well head) in the Well 

#7 Field, and their own privately owned irrigation equipment (wheel lines) in the Well #9 Field. 

After two years of being planted in small grain, fields are rotated into a 6-year planting of alfalfa. 

Small grain planting is initiated before irrigation of alfalfa begins to conserve water resources and 

irrigate planted small grain in conjunction with alfalfa. Strips of small grain are mowed as they 

mature in the late summer or early fall to provide forage base for migrating birds while alternating 

strips are left standing. 

Irrigated alfalfa is swathed and baled in late summer, with the final timing of the harvest occurring at 

the discretion of the cooperator, based upon the maturity of the alfalfa. Alfalfa fields are disced and 

planted in fall to re-establish an alfalfa planting just prior to seeding to lessen the amount of soil lost 

to wind erosion. 

Refuge grain crops provide a supplemental on-refuge forage base to meet carbohydrate and protein 

requirements of waterfowl (primarily Canada goose and mallard) and sandhill cranes during 

migration. Croplands on refuge and State WMA lands promote sustained use of these areas by 

migrating waterfowl by providing an accessible, high-energy food source during late fall and early 

winter as wetlands freeze up. This reduces waterfowl depredation on adjacent croplands. 

Alfalfa benefits a variety of species including white-faced ibis, Swainson’s hawk, long-billed curlew, 

Canada goose, mallard, greater sandhill crane, and greater sage-grouse at various stages in their life 

histories. It provides sustained green browse for waterfowl and cranes throughout the migratory 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-81 

spring and fall seasons. In addition alfalfa provides leafy browse for sage grouse during the broodrearing season, invertebrates for long-billed curlew and white-faced ibis, and small rodents for 

Swainson’s hawks, especially after the alfalfa has been harvested. 

All crop selections are agreed to by the Refuge, and special conditions are documented in the CLMA. 

Genetically modified crops are not allowed; however, fertilizers and soil amendments can be used by 

the Cooperator. Small grain crops are fertilized by broadcasting granular nitrogen fertilizers during 

planting or prior to barley jointing. Lime is applied 6 months before the actual planting date to affect 

soil pH by planting time. 

Refuge personnel apply herbicides on farmed units through force account (refuge) funding as-needed 

to control invasive species. Weed control methods are used as necessary to improve the growth of 

desirable vegetation and reduce competition from weed species. Preventing infestations is the most 

effective strategy. Early detection followed by rapid response (ED/RR) helps prevent new invasive 

plant occurrences from becoming established. The refuge staff and cooperators conduct searches of 

refuge lands and waters regularly to identify new occurrences and implement efforts to control and 

eradicate these species. The Refuge uses an integrated pest management (IPM) approach to control 

weeds (Appendix F), whereby management options are selected based on-site conditions. All 

applications of herbicides conform to the specific pesticide label requirements. The Refuge reviews 

pesticide use annually and submits pesticide use proposals for all applications conducted on refuge 

lands. The use of insecticides, fungicides, and other chemicals is not permitted. 

Current cooperative haying use: Currently the Refuge has fifteen units (approximately 250 acres) of 

former farmed fields (upland and wet meadow habitat) that are available to be hayed. Haying is 

conducted by cooperators. Typically only one cooperator or permittee is necessary to meet targeted 

acres. All hay units are irrigated. Approximately 150 acres are hayed annually. Which units are 

hayed is determined in late spring/early summer, based upon water management patterns, recent 

precipitation, forage quantity and quality, and what the use pattern was the previous year. A July 15 

start date for haying is necessary to minimize impacts to nesting grassland birds and to treat invasive 

species prior to seed set. All haying must be completed and bales must be removed from the Refuge 

by August 30. 

Proposed Management: 

In the Preferred Alternative, refuge farming and haying would continue under similar authorities and 

stipulations as current management. The Refuge would continue to use best management practices 

(see Stipulations below). Special conditions currently in place would continue, including additional 

restrictions on pesticide uses, limits to the types of crops grown, and no haying until after July 15 to 

reduce the risk of destroying nests of ground nesting birds. Proposed changes to the farming and 

haying program are as follows. 

Proposed farming management: We propose to continue the current cooperative farming program, 

with 160 acres within the Well #7 field (80 acres, of which 20 are small grain and 60 acres alfalfa) 

and the Well #9 field (80 acres of irrigated alfalfa). The Refuge would continue to use cooperative 

farming agreements with area farmers to plant agricultural fields using refuge-owned irrigation 

equipment (Well #7 Field) and privately owned irrigation equipment (Well #9 Field). Agriculture 

fields would continue to be rotated after two consecutive years of cropping small grains into a sixyear alfalfa planting. Should the current cooperative farmer decide to no longer farm on the Refuge 

and remove his irrigation equipment, the Refuge would attempt to purchase irrigation equipment and 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-82 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

continue to cooperatively irrigate and farm the Well #9 Field. Should the Refuge be unable to acquire 

irrigation equipment, rotational dryland farming practices would be implemented on the Well #9 

Field for 20-40 acres of dryland grain and 20-40 acres of dryland alfalfa. The Refuge would annually 

evaluate workforce to determine the efficacy of CLMAs in comparison to the Refuge undertaking 

agricultural plantings through force-account funding. 

The Refuge would implement measures to reduce soil erosion and ensure that the minimum 

necessary amount of fertilizers and other chemicals are used. The Refuge would conduct periodic soil 

tests and work with cooperative farmer to apply proper fertilization and liming treatments, as 

necessary, to maintain proper nutrient and pH levels for productive agriculture plantings. 

Applications of anhydrous ammonia fertilizer would be prohibited, to minimize the presence of 

excessive environmental nitrogen accumulations and concerns for refuge soil and water resources. 

Since wind erosion is a major issue in the northern Snake River Plain, the Refuge would use 

conservation tillage practices and avoid fall tillage for spring plantings. Planting would be initiated 

immediately after plowing and disking of small grain fields to lessen the amount of soil lost to wind 

erosion. We would attempt to till and plant both grain and alfalfa crops across the slope, rather than 

with the slope of the land to reduce erosional forces on soil. Winter wheat or rye may be used as 

companion plantings with alfalfa to decrease weed establishment and reduce the need for herbicides. 

Old alfalfa stands would be rotated to cereal grains every six years or when density of alfalfa reaches 

0.75 plants per square foot. We would evaluate the potential to increase the duration of alfalfa 

coverage longer than six years within established and maintained fields via either increased winter 

fertilization, increased seeding rates, or decreased spacing between plant rows. 

Small grain crops would be planted in blocks of rows running perpendicular to one another to ensure 

that the tops of some rows would be exposed by the prevailing winds during heavy snow, thus 

ensuring the availability of grain for wildlife. In addition to mowing alternating swaths of grain, the 

Refuge would mow wide swaths of mature small grain crops, separated by several rows of 

unharvested crops, thereby providing a “snow fence” to enhance the availability of grain on the 

ground as well as provide a reserve of food that would remain above even the deepest early snows. 

Grasses adjacent to alfalfa fields would be mowed to maintain short vegetation along the agriculture 

field interface to provide both additional green forage and visual security from predators. Finally, the 

Refuge would annually survey and monitor wildlife use within refuge agriculture crops to assess 

benefits or impacts from the refuge farming program for wildlife. 

Proposed haying management: We propose to continue managing 250 acres of hay units, and 

allowing haying of 150 acres of wet meadow and upland habitat annually, by cooperators or 

permittees. However, only 150 acres of hay units would be irrigated annually, and the refuge 

manager would work with the haying cooperator or permittee to delay haying until after July 15 if 

necessary to protect ground-nesting birds. Haying would be rotated through different parcels, so that 

the same units would not get hayed two years in a row. The Refuge would conduct prescribed fire 

and other IPM activities, and reseeding of hay units. These strategies would provide a mixture of 

short-grass foraging habitat for species such as Canada geese and sandhill cranes, and dense grass 

nesting cover for waterfowl. Rotational haying would also allow time for hay units to recover, 

increasing both the forage quality and quantity of hayed units. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-83 

Need and Availability of Resources: 

Category and Itemization 

One-time 

($) 

Annual 

($/yr) 

Administration and management: $0 $3,000 

Equipment/ Equip. Maintenance: $2,000 $0 

Mowing and herbicides (crop fields) $2,000 

Irrigation, IPM, prescribed fire, reseeding (hay units) $11,550 

Monitoring: $0 $500 

Offsetting revenues: $0 

$0 

−$3,000 

$14,050 TOTALS 

Anticipated Effects of Described Use: 

Farming 

Effects of farming to refuge wildlife: Both current and proposed management recognize the benefits 

for providing supplemental forage for migratory waterfowl and waterbirds. Refuge farming practices 

(both current and proposed) are designed for the predominant benefit of waterfowl (ducks and geese) 

and greater sandhill cranes. However, many other species (e.g., long-billed curlews, white-faced ibis, 

sage-grouse, Swainson’s hawk) benefit directly or indirectly from refuge alfalfa crops. Grain crops 

on the Refuge promote sustained use of the area by migrating waterfowl by providing an accessible, 

high-energy food source during late fall and early winter as wetlands freeze up. 

Most waterfowl are opportunistic feeders, and some species such as Canada geese, snow geese, 

mallard, northern pintails, and teal have learned to capitalize on the abundant foods produced by 

agriculture (Bellrose 1976). During the last century, migration routes and wintering areas have 

changed in response to availability of these foods (Fredrickson and Drobney 1979). Some species 

have developed such strong migratory traditions that many populations are now dependent on 

agricultural foods for their migration or winter survival (Ringleman 1990). During fall, winter, and 

early spring, when vegetative foods make up a large part of their diet, agricultural foods are preferred 

forage except in arctic and subarctic environments (Sugden 1971). 

Agricultural foods such as small grains, most of which are neither nutritionally balanced nor high in 

protein, are seldom used during breeding life-history events of waterbirds (Ringleman 1990). 

Irrigated alfalfa provides a high nutrient diet for a variety of species that inhabit the Upper Snake 

area and must contend with a radically changed landscape, one where natural wetlands and riparian 

habitats have been largely replaced by various agricultural crops. Agricultural habitats provide a 

surrogate habitat for a wide range of species. Alfalfa supports some of the highest biodiversity 

amongst row crops, with many species using alfalfa to forage, nest, rest, and hide (Hartman and Kyle 

2010). Several bird species such as the white-Faced ibis, long-billed curlew, and Swainson’s hawk 

are highly dependent on alfalfa to support them given a lack of native wetland and grassland habitat 

(Hartman and Kyle 2010). 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-84 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

As a legume, alfalfa may be particularly good habitat for earthworms, an important food source for 

many birds. Alfalfa contributes nitrogen to the soil, and high nitrogen promotes earthworm growth 

(Evans 1948) and increases their protein content (Stribling and Doerr 1985). More abundant and 

protein-rich earthworms is one hypothesis for preferential use of alfalfa over other irrigated crops by 

some waterbirds (Bray and Klebenow 1988). Irrigated fields, and in particular alfalfa, can be 

valuable feeding sites for white-faced ibis. Ryder and Manry (1994) argue that increased planting of 

alfalfa is a major reason for an increase in white-faced ibis populations in the West. Bray and 

Klebenow (1988) propose that where historical white-faced ibis feeding habitats have been 

diminished, flood irrigated crops could be maintained or even created to benefit ibis, and that the 

predominant crop should be alfalfa. 

Alfalfa often supports an abundant small mammal community that is exploited by various birds of 

prey. Swainson’s hawks will hunt for mice and voles in alfalfa which provides a long-term, stable 

habitat for prey and good hunting conditions year round (Estep 1989). The optimal time for 

Swainson’s hawks to use alfalfa is when prey is easily accessible, especially after a cutting or 

irrigation and when field vegetation is less than 15 inches tall (Swolgaard et al. 2008). Swainson’s 

hawks rely heavily on the current agriculture landscape in southeast Idaho to provide adequate 

hunting grounds and safe nesting sites along riparian corridors. However, frequent early alfalfa 

cutting changes the amount and structure of vegetation used by many birds for nesting and also 

destroys nests and eggs of ground nesting birds (CPIF 2000; Frawley and Best 1991). Because of this 

the Refuge should limit alfalfa harvests to late summer and not consider or manage alfalfa as a 

particularly productive nesting habitat. 

Effects of farming to refuge habitats: Cropland farming currently represents approximately 1.5 

percent of Camas NWR (160 acres). Under proposed management, farmed acres would remain the 

same; however, should the Refuge lose its current cooperator, the acreage in dryland farming would 

increase. There could, therefore, be a minor negative impact on availability of grain for fall migrating 

geese and cranes under proposed management. However, proposed management would not impart 

any additional losses to native habitats from farming, since all proposed farm fields have already 

been in agricultural production. 

Activities associated with crop production, including ground disturbance and field to field movement 

of cultivating and harvesting equipment, can disturb soils. Direct impacts of cropland management 

include exposure of soils to wind erosion and impacts from farm machinery. In general, tillage and 

cropping that leaves soil bare for portions of the year negatively affect soil quality indicators (Nelson 

et al. 2006) such as aggregate stability, infiltration rates, and available water capacity. Compaction 

can result from the use of farming equipment for seeding, causing undesirable increases in bulk 

density, while tilling may also prevent the accumulation of, or accelerate the decomposition of 

organic matter (USDA NRCS 2007). 

By implementing a refuge conservation tillage system in the proposed management, the Refuge 

would improve soil retention, reduce fertilizer costs, and reduce erosion. As soil-conserving 

measures increase, wildlife habitat quality also improves (Lines and Perry 1978; Miranowski and 

Bender 1982). Among the benefits resulting from rotational practices proposed by the Refuge would 

be higher soil organic matter and nitrogen, lower fossil energy inputs, yields similar to those of 

conventional systems, and conservation of soil moisture and water resources, which is especially 

advantageous under drought conditions (Pimentel et al. 2005). 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-85 

USEPA’s guidance for estimating Particulate Matter (PM) emissions from agricultural crop tilling 

involves combining a constant emission factor with county-level activity data, including the silt 

content of surface soils, the number of tillings performed in a year for each crop type, and the acres 

of each crop type (USEPA 2001, 2004). It is estimated that the refuge contribution to PM emissions 

would be less under proposed management. While there would obviously be some continued impact 

to soil quality within proposed management, conservation tillage should impart a minor beneficial 

impact on soil, water, and air quality when compared to current management. 

Cultivation and disturbance of soils fosters an undesirable opportunity for the introduction or spread 

of weeds on the Refuge. Invasive weed species have the potential to reduce habitat quality and forage 

opportunity and have been identified as one of the most serious threats to refuge habitats. To avoid 

the potential spread of invasive species onto the Refuge all equipment would be cleaned before 

entering the Refuge or being moved to different sites within the Refuge, and exotic grasses and 

weeds found in farm fields would be treated before they go to seed. 

Farming may also result in the use and introduction into the environment of chemical agents from 

pesticide usage. In addition, small mammals, reptiles, and amphibians may be occasionally subject to 

mortality from farm machinery, and nesting birds may be occasionally disrupted and nests destroyed. 

Effects to listed species from farming: Currently there are no listed species inhabiting the Refuge. 

Should agricultural farming management conflicts occur with listed species in the future, the Refuge 

would eliminate impacts to listed species or develop and implement minimization measures under 

Section 7 consultation of the Endangered Species Act. If deemed necessary, the cooperative farming 

program would be halted until all protective and minimizing measures can be evaluated and 

implemented as necessary. 

Effects to priority public uses from farming: The agricultural fields targeted to provide forage for 

focal wildlife species indirectly support wildlife-dependent recreational activities such as wildlife 

observation and photography. 

Haying 

Effects of haying to refuge wildlife: The Refuge creates early successional short-stature habitats by 

haying wet meadows and upland meadows. These habitats provide easily accessible open foraging 

areas for several species that have proven highly adaptable to anthropogenic habitat alterations. 

Hayed refuge areas provide preferred short-cover habitat for wildlife such as greater sandhill cranes, 

long-billed curlew, and Canada geese (Eldred 2009; La Sorte and Boecklen 2005). Haying activities 

associated with the small refuge farming program also provide beneficial open foraging areas for elk, 

deer, and other resident wildlife. 

The Refuge’s current haying objectives are designed to provide limited areas of short statured habitat 

to increase wildlife foraging opportunities. Potential wildlife benefits frequently cited for providing 

managed short-cover grassland include: increased palatability of grasses for grazers, increased 

invertebrate forage availability and detection rates, reduced physical obstruction, and increased 

security from predators during grazing or foraging activity (Devereux et al. 2006). 

Hayed or naturally occurring short-cover habitats are composed of low density herbaceous grass and 

forbs of 0-4 inches in height with bare ground, or light vegetative litter, easily visible. Ground 

foraging birds can easily move through this type of habitat and tend to select short cover habitat over 

dense grass habitat. Wildlife which select short-cover habitat include species that forage for 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-86 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

invertebrates in meadows (e.g., greater sandhill crane, long-billed curlew, Canada goose, western 

meadowlark, American robin, cattle egret; grazing waterfowl (e.g., American widgeon, American 

coot, gadwall, Canada geese); and upland nesting birds (e.g., long-billed curlew, black-necked stilt, 

killdeer). 

Dense cover habitat on the Refuge is defined as taller native or non-native unhayed herbaceous 

cover, at least 10-12 inches in height, dense enough to effectively conceal a passerine, shorebird, or 

duck nest from overhead or lateral view. Birds selecting dense cover for foraging and nesting include 

upland-nesting waterfowl (i.e., northern pintail, mallard, cinnamon teal, northern shoveler, gadwall); 

the meadow-nesting shorebirds (i.e., Wilsons’ phalarope, willet, common snipe); secretive marsh 

birds (i.e., American bittern, Virginia rail, sora rail); and the shallow overwater nesting birds (i.e., 

black tern, marsh wren, red-winged blackbird, yellow-headed blackbird, northern harrier). 

Current and proposed haying would reduce the height of the meadow grasses to the benefit of birds 

that prefer short grass pastures as a foraging habitat (Devereux et al. 2004; Perkins et al. 2000; 

Whitehead et al. 1995). Several mechanisms may underpin this choice including greater visibility for 

monitoring predators and conspecifics, improved prey accessibility and better mobility for foragers 

(Butler and Gillings 2004; Whittingham and Evans 2004; Whittingham and Markland 2002; Wilson 

et al. 2005). Conventional wisdom in agricultural and range management is that removal of “excess” 

or “decadent” plant litter increases sunlight and solar radiation, thereby warming soils earlier and 

promoting more available succulent plant growth earlier in the spring than areas covered by dense 

litter (Lecain et al. 2000). In Northern California, the abundance and diversity of birds, particularly 

sandhill cranes, on hayed meadow were equal to or greater than the abundance and diversity of birds 

on nonhayed plots (Epperson et al. 1999). However, Epperson and colleagues (1999) noted that 

cranes spent more time foraging and less time alert in hayed plots and concluded that foraging and 

vigilance by cranes to be more efficient in hayed meadows. 

A second explanation of the preference of newly cut grass is that haying changes invertebrate activity 

or availability, for example by causing a temporary flush of prey (Vickery et al. 2001). The 

advantage to foraging in an area where prey is concentrated by mowing is intuitive (Cattin et al. 

2003; Dunwiddie 1991), but it is less obvious why mowing could influence soil invertebrates. It is 

possible that the action of mowing changes the activity rates of soil-dwelling prey because of noise 

and vibration, especially when large machinery is used. Prey may respond to the disturbance by 

changing their activity rates in some way that translates into an increase in capture efficiency for 

short-cover foragers. 

Insects form particularly valuable protein rich forage bases within wet meadows (Fredrickson and 

Reid 1988; Wissinger 1999). Mowing or haying may affect the meadows associated invertebrate 

community (Morris 1990; Purvis and Curry 1981). If a meadow is hayed annually, the timing of the 

cut would affect the invertebrates present. The later the cut, the more time invertebrates would have 

to complete their life cycle. Many insect larvae develop in the seedheads of grasses and flowering 

plants. For example, cutting in June would have the greatest effect on planthoppers (Delphacidae) 

and many fly species, whilst cutting in July/August would adversely affect leafhoppers 

(Cicadellidae). Intake efficiency of foraging passerine birds was found to be greater in recently hayed 

units (Devereux et al. 2006). Both intake rate and foraging efficiency are important determinants of a 

small bird’s survival. Devereux and colleagues’ (2006) results showed that although no more prey 

were captured on newly mown/hayed grasslands, energy expenditure was reduced because fewer 

searches were required for each prey captured. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-87 

In summary, there is good evidence that food abundance is the main driver in determining bird usage 

of fields for both invertebrate-feeders (Brickle et al. 2000), and seed-eaters (Moorcroft et al. 2002; 

Robinson and Sutherland 1999). However, food availability (i.e., abundance modified by ease of 

access to that food) has also been shown to be an important factor in determining bird usage 

(Henderson and Evans 2000; Henderson et al. 2001). Management for short structure, and the 

abundance and availability of food resources to birds, are inextricably linked (McCracken and 

Tallowin 2004). 

While increased access to invertebrates is the principal advantage cited for short-cover management 

practices (Schekkerman and Beintema 2007), a negative effect of haying operations is a reduction in 

detritus that sustains much of the biomass and structure of the community (van der Valk 1989). 

Invertebrate production may be impeded because of unfavorable conditions associated with 

hydrology, substrate, and nutrient availability in scant or heavy litter accumulations (Magee 1993). 

However, with the small percentage of both the Refuge (1.5 percent annually) and comparative large 

acreage of unhayed wet meadow habitat on the Refuge (1,958 acres), this is a minor negative effect 

that is counterbalanced by enhanced foraging opportunities for species that prefer short cover. 

Continuation of the Refuge’s haying program, with alterations of timing of haying as needed, would 

provide both short-stature habitat for meadow foraging and grazing birds and upland nesting birds, 

and taller, denser habitat for upland nesting waterfowl, secretive marsh birds, and shallow overwater 

nesting birds. Objectives as outlined in refuge proposed management integrate an understanding of 

the factors that determine why birds forage in particular fields as well as how the major management 

practices can be modified to produce habitats that are suitable not only for species who readily adapt 

to anthropogenic changes in habitat, but a diverse suite of species. 

Haying involves the use of farm equipment to mow, rake, bale, and transport hay in grassland areas. 

The greatest potential for disturbance to wildlife occurs during mowing. Disturbance varies with 

vegetation composition and density, habitat use, wildlife species distribution and density, and time of 

year. Birds, mammals, amphibians, and reptiles may be temporarily or permanently displaced, 

injured, or killed. Collectively, several studies show a direct and often substantial impact of the 

harvesting process on the fauna, especially from the mowing stages, and that this impact depends on 

the techniques and equipment used, as well as the equipment settings, and the habitat and ecology of 

each species (Humbert et al. 2009). In Oregon, private hay fields appear to support more than 5,000 

breeding shorebirds (inferred by Paullin et al. 1977). These authors stated that young shorebirds were 

especially vulnerable to mortality from hay cutting. In early July (July 1 and 13) hay mowing was 

documented to have killed the following: Wilson’s phalaropes; long-billed curlews; soras, common 

snipe, and blackbirds. They further found that, unlike ducks, shorebirds, especially Wilson’s 

phalarope, tend to remain in hay meadows to feed after hatching. Consequently, earlier nesting 

species may be directly vulnerable to mowing. An added indirect effect to fledging shorebirds is that 

dewatering actions within current management may concentrate young birds near limited food 

resources in remaining water, increasing their vulnerability to not only mortality from haying 

equipment, but to predators. Several studies suggest that early hay mowing mortality is greatest in the 

first two weeks of July (Braun et al. 1978; Dale et al. 1997; Labisky 1957; Sargeant and Raveling 

1992). 

Current management delays hay operators from initiating mowing or harvest of refuge hay until July 

15; however, under proposed management haying may be further delayed (to between August 1 and 

August 15 depending upon habitat conditions that year) to ensure cutting occurs after the nesting 

season for grassland species is complete. Multiple researchers and management plans support the 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-88 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

actions to minimize wildlife mortality from seasonal hay mowing by not allowing haying operations 

any earlier then August 1 (Bollinger et al. 1990; Dechant 2003; Krapu et al. 2000; Licht 1997; Perlut 

et al. 2006; USDA NRCS 2007; Warner and Etter 1989) and for assessing feasibility in proposed 

management for delaying haying operations further into mid-late August. Recommendations from 

managers of some grassland management areas indicate that waiting until mid-July for mowing or 

haying operations is adequate, however, waiting until mid-August would help prevent impacts to 

double and triple-brooded species that occur at Camas NWR such as savannah sparrows and 

meadowlarks (Warren and Anderson 2005). Because of the late mowing date it is expected that 

mowing would affect less than 10 percent of the ground nesting birds nesting within the hayed area. 

Effects of haying to refuge habitats: Habitat fragmentation from human land-uses, such as haying, 

tends to increase the amount of edge adjacent to uplands (Laurance and Yensen 1991), thus 

subjecting upland wildlife populations to new or increased ecological interactions (e.g., predation, 

parasitism) associated with these edges (Wilcove et al. 1986). The prevailing principle of wildlife 

management is that increased edge and fragmentation of habitat negatively affect numerous species 

of nesting birds by increasing depredation or parasitism rates of nests (Paton 1994). Several specific 

studies report elevated rates of nest predation in fragmented forested and wetland landscapes 

(Donovan et al. 1997; Hartley and Hunter 1998; Robinson et al. 1995) and in small habitat remnants 

(Small and Hunter 1988; Wilcove 1985). 

In a Canadian prairie wetland study, daily survival rate of upland nesting birds was highest in dense 

nesting cover and fields hayed late in the season, while idle pasture (hayed the previous year) and 

rights-of-way exhibited similar but lower nest success (Pasitschiniak-Arts and Messier 1995). These 

researchers also found nest survival was higher in spring than in summer for one of three years 

studied. In all years and habitats, significantly, more mammals than birds depredated waterfowl 

nests. In all years and habitats, significantly more mammals than birds depredated waterfowl nests. 

The relative importance of the two classes of predators was similar among delayed hay, dense 

nesting cover and rights-of-ways, but differed from idle pasture (hayed the previous year) where 

avian predation was higher (Pasitschiniak-Arts and Messier 1995). 

Pacha and Petit (2008) studied the overall changes in vegetation and landscape structure changes due 

to management practices over two decades in Great Britain and the effects of fragmentation on a 

particular species. Their results indicated that there can be a general impoverishment in upland 

meadow vegetation from un-relinquished agricultural haying, with decreases in diversity, species 

richness and habitat quality leading to upland meadows becoming ten times more isolated than 20 

years ago. While hayed areas on the Refuge do create edge habitat, the amount of haying on the 

Refuge (150 acres annually) would not change from current to proposed management. In addition the 

hayed area is limited (1.5 percent of the Refuge) and is grouped into a relatively small area, rather 

than dispersed throughout the Refuge. This limits both habitat fragmentation and edge habitat that 

could lead to increased predation. 

Haying operations in wet soil types are noted to cause greater impacts to soil compaction and 

vegetation damage than on drier upland sites (Gilley et al. 1996). Gilley et al. (1996) further 

documented that soil roughness was significantly greater and bulk density significantly less on 

undisturbed long-term idle sites than hayed areas. The relatively large bulk densities measured on the 

hay fields imply that considerable compaction occurs at or near the soil surface from those operations 

(Murphy et al. 2004). Recent trends for increased size and use of tractors and agricultural machinery 

has additionally increased the probability of soil compaction during farm operations (Martel and 

MacKenzie 1980). Soil compaction by machinery has an indirect effect on soil invertebrates. Some 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-89 

earthworms can burrow into compacted soil (Joschko et al. 1989) but others have their activity 

restricted by compaction under conditions of high water (Kretzschmar 1991). Soil compaction has 

also been shown to decrease slug populations (Ferguson et al. 1988). Rabotnov (1974) found a 

decrease in proportion of soil geophytic grass in Russia, which could be partially explained by soil 

compaction as a result of hay collection. 

Haying occurs on the Refuge from mid-July through August 31, in some of the driest months of the 

year. To further minimize soil compaction or damage in proposed management, fields that have been 

saturated by rain would not be hayed until soil conditions can support the required haying equipment. 

Since haying only occur in a drier time of the year and would not be allowed in areas of saturated 

soils, impacts from soil compaction would be minimal (Murphy et al. 2004). 

There is also a potential for introduction of invasive plant species onto the Refuge from private 

equipment used in haying. To avoid the potential spread of invasive species onto the Refuge all 

equipment must be cleaned before entering the Refuge or being moved to different areas of the 

Refuge. 

Effects to listed species from haying: Currently there are no listed species inhabiting the Refuge. 

Should hay management conflicts occur with listed species in the future, the Refuge would eliminate 

impacts to listed species or develop and implement minimization measures under Section 7 

consultation of the Endangered Species Act. If deemed necessary, the cooperative farming program 

would be halted until all protective and minimizing measures can be evaluated and implemented as 

necessary. 

Effects to priority public uses from haying: By providing foraging habitat for waterfowl, sandhill 

cranes, white-tailed deer, elk, and other wildlife, hayed fields indirectly support wildlife-dependent 

recreational activities such as wildlife observation and photography. 

Anticipated Cumulative Effects of Agricultural Uses (Farming and Haying): 

Genetically modified organisms: The NWRS does not authorize refuges to use genetically modified 

organisms (GMO) for agricultural uses. However, GMO seeds could be in-use on surrounding 

private farm crops now or in the near future. Pollen blown on the wind or carried by pollinator 

species may be capable of transferring genetically engineered traits, such as herbicide resistance and 

pest resistance, to closely related wild plants on the Refuge. Genetically engineered plants with 

weedy wild relatives are of particular concern to the Refuge. If expressed in the genetic background 

of a weed species, a transgene could increase the fitness of the weed in nature (Stewart et al. 2000). 

Laboratory studies have shown non-target pollinator species may also be harmed by wind-blown 

pollen. Monarch butterfly larvae have been shown in both laboratory and field tests (Jesse and 

Obrycki 2000; Losey et al. 1999) to suffer growth and mortality effects after feeding on milkweed 

plants dusted by corn pollen that was genetically engineered to express a bacterial toxin. 

Pesticides: The Refuge can select less toxic pesticides and standardize operational procedures to 

minimize the immediate and accumulative effect of pesticides in the environment. However, the 

Refuge has no control over surrounding land-use and agricultural practices, thereby increasing the 

risk of acute and chronic exposures to wildlife from herbicides. Acute exposure is a single exposure 

or multiple brief exposures occurring within a short time (e.g., 24 hours or less in humans). Chronic 

exposures are those that extend over the average lifetime or for a significant portion of the lifetime of 

the species (USFS 2005). Herbicides from the Refuge would result in a moderate to minor risk from 

acute chemical exposure. However, unquantified and increasing risks from acute and chronic 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-90 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

exposure may occur via the aggregate impacts from refuge herbicide applications when combined 

with private, county, and State herbicide applications in the Beaver-Camas watershed. 

Public Review and Comment: 

Public review and comments are being solicited in conjunction with release of this Draft CCP/EA 

(USFWS 2013) in order to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and with Service 

policy. 

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

Farming Use on Camas NWR: 

 Cropland farming would be done under an approved Cropland Management Plan per agency 

policy. 

 Annual cooperative farming agreements would be established with the cooperator per agency 

policy. 

 The cooperative farmer is required to perform habitat maintenance work to sustain the field 

conditions for the benefit of wildlife. Work may include mechanical weed control and 

fertilization. 

 The agreement does not imply or establish a use precedent. Future use of the area would be 

based on the most satisfactory use of the land for wildlife benefits, cooperator performance, 

habitat management needs, and administrative needs. 

 All improvements made to the Refuge as a result of this Cooperative Land Management 

Agreement become the property of the United States. 

 The Cooperator would be responsible to perform fence maintenance, crop planting and water 

management as detailed in annual work plans within each CLMA.

 The cooperative farmer would exercise care to prevent fire and would assume responsibility 

for fire, which may result from his/her operations. 

 No refuge equipment would be provided for use by the cooperator. 

 At the end of the permit period, cooperator is responsible for removing all equipment from 

refuge lands. 

 The cooperator shall be responsible for repairing damage to refuge facilities or habitat 

beyond normal wear and tear resulting from his/her operation. 

 Pest plants and weeds would be controlled by the Service in accordance with the Refuge’s 

IPM program using methods such as crop rotation, mechanical treatment, biological controls, 

and approved pesticides.

 Insecticides, fungicides and other chemicals would not be permitted under this agreement. 

Fertilizers can be used by the Cooperator to fertilize crops. 

 Pesticide use must be in compliance with the Service policy requirements for completing an 

approved Pesticide Use Proposal, and it must meet other State and Federal requirements. 

 Cooperators would provide a record of herbicides used including chemical name, amount 

used, date, location, and how applied. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-91 

 Pesticide applicators must meet all State, Federal, and agency requirements. 

 Diligence shall be exercised in the control of county-listed invasive weeds. 

 Equipment of cooperating farmers would be cleaned prior to being moved onto the Refuge 

and between fields when working in areas with weed infestations 

 No genetically modified crops are allowed. 

 Monitoring of the cropland farming program would be performed by qualified refuge staff. 

Haying Use on Camas NWR 

 Haying would be done under an approved Cropland Management Plan per agency policy. 

 Annual cooperative haying agreements would be established with the cooperator per agency 

policy. 

 The Refuge would assess local hay values at least every three years, or more often if needed, 

to ensure CLMAs are being conducted at a fair market value. 

 Haying activities would start on or after July 15 each year and be completed by August 31, 

including removal of baled hay. 

 Haying shall occur after July 15 to minimize impacts to ground nesting birds. 

 The permittee shall remove all equipment and materials from the Refuge by the end of the 

haying season. 

 Haying cooperators would provide a written report and record of annual hay harvest to the 

Refuge. 

 The agreement does not imply or establish a use precedent. Future use of the area would be 

based on the most satisfactory use of the land for wildlife benefits, cooperator performance, 

habitat management needs, and administrative needs. 

 The cooperator shall be responsible for repairing damage to refuge facilities or habitat 

beyond normal wear and tear resulting from his/her operation. 

 Monitoring of the haying program would be performed by qualified refuge staff, including 

surveys to determine if haying is adversely impacting ground nesting birds. 

Justification: 

The Refuge’s agricultural program is designed to provide areas of high-energy carbohydrates and 

protein (winter wheat, barley, and legumes), and green forage grasses to meet the food energy needs 

of migrating waterfowl and cranes, and to reduce crop depredation in nearby agricultural fields. 

The Refuge manages all habitats to provide a variety of foods that would benefit migratory 

waterfowl. Although native vegetation provides higher levels of protein, fiber, and water than most 

agricultural crops, crops can provide easily accessible high energy foods that are more readily 

digestible than native plants and can reduce foraging time required to meet caloric demands 

(Alisauskas and Ankney 1992; Baldassarre and Bolen 2006; Raveling 1979). Waterfowl are able to 

exploit a variety of habitats to meet their daily and seasonal food requirements, and the Refuge 

provides a diversity of food supplies (native and non-native) in relative proximity to each other. 

Many birds also prefer to forage and rest in areas with the good visibility that hayed acreage provides 

to better detect predators such as coyotes. Haying removes tall vegetation that would restrict 

visibility and helps control weeds. In addition, the Refuge’s hay fields and agricultural fields 

provided for target wildlife species indirectly support wildlife-dependent recreational activities such 

as wildlife observation and photography. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-92 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

While agricultural crops are typically not limiting within the regional landscape, agricultural fields 

where all grain is produced and retained for wildlife use are. Refuge cropland management would be 

essential for waterfowl management in future years, both to provide food for wildlife and reduce crop 

depredation in nearby agricultural lands. 

Hayed meadows would continue to provide optimal open foraging areas for several wetland 

dependent wildlife species such as greater sandhill cranes, Canada geese, and white-faced ibis, while 

dense late-successional wet meadows would provide habitat for a diverse suite of waterfowl, 

waterbirds, and shorebirds during several key times in their annual life histories (Heitmeyer et al. 

1989; Rollins 1981). By providing a mixture of short (hayed) and dense cover, and both native and 

non-native habitats, proposed management would help maintain the biological integrity, diversity, 

and environmental health of the Refuge. These factors in turn contribute to the enhancement, 

protection, conservation, and management of native wildlife populations and their habitats. 

By conducting the agricultural program under the management practices and stipulations described 

above, management anticipates that wildlife would find abundant native and non-native food 

resources and resting places on the Refuge. Additionally, it is anticipated that the results of 

monitoring would prevent negative impacts to fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats and that the 

agricultural program would contribute to achieving refuge purpose(s) and the mission of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. 

As a management tool, cooperative land management use is a beneficial refuge operation in meeting 

purposes of the Refuge as well as goals and objectives established in the CCP. The farming and 

haying activities within the cooperative land management program contribute to achieving refuge 

purposes and goals identified in the CCP, as well as the National Wildlife Refuge System mission, by 

providing valuable foraging areas for migrating waterfowl and sandhill cranes, and habitat for 

nesting, foraging, and brood rearing for a variety of migratory birds and resident wildlife. As a result, 

cooperative farming contributes to achieving refuge purpose(s); contributes to the mission of the 

NWRS; and helps maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the 

Refuge. Allowing the use as described above would not materially detract or interfere with the 

purposes for which the Refuge was established or the mission of the Refuge System. 

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only): 

 Mandatory 15-year Re-evaluation date (for priority public uses) 

2024 Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation date (for all uses other than priority public uses) 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: 

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

References: 

Alisauskas, R.T. and C.D. Ankeny. 1992. The cost of egg-laying and its relation to nutrient reserves 

in waterfowl. Pages 30-61 in: B.D.J. Batt, A.D. Afton, M.G. Anderson, C.D. Ankney, D.H. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-93 

Johnson, J.A. Kadlec, and G.L. Krapu, eds. The ecology and management of breeding waterfowl. 

Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. 

Baldassarre, G.A. and E.G. Bolen. 2006. Waterfowl ecology and management. 2nd edition. Malabar, 

FL: Krieger Publishing Company. 

Bellrose, F.C. 1976. Ducks, geese and swans of North America. Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole Books. 

Bollinger, E.K., P.B. Bollinger, and T.A. Gavin. 1990. Effects of hay-cropping on eastern 

populations of the bobolink. Wildlife Society Bulletin 18(2):142-150. 

Braun, C.E, K.W. Harmon, J.A. Jackson, and C.D. Littlefield. 1978. Management of national wildlife 

refuges in the United States: its impacts on birds. The Wilson Bulletin 90(2):309-321. 

Bray, M.P. and D.A. Klebenow. 1988. Feeding ecology of white-faced ibis in a Great Basin Valley, 

USA. Colonial Waterbirds 11:24-31. 

Brickle, N.W., D.G.C. Harper, N.J. Aebischer, and S.H. Cockayne. 2000. Effects of agricultural 

intensification on the breeding success of corn buntings Miliaria calandra. Journal of Applied 

Ecology 37:742-755. 

Butler, S.J. and S. Gillings. 2004. Quantifying the effects of habitat structure on prey detectability 

and accessibility to farmland birds. Ibis 146(S2):123-130. 

Cattin, M.F., G. Blandenier, C. Banasek-Richter, and L.F. Bersier. 2003. The impact of mowing as a 

management strategy for wet meadows on spider (Araneae) communities. Biological 

Conservation 113:179-188. 

CPIF (California Partners in Flight). 2000. The draft grassland bird conservation plan: a strategy for 

protecting and managing grassland habitats and associated birds in California Version 1.0. Point 

Reyes Bird Observatory, Stinson Beach, CA. 49 pp. Available at: 

http://www.prbo.org/calpif/plans.html. 

Dale, B.C, P.A. Martin, and P.S. Taylor. 1997. Effects of hay management on grassland songbirds in 

Saskatchewan. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25(3):616-626. 

Dechant, J.A., M.L. Sondreal, D.H. Johnson, L.D. Igl, C.M. Goldade, P.A. Rabie, and B.R. Euliss. 

2003. Effects of management practices on grassland birds: long-billed curlew. Version 

12DEC2003. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. 22 pp. Available at: 

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/grasbird/lbcu/lbcu.htm. Accessed June 2012. 

Devereux, C.L., M.J. Whittingham, J.R. Krebs, E. Fernandez-Juricic, and J.A. Vickery. 2006. What 

attracts birds to newly mown pasture? Decoupling the action of mowing from the provision of 

short swards. Ibis 148:302-306. 

Devereux, C.L., McKeever, C.U., Benton, T.G., Whittingham, M.J., 2004. The effect of sward height 

and drainage on common starlings Sturnus vulgaris and northern lapwings Vanellus vanellus 

foraging in grassland habitats. Ibis 146 (S2), 115–122. 

Donovan, T.M., P.W. Jones, E.M. Annand, and F.R. Thompson III. 1997. Variation in local-scale 

edge effects: mechanisms and landscape context. Ecology 78:2064-2075. 

Dunwiddie, P.W. 1991. Comparisons of aboveground arthropods in burned, mowed and untreated 

sites in sandplain grasslands on Nantucket Island. American Midland Naturalist 125:206-212. 

Eldred, T. 2009. Vigilance behavior and land use by sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis). M.S. thesis. 

Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, MI. Available at: http://commons.emich.edu/theses/238. 

Accessed June 2012. 

Epperson, W.L., J.M. Edie, D.B. Marcum, E.L. Fitzhugh, and R.E. Delmas. 1999. Late season hay 

harvest provides habitat for marshland birds. California Agriculture 53:12-17. 

Estep, J.A. 1989. Biology, movements, and habitat relationships of the Swainson’s hawk in the 

Central Valley of California, 1986-87. California Department of Fish and Game, Nongame Bird 

and Mammal Section Report. Sacramento, CA. 

Evans, A.C. 1948. Studies on the relationships between earthworms and soil fertility. Vol. V. Field 

populations. Annals of Applied Biology 35:485-493. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-94 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Ferguson, C.M., B.I.P. Baratt, and P.A. Jones. 1988. Control of the grey field slug (Deroceras 

reticulatum) by stock management prior to direct-drilled pasture establishment. Journal of 

Agricultural Science 111:443-449. 

Frawley, B.J. and L.B. Best. 1991. Effects of mowing on breeding bird abundance and species 

composition in alfalfa fields. Wildlife Society Bulletin 19:135-142. 

Fredrickson, L.H. and R.D. Drobney. 1979. Habitat utilization by postbreeding waterfowl. Pages 

119-131 in: T.A. Bookhout, ed. Waterfowl and wetlands—an integrated review. La Crosse, WI: 

La Crosse Printing. 

Fredrickson, L.H. and F.A. Reid. 1988. Nutritional values of waterfowl foods. Fish and Wildlife 

Leaflet 13.1.1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. 6 pp. 

Gilley, J.E., B.D. Patton, P.E. Nyren, and J.R. Simanton. 1996. Grazing and haying effects on runoff 

and erosion from a former CRP site. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 12:681-684. 

Hartman, C.A. and K. Kyle. 2010. Farming for birds: alfalfa and forages as valuable wildlife habitat. 

40th Proceedings of the Alfalfa and Forage Symposium, Nov. 30-Dec 2, 2010, Visalia, CA. 11 

pp. Available at: 

http://alfalfa.ucdavis.edu/+symposium/2010/files/talks/CAS07_HartmanWildlifeHabitat.pdf 

Hartley, M.J. and M.L. Hunter Jr. 1998. A meta-analysis of forest cover, edge effects, and artificial 

nest predation rates. Conservation Biology 12:465-469. 

Heitmeyer, M.E., D.P. Connelly, and R.L. Pederson. 1989. The Central, Imperial, and Coachella 

Valleys of California. Pages 475-505 in: L.M. Smith, R.L. Pederson, and R.M. Kaminski, eds. 

Habitat management for migrating and wintering waterfowl in North America. Lubbock, TX: 

Texas Tech University Press 

Henderson, I.G. and A.D. Evans. 2000. Responses of farmland birds to set-aside and its management. 

Pages 69-76 in: N.J. Aebischer, A.D. Evans, P.V. Grice, and J.A. Vickery, eds. Ecology and 

conservation of lowland farmland birds. Tring, UK: British Ornithologists’ Union. 

Henderson, I.G., N.R. Critchley, J. Cooper, and J.A. Fowbert. 2001. Breeding season responses of 

skylarks Alauda arvensis to vegetation structure in set-aside (fallow arable land). Ibis 143:317-

321. 

Humbert, J.A., J. Ghazoul, and T. Walker. 2009. Meadow harvesting techniques and their impacts on 

field fauna. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment 130(1-2):1-8. 

Jesse, L.C.H. and J.J. Obrycki. 2000. Field deposition of Bt transgenic corn pollen: lethal effects on 

the monarch butterfly. Oecologia 125(2):241-248. 

Joschko, M., H. Diestel, and O. Larink. 1989. Assessment of earthworm burrowing efficiency in 

compacted soil with a combination of morphological and soil physical measurements. Biology 

and Fertility of Soils 8(3):191-196. 

Krapu, G.L., P.J. Pietz, D.A. Brandt, and R.R. Cox Jr. 2000. Factors limiting mallard brood survival 

in prairie pothole landscapes. Journal of Wildlife Management 64(2):553-561. 

Kretzschmar, A. 1991 Burrowing ability of the earthworm Aporrectodea longa limited by soil 

compaction and water potential. Biology and Fertility of Soils 11:48-51. 

La Sorte, F.A. and W.J. Boecklen. 2005. Temporal turnover of common species in avian assemblages 

in North America. Journal of Biogeography 32(7):1151-1160. 

Labisky, F. 1957. Relation of hay harvesting to duck nesting under a refuge-permittee system. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 21:194-200. 

Laurance, W.F. and E. Yensen. 1991. Predicting the impacts of edge effects in fragmented habitats. 

Biological Conservation 55:77-92. 

LeCain, D.R., J.A. Morgan, G.E. Schuman, J.D. Reeder, and R.H. Hart. 2000. Carbon exchange rates 

in grazed and ungrazed pastures of Wyoming. Journal of Range Management 53:199-206. 

Licht, D.S. 1997. Ecology and economics of the Great Plains. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska 

Press. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-95 

Lines, I.L. and C.J. Perry. 1978. A numerical wildlife habitat evaluation procedure. Transactions of 

the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 43:284-301. 

Losey, J.E, L.S. Rayor, and M.E. Carter. 1999. Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae. Nature 

399:214. Available at: 

http://ag.arizona.edu/ENTO/courses/ento446_546/readings/Losey_1999.pdf. 

Magee, P.A. 1993. Detrital accumulation and processing in wetlands. Fish and Wildlife Leaflet 

13.3.14. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. 7 pp. 

Martel, Y.A. and A.F. Mackenzie. 1980. Long-term effects of cultivation and land use on soil quality 

in Quebec. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 60:411-420. 

McCracken, D.I. and J.R. Tallowin. 2004. Swards and structure: the interactions between farming 

practices and bird food resources in lowland grasslands. Ibis 146(Suppl. 2):108-114. 

Miranowski, J.A. and R.L. Bender. 1982. Impact of erosion control policies on wildlife habitat on 

private lands. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 37:288-291. 

Moorcroft, D., M.J. Whittingham, R.B. Bradbury, and J.D. Wilson. 2002. The selection of stubble 

fields by wintering granivorous birds reflects vegetation cover and food abundance. Journal of 

Applied Ecology 39:535-547. 

Morris, M.G. 1990. The effects of management on the invertebrate community of calcareous 

grassland. Pages 128-133 in: S.H. Hiller, D.W.H. Walton, and D.A. Wells, eds. Calcareous 

grasslands: ecology and management. Huntingdon, UK: Bluntisham Books. 

Murphy, C.A., B.L. Foster, M.E. Ramspott, and K.P. Price. 2004. Grassland management effects on 

soil bulk density. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science 107:45-54. 

Pacha, M.J. and S. Petit. 2008. The effect of landscape structure and habitat quality on the occurrence 

of Geranium sylvaticum in fragmented hay meadows. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 

123:81-87. 

Pasitschniak-Arts, M. and F. Messier. 1995. Risk of predation on waterfowl nests in the Canadian 

prairies: effects of habitat edges and agricultural practices. Oikos 73(3):347-355. 

Paton, P.W.C. 1994. The effect of edge on avian nest success: how strong is the evidence? 

Conservation Biology 8:17-26. 

Paullin, D.G., C.D. Littlefield, and R.E. Vorderstrasse. 1977. Malheur-Harney Lakes Basin study, 

Oregon. Report No. 1: A summary of biological data for calendar years 1975 and 1976. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 47 pages. 

Perkins, A.J., M.J. Whittingham, R.B. Bradbury, J.D. Wilson, A.J. Morris, and P.R. Barnett. 2000. 

Habitat characteristics affecting use of lowland agricultural grassland by birds in winter. 

Biological Conservation 95:279-294. 

Perlut, N.G., A.M. Strong, T.M. Donovan, and N.J. Buckley. 2006. Grassland songbirds in a 

dynamic management landscape: behavioral responses and management strategies. Ecological 

Applications 16:2235-2247. 

Pimentel, D., P. Hepperly, J. Hanson, R. Seidel, and D. Douds. 2005. Environmental, energetic, and 

economic comparisons of organic and conventional farming systems. Bioscience 55(7):573-582. 

Purvis, G. and J.P. Curry. 1981. The influence of sward management on foliage arthropod 

communities in a ley grassland. Journal of Applied Ecology18:711-725. 

Rabotnov, T.A. 1974. Meadow research. Moscow, Russia: Publishing House of Moscow State 

University.

Raveling, D.G. 1979. The annual cycle of body composition of Canada geese with special reference 

to control of reproduction. Auk 96:234-252. 

Ringleman, J.K. 1990. Managing agricultural foods for waterfowl. 13.4.3 Waterfowl Management 

Handbook. Fish and Wildlife Leaflet 13. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 4 pp. 

Robinson, R.A. and W.J. Sutherland. 1999. The winter distribution of seed-eating birds: habitat 

structure, seed density and seasonal depletion. Ecography 22:447-454. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-96 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Robinson, S.K., F.R. Thompson III, T.M. Donovan, D.R. Whitehead, and J. Faaborg. 1995. Regional 

forest fragmentation and the nesting success of migratory birds. Science 267:1987-1990. 

Rollins, G.L. 1981. A guide to waterfowl habitat management in the Suisun Marsh. California 

Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. 109 pp. 

Ryder, R.A. and D.E. Manry. 1994. White-faced ibis (Plegadis chihi). In: A. Poole, ed. The birds of 

North America online. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca. Available at: 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/130. 

Sargeant, A.B. and D.G. Raveling. 1992. Mortality during the breeding season. Pages 396 422 in: 

B.D.J. Batt, A.D. Afton, M.G. Anderson, C.D. Ankney, D.H. Johnson, J.A. Kadlec, and G.L. 

Krapu, eds. Ecology and management of breeding waterfowl. Minneapolis, MN: University of 

Minnesota. 

Schekkewrman, H. and A.J. Beintema. 2007. Abundance of invertebrates and foraging success of 

black-tailed godwit (Limosa limosa) chicks in relation to agricultural grassland management. 

Netherlands Ornithologists Union 95(1):39-54. 

Small, M.F. and M.L. Hunter Jr. 1988. Forest fragmentation and avian nest predation in forested 

landscapes. Oecologia 76:62-64. 

Stewart, C.N., H.A. Richards, and M.D. Halfhill. 2000. Transgenic plants and biosafety: science, 

misconceptions and public perceptions. Biotechniques 29:832-843. 

Stribling, H.L. and P.D. Doerr. 1985. Nocturnal use of fields by American woodcock. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 49:485-491. 

Sugden, L.G. 1971. Metabolizable energy of small grains for mallards. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 35:781-785. 

Swolgaard, C.A., K.A. Reeves, and D.A. Bell. 2008. Foraging by Swainson’s hawks in a vineyarddominated landscape. Journal of Raptor Research 42:188-196. 

USDA NRCS (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2007. 

Early successional habitat. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Leaflet No. 41. Natural 

Resources Conservation Service and Wildlife Habitat Council. Washington, D.C. and Silver 

Spring, MD. 16 pp. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2001. Procedures document for National Emission 

Inventory, criteria air pollutants, 1985-1999. EPA-454/R-01-006, March. Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC. 

USEPA. 2004. Emission Inventory Improvement Program—EIIP document series. Volume IX - 

particulate emissions - fugitive dust from agricultural tilling. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiip/techreport/volume09/index.html. Accessed. 

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 2005. Biological Assessment for the USDA Forest Service Pacific 

Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program. Pacific Northwest Region, US Forest Service. 453 pp. 

plus appendices.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2013. Environmental assessment for the draft refuge 

comprehensive conservation plan, Camas National Wildlife Refuge. On file at Camas Refuge. 

Hamer, ID. 

Van der Valk, A.G. 1989. Northern prairie wetlands. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. 

Vickery, J.A., J.R. Tallowin, R.E. Feber, E.J. Asteraki, P.W. Atkinson, R.J. Fuller, and V.K. Brown. 

2001. The management of lowland neutral grasslands in Britain: effects of agricultural practices 

on birds and their food resources. Journal of Applied Ecology 38:647-664. 

Warner, R.E. and S.L. Etter. 1989. Hay cutting and the survival of pheasants: a long-term 

perspective. Journal of Wildlife Management 53(2):455-461. 

Warren, K.A. and J.T. Anderson. 2005. Grassland songbird nest-site selection and response to 

mowing in West Virginia. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33:285-292. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-97 

Whitehead, S.C., J. Wright, and P.A. Cotton. 1995. Winter field use by the European starling Sturnus 

vulgaris—habitat preferences and the availability of prey. Journal of Avian Biology 26:193-202.

Whittingham, M.J. and K.L. Evans. 2004. The effects of habitat structure on predation risk of birds in 

agricultural landscapes. Ibis 146(S2):210-220. 

Whittingham, M.J. and H.M. Markland. 2002. The influence of substrate on the functional response 

of an avian granivore and its implications for farmland bird conservation. Oecologia 130:637-

644. 

Wilcove, D.D., C.H. McLellan, and A.P. Dobson. 1986. Habitat fragmentation in the temperate zone. 

Pages 237-256 in: M.E. Soule, ed. Conservation biology. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates. 

Wilcove, D.S. 1985. Nest predation in forest tracts and the decline of migratory songbirds. Ecology 

66:1211-1214. 

Wilson, J.D., M.J. Whittingham, and R.B. Bradbury. 2005. The management of crop structure: a 

general approach to reversing the impacts of agricultural intensification on birds? Ibis 147:453-

463. 

Wissinger, S.A. 1999. Ecology of wetland invertebrates: synthesis and applications for conservation 

and management. Pages 1043-1086 in: D.P. Batzer, R.B. Rader, and S.A. Wissinger, eds. 

Invertebrates in freshwater wetlands of North America: ecology and management. New York: 

Wiley. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-98 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Signatures for Compatibility Determination 6, Agricultural Practices on Camas National 

Wildlife Refuge: 

Prepared by: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Refuge Manager/ 

Project Leader 

Approval: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Concurrence 

 

Refuge Supervisor: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-99 

B.10 Draft Compatibility Determination for Dog Walking on Camas 

National Wildlife Refuge 

RMIS Database Uses: Dog walking 

Refuge Name: Camas National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) 

Location: Jefferson County, Idaho 

Date Established: 1937 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

 Executive Order 7720, signed October 8, 1937, dated October 8, 1937 

 Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 715 et seq.) 

 National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (16 U.S.C. § 668dd et seq.) 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

 “... as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife.” (Executive 

Order 7720, dated Oct. 8, 1937) 

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

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

 “... conservation, management, and ... restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources 

and their habitats ... for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans... ” 16 

U.S.C. § 668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

“The mission of the [National Wildlife Refuge] System is to administer a national network of lands 

and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, 

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

generations of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as 

amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee]). 

Description of Use: 

Existing Use: 

Currently dog walking is allowed on the Refuge in accordance with hiking rules. Dog walking is 

permitted year round on the 6.3 mile auto tour route and 27 miles of gravel/dirt service roads. Dog 

walking is prohibited on the 0.5-mile birding trail. Dog walking is also permitted off roads from July 

16 to February 28. Dog walking is permitted daily from 1⁄2 hour before sunrise to 1⁄2 hour after sunset. 

Pets must be on a leash or under close control by a responsible party. Dog walking on the Refuge 

currently is an occasional use, with the majority by visitors who are traveling Interstate 15 and stop 

to visit the Refuge to take a rest break. Casual observations indicate that most dogs brought to 

Refuge are kept on a leash or are under close control. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-100 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Proposed Use: 

We propose to continue the current use, except that dogs must remain on roads, and would be 

required to be on a leash or electronic collar at all times. If the owner is using an electronic collar to 

control the dog, they must demonstrate that the collar is functioning properly and is effective in 

controlling the dog’s actions when necessary. Feces must be removed from roads and disposed of 

properly. Restrictions on this activity would be clearly posted at the refuge entrance and 

informational kiosks, parking lots, and in the refuge brochure and website. 

Dog walking would be monitored annually along with other refuge uses to ensure compliance, and 

compatibility with wildlife management and wildlife-dependent recreational activities. If monitoring 

indicates routine non-compliance or compatibility conflicts, the Service would evaluate the need for 

limiting or prohibiting dog walking. This CD would be revised in ten years or sooner to incorporate 

additional data and new information. 

Availability of Resources: 

Maintenance of refuge roads incurs costs, but costs are not directly related to dog walking. Roads are 

routinely maintained for vehicle activity and to repair holes made by burrowing wildlife. No 

additional expense for dog walkers is anticipated. Since dog walking would be restricted to the roads, 

the major portion of the funds needed to support this activity are in the form of salaries for 

maintaining the existing roads, monitoring public use and biological impacts, enforcing regulations, 

and exotic species control. New regulations would need to be posted on signs and refuge brochures; 

however, the cost for this would be shared by other uses. It is expected that some additional staff 

time would be required during the first few years of implementation to educate visitors about the new 

regulations. Thus the Refuge has sufficient staff and funding to allow the use. 

Category and Itemization One-time 

($000) 

Annual 

($000/yr) 

Administration and management: $0 $1,000 

Maintenance: $0 $0 

Monitoring: $0 $2,000 

Biological monitoring if use increases 

Offsetting revenues: $0 

$0 

$0 

$3,000 TOTALS 

Anticipated Impacts of Described Use: 

The impacts of dog walking, as conducted on Camas NWR, have not been studied in detail. Dog 

walking has the potential of impacting shorebird, waterfowl, marsh bird, and other migratory bird 

populations feeding and resting near trails or roads during certain times of the year. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-101 

Impacts to Habitat: 

Both hikers and dog walkers can cause structural damage to plants and increase soil compaction. The 

degree of surface compaction is dependent on topography, soil structure, and soil moisture 

(Whittaker 1978). Impacts of trampling on vegetation and soils commonly noted on trails (Dale and 

Weaver 1974; Liddle 1975) are unlikely to occur on the well-defined, gravel surfaces of roads. The 

Service repairs, operates, and patrols the Auto Tour Road. Maintenance activities include planting 

trees, shrubs, and tall vegetation at points along the roadside, herbicide spraying, road grading, and 

gravel replenishment, as needed. Although dog-walkers would be required to remain on the roads, 

some users may leave roads to provide drinking water for their dogs, or to observe and photograph 

wildlife. Plants may be trampled in the process and wildlife disturbed. Currently, there is little 

evidence of this user group leaving roads. 

Impacts to Wildlife (Disturbance): 

Wildlife response to dog walking: Among the proposed public uses of the Auto Tour Road and 

refuge service roads, a human with a dog would elicit the greatest stress reaction in wildlife. In the 

case of birds, the presence of dogs may, reduce bird diversity and abundance in woodlands (Banks 

and Bryant 2007) and staging areas (Burger 1986; Lafferty 2001a,b), flush incubating birds from 

nests (Yalden and Yalden 1990), disrupt breeding displays (Baydack 1986), disrupt foraging activity 

in shorebirds (Hoopes 1993), and disturb roosting activity in ducks (Keller 1991). Many of these 

authors indicated that dogs with people, dogs on-leash, or loose dogs provoked the most pronounced 

disturbance reactions from their study animals. However, the greatest stress reaction results from 

unanticipated disturbance. Animals show greater flight response to humans moving unpredictably 

than to humans following a distinct path (Gabrielsen and Smith 1995). 

The effects of human disturbance can be reduced by restricting human activity to an established trail, 

having disturbance free food areas for wildlife, and requiring dogs to be on a short leash or electronic 

collar and therefore under the control of the owner at all times. Sime (1999) concluded that 

maintaining control of pets while in wildlife habitats reduces the potential of disturbance, injury, or 

mortality to wildlife. In a study comparing wildlife responses to human and dog use on and off trails, 

Miller et al. (2001) recommended prohibiting dogs or restricting use to trails to minimize disturbance 

and that natural land managers can implement spatial and behavioral restrictions in visitor 

management to reduce disturbance by such activities on wildlife. Korschgen and Dahlgren (1992) 

and Fox and Madsen (1997) state the importance of disturbance-free food reserves and areas as a 

management alternative to minimize human disturbances. Dog walkers would be restricted to roads 

that are sufficiently distant from wildlife habitat to prevent significant disturbance. 

Despite thousands of years of domestication, dogs still maintain instincts to hunt and chase. Given 

the appropriate stimulus, those instincts can be triggered. Dogs that are unleashed or not under the 

control of their owners may disturb or potentially threaten the lives of some wildlife. In effect, offleash dogs increase the radius of human recreational influence or disturbance beyond what it would 

be in the absence of a dog. Dog-walkers would be required to maintain physical control of their 

animal while on the Refuge, thereby reducing the potential and severity of these impacts to wildlife. 

Special competition or dog training events would not be allowed since dogs function as an extension 

of their owner, and group size has been found to increase wildlife response to disturbance (Geist et 

al. 2005; Sime 1999; Yosef 2000). Restrictions on this activity would be clearly posted at refuge 

entrances, parking lots, and in the refuge brochure and website. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-102 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

The role of dogs in wildlife diseases is poorly understood. However, dogs host endo- and ectoparasites and can contract diseases from, or transmit diseases to, wild animals. In addition, dog waste 

is known to transmit diseases that may threaten the health of some wildlife and other domesticated 

animals. Domestic dogs can potentially introduce various diseases and transport parasites into 

wildlife habitats and to humans (Overgaauw 2009; Sime 1999). Studies have also documented the 

health and aesthetic impacts of dog feces and the benefits of removal (CDC 1995; Forestry 

Commission 2004; LEES and Associates Landscape Architects 2004; MacPherson 2005). In order to 

minimize the risk of disease introduction and reduce user group conflicts, dog walkers would be 

required to pick up dog feces and dispose of them properly. 

Potential conflicts between user groups: Dog walking has the potential to result in conflicts with 

persons engaged in priority public uses (wildlife observation and photography). Dog owners may 

remove their dogs from leashes when they are out of view from refuge personnel. Westgarth et al. 

(2010) found that negative interactions with dogs are reduced when they are leashed. Requiring dogs 

to be on a short leash or electronic collar, and law enforcement to increase compliance, should 

greatly reduce any potential conflicts between user groups and infractions related to this activity. 

Overall impact to Camas NWR: The studies cited above show that dog walking can and does disturb 

wildlife. Based on the circumstances described in the scientific literature, it is reasonable to assume 

similar effects could occur on Camas NWR in most areas where dog walking is allowed. However, 

we anticipate the impacts of dog walkers would be small, as a result of restricting this use to roads, 

imposing a leash requirement, requiring removal of dog feces, and educating the public on the effects 

of recreation on wildlife and habitat. 

Public Review and Comment: 

Public review and comments are being solicited in conjunction with release of this Draft CCP/EA 

(USFWS 2013) in order to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and with Service 

policy. 

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

 Dog-walkers would be required to stay on designated roadways throughout the year. Dog 

walking is only allowed on the Auto Tour Route (year round), and 27 miles of service roads 

(year round). 

 Use is restricted to daylight hours only. 

 Certified assistance dogs are allowed on all public use areas. 

 These regulations do not apply to dogs that are being used by waterfowl and upland game 

hunters to flush or retrieve game, in accordance with refuge hunting regulations. 

 Dogs must be kept leashed or on an electronic collar at all times. Dog owners must be able to 

demonstrate close control of their dog at all times to minimize disturbances to wildlife, 

wildlife habitat and other visitors. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-103 

 Dog owners must ensure their dog causes no harm to wildlife, the Refuge, or disturbance to 

other visitors. 

 Dog droppings would be collected and disposed of properly off the Refuge by the responsible 

party. If domestic animal waste becomes a problem, dog-walking would be reevaluated. 

 Organized dog training or competition events are prohibited. 

 Regulations would be available to the public through a refuge brochure. 

 Directional, informational, and interpretive signs would be posted and maintained to help 

keep visitors on trails and help educate the public on minimizing wildlife and habitat 

disturbance. 

 Use would be periodically evaluated for disturbance to wildlife, especially if use numbers 

increase. 

Justification: 

Although dog walking is not a wildlife-dependent public use of the Refuge, as defined by statute (16 

U.S.C. 668dd et seq.) this occasional use of the refuge roads is expected to have negligible impacts to 

wildlife habitat when compared to the effects of other public uses (Klein 1993). Potential for wildlife 

and habitat disturbance is minimal given the indirect approach of this activity, the enforcement of the 

leash or electronic collar rule and removal of dog feces. Restricting the disturbance to established 

roads would increase the predictability of public use on the Refuge, allowing wildlife to habituate to 

non-threatening activities. Impacts of dog walking would be monitored and if they, or other impacts, 

are discovered, this compatibility determination would be reevaluated. Direct costs to administer 

existing levels of dog walking on refuge roads would be minor because costs would already be 

covered by the existing Complex budget for maintaining wildlife-dependent public uses. 

It is anticipated that wildlife populations would find sufficient food resources and resting places such 

that their abundance and use of the Refuge would not be measurably lessened from allowing dog 

walking on refuge roads. The relatively limited number of individuals expected to be adversely 

affected due to dog walking would not cause wildlife populations to materially decline, the 

physiological condition and production of wildlife species would not be impaired, their behavior and 

normal activity patterns would not be altered dramatically, and their overall welfare would not be 

negatively impacted. Thus, allowing dog walking to occur with stipulations would not materially 

detract or interfere with the purposes for which the Refuge was established or the Refuge System 

mission. 

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only): 

 Mandatory 15-year Re-evaluation date (for priority public uses) 

2024 Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation date (for all uses other than priority public uses) 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: 

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-104 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

References: 

Banks, P.B. and J.V. Bryant. 2007. Four-legged friend or foe? Dog walking displaces native birds 

from natural areas. Biology Letters 3:611-613. 

Baydack, R.K. 1986. Sharp-tailed grouse response to lek disturbance in the Carberry Sand Hills of 

Manitoba. Ph.D. dissertation. Colorado State University, Fort Collins. 83 pp. 

Burger, J. 1986. The effect of human activity on shorebirds in two coastal bays in northeastern 

United States. Environmental Conservation 13:123-130. 

CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 1995. Recommendations for veterinarians; how 

to prevent transmission of intestinal roundworms from pets to people. Division of Parasitic 

Disease, National Center for Infectious Disease. Available at: 

http://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/prevguid/p0000424/p0000424.asp#head007000000000000. 

Dale, D. and T. Weaver. 1974. Trampling effects on vegetation of the trail corridors of north Rocky 

Mountain forests. Journal of Applied Ecology 11:767-772. 

Forestry Commission. 2004. Dog walking survey in the New Forest. Available at: 

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/new-forest-dog-study.pdf/$FILE/new-forest-dog-study.pdf. 

Accessed December 10, 2010. 

Fox, A.D. and J. Madsen. 1997. Behavioral and distributional effects of hunting disturbance on 

waterbirds in Europe: implications for refuge design. Journal of Applied Ecology 34(1):1-13. 

Gabrielson, G.W. and E.N. Smith. 1995. Physiological responses of wildlife to disturbance. Pages 

95-107 in: R.L. Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and recreationists; coexistence through 

management and research. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 

Geist, C., J. Liao, S. Libby, and D.T. Blumstein. 2005. Does intruder group size and orientation 

affect flight initiation distance in birds? Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 28.1:69-73. 

Hoopes, E.M. 1993. Relationships between human recreation and piping plover foraging ecology and 

chick survival. M.S. thesis. University of Massachusetts, Amherst. 106 pp. 

Keller, V.E. 1991. Effects of human disturbance on Eider ducklings Somateria mollissima in 

estuarine habitat in Scotland. Biological Conservation 58(2):213-228. 

Klein, M.L. 1993. Waterbird behavioral responses to human disturbances. Wildlife Society Bulletin 

21:31-39. 

Korschgen, C.E. and R.B. Dahlgren. 1992. Human disturbances of waterfowl: causes, effects, and 

management. 13.2.15. Waterfowl Management Handbook. Fish and Wildlife Leaflet 13. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. 8 pp. 

Lafferty, K.D. 2001a. Birds at a Southern California beach: seasonality, habitat use and disturbance 

by human activity. Biodiversity and Conservation 10:1949-1962. 

Lafferty, K.D. 2001b. Disturbance to wintering western snowy plovers. Biological Conservation 

101:315-325. 

LEES and Associates Landscape Architects. 2004. Dealing with dog waste in Vancouver parks. 

Preliminary research for dog waste composting at Everett Crowley Park. Available at: 

http://vancouver.ca/Parks/info/strategy/everettcrowleymgmtplan/pdf/report_dogfeces_compost.p

df. Accessed May 2011. 

Liddle, M.J. 1975. A selective review of the ecological effects of human trampling on natural 

ecosystems. Biological Conservation 7:17-36. 

MacPherson, C.N.L. 2005. Human behavior and the epidemiology of parasitic zoonoses. 

International Journal for Parasitology 35:1319-1331. 

Miller, S.G., R.L. Knight, and C.K. Miller. 2001. Wildlife responses to pedestrians and dogs. 

Wildlife Society 29(1):124-132. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-105 

Overgaauw, P.A.M., L. van Zutphen, D. Hoek, F.O. Yaya, J. Roelfsema, E. Pinelli, F. van Knapen, 

and L.M. Kortbeek. 2009. Zoonotic parasites in fecal samples and fur from dogs and cats in the 

Netherlands. Veterinary Parasitology 163(1-2):115-22. 

Sime, C.A. 1999. Domestic dogs in wildlife habitats. Pages 8.1-8.17 in: G. Justin and H. Youmans, 

coordinators. Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife: a review for Montana. 

Committee on Effects of Recreation on Wildlife. Montana Chapter of the Wildlife Society, Great 

Falls, MT. 307 pp. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2013. Environmental assessment for the draft refuge 

comprehensive conservation plan, Camas National Wildlife Refuge. On file at Camas Refuge. 

Hamer, ID. 

Westgarth, C., R.M. Christley, G.L. Pinchbeck, R.M. Gaskell, S. Dawson, and J.W.S. Bradshaw. 

2010. Dog behaviour on walks and the effect of use of the leash. Applied Animal Behaviour 

Science 125(1-2):38-40. 

Whittaker, P.L. 1978. Comparison of surface impact by hiking and horseback riding in the Great 

Smoky Mountains National Park. Report 24. National Park Service, Southeast Region. Atlanta, 

GA. 32 pp. 

Yalden, P.E. and D.W. Yalden. 1990. Recreational disturbances of breeding golden plovers Pluvialis 

apricarius. Biological Conservation 51(4):243-262. 

Yosef, R. 2000. Individual distances among greater flamingos as indicators of tourism pressure. 

Waterbirds 23 (Special Publication 1):26-31. 

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-106 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Signatures for Compatibility Determination 7, Dog Walking on Camas National Wildlife 

Refuge: 

Prepared by: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Refuge Manager/ 

Project Leader 

Approval: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Concurrence 

 

Refuge Supervisor: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-107 

B.11 Draft Compatibility Determination for Bicycling, Jogging, 

Cross-Country Skiing, and Snowshoeing on Camas National 

Wildlife Refuge 

RMIS Database Uses: Bicycling, Jogging, Cross-Country Skiing, Snowshoeing 

Refuge Name: Camas National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) 

Location: Jefferson County, Idaho 

Date Established: 1937 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

 Executive Order 7720, signed October 8, 1937, dated October 8, 1937 

 Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 715 et seq.) 

 National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (16 U.S.C. § 668dd et seq.) 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

 “... as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife.” (Executive 

Order 7720, dated Oct. 8, 1937) 

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

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

 “... conservation, management, and ... restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources 

and their habitats ... for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans... ” 16 

U.S.C. § 668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

“The mission of the [National Wildlife Refuge] System is to administer a national network of lands 

and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, 

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

generations of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as 

amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee]). 

Description of Use: 

Existing Use: 

The following non-consumptive, non-wildlife-dependent public uses are currently allowed on the 

Refuge: hiking, biking, jogging, snowshoeing, and cross-country skiing. These activities are allowed 

year round as road and weather conditions permit. However, jogging is not specifically addressed in 

the refuge brochure. These activities are allowed on improved (graveled) refuge roads: year round on 

the 6.3 mile Auto Tour Route and 27 miles of dirt and gravel service roads, and during the hunt 

season on 6.5 miles of roads leading to and within the waterfowl and upland game hunting areas. The 

Refuge does not maintain the roads specifically for these uses, and reserves the right to close any 

road to these uses because of disturbance to wildlife. Off-road hiking, cross-country skiing, and 

snowshoeing is allowed throughout the Refuge from July 15-February 28 as conditions permit. 

Bicycling is limited to improved roads. These activities are not allowed on the 0.5-mile pedestrian 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-108 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

birding trail; however, this is not specifically addressed in the refuge brochure. Staff observations 

indicate that these uses are minor on the Refuge, with biking being the largest use, particularly in the 

spring and early summer. Jogging and bicycling do not occur in the winter months due to snow and 

ice conditions. The auto tour route, parking lots/pullouts, and service roads are open daily from 1⁄2 

hour before sunrise to 1⁄2 hour after sunset throughout the year. Any refuge public use programs or 

activities that may require access after sunset or before sunrise would be managed by the refuge staff 

and may require Special Use Permits. 

Proposed Use: 

The Refuge would continue to allow the uses as described above, except that these uses would not be 

allowed off roads or on the pedestrian birding trail. These uses would continue to be allowed on 

improved (graveled) refuge roads as follows: on the 6.3 mile Auto Tour Route and 27 miles of dirt 

and gravel service roads year-round; on 6.5 miles of roads leading to and within the waterfowl and 

upland game hunting areas during hunting seasons. Regulations would be clearly posted on refuge 

signs and included in refuge brochures. Signs and brochures would list bicycling, jogging, crosscountry skiing, and snowshoeing as approved activities, but limited to improved roads only. Signs 

prohibiting these activities on the pedestrian birding trail would be posted. Large groups of joggers, 

bicyclists, or cross-country skiers (more than ten in a group) or organized running, bicycling, or 

skiing events would not be allowed unless a Special Use Permit was obtained. 

Availability of Resources: 

Maintenance of refuge roads and trails incurs costs, but costs are not directly related to bicycling, 

jogging, cross-country skiing, and snowshoeing. Roads and trails would not be groomed specifically 

for skiing and snowshoeing. Roads are routinely maintained for vehicle activity and to repair holes 

made by burrowing wildlife. No additional expense for these activities is anticipated. Since these 

activities would be restricted to the roads and trails, the major portion of the funds needed to support 

this activity are in the form of salaries for maintaining the existing roads and trails, monitoring public 

use and biological impacts, enforcing regulations, and exotic species control. Thus the Refuge has 

sufficient staff and funding to allow the use. 

Category and Itemization One-time 

($000) 

Annual 

($000/yr) 

Updating refuge brochures 

Posting updated compliance signs 

Administration and management: $0 $2,000 

Maintenance: $0 

$2,000 Posting signs and removing snow from entrance road 

Monitoring: $0 

$5,000 Biological monitoring if use increases 

Offsetting revenues: $0 

$0 

$0 

$9,000 TOTALS 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-109 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use(s): 

Impacts resulting from the proposed use include both direct and indirect impacts to wildlife resources 

and the associated habitat. Direct impacts have an immediate effect on wildlife and generally result 

from the public’s interaction with wildlife. Indirect impacts would include actions taken by the public 

that would impact habitat or reduce access to habitat. 

Effects to Habitat: 

The primary impact visitors engaged in hiking, jogging, bicycling, cross-country skiing, and 

snowshoeing have on habitat is the trampling of vegetation and creation of social trails. Impacts to 

soil and vegetation caused by cross-country skiing and snowshoeing would be minimal, given the 

presence of snow cover and the fact that plants are dormant at this time. The primary impacts would 

be associated with jogging and bicycling. 

Trail widening and creation of social trails increases the area of disturbed land (Adkison and Jackson 

1996; Dale and Weaver 1974; Liddle 1975). Pedestrians can potentially cause structural damage to 

plants and increase soil compaction and erosion (DeLuca et al. 1998; Whittaker 1978). These impacts 

are unlikely to occur on the well-defined, gravel surface of refuge trails; however, social trails 

associated with off-trail use remains an issue for refuge managers as plants are trampled and wildlife 

is disturbed. Control of invasive plant species on the Refuge is a difficult and never-ending battle. 

Roads and trails often function as conduits for movement of plant species, including non-native, 

invasive species (Benninger-Truax et al. 1992; Hansen and Clevenger 2005). Propagules of nonnative plants can be transported into new areas on hikers’ boots, clothing, and equipment (BenningerTraux et al. 1992). Once established, invasive plants can out-compete native plants, thereby altering 

habitats and indirectly impacting wildlife. Invasive plants and animals would be controlled and 

monitored as part of the Refuge’s Integrated Pest Management Plan. 

Effects to Wildlife: 

 Anticipated direct impacts include disturbance to wildlife by human presence which typically results 

in a temporary displacement of individuals or groups. Immediate responses by wildlife to 

recreational activity can range from behavioral changes including nest abandonment, altered nest 

placement, change in food habits, physiological changes such as elevated heart rates and increased 

energetic costs due to flight or flushing, or even death (Belanger and Bedard 1990; Knight and Cole 

1995; Knight and Swaddle 2007; Miller et al. 1998; Miller and Hobbs 2000; Morton et al. 1989; 

Smith-Castro and Rodewald 2010). The long-term effects are more difficult to assess but may 

include altered behavior, vigor, productivity or death of individuals; altered population abundance, 

distribution, or demographics; and altered community species composition and interactions. 

According to Knight and Cole (1991), there are three wildlife responses to human disturbance: 1) 

avoidance; 2) habituation; and 3) attraction. The magnitude of the avoidance response may depend 

on a number of factors including the type, distance, movement pattern, speed, and duration of the 

disturbance, as well as the time of day, time of year, weather; and the animal’s access to food and 

cover, energy demands, and reproductive status (Fernández-Juricic 2007; Gabrielsen and Smith 

1995; Knight and Cole 1991). 

Habituation is defined as a form of learning in which individuals stop responding to stimuli that carry 

no reinforcing consequences for the individuals that are exposed to them (Alcock 1993). A key factor 

for predicting how wildlife would respond to disturbance is predictability. Often, when a use is 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-110 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

predictable—following a trail or boardwalk or at a viewing deck—wildlife would habituate to and 

accept human presence (Oberbillig 2000). Gabrielsen and Smith (1995) suggest that most animals 

seem to have a greater defense response to humans moving unpredictably in the terrain (e.g., off-trail 

hikers) than to humans following a distinct path. 

Direct impacts: Negative impacts to wildlife have been documented when migratory birds and 

humans are present in the same areas (Boyle and Samson 1985). Response of birds to human 

activities includes departure from site (Burger 1981; Henson and Grant 1991; Klein 1993; Korschgen 

et al. 1985; Owens 1977; Taylor and Knight 2003), use of suboptimal habitat (Erwin 1980; Williams 

and Forbes 1980), altered behavior (Burger 1981; Havera et al. 1992; Klein 1993; Korschgen et al. 

1985; Morton et al. 1989; Ward and Stehn 1989), and increase in energy expenditure (Belanger and 

Bedard 1990; Morton et al. 1989). McNeil et al. (1992) found that many waterfowl species avoid 

disturbance by feeding at night instead of during the day. 

The location of recreational activities impacts species in different ways. Miller et al. (1998) found 

that nesting success was lower near recreational trails, where human activity was common, than at 

greater distances from the trails. Stolen (2003) found that the proximity of wading birds to a roadway 

influenced the probability that a given bird would flush. Migratory waterfowl at J.N. “Ding” Darling 

NWR remained more than 80 m (262 feet) from the auto tour route, even when human visitation was 

low (Klein 1995). 

Wildlife species also vary in their sensitivity to disturbance. Klein (1989) found that migratory 

dabbling ducks to be the most sensitive to disturbance, and that migrant ducks were more sensitive 

when they first arrived, in the late fall, than later in winter. She also found gulls and sandpipers to be 

apparently insensitive to human disturbance, with Burger (1981) finding the same to be true for 

various gull species. However, while gulls are relatively insensitive to disturbance while foraging 

away from breeding colonies, they can be extremely sensitive to human disturbance at nesting sites. 

Guay (1968) found that Franklin’s gulls are particularly sensitive to human disturbance early in the 

breeding cycle and again during the chick phase, and would abandon with excessive human 

exposure. Likewise, Burger (1981) found that wading birds were extremely sensitive to disturbance 

in the northeastern United States. Disturbance during critical times in the breeding cycle may cause 

colony abandonment in colonial-nesting waterbirds. White-faced ibis are susceptible to colony 

abandonment resulting from human intrusion into colonies during the early nesting period (Ryder 

and Manry 1994). Abandonment of nests is less likely with young than eggs but may still occur with 

repeated disturbance (Burger and Gochfeld 1994). 

Gutzwiller et al. (1997) found that singing behavior of some songbirds was altered by low levels of 

human intrusion. Resident waterbirds that are regularly exposed to human disturbance tend to be less 

sensitive than migrants, especially when migrants first arrive at a site (Klein 1993). In areas where 

human activity is common, birds tolerated closer approaches than in areas receiving less activity. 

Knight and Cole (1991) also suggested that sound may elicit a much milder response from wildlife if 

animals are visually buffered from the disturbance. 

Pedestrian travel can impact normal behavioral activities, including feeding, reproductive, and social 

behavior. Studies have shown that ducks and shorebirds are sensitive to pedestrian activity (Burger 

1981, 1986). A number of species have shown greater reactions when pedestrian use occurred off 

trail (Miller et al. 1998; Taylor and Knight 2003). Wildlife photographers tend to have larger 

disturbance impacts than those viewing wildlife since they tend to approach animals more closely 

(Klein 1993; Morton 1995). 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-111 

Burger (1999 as cited by Oberbillig 2000) suggests that viewing distances that minimize disturbance 

can serve as useful guides for managers lacking good site-specific information and serve as a starting 

point in determining what is appropriate elsewhere. Some factors that affect viewing distances 

include the numbers of viewers, the time of day, and noise level. When exposing nonbreeding 

waterbirds to four types of human disturbances (walking, all-terrain vehicle, automobile, and boat), 

Rodgers and Smith (1997) concluded that a buffer zone of 100 m (328 feet) would minimize 

disturbance to most species of waterbirds. 

Wildlife response to bicycling and jogging: Literature suggests that rapid movement is more 

disturbing to wildlife than slower movement. Rapid movement directly toward wildlife frightens 

them, while movement away from or at an oblique angle to the animal is less disturbing (Knight and 

Cole 1995). Depending on the level of use and compliance to regulations restricting off-trail use, 

some impact to wildlife would be expected. Although biking and jogging have the potential to cause 

flushing of birds from breeding and foraging habitats, these activities are not anticipated to cause 

large disturbances to wildlife due to the small number of bicyclists and joggers using the Refuge, and 

restriction of these activities to roads. 

Wildlife response to cross-country skiing and snowshoeing: In two different studies of winter 

recreation impacts to wildlife in Yellowstone National Park (YNP), Aune (1981) and Cassirer (1990) 

found that, except for coyotes, all wildlife species observed (mostly big game) reacted more quickly 

to an approaching skier than to a snowmobile, and the flight distance was generally greater from 

skiers. Bison were found to respond dramatically to skiers who were off established trails. All 

wildlife species studied, including bison, were wary of people on foot. Aune (1981) also observed 

that in YNP, elk were less likely to flee from snowmobiles or skiers late in the winter than they were 

earlier in the season. He suggested that this was likely due in part to habituation by elk to 

snowmobile traffic and in part to decreased vigor of elk later in the season combined with the 

increasing difficulty of flight through deep, crusted snow. Proximity of escape cover that breaks the 

line of sight between elk and the disturbance may reduce flight distances and consequently the 

amount of energy used in flight. Moving automobiles and trail bikes had little effect on elk resting in 

timber at distances of only 0.13 miles (Lyon and Ward 1982). 

Ferguson and Keith (1982) researched the influence of cross-country ski trail development and skiing 

on elk and moose distribution in Elk Island National Park in Alberta, Canada. They found no 

indication that overwinter distribution of elk was altered by cross-country skiing activity. However, it 

did appear that elk moved away from ski trails, particularly those that were heavily used, during the 

ski season. 

Aune (1981) also reported average elk flight distances of 53.5 m (175.5 feet) in response to skiers at 

Yellowstone National Park. In another study, elk began to move when skiers approached to within 15 

m (50 feet) in an area heavily used by humans year round, and within 400 m (1,312 feet) in an area 

where human activity is much lower (Cassirer et al. 1992). Elk in YNP fled more frequently and over 

greater distances from skiers off established trails than from skiers on established trails (Aune 1981). 

Rudd and Irwin (1985) investigated the movements of moose in response to cross-country skiing and 

found that the average distance nineteen moose moved away from people on snowshoes or skis was 

16.6 yards, and the average distance at which moose were displaced was 80.7 yards. These activities 

are not anticipated to cause large disturbances to wildlife due to the small number of cross-country 

skiers and snowshoers using the Refuge, and restriction of these activities to roads. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-112 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Potential conflicts between user groups: Since users engaged in jogging and bicycling travel at a 

faster rate than hikers, and are more likely to disturb wildlife than walking or automobiles, there is 

the potential for these activities to result in conflicts between joggers and bicyclists, and user groups 

engaged in wildlife observation and photography. By flushing wildlife these activities could 

potentially reduce the quality of experience for visitors using the Auto Tour Route, photographing 

birds from portable blinds in designated areas, or hiking in designated areas. However jogging and 

bicycling currently occur only infrequently on the Refuge and therefore user group conflicts are 

expected to be low. If the level of use increases and conflicts are documented, the use would be reevaluated. Cross-country skiing and snowshoeing occur infrequently and when other visitor use is 

low and therefore conflicts with other user groups are unlikely. There is a potential for these 

activities to interfere with elk hunters; however allowing these uses only on roads within the elk 

hunting area would minimize these conflicts. 

Cumulative and indirect/secondary impacts: Indirect impacts of wildlife-dependent activities depend 

on a number of variables, such as season of use, duration of activity, location and number of users. 

People can be vectors for invasive plants by moving seeds or other propagules from one area to 

another. Once established, invasive plants can out-compete native plants, thereby altering habitats 

and indirectly impacting wildlife. The threat of invasive plant establishment would always be an 

issue requiring annual monitoring and treatment when necessary. Refuge staff would work at 

eradicating invasive plants and educating the visiting public. Providing and maintaining access points 

to the Refuge indirectly impacts wildlife by creating barriers to movement, through vegetation 

removal and management, and abrupt edge creation that may lead to increased predation (Ratti and 

Reese 1988). Trail edges may concentrate prey species and may be used by predators as travel 

corridors. 

Other indirect impacts may include trampling of vegetation, erosion, littering, removal of vegetation, 

and vandalism. These adverse impacts are expected to be short term and limited to locations along 

the auto tour route, roads, parking/pullouts, and associated facilities. 

Despite the potential for the above effects to result from public visitation, the physical impacts, 

disturbance to wildlife and habitat, and disturbances on the Refuge are expected to be intermittent, 

minor, and short term, and in the context of the amount of the Refuge closed to these uses 

(sanctuary), allowing these uses on the Refuge is not expected to diminish the value of the Refuge for 

its stated purposes. 

Summary and application to Camas NWR: The use of the auto tour route, roads, and associated 

facilities on the Refuge provides potential for human disturbance of wildlife. Since Camas provides 

important breeding habitat for migratory waterfowl and waterbirds, the primary concern on Camas 

NWR would be disturbance to wildlife (especially waterfowl and waterbirds) during the nesting and 

brood-rearing season, which coincides with the peak season for public use on the Refuge. In addition 

there are concerns regarding disturbance to waterfowl, waterbirds, and landbirds during migration, 

and to bald eagles at their winter roost in the cottonwoods near the refuge headquarters. A good way 

to control the impacts of non-consumptive wildlife-dependent uses is to mitigate the effect on 

wildlife by managing these uses in time and space. To minimize disturbance to wildlife, the Refuge 

would only be open from 1⁄2 hour before sunrise to a 1⁄2 hour after sunset. Bicycling, jogging, crosscountry skiing, and snowshoeing would be allowed only on the 6.3-mile Auto Tour Route (year 

round), 27 miles of dirt and gravel service roads (year round), and 6.5 miles of additional roads 

leading to and within the waterfowl and upland game hunt units during the hunting season. The 

existing auto tour route and roads are located at a sufficient distance from important wildlife use 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-113 

areas that minimal disturbance would occur. Off-road bicycling, jogging, cross-country skiing, and 

snowshoeing would be prohibited. Limited these activities to roads would limit the footprint of 

disturbance, and by increasing predictability, would allow wildlife to habituate to the use. To limit 

disturbance, refuge staff would limit the number and group size, and manage the timing and location 

of organized bicycling, jogging, cross-country skiing, and snowshoeing events by issuing special use 

permits. 

Public Review and Comment: 

Public review and comments are being solicited in conjunction with release of this Draft CCP/EA 

(USFWS 2013) in order to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and with Service 

policy. 

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

 Activities associated with this proposed use are restricted to those portions of the Refuge that 

are open to the general public during daylight hours. 

 Visitors must adhere to seasonal use restrictions to reduce disturbance to nesting waterfowl 

and other wildlife. 

 Bicycling, jogging, cross-country skiing, and snowshoeing are allowed only on the Auto 

Tour Route (year round), 27 miles of service roads (year round), and 6.5 miles of roads 

leading to and within the north and south waterfowl and upland game hunt unit during the 

hunt season. 

 Pedestrian use only allowed on the birding trail. Bicycling, jogging, cross-country skiing, 

snowshoeing, and dog walking are prohibited. 

 Camping, overnight use, and fires are prohibited. 

 Littering is prohibited. 

 Harassment of wildlife or excessive damage to vegetation is prohibited. 

 Collection of plants and animals is prohibited unless a Special Use Permit is obtained from 

the Refuge (except wildlife captured while engaged in fishing and hunting). 

 Activities requiring off road/trail access or access between 1⁄2 hour after sunset and 1⁄2 hour 

before sunrise would require a Special Use Permit or be managed by refuge staff. 

 Organized bicycling, jogging, cross-country skiing, or snowshoeing events, and all such 

activities with a group size of more than ten, require a Special Use Permit. 

 The Refuge would provide signs and brochures that clearly state pertinent refuge-specific 

regulations. Verbal instructions from refuge staff would promote appropriate use of refuge 

facilities to minimize wildlife and habitat disturbance. 

 The Refuge would periodically monitor and evaluate sites and programs to determine if 

objectives are being met and the resource is not being degraded. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-114 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Justification: 

Although bicycling, cross-country skiing, and snowshoeing are not wildlife-dependent public uses of 

the Refuge, as defined by statute (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.), these occasional uses of the refuge roads 

and trails are expected to have negligible impacts to wildlife habitat when compared to the effects of 

other public uses (Klein 1993). Potential for wildlife and habitat disturbance is minimal given the 

low level of these uses, and for cross-country skiing and snowshoeing, the time of year the use 

occurs. Restricting the disturbance to established roads would increase the predictability of public 

use on the Refuge, allowing wildlife to habituate to non-threatening activities. Impacts of these 

activities would be monitored and if they, or other impacts, are discovered, this compatibility 

determination would be reevaluated. Direct costs to administer existing levels of bicycling, jogging, 

cross-country skiing, and snowshoeing on refuge roads and trails would be minor because costs 

would already be covered by the existing Complex budget for maintaining wildlife-dependent public 

uses. 

It is anticipated that wildlife populations would find sufficient food resources and resting places such 

that their abundance and use of the Refuge would not be measurably lessened from allowing 

bicycling, jogging, cross-country skiing, and snowshoeing on refuge roads. The relatively limited 

number of individuals expected to be adversely affected due to these activities would not cause 

wildlife populations to materially decline, the physiological condition and production of wildlife 

species would not be impaired, their behavior and normal activity patterns would not be altered 

dramatically, and their overall welfare would not be negatively impacted. Thus, allowing bicycling, 

snowshoeing, and cross-country skiing to occur with stipulations would not materially detract or 

interfere with the purposes for which the Refuge was established or the Refuge System mission. 

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only): 

 Mandatory 15-year Re-evaluation date (for priority public uses) 

2024 Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation date (for all uses other than priority public uses) 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: 

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

References: 

Adkison, G.P. and M.T. Jackson. 1996. Changes in ground-layer vegetation near trails in midwestern 

U.S. forests. Natural Areas Journal 16:14-23. 

Alcock, J. 1993. Animal behavior: an evolutionary approach. 5th edition. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer 

Associates. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-115 

Aune, K.E. 1981. Impacts of winter recreationists on wildlife in a portion of Yellowstone National 

Park, Wyoming. M.S. thesis. Montana State University, Bozeman. 

Belanger, L. and J. Bedard. 1990. Energetic cost of man-induced disturbance to staging snow geese. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 54:36. 

Benninger-Truax, M., J.L. Vankat, and R.L. Schaefer. 1992. Trail corridors as habitat and conduits 

for movement of plant species in Rocky Mountain National Park, CO. Landscape Ecology 

6(4):269-278. 

Boyle, S.A. and F.B. Samson. 1985. Effects of nonconsumptive recreation on wildlife: a review. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 13:110. 

Burger, J. 1981. The effect of human activity on birds at a coastal bay. Biological Conservation 

21:231-241. 

Burger, J. 1986. The effect of human activity on shorebirds in two coastal bays in northeastern 

United States. Environmental Conservation 13:123-130. 

Burger, J. and M. Gochfeld. 1994. Franklin’s gull (Larus pipixcan). In: A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. The 

birds of North America, No. 116. Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences and 

Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union. 

Burger, J. 1999. Shorebird squeeze: The pressures of public recreation on waterbird populations. 

Talk presented at the 1999 Watchable Wildlife Conference in Ft. Myers, FL. (Abstract available 

from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission).

Cassirer, E.F. 1990. Responses of elk to disturbance by cross-country skiers in northern Yellowstone 

National Park. M.S. thesis. University of Idaho, Moscow. 

Cassirer, E.F., D.J. Freddy, and E.D. Ables. 1992. Elk responses to disturbance by cross-country 

skiers in Yellowstone National Park. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20:375-381. 

Dale, D. and T. Weaver. 1974. Trampling effects on vegetation of the trail corridors of north Rocky 

Mountain forests. Journal of Applied Ecology 11:767-772. 

Deluca, T.H., W.A. Patterson, W.A. Freimund, and D.N. Cole. 1998. Influence of llamas, horses, and 

hikers on soil erosion from established recreational trails in western Montana, USA. 

Environmental Management 22(2):255-262. 

Erwin, R.M. 1980. Breeding habitat use by colonially nesting waterbirds in two mid-Atlantic U.S. 

regions under different regimes of human disturbances. Biological Conservation 18:39-51. 

Ferguson, M.A.D. and L.B. Keith. 1982. Influence of Nordic skiing on distribution of moose and elk 

in Elk Island National Park, Alberta. Canadian Field Naturalist 96:69-78. 

Fernández-Juricic, E., P.A. Zollner, C. LeBlanc, and L.M. Westphal. 2007. Responses of nestling 

black-crowned night herons (Nycticorax nycticorax) to aquatic and terrestrial recreational 

activities: a manipulative study. Waterbirds 30(4):554-565. 

Gabrielson, G.W. and E.N. Smith. 1995. Physiological responses of wildlife to disturbance. Pages 

95-107 in: R.L. Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through 

management and research. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 

Guay, J.W. 1968. The breeding biology of Franklin’s gull (Larus pipixcan). Ph.D. dissertation. 

University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada. 

Gutzwiller, K.J., R.T. Wiedenmann, and K.L. Clements. 1997. Does human intrusion alter the 

seasonal timing of avian song during breeding periods? Auk 114:55-65. 

Hansen, M.J. and A.P. Clevenger. 2005. The influence of disturbance and habitat on the presence of 

non-native plant species along transport corridors. Biological Conservation 125:249-259. 

Havera, S.P., L.R. Boens, M.M. Georgi, and R.T. Shealy. 1992. Human disturbance of waterfowl on 

Keokuk Pool, Mississippi River. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20:290-298. 

Henson, P. and T.A. Grant. 1991. The effects of human disturbance on trumpeter swan breeding 

behavior. Wildlife Society Bulletin 19:248-257. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-116 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Klein, M.L. 1989. Effects of high levels of human visitation on foraging waterbirds at J.N. “Ding” 

Darling National Wildlife Refuge. Final research report. University of Florida, Cooperative Fish 

and Wildlife Research. Gainesville, FL. 208 pp. 

Klein, M.L. 1993. Waterbird behavioral responses to human disturbances. Wildlife Society Bulletin 

21:31-39. 

Klein, M.L. 1995. Effects of ecotourism on the distribution of waterbirds on a wildlife refuge. 

Conservation Biology 9:1454-1465. 

Knight, C.R. and J.P. Swaddle. 2007. Associations of anthropogenic activity and disturbance with 

fitness metrics of eastern bluebirds (Sialia sialis). Biological Conservation 138(1-2):189-197. 

Knight, R. L. and D. N. Cole. 1991. Effects of recreational activity on wildlife in wildlands. 

Transactions of the 56th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 56:238-

247. 

Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole. 1995. Wildlife responses to recreationists. Pages 71-79 in: R.L. 

Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and recreationists. Covelo, CA: Island 

Press.Korschgen, C. E., L. S. George, and W. L. Green. 1985. Disturbance of diving ducks by 

boaters on a migrational staging area. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13: 290-296. 

Liddle, M.J. 1975. A selective review of the ecological effects of human trampling on natural 

ecosystems. Biological Conservation 7:17-36. 

Lyon, J. and A.L. Ward. 1982. Elk and land management. Pages 443-478 in: J.W. Thomas and 

D.E. Toweill, eds. Elk of North America: ecology and management. Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole 

Books. 

McNeil, R., P. Drapeau, and J.D. Goss-Custard. 1992. The occurrence and adaptive significance of 

nocturnal habitats in waterfowl. Biological Review 67:381-419. 

Miller, J.R. and N.T. Hobbs. 2000. Recreational trails, human activity, and nest predation in lowland 

riparian areas. Landscape and Urban Planning 50(4):227-236. 

Miller, S.G., R.L. Knight, and C.K. Miller. 1998. Influence of recreational trails on breeding bird 

communities. Ecological Applications 8(1):162-169. 

Morton, J.M. 1995. Management of human disturbance and its effects on waterfowl. Pages F59-F86 

in: Waterfowl habitat restoration, enhancement and management in the Atlantic Flyway, 3rd ed. 

Dover, DE: Environmental Management Committee, Atlantic Flyway Council Technical Section, 

and Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife. 

Morton, J.M., A.C. Fowler, and R.L. Kirkpatrick. 1989. Time and energy budgets of American black 

ducks in winter. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:401-410. 

Oberbillig, D.R. 2000. Providing positive wildlife viewing experiences. Missoula, MT: Deborah 

Richie Communications. 

Owens, N.W. 1977. Responses of wintering Brent geese to human disturbance. Wildfowl 28:5-14. 

Ratti, J.T. and K.P. Reese. 1988. Preliminary test of the ecological trap hypothesis. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 52:484-491. 

Rodgers, J.A., Jr. and H.T. Smith. 1997. Buffer zone distances to protect foraging and loafing 

waterbirds from human disturbance in Florida. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:139-145. 

Rudd, L.T. and L.L. Irwin. 1985. Wintering moose vs. oil/gas activity in western Wyoming. Alces 

21:279-298. 

Ryder, R.R. and D.E. Manry. 1994. White-faced ibis (Plegadis chihi). In: A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. 

The birds of North America, No. 130. Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences and 

Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union. 

Smith-Castro, J.R. and A.D. Rodewald. 2010. Behavioral responses of nesting birds to human 

disturbance along recreational trails. Journal of Field Ornithology 81(2):130-138. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-117 

Stolen, E.D. 2003. The effects of vehicle passage on foraging behavior of wading birds. Waterbirds 

26(4):429-436. 

Taylor, A.R. and R.L. Knight 2003. Wildlife responses to recreation and associated visitor 

perceptions. Ecological Applications 13(4):951-963. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2013. Environmental assessment for the draft refuge 

comprehensive conservation plan, Camas National Wildlife Refuge. On file at Camas Refuge. 

Hamer, ID. 

Whittaker, P.L. 1978. Comparison of surface impact by hiking and horseback riding in the Great 

Smoky Mountain National Park. Report 24. National Park Service, Southeast Region. Atlanta, 

GA. 32 pp. 

Ward, D.H. and R.A. Stehn. 1989. Response of Brant and other geese to aircraft disturbance at 

Izembek Lagoon, Alaska. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Fish and Wildlife Research 

Center. Final report to the Minerals Management Service. Anchorage, AK. 193 pp. 

Williams, G. and J.E. Forbes. 1980. The habitat and dietary preferences of dark-bellied Brent geese 

and widgeon in relation to agricultural management. Wildfowl 31:151-157. 

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

B-118 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Signatures for Compatibility Determination 8, Bicycling, Jogging, Cross-Country Skiing, 

and Snowshoeing on Camas National Wildlife Refuge: 

Prepared by: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Refuge Manager/ 

Project Leader 

Approval: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Concurrence 

 

Refuge Supervisor: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix C. Implementation C-1 

Appendix C. Implementation 

C.1 Overview 

Implementation of the Preferred Alternative of the CCP will require increased funding, which will be 

sought from a variety of sources. Full implementation will depend on additional Congressional 

allocations, partnerships, and grants. There are no guarantees that additional Federal funds will be 

made available to implement any of these projects. Other sources of funds will need to be obtained 

(both public and private). Activities and projects identified in the Preferred Alternative would be 

implemented as funds become available. 

Even though Camas NWR is a relatively small (10,578 acre) refuge, it has a fair amount of 

infrastructure, much of which was originally constructed by the WPA in the late 1930s to early 

1940s. Five administrative buildings are at the headquarters site; three of these were built by the 

WPA and are in need of maintenance and energy efficiency upgrades. The Refuge also has two 

residential buildings, one of which is in need of updates as well. Almost 40 miles of roads, 50 water 

control structures, numerous miles of dikes and water delivery ditches, and nine irrigation wells exist 

on the Refuge. Of the nearly 40 miles of roads, 6.3 miles are maintained for year-round use as an 

auto-tour route and 6.5 miles are maintained for hunter access. Currently, a large backlog of 

maintenance needs exists on the Refuge. Additional staff and/or funding are needed to proactively 

address the current maintenance/repair backlog, and are included here in the analysis of funding 

needs. 

The Preferred Alternative includes several projects to be implemented over the next fifteen years. 

Some of these projects are included in the Refuge Management Information System (RONS—

Refuge Operational Needs System or SAMMS—Service Asset Maintenance Management System) 

which is used to request funding from Congress. Upon completion of the CCP, new projects that are 

needed to meet refuge goals and objectives and legal mandates would be entered into RONS 

documents or SAMMS databases. 

Annual revenue sharing payments to Jefferson County would continue. If the Refuge undergoes a 

boundary expansion, additional in lieu of tax payments would be made to the county. See Draft 

CCP/EA Chapter 6 for a summary of the economic effects. 

Inventory and monitoring would be conducted on new and existing projects to document changes to 

habitat conditions and responses to management practices over time. In Alternatives 2 and 3 the 

Refuge would change both its infrastructure and water management to adapt to the changes that have 

occurred to the water table in the surrounding area. These changes will be critical to the overall 

function of the Refuge in the future. 

Step-Down Plans 

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

CCP provides guidance in the form of goals, objectives, and strategies for several refuge program 

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

will be developed for individual program areas within approximately five years after CCP 

completion. All step-down plans require appropriate NEPA compliance; implementation may require 
 Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

C-2 Appendix C. Implementation 

additional permits. Step-down plans for the Refuge follow (Table C-1). Project-specific plans, with 

appropriate NEPA compliance, may be prepared outside of these step-down plans. 

Table C-1. Step Down Plans 

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

Prepared/Updated) 

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

Inventory and Monitoring Plan CCP I&M goal (Chapter 2, Goal 4) serves as an 

interim I&M Plan (2013-2015). A full I&M step 

down plan will be developed in 2016. 

Wetland and Riparian Rehabilitation Plan 2017 

Habitat Management Plan CCP habitat goals (Chapter 2, Goals 1-3) serves as 

interim HMP; a full HMP will be developed after 

completion of Wetland and Riparian Rehabilitation 

Plan. 

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

with CCP (Appendix G). 

Cultural Resources Management Plan 2013 (Prepared concurrently with CCP, Appendix 

H.) 

Visitor Services Plan CCP Visitor Services goal (Chapter 2, Goal 5) serves 

as interim VSP. A full VSP for the SE Idaho 

Complex would be developed in 2015. 

Outreach and Communications Plan 2015 

Land Protection Planning A Preliminary Project Proposal (PPP) would be 

developed within three years of CCP completion 

(2016). If the PPP by the USFWS Director is 

approved, a more detailed Land Protection Planning 

(LPP) process would then be initiated. 

Hunt Plan 2013 (prepared concurrently with CCP, Appendix M) 

C.2 Costs to Implement CCP 

The following sections detail both one time and recurring costs for various projects, by alternative. 

Table C-2 lists the current and proposed staff needed to implement the CCP alternatives, and salaries 

(2011 dollars). Only permanent staff positions are included in this table. Table C-3 lists one time and 

recurring costs associated with implementing the CCP alternatives. One-time costs reflect the initial 

costs associated with a project, for instance, purchase of equipment, contracting services, 

construction, a research project, and so on. Recurring costs reflect the future operational and 

maintenance costs associated with the project. Table C-3 primarily documents projects with a 

physically visible, trackable, “on-the-ground” component, such as structures, habitat restoration, 

research, and inventory and monitoring. The scope and costs for “administrative” activities such as 

memoranda of understanding (MOUs), reporting, and establishment of partnerships are difficult to 

estimate in advance, and thus are not accounted for in the table. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix C. Implementation C-3 

Table C-2. Current and Proposed Staffing by Alternative (FY 2011 dollars) 

Current Staff Positions Series and 

Grade 

Annual 

Salary Cost 

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Wildlife Refuge Manager GS-0485-14 35,956* x x x 

Wildlife Refuge Manager GS-0485-13 30,092* x x x

Wildlife Refuge Manager GS-0485-12 100,100 x x x

Wildlife Biologist GS-0486-11 45,782** x x x

Administrative Officer GS-0341-09 19,375* x x x

Budget Technician GS-0341-05 10,667* x x x

Fire Management Officer GS-0401-11 26,037* x x x

Park Ranger (LEO) GL-0025-09 23,879* x x x

Engineering Equipment Operator WG-5716-09 76,500 x x x

Total Annual Cost for Current 

Staff 

 $368,388 

Proposed Staff Positions in the Refuge Operational Needs System (RONS) + Project # and 2008 

Ultimate Organizational Chart 

Park Ranger GS-0025-5/7 $65,000 x x 

Complex Visitor Services 

Manager/Volunteer Coordinator 

GS-0485-9/11 $25,000* x x 

Engineering Equipment Operator WG-5716-09 $76,500 x x 

Total Annual Cost for 

Proposed Staff 

$166,600 

Grand Totals (Current and 

Proposed Staff) 

 $368,388 $534,988 $534,988

*Salary is 1⁄4 of total as these positions are shared amongst four refuges within the SEI Complex 

**Salary is 1⁄2 of the total as this biologist positions is shared between two refuges within the SEI Complex 

GS/GL: General Schedule, Federal Employee, WG/WS: Wage Grade Scale, Federal Employee 

Costs are based on FY 2011 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) utilization plan for the Refuge and the Office of Personnel Management 

(OPM) General Schedule FY 2011 plus 40 percent benefits. For the proposed positions, the cost is the grade level at step one plus 

40 percent for benefits.

Table C-2 illustrates an increase of 2.25 FTE staff positions over the current staffing level for 

Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) and Alternative 3. At the current staffing level, actions items are 

addressed based upon the most critical need. 

The Complex Visitor Services Manager/Volunteer Coordinator position is needed to help the 

Southeast Idaho NWR Complex acquire and manage volunteers needed to accomplish both visitor 

services and wildlife and habitat goals and objectives (for example assisting with invasive species 

control, habitat restoration, or inventory and monitoring). The Complex Visitor Services Manager 
 Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

C-4 Appendix C. Implementation 

would also oversee and assist with the development of new or expanded visitor services programs at 

all four refuges in the SE Idaho Complex. 

The Park Ranger position would allow Camas NWR to expand wildlife observation and 

photography, environmental education, interpretation, and hunting programs. This position would 

assist with the development of visitor services step down plans and new or updated visitor services, 

products, facilities, and programs on the Refuge. The Park Ranger would also conduct day to day 

management of visitor services programs, and of volunteers that assist with delivery of visitor 

services projects and programs. 

The Engineering Equipment Operator position is needed to accomplish expanded habitat 

management and restoration activities proposed under Alternatives 2 and 3.

C.2.1 One-Time Costs 

One-time costs shown in Table C-3 are project costs that have a startup cost associated with them, 

such as purchasing a new vehicle for wildlife and habitat monitoring or designing and installing an 

interpretive sign. Some are full project costs for those projects that can be completed in three years or 

less. One-time costs include salaries for temporary or term staff associated with a short-term project. 

Salaries for full-time staff stationed on the Refuge are reflected in recurring costs. 

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

funds, and grants. One-time costs in Table C-3 include those associated with building and facility 

needs including offices, public use facilities, road improvements and new signs. One-time costs are 

also associated with projects such as habitat restoration, invasive plant and animal control, and 

research. New research projects, because of their short-term nature, are considered one-time projects 

and include costs taken from RONS and SAMMS proposals; others are not yet in any project 

database and their costs have been estimated, particularly if the scope of the project is unknown at 

this time due to lack of baseline data. 

C.2.2 Annual Operational (Recurring) Costs 

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

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

than three years. Operational costs use base funding in Service fund code 1260. 

Recurring costs are associated with aquatic and terrestrial habitat management, conservation 

activities, inventory and monitoring, and operating visitor services programs. Costs include salaries 

and operational expenditures such as fuel, supplies, materials, utilities, and maintenance of 

equipment and facilities. Recurring costs include salaries for permanent staff that are stationed on the 

Refuge and seasonal staff that are hired annually. Salaries for staff stationed at the Complex and 

shared by the refuges in the Complex are not included in recurring costs. 

Table C-3 is also related to the Refuge Annual Performance Plan. The table does not project costs 

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

and each is organized by goals. 

Maintenance Costs: The maintenance need over the next fifteen years is defined as funds needed to 

repair or replace buildings, equipment, and facilities. Maintenance includes preventative 

maintenance: cyclic maintenance; repairs; replacement of parts, components, or items of equipment; 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix C. Implementation C-5 

adjustments, lubrication, and cleaning (non-janitorial) of equipment; painting; resurfacing; 

rehabilitation: special safety inspections; and other actions that ensure continuing service and prevent 

breakdown. Maintenance costs include the maintenance “backlog”—maintenance needs that have 

come due but are as yet unfunded, as well as the increased maintenance need associated with new 

facilities, infrastructure needing updating or rehabilitation, and moving facilities and operations to a 

carbon neutral or negative status. 

The facilities associated with the Refuge that require maintenance include trails, interpretive panels, 

regulatory signs, roads, water delivery system and structures. Major equipment includes: vehicles, 

heavy equipment, all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), and utility terrain vehicles (UTVs). 
 Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

C-6 Appendix C. Implementation 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix C. Implementation C-7 Table C-3. Cost to implement the CCP, by alternative. 

Objective 

Program 

Strategy 

Project/ 

Methodology 

Recurrence 

Interval (over 15 

years) 

Recurring Cost 

(incl salary, fuel, 

eqpt) 

One-time Cost 

Priority 

Alt 1 

Alt 2 

Alt 3 

Goal 1. Native Habitats 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 

Wetland Habitat Management 

Use groundwater pumping through 7 irrigation wells to help fill and maintain water in wetlands 

Annual $70,000/yr 

(Alt 1) $50,000/yr (Alt 2) $60,000/yr (Alt 3) 

 H x x x 

Use surface water rights to fill wetlands from waters in Camas Creek 

Annual $10,000/yr VH x x x 

Use of prescribed fire to remove emergent cover on an average of about 100 acres of wetland per year 

Annual (1 burn/yr) 

$8,000/yr M x x x 

Use of mechanical manipulation to reduce emergent cover 

Annual (1 wetland/yr) 

$1,000/yr M x x x 

Maintain and repair water pumps, control structures and ditches 

Annual $1,500/yr H x x x 

Document all water flows and water level manipulations 

Annual $8,000/yr H x x x 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

C-8 Appendix C. Implementation Table C-3. Cost to implement the CCP, by alternative. 

Objective 

Program 

Strategy 

Project/ 

Methodology 

Recurrence 

Interval (over 15 

years) 

Recurring Cost 

(incl salary, fuel, 

eqpt) 

One-time Cost 

Priority 

Alt 1 

Alt 2 

Alt 3 

Use of IPM techniques to treat invasive species within wetland areas (mostly bio. control) 

Every 5 years 

$2,000 × 3 ($400/yr) 

 H x x x 

Lowering of the banks of Camas Creek to increase occurrence of over-bank flooding 

1 $250,000 VH x x 

Design a new water delivery system to mimic natural flooding occurrence. 

1 $20,000 VH x x 

Hemi-Marsh I&M 

Water level and vegetation monitoring (water levels annually, vegetation every 3 years) 

Water levels: annual; vegetation: every 3 years 

$3,000/yr (water level monitoring) 

$5,000 × 5 (veg monitoring)

H x x 

Hemi-Marsh Research 

Emergent and submergent aquatic vegetation studies. 

2 10,000 × 2 H x x 

Management/admin costs for wetland habitat NIC above 

 A1: 

72,173/yr A2: 92,000/yr A3: 

 x x x 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix C. Implementation C-9 Table C-3. Cost to implement the CCP, by alternative. 

Objective 

Program 

Strategy 

Project/ 

Methodology 

Recurrence 

Interval (over 15 

years) 

Recurring Cost 

(incl salary, fuel, 

eqpt) 

One-time Cost 

Priority 

Alt 1 

Alt 2 

Alt 3 

90,400/yr 

1.4 

Camas Creek Riparian Habitat Management 

Maintain one point of diversion along Camas Creek 

For life of plan 

 $3,000 M x 

Camas Creek Riparian I&M 

Monitor wildlife usage and vegetation. 

1 $15,000 H x x 

Camas Creek Riparian Research 

Study changes in vegetation due to changes in management schemes. 

1 $15,000 H x x 

Management/admin costs for riparian/shelterbelt habitat NIC above 

 A1: 

18,043/yr A2: 23,000/yr A3: 22,600/yr 

 x x x 

1.5 

Semi-Desert Shrub Steppe Habitat Management 

Restore native grasses on average 50 acres per year to degraded uplands 

1 $17,500 M x x 

Monitor plant diversity in sagebrush restoration sites 

For life of plan 

 $3,000 M x x 

Mechanically treat sagebrush habitat that is 1 $2,000 L x x 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

C-10 Appendix C. Implementation Table C-3. Cost to implement the CCP, by alternative. 

Objective 

Program 

Strategy 

Project/ 

Methodology 

Recurrence 

Interval (over 15 

years) 

Recurring Cost 

(incl salary, fuel, 

eqpt) 

One-time Cost 

Priority 

Alt 1 

Alt 2 

Alt 3 

dominated by late seral stage sage Use IPM techniques to treat invasive plants in upland habitats 

Annual $3,000/yr H x x x 

Semi-Desert Shrub Steppe I&M 

Monitor vegetation every 5 years, small mammal and reptile surveys 

 $2,000 every 

5 years ($400/yr) 

 M x x 

Semi-Desert Shrub Steppe Research 

Research on sage-obligate bird species. 

1 $10,000 M x x 

Management/admin costs for upland habitat NIC above 

 A1: 

36,086/yr A2: 46,000/yr A3: 45,200/yr 

 x x x 

Annual Cost One Time Cost Subtotal, Goal 1 (AC × 15 + OTC) 

 228,202 

3,000 3,426,030 

246,300 377,500 4,072,000 

253,500 377,500 4,180,000
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix C. Implementation C-11 Table C-3. Cost to implement the CCP, by alternative. 

Objective 

Program 

Strategy 

Project/ 

Methodology 

Recurrence 

Interval (over 15 

years) 

Recurring Cost 

(incl salary, fuel, 

eqpt) 

One-time Cost 

Priority 

Alt 1 

Alt 2 

Alt 3 

Goal 2. Naturalized Habitats 2.1 

Shelterbelt Habitat Management 

Use groundwater pumping to provide water to tree plantings 

 Annual $2,000/yr 

M x 

Re-design of water delivery system to tree plantings for more efficiency 

Annual $1,500/yr M x x 

Develop micro-irrigation system with renewable solar power 

1 $4,000 M x x 

Preparation of planting sites using a combination of manual, mechanical, prescribed fire and herbicide treatments 

Every 5 yrs $1,500 × 3 M x x 

Plant an additional 800 m2

area of cottonwood saplings 

1 $5,000 L x x 

Protect plantings from rodent and deer damage by planting small trees in protective plastic tubing, rodent and deer proof fencing and rodent repulsion chemicals. 

1 $2,000 L x x x 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

C-12 Appendix C. Implementation Table C-3. Cost to implement the CCP, by alternative. 

Objective 

Program 

Strategy 

Project/ 

Methodology 

Recurrence 

Interval (over 15 

years) 

Recurring Cost 

(incl salary, fuel, 

eqpt) 

One-time Cost 

Priority 

Alt 1 

Alt 2 

Alt 3 

Replace non-native and or invasive trees and shrubs with ones that are native to Idaho and provide similar habitat and food values 

Every 3 yrs $4,000 × 5 L x x 

Use of IPM strategies including mechanical, physical, biological and chemical means to control or contain invasive and undesirable plants 

For life of plan 

$3,000 M x x x 

Shelterbelt Habitat I&M 

Re-initiate landbird banding and monitoring station to inventory and monitor spring/fall migrants 

1 $60,000 L x x 

 Shelterbelt 

Habitat Research 

Initiate landbird study of diet and feeding habits in Camas shelterbelt habitat 

1 $40,000 x x 

Annual Cost One Time Cost Subtotal, Goal 2 (AC × 15 + OTC)

2,000 5,000 $35,000 

1,500 138,500 161,000 

1,500 138,500 161,000
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix C. Implementation C-13 Table C-3. Cost to implement the CCP, by alternative. 

Objective 

Program 

Strategy 

Project/ 

Methodology 

Recurrence 

Interval (over 15 

years) 

Recurring Cost 

(incl salary, fuel, 

eqpt) 

One-time Cost 

Priority 

Alt 1 

Alt 2 

Alt 3 

Goal 3. Agricultural Habitat 3.1 and 3.2 

Agricultural Crop Management 

If cooperative farming should become cost prohibitive because of irrigation transition to dry land farming using refuge funds 

Annual Up to 

$4,000/yr depending on implementation 

 x 

Rehabilitate Well #9 field back to native sage-steppe habitat 

20 acres every year for 4 years 

 $7,000 per 

year for 4 years = $28,000 

L x 

Annually survey and monitor wildlife use within agricultural fields 

 Annual $500 M x x 

Apply lime to soil 6 months prior to actual planting dates

For life of plan 

Completed by cooperator 

 L x x 

Mow grasses adjacent to alfalfa fields to maintain short vegetation along field 

 Annual $1,000/yr L x x 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

C-14 Appendix C. Implementation Table C-3. Cost to implement the CCP, by alternative. 

Objective 

Program 

Strategy 

Project/ 

Methodology 

Recurrence 

Interval (over 15 

years) 

Recurring Cost 

(incl salary, fuel, 

eqpt) 

One-time Cost 

Priority 

Alt 1 

Alt 2 

Alt 3 

Mow strips of small grain as the mature in late summer or early fall to provide forage base for migratory birds 

 Annual $1,000/yr L x x 

Apply herbicides on farmed units as necessary. 

 Annual $1,000 M x x x 

3.3 Hay Meadow Management 

Employ late summer prescribed fire to meadows if short cover objectives cannot be met 

One meadow burn every 5 years 

$8,000 x3 ($1,600/yr) 

 M x x 

Reseed hay meadows predominated by non-native grasses to more desirable mix 

40 acres per year for the next 10 years 

40 acres × $250 per acre × 10 years = $100,000 ($6,700/yr) 

 L x x 

Require cooperators to clean equipment before entering and upon leaving the Refuge (cost = refugesupplied equipment) 

1 $2,000 

(eqpt cost) 

H x x 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix C. Implementation C-15 Table C-3. Cost to implement the CCP, by alternative. 

Objective 

Program 

Strategy 

Project/ 

Methodology 

Recurrence 

Interval (over 15 

years) 

Recurring Cost 

(incl salary, fuel, 

eqpt) 

One-time Cost 

Priority 

Alt 1 

Alt 2 

Alt 3 

Flood irrigate hay units to ensure good forage quality 

For life of plan 

$2,500/yr Alt 1 $1,250/yr Alt 2 $0 Alt 3 

M x x 

Use IPM strategies to control invasive plants within hay meadows 

Annually $2,000 H x x x 

Management/admin costs for agricultural habitat NIC above 

 A1:18,043/yr 

A2: 23,000/yr A3: 22,600/yr 

 x x x 

Annual Cost One Time Cost Subtotal, Goal 3 (AC × 15 + OTC)

23,543 0 $353,145 

36,050-40,050 2,000 542,750-602,750 

36,400 30,000 576,000 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

C-16 Appendix C. Implementation Table C-3. Cost to implement the CCP, by alternative. 

Objective 

Program 

Strategy 

Project/ 

Methodology 

Recurrence 

Interval (over 15 

years) 

Recurring Cost 

(incl salary, fuel, 

eqpt) 

One-time Cost 

Priority 

Alt 1 

Alt 2 

Alt 3 

Goal 4. Inventory, Monitoring, Adaptive Management, and Research 4.1 

Inventory Habitat and Wildlife 

Conduct Hydro Geomorphic Model (HGM) 

1 $80,000 VH x x 

Perform topographic LiDAR survey 

1 $90,000 VH 

Evaluate and compare historic and current wetland habitat extent with GIS data 

1 $1,500 H x x 

Monitor water delivery for surface and groundwater diversions 

 Annual $1,250/yr H x x x 

Identify and document little known vegetation and animal life present on Refuge 

1 $10,000 M x x 

Annually identify and map invasive species on Refuge 

 Annual $10,000/yr VH x x 

Use Contaminant Assessment Process (CAP) to assess potential threat posed by environmental contaminants 

2 $5,000 × 2 M x x x 

Continue butterfly survey Annual $1,000/yr H x x x 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix C. Implementation C-17 Table C-3. Cost to implement the CCP, by alternative. 

Objective 

Program 

Strategy 

Project/ 

Methodology 

Recurrence 

Interval (over 15 

years) 

Recurring Cost 

(incl salary, fuel, 

eqpt) 

One-time Cost 

Priority 

Alt 1 

Alt 2 

Alt 3 

Conduct baseline herptile survey 

1 $3,000 M x x 

Develop vegetation map for Refuge based upon National Vegetation mapping standards 

1 $60,000 VH x x x 

4.2 

Adaptively Manage and Monitor Responses to Management 

Every three years use aerial photography and GIS to assess emergent cover of wetlands 

 $500 × 5 

($167/yr) 

Monitor large ungulate use of riparian habitat 

Every 3 yrs $5,000 × 5 

($1,700/yr) 

 M x x x 

Monitor Camas Creek flows and report to Water District 31 

 Annual $2,000/yr VH x x x 

Monitor water used through all irrigation wells and report to IDWR 

 Annual $1,000/yr VH x x x 

Monitor public notices of intent on modification of water rights in the area 

 Annual $100/yr VH x x x 

Survey and monitor wildlife use in agricultural units 

 Annual $500/yr H x x x 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

C-18 Appendix C. Implementation Table C-3. Cost to implement the CCP, by alternative. 

Objective 

Program 

Strategy 

Project/ 

Methodology 

Recurrence 

Interval (over 15 

years) 

Recurring Cost 

(incl salary, fuel, 

eqpt) 

One-time Cost 

Priority 

Alt 1 

Alt 2 

Alt 3 

Conduct periodic soils test in ag. fields to ensure proper fertilization 

Every 5 yrs $150 × 3 

($30/yr) 

 M x x 

Establish photo points for evaluation of invasive species treatments 

 Annual $800/yr M x x 

Annually measure or monitor changes in depth to water on aquifer 

 Annual $1,500/yr M x x x 

Monitor agricultural practices in area surrounding Refuge 

Every 5 yrs $1,000 × 3 

($200/yr) 

 M x x 

Run predictive models to determine the anticipated locations and extent of seasonal wetlands 

1 $8,000 H x x 

4.3 

Survey Wildlife and Habitat Trends 

Annually conduct standard avian point counts in riparian habitat, stratified by habitat type 

 Annual $5,000/yr H x x 

Conduct nest searches for breeding avian focal species 

Every 5 yrs $7,000 x3 

($1,400/yr) 

 H x x 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix C. Implementation C-19 Table C-3. Cost to implement the CCP, by alternative. 

Objective 

Program 

Strategy 

Project/ 

Methodology 

Recurrence 

Interval (over 15 

years) 

Recurring Cost 

(incl salary, fuel, 

eqpt) 

One-time Cost 

Priority 

Alt 1 

Alt 2 

Alt 3 

Annually conduct secretive marsh bird surveys if State discontinues 

 Annual Up to 

$5,000/yr 

 M x x 

Annually conduct surveys for focal shorebird species 

Every 3 yrs $5,000 × 5 

($1,700/yr) 

 H x x 

Annually survey for reptiles and amphibians stratified by habitat 

 Annual $8,000/yr H x x 

Annually assist in conducting tri-State trumpeter swan surveys 

 Annual $5,000/yr M x x x 

Survey focal waterfowl and waterbird species 

 Annual $5,000/yr H x x 

Survey fall sandhill crane populations 

 Annual $1,500/yr H x x x 

Weekly survey of eagle roost (Jan-Mar, annually) 

 Annual $2,000/yr H x x x 

Assist IDFG in regional mid-winter bald eagle survey (1day) 

 Annual $500 H x x x 

Annually monitor 6-10 of 60 established vegetative trend sites 

 Annual $5,000/yr H x x 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

C-20 Appendix C. Implementation Table C-3. Cost to implement the CCP, by alternative. 

Objective 

Program 

Strategy 

Project/ 

Methodology 

Recurrence 

Interval (over 15 

years) 

Recurring Cost 

(incl salary, fuel, 

eqpt) 

One-time Cost 

Priority 

Alt 1 

Alt 2 

Alt 3 

Participate in pollinator monitoring 

Every 5 yrs $5,000 × 3 

($1,000/yr) 

L x x 

Management/admin costs for inventory and monitoring NIC above 

 A1: 

36,086/yr A2: 46,000/yr A3: 45,200/yr 

 x x x 

Annual Cost One-Time Cost Subtotal, Goal 4 (AC × 15 + OTC)

55,136 70,000 $897,040 

107,347 262,500 $1,872,705 

106,547 262,500 $1,860,705 

Goal 5. Wildlife-dependent Recreation and Public Use 5.1 Welcome and Orient Visitors 

Construct a combined refuge office, small visitor contact station, and multipurpose room on headquarters site 

1 $350,000 

(staff time NIC) 

H x x 

Develop Outreach and Communications Plan for Refuge, including key messages an audiences and 

1 $10,000 

($670/yr) 

 H x x 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix C. Implementation C-21 Table C-3. Cost to implement the CCP, by alternative. 

Objective 

Program 

Strategy 

Project/ 

Methodology 

Recurrence 

Interval (over 15 

years) 

Recurring Cost 

(incl salary, fuel, 

eqpt) 

One-time Cost 

Priority 

Alt 1 

Alt 2 

Alt 3 

communication strategies Participate in at least one community event annually (1 wk staff time) 

 Annual $1,250/yr M x x x 

Revise Refuge’s general brochure with updated regulations, text, maps and photographs 

1 $8,000 

(staff time NIC) 

M x x 

Update panels on informational kiosk in visitor parking area 

1 $10,000 

(staff time NIC) 

M x x 

Revise, update, maintain the refuge website (1 wk staff time) 

 Annual $1,250/yr H x x 

Host at least one public event per year (A1: 1 wk staff time, A2: 2 wks staff time) 

 Annual $1,250/yr 

$2,500/year (A2,3) 

 H x x x 

5.2 

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Maintain a 6.3 mile selfguided auto-tour route that is open year-round to vehicle, foot, and bicycle traffic with 9 pullouts and interpretive panels 

 Annual $3,000/yr H x x x 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

C-22 Appendix C. Implementation Table C-3. Cost to implement the CCP, by alternative. 

Objective 

Program 

Strategy 

Project/ 

Methodology 

Recurrence 

Interval (over 15 

years) 

Recurring Cost 

(incl salary, fuel, 

eqpt) 

One-time Cost 

Priority 

Alt 1 

Alt 2 

Alt 3 

Maintain an additional 6.5 miles of roads that are open seasonally to vehicle traffic for wildlife observation, photography and to provide access to hunting area 

 Annual $1,000/yr M x x x 

Maintain 7.5-mile Sandhole Lake loop road for vehicle traffic 

Annual $1,500/yr L x 

Maintain 27 miles of roads open year-round to hiking, bicycling, cross-country skiing and snowshoeing as conditions permit 

 Annual $5,000/yr M x x x 

Groom 10 miles of roads for cross-country skiing, snowshoeing 

Annually, as conditions permit 

Up to $1,500/yr 

 L x 

Develop print and/or digital interpretive media for selfguided tours of the Refuge’s Auto-Tour Route, service roads and trails 

1 $5,000 

(staff time NIC) 

M x x 

Maintain a 0.5-mile-long birding/walking trail that 

 Annual $1,000/yr H x 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix C. Implementation C-23 Table C-3. Cost to implement the CCP, by alternative. 

Objective 

Program 

Strategy 

Project/ 

Methodology 

Recurrence 

Interval (over 15 

years) 

Recurring Cost 

(incl salary, fuel, 

eqpt) 

One-time Cost 

Priority 

Alt 1 

Alt 2 

Alt 3 

starts at visitor center parking lot Complete a 1.3-mile birding/walking trail that starts at the visitor parking lot (have materials) 

1 $2,500 H x x 

Construct three semipermanent photo blinds, using input from local photographers 

1 $6,000 L x 

Provide visitor sign/in comment station at main parking lot 

1 $1,000 M x x 

5.3 

Environmental Education and Interpretation 

Provide volunteer-led environmental education programs to approximately 250 students annually 

 Annual $1,000/yr H x 

As above, 800 students annually 

Annual $3,200/yr H x 

As above, 2,000 students annually 

Annual $8,000/yr H x 

Educ tours, volunteer-led, 6-10 annually 

Annual $2,000/yr H x 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

C-24 Appendix C. Implementation Table C-3. Cost to implement the CCP, by alternative. 

Objective 

Program 

Strategy 

Project/ 

Methodology 

Recurrence 

Interval (over 15 

years) 

Recurring Cost 

(incl salary, fuel, 

eqpt) 

One-time Cost 

Priority 

Alt 1 

Alt 2 

Alt 3 

As above, 10-15 tours annually 

Annual $3,000/yr H x 

As above, 20 tours annually Annual $4,000/yr H x 

Additional staff time to manage expanded public use programs/ oversee development of facilities and materials under Alts 2,3 

 Annual $34,000/yr* 

*Salary—$34,000/yr (1⁄2 Park Ranger). Complex VS position not included 

 x x 

5.4 Hunting 

Program management, upland game/waterfowl hunting (Note: Resource monitoring incl in wildlife and habitat monitoring, above) 

Annual $2,000/yr H x x x 

Annual cost of printed materials and signage upkeep 

Annual $500/yr H x x x 

Administer limited hunt for big game (elk). Includes program coordination; 

 Annual $8,500/yr H x x 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix C. Implementation C-25 Table C-3. Cost to implement the CCP, by alternative. 

Objective 

Program 

Strategy 

Project/ 

Methodology 

Recurrence 

Interval (over 15 

years) 

Recurring Cost 

(incl salary, fuel, 

eqpt) 

One-time Cost 

Priority 

Alt 1 

Alt 2 

Alt 3 

recruit/train volunteers; provide orientation; assist mobility impaired hunters, assist with game retrieval outside hunt area Design/print new elk hunt tear sheet; additional signage 

1 $4,000 H x x 

Provide law enforcement for public safety and to enforce hunting and access regulations (Includes all refuge LE) 

Annual $24,000/yr 

(.25 Complex LE salary Not included in total) 

 H x x x 

5.5 Friends Group 

and Volunteers 

Develop additional volunteer opportunities; manage larger cadre of volunteers * Salary—assume refuge Park Ranger position spends 1⁄4 time on volunteers. Salary for Complex Visitor Services Manager/Volunteer Coordinator position not included 

 Annual $16,250/yr* H x x 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

C-26 Appendix C. Implementation Table C-3. Cost to implement the CCP, by alternative. 

Objective 

Program 

Strategy 

Project/ 

Methodology 

Recurrence 

Interval (over 15 

years) 

Recurring Cost 

(incl salary, fuel, 

eqpt) 

One-time Cost 

Priority 

Alt 1 

Alt 2 

Alt 3 

Staff costs to administer VS programs/manage volunteers NIC above 

 23,120/yr 

Annual Cost One Time Cost Subtotal, Goal 4 (AC × 15 + OTC) 

 41,120 

0 $616,800 

105,240 380,500 $1,959,100

113,370 386,500 $2,087,050 

Total Annual Cost Total One Time Cost Total Cost over Lifetime of CCP (AC × 15 +OTC) 

 350,000 

78,000 $5,328,000 

496,437-500,437 1,161,000 $8,607,555- $8,667,555 

511,317 1,195,000 $8,864,755 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

 Appendix C. Implementation C-27 

C.2.3 Partnership Opportunities 

Partnerships are critically important to the implementation of this plan, which is reflected in Chapter 

2’s goals, objectives, and strategies. The Refuge’s ecological significance, and location near the city 

of Idaho Falls and the Idaho National Laboratory creates many opportunities for partnerships. 

Current and past partners include Federal and State agencies, the Shoshone-Bannock Tribe, nongovernmental organizations, volunteers, and individuals. 

Coordinated partnership efforts would focus on habitat restoration, land protection, environmental 

education, wildlife monitoring, outreach, and quality wildlife-dependent recreation. Refuge staff 

would work to strengthen existing partnerships and would actively look for new partnerships to assist 

in achieving the goals, objectives, and strategies in this CCP. 

The following is a general list of partners we have established working relationships with through 

past or current efforts and in formulation of this CCP. These partners support this plan’s vision and 

have committed to working with the Refuge to implement the plan’s prescribed actions and activities 

to ensure programmatic integrity for biological, visitor services, sustainable practices and cultural 

resource programs. 

 Shoshone-Bannock Tribe 

 Ducks Unlimited, Inc. 

 Idaho Fish and Game 

 Friends of Camas National Wildlife Refuge 

 Continental Divide Weed Management Area 

 Snake River and Portneuf Valley Audubon Society 

 Idaho State University 

 North American Grouse Partnership 

 Dubois Grouse Days 

 Pheasants Forever 

 Upper Snake Sage-grouse Working Group 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

 

C-28 Appendix C. Implementation 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix D. Wilderness Review D-1 

Appendix D. Wilderness Review 

D.1 Introduction 

The Camas National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) is located in southeast Idaho at an elevation of 4,800 

feet. It is situated within the Jefferson County, Idaho 36 miles north of Idaho Falls. The Refuge’s 

approved boundary encompasses 21,500 acres. The original boundary of the Refuge established in 

E.O. 7720 was approximately 10,922 acres. 

D.2 Policy for Wilderness Reviews 

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

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

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

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

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

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

FW 4, Wilderness Review and Evaluation). 

D.2.1 Criteria for Evaluating Lands for Possible Inclusion in the National 

Wilderness Preservation System 

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

of wilderness: 

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

landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are 

untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness 

is further defined to mean in this Act as an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its 

primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which 

is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions ... ” 

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

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

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

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

imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; 

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

recreation; 

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

its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and 

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

scenic, or historic value 

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

or more, or 2) a roadless island. Roadless is defined as the absence of improved roads suitable and 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

D-2 Appendix D. Wilderness Review 

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

highway use. 

D.2.2 The Wilderness Review Process 

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

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

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

Wilderness Inventory 

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

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

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

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

Wilderness Study 

During the study phase, WSAs are further analyzed: 

1. for all values of ecological, recreational, cultural, economic, symbolic 

2. for all resources, including wildlife, vegetation, water, minerals, soils 

3. for existing and proposed public uses 

4. for existing and proposed refuge management activities within the area, 

5. to assess the refuge’s ability to manage and maintain the wilderness character in 

perpetuity, given the current and proposed management activities. Factors for 

evaluation may include, but are not limited to staffing and funding capabilities, 

increasing development and urbanization, public uses, and safety. 

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

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

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

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

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

In the alternatives, we evaluate: 

1. the benefits and impacts to wilderness values and other resources 

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

3. how each alternative will affect achievement of refuge purpose(s) and the refuge’s 

contribution toward achieving the Refuge System mission 

4. how each alternative will affect maintaining and, where appropriate, restoring 

biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health at various landscape scales 

5. other legal and policy mandates 

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

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

and refuge uses and the need for or possibility of eliminating Sec 4 (c) prohibited uses 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix D. Wilderness Review D-3 

Wilderness Recommendation 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

compliance with NEPA” (610 FW 3.13). 

The following constitutes the inventory phase of the wilderness review for the Camas National 

Wildlife Refuge. 

D.2.3 Previous Wilderness Reviews 

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

D.2.4 Lands Considered Under This Wilderness Review 

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

approved boundary were considered during this wilderness review. 

D.3 Wilderness Inventory 

D.3.1 Unit Size 

Roadless areas meet the size criteria if any one of the following standards apply: 

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

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

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

topographical or ecological features. 

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

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

wilderness management. 

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

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

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

Land Management. 

Camas NWR meets the minimum size requirements for a wilderness area, but the Refuge is 

subdivided into managed wetland impoundments with a series of man-made dikes and levees. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

D-4 Appendix D. Wilderness Review 

D.3.2 Naturalness and Wildness 

These refer to the area that generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, 

with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

of the ecological systems which are being evaluated as potential wilderness. Ecological systems are 

comprised of three primary attributes—composition, structure, and function. Composition is the 

components that make up an ecosystem, such as the habitat types, native species of plants and 

animals, and abiotic (physical and chemical) features. These contribute to the diversity of the area. 

Structure is the spatial arrangement of the components that contribute to the complexity of the area. 

Composition and structure are evaluated to determine the naturalness of the area. Function is the 

processes that result from the interaction of the various components both temporally and spatially, 

and the disturbance processes that shape the landscape. These processes include but are not limited 

to predator-prey relationships, insect and disease outbreaks, nutrient and water cycles, 

decomposition, fire, windstorms, flooding, and both general and cyclic weather patterns. Ecological 

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

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

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

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

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

landscape. 

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

process include: 

1. The area should provide a variety of habitat types and associated abiotic features, as 

well as a nearly complete complement of native plants and wildlife indicative of those 

habitat types. Non-native and invasive species should comprise a negligible portion of 

the landscape. 

2. The area should be spatially complex (vertically and/or horizontally) and exhibit all 

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

habitats, and provide avenues for plant and wildlife dispersal. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix D. Wilderness Review D-5 

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

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

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

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

should, however, exhibit the natural cover type with which it evolved and continue to 

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

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

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

species. 

5. Potential wilderness areas should be relatively free of permanent structures or manmade alterations. Areas may be elevated to the study phase if existing structures or 

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

wilderness recommendation to the Secretary of the Interior. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Riparian habitats have been degraded through agricultural water developments, cattle grazing and 

establishment of invasive plant species. The riparian habitat is in need of restoration, a process 

which may include the use of herbicides, mechanical equipment, and seeding or transplanting of 

native species. The natural hydrology of the riparian areas has likewise been altered by upstream 

water withdrawals and therefore, it does not exhibit the natural dynamics of a functional riparian 

system. 

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

and invasions by non-native plant species, the most notable being cheatgrass. Over 50 percent of the 

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

prescribed fire, mechanical removal, and herbicide applications. 

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

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

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

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

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

D.3.3 Outstanding Solitude or Primitive or Unconfined Recreation 

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

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

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

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

to qualify under these criteria. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

D-6 Appendix D. Wilderness Review 

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

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

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

Primitive recreation activities may provide opportunities to experience challenge and risk, selfreliance, and adventure. 

Approximately 40 percent of Camas Refuge lands are currently open to public use. Hunting and 

other wildlife-dependent activities are allowed; camping is not allowed. The individual closed areas 

are relatively small in size and surrounded by agricultural operations and though they could provide a 

degree of solitude and primitive recreation to some individuals under certain circumstances (such as 

the winter months), overall they do not provide outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive 

type of recreation. 

D.4 Inventory Summary and Conclusion: 

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

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

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

refuge lands are actively managed for wetland and upland habitat characteristics using a variety of 

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

manipulations. Much of the refuge lands have undergone significant degradation due to nearly a 

century of livestock grazing, hydrologic alterations, and invasions by non-native plant species. These 

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

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

opportunities are not considered to be outstanding. 

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix D. Wilderness Review D-7 

Table D.1. Results of Wilderness Inventory for Camas National Wildlife Refuge 

Refuge 

Unit 

(1) Unit Size: has 

at least 5,000 

acres of land or is 

of sufficient size to 

make practicable 

its preservation 

and use in an 

unconfined 

condition, or is a 

roadless island 

(2) Naturalness 

and wildness: 

generally appears 

to have been 

affected primarily 

by the forces of 

nature, with the 

imprint of man’s 

work substantially 

unnoticeable 

(3a) 

Outstanding 

opportunities 

for solitude 

(3b) 

Outstanding 

opportunities 

for primitive 

and 

unconfined 

recreation 

(4) Contains 

ecological, 

geological or 

other features 

of scientific, 

educational, 

scenic, or 

historical 

value 

Area 

qualifies as 

a 

wilderness 

study area 

(meets 

criteria 1,2, 

and 3a or 

3b) 

Camas 

NWR 

Yes No No No N/A No 

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

D-8 Appendix D. Wilderness Review 

This page left intentionally blank. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern E-1 

Appendix E. Refuge Resources of Concern and Priorities 

Table of Contents 

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

E.1.1 National Wildlife Refuge System Resources of Concern for Camas Refuge ............................. E-2

E.1.2 Resources of Concern from Refuge Purposes of Camas Refuge ................................................ E-4

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

Refuge ................................................................................................................................................... E-4

E.2 Biological Integrity, Biological Diversity, and Environmental Health ...................................... E-55

E.2.1 Biological Integrity, Biological Diversity, and Environmental Health ..................................... E-55

E.3 Priority Refuge Resources of Concern and Focal Resources ..................................................... E-62

E.3.1 Selection of Priority Refuge Resources of Concern .................................................................. E-62

Subset of Resources of Concern ..................................................................................................... E-62

Focal Resources.............................................................................................................................. E-63

E.4 Conservation Targets ..................................................................................................................... E-68

E.4.1 Desired Future Conditions ........................................................................................................ E-68 

E.5 References ....................................................................................................................................... E-68

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-2 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

E.1 Refuge Resources of Concern and Management Priorities 

The priorities associated with wildlife and habitat management for a national wildlife refuge are 

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

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

could potentially drive a refuge’s management. 

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

Concern described in this appendix. It entails first assessing: 

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

and endangered species and migratory birds) for Camas NWR. 

 Species, species groups, and/or communities that support Camas NWR refuge purposes. 

 Developing a comprehensive list of all the species of Camas NWR and their conservation 

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

ecosystem plans. 

Additional analysis of resources of concern will entail documenting: 

 Biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of natural, functional 

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

where appropriate, restored at Camas NWR. 

Subsequently, refuge staff will then: 

 Identify a subset of Focal Resources as prioritized Refuge Resources of Concern, by 

selectively filtering the comprehensive Refuge Resources of Concern list to species and 

communities that represent the needs of larger groups of species or communities on the 

Refuge. 

 Categorize the highest Priority to manage on-Refuge as Focal Resources of Concern by 

identifying Priority Habitats. 

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

formulation of the Camas NWR Conservation Targets, in which: 

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

each priority habitat type requiring management on Camas NWR. 

E.1.1 National Wildlife Refuge System Resources of Concern for Camas 

Refuge 

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

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

NWRS goals (601 FW 1.8) identify the natural resource conservation priorities for the System. 

1. Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats, including species 

that are endangered or threatened with becoming endangered. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern E-3 

2. Develop and maintain a network of habitats for migratory birds, anadromous and 

interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammal populations that is strategically distributed 

and carefully managed to meet important life history needs of these species across their 

ranges. 

3. Conserve those ecosystems, plant communities, wetlands of national or international 

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

underrepresented in existing protection efforts.” 

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

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

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

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

subsets of this list that provide priorities at the national, regional, and ecoregional (bird 

conservation regions) scales. 

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

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

distribution or migratory patterns (710 FW 1.5H).” Examples include anadromous species of 

salmon and free-roaming species endemic to large river systems, such as paddlefish and 

sturgeon (601 FW 1). 

 Threatened and Endangered Species: The Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544, 

December 28, 1973, as amended 1976-1982, 1984, and 1988) states in SEC. 8A.(a) that “The 

Secretary of the Interior ... is designated as the Management Authority and the Scientific 

Authority for purposes of the Convention and the respective functions of each such Authority 

shall be carried out through the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.” The Act also 

requires that “all Federal departments and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered species 

and threatened species and shall utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this 

Act.” 

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

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

citizens on the high seas, and the importation of marine mammals and marine mammal 

products into the U.S. 

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

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

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

or restoration of biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health. 

Table E-1. National Wildlife Refuge System Resources of Concern for Camas Refuge 

NWRS Resources of 

Concern Supporting Resources of Concern for Camas NWR 

Migratory Birds: Over 200 species of migratory birds use the Refuge for breeding or migratory life 

history events 

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

Threatened and Endangered 

Species: 

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

Significant or Rare 

Communities and Ecosystems: 

Sage-grouse; rare neo-tropical migrants; trumpeter swans 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-4 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

E.1.2 Resources of Concern from Refuge Purposes of Camas Refuge 

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

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

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

relationship between these two. Where there is a conflict, individual refuge purposes have priority. 

A detailed discussion of the authorities and purposes of Camas NWR can be found in Chapter 1; 

there were no individual or groups of species mentioned or identified in the purpose statements of 

Camas NWR. 

E.1.3 Resources of Concern from Regional Wildlife Conservation Plans 

Applicable to Camas Refuge 

A detailed discussion of the resourced of conern in regional wildlife conservation plans that are 

applicable to Camas NWR can be found in Chapter 1, and are not repeated here.
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-5 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern Table E-2. Comprehensive List of of Camas Refuge Resources of Concern and their Conservation Status

Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

Species Abundance 

Breeds/Nests Locally 

BIDEH 

Federal T&E 

Birds of Conservation ConcernUSFWS R1& 

BCR 9 and 10 

ID Partners in Flight 

High Priority Species 

ID Partners in Flight 

Mod Priority Species 

 Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Plan Species of 

Greatest Conservation Need 

Intermountain West Regional 

Shorebird Plan Regionally 

Important Species 

Intermountain West Waterbird 

Conservation Plan 

Intermountain West Coordinated 

Implementation Plan 

N.A. Waterbird Conservation Plan 

N.A. Waterfowl Management Plan 

BCR 9 Breeding/Non-Breeding 

Need 

USFWS Idaho Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife Program 

Conservation Strategy for 

Southeastern Idaho Wetlands 

BLM Sensitive Species 

TNC Ecoregional Conservation 

Plan 

FAUNA (Wildlife) 

Birds 

Swans Trumpeter swanCygnus buccinator

 c x 26 

(ID) 

 G4/S1B,S

2N SRB- 

 PA 

W 

 H/H x x Typ

e 3 

x-CP 

Tundra Swan Cygnus columbianus 

 cSp, 

oF 

 G5/S4B, 

S3N 

 /H 

Geese Canada gooseBranta canadensis moffitti

 a x G5/S5B, 

S5N 

 /H 

Greater whitefronted goose Anser albifrons 

 rSp, 

rF 

 G5/SNA /H 

Snow goose Chen caerulescens 

 cS, 

rS; rF 

 G5/SNA /M 

Ross’s Goose Chen rossii

 cSp, 

rS, rF 

 G5/SNA /M 

Dabbling WaterbirdsAmerican greenwinged tealAnas crecca

 c x G5/S4B, 

S3N 

 ML/MH 

American c x G5/S5B, MH/ML 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-6 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

Species Abundance 

Breeds/Nests Locally 

BIDEH 

Federal T&E 

Birds of Conservation ConcernUSFWS R1& 

BCR 9 and 10 

ID Partners in Flight 

High Priority Species 

ID Partners in Flight 

Mod Priority Species 

 Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Plan Species of 

Greatest Conservation Need 

Intermountain West Regional 

Shorebird Plan Regionally 

Important Species 

Intermountain West Waterbird 

Conservation Plan 

Intermountain West Coordinated 

Implementation Plan 

N.A. Waterbird Conservation Plan 

N.A. Waterfowl Management Plan 

BCR 9 Breeding/Non-Breeding 

Need 

USFWS Idaho Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife Program 

Conservation Strategy for 

Southeastern Idaho Wetlands 

BLM Sensitive Species 

TNC Ecoregional Conservation 

Plan 

widgeonAnas americana

S3N 

Blue-winged tealAnas discors

 uSp, 

cS; oF 

x G5/S5B 

Cinnamon tealAnas cyanoptera

 cSp, 

cS; uF 

x 21 

(80) 

 G5/S5B MH/ 

GadwallAnas strepera 

 a x G5/S5B, 

S3N 

 MH/ 

MallardAnas platyrhynchos 

 a x G5/S5B, 

S4N 

 M/H 

Northern pintailAnas acuta

 c x G5/S5B,S

2N SRB-A 

 M/ 

Northern shovelerAnas clypeata

 c x G5/S5B, 

S2N 

 ML/MH 

Wood duck Aix sponsa 

 oSp, 

rS; rF 

x 19* 

(64) 

G5/S4B, S3N 

 ML/ML 

Diving Waterbirds Barrow’s goldeneyeBucephala islandica

 r 24* 

(64) 

 G5/S4B, 

S3N 

 H/MH Ty

pe 5 

BuffleheadBucephala albeola

 cSp, 

oS; uF 

 18* 

(ID) 

G5/S4B, S3N 

 ML/MH 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-7 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

Species Abundance 

Breeds/Nests Locally 

BIDEH 

Federal T&E 

Birds of Conservation ConcernUSFWS R1& 

BCR 9 and 10 

ID Partners in Flight 

High Priority Species 

ID Partners in Flight 

Mod Priority Species 

 Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Plan Species of 

Greatest Conservation Need 

Intermountain West Regional 

Shorebird Plan Regionally 

Important Species 

Intermountain West Waterbird 

Conservation Plan 

Intermountain West Coordinated 

Implementation Plan 

N.A. Waterbird Conservation Plan 

N.A. Waterfowl Management Plan 

BCR 9 Breeding/Non-Breeding 

Need 

USFWS Idaho Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife Program 

Conservation Strategy for 

Southeastern Idaho Wetlands 

BLM Sensitive Species 

TNC Ecoregional Conservation 

Plan 

CanvasbackAythya valisineria

 c x G5/S4B, 

S2N 

 ML/MH 

Common goldeneyeBucephala clangula

 cSp, 

oS; cF 

 G5/S4B, 

S3N 

 ML/ML 

Common loon Gavia immer 

 r G5/S1B,S

2N 

 High PA 

W 

Common Merganser Mergus merganser 

 uSp, 

rS; oF 

 G5/S5B, 

S3N 

Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus 

 uSp, 

oF 

 22 

(64) 

 G5/S2B,S

3N SRBLesser scaup

Aythya affinis

 c x 17 

(ID) 

G5/S3 SRB- 

 M/M 

Greater Scaup Aytha fuligula 

 rSp, 

oF 

 G5/SNR ML/MH 

Red-breasted merganser Mergus serrator 

 o G5/S4B, 

S3N 

RedheadAythya americana

 c x 22 

(89) 

 G5/S5B, 

S3N 

 MH/MH 

Ring-necked duckAythya collaris

 o x 20 

(64) 

G5/S3B, S3N 

 ML/ML 

Ruddy duck a x G5/S5B M/M 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-8 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

Species Abundance 

Breeds/Nests Locally 

BIDEH 

Federal T&E 

Birds of Conservation ConcernUSFWS R1& 

BCR 9 and 10 

ID Partners in Flight 

High Priority Species 

ID Partners in Flight 

Mod Priority Species 

 Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Plan Species of 

Greatest Conservation Need 

Intermountain West Regional 

Shorebird Plan Regionally 

Important Species 

Intermountain West Waterbird 

Conservation Plan 

Intermountain West Coordinated 

Implementation Plan 

N.A. Waterbird Conservation Plan 

N.A. Waterfowl Management Plan 

BCR 9 Breeding/Non-Breeding 

Need 

USFWS Idaho Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife Program 

Conservation Strategy for 

Southeastern Idaho Wetlands 

BLM Sensitive Species 

TNC Ecoregional Conservation 

Plan 

Oxyura jamaicensisGrebes Clark’s grebe Aechmophorus clarkii 

 o x 20* 

(ID) G5/S2B SRB- Mod- 10 Low- NA 

Eared grebePodiceps nigricollis

 c x 15 

(ID) G5/S4B 

High-9 Staging 

 ModCOS x 

Horned grebe Podiceps auritus 

 oSP

, oF G5/SNA 

Pied-billed grebePodilymbus podiceps

 u x 

G5/S4B, S3N 

Western grebe Aechmorphus occidentalis 

 u x 22 

(ID) G5/S2B 

SRBMod- 10 High

-9 

 ModNA x 

Pelicans and Cormorants American white pelican Pelecanus erythroryhchos 

 u x 24 

(ID) G3/S1B 

SRBHigh PA W Mod- NA x Type 2 x-CP 

Double crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus 

 u 

G5/S2B 

 x 

Wading Birds 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-9 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

Species Abundance 

Breeds/Nests Locally 

BIDEH 

Federal T&E 

Birds of Conservation ConcernUSFWS R1& 

BCR 9 and 10 

ID Partners in Flight 

High Priority Species 

ID Partners in Flight 

Mod Priority Species 

 Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Plan Species of 

Greatest Conservation Need 

Intermountain West Regional 

Shorebird Plan Regionally 

Important Species 

Intermountain West Waterbird 

Conservation Plan 

Intermountain West Coordinated 

Implementation Plan 

N.A. Waterbird Conservation Plan 

N.A. Waterfowl Management Plan 

BCR 9 Breeding/Non-Breeding 

Need 

USFWS Idaho Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife Program 

Conservation Strategy for 

Southeastern Idaho Wetlands 

BLM Sensitive Species 

TNC Ecoregional Conservation 

Plan 

American avocet Recurvirostra americana 

 uSp, 

cS; oF 

x 9 23 

(80) G5/S5B SRB- High 5/3/3 

American bittern Botaurus lentiginosus 

 o x 

G4/S4B 

Mod10 

Black-crowned night-heron Nycticorax nycticorax 

 c x 

G5/S2B SRB-A 

Mod9 Mod- COS x 

Black-necked stilt Himantopus mexicanus 

 uSp, 

uS; rF 

x 18 

(80) G5/S3B 

SRBHigh 5/3/3 

Cattle egret Bubulcus ibis 

 r G5/S2B 

SRB- 

 x 

Great egret Ardea alba 

 o G5/S1B 

SRBSnowy egret 

Egretta thula 

 u 14 

(80) G5/S2B 

SRBMod- 10 High

-9 

 High

-WH 

 x x-CP 

Great blue heron Ardea herodias 

 u G5/S5B, 

S5N 

Sandhill crane (Greater) Grus canadensis tabida

 c x 24 

(ID) G5/S3B 

SRBHigh -9 PB Ag x 

Marsh Birds American coot Fulica 

 a x G5/S5B 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-10 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

Species Abundance 

Breeds/Nests Locally 

BIDEH 

Federal T&E 

Birds of Conservation ConcernUSFWS R1& 

BCR 9 and 10 

ID Partners in Flight 

High Priority Species 

ID Partners in Flight 

Mod Priority Species 

 Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Plan Species of 

Greatest Conservation Need 

Intermountain West Regional 

Shorebird Plan Regionally 

Important Species 

Intermountain West Waterbird 

Conservation Plan 

Intermountain West Coordinated 

Implementation Plan 

N.A. Waterbird Conservation Plan 

N.A. Waterfowl Management Plan 

BCR 9 Breeding/Non-Breeding 

Need 

USFWS Idaho Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife Program 

Conservation Strategy for 

Southeastern Idaho Wetlands 

BLM Sensitive Species 

TNC Ecoregional Conservation 

Plan 

americana Sora Porzana Carolina 

 u x 

G5/S5B 

Virginia rail Rallus limicola 

 u x G5/S5B 

White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi 

 cSp, 

uS; uF 

x 20 

(89) G5/S2B SRB-A Mod PA W Low- WH x x Type 4 

Shorebirds Black-bellied plover Pluvialis squatarola 

 oSp, 

rS; oF G5/SNA Low 2/1/1 

Greater yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca 

 u 

G5/SNA Mod 3/3/3 

Semipalmated sandpiper Calidris pusilla 

 o 

G5/SNA Low 1/1/1 

Stilt Sandpiper Calidris himantopus 

 oF 

G5/SNA Low 1/1/1 

Wilson’s snipe Gallinago delicata 

 uSp, 

cS, uF, rW 

x 

G5/SNA 

Killdeer Charadrius vociferus 

 c x 19 

(ID) G5/SNA Mod 3/2/1 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-11 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

Species Abundance 

Breeds/Nests Locally 

BIDEH 

Federal T&E 

Birds of Conservation ConcernUSFWS R1& 

BCR 9 and 10 

ID Partners in Flight 

High Priority Species 

ID Partners in Flight 

Mod Priority Species 

 Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Plan Species of 

Greatest Conservation Need 

Intermountain West Regional 

Shorebird Plan Regionally 

Important Species 

Intermountain West Waterbird 

Conservation Plan 

Intermountain West Coordinated 

Implementation Plan 

N.A. Waterbird Conservation Plan 

N.A. Waterfowl Management Plan 

BCR 9 Breeding/Non-Breeding 

Need 

USFWS Idaho Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife Program 

Conservation Strategy for 

Southeastern Idaho Wetlands 

BLM Sensitive Species 

TNC Ecoregional Conservation 

Plan 

Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus 

 cSp,

cS; oF 

x R1; 9; 

10 

23 (80) 

 G5/S2B 

SRBA;NNH;SXS 

Very High 5/4/3 

 PB 

G/Ag 

x Ty

pe 5 

x-CP 

Pectoral sandpiper Calidrismelanotos

 rSp, 

rS; oF 

Low 1/1/1 

Red-necked phalarope Phalaropus lobatus 

 u 

Mod 4/1/1 

Willet Tringa semipalmata 

 cSp, 

cS; uF 

x 

G5/S4B High 4/3/2 

Wilson’s phalarope Phalaropus tricolor 

 cSp, 

cS; uF 

x 9; 10; 21 

(69) G5/S3B 

SRBHigh 5/3/1 

 PA 

W 

 Ty

pe 5 

Western sandpiper Calidris mauri 

 oSp

; uS; uF 

G5/SNA Mod 4/2/2 

Least sandpiper Calidris minutilla 

 oSp, 

uS; uF 

G5/SNA Mod 4/2/2 

Baird’s sandpiper Calidris bairdii 

 oSp, 

rS, uF 

G5/SNA Low 1/1/1 

Spotted sandpiper 

 u x G5/S5B Mod 3/3/3 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-12 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

Species Abundance 

Breeds/Nests Locally 

BIDEH 

Federal T&E 

Birds of Conservation ConcernUSFWS R1& 

BCR 9 and 10 

ID Partners in Flight 

High Priority Species 

ID Partners in Flight 

Mod Priority Species 

 Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Plan Species of 

Greatest Conservation Need 

Intermountain West Regional 

Shorebird Plan Regionally 

Important Species 

Intermountain West Waterbird 

Conservation Plan 

Intermountain West Coordinated 

Implementation Plan 

N.A. Waterbird Conservation Plan 

N.A. Waterfowl Management Plan 

BCR 9 Breeding/Non-Breeding 

Need 

USFWS Idaho Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife Program 

Conservation Strategy for 

Southeastern Idaho Wetlands 

BLM Sensitive Species 

TNC Ecoregional Conservation 

Plan 

Actitis macularia Long-billed dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus 

 uSp

; oS; uF 

G5/SNA Mod 5/2/2 

Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa 

 uSp, 

uS, oF; 

 9; 10; 

G5/SNA High 4/1/1 

Solitary sandpiper Tringa solitaria 

 uSp, 

oS; oF 

 9, 10; 

G5/SNA Mod 2/2/3 

Semipalmated plover Charadrius semipalmatus 

 oSp, 

rS; oF G5/SNA Mod 3/1/1 

Lesser yellowlegs Tringa flavipes 

 u 

G5/SNA Low 2/2/2 

Terns and Gulls Black tern Chlidonias niger 

 u x 18* 

(ID) G4/S1B SRB- High PA W Mod- COS x Type 3 x CP 

Bonaparte’s Gull Chroicocephalus philadelphia 

 Usp

, uF G5/SNA 

Franklin’s Gull Leucophaeus pipixcan 

 c x 24 

(80) 

 G4G5/ 

S2B SRB-A 

High ModWH x x-CP 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-13 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

Species Abundance 

Breeds/Nests Locally 

BIDEH 

Federal T&E 

Birds of Conservation ConcernUSFWS R1& 

BCR 9 and 10 

ID Partners in Flight 

High Priority Species 

ID Partners in Flight 

Mod Priority Species 

 Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Plan Species of 

Greatest Conservation Need 

Intermountain West Regional 

Shorebird Plan Regionally 

Important Species 

Intermountain West Waterbird 

Conservation Plan 

Intermountain West Coordinated 

Implementation Plan 

N.A. Waterbird Conservation Plan 

N.A. Waterfowl Management Plan 

BCR 9 Breeding/Non-Breeding 

Need 

USFWS Idaho Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife Program 

Conservation Strategy for 

Southeastern Idaho Wetlands 

BLM Sensitive Species 

TNC Ecoregional Conservation 

Plan 

Forster’s tern Sterna forsteri 

 cSp, 

uS; uF 

x 

G5/S1B SRBHigh -10 Mod9 Mod- NA x x-CP 

Ring-billed gull Larus delawarensis 

 cSp, 

uS; cF 

x G5/S3B, 

S3N 

California gull Larus californicus 

 cSp, 

uS; uF 

 19 

(ID) 

G5/S2B,S3N SRB-A 

Mod10 Mod- NA x 

Caspian tern Hydroprogne caspia 

 o G5/S2B,S

3N SRB 

 LowCOS x 

Common tern Sterna hirundo 

 oSp, 

oF 

 G5/S1B Mod10 

Raptors American kestrelFalco sparverius

 c x G5/S5B, 

S5N 

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 

 uSp, 

oS, uF, cW 

x FT G4/S3B,S

4N SRB- 

 PA 

R 

 Ty

pe 1 

x-CP 

Burrowing owl Speotyto cunicularia 

 rSp, 

rS 

x R1; 9 19* 

(ID) 

G4/S2B SRBA;NNH;SXS 

 PB 

Ag 

 Ty

pe 5 

x-CP 

Cooper’s hawkAccipiter cooperii

 oSp, 

oS, uF, rW 

x G5/S4 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-14 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

Species Abundance 

Breeds/Nests Locally 

BIDEH 

Federal T&E 

Birds of Conservation ConcernUSFWS R1& 

BCR 9 and 10 

ID Partners in Flight 

High Priority Species 

ID Partners in Flight 

Mod Priority Species 

 Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Plan Species of 

Greatest Conservation Need 

Intermountain West Regional 

Shorebird Plan Regionally 

Important Species 

Intermountain West Waterbird 

Conservation Plan 

Intermountain West Coordinated 

Implementation Plan 

N.A. Waterbird Conservation Plan 

N.A. Waterfowl Management Plan 

BCR 9 Breeding/Non-Breeding 

Need 

USFWS Idaho Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife Program 

Conservation Strategy for 

Southeastern Idaho Wetlands 

BLM Sensitive Species 

TNC Ecoregional Conservation 

Plan 

Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos 

 o x 9; 10 19 

(89) 

 G5/S4B, 

S4N 

Great-gray owl Strix nebulosa 

 rW x G5/S3 Ty

pe 5 

Great-horned owl Bubo virginianus 

 c x G5/S5 

Barn owl Tyto alba 

 oSp, 

rS, oF 

 G5/S5 

Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis 

 uSp, 

uS, oF 

x 9; 10 23 

(ID) 

 G4/S3B 

SRB- 

 Ty

pe 3 

x CP 

Long-eared owl Asio otus 

 oSp, 

uS, oF 

x G5/S5 x-CP 

Merlin Falco columbarius 

 oSp, 

rS, oF 

 G5/S2B,S

2N SRB-A; NNH; SXS 

Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis 

 r 21 

(64) 

 G5/S3 Ty

pe 3 

x CP 

Northern harrierCircus cyaneus

 c x 18 

(80) 

G5/S5B, S5N 

 x-CP 

Northern saw- r x G5/S3 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-15 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

Species Abundance 

Breeds/Nests Locally 

BIDEH 

Federal T&E 

Birds of Conservation ConcernUSFWS R1& 

BCR 9 and 10 

ID Partners in Flight 

High Priority Species 

ID Partners in Flight 

Mod Priority Species 

 Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Plan Species of 

Greatest Conservation Need 

Intermountain West Regional 

Shorebird Plan Regionally 

Important Species 

Intermountain West Waterbird 

Conservation Plan 

Intermountain West Coordinated 

Implementation Plan 

N.A. Waterbird Conservation Plan 

N.A. Waterfowl Management Plan 

BCR 9 Breeding/Non-Breeding 

Need 

USFWS Idaho Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife Program 

Conservation Strategy for 

Southeastern Idaho Wetlands 

BLM Sensitive Species 

TNC Ecoregional Conservation 

Plan 

whet owl Aegolius acadicus Osprey Pandion haileatus 

 oSp, 

rS, oF 

 17 

(ID) 

G5/S5B 

Peregrine falconFalco peregrinus

 o x FCo R1;9; 

10 

 19 

(ID) 

G4T3/ S2B SRBNNH; SXS; DCR 

 x Ty

pe 3 

x-CP 

Prairie falconFalco mexicanus

 o R1; 9; 

10 

24 (80) 

 G5/S4B, 

S3N 

 PB 

G 

 Ty

pe 3 

Red-tailed hawkButeo jamaicensis

 c x G5/S5B, 

S5N 

Rough-legged hawk Buteo lagopus 

 uSp, 

uF; cW 

 G5/S4N 

Sharp-shinned hawk Falco striatus 

 oSp, 

oS, uF, rW 

 18 

(64) 

 G5/S5 

Short-eared owlAsio flammeus

 u x 23 

(ID) 

 G5/S4 

SRB- 

 Ty

pe 5 

Swainson’s hawkButeo swainsoni

 c x R1; 9; 

10 

21 (89) 

 G5/S3B 

SRB- 

 Ty

pe 5 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-16 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

Species Abundance 

Breeds/Nests Locally 

BIDEH 

Federal T&E 

Birds of Conservation ConcernUSFWS R1& 

BCR 9 and 10 

ID Partners in Flight 

High Priority Species 

ID Partners in Flight 

Mod Priority Species 

 Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Plan Species of 

Greatest Conservation Need 

Intermountain West Regional 

Shorebird Plan Regionally 

Important Species 

Intermountain West Waterbird 

Conservation Plan 

Intermountain West Coordinated 

Implementation Plan 

N.A. Waterbird Conservation Plan 

N.A. Waterfowl Management Plan 

BCR 9 Breeding/Non-Breeding 

Need 

USFWS Idaho Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife Program 

Conservation Strategy for 

Southeastern Idaho Wetlands 

BLM Sensitive Species 

TNC Ecoregional Conservation 

Plan 

Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura 

 uSp, 

oS, uF 

 G5/S3B 

Corvids American crowCorvus brachyrhynchos

 cSp, 

cS, uf, uW 

x G5/S5 

Common ravenCorvus corax

 u G5/S5 

Black-billed magpiePica pica

 a x 19 

(ID) 

 G5/S5 

Steller’s jay Cyanocitta stelleri 

 rSp, 

oF, rW 

 G5/S5 

Clark’s nutcracker Nucifraga columbiana 

 r 18 

(ID) 

G5/S5 

Upland Game Birds Ring-necked pheasant (Exotic) Phasianus colchicus

 uSp, 

uS, cF, cW 

x G5/SNA 

Gray partridge (Exotic) Perdix perdix 

 u x G5/SNA 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-17 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

Species Abundance 

Breeds/Nests Locally 

BIDEH 

Federal T&E 

Birds of Conservation ConcernUSFWS R1& 

BCR 9 and 10 

ID Partners in Flight 

High Priority Species 

ID Partners in Flight 

Mod Priority Species 

 Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Plan Species of 

Greatest Conservation Need 

Intermountain West Regional 

Shorebird Plan Regionally 

Important Species 

Intermountain West Waterbird 

Conservation Plan 

Intermountain West Coordinated 

Implementation Plan 

N.A. Waterbird Conservation Plan 

N.A. Waterfowl Management Plan 

BCR 9 Breeding/Non-Breeding 

Need 

USFWS Idaho Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife Program 

Conservation Strategy for 

Southeastern Idaho Wetlands 

BLM Sensitive Species 

TNC Ecoregional Conservation 

Plan 

Greater sagegrouse Centrocercus urophasianus 

 oSp, 

oS, uF, uW 

x R1;9 25 

(ID) 

 G4/S2 

SRB-A; SXS 

 PA 

SB/SDS 

 x Ty

pe 2 

x-CP 

Doves Mourning dove Zenaida macroura 

 c 

Sp, cS, cF, rW 

x G5/S5B 

Rock dove (introduced sp.) Columba livia 

 o x x G5/SNA 

Passerines and other Birds 

(Goatsuckers) 

Common night hawk Chordeiles minor 

uSp,cS; oF 

x G5/S5B 

Common poorwill Phalaenoptilus nuttallii 

r G5/S4B 

(Hummingbirds) Black-chinned hummingbird Archilocus alexandri 

oSp,oS; uF 

 G5/S5B 

Calliope hummingbird 

oSp; 

 23 

(ID) 

 G5/S5B PA 

R 

 Ty

pe 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-18 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

Species Abundance 

Breeds/Nests Locally 

BIDEH 

Federal T&E 

Birds of Conservation ConcernUSFWS R1& 

BCR 9 and 10 

ID Partners in Flight 

High Priority Species 

ID Partners in Flight 

Mod Priority Species 

 Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Plan Species of 

Greatest Conservation Need 

Intermountain West Regional 

Shorebird Plan Regionally 

Important Species 

Intermountain West Waterbird 

Conservation Plan 

Intermountain West Coordinated 

Implementation Plan 

N.A. Waterbird Conservation Plan 

N.A. Waterfowl Management Plan 

BCR 9 Breeding/Non-Breeding 

Need 

USFWS Idaho Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife Program 

Conservation Strategy for 

Southeastern Idaho Wetlands 

BLM Sensitive Species 

TNC Ecoregional Conservation 

Plan 

Selasphorus calliope 

uS; oF 

3 

Broad-tailed hummingbird Selasphorus platycercus 

o G5/S5B

Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus 

rSp; uS; oF 

 22 

(89) 

 G5/S5B

(Kingfishers) 

Belted kingfisher Ceryle alcyon 

uSp, oS, uF 

 G5/S5 

(Woodpeckers) Lewis’ woodpecker Melanerpes lewis 

oSp, rF 

 R1; 9; 

10 

23 (ID) 

 G4/S3B 

SRB- 

 Ty

pe 3 

x-CP 

Red-naped sapsucker Sphyrapicus nuchalis 

uSp, uF 

 R1; 10 21 

(64,80) 

G5/S5B Ty

pe 5 

Williamson’s sapsucker Sphyrapicus thyroideus 

r R1; 9; 

10 

22 (64) 

 G5/S3B Ty

pe 3 

Downy woodpecker Picoides pubescens 

u x G5/S5 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-19 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

Species Abundance 

Breeds/Nests Locally 

BIDEH 

Federal T&E 

Birds of Conservation ConcernUSFWS R1& 

BCR 9 and 10 

ID Partners in Flight 

High Priority Species 

ID Partners in Flight 

Mod Priority Species 

 Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Plan Species of 

Greatest Conservation Need 

Intermountain West Regional 

Shorebird Plan Regionally 

Important Species 

Intermountain West Waterbird 

Conservation Plan 

Intermountain West Coordinated 

Implementation Plan 

N.A. Waterbird Conservation Plan 

N.A. Waterfowl Management Plan 

BCR 9 Breeding/Non-Breeding 

Need 

USFWS Idaho Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife Program 

Conservation Strategy for 

Southeastern Idaho Wetlands 

BLM Sensitive Species 

TNC Ecoregional Conservation 

Plan 

Hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus 

o G5/S5 

Three-toed woodpecker Picoides tridactylus 

rSp; oS,F 

x G5/S2 

SRBNorthern flicker 

Colaptes auratus 

c x 15 

(ID) 

G5/S5 

(Flycatchers) Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi 

uSp, uS, oF 

 R1; 21 

(ID) 

 G5/S3B Ty

pe 3 

Western wood pewee Contopus sordidulus 

c x 17 

(ID) 

G5/S5B 

Willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii

cSp, cS, uF 

x 21 

(ID) 

 G5/S5B PA 

R 

 Ty

pe 3 

Hammond’s flycatcher Empidonax hammondii 

uSp, uS, cF 

 23 

(ID) 

 G5/S5B Ty

pe 3 

Gray Flycatcher Empidonax wrightii 

o 24 

(80, 89) 

 G5/S3B x CP 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-20 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

Species Abundance 

Breeds/Nests Locally 

BIDEH 

Federal T&E 

Birds of Conservation ConcernUSFWS R1& 

BCR 9 and 10 

ID Partners in Flight 

High Priority Species 

ID Partners in Flight 

Mod Priority Species 

 Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Plan Species of 

Greatest Conservation Need 

Intermountain West Regional 

Shorebird Plan Regionally 

Important Species 

Intermountain West Waterbird 

Conservation Plan 

Intermountain West Coordinated 

Implementation Plan 

N.A. Waterbird Conservation Plan 

N.A. Waterfowl Management Plan 

BCR 9 Breeding/Non-Breeding 

Need 

USFWS Idaho Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife Program 

Conservation Strategy for 

Southeastern Idaho Wetlands 

BLM Sensitive Species 

TNC Ecoregional Conservation 

Plan 

Dusky flycatcher Empidonax oberholseri 

cSp, uS, uF 

 22 

(64) 

 G5/S5B 

Western kingbird Tyrannus verticalis 

cSp, cS, uF 

x G5/S5B 

Eastern kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus 

cSp, cS, uF 

x G5/S4B 

Cordilleran flycatcher Empidonax occidentalis 

u G5/S4B 

Least flycatcher Empidonax minimus 

oSp, rS, oF 

 G5/SNA 

(Larks) Horned lark Eremophila alpestris 

uSp, uS, cF, cW 

x R1 G5/S5 PA 

SB/SDS 

(Swallows) Tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor

 cSp, 

cS, uW 

x G5/S5B 

Violet-green swallow Tachycineta thalassina 

 uSp, 

uS, oF 

x 17 

(ID) 

G5/S5B 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-21 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

Species Abundance 

Breeds/Nests Locally 

BIDEH 

Federal T&E 

Birds of Conservation ConcernUSFWS R1& 

BCR 9 and 10 

ID Partners in Flight 

High Priority Species 

ID Partners in Flight 

Mod Priority Species 

 Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Plan Species of 

Greatest Conservation Need 

Intermountain West Regional 

Shorebird Plan Regionally 

Important Species 

Intermountain West Waterbird 

Conservation Plan 

Intermountain West Coordinated 

Implementation Plan 

N.A. Waterbird Conservation Plan 

N.A. Waterfowl Management Plan 

BCR 9 Breeding/Non-Breeding 

Need 

USFWS Idaho Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife Program 

Conservation Strategy for 

Southeastern Idaho Wetlands 

BLM Sensitive Species 

TNC Ecoregional Conservation 

Plan 

Northern roughwinged swallow Stelgidoptyerx serripennis 

 cSp, 

cS, uF 

x G5/S5B 

Bank swallow Riparia riparia 

 u G5/S5B 

Cliff swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota

 cSP

; cS; uF 

x G5/S5B 

Barn swallow Hirundo rustica

 c x G5/S5B 

(Chickadees and Titmice) Black-capped chickadee Poecile atricapillus 

u x 13 

(ID) 

G5/S5 

Mountain chickadee Poecile gambeli 

rSp, rS, oF, oW 

 16 

(ID) 

G5/S5 

 (Creepers and Nuthatches) Brown creeper Certhia americana 

o 18 

(64) 

 G5/S5 

Red-breasted nuthatch Sitta canadensis 

uSp, oS, uF, rW 

 G5/S5 

White-breasted r G5/S4 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-22 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

Species Abundance 

Breeds/Nests Locally 

BIDEH 

Federal T&E 

Birds of Conservation ConcernUSFWS R1& 

BCR 9 and 10 

ID Partners in Flight 

High Priority Species 

ID Partners in Flight 

Mod Priority Species 

 Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Plan Species of 

Greatest Conservation Need 

Intermountain West Regional 

Shorebird Plan Regionally 

Important Species 

Intermountain West Waterbird 

Conservation Plan 

Intermountain West Coordinated 

Implementation Plan 

N.A. Waterbird Conservation Plan 

N.A. Waterfowl Management Plan 

BCR 9 Breeding/Non-Breeding 

Need 

USFWS Idaho Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife Program 

Conservation Strategy for 

Southeastern Idaho Wetlands 

BLM Sensitive Species 

TNC Ecoregional Conservation 

Plan 

nuthatch Sitta carolinensis (Wrens) Rock wren Salpinctes obsoletus

o xx 19 

(89) 

 G5/S5B 

House wren Troglodytes aedon

cSp,cS; uF 

 X2 G5/S5B 

Winter wren Ttoglodytes troglodytes 

oSp, oF 

 G5/S5 

Marsh wren Cistothorus palustris 

c x G5/S5B 

(Kinglets, Bluebirds, Thrushes) Golden-crowned kinglet Regulus satrapa 

oSp, oF 

 G5/S5 

Ruby-crowned kinglet Regulus calendula 

cSp, uS, cF 

 G5/S5B 

Mountain bluebird Sialia currucoides

oSp, oF 

 G5/S4B 

Townsend’s o 19 G5/S5 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-23 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

Species Abundance 

Breeds/Nests Locally 

BIDEH 

Federal T&E 

Birds of Conservation ConcernUSFWS R1& 

BCR 9 and 10 

ID Partners in Flight 

High Priority Species 

ID Partners in Flight 

Mod Priority Species 

 Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Plan Species of 

Greatest Conservation Need 

Intermountain West Regional 

Shorebird Plan Regionally 

Important Species 

Intermountain West Waterbird 

Conservation Plan 

Intermountain West Coordinated 

Implementation Plan 

N.A. Waterbird Conservation Plan 

N.A. Waterfowl Management Plan 

BCR 9 Breeding/Non-Breeding 

Need 

USFWS Idaho Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife Program 

Conservation Strategy for 

Southeastern Idaho Wetlands 

BLM Sensitive Species 

TNC Ecoregional Conservation 

Plan 

solitaire Myadestes townsendi 

(ID) 

Veery Catharus fuscesens 

o 19* 

(ID) 

G5/S5B x CP 

Swainson’s thrush Catharus ustulata

cSp, uS, uF 

 G5/S5B 

Hermit thrush Catharus guttatus 

cSp, uS, cF 

 G5/S5B 

American robin Turdus migratorius 

a x G5/S5B, 

S3N 

Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapilla 

oSp, oS 

 G5/SNA 

Northern waterthrush Parkesia noveboracensis 

oSp, oS, uF 

 G5/S4 

Blue-gray gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea 

oSp, rS, oF 

 G5/S5 

(Mockingbirds and Thrashers) Gray catbird Dumetella 

uSp, oS, 

 G5/S5B 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-24 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

Species Abundance 

Breeds/Nests Locally 

BIDEH 

Federal T&E 

Birds of Conservation ConcernUSFWS R1& 

BCR 9 and 10 

ID Partners in Flight 

High Priority Species 

ID Partners in Flight 

Mod Priority Species 

 Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Plan Species of 

Greatest Conservation Need 

Intermountain West Regional 

Shorebird Plan Regionally 

Important Species 

Intermountain West Waterbird 

Conservation Plan 

Intermountain West Coordinated 

Implementation Plan 

N.A. Waterbird Conservation Plan 

N.A. Waterfowl Management Plan 

BCR 9 Breeding/Non-Breeding 

Need 

USFWS Idaho Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife Program 

Conservation Strategy for 

Southeastern Idaho Wetlands 

BLM Sensitive Species 

TNC Ecoregional Conservation 

Plan 

carolinensis uF Sage thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus 

u x 22 

(89) 

 G5/S3B PA 

SB/SDS 

 Ty

pe 5 

x-CP 

(Pipits) American pipit Anthus rubescens 

uSp, uF 

 G5/S4B 

(Waxwings) Bohemian waxwing Bombycilla garrulus 

o G5/S1B. 

S3N 

Cedar waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum 

u G5/S5B. 

S3N 

(Shrikes) Northern shrike Lanius excubitor 

o G5/S5N 

Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus 

oSP,uS,oF 

x R1; 9; 

10 

20 (80) 

 G5/S3 Ty

pe 3 

x-CP 

(Starlings) European starling (Exotic) Sturnus vulgaris 

a x G5/SNA 

(Vireos) Warbling vireo Vireo gilvus 

uSp, cS, uF 

x 18 

(ID) 

G5/S5B 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-25 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

Species Abundance 

Breeds/Nests Locally 

BIDEH 

Federal T&E 

Birds of Conservation ConcernUSFWS R1& 

BCR 9 and 10 

ID Partners in Flight 

High Priority Species 

ID Partners in Flight 

Mod Priority Species 

 Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Plan Species of 

Greatest Conservation Need 

Intermountain West Regional 

Shorebird Plan Regionally 

Important Species 

Intermountain West Waterbird 

Conservation Plan 

Intermountain West Coordinated 

Implementation Plan 

N.A. Waterbird Conservation Plan 

N.A. Waterfowl Management Plan 

BCR 9 Breeding/Non-Breeding 

Need 

USFWS Idaho Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife Program 

Conservation Strategy for 

Southeastern Idaho Wetlands 

BLM Sensitive Species 

TNC Ecoregional Conservation 

Plan 

Plumbeous vireo Vireo plumbeus 

oSp, oS, oF 

 G5/S4 

Cassin’s vireo Vireo cassinii 

uSp, oS, uF 

 G5/S5B 

Red-eyed vireo Vireo olivaceus 

o G5/S5B 

(Warblers) Orange-crowned warbler Vermivora celata 

uSp, uS, cF 

 G5/S5B 

Yellow warbler Setophaga petechia 

aSp, aS, cF 

x 18 

(64) 

 G5/S5B 

Yellow-rumped warbler Setophaga coronata 

cSp, uS, aF 

 16 

(64) 

G5/S5B 

Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens 

o 

Townsend’s warbler Setophaga townsendii 

uSp, oS, uF 

 22 

(ID) 

 G5/S4B 

American redstart Setophaga ruticilla 

uSp, oS, oF 

 G5/S4B 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-26 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

Species Abundance 

Breeds/Nests Locally 

BIDEH 

Federal T&E 

Birds of Conservation ConcernUSFWS R1& 

BCR 9 and 10 

ID Partners in Flight 

High Priority Species 

ID Partners in Flight 

Mod Priority Species 

 Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Plan Species of 

Greatest Conservation Need 

Intermountain West Regional 

Shorebird Plan Regionally 

Important Species 

Intermountain West Waterbird 

Conservation Plan 

Intermountain West Coordinated 

Implementation Plan 

N.A. Waterbird Conservation Plan 

N.A. Waterfowl Management Plan 

BCR 9 Breeding/Non-Breeding 

Need 

USFWS Idaho Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife Program 

Conservation Strategy for 

Southeastern Idaho Wetlands 

BLM Sensitive Species 

TNC Ecoregional Conservation 

Plan 

MacGillivary’s warbler Oporornis tolmiei 

cSp, uS, cF 

 21 

(ID) 

 G5/S5B x CP 

Common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas

cSp, cS, uF 

x G5/S5B 

Wilson’s warbler Cardellina pusilla 

cSp, uS, aF 

 G5/S5B x CP 

Nashville warbler Oreothlypis ruficapilla 

oSp, oS, uF 

 G5/S5B 

Black-throated Gray warbler Setophaga nigrescens 

o G5/SNA 

Blackpoll warbler Setophaga striata 

rSp, rS, oF 

 G5/SNA 

(Tanagers) Western tanager Piranga ludoviciana 

cSp, uS, uF 

 20 

(ID) 

 G5/S5B 

(Grossbeaks and Buntings) Rose-breasted r G5/SNA 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-27 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

Species Abundance 

Breeds/Nests Locally 

BIDEH 

Federal T&E 

Birds of Conservation ConcernUSFWS R1& 

BCR 9 and 10 

ID Partners in Flight 

High Priority Species 

ID Partners in Flight 

Mod Priority Species 

 Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Plan Species of 

Greatest Conservation Need 

Intermountain West Regional 

Shorebird Plan Regionally 

Important Species 

Intermountain West Waterbird 

Conservation Plan 

Intermountain West Coordinated 

Implementation Plan 

N.A. Waterbird Conservation Plan 

N.A. Waterfowl Management Plan 

BCR 9 Breeding/Non-Breeding 

Need 

USFWS Idaho Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife Program 

Conservation Strategy for 

Southeastern Idaho Wetlands 

BLM Sensitive Species 

TNC Ecoregional Conservation 

Plan 

grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus Black-headed grosbeak Pheucticus melanocephalus 

cSp, cS, uF 

x G5/S5B 

Lazuli bunting Passerina amoena 

u x 19 

(64) 

G5/S5B 

(Towhees and Sparrows) Green-tailed towhee Pipilo chlorurus 

oSp, rS, oF 

 19 

(ID) 

G5/S5B Ty

pe 5 

x-CP 

Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum 

uSp, uS, oF 

x 20 

(64) 

 G5/S2B 

SRBNNH; SXS 

 PB 

G 

 Ty

pe 5 

x-CP 

House sparrow (Exotic) Passer domesticus 

u x G5/SN 

Chipping sparrow Spizella passerina 

uSp, uS, cF 

 G5/S5B 

Brewer’s sparrow Spizella breweri 

uSp, cS, uF 

x R1; 9; 

10 

24 (89) 

 G5/S3B 

SRB- 

 PA 

SB/SDS 

 Ty

pe 3 

x CP 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-28 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

Species Abundance 

Breeds/Nests Locally 

BIDEH 

Federal T&E 

Birds of Conservation ConcernUSFWS R1& 

BCR 9 and 10 

ID Partners in Flight 

High Priority Species 

ID Partners in Flight 

Mod Priority Species 

 Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Plan Species of 

Greatest Conservation Need 

Intermountain West Regional 

Shorebird Plan Regionally 

Important Species 

Intermountain West Waterbird 

Conservation Plan 

Intermountain West Coordinated 

Implementation Plan 

N.A. Waterbird Conservation Plan 

N.A. Waterfowl Management Plan 

BCR 9 Breeding/Non-Breeding 

Need 

USFWS Idaho Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife Program 

Conservation Strategy for 

Southeastern Idaho Wetlands 

BLM Sensitive Species 

TNC Ecoregional Conservation 

Plan 

Vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus

cSp, cS; uF 

x 16 

(80) 

G5/S4B 

Lark sparrow Chondestes grammacus 

u x 20 

(89) 

 G5/S5B 

Savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis 

c x G5/S5B 

Fox sparrow Passerella iliaca 

r G5/S5B 

Sage sparrow Artemisospiza belli 

o x 9 25 

(80; 89) 

 G5/S3B PA 

SB/SDS 

 Ty

pe 3 

x-CP 

Song sparrow Melospiza melodia 

c x G5/S5B, 

S5N 

Lincoln’s sparrow Melospiza lincolnii 

uSp, oS, uF 

 G5/S5B 

White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys 

cSp, oS, cF 

 G5/S5B, 

S4N 

Dark-eyed junco Junco hyemalis 

uSp, rS, cF, oW 

 13 

(ID) 

G5/S5 

Snow bunting rSp, G5/S4N 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-29 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

Species Abundance 

Breeds/Nests Locally 

BIDEH 

Federal T&E 

Birds of Conservation ConcernUSFWS R1& 

BCR 9 and 10 

ID Partners in Flight 

High Priority Species 

ID Partners in Flight 

Mod Priority Species 

 Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Plan Species of 

Greatest Conservation Need 

Intermountain West Regional 

Shorebird Plan Regionally 

Important Species 

Intermountain West Waterbird 

Conservation Plan 

Intermountain West Coordinated 

Implementation Plan 

N.A. Waterbird Conservation Plan 

N.A. Waterfowl Management Plan 

BCR 9 Breeding/Non-Breeding 

Need 

USFWS Idaho Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife Program 

Conservation Strategy for 

Southeastern Idaho Wetlands 

BLM Sensitive Species 

TNC Ecoregional Conservation 

Plan 

Plectrophenax nivalis 

rF, oW 

Spotted towhee Pipilo maculatus 

oSp, oF 

 G5/S5B 

American tree sparrow Spizella arborea 

o G5/S5N 

White-throated sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis 

rSp, oF 

 G5/SNA 

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

 aSp, 

aS; uF 

x G5/S5B 

Brewer’s blackbirdEuphagus cyanocephalus

 aSp, 

aS; uF 

x 15 

(ID) 

G5/S5B, S5N 

 Ty

pe 3 

Red-winged blackbirdAgelaius phoeniceus

 a x G5/S5B, 

S3N 

Western meadowlarkSturnella neglecta

 c x 18 

(ID) 

 G5/S5B, 

S3N 

Yellow-headed blackbird

 aSp, 

aS, 

x 18 

(80) 

G5/S5B 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-30 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

Species Abundance 

Breeds/Nests Locally 

BIDEH 

Federal T&E 

Birds of Conservation ConcernUSFWS R1& 

BCR 9 and 10 

ID Partners in Flight 

High Priority Species 

ID Partners in Flight 

Mod Priority Species 

 Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Plan Species of 

Greatest Conservation Need 

Intermountain West Regional 

Shorebird Plan Regionally 

Important Species 

Intermountain West Waterbird 

Conservation Plan 

Intermountain West Coordinated 

Implementation Plan 

N.A. Waterbird Conservation Plan 

N.A. Waterfowl Management Plan 

BCR 9 Breeding/Non-Breeding 

Need 

USFWS Idaho Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife Program 

Conservation Strategy for 

Southeastern Idaho Wetlands 

BLM Sensitive Species 

TNC Ecoregional Conservation 

Plan 

Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus

cF 

Common grackle Quiscalus quiscala 

r G5/S3B 

Bullock’s Oriole Icterus bullockii 

cSp, cS, rF 

x 19* 

(ID) 

G5/S5B 

(Finches) Cassin’s finch Haemorhous cassini 

 oSp, 

rS, oF 

 19 

(ID) 

G5/S5 

Common redpoll Acanthis flammea 

 rW G5/S4N 

House finch Haemorhous mexicanus 

 o x G5/S5 

Pine siskin Spinus pinus 

 uSp, 

oS, uF, rW 

 14 

(ID) 

G5/S5 

American goldfinch Spinus tristus 

 cSp, 

cS, uF, uW 

x G5/S5 

Evening grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus 

 r G5/S5 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-31 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

Species Abundance 

Breeds/Nests Locally 

BIDEH 

Federal T&E 

Birds of Conservation ConcernUSFWS R1& 

BCR 9 and 10 

ID Partners in Flight 

High Priority Species 

ID Partners in Flight 

Mod Priority Species 

 Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Plan Species of 

Greatest Conservation Need 

Intermountain West Regional 

Shorebird Plan Regionally 

Important Species 

Intermountain West Waterbird 

Conservation Plan 

Intermountain West Coordinated 

Implementation Plan 

N.A. Waterbird Conservation Plan 

N.A. Waterfowl Management Plan 

BCR 9 Breeding/Non-Breeding 

Need 

USFWS Idaho Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife Program 

Conservation Strategy for 

Southeastern Idaho Wetlands 

BLM Sensitive Species 

TNC Ecoregional Conservation 

Plan 

Mammals

Black bear Ursus americanus 

c x 

 G5/S5 

BadgerTaxidea taxus

 c x G5/S5 

BobcatFelix rufus 

 r x G5/S5 

Gray wolf Canis lupus 

 r FE G4/S3 

CoyoteCanis latrans

 c x G5/S5 

Deer mousePeromyscus maniculata

 c x G5/S5 

Domestic catFelis domesticus

 c x 

Domestic dogCanis familiaris

 c x 

ErmineMustela erminea

 u x G5/S5 

Long-tailed weasel Mustela frenata 

 unk G5/S5 

MinkMustela vison

 U x G5/S5 

River otter Lontra canadensis 

 r G5/S4 

Meadow vole c x G5/S5 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-32 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

Species Abundance 

Breeds/Nests Locally 

BIDEH 

Federal T&E 

Birds of Conservation ConcernUSFWS R1& 

BCR 9 and 10 

ID Partners in Flight 

High Priority Species 

ID Partners in Flight 

Mod Priority Species 

 Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Plan Species of 

Greatest Conservation Need 

Intermountain West Regional 

Shorebird Plan Regionally 

Important Species 

Intermountain West Waterbird 

Conservation Plan 

Intermountain West Coordinated 

Implementation Plan 

N.A. Waterbird Conservation Plan 

N.A. Waterfowl Management Plan 

BCR 9 Breeding/Non-Breeding 

Need 

USFWS Idaho Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife Program 

Conservation Strategy for 

Southeastern Idaho Wetlands 

BLM Sensitive Species 

TNC Ecoregional Conservation 

Plan 

Microtus pennsylvaticusMontane vole Microtus montanus

 c x G5/S5 

Mountain lionFelix concolor

 r x G5/S5 

RaccoonProcyon lotor

 c x G5/S4 

Red foxVulpes vulpes

 c x G5/S5 

Western spotted skunk Spilogale gracilis 

 unk G5/S5 

Striped skunkMephitis mephitis

 c x G5/S5 

Yellow-bellied marmot Marmota flaviventris 

 c x G5/S5 

Townsend’s ground squirrel Spermophilus townsendii 

 unk 

Wyoming ground squirrel Spermophilus elegans 

 G5/S3 

SRB- A; NNH; SXS 

Uinta ground G5/S4 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-33 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

Species Abundance 

Breeds/Nests Locally 

BIDEH 

Federal T&E 

Birds of Conservation ConcernUSFWS R1& 

BCR 9 and 10 

ID Partners in Flight 

High Priority Species 

ID Partners in Flight 

Mod Priority Species 

 Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Plan Species of 

Greatest Conservation Need 

Intermountain West Regional 

Shorebird Plan Regionally 

Important Species 

Intermountain West Waterbird 

Conservation Plan 

Intermountain West Coordinated 

Implementation Plan 

N.A. Waterbird Conservation Plan 

N.A. Waterfowl Management Plan 

BCR 9 Breeding/Non-Breeding 

Need 

USFWS Idaho Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife Program 

Conservation Strategy for 

Southeastern Idaho Wetlands 

BLM Sensitive Species 

TNC Ecoregional Conservation 

Plan 

squirrel Spermophilus armatus Least chipmunk Tamius minimus 

 x G5/S5 

Great Basin ground squirrel Spermophilus mollis 

 G5/S2 

SRB- 

 Ty

pe 3 

Idaho pocket gopher Thomomys idahoensis 

 G4/S3 

SRBNorthern pocket 

gopher Thomomys talpoides 

 a x G5/S5 

Beaver Castor canadensis 

 c x G5/S5 

Ord’s kangaroo rat Dipodomys ordii 

 c x G5/S5 

Northern grasshopper mouse Onychomys leucogaster 

 unk G5/S4 x 

CP 

Western harvest mouse Reithrodontomys 

 unk G5/S5 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-34 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

Species Abundance 

Breeds/Nests Locally 

BIDEH 

Federal T&E 

Birds of Conservation ConcernUSFWS R1& 

BCR 9 and 10 

ID Partners in Flight 

High Priority Species 

ID Partners in Flight 

Mod Priority Species 

 Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Plan Species of 

Greatest Conservation Need 

Intermountain West Regional 

Shorebird Plan Regionally 

Important Species 

Intermountain West Waterbird 

Conservation Plan 

Intermountain West Coordinated 

Implementation Plan 

N.A. Waterbird Conservation Plan 

N.A. Waterfowl Management Plan 

BCR 9 Breeding/Non-Breeding 

Need 

USFWS Idaho Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife Program 

Conservation Strategy for 

Southeastern Idaho Wetlands 

BLM Sensitive Species 

TNC Ecoregional Conservation 

Plan 

megalotis Sagebrush vole Lagurus curtatus 

 unk G5/S4 x 

CP 

Western jumping mouse Zapus princeps 

 unk G5/S5 

Great Basin pocket mouse Perognathus parvus 

 unk G5/S5 

Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus 

x c x G5/S5 

Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum 

 G5/S5 

Elk Cervus elaphus 

 c x G5/S5 

Pronghorn Antilocapra americana 

 c x G5/S5 

White-tailed Deer Odocoileus virginianus 

 c x G5/S5 

Mule Deer Odocoileus hemionus 

 u x G5/S5 

Moose Alces alces 

 c x G5/S5 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-35 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

Species Abundance 

Breeds/Nests Locally 

BIDEH 

Federal T&E 

Birds of Conservation ConcernUSFWS R1& 

BCR 9 and 10 

ID Partners in Flight 

High Priority Species 

ID Partners in Flight 

Mod Priority Species 

 Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Plan Species of 

Greatest Conservation Need 

Intermountain West Regional 

Shorebird Plan Regionally 

Important Species 

Intermountain West Waterbird 

Conservation Plan 

Intermountain West Coordinated 

Implementation Plan 

N.A. Waterbird Conservation Plan 

N.A. Waterfowl Management Plan 

BCR 9 Breeding/Non-Breeding 

Need 

USFWS Idaho Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife Program 

Conservation Strategy for 

Southeastern Idaho Wetlands 

BLM Sensitive Species 

TNC Ecoregional Conservation 

Plan 

Mountain cottontail Sylvilagus nuttalli 

 u x G5/S5 

White-tailed jackrabbit Lepus townsendii 

 u x G5/S5 

Pygmy rabbit Brachylagus idahoensis

 G4/S2 

SRBSXS 

 Ty

pe 2 

x CP 

Bushy-tailed woodrat Neotoma cinerea 

 r G5/S5 

Merriam’s shrew Sorex merriami 

 G5/S2 

SRBNNH; SXS 

 Ty

pe 3 

x CP 

Water Shrew Sorex palustris 

 unk G5/S4 

Vagrant shrewSorex vagrans

 x G5/S4 

Spotted bat Euderma maculatum 

 G4/S3 

SRBSXS 

 x 

CP 

Little brown myotis Myotis lucifugus 

 unk G5/S5 

Yuma myotis Myotis 

 unk G5/S3 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-36 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

Species Abundance 

Breeds/Nests Locally 

BIDEH 

Federal T&E 

Birds of Conservation ConcernUSFWS R1& 

BCR 9 and 10 

ID Partners in Flight 

High Priority Species 

ID Partners in Flight 

Mod Priority Species 

 Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Plan Species of 

Greatest Conservation Need 

Intermountain West Regional 

Shorebird Plan Regionally 

Important Species 

Intermountain West Waterbird 

Conservation Plan 

Intermountain West Coordinated 

Implementation Plan 

N.A. Waterbird Conservation Plan 

N.A. Waterfowl Management Plan 

BCR 9 Breeding/Non-Breeding 

Need 

USFWS Idaho Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife Program 

Conservation Strategy for 

Southeastern Idaho Wetlands 

BLM Sensitive Species 

TNC Ecoregional Conservation 

Plan 

yumanensis Western smallfooted myotis Myotis ciliolabrum 

 unk G5/S3 

Big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus 

 unk G5/S4 

Townsend’s bigeared bat Corynorhinus townsendii 

 G4/S3 

SRBNNH; DCR 

 x 

CP 

Amphibians

Tiger salamander Ambyystoma tigrinum 

 r x G5/S5 

Great Basin spadefoot Spea intermontanus 

 unk G5/S4 

Western toad Bufo boreas 

 G5/S3 x CP 

Striped chorus frog Pseudacris triseriata Northern Leopard frog Rana pipiens 

 G5/S2 

SRB-SXS 

 Ty

pe 2 

x CP 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-37 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

Species Abundance 

Breeds/Nests Locally 

BIDEH 

Federal T&E 

Birds of Conservation ConcernUSFWS R1& 

BCR 9 and 10 

ID Partners in Flight 

High Priority Species 

ID Partners in Flight 

Mod Priority Species 

 Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Plan Species of 

Greatest Conservation Need 

Intermountain West Regional 

Shorebird Plan Regionally 

Important Species 

Intermountain West Waterbird 

Conservation Plan 

Intermountain West Coordinated 

Implementation Plan 

N.A. Waterbird Conservation Plan 

N.A. Waterfowl Management Plan 

BCR 9 Breeding/Non-Breeding 

Need 

USFWS Idaho Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife Program 

Conservation Strategy for 

Southeastern Idaho Wetlands 

BLM Sensitive Species 

TNC Ecoregional Conservation 

Plan 

Reptiles

Common sagebrush lizard Sceloporus graciosus 

 G5/S5 

Greater shorthorned lizard Phrynosoma douglassi 

 G5/SNR x CP 

Western skink Eumeces skiltonianus 

 G5/S5 

Gophersnake Pituophis catenifer 

 G5/S5 

Terresterial garter snake Thamnophis elegans 

 c x G5/S5 

Common garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis 

 G5/S3 

Eastern racer Coluber constrictor 

 G5/S5 

Western Rattlesnake Crotalus viridus 

 G5/S5 

Ring-necked Snake 

 G5/S2 

SRB- 

 Ty

pe 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-38 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

Species Abundance 

Breeds/Nests Locally 

BIDEH 

Federal T&E 

Birds of Conservation ConcernUSFWS R1& 

BCR 9 and 10 

ID Partners in Flight 

High Priority Species 

ID Partners in Flight 

Mod Priority Species 

 Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Plan Species of 

Greatest Conservation Need 

Intermountain West Regional 

Shorebird Plan Regionally 

Important Species 

Intermountain West Waterbird 

Conservation Plan 

Intermountain West Coordinated 

Implementation Plan 

N.A. Waterbird Conservation Plan 

N.A. Waterfowl Management Plan 

BCR 9 Breeding/Non-Breeding 

Need 

USFWS Idaho Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife Program 

Conservation Strategy for 

Southeastern Idaho Wetlands 

BLM Sensitive Species 

TNC Ecoregional Conservation 

Plan 

Diadophis punctatus 

SXS 5 

Fish

Utah chub Gila atraria 

 G5/S4 

Utah sucker Catostomus ardens 

 G5/S5 

Brown Bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus 

 G5/SNA 

Yellow Perch Perca flavescens 

 G5/SNA 

Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides 

 G5/SNA 

Butterflies 

Anise Swallowtail Papilio zelicaon 

 G5/SNR 

Western Tiger Swallowtail Papilio rutulus 

 G5/SNR 

Checkered White Pontia protodice Western White Pontia 

 G5/SNR 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-39 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

Species Abundance 

Breeds/Nests Locally 

BIDEH 

Federal T&E 

Birds of Conservation ConcernUSFWS R1& 

BCR 9 and 10 

ID Partners in Flight 

High Priority Species 

ID Partners in Flight 

Mod Priority Species 

 Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Plan Species of 

Greatest Conservation Need 

Intermountain West Regional 

Shorebird Plan Regionally 

Important Species 

Intermountain West Waterbird 

Conservation Plan 

Intermountain West Coordinated 

Implementation Plan 

N.A. Waterbird Conservation Plan 

N.A. Waterfowl Management Plan 

BCR 9 Breeding/Non-Breeding 

Need 

USFWS Idaho Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife Program 

Conservation Strategy for 

Southeastern Idaho Wetlands 

BLM Sensitive Species 

TNC Ecoregional Conservation 

Plan 

occidentalis Becker’s White Pontia beckerii 

 G5/SNR 

Cabbage White Pieris rapae 

 G5/SNA 

Clouded Sulphur Colias philodice 

 G5/SNR 

Orange Sulfur Colias eurytheme Queen Alexandra’s Sulfur Colias alexandra Ruddy Copper Lycaena rubidus 

 G5/SNR 

Purplish Copper Lycaena helloides 

 G5/SNR 

Melissa Blue Lycaeides melissa 

 G5/SNR 

Western Pygmy Blue Brephidium exile 

 G5/SNR 

Dotted Blue Euphilotes enoptes Callippe G5/SNR 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-40 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

Species Abundance 

Breeds/Nests Locally 

BIDEH 

Federal T&E 

Birds of Conservation ConcernUSFWS R1& 

BCR 9 and 10 

ID Partners in Flight 

High Priority Species 

ID Partners in Flight 

Mod Priority Species 

 Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Plan Species of 

Greatest Conservation Need 

Intermountain West Regional 

Shorebird Plan Regionally 

Important Species 

Intermountain West Waterbird 

Conservation Plan 

Intermountain West Coordinated 

Implementation Plan 

N.A. Waterbird Conservation Plan 

N.A. Waterfowl Management Plan 

BCR 9 Breeding/Non-Breeding 

Need 

USFWS Idaho Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife Program 

Conservation Strategy for 

Southeastern Idaho Wetlands 

BLM Sensitive Species 

TNC Ecoregional Conservation 

Plan 

Fritillary Speyeria callippe Coronis Fritillary Speyeria coronis 

 G5/SNR 

Field Crescent Phyciodes campestris 

 G5/SNR 

Mylitta Crescent Phyciodes mylitta 

 G5/SNR 

California Tortoiseshell Nymphalis californica 

 G5/SNR 

Mourning Cloak Nymphalis antiopa 

 G5/SNR 

Milbert’s Tortoiseshell Nymphalis milberti 

 G5/SNR 

Red Admiral Vanessa atalanta 

 G5/SNR

West Coast Lady Vanessa annabella 

 G5/SNA

Painted Lady G5/SNR
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-41 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

Species Abundance 

Breeds/Nests Locally 

BIDEH 

Federal T&E 

Birds of Conservation ConcernUSFWS R1& 

BCR 9 and 10 

ID Partners in Flight 

High Priority Species 

ID Partners in Flight 

Mod Priority Species 

 Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Plan Species of 

Greatest Conservation Need 

Intermountain West Regional 

Shorebird Plan Regionally 

Important Species 

Intermountain West Waterbird 

Conservation Plan 

Intermountain West Coordinated 

Implementation Plan 

N.A. Waterbird Conservation Plan 

N.A. Waterfowl Management Plan 

BCR 9 Breeding/Non-Breeding 

Need 

USFWS Idaho Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife Program 

Conservation Strategy for 

Southeastern Idaho Wetlands 

BLM Sensitive Species 

TNC Ecoregional Conservation 

Plan 

Vanessa cardui Viceroy Limenitis archippus 

 G5/SNR

Common Wood Nymph Cercyonis pegala 

 G5/SNR

Small Wood Nymph Cerbyonis oetus 

 G5/SNR

Common ringlet Coenonympha tullia 

 G5/SNR

MonarchDanaus plexippus 

 G5/SNR

Common Checkered Skipper Pyrgus communis 

 G5/SNR

Juba Skipper Hesperia juba 

 G5/SNR

Draco Skipper Polites draco 

 G5/SNR

Woodland Skipper Ochlodes sylvanoides 

 G5/SNR
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-42 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

Species Abundance 

Breeds/Nests Locally 

BIDEH 

Federal T&E 

Birds of Conservation ConcernUSFWS R1& 

BCR 9 and 10 

ID Partners in Flight 

High Priority Species 

ID Partners in Flight 

Mod Priority Species 

 Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Plan Species of 

Greatest Conservation Need 

Intermountain West Regional 

Shorebird Plan Regionally 

Important Species 

Intermountain West Waterbird 

Conservation Plan 

Intermountain West Coordinated 

Implementation Plan 

N.A. Waterbird Conservation Plan 

N.A. Waterfowl Management Plan 

BCR 9 Breeding/Non-Breeding 

Need 

USFWS Idaho Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife Program 

Conservation Strategy for 

Southeastern Idaho Wetlands 

BLM Sensitive Species 

TNC Ecoregional Conservation 

Plan 

Dragonflies

Spotted Spreadwing Lestes congener 

 G5/SNR 

Boreal Bluet Enallagma boreale Tule Bluet Enallagma carunculatum 

 G5/SNR 

Pacific Forktail Ischnura cervula 

 G5/SNR 

Black-fronted Forktail Ischnura denticollis 

 G5/SNR 

Paddle-tailed Darner Aeshna palmata 

 G5/SNR 

Variable Darner Aeshna interrupta 

 G5/SNR 

Western Meadowhawk Sympetrum occidentale Black Meadowhawk Sympetrum danae Cherry-faced 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-43 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Species 

Refuge Purpose Species 

Species Abundance 

Breeds/Nests Locally 

BIDEH 

Federal T&E 

Birds of Conservation ConcernUSFWS R1& 

BCR 9 and 10 

ID Partners in Flight 

High Priority Species 

ID Partners in Flight 

Mod Priority Species 

 Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Plan Species of 

Greatest Conservation Need 

Intermountain West Regional 

Shorebird Plan Regionally 

Important Species 

Intermountain West Waterbird 

Conservation Plan 

Intermountain West Coordinated 

Implementation Plan 

N.A. Waterbird Conservation Plan 

N.A. Waterfowl Management Plan 

BCR 9 Breeding/Non-Breeding 

Need 

USFWS Idaho Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife Program 

Conservation Strategy for 

Southeastern Idaho Wetlands 

BLM Sensitive Species 

TNC Ecoregional Conservation 

Plan 

Meadowhawk Sympetrum internum Variegated Meadowhawk Sympetrum corruptum Striped Meadowhawk Sympetrum pallipes 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-44 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern Table E-2 Key Species Abundance: Season Sp = Spring S = Summer F = Fall W = Winter Occurs: a = Abundant: a common species which is very numerous c = Common: certain to be seen in suitable habitat u = Uncommon: present, but not certain to be seen o = Occasional: seen only a few times during season r = Rare: known to be present, but not every year BIDEH: x = Species significantly contributes to refuge Biological Diversity, Integrity, and Environmental Health Federal T&E Species: FE = Fed. Endangered FT = Fed. Threatened FC = Fed. Candidate FCo = Fed. Spec. of Concern Birds of Conservation Concern R1 = USFWS Region 1 (WA, OR, ID) 9 = Great Basin Bird Conservation Region (BCR 9) 10 = Northern Rockies Bird Conservation Region (BCR 10) ID Partners in Flight (PIF): Number (e.g., 24): Total PIF species score (ID) = Statewide (80) = Basin and Range Physiographic Area (64) = Central Rocky Mtns Physiographic Area High Priority = Focal species whose total PIF score ≥ 22, or total score 18-21 and Area of Importance + Population Trend ≥ 8 

* = Species that are habitat specialists State Wildlife Action Plan: Identified by plan as Species of Greatest Conservation Needs.

GX or SX = Presumed extinct or extirpated: not located despite intensive searches and virtually no likelihood of rediscovery. GH or SH = Possibly extinct or extirpated (historical): historically occurred, but may be rediscovered. G1 or S1= Critically imperiled: at high risk because of extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer occurrences), rapidly declining numbers, or other factors that make it particularly vulnerable to rangewide extinction or extirpation. G2 or S2 = Imperiled: at risk because of restricted range, few populations (often 20 or fewer), rapidly declining numbers, or other factors that make it vulnerable to rangewide extinction or extirpation. G3 or S3 = Vulnerable: at moderate risk because of restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors that make it 

vulnerable to rangewide extinction or extirpation. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-45 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern G4 or S4 = Apparently secure: uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors. 

G5 or S5 Secure = common, widespread, and abundant. N = Nonbreeding Conservation status refers to the non-breeding population of the species. B = Breeding population of the species N = Non-breeding population of the species M = Migrant species occurring regularly on migration at particular staging areas or concentration spots where the species might warrant conservation attention. 

SRB = Within Snake River Bassalt Section of Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy Priority species in priority habitat of the Camas Section is indicated by: A = Arable land (Agriculture) Seeded Perennial Grassland Disturbed and Invasive Grass and Forb NNH = Non-Native Herbaceuous SXS = Southern Xeric Shrubland and Steppe Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub Columbia Plateau Low Sagebrush Steppe Columbia Plateau Steppe and Grassland Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Shrub-Steppe Rocky Mountain Lower Montane Riparian Woodland and Shrubland (Key Ecological Section) 

DCR = Dune, Canyon, and Rockland Intermountain West Regional Shorebird Plan: Regional Priorities = Very High, High, Moderate, Low, Non-Priority First Number (i.e., x/ ) = Great Basin Bird Conservation Region (BCR 9) Second Number (i.e., /x) = Northern Rockies Bird Conservation Region (BCR 10) Intermountain Regional Shorebird Plan: 1 = no risk; 5 = highly imperiled Moderate Priority = Not high priority species, but should be considered in habitat management or monitoring plans 

Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan: Regional Priorities = High, Moderate 9 = Great Basin Bird Conservation Region (BCR 9) 10 = Northern Rockies Bird Conservation Region (BCR 10) BLM Sensitive Species The column titled “USDI Bureau of Land Management” indicates designations assigned by that agency. National policy directs state directors to designate BLM sensitive species 

in cooperation with the state fish and wildlife agency (BLM manual 6840). The Idaho State BLM Office updated these designations in 2003. The sensitive species designation is 

normally used for species that occur on BLM public lands and for which BLM has the capability to significantly affect the conservation status of the species through management. 

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

Endangered Species Act of 1973. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-46 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern Type 2: Rangewide/Globally imperiled: species that are experiencing significant declines throughout their range with a high likelihood of being listed in the foreseeable future due 

to their rarity and/or significant endangerment factors. This includes species ranked by the NatureServe heritage program network with a Global rank of G1-G3 or T1-T3 or recent 

data indicate that the species is at significant rangewide risk and this is not currently reflected by heritage program global ranks. Type 3: Regional/State imperiled: species that are experiencing significant declines in population or habitat and are in danger of regional or local extinctions in Idaho in the 

foreseeable future if factors contributing to their decline continues. This includes Idaho BLM sensitive species that (a) are not in Type 2, (b) have an S1 or S2 State rank (exception being a peripheral or disjunct species), or (c) score high (18 or greater) using the Criteria for Evaluating Animals for Sensitive Species Status or (d) other regional/national status 

evaluations (e.g., Partners in Flight scores) indicate significant declines. Type 4: Peripheral: species that are generally rare in Idaho with the majority of their breeding range largely outside the State (Idaho Conservation Data Center 1994). This includes sensitive species that have an S1 or S2 State ranking, but are peripheral species to Idaho. Type 5: Watch list: these species are not considered BLM sensitive species and associated sensitive species policy guidance does not apply. Watch list species include species that may be added to the sensitive species list depending on new information concerning threats, species’ biology or statewide trends. The Watch List includes species with insufficient data on population or habitat trends or the threats are poorly understood. However, there are indications that these species may warrant special status species designation and appropriate inventory or research efforts should be a management priority. TNC Columbia Platue Ecoregional Conservation Plan x = Priority species 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-47 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern Table E-3. Plant species at Camas Refuge 

Family Scientific Name Authority Common Name 

Alismataceae Sagittaria cuneata Sheldon Arum-leaved arrowhead Araceae Typha latifolia L. Broadleaf Cattail Cyperaceae Carex aquatilis Wahlemb. Water sedge Cyperaceae Carex athrostachya Olney Slenderbeak sedge Cyperaceae Carex douglasii Boott. Douglas’ sedge Cyperaceae Carex filifolia Nutt. Threadleaf sedge Cyperaceae Carex nebrascensis Dewey Nebraska sedge Cyperaceae Carex rostrata Stokes ex With. Beaked sedge Cyperaceae Eleocharis pauciflora (Lightf.) Link Fewflower spikerush Cyperaceae Eleocharis rostellata (Torr.) Torr. Beaked spikerush Cyperaceae Scirpus acutus Muhl. Ex Bigel. Hardstem bulrush Cyperaceae Scirpus americanus Pers. American bulrush Cyperaceae Scirpus pumilus Vahl. Common threesquare bulrush Equisetaceae Equisetum arvense L. Field horsetail Equisetaceae Equisetum laevigatum A. Braun Smooth scouring rush Gramineae Agropyron cristatum (L.) Gaertn. Crested Wheatgrass Gramineae Agropyron dasytachyum (Hook.) Scribn. Thickspike Wheatgrass Gramineae Agropyron elongata (Host) Beauv. Tall Wheatgrass Gramineae Agropyron riparium (Scribn. and Smith) Bowden Streambank Wheatgrass Gramineae Agropyron smithii Rydb. Western Wheatgrass Gramineae Alopecurus pratensis L. Meadow Foxtail Gramineae Bromus inermis Leysser Smooth Bromegrass Gramineae Bromus tectorum L. Cheatgrass Gramineae Distichlis stricta (Torr.) Rydb. Inland saltgrass Gramineae Elymus cinereus Scribn. and Merr. Basin Wildrye Gramineae Elymus flavescens Scribn. and Smith Yellow Wildrye 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-48 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Family Scientific Name Authority Common Name 

Gramineae Elymus repens (L.) Beauv. Quackgrass Gramineae Hordeum jubatum L. Foxtail Barley Gramineae Koeleria nitida Nutt. Prairie Junegrass Gramineae Muhlenbergia asperifolia (Nees and Meyen) L.R. Parodi Alkali/Scratchgrass Muhly Gramineae Oryzopsis hymenoides (Roem. and Schult.) Bark. Indian Ricegrass Gramineae Phalaris arundinacea L. Reed Canarygrass Gramineae Poa juncifolia Scribn. Alkali Bluegrass Gramineae Poa nevadensis Vasey ex Scribn. Nevada Bluegrass Gramineae Poa pratensis L. Kentucky Bluegrass Gramineae Poa sandbergii Vasey Sandberg Bluegrass Gramineae Poa trivialis L. Rough Bluegrass Gramineae Sitanion hystrix (Nutt.) Smith Squirreltail Gramineae Sporobolus airoides (Torr.) Torr. Alkali Sacaton Gramineae Sporobolus cryptandrus (Torr.) A. Gray Sand Dropseed Gramineae Stipa comata Trin. and Rupr. Needle and Thread Gramineae Stipa thurberiana Piper Thurber Needlegrass Gramineae Agropyron caninum Slender Wheatgrass Gramineae Agropyron spicatum (Pursh) Scribn. and Smith Bluebunch Wheatgrass Gramineae Agrostisgigantea Roth Redtop Gramineae Calamagrostis canadensis (Michx.) P. Beauv. Bluejoint Reedgrass Gramineae Deschampsia cespitosa L. Tufted Hairgrass Gramineae Elymus triticoides Buckley Creeping Wildrye Gramineae Phleum pratense L. Timothy Gramineae Poa palustris L. Fowl Bluegrass Gramineae Spartina gracilis Trin. Alkali cordgrass Juncaceae Juncus balticus Willd. Baltic rush Juncaceae Luzula campestris (L.) DC. Field Woodrush Juncaceae Luzula paruiflora (Ehrh.) Desvaux Millet Woodrush 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-49 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Family Scientific Name Authority Common Name 

Juncaginaceae Triglochin palustre L. Arrowgrass Juncaginaceae Triglochin maritimum L. Arrowgrass Marsileaceae Marsilea vestita Hook and Grev. Pepperwort; Coverfern Poaceae Polypogon monspeliensis (L.) Desf. Rabbitfoot Grass Poaceae Trisetum Pers. Oatgrass, Trisetum Poaceae Panicum capillare L. Witchgrass 

Forbs 

Amaranthaceae Amaranthus blitoides S. Wats. Mat Amaranth Amaranthaceae Amaranthus californicus (Moq.) Wats. California Amaranth Amaranthaceae Amaranthus powellii Wats. Powell’s Amaranth, Pigweed Asclepiadaceae Asclepias speciosa Torr. Showy Milkweed Asteraceae Achillea millefolium L. Yarrow Asteraceae Ambrosia sp. L. Ragweed Asteraceae Ambrosia acanthicarpa Hook. Ragweed, Annual Bursage Asteraceae Artemisia absinthium L. Common Sagewort Asteraceae Artemisia ludoviciana Nutt. Louisiana Sagewort Asteraceae Aster foliaceus Aster Asteraceae Balsamorhiza sagittata Arrowleaf Balsamroot Asteraceae Carduus nutans L. Musk/nodding Thistle Asteraceae Centaurea diffusa Lam. Diffuse Knapweed Asteraceae Centaurea repens L. Russian Knapweed Asteraceae Chaenactis douglasii Hook. & Arn. Douglas’ Dustymaiden Asteraceae Chondrilla juncea L. Rush Skeletonweed Asteraceae Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. Canada Thistle Asteraceae Cirsium vulgare (Savi) Tenore Bull Thistle Asteraceae Grindelia squarrosa Curlycup Gumweed Asteraceae Helenium autumnale L. Sneezeweed Asteraceae Helianthus annuus L. Common Sunflower Asteraceae Iva axillaris Sumpweed, Povertyweed Asteraceae Iva xanthifolia Nutt. Sumpweed, Marshelder Asteraceae Lactuca serriola Prickly Lettuce Asteraceae Lactuca tatarica (L.) C.A. Mey. Blue Lettuce 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-50 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Family Scientific Name Authority Common Name 

Asteraceae Lygodesmia juncea(?) Rush Skeletonplant Asteraceae Lygodesmia spinosa Nutt. Thorn Skeletonweed Asteraceae Machaeranthera canescens Sticky Aster/Hoary Aster Asteraceae Onopordum acanthium L. Scotch Cottonthistle Asteraceae Rudbeckia occidentalis Western Coneflower Asteraceae Senecio integerrimus Nutt. Lambstongue Ragwort Asteraceae Senecio hydrophilus Nutt. Water Ragwort Asteraceae Senecio serra Hook. Tall Ragwort Asteraceae Senecio cymbalarioides H. Buek Rocky Mtn. Groundsel, Fewleaf Groundsel Asteraceae Solidago canadensis L. Goldenrod Asteraceae Solidago mutiradiata Aiton Goldenrod Asteraceae Sonchus arvensis L. Marsh Sowthistle Asteraceae Symphyotrichum species? Purple Aster Asteraceae Taraxacum species Wigg. Common Dandelion Asteraceae Tragopogon dubius Scop. Salsify Asteraceae Xanthium strumarium L. Common Cocklebur Boraginaceae Amsinckia lycopsoides Lehm. Tarweed Boraginaceae Cryptantha circumscissa (Hook and Arn.) John. Cushion Cryptantha Boraginaceae Cryptantha speculifera (Piper) Payson Snake River Cryptantha Boraginaceae Lappula species (Hornem.) Greene Stickseed Boraginaceae Tiquilia nuttallii (Hook) Rich Nuttall’s Crinklemat Brassicaceae Alyssum alyssoides L. Pale Madwort Brassicaceae Brassica niger (L.) Koch Black Mustard Brassicaceae Camelina microcarpa Andrz. Ex DC. Littlepod False Flax Cactaceae Opuntia polyacantha Haw. Prickly Pear Cactus Capparidaceae Cleome lutea Yellow Beeplant Capparidaceae Cleome serrulata Rocky Mountain Beeplant Chenopodiaceae Chenopodium album Lambsquarters Chenopodiaceae Chenopodium leptophyllum (Moq.) Wats. Narrowleaf Goosefoot Chenopodiaceae Halogeton glomeratus Meyer Saltlover Chenopodiaceae Kochia scoparia (L.) Schrad. Kochia, Summer Cypress Chenopodiaceae Salsola kali Russian Thistle Chenopodiaceae Suaeda sp. Seepseed, Sea Blight 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-51 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Family Scientific Name Authority Common Name 

Convolvulaceae Convolulus arvensis L. Field Bindweed Cruciferae Armoracia rusticana (Gaertn.) Mey et Scherb. Wild Horseradish Cruciferae Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medic. Shepherds Purse Cruciferae Descurainia sophia (L.) Webb ex Prantl Herb Sophia Cruciferae Erysimum cheiranthoides L. Prairie Rocket Cruciferae Lepidium perfoliatum L. Clasping Peppergrass Cruciferae Rorippa species Yellowcress Cruciferae Sisymbrium altissimum L. Tall Tumblemustard Cruciferae Stanleya species L. Prince’s Plume Cruciferae Thlaspi arvense L. Fanweed/Field Pennycress Cuscutaceae Convolvalus sepium Hedge Bindweed Euphorbiaceae Chamaesyce species Gray Sandmat Hippuridaceae Hippuris vulgaris L. Common Mare’s-tail Hydrophyllaceae Phacelia hastata Dougl. Ex Lehm Cordilleran Phacelia Lamiaceae Leonurus cardiaca L. Motherwort Lamiaceae Lycopus americanus Muhl. Ex W. Barton Bugleweed, Water-horehound Lamiaceae Mentha arvensis L. Field Mint Lamiaceae Physostegia parviflora Nutt. Ex A. Gray Western False Dragonhead Lamiaceae Scutellaria galericulata L. Skullcap Lamiaceae Stachys palustris L. Hedge-nettle Leguminosae Astragalus species Milkvetch Leguminosae Astragalus calycosus Torr. Ex Wats. Torrey’s Milkvetch Leguminosae Astragalus ceramicus Barneby Painted Milkvetch Leguminosae Astragalus geyeri A. Gray Geyer’s Milkvetch Leguminosae Astragalus lentiginosus (Howell) Barneby Freckled Milkvetch, Salty Loco Milkvetch Leguminosae Glycyrrhiza lepidota Wild Licorice Leguminosae Lupinus pusillus (Heller) C.P. Smith Rusty Lupine, Small Lupine Leguminosae Medicago sativa L. Alfalfa Leguminosae Meliotus alba Sweetclover Leguminosae Psoralea lanceolata (Pursh) Rydb. Lance-leaved Scurf-pea Leguminosae Sphaerophysa salsula (Pallus) D.C. Alkali Swainsonpea Leguminosae Trifolium pratense L. Red clover Leguminosae Vicia amurensis Muhl. Ex Willd. Vetch, Tare 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-52 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Family Scientific Name Authority Common Name 

Leguminosae Vicia species L. Vetch, Tare Liliaceae Allium textile Nels and Macbr. Textile Onion Liliaceae Calochortus brunequnis Nels and Macbr. Sego Lily Liliaceae Maianthemum stellatum L. Star-flowered Solomons seal Loasaceae Mentzelia albicaulis (Hook.) Torr. and A. Gray Whitestem Blazing Star Maluaceae Sphaeralcea coccinea (Nutt.) Rydb Globemallow Maluaceae Sphaeralcia munroana (Dougals) Spach Munro’s Globemallow Nyctaginaceae Abronia species Juss. Sand Verbena Onagraceae Epilobium angustifolium L. Fireweed, Great Willowherb Onagraceae Epilobium species L. Willow-herb Onagraceae Gayophytum species Torr. and A. Gray Groundsmoke Onagraceae Oenothera species Evening Primrose Onagraceae Oenothera pallida Lindl. Pale Evening Primrose Orobanchaceae Castilleja angustifolia (Nutt.) G. Don Northwestern Indian Paintbrush Orobanchaceae Orobanche species Nutt. Broomrape Plantaginaceae Plantago patagonica Jacq. Wooly Plantain Plantaginaceae Plantago species L. Plantain Polemoniaceae Eriastrum sparsiflorum (Eastw.) H. Mason Great Basin Woolystar Polemoniaceae Phlox hoodii Richardson Hoods/Carpet Phlox Polygonaceae Eriogonum cernuum Nutt. Nodding Buckwheat, Antlerweed Polygonaceae Eriogonum microthecum Nutt. Slender Buckwheat Polygonaceae Eriogonum ovalifolium Nutt. Oval-leaf Desert Buckwheat Polygonaceae Persicaria lapathifolium L. Pale Smartweed Polygonaceae Polygonum amphibium (L.) Cole. Water Smartweed Polygonaceae Polygonum aviculare L. Prostrate Knotweed Polygonaceae Polygonum douglasii (Greene) Bull Douglas’ Knotweed Polygonaceae Rumex venosus Pursh. Sand Dock Polygonaceae Rumex crispus L. Curly Dock Portulacaceae Portulaca oleracea L. Purslane, Kiss-me-quick Rosaceae Potentilla anserina L. Silverweed Rosaceae Potentilla species L. Cinquefoil Santalaceae Comandra umbellata Nutt. Bastard Toadflax Scrophulariaceae Verbascum thapsus L. Common Mullein 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-53 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Family Scientific Name Authority Common Name 

Scrophulariaceae Veronica catebata Pennell Chain Speedwell Solanaceae Solanum dulcamara L. Bittersweet Nightshade Solanaceae Hyoscyamus niger L. Black Henbane Urticaceae Urtica dioica L. Stinging Nettle Verbenaceae Verbena bracteata Lag. and J. D. Rodr Prostrate Vervain Verbenaceae Verbena hastata L. Blue Vervain, Swamp Verbena 

Trees and Shrubs

Anacardiaceae Rhus trilobata Nutt. Skunkbush Sumac Asteraceae Artemisia tripartita Rydb. Threetip Sagebrush Asteraceae Artemisia tridentata Nutt. Big Sagebrush Asteraceae 

Artemisia tridentata wyomingensis (Beetle and Young) Welsh Wyoming Big Sagebrush 

Asteraceae Chrysothamnus nauseosa (Pall.) Britton Common/Gray Rabbitbrush Asteraceae Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus (Hook) Nutt. Green Rabbitbrush Asteraceae Gutierrezia sarothrae (Pursh) Britton and Rusby Broom Snakeweed Asteraceae Tetradymia canescens DC. Gray/Common Horse-brush Chenopodiaceae Atriplex canescens (Pursh) Nutt. Fourwing Saltbrush Chenopodiaceae Eurotia lanata (Pursh) Meeu. and Smit Winterfat Chenopodiaceae Grayia spinosa (Hook) Moq. Spiny Hopsage Cupressaceae Juniperus osteosperma (Torr.) Little Utah Juniper Cupressaceae Juniperus scopulorum Sarg. Rocky Mountain Juniper Elaeagnaceae Elaeagnus commutata Bebb. Wolfwillow, Silverberry Elaeagnaceae Elaeagnus angustifolia L. Russian Olive Elaeagnaceae Shepherdia argentea (Pursh) Nutt. Silver Buffaloberry Grossulariaceae Ribes aureum Pursh. Golden Currant Oleaceae Fraxinus sp. L. Ash Papilionaceae Caragana arborescens Siberian Pea Pinaceae Pinus sylvestris L. Scotch Pine Polygonaceae Eriogonum heracleoides Buckwheat Rosaceae Crataegus sp. Tourn. Ex L. Hawthorn Rosaceae Dasiphora fruitcosa (L.) Rydb Shrubby Cimquefoil Rosaceae Prunus sp. L. Plum Rosaceae Prunus virginiana L. Chokecherry Rosaceae Purshia tridentata (Pursh) D.C. Antelope Bitterbrush 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-54 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Family Scientific Name Authority Common Name 

Rosaceae Rosa woodsii Lindl. Woods Rose Salicaceae Populus deltoides Marsh. Plains Cottonwood Salicaceae Populus fremontii Wats. Fremont Cottonwood Salicaceae Populus trichocarpa T. and G. Black Cottonwood Salicaceae Salix amygdaloides Andress. Peachleaf Willow Saliaceae Salix exigua Nutt. Narrowleaf Willow, Coyote Willow Salicaceae Salix lucida 

Pacific/Greenleaf Willow, Whiplash Willow 

Salicaceae Salix lutea Nutt. Yellow Willow Sapindaceae Acer negundo L. Box Elder Sarcobataceae Sarcobatus vermiculatus (Hook.) Torr. Black Greasewood 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern E-55 

E.2 Biological Integrity, Biological Diversity, and Environmental 

Health 

E.2.1 Biological Integrity, Biological Diversity, and Environmental Health 

Habitats or plant communities should be considered resources of concern when they are specifically 

identified in refuge purposes, support species or species groups identified in refuge purposes, support 

FWS trust resources, are indicative of the ecological (internal factors responsible for refuge habitats 

[nutrient cycling, hydrology, soils]) or ecosystem (external drivers [watershed variables, climate 

change]) processes within the refuge and surrounding landscape, and/or are important in the 

maintenance or restoration of biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health. 

By policy, the Service plans for the maintenance and restoration of refuge resources by managing for 

biological integrity, biological diversity, and environmental health (601 FW 3). According to the 

policy, the highest measure of biological integrity, biological diversity, and environmental health is 

viewed as those intact and self-sustaining habitats and wildlife populations that existed during 

historic conditions. The Service policy focuses on these three distinct yet largely overlapping 

concepts of biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health, with a core philosophy of 

maintaining composition and function of ecosystems (Fischman 2004). Biological integrity, diversity, 

and environmental health lie along a continuum from a biological system extensively altered by 

significant human impacts to a completely natural system. While refuge habitats are not expected to 

retain or establish absolute integrity, diversity, and health, the policy directs managers to plan for the 

maintenance and restoration of biological integrity, diversity and environmental health while 

considering all three in an “integrated and holistic manner”. 

Because there is a wide diversity of species and habitats within the Camas ecosystem, the approach 

to habitat management considers the historic, current, and the potential complex array of conditions 

and constraints associated with Camas NWR. The primary focus of this plan is to provide 

management strategies and prescriptions to achieve habitat objectives that consider the habitat 

requirements for resources of concern. The Camas NWR CCP will foster management goals based 

on an emphasis in improving environmental sustainability and objective driven actions that protect 

and restore the processes responsible for ecological integrity at various spatiotemporal scales. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-56 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Table E-4. Habitat and Ecosystem Associations at Camas Refuge 

Hemi Marsh 

Habitat sub-types 

 Open water 

 Submerged 

aquatic plants 

 Deep emergent 

(bulrush/cattail) 

The hemi-marsh is comprised of 

open water, submerged aquatics, 

and deep emergent vegetation. 

Open water habitat is vital to 

providing piscivore access to 

refuge fish in wetland habitats 

and maintaining open stream 

channels While not as essential 

as submergent habitat is, open 

water is important to maintain 

for a select few species which 

require open water habitat for 

their existence. 

Submergent vegetation is the 

most widely used, yet least 

abundant palustrine emergent 

habitat type on the Refuge. 

Providing leafy browse for 

grazing species, seeds for 

granivorous species, and 

invertebrate resources for 

molting, nesting, and young 

waterbirds, it provides the food 

reserve function within the 

hemi-marsh system. 

Deep emergent vegetation 

(bulrush and cattail) at varying 

levels of residual coverage, 

provide nesting habitat and 

cover for a variety of wetlanddependent wildlife species. 

Deep emergent vegetation 

provides overwater nesting sites 

for wetland-dependent bird 

species; invertebrate substrate 

for foraging waterbirds and fish; 

lodge materials and loafing sites 

for aquatic mammals, as well as 

providing shade and cover for 

all species, emergent vegetation 

forms the “housing” 

requirement within the hemimarsh environment. 

Open water and habitats are 

located very low in the 

landscape with a 

perennially flooded 

hydroperiod and deep 

flooding depths (>36") 

through the growing 

season. Submerged aquatic 

vegetation occurs in 

permanently flooded 

wetlands >6" and <36" 

deep and requires high 

water clarity for 

germination and 

photosynthesis. Deep 

emergent vegetation is a 

byproduct of a permanent 

or semi-permanent 

hydroperiod and deep 

flooding depth (24-40") or 

saturated soils during the 

growing season. 

Naturally occurring open 

water habitat within the 

marsh is a primary 

byproduct of hydroperiod 

and herbivory. Sustained 

high water increases 

sedimentation and 

decreases water clarity and 

submerged aquatic 

vegetation germination 

rates, thereby increasing 

open water habitat. 

Inversely, natural drought 

decreases inundation of 

deep water habitats, 

stimulating increases in 

submerged aquatic 

germination and decreasing 

the availability of open 

water areas. 

Tall emergent vegetation 

efficiently removes nitrates 

by providing higher 

amounts of organic 

substrate for denitrifying 

bacteria and limiting 

sunlight from the water 

column, promoting 

anaerobic conditions for 

denitrification. 

Groundwater depletion or lowering 

of shallow aquifer groundwater 

leading to groundwater recharge and 

a modified (shortened) seasonal 

wetland hydroperiod; decreased 

artesian groundwater flows; drought 

cycles (current 8-year); loss or 

shortened perennial surface flows in 

Camas Creek; pumping costs, 

groundwater pumping rights; surface 

water water right protection and 

enforcement; 

Unnatural sustained low hydroperiod 

in wetland units create significant 

sediment or peat accumulation, 

encroachment and expansion of 

bulrush/cattail, or annual winter 

freezing to marsh substrate, and lead 

to reduced over-winter muskrat 

survival. 

Sedimentation and reduced 

germination of submerged aquatic 

forage can be caused by excessive 

natural herbivory (waterbirds), 

disturbance and trampling from 

administrative or recreational boating 

and/or hunting, or invasive species 

introductions (Eurasian milfoil). 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern E-57 

Shallow Marsh 

Habitat sub-types 

 Cattail (small 

islands) 

 Sedge 

 Baltic rush 

Shallow emergent habitat type 

contains plant species such as 

alkali bulrush and annual weedy 

plants which provide an 

additional food reserve function 

within the hemi-marsh complex. 

Typically, deep emergent 

vegetation forms as a concentric 

ring around open 

water/submergent habitats, 

while shallow emergent 

vegetation provides the interface 

with the ephemeral wet meadow 

zone. As such, the shallow 

emergent zone functions 

similarly to the deep emergent 

zone for those wetlanddependent wildlife species that 

require wet meadow and 

adjacent uplands to fulfill their 

life history strategies. 

Semi-permanently to 

ephemerally flooded habitat 

typically flooded to a depth 

of 3"-24". 

The primary difference in 

processes between deep and 

shallow emergent habitat is 

water permanence. 

Shallow emergent 

vegetation is similar to 

deep emergent vegetation 

except that depths within 

this zone are typically 

shallower resulting in less 

permanency. Shallow 

emergent habitats are 

occasionally dewatered 

during summer months 

(semi-permanent), while 

deep emergent habitats are 

permanently flooded yearlong. 

Topographic profile of current 

wetland impoundments favors deep 

Hemi-marsh habitats and only allows 

for a narrow degree of zonation for 

shallow marsh establishment. Little 

or no connectivity occurs from 

shallow marsh to wet meadow 

habitats. 

Shortened or reduced hydroperiods 

now occur within shallow marsh, due 

to groundwater depletion and the 

lowering of the groundwater table. 

Wet-Meadow 

Habitat sub-types 

 Rushes 

 Water tolerant 

grasses and 

forbs 

 Alkali grasses 

Ranging from moist soil during 

late summer to >2 feet of water 

during spring, it is this seasonal 

fluctuation that produces and 

then concentrates food reserves 

for most wetland-dependent 

wildlife species. The diversity 

and complexity of plant species 

within ephemeral marsh habitats 

provides ideal substrate for 

invertebrates which comprise 

90% of most waterbird diets 

during summer months; 

however, with fall flooding 

during migration, the annual 

seeds produced by these plants 

additionally provide forage for 

migratory waterbirds as well. 

Alkali habitat can be less 

diverse than wet meadow 

habitats and typically less 

canopy coverage, the low 

stature, open nature of this 

habitat type lends itself to 

migration use by waterfowl and 

shorebirds, as well as 

nesting/brood rearing habitat for 

shorebird species such as the 

American avocet and longbilled curlew. 

Ephemeral hydroperiod 

(April-July) with a 

moderate flooding depth (6-

30"). Located in soils that 

are moist to saturated 

during the growing season. 

Typically holds surface 

water through late summer, 

with only isolated microdepressions or sloughs 

holding water into the early 

fall. Typically only holds 

surface water till late 

Spring, but may be receive 

no surface flooding in very 

dry years. 

Wet meadow habitats may 

contain small patches or 

large flats of alkali 

meadows. Alkali meadow 

habitat differs from wet 

meadow s primarily by the 

quality of water typically 

hydrating the marsh. 

Where freshwater (<1,000 

ppm TDS) input is the 

norm, wet meadow plants 

become established. Water 

sources >1,000 ppm TDS 

or where hydrology has 

favored natural evaporative 

areas over time, tend to 

foster more specialized 

group of plants known as 

halophytes become 

established through 

successive years. 

Conversion to haying or agriculture, 

surface water diversion, groundwater 

depletion or lowering of shallow 

aquifer groundwater leading to 

groundwater recharge and a modified 

(shortened) seasonal wetland 

hydroperiod; invasive species, 

climate change, extreme drought or 

flood conditions; grazing; 

development; invasive species; 

agricultural byproducts and pesticide 

accumulation. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-58 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Dry Meadow 

Habitat sub-types 

 Upland grasses 

and forbs 

 Alkali upland 

grasses 

Both dry meadow and alkali dry 

meadow habitats typically have 

grasses normally occurring in 

upland, i.e., higher elevation, 

sites, characterizing their 

respective vegetative 

communities. Typically, dry 

meadow grass species are taller 

in stature and have considerably 

more structural complexity than 

alkali dry meadow grasses and 

are, therefore, used by a wider 

range of wildlife species. Dry 

meadows are comprised of 

native grass species such as 

Great Basin wildrye and tall 

wheatgrass. Alkali dry meadow 

grasslands are characterized by 

such species as western 

saltgrass. Alkali dry meadows 

are an uncommon habitat 

located in isolated shallow pans; 

probably flooded in spring. 

Often has a salt crust in 

summer, sparsely vegetated 

with patches of bare soil. 

Dry Meadows provide a vital 

nesting area for sensitive 

species such as American 

avocet and long-billed curlew. 

The juxtaposition of dry 

meadow habitats to wet 

meadows is vitally important to 

wildlife species. Upland nesting 

waterfowl and shorebird species 

such as northern pintail and 

Wilson’s phalarope are just a 

few of the examples. 

Upland habitat differs from 

wetland habitat processes 

based on the seasonal 

periodicity of hydration. 

Upland habitats can be 

seasonally flooded to as 

much as 3, but usually for 

less than 10 days in the 

spring. As a type of Dry 

Meadows are often 

seasonally flooded in 

excess of 10 days, but for a 

shorter period than wet 

meadow sites. 

Characterized by pH 

neutral soils and less 

dissolved salt, dry 

meadows can thus support 

a wider range of plant 

species can grow than 

either upland sites, or 

alkaline dry meadows; the 

alkaline site having a much 

higher pH and dissolved 

salts as a function of a 

restrictive soil layer, longer 

hydration, or more saline 

watershed, or a 

combination of these 

characteristics. 

Similar to the relationship 

between wet and alkali wet 

meadows, upland grass 

distribution in dry and 

alkali dry meadows varies 

by soil pH and conductivity 

as influenced by site 

specific evaporation rates. 

Extreme drought or flood conditions; 

groundwater depletion; grazing; 

development; conversion to 

agriculture; invasive species; fire; 

grazing; haying. 

Sagebrush Steppe 

Habitat sub-types 

 Basin big 

sagebrush 

 Wyoming big 

sagebrush 

 Bitterbrush 

 Green 

rabbitbrush 

 Grasses and 

forbs 

 Non-native 

crested 

wheatgrass 

plantings 

 Cheatgrass 

Sagebrush steppe is one of the 

most critically imperiled 

habitats in western North 

America. Various sources 

estimate up to 99% reduction in 

some sagebrush species in the 

Snake River Plain (Noss et al.). 

This community is dominated 

by shrubs with an understory of 

various bunchgrass and forb 

species found within 

interspaces. It can be found 

above greasewood/basin big 

sagebrush communities on 

various aspects, slopes, and soil 

types. 

Zones of former sagebrush 

steppe have been supplanted by 

crested wheatgrass, an exotic 

perennial bunchgrass widely 

used conservation plantings 

Gradients in soil depth and 

elevation determine 

whether basin or Wyoming 

big sagebrush dominates a 

site. Bitterbrush is a 

subcomponent in some 

sites, but is not a dominant 

species. Wyoming big 

sagebrush sites tend to host 

more diverse and dense forb 

communities. The 

Wyoming sites are often 

characterized by soil sites 

that are more shallow, 

sometimes with an 

increased balsalt 

constituent, resulting in 

relatively higher 

concentrations of available 

soil moisture. 

These sage communities 

Historic and past grazing practices 

decreased plant species diversity in 

many of these areas through 

overstocking, overuse of forage and 

improper grazing timing, or 

scheduling. Improper grazing made 

sage habitats vulnerable to invasive 

plants, particularly annual grasses as 

cheatgrass and knapweed (diffuse and 

Russian) invasion. 

Altered fire regimes where invasive 

plants, particularly cheatgrass, have 

compromised many stands from 

recovering naturally from wildfire. 

These invasive annual grasses and 

forbs are capable of outcompeting 

native grasses and forbs in the sage 

understory. 

Perennial grass monocultures (crested 

wheatgrass, brome) have replaced 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern E-59 

across western North America. 

Cheatgrass is an exotic annual 

grass that has been expanding 

throughout western North 

America. In the Snake River 

Plain, cheatgrass has been 

linked to an altered wildfire 

cycle. 

depend on natural fire 

cycles or equivalent 

disturbance to maintain a 

balance between shrub, 

grass, and forb components. 

A lack of disturbance lends 

itself to high shrub densities 

with sparse vegetation in 

the interspaces. 

Conversely, fire at too 

frequent an interval results 

in a decline of sagebrush 

and bitterbrush with a 

concurrent increase in 

herbaceous species. Exotic 

annual grasses and forbs 

particularly have increased 

at Camas Refuge under this 

regime. 

Crested monocultures have 

developed at Camas Refuge 

through in rehabilitation of 

either retired cropland or 

wildfire areas. Scattered 

stands, and crested plants 

interspersed in other 

vegetation, have also 

established through 

competitive expansion by 

the crested wheatgrass 

itself. 

Cheatgrass phenology 

features early germination 

which allows it to establish 

and outcompete native 

plants. It is expanding 

through a variety of 

channels common to a 

variety of weed species, but 

is particularly adapted to 

high fire frequency 

intervals. The cheatgrass 

pioneers into recent burns, 

increases the highly 

combustable fine fuel 

component, thereby 

predisposing the recent 

burn site to additional fire 

the following season. 

much of the original Camas Refuge 

sagebrush steppe after wildfires and 

farm field retirement. 

Refuge sagebrush communities tend 

toward more advanced seral stages. 

The structure of these sites 

predisposes many of them to 

catasprophic wildlife and complete 

stand replacement. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-60 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Riparian 

Habitat sub-types 

 Willow 

woodland 

 In-stream 

Aquatic 

A locally uncommon and 

nationally decreasing habitat 

type found in small but 

important acreages across the 

Refuge. Riparian habitats do 

exist as stands, groves, or 

clumps, but are generally 

arrayed as a linear community 

along stream courses. 

Riparian rivals the diversity 

found in wet meadow habitats. 

Willow overstory and a diverse 

mix of wet meadow related 

plant understory make 

palustrine forested habitats 

critically important for a variety 

of migratory and breeding 

landbird species. 

Additionally, stream courses 

such as Camas Creek once 

provided critical spawning 

access for cutthroat trout. 

Smaller drainages and 

isolated seeps, typically 

subject to an ephemeral, 

spring flooding regime 

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

main channel of Camas 

Creek is subject to 

estimated average flows of 

160-180 cfs. Extreme 

events estimated at, or 

above, 200 cfs can occur. 

These spring flows, or 

floods, typically last about 

2 months, but can persist 

for as long as 4 months and 

have been reported as short 

as 2 weeks. 

Legal water right diversions, illegal 

water diversions, altered 

streamflows, groundwater depletiongroundwater recharge, grazing and 

browsing pressure of native 

ungulates, water quality, beaver 

removal, seed source, grazing, altered 

channel morphology (incision and 

diversion), ditch maintenance 

(tree/shrub removal and dredging). 

In terms of the main stream riparian 

habitats, the long-term trend has been 

toward drier conditions, resulting in 

either less water available to Camas 

Creek riparian communities, or water 

available for a shorter period of time. 

Fluvial geomorphology threatened by 

Camas Creek channel alterations to 

support off-site irrigation interests. 

Shelterbelt 

Habitat sub-types 

 Cottonwood 

gallery 

 Small trees 

 Shrubs 

The cottonwood gallery 

comprises a unique habitat 

complex adjacent to and 

surrounding the refuge 

headquarters. The gallery 

generally follows either natural 

or manmade waterways. This 

series of essentially linear 

woody vegetation communities, 

ranging from shrubs to mature 

plains cottonwood (Populus 

deltoides) trees exceeding 100 

feet in height, hosts an abundant 

and diverse fauna, particularly 

migratory landbirds. This is 

typical of the matrix habitat 

effect of cottonwood gallery 

forests on animal distribution in 

fragmented landscapes as 

reported by various authors in 

several areas. Some of the same 

researchers have reported the 

value of relatively open large 

cottonwood canopies to 

avifaunal diversity and 

abundance. 

 

Combined with other similar, 

but usually less diverse, smaller 

and structurally less intricate, 

habitat islands on farmsteads 

and State management areas, the 

refuge shelterbelt comprises a 

unique system of oases-like 

habitats in the upland zone 

Snake River Plain. Similar 

habitat, but with native 

cottonwood, and other, species 

Under natural conditions, 

the species of the 

shelterbelt community, 

such as cottonwood, are 

influenced by dynamic 

landscape-level processes. 

Cottonwood spatial and 

temporal cadences are 

dependent on typical 

riverine system 

environmental gradients, 

i.e., discrete fluvial 

discharge with attendant 

sediment deposition, or 

from wildfires, usually 

stand-replacing. These 

effects particularly tend to 

precipitate regeneration, 

partly due to a general 

seasonal coincidence with 

cottonwood seed dispersal 

and with cottonwood 

regeneration being 

dependent on moist, bare 

seedbeds. 

Peak fluvial discharge and 

significant alluvial 

aggredation is not a 

characteristic of the 

artificial irrigation system 

supporting the 

headquarters’ shelterbelt. 

Lacking episodic floods, 

the relatively scarce 

potential seedbeds are 

usually heavily vegetated 

and competition intense, at 

Water, particularly for cottonwoods 

that can typically require up to 100 

gallons per tree per day, is the single 

most limiting factor. There is an 

addition, semi-unique need in 

cottonwoods for late season moisture; 

typically into October or early 

November. (Hoag, USDA, NRCS, 

ret, pers. comm.). Additional 

requisites of soil fertilities and 

chemistries within at least normal 

bounds are also present. High 

competition levels with a particularly 

robust community of exotic, invasive 

weeds energized by high levels of 

human surface disturbance relative to 

a history of intense agricultural 

activity and attendant structural 

development. High winds are also 

characteristic of the local landform 

which approximates a vast plain and 

are particularly antithetical to the 

arboreal form. The Aeolian effect 

further exacerbates the hot and arid 

climate in desiccating shrubs and 

trees, increasing evapotranspiration 

and escalating moisture demand. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern E-61 

occurs in the major river 

corridors of the Snake River 

Plain. 

Composition ranges from native 

shrubs and smaller trees, such as 

willows and hawthorne, to 

exotic shrubs and small and 

large trees, primarily Siberian 

peashrub, Russian olive and 

plains cottonwood. 

least compared with natural 

riverine sites. However, 

both wildfire and 

prescribed fire are 

possibilities, although 

general not as intense. 

Positive effects of refuge 

irrigation replacing the 

descrete pulses of 

regeneration related to peak 

river discharges, the 

headquarters stands 

generally escape the high 

sapling mortality due to 

extreme floods of large 

river systems. Perhaps 

most notable is the higher 

dependability and 

predicatability of artificial 

hydration. Additional, the 

temporal scale of flow 

events can be controlled to 

coincide with critical life 

cycle periods of the stand 

communities various plant 

species. 

Agriculture 

Habitat sub-types 

 Small Grain 

(wheat or spring 

barley) 

 Summer Fallow 

 Legumes 

(Alfalfa) 

Agricultural habitats (crop 

fields) comprise a small 

percentage of refuge lands but 

provide fall migratory forage for 

waterfowl and landbirds. At a 

point where carbohydrates are 

required for migration, species 

such as Canada geese, greater 

sandhill cranes, and dabbling 

ducks can find abundant grain to 

fulfill this life history 

requirement. Additional 

benefits are provided for 

spring/summer grazing by geese 

and cranes as new growth 

shoots become available. 

N/A Funding, shortened growing season, 

and low precipitation, weeds, nonrefuge crop depredation, haying 

obligations. 

The diverse ungulate population of 

the Refuge, especially Rocky 

Mountain elk and white-tailed deer, 

also use the refuge croplands. 

Ungulate grazing can limit cropland 

production available to migratory 

birds, but the significance of the 

effect varies annually. Use by the 

ungulates is also a legitmate 

application of refuge agricultural 

production. 

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-62 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

E.3 Priority Refuge Resources of Concern and Focal Resources 

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

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

management of Camas NWR. 

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

mandates: 

 Support refuge purposes and the NWRS mission; 

 Conserve biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health 

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

species, interjurisidicational fish, and marine mammals 

 High regional conservation priority 

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

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

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

focal species is to emphasize habitat attributes most in need of conservation or most essential for 

functional ecosystems. By managing for a group of species (guild) representative of important 

components in a functioning ecosystem, the elements of biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health would also be addressed. 

E.3.1 Selection of Priority Refuge Resources of Concern 

Refuge staff extensively documented and reviewed thirteen regional, flyway, and State plans or lists 

to classify the conservation status and management priority of Camas NWR fish, wildlife, and plant 

species (Tables E-2 and E-3). Seven of these plans predominately center on avian species (e.g., 

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

all species of great conservation need. Of these four plans, the Idaho Conservation Strategy for 

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

Idaho Fish and Game Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy, priority species list of 

the USFWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife program, and The Nature Conservancy (TNC) 

Ecoregional Assessments for the Columbia Plateau identified and ranked the conservation need for a 

suite of species across multiple habitats. 

Subset of Resources of Concern 

The list of 292 Resources of Concern (Table E-2) was narrowed down to a smaller subset of for 

Camas NWR. The subset of Camas NWR Resources of Concern (Table E-5) contains 153 species of 

the greatest conservation need, including 36 of the 88 species identified in the Snake River Basalts 

Section of the Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (ICWCS). The 36 ICWCS 

species that inhabit Camas NWR are comprised of 34 birds, seven mammals, one amphibian, and one 

reptile. An additional fifteen ICWCS species with State rankings of S1 (Critically Imperiled), S2 

(Imperiled), or S3 (Vulnerable) and not identified as Camas Section species of the greatest 

conservation need and not identified on any other regional conservation plan, but known to inhabit 

Camas NWR, were added to the refuge subset of Resources of Concern list. Thirty-seven species 

identified in the TNC Ecoregional Assessments were included in the subset list, as were 20 USFWS 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern E-63 

Birds of Conservation Concern from Region 1 (n=12), BCR 9-Great Basin (n=14), and BCR 10-

Northern Rockies (n=12). A total of 46 high priority and 34 moderate priority birds from the Idaho 

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

West Regional Shorebird Plan, were identified for the subset list of Resources of Concern. The 

subset list also includes 36 BLM sensitive species, comprised of 31 birds, three mammals, one 

amphibian, and one reptile of Type 1 (one); Type 2 (four); Type 3 (eighteen); Type 4 (one); and Type 

5 (twelve) BLM rankings. Fifteen waterfowl species of moderately high or greater breeding or nonbreeding priority in BCR 9, as identified in the North America Waterfowl Management Plan, were 

included in the subset. The Conservation Strategy for Southeastern Idaho Wetlands identified sixteen 

species-of-concern, including one bird (double-crested cormorant) not found in any other plan or list 

reviewed. The North America Waterbird Conservation Plan identified one high, nine moderate, and 

four low priority species of conservation concern that inhabit Camas NWR. Refuge staff also 

performed an internal assessment of refuge species that contribute significantly to impacting 

(positively or negatively) the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge, 

but are not found in any other conservation plan or list. This assessment yielded nine additional 

species for the subset list of Resources of Concern for Camas NWR. 

Focal Resources 

Refuge staff selectively filtered the list of Focal Resources for Camas NWR from Table E-1, and 

developed a Resources of Concern list of species that represents the collective needs of the larger 

groups of species or communities on the Refuge. In total, 40 representative Focal species were 

identified for Camas NWR (Table E-6). Collectively, these 40 focal species represent the requisite 

wildlife life-histories required in the management of the seven wetland and upland habitat types of 

Camas NWR (Tables E-7 and E-8). 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-64 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Table E-5. A Subset of Resources of Concern (n=153) Representing the Species of the Greatest 

Conservation Need, Refuge Purposes, and the Biological Integrity of Camas Refuge 

Swans 

Trumpeter swan* 

Tundra swan 

Geese 

Canada goose 

Greater white-fronted goose 

Dabbling Ducks 

American green-winged teal 

American wigeon 

Cinnamon teal 

Mallard 

Wood duck 

Northern pintail* 

Gadwall 

Northern shoveler 

Diving Waterbirds 

Barrow’s goldeneye 

Common goldeneye+ 

Bufflehead 

Common loon 

Red-breasted merganser+ 

Hooded merganser 

Lesser scaup* 

Ring-necked duck 

Redhead 

Greater scaup 

Grebes 

Pied-billed grebe+ 

Eared grebe 

Clarks/Western grebe* 

Pelicans and Cormorants 

Double-crested cormorant 

American white pelican* 

Wading Birds 

American avocet* 

American bittern 

Black-crowned night-heron 

Black-necked stilt* 

Cattle egret* 

Great egret* 

Snowy egret* 

Sandhill crane* 

Marsh Birds

White-faced ibis* 

Shorebirds 

Greater yellowlegs 

Killdeer 

Long-billed curlew* 

Willet 

Wilson’s phalarope* 

Western sandpiper 

Least sandpiper 

Spotted sandpiper 

Long-billed dowitcher 

Red-necked phalarope 

Marbled godwit 

Solitary sandpiper 

Semipalmated plover 

Common snipe^ 

Terns and Gulls 

Black tern* 

Franklin’s gull* 

Ring-billed gull+ 

Forster’s tern* 

Caspian tern* 

California gull* 

Common tern 

Raptors 

Bald eagle* 

Burrowing owl* 

Golden eagle 

Ferruginous hawk* 

Merlin* 

Northern goshawk 

Northern Harrier 

Osprey 

Peregrine falcon* 

Prairie falcon 

Sharp-shinned hawk 

Great gray owl+ 

Short-eared owl* 

Northern saw-whet owl+ 

Swainson’s hawk* 

Turkey vulture+ 

American kestrel^ 

Corvids 

Clark’s nutcrancker 

Black-billed magpie 

Upland Game Birds 

Sage grouse* 

Hummingbirds 

Rufous hummingbird 

Calliope hummingbird 

Woodpeckers 

Lewis woodpecker* 

Northern flicker 

Red-naped sapsucker 

Williamson’s sapsucker 

Three-toed woodpecker* 

Downy woodpecker^ 

Flycatchers 

Olive-sided flycatcher 

Western wood pewee 

Willow flycatcher 

Hammond’s flycatcher 

Gray flycatcher 

Dusky flycatcher 

Larks 

Horned lark 

Swallows 

Violet-green swallow 

Chickadees and Titmice 

Mountain chickadee 

Black-capped chickadee 

Creepers and Nuthatches 

Brown creeper 

Wrens 

Rock wren 

Kinglets, Bluebirds, Thrushes 

Townsend’s solitaire 

American robin+ 

Veery 

Mockingbirds and Thrashers 

Sage thrasher 

Waxwings 

Bohemian waxwing+ 

Cedar waxwing+ 

Shrikes 

Loggerhead shrike 

Vireos 

Warbling vireo 

Warblers 

Townsend’s warbler 

Yellow warbler 

Yellow-rumped warbler 

Wilson’s warbler TNC 

MacGillivray’s warbler 

Tanagers 

Western tanager 

Grosbeaks, Buntings 

Lazuli bunting 

Towhees and Sparrows 

Green-tailed towhee 

Grasshopper sparrow* 

Brewer’s sparrow* 

Vesper sparrow 

Lark sparrow 

Sage sparrow 

Dark-eyed junco 

Blackbirds, Meadowlarks, 

Orioles 

Brewer’s blackbird 

Red-winged blackbird+ 

Yellow-headed blackbird 

Bullock’s oriole 

Common grackle+ 

Western meadowlark 

Finches 

Cassin’s finch 

Pine siskin 

Mammals 

Gray wolfESA 

Merriam’s shrew* 

Yuma myotis+ 

Western small-footed myotis+ 

Townsend’s big-eared bat* 

Spotted bat* 

Great Basin ground squirrel* 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern E-65 

Wyoming ground squirrel* 

Idaho pocket gopher* 

Pygmy rabbit* 

Northern grasshopper mouse 

TNC 

Sagebrush vole TNC 

Mink^ 

Muskrat^ 

Elk^ 

Moose^ 

Mule deer^ 

White-tailed deer^ 

Pronghorn^ 

Amphibians 

Northern leopard frog* 

Western toadTNC 

Reptiles 

Short-horned lizardTNC 

Common garter snake+ 

Ringneck snake* 

ESA = Listed species under the 

Endangered Species Act 

*= Identified as a Species of Greatest 

Conservation Need by the ICWCS 

+ = ICWCS S1, S2, S3 species not 

identified on any other regional plan 

TNC = TNC Columbia Plateau 

Ecoregional Assessment species 

^= Biological Integrity Species 

 

Table E-6. Focal Resources (n=40) for Camas Refuge 

Swans 

Trumpeter swan 

Geese 

Canada goose 

Dabbling Ducks 

Cinnamon teal 

Northern pintail 

Northern shoveler 

Diving Waterbirds 

Lesser scaup 

Redhead 

Grebes 

Eared grebe 

Pelicans and Cormorants 

American white pelican 

Wading Birds 

American avocet 

Sandhill crane 

Marsh Birds 

White-faced ibis 

Shorebirds 

Long-billed curlew 

Marbled godwit 

Common snipe 

Terns and Gulls 

Franklin’s gull 

Raptors 

Bald eagle 

Short-eared owl 

Peregrine falcon 

American kestrel 

Upland Game Birds 

Greater sage-grouse 

Woodpeckers 

Downy woodpecker 

Flycatchers 

Willow flycatcher 

Olive-sided flycatcher 

Western wood-pewee 

Mockingbirds and Thrashers 

Sage thrasher 

Shrikes 

Loggerhead shrike 

Vireos 

Warbling vireo 

Warblers 

Yellow warbler 

Blackbirds, Meadowlarks, Orioles 

Western meadowlark 

Mammals 

Ground squirrel spp. 

Pygmy rabbit 

Sagebrush vole 

Mink 

Muskrat 

Elk 

White-tailed deer 

Pronghorn 

Moose 

Amphibians 

Northern leopard frog 

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-66 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Table E-7. Focal Species Comparison by Breeding and Foraging Habitats of Camas Refuge 

Habitat Type Breeding Foraging Other 

Hemi-Marsh 

(50:50-Open 

water/Submerged 

aquatic: Deep 

Emergentbulrush/cattail) 

Trumpeter swan 

Eared grebe 

Redhead 

Muskrat 

White-tailed deer 

(Winter) 

Franklin’s gull 

White-faced ibis 

Mink 

Cinnamon teal 

Northern pintail 

Northern shoveler 

Lesser scaup 

American white pelican 

Peregrine falcon 

Mink 

Shallow Marsh Northern leopard frog Northern leopard frog-

(Winter) 

Sandhill crane Cinnamon teal 

White-faced ibis 

Eared grebe 

Northern pintail 

Common snipe 

Moose 

Wet Meadow 

(Sedge, rushes, 

grasses) 

Sandhill crane 

American avocet 

Cinnamon teal 

Northern shoveler 

Common snipe 

White-faced ibis 

Long-billed curlew 

Marbled godwit 

Franklin’s gull 

Short-eared owl 

Western meadowlark 

Dry Meadow 

(Grasses, forbs) 

Long-billed curlew 

Canada goose 

Lesser scaup 

Western meadowlark 

Short-eared owl 

Sandhill crane 

Franklin’s gull 

Sagebrush Steppe 

(Sagebrush, 

rabbitbrush, 

bitterbrush, 

bunchgrass, forbs) 

Greater sage-grouse 

Sage thrasher 

Loggerhead shrike 

Sagebrush vole 

Pygmy rabbit 

Pronghorn 

Ground squirrel spp. 

Northern pintail 

Long-billed curlew 

Elk 

Riparian 

(Willow, grasses) 

Willow flycatcher 

Yellow warbler 

Greater sage-grouse 

(Brood and Winter) 

Elk (Security Cover) Greater sage-grouse 

Elk 

Moose 

Shelterbelt 

(Cottonwood, small 

trees, shrubs) 

Warbling vireo 

Western wood-pewee 

Downy woodpecker 

American kestrel 

Bald eagle (Winter 

roosting)
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern E-67 

Habitat Type Breeding Foraging Other 

 Yellow warbler 

Olive-sided flycatcher 

Agriculture 

(Small grains, 

legumes, fallow) 

Sandhill crane 

Canada goose 

Long-billed curlew 

Elk 

White-tailed deer 

Greater sage-grouse-

(Brood) 

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-68 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

E.4 Conservation Targets 

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

diverse realm of wildlife, plants, and habitats to be managed at Camas NWR. The conservation 

targets identified for Camas NWR are the result of sequentially aggregating 292 wildlife species or 

resources of concern (Table E-2) and stepping those down to a subset of 153 resources of concern of 

the greatest conservation need (Table E-5). Subsequently, 40 focal wildlife species (Table E-6). The 

40 focal species life history strategies were used to identify characteristic plant communities, natural 

ecological processes, and limiting factors for eight predominant refuge habitat types (Table E-7). 

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

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

required to maintain or improve the ecological integrity of refuge habitats (Table E-8). All 

management objectives and strategies developed in the CCP are subsequently designed to abate 

threats or to enhance the viability of a conservation target’s contribution to the ecological integrity of 

Camas NWR. 

E.4.1 Desired Future Conditions 

The description of habitat structure (Table E-8) for a given conservation target defines the target’s 

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

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

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

from historic conditions, threats to diversity and opportunities to enhance desired future conditions 

are more clearly identified through comparison of potential natural conditions and the range of 

natural variability, with existing conditions. In other words, if the characteristics described were 

degraded or missing, it would seriously jeopardize the target’s, and possibly the Refuge’s, ecological 

integrity. 

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern E-69 Table E-8. Conservation Targets for Camas National Wildlife Refuge 

Focal Species Desired Future Conditions of Habitat Structure Life History Other Benefiting Focal Species 

Hemi-Marsh Open Water/Dense Marsh (Permanent and Semi-Permanent wetlands) Trumpeter swan Cygnus buccinator 

Wetlands 1->500 ha (1->1,235 acres), 0.3-1 m (1-3.3 feet) deep, open water: 

emergent vegetation ratios 30:70 to 70:30, with abundant, diverse submerged aquatic vegetation and invertebrate populations, with emergent beds of Schoenoplectus or Typha, with muskrat or beaver houses, hummocks or islands for nesting, and with little to no human disturbance (Banko 1960; Mitchell 

1994). 

Breeding; 

Foraging 

(Vegetative) 

Canada goose (on muskrat houses or floating platforms), canvasback, redhead, lesser scaup 

Eared grebePodiceps nigricollis

Shallow, eutrophic wetlands 0.4->4 ha (1->9.9 acres), 80% open water <1.2 m (<3.9 feet) deep, with open to dense emergent cover for nesting. Requires highly productive macroinvertebrate (Heteroptera, Crustacea, Mollusca) food source in water <1.7 m (<5.6 feet) deep (Johnsgard 1987). 

Breeding: 

ForagingInvertebrate Ruddy duck, ring-necked duck, bufflehead, Barrow’s goldeneye 

Redhead Aythya americana

Uses wide range of wetlands. Most commonly uses larger (>4.0 ha [10 acres]) seasonally and semi-permanently flooded wetlands but will use smaller wetlands with adequate water (Woodin and Michot 2002), generally nests over or near (<13 m [<42.6 feet]) water in emergent vegetation, preferably Schoenoplectus spp. (Bellrose 1976). Feeds primarily (~90%) on a wide variety 

of submerged aquatic plants and plant parts (Bellrose 1976; Woodin and Michot 2002) in waters 1-3 m (3.3-9.9 feet) deep. 

Breeding; 

Foraging 

American coot, mallard, muskrat, mink, western grebe, American wigeon, cinnamon teal, gadwall, northern shoveler 

Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus

Lentic-lotic wetlands with humus-peaty soils, having current or depth sufficient to prevent freezing to bottom. Ponds >0.5 ha (>1.2 acres), but too large may have wave action sufficient to destroy vegetation. Emergent vegetation beds 

containing Schoenoplectus, Typha, or Scirpus. Abundant submergent aquatic 

vegetation (Erb and Perry 2003; Errington 1961, 1963). 

Breeding; 

Foraging OverWinter Survival Mink 

Mink Mustela vison

Secure water supplies supporting lentic-lotic wetlands with ponds >0.5 ha (>1.2 acres) with irregular shorelines. Wetlands with both abundant open water and extensive, robust emergent vegetation beds (hemi-marsh), plus abundant submergent aquatic vegetation. Plentiful prey coverts such as brushpiles, overhanging banks or vegetation, and grassy or brushy banks. Abundant fish (small and slow moving), amphibians, crustaceans, muskrats, mice, voles and other small mammals for prey (Lariviere 2003). 

Breeding, 

Foraging, 

Over-Winter 

Survival 

Muskrat 

White-faced ibisPlegadis chihi

Dense, tall (>0.5-1 m [1.6-3.3 feet]) emergent vegetation (Schoenoplectus, Typha, or Scirpus), in shallow water 0.25-0.5 m (0.8-1.6 feet) deep (Ryder and 

Manry 1994). 

Breeding 

(Colonial) 

Franklin’s gull, Forster’s tern, marsh wren, sora rail 

Franklin’s gull Leucophaeus pipixcan 

For nesting, wetlands with available floating mats or dense emergent stands cattails (Typha spp.), bulrushes (Scirpus spp.), muskrat houses, or floating 

Foraging 

(Aerial/Surface 

White-faced ibis, Forster’s tern, marsh wren, sora rail 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

70 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Focal Species Desired Future Conditions of Habitat Structure Life History Other Benefiting Focal Species 

debris for substrate; water depths 30-60 cm (11.8-23.6 inches), with extremes of 12-180 cm (4.7-70.1 inches).; preferred habitat is moderate density vegetation interspersed with variable-size open water (hemi-marsh). Productive vegetation providing substrate for invertebrate forage production such as insects (particularly midges [Chironomidae]) and dragonflies [Odonata]), for hawking over water surface (Burger and Gochfeld 2009). 

insectivore) 

Breeding 

(Colonial) 

American white pelican Pelecanus erythrorhychos

Wetlands with large open water expanses containing abundant fish and amphibian (tiger salamanders [Ambystoma tigrinum]) prey species; 18-36 inch 

depth. 

Foraging 

(Surface 

gleaning 

Piscivore) 

Forster’s tern 

Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus 

Productive marshes supporting an abundant and diverse population of passerines, shorebirds, and waterfowl; during breeding season, adjacent to suitable nesting habitat (Snow 1972). 

Foraging (Aerial 

carnivore) 

Bald eagle, golden eagle, merlin, northern harrier 

Northern shoveler Anas clypeata

Feeds in both deep, particularly on surface phytoplankton, and shallow water on copepods, ostracods and invertebrates, specifically corixids aquatic coleopterans, midge and caddis larvae. Agrostologically diverse nesting habitat preferred, tending toward shorter stature grasses; generally minimum of 70-200 feet from water (Bellrose 1976). 

Breeding, 

Foraging Northern pintail, cinnamon teal 

Lesser scaup Aythya affinis

Uses diverse array of wetland sizes and configurations, but generally needs 

productive hemi-marsh or small wetlands/potholes containing diverse animal 

matter forage. Foraging depths of 12-36 inches selected. Preferred nesting habitat of ungrazed grasslands adjacent to permanent wetlands ≥10 feet deep 

and 2.1-5.0 acres in size, but also will use sedges or rushes, as well as floating or semi-floating mats of vegetation in over water context; also known to use islands; generally within 50 yards of water (Bellrose 1976). 

Foraging 

(Diving 

omnivore) 

Northern pintail, cinnamon teal, northern shoveler 

White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus

Dense stands of emergent cattail and bulrush for escape cover and winter 

thermal cover; preferably adjacent to agricultural fields, or other upland habitats providing additional forage resources. Hemi-marsh habitat also providing some nutritional attributes. 

Winter Elk, moose 

Shallow Marsh (Seasonal wetlands)Northern leopard frog Rana pipiens

Use wide variety of wetland sizes, especially <4 ha (<9.9 acres), and types with 

variable hydroperiods (>30 days and <365 days), in complexes <300 m (<984 feet) apart with good water quality (no pollutants), moderate emergent vegetation cover, with high invertebrate densities, and substrates suitable for burrowing (hibernation), without predatory fish, and associated wet meadows (Black and Craig 1970; Burton et al. 2006; Nussbaum et al. 1983; Semlitsch 2000). 

Breeding; Foraging-

(Insects) 

Sora, marsh wren, common snipe 

Greater sandhill crane Grus canadensis tabida

Marshes with adequate water levels during the nesting period, averaging 9-10 

inches deep (Littlefield and Ivey 2002). Fully structured emergent marsh vegetation stands capable of supporting substantial nest platforms (e.g., 

Breeding 

Sora, marsh wren, eared grebe, northern pintail 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern E-71 

Focal Species Desired Future Conditions of Habitat Structure Life History Other Benefiting Focal Species 

hardstem bulrush, common cattail; >30% but <90% residual vegetation) (Littlefield 1995). Adjacent wet meadow habitat to enhance foraging by colts. 

Common snipeGallinago gallinago

Shallow, stable, discontinuous water levels, moist to saturated organic soils, often with hummocks, containing insect larvae, earthworms, snails and other animal foods, emergents consisting of low, sparse Carex (Arnold 1994). 

Foraging White-faced ibis, eared grebe 

White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi

Prefers shallow inundated wetlands of low, emergent sedges, spikerushes, saltgrass, and other species. Nearby irrigated crops, particularly alfalfa, barley, 

and native hay meadows, are important feeding sites (Ryder and Manry 1994). 

Foraging Sora, marsh wren, eared grebe, northern pintail 

Northern pintail Anas acuta 

Foraging depth 0-12 inches. During breeding season feeds in shallow, temporary to semi-permanent wetlands (Austin and Miller 1995). Open areas of short or thin upland vegetation preferred more than other ducks. Prefers to nest farther from water than other ducks, up to 1 mile, but with average of 40 yards. Vegetation ranges from bulrush and willows through rush and weeds at 

nest sites; will use farm fields (Bellrose 1976). 

Foraging, 

Breeding Cinnamon teal 

Eared grebe Podiceps nigricollis

Shallow, eutrophic wetlands 0.4->4 ha (1->9.9 acres), 80% open water <1.2 m (<3.9 feet) deep. Requires highly productive macroinvertebrate (Heteroptera, 

Crustacea, Mullosca) food source in water <1.7 m (<5.6 feet) deep (Johnsgard 1987). 

Foraging Sora, marsh wren, eared grebe, northern pintail 

Moose Alces alces 

Spring and summer forage augmenting willow provided by aquatic plants available in productive shallow hemi-marsh habitat. Fertile marsh sites providing high volumes of very digestible marsh plants that are also sodium 

providers (Bowyer et al. 2003). 

Foraging White-tailed deer 

Wet Meadow (Temporary Wetlands)Greater sandhill crane Grus canadensis tabida

Tall to short emergent graminoids, Carex, Juncus usually surrounded by 

shallow (0.25 m [0.8 feet]) to deep (0.65 m [2.1 feet]) open water (Austin et al. 2007). 

Breeding Canada goose, long-billed curlew (Foraging) 

American avocet Recurvirostra americana

Sparsely vegetated salt flats or mudflats adjacent (<0.2 mile) to shallow (<3 feet deep) alkaline or brackish water (Dechant et al. 2002; Floyd et al. 2007). Short, sparse vegetation (<24 inches) that provides an unobstructed view from the nest (Dechant et al. 2002). Water permanence through July to ensure brood habitat for fledgling shorebirds. 

Foraging/ 

Migration/ 

Nesting 

Wilson's phalarope, black-necked stilt, willet 

Cinnamon teal Anas cyanoptera

Dense emergent cover of graminoids, Eleocharis or Carex < 1 m (<3.3 feet) tall, usually within 50 m (164 feet) open water (Bellrose 1976; Palmer 1976). 

Breeding/ Foraging- 

(Vegetative) 

American widgeon, gadwall, mallard, northern shoveler, meadow vole, montane vole 

Common snipeGallinago gallinago Emergents consisting of low, sparse sedge (Arnold 1994), rushes, and grasses. Breeding N. leopard frog, sora, marsh wren, northern pintail Long-billed curlewNumenius americanus

Shallow wetlands, short meadows and grasslands with soft, deep (2-15 cm [0.8-5.9 inches]) soils (Dugger and Dugger 2002; Jenni et al. 1981) with invertebrates. 

Foraging 

(insects) Willet, yellow-legs 

Marbled godwit Uses a variety of wetland types, temporary wetlands, muddy margins of large, Migratory Long-billed dowitcher, Wilson’s 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

72 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Focal Species Desired Future Conditions of Habitat Structure Life History Other Benefiting Focal Species 

Limosa fedoa drying reservoirs, shallow ponds with little or no emergent vegetation (GrattoTrevor 2000; Skagen et al. 1999), also native grasslands and tame hay fields to 

probing for earthworms, aquatic insects, aquatic plant tubers, leeches, also Orthoptera and small fish. Most often seen in smaller marsh habitats with bulrush Schoenoplectus spp., spike-rushes Eleocharis spp. rush Juncus spp., 

whitetop Scolochloa festucacea, and cattail Typha spp.) (Gratto-Trevor 2000). 

Spring and Fall 

Foraging 

phalarope 

White-faced ibisPlegadis chihi

Shallow open water (<12 cm [4.7 inches]) to scattered emergent Carex, Juncus

stands with variable hydroperiod and abundant macroinvertebrates through late August (Perkins 2003). 

Foraging-

(Insects) 

Snowy egret, Franklin’s gull; Virginia rail, greater yellow-legs (migration) 

Franklin’s gull Lauecophaeus pipixcan 

Productive vegetation providing substrate for invertebrate forage production such as insects (particularly midges [Chironomidae]) and dragonflies [Odonata]), for hawking over water surface (Burger and Gochfeld 2009). 

Foraging 

(Aerial/Surface 

insectivore) 

White-faced ibis 

Short-eared owl Asio flammeus

Prefers open habitat with cyclic small mammals, such as voles, typically large expanses of plains-type grasslands, or meadows and agricultural areas 

(Wiggins et al. 2006). Prefers grasslands and marshy habitats (Ryser 1985). 

Foraging 

(Aerial 

carnivore) 

Franklin’s gull 

Dry Meadow 

(Uplands)Long-billed curlewNumenius americanus

Open short-grass or mixed grass-forb habitat with level to slightly rolling topography (Dugger and Dugger 2002) with intermittent patchy vegetation (<2.5 acres, <5% of total area) of tall, dense foliage (>7 inches high) (Pampush and Anthony 1993; Oreing et al. 1999), void of trees, high-density shrubs, and tall, dense grasses (Pampush and Anthony 1993). Buffer zones 325-5,445 yards around a territory that is unoccupied by other curlews (Paige and Ritter 1999). Contiguous suitable habitat >100 acres (capable of supporting at least 1 breeding pair) protected from detrimental human disturbance (Dechant et al. 

2003; Redmond et al. 1981). 

Breeding/ 

Foraging 

Greater sandhill crane, vesper sparrow, killdeer, Swainson’s hawk, short-eared owl 

Canada gooseBranta canadensis moffitti

Lightly grazed areas with taller (>0.3 m [>0.9 feet]) graminoids, Carex, 

Juncus, etc. near water (Austin et al. 2002; Austin and Pyle 2004). 

Breeding/ 

Foraging Horned lark, bobolink 

Lesser scaup Aythya affinis

Preferred nesting habitat of ungrazed grasslands adjacent to permanent wetlands ≥10 feet deep and 2.1-5.0 acres in size; generally within 50 yards of water (Bellrose 1976). 

Breeding Horned lark, bobolink, western meadowlark 

Western meadowlark Sturnella neglecta

A grassland generalist, but prefers native grasslands and reclaimed (perennial 

grass species) agricultural fields. Selects areas of relatively robust cover structure (grass, forbs, and litter). Some avoidance of tall, dense, or woody cover. Feeds on the ground in open areas. Diet consists largely of grain and weed seeds and insects, including beetles, weevils, wireworms, cutworms, grasshoppers, and crickets. Marked seasonal differences in main staples: grain 

during winter and early spring, insects late spring and summer, weed seeds in fall (Davis and Lanyon 2008). 

Foraging, 

Breeding Horned lark, bobolink, lesser scaup 

Short-eared owl Asio flammeus

Prefers patches of relatively thick grassland for nesting. Nest sites characterized by high vegetative visual obstruction (Wiggins et al. 2006). Breeding Horned lark, bobolink, western meadowlark, lesser scaup 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern E-73 

Focal Species Desired Future Conditions of Habitat Structure Life History Other Benefiting Focal Species 

Franklin’s gull Leucophaeus pipixcan 

Healthy native vegetation stands supporting abundant invertebrate populations and providing interspersed segments of short vegetation and/or bare ground; allows terrestrial foraging (pedestrian flocks of gulls generally forage for earthworms, insects and grain (Burger and Gochfeld 2009). 

Foraging Horned lark, bobolink, western meadowlark 

Sagebrush Steppe (Uplands)Greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus

Habitats dominated by low sagebrush (<15 inches high; 10-25% cover) with 

native forbs (10-20% cover), native perennial grasses (10-15% cover) (Connelly et al. 2000), and western juniper densities of <4 trees/acre. Late-seral sagebrush 10-14 inches tall and 10-20% canopy cover above snow during winter (Connelly et al. 2000). Mid-seral sagebrush 12-31 inches tall and 15-20% canopy cover. Native bunchgrasses and forbs >7 inches tall and >15% cover (Connelly et al. 2000). 

Breeding/ 

Foraging 

Sharp-tailed grouse, sage sparrow, ferruginous hawk, merlin, Swainson’s hawk, golden eagle, prairie falcon, Brewers sparrow, Merriam’s shrew, Idaho pocket gopher, ground squirrel spp., burrowing owl 

Sage thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus

Occurs in shrub (sagebrush, bitterbrush, greasewood) with canopy cover 11-44%, height 30-60 cm (11.8-23.6 inches), with few to no annual grasses, more bare ground. Nests in taller, denser shrubs with wider canopies. Forages primarily on invertebrates on open ground, occasionally eats berries (Reynolds 

et al. 1999). 

Breeding/ 

Foraging 

Sharp-tailed grouse, sage sparrow, ferruginous hawk, Swainson’s hawk, golden eagle, Brewer’s sparrow, Merriam’s shrew, Idaho pocket gopher, ground squirrel spp. 

Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus 

Forages in mixed shrub-steppe and grasslands often with bare ground, where 

grasshoppers, small reptiles, and small mammals are abundant; nesting in tall (>2 m [6.6 feet]), isolated shrubs (Yosef 1996). 

Breeding/ 

Foraging 

Sage sparrow, Brewer’s sparrow, sagegrouse, golden eagle, ground squirrel spp. 

Sagebrush vole Lemmus curtatus

Semi-arid sites with loose, well-drained soil, with sagebrush, rabbitbrush, and bunchgrasses (including crested wheatgrass). Eats green vegetation (leaves, stems) and seeds (Carroll and Genoways 1980). 

Breeding/ 

Foraging 

Sage sparrow, Brewer’s sparrow, sagegrouse, red-tailed and Swainson’s hawks, golden eagle, Merriam’s shrew, ground squirrel spp. 

Pygmy rabbit Brachylagus idahoensis

Found in big sagebrush (A. tridentata) dominated sites with tall, dense plants 

and forbs. Largely browsers on sagebrush and Purshia (Green and Flinders 1980). Live in small burrows and may be limited to soils suitable for burrowing (Heady and Laundre 2005). 

Breeding/ 

Foraging 

Merriam’s shrew, sagebrush vole, ground squirrel spp., sage thrasher, redtailed and Swainson’s hawks 

Pronghorn Antilocapra americana

Pronghorn forage in sagebrush-steppe habitats with >50% plant cover yearround, foraging on forbs in spring through fall, and on sagebrush and other shrubs in winter. Pronghorn does also fawn in sagebrush stands (Byers 2003; O’Gara and Yoakum 2004). 

Breeding/ 

Foraging 

Sage sparrow, Brewer’s sparrow, sagegrouse, red-tailed and Swainson’s hawks, golden eagle, Merriam’s shrew, sagebrush vole, ground squirrel spp. 

Great Basin and/or Uinta ground squirrel Spermophilus spp. (S. mollis 

and/or S. armatus ?) 

Soft, well-drained soils on gentle slopes with good visibility in sage-steppe habitats. Eat green vegetation (grasses and forbs), leaves, stems, flowers, seeds, occasionally insects (Yensen and Sherman 2003a, b). 

Breeding/ 

Foraging 

Sage sparrow, Brewer’s sparrow, sagegrouse, red-tailed and Swainson’s hawks, golden eagle 

Northern pintailAnas acuta

Brush and shrubs provide attractive nesting habitat. An early nester, pintails rely on residual cover for nest concealment and are more likely to be negatively affected by grazing or other management techniques that reduce residual cover 

Breeding White-crowned sparrow, lazuli bunting 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

74 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Focal Species Desired Future Conditions of Habitat Structure Life History Other Benefiting Focal Species 

than are later-nesting species (Austin and Pyle 2004; Kruse and Bowen 1996). 

Elk Cervus elaphus

Elk use sagebrush-steppe habitats to forage (forbs and grasses, with limited browsing on some shrub species), and calve in, as security when the group sizes become very large (Peek 2003), dense riparian thickets are disturbed, to bed in summer, and as travel corridors to feeding sites off-Refuge (C.D. Mitchell, pers. obs.). 

Foraging/other 

Sage sparrow, Brewer’s sparrow, sagegrouse, red-tailed and Swainson’s hawks, golden eagle, Merriam’s shrew, sagebrush vole, ground squirrel spp. 

RiparianWillow flycatcher Empidonax traillii Willow stands, riparian shrubs and open woodlands with trees 1-8 m (3.3-26.2 feet) tall, with edges of open understory (DeGraaf et al. 1991). Breeding/ Foraging Other Empidonax flycatchers, yellow warblers Yellow warbler Setophaga petechia

Willow stands, riparian shrubs, forest edges, thickets, and woodlands with trees 1-11 m (3.3-36 feet) tall near wetlands (DeGraaf et al. 1991). 

Breeding/ 

Foraging Empidonax flycatchers 

Greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus 

Sage grouse adults and young forage on short herbaceous vegetation and invertebrates in and near riparian zones (Schroeder et al. 1999). Foraging Elk, American robin, ground squirrels 

Elk Cervus elaphus

Elk forage on herbaceous and graminoid vegetation in and near riparian zones, and use (2-3 m+ [6.6-9.9 feet+]) woody willow stands for security (hiding) cover, browse during hard winters with deep snow, and as sites for bulls to clean antlers, display, and tend harems during rut (Peek 2003). 

Foraging/ 

Security/ 

Reproduction 

Moose, sage-grouse, American robin, ground squirrels 

Moose Alces alces shirasi

Uses moderate to dense stands of willow for security (hiding) cover, and 

forages on new terminal willow growth during winter (Bowyer et al. 2003; Franzmann and Schwartz 1998). 

Foraging/ 

Security 

Elk, sage-grouse, American robin, ground squirrels 

ShelterbeltWarbling vireo Vireo gilvus Willow stands, riparian shrubs and open woodlands with trees 1-8 m (3.3-26.2 feet) tall, with edges of open understory (DeGraaf et al. 1991). Breeding/ Foraging Other Empidonax flycatchers, yellow warblers Western wood-pewee Contopus sordidulus

Habitat generalist, widespread in cottonwood and other woodlands and forests, especially forest edge and riparian zones. Habitat components include large 

tree diameters, open understory, edge, and dead trees or trees with dead limbs. High, exposed perches on tops and outer canopy of trees and wires. Forages on insects between 6-25 m (20-82 feet), mostly in upper 25% of canopy; 65% of foraging time spent at 6-12 m (20-82 feet) (Bemis and Rising 1999). 

Breeding/ 

Foraging 

Empidonax flycatchers, olive-sided flycatcher, downy woodpecker, American kestrel 

Downy woodpecker Picoides pubescens 

Breeds in open, deciduous, especially riparian, woodlands throughout its range. Favors cottonwoods (Populus spp.) on the plains. Highest densities in 

deciduous woodlands that include small trees with low canopy heights. Nests in cavity in dead stub of a living or dead tree >15 cm (>5.9 inches) DBH in wood with advanced heartrot. Eats insects, arthropods, fruits, seeds, sap. Males usually forage on small-diameter branches and stems of weeds, females on the larger branches and trunks of trees (Jackson and Ouellet 2002). 

Breeding/ 

Foraging 

Warbling vireo and other peewees, Empidonax flycatchers, olive-sided flycatcher, warbling vireo, American kestrel 

American kestrel Falco sparverius

Wide variety of open to semi-open habitats, including meadows, grasslands, 

early successional communities, open parkland, agricultural fields, and both urban and suburban areas; regardless of dominant vegetation form. Breeding 

Breeding/ 

Foraging 

Empidonax flycatchers, western woodpewee, olive-sided flycatcher, downy woodpecker 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern E-75 

Focal Species Desired Future Conditions of Habitat Structure Life History Other Benefiting Focal Species 

territories characterized by either large or small patches covered by short ground vegetation, with taller woody vegetation sparsely distributed or lacking. Suitable nest trees and perches required. American kestrels breed in cavities in trees >12 inches DBH, and use trees as perches to make territorial displays from, and to forage on macro-invertebrates, small birds and small mammals (Smallwood and Bird 2002). 

Yellow warbler Setophaga petechia

Habitats best categorized as wet, deciduous willow (Salix spp.) thickets in disturbed or early successional habitats (Lowther et al. 1999). Forage on invertebrates on woody vegetation, occasionally hawking, in height classes 0.3-15 m (0.9-49.2 feet). 

Breeding/ 

Foraging 

Empidonax flycatchers, western woodpewee, olive-sided flycatcher 

Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi

Breeds in habitat along forest edges and openings, including burns, marshes, and open water, semi-open forest. Tall, prominent trees and snags, which serve as singing and foraging perches, and unobstructed air space for foraging, are common features of all nesting habitats. Frequently occurs along wooded shores of streams, lakes, rivers, ponds, where natural edge habitat occurs and 

standing dead trees often are present. Presence near water may be due to higher insect abundance in these areas (Altman and Sallabanks 2000). 

Breeding/ 

Foraging 

Empidonax flycatchers, downy woodpecker, American kestrel 

Bald eagle Hailaeetus leucocephalus

Roost trees from 30 to 110 cm (11.8-43.3 inches) DBH and 15 to 60 m (49.2-196.9 feet) in height, near open areas that provide easy access, and dense enough to provide some wind breaks, are typically used. Roost sites usually located away from houses and roads, <10 to >29 km (<6.2->18 miles) from foraging areas (Buelhler 2000). 

Winter roosting 

Empidonax flycatchers, olive-sided flycatcher, western wood-pewee, downy woodpecker, American kestrel 

AgricultureGreater sandhill crane Grus canadensis tabida

Open fields away from dense grassland, shrub or riparian cover with low (<0.5 m [<1.6 feet]) grain height, preferably with two-row awn-less barley in fall. Bare fields also provide important foraging for waste grain, earthworms and other invertebrates in early spring immediately after arrival when fields are typically melted off but before snow cover is completely gone from grasslands. 

(Austin et al. 2002; Austin et al. 2007; Drewein 1973; Littlefield 1995). 

Foraging-Fall 

Migration 

Canada goose, mallard, red-winged and Brewer’s blackbirds, Swainson’s hawk 

Canada goose Branta canadensis moffitti

Open fields away from dense grassland, shrub or riparian cover with low (<0.5 m [<1.6 feet]) grain height in fall. Bare fields also provide important foraging 

for waste grain, earthworms and other invertebrates in early spring immediately 

after arrival when fields are typically melted off but before snow cover is 

completely gone from grasslands. 

Foraging-Spring 

and fall 

migration 

Sandhill crane, mallard, red-winged and Brewer’s blackbirds 

Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus

Open fields away from dense grassland, shrub or riparian cover with low (<0.5 m [<1.6 feet]) grain height in fall. Bare fields also provide important foraging for earthworms and other invertebrates in early spring immediately after arrival when fields are typically melted off but before snow cover is completely gone from grasslands. 

ForagingSpring Sandhill cranes, pintails, mallards, red- winged and Brewer’s blackbirds 

Elk Cervus elaphus

Open fields near from dense grassland, shrub or riparian cover with low (<0.5 m [<1.6 feet]) grain height in fall. Highly opportunistic foragers, elk may Foraging White-tailed deer, sandhill crane, Canada goose, pintail, mallard 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

76 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Focal Species Desired Future Conditions of Habitat Structure Life History Other Benefiting Focal Species 

forage on weeds, growing grain plants, as well as grain after it matures (Peek 2003). They may also use open fields for display and breeding, and to avoid predators. 

White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus

Open fields near dense grassland, shrub or riparian cover with low (<0.5 m [<1.6 feet]) grain height in fall. White-tailed deer may forage on growing grain 

plants, as well as grain after it matures. They may also use open fields for display and breeding, or to avoid predators (Miller et al. 2003). 

Foraging 

Elk, sandhill crane, Canada goose, pintail, mallard, red-winged and Brewer’s blackbirds 

Greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus

Open fields near dense grassland, or shrub-steppe cover with low (<0.5 m [<1.6 

feet]) grain height in fall (Schroeder et al. 1999). In fall and winter, sage-grouse forage in open grain fields, especially if located nearby sage-steppe vegetation. 

ForagingFall White-tailed deer, elk, sandhill crane, Canada goose, pintail, mallard, red- winged and Brewer’s blackbirds 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern E-77 

References 

Altman, B. 2000. Conservation strategy for landbirds in lowlands and valleys of western Oregon and 

Washington. Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight. Boring, OR. 169 pp. 

Altman, B., and Sallabanks, R. 2000. Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi). In: A. Poole and F. 

Gill, (eds.). The Birds of North America, No. 502. The Birds of North America, Inc., 

Philadelphia, PA. 

Arnold, K. A. 1994. Common Snipe. Pages 116-125 in Migratory shore and upland game bird 

management in North America (T. C. Tacha and C. E. Braun, Editors). International 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Washington, D.C., USA. 

Austin, J. E., A. R. Henry, and I. J. Ball. 2007. Sandhill crane abundance and nesting ecology at 

Grays Lake, Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management 71(4):1067–1079. 

Austin, J.E. and W.H. Pyle. 2004. Nesting ecology of waterbirds at Grays Lake, Idaho. Western 

North American Naturalist 63(3):277-292. 

Austin, J. E. 2002. Responses of dabbling ducks to wetland conditions in the Prairie Pothole Region. 

Waterbirds 25(4):465–473. 

Austin, J. E., W. H. Pyle, J. R. Keough, and D. H. Johnson. 2002. Evaluation of management 

practices in wet meadow habitats at Grays Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Idaho, 1997-2000. 

Final report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-Region 1. U.S. Geological Survey, Northern 

Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. 

Austin, J. E. and M. R. Miller. 1995. Northern Pintail. In: A. Poole and F. Gill, (eds.). The Birds of 

North America, No. 163. The American Ornithologists’ Union and The Academy of Natural 

Sciences, Philadelphia, PA. 

Banko, W. E. 1960. The trumpeter swan: its history, habits, and population in the United States. 

N. Amer. Fauna. No. 63. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. 214 pp. 

Bellrose, F.C. 1976. Ducks, geese and swans of North America. Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole. 544 pp. 

Bemis, C. and J. D. Rising. 1999. Western Wood-Pewee (Contopus sordidulus). In: A. Poole and F. 

Gill, (eds.). The Birds of North America, No.451. The Birds of North America, Inc., 

Philadelphia, PA. 

Bowyer, R.T., V. Van Ballenberghe, and J.G. Kie. 2003. Moose. Pages 931-964 in G.A. Feldhamer, 

B.C. Thompson, and J.A. Chapman, eds. Wild Mammals of North America, 2nd Ed. The 

Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD. 

Black, J. H. and V. Craig (eds.). 1970. Amphibians of Montana. Montana Wildlife, Animals of 

Montana Series 1:1-32. 

Buehler, D. A. 2000. Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). In: A. Poole and F. Gill, (eds.). The 

Birds of North America, No. 506. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 

Burger, J., and M. Gochfeld. 2009. Franklin's Gull (Leucophaeus pipixcan), The Birds of North 

America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Available at: 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/116doi:10.2173/bna.116 

Burton, E. C., M. J. Gray, and A. C. Schmutzer. 2006. Comparison of anuran call survey durations in 

Tennessee wetlands. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association 

of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 60:15–18. 

Byers, John. 2003. Built for speed: a year in the life of pronghorn. Havard University Press, 

Cambridge, MA. 

Carroll, L. E., and H. H. Genoways. 1980. Lagurus curataus. Mammal. Species No. 14. 6pp. 

Connelly, J.W., S.T. Knick, M.A. Schroeder, and S.J. Stiver. 2004. Conservation assessment of 

greater sage-grouse and sagebrush habitats. Unpublished report. Western Association of Fish 

and Wildlife Agencies. Cheyenne, WY. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-78 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Connelly, J.W., M.A. Schroeder, A.R. Sands, and C.E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to manage sage 

grouse populations and their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(4):967-985. 

Davis, Stephen K. and Wesley E. Lanyon. 2008. Western Meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), The 

Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 

Available at: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu.proxy.library.oregonstate.edu/bna/species/104 

Dechant, J . A., A. L. Zimmerman, D. H. Johnson, C. M. Goldade, B. E. Jamison, and B. R. Euliss. 

2002. Effects of management practices on wetland birds: American avocet. Northern Prairie 

Wildlife Research Center Online. Available at: 

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/wetbird/amav/amav.htm (Version 01JUL03). 

Dechant, J. A, M. L. Sondreal, D. H. Johnson, L. D. Igl, C. M. Goldade, P. A. Rabie, and B. R. 

Euliss. 2003. Effects of management practices on grassland birds: Long–billed curlew. 

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. Northern Prairie Wildlife 

Research Center Online. Available at: 

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/grasbird/wiph/wiph.htm (Version 12DEC2003). 

DeGraaf, R. M., V. E. Scott, R. H. Hamre, L. Ernst, and S. H. Anderson. 1991. Forest and rangeland 

birds of the United States: natural history and habitat use. U.S. Dep. Agric. Handbook 688, 

625 pp. 

Drewien, R. C. 1973. Ecology of Rocky Mountain Greater Sandhill Cranes. Ph.D. dissertation, 

University of Idaho, Moscow. 

Dugger, B. D., and K. M. Dugger 2002. Long–billed Curlew (Numenius americanus). In: A. Poole 

and F. Gill, (eds.). The Birds of North America, No. 628. The Birds of North America, Inc., 

Philadelphia, PA. 

Erb, J., and H. R. Perry Jr. 2003. Muskrats (Ondatra zibethicus and Neofiber alleni) Pages 311-

348 in: Wild Mammals of North America, Second Edition. G. A. Feldhammer, B.C. 

Thompson, and J. A. Chapman editors, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 

Maryland, USA. 

Errington, P. L. 1961. Muskrats and marsh management. Stackpole, Harrisburg, PA. 

Errington, P. L. 1963. Muskrat populations. Iowa State Press, Ames, Iowa. 

Fischman, Robert L. 2004. The Meanings of Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental 

Health. Indiana Univeristy Mauer School of Law, Faculty Publications. Paper 225. Available 

at: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facpub/225 

Floyd, T., C. S. Elphick, G. Chisholm, K. Mack, E. M. Ammon, and J. D. Boone. 2007. Atlas of the 

breeding birds of Nevada. University of Nevada Press, Reno, NV. 

Franzmann, A. W. and Schwartz, C.C., editors. 1998. Ecology and management of the North 

American moose. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C. 

Gratto-Trevor, C. L. 2000. Use of managed and natural wetlands by upland breeding shorebirds in 

southern Alberta. Pages 252-259 in J. Thorpe, T. A. Steeves, and M. Gollop, editors. 

Proceedings of the fifth prairie conservation and endangered species conference, February 

1998, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. Provincial Museum of Alberta Natural History Occasional 

Paper No. 24. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada. 

Green, J. S., and J. T. Flinders. 1980. Brachylagus idahoensis. Mammalian Species 125:1–4.

Heady, L.T., and J.W. Laundre. 2005. Habitat use patterns within the range of pygmy rabbits 

(Brachylagus idahoensis) in southeastern Idaho. Western North American Naturalist 65:490–

500. 

Hoag, J. Chris. 2007. How to plant willows and cottonwoods for riparian restoration. Revised 

January 2007. Plant Materials Technical Note No. 23, USDA-Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, Boise, ID. 22 pp. Available at: 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_PLANTMATERIALS/publications/idpmctn7064.pdf 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern E-79 

Jackson, J. A. and H. R. Ouellet. 2002. Downy Woodpecker (Picoides pubescens). In: A. Poole and 

F. Gill, (eds.). The Birds of North America, No. 613. The Birds of North America, Inc., 

Philadelphia, PA. 

Jenni, D. A., R. L. Redmond, and T. K. Bicak. 1981. Behavioral ecology and habitat relationships of 

Long–billed Curlew in western Idaho. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, Boise District, Boise, ID. 

Johnsgard, P.A. 1987. Diving birds of North America. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 

Kruse, A. D. and B. S. Bowen. 1996. Effects of grazing and burning on densities and habitats of 

breeding ducks in North Dakota. Journal of Wildlife Management 60(2): 233-246. 

Lariviere, S. 2003. Mink. Pages 662-671 in: G.A. Feldhamer, B.C. Thompson, and J.A. Chapman 

eds. Wild mammals of North America: Biology, management, and conservation, 2nd ed. 

Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD. 

Littlefield, C. D., and G. L. Ivey. 2002. Washington State Recovery Plan for the Sandhill Crane. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 71 pp. 

Littlefield, C.D. 1995. Sandhill crane nesting habitat, egg predators, and predator history on Malheur 

National Wildlife Refuge, Oregon. Northwestern Naturalist. 76:137-143. 

Lowther, P. E., C. Celada, N. K. Klein, C. C. Rimmer, and D. A. Spector. 1999. Yellow Warbler 

(Dendroica petechia). In: A. Poole and F. Gill, (eds.). The Birds of North America, No. 454. 

The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 

Miller, K.V., L.I. Muller, and S. Demarais. 2003. White-tailed Deer. Pages 906-930 in G.A. 

Feldhamer, B.C. Thompson, and J.A. Chapman, eds. Wild Mammals of North America, 2nd 

Ed. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.

Mitchell, C.D. 1994. Trumpeter swan (Cygnus buccinator). In: A. Poole and F. Gill, (eds.). The Birds 

of North America, No. 105. Philadelphia, PA: Academy of Natural Sciences and 

Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union. 

Noss, R.F., E.T. LaRoe III, and J.M. Scott. 1995. Endangered ecosystems of the United States: A 

preliminary assessment of loss and degradation. U.S. Department of the Interior, National 

Biological Service. Biological Report 28. 

Nussbaum, R. A., E. D. Brodie, Jr., and R. M. Storm. 1983. Amphibians and reptiles of the Pacific 

Northwest. Univ. Press of Idaho. 332pp. 

O’Gara, B.W. and Yoakum, J.D. 2004 Pronghorn: ecology and management. University Press of 

Colorado. 904 pp. 

Oring, L. W., L. Neel, and K. E. Oring. 1999. U.S. national shorebird conservation plan: 

Intermountain West regional shorebird plan. Department of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Portland, Oregon. 

Paige, C., and S. A. Ritter. 1999. Birds in a sagebrush sea: managing sagebrush habitats for bird 

communities. Partners in Flight Western Working Group, Boise, ID. 47 p. 

Palmer, R. S., ed. 1976. “Cinnamon teal.” In: Handbook of North American birds. Vol. 3. Yale 

University Press, New Haven, CT. 560pp. 

Pampush, G. J., and R. G. Anthony. 1993. Nest success, habitat utilization and nest–site selection of 

Long–billed Curlews in the Columbia Basin, Oregon. Condor 95:957–967. 

Peek, J.M. 2003. Wapiti. Pages 877-888 in G.A. Feldhamer, B.C. Thompson, and J.A. Chapman, eds. 

Wild Mammals of North America, 2nd Ed. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 

MD. 

Perkins, T. 2003. Influence of a modified hydrological regime on macroinvertebrate and waterbird 

abundance, distribution, and annual cycle events, Grays Lake NWR, Idaho. M.S. thesis, 

University of Missouri, Columbia. 226pp. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

E-80 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Redmond, R. L., T. K. Bicak, and D. A. Jenni. 1981. An evaluation of breeding season census 

techniques for Long–billed Curlews (Numenius americanus). Studies in Avian Biology 

6:197–201. 

Reynolds, T. D., T. D. Rich, and D. A. Stephens. 1999. Sage Thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus). In: 

A. Poole and F. Gill, (eds.). The Birds of North America, No. 463. Philadelphia: The Birds of 

North America, Inc. 

Ryder, R.R. and D.E. Manry. 1994. White-faced ibis (Plegadis chihi). In: A. Poole and F. Gill, (eds.). 

The Birds of North America, No. 130. Philadelphia: Academy of Natural Sciences and 

Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union. 24 pp. 

Ryser, F. 1985. Birds of the Great Basin. University of Nevada Press, Reno. 

Schroeder, M. A., J. R. Young, and C. E. Braun. 1999. Sage Grouse (Centrocercus urophaisanus). In: 

A. Poole and F. Gill, (eds.). The Birds of North America, No. 425. The Birds of North 

America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 

Semlitsch, R.D. 2000a. Principles for management of aquatic-breeding amphibians. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 64:615-631. 

Skagen, S. K., P. B Sharpe, R. G. Waltermire, and M. B. Dillon. 1999. Biogeographical profiles of 

shorebird migration in midcontinental North America. Biological Science Report 

USGS/BRD/BSR-2000-0003. U.S. Government Printing Office, Denver, Colorado. 

Smallwood, J. A. and D. M. Bird. 2002. American Kestrel (Falco sparverius). In: A. Poole and F. 

Gill, (eds.). The Birds of North America, No. 602. The Birds of North America, Inc., 

Philadelphia, PA. 

Snow, C. 1972. American peregrine falcon, Falco peregrinus anatum, and arctic peregrine falcon, 

Falco peregrinus tundrius. U.S. Dep. Inter., Bur. Land Manage., Wash. DC. Tech. Note No. 

167. 35pp. 

Wiggins, D., D. Holt, S. Leasure. 2006. Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus). The Birds of North 

America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the 

Birds of North America Online: Available at: 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/BNA/account/Short-eared_Owl/. 

Woodin, M. C. and T. C. Michot. 2002. Redhead (Aythya americana). In: A. Poole and F. Gill, 

(eds.). The Birds of North America, No. 695. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, 

PA. 

Yensen, E., and P. W. Sherman. 2003a. Ground–dwelling squirrels of the Pacific Northwest. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service/Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho. 

Yensen, E., and P. W. Sherman. 2003b. Ground squirrels. Pp. 211–231 in G. Feldhamer, B. 

Thompson, and J. Chapman (editors). Wild Mammals of North America, second edition. 

Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. 

Yosef, R. 1996. Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). In: A. Poole and F. Gill, (eds.). The 

Birds of North America, No. 231. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan F-1 

Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

1.0 Background 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

feasibility/practicality of various treatments. 

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

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

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

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

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

CCP. 

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

the need for and successful implementation of IPM techniques; and 

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

pest thresholds. 

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

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

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

Section 4.0 (Environmental Consequences) of this CCP Only pesticide uses that likely would cause 

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

appropriate BMPs, where necessary, would be allowed for use on the refuge. 

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

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

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

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

2.0 Pest Management Laws and Policies 

 

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

vertebrate pests on units of the National Wildlife Refuge System can be controlled to ensure balanced 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

F-2 Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

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

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

legal mandates: 

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

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

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

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

 National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (16 USC 4701); 

 Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (16 USC 4701); 

 Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (7 USC 136); 

 Executive Order 13148, Section 601(a); 

 Executive Order 13112; and 

 Animal Damage Control Act of 1931 (7 USC 426-426c, 46 Stat. 1468). 

Pests are defined as “...living organisms that may interfere with the site-specific purposes, 

operations, or management objectives or that jeopardize human health or safety” from Department 

policy 517 DM 1 (Integrated Pest Management Policy). Similarly, 569 FW 1 defines pests as 

“...invasive plants and introduced or native organisms, that may interfere with achieving our 

management goals and objectives on or off our lands, or that jeopardize human health or safety.” 

517 DM 1 also defines an invasive species as “a species that is non-native to the ecosystem under 

consideration and whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or 

harm to human health.” Throughout the remainder of this CCP the terms pest and invasive species 

are used interchangeably because both can prevent/impede achievement of refuge wildlife and 

habitat objectives and/or degrade environmental quality. 

In general, control of pests (vertebrate or invertebrate) on the refuge would conserve and protect the 

nation’s fish, wildlife, and plant resources as well as maintain environmental quality. From 

569 FW 1, animal or plant species, which are considered pests, may be managed if the following 

criteria are met: 

 Threat to human health and well being or private property, the acceptable level of damage by the 

pest has been exceeded, or State or local government has designated the pest as noxious; 

 Detrimental to resource objectives as specified in a refuge resource management plan (e.g., 

comprehensive conservation plan, habitat management plan), if available; and 

 Control would not conflict with attainment of resource objectives or the purposes for which the 

refuge was established. 

The specific justifications for pest management activities on the refuge are the following: 

 Protect human health and well being; 

 Prevent substantial damage to important to refuge resources; 

 Protect newly introduced or re-establish native species; 

 Control non-native (exotic) species in order to support existence for populations of native 

species; 

 Prevent damage to private property; and 

 Provide the public with quality, compatible wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan F-3 

In accordance with Service policy 620 FW 1 (Habitat Management Plans), there are additional 

management directives regarding invasive species found on the refuge: 

 “We are prohibited by Executive Order, law, and policy from authorizing, funding, or carrying 

out actions that are likely to cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive species in the 

United States or elsewhere.” 

 “Manage invasive species to improve or stabilize biotic communities to minimize unacceptable 

change to ecosystem structure and function and prevent new and expanded infestations of 

invasive species. Conduct refuge habitat management activities to prevent, control, or eradicate 

invasive species...” 

Animal species damaging/destroying federal property and/or detrimental to the management program 

of a refuge may be controlled as described in 50 CFR 31.14 (Official Animal Control Operations). 

For example, the incidental removal of beaver damaging refuge infrastructure (e.g., clogging with 

subsequent damaging of water control structures) and/or negatively affecting habitats (e.g., removing 

woody species from existing or restored riparian) managed on refuge lands may be conducted 

without a pest control proposal. We recognize beavers are native species and most of their activities 

or refuge lands represent a natural process beneficial for maintaining wetland habitats. Exotic nutria, 

whose denning and burrowing activities in wetland dikes causes cave-ins and breaches, can be 

controlled using the most effective techniques considering site-specific factors without a pest control 

proposal. Along with the loss of quality wetland habitats associated with breaching of 

impoundments, the safety of refuge staffs and public (e.g. auto tour routes) driving on structurally 

compromised levees and dikes can be threaten by sudden and unexpected cave-ins. 

Trespass and feral animals also may be controlled on refuge lands. Based upon 50 CFR 28.43 

(Destruction of Dogs and Cats), dogs and cats running at large on a national wildlife refuge and 

observed in the act of killing, injuring, harassing or molesting humans or wildlife may be disposed of 

in the interest of public safety and protection of the wildlife. Feral animals should be disposed by the 

most humane method(s) available and in accordance with relevant Service directives (including 

Executive Order 11643). Disposed wildlife specimens may be donated or loaned to public 

institutions. Donation or loans of resident wildlife species will only be made after securing State 

approval (50 CFR 30.11 [Donation and Loan of Wildlife Specimens]). Surplus wildlife specimens 

may be sold alive or butchered, dressed and processed subject to federal and state laws and 

regulations (50 CFR 30.12 [Sale of Wildlife Specimens]). 

3.0 Strategies 

To fully embrace IPM as identified in 569 FW 1, the following strategies, where applicable, would 

be carefully considered on the refuge for each pest species: 

 Prevention. This would be the most effective and least expensive long-term management option 

for pests. It encompasses methods to prevent new introductions or the spread of the established 

pests to un-infested areas. It requires identifying potential routes of invasion to reduce the 

likelihood of infestation. Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) planning can be 

used determine if current management activities on a refuge may introduce and/or spread 

invasive species in order to identify appropriate BMPs for prevention. See http://www.haccpnrm.org/ for more information about HACCP planning. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

F-4 Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

Prevention may include source reduction, using pathogen-free or weed-free seeds or fill; 

exclusion methods (e.g., barriers) and/or sanitation methods (e.g., wash stations) to prevent reintroductions by various mechanisms including vehicles, personnel, livestock, and horses. 

Because invasive species are frequently the first to establish newly disturbed sites, prevention 

would require a reporting mechanism for early detection of new pest occurrences with quick 

response to eliminate any new satellite pest populations. Prevention would require consideration 

of the scale and scope of land management activities that may promote pest establishment within 

un-infested areas or promote reproduction and spread of existing populations. Along with 

preventing initial introduction, prevention would involve halting the spread of existing 

infestations to new sites (Mullin et al. 2000). The primary reason for prevention would be to 

keep pest-free lands or waters from becoming infested. Executive Order 11312 emphasizes the 

priority for prevention with respect to managing pests. 

The following would be methods to prevent the introduction and/or spread of pests on refuge 

lands: 

o Before beginning ground-disturbing activities (e.g., disking, scraping), inventory and 

prioritize pest infestations in project operating areas and along access routes. Refuge 

staff would identify pest species on-site or within reasonably expected potential invasion 

vicinity. Where possible, the refuge staff would begin project activities in un-infested 

areas before working in pest-infested areas. 

o The refuge staff would locate and use pest-free project staging areas. They would avoid 

or minimize travel through pest-infested areas, or restrict to those periods when spread of 

seed or propagules of invasive plants would be least likely. 

o The refuge staff would determine the need for, and when appropriate, identify sanitation 

sites where equipment can be cleaned of pests. Where possible, the refuge staff would 

clean equipment before entering lands at on-refuge approved cleaning site(s). This 

practice does not pertain to vehicles traveling frequently in and out of the project area 

that will remain on roadways. Seeds and plant parts of pest plants would need to be 

collected, where practical. The refuge staff would remove mud, dirt, and plant parts from 

project equipment before moving it into a project area. 

o The refuge staff would clean all equipment, before leaving the project site, if operating in 

areas infested with pests. The refuge staff would determine the need for, and when 

appropriate, identify sanitation sites where equipment can be cleaned. 

o Refuge staffs, their authorized agents, and refuge volunteers would, where possible, 

inspect, remove, and properly dispose of seed and parts of invasive plants found on their 

clothing and equipment. Proper disposal means bagging the seeds and plant parts and 

then properly discarding of them (e.g., incinerating). 

o The refuge staff would evaluate options, including closure, to restrict the traffic on sites 

with on-going restoration of desired vegetation. The refuge staff would revegetate 

disturbed soil (except travel ways on surfaced projects) to optimize plant establishment 

for each specific site. Revegetation may include topsoil replacement, planting, seeding, 

fertilization, liming, and weed-free mulching as necessary. The refuge staff would use 

native material, where appropriate and feasible. The refuge staff would use certified 

weed-free or weed-seed-free hay or straw where certified materials are reasonably 

available. 

o The refuge staff would provide information, training, and appropriate pest identification 

materials to permit holders and recreational visitors. The refuge staff would educate 

them about pest identification, biology, impacts, and effective prevention measures. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan F-5 

o The refuge staff would require grazing permittees to utilize preventative measures for 

their livestock while on refuge lands. 

o The refuge staff would inspect borrow material for invasive plants prior to use and 

transport onto and/or within refuge lands. 

o The refuge staff would consider invasive plants in planning for road maintenance 

activities. 

o The refuge staff would restrict off-road travel to designated routes. 

The following would be methods to prevent the introduction and/or spread of pests into refuge 

waters: 

o The refuge staff would inspect boats (including air boats), trailers, and other boating 

equipment. Where possible, the refuge staff would remove any visible plants, animals, or 

mud before leaving any waters or boat launching facilities. Where possible, the refuge 

staff would drain water from motor, live well, bilge, and transom wells while on land 

before leaving the site. If possible, the refuge staff would wash and dry boats, 

downriggers, anchors, nets, floors of boats, propellers, axles, trailers, and other boating 

equipment to kill pests not visible at the boat launch. 

o Where feasible, the refuge staff would maintain a l00-foot buffer of aquatic pest-free 

clearance around boat launches and docks or quarantine areas when cleaning around 

culverts, canals, or irrigation sites. Where possible, the refuge staff would inspect and 

clean equipment before moving to new sites or one project area to another. 

These prevention methods to minimize/eliminate the introduction and/or spread of pests were 

taken verbatim or slightly modified from Appendix E of US Forest Service (2005). 

 Mechanical/Physical Methods. These methods would remove and destroy, disrupt the growth 

of, or interfere with the reproduction of pest species. For plants species, these treatments can be 

accomplished by hand, hand tool (manual), or power tools (mechanical) and include pulling, 

grubbing, digging, tilling/disking, cutting, swathing, grinding, sheering, girdling, mowing, and 

mulching of the pest plants. 

For animal species, Service employees or their authorized agents could use mechanical/physical 

methods (including trapping) to control pests as a refuge management activity. Based upon 50 

CFR 31.2, trapping can be used on a refuge to reduce surplus wildlife populations for a “balanced 

conservation program” in accordance with federal or state laws and regulations. In some cases, 

non-lethally trapped animals would be relocated to off-refuge sites with prior approval from the 

state. 

Each of these tools would be efficacious to some degree and applicable to specific situations. In 

general, mechanical controls can effectively control annual and biennial pest plants. However, to 

control perennial plants, the root system has to be destroyed or it would resprout and continue to 

grow and develop. Mechanical controls are typically not capable of destroying a perennial 

plant’s root system. Although some mechanical tools (e.g., disking, plowing) may damage root 

systems, they may stimulate regrowth producing a denser plant population that may aid in the 

spread depending upon the target species (e.g., Canada thistle). In addition, steep terrain and soil 

conditions would be major factors that can limit the use of many mechanical control methods. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

F-6 Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

Some mechanical control methods (e.g., mowing), which would be used in combination with 

herbicides, can be a very effective technique to control perennial species. For example, mowing 

perennial plants followed sequentially by treating the plant regrowth with a systemic herbicide 

often would improve the efficacy of the herbicide compared to herbicide treatment only. 

 Cultural Methods. These methods would involve manipulating habitat to increase pest 

mortality by reducing its suitability to the pest. Cultural methods would include water-level 

manipulation, mulching, winter cover crops, changing planting dates to minimize pest impact, 

prescribed burning (facilitate revegetation, increase herbicide efficacy, and remove litter to assist 

in emergence of desirable species), flaming with propane torches, trap crops, crop rotations that 

would include non-susceptible crops, moisture management, addition of beneficial insect habitat, 

reducing clutter, proper trash disposal, planting or seeding desirable species to shade or outcompete invasive plants, applying fertilizer to enhance desirable vegetation, prescriptive grazing, 

and other habitat alterations. 

 Biological Control Agents. Classical biological control would involve the deliberate 

introduction and management of natural enemies (parasites, predators, or pathogens) to reduce 

pest populations. Many of the most ecologically or economically damaging pest species in the 

United States originated in foreign countries. These newly introduced pests, which are free from 

natural enemies found in their country or region of origin, may have a competitive advantage 

over cultivated and native species. This competitive advantage often allows introduced species 

to flourish, and they may cause widespread economic damage to crops or out compete and 

displace native vegetation. Once the introduced pest species population reaches a certain level, 

traditional methods of pest management may be cost prohibitive or impractical. Biological 

controls typically are used when these pest populations have become so widespread that 

eradication or effective control would be difficult or no longer practical. 

Biological control has advantages as well as disadvantages. Benefits would include reducing 

pesticide usage, host specificity for target pests, long-term self-perpetuating control, low 

cost/acre, capacity for searching and locating hosts, synchronizing biological control agents to 

hosts’ life cycles, and the unlikelihood that hosts will develop resistance to agents. 

Disadvantages would include the following: limited availability of agents from their native 

lands, the dependence of control on target species density, slow rate at which control occurs, 

biotype matching, the difficulty and expense of conflicts over control of the target pest, and host 

specificity when host populations are low. 

A reduction in target species populations from biological controls is typically a slow process, and 

efficacy can be highly variable. It may not work well in a particular area although it does work 

well in other areas. Biological control agents would require specific environmental conditions to 

survive over time. Some of these conditions are understood; whereas, others are only partially 

understood or not at all. 

Biological control agents would not eradicate a target pest. When using biological control 

agents, residual levels of the target pest typically are expected; the agent population level or 

survival would be dependent upon the density of its host. After the pest population decreases, the 

population of the biological control agent would decrease correspondingly. This is a natural 

cycle. Some pest populations (e.g., invasive plants) would tend to persist for several years after a 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan F-7 

biological control agent becomes established due to seed reserves in the soil, inefficiencies in the 

agents search behavior, and the natural lag in population buildup of the agent. 

The full range of pest groups potentially found on refuge lands and waters would include 

diseases, invertebrates (insects, mollusks), vertebrates and invasive plants (the most common 

group). Often it is assumed that biological control would address many if not most of these pest 

problems. There are several well-documented success stories of biological control of invasive 

weed species in the Pacific Northwest including Mediterranean sage, St. Johnswort (Klamath 

weed) and tansy ragwort. Emerging success stories include Dalmatian toadflax, diffuse 

knapweed, leafy spurge, purple loosestrife and yellow star thistle. However, historically, each 

new introduction of a biological control agent in the United States has only about a 30% success 

rate (Coombs et al 2004). Refer to Coombs et al. (2004) for the status of biological control 

agents for invasive plants in the Pacific Northwest. 

Introduced species without desirable close relatives in the United States would generally be 

selected as biological controls. Natural enemies that are restricted to one or a few closely related 

plants in their country of origin are targeted as biological controls (Center et al. 1997, Hasan and 

Ayres 1990). 

The refuge staff would ensure introduced agents are approved by the applicable authorities. 

Except for a small number of formulated biological control products registered by USEPA under 

FIFRA, most biological control agents are regulated by the US Department of Agriculture 

(USDA)-Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine (APHISPPQ). State departments of agriculture and, in some cases, county agricultural commissioners or 

weed districts, have additional approval authority. 

Federal permits (USDA-APHIS-PPQ Form 526) are required to import biocontrols agents from 

another state. Form 526 may be obtained by writing: 

 USDA-APHIS-PPQ 

 Biological Assessment and Taxonomic Support 

 4700 River Road, Unit 113 

 Riverdale, MD 20737 

or 

through the internet at: 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/permits/bioligical/weedbio.html. 

The Service strongly supports the development, and legal and responsible use of appropriate, 

safe, and effective biological control agents for nuisance and non-indigenous or pest species. 

State and county agriculture departments may also be sources for biological control agents or 

they may have information about where biological control agents may be obtained. Commercial 

sources should have an Application and Permit to Move Live Plant Pests and Noxious Weeds 

(USDA-PPQ Form 226 USDA-APHIS-PPQ, Biological Assessment and Taxonomic Support, 

4700 River Road, Unit 113, Riverdale, MD 20737) to release specific biological control agents in 

a state and/or county. Furthermore, certification regarding the biological control agent’s identity 

(genus, specific epithet, sub-species and variety) and purity (e.g., parasite free, pathogen free, and 

biotic and abiotic contaminants) should be specified in purchase orders. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

F-8 Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

Biological control agents are subject to 7 RM 8 (Exotic Species Introduction and Management). 

In addition, the refuge staff would follow the International Code of Best Practice for Classical 

Biological Control of Weeds (http://sric.ucdavis.edu/exotic /exotic.htm) as ratified by delegates 

to the X International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds, Bozeman, MT, July 9, 1999. 

This code identifies the following: 

o Release only approved biological control agents, 

o Use the most effective agents, 

o Document releases, and 

o Monitor for impact to the target pest, non-target species and the environment. 

Biological control agents formulated as pesticide products and registered by the USEPA (e.g., 

Bti) are also subject to PUP review and approval (see below). 

A record of all releases would be maintained with date(s), location(s), and environmental 

conditions of the release site(s); the identity, quantity, and condition of the biological control 

agents released; and other relevant data and comments such as weather conditions. Systematic 

monitoring to determine the establishment and effectiveness of the release is also recommended. 

NEPA documents regarding biological and other environmental effects of biological control 

agents prepared by another federal agency, where the scope is relevant to evaluation of releases 

on refuge lands, would be reviewed. Possible source agencies for such NEPA documents include 

the Bureau of Land Management, US Forest Service, National Park Service, US Department of 

Agriculture-Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, and the military services. It might be 

appropriate to incorporate by reference parts or all of existing document(s) from the review. 

Incorporating by reference (43 CFR 46.135) is a technique used to avoid redundancies in 

analysis. It also can reduce the bulk of a Service NEPA document, which only must identify the 

documents that are incorporated by reference. In addition, relevant portions must be summarized 

in the Service NEPA document to the extent necessary to provide the decision maker and public 

with an understanding of relevance of the referenced material to the current analysis. 

 Pesticides. The selective use of pesticides would be based upon pest ecology (including mode of 

reproduction), the size and distribution of its populations, site-specific conditions (e.g., soils, 

topography), known efficacy under similar site conditions, and the capability to utilize best 

management practices (BMPs) to reduce/eliminate potential effects to non-target species, 

sensitive habitats, and potential to contaminate surface and groundwater. All pesticide usage 

(pesticide, target species, application rate, and method of application) would comply with the 

applicable federal (FIFRA) and state regulations pertaining to pesticide use, safety, storage, 

disposal, and reporting. Before pesticides can be used to eradicate, control, or contain pests on 

refuge lands and waters, pesticide use proposals (PUPs) would be prepared and approved in 

accordance with 569 FW 1. PUP records would provide a detailed, time-, site-, and targetspecific description of the proposed use of pesticides on the refuge. All PUPs would be created, 

approved or disapproved, and stored in the Pesticide Use Proposal System (PUPS), which is a 

centralized database only accessible on the Service’s intranet (https://systems.fws.gov/pups). 

Only Service employees would be authorized to access PUP records for a refuge in this database. 

Application equipment would be selected to provide site-specific delivery to target pests while 

minimizing/eliminating direct or indirect (e.g., drift) exposure to non-target areas and 

degradation of surface and groundwater quality. Where possible, target-specific equipment (e.g., 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan F-9 

backpack sprayer, wiper) would be used to treat target pests. Other target-specific equipment to 

apply pesticides would include soaked wicks or paint brushes for wiping vegetation and lances, 

hatchets, or syringes for direct injection into stems. Granular pesticides may be applied using 

seeders or other specialized dispensers. In contrast, aerial spraying (e.g., fixed wing or 

helicopter) would only be used where access is difficult (remoteness) and/or the size/distribution 

of infestations precludes practical use of ground-based methods. 

Because repeated use of one pesticide may allow resistant organisms to survive and reproduce, 

multiple pesticides with variable modes of action would be considered for treatments on refuge 

lands and waters. This is especially important if multiple applications within years and/or over a 

growing season likely would be necessary for habitat maintenance and restoration activities to 

achieve resource objectives. Integrated chemical and non-chemical controls also are highly 

effective, where practical, because pesticide-resistant organisms can be removed from the site. 

Cost may not be the primary factor in selecting a pesticide for use on a refuge. If the least 

expensive pesticide would potentially harm natural resources or people, then a different product 

would be selected, if available. The most efficacious pesticide available with the least potential 

to degrade environment quality (soils, surface water, and groundwater) as well as least potential 

effect to native species and communities of fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats would be 

acceptable for use on refuge lands in the context of an IPM approach. 

 

 Habitat restoration/maintenance. Restoration and/or proper maintenance of refuge habitats 

associated with achieving wildlife and habitat objectives would be essential for long-term 

prevention, eradication, or control (at or below threshold levels) of pests. Promoting desirable 

plant communities through the manipulation of species composition, plant density, and growth 

rate is an essential component of invasive plant management (Masters et al. 1996, Masters and 

Shelly 2001, Brooks et al. 2004). The following three components of succession could be 

manipulated through habitat maintenance and restoration: site availability, species availability, 

and species performance (Cox and Anderson 2004). Although a single method (e.g., herbicide 

treatment) may eliminate or suppress pest species in the short term, the resulting gaps and bare 

soil create niches that are conducive to further invasion by the species and/or other invasive 

plants. On degraded sites where desirable species are absent or in low abundance, revegetation 

with native/desirable grasses, forbs, and legumes may be necessary to direct and accelerate plant 

community recovery, and achieve site-specific objectives in a reasonable time frame. The 

selection of appropriate species for revegetation would be dependent on a number of factors 

including resource objectives and site-specific, abiotic factors (e.g., soil texture, 

precipitation/temperature regimes, and shade conditions). Seed availability and cost, ease of 

establishment, seed production, and competitive ability also would be important considerations. 

4.0 Priorities for Treatments 

For many refuges, the magnitude (number, distribution, and sizes of infestations) of pest problems is 

too extensive and beyond the available capital resources to effectively address during any single field 

season. To manage pests in the refuge, it would be essential to prioritize treatment of infestations. 

Highest priority treatments would be focused on early detection and rapid response to eliminate 

infestations of new pests, if possible. This would be especially important for aggressive pests 

potentially impacting species, species groups, communities, and/or habitats associated refuge 

purpose(s), NWRS resources of concern (federally listed species, migratory birds, selected marine 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

F-10 Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

mammals, and interjurisdictional fish), and native species for maintaining/restoring biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health. 

The next priority would be treating established pests that appear in one or more previously uninfested areas. Moody and Mack (1988) demonstrated through modeling that small, new outbreaks 

of invasive plants eventually would infest an area larger than the established, source population. 

They also found that control efforts focusing on the large, main infestation rather than the new, small 

satellites reduced the chances of overall success. The lowest priority would be treating large 

infestations (sometimes monotypic stands) of well-established pests. In this case, initial efforts 

would focus upon containment of the perimeter followed by work to control/eradicate the established 

infested area. If containment and/or control of a large infestation is not effective, then efforts would 

focus upon halting pest reproduction or managing source populations. Maxwell et al. (2009) found 

treating fewer populations that are sources represents an effective long-term strategy to reduce of 

total number of invasive populations and decreasing meta-population growth rates. 

Although state-listed noxious weeds would always of high priority for management, other pest 

species known to cause substantial ecological impact would also be considered. For example, 

cheatgrass may not be listed by a state as noxious, but it can greatly alter fire regimes in shrub steppe 

habitats resulting in large monotypic stands that displace native bunch grasses, forbs, and shrubs. 

Pest control would likely require a multi-year commitment from the refuge staff. Essential to the 

long-term success of pest management would be pre- and post-treatment monitoring, assessment of 

the successes and failures of treatments, and development of new approaches when proposed 

methods do not achieve desired outcomes. 

5.0 Best Management Practices (BMPs) 

BMPs can minimize or eliminate possible effects associated with pesticide usage to non-target 

species and/or sensitive habitats as well as degradation of water quality from drift, surface runoff, or 

leaching. Based upon the Department of Interior Pesticide Use Policy (517 DM 1) and the Service 

Pest Management Policy and Responsibilities (30 AM 12), the use of applicable BMPs (where 

feasible) also would likely ensure that pesticide uses may not adversely affect federally listed species 

and/or their critical habitats through determinations made using the process described in 50 CFR part 

402. 

The following are BMPs pertaining to mixing/handling and applying pesticides for all ground-based 

treatments of pesticides, which would be considered and utilized, where feasible, based upon targetand site-specific factors and time-specific environmental conditions. Although not listed below, the 

most important BMP to eliminate/reduce potential impacts to non-target resources would be an IPM 

approach to prevent, control, eradicate, and contain pests. 

5.1 Pesticide Handling and Mixing 

 As a precaution against spilling, spray tanks would not be left unattended during filling. 

 All pesticide containers would be triple rinsed and the rinsate would be used as water in the 

sprayer tank and applied to treatment areas. 

 All pesticide spray equipment would be properly cleaned. Where possible, rinsate would be used 

as part of the make-up water in the sprayer tank and applied to treatment areas. 

 The refuge staff would triple rinse and recycle (where feasible) pesticide containers. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan F-11 

 All unused pesticides would be properly discarded at a local “safe send” collection. 

 Pesticides and pesticide containers would be lawfully stored, handled, and disposed of in 

accordance with the label and in a manner safeguarding human health, fish, and wildlife and 

prevent soil and water contaminant. 

 The refuge staff would consider the water quality parameters (e.g., pH, hardness) that are 

important to ensure greatest efficacy where specified on the pesticide label. 

 All pesticide spills would be addressed immediately using procedures identified in the refuge 

spill response plan. 

5.2 Applying Pesticides 

 Pesticide treatments would only be conducted by or under the supervision of Service personnel 

and non-Service applicators with the appropriate, state or BLM certification to safely and 

effectively conduct these activities on refuge lands and waters. 

 The refuge staff would comply with all federal, state, and local pesticide use laws and regulations 

as well as Departmental, Service, and NWRS pesticide-related policies. For example, the refuge 

staff would use application equipment and apply rates for the specific pest(s) identified on the 

pesticide label as required under FIFRA. 

 Before each treatment season and prior to mixing or applying any product for the first time each 

season, all applicators would review the labels, MSDSs, and Pesticide Use Proposal (PUPs) for 

each pesticide, determining the target pest, appropriate mix rate(s), PPE, and other requirements 

listed on the pesticide label. 

 A 1-foot no-spray buffer from the water’s edge would be used, where applicable and where it 

does not detrimentally influence effective control of pest species. 

 Use low-impact herbicide application techniques (e.g., spot treatment, cut stump, oil basal, 

Thinvert system applications) rather than broadcast foliar applications (e.g., boom sprayer, other 

larger tank wand applications), where practical. 

 Use low-volume rather than high-volume foliar applications where low-impact methods above 

are not feasible or practical, to maximize herbicide effectiveness and ensure correct and uniform 

application rates. 

 Applicators would use and adjust spray equipment to apply the coarsest droplet size spectrum 

with optimal coverage of the target species while reducing drift. 

 Applicators would use the largest droplet size that results in uniform coverage. 

 Applicators would use drift reduction technologies such as low-drift nozzles, where possible. 

 Where possible, spraying would occur during low (average<7mph and preferably 3 to 5 mph) 

and consistent direction wind conditions with moderate temperatures (typically <85 oF). 

 Where possible, applicators would avoid spraying during inversion conditions (often associated 

with calm and very low wind conditions) that can cause large-scale herbicide drift to non-target 

areas. 

 Equipment would be calibrated regularly to ensure that the proper rate of pesticide is applied to 

the target area or species. 

 Spray applications would be made at the lowest height for uniform coverage of target pests to 

minimize/eliminate potential drift. 

 If windy conditions frequently occur during afternoons, spraying (especially boom treatments) 

would typically be conducted during early morning hours. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

F-12 Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

 Spray applications would not be conducted on days with >30% forecast for rain within 6 hours, 

except for pesticides that are rapidly rain fast (e.g., glyphosate in 1 hour) to minimize/eliminate 

potential runoff. 

 Where possible, applicators would use drift retardant adjuvants during spray applications, 

especially adjacent to sensitive areas. 

 Where possible, applicators would use a non-toxic dye to aid in identifying target area treated as 

well as potential over spray or drift. A dye can also aid in detecting equipment leaks. If a leak is 

discovered, the application would be stopped until repairs can be made to the sprayer. 

 For pesticide uses associated with cropland and facilities management, buffers, as appropriate, 

would be used to protect sensitive habitats, especially wetlands and other aquatic habitats. 

 When drift cannot be sufficiently reduced through altering equipment set up and application 

techniques, buffer zones may be identified to protect sensitive areas downwind of applications. 

The refuge staff would only apply adjacent to sensitive areas when the wind is blowing the 

opposite direction. 

 Applicators would utilize scouting for early detection of pests to eliminate unnecessary pesticide 

applications. 

 The refuge staff would consider timing of application so native plants are protected (e.g., 

senescence) while effectively treating invasive plants. 

 Rinsate from cleaning spray equipment after application would be recaptured and reused or 

applied to an appropriate pest plant infestation. 

 Application equipment (e.g., sprayer, ATV, tractor) would be thoroughly cleaned and PPE would 

be removed/disposed of on-site by applicators after treatments to eliminate the potential spread of 

pests to un-infested areas. 

6.0 Safety 

6.1 Personal Protective Equipment 

All applicators would wear the specific personal protective equipment (PPE) identified on the 

pesticide label. The appropriate PPE will be worn at all times during handling, mixing, and applying. 

PPE can include the following: disposable (e.g., Tyvek) or laundered coveralls; gloves (latex, 

rubber, or nitrile); rubber boots; and/or an NIOSH-approved respirator. Because exposure to 

concentrated product is usually greatest during mixing, extra care should be taken while preparing 

pesticide solutions. Persons mixing these solutions can be best protected if they wear long gloves, an 

apron, footwear, and a face shield. 

Coveralls and other protective clothing used during an application would be laundered separately 

from other laundry items. Transporting, storing, handling, mixing and disposing of pesticide 

containers will be consistent with label requirements, USEPA and OSHA requirements, and Service 

policy. 

If a respirator is necessary for a pesticide use, then the following requirements would be met in 

accordance with Service safety policy: a written Respirator Program, fit testing, physical 

examination (including pulmonary function and blood work for contaminants), and proper storage of 

the respirator. 

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan F-13 

6.2 Notification 

The restricted entry interval (REI) is the time period required after the application at which point 

someone may safely enter a treated area without PPE. Refuge staff, authorized management agents 

of the Service, volunteers, and members of the public who could be in or near a pesticide treated area 

within the stated re-entry time period on the label would be notified about treatment areas. Posting 

would occur at any site where individuals might inadvertently become exposed to a pesticide during 

other activities on the refuge. Where required by the label and/or state-specific regulations, sites 

would also be posted on its perimeter and at other likely locations of entry. The refuge staff would 

also notify appropriate private property owners of an intended application, including any private 

individuals who have requested notification. Special efforts would be made to contact nearby 

individuals who are beekeepers or who have expressed chemical sensitivities. 

6.3 Medical Surveillance 

Medical surveillance may be required for Service personnel and approved volunteers who mix, 

apply, and/or monitor use of pesticides (see 242 FW 7 [Pesticide Users] and 242 FW 4 [Medical 

Surveillance]). In accordance with 242 FW 7.12A, Service personnel would be medically 

monitoring if one or more of the following criteria is met: exposed or may be exposed to 

concentrations at or above the published permissible exposure limits or threshold limit values (see 

242 FW 4); use pesticides in a manner considered “frequent pesticide use”; or use pesticides in a 

manner that requires a respirator (see 242 FW 14 for respirator use requirements). In 242 FW7.7A, 

“Frequent Pesticide Use means when a person applying pesticide handles, mixes, or applies 

pesticides, with a Health Hazard rating of 3 or higher, for 8 or more hours in any week or 16 or more 

hours in any 30-day period.” Under some circumstances, individuals may be medically monitored 

who use pesticides infrequently (see section 7.7), experience an acute exposure (sudden, short term), 

or use pesticides with a health hazard ranking of 1 or 2. This decision would consider the 

individual’s health and fitness level, the pesticide’s specific health risks, and the potential risks from 

other pesticide-related activities. Refuge cooperators (e.g., cooperative farmers) and other authorized 

agents (e.g., state and county employees) would be responsible for their own medical monitoring 

needs and costs. 

Standard examinations (at refuge expense) of appropriate refuge staff would be provided by the 

nearest certified occupational health and safety physician as determined by Federal Occupational 

Health. 

6.4 Certification and Supervision of Pesticide Applicators 

Appropriate refuge staff or approved volunteers handling, mixing, and/or applying or directly 

supervising others engaged in pesticide use activities would be trained and state or federally (BLM) 

licensed to apply pesticides to refuge lands or waters. In accordance with 242 FW7.18A and 569 FW 

1.10B, certification is required to apply restricted use pesticides based upon USEPA regulations. For 

safety reasons, all individuals participating in pest management activities with general use pesticides 

also are encouraged to attend appropriate training or acquire pesticide applicator certification. The 

certification requirement would be for a commercial or private applicator depending upon the state. 

New staff unfamiliar with proper procedures for storing, mixing, handling, applying, and disposing 

of herbicides and containers would receive orientation and training before handling or using any 

products. Documentation of training would be kept in the files at the refuge office. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

F-14 Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

6.5 Record Keeping 

6.5.1 Labels and material safety data sheets 

Pesticide labels and material safety data sheets (MSDSs) would be maintained at the refuge shop and 

laminated copies in the mixing area. These documents also would be carried by field applicators, 

where possible. A written reference (e.g., note pad, chalk board, dry erase board) for each tank to be 

mixed would be kept in the mixing area for quick reference while mixing is in progress. In addition, 

approved PUPs stored in the PUPS database typically contain website links (URLs) to pesticide 

labels and MSDSs. 

6.5.2 Pesticide use proposals (PUPs) 

A PUP would be prepared for each proposed pesticide use associated with annual pest management 

on refuge lands and waters. A PUP would include specific information about the proposed pesticide 

use including the common and chemical names of the pesticide(s), target pest species, size and 

location of treatment site(s), application rate(s) and method(s), and federally listed species 

determinations, where applicable. 

In accordance with Service guidelines (Director’s memo [December 12, 2007]), a refuge staff may 

receive up to five-year approvals for Washington Office and field reviewed proposed pesticide uses 

based upon meeting identified criteria including an approved IPM plan, where necessary (see 

http://www.fws.gov/contaminants/Issues/IPM.cfm). For a refuge, an IPM plan (requirements 

described herein) can be completed independently or in association with a CCP or a habitat 

management plant (HMP) if IPM strategies and potential environmental effects are adequately 

addressed within appropriate NEPA documentation. 

PUPs would be created, approved or disapproved, and stored as records in the Pesticide Use Proposal 

System (PUPS), which is centralized database on the Service’s intranet 

(https://systems.fws.gov/pups). Only Service employees can access PUP records in this database. 

6.5.3 Pesticide usage 

In accordance with 569 FW 1, the refuge Project Leader would be required to maintain records of all 

pesticides annually applied on lands or waters under refuge jurisdiction. This would encompass 

pesticides applied by other federal agencies, state and county governments, non-government 

applicators including cooperators and their pest management service providers with Service 

permission. For clarification, pesticide means all insecticides, insect and plant growth regulators, 

dessicants, herbicides, fungicides, rodenticides, acaricides, nematicides, fumigants, avicides, and 

piscicides. 

The following usage information can be reported for approved PUPs in the PUPS database: 

 Pesticide trade name(s) 

 Active ingredient(s) 

 Total acres treated 

 Total amount of pesticides used (lbs or gallons) 

 Total amount of active ingredient(s) used (lbs) 

 Target pest(s) 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan F-15 

 Efficacy (% control) 

To determine whether treatments are efficacious (eradicating, controlling, or containing the target 

pest) and achieving resource objectives, habitat and/or wildlife response would be monitored both 

pre- and post-treatment, where possible. Considering available annual funding and staffing, 

appropriate monitoring data regarding characteristics (attributes) of pest infestations (e.g., area, 

perimeter, degree of infestation-density, % cover, density) as well as habitat and/or wildlife response 

to treatments may be collected and stored in a relational database (e.g., Refuge Habitat Management 

Database), preferably a geo-referenced data management system (e.g., Refuge Lands GIS) to 

facilitate data analyses and subsequent reporting. In accordance with adaptive management, data 

analysis and interpretation would allow treatments to be modified or changed over time, as 

necessary, to achieve resource objectives considering site-specific conditions in conjunction with 

habitat and/or wildlife responses. Monitoring could also identify short- and long-term impacts to 

natural resources and environmental quality associated with IPM treatments in accordance with 

adaptive management principles identified in 43 CFR 46.145. 

7.0 Evaluating Pesticide Use Proposals 

Pesticides would only be used on refuge lands for habitat management as well as croplands/facilities 

maintenance after approval of a PUP. In general, proposed pesticide uses on refuge lands would only 

be approved where there would likely be minor, temporary, or localized effects to fish and wildlife 

species as well as minimal potential to degrade environmental quality. Potential effects to listed and 

non-listed species would be evaluated with quantitative ecological risk assessments and other 

screening measures. Potential effects to environmental quality would be based upon pesticide 

characteristics of environmental fate (water solubility, soil mobility, soil persistence, and 

volatilization) and other quantitative screening tools. Ecological risk assessments as well as 

characteristics of environmental fate and potential to degrade environmental quality for pesticides 

would be documented in Chemical Profiles (see Section 7.5). These profiles would include threshold 

values for quantitative measures of ecological risk assessments and screening tools for environmental 

fate that represent minimal potential effects to species and environmental quality. In general, only 

pesticide uses with appropriate BMPs (see Section 4.0) for habitat management and 

cropland/facilities maintenance on refuge lands that would potentially have minor, temporary, or 

localized effects on refuge biological and environmental quality (threshold values not exceeded) 

would be approved. 

7.1 Overview of Ecological Risk Assessment 

An ecological risk assessment process would be used to evaluate potential adverse effects to 

biological resources as a result of a pesticide(s) proposed for use on refuge lands. It is an established 

quantitative and qualitative methodology for comparing and prioritizing risks of pesticides and 

conveying an estimate of the potential risk for an adverse effect. This quantitative methodology 

provides an efficient mechanism to integrate best available scientific information regarding hazard, 

patterns of use (exposure), and dose-response relationships in a manner that is useful for ecological 

risk decision-making. It would provide an effective way to evaluate potential effects where there is 

missing or unavailable scientific information (data gaps) to address reasonable, foreseeable adverse 

effects in the field as required under 40 CFR Part 1502.22. Protocols for ecological risk assessment 

of pesticide uses on the refuge were developed through research and established by the US 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

F-16 Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

Environmental Protection Agency (2004). Assumptions for these risk assessments are presented in 

Section 6.2.3. 

The toxicological data used in ecological risk assessments are typically results of standardized 

laboratory studies provided by pesticide registrants to the USEPA to meet regulatory requirements 

under FIFRA. These studies assess the acute (lethality) and chronic (reproductive) effects associated 

with short- and long-term exposure to pesticides on representative species of birds, mammals, 

freshwater fish, aquatic invertebrates, and terrestrial and aquatic plants. Other effects data publicly 

available would also be utilized for risk assessment protocols described herein. Toxicity endpoint 

and environmental fate data are available from a variety of resources. Some of the more useful 

resources can be found in Section 7.5. 

Table 1. Ecotoxicity tests used to evaluate potential effects to birds, fish, and mammals to establish 

toxicity endpoints for risk quotient calculations. 

Species Group Exposure Measurement endpoint 

Bird 

Acute Median Lethal Concentration (LC50) 

Chronic No Observed Effect Concentration (NOEC) or 

No Observed Adverse Effect Concentration (NOAEC)1 

Fish 

Acute Median Lethal Concentration (LC50) 

Chronic No Observed Effect Concentration (NOEC) or 

No Observed Adverse Effect Concentration (NOAEC)2

Mammal Acute Oral Lethal Dose (LD50) 

Chronic No Observed Effect Concentration (NOEC) or 

No Observed Adverse Effect Concentration (NOAEC)3

1

Measurement endpoints typically include a variety of reproductive parameters (e.g., number of 

eggs, number of offspring, eggshell thickness, and number of cracked eggs). 

2

Measurement endpoints for early life stage/life cycle typically include embryo hatch rates, time to 

hatch, growth, and time to swim-up. 

3

Measurement endpoints include maternal toxicity, teratogenic effects or developmental anomalies, 

evidence of mutagenicity or genotoxicity, and interference with cellular mechanisms such as DNA 

synthesis and DNA repair. 

7.2 Determining Ecological Risk to Fish and Wildlife 

The potential for pesticides used on the refuge to cause direct adverse effects to fish and wildlife 

would be evaluated using USEPA’s Ecological Risk Assessment Process (US Environmental 

Protection Agency 2004). This deterministic approach, which is based upon a two-phase process 

involving estimation of environmental concentrations and then characterization of risk, would be 

used for ecological risk assessments. This method integrates exposure estimates (estimated 

environmental concentration [EEC] and toxicological endpoints [e.g., LC50 and oral LD50]) to 

evaluate the potential for adverse effects to species groups (birds, mammals, and fish) representative 

of legal mandates for managing units of the NWRS. This integration is achieved through risk 

quotients (RQs) calculated by dividing the EEC by acute and chronic toxicity values selected from 

standardized toxicological endpoints or published effect (Table 1). 

RQ = EEC/Toxicological Endpoint 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan F-17 

The level of risk associated with direct effects of pesticide use would be characterized by comparing 

calculated RQs to the appropriate Level of Concern (LOC) established by US Environmental 

Protection Agency (1998 [Table 2]). The LOC represents a quantitative threshold value for 

screening potential adverse effects to fish and wildlife resources associated with pesticide use. The 

following are four exposure-species group scenarios that would be used to characterize ecological 

risk to fish and wildlife on the refuge: acute-listed species, acute-nonlisted species, chronic-listed 

species, and chronic-nonlisted species. 

Acute risk would indicate the potential for mortality associated with short-term dietary exposure to 

pesticides immediately after an application. For characterization of acute risks, median values from 

LC50 and LD50 tests would be used as toxicological endpoints for RQ calculations. In contrast, 

chronic risks would indicate the potential for adverse effects associated with long-term dietary 

exposure to pesticides from a single application or multiple applications over time (within a season 

and over years). For characterization of chronic risks, the no observed concentration (NOAEC) or no 

observed effect concentration (NOEC) for reproduction would be used as toxicological endpoints for 

RQ calculations. Where available, the NOAEC would be preferred over a NOEC value. 

Listed species are those federally designated as threatened, endangered, or proposed in accordance 

with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531-1544, 87 Stat. 884, as amended-Public Law 

93-205). For listed species, potential adverse effects would be assessed at the individual level 

because loss of individuals from a population could detrimentally impact a species. In contrast, risks 

to nonlisted species would consider effects at the population level. A RQ<LOC would indicate the 

proposed pesticide use “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” individuals (listed species) and it 

would not pose an unacceptable risk for adverse effects to populations (non-listed species) for each 

taxonomic group (Table 2). In contrast, an RQ>LOC would indicate a “may affect, likely to 

adversely affect” for listed species and it would also pose unacceptable ecological risk for adverse 

effects to nonlisted species. 

 

Table 2. Presumption of unacceptable risk for birds, fish, and mammals (US Environmental 

Protection Agency 1998). 

Risk Presumption Level of Concern 

Listed Species Non-listed Species 

Acute Birds 0.1 0.5 

Fish 0.05 0.5 

Mammals 0.1 0.5 

Chronic Birds 1.0 1.0 

Fish 1.0 1.0 

Mammals 1.0 1.0 

7.2.1 Environmental exposure 

Following release into the environment through application, pesticides would experience several 

different routes of environmental fate. Pesticides which would be sprayed can move through the air 

(e.g., particle or vapor drift) and may eventually end up in other parts of the environment such as 

non-target vegetation, soil, or water. Pesticides applied directly to the soil may be washed off the 

soil into nearby bodies of surface water (e.g., surface runoff) or may percolate through the soil to 

lower soil layers and groundwater (e.g., leaching) (Baker and Miller 1999, Pope et al. 1999, Butler et 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

F-18 Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

al. 1998, Ramsay et al. 1995, EXTOXNET 1993a). Pesticides which would be injected into the soil 

may also be subject to the latter two fates. The aforementioned possibilities are by no means 

complete, but it does indicate movement of pesticides in the environment is very complex with 

transfers occurring continually among different environmental compartments. In some cases, these 

exchanges occur not only between areas that are close together, but it also may involve transportation 

of pesticides over long distances (Barry 2004, Woods 2004). 

7.2.1.1 Terrestrial exposure 

The ECC for exposure to terrestrial wildlife would be quantified using an USEPA screening-level 

approach (US Environmental Protection Agency 2004). This screening-level approach is not 

affected by product formulation because it evaluates pesticide active ingredient(s). This approach 

would vary depending upon the proposed pesticide application method: spray or granular. 

7.2.1.1.1 Terrestrial-spray application 

For spray applications, exposure would be determined using the Kanaga nomogram method (US 

Environmental Protection Agency 2005a, US Environmental Protection Agency 2004, Pfleeger et al. 

1996) through the USEPA’s Terrestrial Residue Exposure model (T-REX) version 1.2.3 (US 

Environmental Protection Agency 2005b). To estimate the maximum (initial) pesticide residue on 

short grass (<20 cm tall) as a general food item category for terrestrial vertebrate species, T-REX 

input variables would include the following from the pesticide label: maximum pesticide application 

rate (pounds active ingredient [acid equivalent]/acre) and pesticide half-life (days) in soil. Although 

there are other food item categories (tall grasses; broadleaf plants and small insects; and fruits, pods, 

seeds and large insects), short grass was selected because it would yield maximum EECs (240 ppm 

per lb ai/acre) for worst-case risk assessments. Short grass is not representative of forage for 

carnivorous species (e.g., raptors), but it would characterize the maximum potential exposure through 

the diet of avian and mammalian prey items. Consequently, this approach would provide a 

conservative screening tool for pesticides that do not biomagnify. 

For RQ calculations in T-REX, the model would require the weight of surrogate species and Mineau 

scaling factors (Mineau et. al. 1996). Body weights of bobwhite quail and mallard are included in TREX by default, but body weights of other organisms (Table 3) would be entered manually. The 

Mineau scaling factor accounts for small-bodied bird species that may be more sensitive to pesticide 

exposure than would be predicted only by body weight. Mineau scaling factors would be entered 

manually with values ranging from 1 to 1.55 that are unique to a particular pesticide or group of 

pesticides. If specific information to select a scaling factor is not available, then a value of 1.15 

would be used as a default. Alternatively, zero would be entered if it is known that body weight does 

not influence toxicity of pesticide(s) being assessed. The upper bound estimate output from the TREX Kanaga nomogram would be used as an EEC for calculation of RQs. This approach would 

yield a conservative estimate of ecological risk. 

Table 3. Average body weight of selected terrestrial wildlife species frequently used in research to 

establish toxicological endpoints (Dunning 1984). 

Species Body Weight (kg) 

Mammal (15 g) 0.015 

House sparrow 0.0277 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan F-19 

Species Body Weight (kg) 

Mammal (35 g) 0.035 

Starling 0.0823 

Red-winged blackbird 0.0526 

Common grackle 0.114 

Japanese quail 0.178 

Bobwhite quail 0.178 

Rat 0.200 

Rock dove (aka pigeon) 0.542 

Mammal (1000 g) 1.000 

Mallard 1.082 

Ring-necked pheasant 1.135 

7.2.1.1.2 Terrestrial – granular application 

Granular pesticide formulations and pesticide-treated seed would pose a unique route of exposure for 

avian and mammalian species. The pesticide is applied in discrete units which birds or mammals 

might ingest accidentally with food items or intentionally as in the case of some bird species actively 

seeking and picking up gravel or grit to aid digestion or seed as a food source. Granules may also be 

consumed by wildlife foraging on earthworms, slugs or other soft-bodied soil organisms to which the 

granules may adhere. 

Terrestrial wildlife RQs for granular formulations or seed treatments would be calculated by dividing 

the maximum milligrams of active ingredient (a.i.) exposed (e.g., EEC) on the surface of an area 

equal to 1 square foot by the appropriate LD50 value multiplied by the surrogate’s body weight (Table 

3). An adjustment to surface area calculations would be made for broadcast, banded, and in-furrow 

applications. An adjustment also would be made for applications with and without incorporation of 

the granules. Without incorporation, it would be assumed that 100% of the granules remain on the 

soil surface available to foraging birds and mammals. Press wheels push granules flat with the soil 

surface, but they are not incorporated into the soil. If granules are incorporated in the soil during 

band or T-band applications or after broadcast applications, it would be assumed only 15% of the 

applied granules remain available to wildlife. It would be assumed that only 1% of the granules are 

available on the soil surface following in-furrow applications. 

EECs for pesticides applied in granular form and as seed treatments would be determined 

considering potential ingestion rates of avian or mammalian species (e.g., 10-30% body weight/day). 

This would provide an estimate of maximum exposure that may occur as a result of granule or seed 

treatment spills such as those that commonly occur at end rows during application and planting. The 

availability of granules and seed treatments to terrestrial vertebrates would also be considered by 

calculating the loading per unit area (LD50/ft2

)for comparison to USEPA Level of Concerns (US 

Environmental Protection Agency 1998). The T-REX version 1.2.3 (US Environmental Protection 

Agency 2005b) contains a submodel which automates Kanaga exposure calculations for granular 

pesticides and treated seed. 

The following formulas will be used to calculate EECs depending upon the type of granular pesticide 

application: 

• In-furrow applications assume a typical value of 1% granules, bait, or seed remain 

unincorporated. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

F-20 Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

mg a.i./ft.

2 

= [(lbs. product/acre)(% a.i.)(453,580 mg/lbs)(1% exposed))] / {[(43,560 ft.

2

/acre)/(row 

spacing (ft.))] / (row spacing (ft.)} 

or 

mg a.i./ft

2 

= [(lbs product/1000 ft. row)(% a.i.)(1000 ft row)(453,580 mg/lb.)(1% exposed) 

EEC = [(mg a.i./ft.

2

)(% of pesticide biologically available)] 

 Incorporated banded treatments assume that 15% of granules, bait, and seeds are 

unincorporated. 

mg a.i./ft.

2 

= [(lbs. product/1000 row ft.)(% a.i.)(453,580 mg/lb.)(1-% incorporated)] / (1,000 

ft.)(band width (ft.)) 

EEC = [(mg a.i./ft.

2

)(% of pesticide biologically available)] 

• Broadcast treatment without incorporation assumes 100% of granules, bait, seeds are 

unincorporated. 

mg a.i./ft.

2 

= [(lbs. product/acre)(% a.i.)(453,590 mg/lb.)] / (43,560 ft.

2

/acre) 

EEC = [(mg a.i./ft.

2

)(% of pesticide biologically available)] 

Where: 

• % of pesticide biologically available = 100% without species specific ingestion rates 

• Conversion for calculating mg a.i./ft.

2 

using ounces: 453,580 mg/lb. /16 = 28,349 mg/oz. 

The following equation would be used to calculate an RQ based on the EEC calculated by one of the 

above equations. The EEC would divided by the surrogate LD50 toxicological endpoint multiplied by 

the body weight (Table 3) of the surrogate. 

RQ = EEC / [LD50 (mg/kg) * body weight (kg)] 

As with other risk assessments, an RQ>LOC would be a presumption of unacceptable ecological 

risk. An RQ<LOC would be a presumption of acceptable risk with only minor, temporary, or 

localized effects to species. 

7.2.1.2 Aquatic exposure 

Exposures to aquatic habitats (e.g., wetlands, meadows, ephemeral pools, water delivery ditches) 

would be evaluated separately for ground-based pesticide treatments of habitats managed for fish and 

wildlife compared with cropland/facilities maintenance. The primary exposure pathway for aquatic 

organisms from any ground-based treatments likely would be particle drift during the pesticide 

application. However, different exposure scenarios would be necessary as a result of contrasting 

application equipment and techniques as well as pesticides used to control pests on agricultural lands 

(especially those cultivated by cooperative farmers for economic return from crop yields) and 

facilities maintenance (e.g., roadsides, parking lots, trails) compared with other managed habitats on 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan F-21 

the refuge. In addition, pesticide applications may be done <25 feet of the high water mark of 

aquatic habitats for habitat management treatments; whereas, no-spray buffers (≥25 feet) would be 

used for croplands/facilities maintenance treatments. 

7.2.1.2.1 Habitat treatments 

For the worst-case exposure scenario to non-target aquatic habitats, EECs (Table 4) would be would 

be derived from Urban and Cook (1986) that assumes an intentional overspray to an entire, nontarget water body (1-foot depth) from a treatment <25 feet from the high water mark using the max 

application rate (acid basis [see above]). However, use of BMPs for applying pesticides (see Section 

4.2) would likely minimize/eliminate potential drift to non-target aquatic habitats during actual 

treatments. If there would be unacceptable (acute or chronic) risk to fish and wildlife with the 

simulated 100% overspray (RQ>LOC), then the proposed pesticide use may be disapproved or the 

PUP would be approved at a lower application rate to minimize/eliminate unacceptable risk to 

aquatic organisms (RQ=LOC). 

Table 4. Estimated Environmental Concentrations (ppb) of pesticides in aquatic habitats (1 foot 

depth) immediately after direct application (Urban and Cook 1986). 

Lbs/acre EEC (ppb) 

0.10 36.7 

0.20 73.5 

0.25 91.9 

0.30 110.2 

0.40 147.0 

0.50 183.7 

0.75 275.6 

1.00 367.5 

1.25 459.7 

1.50 551.6 

1.75 643.5 

2.00 735.7 

2.25 827.6 

2.50 919.4 

3.00 1103.5 

4.00 1471.4 

5.00 1839 

6.00 2207 

7.00 2575 

8.00 2943 

9.00 3311 

10.00 3678 

7.2.1.2.2 Cropland/facilities maintenance treatments 

Field drift studies conducted by the Spray Drift Task Force, which is a joint project of several 

agricultural chemical businesses, were used to develop a generic spray drift database. From this 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

F-22 Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

database, the AgDRIFT computer model was created to satisfy USEPA pesticide registration spray 

drift data requirements and as a scientific basis to evaluate off-target movement of pesticides from 

particle drift and assess potential effects of exposure to wildlife. Several versions of the computer 

model have been developed (i.e., v2.01 through v2.10). The Spray Drift Task Force AgDRIFT® 

model version 2.01 (SDTF 2003, AgDRIFT 2001) would be used to derive EECs resulting from drift 

of pesticides to refuge aquatic resources from ground-based pesticide applications >25 feet from the 

high water mark. The Spray Drift Task Force AgDRIFT model is publicly available at 

http://www.agdrift.com. At this website, click “AgDRIFT 2.0” and then click “Download Now” and 

follow the instructions to obtain the computer model. 

The AgDRIFT model is composed of submodels called tiers. Tier I Ground submodel would be used 

to assess ground-based applications of pesticides. Tier outputs (EECs) would be calculated with 

AgDRIFT using the following input variables: max application rate (acid basis [see above]), low 

boom (20 inches), fine to medium droplet size, EPA-defined wetland, and a 

≥25-foot distance (buffer) from treated area to water. 

7.2.2 Use of information on effects of biological control agents, pesticides, degradates, and 

adjuvants 

NEPA documents regarding biological and other environmental effects of biological control agents, 

pesticides, degradates, and adjuvants prepared by another federal agency, where the scope would be 

relevant to evaluation of effects from pesticide uses on refuge lands, would be reviewed. Possible 

source agencies for such NEPA documents would include the Bureau of Land Management, US 

Forest Service, National Park Service, US Department of Agriculture-Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, and the military services. It might be appropriate to incorporate by reference 

parts or all of existing document(s). Incorporating by reference (40 CFR 1502.21) is a technique 

used to avoid redundancies in analysis. It also would reduce the bulk of a Service NEPA document, 

which only would identify the documents that are incorporated by reference. In addition, relevant 

portions would be summarized in the Service NEPA document to the extent necessary to provide the 

decision maker and public with an understanding of relevance of the referenced material to the 

current analysis. 

In accordance with the requirements set forth in 43 CFR 46.135, the Service would specifically 

incorporate through reference ecological risk assessments prepared by the US Forest Service 

(http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/invasiveplant-eis/Risk-Assessments/Herbicides-Analyzed-InvPlantEIS.htm) and Bureau of Land Management (http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/veg_eis.html). 

These risk assessments and associated documentation also are available in total with the 

administrative record for the Final Environmental Impact Statement entitled Pacific Northwest 

Region Invasive Plant Program – Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants (US Forest Service 

2005) and Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 

Western States Programmatic EIS (PEIS) (Bureau of Land Management 2007). In accordance with 

43 CRF 46.120(d), use of existing NEPA documents by supplementing, tiering to, incorporating by 

reference, or adopting previous NEPA environmental analyses would avoid redundancy and 

unnecessary paperwork. 

As a basis for completing “Chemical Profiles” for approving or disapproving refuge PUPs, 

ecological risk assessments for the following herbicide and adjuvant uses prepared by the US Forest 

Service would be incorporated by reference: 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan F-23 

 2,4-D 

 Chlorosulfuron 

 Clopyralid 

 Dicamba 

 Glyphosate 

 Imazapic 

 Imazapyr 

 Metsulfuron methyl 

 Picloram 

 Sethoxydim 

 Sulfometuron methyl 

 Triclopyr 

 Nonylphenol polyethylate (NPE) based surfactants 

As a basis for completing “Chemical Profiles” for approving or disapproving refuge PUPs, 

ecological risk assessments for the following herbicide uses as well as evaluation of risks associated 

with pesticide degradates and adjuvants prepared by the Bureau of Land Management would be 

incorporated by reference: 

 Bromacil 

 Chlorsulfuron 

 Diflufenzopyr 

 Diquat 

 Diuron 

 Fluridone 

 Imazapic 

 Overdrive (diflufenzopyr and dicamba) 

 Sulfometuron methyl 

 Tebuthiuron 

 Pesticide degradates and adjuvants (Appendix D – Evaluation of risks from degradates, 

polyoxyethylene-amine (POEA) and R-11, and endocrine disrupting chemicals) 

7.2.3 Assumptions for ecological risk assessments 

There are a number of assumptions involved with the ecological risk assessment process for 

terrestrial and aquatic organisms associated with utilization of the US Environmental Protection 

Agency’s (2004) process. These assumptions may be risk neutral or may lead to an over- or underestimation of risk from pesticide exposure depending upon site-specific conditions. The following 

describes these assumptions, their application to the conditions typically encountered, and whether or 

not they may lead to recommendations that are risk neutral, underestimate, or overestimate ecological 

risk from potential pesticide exposure. 

 Indirect effects would not be evaluated by ecological risk assessments. These effects include the 

mechanisms of indirect exposure to pesticides: consuming prey items (fish, birds, or small 

mammals), reductions in the availability of prey items, and disturbance associated with pesticide 

application activities. 

 Exposure to a pesticide product can be assessed based upon the active ingredient. However, 

exposure to a chemical mixture (pesticide formulation) may result in effects that are similar or 

substantially different compared to only the active ingredient. Non-target organisms may be 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

F-24 Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

exposed directly to the pesticide formulation or only various constituents of the formulation as 

they dissipate and partition in the environment. If toxicological information for both the active 

ingredient and formulated product are available, then data representing the greatest potential 

toxicity would be selected for use in the risk assessment process (US Environmental Protection 

Agency 2004). As a result, this conservative approach may lead to an overestimation of risk 

characterization from pesticide exposure. 

 Because toxicity tests with listed or candidate species or closely related species are not available, 

data for surrogate species would be most often used for risk assessments. Specifically, bobwhite 

quail and mallard duck are the most frequently used surrogates for evaluating potential toxicity to 

federally listed avian species. Bluegill sunfish, rainbow trout, and fathead minnow are the most 

common surrogates for evaluating toxicity for freshwater fishes. However, sheep’s head minnow 

can be an appropriate surrogate marine species for coastal environments. Rats and mice are the 

most common surrogates for evaluating toxicity for mammals. Interspecies sensitivity is a major 

source of uncertainty in pesticide assessments. As a result of this uncertainty, data is selected for 

the most sensitive species tested within a taxonomic group (birds, fish, and mammals) given the 

quality of the data is acceptable. If additional toxicity data for more species of organisms in a 

particular group are available, the selected data will not be limited to the species previously listed 

as common surrogates. 

 The Kanaga nomogram outputs maximum EEC values that may be used to calculate an average 

daily concentration over a specified interval of time, which is referred to as a time-weightedaverage (TWA). The maximum EEC would be selected as the exposure input for both acute and 

chronic risk assessments in the screening-level evaluations. The initial or maximum EEC 

derived from the Kanaga nomogram represents the maximum expected instantaneous or acute 

exposure to a pesticide. Acute toxicity endpoints are determined using a single exposure to a 

known pesticide concentration typically for 48 to 96 hours. This value is assumed to represent 

ecological risk from acute exposure to a pesticide. On the other hand, chronic risk to pesticide 

exposure is a function of pesticide concentration and duration of exposure to the pesticide. An 

organism’s response to chronic pesticide exposure may result from either the concentration of the 

pesticide, length of exposure, or some combination of both factors. Standardized tests for 

chronic toxicity typically involve exposing an organism to several different pesticide 

concentrations for a specified length of time (days, weeks, months, years or generations). For 

example, avian reproduction tests include a 10-week exposure phase. Because a single length of 

time is used in the test, time response data is usually not available for inclusion into risk 

assessments. Without time response data it is difficult to determine the concentration which 

elicited a toxicological response. 

 Using maximum EECs for chronic risk estimates may result in an overestimate of risk, 

particularly for compounds that dissipate rapidly. Conversely, using TWAs for chronic risk 

estimates may underestimate risk if it is the concentration rather than the duration of exposure 

that is primarily responsible for the observed adverse effect. The maximum EEC would be used 

for chronic risk assessments although it may result in an overestimate of risk. TWAs may be 

used for chronic risk assessments, but they will be applied judiciously considering the potential 

for an underestimate or overestimate of risk. For example, the number of days exposure exceeds 

a Level of Concern may influence the suitability of a pesticide use. The greater the number of 

days the EEC exceeds the Level of Concern translates into greater the ecological risk. This is a 

qualitative assessment, and is subject to reviewer’s expertise in ecological risk assessment and 

tolerance for risk. 

 The length of time used to calculate the TWA can have a substantial effect on the exposure 

estimates and there is no standard method for determining the appropriate duration for this 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan F-25 

estimate. The T-REX model assumes a 21-week exposure period, which is equivalent to avian 

reproductive studies designed to establish a steady-state concentration for bioaccumulative 

compounds. However, this does not necessarily define the true exposure duration needed to elicit 

a toxicological response. Pesticides, which do not bioaccumulate, may achieve a steady-state 

concentration earlier than 21 weeks. The duration of time for calculating TWAs will require 

justification and it will not exceed the duration of exposure in the chronic toxicity test 

(approximately 70 days for the standard avian reproduction study). An alternative to using the 

duration of the chronic toxicity study is to base the TWA on the application interval. In this case, 

increasing the application interval would suppress both the estimated peak pesticide 

concentration and the TWA. Another alternative to using TWAs would be to consider the 

number of days that a chemical is predicted to exceed the LOC. 

 Pesticide dissipation is assumed to be first-order in the absence of data suggesting alternative 

dissipation patterns such as bi-phasic. Field dissipation data would generally be the most 

pertinent for assessing exposure in terrestrial species that forage on vegetation. However, these 

data are often not available and it can be misleading particularly if the compound is prone to 

“wash-off”. Soil half-life is the most common degradation data available. Dissipation or 

degradation data that would reflect the environmental conditions typical of refuge lands would be 

utilized, if available. 

 For species found in the water column, it would be assumed that the greatest bioavailable fraction 

of the pesticide active ingredient in surface waters is freely dissolved in the water column. 

 Actual habitat requirements of any particular terrestrial species are not considered, and it is 

assumed that species exclusively and permanently occupy the treated area, or adjacent areas 

receiving pesticide at rates commensurate with the treatment rate. This assumption would 

produce a maximum estimate of exposure for risk characterization. This assumption would 

likely lead to an overestimation of exposure for species that do not permanently and exclusively 

occupy the treated area (US Environmental Protection Agency 2004). 

 Exposure through incidental ingestion of pesticide contaminated soil is not considered in the 

USEPA risk assessment protocols. Research suggests <15% of the diet can consist of 

incidentally ingested soil depending upon species and feeding strategy (Beyer et al. 1994). An 

assessment of pesticide concentrations in soil compared to food item categories in the Kanaga 

nomogram indicates incidental soil ingestion will not likely increase dietary exposure to 

pesticides. Inclusion of soil into the diet would effectively reduce the overall dietary 

concentration compared to the present assumption that the entire diet consists a contaminated 

food source (Fletcher et al. 1994). An exception to this may be soil-applied pesticides in which 

exposure from incidental ingestion of soil may increase. Potential for pesticide exposure under 

this assumption may be underestimated for soil-applied pesticides and overestimated for foliarapplied pesticides. The concentration of a pesticide in soil would likely be less than predicted on 

food items. 

 Exposure through inhalation of pesticides is not considered in the USEPA risk assessment 

protocols. Such exposure may occur through three potential sources: spray material in droplet 

form at time of application, vapor phase with the pesticide volatilizing from treated surfaces, and 

airborne particulates (soil, vegetative matter, and pesticide dusts). The USEPA (1990) reported 

exposure from inhaling spray droplets at the time of application is not an appreciable route of 

exposure for birds. According to research on mallards and bobwhite quail, respirable particle size 

(particles reaching the lung) in birds is limited to maximum diameter of 2 to 5 microns. The 

spray droplet spectra covering the majority of pesticide application scenarios indicate that less 

than 1% of the applied material is within the respirable particle size. This route of exposure is 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

F-26 Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

further limited because the permissible spray drop size distribution for ground pesticide 

applications is restricted to ASAE medium or coarser drop size distribution. 

 Inhalation of a pesticide in the vapor phase may be another source of exposure for some 

pesticides under certain conditions. This mechanism of exposure to pesticides occurs post 

application, and it would pertain to those pesticides with a high vapor pressure. The USEPA is 

currently evaluating protocols for modeling inhalation exposure from pesticides including nearfield and near-ground air concentrations based upon equilibrium and kinetics-based models. Risk 

characterization for exposure with this mechanism is unavailable. 

 The effect from exposure to dusts contaminated with the pesticide cannot be assessed generically 

as partitioning issues related to application site soils and chemical properties of the applied 

pesticides render the exposure potential from this route highly situation specific. 

 Dermal exposure may occur through three potential sources: direct application of spray to 

terrestrial wildlife in the treated area or within the drift footprint, incidental contact with 

contaminated vegetation, or contact with contaminated water or soil. Interception of spray and 

incidental contact with treated substrates may pose risk to avian wildlife (Driver et al. 1991). 

However, available research related to wildlife dermal contact with pesticides is extremely 

limited, except dermal toxicity values are common for some mammals used as human surrogates 

(rats and mice). The USEPA is currently evaluating protocols for modeling dermal exposure. 

Risk characterization may be underestimated for this route of exposure, particularly with high 

risk pesticides such as some organophosphates or carbamate insecticides. If protocols are 

established by the USEPA for assessing dermal exposure to pesticides, they will be considered 

for incorporation into pesticide assessment protocols. 

 Exposure to a pesticide may occur from consuming surface water, dew or other water on treated 

surfaces. Water soluble pesticides have the potential to dissolve in surface runoff and puddles in 

a treated area may contain pesticide residues. Similarly, pesticides with lower organic carbon 

partitioning characteristics and higher solubility in water have a greater potential to dissolve in 

dew and other water associated with plant surfaces. Estimating the extent to which such 

pesticide loadings to drinking water occurs is complex and would depend upon the partitioning 

characteristics of the active ingredient, soils types in the treatment area, and the meteorology of 

the treatment area. In addition, the use of various water sources by wildlife is highly speciesspecific. Currently, risk characterization for this exposure mechanism is not available. The 

USEPA is actively developing protocols to quantify drinking water exposures from puddles and 

dew. If and when protocols are formally established by the USEPA for assessing exposure to 

pesticides through drinking water, these protocols will be incorporated into pesticide risk 

assessment protocols. 

 Risk assessments are based upon the assumption that the entire treatment area would be subject 

to pesticide application at the rates specified on the label. In most cases, there is potential for 

uneven application of pesticides through such plausible incidents such as changes in calibration 

of application equipment, spillage, and localized releases at specific areas in or near the treated 

field that are associated with mixing and handling and application equipment as well as 

applicator skill. Inappropriate use of pesticides and the occurrence of spills represent a potential 

underestimate of risk. It is likely not an important factor for risk characterization. All pesticide 

applicators are required to be certified by the state in which they apply pesticides. Certification 

training includes the safe storage, transport, handling, and mixing of pesticides; equipment 

calibration; and proper application with annual continuing education. 

 The USEPA relies on Fletcher (1994) for setting the assumed pesticide residues in wildlife 

dietary items. The USEPA (2004) “believes that these residue assumptions reflect a realistic 

upper-bound residue estimate, although the degree to which this assumption reflects a specific 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan F-27 

percentile estimate is difficult to quantify”. Fletcher’s (1994) research suggests that the pesticide 

active ingredient residue assumptions used by the USEPA represent a 95th percentile estimate. 

However, research conducted by Pfleeger et al. (1996) indicates USEPA residue assumptions for 

short grass was not exceeded. Baehr and Habig (2000) compared USEPA residue assumptions 

with distributions of measured pesticide residues for the USEPA’s UTAB database. Overall 

residue selection level will tend to overestimate risk characterization. This is particularly evident 

when wildlife individuals are likely to have selected a variety of food items acquired from 

multiple locations. Some food items may be contaminated with pesticide residues whereas others 

are not contaminated. However, it is important to recognize differences in species feeding 

behavior. Some species may consume whole above-ground plant material, but others will 

preferentially select different plant structures. Also, species may preferentially select a food item 

although multiple food items may be present. Without species specific knowledge regarding 

foraging behavior characterizing ecological risk other than in general terms is not possible. 

 Acute and chronic risk assessments rely on comparisons of wildlife dietary residues with LC50 or 

NOEC values expressed as concentrations of pesticides in laboratory feed. These comparisons 

assume that ingestion of food items in the field occurs at rates commensurate with those in the 

laboratory. Although the screening assessment process adjusts dry-weight estimates of food 

intake to reflect the increased mass in fresh-weight wildlife food intake estimates, it does not 

allow for gross energy and assimilative efficiency differences between wildlife food items and 

laboratory feed. Differences in assimilative efficiency between laboratory and wild diets suggest 

that current screening assessment methods are not accounting for a potentially important aspect 

of food requirements. 

 There are several other assumptions that can affect non-target species not considered in the risk 

assessment process. These include possible additive or synergistic effects from applying two or 

more pesticides or additives in a single application, co-location of pesticides in the environment, 

cumulative effects from pesticides with the same mode of action, effects of multiple stressors 

(e.g., combination of pesticide exposure, adverse abiotic and biotic factors) and behavioral 

changes induced by exposure to a pesticide. These factors may exist at some level contributing 

to adverse effects to non-target species, but they are usually characterized in the published 

literature in only a general manner limiting their value in the risk assessment process.

 It is assumed that aquatic species exclusively and permanently occupy the water body being 

assessed. Actual habitat requirements of aquatic species are not considered. With the possible 

exception of scenarios where pesticides are directly applied to water, it is assumed that no habitat 

use considerations specific for any species would place the organisms in closer proximity to 

pesticide use sites. This assumption produces a maximum estimate of exposure or risk 

characterization. It would likely be realistic for many aquatic species that may be found in 

aquatic habitats within or in close proximity to treated terrestrial habitats. However, the spatial 

distribution of wildlife is usually not random because wildlife distributions are often related to 

habitat requirements of species. Clumped distributions of wildlife may result in an under- or 

over-estimation of risk depending upon where the initial pesticide concentration occurs relative 

to the species or species habitat. 

 For species found in the water column, it would be assumed that the greatest bioavailable fraction 

of the pesticide active ingredient in surface waters is freely dissolved in the water column. 

Additional chemical exposure from materials associated with suspended solids or food items is 

not considered because partitioning onto sediments likely is minimal. Adsorption and 

bioconcentration occurs at lower levels for many newer pesticides compared with older more 

persistent bioaccumulative compounds. Pesticides with RQs close to the listed species level of 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

F-28 Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

concern, the potential for additional exposure from these routes may be a limitation of risk 

assessments, where potential pesticide exposure or risk may be underestimated. 

 Mass transport losses of pesticide from a water body (except for losses by volatilization, 

degradation and sediment partitioning) would not be considered for ecological risk assessment. 

The water body would be assumed to capture all pesticide active ingredients entering as runoff, 

drift, and adsorbed to eroded soil particles. It would also be assumed that pesticide active 

ingredient is not lost from the water body by overtopping or flow-through, nor is concentration 

reduced by dilution. In total, these assumptions would lead to a near maximum possible waterborne concentration. However, this assumption would not account for the potential to 

concentrate pesticide through the evaporative loss. This limitation may have the greatest impact 

on water bodies with high surface-to-volume ratios such as ephemeral wetlands, where 

evaporative losses are accentuated and applied pesticides have low rates of degradation and 

volatilization. 

 For acute risk assessments, there would be no averaging time for exposure. An instantaneous 

peak concentration would be assumed, where instantaneous exposure is sufficient in duration to 

elicit acute effects comparable to those observed over more protracted exposure periods 

(typically 48 to 96 hours) tested in the laboratory. In the absence of data regarding time-to-toxic 

event, analyses and latent responses to instantaneous exposure, risk would likely be 

overestimated. 

 For chronic exposure risk assessments, the averaging times considered for exposure are 

commensurate with the duration of invertebrate life-cycle or fish-early life stage tests (e.g., 21-28 

days and 56-60 days, respectively). Response profiles (time to effect and latency of effect) to 

pesticides likely vary widely with mode of action and species and should be evaluated on a caseby-case basis as available data allow. Nevertheless, because the USEPA relies on chronic 

exposure toxicity endpoints based on a finding of no observed effect, the potential for any latent 

toxicity effects or averaging time assumptions to alter the results of an acceptable chronic risk 

assessment prediction is limited. The extent to which duration of exposure from water-borne 

concentrations overestimate or underestimate actual exposure depends on several factors. These 

include the following: localized meteorological conditions, runoff characteristics of the 

watershed (e.g., soils, topography), the hydrological characteristics of receiving waters, 

environmental fate of the pesticide active ingredient, and the method of pesticide application. It 

should also be understood that chronic effects studies are performed using a method that holds 

water concentration in a steady state. This method is not likely to reflect conditions associated 

with pesticide runoff. Pesticide concentrations in the field increase and decrease in surface water 

on a cycle influenced by rainfall, pesticide use patterns, and degradation rates. As a result of the 

dependency of this assumption on several undefined variables, risk associated with chronic 

exposure may in some situations underestimate risk and overestimate risk in others. 

 There are several other factors that can affect non-target species not considered in the risk 

assessment process. These would include the following: possible additive or synergistic effects 

from applying two or more pesticides or additives in a single application, co-location of 

pesticides in the environment, cumulative effects from pesticides with the same mode of action, 

effects of multiple stressors (e.g., combination of pesticide exposure, adverse abiotic [not 

pesticides] and biotic factors), and sub-lethal effects such as behavioral changes induced by 

exposure to a pesticide. These factors may exist at some level contributing to adverse effects to 

non-target species, but they are not routinely assessed by regulatory agencies. Therefore, 

information on the factors is not extensive limiting their value for the risk assessment process. As 

this type of information becomes available, it would be included, either quantitatively or 

qualitatively, in this risk assessment process. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan F-29 

 USEPA is required by the Food Quality Protection Act to assess the cumulative risks of 

pesticides that share common mechanisms of toxicity, or act the same within an organism. 

Currently, USEPA has identified four groups of pesticides that have a common mechanism of 

toxicity requiring cumulative risk assessments. These four groups are: the organophosphate 

insecticides, N-methyl carbamate insecticides, triazine herbicides, and chloroacetanilide 

herbicides. 

7.3 Pesticide Mixtures and Degradates 

Pesticide products are usually a formulation of several components generally categorized as active 

ingredients and inert or other ingredients. The term active ingredient is defined by the FIFRA as 

preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating the effects of a pest, or it is a plant regulator, 

defoliant, desiccant, or nitrogen stabilizer. In accordance with FIFRA, the active ingredient(s) must 

be identified by name(s) on the pesticide label along with its relative composition expressed in 

percentage(s) by weight. In contrast, inert ingredient(s) are not intended to affect a target pest. Their 

role in the pesticide formulation is to act as a solvent (keep the active ingredient is a liquid phase), an 

emulsifying or suspending agent (keep the active ingredient from separating out of solution), or a 

carrier (such as clay in which the active ingredient is impregnated on the clay particle in dry 

formulations). For example, if isopropyl alcohol would be used as a solvent in a pesticide 

formulation, then it would be considered an inert ingredient. FIFRA only requires that inert 

ingredients identified as hazardous and associated percent composition, and the total percentage of 

all inert ingredients must be declared on a product label. Inert ingredients that are not classified as 

hazardous are not required to be identified. 

The USEPA (September 1997) issued Pesticide Regulation Notice 97-6, which encouraged 

manufacturers, formulators, producers, and registrants of pesticide products to voluntarily substitute 

the term “other ingredients” for “inert ingredients” in the ingredient statement. This change 

recognized that all components in a pesticide formulation potentially could elicit or contribute to an 

adverse effect on non-target organisms and, therefore, are not necessarily inert. Whether referred to 

as “inerts” or “other ingredients,” these constituents within a pesticide product have the potential to 

affect species or environmental quality. The USEPA categorizes regulated inert ingredients into the 

following four lists (http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/inerts/index.html): 

• List 1 – Inert Ingredients of Toxicological Concern 

• List 2 – Potentially Toxic Inert Ingredients 

• List 3 – Inerts of Unknown Toxicity 

• List 4 – Inerts of Minimal Toxicity 

Several of the List 4 compounds are naturally-occurring earthen materials (e.g., clay materials, 

simple salts) that would not elicit toxicological response at applied concentrations. However, some 

of the inerts (particularly the List 3 compounds and unlisted compounds) may have moderate to high 

potential toxicity to aquatic species based on MSDSs or published data. 

Comprehensively assessing potential effects to non-target fish, wildlife, plants, and/or their habitats 

from pesticide use is a complex task. It would be preferable to assess the cumulative effects from 

exposure to the active ingredient, its degradates, and inert ingredients as well as other active 

ingredients in the spray mixture. However, it would only be feasible to conduct deterministic risk 

assessments for each component in the spray mixture singly. Limited scientific information is 

available regarding ecological effects (additive or synergistic) from chemical mixtures that typically 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

F-30 Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

rely upon broadly encompassing assumptions. For example, the US Forest Service (2005) found that 

mixtures of pesticides used in land (forest) management likely would not cause additive or 

synergistic effects to non-target species based upon a review of scientific literature regarding 

toxicological effects and interactions of agricultural chemicals (ATSDR 2004). Moreover, 

information on inert ingredients, adjuvants, and degradates is often limited by the availability of and 

access to reliable toxicological data for these constituents. 

Toxicological information regarding “other ingredients” may be available from sources such as the 

following: 

• TOMES (a proprietary toxicological database including USEPA’s IRIS, the Hazardous Substance 

Data Bank, the Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances [RTECS]). 

• USEPA’s ECOTOX database, which includes AQUIRE (a database containing scientific papers 

published on the toxic effects of chemicals to aquatic organisms). 

• TOXLINE (a literature searching tool). 

• Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) from pesticide suppliers. 

• Other sources such as the Farm Chemicals Handbook. 

Because there is a lack of specific inert toxicological data, inert(s) in a pesticide may cause adverse 

ecological effects. However, inert ingredients typically represent only a small percentage of the 

pesticide spray mixture, and it would be assumed that negligible effects would be expected to result 

from inert ingredient(s). 

Although the potential effects of degradates should be considered when selecting a pesticide, it is 

beyond the scope of this assessment process to consider all possible breakdown chemicals of the 

various product formulations containing an active ingredient. Degradates may be more or less 

mobile and more or less hazardous in the environment than their parent pesticides (Battaglin et al. 

2003). Differences in environmental behavior (e.g., mobility) and toxicity between parent pesticides 

and degradates would make assessing potential degradate effects extremely difficult. For example, a 

less toxic and more mobile, bioaccumulative, or persistent degradate may have potentially greater 

effects on species and/or degrade environmental quality. The lack of data on the toxicity of 

degradates for many pesticides would represent a source of uncertainty for assessing risk. 

A USEPA-approved label specifies whether a product can be mixed with one or more pesticides. 

Without product-specific toxicological data, it would not possible to quantify the potential effects of 

these mixtures. In addition, a quantitative analysis could only be conducted if reliable scientific 

information allowed a determination of whether the joint action of a mixture would be additive, 

synergistic, or antagonistic. Such information would not likely exist unless the mode of action would 

be common among the chemicals and receptors. Moreover, the composition of and exposure to 

mixtures would be highly site- and/or time-specific and, therefore, it would be nearly impossible to 

assess potential effects to species and environmental quality. 

To minimize or eliminate potential negative effects associated with applying two or more pesticides 

as a mixture, the use would be conducted in accordance with the labeling requirements. Labels for 

two or more pesticides applied as a mixture should be completely reviewed, where products with the 

least potential for negative effects would be selected for use on the refuge. This is especially relevant 

when a mixture would be applied in a manner that may already have the potential for an effect(s) 

associated with an individual pesticide (e.g., runoff to ponds in sandy watersheds). Use of a tank mix 

under these conditions would increase the level of uncertainty in terms of risk to species or potential 

to degrade environmental quality. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan F-31 

Adjuvants generally function to enhance or prolong the activity of pesticide. For terrestrial 

herbicides, adjuvants aid in the absorption into plant tissue. Adjuvant is a broad term that generally 

applies to surfactants, selected oils, anti-foaming agents, buffering compounds, drift control agents, 

compatibility agents, stickers, and spreaders. Adjuvants are not under the same registration 

requirements as pesticides and the USEPA does not register or approve the labeling of spray 

adjuvants. Individual pesticide labels identify types of adjuvants approved for use with it. In 

general, adjuvants compose a relatively small portion of the volume of pesticides applied. Selection 

of adjuvants with limited toxicity and low volumes would be recommended to reduce the potential 

for the adjuvant to influence the toxicity of the pesticide. 

7.4 Determining Effects to Soil and Water Quality 

The approval process for pesticide uses would consider potential to degrade water quality on and off 

refuge lands. A pesticide can only affect water quality through movement away from the treatment 

site. After application, pesticide mobilization can be characterized by one or more of the following 

(Kerle et al. 1996): 

 Attach (sorb) to soil, vegetation, or other surfaces and remain at or near the treated area; 

 Attach to soil and move off-site through erosion from runoff or wind; 

 Dissolve in water that can be subjected to runoff or leaching. 

As an initial screening tool, selected chemical characteristics and rating criteria for a pesticide can be 

evaluated to assess potential to enter ground and/or surface waters. These would include the 

following: persistence, sorption coefficient (Koc), groundwater ubiquity score (GUS), and solubility. 

Persistence, which is expressed as half-life (t1⁄2), represents the length of time required for 50% of the 

deposited pesticide to degrade (completely or partially). Persistence in the soil can be categorized as 

the following: non-persistent <30 days, moderately persistent = 30 to 100 days, and persistent >100 

days (Kerle et. al. 1996). Half-life data is usually available for aquatic and terrestrial environments. 

Another measure of pesticide persistence is dissipation time (DT50). It represents the time required 

for 50% of the deposited pesticide to degrade and move from a treated site; whereas, half-life 

describes the rate for degradation only. As for half-life, units of dissipation time are usually 

expressed in days. Field or foliar dissipation time is the preferred data for use to estimate pesticide 

concentrations in the environment. However, soil half-life is the most common persistence data 

cited in published literature. If field or foliar dissipation data is not available, soil half-life data may 

be used. The average or representative half-life value of most important degradation mechanism will 

be selected for quantitative analysis for both terrestrial and aquatic environments. 

Mobility of a pesticide is a function of how strongly it is adsorbed to soil particles and organic 

matter, its solubility in water, and its persistence in the environment. Pesticides strongly adsorbed to 

soil particles, relatively insoluble in water, and not environmentally persistent would be less likely to 

move across the soil surface into surface waters or to leach through the soil profile and contaminate 

groundwater. Conversely, pesticides that are not strongly adsorbed to soil particles, are highly water 

soluble, and are persistent in the environment would have greater potential to move from the 

application site (off-site movement). 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

F-32 Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

The degree of pesticide adsorption to soil particles and organic matter (Kerle et. al. 1996) is 

expressed as the soil adsorption coefficient (Koc). The soil adsorption coefficient is measured as 

micrograms of pesticide per gram of soil (μg/g) that can range from near zero to the thousands. 

Pesticides with higher Koc values are strongly sorbed to soil and, therefore, would be less subject to 

movement. 

Water solubility describes the amount of pesticide that will dissolve in a known quantity of water. 

The water solubility of a pesticide is expressed as milligrams of pesticide dissolved in a liter of water 

(mg/L or parts per million [ppm]). Pesticide with solubility <0.1 ppm are virtually insoluble in 

water, 100-1000 ppm are moderately soluble, and >10,000 ppm highly soluble (US Geological 

Survey 2000). As pesticide solubility increases, there would be greater potential for off-site 

movement. 

The Groundwater Ubiquity Score (GUS) is a quantitative screening tool to estimate a pesticide’s 

potential to move in the environment. It utilizes soil persistence and adsorption coefficients in the 

following formula. 

GUS = log10 (t1⁄2) x [4 - log10 (Koc)] 

The potential pesticide movement rating would be based upon its GUS value. Pesticides with a GUS 

<0.1 would considered to have an extremely low potential to move toward groundwater. Values of 

1.0-2.0 would be low, 2.0-3.0 would be moderate, 3.0-4.0 would be high, and 

>4.0 would have a very high potential to move toward groundwater. 

Water solubility describes the amount of pesticide dissolving in a specific quantity of water, where it 

is usually measured as mg/L or ppm. Solubility is useful as a comparative measure because 

pesticides with higher values are more likely to move by runoff or leaching. GUS, water solubility, 

t1⁄2, and Koc values are available for selected pesticides from the OSU Extension Pesticide Properties 

Database at http://npic.orst.edu/ppdmove.htm. Many of the values in this database were derived 

from the SCS/ARS/CES Pesticide Properties Database for Environmental Decision Making 

(Wauchope et al. 1992). 

Soil properties influence the fate of pesticides in the environment. The following six properties are 

mostly likely to affect pesticide degradation and the potential for pesticides to move off-site by 

leaching (vertical movement through the soil) or runoff (lateral movement across the soil surface). 

 Permeability is the rate of water movement vertically through the soil. It is affected by soil 

texture and structure. Coarse textured soils (e.g., high sand content) have a larger pore size and 

they are generally more permeable than fine textured soils (i.e., high clay content). The more 

permeable soils would have a greater potential for pesticides to move vertically down through the 

soil profile. Soil permeability rates (inches/hour) are usually available in county soil survey 

reports. 

 Soil texture describes the relative percentage of sand, silt, and clay. In general, greater clay 

content with smaller the pore size would lower the likelihood and rate water that would move 

through the soil profile. Clay also serves to adsorb (bind) pesticides to soil particles. Soils with 

high clay content would adsorb more pesticide than soils with relatively low clay content. In 

contrast, sandy soils with coarser texture and lower water holding capacity would have a greater 

potential for water to leach through them. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan F-33 

 Soil structure describes soil aggregation. Soils with a well-developed soil structure have looser, 

more aggregated, structure that would be less likely to be compacted. Both characteristics would 

allow for less restricted flow of water through the soil profile resulting in greater infiltration.

 Organic matter would be the single most important factor affecting pesticide adsorption in soils. 

Many pesticides are adsorbed to organic matter which would reduce their rate of downward 

movement through the soil profile. Also, soils high in organic matter would tend to hold more 

water, which may make less water available for leaching. 

 Soil moisture affects how fast water would move through the soil. If soils are already wet or 

saturated before rainfall or irrigation, excess moisture would runoff rather than infiltrate into the 

soil profile. Soil moisture also would influence microbial and chemical activity in soil, which 

effects pesticide degradation. 

 Soil pH would influence chemical reactions that occur in the soil which in turn determines 

whether or not a pesticide will degrade, rate of degradation, and, in some instances, which 

degradation products are produced. 

Based upon the aforementioned properties, soils most vulnerable to groundwater contamination 

would be sandy soils with low organic matter. In contrast, the least vulnerable soils would be welldrained clayey soils with high organic matter. Consequently, pesticides with the lowest potential for 

movement in conjunction with appropriate best management practices (see below) would be used in 

an IPM framework to treat pests while minimizing effects to non-target biota and protecting 

environmental quality. 

Along with soil properties, the potential for a pesticide to affect water quality through runoff and 

leaching would consider site-specific environmental and abiotic conditions including rainfall, water 

table conditions, and topography (Huddleston 1996). 

 Water is necessary to separate pesticides from soil. This can occur in two basic ways. Pesticides 

that are soluble move easily with runoff water. Pesticide-laden soil particles can be dislodged 

and transported from the application site in runoff. The concentration of pesticides in the surface 

runoff would be greatest for the first runoff event following treatment. The rainfall intensity and 

route of water infiltration into soil, to a large extent, determine pesticide concentrations and 

losses in surface runoff. The timing of the rainfall after application also would have an effect. 

Rainfall interacts with pesticides at a shallow soil depth (1⁄4 to 1⁄2 inch), which is called the mixing 

zone (Baker and Miller 1999). The pesticide/water mixture in the mixing zone would tend to 

leach down into the soil or runoff depending upon how quickly the soil surface becomes 

saturated and how rapidly water can infiltrate into the soil. Leaching would decrease the amount 

of pesticide available near the soil surface (mixing zone) to runoff during the initial rainfall event 

following application and subsequent rainfall events. 

 Terrain slope would affect the potential for surface runoff and the intensity of runoff. Steeper 

slopes would have greater potential for runoff following a rainfall event. In contrast, soils that 

are relatively flat would have little potential for runoff, except during intense rainfall events. In 

addition, soils in lower areas would be more susceptible to leaching as a result of receiving 

excessive water from surrounding higher elevations. 

 Depth to groundwater would be an important factor affecting the potential for pesticides to leach 

into groundwater. If the distance from the soil surface to the top of the water table is shallow, 

pesticides would have less distance to travel to reach groundwater. Shallower water tables that 

persist for longer periods would be more likely to experience groundwater contamination. Soil 

survey reports are available for individual counties. These reports provide data in tabular format 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

F-34 Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

regarding the water table depths and the months during which it is persists. In some situations, a 

hard pan exists above the water table that would prevent pesticide contamination from leaching. 

7.5 Determining Effects to Air Quality 

Pesticides may volatilize from soil and plant surfaces and move from the treated area into the 

atmosphere. The potential for a pesticide to volatilize is determined by the pesticide’s vapor pressure 

which would be affected by temperature, sorption, soil moisture, and the pesticide’s water solubility. 

Vapor pressure is often expressed in mm Hg. To make these numbers easier to compare, vapor 

pressure may be expressed in exponent form (I x 10-7), where I represents a vapor pressure index. In 

general, pesticides with I<10 would have a low potential to volatilize; whereas, pesticides with 

I>1,000 would have a high potential to volatilize (Oregon State University 1996). Vapor pressure 

values for pesticides are usually available in the pesticide product MSDS or the USDA Agricultural 

Research Service (ARS) pesticide database. 

7.6 Preparing a Chemical Profile 

The following instructions would be used by Service personnel to complete Chemical Profiles for 

pesticides. Specifically, profiles would be prepared for pesticide active ingredients (e.g., glyphosate, 

imazapic) that would be contained in one or more trade name products that are registered and labeled 

with USEPA. All information fields under each category (e.g., Toxicological Endpoints, 

Environmental Fate) would be completed for a Chemical Profile. If no information is available for a 

specific field, then “No data is available in references” would be recorded in the profile. Available 

scientific information would be used to complete Chemical Profiles. Each entry of scientific 

information would be shown with applicable references. 

Completed Chemical Profiles would provide a structured decision-making process utilizing 

quantitative assessment/screening tools with threshold values (where appropriate) that would be used 

to evaluate potential biological and other environmental effects to refuge resources. For ecological 

risk assessments presented in these profiles, the “worst-case scenario” would be evaluated to 

determine whether a pesticide could be approved for use considering the maximum single application 

rate specified on pesticide labels for habitat management and croplands/facilities maintenance 

treatments pertaining to refuges. Where the “worst-case scenario” likely would only result in minor, 

temporary, and localized effects to listed and non-listed species with appropriate BMPs (see Section 

5.0), the proposed pesticide’s use in a PUP would have a scientific basis for approval under any 

application rate specified on the label that is at or below rates evaluated in a Chemical Profile. In 

some cases, the Chemical Profile would include a lower application rate than the maximum labeled 

rate in order to protect refuge resources. As necessary, Chemical Profiles would be periodically 

updated with new scientific information or as pesticides with the same active ingredient are proposed 

for use on the refuge in PUPs. 

Throughout this section, threshold values (to prevent or minimize potential biological and 

environmental effects) would be clearly identified for specific information presented in a completed 

Chemical Profile. Comparison with these threshold values provides an explicit scientific basis to 

approve or disapprove PUPs for habitat management and cropland/facilities maintenance on refuge 

lands. In general, PUPs would be approved for pesticides with Chemical Profiles where there would 

be no exceedances of threshold values. However, BMPs are identified for some screening tools that 

would minimize/eliminate potential effects (exceedance of the threshold value) as a basis for 

approving PUPs. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan F-35 

Date: Service personnel would record the date when the Chemical Profile is completed or updated. 

Chemical Profiles (e.g., currently approved pesticide use patterns) would be periodically reviewed 

and updated, as necessary. The most recent review date would be recorded on a profile to document 

when it was last updated. 

Trade Name(s): Service personnel would accurately and completely record the trade name(s) from 

the pesticide label, which includes a suffix that describes the formulation (e.g., WP, DG, EC, L, SP, 

I, II or 64). The suffix often distinguishes a specific product among several pesticides with the same 

active ingredient. Service personnel would record a trade name for each pesticide product with the 

same active ingredient. 

Common chemical name(s): Service personnel would record the common name(s) listed on the 

pesticide label or material safety data sheet (MSDS) for an active ingredient. The common name of a 

pesticide is listed as the active ingredient on the title page of the product label immediately following 

the trade name, and the MSDS, Section 2: Composition/ Information on Ingredients. A Chemical 

Profile is completed for each active ingredient. 

Pesticide Type: Service personnel would record the type of pesticide for an active ingredient as one 

of the following: herbicide, dessicant, fungicide, fumigant, growth regulator, insecticide, pisicide, or 

rodenticide. 

EPA Registration Number(s): This number (EPA Reg. No.) appears on the title page of the label 

and MSDS, Section 1: Chemical Product and Company Description. It is not the EPA 

Establishment Number that is usually located near it. Service personnel would record the EPA Reg. 

No. for each trade name product with an active ingredient based upon PUPs. 

Pesticide Class: Service personnel would list the general chemical class for the pesticide (active 

ingredient). For example, malathion is an organophosphate and carbaryl is a carbamate. 

CAS (Chemical Abstract Service) Number: This number is often located in the second section 

(Composition/Information on Ingredients) of the MSDS. The MSDS table listing components 

usually contains this number immediately prior to or following the % composition. 

Other Ingredients: From the most recent MSDS for the proposed pesticide product(s), Service 

personnel would include any chemicals in the pesticide formulation not listed as an active ingredient 

that are described as toxic or hazardous, or regulated under the Superfund Amendments and 

Reauthorization Act (SARA), Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA), Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA), State Right-to-Know, or other listed authorities. These are usually found in 

MSDS sections titled “Hazardous Identifications”, “Exposure Control/Personal Protection”, and 

“Regulatory Information”. If concentrations of other ingredients are available for any compounds 

identified as toxic or hazardous, then Service personnel would record this information in the 

Chemical Profile by trade name. MSDS(s) may be obtained from the manufacturer, manufacturer’s 

website or from an on-line database maintained by Crop Data Management Systems, Inc. (see list 

below). 

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

F-36 Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

Toxicological Endpoints 

Toxicological endpoint data would be collected for acute and chronic tests with mammals, birds, and 

fish. Data would be recorded for species available in the scientific literature. If no data are found for 

a particular taxonomic group, then “No data available is references” would be recorded as the data 

entry. Throughout the Chemical Profile, references (including toxicological endpoint data) would be 

cited using parentheses (#) following the recorded data. 

Mammalian LD50: For test species in the scientific literature, Service personnel would record 

available data for oral lethal dose (LD50) in mg/kg-bw (body weight) or ppm-bw. Most common test 

species in scientific literature are the rat and mouse. The lowest LD50 value found for a rat would be 

used as a toxicological endpoint for dose-based RQ calculations to assess acute risk to mammals (see 

Table 1 in Section 7.1). 

Mammalian LC50: For test species in the scientific literature, Service personnel would record 

available data for dietary lethal concentration (LC50) as reported (e.g., mg/kg-diet or ppm-diet). Most 

common test species in scientific literature are the rat and mouse. The lowest LC50 value found for a 

rat would be used as a toxicological endpoint for diet-based RQ calculations to assess acute risk (see 

Table 1 in Section 7.1). 

Mammalian Reproduction: For test species listed in the scientific literature, Service personnel 

would record the test results (e.g., Lowest Observed Effect Concentration [LOEC], Lowest Observed 

Effect Level [LOEL], No Observed Adverse Effect Level [NOAEL], No Observed Adverse Effect 

Concentration [NOAEC]) in mg/kg-bw or mg/kg-diet for reproductive test procedure(s) (e.g., 

generational studies [preferred], fertility, new born weight). Most common test species available in 

scientific literature are rats and mice. The lowest NOEC, NOAEC, NOEL, or NOAEL test results 

found for a rat would be used as a toxicological endpoint for RQ calculations to assess chronic risk 

(see Table 1 in Section 7.1). 

Avian LD50: For test species available in the scientific literature, Service personnel would record 

values for oral lethal dose (LD50) in mg/kg-bw or ppm-bw. Most common test species available in 

scientific literature are the bobwhite quail and mallard. The lowest LD50 value found for an avian 

species would be used as a toxicological endpoint for dose-based RQ calculations to assess acute risk 

(see Table 1 in Section 7.1). 

Avian LC50: For test species available in the scientific literature, Service personnel would record 

values for dietary lethal concentration (LC50) as reported (e.g., mg/kg-diet or ppm-diet). Most 

common test species available in scientific literature are the bobwhite quail and mallard. The lowest 

LC50 value found for an avian species would be used as a toxicological endpoint for dietary-based 

RQ calculations to assess acute risk (see Table 1 in Section 7.1). 

Avian Reproduction: For test species available in the scientific literature, Service personnel would

record test results (e.g., LOEC, LOEL, NOAEC, NOAEL) in mg/kg-bw or mg/kg-diet consumed for 

reproductive test procedure(s) (e.g., early life cycle, reproductive). Most common test species 

available in scientific literature are the bobwhite quail and mallard. The lowest NOEC, NOAEC, 

NOEL, or NOAEL test results found for an avian species would be used as a toxicological endpoint 

for RQ calculations to assess chronic risk (see Table 1 in Section 7.1). 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan F-37 

Fish LC50: For test freshwater or marine species listed in the scientific literature, Service personnel 

would record a LC50 in ppm or mg/L. Most common test species available in the scientific literature 

are the bluegill, rainbow trout, and fathead minnow (marine). Test results for many game species 

may also be available. The lowest LC50 value found for a freshwater fish species would be used as a 

toxicological endpoint for RQ calculations to assess acute risk (see Table 1 in Section 7.1). 

Fish Early Life Stage (ELS)/Life Cycle: For test freshwater or marine species available in the 

scientific literature, Service personnel would record test results (e.g., LOEC, NOAEL, NOAEC, 

LOAEC) in ppm for test procedure(s) (e.g., early life cycle, life cycle). Most common test species 

available in the scientific literature are bluegill, rainbow trout, and fathead minnow. Test results for 

other game species may also be available. The lowest test value found for a fish species (preferably 

freshwater) would be used as a toxicological endpoint for RQ calculations to assess chronic risk (see 

Table 1 in Section 7.1). 

Other: For test invertebrate as well as non-vascular and vascular plant species available in the 

scientific literature, Service personnel would record LC50, LD50, LOEC, LOEL, NOAEC, NOAEL, or 

EC50 (environmental concentration) values in ppm or mg/L. Most common test invertebrate species 

available in scientific literature are the honey bee and the water flea (Daphnia magna). Green algae 

(Selenastrum capricornutum) and pondweed (Lemna minor) are frequently available test species for 

aquatic non-vascular and vascular plants, respectively. 

Ecological Incident Reports: After a site has been treated with pesticide(s), wildlife may be 

exposed to these chemical(s). When exposure is high relative to the toxicity of the pesticides, 

wildlife may be killed or visibly harmed (incapacitated). Such events are called ecological incidents. 

The USEPA maintains a database (Ecological Incident Information System) of ecological incidents. 

This database stores information extracted from incident reports submitted by various federal and 

state agencies and non-government organizations. Information included in an incident report is date 

and location of the incident, type and magnitude of effects observed in various species, use(s) of 

pesticides known or suspected of contributing to the incident, and results of any chemical residue and 

cholinesterase activity analyses conducted during the investigation. 

Incident reports can play an important role in evaluating the effects of pesticides by supplementing 

quantitative risk assessments. All incident reports for pesticide(s) with the active ingredient and 

associated information would be recorded. 

Environmental Fate 

Water Solubility: Service personnel would record values for water solubility (Sw), which describes 

the amount of pesticide that dissolves in a known quantity of water. Sw is expressed as mg/L (ppm). 

Pesticide Sw values would be categorized as one of the following: insoluble <0.1 ppm, moderately 

soluble = 100 to 1000 ppm, highly soluble >10,000 ppm (US Geological Survey 2000). As pesticide 

Sw increases, there would be greater potential to degrade water quality through runoff and leaching. 

Sw would be used to evaluate potential for bioaccumulation in aquatic species [see Octanol-Water 

Partition Coefficient (Kow) below]. 

Soil Mobility: Service personnel would record available values for soil adsorption coefficient (Koc

[μg/g]). It provides a measure of a chemical's mobility and leaching potential in soil. Koc values are 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

F-38 Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

directly proportional to organic content, clay content, and surface area of the soil. Koc data for a 

pesticide may be available for a variety of soil types (e.g., clay, loam, sand). 

Koc values would be used in evaluating the potential to degrade groundwater by leaching (see

Potential to Move to Groundwater below).

Soil Persistence: Service personnel would record values for soil half-life (t1⁄2), which represents the 

length of time (days) required for 50% of the deposited pesticide to degrade (completely or partially) 

in the soil. Based upon the t1⁄2 value, soil persistence would be categorized as one of the following: 

non-persistent <30 days, moderately persistent = 30 to 100 days, and persistent >100 days (Kerle et. 

al. 1996). 

Threshold for Approving PUPs: 

If soil t1⁄2 ≤100 days, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs to protect water 

quality. 

If soil t1⁄2 >100 days, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs specifically to 

protect water quality. One or more BMPs such as the following would be included in the Specific 

Best Management Practices (BMPs) section to minimize potential surface runoff and leaching that 

can degrade water quality: 

 Do not exceed one application per site per year. 

 Do not use on coarse-textured soils where the ground water table is <10 feet and average annual 

precipitation >12 inches. 

 Do not use on steep slopes if substantial rainfall is expected within 24 hours or ground is 

saturated. 

Along with Koc, soil t1⁄2 values would be used in evaluating the potential to degrade groundwater by 

leaching (see Potential to Move to Groundwater below). 

Soil Dissipation: Dissipation time (DT50) represents the time required for 50% of the deposited 

pesticide to degrade and move from a treated site; whereas, soil t1⁄2 describes the rate for degradation 

only. As for t1⁄2, units of dissipation time are usually expressed in days. Field dissipation time would 

be the preferred data for use to estimate pesticide concentrations in the environment because it is 

based upon field studies compared to soil t1⁄2, which is derived in a laboratory. However, soil t1⁄2 is the 

most common persistence data available in the published literature. If field dissipation data is not 

available, soil half-life data would be used in a Chemical Profile. The average or representative halflife value of most important degradation mechanism would be selected for quantitative analysis for 

both terrestrial and aquatic environments. 

Based upon the DT50 value, environmental persistence in the soil also would be categorized as one of 

the following: non-persistent <30 days, moderately persistent = 30 to 100 days, and persistent >100 

days. 

Threshold for Approving PUPs: 

If soil DT50 ≤100 days, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs to protect water 

quality. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan F-39 

If soil DT50 >100 days, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs specifically to 

protect water quality. One or more BMPs such as the following would be included in the Specific 

Best Management Practices (BMPs) section to minimize potential surface runoff and leaching that 

can degrade water quality: 

 Do not exceed one application per site per year. 

 Do not use on coarse-textured soils where the ground water table is <10 feet and average annual 

precipitation >12 inches. 

 Do not use on steep slopes if substantial rainfall is expected within 24 hours or ground is 

saturated. 

Along with Koc, soil DT50 values (preferred over soil t1⁄2) would be used in evaluating the potential to 

degrade groundwater by leaching (see Potential to Move to Groundwater below), if available. 

Aquatic Persistence: Service personnel would record values for aquatic t1⁄2, which represents the 

length of time required for 50% of the deposited pesticide to degrade (completely or partially) in 

water. Based upon the t1⁄2 value, aquatic persistence would be categorized as one of the following: 

non-persistent <30 days, moderately persistent = 30 to 100 days, and 

persistent >100 days (Kerle et. al. 1996). 

Threshold for Approving PUPs: 

If aquatic t1⁄2 ≤100 days, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs to protect water 

quality. 

If aquatic t1⁄2 >100 days, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs specifically to 

protect water quality. One or more BMPs such as the following would be included in the Specific 

Best Management Practices (BMPs) section to minimize potential surface runoff and leaching that 

can degrade water quality: 

 Do not exceed one application per site per year. 

 Do not use on coarse-textured soils where the ground water table is <10 feet and average annual 

precipitation >12 inches. 

 Do not use on steep slopes if substantial rainfall is expected within 24 hours or ground is 

saturated. 

Aquatic Dissipation: Dissipation time (DT50) represents the time required for 50% of the deposited 

pesticide to degrade or move (dissipate); whereas, aquatic t1⁄2 describes the rate for degradation only. 

As for t1⁄2, units of dissipation time are usually expressed in days. Based upon the DT50 value, 

environmental persistence in aquatic habitats also would be categorized as one of the following: 

non-persistent <30 days, moderately persistent = 30 to 100 days, and 

persistent >100 days. 

Threshold for Approving PUPs: 

If aquatic DT50 ≤100 days, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs to protect water 

quality. 

If aquatic DT50 >100 days, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs specifically to 

protect water quality. One or more BMPs such as the following would be included in the Specific 

Best Management Practices (BMPs) section to minimize potential surface runoff and leaching that 

can degrade water quality: 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

F-40 Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

 Do not exceed one application per site per year. 

 Do not use on coarse-textured soils where the ground water table is <10 feet and average annual 

precipitation >12 inches. 

 Do not use on steep slopes if substantial rainfall is expected within 24 hours or ground is 

saturated. 

Potential to Move to Groundwater: Groundwater Ubiquity Score (GUS) = log10(soil t 1⁄2) x [4 – 

log10(Koc)]. If a DT50 value is available, it would be used rather than a t 1⁄2 value to calculate a GUS 

score. Based upon the GUS value, the potential to move toward groundwater would be recorded as 

one of the following categories: extremely low potential<1.0, low - 1.0 to 2.0, moderate - 2.0 to 3.0, 

high - 3.0 to 4.0, or very high>4.0. 

Threshold for Approving PUPs: 

If GUS ≤4.0, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs to protect water quality. 

If GUS>4.0, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs specifically to protect water 

quality. One or more BMPs such as the following would be included in the Specific Best 

Management Practices (BMPs) section to minimize potential surface runoff and leaching that can 

degrade water quality: 

 Do not exceed one application per site per year. 

 Do not use on coarse-textured soils where the ground water table is <10 feet and average annual 

precipitation >12 inches. 

 Do not use on steep slopes if substantial rainfall is expected within 24 hours or ground is 

saturated. 

Volatilization: Pesticides may volatilize (evaporate) from soil and plant surfaces and move offtarget into the atmosphere. The potential for a pesticide to volatilize is a function of its vapor 

pressure that is affected by temperature, sorption, soil moisture, and the pesticide’s water solubility. 

Vapor pressure is often expressed in mm Hg. To make these values easier to compare, vapor pressure 

would be recorded by Service personnel in exponential form (I x 10-7), where I represents a vapor 

pressure index. In general, pesticides with I<10 would have low potential to volatilize; whereas, 

pesticides with I >1,000 would have a high potential to volatilize (Oregon State University 1996). 

Vapor pressure values for pesticides are usually available in the pesticide product MSDS or the 

USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) pesticide database (see References). 

Threshold for Approving PUPs: 

If I ≤1,000, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs to minimize drift and protect air 

quality. 

If I>1,000, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs specifically to minimize drift 

and protect air quality. One or more BMPs such as the following would be included in the Specific 

Best Management Practices (BMPs) section to reduce volatilization and potential to drift and 

degrade air quality: 

 Do not treat when wind velocities are <2 or >10 mph with existing or potential inversion 

conditions. 

 Apply the large-diameter droplets possible for spray treatments. 

 Avoid spraying when air temperatures >85o

F. 

 Use the lowest spray height possible above target canopy. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan F-41 

 Where identified on the pesticide label, soil incorporate pesticide as soon as possible during or 

after application. 

 

Octanol-Water Partition Coefficient (Kow): The octanol-water partition coefficient (Kow) is the 

concentration of a pesticide in octanol and water at equilibrium at a specific temperature. Because 

octanol is an organic solvent, it is considered a surrogate for natural organic matter. Therefore, Kow

would be used to assess potential for a pesticide to bioaccumulate in tissues of aquatic species (e.g., 

fish). If Kow >1,000 or Sw<1 mg/L and soil t1⁄2>30 days, then there would be high potential for a 

pesticide to bioaccumulate in aquatic species such as fish (US Geological Survey 2000). 

Threshold for Approving PUPs: 

If there is not a high potential for a pesticide to bioaccumulate in aquatic species, then the PUP 

would be approved. 

If there is a high potential to bioaccumulate in aquatic species (Kow>1,000 or Sw<1 mg/L and soil 

t1⁄2>30 days), then the PUP would not approved, except under unusual circumstances where approval 

would only be granted by the Washington Office. 

Bioaccumulation/Bioconcentration: The physiological process where pesticide concentrations in 

tissue would increase in biota because they are taken and stored at a faster rate than they are 

metabolized or excreted. The potential for bioaccumulation would be evaluated through 

bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) or bioconcentration factors (BCFs). Based upon BAF or BCF 

values, the potential to bioaccumulate would be recorded as one of the following: low – 0 to 300, 

moderate – 300 to 1,000, or high >1,000 (Calabrese and Baldwin 1993). 

Threshold for Approving PUPs: 

If BAF or BCF≤1,000, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs. 

If BAF or BCF>1,000, then a PUP would not approved, except under unusual circumstances where 

approval would only be granted by the Washington Office. 

Worst-Case Ecological Risk Assessment 

Max Application Rates (acid equivalent): Service personnel would record the highest application 

rate of an active ingredient (ae basis) for habitat management and cropland/facilities maintenance 

treatments in this data field of a Chemical Profile. These rates can be found in Table CP.1 under the 

column heading “Max Product Rate – Single Application (lbs/acre – AI on acid equiv basis)”. This 

table would be prepared for a Chemical Profile from information specified in labels for trade name 

products identified in PUPs. If these data are not available in pesticide labels, then write “NS” for 

“not specified on label” in this table. 

EECs: An estimated environmental concentration (ECC) represents potential exposure to fish and 

wildlife (birds and mammals) from using a pesticide. EECs would be derived by Service personnel 

using an USEPA screening-level approach (US Environmental Protection Agency 2004). For each 

max application rate [see description under Max Application Rates (acid equivalent)], Service 

personnel would record 2 EEC values in a Chemical Profile; these would represent the worst-case 

terrestrial and aquatic exposures for habitat management and croplands/facilities maintenance 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

F-42 Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

treatments. For terrestrial and aquatic EEC calculations, see description for data entry under 

Presumption of Unacceptable Risk/Risk Quotients, which is the next field for a Chemical Profile. 

Presumption of Unacceptable Risk/Risk Quotients: Service personnel would calculate and record 

acute and chronic risk quotients (RQs) for birds, mammals, and fish using the provided tabular 

formats for habitat management and/or cropland/facilities maintenance treatments. RQs recorded in 

a Chemical Profile would represent the worst-case assessment for ecological risk. See Section 7.2 

for discussion regarding the calculations of RQs. 

For aquatic assessments associated with habitat management treatments, RQ calculations would be 

based upon selected acute and chronic toxicological endpoints for fish and the EEC would be derived 

from Urban and Cook (1986) assuming 100% overspray to an entire 1-foot deep water body using 

the max application rate (ae basis [see above]). 

For aquatic assessments associated with cropland/facilities maintenance treatments, RQ calculations 

would be done by Service personnel based upon selected acute and chronic toxicological endpoints 

for fish and an EEC would be derived from the aquatic assessment in AgDRIFT® model version 2.01 

under Tier I ground-based application with the following input variables: max application rate (acid 

basis [see above]), low boom (20 inches), fine to medium/coarse droplet size, 20 swaths, EPAdefined wetland, and 25-foot distance (buffer) from treated area to water. 

See Section 7.2.1.2 for more details regarding the calculation of EECs for aquatic habitats for habitat 

management and cropland/facilities maintenance treatments. 

For terrestrial avian and mammalian assessments, RQ calculations would be done by Service 

personnel based upon dietary exposure, where the “short grass” food item category would represent 

the worst-case scenario. For terrestrial spray applications associated with habitat management and 

cropland/facilities maintenance treatments, exposure (EECs and RQs) would be determined using the 

Kanaga nomogram method through the USEPA’s T-REX version 1.2.3. T-REX input variables 

would include the following: max application rate (acid basis [see above]) and pesticide half-life 

(days) in soil to estimate the initial, maximum pesticide residue concentration on general food items 

for terrestrial vertebrate species in short (<20 cm tall) grass. 

For granular pesticide formulations and pesticide-treated seed with a unique route of exposure for 

terrestrial avian and mammalian wildlife, see Section 7.2.1.1.2 for the procedure that would be used 

to calculate RQs. 

All calculated RQs in both tables would be compared with Levels of Concern (LOCs) established by 

USEPA (see Table 2 in Section 7.2). If a calculated RQ exceeds an established LOC value (in 

brackets inside the table), then there would be a potential for an acute or chronic effect (unacceptable 

risk) to federally listed (T&E) species and nonlisted species. See Section 7.2 for detailed 

descriptions of acute and chronic RQ calculations and comparison to LOCs to assess risk. 

Threshold for approving PUPs: 

If RQs≤LOCs, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs. 

If RQs>LOCs, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs specifically to minimize 

exposure (ecological risk) to bird, mammal, and/or fish species. One or more BMPs such as the 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan F-43 

following would be included in the Specific Best Management Practices (BMPs) section to reduce 

potential risk to non-listed or listed species: 

 Lower application rate and/or fewer number of applications so RQs≤LOCs 

 For aquatic assessments (fish) associated with cropland/facilities maintenance, increase the 

buffer distance beyond 25 feet so RQs≤LOCs.

 

Justification for Use: Service personnel would describe the reason for using the pesticide based 

control of specific pests or groups of pests. In most cases, the pesticide label will provide the 

appropriate information regarding control of pests to describe in the section. 

Specific Best Management Practices (BMPs): Service personnel would record specific BMPs 

necessary to minimize or eliminate potential effects to non-target species and/or degradation of 

environmental quality from drift, surface runoff, or leaching. These BMPs would be based upon 

scientific information documented in previous data fields of a Chemical Profile. Where necessary 

and feasible, these specific practices would be included in PUPs as a basis for approval. 

If there are no specific BMPs that are appropriate, then Service personnel would describe why the 

potential effects to refuge resources and/or degradation of environmental quality is outweighed by 

the overall resource benefit(s) from the proposed pesticide use in the BMP section of the PUP. See 

Section 4.0 of this document for a complete list of BMPs associated with mixing and applying 

pesticides appropriate for all PUPs with ground-based treatments that would be additive to any 

necessary, chemical-specific BMPs. 

References: Service personnel would record scientific resources used to provide data/information 

for a chemical profile. Use the number sequence to uniquely reference data in a chemical profile. 

The following on-line data resources are readily available for toxicological endpoint and 

environmental fate data for pesticides: 

1. California Product/Label Database. Department of Pesticide Regulation, California 

Environmental Protection Agency. (http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/label/labelque.htm#regprods) 

2. ECOTOX database. Office of Pesticide Programs, US Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, DC. (http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/) 

3. Extension Toxicology Network (EXTOXNET) Pesticide Information Profiles. Cooperative effort 

of University of California-Davis, Oregon State University, Michigan State University, Cornell 

University and University of Idaho through Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. 

(http://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/ghindex.html) 

4. FAO specifications and evaluations for plant protection products. Pesticide Management Unit, 

Plant Protection Services, Food and Agriculture Organization, United Nations. 

(http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/AGRICULT/AGP/AGPP/Pesticid/) 

5. Human health and ecological risk assessments. Pesticide Management and Coordination, Forest 

Health Protection, US Department of Agriculture, US Forest Service. 

(http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/risk.htm) 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan F-43 

following would be included in the Specific Best Management Practices (BMPs) section to reduce 

potential risk to non-listed or listed species: 

 Lower application rate and/or fewer number of applications so RQs≤LOCs 

 For aquatic assessments (fish) associated with cropland/facilities maintenance, increase the 

buffer distance beyond 25 feet so RQs≤LOCs. 

Justification for Use: Service personnel would describe the reason for using the pesticide based 

control of specific pests or groups of pests. In most cases, the pesticide label will provide the 

appropriate information regarding control of pests to describe in the section. 

Specific Best Management Practices (BMPs): Service personnel would record specific BMPs 

necessary to minimize or eliminate potential effects to non-target species and/or degradation of 

environmental quality from drift, surface runoff, or leaching. These BMPs would be based upon 

scientific information documented in previous data fields of a Chemical Profile. Where necessary 

and feasible, these specific practices would be included in PUPs as a basis for approval. 

If there are no specific BMPs that are appropriate, then Service personnel would describe why the 

potential effects to refuge resources and/or degradation of environmental quality is outweighed by 

the overall resource benefit(s) from the proposed pesticide use in the BMP section of the PUP. See 

Section 4.0 of this document for a complete list of BMPs associated with mixing and applying 

pesticides appropriate for all PUPs with ground-based treatments that would be additive to any 

necessary, chemical-specific BMPs. 

References: Service personnel would record scientific resources used to provide data/information 

for a chemical profile. Use the number sequence to uniquely reference data in a chemical profile. 

The following on-line data resources are readily available for toxicological endpoint and 

environmental fate data for pesticides: 

1. California Product/Label Database. Department of Pesticide Regulation, California 

Environmental Protection Agency. (http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/label/labelque.htm#regprods) 

2. ECOTOX database. Office of Pesticide Programs, US Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, DC. (http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/) 

3. Extension Toxicology Network (EXTOXNET) Pesticide Information Profiles. Cooperative effort 

of University of California-Davis, Oregon State University, Michigan State University, Cornell 

University and University of Idaho through Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. 

(http://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/ghindex.html) 

4. FAO specifications and evaluations for plant protection products. Pesticide Management Unit, 

Plant Protection Services, Food and Agriculture Organization, United Nations. 

(http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/AGRICULT/AGP/AGPP/Pesticid/) 

5. Human health and ecological risk assessments. Pesticide Management and Coordination, Forest 

Health Protection, US Department of Agriculture, US Forest Service. 

(http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/risk.htm) 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan F-45 

Chemical Profile 

Date: 

Trade Name(s): Common Chemical 

Name(s): 

Pesticide Type: EPA Registration 

Number: 

Pesticide Class: CAS Number: 

Other Ingredients: 

Toxicological Endpoints

Mammalian LD50: 

Mammalian LC50: 

Mammalian Reproduction: 

Avian LD50: 

Avian LC50: 

Avian Reproduction: 

Fish LC50: 

Fish ELS/Life Cycle: 

Other: 

Ecological Incident Reports 

Environmental Fate 

Water solubility (Sw): 

Soil Mobility (Koc): 

Soil Persistence (t1⁄2): 

Soil Dissipation (DT50): 

Aquatic Persistence (t1⁄2): 

Aquatic Dissipation (DT50): 

Potential to Move to Groundwater 

(GUS score): 

Volatilization (mm Hg): 

Octanol-Water Partition Coefficient 

(Kow): 

Bioaccumulation/Biocentration: BAF:` 

BCF: 

Worst Case Ecological Risk Assessment

Max Application 

Rate 

(ai lbs/acre - ae basis) 

Habitat Management: 

Croplands/Facilities Maintenance: 

EECs Terrestrial (Habitat Management): 

Terrestrial (Croplands/Facilities Maintenance): 

Aquatic (Habitat Management): 

Aquatic (Croplands/Facilities Maintenance): 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

F-46 Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

Habitat Management Treatments: 

Presumption of Unacceptable Risk Risk Quotient (RQ) 

Listed (T&E) 

Species 

Nonlisted Species 

Acute Birds [0.1] [0.5] 

Mammals [0.1] [0.5] 

Fish [0.05] [0.5] 

Chronic Birds [1] [1] 

Mammals [1] [1] 

Fish [1] [1] 

Cropland/Facilities Maintenance Treatments: 

Presumption of Unacceptable Risk Risk Quotient (RQ) 

Listed (T&E) 

Species Nonlisted Species 

Acute Birds [0.1] [0.5] 

Mammals [0.1] [0.5] 

Fish [0.05] [0.5] 

Chronic Birds [1] [1] 

Mammals [1] [1] 

Fish [1] [1] 

Justification for Use: 

Specific Best 

Management Practices 

(BMPs): 

References: 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan F-47 

Table CP.1 Pesticide Name 

Trade 

Namea

Treatment 

Typeb 

Max Product 

Rate – Single 

Application 

(lbs/acre or 

gal/acre) 

Max Product 

Rate -Single 

Application 

(lbs/acre - AI on 

acid equiv basis) 

Max 

Number of 

Applications 

Per Season 

Max Product 

Rate Per Season 

(lbs/acre/season 

or 

gal/acre/season) 

Minimum 

Time 

Between 

Applications 

(Days) 

 

a

From each label for a pesticide identified in pesticide use proposals (PUPs), Service personnel 

would record application information associated with possible/known uses on Service lands.

b

Treatment type: H – habitat management or CF – cropland/facilities maintenance. If a pesticide is 

labeled for both types of treatments (uses), then record separate data for H and CF applications. 

 

7.0 References 

AgDrift 2001. A user’s guide for AgDrift 2.04: a tiered approach for the assessment of spray drift of 

pesticides. Spray Drift Task Force, PO Box 509, Macon, Missouri. 

ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry) US Department of Health and Human 

Services. 2004. Guidance Manual for the Assessment of Joint Toxic Action of Chemical 

Mixtures. US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, ATSDR, 

Division of Toxicology. 62 pages plus Appendices. 

Baehr, C.H., and C. Habig. 2000. Statistical evaluation of the UTAB database for use in terrestrial 

nontarget organism risk assessment. 10th Symposium on Environmental Toxicology and Risk 

Assessment, American Society of Testing and Materials. 

Baker, J. and G. Miller. 1999. Understanding and reducing pesticide losses. Extension Publication 

PM 1495, Iowa State University Extension, Ames, Iowa. 6 pages. 

Barry, T. 2004. Characterization of propanil prune foliage residues as related to propanil use patterns 

in the Sacramento Valley, CA. Proceedings of the International Conference on Pesticide 

Application for Drift Management. Waikoloa, Hawaii. 15 pages. 

Battaglin, W.A., E.M. Thurman, S.J. Kalkhoff, and S.D. Porter. 2003. Herbicides and 

Transformation Products in Surface Waters of the Midwestern United States. Journal of the 

American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 39(4):743-756. 

Beyer, W.N., E.E. Connor, S. Gerould. 1994. Estimates of soil ingestion by wildlife. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 58:375-382. 

Brooks, M.L., D'Antonio, C.M., Richardson, D.M., Grace, J.B., Keeley, J.E. and others. 2004. 

Effects of invasive alien plants on fire regimes. BioScience 54:77-88. 

Bureau of Land Management. 2007. Vegetation treatments using herbicides on Bureau of Land 

Management Lands in 17 western states Programmatic EIS (PEIS). Washington Office, 

Bureau of Land Management. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

F-48 Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

Butler, T., W. Martinkovic, and O.N. Nesheim. 1998. Factors influencing pesticide movement to 

ground water. Extension Publication PI-2, University of Florida, Cooperative Extension 

Service, Gainesville, FL. 4 pages. 

Calabrese, E.J. and L.A. Baldwin. 1993. Performing Ecological Risk Assessments. Lewis 

Publishers, Chelsea, MI. 

Center, T.D., Frank, J.H., and Dray Jr., F.A. 1997. Biological Control. Strangers in Paradise: Impact 

and Management of Nonindigenous Species in Florida. P.245-263. 

Cox, R.D., and V.J. Anderson. 2004. Increasing native diversity of cheatgrass-dominated rangeland 

through assisted succession. Journal of Range Management 57:203-210. 

Coombs, E.M., J.K Clark, G.L. Piper, and A.F. Cofrancesco Jr. 2004. Biological control of invasive 

plants in the United States. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, 467 pages. 

Driver, C.J., M.W. Ligotke, P. Van Voris, B.D. McVeety, B.J. Greenspan, and D.B. Brown. 1991. 

Routes of uptake and their relative contribution to the toxicologic response of northern 

bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) to an organophosphate pesticide. Environmental Toxicology 

and Chemistry 10:21-33. 

Dunning, J.B. 1984. Body weights of 686 species of North American birds. Western Bird Banding 

Association. Monograph No. 1. 

EXTOXNET. 1993a. Movement of pesticides in the environment. Pesticide Information Project of 

Cooperative Extension Offices of Cornell University, Oregon State University, University of 

Idaho, University of California – Davis, and the Institute for Environmental Toxicology, 

Michigan State University. 4 pages. 

Fletcher, J.S., J.E. Nellessen, and T.G. Pfleeger. 1994. Literature review and evaluation of the EPA 

food-chain (Kenaga) nomogram, and instrument for estimating pesticide residue on plants. 

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 13:1381-1391. 

Hasan, S. and P.G. Ayres. 1990. The control of weeds through fungi: principles and 

prospects. Tansley Review 23:201-222. 

Huddleston, J.H. 1996. How soil properties affect groundwater vulnerability to pesticide 

contamination. EM 8559. Oregon State University Extension Service. 4 pages. 

Kerle, E.A., J.J. Jenkins, P.A. Vogue. 1996. Understanding pesticide persistence and mobility for 

groundwater and surface water protection. EM 8561. Oregon State University Extension 

Service. 8 pages. 

Masters, R.A, and R.L. Sheley. 2001. Invited synthesis paper: principles and practices for managing 

rangeland invasive plants. Journal of Range Manage 54:502-517. 

Masters, R.A., S.J. Nissen, R.E. Gaussoin, D.D. Beran, and R.N. Stougaard. 1996. Imidazolinone 

herbicides improve restoration of Great Plains grasslands. Weed Technology 10:392-403. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan F-49 

Maxwell, B.D., E. Lehnhoff, L.J. Rew. 2009. The rationale for monitoring invasive plant 

populations as a crucial step for management. Invasive Plant Science and Management 2:1-

9. 

Mineau, P., B.T. Collins, and A. Baril. 1996. On the use of scaling factors to improve interspecies 

extrapolation to acute toxicity in birds. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 24:24-29. 

Moody, M.E., and R.N. Mack. 1988. Controlling the spread of plant invasions: the importance of 

nascent foci. Journal of Applied Ecology 25:1009-1021. 

Morse, L.E., J.M. Randall, N. Benton, R. Hiebert, and S. Lu. 2004. An Invasive Species Assessment 

Protocol: NatureServe. 

Mullin, B.H., L.W. Anderson, J.M. DiTomaso, R.E. Eplee, and K.D. Getsinger. 2000. 

Invasive Plant Species. Issue Paper (13):1-18. 

Oregon State University. 1996. EXTOXNET-Extension Toxicology Network, Pesticide 

 Information Profiles. Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. 

Pfleeger, T.G., A. Fong, R. Hayes, H. Ratsch, C. Wickliff. 1996. Field evaluation of the EPA 

(Kanaga) nomogram, a method for estimating wildlife exposure to pesticide residues on 

plants. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 15:535-543. 

Pope, R., J. DeWitt, and J. Ellerhoff. 1999. Pesticide movement: what farmers need to know. 

Extension Publication PAT 36, Iowa State University Extension, Ames, Iowa and Iowa 

Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, Des Moines, Iowa. 6 pages. 

Ramsay, C.A., G.C. Craig, and C.B. McConnell. 1995. Clean water for Washington – protecting 

groundwater from pesticide contamination. Extension Publication EB1644, Washington State 

University Extension, Pullman, Washington. 12 pages. 

SDTF 2003 Spray Drift Task Force. 2003. A summary of chemigation application studies. Spray 

Drift Task Force, Macon, Missouri. 

Teske, M.E., S.L. Bird, D.M. Esterly, S.L. Ray, S.G. and Perry. 1997. A User's Guide for 

AgDRIFTTM 1.0: A Tiered Approach for the Assessment of Spray Drift of Pesticides, 

Technical Note No. 95-10, CDI, Princeton, New Jersey. 

Teske, M.E., S.L. Bird, D.M. Esterly, T.B. Curbishley, S.L. Ray, and S.G. Perry. 2002. 

AgDRIFT®: a model for estimating near-field spray drift from aerial applications. 

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21: 659-671. 

Urban, D.J and N.J. Cook. 1986. Ecological risk assessment. EPA 540/9-85-001. US 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington D.C. 94 

pages. 

US Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. Laboratory Test Methods of Exposure to Microbial 

Pest Control Agents by the Respiratory Route to Nontarget Avian Species. Environmental 

Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR. EPA/600/3-90/070. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

F-50 Appendix F. Integrated Pest Management Plan 

US Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. A Comparative Analysis of Ecological Risks from 

Pesticides and Their Uses: Background, Methodology & Case Study. Environmental Fate & 

Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, D.C. 105 pages. 

US Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. Overview of the ecological risk assessment process in 

the Office of Pesticide Programs, US Environmental Protection Agency: endangered and 

threatened species effects determinations, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC. 

101 pages. 

US Environmental Protection Agency. 2005a. Technical overview of ecological risk assessment 

risk characterization; Approaches for evaluating exposure; Granular, bait, and treated seed 

applications. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Washington, DC. http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/ecorisk_ders/toera_analysis_exp.htm. 

US Environmental Protection Agency. 2005b. User’s Guide TREX v1.2.3. US Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC. 22 pages. 

http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/terrestrial/trex_usersguide.htm. 

US Geological Survey. 2000. Pesticides in stream sediment and aquatic biota – current 

understanding of distribution and major influences. USGS Fact Sheet 092-00, US Geological 

Survey, Sacramento, California. 4 pages. 

US Forest Service. 2005. Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program 

Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants Final Environmental Impact Statement. 359 pages. 

Wauchope, R.D., T.M. Buttler, A.G. Hornsby, P.M. Augustijn-Beckers, and J.P. Burt. 1992. The 

SCS/ARS/CES pesticide properties database for environmental decision making. Reviews of 

Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 123:1-155. 

Woods, N. 2004. Australian developments in spray drift management. Proceedings of the 

International Conference on Pesticide Application for Drift Management, Waikoloa, Hawaii. 

8 pages. 
Cama

Appendix 

Appen

SOU

as National Wi

G. Fire Manag

ndix G.

FIR

UTHEAST

ildlife Refuge D

gement Plan 

Fire M

RE MA

T IDAHO 

C

Gra

Bea

Mi

Oxford

Pa

Draft Compreh

Managem

ANAG

NATION

Camas Natio

ays Lake Na

ar Lake Nat

inidoka Nat

d Slough W

cific No

Ma

hensive Conser

ment Pla

GEM

NAL WILD

onal Wildlif

ational Wild

tional Wildl

tional Wildl

aterfowl Pr

orthwest

arch 2009

rvation Plan an

an 

MENT 

DLIFE RE

fe Refuge 

dlife Refuge

life Refuge

life Refuge

roduction A

t Region

9

nd Environmen

PLA

EFUGE C

e 

Area 

n 

ntal Assessmen

AN 

COMPLEX

nt

G-1 
Cama

G-2 

s National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan an

A

d Environmen

ppendix G. Fi

tal Assessmen

re Managemen

nt

t Plan 
Cama

Appendix 

s National Wi

G. Fire Manag

ldlife Refuge D

ement Plan 

raft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

G-3 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

G-4 Appendix G. Fire Management Plan 

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................... G-6 

1.1 Purpose of the Fire Management Plan (FMP) ............................................................. G-6 

1.2 General Description of the Area in the Fire Management Plan ................................. G-6 

1.3 Significant Values To Protect ........................................................................................ G-7 

2.0 Policy, Land Management Planning, and Partnerships ............................................ G-7 

2.1 Implementation of Fire Policy ..................................................................................... G-7 

2.1.1 Federal Interagency Wildland Fire Policy ................................................................ G-7 

2.1.2 National Fire Plan ........................................................................................................ G-7 

2.1.3 Department of Interior (DOI) Fire Policy ................................................................. G-8 

2.1.4 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fire Policy ................................................................. G-8 

2.2 Land/Resource Management Policy ............................................................................ G-9 

2.2.1 Agency Land Management Documents ..................................................................... G-9 

2.2.2 Compliance with Regulatory Acts .............................................................................. G-9 

2.3 Fire Management Partnerships ................................................................................. G-10 

2.3.1 Internal Partnerships................................................................................................. G-10 

2.3.3 External Parnterships ................................................................................................ G-10 

3.0 Fire Management Unit Characteristics .................................................................... G-11 

3.1 Area Wide Management Considerations .................................................................. G-11 

3.1.1 Management Goals, Objectives and Constraints from CCPs and other planning 

documents ............................................................................................................................ G-11 

3.1.2 Management Goals, Objectives, and Constraints from other Sources ................. G-11 

3.1.2.1 Cost Effectiveness................................................................................................ G-12 

3.1.3 Common Characteristics of the Fire Management Units ...................................... G-12 

3.2 Fire Management Units .............................................................................................. G-15 

3.2.1 Bear Lake FMU Characteristics............................................................................... G-16 

3.2.2 Bear Lake FMU Fire Environment .......................................................................... G-17 

3.2.3 Bear Lake FMU Objectives and Constraints .......................................................... G-17 

3.2.4 Bear Lake FMU Values to Protect ........................................................................... G-18 

3.3.1 Camas FMU Characteristics ..................................................................................... G-18 

3.3.2 Camas FMU Fire Environment ................................................................................ G-19 

3.3.3 Camas FMU Objectives and Constraints ................................................................ G-19 

3.3.4 Camas FMU Values to Protect ................................................................................. G-20 

3.4.1 Grays Lake FMU Description................................................................................... G-20 

3.4.2 Grays Lake FMU Fire Environment ........................................................................ G-20 

3.4.3 Grays Lake FMU Objectives and Constraints ............................................................ 21 

3.4.4 Grays Lake FMU Values to Protect ............................................................................. 21 

3.5.1 Minidoka FMU Description .......................................................................................... 21 

3.5.2 Minidoka FMU Fire Environment ............................................................................... 22 

3.5.3 Minidoka FMU Objectives and Constraints ............................................................... 22 

3.5.4 Minidoka FMU Values to Protect ................................................................................ 23 

3.6.1 Oxford Slough FMU Description ................................................................................. 23 

3.6.2 Oxford Slough FMU Fire Environment ...................................................................... 23 

3.6.3 Oxford Slough FMU Objectives and Constraints ....................................................... 24 

3.6.4 Oxford Slough FMU Values to Protect ........................................................................ 24 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix G. Fire Management Plan G-5 

4.0 Wildland Fire Operational Guidance ........................................................................... 24 

4.1.1 Appropriate Management Response ............................................................................ 24 

4.1.2 Preparedness .................................................................................................................. 25 

4.1.3 Detection ......................................................................................................................... 26 

4.1.4 Dispatch, Initial Response and Initial Attack ............................................................. 27 

4.1.5 Extended Attack and Large Fire Management ........................................................... 27 

4.1.6 Aviation Operations ....................................................................................................... 27 

4.1.7 Reviews and Investigations ........................................................................................... 27 

4.1.8 Reports ............................................................................................................................ 28 

4.2 Hazardous Fuels Management ...................................................................................... 28 

4.2.1 Prescribed Fire Program for Hazardous Fuels and Habitats .................................... 28 

4.2.1.1 Program Overview .................................................................................................. 28 

4.2.1.2 Effect of National and Regional Preparedness Levels ......................................... 29 

4.2.1.3 Project Planning ...................................................................................................... 29 

4.2.1.4 Project Implementation .......................................................................................... 30 

4.2.1.5 Smoke Management................................................................................................ 30 

4.2.1.6 After Action and Escaped Fire Reviews ............................................................... 31 

4.2.1.7 Reports ..................................................................................................................... 31 

4.2.2 Non-fire Hazardous Fuels Treatment Program .......................................................... 31 

4.2.3 Process to Identify Hazardous Fuels Treatments ....................................................... 32 

4.3 Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation ................................................................ 32 

4.4. Prevention, Mitigation and Education ......................................................................... 33 

5.0 Monitoring and Evaluation ............................................................................................ 34 

5.1 Fire Management Plan ................................................................................................... 34 

5.1.1 Annual FMP Review ...................................................................................................... 34 

5.1.2 Fire Management Plan Terminology ........................................................................... 34 

5.2 Treatment Effectiveness ................................................................................................. 35 

Appendices .............................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

G-6 Appendix G. Fire Management Plan 

1.0 Introduction 

1.1 Purpose of the Fire Management Plan (FMP) 

This plan is written to meet Department and US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) requirements that every 

area with burnable vegetation must have an approved fire management plan (FMP). It complies with a 

FWS requirement that refuges review and/or revise FMPs at a minimum of five-year intervals or when 

significant changes are proposed, such as might occur if significant land use changes are made adjacent to 

FWS lands (621 FW 2). 

The goal of wildland fire management is to plan and implement actions that help accomplish the mission 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System. That mission is to administer a national network of lands and 

waters for the conservation, management, and, where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and 

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

of Americans (095 FW 3.2). 

Completion of a FMP enables the Southeast Idaho National Wildlife Refuge Complex to consider a full 

range of appropriate suppression strategies and to conduct prescribed fires; without it, prescribed fires 

cannot be conducted and only wildfire suppression strategies may be implemented. 

This FMP identifies and integrates all wildland fire management and related activities. It defines a 

program to manage wildland fires and to assure that wildland fire management goals and components are 

coordinated. 

1.2 General Description of the Area in the Fire Management Plan 

The Southeast Idaho National Wildlife Refuge Complex is comprised of four wildlife refuges and one 

waterfowl production area. The Complex is located in the southeastern portion of Idaho ranging from 

Bear Lake NWR on the Utah border to Camas NWR near the Montana border, (Complex map in 

appendix A). Refuges included in this Fire Management Plan: 

 Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) 

 Camas NWR 

 Grays Lake NWR 

 Minidoka NWR and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area (WPA). 

The Complex is diverse both ecologically and geographically. Habitats range from low elevations of the 

Snake River Plain to the high elevation of the inter-montane habitats of the Rocky Mountains. The 

Complex office is located in Chubbuck, Idaho; each refuge also has an onsite office with the exception of 

Oxford Slough WPA. 

The refuges in the Complex provide 71,331 acres of wetland, grassland, open water and shrub steppe 

habitats vital to waterfowl and other migratory and resident wildlife of the Inter Mountain West Region. 

In an area highly impacted by agricultural development, wetlands and shrub steppe habitats on the 

Complex are extremely significant. Each refuge has a unique component of wildlife depending upon the 

composition of various habitat types. A significant proportion of the available wetland habitat in 

Southeast Idaho is found within the boundaries of the Complex. 

Management emphasis on the Complex is on biodiversity including migratory waterfowl (nesting Canada 

geese, ducks and cranes), colonial waterbirds (white-faced ibis, American white pelicans and Franklin 

gulls), trumpeter swans migratory land birds, and fish (Bonneville cutthroat trout). 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix G. Fire Management Plan G-7 

1.3 Significant Values To Protect 

Key critical values to protect: 

 The Complex refuges provide significant waterfowl habitat on the Pacific Flyway. 

 The refuges provide important breeding area for sandhill cranes, Canada geese, Franklin's gulls, 

white-faced ibis, and migratory land birds. 

 Each refuge in the Complex is adjacent to a federally listed Community at Risk. This designation 

identifies wildland/urban interface (WUI) communities within the vicinity of federal lands that 

are at risk from wildfire. A list of specific Communities at Risk is located in each individual FMU 

description (3.2 FMU Characteristics). 

 Refuge structures. 

 The Complex refuges provide important opportunities for visitor use, (bird watching, hunting and 

fishing). 

2.0 Policy, Land Management Planning, and Partnerships 

2.1 Implementation of Fire Policy 

Specific planning documents, legislation, organizations and associated policies provide guidance for fire 

management actions described in this FMP, summarized below. 

2.1.1 Federal Interagency Wildland Fire Policy 

This FMP meets the federal wildland fire management policy by implementing these guiding principles: 

 Firefighter and public safety are the first priority in every fire management activity. 

 The role of wildland fire as an essential ecological process and natural change agent has been 

incorporated into the planning process. Federal agency land and resource management plans 

guiding documents that define the use and desired future condition on federal lands. 

 Fire management plans programs, and activities support land and resource management plans and 

their implementation. 

 Sound risk management is a foundation for all fire management activities. Risks and 

uncertainties relating to fire management activities are understood, analyzed, communicated, and 

managed as they relate to the cost of either doing or not doing an activity. 

 Fire management programs and activities are economically viable, based upon values to be 

protected, costs, and land and resource management objectives. 

 Fire management plans and activities are based upon the best available science. 

 Fire management plans and activities incorporate public health and environmental quality 

considerations. 

 Federal, state, tribal, local, interagency, and international coordination and cooperation are 

essential. 

 Standardization of policies and procedures among federal agencies is an ongoing objective 

supported in this FMP. 

2.1.2 National Fire Plan 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

G-8 Appendix G. Fire Management Plan 

This FMP meets the policy and direction criteria in the 2001 National Fire Plan because it emphasizes the 

following primary goals of the 10 Year Comprehensive Strategy and Cohesive Strategy for Protecting 

People and Sustaining Natural Resources: 

 Improving fire prevention and suppression. 

 Reducing hazardous fuels. 

 Restoring fire-adapted ecosystems. 

 Promoting community assistance. 

2.1.3 Department of Interior (DOI) Fire Policy 

This FMP incorporates and adheres to DOI policy stated in 620 DM 1 by giving full consideration to use 

of wildland fire as a natural process and tool during the land management planning process and by 

providing for the following: 

 Wildland fires, whether on or adjacent to lands administered by the Department, which threaten 

life, improvements, or are determined to be a threat to natural and cultural resources or 

improvements under the Department's jurisdiction, will be considered emergencies and their 

suppression given priority over other Departmental programs. 

 Bureaus shall cooperate in the development of interagency preparedness plans to ensure timely 

recognition of approaching critical wildland fire situations; to establish processes for analyzing 

situations and establishing priorities, and for implementing appropriate management responses to 

these situations. 

 Bureaus will enforce rules and regulations concerning the unauthorized ignition of wildland fires, 

and aggressively pursue violations. 

2.1.4 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fire Policy 

By addressing the range of potential wildland fire occurrences and including a full range of appropriate 

management responses, this FMP meets FWS wildland fire policy. It is consistent with the FWS Fire 

Management Handbook and the Interagency Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation Management 

Operations, which are supplemental policy. 

This plan affirms these key elements of FWS fire policy (621 FW 1): 

 Firefighter and public safety are the first priority of the wildland fire management program and 

all associated activities. 

 Only trained and qualified fire managers and agency administrators will be responsible for 

wildland fire management program activities. 

 Only trained and certified employees will participate in the wildland fire management program 

activities, and noncertified employees will provide needed support as necessary. 

 All interagency partners, to the extent practicable, should be involved with fire management 

planning, preparedness, wildfire and prescribed fire operations, monitoring, and research. 

 The responsible agency administrator has coordinated, reviewed, and approved this FMP to 

ensure consistency with approved land management plans, values to protect, and natural and 

cultural resource management plans and that it addressed public health issues related to smoke 

and air quality. 

 Fire, as an ecological process, has been integrated into resource management plans and activities 

on a landscape scale, across agency boundaries, based upon the best available science. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix G. Fire Management Plan G-9 

 Wildland fire is used to meet identified resource management objectives and benefits when 

appropriate. 

 Prescribed fire and other treatments will be employed whenever they are the appropriate tool to 

reduce hazard fuels and the associated risk of wildfire to human life, property, and cultural and 

natural resources and to manage FWS lands for habitats as mandated by statute, treaty, and other 

authorities. 

 Appropriate management response will consider firefighter and public safety, cost effectiveness, 

values to protect, and natural and cultural resource objectives. 

 Staff members will work with local cooperators and the public to prevent unauthorized 

ignition of wildfires on our lands. 

2.2 Land/Resource Management Policy 

2.2.1 Agency Land Management Documents 

The CCP process was started at Minidoka NWR in 2008; Camas, Grays Lake, Bear Lake, and Oxford 

Slough are scheduled to start in 2009. Until the CCP for Complex refuges is completed interim 

management guidance from existing land management documents will be used. 

Habitat management direction from other Complex Land Management Documents was used to develop 

this FMP. Other documents include: 

 2007 draft Habitat Management Plan for Bear Lake NWR and Oxford Slough WPA. 

 2006 draft Habitat Management Plan for Minidoka NWR. 

 1982 Master Plan and 1996 Grassland Management Environmental Assessment for Grays Lake 

NWR. 

 1995 Refuge Management Plan for Camas NWR. 

 

2.2.2 Compliance with Regulatory Acts 

Threatened and Endangered Species Compliance 

 A 2007 Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation for normal refuge operations including 

prescribed fire and mechanical fuels reduction projects has been signed by the Complex Project 

Leader for each of the refuges; copies are on file at the Complex headquarters. 

Cultural Resource Compliance 

 In order to comply with National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and Archeological Resources 

Preservation Act of 1979 regulations, a Request for Cultural Resource Compliance will be 

completed on a project by project basis and submitted to the regional office. The completed 

Cultural Resource Compliance documents are on file at individual refuge headquarters. 

NEPA Compliance 

 A Categorical Exclusion for fire management operations (wildland fire suppression, prescribed 

fire, and mechanical fuels reduction) was signed by the Complex Project Leader and attached in 

Appendix C This Categorical Exclusion applies to all five Complex refuges and will be 

reviewed annually. 

Smoke Management Compliance 

 Referenced in section 4.2.1.5
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

G-10 Appendix G. Fire Management Plan 

2.3 Fire Management Partnerships 

2.3.1 Internal Partnerships

An interdisciplinary team, comprised of Complex staff members, is responsible for reviewing this fire 

management plan and making recommendations concerning wildland fire management projects and 

issues. 

2.3.3 External Partnerships 

Federal Cooperators: 

The Complex partners with the USDI Bureau of Land Management (BLM), USDA Forest Service 

(USFS) and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to coordinate fire suppression activities, dispatch services, 

and implementation of prescribed fire projects. The Complex refuges fall into two different interagency 

fire dispatch zones in southern Idaho. Camas, Grays Lake, Bear Lake, and Oxford Slough fire operations 

are coordinated through the Eastern Idaho Interagency Fire Center, (EIIFC); Minidoka fire operations are 

coordinated with the South Central Idaho Interagency Dispatch Center, (SCIIDC). The Grays Lake NWR 

fire crew and Complex FMO are dispatched through EIIFC. Interagency Agreements with EIIFC and 

SCIIDC are attached in Appendix F 

Fire Planning Analysis: 

Federal land management agencies have been directed to implement Phase 2 of Fire Planning Analysis 

(FPA) beginning in fiscal years 2008 and 2009. FPA is a fire management workload analysis system that 

uses simulation and modeling tools to project fire workload for Fire Planning Units (FPUs). Interagency 

cooperation is fostered to meet National Fire Plan goals and specific agency fire program budget needs. 

The complex refuges (Camas, Grays Lake, Bear Lake, Oxford Slough) are included in the Southeast 

Idaho FPU; Minidoka NWR is in the South Central Idaho FPU. Federal partners, including the BLM, 

USFS, BIA work collaboratively with the Service to implement this plan and meet National Fire Plan 

goals for wildland fire protection, landscape restoration, and hazard fuel mitigation measures. 

Idaho State Fire Plan Working Group: 

The Idaho State Fire Plan Working Group (ISFPWG) is a multi-agency collaborative body charged with 

assisting counties with their County Wildfire Protection Plans and their associated countywide working 

groups, dissemination of information, and oversight and prioritization of grant assistance programs in 

order to facilitate the implementation of the National Fire Plan in Idaho. The Regional Fire Outreach 

Coordinator housed at Deer Flat represents the FWS as a part of this group. They participate in ISFPWG 

subcommittees as appropriate. Subcommittees include those focused on fire education, restoration, and 

communication to promote state-wide projects and emphasis items. 

Idaho State Fire Plan Working Group: 

The Complex coordinates with the Federal and State members of the Idaho State Fire Plan Working 

Group ISFPWG to identify, fund, and implements fuels reductions projects in Wildland Urban Interface 

(WUI) areas. Each county in Idaho has developed a County Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) that 

identifies potential fuel reduction opportunities/area. The CWPP are posted at this website Idaho 

Department of Lands CWPP. 

Bureau of Reclamation: 

A memorandum of understanding exists between Minidoka NWR and the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) 

to outline joint responsibilities for the operation and management of the lands and waters within Lake 

Walcott at the Refuge. This MOU is on file at the Complex office. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix G. Fire Management Plan G-11 

3.0 Fire Management Unit Characteristics 

A fire management unit (FMU) is an area that shares common objectives, physiological/biological/social 

characteristics and constraints, that result in desired conditions as stated in land management plans (i.e., 

CCP, HMP), which set it apart from the characteristics of an adjacent FMU. 

Considering fire history, occurrence, staff limitations, and the characteristics stated above, the wildland 

fire program complexity at the Complex is moderate. In the Complex, each refuge will be a separate Fire 

Management Unit. 

3.1 Area Wide Management Considerations 

The following sections addresses management considerations for the FMUs including fire management 

objectives, constraints, fuels, fire regime and condition classes, standards, fire potential of major 

vegetation types, and burned area rehabilitation. 

3.1.1 Management Goals, Objectives and Constraints from CCPs and other planning documents 

The planning process for the Complex CCPs is scheduled to start in 2009; management goals and 

objectives were obtained from existing refuge plans. The following general fire management goals and 

objectives have been identified from the pre-CCP process. 

To the extent practicable, use prescribed fire in conjunction with water management, grazing, mowing, 

and/or other mechanical manipulations and chemical applications, on emergent wetland, woody riparian, 

herbaceous upland and/or wet meadow vegetation, in order to provide desirable vegetation species 

composition and/or structure, including, but not limited to: 

 Use hazardous fuels treatments to reduce the threat of wildfire to adjacent communities and 

Refuge infrastructure. 

 Decreasing noxious weeds. 

 Decreasing dense emergent wetland plants. 

 Increasing wetland water: vegetation interspersion ratios (20-60% open water). 

 Restoring native shrub communities. 

 Removing densely matted herbaceous vegetation and/or reducing dead or decadent woody 

vegetation so as to improve ecological conditions for native plants and native plant communities 

and the resident and migratory wildlife that depend on them. 

3.1.2 Management Goals, Objectives, and Constraints from other Sources 

The following operational standards are pertinent to the Complex, as found in the 

FWS manual (095 FW 3): 

 Manage fire suppression to minimize risks to firefighter and public safety. 

 An initial action and an appropriate management response are required for every wildfire on or 

threatening refuge lands. 

 The range of appropriate management responses to wildfires may include direct or indirect attack 

of high and/or low intensities or surveillance and monitoring to ensure fire spread will be limited 

to a designated area. 

 Reduce and maintain fuels in WUI areas to provide for public and firefighter health and safety. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

G-12 Appendix G. Fire Management Plan 

 Reduce and maintain fuels in non-WUI areas to provide for firefighter health and safety and to 

protect habitats critical to endangered species, migratory birds, and ecosystem integrity. 

 Use prescribed fire as a tool to restore ecosystem integrity and endangered species habitat. 

 Prepare and implement an effective fire prevention plan to minimize unwanted fires. 

 Investigate all unplanned human-caused fires. 

 Retardants and foams will not be used within 300 feet of any waterway. 

 Minimize and, where necessary, mitigate human-induced impacts to resources, natural processes, 

or improvements attributable to wildland fire activities. 

 Ground disturbed by suppression activities will be rehabilitated. 

 Heavy equipment use will be closely monitored in designated areas to minimize impacts on 

cultural resources. 

 Heavy equipment use will be closely coordinated with the Refuge Manager or resource advisor to 

limit habitat damage. Due to soft ground conditions many areas of the Complex are unsuitable to 

heavy equipment usage. 

 Prevent the further spread of invasive plants. 

 Maintain close working relationship with interagency partners to accomplish wildland fire 

suppression and prescribed fire treatments. 

 Maintain Intergovernmental Agreements with interagency partners for dispatch services. 

 Promote public understanding of refuge fire management programs and objectives. 

 

3.1.2.1 Cost Effectiveness 

Maximizing the cost effectiveness of any fire operation is the responsibility of all involved, including 

those that authorize, direct, or implement those operations. Cost effectiveness is the most economical use 

of the resources necessary to accomplish project/incident objectives. Accomplishing these objectives 

safely and efficiently will not be sacrificed for the sole purpose of “cost saving”. Care will be taken to 

ensure that expenditures are commensurate with values to be protected. Many factors outside of the 

biophysical environment may influence spending decisions, including those of the social, political, and 

economic realms. The following tools will be used to provide information to make the most cost effective 

decision possible: 

 Employ state-of-the-art decision support tools 

 Provide a clear description of Refuge objectives in this Fire management Plan to aid in 

alternative development 

 Through cost-share agreements, distribute the decision process to all parties involved in wildland 

fire management 

3.1.3 Common Characteristics of the Fire Management Units 

Climate 

The southeast Idaho climate can be described as semi-arid. The area climate varies between that of the 

Snake River Plain (SRP) and the higher elevation Eastern Mountain Region (EMR). Minidoka and 

Camas refuges are located in the SRP; Grays Lake, Bear Lake, and Oxford Slough are located in the 

EMR. The winter weather at the Complex refuges is characterized by below freezing temperatures and 

snow covered ground. Spring months are usually wet and windy; with weather conditions fluctuating 

quickly at times. Summer may begin suddenly with a rapid change to warm and dry weather. 

Thunderstorms are common from late spring through the summer months. These storms often produce 

very localized precipitation. Fall weather can be characterized by cooler/dry days. The yearly 

precipitation ranges from 9 inches in the SRP to over 15 inches in the EMR; average snow fall is 27 

inches-SRP and 49-61 inches-EMR. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix G. Fire Management Plan G-13 

Information in the climate tables below was gathered from weather stations in Hamer and Soda Springs 

Idaho and BLM/USFS/FWS RAWS stations in eastern Idaho. 

Snake River Plain Climate 

Spring Summer Fall

Average Max Temp (F) 59 87 62

Average Min Temp (F) 27 47 26

Average Mean Relative Humidity (%) 51 38 46

Average Min Relative Humidity (%) 16 11 14

Southeast Idaho Eastern Mountain Region Climate 

Spring Summer Fall

Average Max Temp (F) 54 83 59

Average Min Temp (F) 26 44 26

Average Mean Relative Humidity (%) 50 35 43

Average Min Relative Humidity (%) 22 12 15

See Appendix D for additional southeast Idaho climate charts and graphs. 

Vegetation 

The vegetation/habitat for the Complex refuges is described in the individual FMU Characteristics with 

acreage and percentages. The Complex vegetation types can be generally described as Marsh (FM 3), 

Grasslands (FM 1), and Shrub (FM 2/6). 

 Bulrush Marsh – FM 3 Grasslands – FM 1 

 Sagebrush Steppe - Shrub FM 2/6 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

G-14 Appendix G. Fire Management Plan 

Fire behavior outputs in the table below were from the BehavePlus 3.0.2 program. In this model, fires are 

assumed to be spreading as a series of steady state ignitions through uniform fuels under uniform weather 

conditions. Spread is also assumed to be from surface fire only. The fire behavior outputs are modeled to 

represent a potential summer fire (July/August). This fire behavior would be considered to be high to 

extreme. Weather data used in the modeling is 20 year data from BLM/USFS/FWS RAWS stations. 

Weather inputs to the BehavePlus runs: July, Temp 70-89, RH 11-38, 1-hr fuel moisture/FDFM 2/5%, 10-

hr fuel moisture 7%, 100-hr fuel moisture 8%, live herbaceous moisture 65%, wind speed 5/15 mph, time 

of day 1400, slope 0-5%. 

Fire Behavior Outputs by NFFL Fuel Models 

Fuel Model Rate of Spread (ch/hr) Flame Length (ft)

1 99-665 5-13

2 42-388 7-21

3 129-741 14-35

6 37-207 6-15

Normal Fire Season 

The normal fire season for the Complex refuges is March to October. The majority of the fires have 

occurred in July and August. The lower elevation refuges of Camas and Minidoka experience earlier 

season fires than higher elevation refuges (Grays Lake and Bear Lake). After snow melt in early spring 

Camas and Minidoka can experience a short potential for fire starts before the vegetation greens up, 

(during the drought year of 2007 Camas NWR vegetation did not green up staying cured all summer). 

The vegetation usually cures out at Camas and Minidoka by the end of June or early July. Due to higher 

elevation and snow pack the grassland vegetation at Bear Lake and Grays Lake refuges usually does not 

cure out until the end of July or early August. The bulrush vegetation at all the Complex refuges does not 

cure out until the end of September unless drought influenced. 

Wildfire History 

From 1997 to 2007 the Complex refuges has experienced 24 wildfires. The majority and largest fires 

have occurred in the sagebrush steppe habitat at Minidoka NWR. Most of the fire starts have been from 

lightning. See fire history spreadsheet and bar graph in Appendix E 

Prescribed Fire History 

From 1997 to 2007 41 prescribed fire (RX) treatment units have been burned at the Complex refuges for 

10,141 acres. The majority of the RX treatments have been accomplished at Grays Lake and Bear Lake 

refuges. Due to its smaller acreage the RX units at Camas NWR have been smaller in size. Minidoka is 

the only complex refuge where RX treatments have not been initiated, mainly due to the amount of 

sagebrush habitat that has been lost to wildfires. Most of the RX treatments have been in marsh habitat 

with a smaller amount in the Complex wet and dry meadows. See RX history spreadsheet in Appendix E 

RX treatments 1997 to 2007 

Refuge RX Treatments Acreage

Grays Lake NWR 14 3,447

Bear Lake NWR 13 5,272

Camas NWR 12 795

Oxford Slough WPA 2 117

Totals 41 10,141

Mechanical Fuel Reduction Treatments 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix G. Fire Management Plan G-15 

31 mechanical fuel reductions treatments have been accomplished at the Complex refuges from 1997 to 

2007. The treatments include a mixture of haying, grazing, mowing, chemical, and tree removal to 

reduce hazardous fuel loading adjacent to refuge boundaries. Most of the treatments have taken place in 

refuge grasslands. Mow lines adjacent to refuge roads are maintained yearly to enhance potential fire 

control lines. 

 Mechanical Fuel Reduction treatments 1997 to 2007 

Refuge Treatments Acreage

Grays Lake NWR 8 2,654

Bear Lake NWR 6 2,749

Camas NWR 10 1,166

Oxford Slough WPA 2 725

Minidoka NWR 5 745

Totals 31 8,039

 

3.2 Fire Management Units 

Fire Management Units (FMUs) are areas which have common wildland fire management objectives and 

strategies, are manageable units from a wildland fire standpoint, and can be based on natural or manmade 

fuel breaks. In the Southeast Idaho Complex, each of the five individual refuges will be a separate Fire 

Management Unit. All five refuges are located in southeast Idaho with similar vegetation, (bulrush 

marsh, grasslands, sagebrush steppe), mission, wildlife and terrain. The wildfire occurrence has been 

similar, (Camas and Minidoka refuges located in the Snake River Plains do experience more fires than the 

other three higher elevation refuges). The five refuges are managed as a Complex and are suited to be 

included in one Fire Management Plan, identified as separate FMUs. 

Fire Management Units in the Southeast Idaho NWRC 

FWS Fire Management Units within the FMP Total Acres Burnable Acres

Bear Lake NWR 18,051 13,026

Camas NWR 10,578 9,948

Grays Lake NWR 20,125 18,655

Minidoka NWR 20,699 9,399

Oxford Slough WPA 1,878 1,810

Totals 71,331 52,838

Southeast Idaho NWRC Location Map 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

G-16 Appendix G. Fire Management Plan 

3.2.1 Bear Lake FMU Characteristics 

Bear Lake NWR includes the Bear Lake Unit and the Thomas Fork unit, (map in appendix A). The Bear 

Lake unit consists of 18,051 acres of open water, marsh, uplands, grasslands, low wet meadows, and steep 

shrub covered slopes located north of Bear Lake and about seven miles south of Montpelier. The refuge 

was established in 1968 by Public land Orders 4415 and 4545, which withdrew 16,960, acres from the 

public domain for the creation of the refuge. Land purchases have added an additional 1,091 acres. The 

land was withdrawn to protect and improve the habitat for the western Canada goose and other waterfowl 

as well as the greater sandhill crane. The mission of the refuge has not changed although greater emphasis 

is now on redhead and canvasback duck production. Trumpeter swans and colonial nesting species, 

particularly white-faced ibis are receiving more management attention. 

The Thomas Fork unit, (TFU) consists of 1,015 acres of open water, marsh, and low meadows located 

adjacent to the Wyoming border in the Gentile Valley just above where the Thomas Fork joins the Bear 

River. This unit was acquired in fee title from the Farmers Services Administration in 1996. The land 

was added to the refuge because it represents excellent sandhill crane habitat and is especially important 

to cranes on their migrations through the area in the spring and fall. TFU provides important habitat for a 

variety of wildlife in an area dominated by agriculture. An active farming program is maintained on 

uplands for grains that are the main food source for sandhill cranes when occupying the refuge. The 

Thomas Fork River is used by Bonneville cutthroat trout. 

A large percentage of the vegetation at Bear Lake NWR consists of emergent (primarily bulrush) residual 

cover in the large marsh. The main marsh area of the refuge is approximately 16,000 acres in size. The 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix G. Fire Management Plan G-17 

main marsh is by bordering wet meadows which consist of Juncus spp., Carex spp., and a variety of water 

tolerant grasses. Many of the wet meadows are hayed to short grass stubble during the summer reducing 

potential fire behavior. The dry meadow grass species include: saltgrass, alkali sacaton, several species of 

wheatgrass, and basin wildrye. The shrub species are comprised of sagebrush and greasewood; these are 

scattered in small areas throughout the refuge with the largest concentration located on the steep slopes of 

Merkley Ridge on the east side of the refuge. The riparian species is mostly comprised of willow; most of 

which is mainly located along the Rainbow Canal with a few other isolated pockets scattered across the 

refuge. 

Fuel Model Composition Bear Lake NWR 

Marsh FM 3 11,303 acres 59%

Dry Meadow FM 1 1,317 acres 7%

Wet Meadows FM 1 943 acres 5%

Shrub FM 2 376 acres 2%

Riparian FM 4 90 acres 1%

Open Water 5,025 acres 26%

3.2.2 Bear Lake FMU Fire Environment 

The biggest factor affecting fire management operations at the refuge is fire vehicle access to the marsh 

lands. The majority of the refuge lands consist of wetland marsh restricting conventional fire vehicles to 

dikes, roads and dry meadows. The Complex has three amphibious vehicles outfitted with slip-on 

tank/pump units which can provide limited fire suppression in the wetlands. The refuge has numerous 

open water areas and several roads which break up the vegetation continuity and provide opportunities for 

fire control lines. 

The marshland vegetation is sub-irrigated and green most of the year; the emergent bulrush usually does 

not cure out until freezing temperatures in the fall top kill the plants. The fire potential and spread in the 

bulrush marsh can usually be considered low until vegetation cures out. The biggest factor in bulrush fire 

behavior is wind speed and direction. 

The wet and dry hay meadows surrounding the marsh are also sub-irrigated. The drier meadows usually 

cure out in July; wet meadows may not cure out until August. Wind speed and direction are also a big 

factor in grassland fire behavior. 

Private property borders most of the refuge, this property is mostly ranchland and hay fields which are 

grazed heavily during fall and winter months. The federally listed Communities at Risk bordering Bear 

Lake refuge include Dingle, Paris and Bloomington, Idaho. Forest Service lands border the southeast 

section of the refuge in the Merkley Ridge area. This section of the refuge is where the majority of 

human caused fire has started. 

 

3.2.3 Bear Lake FMU Objectives and Constraints 

 Use prescribed fire and mechanical manipulation to annually simulate natural environmental 

processes (return to early successional status) in emergent wetland and wet meadow habitats. 

 Eliminate or control invasive plant species by using a combination of mechanical, prescribed fire, 

and chemical treatments. 

 FMU Appropriate Management Response objectives include managing wildfires to meet fuels 

and habitat objectives and to benefit migratory bird habitat. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

G-18 Appendix G. Fire Management Plan 

 The waterfowl nesting season at the refuges ranges from mid-April to late summer. Prescribed 

fire and mechanical fuel reduction treatments will not usually take place during this time to avoid 

disturbing nesting habitat. 

 Due to constraints such as nesting season, water level fluctuation, and fire season the refuge will 

have two prescribed burn windows in spring and fall. As determined from past years burn 

experience the approximate burn windows will be; Spring - March 1 to April 15; Fall – 

September 20 to October 30. During these windows the above constraints can be mitigated and 

vegetation is cured out enough to meet prescribed burn objectives. 

 General Appropriate Management Response strategy (AMR) – AMR strategy will range from full 

suppression to confine contain on isolated bulrush island surrounded by water. The majority of 

the refuge will use AMR full suppression, especially adjacent to private property. However there 

are some isolated pockets of bulrush in the Mud Lake area (southeast corner of the refuge) that 

are surrounded by water. These areas would be very difficult to access for fire suppression and a 

potential wildfire could provide a resource benefit. 

3.2.4 Bear Lake FMU Values to Protect 

 High priority will be given to any wildfire on the refuge threatening private property. The 

Federally designated Communities at Risk of Dingle, Paris, and Bloomington are adjacent to the 

refuge. 

 The northeast Mud Lake colonial nesting areas used by white-faced ibis, Franklin’s gulls, other 

herons and egrets. 

 Refuge structures are listed in Appendix XX. 

 High voltage power lines running across the southwest corner of the refuge. 

3.3.1 Camas FMU Characteristics 

The refuge was established in 1937 by Executive Order 7720. The stated purpose for the refuge is to 

provide “a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife”. Trumpeter swan nesting 

and sage grouse habitat have been receiving more attention in recent years. 

Camas NWR consists of 10,578 acres of open water, marsh, upland grasslands and shrub steppe located 

in the Snake River Plain 24 miles north of Idaho Falls. About half of the refuge's 10,578 acres are lakes, 

ponds, and marshlands. The remainder consists of grass-sagebrush uplands and meadows. The 

management of sage grouse habitat has been receiving increased attention on the refuge in recent years. 

Camas Creek flows for 9 miles through the length of the refuge and is the source of water for many lakes 

and ponds. Several wells on the refuge also provide water for wildlife during the summer. 

The vegetation/habitat types at Camas are broken down into the following: 

 Sagebrush/grassland - in climax stage, the site is dominated by basin big sagebrush, arrowleaf 

balsamroot, Indian ricegrass and needle/thread grass. Approximately 1,200 acres has been seeded 

with crested wheatgrass; rabbitbrush, knapweed and various weed species are also present. 

 Wet Meadow - dominated by Baltic rush and various sedges. 

 Marsh - dominated by hardstem bulrush and broadleaf cattail. 

 Semiwet Meadow – dominated by saline tolerant plants such as inland saltgrass, alkali bluegrass 

and alkali sacaton. This habitat appears as narrow strips between the Wet Meadow and Marsh 

sites. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix G. Fire Management Plan G-19 

 Riparian – dominated by willows and some cottonwoods; the majority of the willow are located 

in a 46 acre patch adjacent to Rays Lake in the southern portion of the refuge. A narrow band of 

willow grows along sections Camas Creek. The cottonwood trees mostly grow in the refuge 

headquarters area bordering Camas Creek. 

Fuel Model Composition for Camas NWR 

Sagebrush/grasslands FM 2/6 3,633 acres 34%

Wet Meadow FM 1 2,956 acres 28%

Marsh FM 3 2,401 acres 23%

Semiwet Meadow FM 1 853 acres 8%

Riparian FM 4 105 acres 1%

Open water/mud flats 630 acres 6%

3.3.2 Camas FMU Fire Environment 

The fire risk at Camas NWR is considered moderate to high due to its location amid ranches, private 

dwellings and the numerous refuge facilities. The Upper Snake River Plain has a history of large wind 

driven fires (5,000 to 10,000 acres). Private property borders two thirds of the refuge; BLM land borders 

the west side of the refuge. Numerous private residences are located on the refuge boundary in the 

northeast section. The federally listed Community at Risk of Hamer, Idaho, borders the refuge on the 

southeast side. The refuge has numerous gravel and two-track roads which break up the vegetation 

continuity. 

The majority of the habitat at the refuge is grasslands which cure out in early to mid-summer. During the 

drought year of 2007 due to the lack of snow and spring rain fall the dryer portions of refuge grassland 

did not green-up remaining cured all season. The invasion of cheat grass to the sagebrush habitats has 

increased the fire frequency and intensity. 

3.3.3 Camas FMU Objectives and Constraints 

 Use prescribed fire and mechanical manipulation to annually simulate natural environmental 

processes (return to early successional status) in emergent wetland and wet meadow habitats. 

 Eliminate or control invasive plant species by using a combination of mechanical, prescribed fire, 

and chemical treatments. 

 FMU Appropriate Management Response objectives include managing wildfires to meet fuels 

and habitat objectives. 

 The waterfowl nesting season at the refuge ranges from mid-April to late summer. Prescribed fire 

and mechanical fuel reduction treatments will not usually take place during this time to avoid 

disturbing nesting habitat. 

 Due to constraints such as nesting season, water level fluctuation, and fire season the refuge will 

have two prescribed burn windows in spring and fall. As determined from past years burn 

experience the approximate burn windows will be; Spring - March 1 to April 15; Fall – 

September 20 to October 30. During these windows the above constraints can be mitigated and 

vegetation is cured out enough to meet prescribed burn objectives. 

 AMR strategy – unplanned fire will be contained at the smallest size possible due to proximity to 

adjacent private property and structure. Some areas of the refuge (bulrush marsh) are not 

conducive to off road fire vehicle access; in these areas a refuge road may will be utilized for a 

containment line. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

G-20 Appendix G. Fire Management Plan 

3.3.4 Camas FMU Values to Protect 

 High priority will be given to any wildfire on the refuge threatening private property. The 

Federally designated Community at Risk of Hamer is adjacent to the refuge. 

 Sagebrush/grassland habitats located on the north and west side of the refuge. 

 Sensitive areas of the Refuge are the riparian habitat along Camas Creek associated with 

headquarters (old growth cottonwood and black willow trees). 

 The peregrine hack tower; headquarters buildings; refuge residences; and the irrigation pumps. 

 Numerous private residences along the northeast refuge border. 

 Cultural resource sites (documented at refuge headquarters). 

3.4.1 Grays Lake FMU Description 

Grays Lake NWR was established in 1965 to protect and restore habitat for waterfowl production, 

sandhill cranes, and other wildlife. The total area within the proposed refuge boundary is 32,825 acres. 

Currently 20,125 acres are controlled by the Service through fee-title, use agreements and land purchases. 

Approximately 9,000 acres of land surrounding the marsh shore line is Unadjudicated land; the Service is 

currently negotiating with the adjacent private land owners and the State Of Idaho to get this issue 

resolved. Bear Island (approximately 401 acres) is located in the middle of the Grays Lake marsh; this 

land is controlled by the BIA. 

The refuge’s goals are to enhance natural ecosystem functions to support a diversity of water fowl birds 

and other wildlife. The refuge provides significant breeding area for sandhill cranes, Canada geese, 

Franklin's gulls, and white-faced ibis. 

Grays Lake NWR is located on the western edge of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem in Bonneville and 

Caribou Counties, Idaho. Grays Lake lies in a relatively remote and sparsely populated high altitude 

(6386 ft) mountain valley. Grays Lake is actually a 22,000 acre shallow marsh with dense vegetation 

(bulrush and cattail) and little open water. Caribou Mountain borders the refuge to the east, at 9803 feet it 

is the highest point within the watershed. 

The refuge is located in a transitional zone between Great Basin vegetation (south) and Rocky Mountain 

vegetation (north). Vegetation within approved refuge boundary consists of: 

 Marsh - dominated by hardstem bulrush and broadleaf cattail. 

 Wet/Dry Meadow – consists of over 170 species of grasses, sedges and forbs. 

 Shrub - 17 species of shrubs. 

 Riparian - 7 species of trees. 

Fuel Model Composition for Grays Lake NWR 

Bulrush/Cattail FM 3 13,951 acres 69%

Wet/Dry Meadow FM 1 4,504 acres 23%

Riparian FM 8 100 +/- acres <1%

Shrub FM 2 100 +/- acres <1%

Open water/ mud flats 1,470 8%

3.4.2 Grays Lake FMU Fire Environment 

The biggest factor affecting fire management operations at the refuge is fire vehicle access to the marsh 

lands. As mentioned above the majority of the refuge lands consists of a continuous wetland marsh with 

only a couple of short dikes and canals. The Complex has three amphibious vehicles outfitted with slip-
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix G. Fire Management Plan G-21 

on tank/pump units which can provided limited fire suppression in the wetlands. A large wind driven fire 

in the bulrush could not safely be suppressed by direct attack. 

The marshland vegetation is sub-irrigated and green most of the year; the emergent bulrush usually does 

not cure out until freezing temperatures in the fall top kill the plants. The fire potential and spread in the 

bulrush marsh can usually be considered low until vegetation cures out. The biggest factor in bulrush fire 

behavior is wind speed and direction. 

The wet and dry hay meadows surrounding the marsh are also sub-irrigated. The drier meadows usually 

cure out in August; wet meadows may not cure out until September. Wind speed and direction are also a 

big factor in grassland fire behavior. 

Private property with numerous structures (residences, barns, and out buildings) border the east and south 

sections of the refuge. The federally listed Community at Risk of Wayan, Idaho, is southeast of the 

refuge. 

3.4.3 Grays Lake FMU Objectives and Constraints 

 Use prescribed fire and mechanical manipulation to annually simulate natural environmental 

processes (return to early successional status) in emergent wetland and wet meadow habitats. 

 Eliminate or control invasive plant species by using a combination of mechanical, prescribed fire, 

and chemical treatments. 

 FMU Appropriate Management Response objectives include managing wildfires to meet fuels 

and habitat objectives. 

 The waterfowl nesting season at the refuge ranges from mid-April to late summer. Prescribed fire 

and mechanical fuel reduction treatments will not usually take place during this time to avoid 

disturbing nesting habitat. 

 Due to constraints such as nesting season, water level fluctuation, and fire season the refuge will 

have one prescribed burn window in the fall. As determined from past years burn experiences the 

approximate burn window will be September 20 to October 30. During this window the above 

constraints can be mitigated and vegetation is cured out enough to meet prescribed burn 

objectives. 

 AMR strategy for the refuge will range from full suppression to confine/contain and monitor. 

Unplanned fires adjacent to private property and structures will be contained at the smallest size 

possible if practical. As mentioned above the majority of the refuge lands consists of a 

continuous wetland marsh with only a couple of short dikes and canals. The Complex has three 

amphibious vehicles outfitted with slip-on tank/pump units which can provided limited fire 

suppression in the wetlands. A large fire wind driven fire in the bulrush could not safely be 

suppressed by direct attack. Depending on current weather and fuels conditions an AMR 

confine/contain/monitor strategy may be used for fires in the marsh. 

3.4.4 Grays Lake FMU Values to Protect 

 High priority will be given to any wildfire on the refuge threatening private property. The 

Federally designated Community at Risk of Wayan is adjacent to the refuge. 

 Herman, Eagle and Gravel creeks contain limited riparian vegetation (primarily willows) that 

would be damaged by fire. 

 A large mixed nesting colony of white-faced ibis and Franklin’s gulls exists in the south-central 

portion of Gray=s Lake marsh. 

 Structures located at the refuge headquarters. 

3.5.1 Minidoka FMU Description 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

G-22 Appendix G. Fire Management Plan 

Minidoka NWR was established as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife. 

Minidoka NWR has been designated as an Important Bird Area (IBA) of global importance for its 

colonial nesting bird populations and for the numbers of molting waterfowl. This program identifies 

areas that have high value for birds throughout the world. 

Minidoka NWR is an overlay refuge on lands withdrawn by the Bureau of Reclamation located on the 

Snake River Plain in south-central Idaho, 12 miles northeast of the town of Rupert. The primary feature 

is Lake Walcott, the reservoir formed by the construction of the Minidoka Dam in 1906. The dam, power 

plant, irrigation canals, and lake water levels are all managed by the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR). 

Adjacent to the dam and refuge headquarters is Lake Walcott State Park which is administered by the 

Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation (IDP&R). The park provides the public with picnic, camping 

and boat launch facilities. The project land and water areas are managed as a refuge for wildlife by the 

FWS. 

Minidoka Refuge extends upstream approximately 25 miles from the Minidoka Dam along both shores of 

the Snake River, encompassing a total of 20,699 acres, of which 11,300 acres are the open water of Lake 

Walcott, the Snake River, and some small marsh areas. The remaining 9,399 acres of upland are 

classified as sagebrush-grass (3,519 acres) and grassland (5,880 acres). 

 Sagebrush-grasslands - Vegetative types are predominantly sagebrush-grass and short bunchgrass 

complexes. The overstory is composed primarily of sagebrush and rabbitbrush with the 

understory mainly cheatgrass, crested wheatgrass, and native grasses and forbs. 

 Grasslands – include several large seedings of crested wheat grass; Native grasses commonly 

found include western wheatgrass, Indian ricegrass, Sandberg’s bluegrass, bottlebrush squaretail, 

needle-and-thread, and green needlegrass. 

 Riparian - there are a few areas with sizable patches of riparian habitat, but for the most part the 

riparian zone is narrow and linear, in most places only 1 tree wide where it goes from open water 

to basalt rock in only a few feet. Shrub species include skunkbush sumac, Wood’s rose, and 

golden currant. Mid sized species is primarily coyote willow with some skunkush sumac. Taller 

species include eastern cottonwood, peachleaf and Pacific willows, Russian olive, green ash, and 

Chinese elm. 

 Marsh – small pockets of bulrush and cattails located in shallow bays and coves, and in the two 

diked water units. In some areas it is a narrow fringe along the shoreline. 

Fuel Model Composition for Grays Lake NWR 

Grassland FM 1 5,880 acres 28%

Sagebrush/Grass FM 2/6 3,519 acres 18%

Marsh FM 3 NA <1%

Riparian FM 4 NA <1%

Open Water 11,300 acres 54%

3.5.2 Minidoka FMU Fire Environment 

Minidoka NWR is located in the Snake River Plain which has a history of large wind driven fires. The 

majority of the large fires at the refuge have started from lightning. The invasion of cheat grass has 

increased the fire occurrence and fire size in the sagebrush habitat. BLM lands border most of the refuge, 

the majority of large fire experienced at the refuge have burned on both FWS and BLM lands. The refuge 

has experienced fires from spring to fall with the majority occurring in mid-summer. 

3.5.3 Minidoka FMU Objectives and Constraints 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix G. Fire Management Plan G-23 

 See general Complex goals and objectives in section 3.1.2. 

 Due to developing sage grouse concerns and loss of sagebrush habitat wildfires in this FMU will 

be aggressively suppressed. 

 AMR strategy – due to concerns with sagebrush habitat and close proximity to private and other 

federal lands unplanned fires will be contained at the smallest size possible. The only exception 

to this AMR strategy would be an unplanned fire on one of the refuge islands where direct attack 

suppression by fire vehicles is not possible; confine/monitoring may be utilized. 

3.5.4 Minidoka FMU Values to Protect 

 A large percentage of refuge uplands have been burned in the last 10 years; any remaining 

sagebrush habitat should be considered a critical protection area. 

 Grove of cottonwood and willow tress at Water Unit 1 that supports a great blue heron nest 

colony. 

 Structures located at the refuge headquarters. 

 Cultural resource sites, (documented at refuge headquarters). 

3.6.1 Oxford Slough FMU Description 

Oxford Slough WPA (OSWPA) is located in the upper Cache Valley adjacent to the community of 

Oxford Idaho. The 1,853-acre WPA is mostly a hardstem bulrush marsh, interspersed with open water 

and surrounded by areas of playa, saltgrass flats, native wet meadow, and some cropland. The lower areas 

have visible alkali deposits. The marsh is fed on the north and drained at the south by Deep Creek. A 

smaller creek and several springs feed the marsh from the west. The water level in the marsh is allowed 

to fluctuate naturally; in drought years it dries out. 

The main marsh area is primarily bulrush emergent, with some cattail. The WPA has expansive drier 

type grasslands with some wetlands along its east and southwest regions that are more alkali in nature 

(saltgrass, alkali sacaton, small alkali playas and some taller type grasses), within this area are also 

scattered patches of greasewood and sagebrush patches. The north end of OSWPA is dominated by hilly 

agricultural/cropland area. The west side vegetation consists of wet meadow grasslands, some brush, 

areas of reed canary grass, Juncus spp. and other water tolerant grasses. 

The Union Pacific railroad has a track that runs from north-south along the east boundary of the WPA; 

train activity has caused at least two wildfires in past years. The wet meadow areas along the west side 

are hayed annually under a cooperative farming agreement. This significantly reduces potential fire 

behavior in the grassland vegetation next to Oxford. 

 

Table 8: Fuel Model Composition for Oxford Slough WPA 

Marsh FM 3 721 acres 39%

Dry Meadow FM 1 495 acres 27%

Wet Meadow FM 1 495 acres 19%

Agricultural FM 1 143 acres 8%

Shrub FM 2 87 acres 4%

Open Water/Playa 43 acres 3%

3.6.2 Oxford Slough FMU Fire Environment 

The fire behavior potential at Oxford Slough can be influenced by drought years. In dry years water flow 

into the WPA will stop by mid-summer, curing out the marsh and grassland vegetation. The federally 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

G-24 Appendix G. Fire Management Plan 

listed Community at Risk of Oxford, Idaho, borders the west side of the WPA. The Complex annually 

hays approximately 400 acres of grassland adjacent to Oxford which reduces potential fire behavior. No 

interior roads are present in the WPA which would hamper fire vehicle access to an interior fire. Railroad 

tracks border the east side of the WPA; two fires have started from trains in past years. 

3.6.3 Oxford Slough FMU Objectives and Constraints 

 See general Complex goals and objectives in section 3.1.2. 

 AMR strategy - due to the close proximity to the community of Oxford, Idaho, any unplanned 

wildfire will be aggressively suppressed. 

3.6.4 Oxford Slough FMU Values to Protect 

 The community of Oxford, Idaho. 

 A white-faced ibis colony in center of the marsh. 

4.0 Wildland Fire Operational Guidance 

The procedures used to implement the fire management plan (FMP) for the Southeast Idaho National 

Refuge Complex are covered in this section. Information pertaining to this management is either directly 

provided or references are cited as to where it may be located. 

USF&WS wildland fire management policy states that every wildland fire will be assessed following a 

decision support process that examines the full range of appropriate management responses (AMR). 

This policy also provides that wildland fires may be managed for one or more objectives based on land 

and resource management plan direction. When two or more wildland fires burn together they will be 

managed as a single wildland fire and may also be managed for one or more objectives based on land and 

resource management plan direction as an event moves across the landscape and fuels and weather 

conditions change. 

As stated before, the purpose of fire suppression is to put the fire out in a safe, effective, and efficient 

manner. Fires are easier and less expensive to suppress when they are contained to small areas on the 

Complex. Thus, the following procedures will be followed for all wildland fires to ensure optimum 

resource protection and firefighter safety. 

4.1.1 Appropriate Management Response 

Evaluation and selection of an appropriate management response to a wildfire will include. 

 Consideration of risks to public and firefighter safety. 

 Threats to the values to protect. 

 Costs of various mitigation strategies and tactics. 

 Potential resource benefits. 

Wildfires will be staffed or monitored during active burning periods as needed to ensure that appropriate 

mitigation actions can be made to protect values threatened. 

All wildfires will be supervised by a qualified incident commander (IC) responsible to 

 Assess the fire situation and make a report to dispatch as soon as possible. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix G. Fire Management Plan G-25 

 Use guidance in this FMP or a delegation of Authority to determine and implement an 

appropriate management response. 

 Determine organization, resource needs, strategy and tactics. 

 Brief incoming and assigned resources on the organization, strategy and tactics, weather and fire 

behavior, LCES, and radio frequencies. 

 Order resources needed for the AMR through the designated dispatch office. 

 Manage the incident until relieved or the incident is under control.

The FMP and a Delegation of Authority can provide a general strategy to an IC, who has discretion to 

select and implement appropriate tactics within the limits described for the FMU(s), including when and 

where to use minimum impact suppression tactics (MIST) unless otherwise specified. All resources, 

including mutual aid resources, will report to the IC (in person or by radio) and receive an assignment 

prior to tactical deployment. 

Critical protection areas, such as refuge headquarters, neighboring residences and ranches, and adjacent 

private croplands, will receive priority consideration in fire control planning efforts. In all cases, the 

primary concerns of fire suppression personnel shall be the safety, and if needed, all individuals not 

involved in the suppression effort may be evacuated. 

General AMR Constraints 

 Close proximity to private property and residences, (WUI and Communities at Risk). 

 Lack of a cultural resource inventory. Limited cultural resource surveys have been completed at 

the Complex refuges, (completed surveys are on file at the Complex office) 

 Soft ground/moist-soil conditions which preclude the use of conventional fire equipment. 

 Tracts of continuous vegetation, lack of adequate fire/fuel breaks, and lack of interior and 

boundary refuge roads. 

Interagency Operations 

As mentioned in 2.3.2 the Complex coordinates with the BLM, USFS, and BIA in fire management 

operations. The Complex coordinates with these agencies for dispatch services through EIIFC and 

SCIDC. Any wildfire AMR actions would be coordinated through the appropriate dispatch centers with 

neighboring federal agencies. 

4.1.2 Preparedness 

The Complex is only funded to staff one Type 3 engine crew stationed at Grays Lake NWR. Due to the 

fact that the Complex refuges are spread across a large portion of eastern Idaho the Complex relies on its 

interagency partners (BLM and USFS) for initial attack fire response. The Complex fire crew is 

dispatched through EIIFC which uses a closest forces concept when dispatching fire crews to BLM, 

USFS, FWS, BIA, and State lands in the fire zone. 

The Complex FMO meets with federal cooperators (BLM, USFS, EIIFC, SCIDC) annually prior to fire 

season, to review the respective agreements. This may include contact information and fire suppression 

policies and procedures. 

The normal fire season for the Complex was discussed in section 3.1.3; prior to and during fire season the 

following tasks will be implemented and completed. 

 The Complex FMO will work with each refuge Manger to update Delegations of Authority for 

each refuge with suppression constraints. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

G-26 Appendix G. Fire Management Plan 

 Fire qualified personnel work with the Complex FMO to schedule annual medical examinations 

prior to start of fire season. 

 Fire qualified personnel will complete fitness testing, complete the annual refresher, and are 

issued full personal protective equipment (PPE) prior to the start of fire season. 

 A Type 3 engine will be staffed and available annually (June 15th – September 30th) at Grays Lake 

NWR. 

 Prior to fire season the Complex step-up plan will be reviewed by the FMO; the plan will be 

implemented during fire season according to daily fire weather forecasts. 

 

Annual Refuge Fire Readiness Activities 

Activities – Complete before end of month J F M A M J J A S O N D

Update Interagency Fire Agreements/AOP’s x 

Winterize Fire Management Equipment x 

Inventory Fire Engine and Cache x 

Update Delegation of Authority x 

Completed Annual Fire Physical x 

Annual Fitness Testing x 

Annual Refresher Training x 

Pre-Season Engine Preparation x 

Prepare Temp Fire Crew hiring packet x 

Review and Update Fire Management Plan x 

Hire Temp Fire Crew x 

Weather Station Maintenance and Calibration x 

Coordinate with Refuge Managers on HFR 

planning x 

Review Delegations of Authority with Refuge 

Managers x 

Review Complex step-up plan and adjust if 

necessary x 

Communications 

The Complex utilizes BLM and USFS communications systems, including repeaters and radio 

frequencies for fire operations. The Complex has MOUs with both agencies for shared radio frequency 

use during fire operations. Both EIIFC and SCDIIC centers have a fire zone frequency plan, this plan and 

radio MOUs are attached in Appendix F. All communications equipment is analog. 

4.1.3 Detection 

Wildland fires on the Complex Refuges will normally be discovered and reported by local residents and 

the visiting public. These fires may or may not be reported directly to the refuge manager; it is expected 

that the reporting individual will contact 911, EIIFC or SCIIDC directly and refuge staff may not learn 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix G. Fire Management Plan G-27 

about the fire until after it has already been staffed. Regardless of how any fires are discovered they need 

to be reported to the Refuge Manager, FMO, and interagency fire dispatch center (EIIFC and SCIIDC) 

immediately so suppression actions can be started without delay. In situations where fire danger and 

staffing levels increase, refuge patrols will be an additional source of detection and reporting. 

4.1.4 Dispatch, Initial Response and Initial Attack 

Bear Lake, Camas, Grays Lake, and Oxford Slough refuges fall within the East Idaho Interagency Fire 

Center (EIIFC) dispatch zone. EIIFC will coordinate the initial attack response of federal fire crews to 

potential fires on these four refuges. The Refuge Manager or a representative from the Complex staff will 

serve as a Resource Advisor for the incoming Incident Commander (IC). 

Minidoka NWR falls within the Southern Idaho Interagency Fire Center (SIIFC) dispatch zone. SIIFC 

will coordinate initial attack response of federal fire crews to fires at Minidoka. 

Upon discovery of a fire, all subsequent actions will be based on the following: 

 The Incident Commander (IC) will locate, size-up, and coordinate suppression actions. The IC 

will start the EIIFC Incident Organizer to document actions, fire behavior and weather conditions. 

 Provide for firefighter and public safety. 

 Considering the current and predicted fire conditions, the IC will assess the need for additional 

suppression resources and estimate the final size of the fire. The potential for spread outside of 

the refuge should be predicted, as well as the total suppression force required to initiate effective 

containment action at the beginning of each burning period. 

 The IC will assess the need for law enforcement personnel for traffic control, investigations, 

evacuations, etc. and make the request to the dispatch center. 

 Document decisions in the Incident Organizer and provide the FMO a copy after the incident is 

out. 

 Should a wildland fire move into an extended attack the IC will coordinate with the Complex 

staff and EIIFC to complete a Wildland Fire Decision Support System 

 The Refuge Manager or designee will provide the IC with a Delegation of Authority. 

4.1.5 Extended Attack and Large Fire Management 

The Wildland Fire Decision Support System (WFDSS) process will be used when a wildfire escapes 

initial attack. Due to the limited number of historic large fire occurrences on the Complex, for any 

potential fire needing a WFDSS the refuge staff would rely on Regional Office fire management staff and 

interagency partners to prepare the analysis. 

Extended attack fires will be managed in accordance with the Interagency Standards for Fire and Aviation 

Operations (Redbook). 

4.1.6 Aviation Operations 

All fire-related aviation operations will follow applicable guidelines of the DOI National Business Center 

- Aviation Management Directorate and must adhere to all DOI aviation policy. Aviation operations at 

Camas, Grays Lake, Bear Lake, and Oxford Slough refuges will be coordinated through EIIFC. Aviation 

operations at Minidoka NWR will be coordinated through SCIIDC. 

4.1.7 Reviews and Investigations 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

G-28 Appendix G. Fire Management Plan 

Reviews and investigations are used by wildland fire and aviation managers to assess and improve the 

effectiveness and safety of organizational operations. Brief descriptions of various reviews and 

associated procedures and requirements, including those for serious wildland fire accidents, entrapments, 

and fire trespass are listed in the Red Book Chapter 18. 

Incident Commanders and Single Resource Bosses will ensure After Action Reviews take place in a 

timely manner and that any significant issues are brought to the attention of the Zone FMO or Refuge 

Manager.

4.1.8 Reports 

The SE Idaho Zone FMO or designee will complete and file an Individual Fire Report (DI-1202) in the 

FWS Fire Management Information System (FMIS) for the following types of fires within 10 days of a 

fire being declared out: 

 All wildfires on FWS and FWS-protected lands. 

 Wildfires threatening our lands on which we take action. 

 All escaped prescribed fires. When a fire exceeds prescription, treat must be declared a wildfire, 

and a separate new report filed to report acres burned by the wildfire from the time of declaration 

to the time of being declared out. 

 All false alarms responded to by SEID fire staff.

 All support actions to interagency cooperators by SEID fire staff.

 

4.2 Hazardous Fuels Management 

All prescribed fire treatments on the Refuges will follow guidance outlined in the Interagency Standards 

for Fire and Fire Aviation Operations (chapter 17) and the Interagency Fire Planning and Implementation 

Procedures Reference Guide. See 3.1 for specific prescribed fire objectives. 

4.2.1 Prescribed Fire Program for Hazardous Fuels and Habitats 

The overall objective in the use of prescribed fire in refuge resource management will be to reduce hazard 

fuels and to promote habitat diversity. Refuge staff will carefully analyze the needs of hazardous fuels 

reduction in each FMU in relation to habitat objectives on the refuge. Variables to be considered in each 

proposed treatment area include previous treatments, vegetation type, endangered species, and hazardous 

fuels reduction. The prescribed fire program at the Refuge is being conducted under the categorical 

exclusion directive, 516 DM 2, Appendix 1and 516 DM 6, Appendix 1. 

4.2.1.1 Program Overview 

Prescribed fire can be a useful tool for restoring and maintaining natural conditions and processes at the 

Complex refuges. Research burning may also be conducted when determined to be necessary for 

accomplishment of research project objectives. The goals of prescribed fire are for hazard fuel reduction 

and to meet resource management objectives. Specific management needs for the refuge will be 

determined annually. Burn objectives, fire frequency rotation, firing methodology, and prescriptions will 

vary from year to year. Burn plans will be updated to reflect any variations. The Project Leader will 

approve prescribed fire plans after review of the plan by the Zone Fire Management Officer. 

The desired future of the program includes treating approximately 1000 acres per year in a variety of 

vegetation types. Prescribed fire activities include mechanical treatments (e.g., thinning), burning, and 

monitoring. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix G. Fire Management Plan G-29 

The prescribed burn window for the Complex is generally early-Spring (March-April) and late-fall 

(September-November). Specific FMU hazardous fuels objectives and history is described in chapter 3. 

Some specific objectives for the refuge program include: 

 Conduct a vigorous prescribed fire program with the highest professional and technological 

standards 

 Identify the prescribed burn prescriptions most appropriate to specific situations and areas 

 Efficiently accomplish resource management objectives through the application of 

prescribed fire 

 Continually evaluate the prescribed fire program to better meet program goals by refining 

prescriptions treatments and monitoring methods, and by integrating applicable technical and 

scientific advancements 

4.2.1.2 Effect of National and Regional Preparedness Levels 

Prescribed fires may be ignited during National Preparedness Level 4 or 5 as specified in the National 

Interagency Mobilization Guide. The normal prescribed burn window for the Complex refuges is early 

spring and late fall; national and regional preparedness levels are low at this time of year. 

4.2.1.3 Project Planning 

All prescribed fire treatments on the Complex refuges will follow guidance outlined in the Interagency 

Prescribed Fire Planning and Implementation Procedures Reference Guide. 

All prescribed fires will have prescribed burn plans. The prescribed burn plan is a site specific action 

plan describing the purpose, objectives, prescription, and operational procedures needed to prepare and 

safely conduct the burn. The treatment area, objectives, constraints, and alternatives will be clearly 

outlined. The required burn plan elements are outlined in the Interagency Fire Planning and 

Implementation Procedures Reference Guide and will be included in all refuge burn plans. 

The Prescribed Fire Plan Preparer will conduct a field reconnaissance of the proposed burn location with 

the Complex Biologist, and/or Refuge Manager to discuss objectives, special concerns, and gather all 

necessary information to write the burn plan. 

Every Prescribed Fire Plan must receive a technical review. The Technical Reviewer and Prescribed Fire 

Plan Preparer must be qualified or have been previously qualified as a Prescribed Fire Burn Boss at an 

experience level equal to or higher than the complexity being reviewed. The Technical Reviewer must be 

someone other than the primary preparer of the plan. An off-unit technical review is encouraged to 

provide an additional independent perspective. It is acceptable for other specialists to review certain 

portions of the plan however; a primary Technical Reviewer must be designated as technical review 

signatory. Either the Prescribed Fire Plan Preparer or Technical Reviewer must be currently qualified, 

less physical fitness requirement. 

The Agency Administrator has final approval authority for all Prescribed Fire Plans, unless special 

circumstances warrant higher review and concurrence (such as may occur during higher Preparedness 

Levels or for extremely large, complex projects). Although the Agency Administrator has final approval 

authority for the Prescribed Fire Plan and the Agency Administrator "GO/NO-GO" checklist, the 

Prescribed Fire Burn Boss has the responsibility to make the on-site tactical "GO/NO-GO" decision. The 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

G-30 Appendix G. Fire Management Plan 

Prescribed Fire Burn Boss ensures that all prescription, staffing, equipment, and other plan specifications 

are met before, during, and after the prescribed fire. 

4.2.1.4 Project Implementation 

Execution of prescribed burns will only be undertaken by qualified personnel. The Prescribed Burn Boss 

will fill all required positions to conduct the burn with qualified personnel. All personnel listed in the 

burn plan must be available for the duration of the burn or the burn will not be initiated. 

When all prescription criteria are within the acceptable range, the Prescribed Burn Boss will select an 

ignition time based on current and predicted weather forecasts. The Burn Boss will ensure that the 

Agency Administrator GO/NO-GO Checklist is valid and complete and sign the Prescribed Fire GO/NOGO Checklist the morning of planned ignition. 

 

A thorough briefing will be given by the Prescribed Burn Boss and specific assignments and placement of 

personnel will be discussed, (using briefing outline in Prescribed Fire Plan). A spot weather forecast will 

be obtained on the day of ignition and all prescription elements will be rechecked to determine if all 

elements are still within the approved ranges. If all prescription elements are met, a test fire will be 

ignited to determine on-site fire behavior conditions as affected by current weather. If conditions are not 

satisfactory, the test fire will be suppressed and the burn will be rescheduled. If conditions are 

satisfactory the burn will continue as planned. 

A prescribed fire must be declared a wildfire by those identified in the burn plan when that person(s) 

determines that the contingency actions have failed or are likely to fail and cannot be mitigated by the end 

of the next burning period. An escaped prescribed fire must be declared a wildfire when the fire has 

spread outside the project boundary, or is likely to do so, and cannot be contained by the end of the next 

burning period. A prescribed fire can be converted to a wildfire for reasons other than an escape. An 

appropriate management response will be made to such incidents and a formal analysis (WFSA) 

undertaken when needed. The Refuge Manager or Project Leader will be notified of an escaped 

prescribed fire. 

The public will be informed of upcoming planned prescribed fires through press releases in local 

newspapers. Neighbors to the refuge will be called and local law enforcement agencies will be called and 

informed of the burn before planned ignition. Notification calls will be documented and saved in the 

Prescribed Plan file. 

4.2.1.5 Smoke Management 

According to Fish & Wildlife Service Fire Management Policies " ... fire management activities which 

result in the discharge of air pollutants are subject to, and must comply with, all applicable Federal, state, 

interstate, and local air pollution control requirements as specified by Section 118 of the Clean Air Act." 

The US Fish and Wildlife Service in south Idaho participates in the Montana/Idaho Airshed Group. The 

group members include all of the federal agencies, state land management agencies, and private forest 

products companies. The intent of the Airshed Group is to limit negative impacts from controlled burns 

through scientific monitoring of weather conditions and formal coordination of burns. 

Prior to the burn season the Fire Management Officer submits a list of planned burn projects to the 

Missoula Monitoring Unit via internet. This information creates a data base describing the type of burn, 

number of acres in each unit, and unit location and elevation. Each burn unit is assigned an identification 

number. The day before the planned ignition, the burn boss accesses the internet data base to submit a 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix G. Fire Management Plan G-31 

proposed prescribed burn for the following day. The program coordinator and a meteorologist provide 

timely restriction messages for airsheds with planned burning. 

The Missoula Monitoring Unit issues daily decisions which can restrict burning when atmospheric 

conditions are not conducive to good smoke dispersion. Restrictions may be directed by airshed, 

elevation or by special impact zones around populated areas. The burn boss will access the daily decision 

notice from the monitoring unit via the internet. Prescribed burn projects will not be conducted if the 

Missoula Monitoring Unit posts a burning restriction for the airshed in which the refuge is located. 

No non-attainment areas are located in or near the Complex; specific smoke sensitive areas area identified 

in individual burn plans and appropriate mitigation measures. 

4.2.1.6 After Action and Escaped Fire Reviews 

The Burn Boss will ensure an informal After Action Review (AAR) is conducted for each operational 

period on a prescribed fire, as in Red Book chapter 17. 

All prescribed fires declared a wildfire will have an investigative review initiated by the Refuge Manager 

or Project Leader. The level and scope of the review will be determined by policy and procedures of the 

Interagency Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation Operations and the FWS Fire Management Handbook.

4.2.1.7 Reports 

Burn Plans will specify information to be included in a project file. The Burn Boss will ensure this 

information is provided to the Refuge Manager and/or Zone Fire Management Officer as specified. This 

includes documenting conditions and fire behavior during the prescribed fire to assess how well actual 

fire characteristics fit those predicted, documenting any unanticipated difficulties encountered during 

implementation, and assessing how well the fire accomplished the intended objectives. 

The Burn Boss will complete an Individual Fire Report (DI-1202) with the Zone FMO, who will file an 

Individual Fire Report (DI-1202) electronically within 10 days of it being declared out. 

4.2.2 Non-fire Hazardous Fuels Treatment Program 

Non-fire treatment strategies are those that do not involve the use of prescribed fire to meet stated 

objectives. For the Complex refuges, mechanical and chemical treatment strategies are available as nonfire management tools. The following objectives for non-fire treatments of hazardous fuels on the 

Complex include: 

 Establish defensible space along wildland-urban interface boundary and around Complex 

improvements and structures. 

 Protect habitat from wildfire trespass. 

 Restore early successional habitats to promote native species while minimizing invasive species 

encroachment. 

 Maintain fuel loadings within natural ranges of variability for major vegetation types. 

 Aid in control of invasive plants and weeds that contribute to the fuel hazard. 

Any work requiring heavy equipment, such as mowing, hydro-axe work, fuel break construction, or 

vegetation removal, should be done with low ground-pressure vehicles to the extent possible when the site 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

G-32 Appendix G. Fire Management Plan 

is dry enough to prevent damage to soils. Non-fire treatments may be restricted during the nesting season 

from mid May to early August in areas that provide important habitat for trust wildlife resources. 

4.2.3 Process to Identify Hazardous Fuels Treatments 

The development of prescribed fire and non-fire hazardous fuel management priorities will be an ongoing 

process determined annually between the refuge staff and refuge manager based on changing habitat 

conditions on the refuge, changes in management objectives, and changes in management techniques or 

new information. The FMO and Complex staff will coordinate with federal and state partners and review 

existing CWPPs when developing potential hazardous fuels treatments in WUI areas. 

4.3 Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation 

Emergency stabilization (ES) and burned area rehabilitation (BAR) are part of a holistic approach to 

addressing post wildfire issues which also includes suppression activity damage repair and long-term (>3 

years) restoration. 

ES is planned actions performed by burned area emergency response (BAER) teams within one year of 

wildfire containment to stabilize and prevent unacceptable degradation to natural and cultural resources, 

to minimize threats to life or property resulting from the effects of a fire, or to repair/replace/construct 

physical improvements necessary to prevent degradation of land or resources. 

BAR is efforts undertaken within three years of wildfire containment to repair or improve fire-damaged 

lands unlikely to recover naturally to management approved conditions, or to repair or replace minor 

facilities damaged by fire. The process concludes with long-term restoration. 

The incident management team, local fire resources, or refuge staff begins the process by repairing 

suppression activity damage. These actions are charged to the fire suppression accounting code. Fire 

suppression activity damage rehabilitation involves short-term actions to repair and rehabilitate damage to 

lands, resources, and facilities caused by the wildland fire suppression effort or activities. This includes 

dozer lines, camps, and staging areas; damaged facilities (fences, buildings, bridges, etc.); handlines; 

roads; etc. The project leader should ensure this work is complete before incident demobilization, or as 

soon thereafter as possible or practicable. Damage caused by backfires and burnouts to stop fire spread 

falls under fire damage restoration and does not qualify as damage caused by suppression action. 

The Refuge Manager will coordinate with the Incident Commander, Zone FMO, and Regional Office fire 

staff to determine if an ES or BAR plan is needed for a Wildland fire incident. The Refuge Manager will 

form an interdisciplinary team which could include fire and resource specialists to develop and write the 

ERS Plan. The ES or BAR plans must include provisions for monitoring and evaluation of treatments 

and techniques, and a procedure for collecting, archiving, and disseminating results. For multi-agency 

fires, we will do joint planning and implementation. Plans must ensure that the treatments proposed are 

environmentally, culturally, and socially acceptable, meet the objectives of Comprehensive Conservation 

and Habitat Management Plans, and comply with legal requirements. Each ES or BAR Plan will include a 

cost/risk analysis of proposed emergency rehabilitation treatment actions to assist agency administrators 

and reviewing authorities in assessing the proposed actions. The level and sophistication of the analysis 

should be commensurate with the scope and complexity of the plan. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix G. Fire Management Plan G-33 

ES plans should be submitted to the Regional Fire Management Coordinator (RFMC) within 7 calendar 

days of the wildfire containment. If additional time is needed, extensions may be negotiated with the 

(RFMC). BAR plans must be submitted before the end of the fiscal year in which the wildfire fire occurs. 

Additional ES and BAR guidance may be found in the FWS Directives (095 FW3) and the Interagency 

Burned Area Emergency Response Guidebook. 

4.4 Prevention, Mitigation and Education 

 

The fire education program for the refuges making up the Southeast Idaho National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex will include fire prevention, mitigation, and information specific to the ecological aspects of fire 

and its interaction with refuge habitats. The program will be aimed at increasing public understanding of 

the complexities of the overall fire program and will seek to influence attitudes and behavior of adults and 

children. Attention will be given to social groups, elected officials, schools, and all other interested 

parties of any age. 

Fire education messages will include how and why fire burns the way it does and the effects – both 

negative and positive – that fire has on plant, wildlife, and human populations. Focus will be given to the 

effect fuel, weather, and topography have on fire behavior clearly demonstrating the effect manipulation 

of fuels can have on the opportunity for a fire to burn through a given area. 

All education efforts will be consistent with approved Service national and regional messaging. These 

efforts will be interagency when appropriate. 

The fire prevention goal for the entire complex will be to prevent unwanted human-caused fires. High 

visitor use due to close proximity to large population areas increases the likelihood of careless human 

ignitions. Although campfires are not allowed on the refuges except in campgrounds, abandoned 

campfires are one of the concerns to be addressed in fire prevention efforts. Debris burning on 

neighboring private land, smoking, and fires ignited from vehicles also share some concern and will be 

addressed in conjunction with other agencies to protect human life and property, natural resources, and 

prevent damage to cultural resources or physical facilities. 

During the typical fire season prevention efforts will be elevated commensurate with fire danger. Refuge 

employees must be kept informed about changes in the fire situation. Visitor contacts, signing, handouts 

and interpretive programs may be utilized to increase visitor and neighbor awareness of fire hazards. 

Due to lack of staffing on each individual refuge, collaboration with interagency partners such as local 

fire departments, the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service, and the Idaho Department of 

Lands is critical for maintaining a fire prevention presence with the public. The complex will support 

interagency fire prevention efforts through use of severity funding, increased personnel presence, large 

scale campaigns, etc. 

During periods of extreme or prolonged fire danger emergency restrictions regarding refuge operations or 

area closures may become necessary. Such restrictions will usually be consistent with those implemented 

by cooperators. The FMO will recommend when such restrictions may be necessary. Closures will be 

authorized by the Project Leader in consultation with Refuge Managers and the FMO. 

All of the refuges are bordered by private property and have areas identified as at risk to wildfire should 

one start on the refuge. These areas will be addressed in County Wildfire Protection Plans and treated by 

chemical, mechanical or prescribed fire means as appropriate to reduce the risk. Refuge personnel will 

work with interagency partners to educate the community on fire mitigation techniques, consequences of 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

G-34 Appendix G. Fire Management Plan 

doing or not doing the prescribed treatment, and issues related to any resulting smoke. A message of 

personal responsibility and Firewise principles will be included in any public contacts regarding fire 

mitigation. 

Fire Investigation 

Fire management personnel will attempt to locate and protect the probable point of origin and record 

pertinent information required to determine fire cause. They will be alert for possible evidence, protect 

the scene and report findings to the fireline supervisor. 

Prompt and efficient investigation of all suspicious fires will be carried out. However, fire management 

personnel should not question suspects or pursue the fire investigation unless they are currently law 

enforcement commission qualified. 

Personnel and services of other agencies may be utilized to investigate wildland fire arson or fire 

incidents involving structures. All fire investigations should follow the guidelines outlined in 4.1-2 of 

the Fire Management Handbook (2000). 

For fires of suspicious origin the IC or refuge Manager may request a Fire Investigator through the 

appropriate dispatch center (EIIFC or SCIIDC). 

Public Information and Education 

People who live in this area are used to prescribed burning by the private ranch owners. The burning of 

ditches and farm fields is a common practice in Southeast Idaho. 

The public will be notified of planned prescribed burning in advance of any actions via news releases and 

direct phone contact to neighboring residences. The role of wildland fire and prescribed fire may be 

incorporated into presentations that are given to various user groups and visiting public. 

Educating the public on the value of fire as a natural process is important to increasing public 

understanding and support for the fire management program. The refuge will use the most appropriate 

and effective means to explain the overall fire and smoke management program. This may include 

supplemental handouts, signs, personal contacts, auto tour routes, or media releases. When necessary, 

interpretive presentations will address the fire management program and explain the role of fire in the 

environment. 

5.0 Monitoring and Evaluation 

Monitoring and evaluation are essential elements of the Complex’s fire management program. They 

provide the means by which refuge personnel are able to determine if applicable sections of the fire 

management plan are being implemented as planned and if fire-related goals and objectives are being 

achieved. 

5.1 Fire Management Plan 

5.1.1 Annual FMP Review 

This FMP will be reviewed annually and updated as needed, upon local agency administrator approval. 

Revisions of FMPs with Regional review and concurrence are required every five years and following 

completion of a new (or significantly revised) CCP or habitat management plan. 

5.1.2 Fire Management Plan Terminology 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix G. Fire Management Plan G-35 

Terms in the FMP are defined in the National Wildfire Coordinating Group glossary, located at 

http://www.nwcg.gov/pms/pubs/glossary. Any terms used not in the glossary are defined below. 

5.2 Treatment Effectiveness 

Basic monitoring to determine habitat response will generally use photo-points, which will be re-visited 

and photographed during subsequent seasons. Comparisons over time will aid in determining if burn 

objectives and resource objectives are being met. More complex monitoring efforts may be undertaken 

for research-related prescribed burns, or to answer questions about the effects of prescribed fire on 

specific wildlife or other habitat parameters. Such monitoring can require vegetation transects, breeding 

bird point counts, presence/absence of target species, etc. An excellent reference resource for monitoring 

procedures can be found within the Fire Monitoring Handbook, USDI, and National Park Service, 2007. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

G-36 Appendix G. Fire Management Plan 

This page left intentionally blank. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix H. Cultural Resource Management Plan H-1 

Appendix H. Cultural Resource Management Plan 

The Comprehensive Conservation Plan represents an opportunity to improve management for the 

Camas National Wildlife Refuge. Cultural resource management should be an integral part of habitat 

and people management, not just because the law mandates it but for the unique information it can 

bring to understanding our environment. The following issues are very important: 

1. How do we maintain the integrity of the Refuge’s cultural resources while managing 

and restoring wildlife habitat? 

2. How do we work and consult with federally recognized tribes on the management of 

Native American cultural resources in a manner that facilitates the mission of the 

Refuge and addresses issues of importance to Tribes? 

3. How do we work and consult with federally recognized tribes on the disposition of 

human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony as 

defined under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act? 

4. How do we incorporate cultural resources into an interpretive and recreation program 

that illustrates humankind’s interaction with the natural world? 

These issues illustrate some of the Service’s legally mandated responsibilities for cultural resources 

management. The management of cultural resources is an integral element of the process of meeting 

the Refuge’s obligations, and consequently, of fulfilling its stated purpose. To this end, we 

recommend that the CCP includes the following goal: 

Goal: Protect, preserve, evaluate, and interpret the cultural heritage and resources of the Refuge 

while consulting with appropriate Native American groups and preservation organizations, and 

complying with historic preservation legislation. 

With this goal in mind, we would implement the following objectives and strategies: 

Objective CR1: Implement a proactive cultural resources management program that focuses on 

meeting the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act, including 

consultation, identification, inventory, evaluation, and protection of cultural 

resources. 

Achievement Strategies 

A. Identify cultural resources (archaeological sites, buildings, and structures) that coincide with 

existing and planned roads, facilities, public use areas, and habitat projects. Evaluate 

threatened and impacted sites and structures for eligibility to the National Register of Historic 

Places. Prepare and implement activities to avoid and/or mitigate impacts to sites and 

structures as necessary. 

B. Prepare a Historic Structures Report and Determination of Eligibility for the Brindley Barn. 

C. Implement a proactive historic preservation program to evaluate eligibility to the National 

Register of Historic Places of those archaeological sites and historic-era buildings and 

structures that may be impacted by Service undertakings, management activities, erosion, or 

neglect. Conduct formal consultation with SHPO regarding the Determinations of Eligibility 

(DOE) for the backlog of previously recorded sites and for any newly discovered resources. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

H-2 Appendix H. Cultural Resource Management Plan 

D. Develop a GIS layer for cultural resources that can be used with other GIS layers for the 

Refuge, yet contains appropriate locks to protect sensitive information. Include a layer that 

contains all of the historic-period land patents, with the individuals’ names and date of patent. 

E. Develop partnerships with the Tribes for cultural resources inventory, evaluation, and project 

monitoring, consistent with the regulations of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

F. Submit proposals to the Refuge Operations Needs System (RONS) to develop: 1) a cultural 

resource management plan as defined above; 2) to obtain all of the Homestead Act land 

patent records for homesteads patented with the refuge boundaries; 3) complete the DOEs for 

the previously recorded sites; 4) complete a Historic Structures Report and DOE for the 

Brindley Barn; 5) submit a plan or Challenge Cost-share grant request to preserve the barn; 

6) a quarter of a full-time equivalent position for cultural resource interpretation and 

education with a minimum of $5,000 allocated yearly for supplies and materials. 

 

Rationale: Various Federal historic preservation laws and regulations require the Service to 

implement the kind of program described under this objective. Inattention to these responsibilities 

may obstruct the Refuge in its other land, habitat, and wildlife management efforts. 

Objective CR2: Develop, in partnership with the Tribes and other preservation partners, a 

program for the education and interpretation of cultural resources of the 

Refuge. 

Achievement Strategies 

A. Prepare interpretive media (e.g., pamphlets, signs, exhibits) that relate to cultural resources. 

B. Prepare environmental/cultural education materials for use in local schools and museums 

concerning cultural resources, the discipline of archaeology, the perspective of Native 

Americans, the history of the area, and conservation of natural and cultural resources. These 

materials could include an artifact replica kit with hands-on activities and curriculum 

prepared in consultation with the local school district, historical societies, and the Tribes. 

C. Consult with the Tribes, historical societies, and other preservation partners to identify the 

type of cultural resources information appropriate for public interpretation. 

D. Develop an outreach program and materials so that the cultural resource messages become 

part of cultural events in the area, including National Wildlife Refuge Week and appropriate 

local festivals. 

E. Develop Museum Property Inventory. Create storage and use plans for museum property as 

part of the outreach program. 

F. Submit proposals to the Refuge Operations Needs System (RONS) to develop a quarter of a 

full-time equivalent position for cultural resource interpretation and education with a 

minimum of $5,000 allocated yearly for supplies and materials. 

Rationale: Cultural resources are not renewable. Thus, interpretation of cultural resources can instill 

a conservation ethic among the public and others who encounter or manage them. The goals of the 

cultural resource education and interpretive program are fourfold: (1) translate the results of cultural 

research into media that can be understood and appreciated by a variety of people, (2) relate the 

connection between cultural resources and natural resources and the role of humans in the 

environment, (3) foster an awareness and appreciation of native cultures, and (4) instill an ethic for 

the conservation of our cultural heritage. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix H. Cultural Resource Management Plan H-3 

Objective CR3: Create and use a Memorandum of Understanding with Native American 

groups to implement the inadvertent discovery clause of the Native American 

Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). 

Achievement Strategies 

A. Identify Native American Tribes, Groups, and direct lineal descendants that may be affiliated 

with the refuge lands. 

B. Open consultation process with affiliated Tribes, Groups, and direct lineal descendants. 

C. Define funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony. 

D. Develop procedures to follow for intentional and inadvertent discoveries. 

E. Identify persons to contact for the purposes of NAGPRA. 

F. Submit a quarter of a full-time equivalent position for cultural resource interpretation and 

education be submitted to the Refuge Operations Needs System. A minimum of five 

thousand dollars should be allocated yearly for supplies and materials. 

G. Submit to RONS a 1/8 full-time equivalent (FTE) position for two years to negotiate and 

complete an MOU, with $25,000 for travel expenses. 

Rationale: Development of a Memorandum of Understanding prior to an inadvertent discovery is 

strongly suggested by the NAGPRA implementing regulations. Such an agreement can greatly 

facilitate and speed up consultations as required by law after an inadvertent discovery. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

H-4 Appendix H. Cultural Resource Management Plan 

This page left intentionally blank. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Appendix I. Glossary I-1 

Appendix I. Glossary 

I.1 Abbreviations 

Act National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

 (also Improvement Act or NWRSIA) 

ABA Architectural Barriers Act 

ABC American Bird Conservancy 

ac. Acres 

ac/ft Acre-Feet 

ABA Architectural Barriers Act 

ADC Animal Damage Control 

AHPA Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act 

AM Adaptive Management 

ARPA Archaeological Resources Protection Act 

ATR Auto Tour Route 

ATV All-Terrain Vehicles 

AWP Annual Work Plan 

AUD Appropriate Use Determination 

AUM Animal Use Month 

BCC Birds of Conservation Concern 

BCR Bird Conservation Region 

BIDEH Biological Diversity, Integrity, and Environmental Health 

BLM U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

BP Before Present 

BYU-Idaho Brigham Young University, Idaho 

°C Degrees Celsius 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CCP Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CD Compatibility Determination 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

cfs Cubic feet per second 

CLMA Cooperative Land Management Agreement 

CO2 Carbon Dioxide 

cm Centimeter 

CWCS Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (State) 

CWMA Continental Divide Weed Management Area 

CY Calendar Year 

dbh Diameter of a tree at breast height 

DO Dissolved oxygen, a measure of water quality 

DEQ Department of Environmental Quality 

DM Departmental Manual (USFWS) 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EE Environmental Education 

EIA Ecological Integrity Assessment 

EIS Environmental Impact Assessment 

ENSO El Niño/La Nina Southern Oscillation 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

I-2 Appendix I. Glossary 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

ESRP Eastern Snake River Plain 

°F Degrees Fahrenheit 

FMP Fire Management Plan 

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (also, Service, USFWS) 

FY Fiscal Year 

GCM Global Climate Model 

GIS Geographic Information System 

GMU Game Management Unit (IDFG) 

GPS Global positioning system 

HACCP Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point 

HGM Hydrogeomorphic 

IAC Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation 

IBA Important Bird Area 

IBCP Idaho Bird Conservation Plan 

IBIS Idaho Bird Inventory and Survey Program 

ICWCS Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy 

IDDEQ State of Idaho Department of Environmental Quality 

IDFG State of Idaho Department of Fish and Game 

IDPR Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation 

IDWR State of Idaho Department of Water Resources 

Improvement Act National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

(also Act, NWRSIA) 

I&M Inventory and Monitor 

INL Idaho National Laboratory 

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

IPM Integrated Pest Management 

ISU Idaho State University 

IWJV Intermountain West Joint Venture 

IWWCP Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 

kg Kilogram 

IDT State of Idaho Transportation Department 

LCC Landscape Conservation Cooperative 

LE Law Enforcement 

LPP Land Protection Plan 

LWG Local Working Group (sage-grouse) 

m Meter 

MAPS Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship 

MBCC Migratory Bird Conservation Commission 

MBMO Migratory Bird Management Office 

MMS Maintenance Management System 

MOA Memorandum of Agreement 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

NAGPRA Native American Graves Repatriation Act 

NAS National Audubon Society 

NAWMP North American Waterfowl Management Plan 

NCDC National Climate Data Center 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NGO Nongovernmental Organization 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Appendix I. Glossary I-3 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NSRE National Survey on Recreation and the Environment 

NVCS National Vegetation Classification Standard 

NWI National Wetlands Inventory 

NWR National Wildlife Refuge 

NWRS National Wildlife Refuge System 

NWRSIA National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

NRCS National Resource Conservation Service 

OC Organochlorine Compounds 

ORV Off-road vehicle 

PDO Pacific Decadal Oscillation 

NWS National Weather Service 

PIF Partners in Flight 

PFC Pacific Flyway Council 

pH Potential Hydrogen 

PMU Population Management Unit (IDFG) 

PPM Parts Per Million 

PPP Preliminary Project Proposal 

PRISM Parameter-elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model

R1 Region 1 of the FWS (WA, OR, ID, HI and Pacific islands) 

RMP Rocky Mountain Population (sandhill crane, Canada goose, trumpeter swan) 

ROC Resource of Concern 

RONS Refuge Operating Needs System 

ROCO Rocky Mountains and Columbia Basin 

RV Recreational Vehicle 

SCA Soil Conservation Service 

SCBD Secretariat for the Convention on Biodiversity 

SCEP Student Educational Employment Program 

SCORPT Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation and Transportation Plan 

Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (also FWS, USFWS) 

SGCN Species of Greatest Conservation Need 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer 

SMU Smoke Management Unit 

SST Sea Surface Temperatures 

STEP Student Temporary Employment Program 

SUP Special Use Permit 

TDS Total Dissolved Solids 

TMDL Total maximum daily load 

TNC The Nature Conservancy 

TP Total Phosphorous 

TPY Tons Per Year 

TSS Total Suspended Solids 

USDA U.S Department of Agriculture 

USDI U.S. Department of Interior 

USFS U.S. Forest Service 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

I-4 Appendix I. Glossary 

USU Utah State University 

WPA Work Progress Administration 

UTV Utility Terrain Vehicle 

WRCC Western Regional Climate Center 

WMA Wildlife Management Area (State of Idaho) 

WRRP Wetland and Riparian Rehabilitation Plan 

X-C Skiing Cross Country Skiing 

YACC Young Adult Conservation Corps 

YCC Youth Conservation Corps 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Appendix I. Glossary I-5 

I.2 Glossary 

303(d) listed water bodies. Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states, territories, and 

authorized tribes to develop lists of impaired waters. These are waters that are too polluted or 

otherwise degraded to meet the water quality standards set by states, territories, or authorized tribes. 

The law requires that these jurisdictions establish priority rankings for waters on the lists and develop 

TMDLs for these waters (USEPA). 

Adjudication. The judicial process through which the existence of a water right is confirmed by court 

decree. 

Aquifer. A body of saturated rock through which water can easily move.

Alluvium. Sediment transported and deposited in a delta or riverbed by flowing water. 

Adaptive Management. The rigorous application of management, research, and monitoring to gain 

information and experience necessary to assess and modify management activities. A process that 

uses feedback from refuge research and monitoring and evaluation of management actions to support 

or modify objectives and strategies at all planning levels. (Service Manual 602 FW 1.4) 

Alternative. Different sets of objectives and strategies or means of achieving refuge purposes and 

goals, helping fulfill the Refuge System mission, and resolving issues. (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6). 

The “no action” alternative is current refuge management, while the “action” alternatives are all other 

alternatives. 

Appropriate Use. A proposed or existing use on a refuge that meets at least one of the following 

four conditions: 

(1) The use is a wildlife-dependent recreational use as identified in the Improvement Act. 

(2) The use contributes to fulfilling the refuge purpose(s), the Refuge System mission, or goals or 

objectives described in a refuge management plan approved after October 9, 1997, the date the 

Improvement Act was signed into law. 

(3) The use involves the take of fish and wildlife under State regulations. 

(4) The use has been found to be appropriate as specified in section 1.11 of the USFWS Appropriate 

Use Policy (603 FW 1). 

Approved Refuge Boundary. A National Wildlife Refuge boundary approved by the National or 

Regional Fish and Wildlife Service Director. Within this boundary, the Service may negotiate with 

landowners to acquire lands not already owned by the Service. (modified from Region 1 Landowner 

Guide, USFWS Division of Refuge Planning) 

Archaeology. The scientific study of material evidence remaining from past human life and culture. 

(Webster’s II) 

Association or Plant Association: The finest level of biological community organization 

in the US National Vegetation Classification (NVCS), defined as a plant community with a 

definite floristic composition, uniform habitat conditions, and uniform physiognomy. 

With the exception of a few associations that are restricted to specific and unusual 

environmental conditions, associations generally repeat across the landscape. They also 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

I-6 Appendix I. Glossary 

occur at variable spatial scales depending on the steepness of environmental gradients 

and the patterns of disturbances. (The Nature Conservancy 2003) 

B.P. (Before Present). Used as a designation following radiocarbon dates to express the point from 

which radiocarbon years are measured. This measuring point is arbitrarily taken to be 1950. A date of 

5,200±200 B.P. means that it dates to 5,200 (plus or minus 200) years before 1950. 

Benefiting Resources. Those species, species groups, or resources expected to benefit from actions 

taken for a Resource of Concern. 

Biological Diversity: The variety of living organisms considered at all levels of organization 

including the genetic, species, and higher taxonomic levels. Biological diversity also includes the 

variety of habitats, ecosystems, and natural processes occurring therein. (The Nature Conservancy 

2003) 

Birds of Conservation Concern. A category assembled by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Division of Migratory Birds identifying the migratory and non-migratory species (beyond those 

already designated as Federally threatened or endangered) that represent the Division’s highest 

conservation priorities. (FWS, Division of Migratory Birds) 

Biological Diversity (also Biodiversity). The variety of life and its processes, including the variety 

of living organisms, the genetic differences among them, and communities and ecosystems in which 

they occur (FWS Manual 601 FW 3). The System’s focus is on indigenous species, biotic 

communities, and ecological processes. 

Biological Integrity. Biotic composition, structure, and functioning at genetic, organism, and 

community levels comparable with historic conditions, including the natural biological processes that 

shape genomes, organisms, and communities. (FWS Manual 601 FW 3) 

Call (water rights). A “call” is a request by an appropriator for water which the person is entitled to 

under his decree. Such a call will force those users with junior decrees to cease or diminish their 

diversions and pass the requested amount of water to the downstream senior making the call. 

(Glossary of Water Terminology, Colorado State University) 

Candidate Species. Plant or animal species for which FWS or NOAA Fisheries has on file sufficient 

information on biological vulnerability and threats to support a proposal to list as endangered or 

threatened. (FWS, Endangered Species Glossary, http://www.fws.gov/endangered/glossary.html) 

Categorical Exclusion. A category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human environment and have been found to have no such effect in 

procedures adopted by a Federal agency pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 

1508.4). 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). A codification of the regulations published in the Federal 

Register by the executive departments and agencies of the Federal government. The CFR is divided 

into 50 titles that represent broad areas subject to Federal regulation. Title 50 contains wildlife and 

fisheries regulations. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Appendix I. Glossary I-7 

Compatible Use. A wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other use of a refuge that, in the 

sound professional judgment of the Director, will not materially interfere with or detract from the 

fulfillment of the Mission of the System or the purposes of the Refuge (Service Manual 603 FW 3.6). 

A compatibility determination supports the selection of compatible uses and identifies stipulations or 

limits necessary to ensure compatibility. 

Composition (plant). The inventory of plant species found in any particular area. 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan. A document that describes the desired future conditions of a 

refuge or planning unit and provides long-range guidance and management direction to achieve the 

purpose(s) of the Refuge; helps fulfill the mission of the System; maintains and, where appropriate, 

restores the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of each refuge and the System; 

helps achieve the goals of the National Wilderness Preservation System, if appropriate; and meets 

other mandates. (FWS Habitat Management Planning policy, 602 FW 1.4) 

Connectivity. The arrangement of habitats that allows organisms and ecological processes to move 

across the landscape; patches of similar habitats are either close together or linked by corridors of 

appropriate vegetation. The opposite of fragmentation.

Conservation Target or Target (also see Resources of Concern; Priority Species, Species 

Groups, and Communities). Term used by land management agencies and conservation 

organizations to describe the resources (ecological systems, ecological communities, species, species 

groups, or other natural resources) selected as the focus of conservation planning or actions. (adapted 

from Low, Functional Landscapes, 2003) 

Consumptive use. Recreational activities, such as hunting and fishing that involve harvest or 

removal of wildlife or fish, generally to be used as food by humans. 

Contaminants or Environmental contaminants. Chemicals present at levels greater than those 

naturally occurring in the environment resulting from anthropogenic or natural processes that 

potentially result in changes to biota at any ecological level. (USGS, assessing EC threats to lands 

managed by USFWS) Pollutants that degrade other resources upon contact or mixing. (Adapted from 

Webster’s II) 

Cooperative Agreement. An official agreement between two parties. 

Cover. The estimated percent of an area, projected onto a horizontal surface, occupied by a particular 

plant species. 

Critical Habitat. Those areas that support rare, threatened or endangered species, or serve as 

sensitive spawning and rearing areas for aquatic life as designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service or NOAA Fisheries pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (16 USC 1531). 

Cultural Resources. The physical remains, objects, historic records, and traditional lifeways that 

connect us to our nation’s past. (USFWS, Considering Cultural Resources) 

Cultural Resource Inventory. A professionally conducted study designed to locate and evaluate 

evidence of cultural resources present within a defined geographic area. Inventories may involve 

various levels, including background literature search, comprehensive field examination to identify 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

I-8 Appendix I. Glossary 

all exposed physical manifestations of cultural resources, or sample inventory to project site 

distribution and density over a larger area. Evaluation of identified cultural resources to determine 

eligibility for the National Register follows the criteria found in 36 CFR 60.4. (Service Manual 614 

FW 1.7) 

Decadence. Marked by decay or decline. For plants, showing little or no new growth. (Adapted from 

Merriam-Webster online dictionary) 

Decree. An official document issued by the court defining the priority, amount, use, and location of a 

water right. 

Disturbance. Significant alteration of habitat structure or composition, or of the behavior or wildlife. 

May be natural (e.g., fire) or human-caused events (e.g., aircraft overflight). 

Drawdown. A lowering of the ground-water surface caused by pumping. 

Ecosystem. A dynamic and interrelating complex of plant and animal communities and their 

associated non-living environment. 

Ecosystem Management. Management of natural resources using system-wide concepts to ensure 

that all plants and animals in ecosystems are maintained at viable levels in native habitats and basic 

ecosystem processes are perpetuated indefinitely. 

Environmental Assessment. A concise public document, prepared in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act, that briefly discusses the purpose and need for an action, alternatives to 

such action, and provides sufficient evidence and analysis of impacts to determine whether to prepare 

an environmental impact statement or finding of no significant impact (40 CFR 1508.9). 

Endangered Species (Federal). An animal or plant species in danger of extinction throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range. (FWS, Endangered Species Glossary) 

Environmental Health. Composition, structure, and functioning of soil, water, air, and other abiotic 

features comparable with historic conditions, including the natural abiotic processes that shape the 

environment. (FWS Manual 601 FW 3) 

Enhance. To improve the condition of an area or habitat, usually for the benefit of certain native 

species. 

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). A document prepared in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act, supported by an environmental assessment, that briefly presents why a 

Federal action will have no significant effect on the human environment and for which an 

environmental impact statement, therefore, will not be prepared (40 CFR 1508.13). 

Floodplain. Mostly level land along rivers and streams that may be submerged by floodwater. A 

100-year floodplain is an area which can be expected to flood once in every 100 years. 

Fluvial processes. Referring to the physical interaction of flowing water and the natural channels of 

rivers and streams. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Appendix I. Glossary I-9 

Global Positioning System (GPS). A location determination network that uses satellites to act as 

reference points for the calculation of position information. These man-made reference points can be 

viewed as aerial lighthouses that are visible to user equipment and can also transmit additional 

information that can provide extremely accurate location information to the GPS function within 

location determination devices. (The Wireless Dictionary) 

Goal. Descriptive, open-ended, and often broad statement of desired future conditions that conveys a 

purpose but does not define measurable units. (Service Manual 620 FW 1.6) 

Habitat. The place or type of site where species and species assemblages are typically found and/or 

are successfully reproducing. They are named according to the features that provide the underlying 

structural basis for the community. (The Nature Conservancy 2003) 

Habitat Management Plan. A plan that provides refuge managers a decision-making process; 

guidance for the management of refuge habitat; and long-term vision, continuity, and consistency for 

habitat management on refuge lands. (FWS Habitat Management Planning policy 620 FW 1.4) 

Habitat Restoration. Management emphasis designed to move ecosystems to desired conditions and 

processes, and/or to healthy ecosystems. 

Hemi-Marsh. Classified as the deeper portion of palustrine emergent wetlands. The habitat types 

within the “hemi-marsh” system include: permanently flooded open water; submergent aquatic 

vegetation habitats; and semi-permanently flooded deep emergent bulrush habitat. The Hemi-Marsh 

stage occurs when an equal 50:50 mix of deep emergent bulrush and open water/submergent habitat 

are present, and is considered critical to fulfilling the life history strategies of numerous wetland 

dependent wildlife species (Weller and Spatcher 1965). 

Historic Conditions. Composition, structure, and functioning of ecosystems resulting from natural 

processes that we believe, based on sound professional judgment, were present prior to substantial 

human related changes to the landscape. (FWS Manual 601 FW 3). Also see Presettlement 

Conditions. 

Hydrograph. The annual flow pattern of a river. 

Hydrologic Regime. The normal pattern of precipitation (snow and/or rainfall) and runoff occurring 

in an area. 

Indicator. A measurable characteristic of a key ecological attribute that strongly correlates with the 

status of the key ecological attribute. 

Indicator Species. A species used as a gauge for the condition of a particular habitat, community, or 

ecosystem. A characteristic or surrogate species for a community or ecosystem (The Nature 

Conservancy 2003). 

Inholding. Refers to lands within an Approved Refuge Boundary that are not owned by the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. These can be private lands or lands owned by city, county, State, or other 

Federal agencies. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

I-10 Appendix I. Glossary 

Integrated Pest Management (IPM). The use of pest and environmental information in conjunction 

with available pest control technologies to prevent unacceptable levels of pest damage by the most 

economical means and with the least possible hazard to persons, property, and the environment. (U.S. 

EPA Pesticide Glossary) 

Interpretation. A teaching technique that combines factual information with stimulating explanation 

(yourdictionary.com). Frequently used to help people understand natural and cultural resources. 

Introduced species. With respect to a particular ecosystem, any species, including its seeds, eggs, 

spores, or other biological material capable of propagating that species, that is not native to that 

ecosystem. Introduced species often compete with and cause problems for native species. Introduced 

species are also called exotic, nonnative, and alien species. (see Invasive Species) 

 

Invasive Species. An introduced species that out-competes native species for space and resources. 

Inventory. A survey of the plants or animals inhabiting an area. 

 

Issue. Any unsettled matter that requires a management decision, e.g., an initiative, opportunity, 

resource management problem, threat to the resources of the unit, conflict in uses, public concern, or 

the presence of an undesirable resource condition. (Service Manual 620 FW 1.6) 

Key Ecological Attribute. Those aspects of the environment, such as ecological processes or 

patterns of biological structure and composition that are critical to sustain the long-term viability of 

the target. These key ecological attributes are further divided into measurable indicators. 

Keystone Species. A species whose impacts on its community or ecosystem are large; 

much larger than would be expected from its abundance (for example, cottonwoods, beavers, gray 

wolves). Their removal initiates changes in ecosystem structure and often loss of diversity. (Adapted 

from The Nature Conservancy 2003) 

Lacustrine Wetlands. Those areas that are generally permanently flooded and lacking trees, shrubs, 

or emergent vegetation with greater than 30 percent areal coverage and measuring greater than 20 

acres. Smaller areas than this can be included if the water depth in the deepest part of the basin 

exceeds 6.6 feet at low water. (National Wetlands Inventory) 

Landform. A natural feature of a land surface. (yourdictionary.com) 

Maintenance. The upkeep of constructed facilities, structure, and capitalized equipment necessary to 

realize the originally anticipated useful life of a fixed asset. Maintenance includes preventative 

maintenance; cyclic maintenance; repairs; replacement of parts, components, or items of equipment, 

periodic condition assessment; periodic inspections, adjustment, lubrication and cleaning (nonjanitorial) of equipment; painting, resurfacing, rehabilitation; special safety inspections; and other 

actions to ensure continuing service and to prevent breakdown. 

Maintenance Management System (MMS). A national database of refuge maintenance needs and 

deficiencies. It serves as a management tool for prioritizing, planning, and budgeting purposes. 

(RMIS descriptions) 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Appendix I. Glossary I-11 

Mesic. Habitats characterized by or requiring a moderate amount of moisture, as compared to hydric 

(wet) or xeric (dry) habitats. (Adapted from Merriam-Webster online) 

Migration. The seasonal movement from one area to another and back. 

Migratory birds. Those species of birds listed under 50 CFR section 10.13. (FWS Manual 720FW 1, 

Policies and Responsibilities of the Migratory Bird Program) 

Monitoring. The process of collecting information to track changes of selected parameters over time.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Requires all Federal agencies, including the 

Service, to examine the environmental impacts of their actions, incorporate environmental 

information, and use public participation in the planning and implementation of all actions. Federal 

agencies must integrate NEPA with other planning requirements, and prepare appropriate NEPA 

documents to facilitate better environmental decision making. (40 CFR 1500) 

Native. With respect to a particular ecosystem, a species that, other than as a result of an 

introduction, historically occurred or currently occurs in that ecosystem. (FWS Manual 601 FW 3) 

National Register of Historic Places. The Nation’s master inventory of known historic properties 

administered by the National Park Service. Includes buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts 

that possess historic, architectural, engineering, archeological, or cultural significance at the national, 

state, and local levels. (USFWS, Considering Cultural Resources) 

National Vegetation Classification Standard (NVCS). A hierarchical list of vegetation types and 

their descriptions intended to produce uniform statistics about vegetation resources across the United 

States, based on data gathered at local, regional, or national levels. (Adapted from Federal 

Geographic Data Committee) 

National Wildlife Refuge. A designated area of land, water, or an interest in land or water within the 

Refuge System, excluding coordination areas. (FWS Manual 601 FW 1.3) 

National Wildlife Refuge System. Various categories of areas administered by the Secretary of the 

Interior for the conservation of fish and wildlife, including species threatened with extinction; all 

lands, waters, and interests therein administered by the Secretary as wildlife refuges; areas for the 

protection and conservation of fish and wildlife that are threatened with extinction; wildlife ranges; 

game ranges; wildlife management areas; or waterfowl production areas. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57). A Federal law 

that amended and updated the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 

U.S.C. 668). 

Nephelometric turbidity unit (NTU). Unit of measure for the turbidity of water. Essentially, a 

measure of the cloudiness of water as measured by a nephelometer. Turbidity is based on the amount 

of light that is reflected off particles in the water. (USGS Water Science Glossary of Terms) 

Nonconsumptive Recreation. Recreational activities that do not involve harvest, removal, or 

consumption of fish, wildlife, or other natural resources. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

I-12 Appendix I. Glossary 

Noxious Weed. A plant species designated by Federal or State law as generally possessing one or 

more of the following characteristics: aggressive or difficult to manage; parasitic; a carrier or host of 

serious insect or disease; or non-native, new, or not common to the United States. According to the 

Federal Noxious Weed Act (PL 93-639), a noxious weed is one that causes disease or had adverse 

effects on man or his environment and therefore is detrimental to the agriculture and commerce of 

the United States and to the public health. 

Objective. A concise statement of what we want to achieve, how much we want to achieve, when 

and where we want to achieve it, and who is responsible for the work. Objectives derive from goals 

and provide the basis for determining strategies, monitoring refuge accomplishments, and evaluating 

the success of strategies. Objectives should be attainable, time-specific, and measurable. (Service 

Manual 620 FW 1.6) 

Operations. Activities related to the normal performance of the functions for which a facility or item 

of equipment is intended to be used. Costs such as utilities (electricity, water, sewage) fuel, janitorial 

services, window cleaning, rodent and pest control, upkeep of grounds, vehicle rentals, waste 

management, and personnel costs for operating staff are generally included within the scope of 

operations. 

Pacific Flyway. One of several major north-south travel corridors for migratory birds in North 

America. The Pacific Flyway is west of the Rocky Mountains. Other flyways include the Central, 

Mississippi, and Atlantic. 

Palustrine Wetlands. Wetlands that may or may not be permanently flooded and typically 

recognized by the presence of trees, shrubs, or herbaceous emergent vegetation. May include nonvegetated areas measuring less than 20 acres in extent and with water depths shallower than 6.6 feet 

in the deepest part of the basin at low water (Cowardin et al. 1979). 

Planning Team. The primary U.S. Fish and Wildlife staff and others who played a key role in 

developing and writing the CCP. Planning teams are interdisciplinary in membership and function. 

Teams generally consist of a Planning Team Leader, Refuge Manager and staff biologists, a State 

natural resource agency representative, and other appropriate program specialists (e.g., social 

scientist, ecologist, and recreation specialist). Other Federal and Tribal natural resource agencies are 

asked to provide team members, as appropriate. The planning team prepares the CCP and appropriate 

NEPA documentation. (Service Manual 620 FW 1.6) 

Plant Alliance. A vegetation classification unit containing one or more associations, defined by the 

presence of diagnostic species, including some from the dominant growth form or layer, and 

moderately similar composition that reflect regional to subregional climate, substrates, hydrology, 

moisture/nutrient factors, and disturbance regimes. For example, the Basin Big Sagebrush Shrubland 

and Steppe Alliance. (NVCS) 

Plant Association. A vegetation classification unit defined by the presence of diagnostic species, 

usually from multiple growth forms or layers, and more narrowly similar composition that reflect 

topo-edaphic climate, substrates, hydrology, and disturbance regimes. For example, Artemisia 

tridentata ssp. tridentata / Hesperostipa comata Shrubland (Basin Big Sagebrush /Needle-and-Thread 

Shrubland). (NVCS) 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Appendix I. Glossary I-13 

Plant Community. An assemblage of plant species unique in its composition; occurs in particular 

locations under particular influences; a reflection or integration of the environmental influences on 

the site such as soils, temperature, elevation, solar radiation, slope, aspect, and rainfall; denotes a 

general kind of climax plant community. Corresponds to mid-level hierarchy (Macrogroup) in the 

NVCS, e.g. Great Basin and Intermountain Tall Sagebrush Shrubland and Steppe. 

Plant Group. Combinations of relatively narrow sets of diagnostic plant species (including 

dominants and co-dominants), broadly similar composition, and diagnostic growth forms that reflect 

regional mesoclimate, geology, substrates, hydrology and disturbance regimes (NVCS). For example, 

the Intermountain Mesic Tall Sagebrush Shrubland and Steppe Group. 

Preferred Alternative. This is the alternative determined [by the decision maker] to best achieve the 

refuge purpose, vision, and goals; to best contribute to the Refuge System mission; to best address 

the significant issues; and to be consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife management. 

Prescribed Fire. Any fire ignited by management actions to meet specific objectives. A written, 

approved prescribed fire plan must exist, and NEPA requirements (where applicable) must be met, 

prior to ignition (National Wildfire Coordinating Group Glossary of Wildland Fire Terminology) 

Presettlement Conditions: In Idaho, the state of the environment at the time of Euro-American 

settlement or 1800. Also see Historic Conditions. 

Priority Public Uses. Hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental 

education and interpretation, where compatible, are identified under the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997 as the six priority public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. 

Public. Individuals, organizations, and groups; officials of Federal, State, and local government 

agencies; Indian tribes; and foreign nations. It may include anyone outside the planning team. It 

includes those who may or may not have indicated an interest in Service issues and those who may 

be affected by Service decisions. 

Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS). A national database of unfunded refuge operating needs 

required to meet and/or implement station goals, objectives, management plans, and legal mandates. 

It is used as a planning, budgeting, and communication tool describing funding and staffing needs of 

the Refuge System. 

Refuge Purpose(s). The purposes specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, executive 

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

authorizing, or expanding a refuge, refuge unit, or refuge subunit. For refuges that encompass 

congressionally designated wilderness, the purposes of the Wilderness Act are additional purposes of 

the Refuge. (Service Manual 620 FW 1.6) 

Residual Cover. In pastures, grasslands, or emergent wetlands, tall decadent grass and/or forbs or 

emergent vegetation (e.g. cattail, bulrush) left standing through the fall and winter seasons. 

Resistant. An ecosystem or community is described as “resistant” when it maintains its structural 

and functional attributes in the face of stress and disturbances.
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

I-14 Appendix I. Glossary 

Resilient. “Resilience” describes the ability of an ecosystem to regain structural and functional 

attributes that have suffered harm from stress or disturbance. 

Resource of Concern (ROC). All plant and/or animal species, species groups, or communities 

specifically identified in refuge purpose(s), System mission, or international, national, regional, State, 

or ecosystem conservation plans or acts. For example, waterfowl and shorebirds are a resource of 

concern on a refuge whose purpose is to protect “migrating waterfowl and shorebirds.” Federal or 

State threatened and endangered species on that same refuge are also a resource of concern under 

terms of the respective endangered species acts. (FWS Habitat Management Planning policy, 620 

FW 1.4) 

Restore. To bring back to a former or original condition. (Webster’s II) 

Revenue Sharing. Service payments (government lands are exempt from taxation) made to counties 

in which national wildlife refuges reside. These payments may be used by the counties for any 

governmental purpose such as, but not limited to, roads and schools. (USFWS Revenue sharing 

pamphlet) 

Riparian. Refers to an area or habitat that is transitional from terrestrial to aquatic ecosystems; 

including streams, lakes wet areas, and adjacent plant communities and their associated soils which 

have free water at or near the surface; an area whose components are directly or indirectly attributed 

to the influence of water; of or relating to a river; specifically applied to ecology, “riparian” describes 

the land immediately adjoining and directly influenced by streams. For example, riparian vegetation 

includes any and all plant life growing on the land adjoining a stream and directly influenced by the 

stream. 

Ruderal. Plant communities that are constituted primarily of non-native species, such that 

reconstructing the original vegetative community of the area is difficult.

Shallow Emergent Marsh. Shallow emergent bulrush/cattail and alkali bulrush habitats are 

extensive semi-permanently to seasonally flooded habitats. While the shallow emergent is 

structurally similar to the deep bulrush emergent marsh, it is buffered by dense stands of deep 

emergent hardstem bulrush and therefore lacks immediate connectivity to open water/submerged 

aquatic habitats. Therefore, shallow emergent habitats are not considered a tall emergent component 

of the “hemi-marsh.” 

Shelterbelt. Plantings of single or multiple rows of trees or shrubs that are established to protect or 

shelter nearby leeward areas from troublesome winds. Such plantings are used to reduce wind 

erosion, protect growing plants (crops and forage), manage snow, improve irrigation efficiency, 

protect structures and livestock, provide wildlife habitat, improve aesthetics, and provide tree or 

shrub products. 

Shorebirds. Sandpipers, plovers, and their close relatives of similar size and ecology, often 

associated with coastal and inland wetlands. (Sibley Guide to Birds 2000) 

Songbirds (Also Passerines). A category of medium to small, perching landbirds. Most are 

territorial singers and migratory. 

Source. An extraneous factor that causes a stress (the most proximate cause). (TNC 2000) 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Appendix I. Glossary I-15 

Species of concern (Federal). An informal term referring to a species that might be in need of 

conservation action. This may range from a need for periodic monitoring of populations and threats 

to the species and its habitat, to the necessity for listing as threatened or endangered. Such species 

receive no legal protection and use of the term does not necessarily imply that a species will 

eventually be proposed for listing. (FWS, Endangered Species Glossary) 

State. In community ecology, a “state” refers to recognizable, resistant and resilient complex of two 

components: the soil base and the vegetation structure (Stringham 2003). 

Step-down Management Plan. A plan that provides specific guidance on management subjects 

(e.g., habitat, public use, fire, safety) or groups of related subjects. It describes strategies and 

implementation schedules for meeting CCP goals and objectives. (Service Manual 620 FW 1.6) 

Strategy. A specific action, tool, technique, or combination of actions, tools, and techniques used to 

meet unit objectives. (Service Manual 620 FW 1.6) 

Stress. Something which impairs or degrades the size, condition, or landscape context of 

a conservation target, resulting in reduced viability. (The Nature Conservancy 2003) 

Tall Emergent Wetland. Comprises permanently flooded open and submerged aquatic vegetation 

immediately proximate to semi-permanently flooded deep emergent hardstem-bulrush vegetation and 

semi-permanent to seasonally flooded shallow emergent alkali-bulrush/cattail vegetation. 

Target. See Conservation Target. 

Threat. The combined concept of ecological stresses to a target and the sources of that 

stress to the target. (The Nature Conservancy 2003) 

Threatened Species (Federal). An animal or plant species likely to become endangered within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. (FWS, Endangered Species 

Glossary) 

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). A calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a 

waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standards, and an allocation of that amount to the 

pollutant’s sources (US EPA). Pollutants may include sediment, nutrients (e.g., nitrogen and 

phosphorus), pathogens (e.g., E. coli bacteria), pesticides, and heavy metals (e.g., mercury). 

Turbidity. The amount of particulate matter that is suspended in water, measured in NTUs 

(nephelometric turbidity units). Clear water generally measures less than 10 NTU. 

Vegetation Type (Also see Plant Association). A land classification system based upon the concept 

of distinct plant associations. 

Vision Statement. A concise statement of what the planning unit should be, or what we hope to do, 

based primarily upon the Refuge System mission and specific refuge purposes, and other mandates. 

The vision statement for the Refuge is tied to the mission of the Refuge System; the purpose(s) of the 

Refuge; the maintenance or restoration of the ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge 

System; and other mandates. (Service Manual 620 FW 1.6) 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

I-16 Appendix I. Glossary 

Waterfowl. Resident and migratory ducks, geese, and swans. 

Water quality. A term used to describe the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of 

water, usually in respect to its suitability for a particular purpose. 

Watershed. The land area that drains water to a particular stream, river, or lake. It is a land feature 

that can be identified by tracing a line along the highest elevations between two areas on a map, often 

a ridge. Large watersheds, like the Mississippi River basin contain thousands of smaller watersheds. 

Wetlands. Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water 

table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water at some time during the 

growing season of each year. (Service Manual 660 FW 2; Cowardin et al. 1979) 

Permanent Wetland. A wetland basin or portion of a basin that is covered with water throughout the 

year in all years except extreme drought. 

Semi-permanent Wetland. A wetland basin or portion of a basin where surface water persists 

throughout the growing season of most years. 

Seasonal Wetland. A wetland basin or portion of a basin where surface water is present in the early 

part of the growing season but is absent by the end of the season in most years. 

Wet Meadows. Shallowly flooded wetland edges with little to no slope. Flooding is generally of 

short duration. 

Wildfire. An unplanned, unwanted wildland fire including unauthorized human-caused fires, 

escaped wildland fire use events, escaped prescribed fire projects, and all other wildland fires where 

the objective is to put the fire out (National Wildfire Coordinating Group, Glossary of Wildland Fire 

Terminology) 

Wildland Fire. Any non-structure fire that occurs in the wildland. Three distinct types of wildland 

fire have been defined and include wildfire, wildland fire use (allowing naturally ignited fires to burn 

to benefit natural resources) and prescribed fire (National Wildfire Coordinating Group Glossary of 

Wildland Fire Terminology) 

Wildlife-dependent Recreational Use. A use of a refuge involving hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation and photography, or environmental education and interpretation. These are the six 

priority public uses of the Refuge System as established in the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act, as amended. Wildlife-dependent recreational uses, other than the six priority 

public uses, are those that depend on the presence of wildlife. The Service will also consider these 

other uses in the preparation of refuge CCPs; however, the six priority public uses always will take 

precedence. (Service Manual 620 FW 1.6) 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix J. Statement of Compliance J-1 

Appendix J. Statement of Compliance 

STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE 1

for Implementation of the 

Camas National Wildlife Refuge, Jefferson County, Idaho 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

The following executive orders and legislative acts have been reviewed as they apply to 

implementation of the Camas National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan. 

1. National Environmental Policy Act (1969). The planning process has been conducted in 

accordance with National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures, Department 

of Interior and Service procedures, and has been performed in coordination with the affected 

public. The requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321 

et seq.) and its implementing regulations in 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508 have been satisfied in 

the procedures used to reach this decision. These procedures included: the development of a 

range of alternatives for the CCP; analysis of the likely effects of each alternative; and public 

involvement throughout the planning process. An environmental assessment (EA) was 

prepared for the project that integrated the Draft CCP management objectives and 

alternatives into the EA and NEPA process. The Draft CCP/EA was released for a 30-day 

public comment period. The affected public was notified of the availability of these 

documents through a Federal Register notice, news releases to local newspapers, the 

Service’s refuge planning website, and a planning update. Copies of the Draft CCP/EA 

and/or planning updates were distributed to an extensive mailing list. The CCP will be 

revised based on public comment received on the draft documents. 

The CCP is programmatic in many respects and specific details of certain projects and actions 

cannot be determined until a later date depending on funding and implementation schedules. 

Certain projects or actions may require additional NEPA compliance. 

2. National Historic Preservation Act (1966). The implementation of the CCP should not affect 

cultural resources. The proposed action does not meet the criteria of an effect or adverse effect as 

an undertaking defined in 36CFR800.9 and Service Manual 614 FW 2. The Service would 

comply with the National Historic Preservation Act if any management actions have the potential 

to affect any historic properties which may be present. 

3. Executive Order 12372. Intergovernmental Review. Coordination and consultation with 

affected Tribal, local and State governments, other Federal agencies, and the landowners has been 

completed through personal contact by Service Planners, refuge managers and Supervisors. 

4. Executive Order 13175. Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. 

As required under Secretary of the Interior Order 3206 American Indian Tribal Rights, FederalTribal Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act, the Project Leader consulted and 

coordinated with the Shoshone-Bannock Tribe regarding the proposed action. Specifically, 

Project Leader Tracy Casselman sent an invitational letter to Chairman Small of the 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

J-2 Appendix J. Statement of Compliance 

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, explaining the NWRS planning process and inviting the Tribe to 

participate in the CCP development process. Project Leader Casselman coordinated with the 

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes throughout the Service's planning process for the Refuge's 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and addressed the Tribe’s stated interest in big-game hunting 

on Camas National Wildlife Refuge.

5. Executive Order 12898. Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and 

Low-Income Populations. All Federal actions must address and identify, as appropriate, 

disproportionally high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, 

policies, and activities on minority populations, low-income populations, and Indian Tribes in the 

United States. The CCP was evaluated and no adverse human health or environmental effects 

were identified for minority or low-income populations, Indian Tribes, or anyone else. 

6. Wilderness Act. The Service has evaluated the suitability of the Refuge for wilderness 

designation and concluded that the Camas National Wildlife Refuge does not meet the basic 

criteria for inclusion into the National Wilderness Preservation System. 

7. National Wildlife Administration Act of 1966, as amended by The National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee). The refuge manager determined 

that the following refuge use(s) are appropriate, and directed that compatibility determinations be 

completed for each use: research; agriculture (farming and haying); dog walking; and bicycling, 

cross-country skiing, and snowshoeing. The following uses were found to compatible, with 

stipulations: Environmental Education, Interpretation, Wildlife Observation, and Photography; 

Waterfowl Hunting; Upland Game Bird Hunting; Big Game (elk) Hunting; Research; 

Agricultural Practices (Farming and Haying); Dog Walking; and Bicycling, Cross-Country 

Skiing, Snow-shoeing. 

8. EO 13186. Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds. The CCP is 

consistent with Executive Order 13186 because the CCP and NEPA analyses evaluate the effects 

of agency actions on migratory birds. 

9. Endangered Species Act. No Federally threatened or endangered species occur on the Camas 

NWR. Therefore, CCP implementation is expected to result in no impacts the threatened or 

endangered species. 

10. Executive Order 11990. Protection of Wetlands. The CCP is consistent with Executive Order 

11990 because CCP implementation would protect and enhance existing wetlands. 

11. Executive Order 11988. Floodplain Management. Under this order Federal agencies “shall 

take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, 

health and welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by flood 

plains.” The CCP is consistent with Executive Order 11988 because CCP implementation would 

protect floodplains from adverse impacts as a result of modification or destruction. 

12. Integrated Pest Management (IPM), 517 DM 1 and 7 RM 14. In accordance with 517 DM 1 

and 7 RM 14, an integrated pest management (IPM) approach has been adopted to eradicate, 

control, or contain pest and invasive species on the Refuge. In accordance with 517 DM 1, only 

pesticides registered with the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) in full compliance 

with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and as provided in 

regulations, orders, or permits issued by USEPA may be applied on lands and waters under 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix J. Statement of Compliance J-3 

refuge jurisdiction. 

13. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (1980) 

(CERCLA) and Secretarial Order 3127. All acquisitions of real property, whether 

discretionary or nondiscretionary, would require a Level 1 pre-acquisition environmental site 

assessment. There are no Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 Superfund sites within one 

mile of the project area. 

14. Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act. The Service 

would conduct all realty actions in conformance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and 

Real Property Acquisition Policies Act. 

 _______________________________ _________________________ 

 Chief, Division of Refuge Planning Date 

1

See 602 FW 3, Exhibit 2 for other potential compliance requirements
Camas National Wildlife Refuge 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

J-4 Appendix J. Statement of Compliance 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix K. CCP Team Members K-1 

Appendix K. CCP Team Members 

The CCP was developed primarily by core team members. The core planning team consisted of 

persons responsible for the preparation and completion of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment. They are the primary strategists, analysts, and writers, and attended all 

team meetings. To avoid scheduling and logistical conflicts, the core team had a limited number of 

participants. 

Professionals from several different agencies, organizations, and Fish and Wildlife Service programs, 

played a supporting role to the core team (Table K.2). They provided critical input early in the 

alternatives development process, and continued to provide review and comment as the document 

evolved. They provided information for use in the plan, and commented on portions of the plan 

within their areas of expertise. They provided technical expertise and assisted with development of 

objectives, strategies, and alternatives; analysis; writing; and reviewing. In addition, content 

specialists from other agencies or organizations were contacted as needed by members of the core 

team for specific planning needs. 

Table K.1 Camas NWR CCP/EA Core Planning Team Members 

Name Title Role

Tracy Casselman Project Leader, 

Southeast Idaho 

National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex

Southeast Idaho NWRC decision-making; public 

involvement; reviewer; compliance with NEPA, ESA, 

NHPA etc.; outreach including Congressionals and 

Federal, State, and local interagency coordination; 

Tribal coordination.

Brian Wehausen Refuge Manager, 

Camas National 

Wildlife Refuge 

Planning team leader and primary decision maker. 

Coordination and development of the CCP. Key contact 

for public involvement. Writer/reviewer of: refuge 

purposes; historic and existing management practices; 

EA alternatives; goals and objectives; impacts 

assessment; compatibility determinations; 

implementation analysis.

Mike Fisher Supervisory 

Wildlife Biologist, 

Southeast Idaho 

National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex 

(Retired) 

Assess and compile biological data and write elements 

of CCP pertaining to biological resources and habitat 

management. Assist Refuge Manager in identifying 

issues and writing sections on: management issues; 

affected environment (wildlife and habitat); biological 

goals and objectives; compatibility determinations; and 

the impacts analysis of management alternatives.

Carl Mitchell Wildlife Biologist, 

Southeast Idaho 

National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex 

(Retired)

As above

Pam Johnson Wildlife Biologist, 

Southeast Idaho 

National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex 

As above; hunt plan development 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

K-2 Appendix K. CCP Team Members 

Bill Smith Wildlife Biologist, 

Southeast Idaho 

National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex, 

and Refuge 

Manager, Grays 

Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge 

CCP/EA coordination and development. Lead/facilitate 

core team and extended team meetings, and Regional 

Office briefings. Assist with public involvement 

including public meetings, FR notices, briefing 

statements, planning updates. Write, edit, and review 

draft CCP and other documents. 

Primary writer for biological goals, objectives, and 

rationale; impacts analysis.

Ken Morris Conservation 

Planner, Planning 

Branch, National 

Wildlife Refuge 

System, Pacific 

Region 

CCP/EA coordination and development. Lead/facilitate 

core team and extended team meetings, and Regional 

Office briefings. Assist with public involvement 

including public meetings, FR notices, briefing 

statements, planning updates. Write, edit, and review 

draft CCP and other documents. 

Primary writer for visitor services goals, objectives, and 

rationale. Assess and compile data pertaining to public 

use, visitor trends, Refuge history, and write elements 

of CCP pertaining to physical and human environment. 

Table K.2 Extended Planning Team and Reviewers 

Name Title Area of Assistance 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Pacific Region 

Robyn Thorsen Regional Director Final decision-maker; CCP/EA 

approval. 

Robin West Regional Chief, National Wildlife 

Refuge System 

Major decisions on CCP direction. 

Ben Harrison Deputy Regional Chief, National 

Wildlife Refuge System 

CCP advisor and reviewer; purposes; 

compatibility determination review 

Bob Flores National Wildlife Refuge 

Supervisor 

Refuge workload assistance; reviewer; 

decision-maker 

Chuck Houghten Chief, Division of Planning, 

Visitor Services and 

Transportation (to April 6, 2013); 

Chief, Division of Realty and 

Refuge Information (April 7, 

2013 on) 

Reviewer; CCP quality and 

consistency; Regional Office liaison 

Scott McCarthy Conservation Planning Chief, 

Planning Branch 

Reviewer; CCP quality and 

consistency; Regional Office liaison 

Kevin O’Hara Conservation Planner, Planning 

Branch 

Review of effects analysis 

Kevin Kilbride Regional Inventory and 

Monitoring Coordinator, Branch 

of Refuge Biology, Division of 

Natural and Cultural Resources 

Assists with development and review 

of wildlife and habitat goals, 

objectives, strategies, and alternatives; 

IPM Plan. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix K. CCP Team Members K-3 

Joe Engler Regional Refuge Biologist, , 

Branch of Refuge Biology, 

Division of Natural and Cultural 

Resources 

Assists with development and review 

of wildlife and habitat goals, 

objectives, strategies, and alternatives; 

review of compatibility determinations; 

wilderness review; hunt plan review. 

Bridgette 

Flanders-Wanner 

Regional Refuge Biologist. , 

Branch of Refuge Biology, 

Division of Natural and Cultural 

Resources 

Assists with development and review 

of wildlife and habitat goals, 

objectives, strategies, alternatives. 

Tom Miewald Landscape Ecologist & Data 

Coordinator, Science 

Applications and Refuges 

North Pacific Landscape 

Conservation Cooperative 

Assists with production of maps for 

CCP/EA, planning updates, and 

agency/public involvement. Assists 

with GIS data layer development and 

production of working maps. 

Gary Ball Hydrologist, Div. of Engineering, 

Water Resources Branch 

Water resources and rights; assists with 

development of strategies for water 

resources protection. 

Pam Benn Realty Specialist, Division of 

Realty and Refuge Information 

Refuge acquisition history and other 

realty issues. 

Russell Haskett Federal Wildlife Officer, 

Southeast Idaho National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex 

Review of LE and visitor services 

sections. 

Lance Roberts Fire Management Officer, 

Southeast Idaho National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex 

Fire program guidance. 

Farrel Downs Heavy Equipment Operator, 

Camas National Wildlife Refuge 

Provides information on current 

Refuge maintenance, facilities, and 

visitor services. 

Mike Marxen Chief of Visitor Services and 

Communications, Branch of 

Visitor Services 

Assists with development and review 

of visitor services goals, objectives, 

alternatives, and strategies. 

Mike Green Nongame Landbird Conservation, 

Division of Migratory Birds 

Assists with development and review 

of goals/objectives/strategies for 

migratory birds, esp. Flyway 

perspective. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Other Regions/Offices

LouAnn SpeuldaDrews 

Historian/Historical Archeologist, 

Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office, 

Reno NV 

Historic/cultural advice, data, and 

review; cultural resource plan; SHPO 

consultation. 

Erin Carver Economist, USFWS Division of 

Economics, Arlington VA 

Socioeconomic analysis 

Kathi Stopher Instructional Systems Specialist, 

Bear River Migratory Bird 

Refuge, Brigham City, UT 

Visitor services review, visitor services 

goals and objectives 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

K-4 Appendix K. CCP Team Members 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game 

Steve Schmidt Regional Supervisor State interests, hunting, elk 

management 

Daryl Meints Regional Biologist Hunting, elk management 

Terry Thomas Regional Habitat Manager Biological review, Alternatives 

development, hunt plan review 

Curtis Hendricks Mud Lake Wildlife Management 

Area Manager 

Biological review, Alternatives 

development 

Rob Cavallaro Non-Game Biologist Biological review, Alternatives 

development 

Lew Huddleston Senior Conservation Officer Review of hunt plan, law enforcement 

Shoshone Bannock Tribe 

Yvette Tuell Environmental Coordinator Tribal interests, review 

SWCA Environmental Consultants 

Malini Roberts Technical Editor Technical editing 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix L. Public Involvement L-1 

Appendix L. Public Involvement 

Public involvement was sought throughout the development of the Draft CCP, starting in summer 

2010 with the preparation of an Outreach and Communication Plan. The Refuge also held two open 

houses; sent letters and planning updates to inform the public, Tribes, and agencies, invite discussion 

and solicit feedback; and consulted with the State of Idaho and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. 

A mailing list of approximately 160 persons and organizations is maintained at the Refuge and was 

used to distribute planning updates and public meeting announcements. Below is a brief summary of 

the events, meetings, and outreach tools that were used in our public involvement efforts. 

L.1 Agency Consultation and Coordination 

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) was invited to the public scoping meetings and 

asked to submit comments during public scoping. On November 5, 2010, Project Leader Tracy 

Casselman sent invitational letters to Idaho Department of Fish and Game Regional Supervisor Steve 

Schmidt (Upper Snake Region) explaining the NWRS planning process and inviting the department 

to participate in the CCP development process. Project Leader Casselman met with IDFG Regional 

Supervisor Schmidt in October 2011 and April 2012, and April 2013 to discuss hunting programs on 

the Refuge. Following the April 2012 meeting, IDFG Regional Biologist Daryl Meints was assigned to 

review and comment on portions of the Draft CCP pertaining to elk management and hunting programs. 

IDFG provided comments on portions of the Draft CCP. In addition Project Leader Casselman 

informed IDFG of progress on CCPs for the Southeast Idaho Refuges and other items of shared 

management interest on a regular basis (typically once per month). IDFG was involved in 

development of public use (hunting) alternatives and the Hunt Plan (Appendix M of the CCP), and 

reviewed and provided comments on the Draft CCP/EA. 

L.2 Native American Government Consultation 

In accordance with Service and NEPA policy, the Service invited the federally recognized ShoshoneBannock Tribes to participate in the CCP process at the scoping or development phase. On 

November 5, 2010 Project Leader Tracy Casselman sent invitational letters to Chairman Small of the 

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes explaining the NWRS planning process and inviting the Tribe to 

participate in the CCP development process for the Southeast Idaho refuges, including Camas NWR. 

Project Leader Casselman met with the Shoshone-Bannock Tribe regarding the Camas CCP on 

October 18, 2011, May 23, 2012, January 25, 2013, February 26, 2013, and April 24, 2013 and met 

with the Tribe’s natural resource staff on August 19, 2013. The Tribe provided comments on portions 

of the Draft CCP. Project Leader Casselman also meets with the Shoshone-Bannock Tribe twice 

yearly to discuss ongoing projects in the Southeast Idaho Complex (including CCPs) and discuss 

items of shared management interest. 

L.3 Formal Scoping 

3.3.1 Notice of Intent 

The Service began the public scoping period by publishing a Notice of Intent to prepare the CCP in 

the Federal Register on September 17, 2010. In addition to basic information about the CCP/EA 

project, the notice provided information on the planning process; public involvement opportunities; a 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

L-2 Appendix L. Public Involvement

history and description of Camas NWR; and a description of the initial issues, concerns and 

opportunities as developed by the Service. The 30-day comment period ended on October 17, 2010. 

During scoping a total of 40 responses were received from individuals or organizations from August 

25, 2010 through October 18, 2010. Two State of Idaho agencies, the Department of Fish and Game 

and Department of Parks and Recreation, and one Federal agency, the Environmental Protection 

Agency, provided written comments. Of the comment forms provided at the open house meetings, 

22 were returned by mail or hand delivered to the Refuge. Verbal comments from eight of the twelve 

attendees of the open houses were recorded. Four additional responses were received by e-mail and 

four written letter responses were received by mail. Results of scoping were shared with the public in 

Planning Update 2. 

3.2.2 Other Public Notices 

 August 2010. Press releases notifying the public of the open house were sent to and 

published by the Post-Register (Idaho Falls), the Jefferson Star (Jefferson County), and on 

the Fish and Wildlife Service listserv. 

3.3.3 Public Scoping Open Houses 

The Service held two CCP open house meetings in, in Hamer, Idaho on August 25, 2010 and Idaho 

Falls, ID on August 26, 2010. The public scoping meetings were in an open house format. Refuge 

staff explained the CCP process; Refuge purposes, vision, and management; and preliminary 

management issues, concerns and opportunities that had been identified early in the planning process. 

The public was invited to submit comments either in writing or verbally. The attendees then had the 

opportunity to visit four tables staffed by Complex and Refuge staff and the lead planner to ask 

questions and submit comments. Each table had a scribe to record verbal comments. A total of 12 

private citizens attended the two open house meetings. 

L.4 Other Meetings 

 July 19-20, 2010. Representatives from the Service’s Pacific Region updated the Idaho 

Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) on the status of CCP efforts in Idaho, including Camas 

NWR, at the annual conference of the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 

 August 2, 2011. Preliminary draft alternatives briefing for Region 1 Refuges Chief and staff, 

USFWS Regional Office, Portland, OR. 

 January 26, 2012. Preliminary Goals and Objectives briefing for Region 1 Refuges Chief and 

staff, USFWS Regional Office, Portland, OR. 

 February 19, 2013. Internal draft CCP briefing for Region 1 Refuges Chief and staff, 

USFWS Regional Office, Portland, OR.

 September 4, 2013. Draft CCP briefing for Region 1 Refuges Chief and staff, USFWS 

Regional Office, Portland, OR.

L.5 Planning Updates 

As noted above, the Service distributed a planning update (summarized below) to individuals, 

agencies, and organizations on a mailing list to initiate the scoping process. A second update was 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix L. Public Involvement L-3 

released upon conclusion of the formal scoping process, and a third update was released to announce 

the availability of the draft CCP and summarize management alternatives. 

 August 10, 2010. Planning Update 1 sent to a mailing list of approximately 112 recipients, 

including private individuals, government agencies, and non-governmental organizations. 

Planning Update 1 provided an overview of the CCP process, announced the start of the 

planning process, and presented draft issues that might be addressed in the CCP. The 

planning update included a comment form. In addition, the Planning Update was posted on 

the refuge website, and copies were available at the CCP open houses and at the refuge 

office. 

 January 2011. Planning Update 2, summarizing the results of public scoping, was distributed 

to a mailing list of approximately 160 recipients. In addition, the Planning Update and a 

detailed report on the results of public scoping were posted on the refuge website. 

 May 2012. Planning Update 3, describing preliminary draft alternatives for the CCP, was 

distributed to a mailing list of approximately 160 recipients. The update summarized the draft 

CCP alternatives and wildlife, habitat, and public use goals, objectives, and strategies for 

Camas NWR. 

 November 2013. Planning Update 4, announcing the availability of the Draft CCP and 

Environmental Assessment and the start of the public comment period, was distributed to a 

mailing list of approximately 160 recipients. Planning Update 4 included a summary 

comparison of the three alternatives presented in the Draft CCP/EA, and information on how 

the interested public could provide comments. CDs containing the complete Draft CCP/EA 

were mailed with the planning update. In addition, the Planning Update and the Draft 

CCP/EA were posted on the refuge website. 

L.6 Other Tools 

 August 2010: Comment form sent to approximately 112 people in conjunction with Planning 

Update 1. The comment form was also posted on refuge website, and distributed during the 

public scoping meetings. 

L.7 Federal Register Notices 

 September 17, 2010: Federal Register published Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (75 FR No. 180 57053-

57055). 

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

L-4 Appendix L. Public Involvement

This page intentionally left blank. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix M. Draft Hunt Plan M-1 

Appendix M. Draft Hunt Plan for 

the Camas National Wildlife Refuge 

JEFFERSON COUNTY, IDAHO 

December 2013 

Submitted By:

Project Leader

__________________________________________ _________ 

 Signature Date 

Concurrence: 

Refuge 

Supervisor 

__________________________________________ _________ 

 Signature Date 

Chief, Office 

of Refuge Law 

Enforcement 

__________________________________________ _________ 

 Signature Date 

Approved:

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System 

__________________________________________ _________ 

 Signature Date 

For further information, Contact: 

Refuge Manager 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Camas National Wildlife Refuge 

2150 E. 2350 N. 

Hamer, Idaho 83425-5030 

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

M-2 Appendix M. Draft Hunt Plan 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction ......................................................................... 3 

II. Conformance with Statutory Authorities ........................................7 

III. Assessment .......................................................................... 8 

IV. Biological Soundness .............................................................. 9 

V. Description of Hunting Program..................................................15 

VI. Measures Taken to Avoid Conflicts with Other Management Objectives ..25 

VII. Conduct of the Hunting Program ................................................31 

Literature Cited ....................................................33 

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix M. Draft Hunt Plan M-3 

Draft Hunt Plan for the Camas National Wildlife Refuge 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Camas National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) is located northwest of the town of Hamer, in 

Jefferson County, Idaho. The Refuge is situated in the Upper Snake River Plain and sits at an 

elevation of approximately 4,800 feet. The Refuge is at the northern edge of the Snake River 

Plains, a vast region of flat to gently rolling sagebrush hills which covers the southern third of 

Idaho. The area is surrounded on three sides by mountain ranges, the Tetons and Centennials to 

the east and north and the Beaverhead, Lemhi and Lost River ranges to the northwest and west. 

The Refuge contains 10,578 acres with about 60% being various wetland types, ranging from 

sub-irrigated meadows to open water lakes. Approximately 160 acres can be used for producing 

cereal grains and alfalfa to provide food for migrating waterfowl and waterbirds. The remaining 

4,000 plus acres of upland are sage-steppe and grassland (hayed) habitats. Camas Creek runs 

through the Refuge for approximately 10 miles. The Refuge is bordered by Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) on its western boundary and by mostly private farm land along the rest of 

its boundary. 

Historically, the Refuge was a wet meadow complex fed by Camas Creek, which originates near 

the Centennial Mountains on the Continental Divide. Historically, in periods of high snowmelt, 

Camas Creek would overtop its banks and inundate the surrounding area, creating seasonal wet 

meadow habitat. Permanent water was limited, however, until flood irrigation on the Egin 

Bench, 15 miles to the east, raised the water table of the Mud Lake Basin. This caused water to 

back up onto the present-day Refuge, and created many seeps, springs, and artesian wells that 

kept water flowing in the wetlands for most if not all of the year during abundant water years. 

These were the conditions that existed when the Refuge was established in 1937. Artificial 

wetlands were easily created on the Refuge, and water levels could be quickly raised by pumping 

relatively small amounts of water into diked units. 

With the advent of center pivot irrigation, cessation of flood irrigation on the Egin Bench in 

1980, and a ten-year drought, the water table in the Camas area has dropped 15 to 20 feet in the 

past 20 years. Wetlands that once perched on saturated soils have become difficult to maintain. 

To date about 25% of managed wetlands have been placed in “inactive” status due to their 

inability to hold water. The Refuge has become dependent on irrigation from wells to keep any 

remaining wetlands hydrated long enough for brood rearing to occur. As the water table lowered, 

the Refuge has had to pump increasing amounts of well water to fill certain wetland basins. In 

addition, Camas Creek no longer overflows its banks because of the incision of its channel. On 

and off the Refuge, the creek channel has been dredged deeper in order to prevent certain lands 

and buildings from being flooded. Increasingly, Refuge staff has been forced to look at new 

strategies for managing wetland habitat. 

Despite these changes over time, Camas National Wildlife Refuge still provides quality habitat 

for more than 250 species of birds and various mammals, reptiles, amphibians, common to 

western sagebrush-steppe, meadow, wetland, and riparian environments. Pronghorn, moose, elk, 

and white-tailed deer are commonly observed on the Refuge. Although once common to the 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

M-4 Appendix M. Draft Hunt Plan 

area, mule deer are now only seen occasionally on or near the Refuge. Elk became established in 

the past quarter century and are increasing in numbers, at least seasonally. 

During the spring, summer and fall, ducks, Canada geese and trumpeter swans use the wetland, 

riparian and meadow habitats for foraging, nesting and brood rearing. Snow geese and tundra 

swans use the wetlands and meadows during migration. Shorebirds such as American avocet, 

willet, Wilson’s phalarope and long-billed curlew can be found along the water margins, during 

migration and nesting seasons. Waterbirds such as sandhill crane, eared grebe, and American 

coot are found in the wetlands and meadows during the spring, summer and fall. Upland birds 

include ring-necked pheasant and gray partridge (which are introduced non-native species) and 

sage-grouse (native), which are present year round in relatively low numbers.

Camas NWR currently offers hunting opportunities for ducks, geese, American coot, merganser, 

Wilson’s snipe, ring-necked pheasant, gray partridge, and sage-grouse. The Refuge has two areas 

open to hunting with hunting dates, hunting hours and bag limits corresponding to State 

regulations. Nontoxic shot is required for all species and use of temporary blinds of natural 

vegetation is allowed. The Refuge is not proposing any changes to the bird hunts that currently 

occur. However, we propose working with Idaho Fish and Game to establish an elk hunt within 

the boundary of the Refuge. 

 
Camas NWR - Regional Overview

Map Date: 2/3/2012 File: Map1_CMS_RegionalOverview.mxd

Data Source: USGS 1:24,000 National Hydrography Dataset, USGS NLCD 2006.

Map 1.

Camas

Hamer

Spencer

E A S T E R N 

C E N T E N N I A L

M O U N T A I N S

C E N T E N N I A L 

M O U N T A I N S

B E A V E R H E A D M O U N T A I N S

Eighteenmile

Kilgore

M O N T A N A M O N T A N A

I D A H O I D A H O

Camas Creek

Camas Creek

Beaver Creek

Mud Lake

0 5 10

Miles

0 5 10

Kilometers

Water

Barren Land

Forest

Developed

Grass and Shrub

Agriculture

Wetlands

Camas NWR

States

Approved Boundary

Streams

HUC 17040214

______________________________________________________________________________________________ Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Appendix M. Draft Hunt Plan

______________________________________________________________________________________________

M-5
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

M-6 Appendix M. Draft Hunt Plan 

This page intentionally left blank. 

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix M. Draft Hunt Plan M-7 

II. CONFORMANCE WITH STATUTORY AUTHORITIES 

Statutory authority for Service management and associated habitat/wildlife management 

planning on units of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) is derived from the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (Administration Act) as amended (16 

U.S.C. 668dd-668ee). The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (NWRSIA, 

Public Law 105-57), which amended the Administration Act, provided a mission for the NWRS 

and clear standards for its management, use, planning, and growth. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act recognizes that wildlife-dependent 

recreation uses including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation, when determined to be compatible with the mission 

of the NWRS and the purposes of the refuge, are legitimate and appropriate public uses of 

national wildlife refuges. Sections 5(c) and (d) of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act states that “compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses are the priority 

general public uses of the NWRS and shall receive priority consideration in planning and 

management; and when the Secretary [of the Interior] determines that a proposed wildlifedependent recreational use is a compatible use within a refuge, that activity should be facilitated, 

subject to such restrictions or regulations as may be necessary, reasonable, and appropriate.” It 

further states that “In providing priority public uses, refuges shall emphasize opportunities for 

families and their children to safely engage in traditional outdoor activities, such as fishing and 

hunting.” The term “compatible use” is defined as “a wildlife-dependent recreational use or any 

other use of a refuge that, in the sound professional judgment of the Director, will not materially 

interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the mission of System or the purposes of the 

refuge.” The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Final Compatibility Policy pursuant to the Act 

delegates the responsibility of determining compatibility to the Refuge Manager with 

concurrence by the Regional Chief. See Appendix B in the Camas NWR Draft CCP for the 

Refuge Manager’s Compatibility Determination in regards to hunting on Camas NWR. 

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

M-8 Appendix M. Draft Hunt Plan 

III. ASSESSMENT 

A. Goal of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

The goals established for the National Wildlife Refuge System are delineated below: 

 To preserve, restore, and enhance in their natural ecosystems (when practicable) all 

animal and plant species that are endangered or threatened with becoming endangered; 

 To perpetuate the migratory bird resource; 

 To preserve a natural diversity and abundance of fauna and flora on Refuge lands; and 

 To provide an understanding and appreciation of fish and wildlife ecology and man’s role 

in his environment, and to provide Refuge visitors with high quality, safe, wholesome, 

and enjoyable recreational experiences oriented toward wildlife to the extent these 

activities are compatible with the purpose for which the Refuge was established. 

B. Refuge Purposes 

The purposes for which Camas National Wildlife Refuge was established are as follows: 

 “... as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife.” (Executive Order 

7720, dated Oct. 8, 1937) 

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

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

 “... conservation, management, and ... restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and 

their habitats ... for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans... ” 16 U.S.C. 

§ 668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act) 

C. Goal and objectives of Camas NWR 

The goal established for Camas NWR as identified in the CCP, specific to wildlife dependent 

recreation and public use is: 

 Increase public understanding and appreciation of wildlife, and build support for Camas 

NWR by providing opportunities for all visitors to participate in safe, quality wildlifedependent recreation and education programs, while minimizing wildlife disturbance or 

other impacts to wildlife populations or habitats. 

The objectives established for Camas NWR as identified in the Draft CCP and Environmental 

Assessment specific to hunting are: 

 Annually provide a quality, safe migratory bird hunt program on 2,510 acres of the 

Refuge. 

 Annually provide a quality, safe hunt for upland game birds on 2,510 acres of the Refuge. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix M. Draft Hunt Plan M-9 

 Annually provide opportunities for a limited number of hunters to access 4,112 acres of 

the Refuge for elk hunting. 

Implementation of the Hunt Plan will not detract from or interfere with the Camas NWR 

purposes or National Wildlife Refuge System mission. The Hunt Plan is consistent with 

the purpose of the Refuge and sound wildlife management principles. The hunt will 

contain user and administrative stipulations specified in the Compatibility Determinations 

for Migratory Game Bird Hunting, Upland Game Bird Hunting, and Elk Hunting. The elk 

hunting program will be periodically evaluated to determine if the Refuge is affording the 

public a quality and safe hunting opportunity. Thorough evaluations may occur at any 

time, and will be initiated if new information becomes available or if requested by the 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game, but will occur at least every 15 years. If there have 

been no unacceptable impacts to other wildlife populations or other public use programs, 

or non-mitigatable impacts to public safety, the elk hunting program will be continued. 

The evaluation will address any reductions, modifications, or other changes to the hunt 

program to rectify impacts, improve safety, and promote quality. 

IV. BIOLOGICAL SOUNDNESS 

Hunting is proposed for: 

1. Migratory Game Birds – duck, goose, merganser, American coot, Wilson’s snipe 

2. Upland Game Birds – ring-necked pheasant, gray partridge, sage-grouse 

3. Big Game – elk 

Waterfowl and upland game birds can currently be hunted on the Refuge. In this plan we propose 

to open the Refuge to elk hunting. Hunting programs need to be based on healthy, sustainable 

populations of the species hunted. Currently all target species are considered to be at harvestable 

populations levels throughout the Refuge. The following is an assessment of the hunting resource 

on the Refuge. 

Status of Migratory Game Birds on the Refuge 

Hunting is currently allowed for migratory game birds, including waterfowl (ducks and geese), 

as well as for American coot and Wilson’s snipe, within established federal and state regulations. 

Waterfowl and American coot are present throughout the wetlands and lakes of the Refuge. 

Wilson’s snipe are present in the wet meadow and wetland areas. 

Peak fall numbers for ducks range from 2,000 to 4,000 birds depending on the habitat conditions. 

Canada goose fall peaks range between 600 to 1,800 and American coot from 600 to 1,500. This 

data is based on a limited two year survey between 2005 and 2006. 

Currently approximately 2,510 acres of wetland/meadow areas (approximately 24% of the 

Refuge) are open to migratory game bird hunting. A major management issue is that due to the 

falling water table in the region, the Refuge cannot provide enough water to fill all the wetlands 

that exist within the Refuge boundaries. This is the case with the areas open to waterfowl 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

M-10 Appendix M. Draft Hunt Plan 

hunting. Water may be present during the spring, but it typically cannot be maintained 

throughout the summer and into the hunting season, therefore limiting waterfowl hunting 

opportunities. When this plan is reviewed, after the changes in water management described in 

the CCP are initiated, we will re-evaluate the size and location of the waterfowl hunt area. 

Depending upon wetland response to changes in water management we may consider shifting the 

waterfowl hunt units into areas with more reliable fall water, or enlarging the waterfowl hunt 

area to increase hunter opportunities. At that time consideration will also be given to 

maintaining closed areas for migratory birds to rest and gain necessary energy to continue 

migration. Areas open to migratory bird hunting would not exceed 40% of the total Refuge 

acres. This is in accordance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (16 

U.S.C. 668dd(d)(1)(A); the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712); and the Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 715a-715r), which state that “If a refuge, or portion thereof, 

has been designated, acquired, reserved, or set apart as an inviolate sanctuary, we may only 

allow hunting of migratory game birds on no more than 40 percent of that refuge, or portion, at 

any one time unless we find that taking of any such species in more than 40 percent of such area 

would be beneficial to the species.” 

The continued limited harvest of migratory game birds on the Refuge will have negligible 

impacts on flyway population levels, as described in the Compatibility Determination for 

hunting. This hunt is within State Regulations which are set within the parameters of season 

length and bag limit by the Pacific Flyway Council. Due to lack of reliable fall water, use of 

Camas NWR for migratory game bird hunting is very limited, estimated at 4 to 8 hunter visits 

per season. 

 

Status of Upland Game Birds on the Refuge 

Greater sage-grouse are a resident native game species. Loss of quality sagebrush habitat in the 

surrounding area has led to a decline in the number of sage-grouse on the Refuge. Greater sagegrouse populations are cyclic and the Table Butte population, which uses Camas NWR as part of 

its range, demonstrates this with total male count on lek varying from 77 to 343 over a fifteen 

year time frame (IDFG 2011). Sage-grouse are a Candidate Species for listing under the 

Endangered Species Act, but are still hunted throughout most of their range. Although literature 

is mixed on whether hunting is compensatory (the proportion of the population that was 

harvested would die from some other factor if hunting did not occur) or additive (number 

harvested adds to those that die from other causes), hunting of sage-grouse is permitted in Idaho. 

Presently IDFG sets the hunting season every August after examining population data and 

comparing it to the thresholds set in the statewide conservation plan. The thresholds are as 

follows: Closed: if less than 100 males observed; or lek counts are less than 50% of 1996-2000 

average counts; or lek data not gathered for population. Restrictive: if lek counts are between 

50% and 150% of the 1996-2000 average. Standard: if lek counts exceed 150% of the 1996-

2000 average. The State goal for hunting greater sage grouse is to: “Manage hunting to support 

the increase of sage-grouse populations in Idaho and for the sustainability of smaller, more 

isolated populations that may be more vulnerable to overharvest” (Idaho Sage-Grouse Advisory 

Committee 2006). IDFG also receives input from the nine local sage-grouse working groups that 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix M. Draft Hunt Plan M-11 

have been established in Idaho. Each local working group considers a variety of factors to make 

a written suggestion to the IDFG on how each season should be handled. 

In recent years the Refuge has supported few sage-grouse within its boundary during the hunting 

season. For this reason Camas NWR may only receive one or two visits annually by hunters 

pursuing sage-grouse. The continued harvest of sage-grouse, following IDFG regulations, on 

the Refuge is not expected to reduce population levels below acceptable levels due to the very 

limited harvest of grouse that may occur within the Refuge boundary. 

Ring-necked pheasants were introduced to the area and are not native to North America, though 

large populations have been sustained in many prairie and western states for over 100 years. In 

the 1970s and 80s pheasant numbers were high, but have declined in the last several decades due 

to changes in agricultural practices in the area. Prior to the 1990s most of the agriculture was 

flood irrigation with ditches, relatively small fields, and consequently, abundant edge habitat 

(e.g. brush and tall vegetation) used by pheasants for thermal and security cover. With the shift 

to center-pivot irrigation, fields are larger with fewer ditches. Consequently, there is very little 

edge habitat. This has had a negative effect on the pheasant population and it has not recovered 

to the high population of the earlier years. Despite the fact that the population is low compared 

to historic highs, it is stable, in the cyclic pattern of this species. The Refuge does not actively 

manage for this species nor will it enhance habitat for the sole benefit of pheasants. Changes in 

wetland management called for in the CCP may bring a change in vegetation cover that may 

improve winter survival of pheasants and thus might potentially improve hunting opportunities. 

In recent years an estimated 6 to 12 hunters come to hunt the Refuge for pheasant and their low 

harvest is expected to have an insignificant impact on the Refuge population. If good nesting 

and brood rearing conditions exist for several consecutive years, pheasant numbers could return 

to a level that would make the Refuge more attractive to pheasant hunters. 

Gray partridge are another introduced, non-native species. Populations of gray partridge have 

met the same fate as the pheasants, due to changes in local agricultural practices. As with most 

upland game bird species, gray partridge populations are cyclic and in recent years, populations 

on the Refuge have been low but stable. In general most partridge hunting on the Refuge is 

opportunistic, in that hunters come to the Refuge to hunt pheasant or waterfowl and may harvest 

partridge if the opportunity presents itself. Since hunter harvest is expected to be extremely low, 

removal of gray partridge from the Refuge is not expected to affect the overall population in the 

area. Upswings in populations are likely to occur due to changes to habitat management 

proposed in the CCP, and could provide some quality hunting opportunities in the future. 

Status of Elk on the Refuge 

Elk are found throughout Refuge habitats, and during certain times of the year they are the most 

numerous big game species on Camas NWR. The first elk sighting documented on the Refuge 

was that of two elk in 1937, seen near Rays Lake in September. Throughout the years elk were 

sporadically documented on the Refuge ranging from 1 to 4 animals every 5 to 10 years. The 

first year that elk were documented in a group larger than 4 animals was 1994, when 27 animals 

were reported. Elk population surveys were first initiated in 2008 with visual surveys attempted 

several times a month (Table 1). 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

M-12 Appendix M. Draft Hunt Plan 

Table 1. Camas elk survey 2008-2009 

Date Sept 08

1 count

Oct 08

5 counts

Nov 08

1 count

Dec 08

1 count

Jan 09

3 counts

Feb 09

3 counts

Mar 09

1 count

Apr 09

3 counts

May 09

2 counts

High Count 64 99 105 130 117 105 78 46 50 

Low Count 64 92 105 130 38 90 78 0 6 

Using the above survey data and other recent general observations, it is estimated that the Refuge 

supports from 0 to 150 elk seasonally. The numbers are typically highest in the fall and winter 

and lower in the spring and summer. The bulk of the elk spend their time south of the auto tour 

route, primarily around Rays Lake. It is possible that a small number of these elk are a resident 

to the area in around the Refuge, while other elk using the area solely as a wintering ground. It 

has been speculated that elk migrate into the Refuge from two directions: animals coming south 

across Highway 22 out of the Beaverhead Mountain Range, and animals coming from the Island 

Park/Yellowstone area and crossing Interstate 15. 

IDFG has an Elk Management Plan (1999) which functions as the action plan for elk 

management in the state. Across the State of Idaho, approximately 70% of the herds are at or 

above population objectives (IDFG 2012). Management objectives, historical perspectives, and 

issues associated with habitat, biology, inter-specific competition, predation, and winter feeding 

are addressed in this plan for 28 of the 29 elk management zones. In Idaho, elk management 

zones are further subdivided into smaller units called game management units (GMUs). The 

Snake River Zone (Game Management Units 53, 63, 63A, 68A), encompasses Camas NWR. 

The boundary of Camas NWR lies within the GMU 63 which is a smaller division of the Snake 

River Zone (see Map 2 below). GMU 63 is 2,008 square miles and is characterized as 30% 

agriculture, 60% rangelands, 0.25% urban, 8% rock and 1.75% riparian (IDFG 2012b). 

A revised plan for 2014-2024 was released for public comment in August 2013, and is due to be 

finalized in the fall of 2013. IDFG’s proposed 10-year management direction for the Snake River 

Zone is as follows: “Management direction in the Snake River Zone involves decreasing the 

current elk population. The zone is dominated by agricultural lands and small communities that 

are not compatible with large numbers of resident elk. It is proposed to continue managing for 

minimal elk numbers by using long, liberal hunting seasons and prompt responses to crop and 

property damage on agricultural lands” (IDFG 2013, Draft Idaho Elk Management Plan 2014-

2024). There is no numeric population objective for the Snake River Zone. 

Historically GMU 63 had depredation hunts but since these hunts were occurring every year, 

IDFG decided to initiate an annual controlled hunt (Meints 2012). For the past 15 years this 

unit has had one of Idaho’s longest, most liberal (5 months long) elk hunting seasons. In 2011, 

GMU 63 was managed for a general elk season allowing only A-tag hunts. The general A-tag 

hunt for GMU 63 in 2011 was an any-weapon, any-elk hunt from August 1 through August 31, 

and an any-weapon, antlerless only hunt from September 1 through December 31. An annual 

controlled hunt for elk is also offered and has been available for the last three years in a 

subsection of GMU 63, called GMU 63x. This unit is defined as that portion of GMU 63 north 

of State Highway 33. The hunt runs from Jan 1st to Feb 15th each year and in 2012 offered 25 

antlerless elk permits. 
Cama

Appendix M

Map 2. I

Source: ID

as National Wi

M. Draft Hunt 

Idaho Game

DFG, 2013 Big 

ildlife Refuge D

Plan 

e Managem

Game Seasons

Draft Compreh

 

ent Units (G

s and Rules. 

hensive Conser

 

GMUs). Cam

rvation Plan an

 

as NWR lie

d Environmen

 

es within GM

tal Assessmen

 

MU 63. 

nt

 M-13 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

M-14 Appendix M. Draft Hunt Plan 

This page intentionally left blank. 

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix M. Draft Hunt Plan M-15 

IDFG estimated a population of 380 elk in the Snake River Zone in 2011 (IDFG 2011).

Total harvest on GMU 63 has ranged from 70 to 257 annually, and the harvest increased 

annually until 2010 (Meints 2012). The harvest dropped markedly in 2011. However, one factor 

influencing the 2011 harvest may have been mild weather conditions; therefore harvest data does not 

necessarily indicate lower population levels. Harvest data for GMU 63 is tabulated below in 

Table 2 below. 

Table 2. GMU 63 Elk Harvest Data (Source: IDFG 2012b) 

Year Hunters Total Harvest Bulls Cows 

2011 684 70 27 43 

2010 755 257 58 199 

2009 603 138 39 99 

2008 598 155 37 118 

2007 496 112 47 65 

2006 327 107 22 85 

(Source: IDFG 2012b, General Hunt Harvest Statistics, Elk (Wapiti) 2006-2011. 

URL: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/ifwis/huntplanner/stats.aspx#elk) 

Disease issues (e.g. brucellosis) are also a concern with the elk in Unit 63. Brucellosis has been 

found in the Island Park herd and IDFG is working with cattle ranchers to address this threat. At 

this time IDFG has no documentation of brucellosis on the west side of Interstate 15. However 

IDFG continues to opportunistically test elk from GMU 63, often requesting samples from 

hunters (Meints 2012). Chronic wasting disease has not been documented in Idaho but 

approximately 400 animals are tested every year in Southeastern Idaho (Meints 2012). 

V. DESCRIPTON OF HUNTING PROGRAM 

The migratory game bird and upland game bird hunting programs on Camas NWR would 

provide a quality, safe hunting opportunity that minimizes negative impacts to habitat and 

nontarget species. 

The proposed elk hunt on Camas NWR would offer a quality, safe recreational hunting 

opportunity that: (1) minimizes impacts to habitats and nontarget species; 2) maintains and 

improves riparian habitat condition on the Refuge; and 3) assists the IDFG in reducing the elk 

population locally, in order to alleviate depredation concerns on surrounding private lands. The 

proposed hunt would offer the public, particularly mobility impaired and youth hunters, a 

reasonable opportunity to harvest an elk. Hunting may improve riparian habitat condition by 

direct reduction of herd size and by dispersing elk from riparian habitat. The elk hunt may 

alleviate localized depredation issues by reducing the elk population, and/or dispersing elk onto 

adjacent private or public (BLM) lands where they may be hunted. 

The Refuge has coordinated closely with the State in developing an elk hunt that falls within 

frameworks for the general elk hunt within GMU 63. The Preferred Alternative would assist 

IDFG in supporting population objectives for the Snake River Management Zone (which 

includes GMUs 53, 63, 63A, 68A), specifically as it applies to alleviating depredation to 

agricultural croplands. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

M-16 Appendix M. Draft Hunt Plan 

A. Areas of the Refuge that support populations of the target species 

Migratory Game Birds 

Migratory game birds (primarily waterfowl, but also American coot and Wilson’s snipe) occur in 

wetlands, meadows, and agricultural fields. Most fall waterfowl habitat (permanent open water 

for loafing, deep and shallow emergent wetland, hayed fields, and croplands) on the Refuge is 

located outside the two (north and south) migratory and upland bird hunting units. 

Approximately 40 acres of hayfields (15% of Refuge total) are located within the north hunt unit. 

80 acres of croplands (50% of Refuge total) are located in the south hunt unit; however these are 

alfalfa fields; all grain fields are located in the non-hunting area. Due to the drop in the water 

table all of the wetlands in the hunt units are dry by late summer, unless water is pumped from 

wells. When water is flowing through the main diversion or Independent Ditch (which lie within 

the area open to waterfowl hunting), limited numbers of waterfowl may use these ditches. During 

the hunting season some waterfowl, primarily Canada geese, use Rays Lake and Sandhole Lake 

(both lake lie outside the migratory and upland game bird hunting units) as loafing and roosting 

areas. 

Upland Game Birds 

Upland game birds occur sporadically in sagebrush-steppe habitat, agricultural fields, and 

meadows. 

Elk 

Elk currently range throughout the Refuge. Elk tend to concentrate in the riparian willow habitat 

on the south end of the Refuge, primarily around Rays Lake. 

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix M. Draft Hunt Plan M-17 

B. Areas open to hunting and areas proposed for opening to hunting. 

Migratory Game Birds and Upland Game Birds 

Two hunting units totaling 2,510 acres currently exist on the Refuge: the north unit 

(approximately 980 acres) and the south unit (approximately 1,530 acres) (see Map 3). Both of 

these units are open to migratory and upland game bird hunting. With the completion of the 

CCP and new water management actions we may re-evaluate the size and location of the 

waterfowl and upland game bird hunting units, but the area open to migratory game bird 

(waterfowl) hunting would never exceed 40% (4,231 acres) of the Refuge. 

Elk 

The proposed elk hunt would occur on 4,112 acres of Service owned lands, generally described 

as the southern and western portion of the Refuge, south of the core wetlands and auto tour route, 

and west of Camas Creek. This area includes sagebrush-steppe, willow riparian, and wetland 

habitat. This area includes, and overlaps with, the current south hunt unit (1,530 acres). Under 

the Preferred Alternative of the Draft CCP, the elk hunt area would remain open to public uses 

other than hunting, during the hunting season. These uses are: hiking, bicycling, cross country 

skiing and snowshoeing on service roads; vehicle access on hunter access roads; and use of 

portable photography blinds within 100 feet of roads. Off road hiking, other than by hunters 

engaged in pursuit of game, would be prohibited on the Refuge. Map 3 illustrates the two 

migratory and upland game bird hunting units, and the proposed area to be opened to elk hunting 

under the Preferred Alternative. 

In January, after the close of each season, Refuge personnel will evaluate the safety and quality 

aspects of this hunt and make adjustments to area closures if necessary to ensure a safe, quality 

hunt that minimizes impacts to sensitive non-target wildlife resources. The Refuge would 

implement, as needed, spatial or temporal closures to protect sensitive non-target wildlife 

resources such as sandhill crane roosts, or crane and trumpeter swan pairs with broods, upon 

detection of these resources. Of specific concern is Rays Lake, which is used as a pre-migration 

staging area by greater sandhill cranes. There is also a low possibility of sandhill crane pairs with 

colts, and trumpeter swans with broods, being present in the hunt area early in the hunt season. 

Upon detection, sensitive resources would be mapped and closure areas established to buffer the 

resource. A buffer area of 400 meters around sandhill crane roosts and wetlands with swan 

broods is considered necessary and appropriate should these resources be present during the 

hunting season. 

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

M-18 Appendix M. Draft Hunt Plan 

This page intentionally left blank. 

 
Map 3.

______________________________________________________________________________________________ Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Appendix M. Draft Hunt Plan

______________________________________________________________________________________________

M-19
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

M-20 Appendix M. Draft Hunt Plan 

This page intentionally left blank. 

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix M. Draft Hunt Plan M-21 

C. Species to be taken and hunting periods 

Migratory Game Bird Hunt: 

Hunting will be allowed for ducks, geese, mergansers, American coots, and Wilson’s snipe. 

Migratory game bird seasons will run in accordance with State of Idaho regulations. Waterfowl 

hunters will be allowed to enter the Refuge one hour before legal hunting hours and remain for 

one hour after sunset. Non-toxic shot must be used for all migratory bird hunting. Specific 

regulations are described below in Section VII, Part 5. Hunting dates are listed in Table 3. 

Upland Game Bird Hunt: 

Hunting will be allowed for ring-necked pheasants, gray partridge, and sage-grouse. Upland 

game bird seasons will run in accordance with State of Idaho regulations and seasons, with the 

exception that non-toxic shot must be used for hunting upland birds within the Refuge boundary. 

Upland game hunters will be allowed to enter the Refuge one hour before legal hunting hours 

and remain for one hour after sunset. Specific regulations are described below in Section VII, 

Part 6. Hunting dates are listed in Table 3. 

Elk Hunt: 

The season dates for hunting elk on Camas NWR would coincide with the rules for the GMU 63 

hunt as specified in the Idaho Fish and Game publication Big Game Hunting Rules. Specific 

regulations are described below in Section VII, Parts 2, 3, and 4, and hunting dates are listed in 

Table 3.

The Refuge will issue up to 20 access permits for elk hunting annually. The number of access 

permits issued may vary from year to year and will be determined by the staff of Camas NWR in 

coordination with Idaho Fish and Game before the beginning of each season. Priority for the 

access permits will be given to youth hunters (age 12-17 at the time of application), and disabled 

hunters that have a mobility impairment. Mobility impaired hunters must meet at least one of the 

following Refuge specific criteria: 1) Have a mobility impairment resulting from permanent 

medical conditions which makes it physically impossible for them to hunt without the assistance 

of an attendant; 2) Need a medically prescribed assistive device for mobility; or 3) be at least 65 

percent disabled. However, hunters that do not meet the criteria of youth or mobility impaired 

are encouraged to apply for access permits. If the number of youth and mobility impaired hunter 

applicants is less than the total number of access permits being issued in a given season, other 

applications will be included in the drawing for access permits. 

The access permit would allow hunting on Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday and Tuesday. 

Hunters would be assigned a two-week hunt period that would be determined by random draw. 

Therefore, ten (10) two week hunt periods would be established throughout the season, with two 

hunters allowed on the Refuge per period. Applicants for access permits may request specific 

hunt periods. After the first season, preference will be given to those whom have not previously 

been issued access permits. Hunters may hunt as many days as necessary to harvest an animal 

within the two-week timeframe allowed under the access permit; therefore a permit would allow 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

M-22 Appendix M. Draft Hunt Plan 

hunters to access the Refuge for up to ten days. Hunters who draw an access permit for August 

will have a chance to harvest a bull elk as per State regulations. After the drawing for access 

permits has occurred, hunters must attend a pre-hunt orientation with Refuge staff or trained 

volunteers, where they will be briefed on the hunt area boundary, safety, and other special 

regulations or issues that may affect the hunt (for example, avoiding disturbance to staging 

migratory bird flocks). 

Youth hunters (aged 12-17) must be accompanied by an adult. Mobility impaired hunters may be 

accompanied by a non-hunting companion designated in writing in accordance with State 

regulations. They may be assisted by Refuge staff or a trained Refuge volunteer upon request. 

Weapons used will be shoulder fired, center fire with cartridges larger than 20 caliber. No 

permanent structures may be constructed on Service lands. Mobility impaired hunters may use 

temporary hunting blinds. They will be taken to and from hunting blinds by Refuge personnel or 

a trained Refuge volunteer using a Refuge-owned utility terrain vehicle (UTV). Hunting from 

vehicles is prohibited. 

Successful hunters will be allowed to move a harvested elk to the nearest established, designated 

Refuge road by foot. Vehicles may then be used to remove the elk from the Refuge. Refuge 

personnel or a trained volunteer will aid in the removal of elk harvested by mobility impaired 

hunters and will determine the best route for removal of game. If a wounded animal leaves the 

area open to elk hunting on the Refuge, the hunter (or assistant of a mobility impaired hunter) 

will be escorted by Refuge staff or trained volunteer to retrieve the game. If a wounded animal 

leaves the Refuge boundary, permission must by granted from private landowners to attempt 

retrieval, in accordance with Idaho laws. 

Table 3. Idaho hunting seasons for huntable species at Camas NWR 

(Based on State of Idaho Seasons) 

Species Season 

Open 

Season Close Permits 

Issued 

Refuge Unit 

Any Elk August 1 August 31 Up to 4 Big Game 

Antlerless Elk September 1 December 31 Up to 16 Big Game 

Waterfowl October 13 January 25 NA N & S Units 

Dark and Light 

Geese 

October 13 January 25 NA N & S Units

Wilson’s Snipe October 13 January 25 NA N & S Units

American Coot October 13 January 25 NA N & S Units

Ring-necked 

Pheasant 

October 19 November 30 NA N & S Units

Gray Partridge Sept 21 January 31 NA N & S Units

Sage-grouse Set by IDFG in August based on lek 

counts (in 2012 the season in 

Jefferson County was September 

15-September 21.)

NA N & S Units 

Sources: IDFG 2012. Elk General Zone Seasons. URL: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/rules/bgElk.pdf 

IDFG 2012c. 2012 Waterfowl Seasons and Rules. URL: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/rules/waterfowlRules.pdf 

IDFG 2012d. Upland Game, Furbearer, Turkey Seasons and Rules, 2012-13 and 2013-14. URL: 

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/rules/uplandRules.pdf 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix M. Draft Hunt Plan M-23 

D. Justification for Refuge access permit for elk hunting 

Our objective is a safe, quality elk hunt that minimizes negative impacts to nontarget species and 

Refuge resources; and minimizes conflicts with other user groups. Because of the Refuge’s 

small size (10, 587 acres), and high level of use of certain areas of the Refuge by 

nonconsumptive users (for example the 6.3 mile auto tour loop), we propose to allow elk hunting 

within a limited footprint of 4,112 acres that lies outside the area where the majority of public 

use currently occurs. 

To ensure a quality hunt, the number of access permits will be limited to no more than 20 

annually. The number of access permits available each year will be determined by the Refuge 

Manager in consultation with the IDFG. Actual hunting dates on the Refuge will be coordinated 

between each hunter and Refuge staff so that no more than two hunters are present on the Refuge 

at any given time. By limiting hunter density, the permit system will promote quality, safety and 

un-crowded conditions; allow hunters to select a hunting location based on signs of elk activity; 

and distribute hunting pressure over a longer period of time. 

E. Procedures for consultation and coordination with IDFG for proposed elk hunt

Mobility impaired and youth hunters with valid State elk licenses for GMU 63 must submit their 

application for a Refuge elk hunting access permit by the second Friday in July of each year. 

The draw for permits will occur on the following Monday. The Refuge Manager will coordinate 

through an annual meeting in May with the regional IDFG staff to discuss elk population levels 

in the general area and decide on the number of access permits that will be allowed for the 

Refuge based upon the effectiveness of the previous season’s elk hunt. Refuge personnel will 

meet in January to evaluate the safety and quality aspects of this hunt and make adjustments to 

number of hunters and area closures if necessary to ensure a safe, quality hunt that minimizes 

impacts to sensitive non-target wildlife resources. 

 

F. Methods of control and enforcement 

A Refuge Law Enforcement Officer (shared position for the SE Idaho Complex) will assist in the 

hunter orientation and focus his patrol efforts on Camas during the migratory game bird, upland 

game bird, and elk hunting seasons. We anticipate that Service LE patrols would be needed 

three days per week throughout the five month elk hunting season, for a total of 60 patrol days. 

IDFG has pledged the assistance of their Conservation Officers if needed. Hunting areas will be 

posted with signs designating hunting units. A tear sheet/map of hunt units and regulations for 

all hunts will be developed. All elk hunters will receive a pre-hunt orientation from Refuge staff 

or trained volunteers. These measures would reduce the need for the presence of an LEO on site. 

G. Funding and staffing requirements for the hunt 

The proposed new elk hunt would not require any additional infrastructure. Hunter access to the 

hunting unit can be accommodated by existing parking areas and roads. Additional signage at 

access points to the elk hunt area, and updated information and outreach materials would be 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

M-24 Appendix M. Draft Hunt Plan 

needed. Administration of the hunt plan would add some workload to existing staff. Some 

demands (e.g. training volunteers; updating signs and brochures) would occur in the first years of 

the elk hunt. Annual expenses include monitoring the impacts of the hunt program to Refuge 

wildlife and habitat, addressing public inquiries, interagency coordination, providing hunter 

orientation, assisting mobility impaired hunters, assisting with retrieval of game outside the hunt 

area, and additional law enforcement patrols. Approximately 50% of initial expenses and 80% 

of recurring expenses could be covered with existing funding, and Refuge and SE Idaho 

Complex staff. We would seek funding to cover additional expenses (estimated at approximately 

$3000 initially, and $5000 annually). The approximate expenses for implementation and 

management of the elk hunt program are in Table 4. Approximate expenses for management of 

migratory and upland game bird hunts are in Table 5. 

Table 4. Estimated Initial and Annual Cost for Elk Hunt Program 

Position Activity or Product Initial Reccurring 

Refuge Manager* Coordination with IDFG and program 

management; hunt plan updates 

 $1800* 

Wildlife 

Biologist*

Resource monitoring (e.g. , elk surveys, 

willow habitat) (Refuge Biologist) 

 $3500* 

SE ID Complex 

Park Ranger 

(LEO)* 

Service LE patrols (3 per week for 5 

months) 

 $13,372* 

Refuge 

Manager,* Park 

Ranger 

Provide hunter orientation; assist 

mobility impaired hunters, assist with 

game retrieval outside hunt area 

(Refuge staff) 

 $3500 

Regional Office 

staff* 

Develop updated information/outreach 

materials (print and Web) 

$1000* 

Regional Office 

staff,* Eng. 

Equip. Operator* 

Sign access points to elk hunt area $1800* 

SE ID Complex 

Visitor Services 

Manager; Park 

Ranger 

Recruit/train volunteers to assist 

mobility impaired hunters 

$ 3000 $1,600 

Total $5,800 $23,772

*Covered under existing funding/salaries 

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix M. Draft Hunt Plan M-25 

Table 5. Annual Hunt Program Cost for Migratory and Upland Game Birds. 

Position Activity or Product Reccurring 

Refuge Manager Program Management $600* 

Wildlife Biologist Resource Monitoring (e.g.sage 

grouse surveys) 

$2,500* 

SE ID Complex Park 

Ranger (LEO)* 

Service LE patrols $3,343* 

Regional Office 

staff,* Eng. Equip. 

Operator* 

Modify existing outreach/regulatory 

materials; signage upkeep. 

$ 500* 

Total $6,943 

*Covered under existing funding/salaries 

VI. MEASURES TAKEN TO AVOID CONFLICTS WITH OTHER 

MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES 

A. Biological Conflicts 

1. Threatened and Endangered Species 

 The following Federally listed or Federal candidate species have been documented on the 

Refuge or the surrounding landscape – Ute ladies’-tresses (Federal Threatened), yellowbilled cuckoo (Federal Candidate), greater sage-grouse (Federal Candidate), Canada lynx 

(Federal Threatened). 

a. Ute ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) 

 

 Camas NWR is within historic range for Ute ladies’-tresses. The plant grows along 

riparian edges, gravel bars, old oxbows, high flow channels and moist to wet meadows 

along perennial streams. It typically occurs in stable wetland and seep areas associated 

with old landscape features within historical floodplains of major rivers (USFWS 2010). 

There is no known occurrence on the Refuge. Therefore hunting will have no impact on 

Ute ladies’-tresses. 

b. Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) 

 

 Camas NWR is within the historic summer and breeding range for yellow-billed cuckoos. 

The birds prefer open woodlands with clearings and dense scrubby vegetation, often 

along water (Cornell University 2011). Yellow-billed cuckoos have been documented on 

Camas NWR in the spring and summer as a transient. It is listed as rare (known to be 

present but not every year) for the Refuge. All hunting occurs in the fall and winter 

months, therefore there should be little interaction between hunters and yellow-billed 

cuckoos. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

M-26 Appendix M. Draft Hunt Plan 

c. Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) 

 Camas NWR is within the historic range for sage-grouse and offers about 4,000 acres of 

preferred shrub-steppe habitat. Sage-grouse have been observed during all seasons and 

are known to nest on the Refuge. Although sage-grouse are present during the hunting 

seasons, with the limited number of access permits given for the elk hunt and the low 

numbers of upland game bird hunters, the negative impacts on greater sage-grouse from 

either elk hunting or upland game bird hunting should be minimal. 

d. Canada Lynx (Lynx Canadensis)

Camas NWR is within the historic range for Canada lynx. The lynx is a secretive forest 

dwelling cat historically found throughout much of Canada, the forests of northern tier 

states, and subalpine forest of the central and southern Rocky Mountains. There have 

been known occupancies in Jefferson County, but the Refuge does not contain suitable 

habitat for lynx (Laye 2012). Therefore hunting will have no impact on Canada lynx. 

2. Other Wildlife and Habitats 

 

While hunting will occur within or adjacent to wetlands, meadows, sage-steppe, and 

riparian habitats, these habitats and their associated species are not likely to be impacted 

significantly because the hunting programs would involve a small number of widely 

dispersed hunters over a broad period of time; occur outside of the breeding season for 

most wildlife species; and occur outside of the growth and reproductive season of most 

herbaceous plants. Additionally, the Refuge will issue specific area closure maps as 

necessary to buffer critical resources from hunting impacts. 

While direct impacts to habitats within the hunt areas due to hunter activity are expected 

to be minor, redistribution of elk due to hunting could cause indirect impacts to habitat. 

Current migratory and upland game bird hunting programs have minimal impacts to elk 

since most elk concentrate outside the current hunt areas for these species. With the 

inclusion of Rays Lake within the proposed elk hunting area, elk distribution in the 

Refuge is likely to change. Within the hunt area, impacts to riparian shrublands and 

wetlands in the Rays Lake area are likely to be beneficial through reduced browsing 

pressure on willows. Conversely, increased density of elk in the no-shooting areas may 

occur, increasing the intensity of browsing these areas and potentially reducing habitat 

condition in these areas. Vegetation monitoring will be conducted to determine if this elk 

hunt causes changes to elk use of the Refuge and/or changes in riparian habitat condition. 

a. Elk: During hunting seasons, disturbance increase energetic costs for elk (Johnson et al. 

2005). Elk within GMU 63 may incur higher energy costs due to hunter disturbance from 

the proposed elk hunt on Camas NWR, as the Refuge would cease to serve as a sanctuary 

from human disturbance and hunting pressure. This could indirectly lead to reduced 

body condition and reproductive fitness, as elk may deplete stored fat reserves to avoid 

hunters and forage on more remote and less secure BLM rangelands. It is unlikely, 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix M. Draft Hunt Plan M-27 

however, that the proposed hunt would increase winter mortality since this is not a 

limiting factor of the GMU 63 elk herd (Schmidt 2013). 

In the proposed hunt up to 20 Refuge permits would be issued to harvest elk annually, 

and we assume that not all hunts will be successful. Therefore the Camas hunt would 

represent only a fraction of the total harvest in the GMU 63 and would not result in 

significant cumulative impacts to elk populations regionally or statewide. Nevertheless, 

an increase in harvest in GMU 63 would help reduce the local population to levels that 

are socially acceptable, by reducing direct financial losses to farmers. As reproductive 

cows are removed from the local population during the antlerless hunt, it is assumed that 

the Camas NWR elk hunt may assist IDFG in achieving its desired population reduction 

in the Snake River Zone. Direct reductions in population through hunting, combined with 

lower reproductive rates, could contribute to a decline in long-term herd productivity in 

GMU 63. However this would be in line with the IDFG’s elk management objective for 

the Snake River Zone, including GMU 63, which is to reduce the current population 

through long, liberal hunting seasons and response to crop and property damage. 

b. White-tailed deer: White-tailed deer use some of the same habitats used by elk. Numbers 

of white-tailed deer are usually low during the beginning of the elk season. Most the 

white-tailed deer that utilize Camas NWR do so during the rut (late October and 

November) and throughout the winter months. Also, white-tailed deer spend the majority 

of their time in the central part of the Refuge, outside of the proposed elk hunting area. 

The elk spend the bulk of the time in the southern half of the Refuge and appear to mix 

only when feeding after dark, after shooting hours. While disturbance to white-tailed deer 

may occur, these occurrences would short lived and relatively rare given the low numbers 

of hunters that would be present on the Refuge at any given time and the low total 

number of permits that would be issued during the hunt season (20 maximum). 

c. Waterfowl, waterbirds, and shorebirds: The migratory and upland game bird hunting 

programs would be expected to have minimal negative effects to waterfowl, waterbirds, 

and shorebirds, due to the lack of water currently present in the north and south hunt 

units, low numbers of waterfowl, and consequently, low numbers of hunters. Level of 

harvest is low and represents a negligible proportion of total harvest, regionally. The 

proposed elk hunting program has a greater probability of disturbing waterfowl, 

waterbirds, and shorebirds, since Rays Lake lies within the proposed elk hunting area. 

The amount and degree of disturbance to waterfowl, waterbirds, and shorebirds would 

depend on the condition of the Refuge wetlands. If late season water is present in Rays 

Lake, waterfowl, mostly Canada geese, will use the lake for roosting during the elk 

season. Limited numbers of shorebirds may use Ray’s Lake during fall migration. 

Periodic shooting, or hunters walking in close proximity to these wetlands, could 

temporarily disperse birds. This disturbance would be limited in scope by the low number 

of elk hunters at any given time (maximum of 2 daily). The rate of gunfire discharge is 

expected to be infrequent and random based upon opportunistic individual shots at elk in 

range. The frequency of gunfire may be only a few shots per day at most, causing 

temporary and short term disturbance to waterfowl, waterbirds, and shorebirds. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

M-28 Appendix M. Draft Hunt Plan 

d. Trumpeter Swan: Disturbance of trumpeter swans with broods is a potential concern 

during the early portion of the elk hunting season. The young of trumpeter swans 

typically hatch in late June, however nesting, laying, hatching, and fledging dates of 

trumpeter swans vary widely even within areas, due to annual weather patterns. For 

example, Gale et al. (1987) give first hatching dates at Red Rock Lakes NWR, MT 

between May 30 and July 1 in different years, while within-year hatching dates varying 

by 1- 3, and exceptionally 6, weeks. In typical years swans would be fledged by midOctober. In years with late nesting, swans with cygnets may be present as late as 

November 1, although this is unlikely given the lack of late season water in the areas of 

the Refuge used by swans for brood rearing. While the proposed elk hunt could disturb 

trumpeter swans and their broods during the early portion of the hunting season, 

disturbance of swans by elk hunters is unlikely because the hunt area lies outside the area 

where swan nesting and brood rearing have historically occurred. In a particularly wet 

year, pedestrian access from elk hunters could disturb some foraging swans in the Rays 

Lake area. However, there is seldom enough water in Rays Lake in an average or dry 

year to be attractive to swans, and swans collectively spend little time in the 4,112 acre 

elk hunting area. There is no documentation of swans nesting or rearing broods in the 

proposed elk hunt area. As a precaution hunters will be required to maintain at least a 

400 meter (1/4 mile) distance from wetlands where swans are rearing their broods. 

Hunters will be advised of the location of swans and setback distances and/or area 

closures during their pre-hunt orientation. As noted above, the framework of the Refuge 

hunt allows the Refuge to selectively close areas, as detected, to protect sensitive wildlife 

resources within the hunt area with spatial buffers.

e. Sandhill Crane: Greater sandhill cranes use both Rays Lake (within the proposed elk 

hunting area) and to a lesser degree, Sandhole Lake (which lies outside the proposed elk 

hunting area) as roost sites during pre-migration staging. In typical years, crane numbers 

at Camas NWR peak in mid-September and the majority of cranes have left the Refuge 

by early October. However, during open winters (no snow), low numbers of cranes have 

been observed on the Refuge into December. The existing migratory and upland game 

bird hunting programs have minimal impacts to sandhill cranes due to the low numbers of 

hunters pursuing these species, and the fact that Rays Lake and Sandhole Lake lie outside 

the hunt units. The proposed elk hunt has the potential to disturb sandhill cranes since 

Rays Lake is included within the proposed elk hunting area. Sandhill cranes have shown 

susceptibility to even low levels of disturbance at roost sites (Littlefield and Ivey 2000, 

Bettinger and Milner 2000). Because of the sensitivity of roosting cranes to disturbance, 

hunters will be advised of the location of sandhill cranes and setback distances during 

their pre-hunt orientation. Resource buffers will be utilized to sufficiently safeguard 

sandhill crane roost sites from abandonment. Hunters must maintain a distance of at least 

400 meters (1/4 mile) of roosting cranes. The Refuge may also selectively close areas, as 

detected, to protect sensitive wildlife resources within the hunt area with spatial buffers. 

As closures are implemented, the Refuge will supply hunt permit holders with maps of 

closures to hunting activity. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix M. Draft Hunt Plan M-29 

f. Migratory landbirds. The elk hunt would occur within the majority of the Refuge’s 

palustrine scrub-shrub willow habitat (primarily the Rays Lake area) which provides 

important habitat for migratory landbirds. While elk hunting would have negative 

(disturbance) effects upon fall migratory landbirds within these habitats, the overall 

impacts are expected to be minor. Periodic shooting, or hunters walking through willow 

riparian habitat, could temporarily disperse birds. This disturbance would be limited in 

scope by the low number of elk hunters at any given time (maximum of 2 daily). The rate 

of gunfire discharge is expected to be infrequent and random based upon opportunistic 

individual shots at elk in range. The frequency of gunfire may be only a few shots per day 

at most, causing temporary and short term disturbance to landbirds. Conversely, the elk 

hunt potentially could cause minor to moderate positive effects to willow riparian and 

scrub-shrub habitat through reduced browsing pressure, resulting in benefits to migratory 

landbirds. 

B. Public Use Conflicts 

Camas NWR is open year-round and provides a variety of recreational opportunities for an 

estimated six to seven thousand annual visitors. The Refuge currently offers a mix of wildlifedependent uses (wildlife observation, photography, hunting, interpretation and education), and 

non-wildlife dependent uses (hiking, biking, snowshoeing, and cross-country skiing). Under the 

Preferred Alternative of the Draft CCP, the above activities would be restricted to roads and 

designated trails, to minimize disturbance to wildlife. Refuge visitation is highest during the 

spring waterfowl migration, in particular when good numbers of snow geese are roosting on the 

Refuge wetlands. The next peak in visitation occurs during the white-tailed deer rut, when the 

Refuge is a popular destination for wildlife photographers. 

The Refuge offers a 6.3 mile self-guided auto-tour route that is currently open year round to 

vehicles, foot and bicycle traffic and would continue to be open to these uses in the Preferred 

Alternative. Most public use currently occurs on the auto-tour route, and on the 0.5 mile birding 

trail and observation deck, all of which are within the no-hunting area. There are also 6.5 miles 

of additional roads that are open seasonally (not maintained during the winter) to vehicle traffic 

for wildlife observation, photography and to provide access to hunting. Under the Preferred 

Alternative, hiking, biking, jogging, cross-country skiing or snowshoeing would be allowed on 

approximately 27 miles of un-maintained and un-groomed Refuge service roads, year round; off 

road hiking would be prohibited. The portions of these roads within the elk hunt area would 

remain open to non-hunting uses during the hunt season. In addition, photographers would be 

allowed to place portable blinds within 100 feet of roads, with a maximum of 5 blinds being 

allowed on the Refuge at a given time. All access points to hunt areas will be clearly signed to 

advise visitors that they are entering the area at their own risk. This signage would likely 

discourage some non-hunters from entering hunt areas. Hunt areas and seasons would be clearly 

indicated in Refuge brochures and maps. Existing State regulations that prohibit discharge of 

firearms from or across public right of ways would minimize risk of trajectories into the nonhunting portion of the Refuge. 

 

By limiting the number of elk hunters on the Refuge to two (2) at any given time (with a 

maximum of 20 big game hunting permits issued annually) and requiring a pre-hunt orientation 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

M-30 Appendix M. Draft Hunt Plan 

where safety will be stressed, conflicts with non-consumptive users should be minimal and only 

result in a minor negative effect to recreational wildlife observation and photography 

opportunities. 

While the general assumption is that elk hunting may have a minor negative effect on Refuge 

wildlife observation and photography opportunities, it is also possible that wildlife observation 

and photography opportunities could be increased as elk move away from the hunted zones 

toward no hunting zones. However, it is also possible that hunters could move elk off the Refuge 

entirely, decreasing opportunities to observe and photograph elk during the hunt season. Due to 

uncertainties in the response of wildlife to Refuge hunting disturbance, the Refuge has developed 

strategies to work with Idaho Department of Fish and Game to re-assess the effectiveness of the 

elk hunt every five years and re-evaluate the hunt related to both consumptive and nonconsumptive recreational objectives for the Refuge. 

Refuge personnel will meet in January to evaluate the safety and quality aspects of this hunt and 

make adjustments to number of hunters and area closures if necessary to ensure a safe, quality 

hunt that minimizes impacts to sensitive non-target wildlife resources. If Refuge closures do 

occur, the general public will be notified of closure dates via press releases to local media, and 

the Refuge Web site. 

The Refuge Manager will meet with the regional IDFG staff annually in May to review the 

effectiveness of the previous season’s hunt and discuss the number of permits, special closures 

for critical resources, and other related resource concerns for the upcoming season. 

C. Refuge Management Conflicts 

Existing staff (management, biological, law enforcement, maintenance) and funding would cover 

approximately 50% of the initial cost of initiating the proposed elk hunting program, and 80% of 

estimated annual costs. Additional funding would be sought to implement the elk hunting 

program. Existing staff and funding are sufficient to administer the migratory game bird and 

upland game bird hunting programs. Gradual implementation of the elk hunting program, with 

no more than 10 permits being issued during the first year of the program, will allow the Refuge 

to evaluate quality and safety aspects of the program and make adjustments as needed. A pre 

hunt evaluation will be conducted annually with IDFG, in May, to ensure the hunts are meeting 

the objectives of both agencies with minimal disruption to Refuge operations. 

 

The proposed elk hunt has the potential to conflict with other management activities that 

routinely occur during the hunting season. Safety briefings for staff working on projects such as 

research, inventory and monitoring of habitats, fencing, road maintenance, signage, etc. in hunt 

areas will keep staff aware of hunting times and locations. During the work week hunters will be 

warned of Refuge activities and Refuge staff will wear hunter orange while they are engaged in 

work activities that may be occurring in the hunt units. These measures should ensure that there 

will be no administrative conflicts. 

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix M. Draft Hunt Plan M-31 

VII. CONDUCT OF THE HUNTING PROGRAM 

A brochure with a map and explanation of Refuge specific regulations will be developed for the 

Camas NWR elk, migratory game bird, and upland game bird hunts. National Wildlife Refuge 

hunting program regulations can be found in 50 CFR 32.3. Special Regulations specific to 

Camas NWR will be posted in the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR). Hunters should be 

familiar with CFR and regulations as listed in the Big Game, Upland Bird and Waterfowl 

Regulations pamphlets distributed by IDFG. 

1. Regulations Common to All Species

 Each hunter will secure and possess the required State and Federal licenses, tags, 

stamps or permits. 

 Each hunter will comply with the applicable provisions of all State and Federal laws 

as well as hunting regulations of the State of Idaho. 

 Hunters may enter the Refuge 1 hour before shooting time and must leave within 1 

hour after shooting time ceases. 

 Only those firearms identified for that specific hunting season are allowed. 

 It is unlawful to shoot from or across the traveled portion, shoulders, or 

embankments of any road maintained by any government entity. 

 Motorized vehicles will be limited to designated parking areas, with access walk-in 

from parking lots, except as may be permitted on open roads to remove harvested 

elk. 

 Camping, overnight use, and fires are prohibited. 

 No ATVs are allowed on the Refuge. 

 No overnight parking is allowed. 

 No trapping is allowed. 

 It is unlawful to use or possess alcoholic beverages or drugs while on Camas 

National Wildlife Refuge. 

 Individuals may possess, carry and transport, concealed, loaded and operable 

firearms on the Refuge in accordance with all provisions of state and local law. 

 Persons may only use (discharge) firearms in accordance with Refuge regulations 

(50 CFR 27.42 and specific Refuge regulations in 50 CFR 32). 

 Target shooting and sighting-in weapons are not permitted. 

 Unless declared as open, all other forms of hunting are prohibited. 

 Unless a valid permit (migratory or upland game bird hunting license or big game 

access permit) allows legal entry on to the Refuge for that season, retrieval of the 

animal is prohibited. 

2. Big Game Regulations Specific to Camas NWR

 State of Idaho hunting license, GMU 63 elk tag, and Refuge access permit are 

required. 

 Elk hunting access permit information and applications for the drawing will be 

available at Camas NWR office. Elk hunting access permit applications must be 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

M-32 Appendix M. Draft Hunt Plan 

submitted by the second Friday in July of each year. The draw for permits will 

occur on the following Monday. Selections will be made by a random draw. 

 Refuge access permits for elk hunting allow access on Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays, 

Mondays and Tuesdays within an assigned two-week period, until an elk is 

harvested. Upon receiving the permit, the permittee must contact the Refuge to set 

up a hunt date at least seven days before the hunter’s arrival. Hunt dates will be 

reserved on a first come, first serve basis with priority going to disabled, mobility 

impaired hunters and youth hunters (hunters aged 12-17). Permits may not be 

transferred. 

 Before each hunt, Refuge staff or a trained Refuge volunteer will provide an 

orientation describing the hunt procedures, description of hunt area, an overview of 

special Refuge regulations, safety reminders, description of non-target wildlife and 

a check of licenses/permits. 

 Elk hunters may enter Refuge 1 hour before shooting time begins and must leave 

within 1 hour after shooting time ceases, unless retrieving an elk. 

 Refuge elk hunting hours will coincide with the state hunting hours for big game, 

currently 1⁄2 hour before sunrise to 1⁄2 hour after sunset. 

 No dogs are allowed for elk hunting activities. 

 Shooting into any Closed Area is prohibited. 

 Hunters (or designated assistants of mobility impaired hunters) must be 

accompanied by Refuge staff or trained volunteer when entering areas of the 

Refuge that are closed to hunting in order to retrieve elk. 

 Elk hunters may only use a shoulder fired weapon, using only center fire cartridges 

larger than 20 caliber. 

 All persons participating in the hunt must wear a minimum of 500 square inches of 

fluorescent orange material above the waistline, which is visible, from all 

directions. A vest and hat normally meet this requirement, a hat alone does not. 

3. Youth Elk Hunt Regulations Specific to Camas NWR 

 Participants in the youth hunt must be accompanied by, and in the immediate 

presence of a non-hunting adult. 

 Applicants must be at least 12 years of age but not 18 years of age at the time of the 

hunt application. 

4. Mobility Impaired Elk Hunt Regulations Specific to Camas NWR 

 State of Idaho disabled combination hunting license, GMU 63 elk tag, and Refuge 

mobility impaired access permit is required. 

 To receive a Refuge mobility impaired access permit, hunters meet at least one of 

the following Refuge-specific criteria: 1) Mobility impairment resulting from 

permanent medical conditions which makes it physically impossible for them to 

hunt without the assistance of an attendant; 2) Need a medically prescribed assistive 

device for mobility; or 3) be at least 65 percent disabled. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix M. Draft Hunt Plan M-33 

 Mobility impaired hunters may be accompanied by a non-hunting assistant, designated 

in writing in accordance with State regulations. 

 Mobility impaired hunters may use portable blinds. Hunting from vehicles is 

prohibited. 

5. Migratory Game Bird Regulations Specific to Camas NWR

 Waterfowl hunting is allowed only in the two designated migratory and upland game 

bird hunt units. 

 Only ducks, geese, coots, mergansers, and snipe may be hunted. Dates, hunting hours 

and bag limits for these species correspond to State regulations. 

 Migratory Game Bird hunters may enter the Refuge 1 hour before shooting time 

and leave within 1 hour after shooting time ceases. 

 Temporary blinds of natural vegetation may be constructed, but such blinds shall be 

available for general use on a first-come, first-served basis. 

 Construction of permanent blinds is prohibited. 

 All personal property including decoys must be removed from the Refuge at the end 

of each day. 

 Nontoxic shot is required for all waterfowl and upland game bird hunting and must 

be 0.20 inches in diameter (T size) or smaller. 

 Use of retriever and flushing dogs is allowed. Dogs must be under control of their 

owners at all times. 

 Hunters must pick up spent shotgun shells and all other trash. 

6. Upland Game Bird Regulations Specific to Camas NWR

 Upland game bird hunting is allowed only on the two designated waterfowl and 

upland game hunt units. 

 Only ring-necked pheasant, gray partridge, and sage-grouse may be hunted. Dates, 

hunting hours and bag limits for these species correspond to State regulations. 

 Upland Game Bird hunters may enter Refuge 1 hour before shooting time and leave 

within 1 hour after shooting time. 

 Firearms used in upland game bird hunting are restricted to the use of shotguns 

only. 

 Use of retriever and flushing dogs is allowed. Dogs must be under control of their 

owners at all times. 

 Hunters must pick up spent shotgun shells and all other trash. 

 Nontoxic shot is required for all waterfowl and upland game bird hunting and must 

be 0.20 inches in diameter (T size) or smaller. 

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

M-34 Appendix M. Draft Hunt Plan 

Literature Cited 

Bettinger, K. A. and R. Milner. 2000. Sandhill Crane (Grus canadensis). In E. M. Larsen and N. 

Nordstrom, editors. Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Species, Volume 

IV: Birds [Online]. URL: http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00026/wdfw00026.pdf 

Accessed December 18, 2012 

Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2011. Yellow-billed Cuckoo. In All About Birds, URL: 

http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Yellow-billed_Cuckoo/id/ac. 

Gale, R. S., E. O. Garton, and I. J. Ball. 1987. The history, ecology, and management of the 

Rocky Mountain Population of Trumpeter Swans. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Montana 

Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, Missoula, MT. 

IDFG (Idaho Department of Fish and Game) 1999. Elk Management Plan. Status and Objectives 

of Idaho’s Elk Resources. 100 pp. URL: 

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/planElk.pdf. Accessed December 5, 2012. 

IDFG (Idaho Department of Fish and Game) 2010. Mandatory Hunter Harvest Reports. 

IDFG (Idaho Department of Fish and Game) 2011. Deer and Elk Status Overview, January 27, 

2011. 13 pp. URL: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/hunt/2010deerElkStatus.pdf Accessed 

January 11, 2013. 

IDFG (Idaho Department of Fish and Game) 2011. Statewide Sage-Grouse Lek Database. 

Unpublished data. 

IDFG (Idaho Department of Fish and Game) 2012. Elk General Zone Seasons. URL: 

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/rules/bgElk.pdf 

IDFG (Idaho Department of Fish and Game) 2012b. General Hunt Harvest Statistics, Elk 

(Wapiti) 2006-2011. URL: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/ifwis/huntplanner/stats.aspx#elk 

Accessed Dec 5, 2012. 

IDFG (Idaho Department of Fish and Game) 2012c. 2012 Waterfowl Seasons and Rules. URL: 

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/rules/waterfowlRules.pdf

IDFG (Idaho Department of Fish and Game) 2012d. Upland Game, Furbearer, Turkey Seasons 

and Rules, 2012-13 and 2013-14. URL: 

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/rules/uplandRules.pdf

IDFG (Idaho Department of Fish and Game). 2013. Idaho Elk Management Plan 2014-2024 

(Draft). Available at: https://fishandgame.idaho.gov/content/webform/2013-draft-elk-plan

Accessed Sept. 20, 2013. 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Appendix M. Draft Hunt Plan M-35 

Idaho Sage-grouse Advisory Committee. 2006. Conservation Plan for the Greater Sage-grouse in 

Idaho. 358 pp. URL: fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/sageGrouse/conservPlan.pdf 

Johnson, B. K., A. A. Ager, J. H. Noyes, and N. Cimon. 2005. Elk and Mule Deer Responses to 

Variation in Hunting Pressure. Pages 127-138 in Wisdom, M. J., technical editor, The Starkey 

Project: a synthesis of long-term studies of elk and mule deer. Reprinted from the 2004 

Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, Alliance 

Communications Group, Lawrence, Kansas, USA. 

Laye, D. 2012. Personal communication between Doug Laye, USFWS Ecological Services, and 

Pam Johnson, Camas NWR Refuge Biologist, regarding Canada lynx. January 2012. 

Littlefield, C. D., and G. L. Ivey. 2000. Conservation Assessment for Greater Sandhill Cranes 

wintering on the Cosumnes River Floodplain and Delta regions of California. The Nature 

Conservancy, Galt, CA. 

Meints, Daryl. 2012. Personal communication between D. Meints, Regional Wildlife Manger, 

Idaho Department of fish and Game, and Pam Johnson, Camas NWR Refuge Biologist, 

regarding elk depredation and hunting regulations in GMU 63, and elk disease data. January 24, 

2012. 

Schmidt, Steve. 2013. Personal communication between Steve Schmidt, Regional Supervisor, 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game, and Brian Wehausen, Camas NWR Refuge Manager, 

regarding elk objectives for GMU 63, and winter mortality, September 2013. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2010. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mountain-Prairie Website. 

URL: http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/plants/uteladiestress/ 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services. 2012. Personal communication between 

Doug Laye/USFWS Ecological Services, and Pam Johnson, Camas NWR Refuge Biologist, 

regarding Canada lynx. January 2012. 

 
Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

M-36 Appendix M. Draft Hunt Plan 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Ruddy duck male. Farrel Downs/USFWS 
U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Camas National Wildlife Refuge

2150 East 2350 North

Hamer, ID 83425-5030

Phone: 208/662 5423

Fax: 208/662 5525

http://www.fws.gov

National Wildlife Refuge System Information

1 800/344 WILD

January 2014

The mission of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

is working with others to conserve, protect, and

enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats

for the continuing benefit of the American people.

Front Cover Photo:

Snow geese in an open field on the refuge. USFWS

Inset photos:

Yellow-headed blackbird. ©Donn Larsen

Cotton-tailed rabbit. ©Donn Larsen

Bull elk in sage. ©Donn Larsen