Deer Flat

National Wildlife Refuge

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
A Vision of Conservation

Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide 

long-term guidance for management decisions 

and set forth goals, objectives, and strategies 

needed to accomplish refuge purposes and identify 

the Service’s best estimate of future needs. These 

plans detail program planning levels that are 

sometimes substantially above current budget 

allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service 

strategic planning and program prioritization 

purposes. The plans do not constitute a commitment 

for staffing increases, operational and maintenance 

increases, or funding for future land acquisition.

Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge is enjoyed, appreciated, protected, and treasured as a

place where wildlife comes first. The public actively supports and advocates for the Refuge

purpose and programs. Residents of the Treasure Valley value the oases of wildlife habitat in their 

backyard, both at Lake Lowell and the Snake River Islands. The clean, clear waters and lush riparian 

landscapes of Lake Lowell and the Snake River Islands provide nesting, resting, and feeding habitat 

for spectacular concentrations of migratory birds and other wildlife. Reductions in disturbance to 

important nesting, breeding, resting and feeding areas allow wildlife in all Refuge habitats to 

successfully produce and raise their young thereby sustaining wildlife populations for future 

generations of Americans to enjoy. The removal of invasive and/or undesirable plant and animal 

species on the islands of the Snake River and at Lake Lowell provides habitats where songbirds, 

nesting waterfowl and colonial waterbirds, and native mammals thrive. Habitat goals are met 

without impacts to the irrigation resources of Lake Lowell. 

The Refuge is a place where all visitors are able to enjoy and connect with nature and realize the 

value of wildlife and habitats. Staff and volunteers share their love of the Refuge and its resources 

with visitors. In addition to being a destination for hunting, fishing, wildlife photography and 

observation, children and adults learn in the outdoor “living classroom” that the Refuge provides. 

The Refuge also provides for other recreational uses that allow people to enjoy the outdoors without 

impacting wildlife and habitats. All public use opportunities maintain the integrity of the wildlife 

resources, instill in visitors the importance of protected open spaces, and provide memorable outdoor 

experiences for present and future generations of Americans.

The refuge headquarters

 and visitor center rests on the 

shore of Lake Lowell.

Addison Mohler/USFWS
Deer Flat 

National Wildlife Refuge 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Prepared by: 

Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge 

13751 Upper Embankment Road 

Nampa, Idaho 83686 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Pacific Northwest Planning Team 

911 NE 11th Avenue 

Portland, Oregon 97232 

November 2015 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Approval Submission 

for the 

Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

In accordance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act as amended, 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has completed this Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

(CCP) for Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge). The purpose of this CCP is to 

specify management direction for the Refuge for the next 15 years. The goals, objectives, 

and strategies for improving Refuge conditions-including the types of habitat and 

recreation we will provide, partnership opportunities, and management actions to be 

implemented to achieve desired future conditions, are described in the CCP. 

This CCP is submitted for the Regional Director's approval. 

Submitted by: -.L':I....L'~ey:_-"=~-'><l~~· ~c"..:.o/'\_'.._ __ 

Project Le oer, Southeast Idaho 

National ildlife Refuge Complex 

)c•' 

Concur:-~~_£""'"""-""--'-_£-='+---'"""'=--------

Concur: -+-~....-i~~~g~~a,-l~~~hi~.e~f~~ac-,,,.fl-'""'hc_R_e____eg-io_n __ _ 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

Approved: 1'1,.~"- '71M~ 

--R-~e-g~-io_n_al_D'---,\--"e~c~to~r-, P-a-c-ifi-1_c_R~e-g-io_n __ _ 

Portland, Oregon 

' 1 Date 

..,;, /,~ 

' Date 

'1(;/('5 

' ifate 
 Record of Decision 

 ROD-i 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service 

Record of Decision for the 

Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge 

Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

(Canyon, Payette, Owyhee, and Washington Counties, Idaho, and Malheur County, Oregon) 

Introduction 

Through this Record of Decision (ROD), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) selects the 

management direction for the Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan (CCP). This ROD includes brief summaries of our public involvement process, 

the alternatives we analyzed in our Final CCP and environmental impact statement (EIS), and our 

rationale for selecting Alternative 2 for management of the Refuge. The CCP will provide guidance 

for managing and conserving the Refuge's natural resources and public uses during the next 15 years. 

Planning and Public Involvement Process 

We initiated our planning and public involvement process in July 2010 by announcing our intention 

to complete a CCP/EIS in the Federal Register, issuing a press release, and distributing Planning 

Update 1. We invited the public to participate in our planning process and open house meetings, and 

we requested public comments. Our open house meetings and work sessions engaged elected 

officials, representatives from agencies and groups, and other stakeholders in identifying issues and 

developing solutions. Refuge staff members attended meetings held by stakeholders and engaged in 

numerous activities throughout the process to reach out to our diverse stakeholders, listen to their 

comments, and answer their questions. 

In Planning Update 2 (December 2010), we summarized the significant planning issues we identified 

in public comments. In Planning Update 3 (May 2011), we described our four preliminary 

management alternatives that addressed public comments, resource needs, and refuge management 

regulations and policy. Several issues were identified; however, potential changes to boating on the 

Refuge’s Lake Lowell Unit and protecting the lake’s wildlife and habitats were recognized as 

primary concerns. We requested comments on the alternatives, including our preferred alternative. 

Additional meetings were held with key stakeholders including Idaho Fish and Game. 

In Planning Update 4 (October 2011), we summarized the comments we received on the preliminary 

alternatives and the subsequent revisions to the alternatives. We presented our refined alternatives in 

the Draft CCP/EIS, distributed to the public in March 2013. We requested public comments in a 

news release, Federal Register notice, and in Planning Update 5. The comments we received on the 

Draft CCP/EIS were addressed in the Final CCP/EIS, which was available to the public on February 

20, 2015, as announced in our press release, Federal Register notice, and Planning Update 6. 

Range of Alternatives Considered 

We analyzed four alternatives for managing the Refuge in the Final CCP/EIS, including a no-action 

alternative (Alternative 1) as required under the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations (40 

Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500-1508). Summaries of the alternatives follow: 
 Record of Decision 

ROD-ii 

Under Alternative 1, we would continue current wildlife, habitat, and public use management. 

Invasive species control and limited restoration would be our habitat management focus. The Lake 

Lowell no-wake zone and seasonal closure October 1—April 14 for migratory birds would continue. 

Compatible priority and other public uses would continue. No additional trail or lake access would 

occur. Limited invasive species control and restoration would occur on the Snake River Islands Unit, 

which would open June 1—January 31 for free-roam activities and shoreline fishing. 

Alternative 2, our preferred alternative, would protect Lake Lowell’s shoreline feeding and nesting 

sites for wintering and migratory birds by continuing the seasonal closure of the lake October 1—

April 14; establishing a new 200-yard no-wake zone on the south side and in the Narrows; and 

expanding the southeast no-wake zone to Gotts Point. Wildlife observation, fishing, and wildlife 

interpretation would be emphasized, and Gotts Point would open to vehicles, with increased law 

enforcement. We would increase wildlife inventory and monitoring, invasive species control, and 

restoration on the Snake River Islands Unit, and we would adjust closures to protect nesting and 

wading birds. Hunting for deer, upland game birds, and waterfowl would continue to be allowed. 

Most islands would be open for shoreline fishing and free-roam activities June 15—January 31; 

heron- and gull-nesting islands would be open July 1—January 31. 

Alternative 3 would protect wildlife resources in Lake Lowell by closing emergent plant beds located 

in Murphy’s Neck and near Parking Lots 3-8; closing the lake seasonally for wintering/migrating 

birds; closing areas within 500 yards of grebe-nesting sites; implementing a seasonal, 100-yard 

shoreline closure from Murphy’s Neck to the Narrows; a 200-yard closure and no-wake zone in the 

southwest area; and a no-wake zone in the East Pool. Boating season would end on September 20. 

Upland game bird and controlled waterfowl hunting would be allowed, horseback riding and dog 

walking would not be allowed, and bicycling would be limited. Wildlife inventory and monitoring, 

invasive species control, and restoration would increase on the Snake River Islands Unit; closure 

dates would change to protect birds. Wildlife observation and hunting would occur on the islands. 

The islands would be open June 15—January 31 for fishing and free-roam activities. Heron-and gullnesting islands would be open July 1—January 31. 

Alternative 4 is described below as the Environmentally Preferable Alternative. 

Environmentally Preferable Alternative 

The definition of “environmentally preferable alternative” (40 CFR 1505.2(b)) is different from that 

of the preferred alternative. The environmentally preferred alternative generally causes the least 

damage to the environment and best protects natural and cultural resources. For this CCP/EIS, 

Alternative 4 is the environmentally preferable alternative; it would protect wildlife and their habitats 

through restrictions not found in Alternatives 1—3 and other actions. 

Alternative 4 would reduce disturbance to feeding and resting wildlife by allowing boating at nowake speeds only on all areas of Lake Lowell open to the public from April 15 to September 30. 

All emergent beds and the southeast end of the lake would be closed to public use to protect nesting 

and feeding waterbirds, waterfowl, and shorebirds. The entire lake would continue to be closed for 

wintering and migrating birds from October 1 to April 14 each year. The shoreline from Murphy’s 

Neck to the Narrows would be protected by a 100-yard year-round closure in order to provide 

undisturbed loafing and feeding habitat for shorebirds and waterfowl. Trees would be removed in this 

area to enhance mudflats for migrating shorebirds. An increase in habitat enhancement through 

invasive species removal and vegetation manipulation would occur. Increases in wildlife and habitat 
Record of Decision 

 ROD-iii

research and assessments would be focused on providing a strong scientific base for future 

management decisions. 

The Refuge would not be open to nonwildlife-dependent activities, including horseback riding, pet 

walking, bicycling, and ice skating. To minimize conflicts with and improve the quality of the 

waterfowl hunt program, upland game hunting under Alternative 4 would no longer be allowed at the 

Lake Lowell Unit. Waterfowl hunting would be allowed on the south side of the Lake Lowell Unit 

from Parking Lots 1 to 8 with a daily limit of 25 shotgun shells per hunter. 

Refuge staff would emphasize management of the Snake River Islands Unit under Alternative 4 by 

increasing wildlife inventory and monitoring efforts, invasive species control (following the 

Integrated Pest Management Plan), and restoration efforts. The most biologically intact islands would 

receive higher management priority. Island closure dates would be adjusted to better protect nesting 

geese, wading birds, gulls, and terns. An array of management techniques may be used including 

prescribed fire and aerial application of herbicide and/or seed. 

Existing public uses would continue on the Snake River Islands Unit, including wildlife observation, 

and hunting for deer, upland game species, and waterfowl on 1,219 acres. The Snake River Islands 

Unit would be open for off-trail, free-roam activities and shoreline fishing would also be available, 

from June 15 to January 31 each year on all islands under Alternative 4. 

Selected Alternative 

Based on our comprehensive review and analysis of Deer Flat Refuge’s resources and issues, the 

Service has selected Alternative 2, our preferred alternative, for implementation. We will implement 

Alternative 2, as it is described in the Final CCP/EIS, with two modifications identified on the 

following page. In reaching our decision to implement Alternative 2, we identified and analyzed its 

impacts to the Refuge environment in Chapter 6 of the Draft and Final CCPs/EISs. Issues, concerns, 

and opportunities presented throughout the planning process by organizations, agencies, individuals, 

and all other stakeholders, were also considered. 

Factors Considered in Making the Decision 

The range of alternatives we analyzed in the Final CCP/EIS identified four scenarios for managing 

Deer Flat Refuge as a unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Measures for protecting wildlife 

and habitat varied from area closures to more expansive wildlife protection. Alternative 2 was 

selected because it is the most effective alternative for addressing the key issues identified during the 

planning process, and it will guide management of the Refuge in a manner that: 

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

goals of the Refuge. 

 Emphasizes interpretive programs and connecting families to nature through increased 

interpretive programs and by providing access to new facilities, as well as a wide range of 

wildlife-dependent and nonwildlife-dependent recreational activities 

 Maintains and restores the ecological integrity of the Refuge’s habitats and populations. 

 Emphasizes management of the Snake River Islands Unit by increasing wildlife inventory 

and monitoring efforts and increasing invasive species control and restoration efforts. 

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

 Applies the scientific principles of sound wildlife management. 
 Record of Decision 

ROD-iv 

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

the National Wildlife Refuge System mission. 

Alternative 1, the status quo, is the least protective of wildlife. Alternative 1 was not selected, 

because it would not provide sufficient protection for the Refuge’s wildlife and habitat. Impacts to 

wildlife habitats and species would be significant if daytime disturbances by high-speed boating and 

other water sports continue. Significant negative effects to nesting and feeding habitats for 

waterbirds, waterfowl, and shorebirds would occur if visitation increases over time, public use 

remains unrestricted, and only minimal habitat management is conducted. 

As a wildlife refuge near a major urban center, Deer Flat Refuge has an opportunity to engage new 

and diverse audiences to build an urban conservation constituency which ultimately benefits the 

entire National Wildlife Refuge System and the broader conservation community by nurturing 

increased education and support among these audiences. Alternative 3 was not selected because the 

public use restrictions would unnecessarily limit the Refuge's ability to connect with a diverse group 

of refuge visitors and build an urban conservation constituency because the additional public uses 

that were found to be compatible under Alternative 2 would be restricted under Alternative 3. 

Similarly, Alternative 4, although it is environmentally preferred, was not selected because the public 

use restrictions would unnecessarily limit the Refuge's ability to connect with a diverse group of 

refuge visitors and build an urban conservation constituency because the additional public uses that 

were found to be compatible under Alternative 2 would be restricted under Alternative 4. 

Changes Made to the Selected Alternative 

Two changes were made to wildlife-dependent public uses between the Final CCP/EIS and this ROD 

for the final CCP, they follow. 

 We clarified that noncompetitive jogging, bicycling, and horseback riding groups of 10 or 

fewer people without a special use permit (SUP) are allowed, even if they are training, but 

competitive events are still not allowed and an SUP is still required for groups larger than 10. 

 We re-evaluated the restriction on boats using wake-generating devices (wake-boats) and 

have found that the use is compatible, with stipulations identified in the Compatibility 

Determination for Recreational Boating in Appendix B. 

The original prohibition on wake-boats stems from concerns that their ballast could introduce 

invasive species into Lake Lowell and that wake-boats create wakes greater than other allowed boats. 

However, the invasive species issue can be addressed by adding filtering systems, and some boats 

without wake-generating devices are capable of causing similar wakes. 

While we remain concerned about wake impacts to grebes, the greatest threats to the grebe colony at 

Lake Lowell are the withdrawal of water during incubation and nest disturbance which results in 

predation. We believe that the new no-wake zones will provide some additional protection and that 

public education and compliance with the new no-wake zones can provide the appropriate balance of 

boating opportunities and wildlife protection. We will continue to evaluate the effects of boating on 

wildlife to ensure that the permitted uses remain compatible and revise the Compatibility 

Determination, as necessary, to ensure that uses do not materially interfere or detract from the 

fulfillment of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge. 
Record of Decision 

Stipulations for all compatible uses are identified in Appendix B of the final CCP. 

Measures to Minimize Environmental Harm 

All practicable measures to avoid or minimize environmental harm that could result from 

implementing Alternative 2 were identified and incorporated into the Final CCP/EIS in Chapter 2 

(Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies), Chapter 6 (Environmental Consequences), and 

Appendix B (Compatibility Determinations). The stipulations identified in Appendix B ensure that 

public uses and other uses are compatible with the National Wildlife Refuge System mission and the 

Refuge's purposes. The stipulations and other mitigation measures identified in Alternative 2 and 

Appendix B are adopted by the Service in this ROD, and will be implemented by Refuge staff 

members, collaborators, volunteers, and other stakeholders. 

Findings Required by Other Laws and Executive Orders 

The proposed action complies with all federal laws and executive orders related to the National 

Wildlife Refuge System CCP planning process. A compliance statement has been completed, which 

explains how the selected alternative complies with the requirements of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Administration Act, as amended, (16 U.S. Code [U.S.C.] 688dd-688ee); the National 

Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531-

1544, 87 Stat. 884); the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470-470b, 470c-470n); the 

Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136); Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands; Executive 

Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review; Executive Order 13186, Protection of Migratory Birds; 

Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice; Executive Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments; and 517 DM I and 569 FWI, Integrated Pest 

Management. 

For Further Information 

Questions about this CCP/EIS may be directed to Annette de Knijf, Refuge Manager, Deer Flat 

National Wildlife Refuge, 13751 Upper Embankment Road, Nampa, Idaho, 83686-8046, phone 

number (208) 467-9278, and e-mail annette _ deknijf@fws.gov. View this ROD and related 

documents on our Website http://www.fws.gov/refuge/deer_flat/. 

Final Decision 

To further protect the wildlife and habitats of the Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge, and to enhance 

the public uses and visitor experiences provided by the Refuge, the Service selects Alternative 2 for 

implementation over the next 15 years. 

· rector, Pacific Region 

regon 

ROD-v 
 Record of Decision 

ROD-vi 

Supporting References 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge, 

Nampa, ID. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge, 

Nampa, ID. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Contents i 

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... ES-i 

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

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

1.2 History of the Landscape .............................................................................................................. 1-1

1.3 Biological Significance of the Refuge .......................................................................................... 1-2

1.4 Action ........................................................................................................................................... 1-7

1.5 Purpose and Need for Action ....................................................................................................... 1-8

1.6 Legal and Policy Guidance ........................................................................................................... 1-9

1.6.1 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ...................................................................................... 1-9

1.6.2 National Wildlife Refuge System ......................................................................................... 1-9

1.6.3 Other Laws and Mandates .................................................................................................. 1-11

1.7 Refuge Establishment and Purposes ........................................................................................... 1-11

1.7.1 Legal Significance of the Refuge Purpose .......................................................................... 1-11

1.7.2 History of Refuge Establishment and Purposes .................................................................. 1-12

1.7.3 Land Status and Ownership ................................................................................................ 1-13

1.7.4 Special Designation Lands.................................................................................................. 1-13

1.8 Relationship to Ecosystem Management Efforts ....................................................................... 1-14

1.8.1 Relationship to Previous Refuge Plans ............................................................................... 1-14

1.8.2 Relationship of Refuge CCP to Other Ecosystem Planning and Assessment Efforts......... 1-17

1.9 Planning and Issue Identification ............................................................................................... 1-19

1.9.1 Planning Process Overview ................................................................................................ 1-19

1.9.2 Major Issues Addressed in the CCP ................................................................................... 1-20

1.9.3 Issues outside the Scope of the CCP ................................................................................... 1-22

1.10 Refuge Goals .............................................................................................................................. 1-23

1.10.1 Wildlife and Habitat Goals ................................................................................................. 1-24

1.10.2 Public Use and Cultural Resources Goals .......................................................................... 1-24

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

2.1 Considerations in CCP Development ........................................................................................... 2-1

2.1.1 Definitions ............................................................................................................................ 2-1

2.2 Summary of Management Direction ............................................................................................ 2-2

2.2.1 Management Actions Specific to Each Refuge Unit ............................................................ 2-2

2.2.2 Management Actions Applicable to Both Refuge Units ....................................................... 2-7

2.3 Wildlife and Habitat Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ............................................................. 2-15

2.3.1 Goal 1 (Lake): Protect, maintain, and enhance mudflat, emergent-bed and open-water 

habitats associated with Lake Lowell to benefit migratory birds and other wildlife .......... 2-16 

 2.3.2 Goal 2 (Riparian): Protect, maintain, and enhance riparian forest, benefiting migratory 

birds and other riparian-dependent species..............................................................2-22 

2.3.3 Goal 3 (Wetlands): Protect, maintain, and enhance nonlake wetland habitats for the 

benefit of migratory birds and other wildlife. ..................................................................... 2-25

2.3.4 Goal 4 (Shrub-steppe): Protect, maintain, and enhance shrub-steppe habitats 

characteristic of the historic Columbia Basin ..................................................................... 2-27

2.3.5 Goal 5 (Agriculture): Protect, maintain, and enhance managed grasslands and 

agricultural crops to support migrating waterfowl as well as resident wildlife .................. 2-30

2.3.6 Goal 6 (Research): Gather sufficient scientific information to guide responsible 

adaptive management decisions for the Refuge’s trust resources ....................................... 2-33
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

ii Contents 

2.4 Public Use and Cultural Resource Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ........................................ 2-36

2.4.1 Goal 1 (General Visitor Services): Visitors of all ages will enjoy native wildlife and 

increase their understanding and appreciation of the importance of the Refuge as 

wildlife habitat .................................................................................................................... 2-36

2.4.2 Goal 2 (Hunting): Hunters of all ages and abilities will enjoy a family-friendly, safe, 

quality hunt that minimally impacts Refuge habitats and wildlife and increases their 

understanding and appreciation of the importance of Deer Flat NWR as wildlife 

habitat ................................................................................................................................. 2-44

2.4.3 Goal 3 (Fishing): Anglers will enjoy a family-friendly, quality, accessible fishing 

opportunity that minimally impacts Refuge habitats and wildlife and increases their 

understanding and appreciation of the importance of Deer Flat NWR as wildlife 

habitat ................................................................................................................................. 2-47

2.4.4 Goal 4 (Environmental Education): Students, teachers, and Refuge visitors will 

understand the biology and management of the Refuge and the mission of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System and will demonstrate stewardship of the Refuge and other 

wildlife habitats .................................................................................................................. 2-49

2.4.5 Goal 5 (Law Enforcement): Visitors will have limited impacts to wildlife, feel safe 

during their visit, and understand Refuge regulations and how they help protect 

wildlife and wildlife habitat as well as other visitors ......................................................... 2-51

2.4.6 Goal 6 (Volunteers and Partners): The Refuge will initiate and nurture relationships 

and develop cooperative opportunities to nurture stewardship of the Refuge and instill 

in others an understanding and appreciation of the importance of Deer Flat NWR as 

wildlife habitat .................................................................................................................... 2-52

2.4.7 Goal 7 (Cultural Resources): The Refuge will protect and manage its cultural 

resources and look for ways to gain new understanding of the history and cultural 

resources of both the Lake Lowell Unit and the Snake River Islands Unit ........................ 2-53

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

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

3.1.1 General Climate .................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1.2 Climate Change .................................................................................................................... 3-3

3.2 Hydrology ................................................................................................................................... 3-10

3.2.1 Lake Lowell ........................................................................................................................ 3-10

3.2.2 Snake River ......................................................................................................................... 3-17

3.3 Topography and Bathymetry ...................................................................................................... 3-18

3.3.1 Lake Lowell Unit ................................................................................................................ 3-19

3.3.2 Snake River Islands Unit .................................................................................................... 3-19

3.4 Geology and Geomorphology .................................................................................................... 3-19

3.4.1 Lake Lowell Unit ................................................................................................................ 3-19

3.4.2 Snake River Islands Unit .................................................................................................... 3-20

3.5 Soils ............................................................................................................................................ 3-21

3.5.1 Lake Lowell Unit ................................................................................................................ 3-21

3.5.2 Snake River Islands Unit .................................................................................................... 3-25

3.6 Fire ............................................................................................................................................. 3-26

3.7 Air Quality .................................................................................................................................. 3-26

3.8 Visual Quality ............................................................................................................................ 3-28

3.9 Water Quality ............................................................................................................................. 3-29

3.9.1 Lake Lowell ........................................................................................................................ 3-31

3.9.2 Snake River ......................................................................................................................... 3-33
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Contents iii 

3.10 Surrounding Land Uses .............................................................................................................. 3-35

3.10.1 Lake Lowell Unit ................................................................................................................ 3-35

3.10.2 Snake River Islands Unit .................................................................................................... 3-36

3.11 Environmental Contaminants ..................................................................................................... 3-36

3.11.1 Lake Lowell Unit ................................................................................................................ 3-36

3.11.2 Snake River Islands Unit .................................................................................................... 3-37

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

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

4.1.1 Snake River Dams and Altered Hydrology .......................................................................... 4-4

4.1.2 Influx of Invasive Species..................................................................................................... 4-5

4.1.3 Altered Fire Regime ............................................................................................................. 4-6

4.2 Selection of Priority Resources of Concern ................................................................................. 4-7

4.2.1 Analysis of Priority Resources of Concerns ......................................................................... 4-7

4.3 Habitat Types ............................................................................................................................... 4-9

4.3.1 Emergent Wetlands ............................................................................................................. 4-10

4.3.2 Shoreline Mudflats: Lake Lowell ....................................................................................... 4-12

4.3.3 Open Water: Lake Lowell ................................................................................................... 4-13

4.3.4 Riparian Forests: Lake Lowell and Snake River Islands .................................................... 4-14

4.3.5 Shrub-steppe: Lake Lowell and Snake River Islands ......................................................... 4-16

4.3.6 Agricultural Pastures and Croplands .................................................................................. 4-18

4.4 Major Species Groups ................................................................................................................ 4-19

4.4.1 Fish ..................................................................................................................................... 4-19

4.4.2 Birds .................................................................................................................................... 4-20

4.4.3 Mammals ............................................................................................................................ 4-22

4.4.4 Reptiles and Amphibians .................................................................................................... 4-23

4.4.5 Invertebrates ....................................................................................................................... 4-23

4.5 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species ........................................................................ 4-23

4.6 Invasive and Nuisance Species ................................................................................................... 4-29

4.6.1 Plants .................................................................................................................................. 4-29

4.6.2 Animals ............................................................................................................................... 4-30

4.7 Wildlife and Habitat Research, Inventory, and Monitoring ....................................................... 4-32

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

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

5.1.1 Native American Cultural Landscape ................................................................................... 5-1

5.1.2 Historic Landscape ............................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1.3 Archaeological Sites and Surveys ......................................................................................... 5-3

5.1.4 Threats to Cultural Resources ............................................................................................. 5-10

5.2 Refuge Facilities ......................................................................................................................... 5-10

5.2.1 Fences and Signs ................................................................................................................. 5-10

5.2.2 Roads, Parking Areas, and Access Points ........................................................................... 5-11

5.2.3 Trails ................................................................................................................................... 5-12

5.2.4 Other Facilities Listed by Refuge Area .............................................................................. 5-13

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

5.3.1 Legal Mandates Involving Public Uses on Refuges ........................................................... 5-17

5.3.2 General Visitation Information ........................................................................................... 5-18

5.3.3 General Access ................................................................................................................... 5-20
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

iv Contents 

5.4 Wildlife-dependent Public Uses ................................................................................................. 5-21

5.4.1 Hunting ............................................................................................................................... 5-21

5.4.2 Fishing ................................................................................................................................ 5-22

5.4.3 Wildlife Observation and Photography .............................................................................. 5-23

5.4.4 Environmental Education ................................................................................................... 5-24

5.4.5 Environmental Interpretation .............................................................................................. 5-25

5.5 Other Refuge Uses ...................................................................................................................... 5-26

5.5.1 History of Nonwildlife-dependent Uses ............................................................................. 5-26

5.5.2 Authorization of Nonwildlife-dependent Recreation .......................................................... 5-27

5.5.3 Boating and Other Water Sports ......................................................................................... 5-27

5.5.4 Walking with Pets, Jogging, Biking, and Horseback Riding .............................................. 5-29

5.5.5 Swimming and Sunbathing ................................................................................................. 5-29

5.5.6 Geocaching ......................................................................................................................... 5-30

5.5.7 Winter Sports ...................................................................................................................... 5-30

5.5.8 Picnicking and Events ......................................................................................................... 5-30

5.6 Illegal Uses ................................................................................................................................. 5-30

5.6.1 North Side Recreation Area ................................................................................................ 5-31

5.6.2 East Upper Dam Boat Launch ............................................................................................ 5-31

5.6.3 Lower Dam Recreation Area .............................................................................................. 5-31

5.6.4 South Side Recreation Area ................................................................................................ 5-31

5.6.5 East Side Recreation Area .................................................................................................. 5-32

5.6.6 Gotts Point .......................................................................................................................... 5-32

5.6.7 Lake Lowell ........................................................................................................................ 5-32

5.6.8 Snake River Islands Unit .................................................................................................... 5-33

5.6.9 General ................................................................................................................................ 5-33

5.7 Area Outdoor Recreational Opportunities and Trends ............................................................... 5-33

5.7.1 Nearby Recreational Opportunities .................................................................................... 5-33

5.7.2 Outdoor Recreation Rates and Trends ................................................................................ 5-34

5.8 Social/Economic Environment ................................................................................................... 5-35

5.8.1 Regional Economic Setting ................................................................................................ 5-36

5.8.2 Population and Density ....................................................................................................... 5-36

5.8.3 Gender, Age, and Racial Composition ............................................................................... 5-37

5.8.4 Economic Conditions and Trends ....................................................................................... 5-38

5.8.5 Land Use and Ownership Changes Surrounding Refuge Lands ......................................... 5-40

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. Biological Resources of Concern ..................................................................................... E-1

Appendix F. Statement of Compliance .................................................................................................. F-1

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program ................................................................... G-1

Appendix H. Public Involvement ........................................................................................................... H-1

Appendix I. Refuge Establishment History ............................................................................................I-1

Appendix J. Contributors ....................................................................................................................... J-1

Appendix K. Fire Management Plan ...................................................................................................... K-1

Appendix L. Lake Lowell Water Based Recreation Data Summary ..................................................... L-1
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Contents v 

Appendix M. Regional Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for 

Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge ................................................................................. M-1

Appendix N. Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................................... N-1

Appendix O. Glossary ............................................................................................................................ O-1

Appendix P. References Cited ................................................................................................................ P-1

Figures 

Figure 3-1. Mean and Distribution of Monthly Temperature (top plot) and Precipitation (bottom 

plot) for the Nampa, Idaho USHCN Station for the Period 1981 to 2010 .......................... 3-2 

Figure 3-2. Global Average Temperature and CO2 Concentration from 1880 to 2008 ........................ 3-5 

Figure 3-3. Trends in Annual Temperature or Precipitation from 1920 to 2000 ................................... 3-5 

Figure 3-4. Trends in April 1 Snow Water Equivalent in the Western United States from 1950 to 

1997 ..................................................................................................................................... 3-6 

Figure 3-5. Observed Spring Pulse of Snowmelt-generated Streamflow for Two High (a and b) 

and Two Mid-elevation (c and d) Pacific Northwest Streams, Illustrating the Much 

Greater Advance in Timing in the Mid-elevation Streams ................................................. 3-7 

Figure 3-6. Trend in Water Year Average Temperature for Nampa, Idaho, from 1925 to 2010 ........... 3-8 

Figure 3-7. Simulated Temperature Change (top panel) and Percent Precipitation Change 

(bottom panel) in the Pacific Northwest from Twentieth and Twenty-first Century 

Global Climate Model Simulations ..................................................................................... 3-9 

Figure 3-8. Lake Lowell Inlets and Outlets ......................................................................................... 3-12 

Figure 3-9. Lower Boise River Subbasin ............................................................................................. 3-13 

Figure 3-10. Lake Lowell Average Monthly Water Storage (1954-2009) ............................................ 3-14 

Figure 4-1. Snake River Upper Middle Subbasin Historical (circa 1850) Wildlife Habitat Types ....... 4-2 

Figure 4-2. Snake River Upper Middle Subbasin 1999 Wildlife Habitat Types ................................... 4-3 

Figure 4-3. Hotspots for Rarity/Endemism and Biodiversity in the Columbia Interior Basin ............... 4-4 

Figure 4-4. Changes in Fire Regimes in the Columbia Interior Basin ................................................... 4-6 

Figure 4-5. Sagebrush Fragmentation in the Western United States ................................................... 4-18 

Maps 

Map 1. Regional Context ..................................................................................................................... 1-3

Map 2. Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge and Vicinity .................................................................... 1-5

Map 3. Lake Lowell Unit Land Status Map ....................................................................................... 1-15

Map 4. Management Direction ........................................................................................................... 2-55

Map 5. Management Direction Trails Map Index .............................................................................. 2-57

Map 6. Management Direction Trails Map Inset Maps ..................................................................... 2-59

Map 7. Lake Lowell Unit with Various Lake Levels ......................................................................... 3-15

Map 8. Lake Lowell Unit Soils Map .................................................................................................. 3-23

Map 9. Lake Lowell Unit Habitat Map .............................................................................................. 4-33

Maps 10a-h. Snake River Islands Unit Habitat Maps .............................................................................. 4-35

Map 11. Lake Lowell Unit Current Public Use Facilities Map ............................................................ 5-15

Tables 

Table 1-1. Land Ownership Status ..................................................................................................... 1-13

Table 1-2. Acquisition Authorities ..................................................................................................... 1-13

Table 2-1. Summary of Management Direction by Issue ................................................................... 2-14
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

vi Contents 

Table 3-1. Average Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction at Caldwell Airport .................................. 3-3

Table 3-2. Top 10 Warmest Years in the Instrumental Record from 1880 to 2010 ............................. 3-5

Table 3-3. Projected Decrease in Snowpack ...................................................................................... 3-10

Table 3-4. Average Annual Measured Inflows to Lake Lowell ......................................................... 3-11

Table 3-5. Average Annual Measured Outflows from Lake Lowell .................................................. 3-11

Table 3-6. Lake Lowell Area and Capacity ........................................................................................ 3-17

Table 3-7. Deer Flat Refuge Water Rights ......................................................................................... 3-17

Table 3-8. Mean Monthly Discharge Volumes for the Snake River at the Upstream and 

Downstream Extents of the Snake River Islands Unit ...................................................... 3-18

Table 3-9. Soil Series Mapped in the Lake Lowell Unit and Characteristics of Upper Soil Layers .. 3-22

Table 3-10. Soil Types Mapped for the Snake River Islands Unit of Deer Flat NWR ........................ 3-25

Table 3-11. 2006 Air Quality Index for Canyon County ...................................................................... 3-27

Table 3-12. Selected Numeric Criteria Supportive of Designated Beneficial Uses in Idaho Water 

Quality Standards .............................................................................................................. 3-30

Table 3-13. State of Idaho Water Quality Categories ........................................................................... 3-31

Table 3-14. Beneficial Uses of Waters within Idaho and Lake Lowell Designations .......................... 3-32

Table 3-15. Snake River Islands Unit–Specific 303(d) Listings for the Snake River (RM 335-

449) ................................................................................................................................... 3-34

Table 3-16. City of Nampa Land Use Inventories ................................................................................ 3-35

Table 4-1. Priority Resources of Concern at the Refuge ...................................................................... 4-8

Table 4-2. Acreages of Habitat Types at the Refuge ............................................................................ 4-9

Table 4-3. Federally and State-listed Species Potentially Occurring on the Refuge .......................... 4-24

Table 5-1. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources Sites within Deer Flat Refuge ........................... 5-3

Table 5-2. Linear Features Recorded within 1-mile Radius of Deer Flat Refuge ................................ 5-4

Table 5-3. Sites within One Mile of Deer Flat Refuge ......................................................................... 5-5

Table 5-4. Early Islands Shown on General Land Office Maps ........................................................... 5-9

Table 5-5. Visitor Counts during Fiscal Years (FY) 2010 and 2011 .................................................. 5-19

Table 5-6. Lake Lowell Fishing Access by Season ............................................................................ 5-22

Table 5-7. Recreational Opportunities at Other Large Reservoirs in Southwest Idaho and Eastern 

Oregon ............................................................................................................................... 5-34

Table 5-8. Percent Change in Participation by Activity, 2002-2005 .................................................. 5-34

Table 5-9. Population Estimates for Idaho and the Two Counties near Deer Flat Refuge ................. 5-36

Table 5-10. Racial Demographics for the State and Counties near Deer Flat Refuge (2010) .............. 5-37

Table 5-11. Unemployment, Poverty, and Household Income for the State and Counties near 

Deer Flat Refuge ............................................................................................................... 5-38

Table 5-12. Employment by Industry for the Counties near Deer Flat Refuge .................................... 5-39
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Executive Summary ES-i 

Executive Summary 

Refuge Information and Background 

The Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) is located in Idaho’s Canyon, Payette, Owyhee, and 

Washington Counties; and Malheur County, Oregon. This summary provides a brief overview of the 

Refuge’s Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is 

required by the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 as amended, to develop 

a CCP for all units of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System). 

The Refuge was established by Theodore Roosevelt in 1909 to provide a refuge and breeding ground 

for migratory birds and other wildlife. The Refuge encompasses two units totaling approximately 

11,617 acres. The Lake Lowell Unit is approximately 10,582 acres; it is an overlay refuge on the 

Bureau of Reclamation’s Lake Lowell Reservoir irrigation facility, and includes adjacent uplands. 

The Snake River Islands Unit encompasses approximately 1,035 acres on 104 islands in the Snake 

River. The Refuge provides opportunities for a variety of activities, and is a popular recreation 

destination. 

The Refuge’s staff manages habitat for more than 215 bird species including waterfowl, waterbirds, 

shorebirds, raptors, and passerines. The Refuge is also an important resting and wintering area for 

birds migrating along the Pacific Flyway, and more than 25 species of mammals and invertebrates 

have been documented on the Refuge. Lake Lowell is the largest physical feature on the Refuge, 

providing open water, emergent vegetation, and mudflats. Other habitat types found on the Refuge 

include sagebrush-steppe uplands and riparian habitats. 

The management direction in Chapter 2 was analyzed in our draft and final CCPs/EISs as Alternative 

2, our preferred alternative. We selected Alternative 2 in our Record of Decision, for implementation 

on the Refuge. We will conserve the Refuge’s fish, wildlife, and plants, by monitoring their 

populations, reducing human-caused disturbance, managing and restoring habitats, and controlling 

invasive and feral species. The Refuge’s priority wildlife-dependent public uses include wildlife 

observation and photography, hunting, fishing, environmental education, and interpretation. Actions 

for managing these and a variety of nonwildlife-dependent uses, in a manner that is compatible with 

the Refuge’s purposes are also in Chapter 2. This CCP will guide Refuge management for 15 years. 

Refuge Purposes 

The Refuge’s conservation purposes were fundamental in formulating the management direction in 

this CCP. The purposes for establishing the Refuge follow. 

 “as a refuge and breeding grounds for migratory birds and other wildlife” (Executive Order 

7655, dated July 12, 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). 

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

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

species” (16 U.S.C. 460k-1, Refuge Recreation Act). 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

ES-ii Executive Summary 

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

accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors” (16 

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

Our Vision 

The Service’s vision for the future of Deer Flat Refuge follows. 

Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge is enjoyed, appreciated, protected, and treasured as a 

place where wildlife comes first. The public actively supports and advocates for the Refuge 

purpose and programs. Residents of the Treasure Valley value the oases of wildlife habitat in 

their backyard, both at Lake Lowell and the Snake River Islands. The clean, clear waters and 

lush riparian landscapes of Lake Lowell and the Snake River Islands provide nesting, resting, 

and feeding habitat for spectacular concentrations of migratory birds and other wildlife. 

Reductions in disturbance to important nesting, breeding, resting and feeding areas allow 

wildlife in all Refuge habitats to successfully reproduce and raise their young thereby 

sustaining wildlife populations for future generations of Americans to enjoy. The removal of 

invasive and/or undesirable plant and animal species on the islands of the Snake River and at 

Lake Lowell provides habitats where songbirds, nesting waterfowl and colonial waterbirds, 

and native mammals thrive. Habitat goals are met without impacts to the irrigation resources 

of Lake Lowell. 

The Refuge is a place where all visitors are able to enjoy and connect with nature and realize 

the value of wildlife and habitats. Staff and volunteers share their love of the Refuge and its 

resources with visitors. In addition to being a destination for hunting, fishing, wildlife 

photography, and observation, children and adults learn in the outdoor “living classroom” 

that the Refuge provides. The Refuge also provides for other recreational uses that allow 

people to enjoy the outdoors without impacting wildlife and habitats. All public use 

opportunities maintain the integrity of the wildlife resources, instill in visitors the importance 

of protected open spaces, and provide memorable outdoor experiences for present and future 

generations of Americans. 

Our Refuge Management Goals 

The vision will be fulfilled, by managing Refuge resources to achieve the following goals. 

Wildlife and Habitat Goals 

Goal 1: Protect, maintain, and enhance viable mudflat, emergent-bed, and open-water habitats 

associated with Lake Lowell to benefit migratory birds and other wildlife. 

Goal 2: Protect, maintain, and enhance riparian forest, benefiting migratory birds and other ripariandependent species. 

Goal 3: Protect, maintain, and enhance nonlake wetland habitats for the benefit of migratory birds 

and other wildlife. 

Goal 4: Protect, maintain, and enhance shrub-steppe habitats characteristic of the historical 

Columbia Basin. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Executive Summary ES-iii 

Goal 5: Protect, maintain and enhance managed grasslands and agricultural crops to support 

migrating waterfowl as well as resident wildlife. 

Goal 6: Gather sufficient scientific information to guide responsible adaptive management decisions 

for the Refuge’s trust resources. 

Public Use and Cultural Resources Goals 

Goal 1: Visitors of all ages will enjoy abundant native wildlife and increase their understanding and 

appreciation of the importance of the Refuge as wildlife habitat. 

Goal 2: Hunters of all ages and abilities will enjoy a family-friendly, safe, quality hunt that 

minimally impacts Refuge habitats and wildlife and increases their understanding and appreciation of 

the importance of Deer Flat NWR as wildlife habitat. 

Goal 3: Anglers will enjoy a family-friendly, quality, accessible fishing opportunity that minimally 

impacts Refuge habitats and wildlife and increases their understanding and appreciation of the 

importance of Deer Flat NWR as wildlife habitat. 

Goal 4: Students, teachers, and Refuge visitors will understand the biology and management of the 

Refuge and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and will demonstrate stewardship of 

the Refuge and other wildlife habitats. 

Goal 5: Visitors will have limited impacts to wildlife, feel safe during their visit, and understand 

Refuge regulations and how they help protect wildlife and wildlife habitat as well as other visitors. 

Goal 6: The Refuge will initiate and nurture relationships and develop cooperative opportunities to 

nurture stewardship of the Refuge and instill in others an understanding and appreciation of the 

importance of Deer Flat NWR as wildlife habitat. 

Goal 7: The Refuge will protect and manage cultural resources and look for ways to gain new 

understanding of the history and cultural resources of the Lake Lowell and Snake River Islands 

Units. 

Public Involvement 

The Refuge staff conducted extensive outreach to engage a wide variety of stakeholders in our 

planning process throughout development of the CCP. We began the planning and public 

involvement process in July 2010 by publishing a notice in the Federal Register; holding Open 

Houses at the Refuge’s Visitor Center; and requesting public input to identify management issues. 

Public comments were also requested on our preliminary draft alternatives in June 2011, and again 

when we released our Draft CCP/EIS in March 2013. We addressed public comments in our final 

CCP/EIS. For additional information see the Summary of Public Involvement in Appendix H. 

Management Direction 

We selected Alternative 2, as the basis for the management direction in the CCP. Our primary 

emphasis will be to reduce disturbance to important wildlife breeding, nesting and feeding areas, 

reduce undesirable plant and animal species, and improve compatible recreation opportunities. We 

will emphasize connecting families to nature by providing access to new facilities and a wide range 

of wildlife-dependent and nonwildlife-dependent recreational activities. Activities will be managed 

to protect wildlife, reduce conflicts between users, and increase safety. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

ES-iv Executive Summary 

Lake Lowell Unit 

On Lake Lowell, we will protect shoreline feeding and nesting sites in no-wake zones and seasonal 

closed areas, and feature the Refuge’s conservation purpose and goals in interpretive programs. 

Management of Wildlife and Habitat. To provide needed protections for lake-dependent wildlife, a 

200-yard no-wake zone will be established along the south side of the lake between Parking Lots 1 

and 8. The entire lake will continue to be closed to motorized boating from October 1 to April 14 

each year for the benefit of wintering and migrating birds. No-wake zones will be required in the 

Narrows, and the no-wake zone on the southeast end of the lake will be expanded to start at a line 

between Gotts Point and Parking Lot 1. Motorized boats will be allowed in the no-wake zones at 

speeds that do not create a wake (generally less than 5 mph). 

Seasonally closed areas will protect heron rookeries, eagle nests, and grebe nesting colonies, which 

will allow us to adapt management actions to changes in the nesting and feeding requirements of 

wildlife, while ensuring that the areas actively used by wildlife are protected from potentiallydisturbing activities. This will provide more flexible protections for wildlife, as well as more 

opportunities for compatible public uses. We will also increase habitat enhancement through invasive 

species removal and vegetation manipulation. Increases in wildlife and habitat research and 

assessments will be focused on providing a strong scientific base for future management decisions. 

Management of Public Uses. We will provide access for a wide range of outdoor recreational 

activities. Management efforts will focus on increasing participation in all six priority wildlifedependent recreational activities. Fishing and interpretation will be emphasized to serve a growing 

diverse, urban population. We will seek to connect people with nature and build support for wildlife 

conservation. Seasonal, on-trail regulations will protect wildlife while allowing visitors to experience 

wildlife in Refuge habitats. We will open Gotts Point to vehicles when a cooperative agreement is in 

place for increased law enforcement. 

Snake River Islands Unit 

Management of Wildlife and Habitat. Refuge staff will emphasize management of the Snake River 

Islands Unit by increasing wildlife inventory and monitoring efforts and increasing invasive species 

control and restoration efforts. Islands management needs will be prioritized using several factors. 

The most biologically intact islands will be a higher management priority. An array of management 

techniques may be used, including prescribed fire and aerial application of herbicide and/or seed. 

Island closure dates will be adjusted to better protect nesting geese, wading birds, gulls, and terns. 

Management of Public Uses. Existing public uses will continue and include wildlife observation and 

hunting for deer, upland birds, and waterfowl on over 1,200 acres. Most of the Snake River Islands 

Unit will be open for off-trail, free-roam activities including shoreline fishing, from June 15 to 

January 31 annually. Heron- and gull-nesting islands (four to six islands) will be open for off-trail, 

free-roam activities from July 1 to January 31. 
Western screech owl

©Dick McKee Chapter 1 Introduction and Background

Chapter 5HumanEnvironment

Chapter 4BiologicalEnvironment

Chapter 3PhysicalEnvironment

Chapter 2Management Direction

Chapter 1Introduction andBackground

Appendices A-P

Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-1 

Chapter 1 Introduction and Background 

1.1 Introduction 

Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge or NWR), located near the city of Nampa in southwest 

Idaho, is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or FWS) as part of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS or Refuge System). 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 fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United 

States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans. This Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan (CCP) contains our management direction for the Refuge for the next 15 years. 

President Theodore Roosevelt established the Refuge in 1909 as the Deer Flat Reservation 

(Executive Order [E.O.] 1032), on Deer Flat Reservoir (Lake Lowell), the first irrigation reservoir 

completed for the Bureau of Reclamation’s (Reclamation) Boise Project. Most of the Refuge is an 

overlay refuge on Reclamation’s Lake Lowell. The Refuge was established to provide refuge and 

breeding grounds for migratory birds and other wildlife, subject to use by the Department of the 

Interior for reclamation work (E.O. 7655). This means that the Service has an obligation to manage 

Refuge uses consistent with the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (16 U.S.C. 

668dd-668ee, et seq.), and other laws, regulations, and policies governing the Refuge System. Our 

management of the Refuge may not interfere with Reclamation operations and incidental purposes. 

In 1994, we completed compatibility determinations for upland uses occurring at the Refuge, but 

none were completed for on-water uses at that time. The Service and Reclamation agree that the 

Refuge has jurisdiction over surface water and public uses on Lake Lowell, as long as Refuge 

management actions do not interfere with Reclamation operations and incidental purposes. Because 

the Service has responsibility for the management of all public uses within the Refuge, including onwater recreational uses, all public uses must be examined as part of the CCP process to determine if 

they are compatible with the purposes of the Refuge, as required by law. 

The Refuge encompasses approximately 11,617 acres within two units: the Lake Lowell Unit and 

Snake River Islands Unit (see Maps 1 and 2). According to geographic information system (GIS) 

estimates, the Lake Lowell Unit covers 10,582 acres within Idaho’s Canyon County, including the 

9,951-acre overlay area on Lake Lowell. The Snake River Islands Unit includes approximately 1,200 

acres on more than 104 islands scattered along 113 miles of the Snake River, between two states 

(Idaho and Oregon) and five counties (Canyon, Payette, Owyhee, and Washington counties in Idaho; 

and Malheur County in Oregon). 

1.2 History of the Landscape 

The presettlement landscape of southwest Idaho was much different than it is today. Native 

Americans hunted and gathered on the lands in and around the Refuge, finding rich sources of food. 

The hills were filled with sagebrush, rabbitbrush, and native bunchgrasses that provided homes for 

wildlife ranging from burrowing owls to spadefoot toads, beetles to badgers, and butterflies to 

sparrows. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

1-2 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

Euro-Americans, who traveled through this part of Idaho in the late 1800s and early 1900s and 

eventually settled here, recognized the harsh reality that little rain—less than 10 inches a year—fell 

upon this high desert environment. Even though occasional springs supplied much-needed water that 

fed grasses and attracted deer and elk, settlers realized that it was not enough to carve out a life. 

By 1904, Idaho’s first water reclamation project was initiated at Minidoka, which became the site of 

the first hydroelectric dam in the West. Impressed by the Minidoka Project, State Engineer D.W. 

Ross, and J.H. Lowell, President of the Boise-Payette Water Users Association, successfully lobbied 

Congress to fund an irrigation project for Boise, Idaho. The Boise Project was authorized by the 

Secretary of the Interior on March 27, 1905, under the Reclamation Act of 1902. When Federal 

funding fell short of what was needed, J.H. Lowell organized local farmers and raised matching 

funds to support the project. In 1906 work on Deer Flat Reservoir began as part of the Boise-Payette 

Project. Materials from local quarries and the work of local citizens helped build the reservoir. 

When Deer Flat Reservoir was completed, it was the largest human-made reservoir on earth, held in 

by three dams and one dike. The longest dam, called the Lower Embankment (Lower Dam), stretches 

1.5 miles. The tallest dam at 74 feet, the Upper Embankment (Upper Dam) is 0.75 mile long. The 

Deer Flat Reservoir was critical to the development of the Boise Basin. 

President Theodore Roosevelt created a national bird refuge at Deer Flat Reservoir, with Executive 

Order 1032. The Refuge was one of 21 Federal Reclamation Projects referenced in the order, each of 

which used man-made reservoirs to provide safe havens for migratory birds and other wildlife. 

Reclamation operated and maintained Deer Flat Reservoir until 1926, when operation and 

maintenance was transferred to the Boise Project Board of Control (Board of Control), via repayment 

contracts with the five irrigation districts that comprise the Board of Control—Big Bend, BoiseKuna, Nampa & Meridian, New York, and Wilder. 

The Deer Flat Bird Reservation remained the only national wildlife refuge in southwest Idaho until 

1937, when, through the efforts of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and J. Clark Salyer, 36 islands in 

the Snake River were designated as the Snake River Islands National Wildlife Refuge. Both Refuges 

were managed by the Deer Flat Bird Reservation, which was re-established and renamed Deer Flat 

Migratory Waterfowl Refuge (E.O. 7655) on July 12, 1937. 

In 1940, the Refuges were renamed the Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge and the Snake River 

National Wildlife Refuge, and in 1963 the Refuges were consolidated as two units of Deer Flat 

National Wildlife Refuge. Deer Flat Reservoir was renamed Lake Lowell in 1948 in recognition of 

J.H. Lowell’s work to develop the reservoir, and in 1976, the Lower and Upper Dams were included 

on the National Register of Historic Places because of their role in Idaho’s history. 

1.3 Biological Significance of the Refuge 

Nestled in the rolling sagebrush hills of southwest Idaho, the Refuge provides a variety of wildlife 

habitats, including the open waters and wetland edges of the Lake Lowell Unit, sagebrush uplands 

and riparian forest around the lake, and grassland and riparian forests on the Snake River Islands 

Unit. Lake Lowell provides a resting and wintering area for migratory birds along the Pacific Flyway 

in the fall and winter, and important areas for nesting species in spring and summer. The Refuge is 

recognized by the National Audubon Society as a State Important Bird Area (Audubon 2012). 
29 28 27 26 25 24

36

1

121324

Map 1 Regional Context

0 100 200 50

Kilom eters

0 50 100 200

M iles

Data Sources: U SFW S Ecoregions and Refuge Boundaries from USFWS/R1; TopoM ap and State Boundaries from ESRI

File: 12-005-1 M ap Date: 05/04/2012

CA L I F OR N I A NE VA D A

WA S H I N G TO N

OR EG ON I D A H O

MON TA NA

LITTLE PEND

OREILLE

KOOTENAI

TURNBULL

SADDLE MOUNTAIN NWR/

HANFORD REACH NATIONAL

MONUMENT

MCNARY

UMATILLA

COLUMBIA

MALHEUR

SHELDON

HART MOUNTAIN NAR MINIDOKA

CAMAS

GRAYS

LAKE

BEAR LAKE

DEER FLAT

LAKE LOWELL UNIT

DEER FLAT

SNAKE RIVER

ISLANDS UNIT

CONBOY

TOPPENISH

Area

Enlarged

Pacific

Flyway

§ ̈¦5

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦84

§ ̈¦15

§ ̈¦90

OXFORD

SLOUGH

RED

ROCK

LAKES

NATIONAL

ELK

REFUGE

NATIONAL

BISON

RANGE

FWS Refuge Boundaries

Columbia Basin Ecoregion Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere

WGS 84

1-3

' ' I ' ' l \ 

CJ 

-

-----. 

?( ~. 

\ 

I 

--~, 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

1-4 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

Document continues on next page. 
@"

Map 2 Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge and Vicinity

0 5 10 20

Kilom eters

0 5 10 20

M iles

Data Sources: U SFW S Refuge Boundaries from U SFW S/R1; World Street M ap and River Data from ESRI; 2011 NAIP Im agery from USDA

File: 12-005-2 M ap Date: 05/03/2012

We is er River

Malheur River

Payette River

Boise River Owyhee Riv er

Snake

River

Snake River

§ ̈¦84

§ ̈¦84

UV201

£¤30

Weiser

Payette

Ontario

Fruitland

Emmett Nyssa

Caldwell

Nampa

£¤95

@" Refuge Headquarters

Deer Flat NWR Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere

WG S 84

OREGON

IDAHO

1-5

1111 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

1-6 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

Document continues on next page. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-7 

In spring, bald eagles, ospreys, and great horned owls nest on both Refuge units, with most feeding 

nestlings by the end of April. In April and May, great blue herons, black-crowned night herons, and 

double-crested cormorants nest in large rookeries on some of the islands in the Snake River Islands 

Unit, and up to 10,000 pairs of California gulls nest on Smith Island. 

In early summer, western grebes dance on Lake Lowell while resident bald eagles look for food for 

their young. Visitors can see large numbers of white pelicans on the lake and large broods of Canada 

geese in pastures and fields adjacent to the Snake River. By late July and early August, mallards and 

wood ducks begin to congregate on the lake, looking for food in flooded vegetation. 

As irrigation waters recede in late summer and early fall, the large exposed mudflats provide 

important feeding areas for shorebirds such as dowitchers, sandpipers, godwits, yellowlegs, and 

plovers, migrating south to wintering areas. The Intermountain West Shorebird Regional Plan (Oring 

et al. 2000) names Lake Lowell as one of only two sites in Idaho where more than 5,000 shorebirds 

were observed in more than half of the years surveyed. 

As fall sets in, the number of birds using the Refuge increases. Resident flocks of ducks and up to 

6,000 Canada geese are usually on Lake Lowell by the second week of October. As colder weather 

drives migrating ducks and geese south, migratory birds join the resident birds at the lake. Some 

birds pass through, while others spend the winter. By mid-November, the goose population peaks at 

up to 15,000 birds. Duck populations peak in mid-December, with up to 70,000 ducks using Lake 

Lowell annually. Mallards predominate, but small numbers of northern pintail, American wigeon, 

green-winged teal, wood duck, common merganser, and northern shoveler are also present. The 

Snake River also provides a winter home for a variety of ducks and geese. 

Emergent vegetation along the edges of the lake, such as smartweed, provides a food source for 

waterfowl, nesting material for on-water nesting birds such as western and Clark’s grebes, and cover 

for fish. Lake Lowell provides habitat for one of the three largest nesting colonies of western grebes 

in Idaho (pers. comm., C. Moulton 2010). Western and Clark’s grebes are considered species of 

greatest conservation need by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG), because appropriate 

nesting sites are lacking (IDFG 2005). 

Bald eagles, osprey, great blue herons, and other colonial nesting birds are attracted to the riparian 

areas of the Lake Lowell and Snake River Islands Units. The upland habitats of the units provide 

habitat for nesting California gulls and Canada geese and a variety of other native wildlife. The 

Snake River Islands’ grassland, shrub, and riparian forest habitats and surrounding waters provide 

habitat throughout the year for herons, cormorants, songbirds, and predators, such as foxes, coyotes, 

red-tailed hawks, and American kestrels. 

1.4 Action 

This document is the Refuge’s final CCP. This CCP sets forth management guidance for the Refuge 

for the next 15 years, as required by the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 

1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee, et seq.), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System 

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

Administration Act requires CCPs to identify and describe the following: 

 The purposes of a refuge; 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

1-8 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

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

values found on a refuge; 

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

solutions for correcting or mitigating the effects of those problems; 

 Areas suitable for administrative sites or visitor facilities; and 

 Opportunities for fish- and wildlife-dependent recreation. 

NWRS planning policy (602 FW 3, June 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.” 

Through this CCP, we will implement management actions described in the final CCP/EIS in 

Alternative 2, with the addition of wakesurfing as a compatible use (see Appendix B). We examined 

three other alternatives for managing the Refuge in the final CCP/EIS, pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347). 

The goals, objectives, and strategies in Chapter 2 best achieve the purpose and need for this CCP, 

while maintaining balance among the varied management needs and programs. Operation and 

maintenance of the Deer Flat Dams, reservoir storage, appurtenant structures and Reclamation zones, 

and delivery of stored irrigation water are the responsibility of Reclamation and the Board of 

Control. This CCP 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 consistent with the sound principles of fish and wildlife 

management. For the details of specific components and actions, see Chapter 2. 

1.5 Purpose and Need for Action 

The need for the CCP is to provide reasonable, scientifically grounded guidance for ensuring that 

over a period of 15 years, as directed by the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 

1966, as amended, Deer Flat NWR will achieve the following purposes. 

 Enhance, maintain, and protect Refuge habitats (including mudflats, emergent beds, and open 

water habitats of Lake Lowell, riparian forests, nonlake wetlands, and shrub-steppe) for the 

benefit of migratory birds and other wildlife. 

 Gather sufficient scientific information to guide responsible adaptive management decisions. 

 Provide visitors with compatible wildlife-dependent and nonwildlife-dependent recreational 

opportunities that foster an appreciation and understanding of the Refuge’s fish, wildlife, and 

plants, and their habitats, and have limited impacts to wildlife. 

 Initiate and nurture relationships and develop cooperative opportunities to promote the 

importance of the Refuge’s wildlife habitat, and support Refuge stewardship. 

 Protect and manage the Refuge’s cultural resources, and identify new ways to gain an 

understanding of the Lake Lowell and Snake River Islands Units’ history and cultural 

resources. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-9 

1.6 Legal and Policy Guidance 

The Refuge is part of the NWRS, managed within a framework provided by legal and policy 

guidelines. The Refuge System is the world’s largest network of public lands and waters set aside 

specifically for conserving wildlife and protecting ecosystems. 

1.6.1 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

The Refuge System 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, and 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. 

1.6.2 National Wildlife Refuge System 

The needs of wildlife and their habitats come first on national wildlife refuges, in contrast to other 

public lands that are managed for multiple uses. Refuges are guided by various Federal laws and 

Executive Orders, Service policies, and international treaties. Fundamental are the mission and goals 

of the NWRS 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 as amended (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee, et seq.); the Refuge Recreation Act 

of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4), as amended; Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.); 

and the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual. The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act 

is implemented through regulations covering the NWRS, published in Title 50, subchapter C of the 

C.F.R. These regulations govern general administration of units of the Refuge System. 

1.6.2.1 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). 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

1-10 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

The goals of the NWRS, as articulated in the Mission, Goals, and Purposes Policy (601 FW 1), are 

to: 

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

endangered or threatened with becoming endangered. 

 Develop and maintain a network of habitats for migratory birds, anadromous and interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammal populations that are 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. 

 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. 

1.6.2.2 National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act 

Of all the laws governing activities on national wildlife refuges, the Refuge Administration Act 

undoubtedly exerts the greatest influence. The Improvement Act amended the Refuge System 

Administration Act in 1997 by including a unifying mission for all national wildlife refuges as a 

system, a new process for determining compatible uses on refuges, and a requirement that each 

refuge be managed under a comprehensive conservation plan, developed in an open public process. 

The Refuge Administration Act states that the Secretary shall provide for the conservation of fish, 

wildlife and plants, and their habitats within the Refuge System, as well as ensure that the biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the System 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.” Biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health are critical components of wildlife conservation. As later made clear in the 

Biological Integrity, Diversity and Environmental Health Policy (601 FW 3), “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.” 

Under the Refuge Administration Act, each refuge must be managed to fulfill the Refuge System 

mission as well as the specific purposes for which it was established. The Refuge Administration Act 

requires the Service to monitor the status and trends of fish, wildlife, and plants in each refuge. 

Additionally, the Refuge Administration Act identifies six priority wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses for the Refuge System (the “Big Six”). These uses are hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, and environmental education and interpretation. Under the Refuge Administration Act, 

the Service is to grant these six wildlife-dependent public uses special consideration in the planning 

for, management of, and establishment and expansion of units of the NWRS. The overarching goal 

for wildlife-dependent public use programs is to enhance opportunities and access to quality wildlifedependent visitor experiences on refuges, while managing refuges to conserve fish, wildlife, plants, 

and their habitats. 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. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-11 

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) proposed or 

occurring on a refuge for appropriateness and compatibility. 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 a refuge’s purposes, 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. Appropriate use and 

updated compatibility determinations for public uses of the Deer Flat Refuge are in Appendices A 

and B respectively, of this CCP. 

The Refuge Administration Act also requires that in addition to formally established guidance, the 

CCP must be developed with the participation of the public. Issues and concerns articulated by the 

public play a role in guiding alternatives considered during the development of the CCP, and with the 

formal guidance, can play a role in selecting a preferred alternative. It is Service policy to develop 

CCPs in an open public process, and to obtain public input throughout the process. Appendix H 

details the public involvement that occurred during the CCP process. 

1.6.3 Other Laws and Mandates 

Many Federal laws, executive orders, Service policies, and international treaties govern the Service 

and Refuge System lands. Examples include the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Refuge 

Recreation Act of 1962, National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, and the Endangered Species Act 

of 1973. For additional information on laws and other mandates, a list and brief description of 

Federal laws of interest to the Service can be found in the Laws Digest at 

http://www.fws.gov/laws/Lawsdigest.html. 

The Service has developed or revised numerous policies and Director’s Orders to reflect the 

mandates and intent of the Improvement Act. Some of these key policies include the Biological 

Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy (601 FW 3); the Compatibility Policy (603 FW 

2); the Comprehensive Conservation Planning Policy (602 FW 3); Mission, Goals, and Purposes (601 

FW 1); Appropriate Refuge Uses (603 FW 1); Wildlife-Dependent Public Uses (605 FW 1); 

wilderness-related policies (610 FW 1-5); and the Director’s Order for Coordination and Cooperative 

Work with State Fish and Wildlife Agency Representatives on Management of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. These policies and others in draft or under development can be found at 

http://fws.gov/refuges/policymakers/nwrpolicies.html. During CCP development, refuges must 

consider these broader laws and policies as well as Refuge System and ecosystem goals and visions. 

The CCP must be consistent with these and also with the Refuge’s purpose. 

1.7 Refuge Establishment and Purposes 

1.7.1 Legal Significance of the Refuge Purpose 

The purpose for which a refuge was established or acquired is of key importance in refuge planning. 

Refuge purposes must form the foundation for management decisions. They 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 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

1-12 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

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

expanding a refuge, refuge unit, or refuge subunit. 

Unless the establishing law, order, or other document indicates 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. 

1.7.2 History of Refuge Establishment and Purposes 

President Theodore Roosevelt originally established Deer Flat Bird Reservation in 1909 as a 

“preserve and breeding grounds for native birds” (E.O. 1032). As an overlay refuge, the purpose of 

the Refuge can in no way impede the irrigation purpose of the Reclamation reservoir. In 1937, 

President Franklin D. Roosevelt revoked E.O. 1032 and re-established the Refuge as the Deer Flat 

Migratory Waterfowl Refuge to “further the purposes of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act” and 

“as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife” (E.O. 7655). Also in 1937, 

36 islands in the Snake River were designated as the Snake River Migratory Bird Refuge (E.O. 7691) 

to serve “as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife” (E.O. 7691). 

In 1940, the Refuges’ names were changed by Presidential Proclamation No. 2416, to Deer Flat 

National Wildlife Refuge and Snake River National Wildlife Refuge, respectively. In 1963, Public 

Land Order 3110 transferred all lands of the Snake River National Wildlife Refuge (consisting of 74 

islands) to the direct jurisdiction of Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge. Per national policy, any 

lands (including those in the Snake River Islands Refuge) that were added to Deer Flat Refuge 

assume the purposes for which Deer Flat Refuge was established, as well as keeping any individual 

purposes that were provided at the time of their establishment or acquisition. 

The Refuge purposes are: 

 “as a refuge and breeding grounds for migratory birds and other wildlife” (E.O. 7655, dated 

July 12, 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) 

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

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

species” (16 U.S.C. 460k-1, Refuge Recreation Act) 

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

accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors” (16 

U.S.C. 460k-2, Refuge Recreation Act). 

For more information on Refuge establishment, see Appendix I. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-13 

1.7.3 Land Status and Ownership 

Tables 1-1 and 1-2 and Maps 2 and 3 show the lands associated with the Refuge. The acreage figures 

were generated from our geographic information systems (GIS). 

Table 1-1. Land Ownership Status 

Refuge/Unit Refuge Lands Owned in 

Fee (acres1)

Refuge Lands Overlaid on 

Reclamation Lands (acres1)

Total Acres1

Lake Lowell Unit 631 9,951 10,582 

Snake River Islands Unit 1,035 0 1,035 

Deer Flat NWR 1,666 9,951 11,617 1

 Acres generated from GIS are rounded to the nearest acre. 

Table 1-2. Acquisition Authorities 

Land Tracts Acquisition Authority Total Acresa

Lake Lowell Tract 4 (Refuge 

Maintenance Area) Migratory Bird Conservation Commission 73 

Lake Lowell Tract 5 (Gotts Point) Migratory Bird Conservation Commission 61 

Lake Lowell Tract 8 Migratory Bird Conservation Commission 13 

Lake Lowell Tract 51 (Leavitt Tract) Migratory Bird Conservation Commission 80 

All other Refuge lands Executive Orders, Presidential Proclamation, 

Public Land Orders and Mitigation 11,390 

a Rounded to the nearest acre. 

1.7.4 Special Designation Lands 

1.7.4.1 Important Bird Area 

The Important Bird Areas (IBA) program is a global effort to identify the most important areas for 

maintaining bird populations and focusing conservation efforts on protecting these sites. Within the 

United States, the program has been promoted and maintained by the American Bird Conservancy 

(ABC) and the National Audubon Society (Audubon). The ABC coordinates the identification of 

nationally significant IBAs, while Audubon identifies sites in individual states that provide critical 

habitat for birds. This effort recognizes that habitat loss and fragmentation are the most serious 

threats to birds across North America and around the world. By working through partnerships, 

principally the North American Bird Conservation Initiative, to identify those places that are critical 

to birds during some part of their life cycle (breeding, wintering, feeding, migrating), the IBA 

program hopes to minimize the effects that habitat loss and degradation have on bird populations. 

Idaho’s 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 IBAs in Idaho, 

representing 3.8 million acres of public and private wetland and upland habitat throughout the state. 

The IBA Program in Idaho is currently housed in the Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program of 

the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG 2005). 

In order to be identified as an IBA, sites must meet criteria in at least one of the following categories: 

species of conservation concern (e.g., threatened and endangered species); range-restricted species 

(species vulnerable because they are not widely distributed); species that are vulnerable because their 

populations are concentrated in one general habitat type or biome; and species, or groups of similar 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

1-14 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

species (such as waterfowl or shorebirds), that are vulnerable because they occur at high densities 

due to their congregative behavior (Audubon 2012). 

Deer Flat NWR was identified as a State IBA based on three criteria: importance for waterfowl (State 

Criteria D4ii), for other colonial waterbirds (State Criteria D4iv), and for shorebirds (State Criteria 

D4v). Waterfowl, especially Canada geese and mallards, use the Refuge for breeding, wintering area, 

and a migratory stopover. Colonial waterbirds nest on both Lake Lowell and the Snake River Islands 

Units of the Refuge, including California gulls, great blue herons, black-crowned night herons, 

double-crested cormorants, and western and Clark’s grebes. The mudflats at Lake Lowell are such a 

highly used stopover for shorebirds during summer and fall migration that Lake Lowell is one of 

only two sites in Idaho with greater than 5,000 shorebirds observed in more than half the years it was 

surveyed (Oring et al. 2000). Some of the shorebirds present in late summer and fall include pectoral, 

least, Baird’s, solitary, spotted, and stilt sandpipers; marbled godwits; and long-billed dowitchers. 

1.8 Relationship to Ecosystem Management Efforts 

When developing a CCP, the Service considers the goals and objectives of existing national, 

regional, state, and ecoregion/ecosystem efforts, plans, and assessments. The CCP is to be consistent 

with existing plans and assist in meeting their conservation goals and objectives (602 FW 3). This 

section summarizes some of the key plans reviewed by the CCP planning team during development 

of the Final CCP/EIS. 

1.8.1 Relationship to Previous Refuge Plans 

Because this is the first CCP written for the Refuge, it will be the first management plan to fully 

implement the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. Although earlier plans 

made attempts to address conflicts between public use and wildlife, these plans made little mention 

of the scientific information used to determine the appropriate actions to take. Plans created after the 

passage of the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act of 1966 are summarized here, because in 

that period, guidance for Refuge activities more closely aligns with the guidance provided for CCPs 

in the Improvement Act. 

 A Master Plan was developed in 1968 with a Recreation Management Plan completed 

shortly thereafter. These plans express a need to put wildlife first: “Foremost among 

refuge objectives is the preservation and management of the waterfowl and other wildlife 

resources. Public use of the refuge is and will continue to be a subordinate refuge 

objective” (USFWS 1970). The public use regulations at that time did not allow any 

motorized boats in the southeast end of the Refuge (USFWS 1968). The Recreation 

Management Plan also states, “Those uses associated with wildlife and wildlife 

environments are regarded as highest in objective even though they may be lower in 

number of participation visits than other uses,” making it clear wildlife-dependent 

activities were to receive higher priority status than nonwildlife-dependent uses.

 A Master Plan written in approximately 1980, boasts a wide variety of crops being grown 

around the Refuge including cereal grains and corn. The planners go on to express concerns 

about the conversion of agricultural land to urban areas, and of wildlands to agricultural lands 

(USFWS 1980). The planners also imply that Refuge visitation would increase because high 

gasoline prices would spur users to stay close to home. 
Greenhu

Lower Dam 

Recreation Area

Upper Dam 

Gotts Point

P1

Murphy's Neck

P2

P3

P4

P5

P6

P7

P8

Orchard Avenue

West Roosevelt

Iowa 

Locust Road

Lewis Lane

Marsing Road

Lowell RdMalt Road

South Indiana

Lake Avenue

Midway Road

Walker Lake

Farner Road

Lake Shore Drive

Lake Shore Drive

Rim Road

Narrows

Low Line Canal

Deer Flat

Deer Flat

Canal

Lower Embankment

Upper Embankment

PLO 1060

40ac

PLO 1060

240ac

PLO 1060

120ac

MBCC

13.34ac

MBCC

59.32ac

MBCC

73.3ac

Refuge Boundary

Primary Jurisdiction

Secondary Jurisdiction

Data Sources: USFWS Refuge Boundary & Land Status Data from USFWS/R1; 2011 NAIP Imagery from USDA

File: 12-005-5 Map Date: 05/16/2012

0 1 2 0.5

Miles

1-15
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

1-16 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

Document continues on next page
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-17 

 A Refuge Management Plan was also signed in 1990 and had a draft update in 1996 (USFWS 

1996). The plan emphasized the Refuge’s importance to wildlife, and wildlife-dependent 

recreation, and stated the need for clearly defined jurisdiction over recreational activities.

1.8.2 Relationship of Refuge CCP to Other Ecosystem Planning and 

Assessment Efforts 

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

development of this CCP and the priority resources of concern (see Appendix E) follows. 

Landscape Conservation Cooperatives. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar directed Department of the 

Interior bureaus to initiate the development of the Landscape Conservation Cooperative (LCC) 

network as a response to landscape-scale stressors, including climate change (Secretarial Order 

Number 3289, September 2009). The LCC network is composed of 22 individual LCCs, and Deer 

Flat Refuge lies within both the Great Basin LCC and the Great Northern LCC. These LCCs are 

public-private partnerships composed of States, Tribes, Federal agencies, nongovernmental 

organizations, universities, and others. 

The LCCs develop science-based conservation plans across a large geographic area to address 

environmental challenges and ensure the sustainability of America’s land, water, wildlife, and 

cultural resources (www.fws.gov/science/shc/lcc.html). Through this CCP, we identify opportunities 

to obtain and share, survey and research data on wildlife, habitat, and biological processes. 

Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (IDFG 2005). In 2001, the U.S. Congress 

began to appropriate Federal funds through the State Wildlife Grants program to assist states with 

fish and wildlife conservation efforts. Along with the funding came the responsibility of each state to 

develop a comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy (CWCS). IDFG prepared its CWCS in 2005 

to coordinate the efforts of partners working toward the conservation of wildlife and wildlife habitats 

across the state. 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). 

The CWCS identifies 229 SGCN (103 invertebrates, and 126 vertebrates) and associated habitats; 

provides an ecological, habitat-based framework to aid in the conservation and management of 

SGCN; recommends actions to improve the population status and habitat conditions of SGCN; and 

describes an approach for long-term monitoring to assess the success of conservation efforts and to 

integrate new information as it becomes available. The CWCS “promotes proactive conservation to 

ensure cost-effective solutions instead of reactive measures enacted in the face of imminent losses” 

(IDFG 2005). 

Pacific Flyway Management Plan for the Pacific Population of Western Canada Goose

(Subcommittee on Pacific Population of Canada Geese [SPPCG] 2000). The plan provides guidelines 

to wildlife agencies responsible for the management of the Pacific population of Western Canada 

geese. The plan aims to maintain the distribution of this population while optimizing recreational 

opportunities and controlling depredation and nuisance problems. The plan provides several 

management recommendations, including population monitoring, harvest management, and research. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

1-18 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan and Coordinated Implementation Plan for Bird 

Conservation in Idaho, Version 2005 (North American Waterfowl Management Plan Committee 

[NAWMPC] 2004 and Intermountain West Joint Venture [IWJV] 2005, respectively). The North 

American Waterfowl Management Plan is an international action plan, signed by the United States, 

Canada, and Mexico, to conserve migratory birds throughout the continent. The goal of the plan is to 

return waterfowl populations to their 1970s levels by conserving wetland and upland habitats. 

Transforming the goals into on-the-ground actions is accomplished through partnerships called joint 

ventures. Joint ventures are made up of individuals, corporations, conservation organizations, and 

local, State, Provincial, and Federal agencies. Habitat joint ventures restore and enhance wetlands 

and associated upland habitats. 

Partners in Flight, North American Landbird Conservation Plan (Rich et al. 2004). The North 

American Landbird Conservation Plan gives Partners in Flight Watch List status to birds that it 

deems are threatened by loss or degradation in habitat, and small or declining populations or species 

distribution. It also identifies “stewardship species” that should be considered in conservation 

planning due to their representation of large avifaunal biomes. The plan identifies research and 

monitoring needs and attempts to create estimates of landbird species populations. 

Idaho Bird Conservation Plan, Version 1 (Idaho Partners in Flight 2000). The Idaho Bird 

Conservation Plan focuses on restoring and maintaining high-priority habitats with the goal of 

maintaining healthy communities of priority bird species. Three of the four priority habitats 

identified by the plan (i.e., riparian, nonriverine wetlands, and sagebrush shrublands) can be found on 

Deer Flat NWR. The plan provides strategies for meeting habitat and population objectives for these 

priority species and habitats. 

Intermountain West Regional Shorebird Plan, Version 1 (Oring et al. 2000). The United States 

Shorebird Conservation Plan (Brown et al. 2001) includes 11 regional plans reflecting major 

shorebird flyways and habitats within the United States. The Intermountain West Regional Working 

Group was formed under the auspices of the national plan to formulate shorebird management goals 

for the Intermountain West. The purpose of this shorebird plan is to address shorebird management 

needs on a regional basis while considering both Pacific Flyway and national levels of need. 

The Intermountain West Regional Shorebird Plan (Oring et al. 2000) notes that perhaps a million 

shorebirds breed in the Intermountain West and millions more migrate through the area each year. 

The plan recognizes that finding ample high-quality fresh water will be the greatest challenge faced 

by shorebirds in the Intermountain West in the future. The regional plan articulates seven goals, plus 

associated objectives and strategies related to habitat management, monitoring and assessment, 

research, outreach and planning. The planning goal includes objectives to coordinate shorebird 

planning and projects with other migratory bird initiatives and specifically with the Intermountain 

West Joint Venture. The Intermountain West Regional Shorebird Plan identifies 11 shorebird species 

that regularly breed in the region, as well as 23 additional species that are annual migrants. 

North American Waterbird Conservation Plan and Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation 

Plan (Kushlan et al. 2002 and Ivey and Herziger 2006, respectively). The North American Waterbird 

Conservation Plan attempts to “sustain the distribution, diversity, and abundance of populations and 

habitats of breeding, migratory, and nonbreeding waterbirds . . . throughout the lands and waters of 

North America” (Kushlan et al. 2002). It includes goals for species and populations, habitats, 

education and information, and coordination and integration. One strategy under the coordination and 

integration goal seeks to develop regional step-down plans. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-19 

The Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan (Ivey and Herziger 2006). The 

Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan is one of several regional step-down plans 

designed to implement the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan. Waterbirds are wetlanddependent 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, therefore, 

they were excluded from the Intermountain West plan. The goal of the plan is to maintain healthy 

populations, distributions, and habitats of waterbirds throughout the Intermountain West region. 

Columbia Plateau Ecoregional Assessment (Andelman et al. 1999). The Columbia Plateau 

Ecoregional Assessment attempts to identify an approach to maintaining long-term viability of 

imperiled species and natural systems on an ecosystem level. The assessment recognizes that 

management actions are often needed that would cross agency, governmental, and geographical 

boundaries. The assessment ties together site-specific conservation actions to a regional scale to help 

effect change on a larger scale. The conservation goal for the Columbia Plateau Ecoregion as set 

forth by the assessment is “the long-term survival of all viable native species and community types in 

the ecoregion” (Andelman et al. 1999). 

1.9 Planning and Issue Identification 

1.9.1 Planning Process Overview 

A core planning team identified priority Refuge species, a work plan, a communication and outreach 

plan, and preliminary issues to be addressed in the CCP. See Appendix J for a list of core planning 

team members. 

To ensure that the CCP/EIS was developed collaboratively with the larger community of scientists, 

land managers, and partners, valuable input was sought from an extended team whose members 

participated in wildlife habitats and public use reviews during preplanning; this extended team also 

provided technical expertise, assisted with data collection, and reviewed and provided feedback 

during development of the Draft and Final CCPs/EISs. The extended team consisted of various 

professionals from other agencies and divisions within the Service. See Appendix J for a list of 

extended team members. 

Early in the planning process, the core planning team identified several priority resources of concern 

for the Refuge (see Chapter 4 and Appendix E) based on a thorough review of regional plans and 

input from extended team members during a wildlife and habitat review in 2008. Wildlife and habitat 

goals and objectives were designed around the habitat requirements of species designated as priority 

resources of concern. The analytical framework for identifying 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 

2009b). 

Public use planning centered on developing goals, objectives and strategies for the Refuge System’s 

six priority wildlife-dependent public uses—hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, 

and environmental education and interpretation; and existing, compatible nonwildlife-dependent 

public uses, as well as the transportation and infrastructure associated with both types of uses. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

1-20 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

Our planning process benefitted from public input, which began in July 2010 with public scoping of 

issues and opportunities to include in the CCP. During July, August, and September 2010, public 

comments were solicited through the distribution of planning updates, in our public scoping 

meetings, and through outreach to stakeholder groups. Public scoping continued in September 2010, 

when we held public work sessions to generate strategies to use in the creation of CCP/EIS 

alternatives. In December 2010, a planning update was issued summarizing the public comments we 

received during public scoping. 

In May 2011, a planning update was issued to share our preliminary draft alternatives with the public 

and to obtain public comments on them. Public comments were gathered at public open houses and at 

stakeholders’ meetings. In addition, extended team meetings were held in June 2011, which included 

representatives from IDFG, the Boise Project Board of Control, ODFW, and others. We discussed 

the merits and issues of the preliminary draft alternatives and strategies. In October 2011, we 

summarized public comments and revisions to the preliminary alternatives based on those comments, 

in another planning update. See Appendix H for public involvement details. 

The CCP process facilitates incremental development of the CCP/EIS with public involvement at key 

steps. We considered all comments from the public and extended team during the development and 

evolution of our alternatives for the final CCP/EIS. We held a public comment period of 45 days on 

the Draft CCP/EIS, and we modified Alternative 2, our Preferred Alternative, in the final CCP/EIS, 

based on the input we receive from the public and from other agencies and organizations. Thirty days 

after the final CCP/EIS was released to the public, the Regional Director for the Service’s Pacific 

Region selected an alternative for implementation as documented in the Record of Decision, and 

announced in the Federal Register. 

1.9.2 Major Issues Addressed in the CCP 

The planning team evaluated the issues and concerns raised 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. Identifying issues to address in the CCP is an 

important part of the planning process. Issues influenced the types of information we gathered and 

helped us define alternatives for the CCP. It is the Service’s policy to focus planning and analysis on 

major issues that are within the Refuge’s jurisdiction and that have a positive or negative effect on 

the Refuge’s resources. The following issues, concerns, and opportunities were considered in the 

development of the Final CCP/EIS. 

1.9.2.1 Wildlife and Habitat Management 

 How should Refuge habitats be managed for resident and migratory wildlife species? 

Other than invasive species removal and post-wildfire restoration activities, there has been 

minimal habitat manipulation at the Lake Lowell Unit in recent years. We identify 

opportunities to improve nesting and resting habitats for migratory birds, through habitat 

adjustments and more efficient and effective methods of invasive species removal across the 

Refuge. There may be opportunities in the future to partner with Reclamation and the Board 

of Control to accomplish these activities. 

 Which habitats should the Refuge consider priorities for active management? Recent 

habitat management projects have been focused on the Lake Lowell Unit, with very little 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-21 

occurring on the Snake River Islands Unit. Given the importance of healthy riparian habitats 

along the river corridor, the possibility of shifting habitat management priorities to the Snake 

River Islands Unit, was analyzed in the Final CCP/EIS, as were strategies that would increase 

the efficiency and effectiveness of our island habitat management. 

 What are our biological research and monitoring priorities? In order to better manage 

Refuge habitats for the good of wildlife, we needed to gain a better understanding of how 

wildlife use the Refuge, how wildlife/human interactions affect wildlife use of the Refuge; 

how wildlife use patterns change over time; and how environmental factors (e.g., 

contaminants) impact wildlife. 

 What is the Refuge’s role in improving water quality? Although water quality issues are 

not within the management authority of the Refuge, contaminants in the lake may have an 

impact on wildlife resources and recreational opportunities at the Refuge. Before looking at 

ways to reduce contaminants, we must first identify and quantify their presence, and assess 

their impacts on the public and wildlife. Once there is a better understanding of the 

contaminants issue, the Refuge will be able to work with partners to address the problem and 

look for solutions. 

 How does the Refuge address the issue of invasive and undesirable nonnative plant and 

animal species? Controlling invasive plant species on the Refuge is challenging. Roads and 

trails often function as conduits for movement of plant species, including nonnative, invasive 

species. Propagules from invasive plants spread to new areas easily from clothing or 

equipment. Once established, invasive plants can out-compete native plants, thereby altering 

habitats and indirectly impacting wildlife. 

Some of the first refuge managers documented issues with feral cats and dogs on the Refuge. 

This problem has expanded as the human population near the Refuge continues to increase. 

These invasive animals can negatively impact wildlife in many ways (e.g., destroying nests 

and killing or chasing wildlife). Carp are another species that affect wildlife by reducing 

water quality, destroying habitat, and feeding on smaller fish and fish eggs. What strategies 

would efficiently and effectively control invasive and undesirable nonnative species? 

1.9.2.2 Public Use Management 

 How can the Refuge provide more quality opportunities for wildlife-dependent 

recreation to visitors of differing abilities without creating an undesirable level of 

disturbance to wildlife and habitats? Refuges are tasked with providing hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation 

opportunities for the public, without negatively impacting the purpose of the Refuge (i.e., 

refuge and breeding grounds for migratory birds and other wildlife). Regional populations 

and Refuge visitation have increased substantially in recent years. Increased visitation is 

likely to increase wildlife disturbance, possibly to levels that may alter wildlife movements, 

impact productivity, and reduce available food resources. In the CCP we identify ways to 

increase the quality of and opportunities for these wildlife-dependent activities without 

increasing disturbance to an unacceptable level. We also identify ways to increase Refuge 

accessibility to wildlife-dependent activities for people of all levels of physical ability. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

1-22 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

 Can the Refuge provide opportunities for nonwildlife-dependent recreation in a way 

that does not negatively impact wildlife, habitats, and visitors engaging in wildlifedependent recreation and education? The population surrounding the Refuge and visitation 

to the Refuge has increased over time. This has resulted in greater demand for nonwildlifedependent recreation such as high-speed boating, jogging, bicycling, and other activities, 

which increases the potential for impacts to wildlife, habitats, and wildlife-dependent visitors. 

If nonwildlife-dependent uses are to continue on the Refuge, we must balance these uses with 

protecting wildlife and habitat and providing quality wildlife-dependent uses. 

 How can the Refuge increase the quality of its waterfowl and upland hunts? Some 

hunters voiced concerns in the past about the crowded conditions surrounding the waterfowl 

hunt at Lake Lowell Unit. There is also question as to whether or not the Refuge can provide 

a quality upland hunt opportunity. Strategies meant to reduce hunter conflict, increase safety, 

and assess the quality of Refuge hunting opportunities are identified in this CCP. 

 How should limited Refuge resources be allocated between environmental education 

programs as compared to outreach and interpretation to the general visitor? Many 

visitors do not know that they are on a national wildlife refuge or what the purpose of the 

Refuge is. Would it be better to increase interpretive programs for the general visitor, so they 

have a better understanding of what a national wildlife refuge is and have an opportunity to 

experience the Refuge in a new way? Or is it better to continue to focus on structured 

environmental education programs for children from local schools. 

 How can the Refuge improve safety for its visitors and reduce the amount of illegal 

activity? In the past, there were at least two dual-function Refuge Law Enforcement (LE) 

officers. Currently, the Refuge has one LE officer assigned to it. The Refuge also receives 

assistance as part of the territory a Service Zone LE officer covers, which includes Service 

law enforcement in eastern Oregon, eastern Washington, all of southern Idaho, and northern 

Nevada. The Canyon County Sheriff’s Office, the Canyon County Marine Deputies, and 

IDFG Conservation Officers also provide assistance, but these agencies have their own 

priorities and obligations. In order to decrease illegal activity without increasing the burden 

on local law enforcement, the Refuge may need to implement technological solutions such as 

automatic gates, cameras, and better lighting. Developing agreements with other law 

enforcement agencies to enforce Refuge regulations could improve visitor experiences. 

1.9.3 Issues outside the Scope of the CCP 

Although CCPs are very comprehensive plans, no single plan can cover all issues. The planning team 

has compiled a list of issues that are currently considered to be outside the scope of this CCP. 

 Deer hunting. A new Lake Lowell Unit deer hunt was addressed in a recent environmental 

assessment (USFWS 2011a) and hunt package. The hunt was approved in September 2012 

and began in October 2012. Because impacts of the Lake Lowell deer hunt were so recently 

assessed, the Lake Lowell deer hunt is outside of the scope of this CCP. 

 Development. Development that reduces habitat, impacts wildlife, or increases pollution 

outside of the Refuge borders could impact the wildlife and habitats of the Refuge. We may 

discuss partnering with local entities to identify areas of concern for future development in 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-23 

the CCP, but the Refuge does not have the authority to restrict or direct future county or city 

development on lands outside the Refuge. Managing development outside the Refuge’s 

boundary is within the management control of city and county governments, not the Service. 

 Fisheries management. Service policy requires us to develop a fisheries management plan. 

The plan will be developed in close coordination with IDFG. 

 Lake Lowell water levels. The Refuge received comments expressing concern that using the 

water in Lake Lowell to meet biological goals and objectives would reduce the amount of 

water available to local irrigators. The Refuge is an overlay refuge on a Reclamation 

reservoir, and Reclamation has primary jurisdiction over the manipulation of water levels of 

Lake Lowell. Through its contracts with Reclamation, the Board of Control has the day-today operation and maintenance of project features which directly affects Lake Lowell water 

levels. Consistent with the executive order that established Deer Flat NWR the Refuge does 

not have authority to manipulate water levels. 

 Reclamation Zone activities. The Reclamation Zones are located to the west of the Lower 

Dam and to the north of the Upper Dam. These areas are within the boundary of the Refuge 

but are legally managed by Reclamation. Management of all activities in these areas is 

outside the scope of this CCP. 

 Refuge boundary. No modifications to the Refuge boundary were considered or proposed in 

the Final CCP/EIS. Individual boundary issues are researched as issues arise. 

 Restructuring of priority and nonpriority recreational activities. Because the concepts of 

priority/nonpriority and wildlife-dependent/nonwildlife-dependent are found in the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended, and are a matter of law, 

making changes to these categories is not within the scope of the CCP. 

 Snake River boating. The Snake River is considered navigable waters and is not managed 

by the Service. This issue is not within the jurisdiction of Deer Flat NWR, therefore, it is 

outside of the scope of the CCP. 

 Snake River water flows. Water levels on both the Snake River and Lake Lowell are outside 

of the management control of the Service. 

 Water quality control. Although water quality is extremely important to the health of the 

wildlife and habitats of Deer Flat NWR, many of the forces influencing water quality are not 

within the management control of the Service. Refuge staff may partner with other agencies 

to create solutions to the water quality problem and assist in implementation of the total 

maximum daily load plan proposed by the Department of Environmental Quality. 

1.10 Refuge Goals 

Refuge management goals are descriptive, open-ended, and often broad statements of desired future 

conditions that convey a purpose, but they do not define measurable units. Goals must support the 

Refuge vision and describe the desired end result. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

1-24 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

1.10.1 Wildlife and Habitat Goals 

Goal 1: Protect, maintain, and enhance viable mudflat, emergent–bed, and open-water habitats 

associated with Lake Lowell to benefit migratory birds and other wildlife. 

Goal 2: Protect, maintain, and enhance riparian forest, benefiting migratory birds and other ripariandependent species. 

Goal 3: Protect, maintain, and enhance nonlake wetland habitats for the benefit of migratory birds 

and other wildlife. 

Goal 4: Protect, maintain, and enhance shrub-steppe habitats characteristic of the historical Columbia 

Basin. 

Goal 5: Protect, maintain and enhance managed grasslands and agricultural crops to support 

migrating waterfowl as well as resident wildlife. 

Goal 6: Gather sufficient scientific information to guide responsible adaptive management decisions 

for the Refuge’s trust resources. 

1.10.2 Public Use and Cultural Resources Goals 

Goal 1: Visitors of all ages will enjoy native wildlife and increase their understanding and 

appreciation of the importance of the Refuge as wildlife habitat.

Goal 2: Hunters of all ages and abilities will enjoy a family-friendly, safe, quality hunt that 

minimally impacts Refuge habitats and wildlife and increases their understanding and appreciation of 

the importance of Deer Flat NWR as wildlife habitat. 

Goal 3: Anglers will enjoy a family-friendly, quality, accessible fishing opportunity that minimally 

impacts Refuge habitats and wildlife and increases their understanding and appreciation of the 

importance of Deer Flat NWR as wildlife habitat. 

Goal 4: Students, teachers, and Refuge visitors will understand the biology and management of the 

Refuge and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and will demonstrate stewardship of 

the Refuge and other wildlife habitats. 

Goal 5: Visitors will have limited impacts to wildlife, feel safe during their visit, and understand 

Refuge regulations and how they help protect wildlife and wildlife habitat as well as other visitors. 

Goal 6: The Refuge will initiate and nurture relationships and develop cooperative opportunities to 

nurture stewardship of the Refuge and instill in others an understanding and appreciation of the 

importance of Deer Flat NWR as wildlife habitat. 

Goal 7: The Refuge will protect and manage its cultural resources and look for ways to gain new 

understanding of the history and cultural resources of both the Lake Lowell Unit and the Snake River 

Islands Unit. 
Canada goose and gosling

Jennifer Brown-Scott/USFWS Chapter 2 Management Direction Chapter 5 Human

Environment

Chapter 4BiologicalEnvironment

Chapter 3PhysicalEnvironment

Chapter 1Introduction andBackground

Appendices A-P

Chapter 2Management Direction

Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-1 

Chapter 2 Management Direction 

2.1 Considerations in CCP Development 

The Deer Flat Refuge’s purposes (see Chapter 1) serve as the foundation for this long-term 

conservation plan as mandated by the Refuge Administration Act. The Refuge’s natural resource 

considerations were also fundamental in formulating the management direction for this CCP. House 

Report 105-106 accompanying the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act states that “the 

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

come first.” The Service also reviewed and considered a variety of resource, social, economic, and 

organizational data important to managing the Refuge. These background conditions are described 

more fully in Chapters 1, 3, 4, and 5. 

This CCP was developed using an iterative process that began with our planning team drafting a 

Refuge vision statement, and preliminary goals and objectives. After reviewing available scientific 

reports and studies to better understand ecosystem trends and recommendations for species and 

habitats, the team collaborated with cooperating agencies and local stakeholders to create a list of 

important Refuge management issues. 

The public also identified issues and provided comments during the public scoping comment period 

July-September 2010 and again in response to preliminary draft alternatives May-July 2011. The 

management direction in this CCP was identified as Alternative 2, our preferred alternative, in the 

draft CCP/EIS, which was also distributed for public comments. All substantive comments were 

considered during development of this CCP, and addressed in Appendix H. 

2.1.1 Definitions 

To help make this chapter more user friendly, we are providing the following definitions. 

Wildlife-dependent Recreation: Sometimes referred to as the “Big Six,” these activities consist of 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, interpretation, and environmental 

education. These six wildlife-dependent uses are priority activities for the Refuge as well as for all 

national wildlife refuges. 

Nonwildlife-dependent Recreation: At the Refuge, these uses include swimming, picnicking, 

biking, jogging, horseback riding, boating, and water sports. 

Protect: To keep from being damaged or injured. Protected acreage consists of the total Refuge 

acreage of each defined habitat. 

Maintain: To keep in the current state; preserve; retain. Maintenance includes the continuation of 

current routine management or maintenance, such as the continuation of recurring weed control or 

management of current public use regulations. 

Enhance: To improve features or quality. Enhancement includes implementing new additions to 

current management and ongoing future maintenance of these areas, or initiating new management, 

such as treating new areas and acreages for weeds and maintaining these areas during the life of the 

plan or implementing new public use regulations. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-2 Chapter 2. Management Direction 

2.2 Summary of Management Direction 

Our management direction emphasizes connecting families to nature by providing access to new 

facilities and a wide range of wildlife-dependent and nonwildlife-dependent recreational activities. 

Actions will be implemented over the next 15 years. Some actions will require additional funding, 

and will be implemented as funding becomes available. Project priorities and projected 

staffing/funding needs are included in Appendix C. 

Activities will be managed to protect wildlife, reduce conflicts between users, and increase safety. 

Under this CCP, fishing access will be promoted, and wildlife interpretation will be emphasized and 

integrated into all visitor activities to increase awareness and appreciation of Refuge resources. 

The Service will protect and enhance habitat throughout the Refuge. In Lake Lowell specifically, the 

Refuge will protect wildlife species’ shoreline feeding and nesting sites from disturbance through nowake zones and seasonal closures. Our management direction provides protections and 

enhancements for Refuge wildlife, and upland and on-water recreational opportunities. 

2.2.1 Management Actions Specific to Each Refuge Unit 

2.2.1.1 Lake Lowell Unit 

Management of Wildlife and Habitat 

Our management direction provides needed protections for lake-dependent wildlife by establishing a 

200-yard no-wake zone along the south side of the lake between Parking Lots 1 and 8. The entire 

lake will continue to be closed for the benefit of wintering and migrating birds from October 1 

through April 14 each year. No-wake zones will also be required in the Narrows, and the existing nowake zone on the southeast end of the lake will be expanded to start at a line between Gotts Point and 

Parking Lot 1. In the no-wake zones, boaters will be allowed to travel at speeds that do not create a 

wake (generally less than 5 mph). We will also create seasonally closed areas, such as heron 

rookeries, eagle nests, and grebe nesting colonies, to protect bird species. 

Specific wildlife and habitat management objectives in this CCP include the following. 

 Maintain 100 acres and enhance 250 acres of emergent wetland plant beds along the lake 

shoreline. 

 Maintain 350 acres and enhance 560 acres of mudflats to benefit migrating shorebirds. 

 Maintain and enhance 6,430 acres of open-water habitat to benefit migrating, nesting, and 

wintering waterfowl and waterbirds. 

 Maintain 520 acres and enhance 1,200 acres of riparian forest habitat at Lake Lowell Unit. 

 Maintain 70 acres and enhance 85 acres of nonlake wetland basins in three units to diversify 

wetland habitats and improve water quality. 

 Maintain 520 acres and enhance 300 acres of sagebrush-steppe habitat at Lake Lowell Unit to 

benefit key migrating birds including sage thrashers, loggerhead shrikes, burrowing owls, and 

other species. 

 Maintain and enhance all Refuge islands through seasonal closures and habitat management. 

 Maintain grain and forage crops on 250 acres to benefit migratory ducks and geese and other 

resident wildlife. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-3 

 Inventory and map noxious weeds and prioritize treatment with a variety of tools including 

mechanical removal, herbicide use, and prescribed fire, consistent with the Integrated Pest 

Management Plan (Appendix G). 

Management of Public Uses 

The Refuge provides access for a wide range of outdoor recreational activities while putting in place 

measures (e.g., no-wake zones and seasonal closures) to protect wildlife. Management efforts will 

focus on increasing participation in all six, priority wildlife-dependent recreational activities. Fishing 

and interpretation will be emphasized to serve a growing diverse, urban population. Management of 

public uses will connect people with nature and build support for wildlife conservation. 

Deer Flat Refuge will be one of the few, if not only, refuges in the NWRS that allows use of personal 

watercraft, waterskiing, wakeboarding, kiteboarding, and windsurfing in waters under Service 

jurisdiction. It is anticipated that participants in these activities will be exposed to interpretive 

messages that encourage appropriate, conservation-oriented visitor behavior to benefit wildlife. 

Our management direction includes several elements to protect wildlife and enhance recreational 

experiences at the Refuge. These include: 

 Lower Dam Recreation Area facilities. A visitor contact station and a fishing and 

observation dock/platform will be provided at the Lower Dam Recreation Area. Suitability 

will be assessed for providing a 0.65-mile interpretive loop trail in riparian habitat between 

the Lower Dam Recreation Area and Murphy’s Neck, which will be accessible for visitors 

with mobility impairments in compliance with the Architectural Barriers Act (ABA). 

 Gotts Point will be opened to vehicular traffic upon completion of a cooperative agreement 

with Canyon County for increased law enforcement presence. Other potential improvements 

such as electronic gates and improved lighting might also be implemented. Access to the 

water’s edge will be improved for visitors with mobility impairments. 

 Environmental education and interpretive programs will continue. Emphasis will be 

placed on developing interpretive programs, with the goal of increasing visitor awareness of 

the Refuge’s purposes and goals and to encourage appropriate, conservation-oriented visitor 

behavior. On-site interpretation will involve updating visitor center displays, installing 

additional interpretive signage, and providing more interpretive tours. Public contact with 

Refuge staff and volunteers will significantly increase. EE will continue and the program will 

emphasize on-site and teacher-led programs. 

 Upland, waterfowl, and deer hunt areas will be maintained. Each waterfowl hunter will 

have a limit of 25 shotgun shells. 

 Wildlife-dependent activities such as fishing, wildlife observation, and photography will be 

allowed on-trail year-round and off-trail all year in the East Side Recreation Area, and offtrail seasonally in the South Side and North Side Recreation Areas. Shoreline access will be 

developed at Parking Lots 2, 3, 4, and 7. Ice fishing will be allowed within 200 yards of the 

dams, subject to areas posted by Reclamation. 

 Horseback riding, bicycling, and other nonwildlife-dependent activities will be allowed 

on designated trails only (Maps 4-6). Narrower trails and those used by EE groups will be 

designated for pedestrian use only. As described in Section 2.2.1.1, ice skating and landbased competitive group activities will not be allowed. 

 On-leash dog walking will be allowed on designated trails (see Maps 4-6), and in the 

Refuge’s Lower Dam Recreation Area. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-4 Chapter 2. Management Direction 

 Wake-causing activities will be allowed in the East and West Pools, outside of the no-wake 

zones and seasonal closures, from April 15 through September 30. Generally, wakes occur 

when boats travel at speeds greater than 5 mph. 

 Boardwalk. A feasibility assessment will be completed to determine whether trail access 

between Parking Lots 1 and 3 could be provided at a reasonable cost. Other fishing docks 

will be provided as shown on Map 4. 

 Swimming. To increase swimming safety and reduce impacts to anglers, swimmers will be 

encouraged to swim in the designated swimming areas at the Upper and Lower Dams. 

Limiting Ice Activity

Safety is a major concern for recreational users that rely on the structural integrity of ice on Lake 

Lowell to enjoy ice activities. Systematic ice evaluations by qualified personnel are not conducted on 

Lake Lowell, and average monthly high temperatures in Treasure Valley do not reach freezing 

according to the National Weather Service (www.rssweather.com/climate/Idaho/Boise/). This, 

combined with high winds and long fetch, makes the freezing of Lake Lowell unpredictable, and any 

frozen areas potentially unsafe. 

Lake Lowell is closed to boating from October 1 through April 14 to provide habitat for wintering 

waterfowl and reduce disturbance from human-caused flushing events. Under the management 

direction in this CCP, the lake will be open to ice fishing but closed to all other human access during 

those months, including ice skating and cross-country skiing. We addressed ice skating in a Finding 

of Appropriateness in Appendix A, and in our response to comments in Appendix H. 

Limiting Organized Group Activities 

Wildlife-dependent group activities (e.g., fishing tournaments) may be allowed by an SUP that limits 

the number of participants, times of use, and areas of use to reduce impacts to other wildlifedependent recreationists. 

Land-based nonwildlife-dependent competitive events and group training for competitive events 

(e.g., cross-country training and meets) will not be allowed because they exclude the general public, 

increase wildlife disturbance, affect the quality of wildlife-dependent activities, require additional 

management resources, and increase safety concerns. See also the Competitive Jogging, Competitive 

Cycling, and Competitive Rowing Appropriate Use Determinations in Appendix A. 

Sailing regattas will be allowed according to the stipulations set forth in the Compatibility 

Determination for Sailing Regattas in Appendix B. 

Nonwildlife-dependent group events (e.g., weddings, reunions, birthday parties, and other 

gatherings) will be allowed only at the Lower Dam Recreation Area because of the availability of 

parking, restrooms, picnic areas, and trash services. Such group events will be required to comply 

with stipulations laid out in the Compatibility Determination for Swimming, Beach Use, and 

Picnicking (Appendix B), to reduce impacts to visitor safety or the ability of other visitors to enjoy 

the Refuge. These stipulations will be provided to visitors on the Refuge website and through 

handouts. If staffing and funding levels allow at a later time, organized group events may be required 

to obtain an SUP and a fee may be assessed for the SUP. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-5 

Improving Safety and Traffic Flow 

A transportation study for the Lower Dam Recreation Area and the east Upper Dam boat launch will 

identify site planning, signs, and other mechanisms to reduce congestion and provide parking 

availability information to allow people to detour to other launches when a parking lot is full. To 

increase pedestrian safety near the east Upper Dam boat launch, the Refuge will work with the 

County Highway District to identify and install safety features such as crosswalks between the 

Refuge and the County Park. The on-Refuge parking areas along Iowa Avenue will be removed or 

blocked, because there is no designated access to the lake at those locations, and pedestrian safety 

has been a concern. Parking at Lot 7 will be restricted to the parking area, and will not be allowed 

between the parking area and the lakeshore in order to provide access for visitors launching boats. 

Working with Board of Control and Bureau of Reclamation on Reservoir Water Level 

Prescriptions and Shared Efficiencies 

Deer Flat Reservoir (renamed Lake Lowell in 1948) was built as part of Reclamation’s Boise-Payette 

Project between 1906 and 1908. Providing irrigation to the surrounding lands was the project’s sole 

purpose at its inception. Although the Refuge’s primary purpose is to “provide a refuge and breeding 

ground for migratory birds and other wildlife,” the Refuge may not impede the purpose of the 

reservoir for irrigation. The irrigation purpose puts the administrative responsibility for water level 

management with Reclamation and the Board of Control. 

Reservoir water level declines throughout the irrigation season (April to September) when irrigation 

outflow exceeds water inflow from the New York Canal. This results in fairly low water levels in the 

lake in July and August. Using data acquired from the Lake Lowell Hydromet Station 

(www.usbr.gov/pn/hydromet/dfcgi.html), the average water level elevation was estimated to range 

from 2,520 to 2,516 feet during this time period. Many species, both plant and animal, can adapt 

and/or use habitat where water levels fluctuate, and sometimes even benefit from the changes. For 

example, low water levels in Lake Lowell in mid- to late-July expose mudflats that provide foraging 

habitat for migrating shorebirds. However, when water levels drop too low in June and early July, 

emergent plant beds can dry out, and grebe and other on-water nests can be left on dry land. If that 

happens, the adults will often abandon the colony, or the nests will be destroyed by predators. 

Because the Board of Control, in cooperation with Reclamation, manages the water level, Refuge 

staff will continue to explore with the Board of Control the possibility of maintaining a water level 

appropriate to provide nesting and foraging habitat for grebes, fish, and other wildlife from April 

through July, while still meeting the Board of Control’s mission of providing water to irrigators. 

Based on 2010-2011 nesting surveys, the appropriate water level will be at or above an elevation of 

approximately 2,520 feet. However, Refuge staff will continue to monitor waterbird nesting to 

determine appropriate target water levels. In addition, the Refuge will explore with the Board of 

Control the possibility of dropping the water level to at or below approximately 2,515 feet by 

September 1 to provide mudflats for foraging shorebirds while still meeting their irrigation mission. 

Refuge staff will also work with the Board of Control’s staff to coordinate water conservation 

educational projects that will assist with meeting both agencies’ purposes and missions. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-6 Chapter 2. Management Direction 

Working with Partners to Improve Lake Lowell’s Water Quality 

Lake Lowell has significant water quality problems that affect both wildlife and recreationists. The 

Federal Clean Water Act (CWA; 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) requires that states and tribes restore and 

maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. States and tribes, 

pursuant to Section 303 of the CWA, are to adopt water-quality standards necessary to protect fish, 

shellfish, and wildlife, while providing recreation in and on the nation’s waters whenever possible. 

Section 303(d) of the CWA establishes requirements for states and tribes to identify and prioritize 

water bodies that are water quality limited (i.e., water bodies that do not meet water-quality 

standards). Lake Lowell is on this list. For waters identified on this list, states and tribes must 

develop a total maximum daily load (TMDL) for the pollutants that is set at a level expected to 

achieve water quality standards. The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) published 

the final TMDL for pollutants in Lake Lowell in 2010 (IDEQ 2010). 

Lake Lowell’s water quality problems have been developing for approximately 100 years and will 

take considerable time and money to improve. The Refuge is very concerned about water quality 

impacts on both wildlife and Refuge visitors and plans to be an active partner in working toward 

improving the lake’s water quality. Several strategies are included in this CCP, they follow. 

 Work toward reducing the carp population (Objective 2.3.1.1). 

 Conduct water-quality monitoring to aid in evaluating the current TMDL (Objective 2.3.6.3). 

 Promote the use of CARB star-rated motors at two-star ratings and above (Objective 2.4.1.4). 

 Develop a water quality education program (Objective 2.4.4.1). 

 Form a working group to investigate water-quality improvement actions (Objective 2.4.6.2). 

 Work closely with the Board of Control to implement best management practices to reduce 

sediment runoff as well as evaluate current canal maintenance practices and identify areas for 

improvement (e.g., planting, geowebbing, contouring; Objective 2.4.6.2). 

 Attend applicable water quality meetings with IDEQ and the Lower Boise Watershed 

Advisory Group to develop partnerships, increase knowledge, and leverage resources 

(Objective 2.4.6.2). 

Siltation of the lake may also be an issue in the future. Areas that are currently used for nesting and 

angling appear to be silting in, which will eventually make them unusable for these activities. There 

is currently no plan to reduce future siltation or correct the current siltation issues. The Refuge will 

work with the Board of Control and Reclamation to identify ways to reduce siltation and correct 

current siltation issues without damaging wildlife habitat or impeding the delivery of irrigation water. 

2.2.1.2 Snake River Islands Unit 

Management of Wildlife and Habitat 

Refuge staff will emphasize management of the Snake River Islands Unit by increasing wildlife 

inventory and monitoring efforts and increasing invasive species control (following the IPM Plan in 

Appendix G) and restoration efforts. The islands’ management will be prioritized using several 

factors and managed accordingly. The most biologically intact islands will receive higher 

management priority (Objective 2.3.2.2). Island closure dates will be adjusted to better protect 

nesting geese, wading birds, gulls, and terns. An array of management techniques may be used, 

including prescribed fire and aerial application of herbicide and/or seed. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-7 

Management of Public Uses 

Existing public uses will continue and will include wildlife observation, and deer, upland, and 

waterfowl hunting on 1,219 acres. Most of the Snake River Islands Unit will be open for off-trail, 

free-roam activities, including shoreline fishing, from June 15 through January 31. Heron- and gullnesting islands (four-six islands) will be open for off-trail, free-roam activities from July 1 through 

January 31. 

2.2.2 Management Actions Applicable to Both Refuge Units 

Adaptive Management 

Adaptive management is an approach to resource management that emphasizes adjusting 

management practices in response to what has been learned. Based on 522 DM 1 (Adaptive 

Management Implementation Policy), the Service will use adaptive management for conserving, 

protecting and, where appropriate, restoring lands and resources. Within 43 C.F.R. 46.30, adaptive 

management is defined as a system of management practices based on clearly identified outcomes, 

where monitoring evaluates whether management actions are achieving desired results (objectives). 

Adaptive management decisions are based on the best available science, common sense, experience, 

experimentation, new scientific discoveries, and monitoring. 

The recently published Department of the Interior Adaptive Management Technical Guide 

(http://www.doi.gov/initiatives/AdaptiveManagement/index.html) also defines adaptive management 

as a decision process that “promotes flexible decision making that can be adjusted in the face of 

uncertainties as outcomes from management actions and other events become better understood.” 

Adaptive management accounts for the fact that complete knowledge about fish, wildlife, plants, 

habitats, and the ecological processes supporting them may be lacking. The role of natural variability 

contributing to ecological resilience also is recognized as an important principle for adaptive 

management. It is not a trial and error process; instead, adaptive management emphasizes learning 

while doing. It is based on available scientific information and the best professional judgment of 

Refuge staff while considering site-specific biotic and abiotic factors on the Refuge. 

Assessing and Monitoring Effects of Climate Trends and Climate Change 

As stated in the Department of the Interior’s Secretarial Order 3226 and the Service’s Climate 

Change Strategic Plan, the Service considers and analyzes climate change in its decisions, long-range 

plans, and other activities. Habitat conditions and wildlife populations are directly and indirectly 

sensitive to climatic conditions, namely precipitation, temperature, and changes to hydrologic 

conditions. As described in greater detail in Chapter 3, the subbasin’s hydrology is particularly 

sensitive to changes in climate because snowmelt dominates seasonal runoff and the rain/snow 

balance is sensitive to temperature. 

Combined changes to temperature, precipitation, and hydrology can affect the Refuge’s habitats and 

species directly, such as the timing of migratory arrival of birds, many other phenologic responses, 

and changes in species’ ranges and physiology. These combined changes can also affect species 

indirectly, such as added vulnerability to other stressors (including increasing invasive species and 

pathogens). These indirect effects highlight the importance of monitoring habitats and species to 

establish potential correlations and adaptation options. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-8 Chapter 2. Management Direction 

Knowledge and monitoring of regional and local climate trends on Refuge resources will be used to 

assess potential changes or enhancements to the Refuge’s management actions and techniques and/or 

their timing, using the adaptive management approach described below. 

The Refuge will monitor wildlife corridor analyses, vulnerability assessments, and other efforts, 

including those underway at a landscape scale, such as the Great Northern Landscape Conservation 

Cooperative (LCC). LCCs are formal science-management partnerships between the Service, Federal 

agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, universities, and other entities to address 

climate change and other biological stressors in an integrated fashion. LCCs provide science support, 

biological planning, conservation design, research, and design of inventory and monitoring programs. 

Biological Integrity 

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

and environmental health of the [NWRS] are maintained for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans.” The policy is an additional directive for the Service to follow while 

achieving the Refuge’s purposes and the NWRS mission. It provides for consideration and protection 

of the broad spectrum of native fish, wildlife, and habitat resources found on the Deer Flat Refuge. 

When evaluating the appropriate management direction for the Refuge (e.g., in compatibility 

determinations), we used sound professional judgment to determine the Refuge’s contribution to 

biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health at multiple landscape scales. We 

incorporated field experience, our knowledge of Refuge resources, an understanding of the Refuge’s 

role within the ecosystem, and applicable laws and the best available science, including consultation 

with others both inside and outside the Service. 

Cultural Resource Protection and Section 106 Compliance 

Actions that may affect cultural resources will be reviewed by the Regional Archaeologist. Those 

undertakings that are found to have the potential to affect cultural resources will undergo further 

examination and evaluation, under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 

dependent on the nature and extent of the effect. 

Feral and/or Nuisance Animal Control 

The close proximity of Deer Flat NWR to a city lends itself to the reality of feral animals running at 

large on Refuge property. The extent of feral animal use and presence within Refuge boundaries and 

the amount of impact on trust resources has not been formally studied and is currently unknown. 

However, sighting of feral animals on Deer Flat NWR is a common occurrence by visitors, staff, and 

volunteers. Incidents of dumping unwanted pets onto the Refuge are also common. 

During the life of this CCP, we will address the feral animal issue including assessing impacts to 

resources and appropriate measures of control that could produce positive results including: 

 Reducing damages to Refuge resources and facilities; 

 Protecting humans, wildlife, and domestic animals from diseases carried by pest species; 

 Preventing damages to adjacent private landowners property; 

 Controlling exotic and/or feral species so that native wildlife species can thrive; and 

 Protecting quality wildlife-oriented recreational experiences for the public. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-9 

Outside of assessments and studies on the impacts of feral animals, dogs and cats will be dealt with 

on the Refuge as authorized by 50 C.F.R. 28.43, Destruction of Dogs and Cats: “Dogs and cats 

running at large on a national wildlife refuge and observed by an authorized official 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.” 

Fire Management 

Fire management activities will conform to guidelines contained in Service policy and an approved 

fire management plan for the Refuge. The Refuge’s current fire management plan is in Appendix K. 

Invasive Species Control and Integrated Pest Management 

In accordance with 517 DM 1 and 569 FW 1, an integrated pest management (IPM) approach will be 

used, where practicable, to eradicate, control, or contain pest and invasive species (herein collectively 

referred to as pests) on Refuge lands. IPM will involve using methods based upon effectiveness, cost, 

and minimal ecological disruption, which considers minimum potential effects to nontarget species 

and the Refuge environment. 

Pesticides may be used where physical, cultural, and biological methods or combinations thereof, are 

impractical or incapable of providing adequate control, eradication, or containment. If a pesticide is 

needed on Refuge lands, the most specific (selective) chemical available for the target species will be 

used unless considerations of persistence or other environmental and/or biotic hazards will preclude 

it. In accordance with 517 DM 1, pesticide usage will be further restricted because only pesticides 

registered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in full compliance with the Federal 

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and as provided in regulations, orders, or permits issued 

by EPA may be applied on lands and waters under Refuge jurisdiction. 

Environmental harm by pest species refers 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 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 habitat greatly can alter fire return intervals, displacing native 

species and communities of bunchgrasses, 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, which alter entire plant and animal communities and eliminate 

or sharply reduce populations of many native plant and animal species, can also greatly increase 

firefighting costs. 

See Appendix G 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 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-10 Chapter 2. Management Direction 

pesticides for pest management on Refuge lands, where necessary. Throughout the life of the CCP, 

pesticide uses on Refuge lands will be evaluated for potential effects to Refuge biological resources 

and environmental quality prior to use. These potential effects will be documented in Chemical 

Profiles (see Appendix G). 

Pesticide uses with appropriate and practical best management practices (BMPs) for habitat 

management as well as cropland/facilities maintenance will be approved for use on Refuge lands 

where there likely will be only minor, temporary, and localized effects to species and environmental 

quality based upon non-exceedance of threshold values in Chemical Profiles. However, pesticides 

may be used on Refuge lands where substantial effects to species and the environment are possible 

(i.e., effects exceed threshold values) in order to protect human health and safety (e.g., mosquitoborne disease). 

Maintaining and Updating Existing Facilities 

Periodic maintenance and updating of Refuge buildings and facilities will be necessary. Periodic 

updating of facilities is necessary for safety and accessibility, to reduce the Refuge’s carbon 

footprint, and to support staff and management needs. When existing facilities are modified or new 

facilities and programs developed, the Refuge will use principles of universal design to make 

facilities usable by all people to the greatest extent possible, without separate or segregated access for 

people with mobility impairments. 

Monitoring Effects of Public Use Programs on Wildlife 

Staff will monitor the effects of public use on wildlife and consider modifications to the location, 

timing, and/or type of public use if disturbance to wildlife or habitat degradation reaches 

unacceptable levels. 

Monitoring Quality of Public Use Programs 

Visitor use surveys will assess the quality of the fishing, hunting, environmental education, 

interpretation, wildlife observation, and photography programs. Quality for priority wildlifedependent uses is defined in Refuge policy by several elements (605 FW 1):

 Promotes safety of participants, other visitors, and facilities; 

 Promotes responsible behaviors and compliance with applicable laws and regulations; 

 Minimizes or eliminates conflicts with fish and wildlife population or habitat goals or 

objectives; 

 Minimizes or eliminates conflict with other users; 

 Minimizes conflicts with neighboring landowners; 

 Promotes accessibility and availability to a broad spectrum of the public; 

 Promotes resources stewardship and conservation; 

 Promotes public understanding and increases public appreciation of natural resources and the 

Refuge’s and National Wildlife Refuge System’s role in managing and protecting these 

resources; 

 Provides reliable/reasonable opportunities to experience wildlife; 

 Uses facilities that are accessible and blend into the natural setting; and 

 Uses visitor satisfaction to help define and evaluate programs. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-11 

Mosquito Abatement 

Mosquito control activities began on the Refuge in 2000 to prevent the spread of western equine 

encephalitis and West Nile virus. Mosquito monitoring (primarily Culex species) begins in mid-April 

with weekly sampling on the Refuge. Treatments typically begin in early May and continue until 

September with the first frost. The larvicide Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (Bti) is used on the 

Refuge and applied by the Canyon County Mosquito Abatement District using several methods: 

backpack sprayer, hydraulic-powered spray equipment, and aerially in accordance with a Special Use 

Permit (SUP) issued annually by the Refuge (see the Compatibility Determination for Mosquito 

Management in Appendix B). Aerial application began in 2004 to reduce wildlife disturbance from 

ground applications. 

Response to Mosquito-Borne Diseases 

Mosquito populations on Refuge lands will be allowed to fluctuate and function unimpeded unless 

they pose a threat to wildlife and/or human health. We recognize mosquitoes are native invertebrates 

inhabiting aquatic habitats which provide forage for fish and wildlife including migratory birds. 

To protect human and wildlife health and safety, the State or local vector control agency will be 

allowed to control mosquito populations on refuge lands. Pesticide treatments (larvicides, pupacides, 

or adulticides) will be allowed on Refuge lands only if local, current population monitoring and/or 

disease surveillance data indicate Refuge-based mosquitoes pose a health threat to humans and/or 

wildlife. As previously described, mosquito treatments will be allowed on Refuge lands in 

accordance with IPM principles applicable to all pests (see Appendix G). Pesticide uses for mosquito 

control will include appropriate and practical BMPs where possible, given potential effects 

documented in Chemical Profiles.

After approval of the CCP, a disease contingency plan will be prepared addressing response to 

mosquito-borne disease outbreaks on and/or adjacent to Refuge lands. The disease contingency plan 

will also include other information such as the history of mosquito-borne diseases on and/or adjacent 

to the Refuge as well as measures to protect Refuge visitors, Service-authorized agents, and Service 

employees when a health threat or emergency is identified by health officials. 

Participation in Planning and Review of Regional Development Activities 

The Service will actively participate in planning and studies pertaining to 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 their dependence on the local 

environment. 

Reductions in the Refuge’s Carbon Footprint

The Service developed the Strategic Plan for Responding to Accelerating Climate Change in the 21st 

Century (2009) and a 5-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 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-12 Chapter 2. Management Direction 

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. 

Research

Research projects will be allowed on the Refuge in accordance with Service policy and SUP 

provisions. Researchers focusing on high-priority Refuge research projects will be given enhanced 

consideration. See the Compatibility Determination for Research in Appendix B for further details. 

State Coordination 

The Service will continue to maintain regular discussions with the IDFG and ODFW. Key topics of 

discussion include management of Canada geese and other waterfowl, depredation, wildlife 

monitoring, hunting, and fishing seasons and regulations, and management of species listed at the 

Federal and State levels. The Refuge will continue to coordinate with IDFG on the stocking of the 

following fish species at the Lake Lowell Unit: largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, bluegill, channel 

catfish, black crappie, yellow perch, rainbow trout, and Lahontan cutthroat trout. Stocking of any 

other fish species will require additional planning. The Refuge is committed to developing a 

cooperative agreement with IDFG for resident fish and wildlife management. 

Step-down Management Plans 

The Refuge will complete step-down plans to provide additional detail for habitat management, 

visitor services management, fisheries management, and the inventory and monitoring program 

within five years of implementation of the CCP. Hunt plans will also be created for any newly 

proposed hunts or for expansion of any existing hunts. 

Tribal Consultation and Coordination 

All appropriate and necessary consultation with Tribes will be undertaken prior to implementing any 

action. Two Executive Orders (E.O. 13007, Sacred Sites; and E.O. 13175, Tribal Consultation and 

Coordination); as well as the NHPA, NEPA, and Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA), 

have specific references for fulfilling coordination and consultation requirements. 

Urban Refuge

With its close proximity to the cities of Nampa, Caldwell, and Boise, and as the surrounding area is 

developed, Deer Flat NWR has become an increasingly urban refuge. Between 1990 and 2010, the 

population of Canyon County doubled, from 90,000 to over 180,000 (U.S. Census 2012a). Because 

of its proximity to a large urban area, the potential for the Refuge to connect urban dwellers to 

nature—and thereby build support for the Refuge System mission—is high. 

Volunteer Opportunities and Partnerships 

Volunteer opportunities and partnerships are key components of the successful management of 

public lands and are vital to Refuge programs, plans, and projects, especially in times of static or 

declining budgets. Currently the Refuge makes use of volunteers in invasive species control, habitat 

restoration, maintenance, visitor surveys, and public use programs. In the future, successful 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-13 

implementation of native habitat restoration, survey, and monitoring activities, and environmental 

education (EE) and interpretation programs will require the use of partnerships and volunteers. 

Wilderness Review

Service 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 Final CCP/EIS, the planning team completed a wilderness 

review that can be found in Appendix D. This review concluded that Refuge lands are not suitable 

for wilderness designation. 

Assess Feasibility of Fees 

A feasibility assessment will be conducted to evaluate whether to charge an entrance and/or boat 

launch fee to provide funding to maintain visitor facilities and hire visitor services and law 

enforcement staff. Criteria to consider will include impacts to the community, the cost-benefit ratio 

of charging and collecting a fee, and other relevant factors. 

Conduct Community Outreach 

To increase community awareness, support, and appreciation for the Refuge and its purpose, the 

Refuge will conduct outreach with off-site audiences focusing particularly on adjacent landowners, 

local municipalities, and local community groups, because they have high potential to deliver Refuge 

messages to key audiences. Outreach programs will cover the same themes as those eventually 

identified for environmental education (EE) (see Objective 2.4.4.1) as well as basic information 

about Refuge programs (e.g., hunting regulations). 

Enhance Law Enforcement 

The law enforcement program will be enhanced to increase compliance with Refuge regulations and 

decrease trespass and vandalism. Methods may include hiring an officer and adding lighting, 

automatic gates, and security cameras. 

Expand Hunting 

Opportunities for hunting of additional species (e.g., turkey) will be addressed in future step-down 

planning efforts occurring in close coordination with IDFG. This process will require additional 

information provided in a hunt plan and an individual NEPA analysis. Changes to current hunting 

opportunities can be found in Section 2.4.2. 

Improve Hunting Safety 

Hunting and nonhunting areas will be clearly marked with signs on land and water, to notify 

nonhunters of hunt area boundaries and to notify waterfowl hunters when they reach the end of a 

hunt zone. Signs will be erected on the Refuge boundary to remind upland hunters not to shoot across 

or toward the boundary to reduce the potential for shot to travel onto private lands and public roads. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-14 Chapter 2. Management Direction 

Promote Refuge-friendly Land Use with Neighbors and Local Municipalities 

From aerial images of the Refuge, it is readily apparent that the Refuge is an island surrounded by 

human alterations of the landscape. It is bounded by agricultural fields, but even this landscape has 

been rapidly changing. The small cities and communities that dot the landscape around the Refuge 

have experienced one of the highest growth rates in the country. Because the Refuge represents only 

a small part of the overall landscape, to successfully manage wildlife the Service must work with 

other agencies, governments, businesses, and neighboring landowners to protect and preserve Refuge 

wildlife and wildlife habitat. 

The Refuge also plans to conduct outreach to adjacent landowners to educate them about their 

potential impacts (fragmentation, feral animals, habitat degradation) to wildlife and habitat and to 

promote awareness of existing incentive programs that promote continued agricultural use and/or 

low-density development. Cooperation and education of Refuge neighbors could also enhance the 

law enforcement program by providing a well-educated corps of neighboring landowners and regular 

Refuge visitors who may observe and report inappropriate or illicit behavior on the Refuge. This 

could reduce the number of violators through increased surveillance, thus benefitting natural and 

cultural resources, taxpayers’ investment in visitor facilities, and visitor experiences. 

Table 2-1. Summary of Management Direction by Issue 

Issue Management Direction 

How will the Refuge protect its valuable resources on the Lake Lowell Unit? 

Recreational 

boating 

Expand the no-wake zone to the east of a line between Parking Lot 1 and Gotts Point and 

at the Narrows. Add no-wake zone 200 yards from the edge of the vegetation between 

Parking Lots 1 and 8. 

Boating season Open lake April 15 through September 30. 

Protection of 

emergent beds 

Keep all emergent beds open to public use, except up to a 500-yard closure around active 

and historical grebe nesting colonies during the boating season. Keep closure in place 

until July 15 of the following year. 

Protection of 

mudflats 

Seasonally close mudflats when water levels below 2,522 feet around shorebird areas in 

the East and West Pools. 

Creation of mudflats Remove 5 to 25 acres of shoreline vegetation adjacent to West Pool mudflats. 

Noise Enforce State/County decibel limits.

Swimming Encourage swimmers to swim at designated swimming areas at the Lower Dam 

Recreation Area and Upper Dam, and allow swimming at other areas. 

Upland access Allow wildlife-dependent activities off-trail at—East Side Recreation Area year-round; 

Gotts Point February 1 through September 30; and in all other open areas August 1 

through January 31. Allow nonwildlife-dependent activities on designated trails only. 

Upland activities Allow walking, jogging, bicycling, horseback riding, and on-leash dog walking. 

How will the Refuge protect its valuable resources on the Snake River Islands Unit? 

Nesting protection Most Refuge islands will be open to public use outside of goose nesting season from June 

15 through January 31. Some Refuge islands (currently four to six) will be open to public 

use July 1 through January 31 to reduce disturbance to nesting herons, gulls, and terns. 

How will the Refuge provide safe, accessible, high quality compatible wildlifedependent recreation opportunities in the future? 

Wildlife observation 

and photography 

Maintain existing and add additional trails and observation facilities (see Maps 4-6). 

Environmental 

education (EE) and 

interpretation 

Increase interpretive opportunities and programs. Reduce the size of current EE program 

by emphasizing on-site programs. 

Redesign Lower Dam Recreation Area (LDRA) to include new facilities and trails. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-15 

Issue Management Direction 

Upland game 

hunting 

Allow upland game hunting at Snake River Islands Unit. Allow upland game bird hunting 

at Lake Lowell Unit between Parking Lots 1 and 8, and from the east boundary of Gotts 

Point to the east boundary of the Leavitt Tract. 

Waterfowl hunting Allow on Snake River Islands Unit. Allow on Lake Lowell Unit between Parking Lots 1 

and 8, and from the east boundary of Gotts Point to the east boundary of the Leavitt Tract. 

Shell limit A limit of 25 shotgun shells in possession per hunter will be implemented. 

Type of hunt Offer general season hunt. 

Youth hunt Allow youth hunt in all designated waterfowl hunting zones. 

Deer hunting Allow on Snake River Islands Unit, and allow controlled hunt on Lake Lowell Unit from 

Parking Lot 8 to the New York Canal. 

Fishing Provide additional shoreline fishing access from designated trails and docks (see Maps 4-6). 

Allow access in all open areas of lake. Allow anglers off-trail in East Side Recreation Area 

year-round, at Gotts Point February 1 through September 30, at Murphy’s Neck March 15 to 

September 30, and in all other open areas August 1 through January 31. From October 1 to 

April 14 fishing is allowed from nonmotorized boats in Fishing Areas A and B. Allow ice 

fishing within 200 yards of the dams, subject to areas posted by Reclamation. 

Fees Evaluate whether to charge an entrance and/or boat launch fee. 

Bass Tournaments Allow every other weekend from LDRA, April 15 through May 13 and July 10 through 

September 30. 

Gotts Point Access Allow vehicle access (contingent on signed agreement with County Sheriff to reduce 

illegal activities). 

2.3 Wildlife and Habitat 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 

NWRS mission. 

A CCP describes management actions that help bring a refuge closer to its vision. A vision broadly 

reflects the Refuge’s 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 2002a). 

The goals for Deer Flat NWR for the next 15 years are presented in the following tables. The order of 

the goals does not imply any priority in this CCP. Priority actions are identified in the staffing and 

funding analysis (see Appendix C). Each goal is followed by the objectives that pertain to it. Some 

objectives pertain to multiple goals and have simply been placed in the most reasonable spot. Below 

each objective statement are the strategies that could be employed to accomplish the objective. Some 

strategies pertain to multiple objectives. Symbols are used in the tables with the following meanings: 

 % percent 

 > greater than 

 < less than 

 > greater than or equal to 

 < less than or equal to 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-16 Chapter 2. Management Direction 

2.3.1 Goal 1 (Lake): Protect, maintain, and enhance mudflat, emergent-bed 

and open-water habitats associated with Lake Lowell to benefit migratory 

birds and other wildlife 

Objective 2.3.1.1. Protect, maintain, and enhance emergent beds – Lake Lowell shoreline 

Protect 845, maintain 100, and enhance 250 acres of emergent plant beds on Lake Lowell, benefiting 

aquatic migratory birds (e.g., western and Clark’s grebes, great egrets, and mallards) and other fish and 

wildlife. These emergent plant beds are characterized by the following attributes: 

 50%-70% cover of desirable moist-soil plants (e.g., smartweeds, spikerushes, salt grass) 

interspersed with taller (<3 feet) emergent plants (e.g., bulrush, simplestem bur-reed, and cattail) 

 Presence of native/desirable submergent plants (e.g., pondweeds) 

 No hydrilla, Eurasian watermilfoil, or purple loosestrife present 

 Areas with high concentrations of breeding and foraging birds and other wildlife protected from 

human-caused disturbance 

 Minimum water elevation of 2,520 feet to benefit grebe nesting colonies from April through July 

(if suitable for Board of Control) 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

Implement boating closures to protect emergent beds for grebe nesting and other wildlife. See Objective 

2.4.1.4. On a seasonal basis, close areas critical to nesting birds (e.g., grebe colonies, heron rookeries, 

and bald eagle nests) from public entry. Size these areas appropriately according to best available science. 

Keep the areas closed until no nesting is observed in the same area the following year. 

Work with IDFG and other partners to develop and implement methods to reduce carp biomass in Lake 

Lowell. Potential methods include mechanical removal, chemical treatments, biological treatments, and 

carp exclusion devices. 

Use soil disturbance (e.g., discing) techniques to create openings in emergent beds. 

Seed/plant desirable moist-soil plants, as needed. 

Use enhanced IPM techniques including mechanical/physical (e.g., mowing), chemical, cultural, and 

biological methods to control or eradicate invasive species (see Appendix G). 

Rationale: Deer Flat NWR was established to provide a refuge and breeding grounds for migratory birds 

and other wildlife. The Refuge has been identified as a notable waterbird site (Ivey and Herziger 2006), 

an “important site for aquatic birds in Idaho” (Manning and Hartley 2006), and as a State Important Bird 

Area (see Chapter 1). Nineteen species of birds that use the Refuge’s emergent beds, open waters, and 

mudflats are listed by the Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Need Strategy (IDFG 2005) as 

species of greatest conservation need. These species include western and Clark’s grebes, northern pintail, 

great egret, and hooded merganser. 

Emergent beds (i.e., plants that grow in the water but pierce the water surface) typically occur along the 

entire south and east shorelines of Lake Lowell as well as pockets along the northern shoreline. Lake 

Lowell’s approximately 845 acres of emergent plant beds are composed predominantly of water 

smartweed (Polygonum amphibium), coyote and peachleaf willow (Salix exigua and S. amygdaloides), 

and bulrush (Scirpus paludosus and S. tuberosus). Plants from the Polygonum and Scirpus genera have 

been shown to be an important food source for ducks in the early spring (Stollberg 1950). Approximately 

77 bird species in Idaho use marshes and lakes, and 55 species depend on lakes and emergent beds as 

their primary habitat (Idaho Partners in Flight 2000). Many of the bird species that are seen in the 

smartweed bed are near the edge of the open water. Nesting grebes have also selected sites near open 

water to facilitate easy feeding and back brooding. In order to create more edge area and open up areas for 

foraging and nesting waterbirds, we will explore appropriate measures to create openings (e.g., discing) 

and channels in the larger expanses of smartweed to facilitate grebe foraging and movement. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-17 

Smartweed was planted in the lake in 1938 by Refuge staff and typically emerges as the ambient and 

water temperatures increase in April and May. The plant continues to grow throughout the summer 

season, blooms in July, and dies back as water temperatures drop. The combination of willows, 

smartweed, and open water provides excellent feeding, cover, and nesting habitat for numerous species of 

migratory birds (including waterbirds), as well as spawning, nursery, and escape habitat for fish. 

For example, marsh wrens and yellow-headed blackbirds nest in the willows, and Clark’s, western, and 

pied-billed grebes; American coots; American bittern; and redheads, nest in the smartweed beds and also 

in the willows. In addition, many species use the emergent beds for foraging. Lake Lowell is known for 

large concentrations of wintering ducks and geese that rely on smartweed habitat. Canada geese primarily 

use the shallow water, smartweed beds, and other emergent cover of the lake for sanctuary and loafing 

during the spring. Ducks including redhead, mallard, northern shoveler, and cinnamon teal use the 

emergent beds as brood rearing and/or foraging habitat. Duck broods were much more common around 

the lake in the late 1960s than they are today. 

These plants are also important to anchor soil and help reduce lakeshore erosion and sedimentation of the 

lake, thereby improving water quality by reducing sedimentation. Asplund (2000) concludes that naturally 

vegetated shoreline helps reduce the impacts of waves on shoreline erosion. The removal of some of the 

shoreline vegetation will be beneficial to marshland birds but may also increase or add to the erosion and 

sedimentation in the immediate area. The overall effects of this strategy are anticipated to be minimal as 

the amount of emergent vegetation removal will be small in comparison to overall size of the lake and 

adherence to BMPs. 

According to Bouffard (1982), boat propellers can remove aquatic vegetation and change the species 

composition of the vegetation. Also, in Bouffard’s study, vegetation loss caused as a result of bank 

erosion and siltation was most common in areas where waterskiing was practiced. During summer months 

at Lake Lowell, migratory birds such as pelicans, cormorants, and grebes loaf and forage in and adjacent 

to shallow water with smartweed and emergent vegetation. The presence and noise from boats and 

personal watercraft in and adjacent to smartweed beds and emergent vegetation (used for nesting and 

foraging) causes disturbance (e.g., flushing) to aquatic birds (Rodgers and Schwikert 2002). 

Clark’s and western grebes are migratory waterbirds that have historically used Lake Lowell for nesting, 

foraging and staging for migration. The breeding populations of Clark’s and western grebes are listed as 

imperiled by the State of Idaho (IDFG 2005). Species are designated imperiled in Idaho if few 

populations exist, there is a rapid decline in numbers, or there are other factors that make the species 

vulnerable to rangewide extinction or extirpation (IDFG 2005). 

Grebes at Lake Lowell nest in emergent beds, and large nesting colonies have been noted along the south 

shore of Lake Lowell. Although regular grebe nesting surveys have not been conducted, references to 

nesting grebes are made regularly in Refuge files and historical pamphlets. The shoreline and its emergent 

vegetation are an important habitat for a variety of wildlife, but these areas are especially important for 

nesting and breeding grebes in Idaho. In order to protect this habitat, the Refuge will implement various 

measures, including no-wake zones and seasonal boating closures to protect emergent beds that provide 

grebes and other waterbirds opportunities to nest, forage, and rest with minimal disturbance. 

The emergent beds also provide an important buffer. Allen et al. (2008) found that such buffers are 

important for protecting grebe nests from wind- and/or boat-caused wakes. Boats with frequent starts, 

stops, and “nearplane” speeds increased the potential for habitat impacts. Increased sedimentation and/or 

resuspension of lake sediments, by either boating activity or natural wind events, increases turbidity and 

resuspends phosphorus and other pollutants that adhere to soil particles (IDEQ 2010). 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-18 Chapter 2. Management Direction 

Carp represent a high threat to the submerged vegetation’s ecological functions. Carp uproot and 

eliminate submerged vegetation, increase turbidity, and decrease the abundance and diversity of the 

invertebrate community (Miller and Crowl 2006). The lake’s carp population is estimated at 1.2 million. 

IDFG recommended three options for significant carp reduction: physical control such as seining, a yetto-be-studied biological control using a koi-herpes virus, or chemical control using a rotenone treatment 

applied to the lake in an extreme low-water year (Kozfkay et al. 2011). 

Carp removal has occurred intermittently for many years to enhance submergent vegetation and moistsoil plants in Lake Lowell. Through an SUP, a commercial fisherman uses a beach seine to harvest carp 

and suckers. Seining is usually conducted during the fall and winter because the fish slow down and 

congregate in the cooler water, making them easier to catch. Current seining operations, which remove an 

estimated 50 to 125 tons of biomass annually (Cunningham 2012), likely do not remove enough of the 

carp population (estimated at 4,800 tons of biomass) to result in significant water quality improvements 

or promote submergent plant growth. However, there have been no studies that have determined the 

appropriate threshold of biomass removal to achieve habitat improvements. 

Objective 2.3.1.2. Protect, maintain, and enhance mudflats – Lake Lowell shoreline 

Protect between 100 and 800 (560 based on a water level elevation of 2,515 feet), maintain 350, and 

enhance 560 acres of mudflats on Lake Lowell, benefitting aquatic migratory birds (e.g., shorebirds, 

waterfowl) and other wildlife. These mudflats are characterized by the following attributes: 

 Saturated soils during mid-July to end of September 

 Sparse (1%-10%) to no vegetation (e.g., moist-soil plants) 

 Macroinvertebrates (e.g., chironomids) that provide forage for migratory shorebirds present 

 Areas with high concentrations of foraging shorebirds, waterfowl, and other wildlife protected 

from human-caused disturbance, especially during the late summer and fall 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

Work with the Board of Control to explore lowering the water elevation to 2,515 feet by September 1. 

Implement seasonal or permanent closures to prevent disturbance to migrating shorebirds. See Objective 

2.4.1.4. 

Use enhanced IPM techniques including mechanical/physical (e.g., mowing), chemical, cultural, and 

biological methods to control or eradicate invasive species (see Appendix G). 

Rationale: Late in the summer, as Lake Lowell is drawn down for irrigation, many species of shorebirds 

use the exposed mudflats for feeding. Shorebirds depend upon wetland stopover sites to replenish their 

depleted fat reserves used during migratory flight (Farmer and Parent 1997). Many wetland areas in Idaho 

and throughout the United States have been drained, developed, or otherwise altered, forcing shorebirds 

to use other remaining wetlands. Construction of reservoirs for power and irrigation throughout the 

United States has created about two million acres of such habitat since the mid-1950s (Howe 1987). 

Taylor and Trost (1992) showed that reservoirs in the western interior can be important migratory 

stopover sites for shorebirds. The Lake Lowell Reservoir has been shown to be important for shorebirds. 

The Intermountain West Regional Shorebird Plan (Oring et al. 2000) identified Lake Lowell as one of two 

sites in Idaho with greater than 5,000 shorebirds in more than half the years surveyed. The tens of 

thousands of shorebirds recorded at the lake document its importance as a stopover site (Taylor et al. 

1992). Shorebirds present in late summer and fall include lesser and greater yellowlegs, sandpipers 

(western, pectoral, least, Baird’s, solitary, spotted, and stilt), marbled godwits, long-billed dowitchers, 

plovers (black-bellied, semi-palmated, killdeer, and American golden), as well as the black-necked stilt 

and American avocet. If mudflats are exposed, peak shorebird abundances occur at Lake Lowell between 

late-July, mid-August, and mid-late September (Taylor and Trost 1992). 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-19 

The Intermountain West Regional Shorebird Plan (Oring et al. 2000) lists Lake Lowell as critically 

important for the Wilson’s phalarope, long-billed curlew, long-billed dowitcher, and black-necked stilt. 

Lake Lowell is also listed as very important for the western sandpiper, willet, red-necked phalarope, least 

sandpiper, and marbled godwit and important for the semi-palmated plover, spotted sandpiper, and greater 

yellowlegs. The long-billed curlew is a Federal species of special concern. 

The Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS; IDFG 2005) lists species of greatest 

conservation need by different levels. Three species of shorebirds that occur at Lake Lowell are included 

on the list; two are listed as vulnerable (black-necked stilt and American avocet), and one is listed as 

imperiled (marbled godwit). Vulnerable means the species is 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. Imperiled means the species is 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. 

Studies have shown that both the date and amount of shoreline exposed affect shorebird abundance, with 

increasing numbers of shorebirds correlating to increasing mudflat (Taylor and Trost 1992; Turley and 

Holthuijzen 1999). When exposed, mudflats are the most extensive on the southeast end of the lake and 

near Parking Lots 1 through 3. Additional areas include areas along the north and east sides of the West 

Pool. At Lake Lowell, approximately 100 acres of mudflats are exposed at a surface water elevation of 

2,522 feet and increase in extent to 560 acres as the water drops to typical annual lows reaching 

elevations of 2,515 feet. Even more mudflats are exposed if surface water elevations fall below the annual 

averages. If consistent mudflats are made available to shorebirds, the Refuge may experience increased 

numbers and prolonged stopover times, which will benefit shorebird populations and provide increasing 

viewing opportunity for Refuge visitors. 

Deer Flat NWR does not have any jurisdiction to manage the water levels of Lake Lowell; water levels 

fluctuate with irrigation demands (Chapter 3). The Refuge will work with the Board of Control to explore 

the possibility of maintaining a minimum water level from July 15 through September 30 at or near 

forebay elevations ranging from 2,515 to 2,512 feet to provide mudflats for foraging shorebirds while 

still meeting the Board of Control’s primary mission of providing water to irrigators. 

The mudflats used most by shorebirds are near the New York Canal at the east end of the lake. The New 

York Canal is the southern boundary of the east end of the East Side Recreation Area. This area is 

currently open to the public for recreational activities including hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation 

(see Chapter 5). Recreational activities in this area could disturb migrating shorebirds. 

The consequences of human disturbance, in terms of physical condition or survival, are currently 

unknown (Fernández et al. 2010). Some studies have shown that shorebirds avoid areas of higher 

disturbance. For example, when comparing bird response on paired lower and higher use days at trail 

sites, a study in California found the number of shorebirds decreased with increasing trail use, with higher 

trail-use days averaging 25 percent fewer birds than on lower use days (Trulio and Sokale 2008). 

To minimize disturbances to migrating shorebirds, access to the shorebird area along the shoreline from 

Murphy’s Neck to the Narrows and at the northern shoreline of the East Pool east of Tio Lane will be 

closed seasonally to boating when water level elevation falls below 2,522 feet (Objective 2.4.1.4; and 

Map 4). A shorebird observation blind will be installed to provide shorebird viewing opportunities while 

minimizing disturbance (Objective 2.4.1.3). The general and Refuge-specific effects of human-caused 

disturbance to wildlife are presented in Appendix B. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-20 Chapter 2. Management Direction 

Objective 2.3.1.3 Create mudflats – Lake Lowell shoreline 

Within five years, restore approximately 5-25 acres of mudflats at Lake Lowell adjacent to Farm Field 5 

at or above approximately 2,518 feet elevation. These mudflats will provide habitat for migrating 

shorebirds and other wildlife when lake water levels are above 2,518 feet. These mudflats are 

characterized by the following attributes: 

 Saturated soils during mid-July to end of September. 

 Sparse (1%-10%) to no vegetation (e.g., moist-soil plants). 

 Saturated soils to dry soils during mid-July to mid-September. 

 Macroinvertebrates (e.g., chironomids) that provide forage for migratory shorebirds present. 

 Adjacent or connected to existing mudflats with a history of high shorebird use. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

Remove 5-25 acres of shoreline vegetation adjacent to current mudflats by mechanical control (including 

possible issuance of firewood collection permits) or controlled burn to create larger contiguous mudflats. 

Create shallow scours to hold water. 

Disc vegetation in late fall to incorporate organic matter into the soil and encourage invertebrate growth. 

Rationale: During high-water years, Lake Lowell does not have suitable exposed mudflats to provide 

reliable shorebird habitat. Historically, the Refuge maintained open shorelines by removing willows and 

cottonwoods. According to the 1975 Refuge Annual Narrative, short willows and forbs were clipped with 

a tractor and rotary beater to retard succession on shoreline adjacent to Farm Field 5. In addition, 

firewood permits were regularly issued in the 1960s through late 1970s, which likely provided additional 

mudflats above and/or at elevations that are now covered by riparian habitat. These activities ceased over 

time, and the riparian habitat developed, as management began to shift to provide habitat for raptors. 

Small openings in the riparian habitat have been maintained near Farm Field 5 and are primarily used as 

duck trapping sites. These areas are used by shorebirds when lake water levels are higher. The Refuge 

proposes to reimplement some of the historical management practices, such as willow and cottonwood 

removal, to provide mudflat habitat for shorebirds in high-water years. In addition, discing some of the 

smartweed at low water levels will incorporate organic matter into the soil and encourage invertebrate 

growth, therefore increasing the forage base for shorebirds even when water levels are maintained at 

levels conducive to providing suitable mudflats in July through September. Initially, small acreages (<5 

acres) of willow and cottonwood will be removed and monitored to see if shorebirds use the area. If these 

first plots are used by shorebirds, then additional acreages will be treated. 

Objective 2.3.1.4. Protect, maintain and enhance open-water habitat – Lake Lowell 

Protect, maintain, and enhance 6,430 acres of open-water habitat (depths from 2 to 45 feet) at Lake 

Lowell to benefit waterfowl (e.g., mallards, geese), waterbirds (e.g., grebes, pelicans), and fish. These 

open-water habitats are characterized by the following attributes: 

 No emergent vegetation 

 Submergent plant beds in shallow areas with light penetration 

 Carp no more than 20% of total fish biomass 

 Areas with high concentrations of foraging and loafing birds and other wildlife protected from 

human-caused disturbance year-round 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

Implement carp reduction in 6,430 acres of open water. See Wildlife and Habitat Objective 2.3.1.1. 

Continue winter waterfowl boating closure and current no-wake zones on 6,430 acres of open water. See 

Objective 2.4.1.4. 

Implement new no-wake zones and/or closures to minimize disturbance to wildlife species that are 

dependent on open-water habitat. See Public Use Objective 2.4.1.4. 

Work with partners to improve water quality in Lake Lowell. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-21 

Rationale: The importance of the Lake Lowell Unit to migratory birds is discussed in Objective 2.3.1.1. 

The lake’s open-water habitat is important to many species of birds for feeding and roosting at different 

times of the year. Open-water sites such as Lake Lowell support large waterfowl concentrations during 

spring and fall staging, as well as migration and wintering (Idaho Partners in Flight 2000). 

The lake carp population is estimated at 1.2 million carp (Kozfkay et al. 2011). Carp are thought to 

represent a high threat to the submerged vegetation’s ecological functions. Carp impacts and potential 

treatments are discussed in Objective 2.3.1.1.

Grebes nest in the emergent beds of Lake Lowell (see Objective 2.3.1.1) and rear their young in the open 

water, typically from June through October. The water level drops at this time (see Objective 2.3.1.2), 

leaving the emergent beds dry. Lowered water levels are problematic for grebes for several reasons. 

Grebes eat fish and pursue them underwater (Lawrence 1950; Storer and Nuechterlein 1992) and grebe 

chicks are altricial (dependent on adults for protection), riding between the wings on their parent’s back in 

open water until they are 2 to 4 weeks old. Back-brooding is essential for survival of young chicks 

because their plumage is not yet developed to withstand long periods of swimming and they are not 

adapted to loaf on shore (Storer and Nuechterlein 1992). 

The fluctuating water levels on Lake Lowell have a direct effect on the amount of open water acreage 

available for grebes. As water levels decrease in the summer months, usable open water habitat decreases 

accordingly. During the 2010 and 2011 nesting season, as water levels dropped grebes moved into deeper 

water. Grebes nesting in the southeast portion of the lake needed to move especially far as water levels 

dropped, because the gradual slope of the lake bottom meant that feeding habitat was unavailable. In open 

water, grebes are more prone to disturbance from open-water recreational activities. High-speed boating 

leads to disruption of nesting and can separate chicks from adults, which may lead to a loss of production 

and displacement of grebes from preferred habitats (Burger 1997). Adults and chicks are often killed by 

boats (Ivey 2004; Shaw 1998), and small chicks can become separated from their parents and die of 

exposure if adults dive to avoid motorboats (Ivey 2004; Storer and Nuechterlein 1992). Creating no-wake 

zones will provide a sanctuary for grebes to forage and raise their young with fewer disturbances. 

The open water of Lake Lowell is important for waterfowl primarily as wintering habitat, but some 

nesting also occurs on the Refuge. Closed areas and no-wake zones will provide undisturbed forage and 

brood-rearing habitat for waterfowl. Eleven species of waterfowl, including mallard, cinnamon teal, wood 

duck and gadwall, nest around the lake’s edges and rear their young in the open water, typically in early 

summer. Annual Refuge narratives throughout the 1960s and early 1970s document nesting waterfowl 

and a fairly significant number of spring migrants using the lake. It appears that nesting and spring 

migration have declined over time. Reasons for the decline likely include habitat alteration (see Objective 

2.3.2.1), fluctuating water levels (see Chapter 3), and disturbance. Disturbance can reduce courtship 

behavior and decrease egg and duckling survival. Disturbed adults may leave their eggs, nestlings, or 

ducklings, reducing survival rates (Korschgen and Dahlgren 1992). Impacts on waterfowl depend on the 

noise, speed, and proximity of watercraft (Cywinski 2004). The general and Refuge-specific effects of 

human-caused disturbance to wildlife are presented in Appendix B. 

It is essential that grebes, waterfowl, and other wildlife can feed, roost, and raise young undisturbed on 

the lake. To provide places to feed, raise their young, and roost with little or no disturbance to waterfowl 

and waterbirds (e.g., grebes and pelicans), our strategies include seasonally closing portions of the lake to 

public use and implementing no-wake zones. The lake is closed to public use from October 1 through 

April 14 to provide resting habitat for migrating and wintering Canada geese and other waterfowl. Energy 

reserves are extremely important for wintering waterfowl to maintain body temperature in cold weather 

and provide energy for migration. Therefore, disturbance and flushing events during this critical time are 

more disruptive than during warmer months outside of the migration period. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-22 Chapter 2. Management Direction 

2.3.2 Goal 2 (Riparian): Protect, maintain, and enhance riparian forest, 

benefiting migratory birds and other riparian-dependent species. 

Objective 2.3.2.1. Protect, maintain, and enhance riparian forests – Lake Lowell 

Protect 1,900 acres, maintain 520 acres, and enhance 1,200 acres of riparian forest communities 

surrounding Lake Lowell to benefit migratory birds (e.g., yellow warbler, song sparrow, herons) and a 

diverse assemblage of other riparian-dependent species. These riparian habitats are characterized by the 

following attributes: 

 Structurally diverse forest community 

 20%-70% canopy cover of over-story woody species (e.g., cottonwood, peachleaf willow) 

 30%-80% cover of native shrub in understory (e.g., willows, golden currant, wild rose, elderberry)

 25% cover of desirable/native grasses and forbs (e.g., Deschampsia sp., mannagrass) 

 20%-40% ground cover from dead and downed wood 

 >2 standing dead trees/acre 

 5%-25% coverage of invasive woody trees and shrubs (e.g., Russian olive) 

 No salt cedar 

 <5% cover of invasive plants (e.g., Canada thistle, perennial pepperweed, poison hemlock, reed 

canarygrass) 

 Areas with noted concentrations of nesting, wintering, and migrating birds and other wildlife 

protected from human-caused disturbance 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

Annually, remove undesirable trees, shrubs, and grass; plant desirable trees, shrubs, and grass species on 

10-15 acres, as necessary. 

Maintain appropriate level of downed and standing dead trees, including invasive tree and shrub species 

that are treated and left in place, except for the designated mudflat area adjacent to Farm Field 5. 

Use mechanical and prescribed fire to reduce hazardous fuels loading, create openings, and reduce 

invasive species. 

Maintain nesting habitat by reducing ladder fuels and/or fuel loading, or girdling trees in rookery areas 

and around eagle nests. 

Maintain appropriate fire breaks while maintaining a continuous canopy cover. 

Where feasible, relocate fire breaks to coincide with Board of Control drainage canals. 

Require visitors to stay on trail seasonally to prevent disturbance to neotropical migrants, nesting wading 

birds, and other wildlife. See Public Use Objective 2.4.1.3. 

Implement land-based seasonal closures to protect nesting and wintering areas. See Objective 2.4.1.3. 

Issue SUPs for firewood collection as appropriate, to maintain level of dead and downed material. 

Use enhanced IPM techniques including mechanical/physical (e.g., mowing), chemical, cultural, and 

biological methods to control or eradicate invasive species (see Appendix G). 

Apply mechanical, chemical, and biological methods to treat invasive species. 

Rationale: Before the construction of the reservoir, Deer Flat NWR consisted of typical sagebrush-steppe 

habitat that included springs and small riparian oases associated with these springs. The flooding of the 

reservoir eliminated the existing habitats but over the years provided an important riparian habitat. 

Currently, the majority of shoreline around Lake Lowell is a riparian zone dominated by cottonwood, 

Russian olive, coyote and peachleaf willows, and false indigo bush. The Lake Lowell Unit contains 

approximately 2,116 acres of riparian and/or floodplain forest habitat in various seral stages. Most of this 

habitat on the Refuge is in a degraded condition due to invasive plants, past grazing practices, alteration 

of hydrologic regimes, and potentially poor native plant recruitment/recovery. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-23 

Historically, the Refuge maintained open shorelines by removing willows and cottonwoods with a tractor 

and rotary beater to retard succession on shoreline in the area adjacent to Farm Field 5 (Refuge Annual 

Narrative 1975). In addition, firewood permits were regularly issued in the 1960s through late 1970s. 

Over time, these activities ceased, and a riparian habitat developed along the lakeshore. The Refuge can 

provide habitat for species dependent on riparian and floodplain forests by enhancing a mix of early, mid-, 

and late-successional riparian forests. 

Human land uses (e.g., urban sprawl, agriculture) can have substantial effects on plant and animal 

communities, including riparian forests (Patterson and Best 1996; Wilson and Ryan 1988). One study has 

shown that some riparian areas harbor up to 10 times the neotropical migrants that are harbored by 

neighboring nonriparian habitats (Stevens et al. 1977). Of the 243 bird species breeding in Idaho, 113 

(46%) use riparian habitat as nesting habitat. Many of the other 130 species also use riparian habitat as a 

source of water, as migratory corridors, or for other purposes. Of the 119 neotropical migratory landbirds, 

68 species (57%) use riparian habitat. Many of Idaho’s mammals, amphibians, reptiles, fish, and mollusks 

also depend on riparian habitat for survival (Idaho Partners in Flight 2000). 

Wading birds, like great blue herons, typically build large stick nests in both live and dead trees in close 

proximity to water. Herons occasionally nest singly, but more typically they nest in large colonies that 

average 49 nests found in wet or dry forest, sparsely treed islands, beaver ponds, and marshes (Peck and 

James 1983). In order to provide this type of structure in the riparian habitat surrounding Lake Lowell, the 

Refuge will identify potential suitable habitats and protect and monitor them to encourage future wading 

bird use. Currently all recreation in the riparian habitat is required to be conducted on designated trails 

during the breeding season. Seasonal closures will be placed around any colonies to mitigate potential 

impacts from human disturbance that could result in increased mortality of chicks due to exposure or 

predation, nest desertion, or complete abandonment of a colony (Vos et al. 1985). The general and 

Refuge-specific effects of human-caused disturbance to wildlife are presented in Appendix B. 

The Refuge has an opportunity to enhance riparian areas on the Lake Lowell Unit. Planting desirable 

species will accelerate riparian regeneration, enhance habitat quality, and provide habitat for neotropical 

species. Highest-priority areas for enhancement will be based on their size and location on the Refuge. 

Though riparian acreages are relatively small, enhancement efforts may provide valuable habitat or 

habitat connectivity for some species that are dependent on riparian forests. New plantings will focus on 

connecting or expanding existing riparian stands in areas that are likely to be used by focal species. 

In areas open to public use, social trails fragment viable wildlife habitat and increase user impact on the 

natural system. Wildlife responds to recreationists using trails by flushing away from the perceived 

danger, which effectively reduces the amount of suitable habitat available to them (Taylor and Knight 

2003). Frequent flushing of an animal increases the amount of expended energy, which reduces their 

overall growth and reproductive potential, and causes animals to avoid otherwise suitable habitat (Geist 

1978). There will be seasonal restrictions on off-trail travel in some areas. 

Most riparian habitat on the Refuge is in a degraded condition due to invasive plants, alteration of 

hydrologic regimes and poor native plant recruitment/recovery. We will focus on improving habitat 

conditions in the existing riparian habitat. Strategies to enhance this habitat could involve thinning and 

planting of young native woody species to create multi-aged stands, controlling invasive species, and 

establishing native understory in existing riparian forests. Selected snags, logs, and piles of woody debris 

will be left in place to provide important habitat for a variety of bird species and other wildlife. Passerine 

birds like dark-eyed juncos and white-crowned sparrows as well as upland game species like California 

quail use dense vegetation and brush piles for cover. Snags are used by many raptors for perching, by 

woodpeckers for foraging, and by wood ducks and owls for nesting. Bunnell et al. (2002) estimate that 57 

percent of the listed vertebrate species in their study were reliant or associated with dead and dying 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-24 Chapter 2. Management Direction 

woody debris. Firewood collecting is an effective way of reducing the amount of woody debris to reduce 

fuel loads. In one study, an unmanaged stand consisted of 30 to 40 percent woody debris cover, which 

declined rapidly with successive fiber harvesting (Angelstam 1997). Care should be taken to ensure 

excessive harvest does not happen. A balanced approach that supports a mosaic of woody debris and open 

riparian forest floor will provide suitable habitat for a wide variety of wildlife. 

Mechanical and prescribed fire treatments can be used to reduce the amount of fuel loading and invasive 

species and to restore selected sites. Removal of selected dead and downed logs can reduce the amount of 

fuel loading in existing riparian forests, which can reduce the likelihood of an out-of-control fire 

destroying riparian sanctuaries important for local and migrating wildlife. Refuge neighbors and users 

have expressed interest in collecting firewood from the Refuge due to its close proximity to residences 

and an abundance of trees and downed debris. Firewood collection could be allowed by SUP and will 

provide interested parties with a usable resource while benefitting the Refuge’s wildlife. With the Refuge 

Fire Management Officer, we will identify areas vulnerable to wildfire, and place fire breaks to reduce the 

probability of an out-of-control wildfire destroying large swaths of riparian habitat. 

Objective 2.3.2.2. Protect, maintain, and enhance riparian forests – Snake River Islands 

Protect 104, maintain 104, and enhance 104 islands’ riparian forest communities to benefit migratory 

birds (e.g., yellow warbler, song sparrow, great blue heron) and a diverse assemblage of other ripariandependent species. Riparian habitat will be managed to meet the following attributes as appropriate: 

 Structurally diverse forest community 

 >20% canopy cover of over-story woody species (e.g., cottonwood, peachleaf willow) 

 30%-80% cover of native shrub in understory (e.g., golden currant, wild rose, coyote willow, 

elderberry) 

 25% cover of native grasses and forbs (e.g., Sandberg bluegrass, bluebunch wheatgrass) 

 20%-40% ground cover from downed trees 

 >2 standing dead trees per acre 

 Minimal invasive woody trees and shrubs (e.g., Russian olive, salt cedar) 

 <25% cover of invasive plants (e.g., Scotch thistle) 

 Areas with high concentrations of nesting and migrating birds and other wildlife protected from 

human-caused disturbance 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

Plant desirable tree and shrub species after invasive species treatment and/or removal on 2-10 islands. 

Maintain downed and standing dead trees (including treated invasive tree and shrub species that are left in 

place) as appropriate. 

Use mechanical and prescribed fire to reduce hazardous fuel loading. 

Implement seasonal closures to prevent disturbance to waterfowl and colonial-nesting birds. See Public 

Use Objectives 2.4.1.3 and 2.4.3.1. 

All Refuge islands closed from February 1 to June 14 during goose nesting season. 

Some Refuge islands (currently four to six islands) closed February 1 to July 1 to reduce disturbance to 

colonial-nesting birds (e.g., herons, gulls, and terns). 

Partner with adjacent landowners to address cattle trespass problems in targeted locations (i.e., fencing on 

landowner property, fencing on islands, and other exclusion methods). 

Use enhanced IPM techniques including mechanical/physical (e.g., mowing), chemical, cultural, and 

biological methods to control or eradicate invasive species (see Appendix G). 

Rationale: The importance of riparian habitat in the arid west is discussed in the rationale for Objective 

2.3.2.1. Meador and Goldstein (2003) also suggest the universal importance of riparian zones to the 

maintenance and restoration of diverse fish communities in streams. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-25 

Vegetative structure varies from island to island, but most include both upland and riparian habitat. The 

Refuge can provide habitat for species dependent on riparian forests by enhancing or restoring a mix of 

early, mid-, and late-successional forests on the Snake River Islands Unit. Highest-priority areas for 

restoration will be based on GIS modeling that includes a ranking system identifying the most 

biologically intact islands that are likely to provide good habitat. Factors to be modeled include size, 

current condition (e.g., existing habitat, noxious weeds), neighboring land use, and isolation (measure of 

flow and channel depth, Zoellick et al. 2004b) (See Objective 2.3.6.4). By starting with small projects, the 

Refuge can monitor effectiveness, predict future funding needs, and develop a long-term strategy for 

enhancing riparian habitat on all of the Refuge islands. 

To effectively protect riparian zones on the islands, functional partnerships with adjacent landowners will 

be important. Unauthorized grazing occurs on the islands periodically, especially when low water flow 

allows easy access. Maintaining collaborative efforts with landowners will help the Refuge identify 

problem areas, seek assistance for prevention of trespass, and provide a shared outlook on the importance 

of riparian areas on the Snake River Islands. In addition, the Refuge periodically receives requests from 

Snake River Islands Unit neighbors to better control invasive species to prevent spread from the islands to 

private property. Invasive species are an enormous problem in the Treasure Valley, especially on the 

Snake River Islands, and effectively reducing invasive populations can be accomplished only with a 

combined effort. 

Fire has been used to control undesirable plant communities in the past with mixed results. The vegetative 

structure on some of the islands is such that mechanically thinning and then burning the entire island may 

be the most cost-effective method of restoration. In cooperation with Service fire personnel, Refuge staff 

will evaluate past, current, and future practices to effectively use fire as a valuable tool in vegetative 

removal and restoration of riparian zones on the Snake River Islands. 

Current protection practices include the closure of Refuge islands during sensitive times, most notably 

nesting periods for waterfowl and wading birds. The current island closure dates are February 1 to May 

31, but additional protection is warranted. Canada geese in this area generally start hatching at the end of 

April or beginning of May, but hatching has been noted well into June (Steele et al. 1957). Molting of 

flight feathers happens around the same time, and geese are more vulnerable to disturbance when they are 

land-bound with young. To provide protections through this vulnerable time, the island closures will be 

extended to June 15. The general and Refuge-specific effects of human-caused disturbance to wildlife are 

presented in Appendix B. 

2.3.3 Goal 3 (Wetlands): Protect, maintain, and enhance nonlake wetland 

habitats for the benefit of migratory birds and other wildlife. 

Objective 2.3.3.1. Protect, maintain, and enhance emergent wetlands 

Protect 85 acres, maintain 70 acres, and enhance 85 acres of wetland on three tracts (Upper Dam Marsh, 

Rambo Pond, and Leavitt Tract) to benefit wetland-dependent species (e.g., wetland birds, amphibians, 

hydrophytic plants, aquatic invertebrates). Wetlands should be characterized by the following attributes: 

 Variably flooded, from seasonal inundation (October through April) to semipermanent (October 

through August) to permanent 

 Variable-bottom topography resulting in water depths 0 to >36 inches 

 Mosaic of tall (4-6 feet) emergent vegetation and open water 

 30%-70% cover of native emergent vegetation (cattail, bulrushes, sedges, rushes, smartweeds, wild 

millet) 

 Submergent plants (e.g., pondweeds) in open water 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-26 Chapter 2. Management Direction 

 <5% cover of invasive plants (e.g., purple loosestrife) 

 Wetland areas of importance to nesting and migrating birds and other wildlife protected from 

human-caused disturbance 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

Use prescribed fire, discing, mowing, and herbicides to remove extensive emergent stands (e.g., cattails). 

Implement water-level management (flood-up and drawdown) using water control structures. 

Develop/secure reliable water sources (including water rights) and lift-pump systems, as needed. 

Use scraping and contouring to produce a variable-bottom topography. 

Modify the time and purpose of use (from irrigation to wildlife use) for existing water rights on the 

Leavitt Tract. 

Reseed and/or revegatate with a mix of emergent vegetation. 

Exclude cattle from Leavitt Tract wetland. 

Finalize transfer of Upper Dam Marsh (and adjacent uplands) from Reclamation to FWS. 

Use enhanced IPM techniques including mechanical/physical (e.g., mowing), chemical, cultural, and 

biological methods to control or eradicate invasive species (see Appendix G). 

Rationale: The Refuge was established to provide refuge and breeding grounds for migratory birds and 

other wildlife. Providing a diversity of wetlands is vital to the Refuge’s purposes. Wetlands provide 

habitat for fish and wildlife; improve water quality by filtering sediments and chemicals; reduce flooding; 

recharge groundwater; protect biological diversity; and provide opportunities for educational, scientific, 

and limited recreational activities. Outside of wetlands’ use by waterfowl and other migratory birds, little 

is known about the vegetative composition of or aquatic species inhabiting Lake Lowell Unit’s wetlands. 

Wetland basins should be at least 1 acre if the primary concern is waterfowl production (Hudson 1983). 

However, Williams (1985) reported that bird species diversity increases with a wetland area up to 10 

acres, and species richness is more stabilized in larger wetlands. Water depths should vary throughout a 

wetland basin to attract a wide variety of flora and fauna but should not exceed 8 feet for optimum 

wetland plant development. Shorelines should consist primarily of gently sloping gradients (1:10) if the 

primary objective is to maximize wetland vegetation production and waterfowl use (Cole et al. 1996). 

Refuge wetlands at the Lake Lowell Unit (three wetlands totaling approximately 85 acres, including the 

Upper Dam Marsh, Rambo Pond, and the Leavitt Tract) should be managed to mimic natural disturbance 

mechanisms, thus providing and maintaining the cyclical aging and renewal processes of wetlands over 

time. By maintaining a number of acres of open shallow marsh through active management such as 

mechanical soil disturbance and water-control infrastructure, the Refuge can provide a diversity of early 

successional vegetation stages that increase overall biodiversity. 

Invasive plants (e.g., cattails and purple loosestrife) are widespread in Refuge wetlands. Invasive plants 

limit native plant production and cause impacts to food, nesting habitat, and cover for wildlife. Invasive 

plants in wetlands reduce waterfowl food availability during the migration and wintering periods. 

Cattails generally occur as scattered sterile plants in high-quality natural areas. Disruptions of hydrology, 

wildfire suppression, or system enrichment may favor cattail growth. System disruption is often followed 

by the growth of dense monocultures of cattails that may reduce habitat heterogeneity and eliminate other 

plants. Mechanical and chemical methods, prescribed burning, and several other methods of cattail 

control are available. Reliable control is achieved when any method reduces and maintains the stature of 

live and dead cattail stems below water levels for a period of one to three years (Apfelbaum 1985). A 

step-down plan for invasive species abatement will be developed following completion of the CCP. 

The Refuge has minimal water-management capabilities on these wetlands. Refuge staff will work 

toward ensuring the dependability of water to these wetland areas. With the exception of Rambo Pond, 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-27 

the wetlands retain water throughout the summer, though significant reduction in surface area and depth 

may occur. Water levels in the Rambo Pond appear to vary due to seepage from groundwater and timing 

of when the water is pumped in. These wetlands support primarily submergent plant species. 

The Leavitt Tract simulates a wet meadow and is used as foraging habitat by Canada geese, ducks, 

Sandhill cranes, and shorebirds and as nesting habitat for northern harriers and ducks. Wet-meadow 

vegetation may have included native species historically, but this site has been largely taken over by 

cattails. Currently, the Leavitt Tract attracts ducks and geese during the fall and winter. 

Scraping and contouring of these wetlands may be beneficial in a few ways. The Leavitt Tract and the 

Upper Dam Marsh consist of a monoculture of cattails that could be removed most easily by heavy 

equipment initially, after which a regime of mowing and discing could maintain the wetlands. Modifying 

the wetlands to provide more edge, shoreline, and island structure for waterfowl and shorebirds could also 

be beneficial. Removing sediment buildup in the shallow ponds will deepen them, making the wetland 

more of a permanent structure. 

The degradation of sensitive riparian habitats by livestock has been well studied, and some of the 

negative impacts from livestock include compaction of soil, which increases runoff and decreases water 

availability to plants; significant removal of vegetation, which allows soil temperatures to rise, increases 

evaporation on the soil surface and reduces resources available to native wildlife; and physical damage to 

vegetation from rubbing, trampling, and browsing (Severson and Boldt 1978). If the Refuge is to 

maintain wetland habitat as a priority resource for waterfowl and other wildlife, cattle need to be 

excluded from wetland areas and managed in the nearby uplands at appropriate stocking rates and times 

of the year (see Objective 2.3.5.2). 

2.3.4 Goal 4 (Shrub-steppe): Protect, maintain, and enhance shrub-steppe 

habitats characteristic of the historic Columbia Basin 

Objective 2.3.4.1. Protect, maintain, and enhance shrub-steppe habitat– Lake Lowell 

Protect 830, maintain 520, and enhance 300 acres of shrub-steppe communities surrounding Lake Lowell, 

benefiting migratory birds (e.g., sage thrasher, loggerhead shrike, burrowing owls) and a diverse 

assemblage of other shrub-steppe-dependent species. These habitats should be characterized by the 

following attributes: 

 Unfragmented stands of 20 to >50 acres 

 25% canopy cover of native shrubs, including sagebrush, bitterbrush, saltbush, and rabbitbrush 

 25% cover of native perennial forbs/bunchgrasses (bluebunch wheatgrass, Great Basin wildrye, 

Idaho fescue) 

 <25% cover of invasive plants (e.g., cheatgrass, puncturevine, tumbleweed) 

 No rush skeletonweed present 

 15% cover of bare ground 

 Refuge areas for wildlife protected from human-caused disturbance 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

Seed and plant native shrubs, forbs, and bunchgrasses with emphasis on areas adjacent to previously 

restored areas (i.e., CC Lightning Fire and Sage Fire areas) and areas beneficial for research and/or EE. 

Rehabilitate shrub-steppe that has been damaged in unplanned fire events with native shrubs, forbs, and 

bunchgrasses. 

Use 163 acres of restored steppe habitat to research cheatgrass control methods. Priority will be given to 

the North Side Recreation Area and adjacent areas, and the CC Lightning Fire area and adjacent areas. 

Remove and rehabilitate unnecessary internal fire breaks through green-stripping. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-28 Chapter 2. Management Direction 

Use prescribed fire and mechanical treatments for hazardous fuels reduction. 

Implement land-based seasonal closures to protect nesting and wintering areas. See Objective 2.4.1.3. 

Seasonally restrict travel to designated roads and trails to reduce and/or prevent habitat impacts and 

disturbance to wildlife. See Public Use Objective 2.4.1.3. 

Use enhanced IPM techniques including mechanical/physical (e.g., mowing), chemical, cultural, and 

biological methods to control or eradicate invasive species (see Appendix G). 

Rationale: Uplands on the Refuge typically consist of patches of big sagebrush with a cheatgrass 

understory between Lake Lowell, agricultural fields, fences, roads, and irrigation dikes. Even though 

most of the vegetation is nonnative, these areas provide nesting and foraging habitat for ground-nesting 

birds, resting and feeding areas for flocks of geese, foraging space for raptors, and habitat for small 

mammals and other wildlife. Currently the Lake Lowell Unit has approximately 830 acres of this upland 

or shrub-steppe habitat. The area near the Visitor Center has the largest contiguous piece of sagebrush 

habitat on the Refuge at approximately 550 acres. 

Sagebrush ecosystems and the wildlife that depend on them are thought to be among the most imperiled 

in North America (Dobkin and Sauder 2004; Knick and Rotenberry 2002; Knick et al. 2003; Mac et al. 

1998). Populations of shrubland and grassland birds, which represent an important component of the 

biodiversity in the western United States, are declining more rapidly than other groups of bird species in 

North America (Dobkin 1994; Knopf 1994; Saab and Rich 1997; Vickery and Herkert 1999). Declines in 

sagebrush-dependent species can be attributed to the once greater than 60 million hectares of the 

Intermountain West shrub-steppe habitat being degraded, fragmented, converted to agriculture, or 

changed to vegetative states dominated by exotic annual grasses (Miller and Eddleman 2001; West 1996). 

These disturbance regimes have accelerated soil erosion and the loss of sagebrush ecosystems (Bunting et 

al. 2003; West and Young 2000) to a point where the ecological integrity may be pushed beyond a 

threshold from which they can recover (Allen 1988; Belnap and Eldridge 2001). Conservation and 

restoration of sagebrush lands are becoming high priorities for natural resource agencies because of 

changing attitudes about the intrinsic value of sagebrush ecosystems and the threat of petitions to list 

species under the Endangered Species Act (Bureau of Land Management [BLM] 2002). 

Deer Flat NWR is particularly vulnerable to invasive plant infestations due to a combination of 

surrounding land management practices and high levels of human use. Seeds and propagules can transfer 

across boundaries along trails (human and wildlife), rivers, utility corridors, and roads. Recreational use 

by bird watchers, hikers, hunters, cyclists, joggers, photographers, equestrians, and dog walkers can 

create a high probability for propagules to enter and be distributed into even remote areas. Currently there 

is minimal management of natural vegetation due to large areas, low budgets, and staff shortages. 

The constant flood of new propagules into desert regions, especially near urbanized areas, increases the 

probability that new populations (of invasive species) will become established. One of the biggest 

challenges for land managers is to identify these problematic species and control them before they 

establish and spread in wildland areas (Brooks and Pyke 2001). Mowing, grazing, burning, tilling, and 

reseeding of existing shrub-steppe habitat will be used to attempt to restore small tracts of Refuge uplands 

to provide presettlement conditions for obligate bird species and other terrestrial vertebrates as well as 

provide a working example and educational opportunity for future studies. In one study, repeated mowing 

(every three weeks) during the spring and summer was found to be as effective at controlling cheatgrass 

seed production as an application of glyphosate, when initiated in the year following a prescribed fire 

treatment (Ponzetti 1997). This method was very labor-intensive, and a cost/benefit analysis should be 

conducted before any choice is made. Refuge staff will attempt to continue, augment, and improve past 

restoration efforts. The strategic placement of fire breaks will be re-evaluated, and those identified as 

superfluous will be exploited for green-stripping and restoration efforts. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-29 

There is substantial evidence that human presence can cause significant impacts to bird behavior and 

fecundity. For birds, human disturbance can impact foraging habits (Skagen et al. 1991), reduce song 

occurrence and consistency (Gutzwiller and Marcum 1993), and reduce reproductive success (Safina and 

Burger 1983). Knight and Cole (1995b) pointed to multiple studies that showed human disturbance can 

also alter nesting behavior. The effects of human intrusion increase when accompanied by dogs. One 

study showed that dog walking in woodland leads to a 35 percent reduction in bird diversity and 41 

percent reduction in abundance, both in areas where dog walking is common and where dogs are 

prohibited (Banks and Bryant 2007). To minimize disturbance to wildlife, people engaged in recreational 

activities will be required to stay on trails from February 1 to July 31. In addition, dogs will be required to 

be on leash, and will be allowed only on designated trails and in the Lower Dam Recreation Area (see 

Objective 2.4.1.4). The general and Refuge-specific effects of human-caused disturbance to wildlife are 

presented in Appendix B. 

Objective 2.3.4.2. Protect, maintain, and enhance shrub-steppe habitat – Snake River Islands 

Protect, maintain, and enhance 104 Refuge islands with shrub-steppe habitat on the Snake River, 

benefiting nesting and migrating birds (e.g., geese and mallards) and a diverse assemblage of other shrubsteppe-dependent species. These habitats should be characterized by the following attributes: 

 0%-50% cover of <8 feet native shrub species (e.g., sagebrush species, fourwing saltbush, 

rabbitbrush, greasewood, golden currant, wild rose) 

 >50% cover of native grasses and forbs (e.g., Great Basin wildrye, bluebunch wheatgrass, Indian 

ricegrass, western wheatgrass, Idaho fescue, smooth brome, salt grass) 

 No invasive woody trees (e.g., Russian olive, salt cedar) 

 <25% cover of invasive plants (e.g., Scotch thistle, cheatgrass, whitetop) 

 No rush skeletonweed, leafy spurge, or yellow starthistle present 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

Seed and plant native shrubs, forbs, and bunchgrasses, particularly following invasive species treatments 

on 2-10 islands. 

Use prescribed fire and mechanical treatment to reduce hazardous fuels on 2-10 islands. 

Aerially apply the herbicide metsulfuron to control extensive infestations of whitetop on 2-10 islands. 

Graze goats on select islands to prevent woody invasion and set back succession as appropriate for 

nesting Canada geese. 

Implement seasonal closures to prevent disturbance to waterfowl and colonial-nesting birds. See Public 

Use Objectives 2.4.1.3 and 2.4.3.1. 

 All Refuge islands closed February 1 to June 14 during goose nesting season. 

 Some Refuge islands (currently four to six islands) closed February 1 to July 1 to reduce 

disturbance to colonial-nesting birds (e.g., herons, gulls, and terns). 

Use enhanced IPM techniques including mechanical/physical (e.g., mowing), chemical, cultural, and 

biological methods to control or eradicate invasive species (see Appendix G). 

Rationale: The importance of shrub-steppe habitat and the responsibility of Federal land managers to 

enhance and protect this landscape are discussed in Objective 2.3.4.1. Monitoring of Canada geese 

nesting on the Snake River Islands Unit has been done by Refuge staff since the 1960s because the area is 

an important nesting area for resident flocks. Goose nesting platforms and wood duck boxes are in place 

and are maintained by Refuge staff, volunteers, and partners. The islands also provide nesting habitat for 

other species of birds, including raptors, owls, cormorants, herons, gulls, and a wide variety of songbirds. 

Vegetative structure varies from island to island, but most include both upland and riparian habitat. 

Highest priority areas for restoration will be based on GIS modeling that includes a ranking system that 

will identify the most biologically intact islands which are likely to provide good habitat. Factors that will 

be modeled include size, current condition (existing habitat, noxious weeds, nesting activity), neighboring 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-30 Chapter 2. Management Direction 

land use, and isolation (measure of flow and channel depth) (see Objective 2.3.6.4). By starting with 

small projects, the Refuge could monitor effectiveness, predict future funding needs, and develop a longterm strategy for enhancing riparian habitat on the Refuge islands. 

Protection and management of shrub-steppe habitat on the Snake River Islands Unit presents a different 

set of challenges than at the Lake Lowell Unit. Fluctuating water levels causes some islands to be more 

accessible to livestock from neighboring shores during lower flow regimes. Refuge staff may use fencing, 

law enforcement, and partnering with adjacent landowners to control livestock trespass on the islands. 

The control of invasive species on the Snake River Islands Unit presents some unique challenges due to 

the logistics of getting people and equipment onto the islands for effective control measures. Some of the 

islands are so choked with invasive woody species (e.g., tamarisk), large monocultures of noxious weeds 

(e.g., whitetop), and cheatgrass that conventional land-based mechanical control is restricted. Using aerial 

spraying may be more cost effective than attempting to get personnel and materials over the water and 

onto the islands to implement physical control measures. Successful control usually requires repeated 

applications with foliar herbicides as well as reseeding and planting of desirable species within treatment 

areas. Islands will be prioritized and treated accordingly. 

Alternative methods for invasive species control on the islands will also be researched and implemented 

as needed. Methods like using goats to graze on select islands to prevent woody invasion and set back 

succession as appropriate for nesting Canada geese may be a viable alternative. The use of mechanical 

treatments and prescribed fire to remove large areas of invasive species may be the most cost-effective 

way of encouraging a more desirable shrub-steppe landscape. 

The current closure dates for the Snake River Islands Unit do not correspond with the dates of needed 

protection. Canada geese in this area generally start hatching at the end of April or beginning of May, but 

hatching has been noted well into June (Steele et al. 1957). Molting of flight feathers happens around the 

same time, and geese are more vulnerable to disturbance when they are land-bound with young. To 

provide protections through this vulnerable time, island closures should be extended to June 14. There are 

a few (four to six) Refuge islands that have historically held nesting colonies of herons, egrets, 

cormorants, and gulls. The existing closures do not adequately cover the sensitive nesting time for these 

birds and need to be lengthened to provide needed protection. Islands that have nesting colonies or 

rookeries (present and future) will be closed from February 1 through June 30. The general and Refugespecific effects of human-caused disturbance to wildlife are presented in Appendix B. 

2.3.5 Goal 5 (Agriculture): Protect, maintain, and enhance managed 

grasslands and agricultural crops to support migrating waterfowl as well as 

resident wildlife 

Objective 2.3.5.1. Maintain grain and forage crops 

Maintain a diversity of grain and green forage crops on 250 acres, benefitting migratory birds (e.g., 

Canada geese, dabbling ducks) and other resident wildlife. Croplands will be characterized by the 

following attributes: 

 As of October 1, ≥25% of total crop acreage is left standing and is a wildlife forage crop 

 As of October 1, alfalfa must be 6 inches tall and winter wheat must be 3 to 6 inches tall. 

 No cutting between April 15 and June 15 to avoid destroying ground-nesting birds. 

 Minimize winter till on Refuge farmlands 

 <10% presence of invasive plants (e.g., Kochia, field bindweed, Russian thistle) 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-31 

The area enhanced (i.e., for shoreline plantings) will vary depending on water levels and the ability to 

agree on appropriate in-water acreages with the Board of Control. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

Use crop rotation as a mechanism to improve soil tilth and as a strategy to control invasive/undesirable 

plant species in agricultural lands. 

Use cooperative farmers. 

Knock down corn after hunting season. 

Use the following BMPs: leaving residues, filter strips, and buffers along field edges. 

Install one new well near Farm Field 5 to better farm current acres. 

No cutting allowed between April 15 and June 15. 

Ensure wildlife crop share is at least 25%. 

Implement shoreline plantings (millet, buckwheat, and/or winter wheat) in areas adjacent to Farm Field 5. 

Develop cooperative land management plan. 

Use enhanced IPM techniques including mechanical/physical (e.g., mowing), chemical, cultural, and 

biological methods to control or eradicate invasive species (see Appendix G). 

Rationale: The Refuge farm fields are an important food source for waterfowl and other wildlife when 

natural foods are limited. The lake contains minimal submerged aquatic food for waterfowl because of 

poor water quality, unreliable water levels, and large numbers of carp. The smartweed beds provide 

natural food only when they are sufficiently flooded in the summer for the production of seed and flooded 

in the fall to allow for waterfowl access. Much of the surrounding landscape has been converted from 

agriculture to low-density development, resulting in food loss for wintering waterfowl. In addition, crops 

grown in many of the remaining fields include higher-value specialty crops such as seed alfalfa, onions, 

and mint that are not as valuable to wildlife. Also, more efficient harvesting equipment leaves little waste 

grain in the field for waterfowl. “Clean farming,” which involves plowing and tilling in the fall to reduce 

the spread of noxious weeds, also reduces the amount of waste grain left in the fields prior to the peak of 

waterfowl concentrations. As a result, the availability of winter browse and nutritional foods off-refuge 

has been substantially reduced. Because this trend is likely to continue into the future, cooperative 

farming will be essential for waterfowl management. Although wintering waterfowl numbers have 

declined over time, numerous waterfowl still winter at the Refuge (see Chapter 4). Refuge crops provide a 

consistent food source for the wintering waterfowl and therefore are important to continue. 

One significant change may be implemented as part of the cooperative farming program. The basic 

objective for cropland management has been to produce green browse and high-nutrition foods for 

waterfowl. Historically, one of the biggest changes in the farming program included the elimination of 

shoreline plantings, likely due to budget constraints at the time. At one time, approximately 400 acres 

were farmed on the Refuge, which included planting millet along some of the lake shorelines. Because 

lakeshore plantings can be less labor intensive and do not require irrigation, they can be a less costly 

option than expanding cooperative farming. As development continues around the lake, use of this 

strategy may be implemented to achieve Refuge goals and objectives. 

Studies have shown that BMPs like crop rotation can reduce the amount of weed species in agricultural 

fields (Liebman and Dyck 1993) and improve soil tilth and carbon sequestering capabilities (West and 

Post 2001), thereby reducing the amount of pesticides and fertilizers needed for profitable farming. Other 

Refuge practices like knocking down share-crop corn after the hunting season so that waterfowl have 

easier access to it will also continue on cooperatively farmed land. The strategies are either existing 

practices or improvements. In addition to BMPs, special conditions currently in place will continue, 

including restricting pesticide uses, limiting the types of crops grown, no grass-crop harvesting April 15 

through June 15 (to reduce the risk of destroying nests of ground-nesting birds), and a requirement to 

have 6 inches of green browse by October 1. Conditions for cooperative farming will be identified in a 

cooperative land management plan. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-32 Chapter 2. Management Direction 

Objective 2.3.5.2. Protect, maintain, and enhance managed grasslands to benefit migratory and 

wintering waterfowl 

Protect and maintain 80 acres, and within two years enhance 80 acres (Leavitt Tract) of improved pasture 

for wintering waterfowl with the following attributes: 

 Mix of desirable, palatable grasses (e.g., perennial ryegrass, orchard grass, fescues) and forbs (e.g., 

clover) with a height of <4 inches by October 15 in fields and along field/wetland interfaces. 

 <20% cover of invasive species 

 No encroaching woody vegetation 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

Use herd rotation as a mechanism to reduce soil compaction and control invasive/undesirable plant 

species in grazing lands. 

At Leavitt Tract, clean ditches and update irrigation infrastructure (i.e., redo corrugations and replace 

irrigation checks) to provide better water control. 

Re-establish permanent goose pasture by interseeding cool-season perennial grasses at the Leavitt Tract. 

In addition to grazing, manage short grasses by haying, mowing, burning, and other means. 

Graze Leavitt Tract from April 1 through August 15. Determine if grazing during this time period is 

impacting ground-nesting birds. 

Develop cooperative land management plan and grazing management plan. 

Conduct grazing fee market analysis to evaluate current grazing fees. 

Use enhanced IPM techniques including mechanical/physical (e.g., mowing), chemical, cultural, and 

biological methods to control or eradicate invasive species (see Appendix G). 

Rationale: Grazing is allowed on refuges if it achieves a management goal that will benefit wildlife. The 

only area on the Refuge that currently has grazing is the Leavitt Tract, its purpose is to maintain short 

grasses to benefit wintering Canada geese. To provide high-quality forage for wintering and migrating 

geese, the Refuge has used grazing to ensure that young shoots less than 6 inches tall are available 

annually by early October to reduce the accumulation of thatch, which can reduce the number of shoots. 

Other tools for managing grasslands for geese include mowing and prescribed fire. Both of these tools, if 

used properly, can achieve similar benefits as grazing and may be implemented as necessary. 

Grazing can be used to set back succession, increase native annual forb species and cover, and decrease 

vegetation height and litter depth (Hayes and Holl 2003), all of which are beneficial to foraging Canada 

geese. However, studies have also shown negative impacts of grazing, including altering species 

composition, decreasing density and biomass of individual species, reducing species richness, and 

changing community organization (Fleischner 1994). Vavra (2005) also showed that grazing can alter 

species composition and that it can increase the productivity of selected species, increase nutritive quality 

of the forage, and increase diversity of the habitat by altering its structure. Geese use refuge pastures for 

foraging, preferring young shoots that are higher in protein and lower in fiber than mature stems 

(McLandress and Raveling 1981). Some refuges use grazing in improved pasture in an attempt to increase 

the amount of edible green shoots available for wintering geese (Greenwalt 1978). Therefore, grazing will 

continue to be allowed at the Leavitt Tract to benefit wintering Canada geese, but Refuge staff will 

monitor potential impacts to wildlife and habitat. 

The impacts of grazing depend on many factors including timing, habitat type, and stocking rate. An 

evaluation of the current Refuge grazing program, including infrastructure maintenance (irrigation 

ditches, fences), stocking rate, habitat impacts, wildlife use, and grazing fees has not been conducted in 

many years. Development of a cooperative land management plan and a grazing management plan will 

address these concerns. The cooperative land management plan will be written after the CCP is complete 

and will include a description of the agreement between the Refuge and the private farmer to manage the 

land for both parties. Typically the cooperator is responsible for pasture management, weed control, and 

installation and maintenance of fencing, whereas the Refuge maintains pumps, supplies fencing materials, 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-33 

and constructs access roads. The grazing management plan will better define the objectives of grazing, as 

well as the amount of stock to be grazed and any time restrictions necessary to meet biological 

management goals. The management plan will also identify what habitat and/or wildlife will be 

monitored to determine the benefits and/or impacts of the grazing program. 

2.3.6 Goal 6 (Research): Gather sufficient scientific information to guide 

responsible adaptive management decisions for the Refuge’s trust resources 

Objective 2.3.6.1. Monitoring activities 

A prioritized list of monitoring activities to support Refuge resource management decisions follows. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

Develop an inventory and monitoring plan. 

Monitor public-use activities on Lake Lowell to evaluate wildlife disturbance effects. 

Implement shorebird surveys to determine importance of Lake Lowell unit to migrating shorebirds. 

Implement point counts to characterize importance of riparian habitat to migrating and nesting passerines. 

Early detection and rapid response monitoring to identify new or spreading invasive plant and animal 

species (e.g., zebra and quagga mussels [Dreissena polymorpha and D. rostriformis bugensis). 

Monitor the effectiveness of IPM activities to control/eradicate invasive plants on the Refuge. 

Monitor habitats (e.g., wetlands, shrub-steppe, riparian) to establish baseline and evaluate achievement of 

objectives for adaptive management. 

Evaluate and analyze historical biological data (e.g., waterfowl counts and goose nesting data) to 

determine long-term population trends and reliability of the data. 

Monitor nesting density and success of waterfowl on Snake River Islands Unit. 

Monitor waterfowl populations during fall and winter on Lake Lowell Unit to develop long-term 

population trends. 

Install and monitor water-level gauges in Refuge wetlands. 

Conduct annual grebe nesting and brood count surveys. 

Monitor dog walking leash compliance and associated wildlife impacts. 

Monitor effectiveness and impacts of integrated pest management. 

Rationale: Monitoring the wildlife and vegetation response to habitat management practices is necessary 

to implement adaptive management techniques on the Refuge. The NWRS Improvement Act requires the 

Service to monitor the status and trends of fish, wildlife, and plants on each refuge. An inventory and 

monitoring plan needs to be developed that will include monitoring of vegetation and wildlife in order to 

measure responses to habitat management activities, and the response of vegetation and wildlife to habitat 

restoration projects. Existing staff and funds are prioritized to perform the most pressing habitat 

management projects on the Refuge, leaving few resources available to conduct studies of the 

effectiveness of habitat management or restoration treatments. This lack of data hinders the Refuge’s 

ability to use adaptive management to evaluate the effectiveness of its management practices and make 

necessary course corrections. At Deer Flat NWR, there is a lack of data for both managed sites as well as 

appropriate reference sites that are necessary to account for variability. 

A substantial body of scientific literature has documented the disturbance effects of human activities, 

including recreational activities on wildlife (Bartelt 1987; Boyle and Sampson 1985; Cole and Knight 

1990; Havera et al. 1992; Klein 1993; Knight and Cole 1995b; Madsen 1995; Pease et al. 2005). The 

Refuge is mandated by law to provide wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities that do not materially 

interfere with the Refuge’s ability to manage according to its purposes. Nesting waterfowl and waterbirds, 

such as great blue herons, western grebes, and Clark’s grebes, are a few species of particular concern at 

the Refuge because they are especially sensitive to disturbance. The Refuge must design and evaluate 

public use programs based on the best available science while considering disturbance effects. By 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-34 Chapter 2. Management Direction 

monitoring changes in wildlife-use patterns that follow changes to public-use programs and facilities, the 

Refuge manager will be able to make adjustments if disturbance reaches unacceptable levels. 

Objective 2.3.6.2. Inventory Activities 

The following is a prioritized list of inventory activities to support resource management decisions on the 

Refuge. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

Develop an inventory and monitoring plan. 

Inventory and map invasive exotic plants on both Refuge units. 

Conduct breeding and migratory bird inventory of shrub-steppe and riparian habitats on both units. 

Inventory bat use on both Refuge units. 

Inventory riparian habitat structure and composition on both Refuge units. 

Estimate fuel loading in riparian habitat on both Refuge units. 

Inventory wildlife use of wetlands. 

Inventory plant species composition of emergent beds associated with Lake Lowell. 

Rationale: Maintaining an inventory of the Refuge’s wildlife and vegetation is necessary to implement 

adaptive management techniques. The NWRS Improvement Act requires the Service to monitor the status 

and trends of fish, wildlife, and plants on each refuge. An inventory and monitoring plan needs to be 

developed that will include monitoring of vegetation and wildlife to measure responses to habitat 

management and public uses. 

Existing staff and funds are prioritized to perform the most pressing habitat management projects on the 

Refuge, leaving few resources available to conduct studies of the effectiveness of habitat management or 

restoration treatments. This lack of data hinders the Refuge’s ability to use adaptive management to 

evaluate the effectiveness of its management practices and make necessary course corrections. At Deer 

Flat NWR, there is a lack of data for both managed sites as well as appropriate reference sites that are 

necessary to account for variability. 

Objective 2.3.6.3 Research 

A prioritized list of research projects that will support Refuge resource management decisions follows. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

Conduct research to determine species-specific thresholds for disturbances from public use and habitat 

management actions implemented as a result of the CCP. 

Conduct an on-refuge contaminant investigation to comprehensively evaluate potential contaminants in 

sediments, water, invertebrates, and vegetation associated with Lake Lowell to assess risks to fish and 

wildlife, especially fish-eating birds such as bald eagles, double-crested cormorants, western grebes, 

herons (great blue and black-crowned night), and pelicans. 

Conduct a contaminant investigation to identify and quantify contaminants in water inflows to Lake 

Lowell in conjunction with Reclamation. 

Conduct a contaminants investigation for the Leavitt Tract to determine if rehabilitation and ground 

disturbance are feasible. 

Determine the population structure (age and sex ratios), movements, size, and potential habitat impacts of mule 

deer on the Lake Lowell Unit. 

Determine the population structure (age and sex ratios), size, movements, and potential habitat impacts of 

mule deer on the Snake River Islands Unit. 

Research shorebird disturbance and highest shorebird use areas and determine importance to shorebirds 

on a regional basis. 

Determine if planting of crested wheatgrass in cheatgrass-dominated areas, followed by native bunchgrass 

planting is a successful restoration technique (Cox and Anderson 2004). 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-35 

Research the efficacy of biological control methods for cheatgrass. 

Evaluate the zone of influence of leashed versus unleashed dogs. 

Assess current and potential fuel loading in riparian habitat. 

Rationale: Results of research studies will help the Refuge to better accomplish the goals and objectives 

defined in this plan as well as study issues that will be addressed in step-down plans or issues that are 

outside of the scope of the CCP. 

A substantial body of scientific literature has documented the disturbance effects of human activities, 

including recreational activities on wildlife (Bartelt 1987; Boyle and Sampson 1985; Cole and Knight 

1990; Hamann et al. 1999; Havera et al. 1992; Klein 1993; Knight and Cole 1995b; Madsen 1995; Pease 

et al. 2005). The Refuge is mandated by law to provide wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities that 

do not materially interfere with the Refuge’s ability to manage according to its purposes. Nesting 

waterfowl and waterbirds, such as great blue herons, western grebes, and Clark’s grebes, are a few species 

of particular concern on the Refuge because they are especially sensitive to disturbance. The Refuge must 

design and evaluate public-use programs and facilities based on the best available science while 

considering disturbance effects. By monitoring changes in wildlife use patterns that follow changes to 

public use programs and facilities, the Refuge manager will be able to make adjustments, should 

disturbance reach unacceptable levels. 

Objective 2.3.6.4. Assessments and Information Needs 

The following is a prioritized list of scientific assessments and information needs to support resource 

management decisions on the Refuge. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

Assess use of goose nesting platforms to determine if they are important to the success of nesting Canada 

geese on the Snake River Islands Unit. 

Conduct soil survey of shrub-steppe habitats as a basis for long-term restoration potential and to create a data 

layer for use in GIS. 

To identify the islands with maximum potential long-term value to nesting waterfowl and landbirds, 

conduct an assessment to prioritize Refuge islands considering the following factors: isolation (function 

of channel width and depth along with river flow); island size (smaller islands have less predation by 

mammalian predators); native species well represented in riparian and shrub-steppe; history of waterfowl 

nesting and nesting success; and >1 mile from livestock operations (for protection from trespass and 

cowbird parasitism). For isolation consider the worst-case scenario (lowest potential flows in the future). 

Conduct real-time kinematic surveys to determine wetland bottom topography and assess Ferrari’s (1995) 

bathymetry mapping. 

Complete water resource assessment for the Refuge through the Division of Engineering, Water 

Resources Branch. 

Develop a National Vegetation Classification Standard vegetation data layer for use in GIS for both units. 

Assess quality of Refuge wetlands (i.e., conduct function and values assessment). 

Assess the quality/importance of grassland areas on the south side of the Lake Lowell Unit. 

Work with partners to obtain funding for a feasibility study that will identify the best methods to improve 

the water quality (e.g., reducing phosphorus and silt) of Lake Lowell. 

Rationale: The Refuge is tasked with using the best available scientific information to make adaptive 

management decisions in accordance with 522 DM 1 (Implementing Adaptive Management Policy). 

Many of the tasks described above will serve as baseline information that the Refuge could use to better 

manage its public-use programs and to achieve the biological goals and objectives of this plan. Much of 

the information to be collected is baseline information, such as the vegetation map and accurate 

bathymetry of the lake, and will aid the Refuge in developing more precise management prescriptions 

(e.g., invasive species treatment, forest management, desired water level conditions) and evaluating the 

results of habitat restoration and wildlife management actions. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-36 Chapter 2. Management Direction 

2.4 Public Use and Cultural Resource Goals, Objectives, and 

Strategies 

2.4.1 Goal 1 (General Visitor Services): Visitors of all ages will enjoy native 

wildlife and increase their understanding and appreciation of the importance 

of the Refuge as wildlife habitat 

Objective 2.4.1.1. Welcome and orientation 

Within 5 years, develop a visitor services plan to integrate welcome and orientation features, facilities, 

programs, activities, and experiences on the Refuge. Welcome and orientation features will: 

 Use both electronic and printed media to reach and orient visitors to the Refuge. 

 Provide daily opportunities for personal contact with Refuge staff or volunteers. 

 Be available in Spanish and English. 

 Provide appropriate visitor amenities at developed sites, such as toilets and picnic tables. 

 Be consistent with quality criteria in Section 2.2.2. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

Install entrance signs at high-use visitor access points and along high-traffic roads bordering the Refuge. 

Install orientation signs that alert visitors to the presence of nearby Refuge facilities (e.g., “boat launch,” 

“fishing area,” “Visitor Center”) on main roads in appropriate locations. 

Provide trail signs at all trailheads. 

Provide positively worded welcome and orientation/interpretive materials (e.g., maps, brochures, signs) at 

attractive and visible kiosks near main Refuge access points and at areas where visitors tend to 

congregate. To encourage compliance, materials will explain, when possible, the regulation’s benefit(s) to 

wildlife or wildlife habitat. 

 Provide kiosks at high-visitation areas at Lake Lowell Unit, such as Lower Dam Recreation Area 

and Upper Dam boat launches. 

 Provide kiosks at major Snake River Islands Unit access points. Within 5 years of CCP 

implementation, update panels on these kiosks. 

Develop site plan for the Lower Dam Recreation Area to increase educational and interpretive 

opportunities, improve parking and safety, and improve wildlife habitat. 

Develop a site plan for either Upper Dam East, Upper Dam West, or Lower Dam Recreation Area boat 

launch, to provide at least one ABA-accessible boating opportunity. 

Construct a visitor contact station (VCS) at Lower Dam Recreation Area. If possible, the existing EE 

building will be used for the VCS. Continue to allow use of EE building for environmental education 

activities until building is converted to VCS. 

Allow Refuge access through designated entrances marked as Parking Area or Refuge Access on Map 4. 

Provide modern restroom facilities at Lower Dam Recreation Area. 

Provide additional bathroom facilities at high-use access points. 

Rationale: Customer service and first impressions are important to visitors feeling safe and welcome at 

national wildlife refuges. Although 96 percent of visitors to the Lake Lowell Unit of the Refuge are from 

the local area (Sexton et al. 2012), interactions with visitors make it clear that many do not realize that 

they are at a national wildlife refuge or do not realize what that means. Visitors to the Snake River Islands 

Unit may also not know. 

Refuge visitors will therefore benefit from increased opportunities to have personal contact with Refuge 

staff and volunteers, as well as an integrated set of welcome and orientation features that are easily found 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-37 

and provide accurate, timely, and appropriate orientation materials and information on Refuge facilities, 

programs, activities, and experiences. These strategies will also increase the Refuge’s visibility and 

promote visitor compliance with Refuge regulations. By increasing staff and volunteer contact with 

visitors at high-use areas, staff will also gain a better understanding of visitor use patterns. 

The designated strategies focus on providing high-quality visitor services and improving information 

availability by using modern media, exhibits, and orientation panels that are clean, maintained, and 

accessible; that do not detract from the surroundings; and that provide clear, frequently updated 

information about where visitors can go, what they can do, and how to safely and ethically engage in 

Refuge recreational activities. Orientation materials will explain, when possible, the wildlife or habitat 

benefit of Refuge regulations to encourage compliance. 

The Lower Dam Recreation Area will be redesigned to improve traffic flow, provide a VCS, and provide 

more wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. Parking and access for boat launches, buildings, and 

beaches at the Lower Dam Recreation Area are extremely restricted on busy weekends. A new site plan 

will be developed to improve traffic flow, functionality, and safety at the Lower Dam Recreation Area. 

Providing volunteer and staff contact at a VCS at this high-use area will increase awareness of the Refuge 

and Refuge regulations, as well as increasing the enjoyment of visitors by providing information about 

recreational opportunities around the Refuge. 

New restroom facilities are proposed in response to interest in improved restroom facilities. 

Objective 2.4.1.2. On-site interpretation 

Within 5 years of the CCP’s approval, develop a visitor services plan to integrate accurate, timely, and 

appropriate interpretation of Refuge wildlife, habitats, and other resources at the Visitor Center and highuse access points through programs, activities, and experiences on the Refuge for 37,700 visitors of all 

ages and abilities annually. Interpretive programs will be characterized by: 

 A mix of traditional and modern techniques to reach visitors with a variety of learning styles. 

 Accessible facilities. 

 Translation into Spanish (for interpretive materials). 

 Consistency with quality criteria in Section 2.2.2. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

Increase interpretive opportunities for visitors at high-use access points. For example: 

 Use staff and volunteers to facilitate guided/roving interpretive programs (e.g., bird walks, 

nocturnal walks, canoe/kayak paddles, boating scavenger hunts) on designated themes at high-use 

visitor access points to increase visitors’ awareness of these themes. 

 Provide interpretive signs on new and existing trails and facilities. 

 Develop a nature exploration area at Lower Dam Recreation Area initiated through a communitybased design effort involving key stakeholder groups. 

Within three years of CCP implementation, provide at least four on-site outreach events (e.g., BioBlitz, 

Creepy Critters, National Wildlife Refuge Week) annually, to expand public awareness of interpretive 

themes. 

Update and replace existing Visitor Center interpretive materials. For example: 

 Develop Refuge video to show at Visitor Center. 

 Update and replace existing interpretive signs. 

Allow use of Visitor Center auditorium only by wildlife-dependent recreation groups for their 

organizational meetings. 

Rationale: Interpretation, when compatible, is a priority public use of the NWRS, it can foster an 

understanding of and appreciation for our natural resources. Many visitors to national wildlife refuges, 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-38 Chapter 2. Management Direction 

including Deer Flat NWR, enjoy participating in guided and self-guided interpretive opportunities. 

Interpretation can also be an effective resource management tool by providing visitors the opportunity to 

learn about natural resources, refuges, and the NWRS, as well as helping them understand their role and 

how their compliance with rules and regulations can help solve or prevent management problems. We will 

work with partners to provide enhanced interpretive opportunities at both units. 

Interpretive themes will focus on increasing awareness and understanding of the Refuge and NWRS, of 

how to be a better Refuge visitor, and of issues facing the Refuge and Refuge wildlife and habitat. 

Examples of themes include: 

 What is a national wildlife refuge? What is the Refuge’s purpose? 

 The North American model of wildlife management. 

 The role of Lake Lowell in irrigation. 

 How visitors can help conserve the Refuge and other wildlife habitats. 

 Water quality, water conservation, and watersheds. 

 Invasive species (e.g., carp, plants, domesticated animals, aquatics). 

 Migration (e.g., waterfowl, neotropical migrants). 

 Individual wildlife species (e.g., waterfowl, grebe) and their habitat requirements. 

 Urbanization impacts. 

Interpretation will be emphasized over EE because we will expect a wide diversity of user groups, and 

interpretation has the flexibility to reach broader audiences. On-site interpretation allows direct contact 

with and education of Refuge users and will therefore be more efficient than EE programming to increase 

visitor understanding of interpretive themes and to increase compliance with Refuge regulations. These 

programs will aim to interact with visitors at high-use access points to increase awareness of the Refuge 

and its wildlife and habitats. The VCS proposed at the Lower Dam Recreation Area could act as a base of 

operations for roving interpreters. 

Interpretive materials are currently provided only at and near the Visitor Center/Refuge Headquarters at 

the Lake Lowell Unit and at kiosks at the most-used boat launches that access the Snake River Islands 

Unit, even though many visitors access the Refuge from other locations. Additional interpretive materials 

will be added and existing materials will be updated. Welcome and orientation/interpretive kiosks will be 

installed at the most-used visitor access points. Interpretive panels will be installed along existing and 

proposed trails to increase the audience for interpretive information. Appropriate electronic tools (e.g., 

Smartsigns to be used with cell phones to provide regulatory and interpretive information) will be 

implemented to provide land- and water-based interpretive opportunities. 

To increase guided interpretive opportunities, staff-, volunteer-, or concessionaire-guided interpretive 

opportunities will be provided. Interpretive programs could include guided walks, on-water kayak/canoe 

trips, and guided walks at night or into closed areas. Guided walks/paddles could be on a variety of topics 

(e.g., eagle nesting, wintering waterfowl, songbird migration, nocturnal wildlife, grebes, and shorebirds). 

Both land- and water-based interpretive opportunities could better educate visitors about Refuge resources 

and recreational impacts on them. 

Nature exploration areas provide opportunities for children to experience nature first-hand through 

unstructured outdoor play. Richard Louv identified the importance of first-hand unstructured experience 

in nature and the prevalence of “nature deficit disorder” as a serious issue in his book Last Child in the 

Woods (Louv 2005). Research supports Louv’s arguments demonstrating that children’s positive 

encounters with nature can lead to development of an environmental ethic (Chawla 1988; Palmberg and 

Kuru 2000; Wilson 1997). 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-39 

Objective 2.4.1.3. Wildlife observation and photography 

Provide quality wildlife and nature observation and photography opportunities for visitors of all ages and 

abilities on 13 miles of trail and 5 developed viewing facilities on the Refuge. Wildlife observation and 

photography programs will emphasize opportunities for casual visitors and beginning to moderate birders. 

Wildlife observation and photography programs will be characterized by: 

 Occasional guided opportunities in otherwise-closed areas when that will allow visitors access to 

unique wildlife/habitat observation opportunities. 

 Integration with the interpretive program to provide visitors opportunities to make discoveries. 

 Consistency with quality criteria in Section 2.2.2. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

See Objective 2.4.1.4 for boating regulations and rationale. 

Allow walking access to Snake River Islands Unit for wildlife observation and photography from June 15 

to January 31 on goose-nesting islands and from July 1 to January 31 on heron- and gull-nesting islands. 

Implement seasonal closures, as follows, on the Snake River Islands Unit to prevent disturbance to 

waterfowl and colonial-nesting birds. 

 All Refuge islands closed February 1 to June 14 during goose nesting season. 

 Some Refuge islands closed February 1 to June 30 to reduce disturbance to colonial-nesting birds 

(e.g., herons, gulls, and terns currently nest on four to six islands). 

Allow walking access, as follows, to Lake Lowell Unit for wildlife observation and photography: 

 To protect nesting birds, allow access only on maintained roads and trails from February 1 to July 

31 in the North Side and South Side Recreation Areas. During these months, lakeshore access is 

restricted to 100 meters on either side of trails accessing the lakeshore. Off-trail travel allowed 

August 1 to January 31. 

 To protect wintering birds, access to Murphy’s Neck through the walk-through on Orchard Avenue 

allowed only March 15 to September 30. 

 In the East Side Recreation Area, off-trail travel allowed all year. 

 In the Gotts Point area, off-trail travel allowed February 1 to September 30. 

 Off-trail travel is allowed April 15 to September 30 in most of the Lower Dam Recreation Area. 

The wooded area west of Murphy’s Neck is the exception, where off-trail travel is allowed August 

1 to September 30 (see Maps 4-6). 

 Off-trail travel may be restricted in areas that have been rehabilitated (e.g., after a fire) to allow 

time for plants to re-establish. 

Implement land-based seasonal closures, as follows, on the Lake Lowell Unit to protect important wildlife 

areas. See Map 4. 

 Protect all active and historical grebe nesting colonies by establishing an area up to 500-yards not 

open to public use during boating season. If there is no nesting in a colony by July 15 of the 

following year, the closure around that colony will be re-opened. Upland portions of the closures 

will be open to use from October 1 to January 31. 

 Establish a buffer up to 300 yards around eagle nests from February 15 to July 15. 

 Establish a seasonal closure buffer area around osprey nests up to 150 yards, from March 15 to 

August 1. 

 Establish a buffer up to 250 yards around heron rookeries from February 1 to July 1. 

 Establish a closure up to 100-yards around shorebird feeding and resting areas from July 15 to 

September 30 during years when the lake level elevation is lower than 2,522 feet. 

 Continue wildlife closure at Gotts Point from October 1 to January 31. 

 Establish wildlife closure at Murphy’s Neck from October 1 to March 14 (see Map 4). 

 Continue wildlife closure at Lower Dam Recreation Area from October 1 to April 14. 

Consider whether and how to develop a walking trail in the South Side Recreation Area. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-40 Chapter 2. Management Direction 

Maintain existing trails and develop new trails at appropriate locations to provide wildlife observation and 

photography opportunities. For example: 

 Assess suitability for providing a 0.65-mile ABA-accessible interpretive loop trail in riparian 

habitat between Lower Dam Recreation Area and Murphy’s Neck that will include access to 

shoreline fishing. 

 Provide interpretive trail through restored native area at Lower Dam Recreation Area. 

 Provide 0.6-mile bike/walking path from entrance to Visitor Center along entrance road to provide 

connectivity to possible bike paths. 

 Provide 0.13-mile trail between loops of existing Observation Hill Trail System west of Visitor 

Center to provide a loop trail experience during eagle nesting season. 

 Provide 0.63-mile trail or improved trail to the observation platform west of the Visitor Center 

from the entrance road parking lot. 

 Provide a 1.5-mile self-guided or virtual geocaching on-water trail looping to the east from Parking 

Lot 1. 

Maintain existing observation facilities (e.g., towers, platforms, blinds) and develop new at appropriate 

locations. For example: 

 Provide multipurpose (e.g., fishing, observation) dock/platform at north end of Lower Dam 

Recreation Area near existing Environmental Education Building. 

 Provide multipurpose (e.g., fishing, observation, hunting) dock at Parking Lot 1. 

 Provide a seasonal shorebird observation/photography blind on the northern shoreline of the East 

Pool east of Tio Lane. Access by SUP. Implement fee for use comparable to fees at other refuges. 

 Provide observation/photography blind at Upper Dam Marsh for reservation with SUP. Implement 

fee for use comparable to fees at other refuges. 

Provide an ABA-accessible kayak/canoe launch at an appropriate location to access prime wildlife 

observation areas. 

Maintain or provide remote observation opportunities through webcams, for example: 

 Maintain existing osprey nest webcam. 

 Install grebe, heron, or eagle nest webcam(s). 

Rationale: Wildlife observation and photography, when compatible, are priority public uses of the 

NWRS. Many visitors to national wildlife refuges, including Deer Flat NWR, enjoy opportunities to 

watch and photograph wildlife. Scoping comments revealed a desire for additional trails and wildlife 

observation and photography facilities and programs. In addition, connecting people with nature is a 

priority for the Service and many other natural resource agencies interested in maintaining an active 

constituency. Providing accessible observation and photography opportunities will create greater visitor 

awareness and appreciation of the Refuge’s purpose and its wildlife and habitat resources. 

Although wildlife observation and photography can result in disturbance to wildlife, disturbance will be 

intermittent and short-term when activities are conducted according to the stipulations designated in the 

Compatibility Determination for Wildlife Observation, Photography, Interpretation, and Environmental 

Education (in Appendix B). Pedestrian travel will be restricted to established trails during the nesting 

season to increase predictability of public use patterns on the Refuge and thus allow nesting wildlife to 

habituate to nonthreatening activities. Year-round off-trail travel opportunities will be allowed in the East 

Side Recreation Area, which is less biologically sensitive than other areas of the Refuge. Providing 

seasonal closures around sensitive wildlife areas will reduce impacts to wildlife while providing 

recreational opportunities in these areas when the wildlife is less vulnerable. 

To provide more observation and photography opportunities, new facilities are proposed, including trails 

that provide access to different habitats than existing trails provide and observation/photography blinds 

that provide access to areas with wildlife concentrations. New facilities will not be considered in upland 

areas that have been restored (the Sage Fire area northwest of the Visitor Center and the CC Lightning 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-41 

Fire area east of Gotts Point) to provide sanctuary areas for wildlife and minimize introduction of invasive 

plants in restored areas. 

A trail on the south side of the Refuge was suggested by several members of the public during the scoping 

period. Any ground-level trail in this area will be inundated by irrigation water for much of the winter, 

spring, and fall, causing major maintenance issues and unavailability to Refuge visitors. Because of these 

issues, any trail in the riparian zone on the south side of the Refuge will need to be elevated. Due to the 

projected cost for the 2-mile boardwalk between Parking Lots 1 and 3, it is not proposed; instead, the trail 

concept will be investigated further to determine if a lower-cost option is available. 

Objective 2.4.1.4. Compatible nonwildlife-dependent public uses – Lake Lowell 

Provide opportunities for visitors to enjoy water-based nonwildlife-dependent recreational activities 

(including motorized, wind-powered, and human-powered boating as well as tow-behind activities and 

swimming) at the Lake Lowell Unit on a variable* number of acres, including wake-causing activities on 

a variable number of acres. Provide two designated swim beaches. Provide opportunities to enjoy landbased, nonwildlife-dependent recreational activities (including horseback riding, jogging, and bicycling) 

on 8.75 miles of trails. The uses shall adhere to the following guidelines: 

 Minimal disturbance to breeding and foraging wildlife. 

 Minimal conflicts with wildlife-dependent recreationists. 

 Consistent with quality criteria in Section 2.2.2. 

*Areas critical to nesting birds (e.g., grebe colonies, heron rookeries, bald eagle nests) will be closed to 

public entry on a seasonal basis. These areas will be sized appropriately according to best available 

science. The area will remain closed until no nesting is observed within the same area the following year. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

Nonwildlife-dependent motorized and nonmotorized boating will be allowed on Lake Lowell. No-wake 

zones, seasonal lake closures, and area closures will be applied to protect wildlife and reduce conflicts 

with wildlife-dependent recreational activities. 

 Allow boating from April 15 to September 30 during daylight hours. Establish no-wake zone east 

from line between Parking Lot 1 and Gotts Point and within the Narrows 

 Allow nonmotorized boating from October 1 to April 14 in Fishing Areas A and B (200 yards in 

front of the Upper and Lower Dams) during daylight hours. 

To protect emergent beds for nesting grebes and other wildlife, institute appropriate seasonal closures. See 

Map 4. 

 Protect emergent plant beds on the lake’s south side with a 200-yard no-wake zone measured 

from the shoreline edge or emergent vegetation, whichever is closer to the center of the lake. 

 Establish no-wake area in the Narrows between the east and west pools. 

 Protect all active and historical grebe nesting colonies by establishing an area up to 500 yards not 

open to public use (Berg et al. 2004) during boating season. If there is no nesting in a colony by 

July 15 of the following year, the closure around that colony will be reopened. Upland portions of 

the closures will be open to use from October 1 through January 31. 

To protect sensitive nesting habitat, institute appropriate seasonal closures. See Map 4. 

 Up to a 300-yard seasonal closure around eagle nests (Anthony et al. 1995) from February 15 to 

July 15.

 Up to a 150-yard seasonal closure around osprey nests from March 15 to August 1.

 Up to a 250-yard seasonal closure around heron rookeries (Vos et al. 1985) from February 1 to 

July 1.

To protect mudflat habitat and migrating shorebirds, institute up to a 100-yard seasonal closure around 

sensitive shorebird areas (Rodgers and Smith 1997) from July 15 to September 30 when the water 

elevation level falls below 2,522 feet. See Map 4. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-42 Chapter 2. Management Direction 

Allow tow-behind activities (e.g., waterskiing, wakeboarding) in areas open to wake activities.

Allow sailing regattas in April and May. All no-wake zones and area closures must be followed. Sailing 

regattas only allowed every other weekend (to provide opportunities for other users). All regattas must 

launch from the Lower Dam Recreation Area. Fee of $100, with 25-boat limit. See the Compatibility 

Determination for Sailing Regattas in Appendix B for other stipulations. 

Prohibit boaters from anchoring or pulling onto land adjacent to closed areas. 

To minimize noise disturbance to wildlife, enforce Idaho State noise ordinances on Lake Lowell. 

To minimize negative impacts to water quality, promote the use of CARB star-rated motors at the level of 

two stars and above. 

Allow kiteboarders and windsurfers to launch from any open shoreline and require compliance with speed 

limit in no-wake zones. 

Allow swimming as follows: 

 From April 15 to September 30 direct swimmers to designated swim beaches at the Upper Dam 

east-side boat launch and at Lower Dam Recreation Area in a buoyed area closed to boating and 

monitored for water quality effects to human health. 

 Shoreline swimming will be allowed in designated areas and elsewhere, except for around fishing 

or other wildlife-dependent facilities (e.g., docks), or immediately adjacent to boat launch areas. 

 Swimming will be allowed from boats, in the open waters of Lake Lowell outside no-wake zones. 

To protect important wildlife areas, implement land-based seasonal closures surrounding important 

wildlife areas. See Objective 2.4.1.3. 

Allow horseback riding access to Lake Lowell Unit for wildlife observation and photography on 

designated multi-use trails (see Maps 4-6). 

Require equestrian groups of more than 10 horses and riders to obtain an SUP. 

Allow walking with on-leash pets on designated multi-use trails (see Maps 4-6), maintained roads, and in 

the Lower Dam Recreation Area, with a requirement for removal of pet feces. 

Provide pet waste removal stations at the Visitor Center, Gotts Point, and Tio Lane access points. 

Allow jogging and bicycling on designated multi-use trails and maintained roads, and on the proposed 

trail adjacent to the entrance road. 

Require groups of more than 10 joggers or bicyclists to obtain an SUP. 

Allow picnicking in designated areas at the east end of Upper Dam and at Lower Dam Recreation Area. 

Because of the potential for injury of visitors, prohibit glass containers on the Refuge. 

Rationale: 

Boating at Lake Lowell Unit: Providing opportunities for priority wildlife-dependent recreational 

activities is in keeping with provisions under the NWRS Administration Act as amended in 1997. 

Although boating itself is not a wildlife-dependent recreational activity, many wildlife-dependent 

activities like fishing and wildlife observation are enhanced by boating. 

Boating can negatively impact wildlife (see the Compatibility Determination for Recreational Boating in 

Appendix B). To reduce impacts of boating activity on wildlife and habitat, seasonal closures or no-wake 

zones will be implemented around important wildlife areas, such as eagle nests, grebe colonies, osprey 

nests, heron rookeries, and shorebird feeding areas. Although most literature recommends disturbance 

buffers from 400 yards to 1,500 yards for osprey, the Colorado Division of Wildlife (2008) and Van Daele 

and Van Daele (1982) suggest that some osprey populations are tolerant of human activity in the vicinity 

of their nests. Ospreys currently nesting at the Refuge seem to tolerate the 150-yard distance to the highly 

used Visitor Center. The use of a 150-yard nesting closure will be assessed during the life of the plan and 

changed to more closely meet the distances cited in scientific literature, if needed. Implementing these 

restrictions, as well as the boating closure from October 1 to April 14, will provide adequate habitat for 

migratory birds. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-43 

The West Pool and western portion of the East Pool will continue to allow wake boating activities and be 

managed for a safe, multiuse experience. The east end of the East Pool will be managed for wildlifedependent activities (especially fishing, wildlife observation, and wildlife photography) using watercraft 

at no-wake speeds to provide a quality experience with minimal impact to wildlife and other users. 

Boating capacity decisions will be made with the Canyon County Marine Patrol and other boating 

management experts. These decisions will be used in site planning and in determining the number of 

designated boat trailer parking spots to provide at launches. To prevent an excess of boat trailer parking, 

the Refuge will work with Reclamation to manage overflow parking at the east side of the Upper Dam to 

improve safety and reduce congestion at the boat ramp and on the lake. 

Nonwildlife-dependent boating visitors provide the Refuge opportunity to reach out to nontraditional user 

groups and to encourage boating users to observe wildlife and learn about the NWRS. Due to the close 

proximity of the Refuge to the cities of Nampa and Caldwell, the number and variety of users to this 

urban refuge is expected to grow. For many of these people, boating at Lake Lowell may provide an 

introduction to a national wildlife refuge. 

Swimming at Lake Lowell Unit: Although not a priority general public use as determined by the NWRS 

Improvement Act of 1997, compatible nonwildlife-dependent beach use at Deer Flat NWR is popular. 

There have been several near-drowning incidents at Lake Lowell in the past few years, and one fatality 

(one swimming fatality occurred in 2011); therefore, we hope that encouraging shoreline swimmers to use 

two designated swimming areas that are easily accessible to rescue personnel will help minimize safety 

issues. There will be no lifeguards stationed at the swimming areas. If swimming is managed according to 

the stipulations in the Compatibility Determination for Swimming, Beach Use, and Picnicking (including 

Lower Dam Recreation Area) in Appendix B, visitors can enjoy the chance to relax on the shores of Lake 

Lowell. Although their primary activities may be swimming, sunbathing, reading, or relaxing, this 

activity could result in wildlife observation opportunities as well. For many visitors, swimming and beach 

use at Lake Lowell may provide an introduction to a national wildlife refuge.

There is currently human health and safety concerns related to swimmers in Lake Lowell during certain 

conditions, including when blue-green algae blooms occur, when swimmer’s itch is reported, and when 

fecal coliform levels exceed State health standards. The Refuge will work with IDEQ and Southwest 

District Health (SDH) to monitor water quality, and if necessary, close the swimming areas. When water 

quality testing at the swimming areas indicates health concerns, testing will also be conducted at other 

lake sites. The Refuge will work with IDEQ and SDH to establish water contact warnings and closures at 

these locations, when warranted. 

Upland nonwildlife-dependent uses: Visitors will be allowed to walk with their pets in accordance with 

the stipulations in the Compatibility Determination for Walking with Pets in Appendix B, including 

restricting leashed pets to designated trails and the Lower Dam Recreation Area, and requiring removal of 

pet waste. Keeping pets on designated trails will allow wildlife-dependent visitors the opportunity to use 

several trails without having to interact with pets. 

Horseback riding, jogging, and bicycling are not wildlife-dependent public uses of the Refuge, as defined 

by statute (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.). However, these uses of the existing trails are potential modes for 

wildlife-dependent uses and are expected to result in only minor additional impacts to wildlife. Restricting 

the disturbance to an established trail will increase predictability of public use patterns on the Refuge, 

allowing wildlife to habituate to nonthreatening activities (see the Compatibility Determination for 

Horseback Riding, Jogging and Bicycling in Appendix B). Groups of more than 10 horses and riders will be 

required to obtain an SUP, because large groups may restrict use for other wildlife-dependent users due to 

the limited space both on trails and in parking lots. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-44 Chapter 2. Management Direction 

To reduce impacts to visitors engaging in wildlife-dependent activities, especially those involved in EE 

and interpretive programs, pets, horses, and bikes will not be allowed on the Nature, Centennial, 

Murphy’s Neck, or Boardwalk Trails (for more information on trails, see Chapter 5). These trails are, for 

the most part, narrower than the patrol road trails (East Dike, Kingfisher, Gotts Point, and Observation 

Hill Trail System) and therefore do not lend themselves to multiple uses. The Centennial and Nature 

Trails are currently used for EE and interpretive programs. To reduce disturbance to these programs, 

increase the safety of the visiting public, and provide adequate space for multiple-use activities, on-leash 

pets, horses, and bikes will be allowed only on the entrance road, the East Dike, Kingfisher, and Gotts 

Point Trails, and the Observation Hill Trail System. Leashed pets will also be allowed in the Lower Dam 

Recreation Area. Off-leash dogs have been reported fighting in public use areas. Off-leash pets increase 

the potential for visitor injury through biting incidents or trampling of children. To address comments 

regarding pet feces on trails, visitors walking pets will be required to pick up after their pets. 

Visiting with pets, horseback riding, jogging, and bicycling provide opportunities for the Refuge to reach 

out to nontraditional user groups to encourage them to observe wildlife and learn about the NWRS. Due 

to its close proximity to the cities of Nampa and Caldwell, the number and variety of users to this urban 

refuge is expected to grow. For many of these people, multiple-use trails may provide an introduction to a 

national wildlife refuge. 

Picnicking will be allowed only in designated areas at the east end of the Upper Dam and at the Lower 

Dam Recreation Area to reduce the potential for conflict with wildlife-dependent activities (e.g., fishing, 

wildlife observation, wildlife photography). 

2.4.2 Goal 2 (Hunting): Hunters of all ages and abilities will enjoy a familyfriendly, safe, quality hunt that minimally impacts Refuge habitats and 

wildlife and increases their understanding and appreciation of the importance 

of Deer Flat NWR as wildlife habitat 

Objective 2.4.2.1. Hunting waterfowl 

Provide a quality, safe waterfowl hunt program on 2,250 acres of the Lake Lowell Unit and 1,219 acres of 

the Snake River Islands Unit capable of supporting about 5,000 hunter visits per season. Hunt programs 

will include opportunities for youth hunting and hunters with disabilities. Hunts will be characterized by: 

 Close cooperation and coordination with IDFG and ODFW for management of hunting 

opportunities on the Refuge and in setting population management goals and objectives. 

 To the extent practicable, consistency in Refuge hunting regulations with IDFG and ODFW fish 

and wildlife laws and regulations. 

 Increased opportunities while maintaining hunt quality. 

 Reliable/reasonable opportunities to experience a successful waterfowl hunt. 

 ABA compliance. 

 Consistency with quality criteria in Section 2.2.2. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

Allow waterfowl hunting on all islands in the Snake River Islands Unit. 

Allow waterfowl hunting at the Lake Lowell Unit (see Map 4) as follows: 

 Waterfowl hunting allowed between Parking Lots 1 and 8. Hunting allowed from an electric- or 

human-powered boat within 200 yards of the shoreline of hunt zones on the south side of the lake.

 Walk-in waterfowl hunting allowed from the east boundary of the Leavitt Tract west to the 

Greenhurst Road entrance at Gotts Point. 

Prohibit waterfowl hunting on foot from the ice on the Lake Lowell Unit. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-45 

During waterfowl hunting season, allow public use activities in all waterfowl hunting areas. 

Post signs at Refuge access points to notify Refuge users when a hunt is underway. 

Take measures to improve goose nesting success on Snake River Islands Unit (e.g., implement predator 

control measures, shorten the end of waterfowl hunt season, or implement habitat restoration) if shown to 

be necessary by goose nesting analysis/study. 

Allow use of dogs for waterfowl hunting. Require dogs to be leashed unless actively hunting and remain 

under strict voice control at all times. 

Provide youth waterfowl hunt in accordance with IDFG regulations in all designated waterfowl hunt 

zones. Allow hunting from an electric- or human-powered boat within 200 yards of the shoreline of hunt 

zones on the south side of the lake. 

Evaluate whether to charge a hunt fee and/or institute a more structured hunt opportunity. 

Provide ABA-compliant hunting blind at appropriate location(s) available to parties with at least one 

hunter with an IDFG-issued disabled hunt license. 

Establish daily limit of 25 shotgun shells in possession per hunter on Lake Lowell Unit. 

Rationale: Hunting, when compatible, is identified as one of the priority recreational uses of the NWRS. 

Waterfowl hunting is compatible at the Refuge and will continue to be allowed. 

Current hunters report that the Lake Lowell Unit provides a unique hunting opportunity for southwest 

Idaho when the riparian zone is flooded because hunters can jump shoot ducks in the wooded areas. At 

the Lake Lowell Unit, waterfowl hunters seem to view hunting from Parking Lots 5 through 7 as a higherquality hunting opportunity. 

To improve safety and minimize conflict with other priority uses, signs will be posted at Refuge access 

points to notify Refuge users when a hunt is underway. Refuge staff will evaluate whether to charge a fee 

and/or institute a more structured hunt opportunity to address complaints about limited access. We 

considered but rejected the possibility of a controlled hunt with blinds because it will require too much 

management, due to the fluctuating water levels at Lake Lowell. 

There will be a limit of 25-shotgun shells in possession per hunter to address complaints about sky 

busting. Sky busting is a term used by waterfowl hunters to describe the act of shooting at waterfowl that 

are too high overhead to be within effective range of a shotgun. In an area like Lake Lowell where hunters 

are relatively close together, sky busting is a nuisance because it deters waterfowl from coming into a 

decoy spread where close, ethical shots can be achieved. There is concern that sky busting decreases the 

probability of making a clean kill and/or recovery of a wounded bird after being hit from a long distance. 

According to the IDFG 2009 Progress Report for Waterfowl Fall and Winter Surveys, Production, 

Summer Banding and Harvest, the three-year average for breeding pairs in the Snake River/Payette River 

survey area was below the minimum goal for the fifth consecutive year (IDFG 2009a). Analyzing the 

possible reasons for this discrepancy may lead to several possible solutions to increase the number of 

breeding pairs in the area. The Refuge hopes to work closely with IDFG to determine and implement 

possible solutions. Some solutions may include predator control efforts, habitat restoration, and/or 

shortening of the hunting season to reduce the impact to breeding pairs. 

Objective 2.4.2.2. Hunting upland game 

Provide a quality, safe upland game hunt program on 2,250 acres of the Lake Lowell Unit and 1,219 acres 

of the Snake River Islands Unit, capable of supporting about 1,100 hunter visits per season. Hunt 

programs will include opportunities for disabled hunters. The hunt will be characterized by: 

 No stocking of nonnative game. 

 Close cooperation and coordination with IDFG and ODFW for management of hunting 

opportunities on the Refuge and in setting population management goals and objectives. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-46 Chapter 2. Management Direction 

 To the extent practicable, consistency of Refuge hunting regulations with IDFG and ODFW fish 

and wildlife laws and regulations. 

 Reliable/reasonable opportunities to experience a successful upland game hunt. 

 As possible, upland hunting opportunity for mobility-impaired hunters. 

 Consistency with quality criteria in Section 2.2.2. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

Allow upland game hunting on the Snake River Islands Unit. 

Allow upland bird hunting at the Lake Lowell Unit from the east boundary of the Leavitt Tract west to the 

Greenhurst Road entrance at Gotts Point and between Parking Lots 1 and 8. 

During upland hunting season: 

 Allow public use activities in all upland hunting areas.

 Post signs at Refuge access points to notify Refuge users when a hunt is underway.

Allow use of dogs for upland hunting. Require dogs to be leashed, unless actively hunting, and to remain 

under strict voice control at all times.

Evaluate whether to implement restricted hunting hours to reduce conflicts with waterfowl hunters. 

Rationale: Hunting, when compatible, is one of the priority recreational uses of the NWRS. Upland 

hunting will continue to be allowed. Hunting is provided for existing naturalized populations of nonnative 

upland game birds (e.g., ring-necked pheasant, California quail). These populations will not be 

supplemented, and no habitat management will be performed solely for the benefit of these species. 

To improve safety and minimize conflict with other priority uses, signs will be posted at Refuge access 

points to notify Refuge users when a hunt is underway. Refuge staff will evaluate whether to implement 

restricted hunting hours to reduce conflicts with waterfowl hunters. If upland hunters reduce the quality of 

the waterfowl hunt, a start time of 10 AM for upland hunting may be imposed. 

Objective 2.4.2.3. Hunting deer on the Snake River Islands Unit 

Provide and promote quality, safe deer hunt on 1,219 acres of the Snake River Islands Unit of the Refuge 

capable of supporting about 75 hunter visits per season. The hunt will be characterized by: 

 Close cooperation and coordination with IDFG and ODFW for management of hunting 

opportunities on the Refuge and in setting population management goals and objectives. 

 To the extent practicable, consistency of Refuge hunting regulations with IDFG and ODFW fish 

and wildlife laws and regulations. 

 Reliable/reasonable opportunities to experience a successful deer hunt. 

 Consistency with quality criteria in Section 2.2.2. Deer Hunting at Lake Lowell Unit. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

Allow deer hunting on the Snake River Islands Unit. 

Prohibit use of lead buckshot. 

Rationale: Hunting, when compatible, is identified as one of the priority recreational uses of the NWRS. 

A deer hunt will therefore continue to be provided at the Snake River Islands Unit. Lead buckshot is 

prohibited to reduce consumption of lead shot by target and nontarget species. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-47 

2.4.3 Goal 3 (Fishing): Anglers will enjoy a family-friendly, quality, accessible 

fishing opportunity that minimally impacts Refuge habitats and wildlife and 

increases their understanding and appreciation of the importance of Deer Flat 

NWR as wildlife habitat 

Objective 2.4.3.1. Provide quality fishing opportunities 

Provide quality shoreline and boat fishing opportunities at Lake Lowell aimed at providing successful 

fishing for beginning, casual, and local anglers on a variable number of acres* of the Lake Lowell Unit 

and 66 miles of shoreline at the Snake River Islands Unit. Together, these areas are capable of supporting 

about 45,300 angler visits per season. Fishing programs will include youth event(s) and opportunities for 

disabled anglers. The fishing opportunity will be characterized by: 

 Close cooperation and coordination with IDFG and ODFW for management of fishing 

opportunities on the Refuge and in setting population management goals and objectives. 

 Stocking of the following species by IDFG as appropriate to provide a quality fishery: black 

crappie, bluegill, channel catfish, Lahontan cutthroat trout, largemouth bass, yellow perch, rainbow 

trout, and smallmouth bass. 

 To the extent practicable, consistency of Refuge fishing regulations with IDFG and ODFW fish 

and wildlife laws and regulations. 

 Minimal disturbance from artificial noise. 

 ABA-compliant accessibility.

 Consistency with quality criteria in Section 2.2.2. 

* Areas critical to nesting birds (e.g., grebe colonies, heron rookeries, bald eagle nests) will be closed to 

public entry on a seasonal basis. These areas will be sized appropriately according to best available 

science. The area will remain closed until no nesting is observed in the same area the following year. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

Implement seasonal closures on Snake River Islands Unit to prevent disturbance to waterfowl and 

colonial-nesting birds as follows: 

 All Refuge islands closed February 1 to June 14 during goose nesting season. 

 Some Refuge islands - closed February 1 to July 1 to reduce disturbance to colonial-nesting birds 

(e.g., herons, gulls, and terns are currently nesting on four to six islands). 

Apply boating regulations and facilities described in Objective 2.4.1.4 for Lake Lowell Unit, to float 

tubes used for fishing. 

Allow wading access to fishing anywhere at Lake Lowell Unit from April 15 to September 30 and all year 

in Fishing Areas A and B. 

Allow access to bank fishing at Lake Lowell Unit as follows: 

 To protect nesting birds, access only on maintained roads and trails from February 1 to July 31 in 

the North Side and South Side Recreation Areas. During these months, lakeshore access is 

restricted to 100 yards of shoreline on either side of trails accessing the lakeshore. Off-trail travel 

allowed August 1 to January 31. 

 To protect wintering birds, access to Murphy’s Neck through the walk-through on Orchard Avenue 

allowed from March 15 to September 30. 

 In the East Side Recreation Area, off-trail travel allowed all year. 

 In the Gotts Point area, off-trail travel allowed February 1 to September 30. 

 In areas accessed through the Lower Dam Recreation Area, off-trail travel is allowed April 15- 

September 30. 

 During waterfowl hunting season from any open shoreline.

 Implement seasonal closures surrounding important wildlife areas (eagle nests, grebe colonies, 

osprey nests, heron rookeries, and shorebird feeding and resting areas). See Objective 2.4.1.3.
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-48 Chapter 2. Management Direction 

 Implement land-based seasonal closures on the Lake Lowell Unit to protect important wildlife 

areas. See Map 4.

 Protect all active and historical grebe nesting colonies by establishing an area of up to 500 yards 

not open to public use during boating season. If there is no nesting in a colony by July 15 of the 

following year, the closure around that colony will be reopened. Upland portions of the closures 

will be open to use from October 1 to January 31. 

 Establish a buffer of up to 300 yards around eagle nests from February 15 to July 15. 

 Establish a seasonal closure of up to 150 yards around osprey nests from March 15 to August 1. 

 Establish a buffer of up to 250 yards around heron rookeries from February 1 to July 1. 

 Establish a closure up to 100 yards around shorebird feeding and resting areas from July 15 to 

September 30 during years when the lake level elevation is lower than 2,522 feet. 

 Continue wildlife closure at Gotts Point from October 1 to January 31. 

 Establish wildlife closure at Murphy’s Neck from October 1 to March 14. 

 Continue wildlife closure at Lower Dam Recreation Area from October 1 to April 14. 

Provide access at Gotts Point as follows: 

 Fully open Gotts Point to vehicle access upon completion of memorandum of understanding or 

cooperative agreement with Canyon County to resolve law-enforcement issues. 

 Provide designated fishing ABA-accessible trails from parking areas at Gotts Point. 

 Provide ABA-accessible dock at Gotts Point.

Ice fishing allowed in Fishing Areas A and B within 200 yards of the dams, subject to areas posted by 

Reclamation.

Develop new trails to access the lake for fishing at appropriate locations, for example: 

 At Parking Lots 4 and 7 

 At Parking Lots 2 and 3 

 From 0.65-mile ABA-accessible interpretive loop trail in riparian habitat between Lower Dam 

Recreation Area and Murphy’s Neck if that trail is installed. 

Fishing access to Murphy’s Neck may be moved if Murphy’s Neck trail is installed (Objective 2.4.1.3).

Provide multipurpose (e.g., fishing, observation) docks or platforms at appropriate locations, such as: 

 At north end of Lower Dam Recreation Area near existing Environmental Education Building.

 Just west of boat launch at east end of the Upper Dam.

 Multipurpose (e.g., fishing, observation, hunting) dock at Parking Lot 1.

Allow fishing tournaments at Lake Lowell as follows: 

 During boating season except May 14 to July 9. All no-wake zones, area closures, and State fishing

regulations must be followed (exception to catch and release with permission from IDFG before 

the end of June). Bass tournaments only allowed every other weekend (to provide opportunities for 

nontournament anglers). All bass tournaments must launch from the Lower Dam Recreation Area. 

Fee of $100, with 100-boat limit. 

Prohibit live, nonnative aquatic bait per Service policy (605 FW 3). 

Provide fishing line receptacles. 

Coordinate with the Board of Control and IDFG to increase bottom structure to benefit fish that does not 

interfere with the irrigation purpose of the reservoir. 

Coordinate with IDFG on the stocking of the following fish species at the Lake Lowell Unit: largemouth 

bass, smallmouth bass, bluegill, channel catfish, black crappie, yellow perch, rainbow trout, and Lahontan 

cutthroat trout. Stocking of any other fish species will require additional planning. 

Develop a cooperative agreement with IDFG for resident fish and wildlife management. 

Rationale: Fishing, when compatible, is identified as one of the priority recreational uses of the NWRS. 

Fishing attracts visitors to the Refuge and often enhances their appreciation of natural resources. Fishing 

will, therefore, continue to be provided at the Snake River Islands and Lake Lowell Units. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-49 

Currently, Refuge anglers complain about a reduced-quality fishing experience because of conflict with 

nonwildlife-dependent recreationists on the lake, limited bank- and dock-fishing, and difficulty in 

accessing bank-fishing opportunities. In a 2006 Idaho Angler Opinion Survey conducted by IDFG, most 

respondents were anglers who fished from the bank (IDFG 2007). Additional trails and docks will be 

provided to facilitate shoreline access and fishing. Improved facilities will mitigate negative impacts 

associated with concentrated shoreline fishing. These facilities will also concentrate use and thus reduce 

the footprint of deleterious impacts. Fishing line can injure or kill birds and other wildlife, so fishing line 

receptacles will be provided at major fishing access points. 

Safety is a major concern for recreational users who rely on the structural integrity of the ice on Lake 

Lowell to enjoy their sport. According to the National Weather Service (accessed online at 

http://www.rssweather.com/climate/Idaho/Boise/), average monthly high temperatures in the Treasure 

Valley do not reach freezing levels. This, combined with high winds and long fetch, makes the freezing of 

the water on Lake Lowell very unpredictable, and any frozen areas of the lake unsafe. Systematic ice 

evaluations by qualified personnel are not conducted. However, ice fishing will be allowed to provide a 

quality fishing opportunity during years when ice conditions are favorable. 

Ice fishing will be allowed in Fishing Areas A and B within 200 yards of the dams, subject to areas posted 

by Reclamation. The lake is closed to boating October 1 through April 14, and restricting ice-fishing 

access to these areas will reduce disturbance from human-caused flushing events. Anglers will be 

responsible for confirming that ice conditions are safe. 

To provide safer access to a popular spring fishing area, walk-through access to Murphy’s Neck may be 

removed after installation of the proposed 0.65-mile ABA-accessible interpretive Murphy’s Neck loop 

trail and additional shoreline access trails. 

The majority of the road to Gotts Point was closed to vehicles in 2007 after years of persistent law 

enforcement issues. The road to Gotts Point will be reopened upon completion of an MOU with Canyon 

County to formalize agreements about law enforcement and maintenance. 

Refuge staff will monitor angling activities on the Refuge and apply adaptive management as issues arise. 

Monitoring efforts will be a part of an overall fisheries management plan that will help guide fisheries 

management into the future. 

2.4.4 Goal 4 (Environmental Education): Students, teachers, and Refuge 

visitors will understand the biology and management of the Refuge and the 

mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and will demonstrate 

stewardship of the Refuge and other wildlife habitats 

Objective 2.4.4.1. Environmental education 

Provide quality EE opportunities for 9,400 students aligned with grade-specific State curriculum 

standards. On-site and teacher-led programs will be emphasized over off-site programs. As a result of 

participating in Refuge EE programs, students will show an 80 percent increase in understanding about 

the topic presented, as measured by pre- and post-tests. EE programs will be characterized by: 

 Techniques to reach students with a variety of learning styles. 

 Emphasis on enjoyable, hands-on, inquiry-based learning. 

 Maximum 10:1 student-to-adult ratio during field trips. 

 Use of only local examples of flora and fauna. 

 Appropriate facilities. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-50 Chapter 2. Management Direction 

 Positive teacher feedback. 

 Consistency with quality criteria in Section 2.2.2. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

Within two years, meet with teachers and school districts (especially Caldwell, Nampa, and Vallivue) to 

determine which themes and age groups to target and to refine the Refuge’s scope of EE programming to 

that best suited for Refuge field trips and traveling trunks. Eliminate EE programming that is better suited 

to other educational venues or that is delivered at other local educational sites. 

Within seven years, develop EE curricula to be used with teacher-led classes and Refuge-specific 

instructor training for teachers (“teach the teacher” programs). Enlist local teachers to help develop 

curricula to ensure that educational requirements are met. After programs are developed, offer at least two 

teacher training workshops annually and establish a program to encourage and select trained teachers to 

use the Refuge’s facilities, curricula, and programs for teacher-led EE. By the end of 15 years, teachers 

will lead 75 percent of educational visits.

Within two years, modify existing EE programs not targeted at school classrooms/field trips (e.g., day 

camps, Scout Day, Youth Conservation Corps) to be consistent with EE themes. Eliminate EE programs 

better suited to other educational venues or delivered at other local educational sites. 

Provide at least 2 EE study sites for 25 students in areas that facilitate EE programs on designated themes. 

This might include a portable learning lab (i.e., a trailer).

Rationale: Environmental education, when compatible, is a priority public use of the NWRS and can be 

used to educate visitors and residents of local communities about natural resources, refuges, and the 

NWRS, as well as their role in wildlife conservation and how their compliance with Refuge rules and 

regulations can help solve or prevent management problems. EE will continue to be provided, however, 

the Refuge expects a wider range of user groups, and interpretation has greater flexibility to reach broader 

audiences. Therefore, interpretation will be emphasized over EE. Existing EE programs (e.g., Scout Day, 

day camps, off-site programs, and the on-site Discover Wildlife Journeys program) may be reduced or 

restructured to allow enough staff and volunteer time to provide for increased on-site interpretation. 

Refuge staff will work with teachers and school districts (especially Caldwell, Nampa, and Vallivue) to 

determine which themes and age groups to target and to refine the Refuge’s scope of EE programming to 

that best suited for Refuge field trips and traveling trunks. EE programming delivered at other local 

educational sites will be eliminated. Refuge EE staff will consider Idaho’s Environmental Literacy Plan 

(Fletcher 2011). 

EE themes will focus on increasing awareness and understanding of the Refuge and NWRS, of how to be 

a better Refuge visitor, and of issues facing the Refuge and its wildlife and habitat. Possible themes will 

include: 

 What is a national wildlife refuge? What is the Refuge’s purpose? 

 The North American model of wildlife management. 

 The role of Lake Lowell in irrigation. 

 How visitors can help conserve the Refuge and other wildlife habitats. 

 Water quality, water conservation, and watersheds. 

 Invasive species (e.g., carp, plants, domesticated animals, aquatics). 

 Migration (e.g., waterfowl, neotropical migrants). 

 Individual wildlife species (e.g., waterfowl, grebe) and their habitat requirements. 

 Urbanization impacts. 

On-site EE programs will be prioritized over off-site programming, because higher-quality experiences 

are possible during an on-site field trip. When programs are conducted off-site, requests from Canyon and 

Owyhee counties will be top priority because they are closer to the Lake Lowell Unit where Refuge staff 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-51 

members are stationed. Requests from Ada, Payette, and Washington counties in Idaho, and Malheur 

County in Oregon will be second priority. Even though the Snake River Islands Unit falls within Payette, 

Washington, and Malheur counties, the distance from Refuge Headquarters makes it less feasible to fulfill 

requests from these areas. The Refuge does not fall within Ada County and many other EE opportunities 

are based there, therefore, requests from Ada County will not be a top priority. 

The Refuge will emphasize teach the teacher programs because this approach has the potential to both 

expand the potential number of students served and to broaden the base of knowledgeable EE instructors 

in the community. Indirectly, this might have the effect of broadening support for the Refuge within the 

local community. Because it takes time for teachers to receive training and become comfortable with the 

educational materials and familiar with the Refuge, there will be slow but gradual movement toward 75 

percent of on-site programs being led by teachers over the life of the CCP. 

EE study sites will be constructed; these structures will provide covered areas for students to gather 

during EE programs. Currently, students have no cover from weather during the outdoor portions of field 

trips. Because field trips are scheduled mostly in the spring and fall, weather can span the extremes of 

intense sunshine and pouring rain. 

2.4.5 Goal 5 (Law Enforcement): Visitors will have limited impacts to wildlife, 

feel safe during their visit, and understand Refuge regulations and how they 

help protect wildlife and wildlife habitat as well as other visitors 

Objective 2.4.5.1 Provide safe public use opportunities 

Reduce illegal activities (e.g., trespass into closed areas, pets off leash, vandalism, trash dumping) by 10 

percent per year from previous year. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

Use variety of techniques to educate Refuge users about Refuge regulations and deter illegal public uses 

(e.g., brochures, leaflets, signage, news releases, and increased law enforcement patrols).

Pursue MOU with County Sheriff to patrol Gotts Point and Lower Dam Recreation Area; on-water, 

enforce existing State decibel limits. 

Pursue codification of Refuge regulations with County Sheriff or creating a joint jurisdiction agreement.

Meet annually to educate County Sheriff’s deputies on Refuge regulations and purposes, as well as other 

appropriate issues.

For both Refuge management and law enforcement officer(s), work with partners to facilitate safe public 

use opportunities, such as: 

 Meet with IDFG Conservation Officers annually to discuss law enforcement needs, issues, and 

opportunities to partner.

 Coordinate with local emergency response entities for search and rescue.

 Create a “neighborhood watch” for the Refuge in which Refuge neighbors notify Refuge staff 

about illegal activities.

Rationale: Reducing illegal activities that cause wildlife disturbance, trash issues, and safety concerns is 

a priority. Because of illegal activities, Refuge visitors and staff do not always feel safe everywhere on the 

Refuge. Eliminating illegal uses, defining access routes, restoring habitat, and promoting a sense of 

community pride in the Refuge will all be necessary for the Lake Lowell Unit to serve as high-quality 

wildlife habitat and for the public to feel safe using the site for priority public uses. To succeed in this 

endeavor, the Refuge will partner with others who can enforce Refuge regulations, use positively worded 

signs, explain the rationale behind regulations in brochures, signs, and interpretive talks; and install 

infrastructure that will help reduce illegal activities (e.g., lights and automatic gates). 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-52 Chapter 2. Management Direction 

Many comments were provided during the scoping period about visitors not following regulations, so the 

Refuge will investigate technologies that may reduce the likelihood of illegal activity. Remote video 

cameras and electronic gates may allow the Refuge to decrease illegal activities, increase the Refuge's 

ability to catch those engaged in illegal activities, and provide unobstructed use of the Refuge during 

daylight hours. 

2.4.6 Goal 6 (Volunteers and Partners): The Refuge will initiate and nurture 

relationships and develop cooperative opportunities to nurture stewardship of 

the Refuge and instill in others an understanding and appreciation of the 

importance of Deer Flat NWR as wildlife habitat 

Objective 2.4.6.1. Volunteers 

Recruit, train, use, and retain volunteers for support of Refuge programs and activities. 

 Annually recruit new volunteers to replace volunteers lost through attrition. 

 Orient and train 30 new and returning volunteers annually 

 Use and retain volunteers so that within three years, the number of volunteers that provide 10 or 

more hours of service exceeds 100 annually

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

Offer at least 5 volunteer orientation, refresher, and training sessions annually. 

Hold at least 2 volunteer appreciation events annually. 

Hold at least 3 community work days annually. 

Maintain at least 8 trained EE volunteers annually. 

Rationale: In FY11, more than 550 people volunteered at the Refuge, serving more than 11,000 hours by 

removing noxious weeds and litter, assisting with EE programs and special events, and conducting 

wildlife surveys. However, most of the volunteers participated on a one-time basis; in FY11, just 66 of the 

550 volunteers contributed more than 10 hours each. These repeat volunteers have excellent knowledge of 

the Refuge and its resources, and they often add value to programs by working on more than one project 

and better knowing the resource. Increasing this core of dedicated repeat volunteers will provide benefits 

to both habitat management and public use programs. Increasing local residents’ participation in even 

one-time activities will increase awareness of and support for the Refuge and its programs. 

Objective 2.4.6.2. Partners and Friends 

Maintain and enhance one or more partnerships within each of the following themes to increase partner 

knowledge of Refuge purposes and leverage resources to increase the effectiveness of Refuge programs. 

 EE and interpretation 

 Fishing 

 Hunting 

 Photography and wildlife observation 

 Compatible nonwildlife-dependent surface-water recreation 

 Water quality 

 Urbanization and agriculture 

 Invasive species

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

Work with the Friends of Deer Flat NWR board on development, member recruitment, and involvement. 

Work with partners to facilitate EE and interpretive opportunities such as: 

 Caldwell, Nampa, and Vallivue School Districts to develop educational programming for multiple 

disciplines and grade levels to maximize the Refuge as an educational resource. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-53 

 Colleges that identify use of the Refuge as a research, field lab, or service learning opportunity. 

 Caldwell YMCA to create programs for a proposed day camp. 

 The Friends group and community partners to create a community-wide Refuge event (like Snake 

River Days). 

 Partner with Be Outside, Idaho, and other efforts to connect people with nature. 

 Partner with Snake River Canyon Scenic Byway to post interpretive signs at the Lake Lowell and 

Snake River Island Units. 

 Partner with Snake River Water Trail to post interpretive signs at the Snake River Island Unit. 

Work with partners to facilitate wildlife observation and photography opportunities such as: 

 Partner with Idaho Watchable Wildlife Committee and Idaho Birding Trail to promote and enhance 

wildlife observation and photography opportunities. 

 Work with partners to host photography workshops. 

 Partner with Canyon County and the cities of Caldwell and Nampa to connect their bike and 

pathways plans to Refuge facilities. 

For Refuge management, work with partners to facilitate fishing opportunities such as: 

 Work with partners to provide fishing workshops that target new or novice anglers. 

 Work with partners to provide and promote fishing events for youth (e.g., Kids’ Fishing Day). 

 Work with partners to provide fishing events that encourage participation by disabled visitors. 

Seek partnerships with State and private groups for funding and publication of tear sheets (e.g., for 

fishing, hunting, wildlife observation, and photography). 

For Refuge management, work with partners to facilitate wildlife and habitat objectives such as: 

 Work with IDFG and others to develop/implement methods to reduce Lake Lowell’s carp biomass.

 Work with partners to obtain funding for a feasibility study to identify the best methods for 

improving the water quality (e.g., reducing phosphorus and silt) of Lake Lowell. 

 Work with partners and volunteers to control the spread of weeds. 

 Work with adjacent landowners to address cattle trespass problems in targeted locations on the 

Snake River Islands Unit. 

 Work with partners and volunteers to install and maintain wildlife nesting structures (e.g., goose 

nesting platforms, wood duck boxes). 

 Work with a local nursery to propagate harvested seed for restoration. 

Rationale: Partnerships are key to the successful management of public lands and vital to implementation 

of the Refuge’s programs, plans, and projects, especially in times of declining budgets. 

2.4.7 Goal 7 (Cultural Resources): The Refuge will protect and manage its 

cultural resources and look for ways to gain new understanding of the history 

and cultural resources of both the Lake Lowell and the Snake River Islands 

Units 

Objective 2.4.7.1. Inventory, evaluate, monitor, and protect the Refuge’s cultural resources 

Work with Service Cultural Resources staff and interested Tribes to identify, protect, and enhance the 

Refuge’s cultural resources.

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

Develop systematic cultural resource inventory and monitoring plan consistent with Section 110 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act. 

Identify any resources for potential inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. 

Rationale: Advanced knowledge of cultural resources can help in the design and implementation of 

restoration activities. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-54 Chapter 2. Management Direction 

Objective 2.4.7.2. Present the Refuge’s cultural resources 

Work with Service Cultural Resources staff, interested Tribes, and the local community to interpret the 

Refuge’s cultural resources.

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective 

Increase public awareness and appreciation of the Refuge’s historic and archaeological resources through 

interpretation. 

Partner with the Tribes, historical societies, and volunteers to provide cultural and natural heritage 

interpretation to existing EE programs. 

Rationale: Understanding cultural resources serves to protect these resources and connect visitors, 

Refuge staff, and the local community with tangible elements of shared heritage. 

 
Lower

Dam

Upper Dam 

 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge - Lake Lowell Unit MAP 4 - Management Direction Canyon County, Idaho

0 0.5 1 2

M iles

Existing Entrance Road

Existing Multiuse Trail

Existing Walking Trail

Proposed Vehicle Use (Gotts Point)

Proposed Multiuse Trail

Proposed Walking Trail

Refuge Boundary

Fishing Areas A & B

Waterfowl Hunt Area

Upland Hunt Area

Wildlife Habitat and/or Administration Area

Closure All Year - Except as noted for hunting

No-Wake Zone (<5mph)

Wake Zone

Shorebird Closure (7/15 - 9/30)

Wintering/Migration Closures:

Lower Dam (10/1 - 4/14); Gotts Point (10/1 - 1/31); Murphy's Neck (10/1 - 3/14)

Eagle Nesting/Perching Area Closure (2/15 - 7/15)

Osprey Nesting Area Closure (3/15 - 8/1)

Heron Rookery Seasonal Closure (2/1 - 7/1)

Grebe Colony Closure (up to 500 yd closure around existing grebe colonies

until 7/15 of the following year)

Other Refuge Land

Current Use

@" Refuge Visitor Center

!y Improved Boat Ramp

d[ Unimproved Boat Ramp

!D Dock

!r Designated Swimming Area

!j Parking Area

[" Wildlife Viewing Platform/Blind

Proposed Facilities

!° Nature Play Area

!D Dock

\" Observation/Photo Blind

!r Designated Swimming Area

?" Visitor Contact Station

NOTE: Species specific closures (e.g. eagle, shorebird, grebe)

are based on 2011 observations and may change in size and/or

location year to year.

P R O D U C E D IN T H E D IV IS IO N O F R E A L T Y & R E F U G E IN F O R M A T IO N

P O R T L A N D , O R E G O N

M A P D A TE : 0 5 /2 9 /2 0 1 5

M E R ID IA N : B O IS E

FIL E : 1 1 -0 6 9 -3 -A L T 2 _ 1 1 x 1 7 _ 2 .M X D

U T M Z O N E 1 1

N A D 8 3

2-55

"C 

(1) 

0 

0::: 

Lower Dam 

Recreation Area 

Marsin Road 

=-·;::.:::::::: 

Wake 4/15 - 9/30 

"C 

(1) 

0 

0::: 

... 

Q) 

C 

... 

(1) 

LL 

Wake 4/15 - 9/30 

Locust R_oad 

Lewis Lane 

Gotts Point 

-

-

-

[SJ 

-

-

1111 

-

-

"C 

(1) 

0 

0::: 

E 

ii: 

Green h u rst Rd 

45 

Locust Lane 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-56 

Document continues on next page. 
"\

"\

D

!

"?

D

!

D

!

!°!r

!y!j

[d

!j

[d

!y!j

"[

!y "@

"[

"[

!r

D

!

D

!

!j

!j

D

!

!j

Greenhurst R

Lower Dam 

Recreation Area

Gotts Point

P1

Murphy's Neck

P2

P3

P4

P5

P6

P7

P8

Orchard Avenue

West Roose

Iowa Avenu

Locust Road

Lewis Lane

Marsing Road

Malt Road

South Indiana

Lake Avenue

Midway Road

Walker Lake

Farner Road

Lake Shore Drive

Lake Shore Drive

Narrows

0 1 2 0.5

M iles

P R O D U C E D IN T H E D IV IS IO N O F R E A L T Y & R E F U G E IN F O R M A T IO N

P O R T L A N D , O R E G O N

M A P D A T E : 0 5 /2 9 /2 0 1 5

M E R ID IA N : B O IS E

F IL E : 1 1 -0 6 9 - 2 -A L T 2 -T r a ils M a p -In d e x _ 2 .M X D

U T M Z O N E 1 1

N A D 8 3

Existing Entrance Road

Existing Multiuse Trail

Existing Walking Trail

Proposed Vehicle Use (Gott's Point)

Proposed Multiuse Trail

Proposed Walking Trail

Refuge Boundary

Current Use

"

@ Refuge Visitor Center

!y Improved Boat Ramp

[d Unimproved Boat Ramp

D

! Dock

!r Designated Swimming Area

!j Parking Area

"[ Wildlife Viewing Platform/Blind

Proposed Facilities

!° Nature Play Area

D

! Dock

"\ Observation/Photo Blind

!r Designated Swimming Area

"? Visitor Contact Station

INSET 1

INSET 2

INSET 3

2-57

I I 

I

l l 

[O] 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-58 

Document continues on next page. 

 
!y !j

!j

d[

!y

!j

["

@" !y

["

["

!r

!D

!D

!j

!j

!D

!j

29876543123

 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service MAP 6 - Trails Map - Inset Maps

(Preferred)

Deer Flat National W ildlife Refuge - Lake Low ell Unit 

Canyon County, Idaho

P R O D U C E D IN T H E D I V IS I O N O F R E A L T Y & R E F U G E I N F O R M A T I O N

P O R T L A N D , O R E G O N

M A P D A T E : 0 5 /2 9 /2 0 1 5

M E R ID I A N : B O I S E

F I L E : 1 1 -0 6 9 -2 -A L T 2 - T ra ils M a p -I n s e tM a p s _ 2 . M X D

U T M Z O N E 1 1

N A D 8 3

Current Use

Type

@" Refuge Visitor Center

!y Improved Boat Ramp

d[ Unimproved Boat Ramp

!D Dock

!r Designated Swimming Area

!j Parking Area

[" Wildlife Viewing Platform/Blind

Proposed Facilities

!° Nature Play Area

!D Dock

\" Observation/Photo Blind

!r Designated Swimming Area

?" Visitor Contact Station

!y

!j

!°

?"

!D

!r

!D

INSET 1 0 0.1 0.2

Miles

["

!j

!D

!j

@"

!y

["

INSET 2 0 0.25 0.5

Miles !j

!D

INSET 3 0 0.05 0.1

Miles

Existing Entrance Road

Existing Multiuse Trail

Existing Walking Trail

Proposed Vehicle Use (Gotts Point)

Proposed Multiuse Trail

Proposed Walking Trail

Refuge Boundary

Closed All Year

Off Trail Use Allowed 4/15 - 9/30

Off-Trail Use Allowed 3/15 - 9/30

Off-Trail Use Allowed 2/1-9/30

Off-Trail Use Allowed 8/1-1/31

Off-Trail Use Allowed 8/1-9/30

Off-Trail Use Allowed All Year

Water

2-59

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ~ 

~ 

~ 

~ .. .. 

I 

-,. 

I 

I 

I 

I ,. I .. ._ 

------------,----- , 

, 

--- ---.... , 

□ 

-

-

-
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-60 

Document continues on next page. 
Darkling beetle 

©Mike Shipman Chapter 3 Physical Environment

Chapter 5HumanEnvironment

Chapter 4BiologicalEnvironment

Chapter 3PhysicalEnvironment

Chapter 1Introduction andBackground

Appendices A-P

Chapter 2Management Direction

Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-1 

Chapter 3 Physical Environment 

This chapter describes the existing conditions of the physical environment in the Deer Flat Refuge 

planning area. The planning area consists of both the Lake Lowell Unit and the Snake River Islands 

Unit of the Refuge. 

3.1 Climate 

3.1.1 General Climate 

The Deer Flat NWR planning area is situated in a dry climate region characterized by hot and dry 

summer months and cold and wet mild winters (IDEQ 2010). Climate in Idaho is largely governed by 

two influences: the Continental Divide and the Pacific Ocean. Even though the Refuge is located 

more than 300 miles from the Pacific Ocean, its climate is nevertheless affected by the air that is 

borne eastward on the prevailing westerly winds from the coast (WRCC 2011a). Additional 

information about wind is presented below. The growing season in the Deer Flat NWR region, 

including the central Snake and lower Boise, Payette, and Weiser river basins, averages 150 days or 

more (WRCC 2011a). 

Climate influenced by the Pacific Ocean includes variability that is strongly shaped by two largescale patterns: the El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). 

Each ENSO phase typically lasts six to 18 months, and, during the twentieth century, each PDO 

phase typically lasted for 20 to 30 years (Climate Impacts Group [CIG] 2011). These climate drivers 

can act separately and in concert in creating patterns of warm/dry or cool/wet winters (CIG 2011). 

With their influence over both winter temperature and winter precipitation, these natural climate 

patterns exert significant influence on snowpack and hydrology. 

3.1.1.1 Temperature 

It is rare that Idaho experiences periods of extreme heat or cold that last more than a week at a time, 

because the normal ongoing progression of weather systems moving across the state usually results 

in weather changes at rather frequent intervals (WRCC 2011a). Figure 3-1 illustrates the distribution 

of historical monthly temperatures and precipitation at Nampa, Idaho from 1981 to 2010. The climate 

station at Nampa is located about 4 miles northeast of the Refuge. The Nampa climate station is 

within the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN), a high-quality data set of daily and 

monthly records of basic meteorological variables from 1,218 observing stations across the 

conterminous United States (Menne et al. 2011). The USHCN data have been corrected to remove 

biases or heterogeneities from nonclimatic effects such as urbanization or other landscape changes, 

station moves, and instrument and time of observation changes. The network has been developed 

over the years at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Climatic 

Data Center (NCDC) to assist in the detection of regional climate change and for monitoring 

temperature and precipitation across the United States. Data are accessible at 

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/monthly_doc.html. 

The average annual temperature at Nampa is 52°F. The highest monthly temperatures tend to occur 

in July and August and average 74°F to 75°F. The lowest monthly temperatures occur in December 

and January and average 30°F to 31°F. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-2 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

Figure 3-1. Mean and Distribution of Monthly Temperature (top plot) and Precipitation 

(bottom plot) for the Nampa, Idaho USHCN Station for the Period 1981 to 2010 

Source: Menne et al. (2011). 

3.1.1.2 Precipitation 

The primary source of moisture for precipitation in Idaho is the Pacific Ocean (WRCC 2011a). In 

winter, air masses moving inland from the Pacific Ocean to the continent pick up unlimited moisture 

from the ocean. The Cascade Range, some 200 miles west of the Refuge, forces this moisture-laden 

marine air from the Pacific Ocean to rise as it moves eastward. The resultant cooling and 

condensation produces heavy winter moisture on the western side of the Cascades and a rain shadow 

effect that extends across eastern Oregon and western Idaho. 

Annual precipitation averages 10.9 inches per year at the USHCN station in Nampa, Idaho, for the 

period 1981 to 2010 (Figure 3-1). Summers are typically quite dry; July, August, and September all 

average less than 0.5 inch of precipitation per month. In portions of the Boise, Payette, and Weiser 

river drainages, less than 30 percent of the annual precipitation falls between the months of April and 

September (WRCC 2011a). The dry season in southern Idaho tends to end by October (IDEQ 2010). 

Snowfall occurs at the Refuge but rarely accumulates. However, snowmelt is an important 

contributing factor to the Snake River drainage. Monthly Precipitation (in)

0

2

4

6

Mean for 1981 to 2010

Mean annual precipitation: 10.9"

Monthly Temperature (F)

20

40

60

80

Mean for 1981 to 2010

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Mean annual temperature: 51.9F

-

■ • Iv • "' / • 

V " V ' / ,,,, • V ~ - -- ... 

• 

-

-- I' 

I • • • • • • • • • I I V ~ 

-......... r---......_a - - ~ 

- -

- -
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-3 

3.1.1.3 Wind 

Windstorms are not uncommon events, but there is an extremely small incidence of tornadoes and no 

history of destructive storms such as hurricanes (WRCC 2011a). Windstorms that are strong enough 

to cause minor damage to trees or disrupt power and communication facilities can occur at any time 

from October into July (WRCC 2011a). On average, prevailing winds in the Lake Lowell area are 

from the west-northwest from April through October and from the south-southeast the remainder of 

the year (WRCC 2011b). Monthly wind data as reported at Caldwell Airport (the nearest reporting 

station) are presented in Table 3-1. 

Table 3-1. Average Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction at Caldwell Airport 

Parameter 

(Period of Record) 

Mean Monthly Data 

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

Wind speed (mph) 

(1997-2006) 5.8 7.5 7.9 7.7 6.7 6.6 5.6 5.3 5.0 5.3 5.8 6.1 

Wind direction 

(1992-2002) SSE WNW SSE SE 

Source: WRCC (2011b, 2011c). 

3.1.2 Climate Change 

As stated in Department of the Interior Secretarial Order 3226, issued in 2001, and the Service’s 

Climate Change Strategic Plan, the Service considers and analyzes climate change in long-range 

planning and other activities. 

3.1.2.1 Potential Effects from Climate Change 

Global Greenhouse Gases: The greenhouse effect is a natural phenomenon that assists in regulating 

and warming the temperature of our planet. Just as a glass ceiling traps heat inside a greenhouse, 

certain gases in the atmosphere, called greenhouse gases (GHGs), absorb heat from sunlight. The 

primary GHGs occurring in the atmosphere include carbon dioxide (CO2), water vapor, methane, and 

nitrous oxide. CO2 is produced in the largest quantities, accounting for more than half of the current 

impact on the Earth’s climate. 

A growing body of scientific evidence from basic theory, climate model simulations, and 

observations has emerged to support the idea that humans are changing the Earth’s climate 

(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] 2007; National Academy of Sciences 2008; 

U.S. Global Climate Change Research Program [USGCRP] 2009). The concentrations of heattrapping GHGs have increased significantly over the last several hundred years due to human 

activities such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels. 

Although climate variations are well documented in the Earth’s history, even in relatively recent 

geologic time (for example, the Ice Age of 10,000 years ago), the current warming trend differs from 

shifts earlier in geologic time in two ways. First, this climate change appears to be driven primarily 

by human activity, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, which results in a higher concentration of 

atmospheric GHGs. Second, atmospheric CO2 and other GHGs, levels of which are strongly 

correlated with the Earth’s temperature, are now higher than at any time during the last 800,000 years 

(USGCRP 2009). Prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution in 1750, the amount of CO2 in the 

atmosphere was about 280 parts per million (ppm). Current levels are about 390 ppm and are 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-4 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

increasing at a rate of about 2 ppm per year. The current concentration of CO2 and other GHGs and 

the rapid rate of increase in recent decades are unprecedented in the prehistoric record. 

Temperature and Precipitation: There is a direct correlation between GHG concentrations and the 

temperature of the Earth’s surface. Global surface temperatures have increased about 1.3°F since the 

late nineteenth century (USGCRP 2009), and the rate of temperature increase has risen in more 

recent years (Figure 3-2). The IPCC, a large group of scientists convened by the United Nations to 

evaluate the risk of climate change caused by human activities, reported in 2007 that “warming of the 

climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air 

and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level” 

(IPCC 2007). 

In the Northern Hemisphere, recent decades appear to be the warmest since at least about A.D. 1000, 

and the warming since the late nineteenth century is unprecedented over the last 1,000 years. 

Globally, 2010 and 2005 are tied as the warmest years in the instrumental record from 1880 to the 

present. 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007, and 2009 are all tied for the second warmest on record, 

according to independent analyses by NOAA and the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA; Table 3-2). The new 2010 record is particularly noteworthy because it 

occurred in the presence of a La Niña (a period of unusually cold ocean temperatures in the 

Equatorial Pacific) and a period of low solar activity, two factors that have a cooling influence on the 

planet. However, in general, decadal trends are far more important than any particular year’s ranking. 

Trends in global precipitation are more difficult to detect than changes in temperature because 

precipitation is generally more variable. Over the last century, there have been increases in annual 

precipitation in the higher latitudes of both hemispheres and decreases in the tropical regions of 

Africa and southern Asia (USGCRP 2009). Most of the increases have occurred in the first half of 

the twentieth century, and it is not clear that this trend is due to increasing GHG concentrations. 

Just as important as precipitation totals are changes in the intensity, frequency, and type of 

precipitation. Warmer climates, owing to increased water vapor, lead to more intense precipitation 

events, including more snowstorms and possibly more flooding, even with no change in total 

precipitation. The prevalence of extreme single-day precipitation events over time has increased, 

especially in the last two decades. On the other hand, more droughts and heat waves have occurred 

because of hotter, longer-lasting high pressure systems that dry out the land. 

3.1.2.2 Pacific Northwest Climate Indicators and Trends 

Temperature and Precipitation: In the Pacific Northwest, regionally averaged temperature rose 

1.5°F between 1920 and 2000 (Figure 3-3), slightly more than the global average. Warming was 

largest for the winter months of January through March. Minimum daily temperatures have increased 

faster than maximum daily temperatures. Longer-term precipitation trends in the Pacific Northwest 

are more variable and vary with the period of record analyzed (Mote et al. 2005). Looking at the 

period 1920 to 2000, precipitation has increased almost everywhere in the region. Most of that 

increase occurred during the first part of the record. 

In the Pacific Northwest, increased GHGs and warmer temperatures have resulted in a number of 

physical and chemical impacts to the region. These include changes in snowpack, streamflow timing 

and volume, flooding and landslides, sea levels, ocean temperatures and acidity, and disturbance 

regimes like wildfires, insect, and disease outbreaks (USGCRP 2009). 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-5 

Figure 3-2. Global Average Temperature 

and CO2 Concentration from 1880 to 2008 

Source: USGSRP (2009). 

Table 3-2. Top 10 Warmest Years in the 

Instrumental Record from 1880 to 2010 

Source: NCDC (2010). 

The instrumental record refers to the period with 

recorded temperatures. Anomalies are differences 

from the mean. 

Figure 3-3. Trends in Annual Temperature or Precipitation from 1920 to 2000 

Source: Climate Impacts Group (http://cses.washington.edu/cig/pnwc/pnwc.shtml#pastfuture). 

Red (blue) circles indicate warming (cooling) air temperatures or decreasing (increasing) precipitation. 

Snowpack 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. This is especially true in 

the Pacific Northwest where mountainous areas of snow accumulation are at relatively low elevation 

and winter temperatures are near freezing. Small increases in average winter temperatures can lead to 

Global Top 10 Warmest Years (J Anomaly ( ̊F) 

2010 1.12 

2005 1.12 

1998 1.08 

2003 1.04 

2002 1.04 

2009 1.01 

2006 1.01 

2007 0.99 

2004 0.97 

2001 0.94 

400 

58.5 380 

t e 360! i!! 58.0 C: a 0 

e> 340 ~ ~ c ~ 57,5 320 g t- 0 

CJ 

JOO o· 

CJ 

280 

56.5 ,.._.~c.,...~ _._,_~~._....~_,....,~'--'-~ ........ _.._. 260 

1880 1900 1920 1!!40 1960 1980 2000 

Year NOANNCDC"' 

Global annual average temperature (as measured 

over both land and oceans). Red bars indicate temperatures above and blue bars indicate temperatures below the average temperature for the period 

1901 -2000. The black line shows atmospheric 

carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in parts per million (ppm). While there is a clear long-term global 

warming trend, each individual year does not show 

a temperature increase relative to the previous 

year, and some years show greater changes than 

others. 33 These year-to-year fluctuations in temperature are due to natural processes, such as the 

effects of El Ninos, La Niiias, and the eruption of 

large volcanoes. 

•• • •• • !c,_ •• 

• • 

• 

+ 

all 

• 

2.0° C 

1.s· C 

1.0° C 

o.s· C 

i . \ • 

. \ 

\,-r----1' 

. ., 

• • 

-~ / ~-

~ • 

• . 

,....L,- \., 

• • 100% / century 

• • 75% I century 

e e 50% / century 

• • 25% I century 

' 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-6 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

increased rains, reduced snowpack, and earlier snowmelt. The loss of spring snowpack in the Pacific 

Northwest has been significant, with most of the weather stations showing a decrease on average 

(Figure 3-4). The fact that the declines are greatest at low-elevation sites and that the trend has 

occurred in the absence of significant decreases in winter precipitation implicates temperatures rather 

than precipitation as the cause of the trend. 

Figure 3-4. Trends in April 1 Snow Water 

Equivalent in the Western United States 

from 1950 to 1997 

Source: Mote et al. (2005). 

Red (blue) circles indicate decreasing (increasing) snow 

water equivalent, with the size of the symbol indicating the 

magnitude of the trend. 

Streamflow Changes: 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 United States and reported that the timing of winter runoff and annual streamflow had 

advanced by one to four 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 (Figure 3-5). River 

basins whose average winter temperatures are close to freezing are the most sensitive to climate 

change, as is apparent from the dramatic shifts in streamflow timing that have resulted from 

relatively small increases in wintertime temperatures. The advance in streamflow timing also results 

in decreased summer and fall base flows, at precisely the time when streamflow is needed most. In 

addition, warmer temperatures have lengthened the growing season (defined as the time between the 

last frost of spring and the first frost of fall) in the western United States by an average of about 10 to 

15 days. Warmer temperatures and longer growing seasons increase water requirements for 

evapotranspiration, hydropower, and irrigation, resulting in potential water supply shortages and 

conflicts. 

MIies 

0 300 

............ __ :- .... ____ .s..J • 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-7 

Figure 3-5. Observed Spring Pulse of Snowmelt-generated Streamflow 

for Two High (a and b) and Two Mid-elevation (c and d) Pacific 

Northwest Streams, Illustrating the Much Greater Advance in Timing 

in the Mid-elevation Streams 

Source: Stewart et al. (2005). 

3.1.2.3 Climate Change Indicators and Historical Trends at Deer Flat NWR 

There has been a statistically significant increase of 2.4 ̊F (p<0.000) in average annual temperature 

from 1925 to 2010 at the USHCN Nampa, Idaho station (Figure 3-6). This is greater than the average 

for the Pacific Northwest (Mote et al. 2005). Trends in monthly temperatures at Nampa over the 

same period vary from month to month. January and March monthly temperatures have increased 

about twice as much as annual temperatures. Increases in July, August, and September are also 

significant. Winter temperatures, particularly in January and March, have been shown by other 

studies to be increasing significantly across the West (Hamlet and Lettenmaier 2007; Knowles et al. 

2006). Such increases are important; warmer winters can cause more precipitation to fall as rain 

versus snow, resulting in reduced spring snowpack, earlier snowmelt, and changes in streamflow. 

Warmer summers can lead to increased fire frequency and drought, longer growing seasons, and 

increased water requirements. 

There is no overall trend in precipitation at Nampa for the same period but precipitation has become 

more variable in recent decades, with alternating multiyear cycles of wet and dry years. 

(a) Big Lost River, ID (2079 m) >- 160~-~-~--~-~-~ rn 

Cl O t:: 140 a o o n,_r, o o o o o. a 

rn o n nR~ o o o au 

ci5 120 °~ 00 69°00 0 ~ =§ o Cb o o o <§J <§><2> o 

§ 100 O 

a: 

i 80 

E 

~ 60 0 

C shift [days]= -5.5 

U) 40~-~-~--~-~-~ 

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 

(c) St. Joes River, ID (662 m) >- 160~----------~ 

rn 

Cl 140 t:: 

rn 

ci5 120 

:g 

§ 100 

a: 

~ 80 

E 

~ 60 C 

a oo 

a 

0 0 

0 O 

shift [daysJ::r -18.9 0 ° a 

000 

U) 40~-~-~--~-~-~ 

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 

Year 

(b) East Fork River, WY (2377 m) 160 ~-~-~~~~-~-~ 

o a o 

140 0o O ~~ c{JD o0 o 0 

00~ 00 0 r,,.. 9§, 120 0 0 "'--' o0 o 

100 

80 

60 

shift [days] = -5.5 

40 ~-~-~~~~-~-~ 

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 

(d) Wenatchee River, WA (3~ 3 m) 

160~----------~ 

140 

'08<:Bo oo 

0 

Oo 6 

120 o cPo 

oBo O o O 3 100 0 cP 0 

a 

80 0 

0 

60 0 shift [days]= - 15.7 

40 ~-~-~~~~-~-~ 

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 

Year 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-8 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

Figure 3-6. Trend in Water Year Average Temperature for Nampa, Idaho, 

from 1925 to 2010 

WY

WY avg temp

1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

56

55

54

53

52

51

50

49

48

SLR

THEIL

LINE

.

..

DATA

Water Year Average Temperature at USHCN Nampa, ID 1925-2010

SEN-THEIL-KENDALL LINE

SLR LINE

3.1.2.4 Projecting Climate Change into the Future 

Looking toward the future, the University of Washington CIG has projected changes in mean annual 

temperature and precipitation for the Pacific Northwest, based on several global climate models and 

two carbon emissions scenarios (Figure 3-7) (Mote and Salathé 2009, 2010). Considering both 

scenarios, average annual temperature is projected to increase 2.0°F by the decade of the 2020s, 

3.2°F by the decade of the 2040s, and 5.3°F by the decade of the 2080s, relative to the 1970-1999 

average temperature. The projected changes in average annual temperature are substantially greater 

than the 1.5°F (0.8°C) increase in average annual temperature observed in the Pacific Northwest 

during the twentieth century. Seasonally, summer temperatures are projected to increase the most. It 

should be noted that actual global emissions of GHGs in the past decade have so far exceeded even 

the highest emissions scenario (the A2 scenario), which was not modeled by CIG. If this trend 

continues, the temperature increases could actually turn out to be much greater than those projected 

in Figure 3-7. 

0 

0 

oO 0 0 

00 O 

0 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0 

0 

0 

00 

0 

0 

0 

0 00 

0 

Oo 

0 

0 

0 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-9 

Figure 3-7. Simulated Temperature Change (top panel) and 

Percent Precipitation Change (bottom panel) in the Pacific 

Northwest from Twentieth and Twenty-first Century 

Global Climate Model Simulations 

Sources: Mote and Salathé (2009, 2010). 

The black curve for each panel is the weighted average of all models during the 

twentieth century. The colored curves are the weighted average of all models in 

that emissions scenario (“low” or B1, and “medium” or A1B) for the twenty-first 

century. The colored areas indicate the range (5th to 95th percentile) for each 

year in the twenty-first century. All changes are relative to 1970-1999 averages. 

The CIG also performed projections using two regional climate models (Salathé et al. 2010), versus 

ensembles of global climate models as described above. Regional climate models provide the 

advantage of accounting for local geographic features and their effect on regional climate patterns, 

such as the strong influence of the Cascade Mountain Range. The results of these models confirm the 

warming increases described above, with variations—both slightly higher and slightly lower. 

Projected changes in mean annual precipitation are less clear (Figure 3-7). The projected trends are 

very small relative to the inter-annual variability in precipitation. Seasonally, precipitation is 

projected by Mote and Salathé (2009, 2010) to decrease in summer and increase in autumn and 

winter by most climate models, although the average shifts are small. However, even small changes 

in seasonal precipitation could have impacts on streamflow flooding, summer water demand, drought 

stress, and forest fire frequency. Salathé et al. (2010) projected wetter autumns and drier or stable 

summers. But the regional models vary whether winter and spring seasons will turn wetter or drier. 

In addition to changes in the amount of precipitation, a major concern in the Pacific Northwest is the 

change in the form of winter precipitation expected due to warmer temperatures. CIG has modeled 

changes in the current and future peak snowpack versus October-to-March precipitation for 

6 

Temperature 9 Bl Emi sions 

4 

- 1B Emi sions 

6 

., 2 

3 0 

0 0 

-2 -3 

1900 1950 2000 2050 2100 

30 

Precipitation 

20 

10 

0 

-10 

-20 

1900 1950 _()()() 2050 2100 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-10 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

watersheds in the Columbia Basin area, including basins surrounding the Snake River Plain. 

Generally, there is a large shift in the form of winter precipitation from snow to rain, with basins in 

the Lower Snake River Plain affected before those in the Upper Snake River Plain, because of the 

lower basin elevations in this area. As these changes occur, there will likely be a tendency for higher 

winter flows and possible increased flooding risk, earlier snowmelt and runoff peaks, and lower 

summer streamflows. 

Casola et al. (2009) evaluated the impact of global warming upon Pacific Northwest snowpack using 

the Cascades portion of the Puget Sound drainage basin as an example that can be extrapolated for 

the region. They evaluated four analytical and modeling methods to determine the temperature 

sensitivity of snowpack: (1) simple geometric considerations, (2) regression of April 1 snow water 

equivalent measurements upon seasonal mean temperature, (3) a hydrological model forced with 

historical daily temperature and precipitation data, and (4) a simple analysis of inferred accumulated 

snowfall. The researchers concluded that a 20 percent reduction in snowpack (mean April 1 snow 

water equivalent) occurs for each degree Celsius of warming (1.8°F) in the absence of indirect 

effects, and a 16 percent reduction occurs taking into account a projected warming-induced increase 

in precipitation. 

Considering projected warming scenarios (as described above [Mote and Salathé 2009, 2010]), Table 

3-3 shows the decrease in snowpack using the analysis by Casola et al. (2009). 

Table 3-3. Projected Decrease in Snowpack 

Average Annual Temperature Projected Increase 

(relative to the 1970-1999 average temperature) 

Projected Decrease in Snowpack 

(taking into account a projected warming-induced 

increase in precipitation) 

2.0°F by the decade of the 2020s 18% decrease in snowpack by 2020s

3.2°F by the decade of the 2040s 28% decrease in snowpack by 2020s 

5.3°F by the decade of the 2080s 47% decrease in snowpack by 2020s

This loss of snowpack is especially the case for the most vulnerable, lower-elevation snowfields. 

Spring snowpack is a good indicator for summertime flows in most watersheds, and these snowpack 

loss projections therefore foretell strong negative impacts to the region’s overall water resources. In 

many watersheds in the Pacific Northwest, snowfields act as reservoirs that collect fresh water during 

the wetter winter months and release this water during the drier summer months, effectively 

distributing water more equitably across the seasons. Loss of snowpack would disrupt this cycle, 

vastly altering streams with hydrologies that are largely determined by snowpack runoff and/or 

groundwater input. 

3.2 Hydrology 

The major surface waters within the Deer Flat NWR planning area are Lake Lowell and the Snake 

River. The entire upland area of the Lake Lowell Unit drains into the lake, and all of the Refuge 

islands drain directly to the river. The two surface-water features are described below. 

3.2.1 Lake Lowell 

Lake Lowell is an off-stream storage reservoir within Reclamation’s Boise Project Arrowrock 

Division (Ferrari 1995; IDEQ 2010; Reclamation 2011). It is formed by three earth-fill embankments 

and one dike that hold water in a natural topographic depression: Deer Flat Upper Dam, Deer Flat 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-11 

Middle Dam, Deer Flat Lower Dam, and Deer Flat East Dike (Ferrari 1995; IDEQ 2010; 

Reclamation 2011; Simonds 1997). Construction of these embankments took place from 1906 

through 1911(Ferrari 1995), with closure and first storage occurring in 1909 (pers. comm., S. Dunn 

2012). IDEQ (2010) describes the tributaries contributing to the lake as consisting of: New York 

Canal, Ridenbaugh Canal, Highline Canal, two canal wasteways, six named agricultural drains, and 

many unnamed drains that discharge to the lake (IDEQ 2010). However, Ridenbaugh Canal and 

Garland Drain actually flow into New York Canal before it enters Lake Lowell, and Highline Canal 

flows into the lake through the two canal wasteways. Table 3-4 describes the average annual inflows 

to Lake Lowell. 

Table 3-4. Average Annual Measured Inflows to Lake Lowell 

Lake Lowell Tributary Average Annual Inflow (acre-feet) 

New York Canal (including Ridenbaugh Canal and Garland Drain) 180,000 

Deer Flat Highline Wasteway #1 1,800 

Deer Flat Highline Wasteway #3 20,000 

Coulee Drain 1,900 

Bernard Drain 1,200 

Garner Drain 400 

Donaldson Drain 900 

Farner Drain 1,800 

Other minor unmonitored drains 5,900 

Total 213,900 

Source: IDEQ (2010). 

Outlets from the lake at the Deer Flat Lower Dam feed the Deer Flat North Canal and the Deer Flat 

Lowline Canal and outlets from the Deer Flat Upper Dam feed the Deer Flat Caldwell Canal and 

Deer Flat Nampa Canal (IDEQ 2010). The Blinkenstaff pumps, located near Deer Flat Highline 

Wasteway Number 3, lift lake water to the Mora Canal (IDEQ 2010). Approximately 3,200 acre-feet 

of water is also lost from the lake through evaporation and groundwater infiltration. Table 3-5 

describes the average annual outflows from the lake. Lake Lowell inlets and outlets are shown in 

Figure 3-8. 

Table 3-5. Average Annual Measured Outflows from Lake Lowell 

Lake Lowell Tributary Average Annual Inflow (acre-feet) 

Deer Flat Lowline Canal 203,000 

Deer Flat Caldwell Canal 2,900 

Deer Flat Nampa Canal 3,600 

Blinkenstaff pumps 1,200 

Total 210,700 

Source: IDEQ (2010). 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-12 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

Figure 3-8. Lake Lowell Inlets and Outlets 

Source: IDEQ (2010). 

The Lake Lowell watershed covers approximately 63.5 square miles of the Lower Boise River 

Subbasin within Ada and Canyon counties (IDEQ 2010). During the nonirrigation season, Lake 

Lowell is primarily filled by water diverted at the Boise River Diversion Dam and conveyed to the 

lake via the 40-mile-long New York Canal, which discharges into the eastern (upper) end of the lake 

(Reclamation 2011). Ridenbaugh Canal is also diverted off the Boise River and flows through the 

densely populated areas of Boise, Meridian, and southeast Nampa before joining the New York 

Canal just before it flows into Lake Lowell (IDEQ 2010). Other water inputs to the lake via the New 

York Canal include stormwater from surrounding population centers and agricultural runoff from 

lands in southern Ada and Canyon counties as well as septic system inputs and groundwater (IDEQ 

2010). Stream gages maintained by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) monitor the flow directed to 

Lake Lowell as well as the reservoir storage levels (IDEQ 2010). Figure 3-9 shows the Lower Boise 

River Subbasin and inlets to Lake Lowell. 

Mor11 

Cein I 

Deer Flat 

North 

Canal 

Middle 

Emtenkmenl 

' . \_ 

--====---~====~~--~l\11les 

O 0.75 1.5 2.25 3 

Deer Flat 

Cal dvlell Canal 

\ - ( _,.I D er Fie! 

'- ~ 1---..f. 

________.-vUpper 

Emb$nkment 

f Nampa C el 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-13 

Figure 3-9. Lower Boise River Subbasin 

Source: IDEQ (2010). 

Lake Lowell is managed first for irrigation purposes. The irrigation season is from March 15 to 

October 15 (IDEQ 2010). The water stored in the lake irrigates 302,264 acres of land in the Snake 

and Boise River Basins throughout the summer (IDEQ 2010). Water storage in the lake declines 

rapidly from late June through August as the irrigation releases exceed inflow from the New York 

Canal (IDEQ 2010). The lowest water levels are generally reached in late August or early September, 

exposing mudflats around the shallower portions of the lake; levels rise again in the fall as irrigation 

demands subside and the New York Canal continues to flow (IDEQ 2010). Figure 3-10 provides a 

graph of the annual average water levels by month. Map 7 shows average low and average high 

water levels at Lake Lowell. 

\\ 

0 --2 4 8 

Miles 

12 16 

0 Idaho CitiesfTowns 

USGS Streamgages 

Canals 

--- Streams 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-14 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

Figure 3-10. Lake Lowell Average Monthly Water Storage (1954-2009) 

Source: IDEQ (2010). 

There are three important elevation ranges for irrigation and reservoir operations (Ferrari 1995): 

 159,365 acre-feet of active capacity, or active irrigation conservation storage, occurs between 

elevations of 2,504 and 2,531 feet; 

 5,823 acre-feet of inactive storage of water between elevations of 2,501 and 2,504 feet; and 

 7,855 acre-feet of dead storage of water below 2,501 feet in elevation. 

Active irrigation conservation storage refers to the water that will be available for gravity-fed 

irrigation through the four outflow canals. The inactive storage water cannot be gravity fed; it must 

be pumped out to the irrigation canal system. Dead storage water is not available for irrigation 

purposes; it provides for sediment settling, fish habitat during low water levels, and a hydraulic head 

for the upper layers of water storage. A detailed account of the canal’s inflows and outflows can be 

found in the Lower Boise River Subbasin Assessment and TMDLs (IDEQ 2010). Table 3-6 describes 

the various areas and capacities of Lake Lowell. The hydrologic operations of the lake affect the 

quality and quantity of Refuge habitats, which are discussed in more detail in Chapter 4. 

1- Acre-Feet - Forebay Elevation I 

160000 2528 

140000 2526 

8,1 20000 

2524 

,2 

f! 

100000 -- (/J J 2522 - - C 0 80000 0 - :.;:. Cl) 

Cl) 2520 111 

IL 60000 > .! f!! 2518 w 

u 

<( 40000 

20000 2516 

0 251 4 ~ ~ 0 0 01 01 co r-- r-- (D (D 

--

~ ~ ?i ~ ~ ~ fa ~ ~ a5 25 £::! 

~ ~ 

Month 
Greenhur

Lower Dam 

Recreation Area

Upper Dam 

Gotts Point

P1

Murphy's Neck

P2

P3

P4

P5

P6

P7

P8

Orchard Avenue

West Roosevelt

Iowa 

Locust Road

Lewis Lane

Marsing Road

Lowell RdMalt Road

South Indiana

Lake Avenue

Midway Road

Walker Lake

Farner Road

Lake Shore Drive

Lake Shore Drive

Rim Road

Narrows

Low Line Canal

Deer Flat

Deer Flat

Canal

Lower Embankment

Upper Embankment

0 1 2 0.5

M iles

Refuge Boundary

2514' (average low for 58 years); Source: USBR

2522' (average of 55 years); Source: USBR

2528' (average high for 58 years); Source: USBR

2531' (full pool); Source: USBR

Data Sources: U SFW S Refuge Boundaries from U SFW S/R1; Bathym etry from USBR 1994 Survey; 2011 NAIP Im agery from USDA

File: 12-005-4 M ap Date: 05/09/2012
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-16 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

Document continues on next page. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-17 

Table 3-6. Lake Lowell Area and Capacity 

Lake Lowell Reservoir Parameter Measurement 

Maximum water surface elevation 2,531.2 feet 

Surface area (at full pool) 9,024.8 acres 

Total capacity 173,043 acre-feet 

Active capacity 159,365 acre-feet 

Length of reservoir at full pool 9.2 miles 

Average width of reservoir at full pool 0.65 mile 

Source: IDEQ (2010). 

Depending on the storage level in Lake Lowell, the lake will gain or lose water from or to local 

groundwater. During periods of high storage volume (December to June), Lake Lowell loses water to 

groundwater, and during low lake water level periods (July to October), groundwater flows into the 

lake (IDEQ 2010). On average, the lake gains 3,750 acre-feet of water volume annually from 

groundwater (IDEQ 2010). 

Water rights affecting Lake Lowell are managed by Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR), 

Water District 63 (Boise District). Water rights are authorizations to use water in a prescribed 

manner and not ownership of the water. The Refuge holds three water rights. Table 3-7 provides 

details of the Refuge’s water rights. 

Table 3-7. Deer Flat Refuge Water Rights

Water 

Right No. 

Source Beneficial 

Use 

From To Diversion 

Rate (cfs) 

Volume 

(afa) 

Diversion 

Location 

Place of Use/ 

Total Acres 

63-2898 Groundwater Irrigation March 1 November 

15 1 315 T3N R3W Sec. 

36 NWSE 70 

63-2997 Groundwater Irrigation March 1 November 

15 1.12 495 T3N R3W Sec. 27 NWNE 110 

63-7594 Groundwater Domestic January 1 December 31 0.09 1.5 T3N R3W Sec. 

35 NENW 

Refuge 

office and 

visitor center 

cfs: cubic feet per second. afa: acre-feet per annum. Source: IDWR (2011). 

3.2.2 Snake River 

The source of the Snake River is in the Rocky Mountains of Wyoming. The river flows for 1,040 

miles and drains approximately 108,000 square miles before it discharges into the Columbia River 

(Krammerer 1990). The elevation at its source is 8,927 feet above mean sea level (MSL); the river 

elevation drops over its course to 358 feet above MSL at its mouth near Burbank, Washington. The 

Snake River Islands Unit of the Refuge is contained within the Middle Snake River, between river 

miles (RMs) 335 and 448. The Middle Snake Subbasin consists of the Snake River and all the lands 

that drain to it from Shoshone Falls to Hells Canyon Dam (Ecovista and IDFG 2004). 

Major tributaries to the Middle Snake River include the Malheur, Owyhee, Boise, Payette, Weiser, 

Powder, Burnt, and Bruneau Rivers. The subbasin drains approximately 8.3 million acres and 

includes 367 miles of the Snake River mainstem as well as many small tributaries (Ecovista and 

IDFG 2004). The majority of the Middle Snake Subbasin (82 percent) is located in southern Idaho, 

with the remainder in small portions of Oregon and Nevada (Ecovista and IDFG 2004). Much of 

the portion of the river that contains the Snake River Islands Unit forms the border between Idaho 

and Oregon. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-18 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

Streamflows in the spring and early summer in the Snake River are driven by snowmelt and runoff 

from areas where precipitation falls in the form of snow (Ecovista and IDFG 2004). The Middle 

Snake River is one of the most regulated portions of the Snake River, with much of the annual flow 

diverted for irrigation. There are many storage and run-of-the-river dam facilities located along the 

Middle Snake River, but there are no facilities within the portion of the river containing the Refuge 

islands (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2010). The first facility upstream of the Refuge islands is the 

Swan Falls Dam, a hydroelectric dam, and the first facility downstream of the Refuge islands is the 

Brownlee Dam, a storage and hydroelectric dam (Ecovista and IDFG 2004). With such a high degree 

of water regulation, it has been estimated that the late summer and early fall flows downstream of the 

Snake River Islands Unit are typically greater than they were before flow regulation began (IDEQ 

and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality [ODEQ] 2004). 

Typical mean annual flow volumes in the Middle Snake River are between 11,000 and 16,000 cubic 

feet per second (cfs). The mean daily flow over a 77-year record period (1914-1990) at the Murphy 

gage, near Swan Falls Dam, was 11,159 cfs with mean annual minimum flow of 6,427 cfs (Dixon 

and Johnson 1999). At approximate RM 351 near Weiser, Idaho, the river flow volume averages 

15,700 cfs (IDEQ and ODEQ 2004). Pre-dam flow volumes are not available because construction of 

the dams was completed in 1911, prior to installation of stream gages. Anomalies to these typical 

volumes were experienced in the early 1990s. Zoellick et al. (2004a, 2004b) studied Snake River 

flows between RMs 409 and 449 from 1990 through 1992 to identify the level of island isolation in 

relation to flows and rates of mammalian predation on waterfowl nests. They describe 1992 Snake 

River flows in the upper 40 RMs of the Snake River Islands Unit as being the lowest on record since 

the river was first gaged in 1914. Average daily flows during March, April, and May (Canada goose 

nesting season) in 1992 were only 5,898 cfs. Conversely, the average during the same season from 

1937 through 1992 was 11,689 cfs (Zoellick et al. 2004a, 2004b). Dixon and Johnson (1999) describe 

similar flow anomalies during their 1990 fieldwork season as compared to the previous 25-year flow 

history. Table 3-8 provides mean monthly flow volumes for the Murphy and Weiser gages. 

Table 3-8. Mean Monthly Discharge Volumes for the Snake River at the Upstream and 

Downstream Extents of the Snake River Islands Unit

Gage 

Location 

(Period of 

Record) 

Mean Discharge (cfs) 

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

Murphy 

(1913-2010) 11,300 11,500 11,900 13,100 12,700 12,500 7,880 7,310 8,330 10,300 11,000 11,100 

Weiser 

(1910-2010) 16,200 18,300 22,000 26,900 27,600 25,100 11,800 9,760 11,500 13,900 14,700 15,300 

cfs: cubic feet per second. Source: USGS (2011). 

3.3 Topography and Bathymetry 

The Deer Flat NWR units are situated in the Middle Snake Subbasin. The Middle Snake Subbasin 

lies in the Snake River Plain and is surrounded by several mountain ranges: Jarbidge and Owyhee 

Mountains to the southwest, Boulder Mountains and the Sawtooth Range in the northeast, and the 

Seven Devils and Wallowa Mountains surrounding the northwestern areas of the subbasin (Ecovista 

and IDFG 2004). The highest elevation in the subbasin is 11,817 feet and occurs in the Boulder 

Mountains; the lowest elevation (1,568 feet) is at Hells Canyon Reservoir (Ecovista and IDFG 2004). 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-19 

3.3.1 Lake Lowell Unit 

The Lake Lowell Unit of Deer Flat NWR is situated on a plateau between the Snake River and Boise 

River (IDEQ 2010). The lake itself was constructed in a natural depression in the Lower Boise River 

Valley (IDEQ 2010). Its shoreline sits at 2,531 feet above MSL at full pool, 300 feet lower in 

elevation than the origin of the New York Canal (IDEQ 2010). The Deer Flat Upper Dam is 74 feet 

high with a crest elevation of 2,539.2 feet (±0.2 feet). The Deer Flat Lower Dam is 46 feet high with 

a crest elevation of 2,539.3 feet (±1.6 feet). The Deer Flat Middle Dam is 16 feet high with a crest 

elevation of 2,536.0 feet (±0.1 feet) (Ferrari 1995). The crest of the Middle Dam is lower than that of 

the Upper and Lower Embankments and serves as an emergency spillway (IDEQ 2010). The highest 

upland areas within the Refuge boundary at Lake Lowell sit at approximately 2,640 feet above MSL 

(USGS 1971a). 

Lake Lowell is 14.5 square miles in surface area, has 28 miles of shoreline, and covers approximately 

9,000 surface acres at full pool (IDEQ 2010). Much of the lake is fringed with riparian habitat and 

mudflats that are pronounced at low-pool elevation levels (IDEQ 2010). The maximum water surface 

elevation of the lake is 2,531 feet above MSL (IDEQ 2010). The deepest part of the lake is 2,483.6 

feet above MSL, just in front of the Upper Dam headwall (Ferrari 1995). The other deep spot of the 

lake is just in front of the Lower Dam headwall, at 2,501 feet above MSL (Ferrari 1995). At full pool, 

these areas are approximately 47 and 30 feet deep, respectively. 

In general, the bathymetric map created as a result of the 1994 reservoir survey effort (Ferrari 1995) 

shows that the banks along the northern portion of the lake are more steeply sloped than those along 

the southern shoreline. The east end of the lakebed is shallow with a broad, gentle slope (Ferrari 

1995). The large pool at the western end of the lake, in front of the Lower Dam, has a deeper lakebed 

that is also broad and relatively flat (Ferrari 1995). 

3.3.2 Snake River Islands Unit 

A review of the USGS 7.5-minute series of topographic maps in which the Refuge islands are located 

indicates the topographic relief of the Refuge islands above the waterline varies from just a few feet 

to as much as 20 feet; the vast majority of the islands have 10 feet or less of relief (USGS 1951, 

1952, 1967, 1968, 1971b, 1971c, 1971d, 1974a, 1974b, 1974c, 1975, 1992a, 1992b, 1992c, 1992d). 

Although the Snake River falls 7,000 feet over its entire length (IDEQ and ODEQ 2004), it only 

loses 140 feet of elevation over the course of its flow within the Snake River Islands Unit. The 

topography of the river path drops from approximately 2,260 feet above MSL at RM 448 (USGS 

1992d) to approximately 2,120 feet above MSL at RM 335 (USGS 1974a). 

3.4 Geology and Geomorphology 

3.4.1 Lake Lowell Unit 

The Lake Lowell Unit is located within a large alluvial-filled basin that is underlain by hundreds of 

meters of unconsolidated to slightly consolidated sediments (IDEQ 2010). The majority of the 

sediments are fluvial but some are lacustrine in origin (IDEQ 2010). Outcropping in some areas near 

the lake are composed of the Ten-Mile Gravel formation, described as being as much as a 152-m 

(500-foot) layer of poorly consolidated silt, sand, gravel, and cobbles; scattered, thin deposits of 

sand, gravel, and windblown silt cover the thick layer of sediments (IDEQ 2010). Geologically, the 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-20 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

vast majority of the area draining to Lake Lowell consists of detritus deposited by the action of water 

during the Pleistocene epoch (1.8 million to 10,000 years ago). The soils types that dominate the area 

draining to Lake Lowell are moderately erosive. Soils are discussed in detail in the following section. 

3.4.2 Snake River Islands Unit 

The Snake River Islands Unit is located within the western Snake River Plain. The river flows 

through a major hydrologic and topographic transition between the eastern and western Snake River 

Plains, which are divided near King Hill, Idaho (Ecovista and IDFG 2004). Groundwater 

permeability and transmissivity are quite high in the eastern plain and fairly low in the western plain 

(Ecovista and IDFG 2004). The western plain is 30 to 43 miles wide and trends northwest; it is far 

lower in elevation than is the eastern plain (Ecovista and IDFG 2004). The Snake River Islands Unit 

sits within a fault-bound basin with the land surface and rock layers dipping toward the axis of the 

plain (Ecovista and IDFG 2004). The western plain is filled with lacustrine and fluviatile sedimentary 

deposits that are interbedded with basalt (Ecovista and IDFG 2004). For most of its course in the 

Snake River Plain, the river is deeply incised in the sedimentary deposits (O’Connor 1993). Two 

significant geologic flood events that have made marked impacts on the geomorphology of the Snake 

River and the Snake River Plain are described below. The Lake Idaho and the Lake Bonneville 

geologic flood events are not only responsible for the course and character of the Snake River itself 

but also for features such as the depression in which Lake Lowell was developed. 

3.4.2.1 Lake Idaho 

The present course and character of the Snake River in the Snake River Plain are the result of the 

integration of the Snake River and Columbia River drainages (O’Connor 1993). Until about 1.5 

million years ago, the Snake River Plain was isolated from the Columbia River Basin. At that time, 

Lake Idaho sat behind a lava flow that dammed the Snake River at the narrows of Hells Canyon and 

backed up the river to Twin Falls, Idaho (Orr and Orr 1996). Lake Idaho eventually cut through the 

lava flow dam at what is now Hells Canyon and eventually drained Lake Idaho, creating a freeflowing river; once the Snake and Columbia River Basins were connected, the Snake River and its 

tributaries began to cut their current valleys (Malde 1991; Wood and Clemens 2002). Prior to the 

integration of these two river drainages, the western Snake River Plain was a depositional center 

characterized by low-energy fluvial and lacustrine environments (Malde 1991). The remnants of 

Lake Idaho are evident in the lake sediment and playa lithologies above Hells Canyon Dam (Ecovista 

and IDFG 2004). 

3.4.2.2 Lake Bonneville Flood 

More recently, approximately 14,500 years ago, the Lake Bonneville Flood resulted from nearly 

1,200 cubic miles of water spilling out of the Great Basin and into the Snake River drainage 

(O’Connor and Costa 2004). This basin-breach flood occurred when Lake Bonneville (the ice-age 

predecessor to the Great Salt Lake) overtopped its basin rim at Red Rock Pass, and the spillover 

caused rapid erosion that further released huge volumes of flow into the Snake River Plain 

(O’Connor 1993; O’Connor and Costa 2004). The flood entered the Snake River Plain north of 

Pocatello and followed the vast volcanic plain westward for about 370 miles before turning north and 

entering Hells Canyon (O’Connor 1993). The Snake River is the primary topographic feature on the 

plain, and its canyons and valleys were the major conduit for the floodwaters (O’Connor 1993). The 

sustained peak discharge of about 1 million cfs filled a canyon that was 328 feet deep and overflowed 

onto the basalt uplands of the Snake River Plain (O’Connor and Costa 2004). 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-21 

3.5 Soils 

3.5.1 Lake Lowell Unit 

The Soil Survey of Canyon Area, Idaho (Priest et al. 1972) describes the soils surrounding Lake 

Lowell as primarily consisting of a mix of Vickery and Marsing soils with lesser areas of Scism, 

Purdam, Power-Purdam, and Bram soils (Map 8). Some of the areas on the Refuge lands 

immediately surrounding Lake Lowell are mapped as Marsh and the lake itself, of course, is mapped 

as Water. With the exception of the Bram soils, which are somewhat poorly drained, the soils 

mapped on the Lake Lowell Unit are well drained. According to the soil survey, typical vegetation in 

the Canyon County area consists mainly of big sagebrush, bluebunch wheatgrass, Sandberg’s 

bluegrass, giant wildrye, and cheatgrass. About 85 percent of the county is used for irrigated crops or 

improved pasture, and the principal crops are irrigated small grains, corn, sugar beets, and alfalfa 

(Priest et al. 1972). The soils surrounding the Refuge, and to a lesser extent, on the Refuge, have 

been affected by agriculture. They have been irrigated under artificial hydrology patterns and altered 

through the typical soil-turning activities associated with agriculture. 

The area surrounding upper Lake Lowell (the east pool) consists primarily of soils in the Vickery and 

Marsing series: Vickery-Marsing silt loams, 1 to 3 percent slopes (Map Unit VmB) and VickeryMarsing silt loams, 3 to 7 percent slopes (Map Unit VmC) (Priest et al. 1972). Small areas of Purdam 

silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slope (Map Unit PrB), which occurs in old stream terraces, are also mapped 

in the upper lake area (Priest et al. 1972). In addition to areas of Vickery-Marsing silt loams, the 

Refuge uplands north of middle Lake Lowell are also characterized by areas of Scism silt loam (Map 

Units ScB [1 to 3 percent slopes] and ScC [3 to 7 percent slopes]). The erosion hazard from irrigation 

water in the 1 to 3 percent slope unit is slight to moderate, and in the 3 to 7 percent slope unit it is 

severe (Priest et al. 1972). Lower Lake Lowell (the west pool) is also surrounded by a great deal of 

Vickery-Marsing silt loam, especially to the immediate northeast. In addition, there is a mix of 

Power-Purdam silt loams (Map Units PpA and PpB), Purdam (Map Unit PrB), and Purdam-Sebree 

silt loam (Map Unit PtB) to the north and a small area of Bram silt loam (Map Unit BrA) in the most 

northwestern area of the Refuge surrounding the lake. 

Table 3-9 lists the soil types mapped in the Lake Lowell Unit and the characteristics of the upper 

layers (i.e., the root zone for vegetation growth). 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-22 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

Table 3-9. Soil Series Mapped in the Lake Lowell Unit and Characteristics of Upper Soil 

Layers 

Soil Series Typical Root Zone Soil Profile of Soil 

Series Soil Formation Typical Native Vegetation 

Marsing 

series 

 0 to 9 inches: loam; very fine, granular 

structure; friable 

 9 to 23 inches: loam; hard; friable; 

calcareous 

Formed in alluvium derived 

from quartzic, basaltic, and 

rhyolitic materials; moderately 

deep soils over sand and gravel 

Big sagebrush and 

shadscale 

Power 

series 

 0 to 9 inches: silt loam; very fine to 

medium coarse, granular to blocky 

structure; friable 

 9 to 12 inches: silty clay loam; 

prismatic structure; noncalcareous 

 12 to 21 inches: silt loam; blocky 

structure; moderately calcareous 

Formed in loess or loesslike 

alluvium derived mainly from 

granitic and other acid igneous 

rock material 

Bluebunch 

wheatgrass, 

Sandberg’s 

bluegrass, big 

sagebrush, and forbs 

Purdam 

series 

 0 to 10 inches: silt loam; fine to 

medium, granular to blocky structure; 

slightly hard and friable 

 10 to 13 inches: silty clay loam; 

blocky structure; noncalcareous 

 13 to 24 inches: silt loam; blocky 

structure; slightly calcareous 

Formed in moderately deep 

loess mantle over mediumtextured or moderately coarse 

textured alluvium or lacustrine 

sediments derived mainly from 

acid igneous rock 

Bluebunch 

wheatgrass, 

Sandberg’s 

bluegrass, and big 

sagebrush 

Scism 

series 

 0 to 8 inches: silt loam; very fine, 

granular structure; very friable; 

calcareous 

 8 to 21 inches: silt loam; massive 

structure; slightly hard, very friable; 

strongly calcareous 

 21 to 30 inches: light silt loam; 

massive structure; hard, very friable; 

strongly calcareous 

Formed in light silty loess or 

loesslike alluvium derived from 

calcareous mixed minerals 

Big sagebrush, wild 

mustard, and 

Sandberg’s 

bluegrass 

Sebree 

series 

 0 to 1 inch: silt loam; massive 

structure; soft, very friable 

 1 to 3 inches: silty clay loam; very fine 

prismatic to very fine, angular, blocky 

structure; hard; noncalcareous 

 3 to 11 inches: silty clay loam; very 

fine and fine to moderate, subangular 

blocky structure; hard; noncalcareous 

Formed mainly in a thin layer of 

wind-laid silts underlain by 

unconsolidated or very weakly 

consolidated sediments 

Medusahead 

wildrye and annual 

weeds 

Vickery 

series 

 0 to 4 inches: silt loam; moderate, thin, 

and very thin platy structure; slightly 

hard; friable; noncalcareous 

 4 to 7 inches: silt loam; medium and 

coarse, subangular blocky structure; 

slightly hard; friable 

 7 to 13 inches: heavy silt loam; 

medium and coarse prismatic 

structure; slightly hard; friable; 

noncalcareous 

 13 to 23 inches: silt loam; coarse 

prismatic to medium, subangular 

blocky structure; slightly hard; friable 

Formed in a thin mantle of 

wind-laid silt deposited over 

unconsolidated sediments high 

in quartz, feldspar, and mica 

content 

Bunchgrasses, big 

sagebrush, and 

herbaceous plants 

Source: Priest et al. (1972). 
Greenhu

Lower Dam 

Recreation Area

Upper Dam 

Gotts Point

P1

Murphy's Neck

P2

P3

P4

P5

P6

P7

P8

Orchard Avenue

West Roosevelt

Iowa 

Locust Road

Lewis Lane

Marsing Road

Lowell RdMalt Road

South Indiana

Lake Avenue

Midway Road

Walker Lake

Farner Road

Lake Shore Drive

Lake Shore Drive

Rim Road

Narrows

Low Line Canal

Deer Flat

Deer Flat

Canal

Lower Embankment

Upper Embankment

0 1 2 0.5

M iles

Refuge Boundary

Baldock loam

Bram silt loam

Gravel pit

Lankbush-Power complex

Letha fine sandy loam

Marsh

Marsing loam

Minidoka silt loam

Minidoka-Scism silt loams

Power-Purdam silt loams

Purdam silt loam

Scism silt loam

Vickery-Marsing silt loams

Data Sources: U SFW S Refuge Boundary from USFWS/R1; SSUR GO Soils Data from NR CS; 2011 NAIP from USD A

File: 12-005-3 M ap Date: 05/03/2012
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-24 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

Document continues on next page.
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-25 

3.5.2 Snake River Islands Unit 

Soil types are mapped for the majority of islands in the Snake River Islands Unit, and of the mapped 

islands, the majority are mapped as Riverwash (Map Unit Re). Riverwash is loose water-washed sand, 

gravel, cobblestones, and stones and occurs mostly as gravel bars along the Snake River (Lovell 1980; 

Rasmussen 1976). According to the Canyon County soil survey, Riverwash soils in general support 

very little plant growth, but when plants are present they typically consist of weeds, willows, 

sagebrush, and annual grasses; it is generally only suitable as wildlife habitat (Lovell 1980; Rasmussen 

1976). The vegetation on Refuge islands differs from the soil survey’s characterization of vegetation 

found on Riverwash soils. Refuge islands contain trees and thick stands of vegetation in many areas, 

and there are also islands, on which vegetation has been altered by past farming and grazing. 

A baseline study conducted along the reach of the middle Snake River containing the Snake River 

Islands Unit summarizes island vegetation as consisting of approximately 44 percent riparian habitats, 

48 percent upland vegetation, and 9 percent agriculture (Dixon and Johnson 1999). The baseline study 

further concluded that the islands’ riparian vegetation is composed of 65 percent riparian shrub, 23 

percent dense woodland, and 3 percent herbaceous riparian. Approximately two-thirds of the trees were 

exotic species, principally Russian olive and tamarisk. Regionally, native species included peachleaf 

willow and netleaf hackberry (Dixon and Johnson 1999). There are also several other soil types 

represented among the islands. Table 3-10 lists the soils types and the survey areas in which they are 

described as well as the drainage class for each. Although the majority of the unit’s islands were 

mapped for soil types in various surveys, none of the islands in Owyhee and Washington counties were 

mapped for soil types; therefore, other soil types may occur in addition to those included in Table 3-10. 

Table 3-10. Soil Types Mapped for the Snake River Islands Unit of Deer Flat NWR 

Map Unit Code Soil Name Drainage Class 

Canyon Area, Idaho 

BdA Baldock loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Somewhat poorly drained 

BdB Baldock loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Somewhat poorly drained 

BhA Baldock loam, high water table, 0 to 1 percent slopes Somewhat poorly drained 

BsA Bram silt loam, saline-alkali, 0 to 1 percent slopes Somewhat poorly drained 

Cu Cruickshank fine sandy loam Somewhat poorly drained 

FeB Feltham loamy fine sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes Somewhat excessively drained 

GaB Garbutt silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Well drained 

MtB Moulton fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Somewhat poorly drained 

OgA Oliaga loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Somewhat poorly drained 

Re Riverwash NA 

TuB Turbyfill fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Well drained 

Malheur County, Oregon 

7 Falk variant fine sandy loam Moderately well drained 

8A Feltham loamy fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes Excessively drained 

12A Garbutt silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Well drained 

20 Notus-Falk variant complex Moderately well drained 

29 Riverwash NA 

33A Turbyfill fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Well drained 

34 Umapine silt loam Somewhat poorly drained 

Payette County, Idaho 

No Notus coarse sandy loam Somewhat poorly drained 

Rh Riverwash NA 

Source: Lovell (1980); Priest et al. (1972); Rasmussen (1976).
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-26 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

3.6 Fire 

The Refuge has an approved fire management plan, and much of the information described in this 

section is captured from that plan. A copy of the complete approved plan can be found in Appendix 

K. Despite the inclusion of prescribed fire in the approved plan, this method has not been used as a 

management tool for at least a dozen years because of smoke management concerns, proximity to 

urban interfaces, and lack of available fire personnel (USFWS 2009a). Mechanical fire suppression 

treatments have been completed on 1,002 acres of the Lake Lowell Unit during the decade prior to 

2009. Treatments included reduction of fire fuels (i.e., invasive tree removal and riparian understory 

mastication) and fireline discing. No treatments have been implemented on the Snake River Islands 

Unit during that period. 

Because of the arid conditions of this area, fires can occur during almost any month of the year. Most 

fires on the Refuge occur from June through August; most fires are caused by humans and result 

from high visitor use. From 1997 to 2007 the Refuge experienced 30 wildfires that burned a total of 

320 acres (USFWS 2009a). The majority of the fires occurred in the sagebrush-steppe habitat with a 

few occurring in the dense riparian area next to Lake Lowell. The two largest fires, CC Lightning and 

Sage Fires, occurred in 2003 and 2006 and burned 100 and 105 acres, respectively, of sagebrushsteppe habitat (USFWS 2009a). The vast majority of the individual fires recorded during the 10-year 

reporting period burned less than 10 acres each. Fire frequency on the Refuge has ranged from 16 

fires in one year (1977) to a five-year period (from 1951 to 1956) with no fires. The fire management 

plan in Appendix K includes the complete fire history for the Refuge. 

Refuge habitats are heavily infested with cheatgrass, which has greatly increased the natural fire 

frequency of this sage-steppe community. Invasion by cheatgrass leads to a grass-fire cycle in which 

cheatgrass promotes large fires that allow further increases in cheatgrass (Baker 2006). Additional 

discussion of cheatgrass and habitat is contained in Chapter 4, Biological Environment. 

3.7 Air Quality 

The EPA has established national standards for six “criteria” pollutants: carbon monoxide, ozone, 

nitrogen dioxide, lead, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. The State of Idaho has adopted the EPA 

standards as state rules. The standards are for the protection of human, plant, and animal welfare and 

to prevent damage to the natural and built environment. IDEQ is responsible for supervising and 

administering the state air quality program. EPA and IDEQ also identify and regulate toxic or 

hazardous air pollution. 

The mission of the Service’s Air Quality Program is to protect and enhance air quality in support of 

ecosystem management in the NWRS. The program’s vision is a Refuge System free of impacts from 

human-caused air pollution that is consistent with the Refuge System Improvement Act (Public Law 

105-57), which requires that “the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the 

[Refuge] System are maintained” (USFWS 2011b). Contributions to air quality on the Refuge, as 

well as to the larger Boise region, are likely negligible. Management activities such as prescribed fire 

are not currently being implemented on the Refuge, and sources of pollutant emissions due to heavy 

machinery use for habitat management and farming activities are limited. 

Deer Flat Refuge is located in the IDEQ Boise Region, which encompasses 10 southwestern Idaho 

counties, including those in which the Refuge lands are located: Canyon, Owyhee, Payette, and 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-27 

Washington. Most of the air quality focus in this region is centered on the Treasure Valley, in which 

much of the Refuge lands are located. The majority of the valley’s population and emission sources 

are concentrated in Ada and Canyon counties; other counties in the region are sparsely populated and 

have few emission sources (IDEQ 2011a). It is likely that emission sources in eastern Oregon and 

northern Nevada contribute to the air quality of the Treasure Valley as well. 

Topography and weather patterns in the Treasure Valley create some of the most severe wintertime 

inversions in the Intermountain West, during which pollution accumulates in the colder, denser air 

that is trapped at the earth’s surface beneath a warmer air layer (IDEQ 2011a). It is during these 

events that the air pollution monitors in the valley have recorded levels above the national ambient 

air quality standards for both fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and coarse particulate matter (PM10) 

(IDEQ 2011a). The valley experiences air pollution in the summer months as well when stagnant air 

conditions, heat, and intense sunlight combine to produce an accumulation of unhealthy levels of 

ozone (IDEQ 2011a). Monitoring in the IDEQ Boise Region has shown occurrences of unhealthy 

ozone levels during the past several summers (IDEQ 2011a). The IDEQ uses the Air Quality Index 

(AQI) as a guide for reporting the daily air quality. The AQI is a scale that runs from 0 to 500, and it 

is divided into six categories. Each category corresponds to a different level of health concern. The 

six categories of health concern are: good; moderate; unhealthy for sensitive groups (USG); 

unhealthy; very unhealthy; and hazardous. The higher the AQI value is, the greater the level of air 

pollution and the greater the health concern. For example, an AQI value of 50 represents good air 

quality with little potential to affect public health, while an AQI value over 300 represents hazardous 

air quality. Table 3-11 shows the number of days per month in each AQI category for Canyon 

County in 2006. 

Table 3-11. 2006 Air Quality Index for Canyon County 

Month Good Moderate USG Unhealthy Max 

AQI Date Pollutant Location 

January 28 3 0 0 57 1/26/06 PM2.5 a Nampa 

February 27 1 0 0 53 2/19/06 PM2.5 Nampa 

March 31 0 0 0 35 3/12/06 PM2.5 Nampa 

April 30 0 0 0 49 4/26/06 PM10 b Nampa 

May 30 1 0 0 59 5/16/06 Ozone Nampa 

June 29 1 0 0 54 6/28/06 PM10 Nampa 

July 25 6 0 0 73 7/22/06 Ozone Nampa 

August 14 17 0 0 84 8/10/06 PM2.5 Nampa 

September 15 13 2 0 108 9/7/06 PM2.5 Nampa 

October 30 1 0 0 61 10/14/06 PM2.5 Nampa 

November 28 2 0 0 58 11/1/06 PM2.5 Nampa 

December 26 5 0 0 65 12/4/06 PM2.5 Nampa 

Totals 313 50 2 

Source: IDEQ (2007). a

 PM2.5: coarse particulate matter. b

 PM10: fine particulate matter. 

Based on an evaluation of potential air pollution problems in the Treasure Valley, IDEQ has 

developed an airshed management strategy. An airshed is an area covered by a volume of air that has 

similar characteristics and is separated from other volumes of air by weather patterns or topography 

(IDEQ 2011a). The IDEQ’s airshed management strategy focuses on particulate matter, carbon 

monoxide, ozone, and toxic air pollutants (IDEQ 2001). The valley had a history of issues with 

coarse particulate matter (PM10) and carbon dioxide resulting from woodstove smoke, emissions 

from older vehicles, and road dust (IDEQ 2011a). These problems have been mostly resolved 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-28 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

through Federal regulations, technological changes, and implementation of comprehensive air quality 

management plans. However, IDEQ continues to monitor PM10 and carbon monoxide levels in Ada 

and Canyon counties (IDEQ 2011a). 

3.8 Visual Quality 

The quality of a viewshed is generally defined on a spectrum from the most natural state of the 

landscape to the degree in which it is altered with regard to basic elements of form, line, color, and 

texture found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape. A viewshed is an 

area that is visible from a specific location. It may be considered as the viewshed toward or from a 

particular area or point. 

The Service has not classified the Refuge’s viewsheds nor is the undertaking of a key observation 

point analysis part of this planning effort. On a broad landscape level and as part of the effort to 

develop resource management plans, the BLM has classified much of the land surrounding the 

Refuge units based on BLM’s Visual Resource Management (VRM) classification system (classes 1 

through 4). VRM classifications are based on measures of scenic quality, sensitivity levels, and 

distance zones. Scenic quality is a measure of visual appeal and visual sensitivity is a measure of 

public concern for scenic quality. Distance zones are based on relative visibility from travel routes or 

observation points (BLM 2008). 

The broad landscape surrounding the Lake Lowell Unit is classified as VRM 4. This classification 

level is reserved for areas with the most alteration or disturbance in the viewshed. For example, the 

BLM’s management objectives for VRM 4 areas describe activities that may require major 

modification of the existing character of the landscape (BLM 2008). Because of the high level of 

agricultural practices and urban interface in the Lake Lowell area, as well as continuing urban 

development, VRM 4 is an appropriate classification for the surrounding area. In contrast, the Refuge 

itself is mostly undeveloped; however, the landscape of the Refuge has been altered to some extent 

by past human development. The Refuge contains human-made structures including dams, roads, and 

recreational facilities surrounding Lake Lowell, the Visitor Center, and Maintenance Area. 

The BLM Four Rivers Field Office Resource Management Plan (RMP) and EIS defines the Snake 

River corridor from approximately RM 352 to approximate RM 447 as VRM 3 (BLM 2008). The 

BLM’s management objectives for VRM 3 areas are to partially retain the existing character of the 

landscape. Management activities may attract attention but should not dominate the view of the 

casual observer (BLM 2008). The same RMP/EIS defines the Snake River downstream to 

approximate RM 266 as VRM 2 (BLM 2008). BLM describes that overall Snake River corridor as 

providing high-quality scenery with diverse vegetation, water features, rock formations, and potential 

for wildlife viewing (BLM 2008). BLM further defines the characteristics of high-quality scenery as 

providing color variations from the more muted upland hues; incorporating seasonal variations in 

color that are more dynamic along the river relative to the uplands; and including water that moves 

through the corridor, draws the eye, and dominates the foreground views (BLM 2008). The Owyhee 

RMP also defines the Snake River corridor from approximate RM 407 to approximate RM 446 as 

VRM 3 (BLM 1999). The Owyhee RMP planning area borders the Four Rivers planning area at the 

Snake River in Idaho. The portion of the Snake River corridor bordering the Four Rivers planning 

area in Oregon is not classified for VRM (BLM 2001). 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-29 

3.9 Water Quality 

The Idaho water quality standards program is a joint effort between IDEQ and EPA. IDEQ develops 

and enforces water-quality standards that protect beneficial uses. According to the Idaho 

Administrative Code, beneficial use is defined as “any of the various uses which may be made of the 

water of Idaho, including, but not limited to, domestic water supplies, industrial water supplies, 

agricultural water supplies, navigation, recreation in and on the water, wildlife habitat, and aesthetics. 

The beneficial use is dependent upon actual use, the ability of the water to support a nonexisting use 

either now or in the future, and its likelihood of being used in a given manner (Idaho Administrative 

Procedure Act [IDAPA] 58.01.02.010 [08]).” Lake Lowell has three designated beneficial uses: 

support of warm water aquatic life, use for primary contact recreation, and a special resource water 

(IDEQ 2010). Lake Lowell is designated as a special resource water (for wildlife habitat) because it 

is within the Refuge and is of prime importance to the mission of the Refuge. 

The Clean Water Act (CWA; 33 U.S.C. 1251) requires states to adopt water quality standards for 

each of the possible designated uses they assign to their waters. Section 303(d) of the CWA 

establishes requirements for states to identify and prioritize water bodies that are water qualitylimited (i.e., water bodies that do not meet water quality standards). States must periodically publish 

a priority list (a “303(d) list”) of impaired waters. Currently, this list must be published every two 

years. For waters identified on this list, states must develop a TMDL for the pollutants resulting in 

the impaired water quality. A TMDL is a calculation of the maximum amount, or load, of a pollutant 

that a water body can receive from human-caused sources and still meet water quality standards 

(IDEQ 2011b). Data collected for development of the Lake Lowell TMDL indicate that the beneficial 

uses of Lake Lowell are not met due to excessive algal and macrophyte growth (IDEQ 2010). 

The EPA develops regulations, policies, and guidance, to help the State of Idaho implement its water 

quality program and to ensure that Idaho’s adopted standards are consistent with the requirements of 

the CWA. The State has adopted both numeric and narrative water quality standards to protect 

beneficial uses. Numeric criteria have been adopted for pollutants such as bacteria, dissolved oxygen 

(DO), pH, ammonia, temperature, and turbidity, and narrative criteria have been adopted for 

pollutants such as sediment and nutrients (IDAPA 58.01.02.250). Examples of narrative criteria 

include the following: 

 “Sediment shall not exceed quantities specified in Sections 250 and 252 or, in the absence of 

specific sediment criteria, quantities which impair designated beneficial uses. Determinations 

of impairment shall be based on water quality monitoring and surveillance and the 

information utilized as described in Subsection 350” (IDAPA 58.01.02.200.08). 

 “Surface waters of the state shall be free from excess nutrients that can cause visible slime 

growths or other nuisance aquatic growths impairing designated beneficial uses” (IDAPA 

58.01.02.200.06). 

Table 3-12 includes the numeric criteria commonly used in TMDLs in Idaho’s water quality 

standards. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-30 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

Table 3-12. Selected Numeric Criteria Supportive of Designated Beneficial Uses in Idaho 

Water Quality Standards 

Designated and Existing Beneficial Uses 

Water Quality 

Parameter 

Primary Contact 

Recreation 

Secondary Contact 

Recreation 

Warm Water Aquatic Life 

Bacteria, pH, 

and DO 

Less than 126 E. 

coli per 100 mLa

 as 

a geometric mean 

of five samples 

over 30 days; no 

sample containing 

greater than 406 E. 

coli organisms per 

100 mL. 

Less than 126 E. coli

per 100 mL as a 

geometric mean of 

five samples over 30 

days; no sample 

containing greater 

than 576 E. coli

organisms per 100 

mL. 

pH between 6.5 and 9.0 DOb

 exceeds 5.0 mg/Lc

This does not apply to the bottom 20% of water 

depth in lakes or reservoirs 35 meters or less 

and waters of the hypolimnion in stratified 

lakes and reservoirs. 

Temperatured 33°C or less daily maximum; 29°C or less daily 

average. 

Mercury Surface waters of the State shall be free from 

deleterious materials in concentrations that 

impair designated beneficial uses. For purposes 

of aquatic life protection it is assumed that if 

the weighted trophic level average of fish tissue 

samples meets the human health consumption 

standard of 0.03 mg/kge

 methylmercury, that 

aquatic life will also be protected. 

Turbidity Turbidity shall not exceed background by more 

than 50 NTUf

 instantaneously or more than 25 

NTU for more than 10 consecutive days. 

Ammonia Ammonia not to exceed calculated 

concentration based on pH and temperature. 

Source: IDEQ (2010). a Escherichia coli per 100 milliliters. 

b

 DO: dissolved oxygen. 

c mg/L: milligrams per liter. 

d Temperature exemption: Exceeding the temperature criteria will not be considered a water quality standard 

violation when the air temperature exceeds the ninetieth percentile of the seven-day average daily maximum air 

temperature calculated in yearly series over the historical record measured at the nearest weather reporting 

station. 

e

 mg/kg: milligrams per kilogram. 

f

 NTU: nephelometric turbidity unit. 

In order to meet CWA requirements, every two years IDEQ prepares an integrated report containing 

the 303(d) list of impaired waters as well as a general report on water quality of all State waters, the 

305(b) report. Each integrated report is submitted by the State to the EPA for approval. In each 

integrated report, all State waters are assigned to one of five different water quality categories. Table 

3-13 describes the five categories. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-31 

Table 3-13. State of Idaho Water Quality Categories 

Water Quality 

Category 

Description 

1 Waters are attaining water quality standards and no uses are threatened. 

2 Waters are attaining some designated uses, and no uses are threatened, but there are insufficient 

(or no) data and information available to determine if the remaining uses are attained or 

threatened. 

3 Waters have insufficient data (or no data) and information to enable determining if designated 

uses are being attained. 

4 Waters do not support (or threaten) a standard for one or more designated uses, but they do not 

require the development of a TMDL. There are three subcategories under Category 4: 

 Category 4a waters have had a TMDL completed and approved by EPA.

 Category 4b waters have had pollution control requirements placed on them—other than a 

TMDL—and these waters are reasonably expected to attain the water quality standard in the 

near future.

 Category 4c waters are those waters for which nonsupport of the water quality standard is not 

caused by a pollutant.

5 Waters do not meet (or they threaten) applicable water quality standards for one or more 

designated uses by one or more pollutants. Category 5 water bodies make up the 303(d) list of 

impaired waters. 

Source: IDEQ (2009). 

3.9.1 Lake Lowell 

The Service works with State and Federal agencies to help identify and implement water quality 

improvements where possible. The opportunity to partner on water quality improvement projects 

may increase given that the TMDL Implementation Plan was recently released (Idaho Soil and Water 

Conservation Commission 2012). Lake Lowell is a filter and containment basin for upstream 

pollutants and was added to the 1998 303(d) list for nutrients and low DO; these designations were 

carried forward to subsequent lists. Lake Lowell is included in the 2010 Integrated (303[d]/305[b]) 

Report’s list of waters impaired by pollutants and for which a TMDL is needed (IDEQ 2011d), which 

indicates that the lake is listed for “phosphorus (total)” with an observed effect of “low dissolved 

oxygen” (IDEQ 2011d). Excessive algae and macrophyte production result in oxygen depletion. 

Algal mats interfere with the primary contact recreation and aesthetic values of this special resource 

water. Decreased levels of DO impair warm water aquatic life. The sources of nutrient loading 

include phosphorus contributed by canal and drain tributaries and waterfowl. Very high 

concentrations of phosphorus from agricultural runoff were measured in tributary waterways to Lake 

Lowell (IDEQ 2010). To address these two narrative criteria impairments and to improve water 

quality, IDEQ developed a TMDL plan for Lake Lowell, which has been approved by the EPA 

(IDEQ 2010). The Lake Lowell TMDL includes a loading limit for total phosphorous, which acts as 

a surrogate for DO (IDEQ 2010). Implementation of the TMDL is predicted to result in a 37 percent 

reduction of incoming loads of total phosphorus, which is expected to eliminate nuisance levels of 

aquatic vegetation and attain the water quality standard of 5 milligrams per liter (mg/L) DO for warm 

water aquatic life. All TMDLs required for Lake Lowell are complete; therefore, Lake Lowell will be 

moved to category 4a of the next integrated report (IDEQ 2010). 

While the 303(d) list does not specify the beneficial uses that are impacted as a result of the impaired 

water status, data collected for development of the Lake Lowell TMDL indicate that the beneficial 

uses of warm water aquatic life, primary contact recreation, special resource water (for wildlife 

habitat), and aesthetics are not met due to excessive algal and macrophyte growth (IDEQ 2010). 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-32 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

Table 3-14 provides a description of all beneficial use designations used by the State and identifies 

those that apply to Lake Lowell as well as those that are recognized as impaired. 

Table 3-14. Beneficial Uses of Waters within Idaho and Lake Lowell Designations 

Idaho Surface 

Water Use 

Designations 

Description Lake Lowell 

Designated 

Beneficial 

Uses 

Impaired 

Designated 

Beneficial 

Use 

Aquatic life support

Bull trout Species-specific use. 

Cold water Water quality appropriate for the protection and maintenance 

of a viable aquatic life community for cold water species. 

Salmonid spawning Waters that provide or could provide a habitat for active selfpropagating populations of salmonid fishes. 

Seasonal cold water Water quality appropriate for the protection and maintenance 

of a viable aquatic life community of cool and cold water 

species, where cold water aquatic life may be absent during, 

or tolerant of, seasonally warm temperatures. 

 

Warm water Water quality appropriate for the protection and maintenance 

of a viable aquatic life community for warm water species. X X 

Modified Water quality appropriate for an aquatic life community that 

is limited due to one or more conditions that preclude 

attainment of reference streams or conditions. 

 

Contact recreation 

Primary (swimming) Applies to waters where people engage in activities that 

involve immersion in, and likely ingestion of, water, such as 

swimming, waterskiing, and skin diving. 

X X 

Secondary (boating) Applies to waters where people engage in activities where 

ingestion of water may occasionally occur, such as fishing, 

boating, and wading; also where swimming is infrequent. 

 

Water supply 

Domestic Water quality appropriate for drinking water supplies. 

Agricultural Water quality appropriate for the irrigation of crops or as 

drinking water for livestock. This use applies to all surface 

waters of the State. 

 

Industrial Water quality appropriate for industrial processes. This use 

applies to all surface waters of the State. X 

Wildlife habitats Protect water quality appropriate for wildlife habitat. This 

use applies to all surface waters of the State. X X 

Aesthetics Applies to all surface waters of the State. X X 

Source: IDEQ (2011c). 

Sources of nutrient loading in Lake Lowell include high concentrations of phosphorus contributed 

through the canal and drain tributaries flowing into the lake from the surrounding agricultural lands. 

The New York Canal brings the largest phosphorus load into Lake Lowell; it averages almost 158 

pounds per day (IDEQ 2010). By comparison, the second-largest phosphorus conveyance into the 

lake is Deer Flat Wasteway Number 3, which carries a load of approximately 48 pounds per day 

(IDEQ 2010). Monitoring conducted by the Idaho State Department of Agriculture indicated that 

irrigation drains were major contributors of phosphorus to the lake (10.8 tons) during the irrigation 

season (Campbell 2003). Based on analysis of total suspended solids at the sampling sites, 88 percent 

of the phosphorus entering Lake Lowell was in particulate form (Campbell 2003). It should be noted 

that monitoring sites in the Campbell study were all located along the southern shoreline of the lake. 

The monitoring report stated that the bulk of the total suspended solids entering from one sample site 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-33 

was due to high discharge rates and not high concentrations; however, the high load quantities 

recorded at the other two sample sites were due to high concentrations of total suspended solids. 

Sediment loads from the drains that enter along the south side of Lake Lowell appear to settle out in 

the shallow bay areas along the shoreline, where the bulk of aquatic plant (macrophyte) growth 

occurs (Campbell 2003). These excessive loads of sediment and nutrients may lead to humaninduced eutrophication consisting of increases in phytoplankton biomass, macrophyte biomass, 

nuisance algae blooms, loss of water clarity, and loss of oxygen in bottom waters (Campbell 2003). 

The amount of nutrient-rich sediment recycled or flushed from the system likely depends upon the 

speed of drawdown during the irrigation season (Campbell 2003). 

Lake Lowell has a history of green and blue-green algal blooms associated with increased levels of 

phosphorus (Reclamation 1977, Reclamation 1980, IDFG 1965, and USFWS 2000 as cited in IDEQ 

2010). In addition to algae being a nuisance for recreation, blue-green algae (cyanobacteria) can pose 

a health hazard; under certain conditions, blue-green algae can release toxins that are harmful to 

humans, pets, and livestock (IDEQ 2010). For example, in July 2009, an incident of blue-green algae 

on Lake Lowell prompted Southwest District Health to issue advisories for Lake Lowell and outlet 

canals, warning recreationists to avoid swimming in areas with algae blooms and to restrict pet 

access to the water (IDEQ 2010). Blooms typically form in late summer and dissipate in mid- to late 

fall when water temperatures cool (IDEQ 2010). 

Additional water quality concerns for Lake Lowell include mercury and pesticides. As mentioned 

above, the lake is designated to support beneficial uses of warm water aquatic life and special 

resource water. The special resource water designation is applied here because of the importance of 

migratory waterfowl and other habitat within Deer Flat NWR. Mercury and contaminants that are 

present and/or bioaccumulate in fish can have a detrimental effect on wildlife, particularly on fisheating birds. In October 2006, IDEQ collected fish from Lake Lowell for fish tissue methylmercury 

analysis. The goal was to determine the mean methylmercury fish tissue concentration across fish 

trophic levels in the reservoir. The data were used to determine whether methylmercury 

concentrations exceed water quality standards in Lake Lowell. The trophic-level weighted average 

concentration of mercury for fish sampled in 2006 is 0.241 mg/kg, which is 0.059 mg/kg less than 

the water quality standard (WQS) of 0.3 mg/kg. Sucker and carp are used in Lake Lowell trophic 

level weighted averages as a conservative measure, because the average fish tissue mercury 

concentration is relatively high in comparison to bass and bluegill tissue concentrations. In 2007, 

IDEQ developed a monitoring plan to identify and quantify methylmercury concentrations in fish in 

Idaho surface waters, including Lake Lowell, and fish samples were collected for analysis. The 

calculated trophic level weighted average of mercury from fish collected in 2007 is 0.277 mg/kg, 

which is 0.023 mg/kg below the WQS. Two separate data collection events document that the WQS 

for mercury is not exceeded and so a TMDL is not required (IDEQ 2010). Although the mercury 

level in fish tissue samples did not exceed water quality standards when last tested in 2007, it has 

been increasing over time (IDEQ 2010). Additional discussion of mercury and pesticide presence is 

provided below in Section 3.11. 

3.9.2 Snake River 

Several segments of the Snake River within the Snake River Islands Unit are listed on the Idaho and 

Oregon 303(d) lists of impaired waters. Those segments, as well as their designated beneficial uses 

and listed pollutants, are listed in Table 3-15. TMDLs have been approved for the Snake River–Hells 

Canyon Subbasin, which includes the river portion containing the Refuge islands. TMDL 

implementation and management here is a joint effort between Idaho and Oregon. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-34 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

Table 3-15. Snake River Islands Unit–Specific 303(d) Listings for the Snake River (RM 335-

449) 

Segment (from upstream to 

downstream) 

State 303(d) Listed 

Pollutants 

State-designated Beneficial Uses 

Idaho segments 

RM 409 to 396.4 

(Oregon-Idaho border near Homedale 

to Boise River inflow) 

 Bacteria 

 Dissolved oxygen 

 Nutrients 

 pH 

 Sediment 

 Cold water aquatic life 

 Primary contact recreation 

 Domestic water supply 

RM 396.4 to 351.6 

(Boise River inflow to Weiser River 

inflow) 

 Bacteria 

 Nutrients 

 pH 

 Sediment 

 Cold water aquatic life 

 Primary contact recreation 

 Domestic water supply 

RM 351.6 to 347 

(Weiser River inflow to Scott Creek 

inflow) 

 Bacteria 

 Nutrients 

 pH 

 Sediment 

 Cold water aquatic life 

 Primary contact recreation 

 Domestic water supply 

RM 347 to 285 

(Scott Creek inflow to Brownlee Dam) 

 Dissolved oxygen 

 Mercury 

 Nutrients 

 pH 

 Sediment 

 Cold water aquatic life 

 Primary contact recreation 

 Domestic water supply 

 Special resource water 

Oregon segments 

RM 409 to 395  Mercury

 Temperature

 Public/private domestic water supply 

 Industrial water supply 

 Irrigation water 

 Livestock watering 

 Salmonid rearing and spawning (trout) 

 Resident fish (warm water) and aquatic 

life 

 Water contact recreation 

 Wildlife and hunting 

 Fishing 

 Boating 

 Aesthetics 

RM 395 to 335 

(Malheur Basin)  Mercury

 Temperature 

 Public/private domestic water supply 

 Industrial water supply 

 Irrigation water 

 Livestock watering 

 Salmonid rearing and spawning (trout) 

 Resident fish (warm water) and aquatic 

life 

 Water contact recreation 

 Wildlife and hunting 

 Fishing 

 Boating 

 Aesthetics 

Source: IDEQ (2010). 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-35 

3.10 Surrounding Land Uses 

3.10.1 Lake Lowell Unit 

The Lake Lowell Unit of Deer Flat NWR sits just outside the southwestern boundary of the Nampa 

comprehensive planning boundary (City of Nampa 2004) and just south of the Caldwell 

comprehensive planning boundary (City of Caldwell 2010). The remainder of the unit is surrounded 

by the Canyon County comprehensive planning area (Canyon County 2011a, 2011b). The Refuge is 

surrounded by developed and agricultural lands. As such, the Refuge is isolated from large, 

contiguous blocks of significant wildlife habitat areas. 

The Nampa comprehensive plan recognizes there are conflicts associated with the agricultural/urban 

interface in the region such as the noise and dust created during the day and evening in the harvest 

season, and the difficulty of having to move tractors through subdivisions to change fields (City of 

Nampa 2004). The plan also acknowledges that the Lake Lowell Unit of the Refuge does not have 

adequate lands to support the existing diverse wildlife population and that the existing agricultural 

areas surrounding the Refuge provide food and cover for wildlife as well as protection for wetlands 

and watersheds (City of Nampa 2004). Therefore, the future land use map for the City of Nampa 

designates areas along Lake Lowell within the comprehensive plan impact area as agricultural with 

an open space overlay (City of Nampa 2004). 

The City of Nampa Comprehensive Plan (2004) maps existing land uses north of the east pool as 

mostly agricultural land with a mix of rural residential (less than 1.45 dwelling units per acre) and 

low-density residential (1.46-4.00 dwelling units per acre). The plan’s future land use map indicates a 

conversion of the agricultural lands bordering the Refuge to rural and low-density residential (City of 

Nampa 2004). A narrow band of rural residential lands will surround a larger core area of lowdensity residential lands. Table 3-16 illustrates the differences between existing and future land use 

inventory acreages. The plan states that the future land use inventory acreages represent a long-range 

vision of community development; however, a time frame for this future land use is not provided. 

These changes in land use patterns are driven by population growth forecasts and future housing need 

projections (City of Nampa 2004). 

Table 3-16. City of Nampa Land Use Inventories 

Land Use Existing (2004) 

Acres per Land Use 

Existing (2004) Percentage 

of Land Use Type 

Future Predicted Acres 

per Land Use 

Agriculture 39,781 67.2% 13,902 

Rural residential 4,199 7.1% 10,940 

Low-density residential 7,339 12.4% 19,955 

Medium-density residential 677 1.1% 2,407 

High-density residential 539 0.9% 937 

Office - - 63 

Commercial 1,896 3.2% 2,880 

Industrial 3,290 5.6% 6,219 

Public 696 1.2% 813 

Parks 803 1.3% 1,104 

Total 59,220 100% 59,220 

Source: City of Nampa (2004). 

The City of Caldwell adopted its current comprehensive plan in 2010. Although the Caldwell plan 

does not itemize a land use inventory like the Nampa plan, it does project similar population growth 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-36 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

rates and housing needs. The City of Caldwell Official Comprehensive Plan Map (City of Caldwell 

2010) identifies the area surrounding the north end of the west pool (Lower Lake Lowell) as 

residential estate land use. It also illustrates a narrow band of land immediately adjacent to the 

shoreline as environmentally sensitive and as public open space (City of Caldwell 2010). Residential 

estate land use is characterized by similar qualities as rural residential and low-density residential 

with a semirural character (City of Caldwell 2010). The public open space areas are suitable for 

active and passive recreation; environmentally sensitive areas include lands preserved for open space 

or that are undevelopable, such as wetlands and floodways (City of Caldwell 2010). 

The vast majority of the land surrounding the Lake Lowell Unit is in unincorporated Canyon County 

and is zoned for agriculture (Canyon County 2011b). In addition to acknowledging Lake Lowell as 

an important natural resource in the county, the Canyon County 2020 Comprehensive Plan (2011a) 

recognizes the importance of Deer Flat NWR as a special area in the county and encourages land use 

patterns around the Refuge that promote the integrity and purpose of the Refuge. The plan also 

acknowledges that the County needs to preserve its natural resources while allowing for the 

expansion of cities and growth of the unincorporated areas (Canyon County 2011a). The Canyon 

County future land use map (Canyon County 2011a) categorizes the County lands south of Lake 

Lowell as residential, which indicates that the land use of Lake Lowell is converting from agriculture 

to some form of residential use. 

3.10.2 Snake River Islands Unit 

The lands surrounding the Snake River Islands Unit are predominantly private and used for 

agriculture (Ecovista and IDFG 2004). In Canyon County, with the exception of a few small sections 

with rural residential zoning designations, the lands adjacent to the Refuge islands are zoned for 

agricultural uses (Canyon County 2011b). Similar uses exist on the lands across the river in Owyhee 

County (Owyhee County 2002). Surrounding land uses along the Snake River Islands Unit in Payette 

County and Washington County are similar (Payette County 2006; Washington County 2010). 

3.11 Environmental Contaminants 

3.11.1 Lake Lowell Unit 

There is an abandoned Canyon County landfill site within the Refuge boundary. The former landfill 

is located northwest of the westernmost portion of the Deer Flat Upper Dam, near the Visitor Center. 

It is positioned approximately 40 feet above lake elevation. The 40-acre site served as a landfill for 

Canyon County from the late 1950s through approximately 1973 (GeoEngineers 2006). The site was 

seeded in 1976 and is now covered in soil and grass (GeoEngineers 2006). The majority of the waste 

is covered by 0 to 2 feet of nonengineered cap/fill, and the depth of waste is greater than 15 feet in 

certain areas; the waste primarily consists of ordinary household items (GeoEngineers 2006). 

Although minimal elevated levels of some chemicals of concern were detected in soil, groundwater, 

and surface water samples, none appeared to be at concentrations that could pose an unacceptable 

risk or hazard to human or ecological site receptors (GeoEngineers 2006). 

Thomas and Burch (2005) conducted contaminant sampling at the Refuge by examining sediment, 

invertebrate tissue, whole-body bullfrogs, whole-body fish tissue, bird eggs, and bird feather 

samples. Detailed observations of nesting birds conducted in 2001 as part of this study indicated that 

all prey were being collected from Lake Lowell. Samples were analyzed for organochlorines and 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-37 

inorganics, including trace scans for 26 compounds. They concluded that concentrations of inorganic 

contaminants were generally low in sediment from the Refuge and, for the most part, were below 

levels associated with adverse effects. One exception was the mercury concentrations in bald eagle 

feathers. The concentrations were within the range associated with impaired reproduction, suggesting 

that concentrations in the food chain may adversely impact bald eagles (Thomas and Burch 2005). 

The other exception was that although selenium concentrations in fish species were below the 

threshold for general toxic effects for whole-body fish samples (4 micrograms per gram), 

concentrations exceeded levels associated with mortality in species of fish known to be more 

sensitive to selenium exposure such as salmonids. This suggests that some fish species and sensitive 

life stages present in Lake Lowell may be adversely affected by current selenium concentrations 

(Thomas and Burch 2005). In the same study, Thomas and Burch concluded that organochlorine 

pesticide concentrations in sediment, fish, and invertebrates did not appear to be at levels harmful to 

aquatic resources with the exception of DDE levels in certain individual egg samples from grebe and 

heron species. On the whole, mean concentrations of DDE in grebe and heron eggs were below 

levels associated with adverse effects (Thomas and Burch 2005). 

More recent recommendations in the Lake Lowell TMDL (IDEQ 2010) include additional sampling 

of reproductive success and mercury concentrations in bald eagles and continued monitoring of 

piscivorous water birds in order to reduce uncertainty regarding whether mercury is bioaccumulating 

in eagles and piscivorous water birds and resulting in population level impacts due to effects on 

reproduction, and to monitor trends in chemical concentrations. 

3.11.2 Snake River Islands Unit 

Contaminants in the Middle Snake River are the result of surrounding land uses in the subbasin, and 

nutrient loading to the Middle Snake River also comes from the upstream segment of the Snake 

River. The highest concentrations of nitrates in the river are driven by the agricultural and urban land 

uses (Ecovista and IDFG 2004; IDEQ and ODEQ 2004). Historical use and discharge of mercury to 

surface waters in mining operations has resulted in increased mercury concentrations in the rivers of 

the subbasin, including the Snake River (Ecovista and IDFG 2004; IDEQ and ODEQ 2004). Current 

mining operations are predominantly focused on sand and gravel extraction and are concentrated 

around the town of Ontario, Oregon (Ecovista and IDFG 2004). The highly regulated flow regimes 

resulting from dams and irrigation diversions influence pollutant transport and processing within the 

Middle Snake River Subbasin. Pollutants such as sediment, mercury, and nutrients tend to 

accumulate behind these structures. Concentrations of nutrient and organic loads in impoundments 

may result in nuisance algae growth and dissolved oxygen depletion (Ecovista and IDFG 2004).
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-38 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

Document continues on next page. 
Western grebe on nest

Addison Mohler/USFWS Chapter 4 Biological Environment

Chapter 5HumanEnvironment

Chapter 4BiologicalEnvironment

Chapter 3PhysicalEnvironment

Chapter 1Introduction andBackground

Appendices A-P

Chapter 2Management Direction

Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-1 

Chapter 4 Biological Environment 

This chapter addresses the biological resources and habitats found on the Refuge. However, it is not 

an exhaustive review of all species and habitats. 

The chapter begins with a discussion of biological integrity (historical conditions and ecosystem 

function), as required under the Refuge Administration Act (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee, et seq.). 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 and other benefitting species designated 

under the CCP. That background information includes descriptions, conditions, habitat trends, and 

threats (stresses and sources of stress) to the habitats and/or associated resources of concern. This 

information was used to develop goals and objectives for the CCP. 

4.1 Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health 

The NWRS Administration Act, as amended, directs the Service to ensure that the biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health (BIDEH) of the NWRS are maintained for the benefit 

of present and future generations of Americans. 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 refuges and in associated 

ecosystems that represents BIDEH. 

Deer Flat NWR is located within the Columbia Plateau Ecoregion, which is characterized by a broad 

expanse of sagebrush-covered volcanic plains and valleys, punctuated by isolated mountain ranges 

and the dramatic river systems of the Snake, Owyhee, Boise, and Columbia. These large rivers 

contain islands that provide important habitat for migratory waterfowl and other birds. Almost half of 

the 226 islands downstream of Swan Falls Dam on the Snake River are part of the Snake River 

Islands Unit of the Refuge (Zoellick et al. 2004b). Historically, the Lake Lowell Unit of the Refuge 

was a low-lying area of sagebrush grasslands with natural springs, and the Snake River flowed freely 

through high-walled canyons and broader terraces shaped by the prehistoric Bonneville Flood event. 

The natural processes that historically maintained the BIDEH of the region included periodic 

flooding of the Snake River floodplain and lowland areas; seasonal fluctuations in precipitation and 

water levels, which supported a diversity of native plant communities in wetland and riverine 

systems; and periodic fires, which supported a diversity of successional stages of native shrub and 

forested plant communities. 

In the early 1900s, settlers in the region sought to have reservoirs built to irrigate their crops. Several 

Snake River dams were constructed in the first decades of the 1900s, and Reclamation constructed 

Lake Lowell between 1906 and 1909. Construction of Lake Lowell was an early modification of 

BIDEH in the area that was later to be established as the Refuge. Construction of the reservoir also 

enabled further modifications of BIDEH to occur, as it facilitated increased agricultural use of the 

surrounding area. Current land use of the areas surrounding the Refuge is dominated by irrigated 

agriculture, pasture and open-range grazing, and residential development. Human settlement of the 

Snake River Plain has resulted in changes to vegetation communities and hydrologic regimes from 

historical conditions, which in turn has affected the wildlife populations they can support. Studies of 

the ecological integrity of the interior Columbia Basin, conducted by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) 

and BLM, have documented that most forests, native grasslands, and shrublands have declined 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-2 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

substantially in area, as has connectivity, since the basin was first settled by Euro-Americans. Native 

grasslands have decreased by 70 percent; native shrublands have decreased by 30 percent; large 

residual trees and snags have decreased by 20 percent; and old forest structures have decreased by 27 

to 60 percent depending on vegetation type (Quigley et al. 1996). Habitat conditions for nearly all 

species with listing status under the Federal Endangered Species Act were more favorable 

historically, and the overall likelihood of extirpation has increased from historical to current times 

(Quigley et al. 1996). The changes in the abundance of wildlife habitat types from historical 

conditions (circa 1850) to conditions in 1999 are shown in Figures 4-1 and 4-2. 

Figure 4-1. Snake River Upper Middle Subbasin Historical 

(circa 1850) Wildlife Habitat Types 

Source: Northwest Habitat Institute (2011). 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-3 

Figure 4-2. Snake River Upper Middle Subbasin 1999 Wildlife 

Habitat Types 

Source: Northwest Habitat Institute (2011). 

Despite the effects of human settlement on wildlife habitats, the Snake River in the vicinity of the 

Refuge was identified in 1996 as one of 12 hotspots of species rarity and endemism and one of seven 

hotspots of high species biodiversity, as shown in Figure 4-3 (Quigley et al. 1996). Endemic species 

are those that are found only in a given region or location. An understanding of the importance of the 

Snake River in providing habitat for rare and endemic species and the biodiversity currently present 

in Snake River habitats is integral to managing the Refuge to continue providing habitat for these 

rare and diverse species assemblages. 

The BIDEH table prepared by Refuge staff, which explores key aspects and alterations to the 

biological integrity and diversity of the natural environment encompassed by the Refuge, is included 

in Appendix E. Several limiting factors have been identified that affect the integrity of habitats on the 

Lake Lowell and Snake River Islands Units. Limiting factors include altered riverine hydrology and a 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-4 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

nonfunctioning floodplain, loss in perennial species diversity, grazing disturbance and resulting 

encroachment of invasive species, and altered fire regime. 

Figure 4-3. Hotspots for Rarity/Endemism and Biodiversity in the Columbia Interior Basin 

Source: Quigley et al. (1996). 

4.1.1 Snake River Dams and Altered Hydrology 

The Snake River system upstream and downstream of the Refuge has undergone major modifications 

since the early 1900s, due to the construction of dams. The Snake River Islands Unit is located along 

the longest free-flowing stretch of the Snake River, an approximately 51-mile section beginning at 

Swan Falls Dam upstream of the Refuge and continuing downstream to Brownlee Reservoir. The 

Swan Falls Dam was completed in 1918 and is the oldest dam on the Snake River (Dixon and 

Johnson 1999). The hydrologic flow record suggests an increase in annual minimum flows on this 

reach of the Snake River from 1914 until the 1950s, after which annual minimum flows decreased 

compared to historical flows. This decrease coincided with the completion of the Palisades Reservoir 

in eastern Idaho in 1957 (Dixon and Johnson 1999). Annual peak flows measured at the USGS gage 

near Murphy also appear to have declined from the pre-dam to early post-dam period. Peak flows in 

the interval from 1914 to 1926 averaged higher than peak flows in 1928-1956 and 1958-1990 (Dixon 

and Johnson 1999). Minimum flows in the mainstem Snake River, from C.J. Strike Dam to Brownlee 

Dam, have been identified for protecting aquatic, wildlife, and vegetation resources (Ecovista and 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-5 

IDFG 2004). These minimum flows are often not met during the irrigation season (Ecovista and 

IDFG 2004). In addition to concerns about low flows, episodic high flows are necessary to maintain 

riparian and wetland vegetation dependent on periodic flooding. 

4.1.1.1 Vegetation Changes 

The dams on the Snake River have resulted in decreased scouring and flood disturbance, decreasing 

the frequency and duration of inundation in the floodplain and decreasing soil moisture from the 

water’s edge to the top of the bank profile (Dixon and Johnson 1999). Decreased peak flows reduce 

tree mortality due to scouring, and low minimum flows have likely increased plant recruitment in the 

channel. Plant recruitment may also be heightened at the mouths of reservoirs where sediments fall 

out and create deltas. 

4.1.1.2 Waterfowl Habitat 

Historically, large flocks of migrating and wintering waterfowl have used the Pacific Flyway as they 

have migrated from breeding grounds in Canada, Alaska, and the northern continental United States 

to wintering areas farther south. The Snake River islands and Great Basin wetland habitats have 

provided migratory connectivity along the Pacific Flyway as well as critical breeding and wintering 

areas for waterfowl. Prior to construction of dams on the Snake River, periodic flooding of the Snake 

River floodplain and lowland areas provided additional areas used seasonally by waterfowl for refuge 

and forage. Modifications to the river hydrology due to dams reduced the amount of seasonally 

flooded waterfowl habitat but, overall, human-induced changes to hydrology appear to have been 

beneficial for waterfowl. For example, the construction of dams and reservoirs, including Lake 

Lowell, has increased the amount of open-water habitat available for migrating and wintering 

waterfowl. 

4.1.2 Influx of Invasive Species 

Invasive species are a major issue on public lands throughout the United States. In the last 100 years, 

exotic plant species have expanded throughout native forests and rangelands, especially in areas that 

were once dry native grasslands and shrublands (Quigley et al. 1996). The spread of invasive species 

across the West can be attributed to changes in land use. Grazing and agriculture alter vegetation 

communities and create soil disturbance, thereby providing opportunities for invasive species to 

become established. When shrub-steppe habitats are intensively grazed, native perennial grasses are 

eliminated and the shrubs, such as big sagebrush, tend to form dense monotypic stands. By 1890, the 

native perennial grasses, for all practical purposes, were no longer present on southern Idaho range. 

Soil erosion became a critical problem on Idaho rangelands. Part, but not all, of the void was filled by 

ever-denser stands of big sagebrush. Continued grazing pressure and an increase in abandoned 

croplands, set the stage for the invasion of exotic annuals (Yensen 1982). 

The Refuge as a whole has been colonized by a variety of noxious weeds and invasive plant species. 

Several of the more common invasive species on the Refuge, including cheatgrass, Canada thistle, 

pepperweed, poison hemlock, and purple loosestrife are also common throughout the region. 

Invasive woody trees and shrubs on the Refuge include Russian olive, tamarisk, and false indigo 

bush. Refuge management activities such as fire control have inadvertently contributed to the spread 

of invasive herbaceous species. For many years, fire breaks have been maintained on the Refuge to 

prevent the spread of a fire both within the Refuge and from the Refuge onto private land, and fire 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-6 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

breaks have been colonized by invasive species such as reed canarygrass, Canada thistle, purple 

loosestrife, and pepperweed (USFWS 2008). 

4.1.3 Altered Fire Regime 

In prehistory and in the first half of the 1900s, fires were endemic to the Snake River Basin, burning 

sometimes in one basin and at other times in another, until the fall rains extinguished them. The 

result was a mosaic of early-seral and mid- to late-seral plant communities (Idaho Power 2003). 

Biological integrity was maintained historically by natural processes such as lightning strikes or by 

intentional burning by Native Americans. Periodic fire kept underbrush from accumulating, so that 

when fires did occur, they burned with lower intensity than fires now, due to large accumulations of 

fuels in the understory. 

The fire regime throughout the Snake River Basin has been modified greatly from prehistoric 

conditions. As a result of diligent fire suppression activities throughout the Snake River Basin over 

the last 100 years, higher fuel loads have developed than would exist if wildfires of the prehistoric 

period and early 1800s had continued (Idaho Power 2003). On lands administered by the USFS and 

BLM in the interior Columbia Basin, fire severity has generally increased, with lethal fires involving 

firefighter fatalities increasing by approximately 17 percent. 

Figure 4-4. Changes in Fire Regimes in the Columbia Interior Basin

 Source: Quigley et al. 1996
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-7 

In the Great Basin, which adjoins the Snake River Basin to the south, expansion of cheatgrass into 

disturbed rangelands has resulted in an increase in the frequency and extent of wildfires (Pellant et al. 

2004). The increased frequency of wildfires in cheatgrass dominated rangelands is attributed to the 

early maturation of cheatgrass compared to native species which provides easily ignited fuels that 

promote a rapid rate of spreading fire. 

The primary cause of fire regime changes throughout the West are fire prevention and suppression 

strategies, selection and regeneration cutting, domestic livestock grazing, and the introduction of 

exotic plants (Quigley et al. 1996). Fire suppression has resulted in a decrease in the abundance of 

early-seral communities and an increase in mid-seral communities (Quigley et al. 1996). In addition, 

the decline in fire frequency has resulted in an expansion of western juniper woodlands during the 

last 100 years (Quigley et al. 1996). The change in fire regime from the historical period to the 

current period is shown in Figure 4-4. Fire frequency is categorized in 25-year frequency classes. 

4.2 Selection of Priority Resources of Concern 

4.2.1 Analysis of Priority Resources of Concerns 

Wildlife and habitat goals and objectives were designed directly around the habitat requirements of 

species designated as priority resources of concern. (Resources of concern are called conservation 

targets or focal species in conservation planning methodologies used by other agencies and 

organizations.) As defined in the Service’s Policy on Habitat Management Plans (620 FW 1), 

resources of concern are: 

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) 

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 or species group. In the CCP process, the Service 

reviewed the Refuge’s establishment history (Section 1.7.2 and Appendix I) and a variety of plans 

(Section 1.8) to compile an initial list of these resources. This initial list, known as the list of 

comprehensive resources of concern, is available in Appendix E. 

This list was then pared down to develop a more targeted assemblage, which comprises the priority 

resources of concern. In developing its list of priority resources of concern, the planning team 

selected not only species mentioned in establishing documents for the Refuge, but also species that 

captured the ecological attributes of habitats required by larger suites of species. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-8 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

The priority resources of concern are listed in Table 4-1 and consist of nine focal species that were 

selected as representatives or indicators for the overall condition of important Refuge habitats. Most 

of the biological emphasis of the CCP is focused on maintaining and restoring these priority 

resources. Several different conservation focal species may be identified for specific habitats to cover 

the variety of habitat structures and plant associations. In addition, species with specific “niche” 

ecological requirements may be listed as a focal species. Other species using the habitat will 

generally be expected to benefit as a result of management for the focal species. 

The main criteria for selecting priority resources of concern included the following requirements: 

 The resource must be reflective of the Refuge’s establishing purposes and the Refuge System 

mission; 

 The resource must include the main natural habitat types found at the Refuge; 

 The resource must be recommended as a conservation priority in the wildlife and habitat 

management review; and/or 

 The resource must be federally or state-listed as a candidate for listing, or a species of 

concern. 

Other criteria that were considered in the selection of the resources of concern included the 

following: 

 Species groups and/or Refuge features of special management concern; 

 Species contributing to the BIDEH of the ecosystem; and 

 Species where it is feasible to estimate population size (needed for future monitoring and 

adaptive management). 

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 2009b). This 

process designs objectives around the needs of priority resources of concern, and sets habitat 

attributes around the habitat structure, composition, and connectivity required by priority resources. 

The comprehensive list of resources of concern in Appendix E includes species and species groups 

found on the Refuge, whether they nest on the Refuge, their Federal and State listing status, and 

whether species are covered by management plans prepared by Federal, State, or conservation 

organizations. 

Table 4-1. Priority Resources of Concern at the Refuge 

Priority 

Resources 

Focal Species Other Benefitting Species 

Riparian 

Forests: Lake 

Lowell and River 

Islands 

Yellow 

warbler 

Bald eagle, wood duck, Lewis’s woodpecker, yellow-billed cuckoo, osprey, 

red-tailed hawk, northern goshawk, olive-sided flycatcher, belted kingfisher, 

great horned owl, mourning dove, mule deer, red fox 

Song sparrow 

White-crowned sparrow, California quail, western tanager, calliope 

hummingbird, black-throated sparrow, gray flycatcher, vesper sparrow, 

savannah sparrow, common yellowthroat, western terrestrial garter snake 

Marsh wetlands Mallard 

Wood duck, great blue heron, American wigeon, black-crowned night heron, 

marsh wren, red-winged blackbird, yellow-headed blackbird, western 

meadowlark, mourning dove, barn owl, pied-billed grebe, sora, American 

kestrel, painted turtle 

Emergent 

vegetation: Lake 

Western grebe Pied-billed grebe, Clark’s grebe, eared grebe, canvasback, American coot 

Canada goose Tundra swan, double-crested cormorant, Caspian tern, black tern, 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-9 

Table 4-1. Priority Resources of Concern at the Refuge 

Priority 

Resources 

Focal Species Other Benefitting Species 

Lowell Bonaparte’s gull, glaucous gull, Franklin’s gull, Sabine’s gull 

Mallard 

Blue-winged teal, canvasback, ruddy duck, American wigeon, gadwall, 

green-winged teal, northern shoveler, redhead, common merganser, northern 

pintail, northern leopard frog 

Shoreline 

mudflats: Lake 

Lowell 

Long-billed 

dowitcher 

American avocet, Virginia rail, sora, Baird’s sandpiper, American bittern, 

great blue heron, killdeer, common snipe, greater yellowlegs, lesser 

yellowlegs, willet, least bittern, western sandpiper, semi-palmated plover, 

black-bellied plover, cattle egret, white-faced ibis, great egret, solitary 

sandpiper, Wilson’s phalarope 

Open water: 

Lake Lowell 

American 

white pelican 

Osprey, bald eagle, common loon, Clark’s grebe, common merganser, 

double-crested cormorant, Canada goose, mallard, California gull, Caspian 

Western grebe tern, ring-billed gull, black tern, common tern, tundra swan 

Shrub-steppe: 

Lake Lowell and 

River Islands 

Sage thrasher Swainson’s hawk, northern harrier, ferruginous hawk, prairie falcon, longbilled curlew, killdeer, gray flycatcher, western meadowlark, sage sparrow, 

brewer’s sparrow, green-tailed towhee, rock wren, vesper sparrow, horned 

lark, grasshopper sparrow, black-tailed jackrabbit, badger, yellow-bellied 

marmot, mountain cottontail 

Loggerhead 

shrike 

Canada goose Black rosy-finch, gray rosy-finch, green-tailed towhee, yellow-breasted chat, 

rock wren, canyon wren, vesper sparrow, cliff swallow, chukar, red-tailed 

hawk, golden eagle, bank swallow, white-throated swift, raccoon, mink Mallard 

Agricultural 

Canada goose Greater white-fronted goose, Ross’s goose, common goldeneye, great blue 

heron, American wigeon, barn owl, short-eared owl, Swainson’s hawk, redtailed hawk, coyote, montane vole, mule deer, red fox, mountain cottontail Mallard 

4.3 Habitat Types 

Habitat types on the Snake River Islands Unit of the Refuge consist of riparian forest, shrub-steppe, 

and seasonally flooded gravel bars. The Lake Lowell Unit contains emergent wetlands, shoreline 

mudflats, open water, riparian forest, shrub-steppe, and agricultural croplands and pastures. Acreages 

for each habitat type on the Refuge are summarized in Table 4-2. Map 9 shows habitats at the Lake 

Lowell Unit, and Maps 10a-10k show habitats at the Snake River Islands Unit. Habitat mapping was 

produced using heads up digitizing techniques on National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) 

orthophotos that were taken on July 21, 2009. Seasonal flooding, rounding of numbers, and digitizing 

limitations can produce discrepancies in these estimated acreages. These numbers are considered 

“geographic information system (GIS) acreages” and are provided here for general reference. These 

acreages have not been formally surveyed. 

Table 4-2. Acreages of Habitat Types at the Refuge 

Habitat Types Acres on Snake River Islands Unit Acres on Lake Lowell Unit 

Emergent wetlands (lacustrine) 0 850 

Emergent wetlands (palustrine) 0 85 

Shoreline mudflats 0 90 

Open water 0 6,430 

Riparian forest 630 1,910 

Shrub-steppe 550 830 

Agricultural crops and pastures 0 260 

Seasonally flooded gravel bars 25 0 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-10 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

4.3.1 Emergent Wetlands 

4.3.1.1 Overview 

Emergent wetlands on the Refuge are found in lacustrine, palustrine, and riverine systems. Emergent 

wetlands are defined in the Cowardin classification system (Cowardin et al. 1979) as being 

characterized by erect, rooted, herbaceous hydrophytes, excluding mosses and lichens. Vegetation is 

present for most of the growing season in most years and can be either persistent or nonpersistent. 

Persistent emergent wetlands are dominated by species that normally remain standing at least until 

the beginning of the next growing season. In contrast, nonpersistent wetlands are dominated by 

plants that fall to the surface of the substrate or below the surface of the water at the end of the 

growing season, so that during certain seasons of the year there is no obvious sign of emergent 

vegetation. Extensive lacustrine emergent wetlands occur along the southern shoreline of Lake 

Lowell and varied expanses exist on the northern, western, and eastern shorelines. There are 

approximately 850 acres of lacustrine emergent wetlands surrounding the lake when the water level 

is low. There are approximately 85 acres of palustrine emergent wetlands adjacent to Lake Lowell. 

These emergent wetlands include Upper Dam Marsh (25 acres), Rambo Pond (3 acres), and Leavitt 

(57 acres). Riverine emergent wetlands occur on lower elevations of the islands in the Snake River. 

Hydrology sources for emergent wetlands on the Refuge include Lake Lowell, natural springs, and 

surface water runoff. Most of the Refuge wetlands are seasonal or semipermanent and are variably 

flooded with cycles of seasonal inundation and drying each year. Seasonal inundation occurs in some 

wetlands from October through April, whereas semipermanent inundation occurs from October 

through August in other areas. The largest emergent wetland on the Refuge (Upper Dam Marsh) is 

inundated year-round. 

A diverse assemblage of hydrophytic vegetation is present in the Refuge’s emergent wetland 

communities. Emergent wetlands in the no-wake zone on the east end of Lake Lowell and on the 

south side of the lake are dominated by smartweed, which provides habitat for nesting grebes and 

foraging habitat for pelicans and cormorants. Emergent wetland communities also include sedges, 

rushes, reeds, mannagrass, rough bentgrass, stinging nettle, common cattail, water plantain, 

milkweed, yellowcress, and goldenrod. Some scrub-shrub cover may also occur in emergent 

wetlands, and shrub species include smooth sumac, Woods’ rose, and peachleaf willow. 

4.3.1.2 Regional Distribution, Conditions, and Trends 

In Idaho, an estimated 386,000 acres of wetland habitat (56 percent) were lost from 1780 to 1980 

(Dahl 1990). This statistic includes multiple habitat types (emergent, scrub-shrub, forested, aquatic 

bed). Emergent wetlands constitute 17 percent of the wetland habitats along the middle and western 

Snake River (Jankovsky-Jones 2001). The long-term trends in distribution of freshwater wetlands 

show that freshwater emergent wetlands have declined by the greatest percentage of all wetland 

types, with nearly 24 percent lost since the 1950s (Dahl 2000). This is due in large part to EuroAmerican settlement, which typically started along river channels and expanded outward. Wetlands 

were regarded as having little economic value, and government programs that encouraged the 

development of wetlands were enacted. Historically, most wetland losses were due to drainage, land 

clearing, and conversion to cropland. As populations continue to increase and economies switch from 

agricultural-based to service-based, losses due to development, including road construction, home 

building, and flood control, are likely to exceed losses to agriculture (Jankovsky-Jones 2001). 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-11 

Many of the wetlands that remain today have been degraded due to hydrologic alteration, agricultural 

activities, and urbanization, which have reduced wetland functions. Human activities, including 

livestock grazing, ground disturbance, and recreational activities, may introduce exotic plant species, 

create suitable conditions for the increase of less-desirable native species, eliminate woody tree and 

shrub cover, and compact wetland soils (Jankovsky-Jones 2001). 

Along the middle and western Snake River and the lower reaches of its major tributaries from Milner 

Dam to the confluence with the Payette River, approximately 34 percent of the wetland and 

deepwater habitat is within areas with special management such as wildlife management areas or 

national wildlife refuges (Jankovsky-Jones 2001). Palustrine emergent wetlands constitute only 13 

percent of all wetland communities in the wetland habitat in the Middle Snake River hydrologic unit 

code. Most of these wetlands have been affected by past land use activities, and the Jankovsky-Jones 

report describing the wetland conservation strategy for the Middle and Western Snake River 

concluded that maintaining existing wetland functions should be a high priority throughout the 

survey area (2001). 

According to the Refuge’s BIDEH analysis, invasive species documented as occurring in riverine 

and palustrine emergent wetland habitats on the Refuge include purple loosestrife, poison hemlock, 

white bryony, Russian olive, and tamarisk. Invasive species are discussed further in Section 4.6. 

4.3.1.3 Key Species Supported 

Emergent wetlands provide nesting, foraging, and loafing habitat for dozens of species of waterfowl, 

shorebirds, and aquatic migratory birds. Focal species on the Refuge dependent upon emergent 

wetland habitat include western grebe, Canada goose, and mallard. Other species using emergent 

wetland habitat on the Refuge include cinnamon teal, northern pintail, lesser scaup, white pelican, 

tundra swan, red-necked phalarope, American bittern, long-billed curlew, violet-green swallow, 

marsh wren, and snowy egret. Emergent wetlands also provide habitat for a diverse assemblage of 

wetland-dependent wildlife (e.g., amphibians, such as the northern leopard frog) as well as important 

rearing habitat for fish. 

Emergent wetland plants are a valuable food source for migrating waterfowl during fall and spring. 

The smartweed emergent community, in the no-wake zone on the east end and on the south side of 

the lake, provides habitat for nesting grebes and foraging habitat for pelicans and cormorants. 

Western and Clark’s grebes have nested in emergent vegetation in years when water levels remained 

high enough to provide nesting conditions. Grebes have at least two nesting colonies on Lake Lowell 

and raise young on the lake. 

4.3.1.4 Refuge Management Activities 

The hydrology of existing lacustrine emergent plant beds surrounding Lake Lowell is controlled by 

water-level management that is under the jurisdiction of Reclamation and managed by the Board of 

Control. The acreages and extent of emergent plant beds vary seasonally and annually based upon the 

volume of water withdrawn from the reservoir for irrigation use. Reclamation and the Board of 

Control manage lake levels solely for irrigation and not for wildlife habitat, so there is no minimum 

pool level. However, the water levels in the lake have been sufficient to provide habitat for wildlife, 

including nesting and migrating waterbirds, for the majority of its history. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-12 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

The hydrology of the palustrine emergent wetland marshes at Upper Dam Marsh, the Leavitt Tract, 

and Rambo Pond is artificial and is provided by a variety of human activities. Prior to 1991, the 

Upper Dam Marsh was supported by water seeping from the Upper Dam before a dam safety project 

conducted by Reclamation altered the hydrology. Currently, wetland hydrology is provided by 

Reclamation during the irrigation season, April through early October. The marsh was completely 

dry in the winter of 2007-2008, and Reclamation is currently evaluating options to provide yearround hydrology to the Upper Dam Marsh. Hydrology for the marsh at Leavitt Tract is provided by 

irrigation runoff and irrigation return, which occur during the irrigation season from April to early 

October. The marsh can also receive backwater hydrology from Lake Lowell; however, lake levels 

need to be high for this to occur. Rambo Pond was created in 2005 by installing a water-control 

structure and diverting water pumped from the adjacent gravel pit. Pumping from the gravel pit needs 

to be continuous to maintain hydrology to the wetland. It is unknown how long the gravel pit will 

remain in operation, and at some point this source of hydrology for Rambo Pond may not be 

available. It may be possible for backwater to reach the marsh when Lake Lowell is at full pool. 

Management activities consist primarily of invasive vegetation species control. Over the past several 

years, biological controls have been used to control purple loosestrife, which has substantially 

reduced the infestation. 

4.3.2 Shoreline Mudflats: Lake Lowell 

4.3.2.1 Overview 

Mudflats are exposed along the shoreline of Lake Lowell in low-water years when the water level 

drops below the emergent wetland zone. Water levels in the lake decline as irrigation demands 

increase through the growing season, with the lake reaching a low point in late August (Figure 3-4). 

Acreage of mudflats varies annually depending upon the volume of water withdrawn from the 

reservoir. Hydrology of mudflats ranges from soils that are saturated at the surface to dry soils. 

4.3.2.2 Regional Distribution, Conditions, and Trends 

Lacustrine and palustrine aquatic bed habitats, which include shoreline mudflat habitats, constitute 

only 2.6 percent of all wetland communities in the wetland habitat in the Middle Snake River 

hydrologic unit code (Jankovsky-Jones 2001). During high-water years on the Refuge, minimal 

mudflat habitat is available for shorebirds during fall migration. The drawdown zones of the Snake 

River reservoirs evaluated in the Jankovsky-Jones study frequently supported nonnative plant species 

such as lesser burdock, marshpepper knotweed, curlytop knotweed, and annual rabbitsfoot grass. On 

the Refuge, the main invasive species occurring on the shoreline mudflats of Lake Lowell is purple 

loosestrife. 

4.3.2.3 Key Species Supported 

Shoreline mudflat habitats with a gradual shoreline dropoff and water conditions conducive to large 

invertebrate populations attract moderate to substantial numbers of shorebirds. Lake Lowell is a 

notable example of a reservoir important for fall migrants (Oring et al. 2000). In the latter part of the 

summer, as the lake is drawn down for irrigation, shorebirds, including least sandpipers, godwits, 

yellowlegs, and plovers, come to feed on the exposed mudflats. A focal species on the Refuge that is 

dependent upon shoreline mudflat habitat is the long-billed dowitcher. Mudflats support 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-13 

macroinvertebrates (e.g., chironomids) that provide forage for migratory birds. These exposed 

mudflats attract large numbers of shorebirds and resident flocks of ducks and Canada geese. 

4.3.2.4 Refuge Management Activities 

Management activities are similar to those conducted in emergent wetlands and consist primarily of 

purple loosestrife control. 

4.3.3 Open Water: Lake Lowell 

4.3.3.1 Overview 

Open-water habitat at Lake Lowell is in the lacustrine wetland system. Water depth generally ranges 

from 2 to 40 feet. Acreage of open-water habitat at Lake Lowell is approximately 6,430 acres at full 

pool, the vast majority of all Refuge acres. This habitat type does not have vegetation extending 

above the water surface; however, it does include submergent plant beds (e.g., pondweeds), which 

occur in shallow water areas where light penetration supports the growth of these species. 

4.3.3.2 Regional Distribution, Conditions, and Trends 

The construction of dams and reservoirs along the Snake River has resulted in type changes of 

wetlands along the Snake River. Type changes occur when a wetland is converted from one 

vegetation type to another. Water development projects have increased water levels at reservoirs, in 

turn causing riverine and spring-fed wetlands to be replaced with open-water habitat (JankovskyJones 2001). The national trend among all types of wetlands indicates that the open-water category 

has gained the most area since the 1950s. In 1997, there were 5.5 million acres of open water across 

the United States, which is more than twice the area of open water reported in the mid-1950s (Dahl 

2000). Of the wetland and deepwater habitat within special management areas along the Middle and 

Western Snake River, the majority (65 percent) is deepwater habitat within lacustrine systems. Much 

of this is artificially created deepwater habitat, created by impoundments including Lake Lowell and 

the C.J. Strike Reservoir (Jankovsky-Jones 2001). 

Water development projects on the Snake River have resulted in deeper water levels, and many 

riverine and spring-fed wetlands have been replaced with open-water habitat. In addition, open-water 

habitat has likely increased in the vicinity of Boise due to the numerous former gravel pits that are 

filled with water (Jankovsky-Jones 2001). 

4.3.3.3 Key Species Supported 

Open-water habitat at Lake Lowell provides loafing and foraging habitat for migratory birds (e.g., 

gulls, grebes, pelicans) during the spring and summer and provides loafing and foraging habitat for 

ducks and geese during the fall through spring, depending upon the extent of freeze-up. Focal species 

on the Refuge that depend upon open-water habitat include American white pelican and western 

grebe. As colder weather drives migrating ducks and geese south, some birds stop over temporarily 

and others remain for the winter. By mid-November, the goose population peaks at about 12,000. 

Duck populations peak in mid-December, with up to 120,000 on Lake Lowell (USFWS 2008). Their 

activity keeps patches of water open, delaying ice formation. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-14 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Aside from the abundance of invasive carp, game fish in Lake Lowell include largemouth bass, 

smallmouth bass, yellow perch, black crappie, bluegill, rainbow trout, Lahontan cutthroat trout, 

channel catfish, and brown bullhead. 

4.3.3.4 Refuge Management Activities 

A no-wake zone for boating on Lake Lowell was instituted at the east end of the lake in 1990 to 

reduce disturbance to nesting bald eagles. The no-wake zone also minimizes disturbance to breeding, 

migrating, and wintering waterfowl and waterbirds. 

Carp removal has occurred intermittently for many years to enhance submergent vegetation and 

moist-soil plants in Lake Lowell. Through a special use permit (SUP) from the Refuge, a commercial 

fisherman uses a beach seine to harvest carp and suckers. Seining is usually conducted during the fall 

and winter because the fish slow down and congregate in the cooler water, making them easier to 

catch. Current seining operations, which remove an estimated 50 to 125 tons of biomass annually 

(Cunningham 2012), likely do not remove enough carp (estimated at 4,800 tons of biomass) to result 

in significant water quality improvements or promote submergent plant growth. However, there have 

been no studies that have determined the appropriate threshold of biomass removal to achieve habitat 

improvements. 

4.3.4 Riparian Forests: Lake Lowell and Snake River Islands 

4.3.4.1 Overview 

Construction of Lake Lowell resulted in hydrologic conditions that allowed the establishment of 

riparian/wetland forested habitat around the edges of the lake; such a habitat would not have been 

supported by site conditions present in this location prior to construction of the reservoir. The Refuge 

contains approximately 1,910 acres of riparian forest on the Lake Lowell Unit. Riparian forest is also 

present in a band around the perimeter of most islands on the Snake River Islands Unit. 

The riparian forests on the Refuge are dominated by invasive and nonnative plants with little 

representation of species native to riparian habitats in the region (e.g., willows). Upper canopy is 

characterized by cottonwood with an understory dominated by Russian olive, false indigo bush, and 

some tamarisk, with a small native component of willows (e.g., coyote willow, peachleaf willow), 

wild rose, golden currant, elderberry, and skunkbush sumac. The herbaceous layer is dominated by 

invasive species such as reed canarygrass, Canada thistle, perennial pepperweed, and purple 

loosestrife. 

The Refuge islands have a relatively higher quality riparian forest than that surrounding Lake Lowell, 

as indicated by fewer invasive species issues. Island riparian habitats are characterized by an 

overstory of native willows (e.g., coyote willow, peachleaf willow) and an understory of native 

shrubs (e.g., golden currant, skunkbush sumac). Some islands (Feral and Gosling) have cottonwood 

gallery forests with rookeries inhabited by colonial waterbirds (e.g., egrets, great blue herons, 

double-crested cormorants). 

4.3.4.2 Regional Distribution, Conditions, and Trends 

The operation of dams has a significant impact on riparian habitats in Idaho (Jankovsky-Jones 2001). 

Below Swan Falls Dam, located upstream of the Refuge, the area of riparian woodlands on the Snake 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-15 

River has quadrupled since 1939 (Jankovsky-Jones 2001). Several factors may be responsible for the 

increase in riparian habitats from historical conditions. Decreased peak flows reduce tree mortality 

by altering historical hydrology patterns and eliminating scouring, a historical cause of tree mortality. 

Riparian plant recruitment is also facilitated by reduced minimum flows, which cause river margins 

to become exposed for longer periods during the growing season, allowing for riparian vegetation to 

become established on previously unvegetated surfaces in the channel. Over time, due to natural 

succession, these alterations in riverine hydrology have led to an expansion of the area of mature 

woodland (Dixon and Johnson 1999). 

Despite the increase in riparian habitat from historical conditions, the abundance of riparian habitat is 

limited on the middle and western reaches of the Snake River. Riparian habitat is generally 

characterized as a narrow band of vegetation along the river channel and on islands due to steep 

canyons and rocky shores with minimal soil development, which limit the area available for 

colonization by riparian species (Jankovsky-Jones 2001). Impacts to the riparian corridor of the 

Snake River due to urbanization are mostly limited to lower reaches where valleys are wider. Human 

activities, including livestock grazing, ground disturbance, and recreational activities, introduce 

exotic plant species, create suitable conditions for the increase of less desirable native species, 

eliminate woody tree and shrub cover, and compact soils. Several invasive weeds are well 

established in riparian areas throughout the middle and western reaches of the Snake River, including 

musk thistle, Canada thistle, poison hemlock, common teasel, kochia, perennial pepperweed, 

broadleaved pepperweed, purple loosestrife, and Scotch thistle (Jankovsky-Jones 2001). 

4.3.4.3 Key Species Supported 

Riparian habitats constitute less than 1 percent of western landscapes but harbor the most speciesrich avifaunas found in arid and semiarid portions of the western United States (Knopf et al. 1988). 

In Idaho, of the 242 naturally occurring bird species, 112 (46 percent) use riparian habitat as their 

primary nesting habitat. Many of the other 54 percent also use riparian habitat as a source of water, 

as migratory corridors, or for other purposes (Idaho Partners in Flight 1998). 

Riparian forests benefit migratory birds (e.g., focal species such as yellow warbler and song sparrow) 

and a diverse assemblage of other riparian-dependent species by providing nesting, foraging, and 

migrating habitat for bald eagle, wood duck, Lewis’s woodpecker, yellow-billed cuckoo, osprey, redtailed hawk, northern goshawk, olive-sided flycatcher, belted kingfisher, great horned owl, mourning 

dove, a variety of songbirds, mule deer, red fox, and western terrestrial garter snake. Downed and 

standing dead trees provide nesting and foraging habitat for both resident and migratory birds (e.g., 

Lewis’s woodpecker, wood duck). Riparian habitat also provides cover from predators for a variety 

of tree-dependent species. Riparian habitat on the Snake River Islands Unit supports Canada geese 

and ducks (mallards and teal), which nest in riparian shrubs along the interface of the riparian border 

and shrub-steppe habitat. Studies during the mid-1990s (Zoellick et al. 2004b) indicated that smaller 

islands that are isolated from the mainland had lower predation rates of waterfowl nests than larger 

islands, where isolation was a function of channel width, water depth, and water flow. The riparian 

habitat on Refuge islands provides habitat for nesting landbirds (e.g., yellow warblers, song 

sparrows, black-headed grosbeaks, willow flycatchers) and other riparian-dependent species. Nests 

on the Snake River islands are most frequently depredated by raccoons, coyotes, badgers, and mink 

(Zoellick et al. 2004b). Cowbird parasitism was also identified as a factor affecting nesting success of 

landbirds on islands (USFWS 2008). 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-16 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

4.3.4.4 Refuge Management Activities 

The Refuge manages riparian forests for migratory landbirds and other riparian-dependent species 

including mammals and herptiles (i.e., inclusive of all reptiles and amphibians). For many years, fire 

breaks have been maintained along the boundary of the Lake Lowell Unit and extending into the 

riparian forest. These fire breaks were established to prevent the spread of a fire both within the 

Refuge and from the Refuge onto private land; they have had the unintended consequence of 

facilitating establishment of invasive species in these areas. Additionally, some mechanical removal 

of Russian olive has occurred to reduce ladder fuels that could lead to a running crown fire that 

would destroy the riparian habitat. These practices have fragmented the riparian forest, and some of 

the Russian olive removal has resulted in loss of subcanopy for forest landbirds. 

The Refuge staff works closely with Canyon County Noxious Weed Control to address noxious 

weeds on the Refuge. Mechanical removal, application of herbicides, and biological controls are used 

to control invasive plants at the Lake Lowell Unit with varying degrees of success. Because of the 

logistical difficulties, limited control efforts have been conducted on the Snake River islands. When 

manual or chemical weed control has occurred, it has often resulted in the colonization of a different 

weedy species occurring where the initial weedy species was removed. 

4.3.5 Shrub-steppe: Lake Lowell and Snake River Islands 

4.3.5.1 Overview 

The Refuge contains approximately 760 acres (GIS estimate) of shrub-steppe habitat on the Lake 

Lowell Unit. The existing upland shrub habitat at the Lake Lowell Unit is relatively isolated as a 

result of agricultural and urban development surrounding the Refuge. An extensive infestation of 

cheatgrass is present in the understory of the shrub-steppe habitat around the lake, which has led to 

an increased frequency and size of wildland fires around the lake compared to historical levels 

(USFWS 2008). This trend is consistent with the trend observed in cheatgrass dominated rangelands 

in the Great Basin (Pellant et al. 2004). The overstory canopy cover of sagebrush in this community 

is variable depending upon the fire history. Habitat is characteristic of Great Basin shrub-steppe 

habitat, and shrub species typically include sagebrush, bitterbrush, fourwing saltbush, gray/green 

rabbitbrush, greasewood, spiny horsebrush, and spiny hopsage. 

The Snake River Islands Unit contains approximately 550 acres (GIS estimate) of shrub-steppe 

habitat. The upstream-most islands are predominantly shrub-steppe with little riparian forest. In 

contrast, downriver islands are bordered with a riparian band with interior uplands characterized by 

shrub-steppe habitat. Island shrub-steppe habitat is characterized by native bunchgrasses (Great 

Basin wildrye, beardless wildrye, saltgrass) interspersed with sagebrush and greasewood. As is the 

case with riparian forest, the Refuge islands have a relatively higher quality shrub-steppe, as 

indicated by fewer invasive species, than the surrounding mainland. Invasive species on Refuge 

islands include cheatgrass, Scotch thistle, teasel, Russian olive, and tamarisk. 

4.3.5.2 Regional Distribution, Conditions, and Trends 

Shrub-steppe habitat once covered approximately 156,000,000 acres of the western United States; 

however, very little now exists undisturbed or unaltered from its condition prior to Euro-American 

settlement (Knick et al. 2003). Shrub-steppe habitat has been lost or degraded as a result of a number 

of factors including agricultural conversion, overgrazing by livestock, invasive species (e.g., 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-17 

cheatgrass), expansion of pinyon and juniper woodlands, uncharacteristic wildfires, and 

fragmentation (Rich et al. 2005). This habitat loss has led to an increasing number of special-status 

species, including 630 plant and animal species of conservation concern (Rich et al. 2005). As shown 

in Figure 4-5, conversion of the Snake River Plain to agriculture has disconnected regions north of 

the Snake River from sagebrush habitat in southern Idaho and northern Nevada. 

Virtually all sagebrush lands are managed principally for livestock grazing (Knick et al. 2003). In 

2010, over 15,000 permits were issued for more than 8.7 million animal unit months of forage 

consumption on BLM lands (BLM 2010). Livestock grazing can change the habitat features that 

directly influence its suitability as habitat for birds by reducing plant species diversity and biomass. 

Euro-American settlement changed the composition of many native plant communities in the Great 

Basin, most notably that of shrub-steppe habitat. Introduction of livestock in the late 1800s resulted 

in the loss of herbaceous understory species, and these areas were quickly colonized by cheatgrass. A 

significant impact of cheatgrass on shrub-steppe habitats is its role in increasing the frequency and 

extent of wildfires in the Great Basin (Hull and Pechanec 1947). In the Great Basin, wildfires and 

associated invasive plant species have caused ecological degradation on a large scale. Extensive 

wildfires in the summer of 1999 burned nearly 1,700,000 acres of public land. This record fire year 

was followed by another large fire year in 2000, with approximately 990,000 acres of public land 

burned (Pellant et al. 2004). The complex interaction of cheatgrass, wildfires, and invasive weeds is 

the greatest concern of the Great Basin’s largest land manager, BLM (Pellant et al. 2004). 

4.3.5.3 Key Species Supported 

Shrubland and grassland bird populations are declining faster than any other group of species in 

North America (Dobkin 1994; Knopf 1994; Saab and Rich 1997; Vickery and Herkert 1999). These 

species represent an important component of the biodiversity of the western United States but have 

seen little conservation action until recently. Now, Brewer’s sparrow, sage sparrow, and sage 

thrasher, the three primary passerine species of sagebrush habitats, receive special conservation 

status in one or more western states (Knick and Rotenberry 2002). 

Focal species on the Refuge that depend upon shrub-steppe habitat include sage thrasher and 

loggerhead shrike on shrub-steppe habitat adjacent to Lake Lowell and Canada goose and mallard on 

shrub-steppe habitat on the Snake River Islands Unit. Other species dependent upon shrub-steppe 

habitat include a variety of raptors, sparrows, horned lark, and western meadowlark. 

4.3.5.4 Refuge Management Activities 

Control of invasive species and restoration of native bunchgrass and forb communities under a 

sagebrush-shrub canopy is a priority management activity at the Refuge. Chemical control of 

cheatgrass followed by reseeding of a mix of native shrubs and grasses has been successful on the 

Refuge. After recent fires, rehabilitation work has included chemical control and reseeding with 

native species. Although cheatgrass reinvades after several years, this approach has resulted in the 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-18 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Figure 4-5. Sagebrush Fragmentation in the Western United States 

Source: Knick et al. (2003). 

establishment of a population of native shrubs and grasses in areas previously dominated by 

cheatgrass. There is a biological control agent for cheatgrass (the soil fungus Pyrenophora 

semeniperda) that may be considered for future management of cheatgrass in shrub-steppe habitat, 

should it be approved for use. 

4.3.6 Agricultural Pastures and Croplands 

4.3.6.1 Overview 

For nearly 70 years, Refuge staff and cooperative farmers have planted agricultural crops to provide 

forage for migratory waterfowl and resident wildlife. On the Refuge, a rotation of five crops has been 

grown in recent times including corn, beans, peas, wheat (winter and spring), and alfalfa. At one 

time, approximately 400 acres were farmed on the Refuge. In 2011, two cooperators farmed 

approximately 260 acres, which comprised approximately 65 acres in alfalfa, 65 acres in corn, 40 

acres in beans, and 90 acres in wheat. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-19 

4.3.6.2 Regional Distribution, Conditions, and Trends 

The transformation of parts of the Snake River Plain from sagebrush desert to agricultural lands 

began in the mid-1800s and was made possible through irrigation (Dixon and Johnson 1999). As 

indicated in Figure 4-2, approximately 15 percent, or 1,298,189 acres, of the Middle Snake River 

Subbasin is used for agricultural purposes (Ecovista and IDFG 2004). Agricultural use in the 

subbasin is concentrated in areas of flat terrain adjacent to the Snake River, with irrigation water 

coming from the Snake River or its tributaries. 

Substantial changes in agricultural practices in recent years have been noted on lands surrounding the 

Refuge. These changes include growing higher-valued specialty crops such as seed alfalfa, onions, 

and mint; using more efficient harvesting equipment so little waste grain remains in the field; and fall 

plowing and tilling often by mid-November, which is prior to the peak of waterfowl concentrations. 

As a result, the availability of winter browse and nutritional foods off-refuge has been substantially 

reduced. Because this trend is likely to continue in the future, on-refuge cropland management will 

be essential for waterfowl management in future years. 

4.3.6.3 Key Species Supported 

The key species supported at the Refuge by agricultural pastures and croplands are migratory birds 

(e.g., focal species such as Canada geese and mallard) and other resident wildlife (e.g., deer, 

pheasant, and quail). 

4.3.6.4 Refuge Management Activities 

Special conditions related to agricultural crop management include restrictions on pesticide use, 

limits to the types of crops grown, preventing alfalfa harvesting from May 1 through June 15 to 

reduce the risk of destroying nests of ground-nesting birds, and a requirement to have 6 inches of 

green browse by October 1. 

4.4 Major Species Groups 

4.4.1 Fish 

Game fish in Lake Lowell include largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, yellow perch, black crappie, 

bluegill, rainbow trout, Lahontan cutthroat trout, channel catfish, and brown bullhead. The IDFG 

conducts fisheries management activities such as regulating harvest, fish population monitoring, and 

fish stocking at Lake Lowell. Lake Lowell is managed under general regulations, except for 

largemouth bass, which are managed under a no-harvest regulation from January 1 through June 30 

and a two-fish limit, with none between 12 and 16 inches, from July 1 through December 31 (IDFG 

2009b). 

Due to its proximity to Idaho’s population center, Lake Lowell receives substantial fishing pressure, 

with largemouth bass being of primary interest to recreational and tournament anglers (IDFG 2009b). 

The lake has been stocked by IDFG with species both nonnative (i.e., channel catfish) and native 

(i.e., Lahontan cutthroat from a hatchery source) to Idaho in recent years. The current practice of 

stocking nonnative fish is inconsistent with USFWS policies (7 RM 10 and 601 FW 3). Because 

Lake Lowell is an artificially created reservoir, there were no fish that were originally native to its 

waters. Fish native to Idaho and historically stocked (i.e., naturalized) species come as close to 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-20 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

meeting the policy as possible given the human-made quality of the lake. Since 2003, approximately 

6,000 to 9,000 fingerling channel catfish have been planted annually. Additionally, recent plants of 

Lahontan cutthroat trout fingerlings have ranged from 40,000 to 103,000 annually (IDFG 2009b). 

Panfish (black crappie, bluegill, and yellow perch) are also popular despite widely fluctuating 

populations that have led to inconsistent use. 

Fish population surveys conducted in 2008 (IDFG 2009b) indicate that the Lake Lowell fish 

community has become dominated by carp and sucker. Carp represented 58 percent of the catch by 

number, followed by channel catfish at 27 percent and black crappie at 6 percent. Yellow perch, 

bluegill, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, largescale sucker, and northern pikeminnow, represented 

cumulatively 8 percent of the catch (IDFG 2009b). Results further indicated that Lake Lowell 

supports few prey-size fish. Younger age classes of panfish, especially black crappie and yellow 

perch, were nearly absent. In other systems, carp are known to degrade water quality, alter food 

webs, and negatively impact native or recreationally important fish populations (Jackson et al. 2010; 

Zambrano et al. 2001). Carp control has intermittently occurred for many years to enhance 

submergent vegetation and moist-soil plants in Lake Lowell. 

4.4.2 Birds 

The Refuge provides habitat for over 215 bird species including waterfowl, waterbirds, shorebirds, 

raptors, and passerines. The Refuge is an important resting and wintering area for birds migrating 

along the Pacific Flyway. Because of its value to birds, the Refuge has been declared a State 

Important Bird Area by the National Audubon Society. The Lower Snake River, including the 

Refuge, has been identified as a bird habitat conservation area in the Coordinated Implementation 

Plan for Bird Conservation in Idaho (Intermountain West Joint Venture 2005). A complete list of all 

birds documented on the Refuge is included in Appendix E. 

4.4.2.1 Waterbirds 

The Intermountain West’s dispersed lakes, marshes, playas, rivers, streams, riparian zones, and 

freshwater and brackish wetlands host about 40 waterbird species. The region supports 

approximately 500,000 breeding waterbirds and a few million migrants, including many or most of 

the world’s California gulls, eared grebes, white-faced ibises, and American white pelicans (Ivey and 

Herziger 2006). Waterbirds are a diverse group of species and include cranes, rails, coots, gulls, 

terns, grebes, cormorants, herons, egrets, bitterns, ibises, pelicans, loons, and others—essentially, all 

aquatic bird species except waterfowl (i.e., ducks, geese, and swans) and shorebirds (e.g., sandpipers 

and plovers). To complete portions of their life cycles, waterbirds are dependent on aquatic habitats, 

which, in the arid Intermountain West, include wetlands that are susceptible to natural cycles of 

droughts and floods. 

The competing demands for water in support of human uses such as agriculture, development, and 

recreation pose the greatest threats to regional waterbird populations (Ivey and Herziger 2006). 

Because of the erratic water regime in the arid Intermountain West, wetland habitats are often 

insufficient to support waterbirds during drought periods (Ivey and Herziger 2006). Human-made 

reservoirs have a primary purpose of water delivery for irrigation and/or power generation, but they 

also have a secondary benefit to waterbirds and waterfowl by providing nesting habitat. Water levels 

of reservoirs are not managed for waterbird habitat, and as a result water-level management activities 

can impact nesting areas. This management practice can cause productivity problems for waterbirds 

as a result of the loss or abandonment of eggs or young due to flooding or stranding. On the Refuge, 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-21 

western and Clark’s grebe nesting colonies have been surveyed in the smartweed emergent wetland 

community in the no-wake zone on the east end and on the south side of the lake. This area also 

provides foraging habitat for pelicans and cormorants. Wakes created by motorized boats can 

inundate grebe nests, contribute to shoreline erosion, and degrade smartweed and emergent 

vegetation, making these habitats less suitable for waterbird nesting and foraging. Invasive exotic 

plants also pose a threat to many waterbird habitats in the region by replacing native vegetation and 

reducing wetland habitat quality for waterbirds. 

4.4.2.2 Waterfowl 

Numbers of wintering waterfowl on the Refuge peaked in the early 1960s between 500,000 and 

750,000 birds (USFWS 2008). Refuge estimates of current wintering waterfowl populations at Lake 

Lowell are approximately 15,000 geese in mid-November and up to 150,000 ducks in midDecember. The Snake River also provides wintering waterfowl habitat for a variety of species 

including goldeneyes, scaup, mergansers, buffleheads, wood ducks, green-winged teal, and a large 

number of mallards. The conversion of large areas of local grasslands and wetlands to intensive 

farming, which has occurred since the 1960s, and changes in agricultural practices (as described in 

Section 4.3.6) have reduced the amount of local habitat available for waterfowl and may explain the 

reduction in waterfowl populations using the Refuge. 

Waterfowl breeding population surveys of the Snake River are conducted annually by IDFG from 

Guffey Bridge to Farewell Bend, Oregon, and on the Payette River from its mouth to Emmett, Idaho. 

The three-year average from 2007 through 2009 of 692 breeding pairs of all species of geese is below 

the minimum goal of 900 breeding pairs identified in the IDFG 1991-1995 waterfowl management 

plan (IDFG 2009a). A total of 1,584 Canada geese and 664 breeding pairs were observed in 2009, in 

addition to large flocks of white-fronted geese (14,154 birds), snow geese (13,395), and Sandhill 

cranes (1,100) (IDFG 2009a). 

The population index for the Pacific population of Canada goose in 2011 was 166,300, 15 percent 

higher than in 2010 (USFWS 2011c). These indices increased by 4 percent per year over the past 10 

years. The index for the western Central Flyway population of snow and Ross’s geese was a count of 

196,100, 18 percent fewer than in 2010. These populations have increased 10 percent per year from 

2002 through 2011. For the second year in a row, major swan areas could not be surveyed during the 

Service’s waterfowl population survey, which likely accounts for the low counts of the past few 

years. Despite variation in survey coverage, population estimates have shown no trend over the last 

10 years (USFWS 2011c). Numbers of tundra swans on breeding grounds increased in 2011 from 

2010, and the nest index was 40 percent greater than the 10-year average. However, the total bird 

index for tundra swans was 28 percent lower than in 2010 (USFWS 2011c). The total population 

estimate for all duck species was approximately 45.6 million birds, which represents an 11 percent 

increase over the 2010 estimate and was 35 percent above the long-term average from 1955 through 

2010 (USFWS 2011c). 

4.4.2.3 Shorebirds 

The Intermountain West provides breeding habitat for 11 species of shorebirds and stopover habitat 

for an additional 23 species during their annual migration (Oring et al. 2000). Perhaps a million 

shorebirds breed in the Intermountain West, and millions of additional shorebirds migrate annually 

through the area (Oring et al. 2000). The Great Basin is one of six bird conservation regions in the 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-22 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Intermountain West, and it stands out as enormously important for both breeding and migrating 

shorebirds (Oring et al. 2000). 

The Refuge is included on the list of managed shorebird sites in the Intermountain West Shorebird 

Plan. Shorebirds that breed on the Refuge include American avocet, black-necked stilt, killdeer, 

spotted sandpiper, and Wilson’s snipe. Shorebirds that stop over at the Refuge include Wilson’s 

phalarope, red-necked phalarope, long-billed dowitcher, marbled godwit, western sandpiper, and 

least sandpiper. Lake Lowell is documented as having peak shorebird numbers ranging from 10,000 

to 20,000 (Oring et al. 2000). 

4.4.2.4 Raptors 

The Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area, encompassing 485,000 

acres along 81 miles of the Snake River, contains the highest concentration of noncolonial-nesting 

raptors of any location in the world (Kochert and Pellant 1986). This area provides habitat for 

approximately 800 pairs of falcons, eagles, hawks, and owls to breed and raise their young from midMarch through June (Visit Idaho 2011). 

Raptors documented as breeding on the Refuge include osprey, bald eagle, northern harrier, Cooper’s 

hawk, Swainson’s hawk, red-tailed hawk, and American kestrel. Results from autumn raptor 

migration counts conducted at Boise Ridge, Idaho, from 1993 through 2005 suggest an increasing 

trend in the numbers of turkey vulture, osprey, Cooper’s hawk, red-tailed hawk, and merlin. A 

decreasing trend in the numbers of northern goshawk, Swainson’s hawk, and American kestrel was 

observed, and counts of northern harrier, sharp-shinned hawk, and golden eagle were relatively stable 

(Smith et al. 2008). 

4.4.2.5 Passerines 

Passerine populations have declined throughout the Intermountain West due to conversion of shrub 

and grassland habitats to agriculture, habitat fragmentation, and degradation of riparian habitats due 

to grazing. In a recent study of the distribution and abundance of bird populations dependent upon 

shrub-steppe habitats in the Intermountain West, significant declining population trends were found 

for 16 of the 25 upland bird species examined (Dobkin and Sauder 2004). Many of the species with 

declining populations were passerines including horned lark, green-tailed towhee, chipping sparrow, 

Brewer’s sparrow, lark sparrow, black-throated sparrow, sage sparrow, grasshopper sparrow, whitecrowned sparrow, western meadowlark, and Brewer’s blackbird. 

Many neotropical migratory landbirds that occur on the Refuge are dependent upon riparian habitat 

as their primary nesting habitat. Dobkin and Sauder (2004) found populations of many ripariandependent species to be in decline in the Intermountain West, including willow flycatcher, orangecrowned warbler, Wilson’s warbler, song sparrow, and Bullock’s oriole. 

4.4.3 Mammals 

Over 25 species of mammals have been observed on the Refuge. The Refuge supports a population 

of mule deer; however, the herd size is unknown. White-tailed deer and elk also occur on the Refuge 

but are far less common. As deer habitat adjacent to the Lake Lowell Unit has been lost to 

urbanization, deer have become more concentrated on the Refuge and remaining adjacent rural lands. 

This concentration has resulted in conflicts with the surrounding community, due to depredation on 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-23 

agricultural lands (including orchards) and increases in collisions with vehicles. Deer cross major 

roads (e.g., Lake Shore Drive, Orchard Avenue) as they travel from the cover and shelter on the 

Refuge to forage areas in adjacent agricultural fields and orchards. 

Statewide, mule deer populations have declined since the 1950s and 1960s, and the long-term 

outlook for mule deer is that of slowly diminishing habitat quantity and quality over time (IDFG 

2010b). The Refuge is located in the IDFG Snake River Population Management Unit (PMU). 

According to the IDFG report, the deer population has probably changed very little since historical 

times in this PMU, and accounts of trappers through this area in the mid-1800s indicated that buffalo, 

elk, pronghorn, and bighorn sheep were far more common than mule deer. Given the low densities of 

deer and low priority for deer in this PMU, little data are available to indicate what population trends 

have occurred over time (IDFG 2010b). 

Other commonly occurring species on the Refuge include North American river otter, coyote, red 

fox, striped skunk, raccoon, long-tailed weasel, mink, yellow-bellied marmot, fox squirrel, northern 

pocket gopher, North American beaver, mountain cottontail, and various mice. 

A complete list of all mammals documented on the Refuge is included in Appendix E. 

4.4.4 Reptiles and Amphibians 

Reptiles documented on the Refuge include western terrestrial garter snake, gopher snake, racer, 

striped whipsnake, western rattlesnake, and painted turtle. Amphibians documented on the Refuge 

include bullfrog, Pacific tree frog, and Great Basin spadefoot toad. A complete list of all reptiles and 

amphibians documented or potentially occurring on the Refuge is included in Appendix E. 

4.4.5 Invertebrates 

Invertebrate surveys conducted on the Refuge in 2010 and 2011 documented 13 scientific orders, 

consisting of the following: beetles (Coleoptera); earwigs (Dermaptera); flies (Diptera); true bugs 

(Hemiptera); aphids and relatives (Homoptera); bees, wasps, and ants (Hymenoptera); butterflies and 

moths (Lepidoptera); nerve-winged insects (Neuroptera); grasshoppers and relatives (Orthoptera); 

springtails (Collembola); dragonflies and damselflies (Odonata); thrips (Thysanoptera); and 

caddisflies (Trichoptera) (Castrovillo 2010). Other orders have been found on the Refuge and are 

listed in Table E-5 in Appendix E. 

Mosquito control using aerial application of the larvicide Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (Bti) was 

begun in 2004. Applications begin in the spring as soon as the identified thresholds of six larvae per 

dip are found. Applications are site specific to areas with high larval levels. Areas treated with Bti 

have been primarily along the south edge of Lake Lowell, Upper Dam Marsh, and a few other 

wetland areas. Most treatments occur in water less than 18 inches deep. In some years, more than 250 

acres have been treated at one time, with several applications over the course of spring and summer. 

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 (601 FW 1), it is stated that “we protect and manage 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-24 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

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. 

Table 4-3 includes special-status species that are known to occur or are likely to occur at the Refuge. 

“Special status” in this discussion includes species that are federally or state-listed, candidates for 

Federal listing, or species of concern at the State or Federal level. 

Table 4-3. Federally and State-listed Species Potentially Occurring on the Refuge 

Species Federal Statusa Idaho Statusb Breeds on Refugec

Birds 

American avocet G5/S5B X 

American white pelican G3/S1B 

Bald eagle G4/S3B,S4N X 

Black-crowned night heron G5/S2B X 

Black rosy-finch G4/S3 

Black tern G4/S1B X 

Black-necked stilt G5/S3B X 

Brewer’s sparrow G5/S3B 

Burrowing owl SOC G4/S2B 

California gull G5/S2B, S3N X 

Caspian tern G5/S2B X 

Cattle egret G5/S2B 

Clark’s grebe G5/S2B X 

Common loon G5/S1B, S2N X 

Ferrugionous hawk G4/S3B 

Flammulated owl G4/S3B 

Forester’s tern G5/S1B 

Franklin’s gull G4G5/S2B 

Grasshopper sparrow G5/S2B 

Great egret G5/S1B X 

Greater sage-grouse Candidate G4/S2 

Harlequin duck G4/S1B 

Hooded merganser G5/S2B, S3N 

Lesser scaup G5/S3 

Lewis’s woodpecker G4/S3B 

Loggerhead shrike SOC X 

Long-billed curlew SOC G5/S2B 

Merlin G5/S2B, S2N 

Northern goshawk SOC 

Northern pintail G5/S5B, S2N X 

Peregrine falcon G4T3/S2B 

Sandhill crane G5/S3B 

Short-eared owl G5/S4 

Snowy egret G5/S2B X 

Swainson’s hawk G5/S3B X 

Trumpeter swan SOC G4/S1B,S2N 

Western grebe G5/S2B X 

White-faced ibis SOC G5/S2B 

Wilson’s phalarope G5/S3B 

Yellow-billed cuckoo Candidate G5/S2B 

Fish 

Bull trout T (CH) G3/S3 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-25 

Table 4-3. Federally and State-listed Species Potentially Occurring on the Refuge 

Species Federal Statusa Idaho Statusb Breeds on Refugec

Lahontan cutthroat trout T 

Herptiles 

Columbia spotted frog Candidate G4,T2,T3/S2 

Northern leopard frog SOC G5/S2 

Western toad SOC 

Mammals 

Gray wolf Recovery G4/S3 

North American wolverine Candidate G4,T4/S2 

Northern Idaho ground squirrel T G2,T2/S1 

Southern Idaho ground squirrel Candidate G2,T2/S1 

Mollusks 

Bruneau hot springsnail E G1/S1 

Snake River physa snail E G1/S1 

Plants 

Howell’s spectacular thelypody T G5,T4Q/S2 

Packard’s milkvetch Candidate G5,T1/S1 

Slickspot peppergrass T (PCH) G2/S2 

Whitebark pine Candidate G3,G4/S3 a Federal Status: T = Threatened; E = Endangered; Candidate = Candidate; SOC = Species of Concern; (CH) = Designated 

critical habitat; (PCH) = Proposed critical habitat. b

 Idaho Status: G1 or S1 = Critically imperiled: at high risk because of extreme rarity (often five or fewer occurrences), rapidly 

declining numbers, or other factors that make it particularly vulnerable to rangewide extinction or extirpation; G2 or S2 = 

Imperiled: at risk because of restricted range, few populations (often 20 or fewer), rapidly declining numbers, or other factors 

that make it vulnerable to rangewide extinction or extirpation; G3 or S3 = Vulnerable: at moderate risk because of restricted 

range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors that make it vulnerable to 

rangewide extinction or extirpation; G4 or S4 = Apparently secure: uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern 

due to declines or other factors; G5 or S5 = Secure: common, widespread, and abundant; Q = Questionable taxonomy: 

taxonomic distinctiveness of this entity at the current level is questionable; resolution of this uncertainty may result in change 

from a species to a subspecies or hybrid, or the inclusion of this taxon in another taxon, with the resulting taxon having a lower 

conservation priority.

c Nests on Refuge: X = Known to nest on Refuge on either Lake Lowell or Snake River Islands Units. 

Some of the species in the table above are listed as special status species that occur in counties that 

contain or are adjacent to Deer Flat NWR. Those species are discussed in further detail below. 

Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus): Taylor (2000) published the following “Status of the 

Yellow-Billed Cuckoo in Idaho”: 

In southwestern Idaho the Yellow-billed Cuckoo has historically been considered 

a “rare summer visitor and breeder, perhaps erratic, in the western part of the 

Snake River Valley” (Larrison et al. 1967). Sites of records in the last quarter 

century include Battle Creek and Crane Creek Reservoir, Owyhee Co. (Svingen 

1996, T. Rich pers. comm.), an island in the Snake River, Fort Boise Wildlife 

Management Area (W.M.A.), and Lake Lowell, Canyon Co. (Rogers 1978, Taylor 

and Trost 1987, J. Gatchette pers. comm., G. Kaltenecker pers. comm.), Prairie, 

Elmore Co. (Rogers 1979), Swan Falls Dam, Ada Co. (Rogers 1985), Hayspur 

Fish Hatchery, Blaine Co. (Svingen 1997), and the Twin Falls area, Twin Falls Co. 

(Rogers 1984). Yellow-billed Cuckoos have not been recorded more than once at 

any of these locations, except for the single records from the 1970s, 1980s, and 

1990s at Lake Lowell. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-26 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

There are probably not more than a few dozen pairs breeding annually in the state, 

and quite possibly fewer than ten pairs. The Yellow-billed Cuckoo should be 

considered one of the most endangered bird species in Idaho. It could easily 

become extirpated from the state in the near future. In Idaho, Yellow-billed 

Cuckoo occupy riparian areas with a well-developed understory. Little ecological 

research has been conducted on the riparian vegetation of the Snake and other 

rivers in Idaho, but much of this vegetation has undergone modification and 

deterioration (Dixon and Johnson 1999). Restoration of large areas of riparian 

cottonwood with a thick understory, particularly willow (Marshall et al. 1996), 

would probably benefit the Yellow-billed Cuckoo in Idaho greatly. 

Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus): Historically, bull trout used the Snake River for foraging, 

migration, and overwintering habitat; the Snake River currently plays an important role in providing 

a corridor for exchange of bull trout among populations in its tributaries (USFWS 2010a). Critical 

habitat for bull trout in the Snake River is located from the mouth upstream to Brownlee Dam (50 

C.F.R. 17), approximately 55 miles downstream from the lower end of the Refuge. In sampling 

conducted between 1998 and 2001, no bull trout were documented in the mainstem Snake River 

above Brownlee Dam (Chandler et al. 2003). Bull trout do not occur in Lake Lowell. 

Bull trout can exhibit either a resident or migratory life history strategy. Resident bull trout complete 

their entire life cycle in the streams and tributaries where they spawn and rear. Migratory bull trout 

spawn and rear in streams for one to four years before migrating to a lake (adfluvial) or river (fluvial) 

seasonally, and then returning to the stream to spawn. Bull trout are found primarily in colder 

streams, although individual fish are found in larger river systems throughout the Columbia River 

Basin (USFWS 2007a). All life history stages are associated with complex forms of cover, including 

large woody debris, undercut banks, boulders, and pools (USFWS 2007a). 

On the mainstem Snake River, the downstream-most islands in the Refuge (Fenzl Island and Darrows 

Islands/Rapids #1 and #2) are within the upstream-most end of Brownlee Reservoir. The Powder 

River Basin, which contains designated critical habitat for bull trout, flows into Brownlee Reservoir 

approximately 45 miles downstream of the Refuge. Brownlee Reservoir contains potential foraging, 

migration, and overwintering habitat for fluvial populations of bull trout in the Powder River Basin 

(USFWS 2010a), although most bull trout in the Powder River are currently believed to exhibit 

resident life histories (USFWS 2002b). It is also likely that bull trout will use the reservoir if 

migratory individuals become re-established in the drainage of the Weiser River (USFWS 2005), 

which enters the Snake River at RM 352. This is within the Refuge, but the extent and nature of use 

and quality of habitat provided are not well understood (USFWS 2005). To function as migratory and 

overwintering habitat, the mainstem Snake River and reservoirs must provide holding water with 

adequate temperature, depth, and cover to ensure successful bull trout movement, as well as provide 

sufficient foraging opportunity (USFWS 2005). 

Other tributaries that flow into the Snake River either within, downstream, or upstream of the Refuge 

also contain or have the potential to support bull trout (e.g., Indian Creek, Payette River, Malheur 

River, and Boise River). However, bull trout populations in most of these basins are extremely low 

and/or isolated in headwater areas due to impassable barriers and poor water quality in lower reaches. 

As bull trout populations increase and restoration actions continue in these basins, the mainstem 

Snake River will provide an important migratory corridor between upstream and downstream 

populations of bull trout. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-27 

Lahontan cutthroat trout: Although native Lahontan cutthroat trout occur within Malheur County 

in southeastern Oregon, they are not known to occur in the Snake River or Lake Lowell (USFWS 

1995). IDFG has historically stocked Lahontan cutthroat trout in Lake Lowell; however, these fish 

are of hatchery origin and not considered part of the federally protected species. 

Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris): Spotted frogs inhabit spring seeps, meadows, marshes, 

ponds, streams, and other areas where there is abundant vegetation. They often migrate along riparian 

corridors between habitats used for spring breeding, summer foraging and winter hibernation. The 

largest known threat to spotted frogs is habitat alteration and loss, specifically loss of wetlands used 

for feeding, breeding, hibernating, and migrating. Other threats to this species include development, 

disease, and predation by nonnative species (USFWS 2011f). 

Columbia spotted frogs range from extreme southeast Alaska south through British Columbia and 

Alberta, Canada, western Montana and Wyoming, Idaho, northeastern Oregon, and eastern 

Washington. Under the Endangered Species Act, there are currently four recognized Distinct 

Population Segments (DPS) of Columbia spotted frogs: Northern, Great Basin, Wasatch, and West 

Desert. Columbia spotted frogs in the Nevada, southwestern Idaho, and southeastern Oregon portion 

of the Great Basin are geographically separate from the remainder of the species and are considered 

to be the Great Basin DPS. Columbia spotted frogs appear to be widely distributed throughout 

southwestern Idaho (mainly in Owyhee County) and southeastern Oregon (Malheur and Harney 

counties) but local populations tend to be small (USFWS 2011f). Occupied habitat for the Great 

Basin population is characterized by sagebrush with stream and pond environments. Columbia 

spotted frogs in Nevada have been reported from elevations between 5,600 and 8,700 feet, but 

elevations vary between populations (USFWS 2011f). 

Although there is suitable Refuge habitat for this species, there are no known populations here, and it 

was not documented during amphibian surveys conducted in 2005 and 2006. Additionally, the 

Refuge is at a lower elevation than nearby populations. 

Southern Idaho ground squirrel (Urocitellus brunneus endemicus): The southern Idaho ground 

squirrel occurs in native shrub-steppe habitat containing big sagebrush, bitterbrush, and a variety of 

native forbs and grasses. Areas of localized abundance are typically associated with human-altered 

landscapes such as golf courses and row crop or farmed fields (particularly alfalfa and clover). Adult 

ground squirrels are active from late January or early February to late June or early July when they 

return to their burrows for hibernation. Threats to the southern Idaho ground squirrel include exotic 

grasses and weeds, altered fire regime resulting from nonnative grass invasions, habitat 

fragmentation, competition with the Columbian ground squirrel (Spermophilus columbianus), direct 

killing from shooting, trapping or poisoning, and predation (USFWS 2011d). 

Idaho ground squirrels occur in a 38-square-mile area in Idaho that extends from Emmett northwest 

to Weiser and the surrounding area of Squaw Butte, Midvale Hill, and over to the Henley Basin in 

Gem, Payette, and Washington counties (USFWS 2013). The range of the southern Idaho ground 

squirrel is bounded on the south by the Payette River, on the west by the Snake River and on the 

northeast by lava flows with little soil. Within the Refuge, the northern portion of the Snake River 

Unit lies along the western boundary of its range. The Lake Lowell Unit is located to south of the 

known range of this species. 

Snake River physa snail (Haitia [Physa] natricina): This species occurs on the underside of large 

cobble- to boulder-sized substrate in swift currents in the mainstem Snake River, generally in the 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-28 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

deepest parts of the river at the margins of rapids (USFWS 2005). Historically, this species has been 

known to occur from RM 487 to 673.5, but currently it is only known to be present from RM 666 

(tailwaters of the Milner Pool) to 673.5 (Minidoka Dam) (USFWS 2005). There is potential for the 

species to be present downstream to RM 553, but no live specimens have been collected in this area 

since 1981 (USFWS 2005). The Refuge extends upstream to approximately RM 448.5; therefore, it is 

not within the known range of Snake River physa snail distribution. It is not known if the Snake 

River portions within the Refuge historically supported populations of the Snake River physa snail. 

Bruneau hot springsnail (Pyrgulopsis bruneauensis): This species is endemic to thermal springs 

and seeps that occur along 5 miles of the Bruneau River in southwest Idaho (USFWS 2007b), located 

entirely outside of the Refuge. The Bruneau River enters the Snake River at RM 495, approximately 

46.5 miles upstream of the Refuge. 

Howell’s spectacular thelypody (Thelypodium howellii ssp. spectabilis): Howell’s spectacular 

thelypody occurs in wet alkaline meadows in valley bottoms, usually in and around woody shrubs 

that dominate the habitat on the knolls and along the edge of the wet meadow habitat between the 

knolls (Federal Register 1998). Associated species include greasewood, saltgrass, basin wildrye, and 

alkali bluegrass (ORBIC 2010). All known remaining populations occur within or directly adjacent 

to agricultural fields or urban areas. The plants are threatened by habitat modification such as grazing 

during spring and early summer, trampling, urban development, and competition from nonnative 

plants (Federal Register 1998). 

Howell’s spectacular thelypody is known to occur on fewer than 12 small sites located within 100 

acres of private lands near North Powder and Haines in eastern Oregon (Baker and Union counties). 

It formerly also occurred in the Willow Creek Valley in Malheur County (Federal Register 1998). 

The Refuge is not located within the known range of this species. 

Packard’s milkvetch (Astragalus cusickii var. packardiae): Packard’s milkvetch is a narrow 

endemic plant that occurs in habitat characterized by rolling uplands and steep slopes that descend to 

terraced at elevations ranging from 2,600 to 3,000 feet. This species occurs on sedimentary outcrops 

which are largely devoid of other native shrubs, grasses, and forbs (Mancuso 1999). It is associated 

with vegetation dominated by Wyoming sagebrush and native bunchgrasses including bluebunch 

wheatgrass, Idaho fescue, and Sandberg bluegrass. However, due to habitat impacts from a century 

of wildfires, livestock use, and invasive nonnative plant species, much of its historical habitat has 

been converted to annual grassland dominated by cheatgrass and medusahead (USFWS 2011e). 

Primary threats to this species and its associated habitat include off-road recreational vehicle use, 

invasive nonnative grasses, wildfire, and livestock. 

This species is only known to occur in the northeastern corner of Payette County, about 15 miles 

north of the town of Emmett and approximately 15 miles east of the town of Payette, in southwestern 

Idaho. Its entire known range, which lies between Big Willow Creek to the south and Little Willow 

Creek to the north, is only approximately 10 square miles (USFWS 2011e). The Refuge is not 

located within the known range of this species. 

Slickspot peppergrass (Lepidium papilliferum): Slickspot peppergrass is associated with slickspots, 

distinct small habitat patches with a clay subsurface soil horizon within the sagebrush-steppe 

ecosystem. Slickspots are visually distinct openings in the sagebrush-steppe community 

characterized by soils with high sodium content and distinct clay layers that appear to have formed 

during the Pleistocene epoch (USFWS 2011g). It occurs in relatively intact habitat dominated by 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-29 

Wyoming sagebrush and native bunchgrasses including bluebunch wheatgrass, Idaho fescue, and 

Sandberg bluegrass. Threats to this species in southwest Idaho include the invasion of nonnative 

annual grasses including cheatgrass, increased fire frequency, development or destruction of 

slickspot microsites, habitat fragmentation, and livestock (Federal Register 2009). 

Slickspot peppergrass is known to occur only in the Snake River Plain and its adjacent northern 

foothills in Ada, Canyon, Elmore, Gem, Owyhee, and Payette counties in Idaho (USFWS 2011g); 

critical habitat has been designated to protect known populations (Federal Register 2011). The 

Refuge is not located within the known range of this species. 

Whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis): Whitebark pine is typically found in cold, windy, high-elevation 

or high-latitude sites found at or slightly lower than alpine timberline in the upper montane zone in 

western North America (Tomback et al. 2001). Whitebark pine is ecologically very significant in 

maintaining snowpack and regulating runoff, initiating succession after fire or other disturbance 

events, and providing seeds that are a high-energy food source for many species of wildlife. Threats 

to this species include climate change, white pine blister rust, and mountain pine beetles, or the 

combination of effects from some or all of these threats. 

The species is distributed in Coastal Mountain Ranges (from British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, 

down to east-central California) and Rocky Mountain Ranges (from northern British Columbia and 

Alberta to Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and Nevada) (Tomback et al. 2001). Subalpine habitats likely 

to support this species do not occur on the Refuge. 

4.6 Invasive and Nuisance Species 

Both the Lake Lowell and Snake River Islands Units of the Refuge have been colonized by invasive 

plants and animals. Invasive plant species displace native vegetation, altering the composition and 

structure of vegetation communities, affecting food webs, and modifying ecosystem processes, thus 

resulting in considerable impacts to native wildlife. 

4.6.1 Plants 

Refuge habitats have been colonized by a variety of noxious weeds and invasive plant species, 

including cheatgrass, Canada thistle, Scotch thistle, rush skeletonweed, perennial pepperweed, purple 

loosestrife, puncturevine, tamarisk, and Russian olive. Invasive plant species occurring on the Refuge 

are included in Table E-5 as part of the current wildlife and plants occurring on the Refuge 

(Appendix E). Currently, a combination of hand removal, mechanical removal, herbicide application, 

and biological controls are used to help control invasive plants at the Lake Lowell Unit with varying 

degrees of success. Efforts around the lake have focused on Russian olive, perennial pepperweed, 

Scotch thistle, Canada thistle, white bryony, and poison hemlock. False indigo bush is the 

predominant understory species in riparian areas. Its dense growth form and vigorous resprouting 

prevent any other understory species from establishing. Little work has been done specifically to 

reduce this species. In upland area, cheatgrass chokes out native and desirable species and is so 

prevalent that only broad application of a control method (e.g., herbicide, biological control, 

prescribed fire) will work to reduce this species. 

The lake edges in some locations and the Upper Dam Marsh have been invaded by purple loosestrife. 

Over the past several years, biological controls have substantially reduced the infestation. A 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-30 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

biological control agent for Canada thistle was released many years ago with unknown results. A 

biological control agent is being considered for tamarisk. There also is a potential biological control 

agent, a soil fungus (Pyrenophora semeniperda), for cheatgrass that is being considered for shrubsteppe habitat on the Refuge, should it be approved for use. 

Because of the logistical difficulties, limited control efforts have been conducted on the Snake River 

Islands Unit. When manual or chemical weed control has occurred, it has often resulted in the 

removed weedy species being replaced by another weedy species. Many weeds are best controlled by 

injection, spot spraying, or painted application of herbicide. These applications are time consuming 

and are most effective when several people work together. Despite the Refuge’s application of 

considerable resources to controlling invasive species, existing budgets and staffing levels do not 

allow as many acres to be treated for weeds as would be desirable. As a result, weeds are kept in 

check on areas of the Refuge that receive treatment, but they are spreading elsewhere. 

4.6.2 Animals 

Several species of nonnative mammals, fish, amphibians, and invertebrates are present within the 

Lake Lowell and Snake River Islands Units of the Refuge. IDFG has historically stocked Lake 

Lowell with nonnative channel catfish, black crappie, and Lahontan cutthroat trout, among other 

species. Carp populations are described in Section 4.4.1. Invasive species present on the Refuge 

include bullfrog, New Zealand mudsnail, common carp, oriental weatherfish, and feral cats and dogs. 

Zebra and quagga mussels have not established in the Snake River or Lake Lowell to date; however, 

these species have been found in neighboring states (Utah and California) and are at risk of becoming 

established on the Refuge in the future. 

Bullfrog: This species is an invasive amphibian that occurs in very warm and sunny ponds, marshes, 

slow-moving streams and rivers, and ponds (Corkran and Thoms 1996). The range of this species in 

North America is east of the Rocky Mountains. It was introduced into the West in the 1900s as a 

source of food (frog legs) and has since spread to other continents. It has also been introduced for 

sport, for pest control, and accidentally through trout stocking. This species tolerates a wide range of 

water temperatures and consequently has become invasive across a wide range of aquatic habitats. 

Control measures include the removal of individuals, introduction of predator species (e.g., 

largemouth bass), and egg collection. The removal of bullfrogs is unlikely to be a viable management 

option due to the difficulty of removing all bullfrog eggs, tadpoles, and adults, and preventing 

surrounding bullfrogs from invading a water body. However, this may be feasible in smaller water 

bodies isolated from other sources of bullfrog invasions. 

Many factors have contributed to the successful invasion of bullfrogs and their negative impacts to 

native wildlife in North America and elsewhere. In a single season, bullfrogs lay up to 20,000 eggs, 

while native species lay far fewer eggs. This has led to direct competition with native species for 

food and habitat. Bullfrogs are opportunistic predators, and prey on any animal smaller than 

themselves. Their diet consists of fish, reptiles, small mammals, birds, amphibians, and insects. They 

are also cannibalistic. Bullfrog tadpoles mostly graze on aquatic plants (Bruening 2002). Bullfrogs 

and Columbia spotted frogs rarely co-occur, but these findings could be the result of competitive 

exclusion or predation, and it is suspected that bullfrogs likely have contributed to the decline of this 

species (USFWS 2011f). Additionally, bullfrogs are thought to be carriers of the pathogenic fungus 

Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (chytrid), which causes the lethal disease chytridiomycosis. This is 

a fungal disease that has caused mass mortalities and population declines in North America and 

Europe, and as the cause of at least one, and possibly several, species extinctions (Daszak et al. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-31 

2004). Large numbers of bullfrogs were collected at Lake Lowell during amphibian monitoring in 

2005 and 2006 (Burch and Koch 2006; Smithers 2006). 

New Zealand mudsnail: This species was first found in the Snake River in 1987 and within two 

years became the dominant snail in the area (EPA 2011). The mudsnail flourishes in degraded water 

and reproduces quickly, impacting native invertebrate populations by competing for food and habitat. 

The mudsnail is detrimental to fish populations, vegetation, and other native biota (ODFW 2010). 

They are established in most large river systems, and educating the public on proper equipment 

decontamination after use in infested waterways will help prevent the spread into new habitats. 

Common carp: This species has been present in the United States since 1877 and in Lake Lowell 

since at least the 1950s (Kozfkay 2011; USFWS 2010b). Unlike the Asian carps that have been 

introduced in Oregon and Idaho to control aquatic vegetation in lakes and ponds, common carp are 

naturally reproducing in most waterways of the northwest. 

Common carp directly compete with other species for food (aquatic invertebrates and plankton), 

while their feeding behavior can cause significant changes in the composition of macrophyte, 

phytoplankton, and invertebrate communities, altering the food web and trophic structure of aquatic 

systems (USFWS 2010b). As carp root around in muddy substrates while feeding, they stir up the 

sediment and damage roots, causing otherwise clear waters to become muddy (Kozfkay 2011). 

Sediment and organic material suspended in the water column causes subsurface sunlight needed for 

plant growth to be reduced or eliminated, and photosynthetic plant production and oxygen levels 

decrease. This results in a decrease of aquatic vegetation and plankton that serve as food and habitat 

for migratory birds, aquatic invertebrates, and other fish species (Kozfkay 2011; USFWS 2010b). 

Fishery managers realized the negative impact carp were having on other fish populations and the 

aquatic ecosystem of Lake Lowell and began trying to remove the carp, ultimately treating the lake 

with rotenone in the 1960s (Kozfkay 2011). Carp populations remained low enough for other game 

and panfish numbers to rebuild, until the 1990s, when a severe drought caused a decline in panfish 

numbers and an explosion in the carp population (Kozfkay 2011). After several years of poor fishing, 

IDFG studied ways to improve the lake’s fishery, and by 2010 concluded that the carp population 

was so high that the only way to remove them was to treat the lake with rotenone (Kozfkay 2011). 

Due to the large size of Lake Lowell, treating with rotenone would be expensive and would kill all of 

the fish in the lake, not just the unwanted carp. To reduce the amount of rotenone needed and to 

increase the efficiency of the treatment, the lake would need to be drawn down to extremely low 

levels, either by extended drought or planned drawdowns (Kozfkay 2011). This could result in 

temporary negative impacts to birds and wildlife, recreational users, and irrigation districts. Rotenone 

has been historically used at the Malheur Refuge to control carp populations with varying success, 

because the treatments have failed to completely eradicate the entire carp population due to the 

complex network of waterways (USFWS 2010b). If successful at removing carp from Lake Lowell, 

the rotenone treatment would have a positive long-term benefit to birds and wildlife, game and 

panfish species, and recreational users of the lake. IDFG, Refuge personnel, and other groups are in 

the initial stages of determining whether a rotenone treatment is desirable or achievable (Kozfkay 

2011). Refuge managers continue to work with Malheur Refuge personnel who are experienced in 

carp management to develop and implement a carp management strategy for Lake Lowell. Currently, 

carp are being removed through commercial fishing activities. The amount of carp being removed by 

these activities is not enough to create any appreciable decrease to the carp population. IDFG is 

working with other commercial fisherman to increase the number of carp being removed, but as of 

yet IDFG has not been able to begin a larger removal effort. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-32 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Oriental weatherfish: This species is common and widespread in the Snake River Basin. Large 

numbers of Oriental weatherfish were collected at Lake Lowell during amphibian monitoring in 2006 

(Smithers 2006). This species competes with native species for food and habitat, has the potential to 

transmit disease to other organisms, and preys on native benthic invertebrates (ODFW 2011). 

Educating the public on proper identification and potential impacts to the ecosystem will help 

prevent the spread of these fish into new habitats. 

Feral cats and dogs: Feral populations of domestic dogs and cats form when people either release 

their animals or they run away. Feral cats and dogs survive and breed in the wild without any support 

from humans and depend on native wildlife as their primary food source. Feral animals are not 

uncommon in rural or urbanized areas and are of conservation concern because of their effects on 

native prey (Crooks and Soule 1999). Exact numbers are unknown, but scientists estimate that, 

nationwide, cats kill millions of birds and over a billion small mammals, such as rabbits, squirrels, 

and chipmunks, each year (Coleman et al. 1997). Feral dogs have also been witnessed chasing large 

mammals (deer) and feeding on small mammals (Causey and Cude 1980). In addition to preying on 

wildlife, feral animal populations may also disturb wildlife that may be feeding or nesting nearby. 

The occurrence of feral animals on the Refuge has not been studied and is not known at this time; 

however, it is anticipated that the numbers are high. Feral animals, such as cats and dogs, are 

regularly seen within the Refuge boundaries. Staff and visitors frequently pick up and/or call in stray 

dogs and cats that have been dumped on the Refuge by people who presumably cannot care for the 

animals any longer and assume that they will be cared for there. The Refuge’s proximity to the urban 

interface makes it vulnerable not only to feral animals seeking resources but pets that are 

uncontrolled and allowed to wander freely. It is also a popular place for locals to exercise with dogs, 

and, even though there are regulations requiring visitors to keep pets on leash, the incidence of this 

rule being violated is very high. Dogs allowed to roam at large, even within an owner’s voice 

command range, can kill or injure wildlife. 

4.7 Wildlife and Habitat Research, Inventory, and Monitoring 

The Refuge lacked an on-staff biologist from 1996 through 2009. Thus, compared with other refuges, 

there has been little inventory and monitoring data collected. Data that do exist are focused on 

waterfowl. For wintering waterfowl, there are long-term data from the mid-winter waterfowl survey 

and weekly ground counts. Refuge staff and volunteers survey waterfowl populations throughout the 

year to monitor the health of the regional population and help IDFG set hunting limits. Each winter, 

waterfowl are surveyed weekly at Lake Lowell. Each spring, goose nests are surveyed on the Snake 

River islands. Each fall, migratory ducks are caught and banded. 

A pilot grebe nesting survey was initiated in 2010 to capture the characteristics of nesting grebe 

population on the Lake Lowell Unit of Deer Flat NWR. The survey includes a pre-nesting inventory, 

a nesting survey, and a brood count. 

In order to inventory the deer population on the Lake Lowell Unit, a deer spotlight survey has been 

implemented to capture population dynamics. 

The Refuge conducted amphibian monitoring at Lake Lowell in 2005 and 2006 as part of the 

nationwide malformed amphibian survey project. The objective of the survey project was to learn 

more about declining amphibian populations and determine the prevalence of malformed amphibians 

in frog populations on national wildlife refuges. 
Greenhurs

Lower Dam 

Recreation Area

Upper Dam 

Gotts Point

P1

Murphy's Neck

P2

P3

P4

P5

P6

P7

P8

Orchard Avenue

West Roosevelt

Iowa 

Locust Road

Lewis Lane

Marsing Road

Lowell RdMalt Road

South Indiana

Lake Avenue

Midway Road

Walker Lake

Farner Road

Lake Shore Drive

Lake Shore Drive

Rim Road

Narrows

Low Line Canal

Deer Flat

Deer Flat

Canal

Lower Embankment

Upper Embankment

Field 5

Sage Fire

CC Lightning

Fire

0 1 2 0.5

M iles

Refuge Boundary

Cultivated Agricultural Land

Lacustrine, Emergent Wetland, Nonpersistent

Deepwater Habitats

Livestock Pasture, Temporarily Flooded

Palustrine, Emergent Wetland, Persistent

Palustrine, Forested Wetland, Cottonwood

Palustrine, Forested Wetland, Willow

Palustrine, Scrub-shrub Wetland

Shrubsteppe Upland

Data Sources: U SFW S Refuge Boundary from USFWS/R1; H abitat Data from BSU 2000; 2011 NAIP from U SD A

File: 12-005-6 M ap Date: 05/14/2012
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-34 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Document continues on next page. 

 
FENZL ISLAND

WHITEHILL ISLAND

DARROWS ISLANDS

ROCK

ISLAND

WAUNCH'S

ISLAND

WAUNCH'S

ISLANDS

Data Sources: USFWS Refuge Boundaries from USFWS/R1; 2009 Idaho NAIP Imagery from USDA

File: 12-005-10 Map Date: 05/17/2012

State B

Habitat

Gravel 

Subme

Palustri

Shrubst

1

Sheet 1 of 11

INDEX

0 0.225

Nampa

Weiser

Ontario

1

6

9

8

7

245

11

10

3

OREGON

IDAHO

SHEET INDEX
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-36 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Document continues on next page. 

 
SMITH

GROUP

GOAT

ISLAND

MCREA

GROUP

AUBACH

NO. 1

AUBACH

ISLANDS

Weiser

Annex

Data Sources: USFWS Refuge Boundaries from USFWS/R1; 2009 Idaho NAIP Imagery from USDA

File: 12-005-10 Map Date: 05/17/2012

State B

Habitat

Gravel 

Subme

Palustri

Shrubst

2

Sheet 2 of 11

INDEX

0 0.225

Nampa

Weiser

Ontario

1

6

9

8

7

245

11

10

3

OREGON

IDAHO

SHEET INDEX
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-38 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Document continues on next page. 

 
SYLVIA

SCARECROW

TRACT 39

ISLAND

HORSE

ISLAND

KETCHUP

ISLAND

Data Sources: USFWS Refuge Boundaries from USFWS/R1; 2009 Idaho NAIP Imagery from USDA

File: 12-005-10 Map Date: 05/17/2012

State B

Habitat

Gravel 

Subme

Palustri

Shrubst

3

Sheet 3 of 11

INDEX

0 0.225

Nampa

Weiser

Ontario

1

6

9

8

7

245

11

10

3

OREGON

IDAHO

SHEET INDEX
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-40 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Document continues on next page. 

 
BAXTER ISLAND

BEAVER ISLAND

Data Sources: USFWS Refuge Boundaries from USFWS/R1; 2009 Idaho NAIP Imagery from USDA

File: 12-005-10 Map Date: 05/17/2012

State B

Habitat

Gravel 

Subme

Palustri

Shrubst

4

Sheet 4 of 11

INDEX

0 0.225

Nampa

Weiser

Ontario

1

6

9

8

7

245

11

10

3

OREGON

IDAHO

SHEET INDEX
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-42 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Document continues on next page. 

 
RICK ISLAND

HERON ISLAND

LITTLE

COTTONWOOD

ISLAND

SQUATTERS

ISLAND

BIG

COTTONWOOD

ISLANDS

HOFFMAN ISLAND

CABLE

GROUP

QUAIL

ISLANDS

Nyssa

Data Sources: USFWS Refuge Boundaries from USFWS/R1; 2009 Idaho NAIP Imagery from USDA

File: 12-005-10 Map Date: 05/17/2012

State B

Habitat

Gravel 

Subme

Palustri

Shrubst

5

Sheet 5 of 11

INDEX

0 0.225

Nampa

Weiser

Ontario

1

6

9

8

7

245

11

10

3

OREGON

IDAHO

SHEET INDEX
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-44 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Document continues on next page. 

 
RHUBARB ISLAND

MAIN SHACK ISLAND

ADRIAN ISLAND

SUZY ISLAND

AIRPORT

ISLAND

BIG

UNNAMED

ISLANDS

WILLOW ISLAND

KLINE ISLAND

GOOSE EGG

ISLAND

BILLY GOAT

GROUP NO. 4

Adrian

Data Sources: USFWS Refuge Boundaries from USFWS/R1; 2009 Idaho NAIP Imagery from USDA

File: 12-005-10 Map Date: 05/17/2012

State B

Habitat

Gravel 

Subme

Palustri

Shrubst

6

Sheet 6 of 11

INDEX

0 0.225

Nampa

Weiser

Ontario

1

6

9

8

7

245

11

10

3

OREGON

IDAHO

SHEET INDEX
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-46 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Document continues on next page. 

 
OLIVE GROUP NO. 2

(SMITH'S

ISLAND)

BLACK

CROWNED

ISLAND

RABBIT

ISLAND

HOMEDALE

ISLAND

SILO ISLAND

Homedale

Data Sources: USFWS Refuge Boundaries from USFWS/R1; 2009 Idaho NAIP Imagery from USDA

File: 12-005-10 Map Date: 05/17/2012

State B

Habitat

Gravel 

Subme

Palustri

Shrubst

7

Sheet 7 of 11

INDEX

0 0.225

Nampa

Weiser

Ontario

1

6

9

8

7

245

11

10

3

OREGON

IDAHO

SHEET INDEX
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-48 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Document continues on next page. 

 
GEM

ISLAND

POISON

IVY

ISLAND

CIGAR

ISLAND

JENSEN

ISLAND

GOSLING

ISLAND

TINY

ISLAND

Marsing

Data Sources: USFWS Refuge Boundaries from USFWS/R1; 2009 Idaho NAIP Imagery from USDA

File: 12-005-10 Map Date: 05/17/2012

State B

Habitat

Gravel 

Subme

Palustri

Shrubst

8

Sheet 8 of 11

INDEX

0 0.225

Nampa

Weiser

Ontario

1

6

9

8

7

245

11

10

3

OREGON

IDAHO

SHEET INDEX
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-50 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Document continues on next page. 

 
DREDGE

ISLAND

BLACKBURN ISLAND

FOGLERS ISLAND

COTTONTAIL ISLAND

DILLEY

ISLANDS

CENTER

ISLAND

Data Sources: USFWS Refuge Boundaries from USFWS/R1; 2009 Idaho NAIP Imagery from USDA

File: 12-005-10 Map Date: 05/17/2012

State B

Habitat

Gravel 

Subme

Palustri

Shrubst

9

Sheet 9 of 11

INDEX

0 0.225

Nampa

Weiser

Ontario

1

6

9

8

7

245

11

10

3

OREGON

IDAHO

SHEET INDEX
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-52 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Document continues on next page. 

 
P

ARGY IS

WRIGHT ISLAND

RICHARDS

ISLAND

FISHER

ISLAND

WARE ISLAND

CURRENT

ISLAND

RIPPEE GROUP

HERMIT ISLAND

RACCOON ISLAND

WILLIAMS

#13 ISLAND

GOLDENEYE ISLAND

Givens Hot

Springs

Data Sources: USFWS Refuge Boundaries from USFWS/R1; 2009 Idaho NAIP Imagery from USDA

File: 12-005-10 Map Date: 05/17/2012

State B

Habitat

Gravel 

Subme

Palustri

Shrubst

10

Sheet 10 of 11

INDEX

0 0.225

Nampa

Weiser

Ontario

1

6

9

8

7

2

4

5

11

10

3

OREGON

IDAHO

SHEET INDEX
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-54 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Document continues on next page. 

 
SIG

RAIL ISLA

GUFFY ISLANDS

MENNING ISLAND

LITTLE

ROCKY ISLAND

BIG

ROCKY

ISLAND

KIM'S ISLAND

JIM'S ISLAND

WALTERS ISLAND

BLIND ISLAND

BROOKS ISLAND

Data Sources: USFWS Refuge Boundaries from USFWS/R1; 2009 Idaho NAIP Imagery from USDA

File: 12-005-10 Map Date: 05/17/2012

State B

Habitat

Gravel 

Subme

Palustri

Shrubst

11

Sheet 11 of 11

INDEX

0 0.225

Nampa

Weiser

Ontario

1

6

9

8

7

245

11

10

3

OREGON

IDAHO

SHEET INDEX
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-56 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Document continues on next page. 
Mule deer fawn

Addison Mohler/USFWS Chapter 5 Human Environment

Chapter 5HumanEnvironment

Chapter 4BiologicalEnvironment

Chapter 3PhysicalEnvironment

Chapter 1Introduction andBackground

Appendices A-P

Chapter 2Management Direction

Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-1 

Chapter 5 Human Environment 

5.1 Cultural Resources 

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, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.); 

the American Antiquities Act (16 U.S.C. 431-433); the Historic Sites Act (16 U.S.C. 461-467); the 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470aa-mm); and the Native 

American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (104 Stat. 3048, Public Law 101-601). The 

Service’s Native American Policy (USFWS 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 maintain a working relationship and consults on a regular basis 

with the Tribes that are or were traditionally tied to lands and waters within the Refuge. 

5.1.1 Native American Cultural Landscape 

The ethnographic and historical record is abundant with references to the Shoshone Tribes of western 

Idaho living in small and widely scattered groups in southwestern Idaho. The archaeological record 

documents a long tradition of residential use (Green 1982) and intensive harvest of plant and animal 

resources focused on the river environment (Plew 2000). Each year, the population would reach its 

greatest annual concentration along the Lower Snake River, including the islands. In 1843, Theodore 

Talbot, who accompanied John C. Fremont’s mapping expedition, described numerous islands in the 

Snake River occupied by small huts “surrounded by high platforms covered with drying salmon” 

(Talbot 1931:54). 

Fish, especially the anadromous type, were a primary food source for the Shoshone. Runs of salmon 

during the late spring and fall brought larger groups together to efficiently harvest and process this 

staple. Other principal resources found along the river include mussels, small game, waterfowl, and 

various vegetable materials. The riverine villages, consisting of several extended families, would 

disperse during warmer months as smaller groups sought resources from higher elevations (Steward 

1938), such as camas bulbs and biscuit root gathered from the foothills of the mountains. By late 

summer, berries and pinenuts would also be procured. Land fowl, such as sage hen, were hunted off 

the river and in the desert areas. Big game, such as deer or antelope, might be hunted but was not a 

major food source. For the cold winter months, people returned to the river and subsisted mostly on 

the stored foods gathered throughout the year. Caches for food storage have been found along the 

cliffs and crags of the Snake River. 

5.1.2 Historic Landscape 

The arrival of European explorers and fur traders to the area started in the first decades of the 

nineteenth century, bringing the seeds of dramatic landscape changes evident today. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-2 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

5.1.2.1 Hudson’s Bay Company 

The fur trade in this area was conducted, in part, by the North West Company and dominated by 

Hudson’s Bay Company. The first Fort Boise was built of adobe in 1834 at a spot just downstream of 

the confluence of the Snake and Boise Rivers. This is the same location as John Reid’s fur-trapping 

camp during the winter of 1813. Fort Boise originally served Hudson’s Bay Company as a furtrading post. Within a few years, emphasis switched to salmon fishing (Idaho State Historical Society 

[ISHS] 1970). At the same time, company policy declared each post should be as self-sufficient as 

possible, including agricultural production. In 1846, Fort Boise reported 2 tilled acres, 27 head of 

cattle, and 17 horses (Beckham 1995:13). Floods in 1853 and 1862 obliterated visible evidence of the 

fort’s location (ISHS n.d). With the advent of Idaho’s gold rush of the 1860s, a second Fort Boise 

was built by the U.S. Army near the modern city of Boise. 

5.1.2.2 Oregon Trail 

By the mid-1840s what had been a trickle of fur trappers, missionaries, and a few pioneers became a 

flood of settlers emigrating on the Oregon Trail. Seeking the fertile lands of the Pacific Northwest, 

most hurried through the seemingly inhospitable desert of the Snake River Plain (Beckham 1995:32-

33). Save for a few choke points, the trail is not a singular track, rather a network of routes. One 

southern alternative route follows the west bank of the Snake River portion of the Refuge from 

Guffey Butte to the town of Homedale. The main Oregon Trail passed to the north of Lake Lowell to 

cross the Snake River at the original Fort Boise. As the fur trade declined, Fort Boise transformed 

into a convenient point on the Oregon Trail for emigrants to replenish supplies and cross the Snake 

River. Ferry boat operations began in earnest by 1852 (ISHS 1982:2). The site remained an important 

ferry crossing during the last half of the nineteenth century. 

5.1.2.3 Farming and Ranching 

As demonstrated by the modest livestock of the Hudson’s Bay Company forts and the large herds of 

horses cultivated by the Shoshone, the area was eventually seen to sustain some productivity. 

Promoting settlement were the various Federal land acquisition laws, such as the Donation Land 

Claim Act, Homestead Act, and the increasing presence of the U.S. military. Discovery of gold in the 

1860s brought miners to the region, providing a ready local market for livestock and produce. 

5.1.2.4 Reclamation 

As the first waves of emigrants had noted, and later farmers discovered, the area had limited 

agricultural potential unless an abundant and steady water supply could be applied to the parched 

landscape. Initial attempts at irrigation had been undertaken by private parties, but economic forces 

and lack of coordination kept the cultivated acreage in the low thousands of acres. Recognizing a 

problem and seizing upon a solution, Senator Francis G. Newlands (Nevada) proposed legislation in 

1902 that became known as the Newlands Reclamation Act. This Congressional act set up a publicprivate partnership through which the Federal government would design and build large-scale 

irrigation projects that would eventually be turned over to local control. 

The Boise-Payette Project, one of the earliest projects under the Newlands Reclamation Act, assisted 

or subsumed the various private irrigation plans to provide a steady and coherent irrigation source. 

Deer Flat Reservoir, renamed Lake Lowell in 1948, was the first reservoir completed for the Boise 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-3 

Project. The Boise Project’s successful completion brought tens of thousands of acres into 

agricultural production. 

Lake Lowell was created by impounding water from the New York Canal behind the Upper and 

Lower embankments. Two minor structures were also constructed at the same time to control 

overflow events. The Middle (or Forest) embankment was to act as a spillway. It now serves as a 

road bed. The purpose of the fourth structure, the East Dike, is not known. The lake water level has 

never risen to the East Dike’s elevation. The structures are listed on the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) for their role in early federal reclamation activity, and also as an example of the work 

done by the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) and the Works Projects Administration (WPA) 

during the Great Depression. 

5.1.3 Archaeological Sites and Surveys 

5.1.3.1 Sites within the Refuge Boundaries 

Seven cultural resource sites have been recorded within the authorized boundary of Deer Flat Refuge 

(Table 5-1) and are described below. 

Table 5-1. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources Sites within Deer Flat Refuge 

Site Number Era Site Name Description 

10CN11 Prehistoric 

and historic 

*Name withheld Island in river with lithic scatter and historic 

features and scatter; ceramic, retouched flake, 

biface, cobble tools, fire-cracked rock, shell, 

flakes; dugout-like feature, earth depressions, 

metal, can, wire 

10CN97 Historic historic landfill; glass, metal, ceramic, leather 

10CN98 Historic Historic scatter; cans, glass 

27-17688 Historic Deer Flat Embankments (4) Historic American Engineering Record entry 

27-782 Historic Fort Boise Four-sided concrete structure (cistern), 

foundations 

10CN122 Historic Oregon Trail A linear feature with no visible expression in this 

location 

27-802 Historic Deer Flat Nat’l Wildlife 

Refuge [sic] 

“An early Idaho conservation site” 

*Site location information is confidential and not for public distribution. In this document, where the site name 

may reveal its location, the name has been withheld. 

Site 10CN11 in the Snake River at the southern end of the Refuge’s approved boundary is a 

prehistoric occupation site that also has a historic component. Artifacts of both eras appear 

concentrated in the island’s center; items are seen throughout the island. 

In the northwest quarter of the Refuge surrounding Lake Lowell are two sites composed of disposed 

historic detritus. One of these (10CN97) is described as a formal landfill covering about 10 acres. 

One-third of this site is located north of the Refuge boundary; the rest is within the Refuge. 

On Lake Lowell, there are four structures listed together on the NRHP (27-17688): the Upper and 

Lower Embankments, Forest (Middle) Embankment, and East Dike. Included in the NRHP 

nomination, but outside the Refuge, are the Boise Diversion Dam on the Snake River and the rubblelined structure on the New York Canal where it discharges into Lake Lowell. The Upper and Lower 

Embankments were thoroughly documented through the Historic American Engineering Record 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-4 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

(HAER) process. The HAER documentation was undertaken by Reclamation to facilitate needed 

modifications to those two structures. These early twentieth century structures are emblematic of 

large irrigation projects that propelled agricultural development in the region. During the Great 

Depression, workers with the WPA and the CCC modified the dams. 

The Fort Boise site (27-782), as recorded, covers private, State, and Service land. This is the location 

of the early Hudson’s Bay Company factory situated near the confluence of the Boise and Snake 

Rivers. The trading post was destroyed during the 1853 flood, but the location remained a convenient 

ford for travelers on the Oregon Trail (10CN122). 

Information provided by the ISHS identifies a point of interest (27-802) within the Fort Boise historic 

site as “Deer Flat Nat’l Wildlife Refuge” for its role in early twentieth century conservation efforts. 

No further information was provided about this designation. We surmise that this point is a reminder 

to record the Refuge landscape for its historic importance for Idaho conservation activities. 

There are other CCC/WPA-era structures such as the entrance pillars and some of the original 

headquarters compound (located in the current maintenance area) for which formal site forms have 

not been completed. 

5.1.3.2 Linear Features 

There are 11 linear features recorded partially in or within one mile of the Refuge’s authorized 

boundaries (Table 5-2). Linear features are those cultural resources of long length but relatively 

narrow width. All 11 of these linear features date to the historic era and include water delivery 

systems, two routes of the Oregon Trail, and a wagon or stagecoach road. 

Table 5-2. Linear Features Recorded within 1-mile Radius of Deer Flat Refuge 

Site Number Era Site Name Description 

10CN120 20th century Mora Canal 

27-18962 20th century Ridenbaugh Canal 

73-17954 20th century B Line Canal 

73-17955 20th century C Line Canal 

27-19224 20th century Deer Flat Low Line Canal 

87-17353 20th century Galloway Canal 

27-956 20th century New York Canal 

75-14853 20th century Washoe Canal 

10CN125 19th century Boise City-Silver City Road Wagon and stage road 

10CN122 19th century Oregon Trail 

10OE6025 19th century South Alternate Oregon Trail 

Two of the recorded linear features are within the Refuge’s authorized boundary, but extend beyond 

it. The Deer Flat Low Line Canal starts in the Lower Embankment and heads in a westerly direction. 

Feeding the reservoir at the east side of Lake Lowell, the New York Canal traverses at least 1.5 miles 

into the Refuge. 

5.1.3.3 Sites within One Mile of the Refuge’s Authorized Boundaries 

A review of cultural resource site records for sites that occur within one mile of the Refuge boundary 

was conducted to help characterize the types that may be found on the Refuge, and to better evaluate 

the effects activities may have on resources outside its current boundary. There are 195 sites and 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-5 

isolates found within one mile of the Refuge (Table 5-3). Of these, 112 are prehistoric. Of the 

prehistoric sites, there are two burial locations, 11 rock art areas, five rockshelters, four isolates, 89 

open-type sites (e.g., campsite, lithic scatter), and one unknown. 

Of the 73 historic sites and isolates, 12 are buildings, three are isolates, 24 are identified only as 

general locations (known to be significant but with no physical evidence; mostly ferry locations), 23 

are open-type sites, 10 are structures (mostly bridges), and one is unknown. 

Ten sites have both prehistoric and historic components. All are of the open type. 

Table 5-3. Sites within One Mile of Deer Flat Refuge 

Site Number Era Site Name Description 

10AA2/3 Prehistoric Open 

10AA169/2 Both Open 

10AA175/3 Prehistoric Open 

10AA176/4 Both Open 

10AA306 Both Midden Site Open 

10AA445 Historic Isolate 

10CN1 Both Open 

10CN2 Prehistoric Open 

10CN3 Both Open 

10CN4 Both Open 

10CN5 Prehistoric Open 

10CN6 Prehistoric Open 

10CN9 Prehistoric Rock art 

10CN10 Prehistoric Open 

10CN12 Prehistoric *Name withheld Rock art 

10CN13 Prehistoric *Name withheld Rock art 

10CN14 Prehistoric *Name withheld Rock art 

10CN15 Prehistoric *Name withheld Rock art 

10CN16 Prehistoric *Name withheld Rock art 

10CN17 Prehistoric *Name withheld Rock art 

10CN20 Prehistoric Open 

10CN21 Prehistoric Open 

10CN41 Prehistoric Open 

10CN42 Prehistoric Open 

10CN43 Prehistoric Open 

10CN44 Historic Guffey Bridge Location 

10CN45 Prehistoric Open 

10CN46 Prehistoric Open 

10CN47 Prehistoric Open 

10CN48 Prehistoric Open 

10CN49 Prehistoric Open 

10CN50 Prehistoric Open 

10CN51 Prehistoric Open 

10CN52 Historic Walters Ferry Location 

10CN53 Prehistoric Open 

10CN55 Prehistoric Open 

10CN56 Historic Open 

10CN57 Prehistoric Rock art 

10CN58 Prehistoric Open 

10CN59 Prehistoric Open 

10CN60 Prehistoric Rock art 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-6 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

Table 5-3. Sites within One Mile of Deer Flat Refuge 

Site Number Era Site Name Description 

10CN61 Prehistoric Open 

10CN62 Prehistoric Open 

10CN63 Prehistoric Open 

10CN64 Prehistoric Open 

10CN65 Prehistoric Isolate 

10CN70 Prehistoric Open 

10CN71 Historic Old Fort Boise Location 

10CN80 Prehistoric Open 

10CN83 Prehistoric Kill/Butcher Open 

10CN87 Historic Isolate 

10CN88 Historic Open 

10CN89 Prehistoric Open 

10CN95 Prehistoric Open 

10CN126 Prehistoric Open 

10CN135 Historic Isolate 

10OE1 Prehistoric Open 

10OE2 Prehistoric Open 

10OE5 Prehistoric Open 

10OE15 Prehistoric Open 

10OE16 Prehistoric Isolate 

10OE20 Prehistoric Open 

10OE48 Prehistoric Open 

10OE49 Prehistoric Open 

10OE58 Prehistoric Open 

10OE59 Prehistoric Open 

10OE60 Prehistoric Open 

10OE66 Prehistoric Open 

10OE72 Prehistoric Open 

10OE128 Prehistoric Burial 

10OE129 Prehistoric Open 

10OE241 Prehistoric Open 

10OE242 Prehistoric Rockshelter 

10OE243 Prehistoric Open 

10OE244 Both *Name withheld Open 

10OE245 Prehistoric Open 

10OE521 Prehistoric Open 

10OE522 Prehistoric Open 

10OE524 Prehistoric Rockshelter 

10OE526 Prehistoric Rockshelter 

10OE536 Prehistoric Open 

10OE542 Prehistoric Open 

10OE559 Prehistoric Rockshelter 

10OE563 Prehistoric *Name withheld (petroglyphs) Open 

10OE865 Prehistoric Open 

10OE1169 Prehistoric Open 

10OE1690 Prehistoric Open 

10OE1692 Historic Warm Springs Ferry, Enterprise Post Office Open 

10OE1990 Prehistoric Open 

10OE1991 Prehistoric Open 

10OE1992 Prehistoric Open 

10OE1993 Both Open 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-7 

Table 5-3. Sites within One Mile of Deer Flat Refuge 

Site Number Era Site Name Description 

10OE1994 Historic Guffey Bridge Structure 

10OE1995 Prehistoric Open 

10OE1996 Both Open 

10OE1997 Prehistoric Rock art 

10OE2031 Prehistoric Open 

10OE2032 Historic Open 

10OE2792 Prehistoric Open 

10OE2793 Prehistoric Open 

10OE2794 Prehistoric Open 

10OE2795 Prehistoric Open 

10OE2796 Prehistoric Open 

10OE2798 Prehistoric Open 

10OE2889 Prehistoric Open 

10OE3802 Prehistoric Open 

10OE6759 Historic Boise, Nampa, and Owyhee Railroad Open 

10OE9445 Prehistoric *Name withheld Open 

10OE9646 Historic Open 

10OE9647 Prehistoric Rock art 

10OE10371 Historic Building 

10PE3 Prehistoric Open 

10PE4 Prehistoric Open 

10PE8 Prehistoric Open 

10PE10 Prehistoric Open 

10PE20 Prehistoric Burial 

10PE21 Prehistoric Isolate 

10PE22 Prehistoric Open 

10PE30 Prehistoric Open 

10WN97 Prehistoric Open 

10WN452 Prehistoric Open 

10WN456 Prehistoric Open 

10WN559 Historic Open 

10WN560 Historic Open 

10WN792 Prehistoric Isolate 

10WN798 Historic Open 

10WN799 Prehistoric Open 

10WN800 Both Open 

10WN801 Prehistoric Open 

10WN802 Prehistoric Open 

10WN817 Prehistoric Isolate 

27-28 Historic Unknown Ferry Open 

27-5037 Historic Riverside Ferry Open 

27-9648 Historic Ross Camp Location 

27-9649 Historic Ross Camp Location 

27-13487 Historic Open 

27-16967 Historic Location 

27-18060 Historic Henderson Ferry Structure 

27-18061 Historic Hot Springs Ferry Location 

27-18062 Historic Bernard’s Ferry Location 

27-18064 Historic Monahan’s Ferry Location 

27-18952 Historic Locker Ave. House Building 

27-19022 Historic Wilder Armory Location 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-8 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

Table 5-3. Sites within One Mile of Deer Flat Refuge 

Site Number Era Site Name Description 

35ML00000 Historic 03-08397-01 Open 

35ML00006 Prehistoric Open 

35ML01380 Prehistoric Open 

35ML01381 Prehistoric Open 

35ML01383 Prehistoric Open 

35ML01384 Prehistoric Open 

35ML01519 Prehistoric Open 

35ML01520 Prehistoric Open 

35ML01522 Prehistoric Open 

73-4908 Historic Guffey RR Bridge Open 

73-652 Historic Walters Ferry Location 

73-659 Historic Bernard’s Ferry Open 

73-4911 Historic Walter’s Ferry Bridge Structure 

73-5027 Historic Monahan’ Ferry Open 

73-5031 Historic Warm Springs Ferry Open 

73-5032 Historic Walker’s Ferry Open 

73-5033 Historic Henderson Ferry Location 

73-5034 Historic Froman Ferry Location 

73-5035 Historic Mussell Ferry Location 

73-6074 Historic Cattle pen Open 

73-6075 Historic Cattle pen Location 

73-6101 Historic Pasture fence Open 

73-6103 Historic Cattle pen Open 

73-6119 Historic Cattle and sheep pen Open 

73-6151 Historic Sheep camp fence Location 

73-6172 Historic Hay Backstop Open 

75-131 Historic Gray’s Ferry Location 

75-596 Historic Emison Brothers Ferry Location 

75-5038 Historic Structure 

75-5039 Historic Structure 

75-5040 Historic Washoe Ferry Location 

87-264 Historic Gaylord and Hunt Ferry Location 

87-4336 Historic Arch Larsen House Structure 

87-5041 Historic Weiser Ferry Location 

87-13759 Historic Porters Ferry Location 

87-13769 Historic Al Keil House Structure 

87-13770 Historic Larsen Ranch Hand House Structure 

87-13771 Historic Robert’s House Structure 

87-13781 Historic West Ridge Irrigation Building 

87-13783 Historic Japanese Labor Camp Location 

87-16074 Historic Weiser-Oregon RR Building 

87-17066 Historic George Davis House Structure 

87-17137 Historic Charlie Webb Place Building 

87-17138 Historic Building 

87-17139 Historic Building 

87-17140 Historic WWII Relocation Center Building 

87-17141 Historic Weiser-Oregon RR Building 

87-17142 Historic Nash House Building 

87-17143 Historic Unknown Building 

87-17144 Historic Unknown Building 

87-17313 Historic Brad Laird House Building 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-9 

Table 5-3. Sites within One Mile of Deer Flat Refuge 

Site Number Era Site Name Description 

87-17344 Historic Snake River Bridge Location 

*Site location information is confidential and not for public distribution. In this document, where the site name 

may reveal its location, the name has been withheld. 

5.1.3.4 Observations 

In part due to Federal undertakings for the Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National 

Conservation Area (NCA), several cultural resource surveys have occurred on both sides of the 

Snake River in the Refuge’s southern end. There are many recorded prehistoric occupation and rock 

art sites, historic structures, and historic debris. This plethora of surveys creates a bias as to site 

density in that stretch when compared to the rest of the river. With that noted, the landscape does 

provide numerous locations ideal for rock art. The density of sites along the river banks is genuinely 

high. 

Few of the islands in the Snake River have been systematically surveyed. One that has been surveyed 

is Sand Island in the NCA. No formal archaeological surveys have been conducted on the islands 

adjacent to Sand Island (i.e., Guffey and Rail Islands). These islands are highly likely to contain 

significant cultural resources. 

5.1.3.5 Early and Named Islands 

Few islands appear on the General Land Office (GLO) maps from the mid- to late nineteenth century 

(Table 5-4). Of those that do, some were created or enlarged through accretion of silt derived from 

gold mining of the period. Some islands are ephemeral in nature, appearing and disappearing over the 

decades. For the purposes of cultural resource management, consideration of any site or structure 

greater than 50 years of age is needed. An island with enough longevity, market value, or other 

significance would likely have obtained a name. 

Table 5-4. Early Islands Shown on General Land Office Maps 

Name Date of Map Island First Appears On (GLO/BLM) Comment* 

Noble 1870 

Foglers 2010; island formed prior to 1890 

Rippee 1920 

Ware 1937 

Patch 1874 (pencil note in margin) May have been originally mainland 

Unnamed 1874 

Duncan 1874 

Morton 1874 (?) pencil lines 

Gamble 1874 (?) pencil lines 

Prati 1874 

Unnamed 1875 T11N R6W Sec. 36 BM and T11N 

R5W Sec. 31 BM 

Unnamed 1875 T9N R5W Sec. 2 BM 

Unnamed 1875 T6N R6W Sec. 26 BM 

Williams 2010 consent decree 

* BM: Boise Meridian. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-10 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

5.1.4 Threats to Cultural Resources 

A variety of natural and human-caused activities can threaten cultural resources, including: 

 Fire, both naturally occurring and prescribed for habitat restoration, can cause significant 

damage to historic structures and archaeological sites, as can the activities to suppress and 

manage fire (e.g., creating fuel breaks); 

 Erosion, whether the byproduct of fire, wind, waves, or another natural or human-made 

agent; 

 Habitat restoration and other land management activities; and 

 Vandalism or “pot” hunting. 

Any activity identified in the management direction, including wetland restoration, construction of 

new facilities, or changes in public use could have a potential impact to cultural resources. The 

greatest threats may be posed by earthmoving, removal of structures or alteration of the current 

erosion patterns occurring during habitat restoration, construction, or other land management 

activities. 

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. As discussed in Section 5.1, Federal laws and 

Service policy guide all Refuge actions regarding cultural resources, along with the Refuge’s 

relationships with relevant Tribes. 

5.2 Refuge Facilities 

5.2.1 Fences and Signs 

5.2.1.1 Lake Lowell Unit 

The Refuge’s boundary for this unit is fenced and posted with boundary signs. It is surrounded 

primarily by private lands. Signs reading “Area Closed,” “Hunting Area,” and “Nontoxic Shot” are 

also posted around the boundary as appropriate. 

There are standard Refuge entrance signs at the Visitor Center entrance road, the Lower Dam 

Recreation Area, and between Parking Lot 8 and the Lower Dam. There are nonstandard entrance 

signs at the Visitor Center, near the east Upper Dam boat launch, at the Lower Dam Recreation Area, 

and east of Parking Lot 1 in the South Side Recreation Area. There are “Welcome to Your NWRS” 

signs at the east Upper Dam boat launch and at the entrance to Gotts Point. There are signs about 

regulations at the Visitor Center entrance road and at all parking areas except the two along the 

curves of Iowa Avenue. 

5.2.1.2 Snake River Islands Unit 

All of the Snake River islands are posted with boundary signs. Kiosks at the eight primary boat 

launches that access Refuge islands (Walter’s Ferry, Marsing, Homedale, Fort Boise Wildlife 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-11 

Management Area, Nyssa, Centennial Park in Payette, Roberts Landing, and Farewell Bend State 

Park) provide interpretive, regulatory, and orientation information. The maps on the kiosks indicate 

Refuge and Refuge islands along that particular stretch of river. 

5.2.2 Roads, Parking Areas, and Access Points 

5.2.2.1 Lake Lowell Unit Roads 

There are five roads on the Refuge. The North Side Recreation Area is accessed via a half-mile 

paved entrance road that opened in December 2007 and provides access to the Visitor Center. The 

road is opened by an automatic gate during public use hours (dawn to dusk). A small parking lot 

outside the gate can be accessed at all times. 

The entrance road provides access to a 3.25-mile loop of unpaved road west of the Visitor Center that 

is used primarily as a trail (Observation Hill Trail). This road is closed to vehicles, with the exception 

of occasional permitted access to the ABA-accessible wildlife viewing platform and administrative 

access. (The road accesses Refuge agricultural fields that are closed to the public.) A firebreak that 

leads from this trail system to the parking lot at the top of the entrance road is often used as a trail by 

visitors. 

There is a one-mile, unpaved road east of the Tio Lane entrance that is closed to vehicles, with the 

exception of administrative access. This road serves as a trail (East Dike Trail) for visitors. 

There is a 3.75-mile unpaved road from the Tio Lane entrance northwest to the Greenhurst Road 

entrance. It is closed to vehicles, with the exception of administrative access, but serves as a trail for 

visitors (Kingfisher Trail). 

The Kingfisher Trail road travels to the west from the Greenhurst Road entrance and terminates at a 

gate just past Gotts Point that separates the public area from Refuge maintenance areas and farm 

fields. This 0.5-mile section of the road is also closed to vehicles, with the exception of 

administrative access, and serves as a trail for visitors (Gotts Point Trail). Gotts Point Trail is closed 

from October 1 through January 31 to provide an undisturbed wintering wildlife area. It is gated but 

open for foot, bicycle, and horse travel from February 1 through September 30. 

Parallel to the Gotts Point Trail is a 0.5-mile, unpaved road leading to Gotts Point from the 

Greenhurst Road public entrance. This road is currently gated at a parking lot after about 0.2 mile. 

The road from the parking area to Gotts Point (0.3 mile) is gated but open for foot, bicycle, and horse 

travel from February 1 through September 30. It is closed October 1 through January 31 to provide 

an undisturbed wintering wildlife area. The closure of this area to vehicles was enacted in late 

summer of 2006 due to extreme vandalism and concerns for public safety (see Section 5.6.6). There 

are two small parking lots adjacent to the lake on the closed portion and an outhouse at the end of the 

road. 

Kingfisher Trail, Gotts Point Trail, and Gotts Point Road were all graded in anticipation of graveling 

in summer 2011. Due to unforeseen budget issues, the project was postponed. Graveling of 

Kingfisher Trail was completed in fall 2011, with graveling of the Gotts Point Trail and Road to 

occur later. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-12 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

A major county road (with traffic of 2,817 vehicles per day, according to the Canyon County 

Highway District [2009]) runs across the Lower Dam. Paved County roads encircle the Refuge and 

provide public access to most Refuge parking lots and access points. 

5.2.2.2 Lake Lowell Unit Parking Areas and Access Points 

There are 19 parking areas around the lake. All are paved except the picnic and swimming beach lots 

at the Lower Dam Recreation Area and the parking lot at Gotts Point. Parking lots at the Visitor 

Center entrance road, Visitor Center, east and west ends of the Upper Dam, curves along Iowa 

Avenue, Tio Lane entrance, and Parking Lot 8 are open all year. The lots at Gotts Point and the 

Lower Dam Recreation Area are open during the boating season (April 15 to September 30). Parking 

Lots 1, 2, 3, 7, and 8 are usually open April 15 through the end of waterfowl hunting season (middle 

or late January). Parking Lots 4, 5, and 6 are open only during hunting season (September to middle 

or late January). 

There are two walk-through access areas at the Lake Lowell Unit that do not have parking facilities 

associated with them. One walk-through is located at Murphy’s Neck, and the other is located several 

hundred yards east of the west end of Greenhurst Road. The Murphy’s Neck access is used mostly by 

anglers, while the access on Greenhurst Road is used mostly by upland game hunters. Users of these 

access points must park on the shoulders of County roads (Orchard Avenue and Greenhurst Road, 

respectively). 

5.2.2.3 Snake River Islands Unit 

There are no roads or parking areas on Refuge islands. Refuge islands are accessed from eight major and 

five minor boat launches owned and managed by various City, County, State, and Federal agencies. 

5.2.3 Trails 

5.2.3.1 Lake Lowell Unit 

There are six trails open to pedestrians, bicyclists, and equestrians. Dogs must be kept on leashes at 

all times. In winter, the trails are occasionally used for cross-country skiing and snowshoeing. Refuge 

trails include: 

 Nature Trail, a 0.5-mile, unpaved, self-guided loop near the Visitor Center. There is an 

adjacent wildlife-viewing blind. 

 Observation Hill Trail, a 3.25-mile loop, internal Refuge road that serves as a trail west of the 

Visitor Center. There is an adjacent wildlife-viewing platform. 

 East Dike Trail, a 1.0-mile internal Refuge road that serves as a trail east of the Tio Lane 

entrance. 

 Kingfisher Trail, a 3.75-mile internal Refuge road that serves as a trail from Tio Lane 

entrance to Greenhurst Road entrance. 

 Gotts Point Trail, a 0.75-mile internal Refuge road that serves as a trail from Greenhurst 

Road entrance to a gate just north of Gotts Point. 

 Centennial Trail, a 1.2-mile ABA-accessible historical interpretive trail from the Visitor 

Center to the viewing platform at the west end of the Upper Dam and then across the historic 

Upper Dam. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-13 

5.2.3.2 Snake River Islands Unit 

There are no trails on Refuge islands. 

5.2.4 Other Facilities Listed by Refuge Area 

There are no facilities on the Snake River Islands Unit. Facilities at the Lake Lowell Unit are 

discussed below by location. Map 11 shows Lake Lowell Unit public use facilities. 

5.2.4.1 North Side Recreation Area 

The Visitor Center includes the Refuge administrative offices and over 2,600 square feet of public 

exhibit space, including a KidSpace activity area, small wildlife-viewing room, 900-square-foot 

auditorium with a seating capacity of around 75, and public restrooms. The Visitor Center is open 

year-round, except for Federal holidays, from 8 AM to 4 PM weekdays and 10 AM to 4 PM 

Saturdays. According to a recent survey, 36 percent of visitors indicated that they had gone to the 

Visitor Center during their visit (Sexton et al. 2012). However, only 22 percent were actually 

contacted at the Visitor Center during the survey effort. Of those visitors who were contacted at other 

locations during the survey (n=162), only 23 percent indicated that they did “go to a Visitor Center at 

the Refuge” (Dietsch 2011). 

In 2011, due to overcrowded Refuge offices and the desire to find additional room for Service 

employees working in leased space, more administrative space was added, and the parking area was 

repaved and enlarged. The Visitor Center parking lot provides 42 spaces (including two ABAaccessible spaces), but provides none for buses, recreational vehicles, or vehicles with trailers. 

Other facilities in the North Side Recreation Area include ABA-accessible wildlife-viewing 

platforms near the west Upper Dam boat ramp and on the Observation Hill Trail west of the Visitor 

Center, wildlife-viewing blind along the Nature Trail, ABA-accessible fishing dock at the west end 

of the Upper Dam (available mid-April to early October), paved boat ramp with two docks, and an 

outhouse at the boat launch parking area. The parking lot has 88 designated spaces (36 trailer spaces, 

44 car spaces, two ABA-accessible trailer spaces, and six ABA-accessible car spaces). The launch 

closes at relatively high water levels (i.e., a water level elevation of 2,519 feet or more) when it 

becomes unsafe to launch boats. All facilities are in good condition. 

5.2.4.2 East Upper Dam Boat Launch 

Facilities at the east Upper Dam boat ramp include a paved boat ramp with two docks, swimming 

beach designated by docks and a buoy line, and two picnic tables. The Refuge parking lot has 38 

spaces (23 trailer, 13 car, and two ABA-accessible ones). 

The Canyon County Park across the street provides 56 parking spaces (12 trailer, 42 car, and two 

ABA-accessible spaces), bathrooms with flush toilets, picnic tables, and grills. Several hundred yards 

east of the boat ramp, in the curves of Iowa Avenue, there are two paved Refuge parking lots with 

approximately seven and nine undesignated parking spots. There are no walkways or crosswalks 

providing pedestrian access to the Refuge, so visitors parking in these lots must walk on the road 

surface. There are also no Refuge access points immediately across from these parking areas. It is 

around a 0.25-mile walk from the farthest parking area to the boat launch on the east side of the 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-14 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

Upper Dam. Several hundred yards west of the boat ramp, there is a de facto overflow parking lot in 

a graveled area along the road. The lake side of this graveled area is part of the Reclamation Zone, 

and the north side is private property, including a small personal watercraft rental kiosk that has 

operated since 2007. Since 2010, a refreshment stand is also operated on the private property. Refuge 

users park on both the Reclamation property and the private property. 

In recent years, this area has been increasingly crowded. On busy summer days, vehicles waiting to 

launch can cause gridlock on the public road leading into the area, creating potential safety issues if 

emergency vehicles need to pass or drivers decide to pass the gridlocked vehicles by driving into the 

oncoming traffic lane. 

5.2.4.3 Lower Dam Recreation Area 

Facilities at the Lower Dam Recreation Area include a paved boat ramp with three docks (one ABAaccessible), park-like, sprinkler-irrigated picnic area with a covered picnic shelter, scattered picnic 

tables, and three outhouses. The boat ramp closes at relatively high water levels (i.e., when water 

level elevation is 2,519 feet or more) when it becomes unsafe to launch boats. 

Parking spots near the boat launch are not designated. On a June 2008 Sunday afternoon, there were 

161 vehicles parked in this area, 107 with boat trailers. There are 143 parking spaces (including two 

ABA-accessible spaces) near the undesignated swimming beach. Near the picnic area is one 

outhouse and a dumpster. Parking spots in this area are not designated because the area is a gravel 

road. On a June 2008 Sunday afternoon, there were 134 vehicles parked in this area, well beyond 

capacity and nearly blocking the road in some areas. Overcrowding during the summer has reached a 

point where, on occasion, it has been extremely difficult for emergency responders to reach patients. 

In a fenced portion, at the north end of the Lower Dam Recreation Area, is the Environmental 

Education Building, which provides opportunities for self-service environmental education activities 

for groups, mostly scouts. The EE Building can be rented from April 15 to September 30. It includes 

two restrooms, large meeting space, kitchen, and covered, screened patio. The grounds include a 

tended lawn with several picnic tables and four grills. Water is supplied by a well that pumps 65 

gallons per minute; the Service has a water right for this well. The building does not have heat or air 

conditioning. 

5.2.4.4 South Side Recreation Area 

Parking Lot 1 has a small, paved boat launch. Parking Lot 7 has water access for small boats via a 

gravel boat launch. Both launches close at relatively high water levels (approximately 2,518-2,519 

feet) when it becomes unsafe to launch. Most users of these launches have small watercraft—

primarily johnboats, canoes, kayaks, and float tubes. Both launches are used during spring and 

summer boating seasons as well as during the waterfowl hunting season. Due to a lack of signage, 

nonboating users sometimes park on the boat launch at Parking Lot 7, making launching more 

difficult. Parking Lot 3 is used as a launch site by wind-sports enthusiasts even though the 

unmaintained path from the parking area to the water is blocked by a cable. 
!y !j

d[

!j

!j

d[

!y!j

["

@" !y

["

["

!r

!D

!D

!j

!j

!D

!j

Greenhurst Rd

Lower Dam 

Recreation Area

Upper Dam 

Gotts Point

Leavitt 

Tract P1

Murphy's Neck

P2

P3

P4

P5

P6

P7

P8

Orchard Avenue

West Roosevelt

Iowa Avenue

Locust Lane

Burke Lane

Locust Road

Lewis Lane

Marsing Road

Malt Road

South Indiana

Lake Avenue

Midway Road

Walker Lake

Farner Road

Lake Shore Drive

Lake Shore Drive

Lake Shore Drive

Midland Blvd

Fishing Area A

Fishing Area B

Narrows

Low

Line Canal

Deer Flat

New

York

Canal

Deer Flat

Nampa

Canal

¬«45

¬«55

¬«55

¥84

West Pool

East Pool

East Pool

Nampa

No Wake Area

USFWS Refuge Boundary

Existing Entrance Road

Multiuse Trail

Current Use

@" Refuge Visitor Center

!y Improved Boat Ramp

d[ Unimproved Boat Ramp

!D Dock

!r Swimming

!j Parking Area

[" Wildlife Viewing Platform/Blind

Public Use Area

Area Closed to All Entry Year Round

Area Open to Fishing During Waterfowl Hunting Season

East Side Recreation Area

North Side Recreation Area

South Side Recreation Area

Map 11 Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge - Lake Lowell Unit Current Public Use Facilities Map

Data Sources: USFWS Refuge Boundary and Public Use from USFWS/R1; 2011 NAIP from USDA

File: 12-005-7 Map Date: 05/16/2012

0 1 2

Miles
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-16 

Document continues on next page. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-17 

5.2.4.5 East Side Recreation Area 

There are no facilities in the East Side Recreation Area. 

5.2.4.6 Gotts Point 

An outhouse is provided at the end of the 0.3-mile road/trail and is accessible by foot, bike, and 

horse. 

5.2.4.7 Maintenance Area 

The maintenance area includes the main shop, boat house, oil house, and a few other outbuildings. 

There is also the original Refuge administration building, two residences (including one listed on the 

NRHP), one detached garage, and a historic boat house. An additional equipment storage facility was 

built in 2011 to accommodate equipment for Service employees using the administrative addition. 

5.3 Public Use Overview 

5.3.1 Legal Mandates Involving Public Uses on Refuges 

All public activities on a refuge are considered closed unless officially open. To officially open a use 

or extend an existing use, a refuge must first complete a compatibility determination. The following 

summary of Congressional acts gives a brief explanation of how and when public uses are legally 

allowed on Refuges. 

In 1962, the Refuge Recreation Act (76 Stat. 653; 16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4) was passed. Refuges were 

tasked with ensuring “that any present or future recreational use will be compatible with and will not 

prevent accomplishment of, the primary purposes for which the said conservation areas were 

acquired or established.” It also says that recreational activities can be appropriate as long as they are 

not inconsistent with the primary objective of each refuge. If uses do not fit this description the 

Refuge Recreation Act further states that the refuge will “curtail public recreation use generally or 

certain types of public recreation use” whenever necessary. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (Public Law 90-404; 16 U.S.C. 

668dd-668ee, et seq.) states that the public could not “enter, use, or otherwise occupy any such area 

for any purpose” unless such activities were compatible with the major purposes for which the area 

was established. The Administration Act was further amended by the Refuge System Improvement 

Act in 1997. 

The Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57) reasserts the need for refuge uses 

to be compatible and said that compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses “receive enhanced 

consideration over other general public uses in planning and management.” It also stated that refuges 

could not “initiate or permit a new use, or expand, renew, or extend an existing use,” unless the use 

has been determined to be compatible and consistent with public safety. 

Under the Refuge Improvement Act, each refuge is required to complete a compatibility 

determination for existing uses, which estimate the timeframe, location, manner, and purpose of each 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-18 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

use. Refuges are also required to identify the effects of each use on refuge resources and purposes of 

each refuge. Any use that is found not to be compatible is required to be eliminated or modified to 

make it compatible. New compatibility determinations are required every 10 to 15 years and with the 

preparation of the refuge comprehensive conservation plan. The few compatibility determinations 

that have been previously completed for this Refuge were last approved in 1999. There was little or 

no mention of possible impacts to Refuge habitat or purpose, and no scientific literature was cited. 

5.3.2 General Visitation Information 

The Refuge provides opportunities for all wildlife-dependent priority public uses (the “Big Six,” i.e., 

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

listed in the Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, as amended. In addition to providing the Big 

Six activities, many nonwildlife-dependent public uses also currently occur, especially at the Lake 

Lowell Unit. Some of these uses include high-speed boating, windsurfing, jogging, swimming, 

sunbathing, horseback riding, and special events such as weddings. 

Estimating current visitor numbers at the Refuge is challenging because of the dispersed nature of 

access points. The Lake Lowell Unit includes 15 individual access points distributed around the 27 

miles of county road surrounding the lake. The Snake River Islands Unit includes 14 improved and 

unimproved boat launches that provide access to Refuge islands, but also provide access to nonrefuge 

sites and activities. Visitation data for the Snake River Islands Unit, and for some low-participation 

activities at the Lake Lowell Unit (e.g., mourning dove hunting) are still based on best professional 

judgment. 

Until July 2005, visitor counts were based on best professional judgment and may not accurately 

reflect visitation at the 16 public access points. Formal visitor counts began at Lake Lowell in July 

2005, but sufficient evening and weekend surveys were not completed until December 2006, so we 

do not have good data to reflect visitation trends. 

The Refuge uses two complementary sampling methods to estimate visitation at the Lake Lowell 

Unit. The number of vehicles at dispersed access points is counted on at least two weekdays and one 

weekend day per month in each of three time slots (morning, afternoon, and evening). Load factors to 

correct data from the vehicle count for number of people per vehicle and visitor activities are 

determined through direct observations of visitor use at Refuge access points. The access points are 

designated as one of five location types (improved ramp, unimproved ramp, parking lots, fishing 

spots, and parks), and each location type is observed on at least two weekdays and one weekend day 

in each of three time slots (morning, afternoon, and evening). 

Visitation estimates at the Visitor Center are based on data from a door counter on the front door. 

Because the total on the counter does not directly correspond with the total number of visitors for a 

variety of reasons (e.g., visitors are separately counted as they enter and as they depart, and when 

they leave and re-enter during a single visit), counter data are corrected with a factor developed from 

direct observations of the number of visitors relative to the counts recorded on the door counter. 

Participants in environmental education programs and special events are based on direct counts of 

participants. 

Refuge visitation over the past four years has fluctuated between approximately 167,000 and 

225,000. For a more detailed breakdown of visitation, please see Table 5-5. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-19 

Table 5-5. Visitor Counts during Fiscal Years (FY) 2010 and 2011 (note: visitors may engage 

in more than one activity per visit) 

Activity FY10 Visitation FY11 Visitation 

Waterfowl hunting 4,100 5,100

Upland game hunting 1,000 1,100

Mourning dove hunting 100 100

Big game hunting 75 75

Shoreline or dock fishing 13,400 18,300

Boat fishing 26,600 27,000

Wildlife watching and photography 17,400 23,900

Environmental education 9,200 11,000

Interpretation (including Visitor Center) 6,100 21,000 

Nonwildlife-dependent boating 33,500 49,400 

Swimming and other beach activities 28,950 38,700 

Walking and Jogging 13,800 16,500 

Other Activities (e.g., picnicking) 17,950 11,300 

Total 185,375 223,475 

In July 2010, Refuge visitors participated in a national visitor survey conducted by the U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS; Sexton et al. 2012). There were three activities in which more than 10 

percent of those surveyed had participated during the surveyed visit in July 2010: fishing (22 

percent), boating (21 percent), and hiking (15 percent). There were five activities in which more than 

25 percent of those surveyed had participated during the previous year: fishing (41 percent), wildlife 

observation (40 percent), hiking (39 percent), motorized boating (36 percent), and bird watching (35 

percent). Visitors that participated in only wildlife-dependent recreation (priority-use visitors) were 

significantly more likely to participate in wildlife observation, bird watching, and hiking than those 

who participated in both wildlife-dependent and nonwildlife-dependent activities (mixed-use 

visitors). Priority-use and mixed-use visitors reported similar levels of participation in other wildlifedependent activities. 

The regional population and Refuge visitation are both increasing. According to the 2010 census 

(U.S. Census Bureau 2010), the population increased 43.7 percent between 2000 and 2010, 

increasing to 188,923 (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). The population within the city limits of Nampa 

increased 57 percent since 2000, with a population of over 81,500. The population of Caldwell 

increased 78 percent since 2000, with a population of over 46,200. Both Nampa and Caldwell have 

also expanded their city limits to extend immediately adjacent to or closer to the Refuge boundary. 

The Refuge is within a one-hour drive for the more than 600,000 people who live in the Treasure 

Valley. 

Refuge visitors are primarily local. In FY11, 95 percent of surveyed vehicles at Refuge access points 

had Idaho license plates. Of those, 76 percent had plates issued in Canyon County and 17 percent in 

neighboring Ada County (Boise). According to Sexton et al. (2012), most (96 percent) of the visitors 

participating in the survey live within 50 miles of the Refuge and travel an average of 11 miles to get 

to the Refuge. Although most visitors were local, a significantly higher proportion of Priority Use 

Visitors were from outside the local area than Mixed Use Visitors. 

According to Sexton et al. (2012), most visitors (89 percent) had visited the Refuge multiple times in 

the previous year, visiting on average 21 times. Most visitors also visited during multiple seasons (43 

percent) or year-round (27 percent), but some visited during only one season (29 percent). Visitors 

reported spending an average of four hours at the Refuge during their visit and more than half (58 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-20 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

percent) were part of a group during their visit. Priority Use Visitors spent significantly less time 

(average of three hours) during their visit than Mixed Use Visitors. Surveyed visitors were generally 

satisfied with the Refuge (Appendix L): 

 90 percent were satisfied with the recreational activities and opportunities. 

 85 percent were satisfied with the Refuge’s information and education, and its resources. 

 87 percent were satisfied with the services provided by employees or volunteers. 

 89 percent were satisfied with the Refuge’s conservation of fish, wildlife, and their habitats. 

5.3.3 General Access 

Visitor access to the Refuge is allowed between sunrise and sunset (i.e., day use only). There are no 

entrance fees for accessing the Refuge. At the Lake Lowell Unit, 63 percent of the land base is open 

year-round. Of the remaining 36 percent that constitutes closed areas, 21 percent is closed yearround, 10 percent is closed year-round but used for administrative purposes (e.g., farming, 

maintenance area, and residences), and 6 percent is closed seasonally (October 1 to January 31) to 

minimize disturbance to wintering waterfowl. Closed areas, no-wake zones, and seasonal closures 

that are in place are listed below for each unit. 

5.3.3.1 Lake Lowell Unit Closures and Access Points 

There are permanent closures in six areas of the Lake Lowell Unit: 

 The upland area to the northwest of the North Side Recreation Area and to the east of 

Murphy’s Neck; 

 The riparian and upland areas between Parking Lot 1 and the New York Canal; 

 Around the osprey-nesting structure that is closest to the Visitor Center; 

 Maintenance Area and farm fields to the west of Gotts Point; 

 Upper Dam Marsh and farm field on Lake Avenue; and 

 Areas surrounding the water control outlets on the Upper and Lower Dams. 

There are seasonal closures in five areas of the Lake Lowell Unit: 

 Wintering wildlife closure at Gotts Point from October 1 to January 31; 

 Wintering wildlife closure at Murphy’s Neck from October 1 to January 31; 

 Winter closure of the Lower Dam Recreation Area from October 1 to April 15; 

 Winter closure of the surface of Lake Lowell from October 1 to April 15, with the exception 

of a 200-yard fishing area in front of the Upper and Lower Dams and 200-yard hunting area 

along the south shoreline between Parking Lots 1 and 8; and 

 Eagle-nesting closure around the eagle’s nest in the North Side Recreation Area. 

There are three no-wake zones currently on Lake Lowell: 

 The southeast end of Lake Lowell starting at Parking Lot 1; 

 The area surrounding Gotts Point; and 

 Areas surrounding the boat ramps at the Upper and Lower Dams. 

Visitor access to the Lake Lowell Unit is provided through 15 individual access points. These access 

points are as follows: 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-21 

 Main Refuge entrance at the corner of Roosevelt and Indiana Avenues; 

 Upper Dam East Parking Area on Lake Avenue; 

 Gotts Point entrance and parking area at the west end of Greenhurst Road; 

 Tio Lane entrance at the south end of Tio Lane; 

 Parking Lots 1 to 8 on Lake Shore Drive; 

 Lower Dam Recreation Area on Riverside Road; 

 Murphy’s Neck walk-through on the west end of Orchard Avenue; and 

 Hunting access walk-through on the west end of Greenhurst Road. 

5.3.3.2 Snake River Islands Unit Closures and Access Points 

There is one seasonal closure for the Snake River Islands Unit: the waterfowl nesting closure on all 

islands between February 1 and May 31. Access to the Snake River Islands Unit is by boat only 

from several boat launches along the Snake River. These public boat launches are maintained by 

agencies at different levels of government: City, County, State, and Federal. 

5.4 Wildlife-dependent Public Uses 

The Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, as amended, identifies hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, and interpretation as wildlifedependent, priority public uses for national wildlife refuges. The Refuge provides opportunities to 

enjoy each of these priority public uses. More details on individual wildlife-dependent recreation 

opportunities are outlined below. 

5.4.1 Hunting 

Almost one-quarter (21 percent) of the Lake Lowell Unit is open to bird hunting. Bird hunting is 

allowed on the East Side and South Side Recreation Areas for mourning dove, upland game birds, 

ducks, and coots. The entire Lake Lowell Unit is inside a goose hunting closure area designated by 

IDFG. General state seasons and limits apply; no special Refuge permits are required. In past years, 

SUPs have been issued to disabled bird hunters allowing ATV use for lake access through the gate 

east of Parking Lot 8. 

The South Side Recreation Area and the area east of Parking Lot 1 to the New York Canal are open 

to a controlled deer hunt, which includes up to 21 percent of the Lake Lowell Unit (depending on 

water levels). Hunters must have a controlled deer hunt tag issued by IDFG as well as a Refuge Deer 

Hunt Permit. 

Mourning dove season is during the month of September. Upland game bird seasons are usually midOctober until mid- to late January. While the habitat is not optimal for upland game, hunters seem to 

appreciate the opportunity, and the area receives steady use. 

Waterfowl hunting runs from mid-October until mid- to late January, with a late September or early 

October youth hunt. In the South Side Recreation Area, human- or electric-powered boats can be 

used up to 200 yards from the shore. In the East Side Recreation Area, waterfowl hunting is walk-in 

only. A youth waterfowl hunt is allowed in all designated waterfowl hunt zones in accordance with 

IDFG regulations. There are no blinds or designated hunting spots. Portable blinds are allowed if 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-22 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

they are removed at the end of each day. Temporary blinds may be constructed from natural 

vegetation less than 3 inches in diameter and are available on a first-come, first-served basis. 

Concerns have been raised about the quality of the waterfowl hunt, with comments about 

overcrowding and pass shooting. The closest public hunt area for walk-in hunters is at Fort Boise 

Wildlife Management Area, about 30 miles west, so there is high demand for good hunting closer to 

population centers. Many hunters with boats go to the Snake River Islands Unit or elsewhere along 

the Snake River. 

All Refuge islands are open to hunting for mourning dove, upland game, waterfowl, coots, and deer. 

There are no blinds or designated hunting spots. Portable blinds are allowed if removed at the end of 

each day. Temporary blinds may be constructed from natural vegetation less than 3 inches in 

diameter and are available on a first-come, first-served basis. General state seasons and limits apply 

(see typical seasons above), although spring hunts are not allowed during the nesting closure between 

February 1 and May 31. In recent years, there have been occasional complaints from neighbors on 

the shoreline about noise from waterfowl hunting. Complaints may increase as development of 

shoreline homes continues in certain stretches of the river. There have been occasional requests for 

guided waterfowl hunts on Refuge islands. Guided waterfowl hunting is illegal in Idaho but allowed 

in Oregon. 

5.4.2 Fishing 

The entire lake is open to boat fishing between April 15 and September 30. Between October 1 and 

April 14, fishing is allowed from human-powered boats 200 yards in front of the Upper and Lower 

Dams (Fishing Areas A and B). Boat fishing is popular throughout the boating season, and peaks 

from April through June. 

Shoreline fishing is allowed from open shoreline, with the exception of waterfowl-hunting season, 

when fishing is allowed only in Fishing Areas A and B, 200 yards in front of the Upper and Lower 

Dams (about 120 acres). Shoreline fishing is common from April through September and is usually 

highest in June. 

Table 5-6. Lake Lowell Fishing Access by Season 

Timeframe All Open 

Shoreline Areas 

Shoreline in Front 

of Dams 

On Open Areas of 

Lake Lowell 

In Front of Dams 

from Humanpowered Vessels 

April 15 to September 30 X X X X 

From October 1 to start of 

waterfowl hunting season X X X 

During waterfowl hunting 

season 

 X X 

From end of waterfowl 

hunting season to April 14 X X X 

During the boating season, there is an ABA-accessible fishing dock at the west Upper Dam boat 

ramp. This is the only ABA-accessible fishing opportunity at the Refuge and the only designated 

fishing dock. Anglers frequently request to fish from boat launching and swimming docks, which are 

posted with signs reading “No fishing from docks.” Currently, rules against fishing from boat docks 

are not enforced when there is minimal boating traffic and anglers do not interfere with launching 

boats. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-23 

The lake has been stocked with channel catfish and Lahontan cutthroat trout in recent years. In the 

future, IDFG plans to continue stocking channel catfish as funding is available and stocking is 

necessary (Kozfkay 2012). General State seasons and limits apply, with the exception that bass 

fishing is catch-and-release from January 1 through June 30. A 12- to 16-inch slot limit for bass is in 

place for the rest of the year. 

SUPs (with a $100 fee each) are issued to three to five groups each year for bass tournaments. 

Tournaments can be launched only from the Lower Dam Recreation Area, which offers the most 

parking. To provide access for a variety of lake users, fishing tournaments cannot be scheduled on 

consecutive weekends. Fishing tournaments are also not allowed between May 14 and July 9 to 

minimize disturbance to breeding and nesting birds. 

Tournaments are currently limited to 100 boats. Larger-sized bass tournaments limit access of other 

lake users to the boat launch. In addition, the Refuge has received complaints from other anglers 

stating tournament participants crowd them out of prime fishing areas. Because bass tournaments at 

Lake Lowell collect data for IDFG on bass populations, they are considered “conservation 

tournaments,” which allows them to hold and weigh in bass outside of the normal public regulation. 

Bass caught during tournaments are placed in an IDFG holding tank after being weighed and 

measured and are returned to the lake at the tournament’s end. 

To increase the number of youth anglers and family fishing opportunities at the Refuge, Kids Fishing 

Day was introduced at the west Upper Dam boat launch in 2009. It moved to Gotts Point in 2010. 

Youth anglers attending Kids Fishing Day has increased each year and reached 190 in 2011. 

Volunteers and partners from Canyon County Parks and Recreation, Canyon County Sheriff’s Office, 

and local fly-fishing and bass clubs help make this event a success. 

Currently, some ice fishing occurs when the lake freezes. Low temperatures for extended periods are 

unusual, and it is uncommon for the entire lake to freeze over. Therefore, anglers are responsible for 

confirming that ice conditions are safe. 

Shoreline fishing is allowed on all islands in the Snake River Islands Unit from June 1 to January 31. 

Anglers occasionally fish from Refuge islands, but fishing is more common near Refuge islands from 

boats. 

IDEQ has collected fish tissue samples that show high mercury concentrations (Section 3.9.1). 

Subsequently, the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare issued a fish consumption advisory for 

Lake Lowell in 2003. These advisories are posted at fishing access points around the lake. A 

statewide fish consumption advisory has been issued for bass. No information about this advisory for 

Refuge islands is currently posted on Refuge river kiosks, but information is provided on the Refuge 

website. 

5.4.3 Wildlife Observation and Photography 

There are currently no signs directing visitors to prime viewing areas, but wildlife observation and 

photography do occur throughout the Refuge. Some of the best locations are in the North Side 

Recreation Area west of the Visitor Center and at the Tio Lane entrance. From the Tio Lane entrance, 

the East Dike Trail gives access to wetlands; Kingfisher Trail allows access to riparian forests and 

the lakeshore. Gotts Point is a popular place for photographing sunsets. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-24 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

Most wildlife-watching and photography facilities are located in the North Side Recreation Area and 

include the Visitor Center viewing room and spotting scope, an osprey-nesting webcam, trails, two 

ABA-accessible wildlife-viewing platforms, and a wildlife-viewing blind. 

The most recent compatibility determinations allow walking and jogging (with the exception of 

competitive jogging) on roads, trails, and firebreaks. Currently, the requirement to remain on roads, 

trails, and firebreaks is not being communicated to the public, and people frequently leave trails for 

wildlife observation and photography as well as for other recreational activities. 

Informal pamphlets describing a 29.5-mile Lake Lowell Unit Bird Tour, 47-mile Snake River Islands 

Unit Bird Tour (that guides visitors past 10 Refuge islands), and 0.5-mile Habitat Hike along the 

Nature Trail are available in the Visitor Center. The best season for viewing a wide variety of 

wildlife at the Lake Lowell Unit is from September through December, when there are large 

concentrations of waterfowl and the raptors they attract. The best season for viewing at the Refuge 

islands is spring, when there are large concentrations of migrating waterfowl. The islands themselves 

are closed to public entry from February 1 through May 31 (to provide sanctuary to nesting birds), 

but wildlife observers and photographers can enjoy wildlife from boats. 

Only one SUP has been issued for wildlife photography, to a Refuge volunteer who makes his photos 

available for Refuge use. The same volunteer partnered with the Friends of Deer Flat National 

Wildlife Refuge (Friends) to offer an on-refuge photography workshop in June 2008. There are 

currently no designated photography blinds. 

5.4.4 Environmental Education 

The Refuge offers EE programs both on- and off-site to help promote an understanding of wildlife 

and the natural environment, as well as Deer Flat NWR and the NWRS. In 2010, a new EE program 

was developed and implemented in partnership with Canyon County Department of Parks, 

Recreation, and Waterways; Northwest Nazarene University; and the Friends. The new program, 

Discover Wildlife Journeys, provides more opportunities for children to explore Refuge lands and 

focuses on experiential learning. 

Both on- and off-site programs have been correlated with state educational standards. Requests for 

on-site programs usually peak in May, while demand for off-site programs is fairly steady between 

October and May. Other on-site educational offerings include Reading at the Refuge (a preschool 

reading program) and Scout Day (a popular monthly program for Boy and Girl Scouts begun in 

January 2008). The Refuge also hosts occasional hunters’ education courses each year put on by 

IDFG, and has hosted teacher workshops as part of Project WILD and Project Learning Tree. 

During FY11, approximately 11,000 people participated in EE programs led by Refuge staff (see 

Table 5-5); participation was split almost equally between on-site and off-site programming. 

Considering recent efforts to more directly connect children with nature, it would be beneficial to 

increase the proportion of programs offered on-site. Teachers often request classroom programs 

because their ability to participate in field trips is limited by transportation funds and time. In spring 

2011, to increase the amount of on-refuge EE, the Friends began providing full and partial bus 

scholarships to local schools that had more than 50 percent of their students receiving free and 

reduced lunches. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-25 

Participation in both on- and off-site EE programs has been steadily increasing since hiring a fulltime, 11-month AmeriCorps volunteer or Friends EE Intern each year since fall 2004. However, 

some requests for EE programs have been turned down each year since 2008 because demand cannot 

be met with current staffing levels. Educators whose requests cannot be accommodated are referred 

to the 10 Refuge Traveling Trunks loaned to educators. 

The Environmental Education Building at the Lower Dam Recreation Area is available for rent 

between April 15 and September 30 by teachers and youth group leaders conducting EE programs. 

The current rental fee is $20 for the first seven days and $20 for every additional seven-day period. In 

2011, the building was rented by seven Boy Scout groups and used by over 3,600 people, 3,300 of 

whom attended either a two-week day camp in June or a two-day day camp in July. This is the only 

Refuge location where camping is allowed; camping is only allowed in conjunction with EE 

activities. Half of the groups that rented the building in 2011 camped, with a total of about 150 

people. The Refuge has had occasional requests for other on-site camping and occasional requests for 

non-EE uses of this facility. 

5.4.5 Environmental Interpretation 

The Visitor Center includes interpretive displays about local natural history (including wildlife and 

habitats), Refuge history and management activities, the reservoir’s role in irrigation and recreation, 

and the missions of the NWRS and Reclamation. Movies are also provided, upon request, on topics 

relating to wildlife biology, the Refuge, NWRS, and Service. No movie currently focuses on the 

history and importance of the Refuge. 

There is a self-guided Nature Trail brochure about habitat that corresponds with numbered posts 

along the 0.5-mile Nature Trail. In addition, several interpretive signs, purchased and installed by the 

Friends as part of a Preserve America grant, can be found along the 1.2-mile Centennial Trail from 

the Visitor Center to the east end of the historic Upper Dam. 

Despite requests from the general public and Friends members, regularly scheduled, staff-led 

interpretive walks and talks are not currently offered, due to limited staff. Volunteer-guided walks 

have been offered in conjunction with special events in recent years and are usually well attended. 

The Wild About Life monthly lecture series, begun in January 2007, presents interpretive/educational 

programs for adults by invited speakers. This popular program is coordinated by the full-time EE 

Intern. 

Many visitors do not realize they are at a national wildlife refuge or, if they do, they don’t understand 

the mission of Deer Flat and the NWRS. Although brochures are provided in boxes on regulatory 

signs at all major access points, there are no interpretive signs or maps at the Lake Lowell Unit, with 

the exception of those along the Centennial Trail. Except for the Visitor Center, high-use Refuge 

areas do not have staff or volunteers present. Visitors to the Snake River Islands Unit can find 

informational signs and maps displayed in kiosks at many of the most-used Snake River boat 

launches along the 113 river miles of the Unit. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-26 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

5.5 Other Refuge Uses 

Although not considered priority uses of the NWRS, as defined by the Refuge System 

Administration Act, as amended, there are currently several types of nonwildlife-dependent 

recreation activities occurring on the Refuge. 

5.5.1 History of Nonwildlife-dependent Uses 

In 1909, Reclamation completed construction of Lake Lowell, a reservoir designed to serve as an offstream irrigation water storage facility as part of the Boise Project. Recognizing that a reservoir 

located in an arid environment would attract wildlife, President Theodore Roosevelt established the 

Refuge in 1909, reserving the reservoir for the purpose of providing a “refuge and breeding grounds 

for migratory birds and other wildlife.” 

From 1909 to 1937, there was no assigned Refuge manager, and public use activities went 

unchecked. In 1911, a Service representative noted 30 rowboats and three gasoline-powered launches 

on the lake. By the time the first manager arrived, the Refuge was mostly used for picnicking, 

swimming, fishing, and boating. Starting in the 1940s, many new uses began to occur, including 

motorboat regattas, waterskiing, ice skating, waterski jumping, retriever meets, water shows, movie 

filming, and refreshment and motorboat concessions. By 1950, the amount of public use activity 

caused the Refuge manager to state in the annual narrative that “it can be forcibly brought to one’s 

attention here that wildlife and the general public just don’t mix well.” The number of visitor days in 

May 1951 through August 1951 was estimated at 25,000, excluding fishermen. Managers continued 

to voice concerns over the amount of public use in the Refuge’s annual narratives for 1955, 1956, 

1957, and 1959. 

There are several mentions in the 1960s and 1980s of conflicts arising between fishermen and waterskiers/motor boaters. In 1969, the Refuge manager wrote that recreation is a 24-hour-per-day job at 

Deer Flat. Lifeguards were hired for the swimming areas, and the Upper and Lower Dams were 

closed at night to reduce vandalism and littering. 

By 1974, refuge managers were attempting to deemphasize nonwildlife-dependent recreation, but 

since the Refuge had been long-used for picnicking, swimming, boating, and waterskiing, they 

doubted these activities could ever be phased out. A “non-program use evaluation” stated that none 

of the current types of boating were essential for any programs and that all activities described were 

in conflict with the Refuge’s purposes. 

Upland uses such as jogging, cross-country practice, running meets, horseback riding, cross-country 

skiing/snowshoeing, and picnicking have taken place on the Refuge. In 1994, compatibility 

determinations allowing bicycling and jogging were completed with the stipulation that no 

competitive events would be allowed. At the same time, compatibility determinations also allowed 

horseback riding, picnicking, and cross-country skiing, with few or no stipulations. The compatibility 

determinations for upland uses were extended in 1999. 

Based on an erroneous assumption that administrative responsibility for on-water uses rested with 

Reclamation, no compatibility determinations were developed for on-water recreation at the time. 

Both the Service and Reclamation have since confirmed that the Service has administrative 

responsibility for on-water uses at Lake Lowell (as described on page 1-1). This is because the 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-27 

management of on-water uses would not conflict with Reclamation’s off-stream storage of water in 

Lake Lowell for irrigation purposes; in addition, legal authorities provide that the Service needs to 

manage Lake Lowell for wildlife refuge purposes too. 

Between 1980 and present day, more uses have occurred, including jetskiing, wakeboarding, 

windsurfing, tubing, and kiteboarding. The Lower Dam Recreation Area is now a popular area for 

swimming, reunions, weddings, birthday parties, and barbeques. From 2000 to 2007, the average 

annual visitation has been over 162,000 visitors. 

5.5.2 Authorization of Nonwildlife-dependent Recreation 

There are no compatibility determinations on file for on-water nonwildlife-dependent recreational 

uses. These uses have occurred without Refuge authorization and, therefore, are contrary to the 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, as amended, and the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act of 

1966, as amended. None of the current on-water Refuge uses can be extended without first 

completing a compatibility determination. 

Some nonwildlife-dependent upland uses (i.e., jogging, walking, horseback riding, picnicking, 

bicycling, and cross-country skiing) have extremely brief compatibility determinations, completed in 

1994 and extended by signature in 1999. These compatibility determinations do not consider the 

use’s timeframe or budget and staffing needed to manage it, nor do they adequately address potential 

impacts to wildlife, habitats, and wildlife-dependent users, as required by Service policy (603 FW 2). 

No scientific research was cited in the determinations, so it is difficult to know what information was 

used to make the decisions. 

As part of the CCP process, the compatibility determinations for all Refuge uses have been 

reassessed using the best science currently available to consider impacts to wildlife and habitat, as 

well as wildlife-dependent users (Appendix B). 

5.5.3 Boating and Other Water Sports 

Between April 15 and September 30, motorized and nonmotorized boats are allowed on the entire 

lake. Nonwildlife-dependent boating (including use of personal watercraft) is highest in June and 

July. Between October 1 and April 14, human-powered boats or boats with electric motors are 

allowed for waterfowl hunting only in the South Side Recreation Area within 200 yards of the 

water’s edge and human-powered boats are allowed in Fishing Areas A and B. 

Improved boat ramps are located at the Lower Dam Recreation Area and the east and west ends of 

the Upper Dam. Unimproved ramps are available at Parking Lots 1 and 7. Current launching 

facilities are inadequate for current demand, as indicated by long launch lines and inadequate 

parking. All ramps are subject to closure from low water levels. Nonwildlife-dependent boaters 

conflict with anglers and wildlife watchers/photographers. Currently, many nonmotorized boaters 

launch at Parking Lot 1, inside the no-wake zone, to avoid the high-speed motorized traffic. 

Unfortunately, Parking Lot 1 often closes before the boating season’s end due to low water levels, 

and has been seasonally blocked by a beaver dam in recent years. Windsurfers and kiteboarders have 

commented that Gotts Point and Parking Lot 3 are their most highly used launching sites. 

On the east side is a no-wake zone that encompasses about 12 percent of the lake (based on a water 

level elevation of 2,518 feet). The no-wake zone was instituted in 1990 to reduce disturbance to 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-28 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

nesting bald eagles. Marine deputies with the Canyon County Sheriff’s Office patrol the lake and 

conduct boat safety inspections, but they are currently unable to enforce Refuge-specific regulations 

like the no-wake zone at the lake’s southeast end. Canyon County Marine Patrol deputies currently 

maintain the boating and swimming docks. According to the USGS lake use study (Appendix L), 88 

percent of vessels observed in this zone were in compliance with the no-wake regulation. 

Power boats, personal watercraft, sailboats, rowboats, canoes, kayaks, windsurfing boards, and 

kiteboards are all used on the lake. However, according to an observational survey of visitor use on 

Lake Lowell conducted in summer 2011 (Appendix L), most (88 percent) are motorboats, and 86 

percent of those are 16 to 25 feet long. 

The survey divided the lake into three areas: West Pool (west of the Narrows), Headquarters section 

of the East Pool (east of the narrows to the line from Gotts Point south to the south shore), and East 

section of the East Pool (east of the Headquarters Pool). Boating activities varied slightly between 

pools. Fishing was the most popular activity on both the West Pool (40 percent of observed boats) 

and the East section of the East Pool (53 percent) and second-most popular on the Headquarters 

section of the East Pool (27 percent). Skiing and tubing was the second-most popular activity overall 

and was most popular on the Headquarters section of the East Pool (29 percent) and second-most 

popular on the West Pool (22 percent) and East section of the East Pool (21 percent). 

The USGS lake use study (Appendix L) also found that, consistent with the observation that the most 

popular activity was fishing, the most common vessel speed (among 47 percent of boats observed) 

throughout the lake was idling (i.e., the minimum speed that maintains steerage of a vessel or the 

speed at which a vessel is normally docked). In addition, consistent with the second-most popular 

activity being skiing, tubing, and other tow-behind activities, the second-most common vessel speed 

(36 percent) was planing (i.e., traveling at sufficient speed to partially raise the bow out of the water). 

Most boats at Lake Lowell (74 percent) were observed in open water, and their locations varied by 

pool. In the West Pool and east section of the East Pool, where fishing was the most popular activity, 

boats were less likely to be observed on open water (east section of the East Pool, 64 percent; West 

Pool, 72 percent) than in the Headquarters section of the East Pool (83 percent), where skiing and 

tubing was the most popular activity. As might be expected from fishing activities, boats in the West 

Pool and east section of the East Pool were more likely to be observed in emergent beds (east section 

of the East Pool, 15 percent; West Pool, 12 percent) or on the edge of emergent beds (east section of 

the East Pool, 18 percent; West Pool, 8 percent) than in the Headquarters section of the East Pool 

(emergent beds, 3 percent; edge of emergent beds, 6 percent). 

The study also estimated low and peak vessel numbers at one time (VAOT) in each pool. The peak 

number of VAOT in the East Section of the East Pool was 23 during the Fourth of July weekend. In 

the Headquarters section of the East Pool, peak number of VAOT was 51 on July 10, but this was not 

consistent with other counts. The next highest number of VAOT, on Labor Day weekend, was 14. 

The peak number of VAOT in the West Pool was 23 on August 20. The number of boats per acre 

calculated for these three areas, using the study’s peak VAOT results, does not exceed published 

optimum boating densities summarized by the Lake Ripley Management District (2003). 

SUPs have been issued in recent years to the Southern Idaho Sailing Association (SISA) to hold 

regattas at the lake, launching from the Lower Dam Recreation Area. These are reasonably small 

events, with 17 registered participants in the most recent one. The regattas follow a set course 

demarcated by buoys. SISA members provide “sail-alongs” for those new to sailing and interested in 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-29 

learning. According to policy, SUPs should be issued in support of one of the priority uses when that 

use is both appropriate and compatible. Sailors rarely participate in priority uses. Local boat shops 

also occasionally demonstrate boats at the lake, and commercial wind sports lessons have been 

advertised without requesting SUPs. 

5.5.4 Walking with Pets, Jogging, Biking, and Horseback Riding 

A variety of nonwildlife-dependent activities occur at the Refuge in addition to recreational boating. 

Walking with pets, jogging, bicycling, and horseback riding occur throughout the year, but these 

activities peak between April and July. Track teams have historically used the Observation Hill Trail 

for practice sessions, even though a 1994 compatibility determination did not allow competitive 

jogging. A number of visitors walk dogs, jog, and bike along the entrance road. Although the posted 

speed limit is 25 miles per hour, vehicles often travel faster, posing a safety hazard to those 

recreating on the roadway. 

The most recent compatibility determinations allow walking, bicycling, noncompetitive jogging, and 

horseback riding on maintained roads, trails, and firebreaks. Currently, the requirement to remain on 

roads, trails, and firebreaks is not being well communicated to the public, and people do leave them. 

Horseback riding and bicycling are not very common. Some equestrians and bicyclists go off-trail, 

thus increasing disturbance to wildlife and habitat. Most use by cyclists, horseback riders, and dog 

walkers appears to occur on the Kingfisher, Gotts Point, and Observation Hill trails. Refuge 

personnel have noticed that when parts of the Observation Hill Trail have been closed for several 

months, during recent years to protect a bald eagle nest from disturbance, there has been an increase 

in the visibility of deer and other wildlife in the closed area, showing the importance of seasonal 

closures and on-trail travel. 

5.5.5 Swimming and Sunbathing 

Swimming and other beach activities are popular at Lake Lowell. In FY11, an estimated 38,700 

people participated in swimming and other beach activities. The only designated swimming beach on 

the Refuge is currently located at the east end of the Upper Dam and is marked with docks and 

buoys. Swimming also occurs along the shoreline to the east and south, including areas accessed via 

the parking lots along the curved portions of Iowa Avenue, the Lower Dam Recreation Area, Gotts 

Point, and, occasionally, at other Refuge accesses. Swimming also occurs in conjunction with 

recreational boating activities. A 2011 swimming fatality occurred outside of the Refuge’s designated 

swimming area, and emergency response was delayed because of confusion over the victim’s 

location. 

Swimming may occur from Refuge islands, although there are no designated beaches. The Refuge 

does not have management control of lands below the ordinary high water mark and therefore has no 

control over swimming in the Snake River. 

Sunbathing mostly occurs on the docks and beach adjacent to the swimming area at the Upper Dam 

and on the beach at the Lower Dam Recreation Area. Some sunbathing occurs in conjunction with 

swimming at easily accessed shoreline areas around the lake, including Gotts Point and Parking Lot 

7. Sunbathing is not known to occur on the Refuge islands. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-30 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

Lake Lowell has persistent problems with water quality and is on the State’s 303(d) list as an 

impaired water body (Chapter 3). Nutrient-rich irrigation-return flows have combined with summer’s 

shallower depths and high water temperatures to produce dense blue-green algae blooms. Refuge 

personnel have also received complaints from recreationists about swimmer’s itch and ear infections. 

The Refuge does not monitor for these health concerns and issues no warnings. As far as the Refuge 

knows, no agency is monitoring water quality for swimming-related health risks. The Refuge will 

report large algal blooms and other health concerns to the Southwest District Health Department, and 

work with it to test water quality and assess water contact suitability. Southwest District Health will 

issue warnings if it feels conditions are unsafe. 

5.5.6 Geocaching 

Geocaching currently occurs on the Refuge. Geocachers use global positioning system (GPS) 

coordinates to find a small, hidden cache. Geocachers can cause habitat damage by burying caches or 

placing them in sensitive vegetation. Local geocachers have been notified that the practice is not 

allowed on the Refuge, but caches are now often placed on private land accessed through off-trail 

travel across the Refuge. Geocaching demands could potentially be met by providing virtual 

geocaches—GPS coordinates to legally accessible scenic, historic, or wildlife-related locations—but 

such a system is currently unavailable. 

5.5.7 Winter Sports 

Ice skating and ice fishing occasionally occur on the Refuge. Both of these ice-dependent sports 

occur during seasonal closures for wintering wildlife. Ice sports also raise safety concerns because 

there are no trained staff members available to conduct systematic ice evaluations, while winter 

temperatures do not normally provide stable ice conditions. Signs are currently in place to discourage 

these uses. 

Cross-country skiing is currently allowed on roads and trails. Because of the lack of heavy snowfall 

and/or enduring snow cover in the Treasure Valley, cross-country skiing is an infrequent Refuge use. 

There have been requests in the past for ice diving and cross-country skiing when the lake is frozen. 

5.5.8 Picnicking and Events 

The Lower Dam Recreation Area offers both a covered picnic shelter and scattered picnic tables. 

Visitors often request reserving the shelter for weddings, birthdays, or other events, but it is currently 

available on a first-come, first-served basis. There are currently no regulations regarding event size, 

sound systems/bands, or large tents/inflatables. Several times a year, visitors erect a giant inflatable 

“bounce house,” and visitors have also installed removable waterslides. Some of these events and 

event accessories disturb other users and/or wildlife, make use difficult for general Refuge visitors, 

or present an unnecessary safety hazard. 

5.6 Illegal Uses 

The Refuge struggles with numerous law enforcement (LE) issues, such as resource violations, 

trespass into closed areas, theft, gang activity (including “tagging” at most Refuge entrances), alleged 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-31 

sexual abuse of a child, and assaults. Most violations occur at night and on weekends, but with 

increasing visitation, they can arise any time. Enforcement of regulations has become increasingly 

important as pressure from increased visitation/public use affects Refuge resources and increases 

concerns about visitor safety and user conflicts. 

In the past, there were at least two dual-function Refuge LE officers. Currently, the Refuge has one 

LE officer. Assistance is provided by a Service Zone LE officer, who is responsible for eastern 

Oregon, all of southern Idaho, and northern Nevada. Assistance is also provided by the Canyon 

County Sheriff’s Office, Canyon County Marine deputies, and IDFG, but these agencies have other 

priorities and obligations. These agencies are also unable to enforce Refuge-specific regulations, 

leaving many violators unaccountable for their actions. Violations of Refuge regulations have been 

catalogued by Refuge staff since 2009 and were also reported to the Refuge by the Canyon County 

Marine deputies in 2011. 

Because of the extent of illegal dumping, littering, and vandalism, some Refuge areas have been 

restricted. The decisions to make Gotts Point a walk-in only area, and close the gates at Parking Lots 

1 through 7 during portions of the year, were both responses to these illegal activities. 

5.6.1 North Side Recreation Area 

The most common violations in the North Side Recreation Area include walking with off-leash dogs; 

horseback riding, walking, jogging, and biking off the maintained road, trail, or firebreak; and 

entering closed areas (e.g., farm fields, osprey and bald eagle nest areas, Upper Dam Marsh). Offleash dogs can chase, injure, and kill wildlife. Additionally, they can cause other Refuge visitors to 

be uneasy. Off-trail users have created many social trails whose use has increased disturbance to 

wildlife and impacts to wildlife habitat—both upland and riparian habitats. 

5.6.2 East Upper Dam Boat Launch 

Enforcement issues at this location are associated with heavy public use and include vandalism, litter, 

and noncompliance with parking restrictions. Other violations include fireworks and occasional 

vehicle trespass on the beach. This area is across from the County park; Canyon County Marine 

deputies are often present conducting boat inspections and other enforcement activities. 

5.6.3 Lower Dam Recreation Area 

This area receives significant use from visitors primarily for nonwildlife-dependent activities and is 

plagued with enforcement challenges, including vandalism and litter, use of fireworks and metal 

detectors, night use, trespass of vehicles on the beach and lawn, theft of government and private 

property, assaults, and other violent crimes. Trespass into this area after October 1 is also quite 

common and can impact wintering waterfowl using the lawn. Overcrowding during the summer has 

reached a point where emergency responders have been unable to reach patients. 

5.6.4 South Side Recreation Area 

Various hunting violations occur in this area, including several poaching cases, use of lead shot, and 

trespass into closed areas. With the help of IDFG officers, many hunters responsible for violating 

State hunting regulations have been caught. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-32 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

Target shooting, paintballing, and vandalism occur regularly. Dumping is common because the road 

bordering the Refuge (Lake Shore Drive) is a popular route to the County landfill. During low-water 

years, off-road vehicles can reach the shoreline from boat launches and cause habitat damage. 

5.6.5 East Side Recreation Area 

The Tio Lane entrance is located at the end of a one-mile County road. With its relative isolation and 

thick riparian habitat, the entrance has several enforcement issues. It is a favored location for 

paintballers. The area’s seclusion attracts regular night use. Anglers fishing the New York Canal 

leave litter, and it is not uncommon to find fire rings. Over 2,500 marijuana plants were discovered in 

this area in 2005. It is open to hunting and, therefore, has some resource violations. The most 

common violations along the Kingfisher Trail are similar to those at North Side Recreation Area 

(e.g., off-leash dogs, horseback riding, walking, jogging, and biking off the maintained road or trail). 

5.6.6 Gotts Point 

In the years leading up to the Gotts Point road closure (2007), this fairly isolated location was 

plagued by law enforcement issues, including vandalism of government property (bathroom, signs, 

fences, gates, and other facilities), human-caused wildfires, litter, dumping, habitat damage from offroad driving, misuse of the gravel road (leading to disrepair), and other unlawful activities (drug use 

and solicitation). The area was closed several times for extended periods while repair and 

replacement work were completed. 

Although enforcement issues are not as pervasive as they were when the road was open out to Gotts 

Point, there are still problems with off-road driving, litter, and vandalism. These unlawful activities 

affect both Refuge resources and visitors’ experience. Gotts Point is also a common area to find 

visitors after sunset in violation of the day use only regulation. 

5.6.7 Lake Lowell 

Although the Refuge’s airspace is restricted, and float plane use on national wildlife refuges is not 

allowed (50 C.F.R. 27.34), the Refuge has received occasional reports of float planes landing on the 

lake. A citation was issued in 2005 to a pilot who landed on the lake. During the growing season, it is 

not unusual to see low-flying crop dusters using the airspace over the Refuge as a turnaround. This 

low flight can occur over sensitive areas like heron rookeries. 

Each season, Canyon County Marine deputies report violations of the day use only regulation by 

Refuge boaters. These violations are a safety concern because they can cause harm to the individual 

through potential stranding on the Refuge at night, as well as disturbance to wildlife. 

There are some violations of the no-wake zone in the southeast end of the lake. According to the 

2011 USGS lake use study (Appendix L), 12 percent of vessels observed in this zone were not in 

compliance with the no-wake regulation. Bass fishermen have complained on several occasions 

about other boaters speeding through the no-wake zone without any repercussions. Access by boat to 

some closed upland areas has also been documented. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-33 

5.6.8 Snake River Islands Unit 

Law enforcement coverage has been lacking on the Snake River islands because of limited staffing 

and logistical difficulties. Common law enforcement issues include litter, fires, camping, and 

trespassing during the waterfowl-nesting season. Hunting violations include using of lead shot for 

upland game, building permanent hunting blinds, and hunting game that are not open (e.g., raccoons, 

turkeys). 

Like many other Federal lands, growing of illegal drugs on the Refuge has become commonplace. 

Our Refuge Officer works diligently on both units to locate and remove illegal grow sites. In 2011, a 

small marijuana site was located on one of the Refuge islands. Coordination with State and local law 

enforcement agencies is important in the effort to locate and eradicate such sites. 

5.6.9 General 

In the past year, the Refuge has noticed an increase in the number of individuals camping in their 

vehicles in Refuge parking areas. According to County Sheriff’s deputies, this is an increasing, local 

trend, and may be associated with the poor state of the economy and high number of foreclosures. 

5.7 Area Outdoor Recreational Opportunities and Trends 

Idaho is well known for outdoor recreational opportunities. The State’s 2002 Idaho Outdoor 

Recreation Survey (cited in Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation [IDPR] 2006) found that the 

top 10 favorite outdoor activities for adults, in order of preference, were walking; hiking; watching 

wildlife other than birds or fish; swimming in a pond, lake, or river; viewing fish; bird watching; 

biking; four-wheel driving; golf; and outdoor photography. The top 10 favorite outdoor activities for 

kids (as reported by adults) were swimming in a pond, lake, or river; hiking; swimming in a public 

outdoor pool; walking; biking; watching wildlife other than birds or fish; running; waterskiing or 

other towing water sports; outdoor basketball; and ATV riding. 

IDPR operates 30 State parks and manages registration programs for boats, snowmobiles, and offhighway vehicles. IDPR distributes funds from the registrations and other sources to communities 

and other agencies to develop and maintain trails, facilities, and programs. Some of these funds have 

been distributed to Canyon County Parks, Recreation, and Waterways for facilities and services at 

Lake Lowell (e.g., maintenance of paving, purchase of docks and regulatory buoys). 

5.7.1 Nearby Recreational Opportunities 

Many parks in Canyon and Ada counties provide local outdoor recreational opportunities. For 

instance, Canyon County Parks, Recreation, and Waterways administers Idaho’s only archaeological 

park, Celebration Park. Located near Melba, along the Snake River, Celebration Park supports 

hiking, fishing, boating, picnicking, camping, horseback riding, bird watching, and interpretive 

programs. Several large reservoirs in southwest Idaho and eastern Oregon offer many of the same 

recreational opportunities as Lake Lowell (Table 5-7). 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-34 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

Table 5-7. Recreational Opportunities at Other Large Reservoirs in Southwest Idaho and 

Eastern Oregon 

Reservoir 

Approximate 

Distance 

from Lake 

Lowell 

Managing Agency 

Fishing Hunting Motorized Boating Tow-behind Activities Sailing Kiteboarding and Windsurfing Swimming Picnicking 

Lucky 

Peak 36 miles U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, IDPR, and IDFG X X X X X X X X 

Black 

Canyon 45 miles 

Reclamation (manages recreation) 

and IDFG (manages the adjacent 

Montour Wildlife Management 

Area under an agreement with 

Reclamation) 

X X X X X X X X 

Arrowrock 56 miles Boise National Forest under 

agreement with Reclamation X X X X X X X X 

C.J. Strike 73 miles Idaho Power, BLM, and IDFG X X X X X X X X 

Owyhee 78 miles Oregon State Parks and 

Recreation X X X X X X X X 

Brownlee 98 miles Idaho Power X X X X X X X X 

Cascade 104 miles Reclamation and IDPR X X X X X X X X 

Anderson 

Ranch 106 miles Boise National Forest under agreement with Reclamation X X X X X X X X 

5.7.2 Outdoor Recreation Rates and Trends 

Although the housing boom has slowed in the Treasure Valley and across the nation, the surrounding 

area’s population is likely to continue growing, and demand for recreational opportunities will 

increase. The 2006-2010 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (IDPR 2006) measured 

baseline recreation information from 2002 against data collected in 2004-2005. Even in this short 

amount of time, there were large changes in participation in many activities. Table 5-8 represents 

participation rates that changed by 10 percent or more for activities currently found on the Refuge 

(whether allowed or not). 

Table 5-8. Percent Change in Participation by Activity, 2002-2005 

Activity Change 

Geocaching 154% 

Outdoor photography 44% 

Jet boating 30% 

Bird watching 29% 

Snowshoeing 28% 

Canoeing 26% 

Walking for exercise 22% 

Watching wildlife 21% 

Cross-country skiing 15% 

Running -26% 

Source: IDPR (2006). 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-35 

Some reasons that geocaching might top this list are that there was a dramatic change in people’s 

knowledge of the activity between 2002 and 2005 and handheld GPS units may have become more 

readily available and inexpensive. Given that only 4.8 percent of the population considered 

themselves regular participants or enthusiasts, it is believed that the number of people participating in 

geocaching is still small (IDPR 2006). The increased interest in geocaching could create the need for 

an increased law enforcement response. 

The large increase in outdoor photography can likely be attributed to the ability to take high-quality 

digital pictures fairly inexpensively in comparison to traditional film photography. Digital 

photography is relatively simple and offers an immediate opportunity to view pictures that film 

photography cannot provide. Among Idahoans surveyed in 2005, 70 percent participated in outdoor 

photography and more than half were regular participants or enthusiasts (IDPR 2006). IDPR (2006) 

surmised that the increase in participation in outdoor photography may partially account for the rise 

in wildlife viewing and bird watching as well. 

IDPR (2006) pointed out that the 30 percent increase in participation in jet boating was much greater 

than the 5.5 percent increase in registration of all power boats in Idaho from 2001 to 2006. Canoeing 

increased as well, by 26 percent, between 2002 and 2005. About 42 percent of Idahoans participate, 

at least occasionally, in nonmotorized boating. Statewide boater registrations went up 2 percent 

between 2008 and 2009, from 86,454 to 88,200 registrations (IDPR 2010). In Canyon County, boater 

registrations increased by just under 1 percent in the same period, from 4,664 to 4,707. In Ada 

County, they decreased 2 percent in the same timeframe, from 7,411 to 7,257 boater registrations. 

According to Bowker et al. (1999), demand for water-based recreational activities regionally is 

expected to grow faster than population growth. 

IDPR (2006) noted that “the outdoor recreation professionals on the Task Force also identified 

emerging issues that are yet to catch the attention of much of the recreation public (i.e., the closing 

window of opportunity many communities in Idaho have to acquire land for parks, open space, and 

community pathways, and the growing need for opportunities to increase the physical fitness of 

residents.” 

The 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-associated Recreation, a comparison of 

national participation in wildlife-oriented recreation between 1996 and 2006, showed a significant 

decline of 7 percent in the number of hunters from 1996 to 2001. Although there was also a decline 

of 4 percent from 2001 to 2006, the change was not significant. There was also a significant decline 

of 15 percent in the number of anglers from 1996 to 2006. Finally, although the number of all 

wildlife watchers (including around-the-home and away-from-home) increased from 1996 to 2006, 

there was actually a non-significant 3 percent decline in the number of away-from-home wildlife 

watchers (USFWS and U.S. Census Bureau 2006). 

5.8 Social/Economic Environment 

The following description of the current social and economic environment was compiled by the 

Policy Analysis and Science Assistance Branch of the USGS. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-36 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

5.8.1 Regional Economic Setting 

Located southwest of Boise, Idaho, the Refuge offers opportunities for visitors to enjoy a variety of 

recreational activities; as discussed throughout this CCP, some of these activities depend on the 

presence of wildlife and others do not. These recreational opportunities attract outside visitors and 

bring in dollars to the community. Associated visitor activities—such as spending on food, gasoline, 

and overnight lodging in the area—provide local businesses with supplemental income and increases 

the local tax base. Management decisions for the Refuge about public use, expansion of services, and 

habitat improvement may either increase or decrease visitation to the Refuge and thus affect the 

amount of visitor spending in the local economy. 

For the purposes of an economic impact analysis, a region (and its economy) is typically defined as 

all counties within a 30- to 60-mile radius of the impact area (Stynes 2012). Only spending that takes 

place within this regional area is included as stimulating changes in economic activity. The size of 

the region influences both the amount of spending captured and the multiplier effects. After 

consultation with Refuge staff, it was decided that only the Lake Lowell Unit would be considered 

for the economic analysis due to the relatively small amount of visitation to the Snake River Islands 

Unit. The Lake Lowell Unit lies within Canyon County, Idaho. The city of Boise, located in Ada 

County, is approximately 28 miles from the Refuge. Most of the economic activity related to the 

Lake Lowell Unit is located within Canyon and Ada counties. Therefore, this two-county area 

constitutes the local economic region (or study area) for this analysis. Idaho’s Treasure Valley 

closely coincides with the two-county study area, and it houses some of Idaho’s largest metropolitan 

areas, including the cities of Boise, Caldwell, and Nampa, which collectively accounted for about 21 

percent of the state’s 2010 population (U.S. Census Bureau 2012). The next sections describe the 

socioeconomic characteristics and trends in the two-county region. 

5.8.2 Population and Density 

Table 5-9 summarizes the population characteristics of Idaho and the local two-county area. In 2010, 

the U.S. Census Bureau estimated the total population for the two counties to be 581,288, or 37 

percent of Idaho’s total population. Ada County was the most heavily populated county in both the 

study area and the state with 392,365 residents in 2010 (Idaho Department of Labor 2011b). Canyon 

County (188,923 residents) was the second-most populous county in the state in the same year (Idaho 

Department of Labor 2011a; U.S. Census Bureau 2012). In the years leading up to the economic 

recession of the late 2000s, the two-county area experienced rapid population growth, with the 

populations of Ada and Canyon counties increasing by 27 percent and 40 percent respectively, 

between 2000 and 2008 (U.S. Census Bureau 2009). The rapid population growth in the study area 

throughout the majority of the past decade has been motivated by several factors, including a healthy 

labor market, relatively low real estate prices, ample opportunities for outdoor recreation, and easy 

access to the Boise metropolitan area (Cauchon 2007; Idaho Department of Labor 2011b).

Table 5-9. Population Estimates for Idaho and the Two Counties near Deer Flat Refuge 

Area Population 

(2010)a

% Change 

(2000-2010)a

Persons per 

Square Mile 

(2010)a

Expected Population 

Growth (2010-2030)b

Idaho 1,567,582 21.1% 19 31% 

Ada County 392,365 30.4% 373 42% 

Canyon County 188,923 43.7% 322 34% 

Sources: a U.S. Census Bureau (2012) and bChurch (2003). 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-37 

In 2009-2010, population growth in the study area slowed due to repercussions of the national 

economic recession, with the populations of Ada and Canyon counties averaging only 2.0 and 3.0 

percent growth, respectively, during these years (U.S. Census Bureau 2012). Despite slowed growth 

from 2008 to 2010, the Treasure Valley and the Boise metropolitan area remained among the fastest 

growing regions of the state over the past decade (Church 2003; U.S. Census Bureau 2012). 

In 2010, the population densities of both counties in the region were between 300 and 400 persons 

per square mile, with Ada County being more densely populated (373 persons per square mile) than 

Canyon County (322 persons per square mile) (U.S. Census Bureau 2012). Both counties had 

substantially higher population densities than the state as a whole (19 persons per square mile in 

2010). In the case of Ada County, the high population density is largely due to the city of Boise, 

which accounted for over half (52 percent) of the county’s 2010 population (U.S. Census Bureau 

2012). Similarly, the cities of Nampa (81,557 residents) and Caldwell (46,237 residents) collectively 

accounted for 68 percent of the population of Canyon County in 2010 (U.S. Census Bureau 2012). 

5.8.2.1 Population Projections 

Future population projections for the two-county area, as well as the State, are characterized by inmigration over the next 20 years. The population of Idaho is expected to increase by 31 percent over 

the course of the next two decades, and, by 2030, it is projected to reach nearly two million (Church 

2003). During these years, Idaho is anticipated to be one of the fastest growing states, with growth 

rate projections consistently among the top 10 in the nation (U.S. Census Bureau 1996). The 

Treasure Valley and Boise metropolitan area are expected to remain the most populated areas 

statewide over the next two decades and to continue to be the fastest growing region in the state over 

the next 20 years. Valley, Boise, Ada, and Canyon counties are expected to have an average growth 

rate of 42 percent over this time horizon. The two counties that make up the study area are expected 

to remain among the fastest growing counties in the state, with Ada and Canyon projected to be the 

first and eighth fastest growing counties statewide over the next two decades (Church 2003) 

5.8.3 Gender, Age, and Racial Composition 

In 2010, the median age of residents in Canyon County (31.6 years) was lower than the state median 

of 34.6 years and the Ada County median of 34.8 years. The racial demographics of Ada County 

were very similar to those of the state in 2010 (Table 5-10). In Canyon County the percentage of 

Hispanic or Latino residents was approximately 13 percent higher while the percentage of white 

residents was 6 percent lower than the state average (U.S. Census Bureau 2012). 

Table 5-10. Racial Demographics for the State and Counties near Deer Flat Refuge (2010) 

Area Idaho Ada County Canyon County 

% of Total Population 

White alone 89.0% 90.3% 83.0% 

Hispanic or Latino 11.2% 7.1% 23.9% 

Two or more races 2.5% 2.9% 3.0% 

Asian alone 1.2% 2.4% 0.8% 

Black or African American alone 0.6% 1.1% 0.6% 

American Indian and Alaska Native alone 1.4% 0.7% 1.0% 

Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander alone 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2012). 

Note: Percentages may add to more than 100 percent because individuals may report more than one race. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-38 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

5.8.4 Economic Conditions and Trends 

5.8.4.1 Unemployment and Poverty 

Since the early 1990s, trends in the unemployment rate in Idaho have generally paralleled the 

national average. Unemployment trended downward in the early 2000s and remained below the 

national level from 2002 to 2007 before increasing in the latter half of the same decade (Bureau of 

Labor Statistics 2011). The period of expansion in the early 2000s may be attributed to several 

factors, including the growth of several service industries, continued development of the state’s 

technology sector, and increasing demand for local government and construction services as the 

state’s population continued to grow (Idaho Division of Financial Management 2004). 

In 2008, Idaho’s unemployment rate trended sharply upward as the state began to feel the effects of a 

sluggish national economy, with the construction, manufacturing, administrative and support 

services, and retail trade industries suffering the state’s greatest job losses (Idaho Department of 

Labor 2009, 2011c). Since 1990, unemployment in the study area exhibited trends similar to 

statewide unemployment, with Ada and Canyon counties averaging unemployment rates of 4.0 and 

5.8 percent respectively, over the past two decades (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2011). Between 2008 

and 2010, unemployment in the two-county area increased sharply, particularly in Canyon County 

where the combined effects of slower population growth, a struggling housing market, and rising 

lumber, concrete, and fuel prices decreased local demand for labor (Idaho Department of Labor 

2011a). 

Table 5-11 summarizes measures of unemployment, poverty, and income in the two-county area. In 

2010, the median household income in Idaho as a whole was $43,490, which was about $6,500 lower 

than the national median household income of $50,046 (U.S. Census Bureau 2012). Median 

household income in the region averaged $46,672, with the median income in Ada County ($50,612) 

being substantially higher than that in Canyon County ($42,732). 

Table 5-11. Unemployment, Poverty, and Household Income for the State and Counties near 

Deer Flat Refuge 

Area 

Median Household 

Income 

2010 

Unemployment 

Rate 

2010 

Net Change in 

Unemployment Rate 

2007-2010 

Percent of Persons 

Below Poverty 

2010 

Idaho $43,490 9.5% +6.5% 25.0% 

Ada County $50,612 8.9% +6.4% 29.8% 

Canyon County $42,732 11.3% +7.8% 16.2% 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2012). 

As shown in Table 5-11, poverty levels in Canyon County (16.2 percent) were below the state 

average of 25 percent in 2010. In contrast, poverty levels in Ada County (29.8 percent) were greater 

than the state average in 2010. On average, 23 percent of the population of the two-county area was 

living below the poverty line in 2010 (U.S. Census Bureau 2012). 

5.8.4.2 Employment and Income by Industry 

Table 5-12 summarizes employment by industry for the two-county area. In 2009, total employment 

in the study area represented 339,730 jobs, with about 77 percent of these jobs located in Ada 

County. In the study area, 60 percent of the total employment came from five main sectors (Bureau 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-39 

of Economic Analysis 2010): professional, scientific, management, administration, and waste 

services; educational, health, and social services; retail trade; finance, insurance, real estate, and 

rental and leasing; and public administration. In 2008, the two largest employers in Ada County were 

Micron Technology and Hewlett Packard; these companies remain some of the largest local 

employers in Ada County (Ada County Accounting Department 2008; Idaho Department of Labor 

2011b). In Canyon County, the largest local employers in the past decade have been in the education, 

manufacturing, health care, food processing, and wood processing sectors. These employers currently 

include the Caldwell and Nampa School Districts, the St. Alphonsus Medical Center, Plexus, the 

Amalgamated Sugar Company, and Woodgrain Millwork Incorporated (City of Nampa Department 

of Planning and Zoning 2003; Idaho Department of Labor 2011a). 

Table 5-12. Employment by Industry for the Counties near Deer Flat Refuge 

Employment by Industry Ada 

County 

Canyon 

County 

Two-county 

Region 

Total Employment (jobs) in 2009 262,868 78,862 339,730 

Percent of Employment by Sector 

Professional, scientific, management, administration, and waste 

services 

17% 9% 16% 

Educational, health, and social services 13% 13% 13% 

Retail trade 11% 13% 11% 

Finance, insurance, real estate, and rental & leasing 11% 8% 10% 

Public administration 10% 11% 10% 

Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation, and food services 9% 6% 8% 

Manufacturing 6% 10% 7% 

Construction 6% 8% 7% 

Other services (except public administration) 5% 6% 5% 

Wholesale trade 4% 3% 4% 

Transportation and warehousing 2% 4% 3% 

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 1% 6% 2% 

Information services 2% 1% 2% 

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis (2010). 

Professional, scientific, management, administration, and waste services accounted for the largest 

percentage of total employment in the region, with 15.6 percent of total local employment coming 

from this sector. In the two-county area, most jobs in education, health, and social services (77 

percent) and public administration (87 percent) were located in Ada County, which is home to both 

the state capital and Boise State University. These sectors were the second and fifth largest sectors of 

the local economy, respectively, and accounted for 13.1 percent and 10.3 percent of total 

employment in the combined two-county area (Bureau of Economic Analysis 2010). 

On the whole, farm employment accounted for a relatively small share (1.5 percent) of the region’s 

total employment. Employment from this sector, however, did account for a larger share of total 

employment located in Canyon County (4 percent of in-county employment) than Ada County (less 

than 1 percent). On the whole, Ada County was much less dependent on farm earnings (less than 1 

percent of in-county farm earnings) than the state as a whole, which had about 4.0 percent of its total 

earnings from farming. Canyon County is similar to the state as a whole than to Ada County on this 

point, with 4.7 percent of its total earnings from farming (Bureau of Economic Analysis 2010). 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-40 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

5.8.5 Land Use and Ownership Changes Surrounding Refuge Lands 

5.8.5.1 Current Land Use 

As of 2006, about 30 percent of the land in the two-county area near the Refuge was federally 

owned, with the majority of Federal land ownership in BLM holdings (21 percent of land in the twocounty area). About 65 percent of the land in the study area was privately owned, with the remaining 

4 percent State-owned (Conservation Biology Institute 2006; data compiled using the Economic 

Profile System Human Dimensions Toolkit [EPS-HDT] developed by Headwaters Economics). 

Ada County is largely covered by grassland and shrubland, which account for about 75 percent of all 

land cover in the county. Mixed cropland is also prevalent, accounting for 17 percent of the land 

cover (NASA 2006; data compiled using EPS-HDT). As of 2006, urban development accounted for 6 

percent of all land cover in the county (NASA 2006; data compiled using EPS-HDT). Land 

ownership in Ada County in 2006 was 49 percent private, 43 percent Federal, 7 percent State, and 1 

percent under other ownership (i.e., Tribal, City, County, or Other) (Conservation Biology Institute 

2006; data compiled using EPS-HDT). 

Canyon County is less urbanized than Ada County, with about 3 percent of the county’s land cover in 

urban development in 2006. Mixed croplands accounted for about 75 percent of the county’s land 

cover, grassland accounted for 14 percent, and shrubland accounted for 4 percent (NASA 2006; data 

compiled using EPS-HDT). Water accounted for an additional 2 percent of land cover in Canyon 

County, with the majority of this coming from Lake Lowell, which covers a total of 14.5 square 

miles (NASA 2006 data compiled using EPS-HDT; Reclamation n.d.). Land ownership in Canyon 

County in 2006 was 93 percent privately owned, 6 percent federally owned, 5 percent State-owned, 

and 1 percent under other ownership (i.e., Tribal, City, County, or Other) (Conservation Biology 

Institute 2006; data compiled using EPS-HDT). 

5.8.5.2 Changes in Land Use 

As populations grow, the spread of American cities across the rural landscape has several potential 

environmental impacts including, for example, decreased watershed permeability, increased noise 

and air pollution, and the loss of arable land and open spaces (Auld 2001; Knight et al. 1995). In 

addition to these environmental impacts, urban sprawl may have significant economic impacts on 

local communities through increased costs of public community services such as emergency 

response, infrastructure, or public works and utilities (Chen 2000; Speir and Stephenson 2002). 

Idaho’s population growth over the past decades has been cause for the continued conversion of rural 

lands to urban purposes. Between 1982 and 1997, Idaho ranked thirty-fifth in the nation for the most 

rural acres (205,000 acres) converted for urban growth (Goodwin 2003). About half (45 percent) of 

this transformation occurred between 1992 and 1997, with over 27,000 acres converted in the twocounty study area during this five-year period. Land conversion in Ada and Canyon counties between 

1992 and 1997 occurred faster than in any other region in Idaho, with Ada County converting land at 

a rate of 4,480 acres per year and Canyon County averaging 2,600 acres per year (U.S. Department 

of Agriculture 2000). Between 1997 and 2007, an additional 130,100 acres of land was developed 

statewide, resulting in 907,300 total acres of developed land in Idaho and representing a 61 percent 

increase from 1982 levels (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2009). These trends are likely to continue 

as statewide and local area populations are projected to continue growing over the next few decades. 
Appendices A-P

Appendices A-P

Gopher Snake

Addison Mohler/USFWS

Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations A-1 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

A.1. Introduction 

The Appropriate Refuge Uses Policy (603 FW 1 [2006]) outlines the process that the Service uses to 

determine when general public uses on refuges may be considered. Priority public uses previously 

defined as wildlife-dependent 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 in which the Service does not have adequate jurisdiction to control the activity, as 

well as refuge management activities. 

In essence, the appropriate use policy 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, refuge managers 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 comprehensive conservation process (CCP) process, the Refuge Manager evaluated all 

existing and proposed uses at Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) 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 of the Interior 

(Department) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (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 time 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 (see Section 1.6D of the appropriate use 

policy for description of recreational uses) compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the 

future. 

The Refuge Manager and staff members completed compatibility determinations in Appendix B, for 

each of the following appropriate uses: boating at no-wake speeds; individuals biking, jogging, and 

horseback riding; farming and grazing; high-speed watercraft; research; swimming and beach use; 

picnicking; walking with pets; sailing regattas; and mosquito management. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-2 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

The following uses were evaluated and are included in this document. 

Refuge Use Appropriate Page 

Boating at No-wake Speeds at Lake Lowell Unit Yes A-3 

Competitive Cycling No A-7 

Competitive Jogging No A-11 

Competitive Rowing No A-15 

Cycling and Jogging by Individuals and Groups Yes A-19 

Farming and Grazing Yes A-23 

Float Plane (landing and taking off) No A-27 

Traditional Geocaching (burial or placement of a physical cache) No A-31 

High-speed Watercraft at Lake Lowell Unit Yes A-35 

Horseback Riding by Individuals and Groups Yes A-39 

Ice Skating No A-43 

Radio-controlled Planes No A-45 

Research Yes A-49 

Swimming and Beach Use Yes A-53 

Walking with Pets (dogs) Yes A-57 

Sailing Regattas Yes A-63 

Mosquito Management Yes A-67 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use 

Refuge Name: Deer Flat National WIidiife Refuge 

Use: Boating at No-wake Speeds at Lake Lowell Unit 

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 

la) Do we have iurisdiction over the use? ✓ 

lb\ Does the use comply with annlicable laws and reaulations (federal, state, tribal, and local\? ✓ 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service ✓ 

oolicies? 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safetv? ✓ 

(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 orooosed? 

(a) Is the use manaaeable within available budaet and staff? ✓ 

/hl WIii this be manaaeable in the future within existina 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? 

0) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational ✓ 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for description), 

comoatible, wildlife-deoendent 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 th~ 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__ 1/ ~ Appropriate ✓ 

Refuge Manager: (lf.JgJ ~ Date: 3 · 3 I - 'J-o I S 

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:gl,.../. ~ & ,?~,.,., i 

A compatibility determination Is required before the use may be allowed, 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Detenninations 

Date.:_ ---'-"t~f..,_,,l~,~r~--- 1 7 

FWS Form 3-2319 

02106 

A-3 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-4 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

Appropriate Use Justification 

Refuge Name: Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Boating at No-wake Speeds at Lake Lowell Unit 

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? 

Yes. On June 24, 2010, the Department of the Interior Office of the Solicitor concluded that the 

Service had jurisdiction over surface water uses on Lake Lowell and that Lake Lowell was not in 

existence at statehood and, therefore, is not classified as navigable water. 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, Tribal, and 

local)? 

Yes. The Refuge is not aware of any laws or regulations that would preclude this use on the Lake 

Lowell Unit of Deer Flat NWR. 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? 

Yes. The Refuge is not aware of any Executive orders or Department or Service policies that would 

preclude this use on the Lake Lowell Unit of Deer Flat NWR. 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? 

Yes. Boaters using Lake Lowell must comply with all State and Federal boater safety requirements. 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

Yes. We are currently at the maximum boating visits identified in the 1990 Master Plan, as updated 

in 1996 (USFWS 1996). 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

Yes. No compatibility determinations have been previously completed for this use. 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? 

Yes. This use is currently manageable in partnership with the Canyon County Sheriff’s Department. 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? 

Yes, as long as we continue to partner with the Canyon County Sheriff’s Department. 

(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? 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations A-5 

Yes. This mode of transportation allows fishermen, wildlife observers, and other wildlife-dependent 

recreationists to access to wildlife and environments that could not be reached otherwise. This access 

increases their enjoyment of the Refuge and appreciation of its wildlife and habitats. Boating at nowake speeds in the no-wake zones should cause fewer disturbances to wildlife than high-speed 

boating. Motorized boats can also cover a larger area in a relatively short time in comparison to 

nonmotorized boats, affecting more area and providing less time for wildlife to react. Compared to 

motorboats, human-powered boats like canoes and kayaks appear to cause fewer disturbances to 

most wildlife species (DeLong 2002; Huffman 1999). Boats traveling at no-wake speeds do cause 

some level of disturbance to wildlife but the slow speed, low noise levels, and low approach velocity 

minimizes the adverse effects associated with boat use in no-wake zones while allowing wildlifedependent recreationists access to wildlife and environments that could not be reached otherwise. 

(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? 

Yes. This use increases access for wildlife-dependent recreationists. As stated above, boats traveling 

at no-wake speeds do cause some level of disturbance to wildlife but the slow speed, low noise 

levels, and low approach velocity of boats at no-wake speeds minimize the adverse effects associated 

with boat use in no-wake zones while allowing wildlife-dependent recreationists access to wildlife 

and environments that could not be reached otherwise. 

Conclusion 

Boating at no-wake speeds is considered to be an appropriate use subject to stipulations necessary to 

ensure safety and compatibility.

References 

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 (Volume II). 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, Oregon. 114 pp. 

Available at: http://www.fws.gov/pacific/planning/main/docs/NV/stillwater/4%20Volume% 

20II/Appendix%20L/App%20L%20final%20lit%20review.pdf. Accessed May 18, 2012. 

Huffman, K. 1999. San Diego South Bay survey report—effects of human activity and water craft on 

wintering birds in South San Diego Bay. USFWS. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1996 (1990, updated in 1996). Refuge management plan 

(RMP). Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge. Nampa, ID. 33 pp. 

 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-6 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

Document continues on next page. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use 

Refuge Name: Deer Flat National WIidiife Refuge 

Use: Competitive Cycling 

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 

la\ Do we have iurisdiction over the use? ✓ 

lb\ Does the use comply with annlicable laws and reoulations (federal, state, tribal, and local\? ✓ 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service ✓ 

oolicies? 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safetv? ✓ 

(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 orooosed? 

(a) Is the use manaaeable within available budaet and staff? ✓ 

(h) WIii this be manaaeable in the future within existina 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? 

0) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for description), ✓ 

comoatible, wildlife-deoendent 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 superviso~s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

Appropriate ___ _ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge s ervisor 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: ~,L/ /. /7 L Date.:_ --'"t'---,'-/'-,,'-/-'-'1>'------

A compatibility determination Is required before the use may be allowed. 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

FWS Form 3-2319 

02106 

A-7 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-8 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

Appropriate Use Justification 

Refuge Name: Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Competitive Cycling 

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? 

Yes. 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, Tribal, and 

local)? 

Yes. The Refuge is not aware of any laws or regulations that would preclude this use on the Lake 

Lowell Unit of Deer Flat NWR. 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? 

Yes. The Refuge is not aware of any Executive orders or Department or Service policies that would 

preclude this use on the Lake Lowell Unit of Deer Flat NWR. 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? 

No. Refuge paths and roads are not designed for high-speed bicycling. There is a potential for riders 

to be struck by vehicles on the winding entrance road or to strike pedestrians on narrow and/or 

winding Refuge trails. Recent requests for competitive group bicycling activities include use of 

Refuge parking areas for start and finish lines and “watering” stops. Use of potentially busy parking 

areas for competition bicycling would be dangerous and an impediment to other Refuge visitors’ safe 

enjoyment and use of Refuge facilities. 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

No. Given the potential for disturbance to wildlife-dependent uses and wildlife, this use is not 

consistent with the purpose of the Refuge or its visitor use goals as defined in the Refuge 

Management Plan of 1990 (USFWS 1996). 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

No. A compatibility determination from 1994 does not allow “organized competitive race events.” 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? 

No. There is no staff available to direct traffic and ensure the safety of riders and the rest of the 

visiting public. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations A-9 

(h) Will this use be manageable in the future within existing resources? 

No. There will be no staff available to direct traffic and ensure the safety of riders and the rest of the 

visiting public. 

(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? 

No. Given that riders are focused on competing or training and riding as quickly as possible, they are 

not able to take the time to appreciate the Refuge’s resources. Noise caused by competition bicycling 

groups and the speed at which they travel may actually negatively impact Refuge wildlife. According 

to Knight and Cole (1991), there are three wildlife responses to human disturbance: avoidance, 

habituation, and 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; the 

time of day, time of year, weather; and the animal’s access to food and cover, energy demands, and 

reproductive status (Fernández-Juricic et al. 2007; Gabrielsen and Smith 1995; Knight and Cole 

1991). Other factors that affect disturbance impact include the numbers of viewers, the time of day, 

and noise level. 

Rapid movement directly toward wildlife frightens animals, while movement away from or at an 

oblique angle to animals is less disturbing (Knight and Cole 1995). Human-caused noise, including 

road noise, has been shown to negatively affect wildlife (Bowles 1995), although the response is 

often difficult to assess because it may be confounded by responses to visual stimulus. Pease et al. 

(2005) showed that bicycles (and pedestrians) disturbed more dabbling ducks than other means of 

transportation. Stalmaster and Newman (1978) suggest that sound may elicit a much milder response 

from wildlife if animals are visually buffered from the disturbance. Noncompetitive bicycling in a 

group of more than 10 riders (e.g., a family outing) may be allowed under special conditions 

provided in a special use permit. Additional requirements to ensure safety and reduce disturbance 

(such as additional limits to use in time and space) may be established. 

(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? 

No. This use takes up space that could otherwise be utilized by wildlife-dependent recreationists. 

This use increases the potential for wildlife disturbance through high-speed movement and noise 

created by a group of competitors, potentially negatively impacting wildlife observers and other 

wildlife-dependent users. 

Conclusion 

Because competition bicycling creates a potential public safety issue, negatively impacts wildlifedependent recreationists and wildlife, and does not allow for the appreciation of the Refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources, this use has been found to be not appropriate at Deer Flat NWR. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-10 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

References 

Bowles, A.E. 1995. Responses of wildlife to noise. Pages 109-156 in: R.L. Knight and K.J. 

Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife recreationists: coexistence through management and research. 

Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 

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. 

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. 

Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole. 1991. Effects of recreational activity on wildlife in wildlands. 

Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 56:238-247. 

Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole. 1995. 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. 

Pease, M.L., R.K. Rose, and M.J. Butler. 2005. Effects of human disturbances on the behavior of 

wintering ducks. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33(1):103-112. 

Stalmaster, M.V. and J.R. Newman. 1978. Behavioral responses of wintering bald eagles to human 

activity. Journal of Wildlife Management 42:506-513. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1996 (1990, updated in 1996). Refuge management plan 

(RMP). Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge. Nampa, ID. 33 pp. 

 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use 

Refuge Name: Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Competitive Jogging 

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 

la\ Do we have ;urisdiction over the use? ✓ 

lb\ Does the use comnlv with a""licable laws and renulations /federal, state, tribal, and local)? ✓ 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service ✓ 

oolicies? 

Id\ Is the use consistent with oublic safetv? ✓ 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other ✓ 

document? 

(I) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use, or is this the first time the use has ✓ 

been nronosed? 

(□) Is the use mana eable within available bud et and staff? ✓ 

lh\ Will this be mana eable in the future within existin□ 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. for description), ✓ 

comnalible, wildlife-denendent recreation into the future? 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use ("no" to (a)), there is no need to evaluate ii 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 ___ _ 

Date: 3 - 3/ - )...o i SIf found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge pervisor 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. 0 / ./7 I Refuge Supervisor: ,(t., ,,t r~ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed. 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

Date.: ___ _,"'1;__ 1~/-,.,',_/-',:..:·r:_ __ _ ) ) 

FWS Form 3-2319 

02106 

A-I I 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-12 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

Appropriate Use Justification 

Refuge Name: Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Competitive Jogging 

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? 

Yes. This use is conducted on the upland portions of Lake Lowell Unit and falls under the 

jurisdiction of Deer Flat NWR. 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, Tribal, and 

local)? 

Yes. The Refuge is not aware of any laws or regulations that would preclude this use on the Lake 

Lowell Unit of Deer Flat NWR 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? 

Yes. The Refuge is not aware of any Executive orders or Department or Service policies that would 

preclude this use on the Lake Lowell Unit of Deer Flat NWR. 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? 

Yes. 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

No. Given the potential for disturbance to wildlife-dependent uses and wildlife, this use is not 

consistent with the purpose of the Refuge or its visitor use goals as defined in the Refuge 

Management Plan of 1990 (USFWS 1996). 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

No. A compatibility determination from 1994 does not allow “organized races and competitions.” 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? 

Yes. 

(h) Will this use be manageable in the future within existing resources? 

Yes. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations A-13 

(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? 

No. Given that joggers are focused on competing or training, they are not able to take the time to 

appreciate the Refuge’s resources. Noise caused by jogging in groups and the speed at which the 

group is traveling may actually negatively impact Refuge wildlife. 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 et al. 2007; Gabrielsen and Smith 1995; Knight and Cole 

1991). Other factors that affect disturbance impact include the numbers of viewers, the time of day, 

and noise level. Rapid movement directly toward wildlife frightens animals, while movement away 

from or at an oblique angle to animals is less disturbing (Knight and Cole 1995). 

(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? 

No. This use takes up space that could otherwise be used by wildlife-dependent recreationists. This 

use increases the potential for wildlife disturbance through high speed movement and noise, 

potentially negatively impacting wildlife observers and other wildlife-dependent users. 

Conclusion 

Because competitive jogging has been denied by a previous compatibility determination, can 

negatively impact wildlife-dependent recreationists and wildlife, and does not allow for the 

appreciation of the Refuge’s natural or cultural resources, this use has been found to be not 

appropriate at Deer Flat NWR. 

References 

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. 

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. 

Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole. 1991. Effects of recreational activity on wildlife in wildlands. 

Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 56:238-247. 

Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole. 1995. 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. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1996 (1990, updated in 1996). Refuge management plan 

(RMP). Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge. Nampa, ID. 33 pp. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-14 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

Document continues on next page. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use 

Refuge Name: Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Competitive Rowing 

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 iurisdiction over the use? ✓ 

(b) Does the use complv with annlicable laws and reaulations (federal, state, tribal, and local\? ✓ 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service ✓ 

oolicies? 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safetv? ✓ 

(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 orooosed? 

(a) Is the use manaaeable within available budaet and staff? ✓ 

(h) WIii this be manaaeable in the future within existina 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? 

0) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. 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 ___ _ 

Date: 3 -3 I · '.2-.o ISlffound to be Not Appropriate, the refug pervisor 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. 

lffound to be Appropriat!'_,,the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

_\ilj __ r I ,, 

Refuge Supervisor: I>':/ jZ,t....7 ,< /, L Date: _ __.9'-+/--'l-+/_,_/.;clr __ _ 9 ~, 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed. FWS Fonn 3-2319 

02/06 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations A-15 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-16 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

Appropriate Use Justification 

Refuge Name: Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Competitive Rowing 

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? 

Yes. On June 24, 2010, the Department of the Interior Office of the Solicitor concluded that the 

Service had jurisdiction over surface water uses on Lake Lowell and that Lake Lowell was not in 

existence at statehood and, therefore, is not classified as navigable water. 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, Tribal, and 

local)? 

Yes. The Refuge is not aware of any laws or regulations that would preclude this use on the Lake 

Lowell Unit of Deer Flat NWR. 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? 

Yes. The Refuge is not aware of any Executive orders or Department or Service policies that would 

preclude this use on the Lake Lowell Unit of Deer Flat NWR. 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? 

Yes. 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

No. Given the potential for disturbance to wildlife-dependent uses and wildlife, this use is not 

consistent with the purpose of the Refuge or its visitor use goals as defined in the Refuge 

Management Plan of 1990 (USFWS 1996). 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

Yes. This is the first time the use has been requested. 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? 

No. There is no staff available to direct traffic and ensure the safety of competitive rowers and the 

rest of the visiting public. 

(h) Will this use be manageable in the future within existing resources? 

No. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations A-17 

(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? 

No. Given that competitive rowers are focused on competing or training, they are not able to take the 

time to appreciate the Refuge’s 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? 

No. This use takes up space that could otherwise be utilized by wildlife-dependent recreationists. In 

addition, competitive rowing events would exclude the general public and reduce the quality of 

wildlife-dependent activities by concentrating many users in the race location. The proposed racing 

location along the Lower Dam is a popular fishing spot for boat and shoreline anglers. 

Conclusion 

Because competitive rowing would require additional budget and staff, can negatively impact 

wildlife-dependent recreationists, and does not allow for the appreciation of the Refuge’s natural or 

cultural resources, this use has been found to be not appropriate at Deer Flat NWR. 

References 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1996 (1990, updated in 1996). Refuge management plan 

(RMP). Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge. Nampa, ID. 33 pp. 

 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-18 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

Document continues on next page. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use 

Refuge Name: Deer Flat National WIidiife Refuge 

Use: Bicycling and Jogging by Individuals and Groups 

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 

la\ Do we have ;urisdiction over the use? ✓ 

lb\ Does the use comnlv with aMlicable laws and renulations /federal, state, tribal, and local)? ✓ 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service ✓ 

oolicies? 

(d\ Is the use consistent with oublic safetv? ✓ 

(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 nronosed? 

( 0 ' Is the use manaaeable within available budaet and staff? ✓ 

lh\ WIii this be mananeable in the future within existina 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? 

0) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational ✓ ✓ 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for description), 

comnatible, wildlife-denendent 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 __ ✓ __ 

Date: 3- 31 ~ ,?-0/S 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refu upervisor 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 superviso/ust sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor: ~ AV r!"f: A,, r- Date.:_ --~:z._·-4/.,_;..J.,'-/Lic.• __ _ / I I 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed. 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

FWS Form 3-2319 

02/06 

A-19 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-20 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

Appropriate Use Justification 

Refuge Name: Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Bicycling and Jogging by Individuals and Groups 

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? 

Yes. 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, Tribal, and 

local)? 

Yes. The Refuge is not aware of any laws or regulations that would preclude this use on the Lake 

Lowell Unit of Deer Flat NWR. 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? 

Yes. The Refuge is not aware of any Executive orders or Department or Service policies that would 

preclude this use on the Lake Lowell Unit of Deer Flat NWR. 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? 

Yes. Individual cyclists and joggers should not create public safety concerns. Allowing cycling only 

on wider multiuse trails (Kingfisher Trail, Gotts Point Trail, East Dike Trail, and the Observation 

Hill Trail System) should reduce safety conflicts with pedestrian users. Also, multiuse trail etiquette 

signage will require cyclists to yield to pedestrians and equestrians. Only pedestrian uses will be 

allowed on more narrow trails and trails used by environmental education groups (Nature Trail, 

Centennial Trail, and Murphy’s Neck Trail). 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

Yes. Because this use will be allowed on select multiuse trails giving wildlife and wildlife-dependent 

users the opportunity to use areas of the Refuge where joggers and bicyclists are absent, the use is not 

inconsistent with current goals, objectives, and plans

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

Yes. 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? 

Yes. 

(h) Will this use be manageable in the future within existing resources? 

Yes. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations A-21 

(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? 

Yes and no. Bicycling and jogging are not defined as wildlife-dependent activities, although 

individuals could be engaged in wildlife observation while jogging or cycling. The speed and noise 

created by bicycling and or jogging may in fact negatively impact wildlife. Rapid movement directly 

toward wildlife frightens animals, while movement away from or at an oblique angle to animals is 

less disturbing (Knight and Cole 1995). Human-caused noise, including road noise, has been shown 

to negatively affect wildlife (Bowles 1995), although the response is often difficult to assess because 

it may be confounded by responses to visual stimulus. Pease et al. (2005) showed that bicycles (and 

pedestrians) disturbed more dabbling ducks than other means of transportation. Slow-moving cyclists 

that view wildlife while cycling or wildlife-dependent users that access viewing areas via bicycle 

may increase their appreciation of the Refuge. 

Bicycling or jogging in a group of more than 10 individuals may be allowed under special conditions 

provided in a special use permit. Additional requirements to ensure safety and reduce disturbance 

(such as additional limits to use in time and space) may be established. 

(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? 

Yes and no. This use increases the potential for wildlife disturbance through high-speed movement 

and noise, potentially negatively impacting wildlife observers and other wildlife-dependent users on 

multiuse trails. Because this use is only allowed on multiuse trails, wildlife-dependent users will have 

the opportunity to use walking trails (Nature Trail, Centennial Trail and Murphy’s Neck Trail) and 

the Lower Dam Recreation Area without interacting with joggers and cyclists. Wildlife-dependent 

visitors are also allowed off-trail in the area around the Observation Hill Trails (North Side 

Recreation Area) from August 1 through January 31, in the area around the Kingfisher and East Dike 

Trails (East Side Recreation Area) all year, and in the area around the Gotts Point Trail (Gotts Point) 

from February 1 through September 30. These off-trail opportunities will allow wildlife-dependent 

users to view wildlife and habitats in areas where cyclists and joggers are absent. 

Bicycling or jogging in a group of more than 10 individuals may be allowed under special conditions 

provided in a Special Use Permit. Additional requirements to ensure safety and reduce disturbance 

(such as additional limits to use in time and space) may be established. 

Conclusion 

Limiting cycling and jogging only to multiuse trails and allowing only individuals and groups with 

up to 10 riders (a special use permit will be required for groups of more than 10 riders) will limit the 

disturbance to wildlife and other visitors. Any disturbance created by this use is expected be 

intermittent and short term in nature. Thus the use is considered to be an appropriate use subject to 

stipulations necessary to ensure safety and compatibility. This finding of appropriateness only applies 

to Deer Flat NWR Lake Lowell Unit. It does not provide precedence for appropriateness findings at 

other refuges or for future appropriateness findings at Deer Flat NWR. Impacts to public safety, 

wildlife, and wildlife-dependent recreationists by the continuation of cycling and jogging will be 

studied and alterations and changes to the use will be made if necessary. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-22 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

References 

Bowles, A.E. 1995. Responses of wildlife to noise. Pages 109-156 in: R.L. Knight and K.J. 

Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife recreationists: coexistence through management and research. 

Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 

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. 

Pease, M.L., R.K. Rose, and M.J. Butler. 2005. Effects of human disturbances on the behavior of 

wintering ducks. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33(1):103-112. 

 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use 

Refuge Name: Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Farming and Grazing 

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 

la\ Do we have iurisdiction over the use? ✓ 

lb) Does the use comolv with annlicable laws and reaulations (federal, state, tribal, and local\? ✓ 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service ✓ 

oolicies? 

(dl Is the use consistent with oublic 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 orooosed? 

(al Is the use manaaeable within available budaet and staff? ✓ 

lhl Will this be manaaeable in the future within existina 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? 

0) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational ✓ 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for description), 

comoatible, wildlife-deoendent 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 ✓ 

RefugeManager: ~ Date: 3-31 ·'lo/5 

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 Appro:J;!!:_ the refuge supervis7ust sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor:!( ,&L I L ~ r Date: 

A compatibility determination is require ~efore the use may be allowed. 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

➔ I, I ;s- T/ 

FWS Fonm 3-2319 

02/06 

A-23 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-24 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

Appropriate Use Justification 

Refuge Name: Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Farming and Grazing 

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? 

Yes. 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, Tribal, and 

local)? 

Yes. The Refuge is not aware of any laws or regulations that would preclude this use on Deer Flat 

NWR. 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? 

Yes. The Refuge is not aware of any Executive orders or Department or Service policies that would 

preclude this use on Deer Flat NWR. 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? 

Yes. 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

Yes. See section (i) below.

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

Yes. 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? 

Yes. 

(h) Will this use be manageable in the future within existing resources? 

Yes. 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

Yes. Grazing has been shown to be beneficial for single species management such as for foraging 

geese. Geese use refuge pastures for foraging, preferring young shoots that are higher in protein and 

lower in fiber than mature stems (McLandress and Raveling 1981). Greenwalt (1978) explained that 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations A-25 

some refuges use grazing in improved pasture in an attempt to increase the amount of edible green 

shoots available for wintering geese. Pasture grasses serve as an important source of amino acids and 

carbohydrates to meet the energy and nutrient requirements of geese (Baldassarre and Bolen 2006). 

Grazing by livestock simulates some of the effects of natural disturbances by removing woody 

vegetation, reducing thatch, and encouraging the production of young shoots, which are preferred 

forage for Canada and cackling geese (Raveling 1979). Grazing can be used to set back succession, 

increase native annual forb species and cover, and decrease vegetation height and litter depth (Hayes 

and Holl 2003), all of which are beneficial to foraging Canada geese. 

The farming program provides high carbohydrate forage for wintering and migrating waterfowl. 

Crop fields planted to small grains such as winter wheat can indirectly benefit some other bird 

species by provide some foraging habitat for a variety of seed-eating migratory bird species. The 

Refuge’s farmed and grazed lands provide areas of high-energy grain crops and green forage grasses 

to meet the energy needs of waterfowl and other wildlife and reduce crop depredation in nearby 

agricultural lands. 

(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? 

Yes. Production of wildlife food and creation of quality goose pasture is likely to draw wildlife to the 

Refuge and provide a greater opportunity for wildlife-dependent recreation. 

The public occasionally encounters farming operations while recreating on Refuge lands. Although 

some aspects of farming operations—including noise, dust, spraying, sight of grazing animals, and 

temporary traffic congestion—may be occasional annoyances to members of the public, conflicts and 

impacts are expected to remain minor over the life of the plan. 

Conclusion 

Farming and grazing are beneficial to the Refuge’s natural resources and help achieve Refuge 

purposes by controlling invasive and exotic species, improving quality of grassland and wetland 

habitat, and provide important food resources used by waterfowl and other migratory birds. 

Therefore, farming and grazing are considered to be appropriate uses subject to stipulations 

necessary to ensure safety and compatibility.

References 

Baldassarre, G.A. and E.G. Bolen. 2006. Waterfowl ecology and management. 2nd edition. Malabar, 

FL: Krieger Publishing Company. 

Greenwalt, L.A. 1978. The National Wildlife Refuge System. Pages 399-412 in: H.P. Brokaw, ed. 

Wildlife and America. Washington, D.C.: Council on Environmental Quality. 

Hayes, G.F. and K.D. Holl. 2003. Cattle grazing impacts on annual forbs and vegetation composition 

of mesic grasslands in California. Conservation Biology 17(6):1694-1702. 

McLandress, M.R. and D.R. Raveling. 1981. Changes in diet and body composition of Canada geese 

before spring migration. Auk 98:65-79. 

Raveling, D.G. 1979. The annual energy cycle of the cackling Canada goose. Pages 81-93 in: R.L. 

Jarvis and J.C. Bartonek, eds. Management and biology of Pacific Flyway geese. Corvallis, 

OR: OSU Book Stores. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-26 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

Document continues on the following page. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use 

Refuge Name: Deer Flat National WIidiife Refuge 

Use: Float Plane (landing and taking off} 

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 

la\ Do we have iurisdiction over the use? ✓ 

lb\ Does the use comolv with annlicable laws and reaulations /federal, state, tribal, and local\? ✓ 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service ✓ 

nolicies? 

Id\ Is the use consistent with oublic safetv? ✓ 

(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 nronosed? 

'"' Is the use mananeable within available budnet and staff? ✓ 

lh\ WIii this be manaoeable in the future within existina 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? 

0) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational ✓ 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for description), 

comnatible, wildlife-denendent 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 

Date: 3 -3/ -'J,o/$ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge u rvisor 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 Appropri~~ the refuge supervisor mui sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor:~/ &LI ,,<: &r- Date:. ___ :z:L·_,,'-1L;./-,'-1'-',r'---- / TI 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed. FWS Form 3-2319 

02106 

Appendix A Appropriate Use Determinations A-27 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-28 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

Appropriate Use Justification 

Refuge Name: Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Float Plane (landing and taking off) 

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? 

Yes. On June 24, 2010, the Department of the Interior Office of the Solicitor concluded that the 

Service had jurisdiction over surface water uses on Lake Lowell and that Lake Lowell was not in 

existence at statehood and, therefore, is not classified as navigable water. 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, Tribal, and 

local)? 

No. Under the Code of Federal Regulations (50 C.F.R. 27.34) the “unauthorized operation of aircraft 

... at altitudes resulting in the harassment of wildlife, or the unauthorized landing or take-off on a 

national wildlife refuge, except in an emergency is prohibited.” 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? 

Yes. 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? 

No. 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

No. Given the potential for disturbance to wildlife-dependent uses and wildlife, this use is not 

consistent with the purpose of the Refuge or its visitor use goals as defined in the Refuge 

Management Plan of 1990 (USFWS 1996). 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

Yes. This is the first time the use has been requested. 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? 

No. There is no staff available to ensure the safety of pilots and the rest of the visiting public. 

(h) Will this use be manageable in the future within existing resources? 

No. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations A-29 

(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? 

No. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has worked with other Federal agencies including 

the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture APHIS Wildlife Services to address aircraftwildlife strikes in the United States. A Regional Memorandum of Understanding among these parties 

states that “civil and military aviation communities widely recognize that the threat to human health 

and safety from aircraft collisions with aircraft-wildlife strikes is increasing.” A focus of the 

cooperation between these Federal agencies is to identify, separate, and mitigate bird air strike 

hazards by providing separate areas for airplanes and wildlife to exist. 

According to the FAA Wildlife Strike Database (FAA 2012), there have been over 120,000 air 

strikes nationally between 1990 and 2010. Most bird strikes occur during daylight hours between 

July and October. 

(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? 

No. Landing and take-off of float planes may disturb wildlife-dependent recreationists because of the 

noise and speed of the aircraft. 

Conclusion 

Because the use of aircraft is contrary to the purpose, goals, and objectives of the Refuge; would be 

in violation of the Code of Federal Regulations, is widely recognized as a threat to birds, and would 

be a safety concern for other Refuge visitors, it would not be considered an appropriate use of the 

Refuge.

References 

FAA (Federal Aviation Administration). 2012. Wildlife strike database. Available at: http://wildlifemitigation.tc.faa.gov/wildlife/default.aspx. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1996 (1990, updated in 1996). Refuge management plan 

(RMP). Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge. Nampa, ID. 33 pp. 

 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-30 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

Document continues on next page. 

 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use 

Refuge Name: Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Traditional Geocaching (burial or placement of a physical cache) 

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 

la\ Do we have iurisdiction over the use? ✓ 

lb\ Does the use comolv with aneJicable laws and regulations {federal, state, tribal, and local\? ✓ 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service ✓ 

nolicies? 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safetv? ✓ 

(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 orooosed? 

In) ls the use manaaeable within available budaet and staff? ✓ 

lh\ Will this be manaaeable in the future within existina 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? 

0) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational ✓ 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for description), 

comoatible, wildlife-deoendent 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 b>1sed 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 

Date: 3 ~3 / - M!)( c;: 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge s rvisor 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. 

:::u~~ :o ~e-~pp~o~yv: :ef~e s:erv:; mi sign concurrence. 

n..t::1uyt::..::iupe1v1isu1: •, B.._I A r7r:-

A compatlbllity determinatipn Is required before the use may be allowed, 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

_ ,,, I. I,,-. uate:. ___ 7L-,,_r.,,,,,_,c:•c..... __ _ YJ 

FWS Form 3-2319 

02/06 

A-31 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-32 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

Appropriate Use Justification 

Refuge Name: Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Traditional Geocaching (burial or placement of a physical cache) 

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? 

Yes. This use is conducted on the upland portions of Lake Lowell Unit and falls under the 

jurisdiction of Deer Flat NWR. 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, Tribal, and 

local)? 

No. The use is not consistent with the Code of Federal Regulations; 50 C.F.R. Part 27.63 prohibits 

search for and removal of valued objects and 50 C.F.R. Part 27.93 prohibits abandonment of property 

on national wildlife refuges. 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? 

Yes. 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? 

Yes. 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

No. Given the potential for disturbance to wildlife-dependent uses and wildlife, this use is not 

consistent with the purpose of the Refuge or its visitor use goals as defined in the Refuge 

Management Plan of 1990 (USFWS 1996). 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

Yes. This is the first time the use has been requested. 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? 

No. 

(h) Will this use be manageable in the future within existing resources? 

No. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations A-33 

(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? 

Yes. While geocachers are walking to a designated location, they may take the time to appreciate the 

Refuge’s resources. However, caches can be attractive and potentially dangerous to wildlife. In 

addition, these treasures are placed in such a way to present a challenge to locate, and exuberant 

searchers can have a profound effect on soils, vegetation, and local wildlife within the immediate 

vicinity of the cache. 

(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? 

No. Geocachers may disturb wildlife-dependent recreationists (hunters, anglers, wildlife observers, 

and photographers) close to an area where a cache has been stashed. 

Conclusion 

Because geocaching violates the Code of Federal Regulations, this use has been found to be not 

appropriate at Deer Flat NWR. 

References 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1996 (1990, updated in 1996). Refuge management plan 

(RMP). Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge. Nampa, ID. 33 pp. 

 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-34 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

Document continues on next page. 

 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use 

Refuge Name: Deer Flat National WIidiife Refuge 

Use: High-speed Watercraft at Lake Lowell Unit 

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 

/al Do we have iurisdiction over the use? ✓ 

lb\ Does the use comolv with annlicable laws and reaulations /federal, state, tribal, and local\? ✓ 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service ✓ 

oolicies? 

/d) Is the use consistent with oublic safetv? ✓ 

(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 lime the use has ✓ 

been nronosed? 

(al Is the use mananeable within available budnet and staff? ✓ 

/hl WIii this be manaaeable in the future within existino 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. for description), 

comnatible, wildlife-denendent recreation into the future? 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use ("no" to (a)), there is no need to evaluate ii 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 _:t__ 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 ✓ 

Date: 3-31 -2..v!S: 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge s isor 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 Appropria~~e refuge supervisor mus/ign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor: ~; pt,_/ ,L #;r- Date: __ ,,,~·-l~,'-'· ,~'~'~'---- , I 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed. FWS Form 3-2319 

02/06 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations A-35 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-36 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

Appropriate Use Justification 

Refuge Name: Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: High-speed Watercraft at Lake Lowell Unit 

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? 

Yes. On June 24, 2010, the Department of the Interior Office of the Solicitor concluded that the 

Service had jurisdiction over surface water uses on Lake Lowell and that Lake Lowell was not in 

existence at statehood and, therefore, is not classified as navigable water. 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, Tribal, and 

local)? 

Yes. The Refuge is not aware of any laws or regulations that would preclude this use on the Lake 

Lowell Unit of Deer Flat NWR. 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? 

Yes. Although the Refuge Manual (8 RM 9.6) states that “waterskiing will not be allowed on refugecontrolled waters, except where mandated,” current policies derived from the 1997 amendments to 

the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 provide that uses may be allowed if 

they are found to be both appropriate and compatible with the purpose for which the Refuge was 

established. 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? 

Yes. Boaters using Lake Lowell must comply with all State and Federal boater safety requirements. 

No races or motorized nonwildlife-dependent group activities are allowed, providing a safer boating 

experience for visitors. 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

Yes. We are currently at the maximum boating visits identified in the 1990 Refuge Management 

Plan, as updated in 1996 (USFWS 1996). As structured in the Preferred Alternative, high-speed 

boating should have a limited impact on the purpose of the Refuge. 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

Yes. No compatibility determinations have been previously completed for this use. 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? 

Yes. This use is currently manageable in partnership with the Canyon County Sheriff’s Department. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations A-37 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? 

Yes, as long as we continue to partner with the Canyon County Sheriff’s Department. 

(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? 

No and yes. Boating at high speeds does not contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation 

of the Refuge, and it is not beneficial (and can actually be detrimental) to the Refuge’s resources. 

Motorized boats can also cover a larger area in a relatively short time in comparison to nonmotorized 

boats, affecting more area and providing less time for wildlife to react. Compared to motorboats, 

human-powered boats like canoes and kayaks appear to cause fewer disturbances to most wildlife 

species (DeLong 2002; Huffman 1999). Boating at high speeds is mostly used for recreation purposes 

(such as tow-behind activities). One disturbance study showed that motorboats were more likely to 

elicit a response in wintering bald eagles than nearby automatic weapons fire, small arms fire, ordnance 

impacts, and helicopter flights associated with a military installation (Stalmaster and Kaiser 1997). 

High-speed boating displaces western and Clark’s grebes from preferred habitats, disrupts nesting and 

feeding, and even causes loss of young (Burger 1997). Grebe adults and chicks are often killed by boats 

(Ivey 2004; Shaw 1998), and small chicks can become separated from their parents and die of exposure 

if adults have to dive to avoid motorboats (Storer and Nuechterlein 1992). 

Some wildlife-dependent visitors boat at high speeds to reach their ultimate destination. Once at their 

destination, they may be able to gain a greater appreciation of the Refuge through involvement in 

wildlife-dependent activities, but it is unlikely that appreciation is gained while boating at high 

speeds. 

(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? 

No and yes. As described above, given the tendency of birds to flush when subjected to a high 

intensity of disturbance, wildlife viewing opportunities are expected to be poor in high-speed 

watercraft areas between April and September. 

Fishing could be both negatively and positively impacted by high-speed watercraft. Using watercraft 

at high speeds would allow anglers to reach their fishing area more quickly, allowing more time to 

fish. However, Refuge personnel have received complaints from anglers about noise and wake from 

high-speed watercraft. 

Conclusion 

Limiting high-speed watercraft to the center of the lake will limit the disturbance to wildlife (especially 

nesting wildlife) and other wildlife-dependent visitors. Thus the use is considered to be an appropriate use 

subject to stipulations necessary to ensure safety and compatibility. This finding of appropriateness only 

applies to Deer Flat NWR Lake Lowell Unit. It does not provide precedence for high-speed watercraft 

appropriateness findings at other refuges or for future appropriateness findings at Deer Flat NWR. 

Impacts to public safety, wildlife, and wildlife-dependent recreationists by the continuation of high-speed 

watercraft use will be studied and alterations and changes to the use will be made if necessary. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-38 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

References 

Burger, A.E. 1997. Status of the western grebe in British Columbia. Wildlife Working Report WR87. B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks. Victoria, British Columbia. 40 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 (Volume II). 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, Oregon. 114 pp. 

Available at: http://www.fws.gov/pacific/planning/main/docs/NV/stillwater/4%20Volume% 

20II/Appendix%20L/App%20L%20final%20lit%20review.pdf. Accessed May 18, 2012. 

Huffman, K. 1999. San Diego South Bay survey report—effects of human activity and water craft on 

wintering birds in South San Diego Bay. USFWS. 

Ivey, G.L. 2004. Conservation assessment and management plan for breeding western and Clark’s 

grebes in California. Prepared for the American Trader Trustee Council, an Interagency 

Group Comprised of Representatives from the California Department of Fish and Game, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Shaw, D.W.H. 1998. Changes in population size and colony location of breeding waterbirds at Eagle 

Lake, California between 1970 and 1997. Thesis. California State University, Chico. 

Stalmaster, M.V. and J.L. Kaiser. Flushing responses of wintering bald eagles to military activity. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 61(4):1307-1313. 

Storer, R.W. and G.L. Nuechterlein. 1992. Western grebe (Aechmorphorus occidentalis) and Clark’s 

grebe (Aechmorphorus clarkia). In: A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. Birds of North America, No. 

26. Philadelphia, PA., Academy of Natural Sciences and American Ornithologists’ Union. 24 

pp. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1996 (1990, updated in 1996). Refuge management plan 

(RMP). Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge. Nampa, ID. 33 pp. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use 

Refuge Name: Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Horseback Riding by Individuals and Groups 

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 

la\ Do we have iurisdiction over the use? ✓ 

lb) Does the use comolv with annlicable laws and reaulations /federal, state, tribal, and local\? ✓ 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service ✓ 

oolicies? 

(d\ Is the use consistent with oublic 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 orooosed? 

(a) Is the use manaaeable within available budaet and staff? ✓ 

/h\ Will this be manaoeable in the future within existina 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? 

0) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational ✓ 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for description), 

comoatible, wildlife-deoendent 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: W~ Date: 3-31 - 1-ol S 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge s ervisor 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. 

lffound to be Appropri~~~the refuge supervisor muJt sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor: f-''¥_/ ,e,L /- ~ 4, f.- Date.: ____ "-IL'-,rc..1_,.;_,,._1...,,"·;--=--- ~ ---, ~7 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed. 

Appendix A Appropriate Use Determinations 

FWS Form 3-2319 

02/06 

A-39 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-40 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

Appropriate Use Justification 

Refuge Name: Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Horseback Riding by Individuals and Groups 

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? 

Yes. 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, Tribal, and 

local)? 

Yes. The Refuge is not aware of any laws or regulations that would preclude this use on the Lake 

Lowell Unit of Deer Flat NWR. 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? 

Yes. The Refuge is not aware of any Executive orders or Department or Service policies that would 

preclude this use on the Lake Lowell Unit of Deer Flat NWR. 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? 

Yes. Individual horseback riders should not create public safety concerns. Equestrian groups with 

more than 10 horses and riders would be required to obtain an SUP. 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

Yes. Because this use will be allowed on select multiuse trails, giving wildlife and wildlifedependent users the opportunity to use areas of the Refuge where horses will be absent, the use is not 

inconsistent with current goals, objectives, and plans

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

Yes. 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? 

Yes. 

(h) Will this use be manageable in the future within existing resources? 

Yes. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations A-41 

(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? 

Yes. Rapid movement directly toward wildlife frightens animals, while movement away from or at 

an oblique angle to animals is less disturbing (Knight and Cole 1995). Slow-moving riders that view 

wildlife and wildlife-dependent users that use horses to gain access to viewing areas may increase 

their appreciation of the Refuge, without additional disturbance to wildlife. In fact, observations by 

Owen (1973) and others suggest that many species of wildlife are habituated to livestock and are less 

likely to flee when approached by an observer on horseback than by an observer on foot. In one study 

(Owen 1973), equestrians could approach geese up to a distance of 150 feet without noticeable 

behavioral changes in the geese. This is compared to a suggested hiking trail distance of 250 feet 

(Miller et al. 1998). Wildlife impact will depend on the way in which each horse is ridden. Allowing 

horseback riding only on multiuse trails and not allowing trotting, galloping, or cantering should 

reduce disturbance to Refuge wildlife and provide sufficient areas for wildlife away from potential 

disturbance. 

(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? 

Yes. Fast-moving riders may increase the potential for wildlife disturbance, which in turn could 

reduce the quality of wildlife-dependent recreation occurring in the same vicinity as horseback 

riding. The frequency of horseback riding on the Refuge is currently very intermittent, and these 

riders are rarely seen moving at fast speeds for extended periods. If this frequency and type of use is 

maintained, wildlife-dependent users can expect to encounter horseback riders infrequently on the 

multiuse trails. Because this use is only allowed on multiuse trails (Observation Hill Trails, 

Kingfisher Trail, East Dike Trail, and Gotts Point Trail), wildlife-dependent users will have the 

opportunity to use walking trails (Nature Trail, Centennial Trail, and Murphy’s Neck Trail) and the 

Lower Dam Recreation Area without interacting with horses. 

Wildlife-dependent visitors are also allowed off-trail in the area around the Observation Hill Trails 

(North Side Recreation Area) from August 1 through January 31, in the area around the Kingfisher 

and East Dike Trails (East Side Recreation Area) all year, and in the area around the Gotts Point Trail 

(Gotts Point) from February 1 through September 30. These off-trail opportunities will allow 

wildlife-dependent users to view wildlife and habitats in areas where horses are absent. 

Not allowing trotting, galloping, or cantering should reduce disturbance to Refuge wildlife and 

increase the safety of the nonriding public. 

Conclusion 

Limiting horseback riding to multiuse trails and slow speeds will limit the disturbance to wildlife and 

other visitors. Any disturbance created by this use is expected be intermittent and short term in 

nature. Thus the use is considered to be an appropriate use subject to stipulations necessary to ensure 

safety and compatibility. This finding of appropriateness only applies to Deer Flat NWR Lake 

Lowell Unit. It does not provide precedence for horseback riding appropriateness findings at other 

refuges or for future appropriateness findings at Deer Flat NWR. Impacts to public safety, wildlife, 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-42 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

and wildlife-dependent recreationists by the continuation of horseback riding will be studied and 

alterations and changes to the use will be made if necessary. 

References 

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. 

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. 

Owen, M. 1973. The management of grassland areas for wintering geese. Wildfowl 24:123-130. 

 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use 

Refuge Name: Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Ice Skatin 

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 

/al Do we have iurisdiction over the use? ✓ 

(bl Does the use comply with annlicable laws and reaulations /federal, state, tribal, and local)? ✓ 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service ✓ 

aolicies? 

(dl Is the use consistent with public safetv? ✓ 

(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 aronosed? 

(a) Is the use manaaeable within available budaet and staff? 

lhl Will this be manaaeable in the future within existina resouroes? 

(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? 

0) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for description), 

comaatible, 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 ___ _ 

Date: 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge ervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP prooess, the refuge supervisor must sign 

concurrence. 

lffound to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisfust sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor: "ft'W /? L f ,t' ~ r - Daie: __ ~7,_'-,j,_l,.,$,_/_,i-'•'----

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed. FWS Form 3-2319 

02/06 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations A-43 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-44 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

Appropriate Use Justification 

Refuge Name: Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Ice Skating 

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? 

Yes. On June 24, 2010, the Department of the Interior Office of the Solicitor concluded that the 

Service had jurisdiction over surface water uses on Lake Lowell and that Lake Lowell was not in 

existence at statehood and, therefore, is not classified as navigable water. 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, Tribal, and 

local)? 

Yes. The Refuge is not aware of any laws or regulations that would preclude this use on the Lake 

Lowell Unit of Deer Flat NWR. 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? 

Yes. The Refuge is not aware of any Executive orders or Department or Service policies that would 

preclude this use on the Lake Lowell Unit of Deer Flat NWR. 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? 

No. Safety is a major concern for recreational users who rely on the structural integrity of the ice on 

Lake Lowell to enjoy their sport. According to the National Weather Service average monthly high 

temperatures in Treasure Valley do not reach freezing levels (www.rssweather.com/climate/ 

Idaho/Boise/). This, combined with high winds and long fetch, makes the freezing of the water on 

Lake Lowell very unpredictable and any frozen areas of the lake potentially unsafe. Systematic ice 

evaluations by qualified personnel are not conducted on Lake Lowell. Because we proposed to allow 

ice fishing in the preferred alternative, in Fishing Areas A and B within 200 yards of the dams 

subject to areas posted by the Bureau of Reclamation, additional safety concerns associated with the 

possibility of skaters falling into fishing holes were also evaluated. 

Conclusion 

The National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act, as amended, states that 

the Secretary shall not initiate or permit a new use of a refuge or expand, renew, or extend an 

existing use of a refuge, unless the Secretary has determined that the use is a compatible use 

and that the use is not inconsistent with public safety. The Secretary may make the 

determinations referred to in this paragraph for a refuge concurrently with development of a 

conservation plan under subsection (e) of this section. (16 United States Code [U.S.C.] 

668dd-3) 

Because local weather conditions largely preclude ice skating from being a safe recreation activity 

and in accordance with the aforementioned law, this use has been found to be not appropriate at Deer 

Flat NWR. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use 

Refuge Name: Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Radio-controlled Planes 

This form is not required for wildlife-<lependent 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 

/al Do we have iurisdiction over the use? ✓ 

lb\ Does the use comolv with annlicable laws and reaulations /federal, state, tribal, and local)? ✓ 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service ✓ 

oolicies? 

/dl Is the use consistent with public safetv? ✓ 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other ✓ 

document? 

(I) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use, or is this the first time the use has ✓ 

been nronosed? 

(n' Is the use mananeable within available budaet and staff? ✓ 

/hl Will this be manaaeable in the future within existina 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? 

0) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-<lependent recreational ✓ 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for description), 

comnatible, wildlife-denendent recreation into the future? 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use ("no" to (a)), there is no need to evaluate ii 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: 

Appropriate ___ _ 

Date: :> - 6 I - J..O I '> 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge pervisor 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 Appropria~e refuge supervisor 7st sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor: ~ /4!.../ / /

1r:..-. Date: ___ ..,.:,·c..•-1-/.J;c.,1,-1

.Jl.2S __ _ r ' 

A compatibility determination Is required before the use may be allowed. FWS Form 3-2319 

02106 

Appendix A Appropriate Use Determinations A-45 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-46 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

Appropriate Use Justification 

Refuge Name: Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Radio-controlled Planes 

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? 

Yes. 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, Tribal, and 

local)? 

Yes. The Refuge is not aware of any laws or regulations that would preclude this use on the Lake 

Lowell Unit of Deer Flat NWR. 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? 

Yes. The Refuge is not aware of any Executive orders or Department or Service policies that would 

preclude this use on the Lake Lowell Unit of Deer Flat NWR. 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? 

No. According to the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) National Model Aircraft Safety Code, 

“All pilots shall avoid flying directly over unprotected people, vessels, vehicles or structures and 

shall avoid endangerment of life and property of others.... At all flying sites a safety line(s) must be 

established in front of which all flying takes place” (AMA 2011). Therefore, flying planes in general 

public use areas where other visitors are present would not be safe. 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

No. Given the potential for disturbance to wildlife-dependent uses and wildlife, this use is not 

consistent with the purpose of the Refuge or its visitor use goals as defined in the Refuge 

Management Plan of 1990 (USFWS 1996). 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

Yes. This is the first time the use has been requested. 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? 

No. There is no staff available to establish and monitor appropriate safety lines and other 

requirements of the AMA National Model Aircraft Safety Code (AMA 2011) to ensure the safety of 

pilots and the rest of the visiting public. 

(h) Will this use be manageable in the future within existing resources? 

No. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations A-47 

(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? 

No. Given that radio-controlled aircraft pilots are focused on flying their aircraft, they are not able to 

take the time to appreciate the Refuge’s resources. In addition, operation of radio-controlled aircraft 

is not beneficial (and can actually be detrimental) to the Refuge’s resources. Radio-controlled aircraft 

are fast-moving and loud, two attributes that are directly associated with wildlife disturbance. For 

example, rapid movement directly toward wildlife frightens animals, while movement away from or 

at an oblique angle to animals is less disturbing (Knight and Cole 1995). Human-caused noise, 

including road noise, has been shown to negatively affect wildlife (Bowles 1995), although the 

response is often difficult to assess because it may be confounded by responses to visual stimulus. 

(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? 

No. If proper safety protocols were followed (AMA 2011), this activity would require that a flying 

area be established with a safety line preventing other public access in the area of flight. Such a 

designated flight area would take up space that could otherwise be used by wildlife-dependent 

recreationists. In addition, the speed and noise of radio-controlled aircraft would disturb wildlife and 

thus reduce the quality of wildlife observation and photography experiences for other Refuge users. 

Conclusion 

Because the operation of radio-controlled aircraft would not be safe, would require additional budget 

and staff, can negatively impact wildlife and wildlife-dependent recreationists, and does not allow for 

the appreciation of the Refuge’s natural or cultural resources, this use has been found to be not 

appropriate at Deer Flat NWR. 

References 

AMA (Academy of Model Aeronautics). 2011. National model aircraft safety code. Available at: 

http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/105.pdf. Accessed May 18, 2012. 

Bowles, A.E. 1995. Responses of wildlife to noise. Pages 109-156 in: R.L. Knight and K.J. 

Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife recreationists: coexistence through management and research. 

Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 

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. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1996 (1990, updated in 1996). Refuge management plan 

(RMP). Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge. Nampa, ID. 33 pp. 

 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-48 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

Document continues on next page. 

 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use 

Refuge Name: Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Research 

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 

la\ Do we have iurisdiction over the use? ✓ 

lb\ Does the use comolv with aor licable laws and reaulations /federal, state, tribal, and local\? ✓ 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service ✓ 

nolicies? 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safetv? ✓ 

(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 orooosed? 

(n\ Is the use manaaeable within available budnet and staff? ✓ 

lh\ Will this be manageable in the future within existina 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? 

Q) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational ✓ 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for description), 

comoatible, wildlife-deoendent 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--'-✓-­

Date: 3-3, 1-2.o/S' 

if found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge s ervisor 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 '7t sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor: ~'r ,-t,,L/- & ,-%, 1~ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed. 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

Date: __ 7_,_''_~_,_;'-~-';.,_Jc_ __ _ 

FWS Form 3-2319 

02/06 

A-49 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-50 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

Appropriate Use Justification 

Refuge Name: Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Research 

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? 

Yes. 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, Tribal, and 

local)? 

Yes. The Refuge is not aware of any laws or regulations that would preclude this use on Deer Flat 

NWR. 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? 

Yes. The Refuge is not aware of any Executive orders or Department or Service policies that would 

preclude this use on Deer Flat NWR. 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? 

Yes. 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

Yes. 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

Yes. 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? 

Yes. 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? 

Yes. 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

Yes. Scientific findings gained through these projects provide important information regarding lifehistory 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 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations A-51 

uncertainty regarding wildlife and habitat responses to refuge management actions in order to 

achieve desired outcomes reflected in resource management objectives is essential for adaptive 

management in accordance with 522 DM 1. 

If a research project’s methods impact or conflict with Refuge-specific resources, priority wildlifedependent public uses, other high-priority research, or Refuge habitat and wildlife management 

programs, then it must be clearly demonstrated that the project’s scientific findings will contribute to 

resource management and that the project cannot be conducted off of Refuge lands. The 

investigator(s) must identify in advance the methods/strategies required to minimize or eliminate 

potential impact(s) and conflict(s). 

Data collection techniques will generally have minimal animal mortality or disturbance, habitat 

destruction, no introduction of contaminants, or no introduction of nonindigenous species. In 

contrast, projects involving the collection of biotic samples (plants or animals) or requiring intensive 

ground-based data or sample collection will have short-term impacts. To reduce impacts, the 

minimum number of samples (e.g., water, soils, vegetative litter, plants, macroinvertebrates, and 

vertebrates) will be collected for identification and/or experimentation and statistical analysis. Where 

possible, researchers will coordinate and share collections to reduce sampling for multiple projects. 

Spread of invasive plants and/or pathogens is possible from ground disturbance and/or transportation 

of project equipment and personnel. Spread of invasive species will be minimized or eliminated by 

requiring proper cleaning of investigator equipment and clothing as well as quarantine methods, 

where necessary. 

There also could be localized and temporary effects from vegetation trampling, collecting of soil and 

plant samples, or trapping and handling of wildlife. Impacts may also occur from infrastructure 

necessary to support a project (e.g., permanent transects or plot markers, exclosure devices, 

monitoring equipment, solar panels to power unattended monitoring equipment). Some level of 

disturbance is expected with these projects, especially if investigator(s) enter areas closed to the 

public and collect samples or handle wildlife. However, wildlife disturbance (including altered 

behavior) will usually be localized and temporary in nature. 

Projects will contribute to the enhancement, protection, conservation, and management of native 

wildlife populations and their habitats on the Refuge. As a result, these projects will help fulfill 

Refuge purposes; contribute to the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS); and 

maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge. 

(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? 

Yes. If a research project’s methods impact or conflict with Refuge-specific resources, priority 

wildlife-dependent public uses, other high-priority research, or Refuge habitat and wildlife 

management programs, then it must be clearly demonstrated that the project’s scientific findings will 

contribute to resource management and that the project cannot be conducted off of Refuge lands. The 

investigator(s) must identify methods/strategies in advance required to minimize or eliminate 

potential impact(s) and conflict(s). 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-52 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

Conclusion 

Because of the long-term contributions that research can have to the adaptive management of Refuge 

resources and the ability to manage resource to reduce conflicts and disturbance, this use is 

considered to be an appropriate use subject to stipulations necessary to ensure safety and 

compatibility. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use 

Refuge Name: Deer Flat National WIidiife Refuge 

Use: Swimming and Beach 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 

la\ Do we have iurisdiction over the use? ✓ 

lb\ Does the use comolv with annlicable laws and reaulations /federal, state, tribal, and local\? ✓ 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service ✓ 

oolicies? 

Id\ Is the use consistent with public safe Iv? ✓ 

(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 lime the use has ✓ 

been proposed? 

'"' Is the use manaaeable within available budaet and staff? ✓ 

/h\ WIii this be manaaeable in the future within existino 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? 

0) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational ✓ 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. 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 ii 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 __ ✓ __ 

Date: 2, 31-2.o/5 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge sup isor 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 Approp}~e, the refuge supervisor m_Lsign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor:;i,;P &,L/, & ~= , 

A compatibility determination Is required before the use may be allowed, 

Appendix A Appropriate Use Determinations 

Date: -(- ;--II 

FWS Form 3-2319 

02/06 

A-53 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-54 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

Appropriate Use Justification 

Refuge Name: Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Swimming and Beach Use 

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? 

Yes. 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, Tribal, and 

local)? 

Yes. The Refuge is not aware of any laws or regulations that would preclude this use on the Lake 

Lowell Unit of Deer Flat NWR. 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? 

Yes. The Refuge is not aware of any Executive orders or Department or Service policies that would 

preclude this use on the Lake Lowell Unit of Deer Flat NWR. 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? 

Yes. There have been several near-drowning incidents at Lake Lowell, and a few fatalities in the past 

few years; however, the Refuge is hopeful that directing swimmers to two designated swimming 

areas that are easily accessible to rescue personnel will help to minimize safety issues. There will be 

no lifeguards stationed at the swimming areas. 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

Yes. 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

Yes. No compatibility determinations have been previously completed for this use. 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? 

Yes. 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? 

Yes. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations A-55 

(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? 

No. Swimming and beach use (including picnicking) do not contribute to the public’s understanding 

and appreciation of Refuge resources. Although this use does not contribute to the public’s 

understanding and appreciation of the Refuge’s natural or cultural resources, or benefit the Refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, this use should not cause undue harm because swimmers will be 

directed to two designated swimming areas, which will reduce interaction with high concentrations 

of wildlife and provide ample quantities of sanctuary where wildlife can find cover. Because 

picnicking and other uses associated with beach use mostly occur in developed public use areas, they 

should also have little impact on wildlife. 

Although swimming areas often include erratic movement and elevated human noise levels, the 

designated swimming areas on Lake Lowell are not of great concern for wildlife concentrations. 

Keeping most shoreline swimming contained to designated areas will reduce the amount of wildlife 

disturbance associated with the activity. 

Allowing visitors to swim and picnic also may provide the opportunity to engage members of the 

public that may not normally visit refuges where swimming is not allowed. 

(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? 

Yes. Because swimmers will be directed to two designated swimming areas with minimal wildlife 

use and minimal use by wildlife-dependent recreationists, the use can continue without impairing 

existing or future wildlife-dependent activities. Picnicking by individuals and small groups should 

not interfere with other recreationists. Events such as birthday parties and weddings will require 

Special Use Permits, to ensure that other recreationists are not be inconvenienced. 

Conclusion 

Directing swimmers to two designated swimming areas will reduce disturbance to wildlife and 

wildlife-dependent recreationists and increase safety for swimmers. Because most picnicking takes 

place in developed public use areas, and events will require a Special Use Permit, disturbance to 

wildlife and other recreationists should be minimal. In addition, allowing swimming and picnicking 

gives the Refuge the opportunity to engage members of the public that may not normally visit 

refuges. Thus, the use is considered to be an appropriate use subject to stipulations necessary to 

ensure safety and compatibility. This finding of appropriateness only applies to Deer Flat NWR Lake 

Lowell Unit. It does not provide precedence for swimming or beach use appropriateness findings at 

other refuges or for future appropriateness findings at Deer Flat NWR. Conditions created by the 

continuation of swimming and beach use (especially the safety of Refuge swimmers) will continue to 

be watched and alterations or changes to the use will be made if necessary. 

 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-56 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

Document continues on the following page. 

 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use 

Refuge Name: Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Walking with Pets (dogs) 

This form is not required for wildlife-<lependent 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 

la\ Do we have iurisdiction over the use? ✓ 

lb\ Does the use comolv with annlicable laws and reaulations /federal, state, tribal, and local\? ✓ 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Seivice ✓ 

nolicies? 

(d\ Is the use consistent with public safetv? ✓ 

(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 nronosed? 

'"' Is the use mananeable within available budnet and staff? ✓ 

lh\ Will this be manaaeable in the future within existinn 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? 

0) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational ✓ 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for description), 

comnatible, wildlife-deoendent 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 supeivisor's concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

Refuge Manager: ~ Date: 3 -3 / - 2o I,;-

Not Appropriate__ :52 Appropnate ✓ 

If found to be Not Appropriate,ther~ 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 supeivisor must sign 

concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supeivis

7

o, must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supeivisor: $e,J.,.:/- ,,(. £.r,- Date.:_--~,_'.,./~;_,_/,~,~------ ~ 7 / 7 

A compatibility determination Is required before the use may be allowed. FWS Form 3-2319 

02/06 

Appendix A Appropriate Use Determinations A-57 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-58 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

Appropriate Use Justification 

Refuge Name: Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Walking with Pets (dogs) 

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? 

Yes. 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, Tribal, and 

local)? 

Yes. Although there is a Canyon County Ordinance (03-05-021) that states that canines are not 

allowed in “any public parks within the county ... except when such an animal is kept confined in a 

vehicle or trailer,” discussion with Deputy Tweedy of the Canyon County Sheriff’s office provided 

information that local authorities are acting on a contradictory code (04-01-21) that allows pets in 

public areas as long as they are on a leash that is 6 feet in length or less (Sterling Codifiers Inc. 

2011). 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? 

Yes. The Refuge is not aware of any Executive orders or Department or Service policies that would 

preclude this use on the Lake Lowell Unit of Deer Flat NWR. 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? 

Yes. Pets controlled on leashes on multiuse trails and in the Lower Dam Recreation Area are not 

expected to cause a public safety concern. 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

Yes. Because this use will be allowed on select multiuse trails giving wildlife and wildlife-dependent 

users the opportunity to use areas of the Refuge where pets will be absent, the use is not inconsistent 

with the goals and objectives in the CCP.

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

Yes. No compatibility determinations have been previously completed for this use. 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? 

Yes. 

(h) Will this use be manageable in the future within existing resources? 

Yes. It is possible that agreements with Canyon County and the State of Idaho could increase the law 

enforcement presence and the ability of non-Refuge law enforcement personnel to enforce Refuge 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations A-59 

regulations. The Refuge currently allows leashed dogs; however, this requirement is often ignored by 

visitors. Because the on-leash and on-trail requirements are vital to minimizing wildlife disturbance, 

the Refuge will monitor visitors’ compliance with trail use and leash requirements. If compliance 

monitoring indicates that visitors with dogs routinely disregard leash and trail requirements, the 

Refuge will evaluate options for minimizing adverse effects associated with pet/wildlife interactions, 

including the possibility of prohibiting pets on the Refuge. 

(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? 

No. This use does not contribute to the public’s appreciation of Refuge resources and may actually be 

detrimental to Refuge wildlife. Authors of many wildlife disturbance studies conclude that dogs with 

people, on-leash dogs, or loose dogs provoke a more pronounced disturbance reaction from wildlife 

than humans alone (Sime 1999). The disturbance effects of human intrusion increased when people 

were accompanied by dogs in studies of different species including shorebirds (Hoopes 1993; Yalden 

and Yalden 1989, 1990), passerines (Knight and Miller 1996), and small mammals (Mainini et al. 

1993). Another study suggests that harassment of wildlife by domestic dogs is opportunistic and is 

associated with the concentration of wildlife in a given area (Jones & Stokes 1977). A follow-up 

study suggests that dog-induced wildlife flushes increase with an increased density of dogs (Abraham 

2001). Free-running and feral dogs have been known to kill quail, rabbits, and deer (Bowers 1953; 

Lowry and McArthur 1978; Nelson and Woolf 1987). Pure-bred dogs trained to hunt can also ferret 

out ground-nesting birds and small game animals when left to roam free (Bowers 1953). 

Domestic dogs can introduce diseases like parvovirus, canine distemper, and plague to wildlife 

populations. Diseases like giardia infection and rabies can be transmitted to wildlife and to humans. 

Muscle cysts can be transmitted through dog feces to ungulate species including mule deer (Sime 

1999). Dog waste is also known to host endo- and ecto-parasites, and wildlife can contract diseases 

from contact with dogs or dog wastes (Sime 1999). To reduce this effect on wildlife and people, pet 

owners are required to pick up their pet’s feces and dispose of it properly, as is also required by 

county and city ordinances. 

Nussear et al. (2008) inadvertently showed that unleashed dogs increase the zone of coverage (or 

zone of influence) beyond what it would be by the handler alone, thereby increasing the potential to 

disturb or harm wildlife. When wildlife react by moving away from the disturbance or alter behavior 

by hiding they will be less likely to be observed. Users of a national wildlife refuge should be able to 

expect to see wildlife during their visit. Because expectations of seeing wildlife and the amount of 

wildlife actually seen factor into the quality of experience for wildlife-dependent users (Hammitt et 

al. 1993), the reduction in observable wildlife that would be caused by allowing nonwildlifedependent uses could result in avoidance of the Refuge by wildlife-dependent users. To reduce this 

potential negative effect on wildlife and wildlife-dependent visitors, dogs will be required to be 

leashed on the Refuge. 

Visitors and law enforcement staff have reported dogs fighting in public use areas. These fights can 

cause damage to the pets as well as visitors who try to separate the dogs. Small children can easily be 

knocked over or injured by unleashed pets, and unleashed pets have a greater opportunity to bite or 

harass other visitors. Feeling personally threatened by dogs or other pets may reduce the enjoyment 

for other visitors. The NWRS Improvement Act (Public Law 105-57) requires that priority 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-60 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

consideration be given to wildlife-dependent users, and the presence of pets is not necessary for 

nonhunting, wildlife-dependent recreational activities. 

Although this use does not contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the Refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or benefit the Refuge’s natural or cultural resources, this use should not 

cause undue harm as detailed in the Compatibility Determination for Walking with Pets. Pets would 

only be allowed on a leash no more than 6 feet long, on designated trails and in the Lower Dam 

Recreation Area, to reduce their interaction with high concentrations of wildlife and people and to 

provide ample quantities of sanctuary where wildlife can find cover. 

Allowing visitors to walk with pets also may provide the opportunity to engage members of the 

public that may not normally visit refuges where pets are not allowed. 

(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? 

Yes. Although this use increases the potential for wildlife disturbance adjacent to multiuse trails and 

will impact wildlife-dependent visitors using these trails, this use is being allowed on select multiuse 

trails (Observation Hill Trails, Kingfisher Trail, East Dike Trail, and Gotts Point Trail), thereby 

allowing wildlife-dependent users the opportunity to use walking trails (Nature Trail, Centennial 

Trail, and Murphy’s Neck Trail) in the absence of dogs. 

Wildlife-dependent visitors are also allowed off-trail in the area around the Observation Hill Trails 

(North Side Recreation Area) from August 1 through January 31, in the area around the Kingfisher 

and East Dike Trails (East Side Recreation Area) all year, and in the area around the Gotts Point Trail 

(Gotts Point) from February 1 through September 30. These off-trail opportunities will allow 

wildlife-dependent users to view wildlife and habitats in areas where pets are absent. Allowing 

visitors to walk pets under the above noted conditions will not impair existing wildlife-dependent 

recreation or reduce the potential to provide quality, compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into 

the future. 

Conclusion 

Because pets will only be allowed on a leash that is 6 feet or less, on multiuse trails and in the Lower 

Dam Recreation Area, the impact to wildlife and wildlife-dependent users will be minimized. In 

addition, allowing walking with pets also gives the Refuge the opportunity to engage members of the 

public that may not visit refuges where pets are not allowed. Thus, the use is considered to be an 

appropriate use subject to stipulations necessary to ensure safety and compatibility. This finding of 

appropriateness only applies to Deer Flat NWR Lake Lowell Unit. It does not provide precedence for 

walking with pets appropriateness findings at other refuges or for future appropriateness findings at 

Deer Flat NWR. Conditions created by the continuation of walking with pets will be studied and 

alterations and changes to the use will be made if necessary. 

References 

Abraham, K. 2001. Interactions between dogs and wildlife in parks on the Berkeley Marina. 

Unpublished report, submitted to Berkeley Parks and Recreation. Available at: 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations A-61 

http://nature.berkeley.edu/classes/es196/projects/2001final/Abraham.pdf. Accessed May 18, 

2012. 

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. Bowers, R.R. 1953. 

The free-running dog menace. Virginia Wildlife 14(10):5-7. 

Hammitt, W.E, J.N. Dunlin, and G.R. Wells. 1993. Determinants of quality of wildlife viewing in 

Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Wildlife Society Bulletin 21:21-30. 

Hoopes, E.M. 1993. Relationships between human recreation and piping plover foraging ecology and 

chick survival. Thesis. University of Massachusetts, Amherst. 

Jones & Stokes Associates. 1977. Dog depredation on wildlife and livestock in California. California 

Department of Fish and Game. Jones & Stokes. Sacramento, CA. 64 pp. 

Knight, R.L. and S.G. Miller. 1996. Wildlife responses to pedestrians and dogs. Final report 

submitted to City of Boulder Open Space Department. Department of Fishery and Wildlife 

Biology, Colorado State University. Fort Collins, CO. 24 pp. 

Lowry, D.A. and K.L. McArthur. 1978. Domestic dogs as predators on deer. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 6:38-39. 

Mainini, B., P. Neuhaus, and P. Ingold. 1993. Behavior of marmots Marmota marmota under the 

influence of different hiking activities. Biological Conservation 64:161-164. 

Nelson, T.A. and A. Woolf. 1987. Mortality of white-tailed deer fawns in southern Illinois. Journal 

of Wildlife Management 51(2):326-329. 

Nussear, K.E., T.C. Esque, J.S. Heaton, M.E. Cablk, K.K. Drake, C. Valentin, J.L. Yee, and P.A. 

Medica. 2008. Are wildlife detector dogs or people better at finding desert tortoises 

(Gopherus Agassizii)? Herpetological Conservation and Biology 3(1):103-115. 

Sime, C.A. 1999. Domestic dogs in wildlife habitats. Pages 8.1-8.17 in: G. Joslin 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. 

Sterling Codifiers Inc. 2011. Canyon County Idaho county code. Available at: 

http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/index.php?book_id=820. Accessed February 21, 

2012. 

Yalden, D.W. and P.E. Yalden. 1989. The sensitivity of breeding golden plovers Pluvialis apricaria

to human intruders. Bird Study 36:49-55. 

Yalden, P.E. and D.W. Yalden. 1990. Recreational disturbance of breeding golden plovers Pluvialis 

apricarius. Biological Conservation 51:243-262. 

 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-62 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

Document continues on next page. 

 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use 

Refuge Name: Deer Flat National WIidiife Refuge 

Use: Sailing Regattas 

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 

ta\ Do we have iurisdiction over the use? ✓ 

lb\ Does the use comolv with anr licable laws and reoulations (federal, state, tribal, and local\? ✓ 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Seivice ✓ 

oolicies? 

Id\ Is the use consistent with public safetv? ✓ 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other ✓ 

document? 

(I) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use, or is this the first time the use has ✓ 

been orooosed? 

In\ Is the use manaaeable within available budaet and staff? ✓ 

lh\ WIii this be manaaeable in the future within existina 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? 

Q) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational ✓ 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for description), 

comoatible, wildlife-deoendent 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 supeivisor's concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

Not Appropriate __ Appropriate--'✓--

Date: 3 -3 f -2oJ5 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge pervisor 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 supeivisor must sign 

concurrence. 

If found to be Appropr1, the refuge supervisor J sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor:~ g,J.,,.../- ,,,(.' ~ 1- Daie.: ___ "'.,_f_,~/_1_,,,_/~;_r- ___ _ 

A compatibility determination Is required before the use may be allowed. 

Appendix A Appropriate Use Detenninations 

FWS Form 3-2319 

02/06 

A-63 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-64 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

Appropriate Use Justification 

Refuge Name: Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Sailing Regattas 

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? 

Yes. On June 24, 2010, the Department of the Interior Office of the Solicitor concluded that the 

Service had jurisdiction over surface water uses on Lake Lowell and that Lake Lowell was not in 

existence at statehood and, therefore, is not classified as navigable water. 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, Tribal, and 

local)? 

Yes. The Refuge is not aware of any laws or regulations that would preclude this use on the Lake 

Lowell Unit of Deer Flat NWR. 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? 

Yes. 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? 

Yes. Due to the size of the vessels and the height of their sails, sailboats are highly visible to other 

users. This reduces the likelihood of collisions with other Refuge visitors and allows the area within 

the racing buoys to be open to other users. Safety is also increased by following all International 

Sailing Federation rules, boating rules set forth by the U.S. Coast Guard and the State of Idaho, and 

all Refuge rules and regulations. The speed restriction of 20 mph or less will also help to reduce 

potential safety issues with other sailors or non-regatta users. 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

Yes. We are currently at the maximum boating visits identified in the 1990 Refuge Management 

Plan, as updated in 1996 (USFWS 1996). As structured in the compatibility determination for sailing 

regattas, this activity should have a limited impact on the purpose of the Refuge. 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

Yes. No compatibility determinations have been previously completed for this use. 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? 

Yes. This use is currently manageable in partnership with the Canyon County Sheriff’s Department. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations A-65 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? 

Yes, as long as our budget and staffing remain fairly consistent and we continue to partner with the 

Canyon County Sheriff’s Department. If the County no longer conducted maintenance of boating 

docks, the resources needed to continue this use would need to be re-evaluated. 

(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? 

No. Boating at high speeds does not contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the 

Refuge, and it is not beneficial (and can actually be detrimental) to the Refuge’s resources. These 

sailing vessels cover a larger area in a relatively short time in comparison to human-powered boats, 

affecting more area and providing less time for wildlife to react. Boating at high speeds is mostly for 

recreational purposes (such as tow-behind activities). High-speed boating displaces western and 

Clark’s grebes from preferred habitats, disrupts nesting and feeding, and even causes loss of young 

(Burger 1997). Grebe adults and chicks are often killed by boats (Ivey 2004; Shaw 1998), and small 

chicks can become separated from their parents and die of exposure if adults have to dive to avoid 

boats (Storer and Nuechterlein 1992). 

Some sailing regatta participants have engaged in wildlife viewing while sailing. It is possible that a 

participant may be introduced to the beauty of the Refuge and its wildlife through a sailing regatta, 

simply by being on the Refuge. However, the goal of a sailing regatta is to sail as fast as possible, 

compete with other sailors, and win a race, not to view wildlife. During the pre-race briefing there is 

no discussion of wildlife values or the Refuge’s purpose. Because of the cursory nature of the 

participants’ interaction with wildlife and the Refuge, it cannot be said that this use contributes to the 

public’s understanding and appreciation of the Refuge’s natural resources. 

Because of the area in which sailing regattas take place, the speed restrictions assigned to regattas, 

and the limited number of participants, the regattas should have minimal impacts on wildlife; 

however, they cannot be said to benefit the Refuge’s natural 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? 

Yes. Given that regattas occur during a time of low visitation, are restricted to 25 vessels, must leave 

room for other users to dock, and allow other users to enter their course, other users should not be 

excluded from using the West Pool or the Lower Dam Recreation Area boat launches during sailing 

regattas. 

Because sailing regattas are confined to the center of the West Pool, there is adequate open water 

habitat available outside of the racing area for wildlife and wildlife-dependent users to use 

undisturbed. Wildlife-dependent users who use the emergent zones will also be outside of the regatta 

course. 

Wildlife-dependent users will also be able to cross the regatta race course to access other portions of 

the Refuge, keeping them from being inconvenienced. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-66 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

Conclusion 

Limiting sailing regattas to the center of the lake, restricting the number of participants and speed of 

vessels, allowing other users to cross the race course, and ensuring adequate dock space for other 

users will limit the disturbance to wildlife (especially nesting wildlife) and other wildlife-dependent 

visitors. Thus the use is considered to be an appropriate use subject to stipulations necessary to 

ensure safety and compatibility. This finding of appropriateness only applies to Deer Flat NWR Lake 

Lowell Unit. It does not provide precedence for other competitive group event appropriateness 

findings at other refuges or for future appropriateness findings at Deer Flat NWR. Impacts to public 

safety, wildlife, and wildlife-dependent recreationists by the continuation of sailing regattas will be 

studied and alterations and changes to the use will be made if necessary. 

References 

Burger, A.E. 1997. Status of the western grebe in British Columbia. Wildlife Working Report WR87. B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks. Victoria, British Columbia. 40 pp. 

Ivey, G.L. 2004. Conservation assessment and management plan for breeding western and Clark’s 

grebes in California. Prepared for the American Trader Trustee Council, an Interagency 

Group Comprised of Representatives from the California Department of Fish and Game, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Shaw, D.W.H. 1998. Changes in population size and colony location of breeding waterbirds 

at Eagle Lake, California between 1970 and 1997. Thesis. California State University, Chico. 

Storer, R.W. and G.L. Nuechterlein. 1992. Western grebe (Aechmorphorus occidentalis) and Clark’s 

grebe (Aechmorphorus clarkia). In: A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. Birds of North America, No. 

26. Philadelphia, PA., Academy of Natural Sciences and American Ornithologists’ Union. 24 

pp. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1996 (1990, updated in 1996). Refuge management plan 

(RMP). Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge. Nampa, ID. 33 pp. 

 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use 

Refuge Name: Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Mosquito Management 

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 

/al Do we have iurisdiction over the use? ✓ 

lb\ Does the use comply with annlicable laws and reoulations (federal, state, tribal, and local\? ✓ 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service ✓ 

oolicies? 

Id) Is the use consistent with oublic safetv? ✓ 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other ✓ 

document? 

(I) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use, or is this the first time the use has ✓ 

been orooosed? 

In\ Is the use manaaeable within available budaet and staff? ✓ 

(h) Will this be manaaeable in the future within existina 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? 

Q) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational ✓ 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for description), 

comoatible, wildlife-deoendent recreation into the future? 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use ("no" to (a)), there is no need to evaluate ii 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 _ __:_✓ __ 

Date: 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge s rvisor 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 Appropri~the refuge superviso7st sign concurrence. 

Refuge SupeNisOi: ~, 4,f.../ L ;f.:l, /..,...... Date: __ .u..1.(-1-/-'1c.,' ,_/,_;-'-: ____ _ , r, r , 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed. 

Appendix A Appropriate Use Determinations 

FWS Fann 3-2319 

02/06 

A-67 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-68 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

Appropriate Use Justification 

Refuge Name: Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Mosquito Management

(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. Service policy recognizes the importance of maintaining a balanced ecosystem 

landscape through wildlife population management as noted in 601 FW s 3.14 (B), Biological 

Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health. Controlling mosquito populations is consistent 

with that policy by reducing wildlife threats from mosquito-borne diseases, such as transmission 

of West Nile Virus to migratory birds.

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? 

With the spread of mosquito-borne diseases across the country, there is increasing pressure to 

manage mosquito populations that occur on lands of the National Wildlife Refuge System, 

especially in wetland areas that are part of the Refuge. The mosquito species documented to be 

breeding on, or residing on DFNWR, and targeted for monitoring and treatment, are Culex 

inornata, Culex pipiens, Culex tarsalis, Culex ervthrothorax, Ochlerotatus nigromaculus, Aedes 

vexans, and Anopheles freebornii. The presence of Western Equine Encephalitis (WEE) was 

detected in cattle on ranch property that borders the south boundary of the Refuge in 1999. 

Active arbovirus surveillance in the adult mosquito population was initiated in 2000. In 2006 

there was a West Nile Virus outbreak in Idaho. The Lake Lowell Unit accounted for 40% of the 

positive West Nile pools detected and tested in Canyon County during the 2006 epidemic. In 

2010 and again in 2011 there was no disease activity noted in the mosquito population on 

DFNWR. While mosquitoes are a natural component of wetlands, we recognize that they can 

pose a threat to human and wildlife health. 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or 

other document? The use is consistent with the draft comprehensive conservation plan and the 

Service’s Draft Mosquito and Mosquito-Borne Disease Management Policy. 

(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 

monitoring has occurred since 1999. 

(g) and (h) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? Use will be conducted 

by Canyon County Mosquito Abatement District. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations A-69 

(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? 

Providing information on mosquito-borne diseases is beneficial to the public. Early monitoring 

and treatment is essentially to avert large-scale outbreaks and the aggressive treatment necessary 

to control them. 

(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 FW1 

for description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

Mosquito control does not substantially impair wildlife-dependent recreational uses on the 

Refuge because control is seasonal and does not take place on a daily basis. Wildlife-dependent 

uses in the Refuge may be temporarily displaced, but are not expected to be excluded by 

mosquito management activities. Mosquito control will benefit wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses by providing a more pleasant visitor experience. 

 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-70 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations 

Document continues on next page. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-1 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

B.1 Introduction 

The compatibility determinations (CDs) we developed during the comprehensive conservation 

planning process evaluate public uses identified in this CCP. The evaluation of funds needed for 

management and implementation of each use is also provided. 

B.1.1. Uses Evaluated at This Time 

The following section includes CDs for all refuge uses that are required to be evaluated at this time. 

According to Service policy, CDs will be completed for all uses proposed under a CCP. Existing 

wildlife-dependent recreational uses must also be reevaluated and new CDs prepared during 

development of a CCP or every 15 years, whichever comes first. Uses other than wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses are not explicitly required to be reevaluated in concert with preparation of a CCP, 

unless conditions of the use have changed or unless significant new information relative to the use 

and its effects have become available or the existing CDs are more than 10 years old. However, the 

Service’s 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. 

Refuge Use Compatible Next Year Due for 

Reevaluation 

Page 

Farming and grazing Yes 2025 B-5 

Fishing Yes 2030 B-17 

Horseback riding, jogging, and bicycling Yes 2025 B-31 

Hunting deer Yes 2030 B-43 

Hunting waterfowl and upland birds Yes 2030 B-51 

Recreational boating Yes 2025 B-65 

Research Yes 2025 B-77 

Sailing regattas Yes 2025 B-85 

Swimming, beach use, and picnicking Yes 2025 B-95 

Walking with pets (other than hunting dogs) Yes 2025 B-105 

Wildlife observation, photography, interpretation, and 

environmental education Yes 2030 B-113 

Mosquito Management Yes 2025 B-125 

B.1.2 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 National 

Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS or 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” (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4). 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. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-2 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

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, will not materially interfere 

with or detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the 

refuge. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (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 CDs. When prepared in conjunction with a CCP, CDs are distributed for public 

review along with the Draft CCP/EIS. 

Under compatibility policy, each use is defined as a 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 

CDs. The Service does not prepare CDs for uses over which 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 overflights, 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 Administration Act, 

was adopted by the Service in October 2000 (http://refuges.fws.gov/policymakers/nwrpolicies.html). 

The policy requires that a use must be compatible with both the mission of the Refuge System and 

the purposes of the individual refuge. This standard helps to ensure consistency in application across 

the Refuge System. 

The Service recognizes that CDs are complex. For this reason, refuge managers are required to 

consider “principles of sound fish and wildlife management” and “best available science” in making 

these determinations (House of Representatives Report 105-106). Evaluations of the existing uses on 

Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge are based on the professional judgment of refuge personnel 

including observations of refuge uses and reviews of appropriate scientific literature. 

The refuge manager has the authority to determine, by exercising sound professional judgment, what 

is a compatible use. In addition to determining if a use would materially interfere with or detract 

from the fulfillment of the Refuge 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 will determine whether or not the use is compatible. This 

determination is documented in writing and is available for review by the public. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-3 

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, 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 

CDs. 

B.1.3 References 

House of Representatives Report 105-106 (on National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act): 

http://refuges.fws.gov/policyMakers/mandates/HR1420/part1.html 

Compatibility regulations, adopted by the Service in October 2000: 

http://refuges.fws.gov/policymakers/nwrpolicies.html. 

 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-4 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Document continues on next page. 

 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-5 

B.2 Compatibility Determination for Farming and Grazing 

RMIS Database Use: Farming and Grazing 

Refuge Name: Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge 

Location: Canyon, Owyhee, Payette, and Washington Counties, Idaho, and Malheur County, Oregon 

Date Established: 1909 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities 

Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge (NWR or Refuge) was originally established in 1909 by 

President Theodore Roosevelt as Deer Flat Bird Reservation as a “preserve and breeding grounds for 

native birds” (Executive Order [E.O.] 1032). In 1937, President Franklin D. Roosevelt revoked 

Executive Order 1032 and reestablished the Refuge as the Deer Flat Bird Reservation to “further the 

purposes of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act” and “as a refuge and breeding ground for 

migratory birds and other wildlife” (E.O. 7655). Also in 1937, 36 islands in the Snake River were 

designated as the Snake River Migratory Bird Refuge (E.O. 7691). 

In 1940, the Refuges’ names were changed by Presidential Proclamation No. 2416, to Deer Flat 

National Wildlife Refuge and Snake River National Wildlife Refuge respectively. In 1963, Public 

Land Order 3110 transferred all lands of the Snake River National Wildlife Refuge (consisting of 74 

islands) to the direct jurisdiction of Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge. Any lands (including those 

in the Snake River Islands National Wildlife Refuge) that were added to Deer Flat National Wildlife 

Refuge assume the purposes for which Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge was established as well as 

keeping any individual purposes that were provided at the time of their establishment or acquisition. 

Refuge Purposes 

 “to further the purposes of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act” and “as a refuge and 

breeding grounds for migratory birds and other wildlife” (E.O. 7655) 

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

(Migratory Bird Conservation Act [16 U.S.C. 715d]) 

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

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

species” (16 U.S.C. 460k-1) and “the Secretary ... may accept and use ... real ... property. 

Such acceptance may be accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive 

covenants imposed by donors” (16 U.S.C. 460k-2) (Refuge Recreation Act [16 U.S.C. 460k460k-4], as amended) 

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 et seq.]). 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-6 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Description of Uses 

The discussion below is applicable only to the Lake Lowell Unit of the Refuge and is not applicable 

to the Snake River Islands Unit. 

Farming 

Deer Flat NWR currently uses production methods that include cooperative agreement farming, 

which involves a negotiated agreement between the Refuge and a private farmer (the cooperator) to 

produce crops for both parties. Except for maintenance of underground irrigation systems and pumps, 

the cooperator is responsible for the costs of production. In return for producing a specified amount 

of crops for the Refuge, the cooperator is allowed to harvest and sell the remaining crops. In the 

current cooperative farming program, the farmers keep 75 percent of the crop and leave the 

remaining 25 percent for wildlife. All crop selections are agreed to by the Refuge, and special 

conditions are documented in each cooperative agreement. 

Currently, 255 acres are in cooperative farming programs on Deer Flat NWR. The agriculture fields 

on the Refuge are referred to as Farm Field 1, Farm Field 5, and the Marsh Field, and all of them are 

on the north side of Lake Lowell. Crops are grown in concert with proper timing for the particular 

type of crop. The typical growing season varies from 120 to 200 days. Crops grown include cereal 

grains and green forage for migratory and wintering waterfowl use. Grain crops grown to meet the 

high energy demands of migratory and wintering waterfowl consist of corn and wheat. Green forage 

crops, which provide for the fall, winter, and spring Canada goose population, consist of alfalfa and 

winter wheat. 

Farming operations that surround the Refuge participate in “clean farming,” in which fields are tilled 

in the fall to reduce the amount of invasive weeds and to ready the field for spring planting outside of 

the wet season. This practice limits the amount of waste grains available in the area to migrating 

waterfowl. Areas farmed by the cooperator for their share provide additional benefit (not included in 

the Refuge share) to waterfowl by providing waste grains and/or green forage in harvested fields. 

Grazing 

The only area where grazing is currently permitted on the Refuge is the Leavitt Tract. The previous 

land owner historically used the Leavitt Tract to graze his personal cattle. The cooperator is charged a 

fee based on the number of Animal Unit Months (AUM) that are grazed. An AUM equals the amount 

of forage required by an animal unit (e.g., one cow or a cow-calf pair) multiplied by the number of 

months that the animal unit is allowed to graze on the Refuge. The cooperator is allowed to graze 25 

and 30 head of cattle from mid-April through September and occasionally 15 to 20 head of horses in 

the winter. Much of the tract is flooded from a failing irrigation system and backwater from Lake 

Lowell. Cattle drink from the flooded portion of the field or a runoff ditch also located on the parcel. 

Wintering Canada geese benefit from this use because grazing is an effective way to maintain short 

grasses. Geese prefer young shoots that are higher in protein and lower in fiber than mature stems 

(McLandress and Raveling 1981). To provide high-quality forage for wintering and migrating geese, 

the Refuge has managed grazing to ensure that young shoots less than 6 inches tall are available by 

early October each year and to reduce the accumulation of thatch, which can reduce the number of 

shoots. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-7 

Changes to the Use 

Farming

Cooperative farming will continue with an increased focus on best management practices. An 

additional well will be available on Farm Field 5 and we will reimplement shoreline planting. At one 

time, approximately 400 acres were farmed on the Refuge, which included planting millet along 

some of the lake’s shoreline. Because lakeshore plantings can be less labor intensive and do not 

require irrigation, they can be less costly than expanding cooperative farming in upland areas. 

However, according to Refuge narratives, historic shoreline plantings had mixed success due to the 

unpredictability of moisture. This strategy was eliminated due to budget constraints at the time. As 

housing development continues to increase and foraging space becomes even more limited around 

the lake, this strategy may be implemented to achieve Refuge goals and objectives. 

Special conditions in place will continue (see Stipulations section below), including restrictions on 

pesticide uses, the use of best management practices, limits to the types of crops grown, no grasscrop harvesting from April 15 through June 15 (to reduce the risk of destroying nests of groundnesting birds), and a requirement to have 6 inches of green browse by October 1. 

Grazing

Changes to the grazing program consist of herd rotations as a mechanism to reduce soil compaction 

and control invasive/undesirable plant species in grazing lands, cleaning and updating irrigation 

infrastructure (cleaning ditches, redoing corrugations, and replacing irrigation checks) to provide 

better water control, reestablishing permanent goose pasture by seeding cool season perennial 

grasses, changing the grazing period to April 1 through August 15, and managing short grasses by 

activities such as haying, mowing, and burning. These changes will be highlighted in cooperative 

land management agreements and grazing plans. The Refuge will also conduct a grazing fee market 

analysis to aid in evaluating current grazing fees. 

Availability of Resources 

Table B-1 identifies funding needed to administer and manage cooperative agreement farming and 

grazing on the Refuge. Most of the costs associated with carrying out the improvements are one-time 

expenses (see Table B-1). The farming and grazing programs could continue in their current state 

without additional upgrades, however, these programs will be enhanced by the planned projects. 

Additional projects to upgrade the programs will require new funding sources. The Service will 

explore available options to obtain funding to implement these projects, including partnership efforts. 

Because there will be a minimal expansion in farmed/grazed acreage, the program will continue to be 

managed by current staff. 

Table B-1. Costs to Implement Improvements to the Farming and Grazing Programs

Refuge Activity Required to Allow Use Estimated One-time Cost Estimated Annual Cost 

Install new well in Farm Field 5 $80,000-$100,000 

Update irrigation in Leavitt Tract $12,000 

Interseed grass in Leavitt Tract $48,000 

Plant crops on shoreline $70,000 

Maintain short grass in Leavitt Tract $12,000 

Total $140,000-$160,000 $82,000 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-8 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Anticipated Impacts of Uses 

Impacts to Listed Species 

There are no listed species known to occur on the Refuge. The counties that surround both units of 

the Refuge have a variety of listed species historically or currently occurring within each county. Of 

these species only the yellow-billed cuckoo has ever been documented on Deer Flat NWR, and it is 

currently considered a vagrant because sightings are highly unusual. The Columbia spotted frog 

could conceivably exist on the Refuge but has not been documented. The condition of habitat for 

both of these species is either unknown or marginal. The likelihood of any other of the listed species 

that occur in the surrounding counties existing on the Refuge is slim. Most of these other species 

have known populations that occur off-Refuge (e.g., Bruneau hot springs snail, Packard’s milkvetch) 

or roam great distances and/or will not find suitable habitat on the Refuge (e.g., North American 

wolverine, greater sage-grouse). It is anticipated that impacts from farming and grazing will be 

negligible. If any use results in unacceptable adverse effects to candidate species or habitats, the 

Refuge will impose restrictions to mitigate disturbance. 

Impacts from Farming 

Deer Flat NWR is located within the Columbia Basin, which was once dominated by shrub-steppe 

habitat. The basin is now dominated by cropland farming, which represents approximately 25 percent 

of the total upland area on the Refuge. 

Direct impacts of cropland management include exposure of soils to wind erosion and impacts from 

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 or 

accelerate the decomposition of organic matter and can diminish earthworm populations (Natural 

Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] 2012). 

Farming may also result in the use and introduction into the environment of chemical agents from 

pesticide usage and the potential exacerbation of weed issues through ground disturbance and fieldto-field movement of cultivating and harvesting equipment. 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. 

One study claims that globally, due to habitat loss, farming is already the greatest extinction threat to 

birds (the best known taxon), and its adverse impacts are likely to increase with the growing human 

population and demand for food (Green et al. 2005). The same study advocates for wildlife-friendly 

farming that encourages wildlife use but results in lower yields, similar to the Refuge’s cooperative 

farming program. 

Farming activities such as plowing, haying, and cultivating can create a disturbance to migratory 

birds and other resident wildlife. Timing pasture management activities appropriately provides 

Canada geese, other migratory birds, and wildlife optimum habitat conditions when they most need 

it, in the fall through winter seasons. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-9 

Impacts from Grazing 

The impacts of grazing depend on many factors including timing, habitat type, and stocking rate. 

Numerous studies, gathered in a review of grazing literature, found that grazing has negative impacts 

on various grassland birds, nesting waterfowl, and small mammals (Fleischner 1994). These species 

are not only subject to injury and mortality from trampling during the nesting season, but the 

conversion of tall pasture grasses to short-cropped grasses results in habitat loss for some species. 

Fleishcher (1994) also enumerated other negative impacts of grazing such as altering species 

composition, decreasing density and biomass of individual species, reducing species richness, and 

changing community organization. Vavra (2005) found similar results also showing that grazing can 

alter species composition. 

Negative impacts from grazing are mostly associated with difficulties in containing the cattle that are 

attracted to water and can therefore damage sensitive wetland areas if they gain access to those sites. 

In a review of grazing impacts, Kauffman and Krueger (1984) pointed to studies that showed cattle 

can cause damage in riparian forest sites and waterways by trampling the understory, compacting 

soils, degrading water quality, and making areas undesirable for other wildlife. Overgrazing can lead 

to bank instability, increased runoff, and erosion (Behnke and Raleigh 1978). 

Grazing has been shown to be beneficial for single-species management such as for foraging geese. 

Some refuges use grazing in improved pasture in an attempt to increase the amount of edible green 

shoots available for wintering geese (Greenwalt 1978). Geese use refuge pastures for foraging, 

preferring young shoots that are higher in protein and lower in fiber than mature stems (McLandress 

and Raveling 1981). Pasture grasses serve as an important source of amino acids and carbohydrates 

to meet the energy and nutrient requirements of geese (Baldassarre and Bolen 2006). Grazing by 

livestock simulates some of the effects of natural disturbances by removing woody vegetation, 

reducing thatch, and encouraging the production of young shoots, which are preferred forage for 

Canada and cackling geese (Raveling 1979). Grazing can be used to set back succession, increase 

native annual forb species and cover, and decrease vegetation height and litter depth (Hayes and Holl 

2003); all of which are beneficial to foraging Canada geese. 

Refuge-specific Impacts 

The introduction and spread of weeds are expected to be mitigated partly through such practices as 

equipment cleaning, mowing to prevent seed set and dispersal, and treatments to any source 

populations that have the potential to infest agricultural fields (usually windborne seed dispersal). 

Cooperators will be required to follow the same procedures as Refuge equipment operators by 

cleaning equipment before moving between fields when working in areas of weed infestations to 

minimize the spread of undesirable plants as per cooperative land use agreements. The Refuge will 

continue to monitor farming and grazing sites for invasive weeds and will maintain an aggressive 

approach to invasive plant control and restoring sites to vegetation with high wildlife value. In 

addition, the Refuge will continue to work with Canyon County Weed Control to prevent, identify, 

and eradicate new infestations. 

For weed species that are or become established, mechanical, cultural, and biological controls 

methods will be evaluated. If these methods are not expected to be effective or will have undesirable 

consequences (such as impacting nests of grassland-nesting birds), then the Refuge may decide to use 

an herbicide. Chemical usage will be subject to provisions of the Refuge Integrated Pest Management 

(IPM) Plan (Appendix G). Among other provisions, this plan provides direction that “the most 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-10 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

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 will undergo a chemical profile analysis; active 

ingredients will 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. All applications of 

herbicides will conform to the specific pesticide label requirements. Employment of this approach 

will provide for a moderate to minor risk from chemical exposure. However, unquantified risks may 

still occur via factors not assessed under current protocols, such as species-specific sensitivity that 

differs from surrogate species sensitivity; exposure through inhalation, exposure through ingestion of 

pesticide-contaminated soil, and other factors (see Appendix G). 

Activities associated with farming practices may have some impact on birds using farm fields. For 

example, silage activities in the Upper Dam Marsh field may cause geese to move from the 

immediate area where the farming equipment is operating. However, because these disturbances are 

short-term and localized, geese, other migratory birds, and wildlife can easily move to an adjacent 

undisturbed location. Both farming and grazing can have an impact on nesting birds and cause 

habitat degradation and soil compaction as indicated above. Refuge-specific studies to determine the 

timing of local birds using farm fields to nest will be conducted in order to reduce impact. Impacts to 

habitat and soil will also be monitored as noted in stipulations listed below. 

Positive effects are also anticipated. In addition to providing high-carbohydrate forage for wintering 

and migrating waterfowl, per the purpose of the farming program, crop fields planted in small grains 

such as winter wheat can indirectly benefit a variety of seed-eating migratory bird species by 

providing some foraging habitat. The Refuge’s farmed and grazed lands provide areas of high-energy 

grain crops and green forage grasses to meet the energy needs of waterfowl and other wildlife and 

reduce crop depredation in nearby agricultural lands. 

Impacts to Priority Public Uses 

Currently, the public occasionally encounters farming operations while recreating on Refuge lands. 

Although some aspects of farming operations—including noise, dust, spraying, sight of grazing 

animals, and temporary traffic congestion—may be occasional annoyances to members of the public, 

conflicts and impacts are expected to remain minor over the life of the CCP. 

Determination 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility 

Cooperative land management agreements will contain the following special conditions to ensure 

compatibility. 

Farming Stipulations 

 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. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-11 

 By October 1, alfalfa must be cut to a maximum of 6 inches tall, and winter wheat cut to 3 to 

6 inches tall. 

 The agreement does not imply or establish a use precedent. Future use of the area will be 

based on the most satisfactory use of the land for wildlife benefits, cooperator performance, 

habitat management needs, and administrative needs. 

 The cooperative farmer will exercise care to prevent fire and will assume responsibility for 

fire, which may result from his/her operations. 

 No Refuge equipment will be provided for use by the cooperator. 

 At the end of the permit period, cooperator is responsible for removing all equipment from 

Refuge lands. 

 The cooperator shall be responsible for repairing damage to Refuge facilities or habitat 

beyond normal wear and tear resulting from his/her operation. 

 Cropland farming will be done under an approved cooperative land management plan and 

annual cropland management plan per agency policy. 

 Pest plants and weeds will be controlled by crop rotations, mechanical treatments, and 

biological controls where practical; herbicides must be approved by the Refuge manager on a 

case-by-case basis. 

 Pesticide use must be in compliance with the Service policy requirements for completing an 

approved pesticide use proposal, and pesticide use must meet other State and Federal 

requirements. 

 The cooperator will provide a record of herbicides used including chemical name, amount 

used, date, location, and how applied. 

 Pesticide applicators must meet all State, Federal, and agency requirements. 

 Diligence shall be exercised in the control of County-listed invasive weeds. 

 Monitoring of the cropland farming program will be performed by qualified Refuge staff. 

 The share of crops left for wildlife will be at least 25 percent. 

Grazing Stipulations 

 Fencing and ditching will be used to contain cattle and focus grazing on specific pastures 

during the dry season. 

 Season of use shall be from April 1 to August 15 to minimize disturbance to waterfowl and to 

avoid grazing under wet soil conditions. The Refuge reduces impacts of pasture management 

by limiting grazing operations and restricting the introduction of cattle during the breeding 

season in areas where significant impacts to nesting birds will occur. 

 The permittee shall remove all cattle, equipment, and materials from the Refuge by the end of 

the grazing season. 

 The selected grazing cooperator must deliver cattle to the Leavitt Tract by way of the Tio 

Lane entrance. 

 Permittees shall be required to leave fields with 2 or more inches of grass and forbs growth at 

season’s end. 

 The agreement does not imply or establish a use precedent. Future use of the area will be 

based on the most satisfactory use of the land for wildlife benefits, cooperator performance, 

habitat management needs, and administrative needs. 

 Subleasing is prohibited. Animals must be the property of the cooperator. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-12 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

 At the end of the permit period, the cooperator shall be responsible for removing all livestock 

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. 

 Stocking rates of livestock may be altered should pasture conditions warrant, dependent upon 

judgment of the Refuge manager. 

 The cooperator will notify the Refuge manager or designee, at least three days in advance of 

the date cattle are to be turned in or removed from the Refuge. Any changes in the number of 

animals shall be immediately reported to the Refuge manager, or designee. All changes will 

be documented in writing by the cooperator and provided to the Refuge manager or designee 

at the end of the season. Livestock will be contained in assigned units, and fences must be 

maintained by the cooperator. 

 The cooperator is responsible for removing dead livestock carcasses from the Refuge within 

24 hours of discovery. 

 The cooperator shall comply with the livestock regulations of the State of Idaho relating to 

health and sanitation requirements. 

 Monitoring of the grazing program will be performed by qualified Refuge staff, including 

surveys to determine if grazing is adversely impacting ground-nesting birds. 

 Before using grazing as a tool to rehabilitate cheatgrass-infested uplands, more study will be 

completed, and experts in this area will be contacted. If grazing is used in upland 

rehabilitation, a small area will be used as a test area before grazing is allowed in large sagesteppe areas. 

Justification 

The Refuge farm fields are an important food source for waterfowl and other wildlife when natural 

foods are limited. With the exception of the smartweed beds, Lake Lowell contains minimal 

submerged aquatic food for feeding waterfowl. Current crops provide food for wintering waterfowl 

(primarily geese), quail, pheasant, deer, and mourning doves. Ducks and pheasant use or have 

historically used Refuge alfalfa fields for nesting. The crops on the Refuge provide a consistent food 

source for the wintering waterfowl and therefore are important to continue. The conversion from 

agriculture to low-density development, and changes to local agricultural practices in the area 

surrounding the Refuge have resulted in food loss for wintering waterfowl. These changes to local 

agriculture include growing higher-valued specialty crops such as seed alfalfa, onions, and mint; 

using more efficient harvesting equipment so little waste grain remains in the field; and fall plowing 

and tilling often by mid-November, which is prior to the peak of waterfowl concentrations. As a 

result, the availability of winter browse and nutritional foods off-refuge has been substantially 

reduced. Because this trend is likely to continue in the future, cropland management will be essential 

for waterfowl management in future years. Although wintering waterfowl numbers have declined 

over time, numerous waterfowl still winter at Deer Flat NWR. 

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 

grazing activities within the cooperative land management program contribute to achieving Refuge 

purposes and goals identified in the CCP as well as the NWRS mission by providing valuable 

foraging areas for wintering and migrating waterfowl. The combination of management practices and 

stipulations identified above will ensure that farming and grazing contribute to the enhancement, 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-13 

protection, conservation, and management of native wildlife populations and their habitats on the 

Refuge. Therefore, farming and grazing are considered to be compatible Refuge uses. 

Grazing contributes by economically providing weed control and other habitat maintenance functions 

that are not feasible for limited Refuge staff to accomplish. A grazed short-grass pasture will 

complement the marsh habitat on the Leavitt Tract and provide forage and resting habitat for 

migrating and wintering geese. 

The cooperative land management plan will be written after the CCP is complete and will include a 

description of the agreement between the Refuge and the private farmer to manage the land for both 

parties. The grazing management plan will better define the objectives of grazing, the amount of 

stock grazed, and any time restrictions necessary to meet biological management goals. These 

management plans will also identify what habitat and/or wildlife will be monitored to determine the 

benefits and/or impacts of the grazing program. Monitoring will prevent unacceptable or irreversible 

impacts to fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats. Thus, allowing farming and grazing to occur with 

stipulations will not materially detract or interfere with the purposes for which the Refuge was 

established or the Refuge System mission. 

Mandatory Reevaluation Date 

 2025 Mandatory 10-year reevaluation (for all uses other than priority public uses) 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision 

 X Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

References 

Baldassarre, G.A. and E.G. Bolen. 2006. Waterfowl ecology and management. 2nd edition. Malabar, 

FL: Krieger Publishing Company. 

Behnke, R.J. and R.F. Raleigh. 1978. Grazing and the riparian zone: impact and management 

perspectives. Pages 184-189 in: Strategies for protection and management of floodplain 

wetlands and other riparian ecosystems. GTR-WO-12. USDA Forest Service. Washington, 

D.C. 410 pp. 

Fleischner, T.L. 1994. Ecological costs of livestock grazing in western North America. Conservation 

Biology 8(3):629-644. 

Green, R.E., S.J. Cornell, J.P.W. Scharlemann, and A. Balmford. 2005. Farming and the fate of wild 

nature. Science 307(5709):550-555. 

Greenwalt, L.A. 1978. The National Wildlife Refuge System. Pages 399-412 in: H.P. Brokaw, ed. 

Wildlife and America. Washington, D.C.: Council on Environmental Quality. 

Hayes, G.F. and K.D. Holl. 2003. Cattle grazing impacts on annual forbs and vegetation composition 

of mesic grasslands in California. Conservation Biology 17(6):1694-1702. 

Kauffman, J.B. and W.C. Krueger. 1984. Livestock impacts on riparian ecosystems and streamside 

management implications ... a review. Journal of Range Management 37(5):430-438. 

McLandress, M.R. and D.R. Raveling. 1981. Changes in diet and body composition of Canada geese 

before spring migration. Auk 98:65-79. 

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. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-14 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). Soil quality indicator information sheets. 

Available at: http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/assessment/assessment.html#indicator_sheets. 

Accessed February 2, 2012. 

Raveling, D.G. 1979. The annual energy cycle of the cackling Canada goose. Pages 81-93 in: R.L. 

Jarvis and J.C. Bartonek, eds. Management and biology of Pacific Flyway geese. Corvallis, 

OR: OSU Book Stores. 

Vavra, M. 2005. Livestock grazing and wildlife: developing compatibilities. Rangeland Ecology and 

Management 58(2):128-134. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Refuge Compatibility Determination for Farming and Grazing (B.2) 

Use is compatible with stipulations. 

Project Leader 

Approval: 

Concurrence: 

Refuge 

Supervisor: 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System: 

( 1gnature) 

<-../ (Signature) 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

~l l,s 

(Date) 

B-15 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-16 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-17 

B.3 Compatibility Determination for Fishing 

RMIS Database Use: Fishing 

Refuge Name: Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge 

Location: Canyon, Owyhee, Payette, and Washington Counties, Idaho, and Malheur County, Oregon 

Date Established: 1909 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities 

Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge was originally established in 1909 by President Theodore 

Roosevelt as Deer Flat Bird Reservation as a “preserve and breeding grounds for native birds” (E.O. 

1032). In 1937, President Franklin D. Roosevelt revoked Executive Order 1032 and reestablished the 

Refuge as the Deer Flat Bird Reservation to “further the purposes of the Migratory Bird Conservation 

Act” and “as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife” (E.O. 7655). Also 

in 1937, 36 islands in the Snake River were designated as the Snake River Migratory Bird Refuge 

(E.O. 7691). 

In 1940, the Refuges’ names were changed by Presidential Proclamation No. 2416, to Deer Flat 

National Wildlife Refuge and Snake River National Wildlife Refuge respectively. In 1963, Public 

Land Order 3110 transferred all lands of the Snake River National Wildlife Refuge (consisting of 74 

islands) to the direct jurisdiction of Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge. Any lands (including those 

in the Snake River Islands National Wildlife Refuge) that were added to Deer Flat National Wildlife 

Refuge assume the purposes for which Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge was established as well as 

keeping any individual purposes that were provided at the time of their establishment or acquisition. 

Refuge Purposes 

 “to further the purposes of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act” and “as a refuge and 

breeding grounds for migratory birds and other wildlife” (E.O. 7655). 

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

(Migratory Bird Conservation Act [16 U.S.C. 715d]). 

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

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

species” (16 U.S.C. 460k-1) and “the Secretary ... may accept and use ... real ... property. 

Such acceptance may be accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive 

covenants imposed by donors” (16 U.S.C. 460k-2) (Refuge Recreation Act [16 U.S.C. 460k460k-4], as amended). 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission 

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-668ee et seq.]). 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-18 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Description of Use 

Fishing is allowed on both the Lake Lowell and the Snake River Islands Units and is the most 

popular of the priority wildlife-dependent recreational activities. Fishing from above mean high 

water level on the Snake River Islands is not closely monitored and is thought to be infrequent. 

Fishing from boats in the Snake River is outside of the jurisdiction of the Service. The Lake Lowell 

Unit received approximately 46,000 fishing visits in Fiscal Year (FY) 2011. 

At the Lake Lowell Unit, the majority of fishing occurs from boats and is allowed from April 15 

through September 30. Fishing from open shoreline is allowed any time. During waterfowl hunting 

season, fishing from human-powered boats is allowed in Fishing Areas A and B. When Lake Lowell 

freezes, ice fishing will be allowed in Fishing Areas A and B within 200 yards of the dams, subject to 

areas posted by the Bureau of Reclamation. It is the angler’s responsibility to confirm and understand 

the hazards associated with this activity. Fishing from the Snake River Islands Unit is allowed from 

June 1 through January 31. 

At the Lake Lowell Unit, spring and summer fishing are focused on fishing for large and smallmouth 

bass from boats. The majority of bank fishing is focused on catfish with some anglers fishing for 

perch, crappie, and bluegill. 

There are five boat launches (three of which are improved and maintained) on the Lake Lowell Unit 

from which fisherman can launch motorized boats. Individuals can also launch human-powered boats 

from a variety of formal and informal locations along the shore. Boating regulations are described in 

the Recreational Boating Compatibility Determination. 

In 2011, four Special Use Permits (SUPs) were issued for fishing tournaments, with tournaments 

occurring from April 15 through September 30, excluding May 14 through July 9. Fishing 

tournaments are allowed only every other weekend to provide opportunities for nontournament 

anglers. Tournaments range in size from small club tournaments of 5-10 boats, to a maximum of 100 

boats. Participants in tournaments are required to abide by all no-wake zones, area closures, and State 

fishing regulations. All bass tournaments must launch from the Lower Dam Recreation Area. The 

Refuge charges a fee of $100 for each bass tournament. 

Changes to Described Uses 

The Refuge will improve and expand facilities and programs to enhance fishing as follows. 

 Access to Snake River Islands Unit is restricted to June 15 through January 31 on goosenesting islands and from July 1 through January 31 on heron- and gull-nesting islands. 

Access to islands will be clearly delineated in Refuge brochure. 

 Access to Lake Lowell Unit: 

o To protect nesting birds, access will be allowed only on maintained roads and trails 

from February 1 through July 31 in the North Side and South Side Recreation Areas. 

During these months, lakeshore access is restricted to 100 yards on either side of trails 

accessing the lakeshore. Off-trail travel will be allowed August 1 through January 31. 

o Anglers will be allowed off-trail in the East Side Recreation Area all year. 

o Anglers will be allowed off-trail at Gotts Point February 1 through September 30. 

o Anglers will be allowed access to Murphy’s Neck through the walk-through on Orchard 

Avenue from March 15 to September 30. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-19 

o Gotts Point will be fully open to vehicle access upon completion of a memorandum of 

understanding with Canyon County to resolve law enforcement issues. 

o Lower Dam Recreation Area will be open from April 15 through September 30. 

 The following seasonal closures will be implemented and clearly marked at the Lake Lowell 

Unit as necessary to protect sensitive wildlife habitat: 

o Up to 300-yard buffer around eagle nests February 15 through July 15. 

o Winter waterfowl closure at Gotts Point October 1 through January 31. 

o Up to 500-yard closure around grebe colonies (Berg et al. 2004) until July 15 of the 

following year. If the birds have not renested in the closed area by July 15 of the 

following year, the closure will be removed. Upland portions of the closures will be 

open to use from October 1 through January 31. 

 To determine grebe colony boundaries, the staff biologist will mark nests 

within, and especially on the periphery of, a colony using a global positioning 

system (GPS) capable of sub-meter accuracy as part of the regular colony 

studies. These data points will be exported to a geo-referenced mapping 

system, and a 500-yard buffer will be drawn around the colony. Buoy 

locations will then be mapped every 100 to 150 yards and exported back into 

the GPS unit to be used to place the buoys in the proper location. In the first 

year that grebes nest, the closure will be based on nests established early in the 

nesting season. In the second year of a grebe nesting closure, the closure will 

be based on the full extent of the colony in the first year. 

o Up to 250-yard buffer around heron rookeries from February 1 through July 1 

o Up to 100-yard closure around shorebird feeding areas from July 15 through 

September 30 during years when the lake level elevation is lower than 2,522 feet. 

 No-wake zones will be implemented as follows to protect sensitive wildlife habitat and 

provide no-wake recreational opportunities: 

o Protect emergent plant beds on south side of the lake with a 200-yard no-wake zone 

measured from the edge of the shoreline or emergent vegetation, whichever is closest 

to the center of the lake. 

o Establish no-wake area in the Narrows between the East and West Pools. 

o Establish no-wake zone east from line between Parking Lot 1 and Gotts Point. 

 Provide designated, ABA-accessible fishing access trails, for example: 

o From parking areas at Gotts Point. 

o At Parking Lots 4 and 7. 

o From planned 0.65-mile ADA-accessible interpretive loop trail in riparian habitat 

between Lower Dam Recreation Area and Murphy’s Neck. 

 Provide multipurpose (e.g., fishing, observation), ABA-accessible docks or platforms, for 

example: 

o At north end of Lower Dam Recreation Area near existing Environmental Education 

Building. 

o Just west of boat launch at east end of the Upper Dam. 

o Along planned 2-mile ABA-accessible interpretive elevated boardwalk between 

Parking Lots 1 and 3. 

 Remove walk-through access to Murphy’s Neck from Orchard Avenue after installing 

Murphy’s Neck Trail with fishing access from Lower Dam Recreation Area to provide 

alternate, safer access. 

 Provide fishing line receptacles. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-20 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Availability of Resources 

Deer Flat NWR is open to all of the priority, wildlife-dependent recreational activities, including 

fishing, and the infrastructure is there for all of these user groups. Even though fishing is the 

most popular visitor activity, to date only a limited number of facilities have been developed 

specifically for fishing. Most of the costs associated with carrying out the improvements are onetime expenses (see Table B-2). Because the Service has limited capacity to staff and maintain 

facilities and provide law enforcement, the Service will explore all available options to obtain 

funding to implement these projects, including partnership efforts. 

Currently, most on-water law enforcement and boating-related dock maintenance is provided by the 

Canyon County Sheriff’s Office. If the Sheriff’s Office ever discontinued this assistance, there will 

be additional costs associated with maintaining this use. Because the Sheriff’s Office is not currently 

able to provide law enforcement for Refuge-specific regulations, it will be important for the Refuge 

to increase its law enforcement presence and/or work with Canyon County to enable county deputies 

to enforce these regulations. 

Table B-2. Costs to Implement Improvements to the Fishing Program 

Refuge Activity Required to Allow Use Estimated One-time Cost Estimated Annual Cost 

*Install new docks $44,600 

*Install seasonal public use regulation signs $1,400 

*Install public use in hunt area signs $200 

*Open Gotts Point to vehicles and create accessible 

trails to water 

$62,400 

*New trail at Murphy’s Neck $95,200 

*Print/reprint general Refuge brochures $3,200 $800 

*Seasonal nesting closure signs (Lake Lowell and Snake 

River Islands Units) 

$11,000 

*Install buoys for seasonal closures and permanent nowake areas $4,300 

*Buoy and dock maintenance $7,400 

*Replace 25% of regulatory and directional signs $5,200 

*Maintain Murphy’s Neck and Gotts Point Trails $1,000 

*Visitor contact station $480,000 $1,600 

*Install and maintain comfort station and vault toilet at 

Lower Dam Recreation Area (LDRA) and Parking Lot 1 

$208,200 $3,000 

*Rehabilitate LDRA parking area $50,000 

*LDRA site plan $40,000 

*Quality of wildlife-dependent public uses survey $75,000-$80,000 

*Human/wildlife interaction disturbance studies $140,000 

*Law enforcement officer $62,400 

Total $1,215,500-$1,220,500 $81,400 

* Costs marked with an asterisk (*) represent costs that are also entered into other CD for activities using the same 

resource. For example, installing new docks will benefit fisherman, and visitors engaged in wildlife observation, 

photography, and interpretation. This same cost has been shown in all CDs that may use the new docks. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use 

The following discussion analyzes impacts of the use, as it is described in the CCP. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-21 

General Impacts to Habitat 

A number of studies have investigated the impacts of boats on aquatic plants, including reduced 

biomass, shorter canopies, reduced overall coverage, and increased scours compared to sites with 

restricted boat use (Asplund and Cook 1997; Wagner 1991; Zieman 1976). While exclusion zones 

and closures may not prevent habitat degradation, they can have an effect on minimizing damage to 

this important habitat (Asplund and Cook 1997). Boating can also have effects on shoreline erosion 

(Johnson 1994; Nanson et al. 1994), resuspension of sediments leading to water clarity issues 

(Garrad and Hey 1987; Johnson 1994; Yousef et al. 1980), and water pollution (Mastran et al. 1994). 

Shoreline fishing has been shown to have environmental consequences in the way of soil 

compaction, degradation of plant communities, and increased contribution to pollution in the form of 

litter (O’Toole et al. 2009). Shoreline activities, such as human noise, can cause some birds to flush 

and go elsewhere. In addition, vegetation trampling and deposition of human waste and litter are 

expected to commonly occur (Liddle and Scorgie 1980). Disturbance and destruction of riparian 

vegetation, and impacts to bank stability and water quality, may result from high levels of bank 

fishing activities. 

General Impacts to Wildlife 

Recreational angling has the potential to cause disturbance to birds and other wildlife using the open 

waters and flooded emergent vegetation of the Refuge. Fishing activities may influence the 

composition of bird communities, as well as distribution, abundance, and productivity of waterbirds 

(Bell and Austin 1985; Bouffard 1982; Cooke 1987; Edwards and Bell 1985; Tydeman 1977). In one 

study, an increase in the number of anglers and associated shoreline activity discouraged waterfowl 

from using otherwise suitable habitat (Jahn and Hunt 1964). Anglers can also influence the numbers, 

behavior, and diurnal distribution of avian scavengers (Knight et al. 1991). 

Boating associated with fishing can alter bird distribution, reduce use of particular habitats or entire 

areas by waterfowl and other waterbirds, alter feeding behavior and nutritional status, and cause 

premature departure from areas. Impacts of motorized boating can occur even at low densities, given 

their noise and speed (Knight and Cole 1995). Both motorized and nonmotorized boating have been 

shown to change wildlife distribution and use of particular habitats, alter feeding behavior and 

nutritional status, and cause premature departure from desirable habitat (Bouffard 1982; Kaiser and 

Fritzell 1984; Korschgen et al. 1985). Studies have also shown that boating disturbance may cause 

increased flight time and flushing distances in waterfowl species (Havera et al. 1992; Kahl 1991; 

Kenow et al. 2003; Knapton et al. 2000). Wildlife species that are more sensitive to recreation-related 

disturbances (e.g., bald eagles, shorebirds, grebes) may find it increasingly difficult to secure 

adequate food or loafing sites as their preferred habitat becomes fragmented by disturbance (Burger 

1997; Pfister et al. 1992; Skagen et al. 1991). 

Motorized boats can cover a larger area in a relatively short time in comparison to nonmotorized 

boats, affecting a greater area and providing less time for wildlife to react. Compared to motorboats, 

human-powered boats like canoes and kayaks appear to cause fewer disturbances to most wildlife 

species (Huffman 1999). However, canoes and kayaks can cause measurable disturbance effects 

because they can access shallower and more densely vegetated areas of a marsh (Speight 1973). 

Slow-moving boats in close proximity to nesting great blue herons can cause temporary nest 

abandonment (Vos et al. 1985), and Huffman (1999) found that nonmotorized boats within 30 meters 

(98 feet) of the shoreline in south San Diego Bay caused all wintering waterfowl to flush between the 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-22 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

craft and shore. There have been several studies documenting impacts to birds native to Deer Flat 

NWR. One study showed a decrease in use of a bald eagle feeding site when human activity 

(including motorized boating) occurred within 200 meters (Skagen 1980). Another disturbance study 

showed that motorboats were more likely to elicit response in wintering bald eagles than nearby 

automatic weapons fire, small arms fire, ordnance impacts, and helicopter flights associated with a 

military installation (Stalmaster and Kaiser 1997). Rodgers and Schwikert (2002) measured flushing 

distances from motorized watercraft for 23 waterbird species, of which the great blue heron was one 

of the more sensitive, flushing between distances of 8 and 137 meters. 

Fishing also results in the direct take of fish. Fishing regulations and harvest are coordinated with the 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) to avoid excess pressure on populations. The State also 

conducts the stocking program on Lake Lowell. Fishing will be permitted by angling only unless an 

SUP is issued. Outreach materials such as fishing brochures, informational panels, and public 

education on best fishing practices will help educate anglers on fishing regulations and ethical 

behavior. Working in cooperation with the State of Idaho and requiring the anglers to comply with 

State regulations will ensure that harvesting of fish does not harm long-term populations and fits well 

within the public’s expectations and local fishing culture. 

Local Impacts 

Many of the wildlife species that frequent Deer Flat NWR rely on aquatic vegetation. Herons and 

egrets forage in smartweed beds; grebes make their nests from and in emergent vegetation and ducks 

raise their broods in the protection that its cover provides. The shallow water and marshy habitat are 

vital to the survival of wildlife species that call Deer Flat NWR home. 

Colonial-nesting birds may be among the most sensitive species subjected to potential disturbance 

from fishing and fishing-associated boating. Lake Lowell is one of only three lakes in Idaho that 

routinely sees colonies of nesting western and Clark’s grebes whose breeding population is 

considered imperiled in the state (IDFG 2005). IDFG has printed pamphlets for public distribution 

that provide information on conflicts between boaters and grebes and the importance of responsible 

boating. Anglers at Lake Lowell often fish in the shallow, heavily vegetated areas that birds prefer 

and may negatively impact distribution and abundance of breeding grebes. It is inevitable that there 

will be some impact to wildlife species from fishing. However, the overall effect of this impact is 

anticipated to be adequately mitigated by implementing the stipulations listed below. 

According to a recent visitor use study done on Lake Lowell (see Appendix L), 38 percent of boaters 

on the lake were actively engaged in fishing activities during the time of the survey. Between 83 

percent and 100 percent of boaters located in the emergent bed or on the edge of the emergent bed 

were actively involved in fishing. The estimated number of angling visits at the Refuge has increased 

in recent years (from 33,500 in FY07 to 46,000 in FY11). However, the 2006 National Survey of 

Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-associated Recreation showed that between 1996 and 2006, the 

number of state-resident anglers decreased by 28 percent (USFWS and U.S. Census Bureau 2007). 

Because both the national and Idaho State trends appear to show a decline in participation in fishing, 

it is anticipated that future levels of fishing will not materially interfere with the purposes of the 

Refuge. 

In 2011 the estimated number of annual shoreline or dock fishing visits to Deer Flat NWR was 

18,300. The impact of these visitors is not monitored, but there is evidence in the way of social trails 

and litter. Popular shoreline fishing areas have well-worn paths through the vegetation, which 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-23 

fragment and impact habitat in the surrounding area. Careless anglers also leave trash that can have 

an impact on wildlife. For instance, discarded tangled fishing line can be attractive to a nesting bird 

that attempts to use it and instead becomes ensnared. By maintaining closed areas, increasing law 

enforcement, and working with local advocacy groups, these impacts can be reduced. It is anticipated 

that by implementing the stipulations listed below, this use can coexist with wildlife needs. 

Refuge staff will monitor the number of anglers and their effects on wildlife, especially nesting birds. 

Ongoing monitoring of angling activities on Deer Flat NWR will allow managers to apply adaptive 

management and address issues as they come up. Monitoring efforts will be a part of an overall 

fisheries management plan that will help guide fisheries management on the Refuge into the future. 

Impacts to Listed Species 

There are no listed species known to occur on the Refuge. The counties that surround both units of 

the Refuge have a variety of listed species historically or currently occurring within each county. Of 

these species only the yellow-billed cuckoo has ever been documented on Deer Flat NWR, and it is 

currently considered a vagrant because sightings are highly unusual. The Columbia spotted frog 

could conceivably exist on the Refuge but has not been documented. The condition of habitat for 

both of these species is either unknown or marginal. The likelihood of any other of the listed species 

that occur in the surrounding counties existing on the Refuge is slim. Most of these other species 

have known populations that occur off-Refuge (e.g., Bruneau hot springs snail, Packard’s milkvetch) 

or roam great distances and/or will not find suitable habitat on the Refuge (e.g., North American 

wolverine, greater sage-grouse). It is anticipated that impacts from fishing will be negligible. If any 

use results in unacceptable adverse effects to candidate species or habitats, the Refuge will impose 

restrictions to mitigate disturbance. 

Impacts to Other Priority Public Uses 

Fishing is considered a priority public use under the 1997 Refuge Improvement Act (Public Law 

105-57). Conflicts between anglers and hunters are not common as they typically happen in separate 

seasons. The majority of Lake Lowell is closed to fishing during most of the hunting season. Wildlife 

photographers and observers may have limited contact with bank anglers, but a majority of fishermen 

are in boats. Groups involved with environmental education and interpretation are typically located 

around the Visitor Center and are removed from anglers. Conflicts between fishermen and 

nonwildlife-dependent recreational boaters are more common. 

Fishing will continue as it has historically, with a few minor changes. There will be more no-wake 

zones where anglers will have to slow down sooner to get to popular fishing areas. Sensitive wildlife 

areas will also be closed off to any entry including anglers. These areas will change annually based 

on wildlife surveys, which will present a moving target for anglers to keep track of. 

Trash associated with fishing activities leaves an unsightly environment that is unpleasant for other 

Refuge visitors. Placing trash receptacles and restroom facilities in strategic locations, placing fishing 

docks in high use areas, and creating improved trails to popular spots are planned. These improved 

facilities will mitigate negative impacts associated with concentrated shoreline fishing and allow 

other areas with limited access to receive reduced angler use and minimal disturbance to wildlife. An 

appropriate level of cooperative law enforcement will also provide layers of protection for trust 

resources. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-24 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Determination 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility 

 Refuge staff will monitor impacts of these activities annually to assess compliance with these 

stipulations, impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat, conflicts between user groups, and user 

satisfaction. Monitoring data will be used to modify these stipulations if necessary to ensure 

continued compatibility of these activities. 

 All fishing on the Refuge will require the appropriate State license and will occur consistent 

with applicable Refuge and State regulations designated by IDFG or Oregon Department of 

Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) as appropriate. 

 Access to Snake River Islands Unit is restricted to June 15 through January 31 on goosenesting islands and from July 1 through January 31 on heron- and gull-nesting islands. 

Access to islands will be clearly delineated in the Refuge brochure. 

 Use will be restricted to official daylight hours only. 

 Access to Lake Lowell Unit: 

o To protect nesting birds, access will be allowed only on maintained roads and trails 

from February 1 through July 31 in the North Side and South Side Recreation Areas. 

During these months, lakeshore access is restricted to 100 yards on either side of trails 

accessing the lakeshore. Off-trail travel will be allowed August 1 through January 31. 

o Anglers will be allowed off-trail in the East Side Recreation Area all year. 

o Anglers will be allowed off-trail at Gotts Point from February 1 through September 

30. 

o Anglers will be allowed access to Murphy’s Neck through the walk-through on 

Orchard Avenue from March 15 to September 30. 

o Gotts Point will be fully open to vehicle access upon completion of a memorandum of 

understanding with Canyon County to resolve law enforcement issues 

o Lower Dam Recreation Area will be open from April 15 through September 30. 

 Seasonal closures will be implemented as necessary to protect sensitive wildlife habitat. For 

example: 

o Up to 300-yard buffer around eagle nests from February 15 through July 15. 

o Up to 150-yard seasonal closure around osprey nests from March 15 through August 

1. 

o Up to 500-yard closure around grebe colonies (Berg et al. 2004) until July 15 of the 

following year. If the birds have not renested in the closed area by July 15 of the 

following year, the closure will be removed. Upland portions of the closures will be 

open to use from October 1 through January 31. 

 To determine grebe colony boundaries, the staff biologist will mark nests 

within, and especially on the periphery of, a colony using a GPS capable of 

sub-meter accuracy as part of the regular colony studies. These data points will 

be exported to a geo-referenced mapping system, and a 500-yard buffer will be 

drawn around the colony. Buoy locations will then be mapped every 100 to 

150 yards and exported back into the GPS unit to be used to place the buoys in 

the proper location. In the first year that grebes nest, the closure will be based 

on nests established early in the nesting season. In the second year of a grebe 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-25 

nesting closure, the closure will be based on the full extent of the colony in the 

first year. 

o Up to 250-yard buffer around heron rookeries from February 1 through July 1. 

o Up to 100-yard closure around shorebird feeding and resting areas from July 15 

through September 30 during years when the lake level elevation is lower than 2,522 

feet. 

o Wildlife closure at Gotts Point from October 1 through January 31. 

o Wildlife closure at Murphy’s Neck from October 1 through March 15. 

o Wildlife closure at Lower Dam Recreation Area from October 1 through April 14. 

 No-wake zones will be implemented as follows to protect sensitive wildlife habitat and 

provide no-wake recreational opportunities: 

o Protect emergent plant beds on south side of the lake with a 200-yard no-wake zone 

measured from the edge of the shoreline or emergent vegetation, whichever is closest 

to the center of the lake. 

o Establish no-wake area in the Narrows between the East and West Pools. 

o Establish no-wake zone east from line between Parking Lot 1 and Gotts Point. 

 No live, nonnative aquatic bait will be allowed as per Service policy (605 FW 3). 

 Fishing line receptacles will be provided. 

 Fishing tournaments allowed during boating season (April 15 through October 1) except May 

14 through July 9. All no-wake zones, area closures, and State fishing regulations must be 

followed (except catch-and-release before end of June). Bass tournaments only allowed every 

other weekend (to provide opportunities for nontournament anglers). All bass tournaments 

must launch from the Lower Dam Recreation Area. The fee will be $100, and there will be a 

limit of 100 boats. The 30 boat trailer parking spots closest to the ramp will be marked and 

made available to non-tournament participants. 

 No live, nonnative aquatic bait will be allowed as per Service policy (605 FW 3). 

 Open fires will be prohibited. 

 Ice fishing will be allowed in Fishing Areas A and B within 200 yards of the dams, subject to 

areas posted by Reclamation. Anglers will be responsible for checking ice conditions and 

confirming that they are safe. 

Justification 

Fishing, when compatible, is considered a priority public use for the NWRS. Angling brings visitors 

to the Refuge and often enhances their appreciation of natural resources. Parts of Deer Flat NWR are 

closed to all public use to provide areas of undisturbed habitat for fish and wildlife. The stipulations 

listed above will provide protections that reduce disturbances to colonial waterbirds and other 

wildlife. The combination of closed areas, seasonal use areas, minimally used areas, and seasonal 

high use areas, allows quality fishing opportunities and high-quality fish and wildlife habitat to 

coexist on the Refuge. 

Fishing is a priority wildlife-dependent use for the NWRS through which the public can develop an 

appreciation for fish and wildlife (E.O. 12996, March 25, 1996) and the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57). The Service’s policy is to provide expanded 

opportunities for wildlife-dependent uses when compatible and consistent with sound fish and 

wildlife management and to ensure that they receive enhanced attention during planning and 

management. Although these activities can result in disturbance to wildlife and habitat, disturbances 

on the Refuge related to fishing are expected to be intermittent and minor and are not expected to 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-26 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

diminish the value of the Refuge for its stated purposes. The stipulations stated above will ensure 

proper control of the use and provide management flexibility should detrimental impacts develop. 

Facilitating this use on the Refuge will increase visitor knowledge and appreciation of fish and 

wildlife resources. This enhanced understanding will foster increased public stewardship of natural 

resources and support for the Service’s management actions in achieving the Refuge purposes and 

the mission of the NWRS. 

It is anticipated that wildlife populations will find sufficient food resources, nesting and breeding 

areas, and resting places such that their abundance and use of the Refuge will not be measurably 

lessened from allowing fishing at Lake Lowell and from islands in the Snake River Unit. The 

relatively limited number of individuals expected to be adversely affected due to fishing will not 

cause wildlife populations to materially decline, the physiological condition and production of 

wildlife species will not be impaired, their behavior and normal activity patterns will not be altered 

dramatically, and their overall welfare will not be negatively impacted. Thus, allowing fishing will 

not materially interfere with or detract from the mission of the NWRS or the purposes for which the 

Refuge was established. 

Mandatory Reevaluation Date 

 2030 Mandatory 15-year reevaluation (for priority public uses) 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision 

 X Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

References 

Asplund, T.R. and C.M. Cook. 1997. Effects of motor boats on submerged aquatic macrophytes. 

Lake and Reserve Management 13(1):1-12. 

Bell, D.V. and L.W. Austin. 1985. The game-fishing season and its effects on overwintering 

wildfowl. Biological Conservation 33:65-80. 

Berg, G., L. Wilkinson, H. Wollis, and D. Prescott. 2004. Western (Aechmophorous occidentalis) 

and eared (Podiceps nigricollis) grebes of Central Alberta: 2004 field summary. Alberta 

Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division, Alberta Species at Risk 

Report No. 94. Edmonton, Alberta. 

Bouffard, S.H. 1982. Wildlife values versus human recreation: Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge. 

Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 47:553-558. 

Burger, A.E. 1997. Status of the western grebe in British Columbia. Wildlife Working Report WR87. B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks. Victoria, British Columbia. 40 pp. 

Cooke, A.S. 1987. Disturbance by anglers of birds at Grafham Water. ITE Symposium 19:15-22. 

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 (Volume II). 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, Oregon. 114 pp. 

Available at: http://www.fws.gov/pacific/planning/main/docs/NV/stillwater/4%20Volume% 

20II/Appendix%20L/App%20L%20final%20lit%20review.pdf. Accessed May 18, 2012. 

Edwards, R.W. and D.V. Bell. 1985. Fishing in troubled waters. New Scientist 1446(7 March):19-21. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-27 

Garrad, P.N. and R.D. Hey. 1987. Boat traffic sediment resuspension and turbidity in a broadland 

river. Journal of Hydrology 95:289-297. 

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. 

Huffman, K. 1999. San Diego South Bay survey report—effects of human activity and water craft on 

wintering birds in South San Diego Bay. USFWS. 

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. 

Available at: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/cwcs/. Accessed May 18, 2012. 

Jahn, L.R. and R.A. Hunt. 1964. Duck and coot ecology and management in Wisconsin. Wisconsin 

Conservation Department Technical Bulletin No. 33. 212 pp. 

Johnson, S. 1994. Recreational boating impact investigations—Upper Mississippi River System, 

Pool 4, Red Wing, Minnesota. EMTC 94-S004. Prepared for the National Biological Survey, 

Environmental Management Technical Center. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 

Lake City, MN. 48 pp. +appendices. 

Kahl, R. 1991. Boating disturbance of canvasbacks during migration at Lake Poygan, Wisconsin. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 19(3):242-248. 

Kaiser, M. and E. Fritzell. 1984. Effects of river recreationists on green-backed heron behavior. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 48(2):561-567. 

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. 2000. Human disturbance of diving ducks on Long Point 

Bay, Lake Erie. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(4):923-930. 

Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole. 1995. Wildlife responses to recreationists. Pages 51-69 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., D.P. Anderson, and N.V. Marr. 1991. Responses of an avian scavenging guild to 

anglers. Biological Conservation. 56:195-205. 

Korschgen, C., L. George, and W. Green. 1985. Disturbance of diving ducks by boaters on a 

migrational staging area. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13:290-296. 

Liddle, M.J. and H.R.A. Scorgie. 1980. The effects of recreation on freshwater plants and animals: a 

review. Biological Conservation 17:183-206. 

Mastran, T.A., A.M. Dietrich, D.L. Gallagher, and T.J. Grizzard. 1994. Distribution of polyaromatic 

hydrocarbons in the water column and sediments of a drinking water reservoir with respect to 

boating activity. Water Research 28(11):2353-2366. 

Nanson, G.C., A. von Krusenstierna, E.A. Bryant, and M.R. Renilson. 1994. Experimental 

measurements of river-bank erosion caused by boat-generated waves on the Gordon River, 

Tasmania. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 9(1):1-15. 

O’Toole, A.C., K.C. Hanson, and S.J. Cooke. 2009. The effect of shoreline recreational angling 

activities on aquatic and riparian habitat within an urban environment: implications for 

conservation and management. Environmental Management 44:324-334. 

Pfister, C., B.A. Harrington, and M. Lavine. 1992. The impact of human disturbance on shorebirds at 

a migration staging area. Biological Conservation 60:115-126. 

Rodgers, J.A., Jr. and S.T. Schwikert. 2002. Buffer-zone distances to protect foraging and loafing 

waterbirds from disturbance by personal watercraft and outboard-powered boats. 

Conservation Biology 16(1):216-224. 

Skagen, S.K. 1980. Behavioral responses of wintering bald eagles to human activity on the Skagit 

River, Washington. Pages 231-241 in: R.L. Knight, G.T. Allen, M.V. Stalmaster, and C.W. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-28 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Servheen eds. Proceedings of the Washington Bald Eagle Symposium. The Nature 

Conservancy. Seattle, WA. 254 pp. 

Skagen, S.K., R.L. Knight, and G.H. Orians. 1991. Human disturbances of an avian scavenging 

guild. Ecological Applications 1:215-225. 

Speight, M.C.D. 1973. Outdoor recreation and its ecological effects: a bibliography and review. 

Discussion Papers in Conservation 4. University College London, England. 35 pp. 

Stalmaster, M.V. and J.L. Kaiser. 1997. Flushing responses of wintering bald eagles to military 

activity. Journal of Wildlife Management 61(4):1307-1313. 

Tydeman, C.F. 1977. The importance of the close fishing season to breeding bird communities. 

Journal of Environmental Management 5:289-296. 

USFWS and U.S. Census Bureau. 2007. 2006 national survey of fishing, hunting and wildlifeassociated recreation. Available at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/fhw06-nat.pdf. 

Accessed May 18, 2012. 

Vos, D.K., R.A. Ryder, and W.D. Graul. 1985. Response of breeding great blue herons to human 

disturbance in northcentral Colorado. Colonial Waterbirds 8:13-22. 

Wagner, K.J. 1991. Assessing the impacts of motorized watercraft on lakes: issues and perceptions. 

Pages 77-93 in: Proceedings of a national conference on enhancing states’ lake management 

programs. May 1990. Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission. Chicago, IL. 148 pp. 

Yousef, Y.A., W.M. McLellon, and H.H. Zebuth. 1980. Changes in phosphorus concentrations due 

to mixing by motorboats in shallow lakes. Water Research 14(7):841-852. 

Zieman, J.C. 1976. The ecological effects of physical damage from motor boats on turtle grass beds 

in southern Florida. Aquatic Botany 2:127-139. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Refuge Compatibility Determination for Fishing (B.3) 

Use is compatible with stipulations. 

Project Leader 

Approval: 

Concurrence: 

Refuge 

Supervisor: 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System: 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

(Signature) 

( ignature) 

(Date) 

B-29 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-30 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-31 

B.4 Compatibility Determination for Horseback Riding, Jogging, 

and Bicycling 

RMIS Database Uses: Horseback Riding, Jogging, and Bicycling 

Refuge Name: Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge 

Location: Canyon, Owyhee, Payette, and Washington Counties, Idaho, and Malheur County, Oregon 

Date Established: 1909 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities 

Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge was originally established in 1909 by President Theodore Roosevelt 

as Deer Flat Bird Reservation as a “preserve and breeding grounds for native birds” (E.O. 1032). In 1937, 

President Franklin D. Roosevelt revoked Executive Order 1032 and reestablished the Refuge as the Deer 

Flat Bird Reservation to “further the purposes of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act” and “as a refuge 

and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife” (E.O. 7655). Also in 1937, 36 islands in the 

Snake River were designated as the Snake River Migratory Bird Refuge (E.O. 7691). 

In 1940, the Refuges’ names were changed by Presidential Proclamation No. 2416, to Deer Flat 

National Wildlife Refuge and Snake River National Wildlife Refuge respectively. In 1963, Public 

Land Order 3110 transferred all lands of the Snake River National Wildlife Refuge (consisting of 74 

islands) to the direct jurisdiction of Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge. Any lands (including those 

in the Snake River Islands National Wildlife Refuge) that were added to Deer Flat National Wildlife 

Refuge assume the purposes for which Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge was established as well as 

keeping any individual purposes that were provided at the time of their establishment or acquisition. 

Refuge Purposes 

 “to further the purposes of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act” and “as a refuge and 

breeding grounds for migratory birds and other wildlife” (E.O. 7655) 

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

(Migratory Bird Conservation Act [16 U.S.C. 715d]) 

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

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

species” (16 U.S.C. 460k-1) and “the Secretary ... may accept and use ... real ... property. 

Such acceptance may be accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive 

covenants imposed by donors” (16 U.S.C. 460k-2) (Refuge Recreation Act [16 U.S.C. 460k460k-4], as amended) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission 

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-668ee et seq.]). 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-32 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Description of Uses 

These uses rarely, if ever, occur on the Snake River Islands Unit. Several trails at Deer Flat NWR’s 

Lake Lowell Unit are used extensively by the public for activities including horseback riding, 

jogging, and bicycling. Existing trails used for these activities are primarily on the north side of the 

lake and include the East Dike and Kingfisher Trails in the East Side Recreation Area, the Gotts 

Point Trail, and the Observation Hill Trail System and the Centennial and Nature Trails in the North 

Side Recreation Area. While trails on the south side do exist, they are short, go directly from the 

parking lots to the lake edge, and are typically not used by joggers, cyclists, or horseback riders. 

Horseback riders do sometimes use the fire breaks in the South Side Recreation Area. Refuge trails 

are maintained gravel roads and single-track dirt paths, with the exception of the concrete Centennial 

Trail. Trails are easily accessed from existing parking areas. Spring and summer months have the 

highest rates of these kinds of usage. Based on Refuge staff counts, we estimated the number of 

walkers/joggers to be 16,500 in 2010, but there are no data for equestrians or cyclists. All three of the 

uses described in this CD were addressed and deemed compatible in a previous CD. 

Refuge Uses 

The Refuge will continue to allow horseback riding, jogging, and bicycling on designated trails with 

stipulations to maintain public safety, reduce conflicts between wildlife-dependent user groups, and 

ensure compatibility with the Refuge’s purpose and NWRS mission. Through these uses, the Refuge 

will reach out to nontraditional Refuge users with information about the Refuge and Refuge System. 

Due to the close proximity of Deer Flat NWR to the cities of Nampa and Caldwell, the number and 

variety of users to this urban refuge is expected to grow. For many of these people, multiple-use trails 

may provide an introduction to a national wildlife refuge. More details for the uses follow. 

Horseback Riding 

Horseback riding will be allowed only on designated trails (the East Dike, Kingfisher, and Gotts 

Point Trails and the Observation Hill Trail System) to prevent soil erosion and trail widening that 

commonly occurs with equestrian trails. In addition to enforcing Refuge restrictions, the Refuge staff 

will seek the cooperation of users and develop partnerships with interested groups to ensure 

compliance with compatibility stipulations and protection of Refuge resources. 

Groups of more than 10 horses and riders will be required to obtain an SUP, because equestrian 

groups could restrict use for other wildlife-dependent users due to limited space on trails and in 

parking lots. Special group events such as competitions and poker rides will not be allowed on the 

Refuge. Riders will not be allowed to tie a horse to any physical structure or vegetation and must 

remain with their horses at all times. The Refuge will not provide support facilities such as trailer 

parking, hitching posts, and water access. Per multiuse trail etiquette, pedestrians and bicyclists must 

yield to equestrians. 

Jogging 

Jogging will be allowed on all trails in open areas. Groups of more than 10 joggers will be required 

to obtain an SUP, because large groups may restrict use for other wildlife-dependent users due to 

limited trail space. Special events such as competitions, training, and practice meets will not be 

allowed on the Refuge because they are not wildlife-dependent events and may impact visitors 

participating in wildlife-dependent recreational activities. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-33 

Bicycling 

Bicycling will be allowed only on designated trails including the East Dike, Kingfisher, and Gotts 

Point Trails and the Observation Hill Trail System. Based on limited survey data, bicycling is not a 

common use on Refuge trails, and conflicts with other users have not been reported. However, 

bicycling sometimes has occurred off-trail, which is not allowed. 

Special events such as racing (or other competitions) and/or practice will not be allowed on the 

Refuge. In addition, bicycling competitions will not be allowed to use Refuge parking areas for race 

preparations, starting lines, finish lines, or refreshment areas because the resulting congestion limits 

access by wildlife-dependent users and could cause automobile/bicycle safety concerns. Groups of 

more than 10 cyclists will be required to obtain an SUP because large groups may restrict use for 

other wildlife-dependent users due to limited trail space. Bikes must be ridden at a safe speed, and 

cyclists must yield to horses and pedestrians. Refuge staff will seek the voluntary cooperation of 

users and will also rely on law enforcement to ensure compliance with these stipulations and to 

ensure safety of all user groups on trails. 

Availability of Resources 

Most of the costs associated with carrying out the improvements, are one-time expenses (see Table 

B-3). Because the Service has limited capacity to staff and maintain facilities and provide law 

enforcement, the Service will explore all available options to obtain funding to implement these 

projects, including partnership efforts. 

Increased volunteer assistance, strengthened existing partnerships, and new partnerships will be 

sought to support these programs in an effective, safe, and compatible manner. Refuge staff will 

increase volunteer recruitment efforts. When provided appropriate training, Refuge volunteers, 

interns, and various user groups could assist with monitoring, education, interpretation programs, and 

maintenance projects. With additional assistance as described above, staffing and funding is expected 

to be sufficient to manage these uses. 

Table B-3. Costs to Implement Improvements Necessary to Allow Horseback Riding, 

Jogging, and Bicycling 

Refuge Activity Required to Allow Use Estimated One-time Cost Estimated Annual Cost 

*Install multiple-use trail regulation signs $7,800 $300 

*Upgrade fire break $37,000 $800 

Safety upgrade to Tio Lane walk-through $1,000 

*Print/reprint general Refuge brochures $3,200 $800 

*Human/wildlife interaction disturbance studies $140,000 

Miscellaneous management 

Total $189,000 $1,900 

* Costs marked with an asterisk (*) represent costs that are also entered into other CDs for activities using the same 

resource. For instance, upgrading the fire break to a multiuse trail will benefit horseback riding, jogging, and 

bicycling, but the trail could also be used by visitors engaged in wildlife observation, photography, and 

interpretation. This same cost has been shown in all CDs that will use the new trail facility. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use 

The discussion below analyzes impacts of the use. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-34 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Impacts to Habitat 

Unpaved or unsurfaced trails are susceptible to a variety of trail impacts from horseback riding, 

jogging, and bicycling, including vegetation loss due to trampling and soil compaction and erosion 

(Adkison and Jackson 1996; Dale and Weaver 1974; Leung and Marion 2000). Trail widening and 

creation of side trailing (social trailing) increases the area of disturbed land (Liddle 1975). Horses, 

pedestrians (including joggers), and cyclists can all cause structural damage to plants and increase 

soil compaction and erosion (DeLuca et al. 1998; Whittaker 1978). Vegetation and soil compaction 

and erosion impacts can be much more pronounced from horses than hikers (Bainbridge 1974; 

Hammitt and Cole 1987; Hendee et al. 1990), with soil compaction as much as 1,500 pounds per 

square inch exerted on the soil surface with each step (Hendee et al. 1990). Hikers tend to flatten 

vegetation while horses tend to chum up soil, thus cutting plants off at the rootstalk (Whittaker 

1978). Trail widening is also a consideration as horses tend to walk on the downslope sides of trails 

(Whitson 1974), creating a much wider area of disturbance and increasing trail maintenance 

problems. This can increase the spread of previously established nonnative species by providing 

loose, disturbed soil for germination and spreading reproductive plant structures. 

These impacts are unlikely to occur on the well-defined, gravel surface of the East Dike, Kingfisher, 

and Gotts Point Trails and the Observation Hill Trail System trails, which is why they have been 

designated for these uses. Although equestrians, cyclists, and joggers will be required to remain on 

designated trails, if some users travel off-trail to access the lakeshore, a scenic vista, or other points 

of interest, then the habitat impacts noted above will result from development of social trails. Use of 

social trails will also cause wildlife disturbance. 

Control of invasive plant species on the Refuge is a difficult and never-ending challenge. Roads and 

trails often function as conduits for movement of plant species, including nonnative, invasive species 

(Benninger-Truax et al. 1992; Hansen and Clevenger 2005). Horse droppings are a source of 

nonnative plant seeds that are capable of germination and growth on disturbed sites (Campbell and 

Gibson 2001). Bicycles are another potential seed dispersal mechanism. Refuge visitors can 

inadvertently carry propagules from invasive plants on their clothing or equipment, spreading those 

plants to new areas. Once established, invasive plants can out-compete native plants, thereby altering 

habitats and indirectly impacting wildlife. Invasive plants on or near these trails will be controlled 

and monitored as part of the Refuge’s IPM Plan (Appendix G). 

Impacts to Wildlife: Listed Species 

There are no listed species known to occur on the Refuge. The counties that surround both units of 

the Refuge have a variety of listed species historically or currently occurring within each county. Of 

these species only the yellow-billed cuckoo has ever been documented on Deer Flat NWR, and it is 

currently considered a vagrant because sightings are highly unusual. The Columbia spotted frog 

could conceivably exist on the Refuge but has not been documented. The condition of habitat for 

both of these species is either unknown or marginal. The likelihood of any other of the listed species 

that occur in the surrounding counties existing on the Refuge is slim. Most of these other species 

have known populations that occur off-Refuge (e.g., Bruneau hot springs snail, Packard’s milkvetch) 

or roam great distances and/or will not find suitable habitat on the Refuge (e.g., North American 

wolverine, greater sage-grouse). It is anticipated that impacts from these uses will be negligible. If 

any use results in unacceptable adverse effects to candidate species or habitats, the Refuge will 

impose restrictions to mitigate disturbance. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-35 

General Response of Wildlife to Disturbance 

Immediate responses by wildlife to recreational activity can range from behavioral changes including 

nest abandonment, altered nest placement, and change in food habits to physiological changes such 

as elevated heart rates, increased energetic costs due to flight or flushing, or even death (Belanger 

and Bedard 1990; Kight and Swaddle 2007; Knight and Cole 1995; Miller and Hobbs 2000; Miller et 

al. 1998; Morton et al. 1989). 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: 

avoidance, habituation, and 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; the time of day, time of year, weather; and the animal’s access to food and cover, energy 

demands, and reproductive status (Fernández-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 will respond to disturbance is predictability. Often, when a use is 

predictable—following a trail or boardwalk or at a viewing deck—wildlife will 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 than to 

humans following a distinct (and repeated) path. 

Burger (1999) as cited by Oberbillig (2000) suggests that viewing distances can serve as useful 

guides for managers lacking good site-specific information and serve as a starting point in 

determining what is appropriate elsewhere. Other factors that affect disturbance impact 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) conclude that a buffer zone of 330 feet will minimize flushing of foraging or loafing 

waterbirds. Vos et al. (1985) recommend buffer zones of 820 feet on land and 490 feet over water for 

great blue herons. Miller et al. (1998) found that the trail zone of influence for forest and grassland 

birds appears to be approximately 250 feet. Beyond this distance, bird abundance, species 

composition, and nest predation was not affected by even heavily used recreational trails. Knight and 

Cole (1991) suggest that sound may elicit a much milder response from wildlife if animals are 

visually buffered from the disturbance. 

Horseback Riding. Horseback riding may influence the behavior of various wildlife species. 

Observations by Owen (1973) and others suggest that many species of wildlife are habituated to 

livestock and are less likely to flee when approached by an observer on horseback than by an 

observer on foot. In one study (Owen 1973), equestrians could approach geese up to a distance of 

150 feet without noticeable behavioral changes in the geese. This is compared to a suggested hiking 

trail distance of 250 feet (Miller et al. 1998). 

Jogging. As cited in Bennett and Zuelke (1999), joggers and landscapers caused birds to flush more 

than fishermen, clammers, sunbathers, and some pedestrians, possibly because joggers move quickly 

and landscapers create more noise. The latter groups tend to move more slowly or stay in one place 

for longer periods, and thus birds likely perceive these activities as less threatening (Burger 1981, 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-36 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

1986; Burger et al. 1995; Knight and Cole 1995). However, joggers tend to spend less time in a 

particular area than pedestrians and are less likely to directly approach or otherwise disturb wildlife. 

The effects of human disturbance can be reduced by restricting jogging to an established trail because 

wildlife show greater flight response to humans moving unpredictably than to humans following a 

distinct (and repeated) path (Gabrielsen and Smith 1995). Joggers will be restricted to an established, 

designated trail to prevent significant disturbance. 

Bicycling. Rapid movement directly toward wildlife frightens animals, while movement away from 

or at an oblique angle to animals is less disturbing (Knight and Cole 1995). Human-caused noise, 

including road noise, has been shown to negatively affect wildlife (Bowles 1995), although the 

response is often difficult to assess because it may be confounded by responses to visual stimulus. 

Pease et al. (2005) showed that bicycles (and pedestrians) disturbed more dabbling ducks than did 

other means of transportation. Stalmaster and Newman (1978) suggest that sound may elicit a much 

milder response from wildlife if animals are visually buffered from the disturbance. Bicycling on 

designated trails is not anticipated to disturb wildlife because riders tend to stay on the trail and the 

noise source is predictable. In addition, group size will be limited by prohibiting special events and 

training on the Refuge, thereby reducing the potential for substantial disturbance to wildlife.

Potential Impacts to Priority Public Uses 

Trails on public lands often attract a variety of user groups with conflicting needs. For instance, 

slow-moving uphill hikers may reduce the quality of experience of cyclists who enjoy the speed on a 

downhill single-track trail. Some trail users who meet horses or see, smell, or step in evidence of 

their use say it detracts from their experience (Watson et al. 1993), while some trail users may enjoy 

seeing and meeting horses. The number of encounters that create conflict at Deer Flat NWR is 

unknown. Horseback riding is an occasional use at Deer Flat NWR currently, and available parking 

for horse trailers will continue to limit its use. Should increased equestrian use of the Refuge result in 

conflicts for parking space, we will reassess the number of horses allowed on the Refuge at any given 

time. 

Bicycles and horses using the same trail as pedestrians can sometimes create safety hazards for other 

visitors. Although user groups are not physically separated on the trails designated for bicycles and 

horses, the designated trails planned for bicycles and horses are wide (between 12 and 20 feet), have 

good visibility, and should accommodate safe, shared use by pedestrians and joggers, as well as 

equestrians and bicyclists traveling at a safe speeds. If the number of trail users increases 

significantly, the potential for accidents or user group conflicts may also increase. Measures to 

reduce potential conflicts between equestrians and other user groups will include providing 

information at the trailhead kiosks, and in the Refuge’s brochure that clearly indicates permitted 

users and rules of conduct. Providing signs that clearly indicate which users have the right-of-way 

will help mitigate conflict, as is evident on other public lands in the area (e.g., Military Park in 

Boise). Trail etiquette signing will state the proper hierarchy of yields and other rules of the trail. 

Determination 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-37 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility 

 Horseback riding, jogging, and bicycling will be allowed only on designated trails to 

minimize disturbance to wildlife and pedestrian users. Designated trails will be: 

o Observation Hill Trail System in the North Side Recreation Area. 

o East Dike and Kingfisher Trails in the East Side Recreation Area. 

o Gotts Point Trail 

 The Refuge will not improve designated trails or provide additional trails or facilities to 

accommodate increased use by equestrians, joggers, or cyclists. 

 Horses and cyclists will be required to maintain safe speeds conducive to multiuse trails. 

Pedestrians and bicyclists must yield to equestrians. 

 Organized horseback riding, bicycling, or jogging groups of more than 10 people may be 

permitted under an SUP issued to the group leader. Groups involved in competitive events or 

training for competitive events (e.g., cross-country training or cross-country meets) will not 

be allowed. 

 Equestrians will be required to remain with their horses at all times and not tie a horse to any 

physical structure or vegetation while on the Refuge. 

 Use will be restricted to daylight hours only. 

 Seasonal closures will be implemented as necessary to protect sensitive wildlife habitat. 

o Up to 300-yard buffer around eagle nests from February 15 through July 15. 

o Up to 150-yard seasonal closure around osprey nests from March 15 through August 

1. 

o Up to 500-yard closure around grebe colonies (Berg et al. 2004) until July 15 of the 

following year. If the birds have not renested in the closed area by July 15 of the 

following year, the closure will be removed. Upland portions of the closures will be 

open to use from October 1 through January 31. 

 To determine grebe colony boundaries, the staff biologist will mark nests 

within, and especially on the periphery of a colony, using a GPS capable of 

sub-meter accuracy as part of the regular colony studies. These data points will 

be exported to a geo-referenced mapping system, and a 500-yard buffer will be 

drawn around the colony. Buoy locations will then be mapped every 100 to 

150 yards and exported back into the GPS unit to be used to place the buoys in 

the proper location. In the first year that grebes nest, the closure will be based 

on nests established early in the nesting season. In the second year of a grebe 

nesting closure, closure will be based on the full extent of the colony in the 

first year. 

o Up to 250-yard buffer around heron rookeries from February 1 through July 1. 

o Up to 100-yard closure around shorebird feeding and resting areas from July 15 

through September 30 during years when the lake level elevation is lower than 2,522 

feet. 

o Wildlife closure at Gotts Point from October 1 through January 31. 

o Wildlife closure at Murphy’s Neck from October 1 through March 15. 

o Wildlife closure at Lower Dam Recreation Area from October 1 through April 14. 

 Refuge staff will monitor impacts of these activities annually to assess compliance with these 

stipulations, impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat, and conflicts between user groups. 

Monitoring data will be used to modify these stipulations or remove the use if necessary to 

ensure continued compatibility of these activities. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-38 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Justification 

Horseback riding, jogging, and bicycling are not wildlife-dependent public uses of the Refuge, as 

defined by statute (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.). However, these uses of the existing trails are secondary 

uses that can facilitate wildlife-dependent uses. Managed under the stipulations listed above, these 

uses are expected to result in only minor additional impacts to wildlife. Restricting the disturbance to 

an established trail will increase predictability of public use patterns on the Refuge, allowing wildlife 

to habituate to nonthreatening activities. 

Although horseback riding, jogging, and bicycling can result in disturbance to wildlife, disturbance is 

expected to occur in limited areas of the Refuge. There are adequate amounts of undisturbed habitat 

available to wildlife for escape and cover. 

It is anticipated that wildlife populations will find sufficient food resources and resting places such 

that their abundance and use of the Refuge will not be measurably lessened from these activities. The 

relatively limited number of individuals expected to be adversely affected due to disturbance will not 

cause wildlife populations to materially decline, the physiological condition and production of 

wildlife species will not be impaired, their behavior and normal activity patterns will not be altered 

dramatically, and their overall welfare will not be negatively impacted. Thus, allowing these uses to 

occur with stipulations will not materially detract or interfere with the purposes for which the Refuge 

was established or the Refuge System mission. 

Mandatory Reevaluation Date 

 2025 Mandatory 10-year reevaluation (for all uses other than priority public uses) 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision 

 X 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 ed. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer 

Associates. 

Bainbridge, D.A. 1974. Trail management. Ecological Society of America Bulletin 55:8-10. 

Belanger, L. and J. Bedard. 1990. Energetic cost of man-induced disturbance to staging snow geese. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 54:36-41. 

Bennett, K.A. and E. Zuelke. 1999. The effects of recreation on birds: a literature review. Delaware 

Natural Heritage Program. Smyrna, DE. 18 pp. 

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. 

Berg, G., L. Wilkinson, H. Wollis, and D. Prescott. 2004. Western (Aechmophorous occidentalis) 

and eared (Podiceps nigricollis) grebes of Central Alberta: 2004 field summary. Alberta 

Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division, Alberta Species at Risk 

Report No. 94. Edmonton, Alberta. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-39 

Bowles, A.E. 1995. Responses of wildlife to noise. Pages 109-156 in: R.L. Knight and K.J. 

Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife recreationists: coexistence through management and research. 

Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 

Campbell, J.E. and D.J. Gibson. 2001. The effect of seeds of exotic species transported via horse 

dung on vegetation along trail corridors. Plant Ecology 157:23-35. 

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 recreation trails in western Montana. USA 

Environmental Management 22(2):255-262. 

Fernández-Juricic, E., P.A. Zollner, C. LeBlanc, and L.M. Westphal. 2007. Responses of nestling 

black-crowned night herons (Nycticorax nycticorax) to aquatic and terrestrial recreational 

activities: a manipulative study. Waterbirds 30(4):554-565. 

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. 

Hammitt, W.E. and D.N. Cole. 1987. Wildland recreation: ecology and management. New York: 

John Wiley. 

Hansen, M.J. and A.P. Clevenger. 2005. The influence of disturbance and habitat on the presence of 

nonnative plant species along transport corridors. Biological Conservation 125(2005):249-

259. 

Hendee, J.E., G.H. Stankey, and R.E. Lucas. 1990. Wilderness management. Golden, CO: North 

American Press. 

Kight, C.R. and J.P. Swaddle. 2007. Associations of anthropogenic activity and disturbance with 

fitness metrics of eastern bluebirds (Sialia sialis). Biological Conservation 138(1-2):189-

197. 

Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole. 1991. Effects of recreational activity on wildlife in wildlands. 

Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 56:238-

247. 

Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole. 1995. 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. 

Leung, Y. and J.L. Marion. 2000. Recreation impacts and management in wilderness: a state-ofknowledge review. Pages 23-28 in: D.N. Cole, S.F. McCool, W.T. Borrie, and J. O’Loughlin, 

compilers. Wilderness science in a time of change conference—volume 5: wilderness 

ecosystems, threats, and management; 1999 May 23-27; Missoula, MT. Proceedings RMRSP-15-VOL-5. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 395 pp. 

Liddle, M.J. 1975. A selective review of the ecological effects of human trampling on natural 

ecosystems. Biological Conservation 7:17-36. 

Miller, J.R. and N.T. Hobbs. 2000. Recreational trails, human activity, and nest predation in lowland 

riparian areas. Landscape and Urban Planning 50(4):227-236. 

Miller, S.G., R.L. Knight, and C.K. Miller. 1998. Influence of recreational trails on breeding bird 

communities. Ecological Applications 8(1):162-169. 

Morton, J.M., A.C. Fowler, and R.L. Kirkpatrick. 1989. Time and energy budgets of American black 

ducks in winter. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:401-410. 

Oberbillig, D.R. 2000. Providing positive wildlife viewing experiences. Deborah Richie 

Communications. Missoula, MT. 

Owen, M. 1973. The management of grassland areas for wintering geese. Wildfowl 24:123-130. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-40 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Pease, M.L., R.K. Rose, and M.J. Butler. 2005. Effects of human disturbances on the behavior of 

wintering ducks. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33(1):103-112. 

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(1):139-145. 

Stalmaster, M.V. and J.R. Newman. 1978. Behavioral responses of wintering bald eagles to human 

activity. Journal of Wildlife Management 42:506-513. 

Vos, D.K., R.A. Ryder, and W.D. Graul. 1985. Response of breeding great blue herons to human 

disturbance in northcentral Colorado. Colonial Waterbirds 8:13-22. 

Watson, A.E., M.J. Niccolucci, and D.R. Williams. 1993. Hikers and recreational stock users: 

predicting and managing recreation conflicts in three wildernesses. Intermountain Research 

Station Research Paper INT-468. U.S. Forest Service. 37 pp. 

Whitson, P.D. 1974. The impact of human use upon the Chisos Basin and adjacent lands. Scientific 

Monograph Series Number 4. National Park Service. 92 pp. 

Whittaker, P.L. 1978. Comparison of surface impact by hiking and horseback riding in the Great 

Smoky Mountain National Park. Management Report 24. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

National Park Service. 80 pp. 

 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Compatibility Determination for Horseback Riding, Jogging, and Bicycling (B.4) 

Use is compatible with stipulations. 

Project Leader 

Approval: 

Concurrence: 

Refuge 

Supervisor: 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System: 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

'(Date) 

B-41 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-42 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-43 

B.5 Compatibility Determination for Hunting Deer 

RMIS Database Uses: Hunting (deer) 

Refuge Name: Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge 

Location: Canyon, Owyhee, Payette, and Washington Counties, Idaho, and Malheur County, Oregon 

Date Established: 1909 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities 

Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge was originally established in 1909 by President Theodore 

Roosevelt as Deer Flat Bird Reservation as a “preserve and breeding grounds for native birds” (E.O. 

1032). In 1937, President Franklin D. Roosevelt revoked Executive Order 1032 and reestablished the 

Refuge as the Deer Flat Bird Reservation to “further the purposes of the Migratory Bird Conservation 

Act” and “as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife” (E.O. 7655). Also 

in 1937, 36 islands in the Snake River were designated as the Snake River Migratory Bird Refuge 

(E.O. 7691). 

In 1940, the Refuges’ names were changed by Presidential Proclamation No. 2416, to Deer Flat 

National Wildlife Refuge and Snake River National Wildlife Refuge, respectively. In 1963, Public 

Land Order 3110 transferred all lands of the Snake River National Wildlife Refuge (consisting of 74 

islands) to the direct jurisdiction of Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge. Any lands (including those 

in the Snake River Islands National Wildlife Refuge) that were added to Deer Flat National Wildlife 

Refuge assumed the purposes for which Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge was established as well 

as keeping any individual purposes that were provided at the time of their establishment or 

acquisition. 

Refuge Purposes 

 “to further the purposes of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act” and “as a refuge and 

breeding grounds for migratory birds and other wildlife” (E.O. 7655) 

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

(Migratory Bird Conservation Act [16 U.S.C. 715d]) 

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

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

species” (16 U.S.C. 460k-1) and “the Secretary ... may accept and use ... real ... property. 

Such acceptance may be accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive 

covenants imposed by donors” (16 U.S.C. 460k-2) (Refuge Recreation Act [16 U.S.C. 460k460k-4], as amended) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission 

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-668ee et seq.]). 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-44 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Description of Use 

Hunting is considered a wildlife-dependent public use of the Refuge, as defined by statute (16 U.S.C. 

668dd et seq.) and must be given priority over nonwildlife-dependent uses. Despite the direct and 

indirect impacts associated with sport-hunting, regional deer populations are not likely to be affected 

significantly by hunting on the Snake River Islands or Lake Lowell Unit of the Refuge. 

Deer hunting takes place between Parking Lot 8 and the New York Canal on Lake Lowell Unit and 

on all islands in the Snake River Islands Unit. A limited number of doe and buck tags are issued to 

hunters for use at Lake Lowell Unit. These hunters are also required to follow special conditions 

outlined in their Refuge hunt permit. The Snake River Islands fall within several big game hunting 

units and follow hunting regulations published by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) 

and Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) for the unit in which each island is located. 

Availability of Resources 

The deer hunt will not require any additional infrastructure. Hunter access to the hunt area will be 

accommodated at existing Parking Lots 1 to 8 and from on-water access to the islands. Permanent 

blinds, additional trails, and roadway pullouts will not be constructed to support the hunt program. 

Hunter access will be restricted to pedestrian access only; all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) and pack 

animals are not permitted. 

Administration of the hunt program will add workload for existing staff. The Refuge will incur the 

annual expense of editing and producing media related to the deer hunting opportunity. Monitoring 

efforts will need to be increased to determine the program’s impacts to Refuge deer populations and 

other Refuge resources. The simple administration of the program will add annual workload to the 

biological, management, and public use staff. It is expected that the Service and IDFG law 

enforcement personnel will assist with any enforcement-related problems. The Refuge has adequate 

staff and base funding to cover the additional workload and costs. For a breakdown of anticipated 

cost of the deer hunting program, see Table B-4. 

Table B-4. Costs to Implement Improvements to the Deer Hunting Program 

Refuge Activity Required to Allow Use Estimated One-time Cost Estimated Annual Cost 

Coordination with IDFG and program management $5,000

Deer monitoring, resource monitoring, hunt plan 

updates, coordination, program management

 $5,000

Coordination with IDFG and patrols $5,000

*Outreach, production of media, program 

management

$7,000 $5,000

*Quality of wildlife-dependent public uses survey $75,000-$80,000 

*Human/wildlife interaction disturbance studies $140,000 

*Law enforcement officer $62,400 

Maintain signage $300 

Total $222,000-$227,000 $82,700 

* Costs marked with an asterisk (*) represent costs that are also entered into other CDs for activities using the same 

resource.
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-45 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use 

Impacts to Habitat 

Foot travel associated with deer hunting could result in trampling of vegetation and minor impacts to 

subcanopy riparian cover. Since deer hunting will involve small numbers of spatially dispersed 

hunters, and primarily take place during the time of year when most understory plants are dormant, 

this activity will likely have little direct impact on any native plant species. Although impacts to 

habitats within the hunt area are expected to be minor, as noted above, other habitats could be 

impacted from increased grazing and browsing should deer move away from the hunt zone. The 

redistribution of deer from the hunting zone may increase deer density within other nearby suitable 

habitat areas. Through trampling and direct herbivory, habitat conditions could be reduced within 

riparian, shrub-steppe, and agricultural areas. Higher densities over prolonged times can have 

impacts to habitat structure as young plants are consumed, suppressing the number of potential 

recruits into older age classes. 

Impacts to Soil and Water 

Minimal disturbance is anticipated to soils and water due to the dispersed nature of the activity. 

Additionally, the hunt uses existing infrastructure for parking and pedestrian access. 

Impacts to Wildlife: Listed Species 

There are no listed species known to occur on the Refuge. The counties that surround both units of 

the Refuge have a variety of listed species historically or currently occurring within each county. Of 

these species, only the yellow-billed cuckoo has ever been documented on Deer Flat NWR, and it is 

currently considered a vagrant because sightings are highly unusual. The Columbia spotted frog 

could conceivably exist on the Refuge but has not been documented. The condition of habitat for 

both of these species is either unknown or marginal. The likelihood of any other listed species that 

occur in the surrounding counties existing on the Refuge is slim. Most of these other species have 

known populations that occur off-Refuge (e.g., Bruneau hot springs snail, Packard’s milkvetch) or 

roam great distances and/or will not find suitable habitat on the Refuge (e.g., North American 

wolverine, greater sage-grouse). It is anticipated that impacts from hunting will be negligible. If any 

use results in unacceptable adverse effects to candidate species or habitats, the Refuge will impose 

restrictions to mitigate disturbance. 

Impacts to Wildlife: Deer Hunting 

Hunting by its nature results in the direct take of individual animals, as well as wounding and 

disturbance. In all cases, the Refuge will seek to minimize needless deer mortality, while providing a 

quality hunt experience. With regional deer populations exceeding 55,000 animals (McDonald 2011), 

deer hunting on Deer Flat NWR will not result in negative cumulate impacts to deer populations. 

Deer hunting can have indirect impacts to habitat by reducing populations or redistributing deer, 

thereby changing densities of deer in a given area. Mule deer are largely dependent upon the fat 

stored during the spring, summer, and fall to survive winter. Even in the best winter range, deer lose 

weight throughout the winter. A main strategy for winter survival is securing habitat with adequate 

thermal cover to conserve energy by becoming sedentary. Energy loss will be minimized by the 

presence of sufficient food resources in close proximity to cover habitat (IDFG 2010). Due to the 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-46 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

limited number of hunters using the Snake River Islands for deer hunting and the existence of areas 

of Lake Lowell that are off limits to deer hunting, deer will continue to find adequate thermal cover. 

The activity of hunting deer on the Refuge could also disturb other wildlife species. Periodic firearm 

discharge in close proximity to wetlands or other waterfowl roosting and feeding areas can result in 

behavioral responses by waterfowl and other wetland birds. This disturbance will be limited in scope 

by the limited number of hunters in an area at any given time. The rate of gunfire disturbance is 

expected to be infrequent and random, based upon opportunistic individual shots or shot clusters at 

deer in range. The frequency of gunfire may be only a few shots per day causing temporary and 

short-term disturbance to wintering waterfowl and waterbirds. 

The controlled deer hunt season may impose some short-term effects to wintering bald eagle use 

within hunted areas. Wintering populations of bald eagles have shown susceptibility to disturbance, 

resulting in disrupted foraging behavior and changes in social dynamics between other species in the 

avian scavenger guild (Skagen et al. 1991) and avoidance of areas with high disturbance (Stalmaster 

and Newman 1978). Stalmaster and Newman (1978) also found that recreational activities occurring 

within 250 meters of roosting and foraging areas resulted in changes in distribution patterns by 

displacement to areas of lower human activity. 

With regard to hunting, Stalmaster and Newman (1978) found that gunshots were the only noises that 

elicited overt escape behavior by eagles in their study. The areas open to hunting incorporate riparian 

woodlands that could serve as roosting habitat for wintering eagles. The hunted area at Lake Lowell 

is adjacent to an area that is used by bald eagles for foraging, potentially placing hunters within 250 

meters of roosting and foraging eagles. As a result of hunting disturbance, perches and foraging areas 

within closed areas or islands with lower hunting pressure may see a higher frequency of eagle use 

during the hunt season. 

Site selection and nesting activity for bald eagle nests and heron colonies may initiate in late January. 

The general hunting seasons are complete before this timeframe. If a late-season depredation hunt 

occurred at Lake Lowell Unit, a regulated number of hunters may be introduced to suitable habitat 

during this period. The depredation season is anticipated to have low hunter density, producing only 

few shots per depredation permit. The impact to nesting eagles and herons is not likely to be major. 

The framework of the depredation 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 will be employed using current research to sufficiently safeguard nests or colonies from 

abandonment. As closures are implemented, the Refuge will supply hunt permit holders maps of 

closures to hunting activity. 

Determination 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility 

Deer Flat NWR General Deer Hunt Stipulations 

 Hunters must comply with the applicable provisions of State and Federal laws, as well as the 

hunting regulations of the State of Idaho. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-47 

 No permanent structures will be constructed on Service lands. 

 Use of dogs to hunt or pursue big game is prohibited. 

 No person including, but not limited to, a guide, guide service, outfitter, club, or other 

organization will provide assistance, services, or equipment on the Refuge to any other 

person for compensation unless such guide, guide service, outfitter, club, or organization has 

obtained a Special Use Permit from the Refuge. 

 Hunting by aid or distribution of any feed, salt or other mineral, or electronic device, 

including game cameras, is prohibited. 

 Deer hunters may enter the Refuge no earlier than two hours before shooting time and must 

leave the Refuge within two hours after shooting time. Unless retrieving a deer, retrieval 

times extend five hours past shooting time. 

Lake Lowell Unit Deer Hunt Stipulations 

 Deer hunting is permitted only in the areas between the shoreline of Lake Lowell and the 

Refuge’s southern boundary, and extending from Parking Lot 8 southeasterly to the New 

York Canal. 

 The use of flagging, blazing, or trail-marking devices to locate hunting area(s) or for any 

other purpose is prohibited. 

 Hunters must obtain a Refuge-specific permit to hunt deer on the Lake Lowell Unit of the 

Refuge, which must be signed and carried in the field while hunting. 

 Deer hunting will be limited to short-ranged weapons, as allowed in IDFG Game 

Management Unit 38. These weapons currently include muzzleloaders, archery equipment, 

crossbow, shotgun using slugs or shot of size #00 buck or larger, or a handgun using straightwalled cartridge not originally developed for rifles. 

 All Lake Lowell Unit deer hunting will be from temporary tree stands. 

 Each hunter is allowed to install non-damaging portable tree stands up to the maximum 

number allowed under 50 C.F.R. 32. The tree stands may be erected on, or after, the first day 

of their hunting season and must be removed by the last day of their season. Hunters must 

permanently affix their name, contact phone number, and address to their deer stand(s). 

 Use of nails, wires, screws, or bolts to attach a stand to a tree, or hunting from a tree into 

which a metal object has been driven, is prohibited. 

 Lake Lowell Unit deer hunters must use a Fall-Arrest System (FAS)/Full Body Harness 

meeting Treestand Manufactures Association (TMA) standards while using a tree stand. It 

shall be unlawful to use a tree stand without permission of the owner. 

 Lake Lowell Unit deer permit holders will be limited to designated parking areas. Access will 

be walk-in only from existing Parking Lots 1 through 8. 

 Lake Lowell Unit hunting permit holders must be accompanied by a Refuge employee or 

State Game Warden to retrieve a wounded or expired deer from a Closed Area. 

 Terrestrial-based stalking and/or still hunting is not permitted at any time. Shooting (firearm 

or bow) from the ground is not permitted, except to dispatch wounded deer. 

 Deer drives are prohibited. 

Justification 

Hunting, when compatible, is defined as one of the priority public uses of the Refuge System by the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. The Refuge hunt program will be 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-48 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

designed to provide a quality hunt and a safe experience, with a reasonable opportunity to harvest 

game species. No habitat degradation will be anticipated by continuing the deer hunt program; 

disturbance to birds and other wildlife, if any, will be temporary and localized, and ample amounts of 

additional quality habitat for these wildlife species exist on the Refuge. Thus, it is anticipated that 

wildlife populations will find sufficient food resources and resting places such that their abundance 

and use of the Refuge and local area will not be measurably lessened from hunting activities. The 

number of individuals expected to be removed from the deer population due to hunting will not 

impair the physiological condition and production of hunted species. 

The Refuge environment includes wildlife, soils, vegetation, air quality, and water quality. Some 

disturbance to the Refuge environment is anticipated, but impacts will be minor due to the dispersed 

nature of the activity, entailing a limited number of participants over the duration of the hunt season. 

State and Federal regulations and Refuge-specific special conditions will help reduce or eliminate 

any unwanted impacts of the use to nontarget species. The Refuge will implement, as needed, spatial 

and/or temporal closures to protect sensitive nontarget wildlife resources such as eagle nests or 

wintering waterfowl. The planned hunt is not anticipated to have any impact on threatened or 

endangered species, as none are known to occur in the hunting area. 

Specific Refuge regulations help safeguard Refuge habitat and adjoining private property. 

Disturbance to other wildlife will occur, but this disturbance is generally short term, with sufficient 

habitat being present in adjacent areas. The deer harvest will not significantly affect the regional 

population of deer. For these reasons, deer hunting will not prevent the Refuge from fulfilling the 

purposes of the Fish and Wildlife Act, Executive Order 7655, the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 

the Refuge Recreation Act, or the mission of the NWRS for conserving, managing, restoring, and 

protecting wildlife resources. In addition, the hunt is anticipated to have a positive benefit to 

adjoining agricultural lands by alleviating localized depredation impacts. 

In summary, deer hunting at Deer Flat NWR will not have any significant impacts to hunted species, 

to the regional populations of these species, to the Refuge environment, to adjacent lands, or to 

nearby residents. By allowing public hunting, the Refuge is fulfilling the mission of the NWRS by 

administering Refuge resources for the benefit of present and future generations. For these reasons, 

we have determined that deer hunting will not materially interfere with or detract from fulfilling 

Refuge purposes and the mission of the NWRS. 

Mandatory Reevaluation Date 

 2030 Mandatory 15-year reevaluation (for priority public uses) 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision 

 X Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

References 

IDFG (Idaho Department of Fish and Game). 2010. Project W-170-R-34: Annual Report, Mule Deer 

Study I, Job 2, July 2, 2009 to June 30, 2010. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Boise, ID. 

97 pp. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-49 

McDonald, L. 2011. Personal communication between Lester McDonald, Idaho Department of Fish 

and Game Landowner/Sportsman Relations Coordinator, and Eric Anderson, Ridgefield 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex Instructional Systems Specialist, November 2011. 

Skagen, S.K., R.L. Knight, and G.H. Orians. 1991. Human disturbance of an avian scavenging guild. 

Ecological Applications 1:215-225. 

Stalmaster, M.V. and J.R. Newman. 1978. Behavioral responses of wintering bald eagles to human 

activity. Journal of Wildlife Management 42:506-513. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Compatibility Determination for Hnnting Deer (B.5) 

Use is compatible with stipulations. 

Project Leader 

Approval: 

Concnrrence: 

Refuge Supervisor: 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System: 

B-50 

-

( gnature) 

fDite) 

(Date) 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-51 

B.6 Compatibility Determination for Hunting Waterfowl and 

Upland Birds 

RMIS Database Uses: Hunting (waterfowl), Hunting (upland bird), Hunting (other migratory birds) 

Refuge Name: Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge 

Location: Canyon, Owyhee, Payette, and Washington Counties, Idaho, and Malheur County, Oregon 

Date Established: 1909 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities 

Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge was originally established in 1909 by President Theodore 

Roosevelt as Deer Flat Bird Reservation as a “preserve and breeding grounds for native birds” (E.O. 

1032). In 1937, President Franklin D. Roosevelt revoked Executive Order 1032 and reestablished the 

Refuge as the Deer Flat Bird Reservation to “further the purposes of the Migratory Bird Conservation 

Act” and “as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife” (E.O. 7655). Also 

in 1937, 36 islands in the Snake River were designated as the Snake River Migratory Bird Refuge 

(E.O. 7691). 

In 1940, the Refuges’ names were changed by Presidential Proclamation No. 2416, to Deer Flat 

National Wildlife Refuge and Snake River National Wildlife Refuge respectively. In 1963, Public 

Land Order 3110 transferred all lands of the Snake River National Wildlife Refuge (consisting of 74 

islands) to the direct jurisdiction of Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge. Any lands (including those 

in the Snake River Islands National Wildlife Refuge) that were added to Deer Flat National Wildlife 

Refuge assume the purposes for which Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge was established as well as 

keeping any individual purposes that were provided at the time of their establishment or acquisition. 

Refuge Purposes 

 “to further the purposes of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act” and “as a refuge and 

breeding grounds for migratory birds and other wildlife” (E.O. 7655) 

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

(Migratory Bird Conservation Act [16 U.S.C. 715d]) 

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

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

species” (16 U.S.C. 460k-1) and “the Secretary ... may accept and use ... real ... property. 

Such acceptance may be accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive 

covenants imposed by donors” (16 U.S.C. 460k-2) (Refuge Recreation Act [16 U.S.C. 460k460k-4], as amended) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission 

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 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-52 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

of Americans (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 

668dd-668ee et seq.]). 

Description of Use 

Hunting is considered a wildlife-dependent public use of the Refuge, as defined by statute (16 U.S.C. 

668dd et seq.) and must be given priority over nonwildlife-dependent uses. Waterfowl, upland game 

bird, and other migratory bird hunting are defined as priority public uses under the National Wildlife 

Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57). Despite the direct and indirect impacts 

associated with sport-hunting waterfowl, upland game birds, and other migratory birds, flyway 

populations are not likely to be affected significantly by the hunting program on the Refuge. Changes 

in regional land uses (e.g., agriculture versus housing) are more likely to influence population trends 

than localized hunting programs. 

Waterfowl and upland game bird hunting is open on both units of the Refuge during the general 

seasons designated by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) or Oregon Department of 

Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) as appropriate. Regulations for these hunts generally follow the 

respective state’s rules. Where the Snake River is the boundary between Idaho and Oregon, hunters 

from either state may hunt the islands according to the regulations of the state for which they are 

licensed. 

Hunters are allowed off-trail use within designated Refuge hunting areas. Hunters are required to stay 

out of any seasonal closures around important wildlife areas (e.g., shore bird feeding areas). An 

ABA-compliant hunting blind will be provided at an appropriate location available to parties with at 

least one IDFG-issued disabled hunt licensed hunter. Nontoxic shot is required on the Refuge, and 

hunters may not possess lead shot in the field. Waterfowl hunters on the Refuge will be limited to 25 

shotgun shells in possession per day 

While hunter use of these areas has not been closely monitored, the 2006 National Survey of Fishing, 

Hunting and Wildlife-associated Recreation showed that between 1996 and 2006, the number of 

state-resident hunters decreased by 33 percent (USFWS and U.S. Census Bureau 2007). Given this 

trend, it is unlikely that hunting will increase substantially in the near future. However, the number of 

hunters and their impacts will be monitored, and if necessary, additional measures will be developed 

in coordination with IDFG and ODFW to protect Refuge resources. 

Waterfowl Hunting on the Lake Lowell Unit 

The Lake Lowell Unit falls completely within a goose hunting closure area designated by IDFG. 

Waterfowl hunting (duck, coot, and common snipe but excluding goose) takes place in the South 

Side Recreation Area between Parking Lots 1 and 8 and in the East Side Recreation Area from the 

Leavitt Tract to the east side of Gotts Point. Waterfowl seasons are consistent with the State season 

and typically start the first of October and run through the end of January. Lake Lowell is closed to 

recreational boaters during the hunting season. Walk-in hunting is allowed in both areas, and hunters 

may use a human- or electric-powered boat up to 200 yards from the shore in the South Side 

Recreation Area. An estimated 2,518 acres (24 percent) of the Lake Lowell Unit is open to waterfowl 

hunting. Hunters may use Parking Lots 1 through 8 to access the South Side Recreation Area. To 

access the East Side Recreation Area, hunters can use the Tio Parking Lot at the end of Tio Lane and 

park at the end of Greenhurst Road near Gotts Point. There were approximately 5,100 waterfowl 

hunting visits to the Refuge in the 2010 to 2011 hunting season. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-53 

Waterfowl Hunting on the Snake River Islands Unit 

Currently all islands in the Snake River Islands Unit (approximately 1,200 acres) are open to 

waterfowl hunting (ducks, geese, coot, and common snipe). Waterfowl seasons are consistent with 

State seasons and typically start the first of October and run through the end of January. The 

waterfowl hunt season on Snake River Islands will be shortened if it is shown to be necessary by 

analysis/study of goose nesting. No facilities are offered on the islands, but hunters are permitted to 

launch their boats from various access points along both of the outer banks of the Snake River. Other 

public uses of the Snake River Islands Unit are thought to be low and will not conflict with this use. 

Upland Game Bird Hunting on the Lake Lowell Unit 

Upland game bird hunting (dove, ring-necked pheasant, California and bobwhite quail, and chukar 

and gray partridge) is allowed in both the South Side and East Side Recreation Areas at the Lake 

Lowell Unit. An estimated 2,518 acres of the Lake Lowell Unit is open to upland game bird hunting, 

though some portions are seasonally flooded. Seasons are consistent with the State seasons and 

typically start the first of September (for dove) and run through the end of January (for partridge). 

Hunters may use Parking Lots 1 through 8 to access the South Side Recreation Area. To access the 

East Side Recreation Area hunters can use the Tio Parking Lot at the end of Tio Lane and park at the 

end of Greenhurst Road near Gotts Point. Hunting is allowed in both the South Side Recreation Area 

and the East Side Recreation Area. Kingfisher Trail in the East Side Recreation Area is frequented by 

visitors other than hunters, which may cause minor conflicts. There were approximately 1,200 upland 

game bird hunting visits to the Refuge in the 2010 to 2011 hunting season. 

Upland Game Bird Hunting on the Snake River Islands Unit 

Upland game bird hunting (dove, ring-necked pheasant, California and bobwhite quail, and chukar 

and gray partridge) is allowed on all islands in the Snake River Islands Unit. Seasons are consistent 

with the State seasons and typically start the first of October and run through the end of January. No 

facilities are offered on any of the islands, but hunters are permitted to launch their boats from 

various access points on the Snake River. Other public uses of the Snake River Islands Unit are 

thought to be low and will not conflict with this use. 

Changes to Described Uses 

Waterfowl and upland game bird hunting on the Refuge will not change much, the exceptions follow. 

 Hunters are required to stay out of important wildlife and shorebird feeding areas closed 

seasonally. 

 Waterfowl hunters will be limited to 25 shotgun shells in possession, per day. 

 The waterfowl hunting season on the Snake River Islands Unit will be shortened if our 

analysis of goose nesting identifies nesting issues. 

 An ABA-compliant hunting blind will be provided at an appropriate location, available to 

parties with at least one IDFG-issued disabled hunt licensed hunter. 

Availability of Resources 

Deer Flat NWR is open to all of the priority, wildlife-dependent recreational activities, including 

hunting, and the infrastructure is there for all of these user groups. Improvements and projects 

described in the CCP should increase the quality and safety of the Refuge hunt program. Most of the 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-54 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

costs associated with carrying out the improvements are one-time expenses (see Table B-5). Because 

the Service has limited capacity to staff and maintain facilities and provide law enforcement, the 

Service will explore all available options to obtain funding to implement these projects, including 

partnership efforts. 

Costs marked with an asterisk (*) in the table below represent costs that are also entered into other 

CDs for activities using the same resource. For instance, installing a new accessible dock will benefit 

hunters, but the dock may also be used by visitors engaged in wildlife observation, photography, 

interpretation, and fishing. This same cost has been shown in all CDs that may use the new dock. 

Table B-5. Costs to Implement Improvements to the Hunting Program 

Refuge Activity Required to Allow Use Estimated One-time Cost Estimated Annual Cost 

*Install hunt area signs $1,100 $300 

*Install and maintain accessible hunting dock $25,000 $2,000 

*Install and maintain vault toilet at Parking Lot 1 $60,000 $1,500 

*Quality of wildlife-dependent public uses survey $75,000-$80,000 

*Human/wildlife interaction disturbance studies $140,000 

*Law enforcement officer $62,400 

Total $301,000-$306,100 $66,200 

* Costs marked with an asterisk (*) represent costs that are entered into other CDs for activities using the same 

resource.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use 

The discussion below analyzes impacts of the use. 

General Impacts to Habitat 

The primary impact hunters 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 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 remain an issue for refuge managers because plants are trampled and 

wildlife is disturbed. Because hunting requires off-trail use in the pursuit and/or recovery of game, 

this concern is difficult to mitigate. 

Control of invasive plant species on the Refuge is a difficult, never-ending battle. Roads and trails 

often function as conduits for movement of plant species, including nonnative, invasive species 

(Benninger-Truax et al. 1992; Hansen and Clevenger 2005). Propagules of nonnative plants can be 

transported into new areas on hunters’ boots, clothing, dogs, and equipment. Once established, 

invasive plants can out-compete native plants, which alters habitats and indirectly impacts wildlife. 

Invasive plants will be controlled and monitored as part of the Refuge’s IPM Plan (Appendix G). 

Local Impacts to Waterfowl Habitat 

The impact of waterfowl hunters on the waterfowl habitat of both Refuge units is expected to be 

minor. The hunting season starts and ends outside of the growing season of most plants, so trampling 

and the spread of invasive plants are not major issues. There is a possibility of boats used for 

waterfowl hunting aiding in the spread of aquatic invasive species into the waters of the Refuge. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-55 

Informational media in hunting brochures, placards at Refuge launch areas, periodic inspections, and 

early detection monitoring help reduce the likelihood of infestation. The creation of social trails in 

the soil may be more of an issue but is still expected to be minor because most hunters spread out in 

available habitat as a way to reduce overcrowding. Impacts to the water in waterfowl hunting come 

mostly from the deposition of trash (including shell casings) by hunters; this problem will be 

mitigated through proper law enforcement. 

Local Impacts to Upland Bird Habitat 

At current levels, impacts to upland bird habitat are expected to be minor. Upland bird hunters do not 

consider either unit of Deer Flat NWR a destination hunt area, and local use is relatively low 

compared to the surrounding area. The hunting season starts and ends outside of the growing season 

of most plants, so trampling and the spread of invasive plants are not expected to be major issues. 

The creation of social trails may be more of an issue but is still expected to be minor because most 

hunters follow the irregular patterns of their quarry. 

Impacts to Wildlife: Listed Species 

There are no listed species known to occur on the Refuge. The counties that surround both units of 

the Refuge have a variety of listed species historically or currently occurring within each county. Of 

these species only the yellow-billed cuckoo has ever been documented on Deer Flat NWR, and it is 

currently considered a vagrant because sightings are highly unusual. The Columbia spotted frog 

could conceivably exist on the Refuge but has not been documented. The condition of habitat for 

both of these species is either unknown or marginal. The likelihood of any other of the listed species 

that occur in the surrounding counties existing on the Refuge is slim. Most of these other species 

have known populations that occur off-Refuge (e.g., Bruneau hot springs snail, Packard’s milkvetch) 

or roam great distances and/or will not find suitable habitat on the Refuge (e.g., North American 

wolverine, greater sage-grouse). It is anticipated that impacts from hunting will be negligible. If any 

use results in unacceptable adverse effects to candidate species or habitats, the Refuge will impose 

restrictions to mitigate disturbance. 

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; Madsen 1995; Owens 1977; Raveling 1979; WhiteRobinson 1982). In addition to loss of individual target species, hunting also causes disturbance to 

nontarget 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 nontarget species 

being injured or killed (accidentally or intentionally) in addition to target species being crippled or 

killed and not retrieved. Disturbances to waterfowl caused by human activity (including hunting) are 

manifested by alertness, fright (obvious or unapparent), flight, swimming, disablement, or death in 

nontarget species (Korschgen and Dolgren 1992). 

Immediate responses by wildlife to recreational activity can range from behavioral changes including 

nest abandonment, altered nest placement, and change in food habits to physiological changes such 

as elevated heart rates, increased energetic costs due to flight or flushing, or even death (Belanger 

and Bedard 1990; Kight and Swaddle 2007; Knight and Cole 1995; Miller and Hobbs 2000; Miller et 

al. 1998; Morton et al. 1989). The long-term effects are more difficult to assess but may include 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-56 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

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: 

avoidance, habituation, and 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; the time of day, time of year, weather; and the animal’s access to food and cover, energy 

demands, and reproductive status (Fernández-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 will respond to disturbance is predictability. Often, when a use is 

predictable—following a trail or boardwalk or at a viewing deck—wildlife will 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 (as hunters 

do) than to humans following a distinct (and repeated) path. 

Hunting can contribute indirectly to the well-being of wildlife by providing financial, educational, 

and sociological benefits to hunters. 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 NWRS mission. The hunting community remains the largest support base for 

funding wildlife management programs, and refuges provide an opportunity for a high-quality 

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 to Wildlife: Hunting Impacts on Waterfowl 

Waterfowl are wary, seeking refuge from all forms of disturbance but particularly those associated 

with loud noise and rapid movement (Korschgen and Dolgren 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, so that they may feed only at night or may desert feeding areas entirely, 

resulting in weight loss (Korschgen and Dolgren 1992). 

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 C.F.R. 20) establishing the Migratory Bird Hunting Frameworks. The 

frameworks are essentially permissive, in that hunting of migratory birds will not be permitted 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-57 

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 (e.g., Flyway Study 

Committees, Flyway Councils, Service Regulations Committee) 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 and the Parts Survey (in which biologists gather at “wing bees” to 

identify duck wings and goose tails submitted by hunters). 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 

predetermined regulations (appropriate levels of harvest) that make up the framework offered to 

states that year. Each state’s wildlife commission then selects season dates, bag limits, shooting 

hours, and other options from their respective Flyway package. Their selections can be more 

restrictive but cannot be more liberal than AHM allows. Thus, the level of hunting opportunity 

afforded each state increases or decreases each year in accordance with the annual status of 

waterfowl populations. 

Season dates and bag limits for 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. 

Impacts to Wildlife: Local Impacts to Waterfowl 

Hunting on refuges as a whole or on Deer Flat Refuge 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: (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) there are sufficient sanctuaries that exist on the Lake 

Lowell Unit to allow for undisturbed feeding and resting. 

Waterfowl hunting on the north side of Lake Lowell is allowed only in the East Side Recreation 

Area. There are two sanctuaries, one on the southeastern end of the lake and the other on the 

northeastern side of the West Pool. These are closed to public entry (with the exception of a small 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-58 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

number of permitted deer hunters in the southeastern sanctuary) throughout the year. These 

established sanctuaries on the Lake Lowell Unit in Refuge wetlands and fields ensure that wintering 

and migrating waterfowl, upland game birds, and other migratory birds, as well as nontarget species, 

can find food and rest areas on the Refuge even during the hunting season. Hunt regulations and 

sanctuary will be continually monitored and evaluated to ascertain their value in balancing the 

disturbance caused by allowing hunting on the Refuge. Under the stipulations outlined above, this 

activity does not materially detract from meeting Refuge purposes or the Refuge System mission. 

Refuge-specific regulations are designed to minimize impacts and will be evaluated for their 

effectiveness annually. 

Population and Harvest Data: 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 

from 2001 through 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 harvested on Deer 

Flat NWR is unknown; however, it is thought to be a small percentage of total numbers harvested in 

the state and even smaller in the Flyway. 

Wintering Populations: Waterfowl use in and around the Refuge has been well documented and has 

seen some changes over time. Long-time residents fondly recall when the skies around Lake Lowell 

used to be “black with ducks.” Annual Refuge narratives mirror these sentiments with photos and 

documentation of duck numbers in excess of half a million during the peak of migration. Those 

numbers have not been seen in the Treasure Valley since the late 1970s, probably due to the advent 

of “clean farming,” conversion of farmland to housing development, natural shifts in the Flyway, 

and/or a variety of other factors. Numbers of ducks and geese in the valley continue to provide a 

quality hunting experience, and Deer Flat NWR is a waterfowl hunting destination for both local and 

out-of-state hunters. 

The staff at Deer Flat NWR has performed winter waterfowl surveys since 1951, including groundbased point counts on the Lake Lowell Unit and aerial surveys on both units. Because birds can move 

long distances over short periods of time during the winter migration, these surveys are not 

considered an accurate measurement. Regional and local population surveys like the one performed 

at the Refuge are best understood as an index (best used to measure trends over time) and not a true 

census at any particular time. In recent years (from 2001 to 2010) peak numbers of geese (typically 

seen in November) on the Lake Lowell Unit averaged 11,892 annually. In the same decade, peak 

numbers of ducks (typically seen in December) averaged 61,535 on Lake Lowell annually. 

Impacts to Wildlife: Local Impact to Upland Birds 

Population and Harvest Data: IDFG personnel perform surveys for California quail, pheasant, 

chukar, and grey partridge and assist in the mourning dove call counts. IDFG’s 2010 Upland Game 

Progress Report notes that populations of the species of upland game birds that are legal to hunt on 

Deer Flat NWR are considered stable. The Refuge does not contribute any significant harvest 

numbers to the total estimated for the southwest region of the state and even less statewide. Of the 

previously listed species, mourning doves and California quail are thought to be hunted most, 

because the other species are here intermittently due to marginal habitat or are escaped farmed birds 

that do not survive the hunting season or the winter. Refuge staff does not currently perform any 

inventory or monitoring for any of the upland game bird species. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-59 

Impacts to Wildlife: Nontarget Species 

It is expected that impacts to nontarget species will be minimal because hunting seasons do not 

coincide with nesting seasons, so reproduction will not be reduced by hunting. Disturbance to the 

daily activities, such as feeding and resting, of wintering nonhunted birds might occur. Because the 

Refuge maintains sanctuary areas where no hunting is permitted, this effect is likely a minor negative 

effect. Refuge regulations further mitigate possible disturbance by hunters to nonhunted wildlife. 

Vehicles are restricted to roads and the harassment or taking of any nontarget wildlife is not 

permitted. Although ingestion of lead shot by nonhunted wildlife could be a cumulative impact, it is 

not relevant at the Refuge because nontoxic shot will be required. 

Potential Impacts to Priority Public Uses 

Trails on public lands attract a variety of user groups who often have conflicting needs. During the 

scoping period, some of the public expressed safety concerns with hunters using the same trails and 

small public use areas that are also accessed by wildlife observers and photographers. However, it is 

believed that this conflict is not a major concern. Even though nonhunters use the same trails as 

hunters, the designated trails for the former are wide (between 12 and 20 feet) and have adequate 

visibility. If the number of nonhunters using trails open to hunting increases significantly, the 

potential for accidents or user group conflicts may also increase. There is also the potential for 

conflict between nonhunters, waterfowl hunters, and upland hunters using the same off-trail areas. 

Conflicts between hunters and nonhunters and between different types of hunters will be monitored 

and addressed if necessary. Measures to reduce conflicts between hunters and other user groups will 

include providing information at the trailhead kiosks, and in the Refuge’s brochure that clearly 

indicates permitted users and rules of conduct. 

No significant effects to roads, trails, or other infrastructure from the hunting program are foreseen. 

Normal road, trail, and facility upkeep and maintenance will continue to be necessary. Additional 

facility construction or upgrade, if needed, is addressed in the Availability of Resources section. 

Determination 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility 

 All hunting on the Refuge will require the appropriate State license and will occur consistent 

with applicable regulations designated by IDFG or ODFW as appropriate. 

 Waterfowl and upland hunting will be allowed in the East Side and South Side Recreation 

Areas of the Lake Lowell Unit. Walk-in hunting will be allowed in both areas, and hunters 

may use a human- or electric-powered boat up to 200 yards from the shore in the South Side 

Recreation Area. Waterfowl hunting will not be allowed on foot from the ice. 

 Waterfowl and upland hunting will be allowed on all islands in the Snake River Islands Unit. 

Where the Snake River is the boundary between Idaho and Oregon, hunters from either state 

may hunt the islands according to the regulations of the state for which they are licensed. 

 Hunters will be required to stay out of any seasonal closures around important wildlife areas 

(e.g., shorebird feeding areas). 

 Hunters are allowed off-trail use within designated hunting areas. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-60 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

 Hunting will be provided on a first-come, first-served basis. Hunters will be allowed to 

operate motorized vehicles only on designated roads and parking areas. 

 Nontoxic shot is required, and hunters may not possess lead shot in the field. 

 Dogs may be used for waterfowl and upland game hunting. Dogs must be leashed unless 

actively hunting and remain under strict voice control at all times. 

 Dog training other than that which occurs while actively hunting is prohibited on the Refuge. 

 To improve safety and minimize conflict with other priority uses, signs will be posted at 

Refuge access points to notify Refuge users when a hunt is underway. 

 Waterfowl hunting: 

o Although use of permanent blinds is prohibited, portable blinds are allowed if they 

are removed at the end of each day. Temporary blinds may be constructed from 

natural vegetation less than 3 inches in diameter and are available on a first-come, 

first-served basis. 

o Waterfowl hunters will be limited to 25 shotgun shells in possession per day. 

o There may be a shortened waterfowl season on Snake River Islands if it is shown to 

be necessary by analysis/study of goose nesting. 

o Youth hunt will be allowed within all designated waterfowl hunt zones. 

o Use will be restricted to waterfowl hunting shooting hours designated by IDFG or 

ODFW as appropriate. 

o There will be an evaluation to determine whether to charge a fee and/or institute a 

more structured hunt opportunity. 

 Upland game bird hunting: 

o Use will be restricted to upland game bird hunting shooting hours designated by 

IDFG or ODFW as appropriate. 

o There will be an evaluation to determine whether to implement more restricted 

hunting hours to reduce conflicts with waterfowl hunters. 

 Open fires will be prohibited. 

 Seasonal closures will be implemented as necessary to protect sensitive wildlife habitat. For 

example: 

o Up to 300-yard buffer around eagle nests from February 15 through July 15. 

o Up to 150-yard seasonal closure around osprey nests from March 15 through August 1. 

o Up to 500-yard closure around grebe colonies (Berg et al. 2004) until July 15 of the 

following year. If the birds have not renested in the closed area by July 15 of the 

following year, the closure will be removed. Upland portions of the closures will be 

open to use from October 1 through January 31. 

 To determine grebe colony boundaries, the staff biologist will mark nests 

within, and especially on the periphery of, a colony using a GPS capable of 

sub-meter accuracy as part of the regular colony studies. These data points will 

be exported to a geo-referenced mapping system, and a 500-yard buffer will be 

drawn around the colony. Buoy locations will then be mapped every 100 to 

150 yards and exported back into the GPS unit to be used to place the buoys in 

the proper location. In the first year that grebes nest, the closure will be based 

on nests established early in the nesting season. In the second year of a grebe 

nesting closure, the closure will be based on the full extent of the colony in the 

first year. 

o Up to 250-yard buffer around heron rookeries from February 1 through July 1. 

o Up to 100-yard closure around shorebird feeding and resting areas from July 15 through 

September 30 during years when the lake level elevation is lower than 2,522 feet. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-61 

o Wildlife closure at Gotts Point from October 1 through January 31. 

o Wildlife closure at Murphy’s Neck from October 1 through March 15. 

o Wildlife closure at Lower Dam Recreation Area from October 1 through April 14. 

 Refuge staff will monitor impacts of these activities annually to assess compliance with these 

stipulations, impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat, conflicts between user groups, and user 

satisfaction. Monitoring data will be used to modify these stipulations if necessary to ensure 

continued compatibility of these activities. Adjustments to timing of upland hunting or the 

use of hunt areas by nonhunters may be needed to ensure the use remains safe and 

compatible. 

Justification 

By following established State guidelines, implementing stipulations, and maintaining closed areas, 

this waterfowl and upland game bird hunting program will not interfere with the Refuge achieving its 

purposes of providing sanctuary and as a refuge and breeding grounds for migratory birds and other 

wildlife. It is anticipated that wildlife populations will find sufficient food resources and resting 

places such that their abundance and use of the Refuge will not be measurably lessened from 

allowing hunting to occur on the Refuge. The relatively limited number of individuals expected to be 

adversely affected due to hunting will not cause wildlife populations to materially decline, the 

physiological condition and production of wildlife species will not be impaired, their behavior and 

normal activity patterns will not be altered dramatically, and their overall welfare will not be 

negatively impacted. Thus, allowing hunting to occur with stipulations will not materially detract or 

interfere with the purposes for which the Refuge was established or the Refuge System mission. 

Mandatory Reevaluation Date 

 2030 Mandatory 15-year reevaluation (for priority public uses) 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision 

 X 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 ed. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer 

Associates. 

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. 1990. Energetic cost of man-induced disturbance to staging snow geese. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 54:36-41. 

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. 

Berg, G., L. Wilkinson, H. Wollis, and D. Prescott. 2004. Western (Aechmophorous occidentalis) 

and eared (Podiceps nigricollis) grebes of Central Alberta: 2004 field summary. Alberta 

Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division, Alberta Species at Risk 

Report No. 94. Edmonton, Alberta. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-62 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

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. 

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 (Volume II). 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, Oregon. 114 pp. 

Available at: www.fws.gov/stillwater/litreview. 

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 recreation trails in western Montana. USA 

Environmental Management 22(2):255-262. 

Fernández-Juricic, E., P.A. Zollner, C. LeBlanc, and L.M. Westphal. 2007. Responses of nestling 

black-crowned night herons (Nycticorax nycticorax) to aquatic and terrestrial recreational 

activities: a manipulative study. Waterbirds 30(4):554-565. 

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. 

Hansen, M.J. and A.P. Clevenger. 2005. The influence of disturbance and habitat on the presence of 

nonnative plant species along transport corridors. Biological Conservation 125(2005):249-

259. 

Havera, S.P., L.R. Boens, M.M. Georgi, and R.T. Shealy. 1992. Human disturbance of waterfowl on 

Keokuk Pool, Mississippi River. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20(3):290-298. 

Kahl, R. 1991. Boating disturbance of canvasbacks during migration at Lake Poygan, Wisconsin. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 19(3):242-248. 

Kenow, K.P., C.E. Korschgen, J.M. Nissen, A. Elfessi, and R. Steinbach. 2003. A voluntary program 

to curtail boat disturbance to waterfowl during migration. Waterbirds 26(1):77-87. 

Kight, 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. 

Knapton, R.W., S.A. Petrie, and G. Herring. 2000. Human disturbance of diving ducks on Long Point 

Bay, Lake Erie. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(4):923-930. 

Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole. 1991. Effects of recreational activity on wildlife in wildlands. 

Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 56:238-247. 

Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole. 1995. 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. 

Korschgen, C.E. and R.B. Dahlgren. 1992. Human disturbances of waterfowl: causes, effects, and 

management. Waterfowl Management Handbook. Fish and Wildlife Leaflet 13.2.15. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 8 pp. 

Liddle, M.J. 1975. A selective review of the ecological effects of human trampling on natural 

ecosystems. Biological Conservation 7:17-36. 

Madsen, J. 1995. Impacts of disturbance on migratory waterfowl. Ibis 137:S67-S74. 

Miller, J.R. and N.T. Hobbs. 2000. Recreational trails, human activity, and nest predation in lowland 

riparian areas. Landscape and Urban Planning 50(4):227-236. 

Miller, S.G., R.L. Knight, and C.K. Miller. 1998. Influence of recreational trails on breeding bird 

communities. Ecological Applications 8(1):162-169. 

Morton, J.M., A.C. Fowler, and R.L. Kirkpatrick. 1989. Time and energy budgets of American black 

ducks in winter. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:401-410. 

Oberbillig, D.R. 2000. Providing positive wildlife viewing experiences. Deborah Richie 

Communications. Missoula, MT. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-63 

Owens, N.W. 1977. Responses of wintering brant geese to human disturbance. Wildfowl 28:5-14. 

Raveling, D.G. 1979. The annual cycle of body composition of Canada geese with special reference 

to control of reproduction. Auk 96:234-252. 

USFWS and U.S. Census Bureau. 2007. 2006 national survey of fishing, hunting and wildlifeassociated recreation. Available at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/fhw06-nat.pdf. 

Accessed May 18, 2012. 

White-Robinson, R. 1982. Inland and salt marsh feeding of wintering brent geese in Essex. Wildfowl 

33:113-118. 

Whittaker, P.L. 1978. Comparison of surface impact by hiking and horseback riding in the Great 

Smoky Mountain National Park. Management Report 24. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

National Park Service. 80 pp. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Compatibility Determination for Hunting Waterfowl and Upland Birds (B.6) 

Use is compatible with stipulations. 

Project Leader 

Approval: 

Concurrence: 

Refuge 

Supervisor: 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System: 

gnature)· 

1 ( ate) 

· (bate) 

B-64 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-65 

B.7 Compatibility Determination for Recreational Boating 

RMIS Database Use: Noncompetitive recreational boating (motorized, human powered, electric, 

and wind-driven) 

Refuge Name: Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge 

Location: Canyon, Owyhee, Payette, and Washington Counties, Idaho, and Malheur County, Oregon 

Date Established: 1909 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities 

Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge was originally established in 1909 by President Theodore 

Roosevelt as Deer Flat Bird Reservation as a “preserve and breeding grounds for native birds” (E.O. 

1032). In 1937, President Franklin D. Roosevelt revoked Executive Order 1032 and reestablished the 

Refuge as the Deer Flat Bird Reservation to “further the purposes of the Migratory Bird Conservation 

Act” and “as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife” (E.O. 7655). Also 

in 1937, 36 islands in the Snake River were designated as the Snake River Migratory Bird Refuge 

(E.O. 7691). 

In 1940, the Refuges’ names were changed by Presidential Proclamation No. 2416, to Deer Flat 

National Wildlife Refuge and Snake River National Wildlife Refuge respectively. In 1963, Public 

Land Order 3110 transferred all lands of the Snake River National Wildlife Refuge (consisting of 74 

islands) to the direct jurisdiction of Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge. Any lands (including those 

in the Snake River Islands National Wildlife Refuge) that were added to Deer Flat National Wildlife 

Refuge assume the purposes for which Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge was established as well as 

keeping any individual purposes that were provided at the time of their establishment or acquisition. 

Refuge Purposes 

 “to further the purposes of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act” and “as a refuge and 

breeding grounds for migratory birds and other wildlife” (E.O. 7655) 

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

(Migratory Bird Conservation Act [16 U.S.C. 715d]) 

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

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

species” (16 U.S.C. 460k-1) and “the Secretary ... may accept and use ... real ... property. 

Such acceptance may be accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive 

covenants imposed by donors” (16 U.S.C. 460k-2) (Refuge Recreation Act [16 U.S.C. 460k460k-4], as amended) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission 

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-668ee et seq.]). 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-66 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Description of Use 

This CD addresses the subject uses for the Lake Lowell Unit of the Refuge. The Service’s 

jurisdiction over surface water uses on the Snake River Islands Unit is limited to areas above mean 

high water. Since there are no navigable areas above mean high water, recreational boating is not 

allowed on the Snake River Islands Unit. 

Types of Boating 

Recreational boating addressed in this CD includes use of motorized (jetboats, outboard and inboard 

motorboats, personal watercraft), human-powered (kayaks, canoes, paddleboards, rowboats, floattubes), and electric/wind-driven (boats powered by trolling motors, sailboats, windsurfing boards, 

and kiteboards) craft on all waters of the Lake Lowell Unit. Tow-behind activities (e.g., waterskiing, 

wake boarding) are allowed in areas open to wake (see below) activities. 

Boating itself is not considered a wildlife-dependent public use. However, it occurs as an integral 

part of wildlife-dependent public uses such as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, and 

photography. 

Associated Facilities 

There are five boat launches, consisting of the launches at Upper Dam East, Upper Dam West, Lower 

Dam Recreation Area, and Parking Lots 1 and 7. Individuals can also launch human-powered boats 

from a variety of formal and informal locations along the shore. 

Number of Visitors and Seasonal Patterns 

In it is estimated that there were 76,400 nonwildlife-dependent recreational boating visits to Lake 

Lowell in FY 2011 with a majority of these being motorized boats. In FY 2011, approximately 35 

percent of the boaters were anglers, and the rest were participating in other recreational activities. 

Boating is allowed on the Refuge between April 15 and September 30, during daylight hours only. 

Lake Lowell is closed to recreational boating during the winter waterfowl season to provide refuge 

to migrating waterfowl in closed areas and high-quality hunts in open areas. Motorized boat use 

peaks in July before tapering off in the fall. Declining water levels often require closure of the 

Upper Dam West and Lower Dam Recreation Area boat launches in July or August. The water 

quality of the lake is also a concern to recreationists and partially accounts for falling use in 

August and September, since green and potentially toxic blue-green algae blooms are frequent in 

the late summer and early fall. 

Location of Use in Lake Lowell 

The Refuge will continue to provide recreational boating opportunities with an emphasis on 

supporting wildlife-dependent priority public uses. Boating will be allowed as follows (see Map 4): 

 The no-wake zone on the east end of the lake will be expanded to go east from a line between 

Parking Lot 1 and Gotts Point rather than east from a line between Parking Lot 1 and the 

shore to the northeast. 

 To protect emergent beds for nesting grebes and other wildlife, we will institute the following 

no-wake zones or closures: 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-67 

o Protect emergent plant beds on south side of the lake with a 200-yard no-wake zone 

measured from the edge of the shoreline or emergent vegetation, whichever is closest 

to the center of the lake. 

o No-wake area in Narrows between East Pool and West Pool (see Map 4). 

o Protect all active and historical grebe nesting colonies by establishing a 500-yard 

area not open to public use during boating season (Berg et al. 2004). If there is no 

nesting in a colony by July 15 of the following year, the closure around that colony 

will be reopened. Upland portions of the closures will be open to use from October 1 

through January 31. 

 The following seasonal closures will be implemented at the Lake Lowell Unit as necessary to 

protect sensitive wildlife habitat: 

o Up to 300-yard buffer around eagle nests from February 15 through July 15. 

o Winter waterfowl closure at Gotts Point from October 1 through January 31. 

o Up to 250-yard buffer around heron rookeries from February 1 through July 1. 

o Up to 100-yard closure around shorebird feeding areas from July 15 through 

September 30 during years when the lake level elevation is lower than 2,522 feet. 

 To protect mudflat habitat and migrating shorebirds, institute the following closures. 

o Shorebird area at northern shoreline of the East Pool east of Tio Lane access (see 

Map 5) will be open to boating April 15 through July 14 and closed seasonally (July 

15 through September 30) when water level falls below 2,522 feet in elevation. 

 Tow-behind activities (e.g., waterskiing, wake boarding) will be allowed in areas open to 

wake activities. 

 Kiteboarders and windsurfers will be allowed to launch from any open shoreline but must 

comply with speed limits in no-wake zones. Wind sport enthusiasts will be allowed to launch 

from any open shoreline but must comply with speed limits in no-wake zones. 

 A kayak/canoe launch at Gotts Point will be provided for access to prime wildlifeobservation areas. 

Availability of Resources 

Deer Flat NWR is open to a variety of recreational boating opportunities under this CCP. Most of the 

costs associated with implementing the CCP are one-time expenses (see Table B-6). Because the 

Refuge has limited capacity to staff and maintain facilities and provide law enforcement, the Refuge 

will explore all available options to obtain funding to implement these projects, including partnership 

efforts. 

Currently, most on-water law enforcement and boating-related dock maintenance is provided by the 

Canyon County Sheriff’s Office. If the Sheriff’s Office ever decided to discontinue this assistance, 

there will be additional costs associated with maintaining this use. Because the Sheriff’s Office is not 

currently able to provide law enforcement for Refuge-specific regulations, it will be important for the 

Refuge to increase its law enforcement presence and/or work with Canyon County to enable County 

deputies to enforce these regulations. 

Funding will be sought through the Service budget process. Other sources will be sought through 

strengthened partnerships, grants, coordination with other law enforcement agencies, and additional 

Refuge operations funding to support a safe, quality, public use program. Increased volunteer 

assistance, strengthened partnerships, and new partners will be sought to support these programs in 

an effective, safe, and compatible manner. Refuge staff will increase volunteer recruitment efforts. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-68 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

When provided the appropriate training, Refuge volunteers, interns, and various user groups can 

assist with monitoring, education and interpretation programs, and maintenance projects. With 

additional assistance as described above, staffing and funding is expected to be sufficient to manage 

these uses. 

Costs marked with an asterisk (*) in the table below represent costs that are also entered into other 

CDs for activities using the same resource. For instance, rehabilitating the Lower Dam Recreation 

Area will benefit boaters but it will also benefit picnickers, swimmers, fisherman, and other visitors. 

This same cost has been shown in all CDs that may use the new Lower Dam Recreation Area. 

Table B-6. Costs to Implement Improvements to the Recreational Boating Program 

Refuge Activity Required to Allow Use Estimated One-time Cost Estimated Annual Cost 

*Install new kiosks and signs at access points and 

maintain signs 

$261,000 $2,700 

*Visitor contact station $480,000 $1,600 

*Install and maintain comfort station and vault toilet at 

Lower Dam Recreation Area (LDRA) and Parking Lot 1 

$208,200 $3,000 

*Rehabilitate LDRA parking area $50,000 

*LDRA site plan $40,000 

*Print/reprint general Refuge brochures $3,200 $800 

*Seasonal nesting closure signs (Lake Lowell and Snake 

River Islands Units) 

$11,000 $5,200 

*Install and maintain buoys for seasonal closures and 

permanent no-wake areas 

$4,300 $500 

*Human/wildlife interaction disturbance studies $140,000 

*Law enforcement officer $62,400 

Total $1,197,700 $76,200 

* Costs marked with an asterisk (*) represent costs that are also entered into other CDs for activities using the same 

resource. 

Anticipated Impacts of Use 

The discussion below analyzes impacts of the use. 

The Lake Lowell Unit of Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge provides valuable nesting, foraging, 

and resting habitat for migratory birds, including wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, secretive marsh 

birds, and other waterbirds. The lake is open to recreational use during critical nesting times for a 

variety of avian species. 

General Impacts to Wildlife 

Disturbance Effects: Both motorized and nonmotorized boating have been shown to change wildlife 

distribution and use of particular habitats, alter feeding behavior and nutritional status, and cause 

premature departure from desirable habitat (Bouffard 1982; Kaiser and Fritzell 1984; Korschgen et 

al. 1985). Studies have also shown that boating disturbance may cause increased flight time and 

flushing distances in waterfowl species (Havera et al. 1992; Kahl 1991; Kenow et al. 2003; Knapton 

et al. 2000). Wildlife species that are more sensitive to recreation-related disturbances (e.g., bald 

eagles, shorebirds, grebes) may find it increasingly difficult to secure adequate food or loafing sites 

as their preferred habitat becomes fragmented by disturbance (Burger 1997; Pfister et al. 1992; 

Skagen et al. 1991). 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-69 

Motorized boats can cover a larger area in a relatively short time in comparison to nonmotorized 

boats, affecting a greater area and providing less time for wildlife to react. Compared to motorboats, 

human-powered boats like canoes and kayaks appear to cause fewer disturbances to most wildlife 

species (Huffman 1999). However, canoes and kayaks can cause measurable disturbance effects 

because they can access shallower and more densely vegetated areas of a marsh (Speight 1973). 

Slow-moving boats in close proximity to nesting great blue herons can cause temporary nest 

abandonment (Vos et al. 1985), and Huffman (1999) found that nonmotorized boats within 30 meters 

(98 feet) of the shoreline in south San Diego Bay caused all wintering waterfowl to flush between the 

craft and shore. 

There have been several studies documenting impacts to birds native to Deer Flat NWR. One study 

showed a decrease in use of a bald eagle feeding site when human activity (including motorized 

boating) occurred within 200 meters (Skagen 1980). Another disturbance study showed that 

motorboats were more likely to elicit responses in wintering bald eagles than nearby automatic 

weapons fire, small arms fire, ordnance impacts, and helicopter flights associated with a military 

installation (Stalmaster and Kaiser 1997). Rodgers and Schwikert (2002) measured flushing distances 

from motorized watercraft for 23 waterbird species, of which the great blue heron was one of the 

more sensitive, flushing between distances of 8 and 137 meters. 

Effects to Water Quality 

In addition to noise and speed, motorized boats pollute waters with gas and oil. Older two-stroke 

engines, in which the gas and oil are combined, can discharge as much as 25 percent of the unspent 

mixture gas directly into the water. Hydrocarbons in gas and oil float on the surface of the water and 

bioaccumulate in the food web, posing a threat to sensitive shallow lacustrine habitats (Tjarnlund et 

al. 1995). Hoffman (1998) reviewed several studies, concluding that petroleum hydrocarbons can 

also be transferred to eggs from the plumage of incubating birds and can be toxic even in small 

amounts. 

There is a possibility of boats aiding in the spread of aquatic invasive species into the waters of the 

Refuge. Informational media in hunting brochures, placards at launch sites (including Refuge 

launches), registration requirements, systematic and periodic inspections, and early detection 

monitoring help reduce the likelihood of infestation. The Idaho State Department of Agriculture is at 

the forefront of preventing the spread of aquatic invasive species into the waters of Idaho and works 

in concert with various agencies including the Service. 

Refuge-specific Impacts 

This section evaluates the likely impact at the Refuge, considering the scientific studies discussed 

above and considering the uses within the context of Deer Flat Refuge. 

Loss of Habitat from Facility Construction: The addition of three fishing docks and one shorebird 

viewing blind is expected to affect approximately 5 acres or less of open water habitat. 

Vegetation, Soil, and Water Impacts: As described above, the potential for water quality impacts and 

contaminants in the food web stemming from the release of gas and oil hydrocarbons into Refuge 

waters will continue to exist. The Refuge will promote the use of CARB star-rated motors at the level 

of two stars and above to reduce impacts from petroleum hydrocarbons. A total maximum daily load 

(TMDL) assessment for the Lake Lowell watershed was prepared by the Idaho Department of 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-70 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Environmental Quality (IDEQ) that explored water quality concerns in Lake Lowell. Petroleum 

hydrocarbon pollution from boats was not explored in the TMDL because the focus was on pollution 

loads associated with agriculture runoff and other nonpoint sources. Even though oil and grease are 

listed as pollutants of concern in the Boise River (Lower) Subbasin Hydrologic Subunit, dissolved 

oxygen, sediment, and nutrients are the focus of the TMDL, because the presence of these pollutants 

at current levels likely render hydrocarbon levels insignificant (IDEQ 2010). 

Disturbance Effects to Wintering and Migrating Wildlife. The wintertime closure is expected to 

adequately protect wintering and migrating birds using Lake Lowell. It is critical for waterfowl to 

conserve energy during migration and the cold winter months. Closed areas provide unmolested 

space for birds as they are resting and refueling for the journey ahead of them. 

Disturbance Effects to Colonial-nesting Birds. Colonial-nesting birds at Lake Lowell may be among 

the most sensitive species subjected to potential disturbance from boating. Lake Lowell is one of 

only three lakes in Idaho that routinely hosts colonies of nesting western and Clark’s grebes, whose 

breeding population is considered imperiled in the state (IDFG 2005). Idaho Fish and Game has 

printed pamphlets for public distribution that provide information on conflicts between boaters and 

grebes and the importance of responsible boating. High-speed boating displaces grebes from 

preferred habitats, disrupts nesting and feeding, and even causes loss of young (Burger 1997). Grebe 

adults and chicks are often killed by boats (Ivey 2004; Shaw 1998), and small chicks can become 

separated from their parents and die of exposure if adults have to dive to avoid motorboats (Storer 

and Nuechterlein 1992). 

Disturbance Effects to Other Species. The Lake Lowell Unit includes riparian forest, emergent 

vegetation, and open water habitats that are used extensively by a variety of bird species. The 

disturbance effects to wildlife described in the General Impacts section above applies to the 

anticipated effects to wildlife on Deer Flat NWR. It is anticipated that wildlife species using the open 

water and emergent plant habitats of the Refuge will benefit from the reduced disturbances that 

restricted use areas will provide.

Impacts to Listed Species 

There are no listed species known to occur on the Refuge. The counties that surround both units of 

the Refuge have a variety of listed species historically or currently occurring within each county. Of 

these species only the yellow-billed cuckoo has ever been documented on Deer Flat NWR, and it is 

currently considered a vagrant because sightings are highly unusual. The Columbia spotted frog 

could conceivably exist on the Refuge but has not been documented. The condition of habitat for 

both of these species is either unknown or marginal. The likelihood of any other of the listed species 

that occur in the surrounding counties existing on the Refuge is slim. Most of these other species 

have known populations that occur off-Refuge (e.g., Bruneau hot springs snail, Packard’s milkvetch) 

or roam great distances and/or will not find suitable habitat on the Refuge (e.g., North American 

wolverine, greater sage-grouse). It is anticipated that impacts from boating will be negligible. If any 

use results in unacceptable adverse effects to candidate species or habitats, the Refuge will impose 

restrictions to mitigate disturbance. 

Impacts to Priority Public Uses 

Boating, whether motor-, wind-, or human-powered, may provide additional wildlife-dependent 

recreational opportunities by opening up areas of the Refuge inaccessible to foot traffic. However, as 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-71 

described above, given the tendency of birds to flush when subjected to a high intensity of 

disturbance, wildlife viewing opportunities will be expected to be poor in wake zones between April 

and September. 

The majority of habitats used by priority species on the Refuge can be protected from undue impacts 

by separating boat use from wildlife use in time and space. During winter, nearly the entire lake will 

be protected from motorized boating use, providing protection during this season. During the 

breeding season, an adequate amount of habitat will be available to the majority of waterfowl and 

other wetland birds because nesting areas for the most sensitive wildlife species will be closed to 

boating; some additional areas used for nesting, feeding, and resting will be encompassed in no-wake 

zones. The stipulations below also provide parameters under which this use can be allowed in order 

to ensure compatibility. 

Determination 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility 

 Boaters must abide by all applicable Refuge, U.S. Coast Guard, and State of Idaho laws. 

 Boaters will not be allowed to anchor or pull onto land adjacent to closed areas. 

 No competitive activities are allowed, with the exception of sailing regattas (see Sailing 

Regattas CD) and bass fishing tournaments (see Fishing CD).

 Boats that are specifically designed to operate in mud or emergent vegetation, using abovewater propulsion devices (e.g., boats equipped with “mud motors” or air boats) are not 

permitted on the Refuge. 

 To minimize noise disturbance to wildlife, Idaho State noise ordinances will be enforced on 

Lake Lowell. 

 Promote the use of CARB star-rated motors at the level of two stars and above. 

 Use will be restricted to daylight hours only. 

 Seasonal closures will be implemented as necessary to protect sensitive wildlife habitat. For 

example: 

o Up to 300-yard buffer around eagle nests from February 15 through July 15. 

o Up to 150-yard seasonal closure around osprey nests from March 15 through August 

1. 

o Up to 500-yard closure around grebe colonies (Berg et al. 2004) until July 15 of the 

following year. If the birds have not renested in the closed area by July 15 of the 

following year, the closure will be removed. Upland portions of the closures will be 

open to use from October 1 through January 31. 

 To determine grebe colony boundaries, the staff biologist will mark nests 

within, and especially on the periphery of, a colony using a GPS capable of 

sub-meter accuracy as part of the regular colony studies. These data points will 

be exported to a geo-referenced mapping system, and a 500-yard buffer will be 

drawn around the colony. Buoy locations will then be mapped every 100 to 

150 yards and exported back into the GPS unit to be used to place the buoys in 

the proper location. In the first year that grebes nest, the closure will be based 

on nests established early in the nesting season. In the second year of a grebe 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-72 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

nesting closure, the closure will be based on the full extent of the colony in the 

first year. 

o Up to 250-yard buffer around heron rookeries from February 1 through July 1. 

o Up to 100-yard closure around shorebird feeding and resting areas from July 15 

through September 30 during years when the lake level elevation is lower than 2,522 

feet. 

 No-wake zones will be implemented as follows to protect sensitive wildlife habitat and 

provide no-wake recreational opportunities: 

o Protect emergent plant beds on south side of the lake with a 200-yard no-wake zone 

measured from the edge of the shoreline or emergent vegetation, whichever is closest 

to the center of the lake. 

o Establish no-wake area in the Narrows between the East and West Pools. 

o Establish no-wake zone east from line between Parking Lot 1 and Gotts Point. 

 Wind sport enthusiasts will be allowed to launch from any open shoreline but must comply 

with speed limit in no-wake zones.

 Refuge staff will monitor impacts of boating activities annually to assess compliance with 

these stipulations, impacts to waterfowl, shorebirds, waterbirds (especially Aechmophorus

grebes), and other migratory birds as well as wildlife habitat, and conflicts between user 

groups. Monitoring data will be used to modify these stipulations if necessary to ensure 

continued compatibility of these activities. 

Justification 

Providing opportunities for priority wildlife-dependent recreational activities is in keeping with 

provisions under the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 as amended. 

Although boating itself is not a wildlife-dependent recreational activity, wildlife-dependent activities 

like fishing and wildlife observation may be enhanced with boating. 

A significant proportion of Lake Lowell Unit visitors are boaters. Educational programs targeting 

boaters on Lake Lowell are expected to help reduce the negative impacts associated with boating 

activities. Nonwildlife-dependent boating visitors provide the opportunity for the Refuge to reach out 

to nontraditional Refuge user groups and to encourage boating users to observe wildlife and to learn 

about the NWRS. Due to the close proximity of Deer Flat NWR to the cities of Nampa and Caldwell, 

the number and variety of users to this urban refuge is expected to grow. For many people, boating at 

Lake Lowell may provide an introduction to a national wildlife refuge. 

Although motorized boating has been documented to impact wildlife and the habitats on which they 

rely, implementing the stipulations described above will reduce these impacts. It is anticipated that 

wildlife populations will find sufficient food resources and resting places such that their abundance 

and use of the Refuge will not be measurably lessened from allowing boating to occur on the Refuge. 

With the protections in place, number of individuals expected to be adversely affected due to boating 

will not cause wildlife populations to materially decline, the physiological condition and production 

of wildlife species will not be impaired, their behavior and normal activity patterns will not be altered 

dramatically, and their overall welfare will not be negatively impacted. Thus, allowing boating to 

occur with stipulations will not materially detract or interfere with the purposes for which the Refuge 

was established or the Refuge System mission.
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-73 

Mandatory Reevaluation Date 

 2025 Mandatory 10-year Reevaluation (for all uses other than priority public uses) 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision 

 X Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

References 

Berg, G., L. Wilkinson, H. Wollis, and D. Prescott. 2004. Western (Aechmophorous occidentalis) 

and eared (Podiceps nigricollis) grebes of Central Alberta: 2004 field summary. Alberta 

Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division, Alberta Species at Risk 

Report No. 94. Edmonton, Alberta. 

Bouffard, S.H. 1982. Wildlife values versus human recreation: Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge. 

Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 47:553-558. 

Burger, A.E. 1997. Status of the western grebe in British Columbia. Wildlife Working Report WR87. B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks. Victoria, British Columbia. 40 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 (Volume II). 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, Oregon. 114 pp. 

Available at: www.fws.gov/stillwater/litreview. 

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. 

Hoffman, D.J. 1989. Embryotoxicity and teratogenicity of environmental contaminants to bird eggs. 

Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 115:41-50. 

Huffman, K. 1999. San Diego South Bay survey report—effects of human activity and water craft on 

wintering birds in South San Diego Bay. USFWS. 

IDEQ. 2010. Lake Lowell TMDL: addendum to the lower Boise River subbasin assessment and total 

maximum daily loads. IDEQ Boise Regional Office. Boise, ID. 247 pp. Available at: 

http://www.deq.idaho.gov/media/451719-

_water_data_reports_surface_water_tmdls_boise_river_lower_lake_lowell_addendum.pdf. 

Accessed June 11, 2012. 

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. 

Available at: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/cwcs/. Accessed May 18, 2012. 

Ivey, G.L. 2004. Conservation assessment and management plan for breeding western and Clark’s 

grebes in California. Prepared for American Trader Trustee Council: an interagency group 

comprised of representatives from the California Department of Fish And Game, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Corvallis, 

Oregon. 

Kahl, R. 1991. Boating disturbance of canvasbacks during migration at Lake Poygan, Wisconsin. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 19(3):242-248. 

Kaiser, M. and E. Fritzell. 1984. Effects of river recreationists on green-backed heron behavior. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 48(2):561-567. 

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. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-74 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Knapton, R.W., S.A. Petrie, and G. Herring. 2000. Human disturbance of diving ducks on Long Point 

Bay, Lake Erie. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(4):923-930. 

Korschgen, C., L. George, and W. Green. 1985. Disturbance of diving ducks by boaters on a 

migrational staging area. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13:290-296. 

Pfister, C., B.A. Harrington, and M. Lavine. 1992. The impact of human disturbance on shorebirds at 

a migration staging area. Biological Conservation 60:115-126. 

Rodgers, J.A., Jr. and S.T. Schwikert. 2002. Buffer-zone distances to protect foraging and loafing 

waterbirds from disturbance by personal watercraft and outboard-powered boats. 

Conservation Biology 16(1):216-224. 

Shaw, D.W.H. 1998. Changes in population size and colony location of breeding waterbirds at Eagle 

Lake, California between 1970 and 1997. Thesis. California State University, Chico. 

Skagen, S.K. 1980. Behavioral responses of wintering bald eagles to human activity on the Skagit 

River, Washington. Pages 231-241 in: R.L. Knight, G.T. Allen, M.V. Stalmaster, and C.W. 

Servheen eds. Proceedings of the Washington Bald Eagle Symposium. The Nature 

Conservancy. Seattle, WA. 

Skagen, S.K., R.L. Knight, and G.H. Orians. 1991. Human disturbances of an avian scavenging 

guild. Ecological Applications 1:215-225. 

Speight, M.C.D. 1973. Outdoor recreation and its ecological effects: a bibliography and review. 

Discussion Papers in Conservation 4. University College London, England. 35 pp. 

Stalmaster, M.V. and J.L. Kaiser. 1997. Flushing responses of wintering bald eagles to military 

activity. Journal of Wildlife Management 61(4):1307-1313. 

Storer, R.W. and G.L. Nuechterlein. 1992. Western grebe (Aechmorphorus occidentalis) and Clark’s 

grebe (Aechmorphorus clarkia). In: A. Poole and F. Gill eds. Birds of North America, No. 

26. Philadelphia, PA., Academy of Natural Sciences and American Ornithologists’ Union. 24 

pp. 

Tjarnlund, U., G. Ericson, E. Landesjoo, I. Petterson, and L. Balk. 1995. Investigation of the 

biological effects of two-cycle outboard engines’ exhaust on fish. Marine Environmental 

Research 39:313-316. 

Vos, D.K., R.A. Ryder, and W.D. Graul. 1985. Response of breeding great blue herons to human 

disturbance in northcentral Colorado. Colonial Waterbirds 8:13-22. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Compatibility Determination for Recreational Boating (B.7). 

Use is compatible with stipulations. 

Project Leader 

Approval: 

Concurrence: 

Refuge 

Supervisor: 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System: 

, Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

( gnature) 

(Signature) 

Lfl, l,.s 

(Date) 

B-75 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-76 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-77 

B.8 Compatibility Determination for Research 

RMIS Database Use: Research 

Refuge Name: Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge 

Location: Canyon, Owyhee, Payette, and Washington Counties, Idaho, and Malheur County, Oregon 

Date Established: 1909 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities 

Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge was originally established in 1909 by President Theodore 

Roosevelt as Deer Flat Bird Reservation as a “preserve and breeding grounds for native birds” (E.O. 

1032). In 1937, President Franklin D. Roosevelt revoked Executive Order 1032 and reestablished the 

Refuge as the Deer Flat Bird Reservation to “further the purposes of the Migratory Bird Conservation 

Act” and “as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife” (E.O. 7655). Also 

in 1937, 36 islands in the Snake River were designated as the Snake River Migratory Bird Refuge 

(E.O. 7691). 

In 1940, the Refuges’ names were changed by Presidential Proclamation No. 2416, to Deer Flat 

National Wildlife Refuge and Snake River National Wildlife Refuge respectively. In 1963, Public 

Land Order 3110 transferred all lands of the Snake River National Wildlife Refuge (consisting of 74 

islands) to the direct jurisdiction of Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge. Any lands (including those 

in the Snake River Islands National Wildlife Refuge) that were added to Deer Flat National Wildlife 

Refuge assume the purposes for which Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge was established as well as 

keeping any individual purposes that were provided at the time of their establishment or acquisition. 

Refuge Purposes 

 “to further the purposes of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act” and “as a refuge and 

breeding grounds for migratory birds and other wildlife” (E.O. 7655) 

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

(Migratory Bird Conservation Act [16 U.S.C. 715d]) 

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

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

species” (16 U.S.C. 460k-1) and “the Secretary ... may accept and use ... real ... property. 

Such acceptance may be accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive 

covenants imposed by donors” (16 U.S.C. 460k-2) (Refuge Recreation Act [16 U.S.C. 460k460k-4], as amended) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission 

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-668ee et seq.]). 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-78 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Description of Use 

The Refuge staff receives periodic requests from non-Service entities (e.g., universities, State or 

Territorial 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, wilderness character, modeling of wildlife populations, 

bioprospecting, and assessing response of habitat/wildlife to disturbance from public uses. Projects 

may be species-specific or Refuge-specific, or they may evaluate the relative contribution of the 

Refuge lands to larger landscapes (e.g., ecoregion, region, flyway, national, international), issues, and 

trends. 

The Service’s Research and Management Studies (4 RM 6) and Appropriate Refuge Uses (603 FW 

1.10D(4)) policies indicate priority for scientific investigatory studies that contribute to the 

enhancement, protection, use, preservation, and management of native wildlife populations and their 

habitat as well as their natural diversity. Projects that contribute to Refuge-specific needs for resource 

and/or wilderness management goals and objectives, where applicable, will be given a higher priority 

over other requests. 

Availability of Resources 

Refuge staff responsibilities for projects by non-Service entities will be limited to the following: 

review of proposals, prepare SUPs and other compliance documents (e.g., for 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, logistical, and operational support may also be 

provided depending on each specific request. Estimated costs for one-time (e.g., prepare a SUP) and 

annually reoccurring tasks by Refuge staff and other Service employees will be determined for each 

project. Sufficient funding in the general operating budget of the Refuge must be available to cover 

expenses for these projects. In cases where the Refuge staff is asked to act as a cooperator on 

research projects, funding may be cost-shared or specially designated funds may be used for the 

operation and administration of the projects. The terms and conditions for funding and staff support 

necessary to administer each project on the Refuge will be clearly stated in every SUP. 

The Refuge has the following staffing and funding to administratively support and monitor research 

that is currently taking place on Refuge lands (see Table B-7). Any substantial increase in the number 

of projects will create a need for additional resources to oversee the administration and monitoring of 

the investigators and their projects. Any substantial additional costs above those itemized below may 

result in finding a project not compatible unless expenses are offset by the investigator(s), sponsoring 

agency, or organization. 

New costs associated with carrying out the enhanced research, inventory, and assessment programs 

includes annual costs to hire a biological technician to carry out Refuge projects, and one-time costs 

that will be provided to contractors tasked with specific projects. New research, inventory, and 

assessment needs as described in the CCP are listed in Table B-7. Because the Service has limited 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-79 

capacity to fund new positions and projects, the Service will explore all available options to obtain 

funding to implement these projects, including partnership efforts. 

Costs marked with an asterisk (*) in the table below represent costs that are also entered into other 

CDs for activities that will be affected by the research. For instance, studies that determine the 

quality of wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities will help the Refuge better manage these uses 

and improve programs. Therefore, the cost will also be reflected in the CDs for each of the wildlifedependent uses. 

Table B-7. Costs to Implement Enhanced Research, Inventory, and Assessment Projects 

Refuge Activity Required to Allow Use Estimated One-time Cost Estimated Annual Cost 

Hire biological technician, who will conduct: 

 breeding and migratory bird inventories of shrub 

steppe and riparian habitats 

 inventory of wildlife use of wetlands 

 early detection of and rapid response to 

new/spreading invasive plants/animals 

 collecting baseline habitat and wildlife 

information 

 waterfowl, shorebird, ground-nesting birds, 

passerines, and grebe surveys, 

Biological technician will assist with the following 

research, monitoring, and information assessment 

projects: 

 human/wildlife interaction disturbance studies 

o prioritization of Refuge islands for wildlife 

value 

 analyzing historic biological data to assess longterm population trends 

 contaminants studies 

 mule deer studies 

 cheatgrass removal studies 

 surveys of wetland topography 

 soil surveys of shrub steppe and creation of GIS 

mapping layers 

$51,000 

*Disturbance studies 

Prioritization of Refuge islands 

Analysis of historical biological data 

Contaminants studies $450,000 

Mule deer studies 

Cheatgrass removal studies 

Wetland topography surveys 

Soil surveys of shrub-steppe and creation of GIS 

mapping layers 

*Quality of wildlife-dependent public use programs $75,000-$80,000

Total $525,000-$530,000 $51,000 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use 

Use of the Refuge to conduct research, scientific collecting, and surveys will generally provide 

information that will benefit fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats. Scientific findings gained 

through these projects provide important information regarding life-history needs of species and 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-80 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

species groups as well as identify or refine management actions to achieve resource management 

objectives in refuge management plans (especially CCPs). Reducing uncertainty regarding wildlife 

and habitat responses to refuge management actions in order to achieve desired outcomes reflected in 

resource management objectives is essential for adaptive management in accordance with 522 DM 1. 

If a research project’s methods impact or conflict with Refuge-specific resources, priority wildlifedependent public uses, other high-priority research, wilderness, or Refuge habitat and wildlife 

management programs, then it must be clearly demonstrated that the project’s scientific findings will 

contribute to resource management and that the project cannot be conducted off of Refuge lands for 

the project to be compatible. The investigator(s) must identify in advance methods/ strategies 

required to minimize or eliminate the potential impact(s) and conflict(s). If unacceptable impacts 

cannot be avoided, then the project will not be compatible. Projects that represent public or private 

economic use of the natural resources of any national wildlife refuge (e.g., bioprospecting), in 

accordance with 16 U.S.C. 715s, must contribute to the achievement of the national wildlife refuge 

purposes or the NWRS mission to be compatible (50 C.F.R. 29.1). 

Impacts will be project- and site-specific, where they will vary depending upon nature and scope of 

the fieldwork. Data collection techniques will generally have minimal animal mortality or 

disturbance, habitat destruction, no introduction of contaminants, or no introduction of 

nonindigenous species. In contrast, projects involving the collection of biotic samples (plants or 

animals) or requiring intensive ground-based data or sample collection will have short-term impacts. 

To reduce impacts, the minimum number of samples (e.g., water, soils, vegetative litter, plants, 

macroinvertebrates, and vertebrates) will be collected for identification and/or experimentation and 

statistical analysis. Where possible, researchers will coordinate and share collections to reduce 

sampling needed for multiple projects. For example, if one investigator collects fish for a diet study 

and another research examines otoliths, then it may be possible to accomplish sampling for both 

projects with one collection effort. 

Investigator(s) obtaining required State and Federal collecting permits will also ensure minimal 

impacts to fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats. If after incorporating the above strategies a project 

will still result in long-term or cumulative effects, the project will not be considered compatible. A 

Section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 Stat. 884, as 

amended; Public Law 93-205) will be required for activities that may affect a federally listed species 

and/or critical habitat. Only projects that have no effect or will result in not likely to adversely affect 

determinations will be considered compatible. 

Spread of invasive plants and/or pathogens is possible from ground disturbance and/or transportation 

of project equipment and personnel, but it will be minimized or eliminated by requiring proper 

cleaning of investigator equipment and clothing as well as quarantine methods, where necessary. If 

after all practical measures are taken and unacceptable spread of invasive species is anticipated to 

occur, then the project will be found not compatible without a restoration or mitigation plan. 

There also could be localized and temporary effects from vegetation trampling, collecting of soil and 

plant samples, or trapping and handling of wildlife. Impacts may also occur from infrastructure 

necessary to support a projects (e.g., permanent transects or plot markers, exclosure devices, 

monitoring equipment, solar panels to power unattended monitoring equipment). Some level of 

disturbance is expected with these projects, especially if investigator(s) enter areas closed to the 

public and collect samples or handle wildlife. However, wildlife disturbance (including altered 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-81 

behavior) will usually be localized and temporary in nature. When long-term or cumulative 

unacceptable effects cannot be avoided, the project will not be found compatible. 

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 a format provided 

by the Refuge. Project proposals will be reviewed by Refuge staff and others, as needed, to assess the 

potential impacts (short-term, long-term, and cumulative) relative to benefits of the investigation to 

Refuge management issues and understanding of natural systems. This assessment will form the 

basis for allowing or denying a specific project. Projects that result in unacceptable Refuge impacts 

will not be found compatible. If allowed and found compatible after approval, all projects will also 

be assessed during implementation to ensure impacts and conflicts remain at acceptable levels. 

If the proposal is approved, then the Refuge manager will issue a SUP 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 will ensure that 

projects contribute to the enhancement, protection, conservation, and management of native wildlife 

populations and their habitats on the Refuge. As a result, these projects will help fulfill the Refuge’s 

purposes; contribute to the mission of the NWRS; and maintain the biological integrity, diversity, 

and environmental health of the Refuge. 

Projects that are not covered by the CCP (objectives under Goal 6, Gather sufficient scientific 

information to guide responsible adaptive management decisions for the Refuge’s trust resources) 

will require additional NEPA documentation. 

Determination 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility 

Each project will require a SUP. Annual or other short-term SUPs are preferred; however, some 

permits will cover a longer time period, if needed, to allow completion of the project. All SUPs will 

have a definite termination date in accordance with 5 RM 17.11. Renewals will be subject to the 

Refuge manager’s review and approval based timely submission of and content in progress reports, 

compliance with SUP stipulations, and required permits. 

 Projects will adhere to scientifically defensible protocols for data collection, where available 

and applicable. 

 Investigators must possess appropriate and comply with conditions of State and Federal 

permits for their projects. 

 If unacceptable impacts to natural resources or conflicts arise or are documented by the 

Refuge staff, then the Refuge manager can suspend, modify conditions of, or terminate an 

ongoing project already permitted by SUP on the Refuge. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-82 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

 Progress reports are required at least annually for multiple-year projects. The minimum 

required elements for a progress report will be provided to investigator(s). 

 Final reports are due one year after completion of the project unless negotiated otherwise 

with the Refuge manager. 

 Continuation of existing projects will require approval by the Refuge manager. 

 The Refuge staff will be given the opportunity to review draft manuscript(s) from the project 

before manuscripts are submitted to a scientific journal(s) for consideration of publication. 

 The Refuge staff will be provided with copies (reprints) of all publications resulting from a 

Refuge project. 

 The Refuge staff will be provided with copies of raw data (preferably electronic database 

format) at the conclusion of the project. 

 Upon completion of the project or annually, all equipment and markers (unless required for 

long-term projects), must be removed and sites must restored to the Refuge manager’s 

satisfaction. Conditions for clean-up and removal of equipment and physical markers will be 

stipulated in the SUP. 

 All samples collected on Refuge lands are the property of the Service even while in the 

possession of the investigator(s). Any future work with previously collected samples not 

clearly identified in the project proposal will require submission of a subsequent proposal for 

review and approval. In addition, a new SUP will be required for additional project work. For 

samples or specimens to be stored at other facilities (e.g., museums), a memorandum of 

understanding will be necessary. 

 Sampling equipment as well as investigator clothing and vehicles (e.g., all-terrain vehicles, 

boats) will be thoroughly cleaned (free of dirt and plant material) before being allowed for 

use Refuge lands to prevent the introduction and/or spread of pests. Where necessary, 

quarantine methods will be used. 

 The NWRS, Deer Flat Refuge, Refuge staff and other Service personnel that supported or 

contributed to the project will be appropriately cited and acknowledged in all written and oral 

presentations resulting from projects on Refuge lands. 

 At any time, Refuge staff may accompany investigator(s) in the field. 

 Any project proposed in wilderness areas must comply with provisions of an existing 

minimum requirements analysis (MRA). Investigators not acting as agents of Service and 

requesting to conduct projects in wilderness must prepare an MRA consistent with Service 

Policy and adhere to the requirements of the Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136). 

 Investigator(s) and support staff will 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 expand scientific information available for resource management decisions. In addition, 

only projects that directly or indirectly contribute to the enhancement, protection, use, preservation, 

and management of Refuge wildlife populations and their habitats generally will be authorized on 

Refuge lands. In many cases, if it were not for the Refuge staff providing access to Refuge lands and 

waters along with some support, the project will never occur and less scientific information will be 

available to the Service to aid in managing and conserving the Refuge resources. By allowing the use 

to occur under the stipulations described above, it is anticipated that wildlife species that could be 

disturbed during the use will find sufficient food resources and resting places so their abundance and 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-83 

use will not be measurably lessened on the Refuge. Additionally, it is anticipated that monitoring, as 

needed, will prevent unacceptable or irreversible impacts to fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats. 

As a result, these projects will not materially interfere with or detract from fulfilling the Refuge’s 

purposes (including wilderness); contributing to the mission of the NWRS; and maintaining the 

biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge. 

Mandatory Reevaluation Date 

 2025 Mandatory 10-year Reevaluation (for all uses other than priority public uses) 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: (check one below) 

 X Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Compatibility Determination for Research (B.8) 

Use is compatible with stipulations. 

Project Leader 

Approval: 

Concurrence: 

Refuge 

Supervisor: 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System: 

B-84 

~gnature) 

~te) 

1 ./J I 1'5 

I (Ohle) 

(Date) 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-85 

B.9 Compatibility Determination for Sailing Regattas 

RMIS Database Use: Sailing Regattas 

Refuge Name: Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge 

Location: Canyon, Owyhee, Payette, and Washington Counties, Idaho, and Malheur County, Oregon 

Date Established: 1909 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities 

Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge (NWR or Refuge) was originally established in 1909 by 

President Theodore Roosevelt as Deer Flat Bird Reservation as a “preserve and breeding grounds for 

native birds” (Executive Order [E.O.] 1032). In 1937, President Franklin D. Roosevelt revoked 

Executive Order 1032 and reestablished the Refuge as the Deer Flat Bird Reservation to “further the 

purposes of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act” and “as a refuge and breeding ground for 

migratory birds and other wildlife” (E.O. 7655). Also in 1937, 36 islands in the Snake River were 

designated as the Snake River Migratory Bird Refuge (E.O. 7691). 

In 1940, the Refuges’ names were changed by Presidential Proclamation No. 2416 to Deer Flat 

National Wildlife Refuge and Snake River National Wildlife Refuge, respectively. In 1963, Public 

Land Order 3110 transferred all lands of the Snake River National Wildlife Refuge (consisting of 74 

islands) to the direct jurisdiction of Deer Flat NWR. Any lands (including those in the Snake River 

Islands National Wildlife Refuge) that were added to Deer Flat NWR assume the purposes for which 

that Refuge was established as well as keeping any individual purposes that were provided at the 

time of their establishment or acquisition. 

Refuge Purposes 

 “To further the purposes of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act” and “as a refuge and 

breeding grounds for migratory birds and other wildlife” (E.O. 7655) 

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

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

 “Suitable for (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the 

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

species” (16 U.S.C. 460k-1) and “the Secretary ... may accept and use ... real ... property. 

Such acceptance may be accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive 

covenants imposed by donors” (16 U.S.C. 460k-2) (Refuge Recreation Act [16 U.S.C. 460k460k-4], as amended) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission 

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-668ee et seq.]). 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-86 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Description of Use 

Sailing regattas currently take place in the center of the West Pool of the Lake Lowell Unit during 

April and May. Sailing regattas occur by SUP on opposite weekends of bass tournaments. Southern 

Idaho Sailing Association is the only group actively sponsoring regattas at this time. 

The race course is set the morning of the regatta by the race committee. On Saturday, at 

approximately 9:30 a.m., regatta participants meet at the Lower Dam Recreation Area to set up 

and launch their boats, parking them on the outside of the docks. A “skippers’ meeting” is held 

adjacent to the docks at approximately 11:00 a.m., where boats are registered, safety is stressed, and 

guests are paired up with boats for the day. Regatta participants then motor out to the start line in 

preparation for the 12:00 start of the first race. Each race starts approximately 15 minutes after the 

end of the last race. No races start after 4:00 p.m. The first race starts at 10:00 a.m. on Sunday with 

no race starting after 3:00 p.m. 

The race course is designated by three race buoys and a starting buoy. The starting line is designated 

by the area between the starting buoy and the race committee boat. The committee boat selects the 

course (or manner that the sailors will navigate the race buoys) and posts this selection on placards 

visible to the participants. Sailors begin at the starting line and then race to and around the race buoys 

according to the selected course. The starting line is also the finish line. At the end of the day’s 

racing, participants return to the ramp and pull their boats out of the water. 

These regattas are governed by the “International Sailing Federation rules” and boating rules set forth 

by the U.S. Coast Guard and the State of Idaho. The race committee normally requires all 

participants to wear personal flotation devices (PFDs) when whitecaps are present (wind 

approximately 10 knots). Races are postponed or abandoned by the race committee when winds are 

in excess of 20 knots (approximately 23 mph). Twenty or fewer boats have competed in all recent 

sailing regattas at Lake Lowell. 

Changes to the Use 

Sailing regattas will take place in the West Pool of the Lake Lowell Unit with the issuance of an 

SUP. The regattas will be required to launch from the Lower Dam Recreation Area. The course will 

be set in water that is 15 feet deep or greater. 

To reduce impacts to other Refuge visitors, regattas will launch from the Lower Dam Recreation 

Area. Twenty-five or fewer boats will be allowed at each regatta to provide adequate parking and 

dock space for other users. The first 60 feet on the inside of each dock at the Lower Dam Recreation 

Area must be available for non-regatta users at all times. Regatta participants may dock their boats on 

the rest of the dock during the morning briefing and retrieval of vessels at the end of the day. 

Because large groups and high speeds impact wildlife more than individuals traveling at low speeds, 

sailing vessels that have a hull shape and/or sail configuration that will allow them to reach speeds 

greater than 20 mph for the wind conditions will not be allowed to compete in the regatta. 

To decrease the exclusion of the general public to large areas of the Refuge, which often occurs with 

competitive events, the course must remain open to other Refuge users during the racing activities. 

Because most sailing vessels are large and highly visible, and the course has large amounts of open 

area, safety issues should not arise from the dual use of the race area. If the use of the racing area 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-87 

does create a safety issue in the future, this use will need to be reevaluated. The opportunity that is 

provided to the general public to be passengers on sailing vessels that are participating in sailing 

regattas is appreciated and encouraged. 

All regattas must follow the International Sailing Federation rules, any boating rules set forth by the 

U.S. Coast Guard and the State of Idaho, as well as all Refuge rules and regulations. Races will be 

postponed or abandoned when winds are in excess of 20 knots (approximately 23 mph). 

Availability of Resources 

The following funding for annual costs will be required to administer and manage sailing regattas. 

Because sailing regattas use the same facilities as other on-water users, participants and will need to 

have a full understanding of the no-wake zones, closure areas, and all other Refuge-specific 

regulations, the costs associated are very similar to those associated with all other recreational 

boating activities. Most of the costs associated with allowing sailing regattas are one-time expenses 

(see Table B-8). Because the Service has limited capacity to staff and maintain facilities and provide 

law enforcement, the Service will explore all available options to obtain funding to implement these 

projects, including partnership efforts. 

Currently, most on-water law enforcement and boating-related dock maintenance is provided by the 

Canyon County Sheriff’s Office. If the County discontinued this assistance, there would be additional 

costs associated with the Refuge maintaining this use, and the ability of the Refuge to provide it may 

be impaired. Because the Sheriff’s Office is not currently able to provide law enforcement for 

Refuge-specific regulations, it will be important for the Refuge to increase its law enforcement 

presence and/or work with Canyon County to enforce these regulations. 

Table B-8. Costs to Implement Improvements to the Recreational Boating Program 

Refuge Activity Required to Allow Use Estimated One-time Cost Estimated Annual Cost 

*Install new kiosks and signs at access points and 

maintain signs 

$60,000 $100 

*Visitor contact station $480,000 $1,600 

*Install and maintain comfort station and vault toilet at 

Lower Dam Recreation Area (LDRA) and Parking Lot 1 

$208,200 $3,000 

Rehabilitate LDRA parking area $50,000 

*LDRA site plan $40,000 

*Print/reprint general Refuge brochures $3,200 $800 

*Seasonal nesting closure signs (Lake Lowell and Snake 

River Islands Units) 

$11,000 $5,200 

*Install and maintain buoys for seasonal closures and 

permanent no-wake areas 

$4,300 $500 

*Human/wildlife interaction disturbance studies $140,000 

*Law enforcement officer $62,400 

Total $996,700 $73,600 

* Costs marked with an asterisk (*) represent costs that are also entered into other CDs for activities using the same 

resource. For example, rehabilitating the LDRA will benefit boaters, and also picnickers, swimmers, fisherman, and 

other visitors. The same cost has been shown in all CDs that may use the LRDA. 

Funding will be sought through the Service budget process. Other sources will be sought through 

strengthened partnerships, grants, coordination with law enforcement agencies, and additional 

Refuge operations funding to support a safe, quality public use program. Increased volunteer 

assistance, strengthened partnerships, and new partnerships will be sought to support these programs 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-88 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

in an effective, safe, and compatible manner. Refuge staff will increase volunteer recruitment efforts. 

When provided appropriate training, Refuge volunteers, interns, and various user groups can assist 

with monitoring, education and interpretation programs, and maintenance projects. With additional 

assistance as described above, staffing and funding is expected to be sufficient to manage these uses. 

Anticipated Impacts of Uses 

The discussion below analyzes the impacts of the use as it is described in the CCP. 

General Impacts to Wildlife 

Disturbance Effects: Both motorized and nonmotorized boating have been shown to change wildlife 

distribution and use of particular habitats, alter feeding behavior and nutritional status, and cause 

premature departure from desirable habitat (Bouffard 1982; Kaiser and Fritzell 1984; Korschgen et 

al. 1985). Studies have also shown that boating disturbance may cause increased flight time and 

flushing distances in waterfowl species (Havera et al. 1992; Kahl 1991; Kenow et al. 2003; Knapton 

et al. 2000). Wildlife species that are more sensitive to recreation-related disturbances (e.g., bald 

eagles, shorebirds, grebes) may find it increasingly difficult to secure adequate food or loafing sites 

as their preferred habitat becomes fragmented by disturbance (Burger 1997; Pfister et al. 1992; 

Skagen et al. 1991). 

Restricting sailing regattas to speeds of less than 20 mph and to an area within the middle of the West 

Pool should reduce some of the disturbance that is seen by vessels using shallow waters and traveling 

at high rates of speed. The regatta course will be greatly removed from bald eagle, heron, and grebe 

nesting areas. 

Effects to Water Quality 

In addition to noise and speed, motorized boats pollute waters with gas and oil. Older two-stroke 

engines, in which the gas and oil are combined, can discharge as much as 25 percent of the unspent 

fuel mixture directly into the water. Hydrocarbons in gas and oil float on the water’s surface and 

bioaccumulate in the food web posing a threat to sensitive shallow lacustrine habitats (Tjarnlund et 

al. 1995). Hoffman (1998) reviewed several studies, concluding that petroleum hydrocarbons can be 

transferred to eggs from the plumage of incubating birds, and can be toxic even in small amounts. 

There is a possibility of boats aiding in the spread of aquatic invasive species into the waters of the 

Refuge. Informational media in hunting brochures, placards at launch sites (including Refuge 

launches), registration requirements, systematic and periodic inspections, and early detection 

monitoring help reduce the likelihood of infestation. The ISDA is at the forefront of preventing the 

spread of aquatic invasive species into the waters of Idaho and works in concert with various 

agencies including the Service. 

Because sailing regatta participants only use their motors to reach the start line from the dock and to 

return to the dock at the end of the day, these effects will be less than those created by general 

motorized boat users. 

Refuge-specific Impacts 

This section evaluates the likely impact at the Refuge, considering the scientific studies discussed 

above and considering the uses within the context of the Refuge. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-89 

Vegetation, Soil, and Water Impacts: As described above, the potential for water quality impacts and 

contaminants in the food web stemming from the release of gas and oil hydrocarbons into Refuge 

waters will continue to exist. The Refuge will promote the use of CARB star-rated motors at the level 

of two stars and above to reduce impacts from petroleum hydrocarbons. A total maximum daily load 

(TMDL) assessment for the Lake Lowell watershed was prepared by the Idaho Department of 

Environmental Quality (IDEQ) that explored water quality concerns in Lake Lowell. Petroleum 

hydrocarbon pollution from boats was not explored in the TMDL because the focus was on pollution 

loads associated with agriculture runoff and other nonpoint sources. Even though oil and grease are 

listed as pollutants of concern in the Boise River (Lower) Subbasin Hydrologic Subunit, dissolved 

oxygen, sediment, and nutrients are the focus of the TMDL, because the presence of these pollutants 

at current levels likely render hydrocarbon levels insignificant (IDEQ 2010). 

Disturbance Effects to Wintering and Migrating Wildlife: The wintertime closure is expected to 

adequately protect wintering and migrating birds using Lake Lowell. It is critical for waterfowl to 

conserve energy during migration and the cold winter months. Closed areas provide unmolested 

space for birds as they are resting and refueling for the journey ahead of them. 

Disturbance Effects to Colonial-nesting Birds: Colonial-nesting birds at Lake Lowell may be among 

the most sensitive species subjected to potential disturbance from boating. Lake Lowell is one of 

only three lakes in Idaho that routinely hosts colonies of nesting western and Clark’s grebes, whose 

breeding population is considered imperiled in the state (IDFG 2005). IDFG has printed pamphlets 

for public distribution that provide information on conflicts between boaters and grebes, and the 

importance of responsible boating. High-speed boating displaces grebes from preferred habitats, 

disrupts nesting and feeding, and even causes loss of young (Burger 1997). Grebe adults and chicks 

are often killed by boats (Ivey 2004; Shaw 1998), and small chicks can become separated from their 

parents and die of exposure if adults have to dive to avoid motorboats (Storer and Nuechterlein 

1992). 

Restricting sailing regattas to the middle of the West Pool and to speeds of less than 20 mph should 

reduce disturbance to colonial nesting birds. 

Disturbance Effects to Other Species: The Lake Lowell Unit includes riparian forest, emergent 

vegetation, and open water habitats that are used extensively by a variety of bird species. The 

disturbance effects to wildlife described in the General Impacts section above apply to the anticipated 

effects to wildlife on Deer Flat NWR. It is anticipated that wildlife species using the open water and 

emergent plant habitats of the Refuge will benefit from restricting sailing regattas to the middle of 

the West Pool and to speeds of less than 20 mph.

Impacts to Listed Species 

There are no listed species known to occur on the Refuge. The counties that surround both units of 

the Refuge have a variety of listed species historically or currently occurring within each county. Of 

these species, only the yellow-billed cuckoo has ever been documented on Deer Flat NWR, and it is 

currently considered a vagrant because sightings are highly unusual. The Columbia spotted frog 

could conceivably exist on the Refuge but has not been documented. The condition of habitat for 

both of these species is either unknown or marginal. The likelihood of any other of the listed species 

that occur in the surrounding counties existing on the Refuge is slim. Most of these other species 

have known populations that occur off-Refuge (e.g., Bruneau hot springs snail, Packard’s milkvetch) 

or roam great distances and/or will not find suitable habitat on the Refuge (e.g., North American 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-90 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

wolverine, greater sage-grouse). It is anticipated that impacts from boating will be negligible. If any 

use results in unacceptable adverse effects to candidate species or habitats, the Refuge will impose 

restrictions to mitigate disturbance. 

Impacts to Priority Public Uses 

Boating, whether motor-, wind-, or human-powered, may provide additional wildlife-dependent 

recreational opportunities. However, as described above, given the tendency of birds to flush when 

subjected to a high intensity of disturbance, wildlife viewing opportunities are expected to be poor 

within the portions of the race course that are occupied by up to 25 sailing vessels at one time. 

The restriction of sailing regattas to the middle of the West Pool will allow wildlife-dependent users 

to use the vast majority of the lake without any impacts from this activity. The ability of wildlifedependent users to cross the race course to reach their destination also reduces any impacts to these 

users. If safety within the race course becomes an issue in the future, the course may need to be 

closed to other users, which will create undue impacts to wildlife-dependent and other user groups. 

The restriction of sailing regattas to the months of April and May will reduce impacts to wildlifedependent users because refuge visitation is low during that time. The further restriction of 25 sailing 

vessels will also reduce impacts by ensuring adequate parking and docking availability. 

Determination 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility 

Cooperative land management agreements will contain the following special conditions to ensure 

compatibility. 

Sailing Regatta Stipulations 

 Sailing regattas are required to comply with International Sailing Federation rules, boating 

rules set forth by the U.S. Coast Guard and the State of Idaho, and all Refuge rules and 

regulations. 

 Sailing regattas are allowed only by SUP. 

 Sailing regattas are allowed only during the months of April and May. 

 Sailing regattas are allowed only on weekends that are not being used for bass tournaments 

(i.e., every other weekend). 

 Sailing regattas must be postponed or abandoned when winds are in excess of 20 knots 

(approximately 23 mph). 

 No sailing vessel with a hull shape and/or sail configuration designed to reach speeds greater 

than 20 mph in certain wind conditions, will be allowed to compete in the regatta. 

 Non-regatta visitors must be allowed to enter into and cross the regatta race course. 

 The 30 boat trailer parking spots closest to the ramp will be marked and made available to the 

Refuge’s non-regatta visitors. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-91 

 The first 60 feet on the inside of each dock at the Lower Dam Recreation Area must be 

available for the Refuge’s non-regatta visitors at all times. Regatta participants may dock 

their boats on the remaining dock during the morning briefing and afternoon retrieval. 

 Only 25 or fewer sailing vessels are allowed in each regatta. 

 Race course buoys must be highly visible to other boaters. 

 The race course must be set in waters that reach a depth of 15 feet or greater. 

Justification 

There are several concerns that must be addressed before any type of competitive group event is 

allowed on the Refuge. 

Safety 

Due to the size of the vessels and the height of their sails, sailboats are highly visible to other users. 

This reduces the likelihood of collisions with other Refuge visitors and allows the area within the 

racing buoys to be open to other users. Safety is also increased by following all International Sailing 

Federation rules, boating rules set forth by the U.S. Coast Guard and the State of Idaho, and all 

Refuge rules and regulations. The speed restriction of 20 mph or less will also help reduce potential 

safety issues with other sailors or non-regatta users. 

Impacts to Wildlife-dependent Users 

The exclusion of other users from the area in which a competitive activity is occurring can negatively 

impact other Refuge users. Because sailing vessels are not greatly impacted by wake and because 

they are very visible to other users, it is not necessary to close their racing course to other Refuge 

users. Other users can boat within or through the course as needed. If the course were required to be 

closed in the future, the lack of use of a large area of the lake will be an undue burden for other users. 

Use of the docks and parking area could exclude other users. The small number of sailing vessels that 

will be allowed in each regatta (25) and the requirement to provide the first 60 feet of the inside of 

each dock for non-regatta users and to provide the 30 boat trailer parking spots closest to the ramp 

for non-regatta participants should reduce impacts to wildlife-dependent users wanting to launch at 

the Lower Dam Recreation Area. The requirements to hold regattas only in April and May when 

visitation is low and to hold them only when no bass tournaments are occurring should also reduce 

the likelihood of excluding other users through lack of parking or launch spaces. 

Impacts to Wildlife 

High-speed boating can increase disturbance for many wildlife species. Because sailing regattas by 

nature require that a large group of boats all travel in close proximity to one another for at least a 

portion of the race, the ability of wildlife to retreat from regatta participants may be hindered by the 

sheer number of vessels and the area that they cover. Restricting the speed of regattas to 20 mph or 

less will increase the time provided for wildlife to respond to approaching vessels. 

Open water habitats at Lake Lowell are highly used by a variety of bird species for mating displays, 

feeding, and loafing, and may be impacted by activities taking place in the middle of the lake. 

Restricting regattas to April and May allows the use to occur during lower visitation periods. 

Because visitation is lower, there is more open water available outside of the racing area than there 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-92 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

will be later in the summer. The reduced use of these other areas allows adequate open water habitat 

for wildlife during sailing regattas. 

Wildlife is especially vulnerable to disturbance during the nesting period, which for many species 

occurs during the months of April and May. Requiring sailing regattas to use the middle of the West 

Pool and keeping boats in water 15 feet or deeper should remove them from any potential nesting 

areas. Because the course is open to use by other boaters, there is no concern that the regatta will 

push other users to the periphery and increase disturbance. 

Conclusion 

Because sailing regattas are able to occur with an open race course, at speeds of 20 mph or less, in 

water that is 15 feet or deeper, and at a time of year when visitation is low, the impacts to wildlife 

and wildlife-dependent users, as well as safety concerns, are adequately addressed. Although sailing 

regattas can result in disturbance to wildlife, disturbance is expected to be intermittent, short term, 

and limited in time and space. There is an adequate amount of undisturbed habitat available to most 

wildlife for escape and cover. 

It is anticipated that wildlife populations will find sufficient food resources and resting places such 

that their abundance and use of the Refuge will not be measurably lessened from this activity. The 

relatively limited number of individuals expected to be adversely affected due to this use will not 

cause wildlife populations to materially decline, the physiological condition and production of 

species will not be impaired, their behavior and normal activity patterns will not be altered 

dramatically, and their overall welfare will not be negatively impacted. Thus, allowing sailing 

regattas to occur with stipulations will not materially detract from or interfere with the purposes for 

which the Refuge was established or the Refuge System mission. 

This compatibility determination is specific to sailing regattas at Deer Flat NWR and does not create 

a precedent for any other competitive group activities. 

Mandatory Reevaluation Date 

 2025 Mandatory 10-year Reevaluation (for all uses other than priority public uses) 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision 

 X Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

References 

Bouffard, S.H. 1982. Wildlife values versus human recreation: Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge. 

Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 47:553-558. 

Burger, A.E. 1997. Status of the western grebe in British Columbia. Wildlife Working Report WR87. B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks. Victoria, British Columbia. 40 pp. 

Hoffman, D.J. 1989. Embryotoxicity and teratogenicity of environmental contaminants to bird eggs. 

Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 115:41-50. 

IDEQ. 2010. Boise River (Lower) Subbasin, Lake Lowell TMDL. Available at: 

http://www.deq.idaho.gov/water-quality/surface-water/tmdls/table-of-sbas-tmdls/boise-riverlower-subbasin.aspx. Accessed March 12, 2012 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-93 

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. 

Available at: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/cwcs/. Accessed May 18, 2012. 

Ivey, G.L. 2004. Conservation assessment and management plan for breeding western and Clark’s 

grebes in California. Prepared for American Trader Trustee Council, Corvallis, OR. 

Kahl, R. 1991. Boating disturbance of canvasbacks during migration at Lake Poygan, Wisconsin. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 19(3):242-248. 

Kaiser, M. and E. Fritzell. 1984. Effects of river recreationists on green-backed heron behavior. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 48(2):561-567. 

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. 2000. Human disturbance of diving ducks on Long Point 

Bay, Lake Erie. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(4):923-930. 

Korschgen, C., L. George, and W. Green. 1985. Disturbance of diving ducks by boaters on a 

migrational staging area. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13:290-296. 

Pfister, C., B.A. Harrington, and M. Lavine. 1992. The impact of human disturbance on shorebirds at 

a migration staging area. Biological Conservation 60:115-126. 

Shaw, D.W.H. 1998. Changes in population size and colony location of breeding waterbirds at Eagle 

Lake, California between 1970 and 1997. Thesis. California State University, Chico. 

Skagen, S.K., R.L. Knight, and G.H. Orians. 1991. Human disturbances of an avian scavenging 

guild. Ecological Applications 1:215-225. 

Storer, R.W. and G.L. Nuechterlein. 1992. Western grebe (Aechmorphorus occidentalis) and Clark’s 

grebe (Aechmorphorus clarkia). In: A. Poole and F. Gill eds. Birds of North America, No. 

26. Philadelphia, PA., Academy of Natural Sciences and American Ornithologists’ Union. 24 

pp. 

Tjarnlund, U., G. Ericson, E. Landesjoo, I. Petterson, and L. Balk. 1995. Investigation of the 

biological effects of two-cycle outboard engines’ exhaust on fish. Marine Environmental 

Research 39:313-316. 

 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Compatibility Determination for Sailing Regattas (B.9) 

Use is compatible with stipulations. 

Project Leader 

Approval: 

Concurrence: 

Refuge 

Supervisor: 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System: 

B-94 

(Signature) 

ate) 

"t I, I ,s '(olte) 

YI, l,f> 

(Date) 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-95 

B.10 Compatibility Determination for Swimming, Beach Use, and 

Picnicking (including Lower Dam Recreation Area Use) 

RMIS Database Use: Swimming, Beach Use, and Picnicking 

Refuge Name: Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge 

Location: Canyon, Owyhee, Payette, and Washington Counties, Idaho, and Malheur County, Oregon 

Date Established: 1909 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities 

Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge was originally established in 1909 by President Theodore 

Roosevelt as Deer Flat Bird Reservation as a “preserve and breeding grounds for native birds” (E.O. 

1032). In 1937, President Franklin D. Roosevelt revoked Executive Order 1032 and reestablished the 

Refuge as the Deer Flat Bird Reservation to “further the purposes of the Migratory Bird Conservation 

Act” and “as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife” (E.O. 7655). Also 

in 1937, 36 islands in the Snake River were designated as the Snake River Migratory Bird Refuge 

(E.O. 7691). 

In 1940, the Refuges’ names were changed by Presidential Proclamation No. 2416, to Deer Flat 

National Wildlife Refuge and Snake River National Wildlife Refuge respectively. In 1963, Public 

Land Order 3110 transferred all lands of the Snake River National Wildlife Refuge (consisting of 74 

islands) to the direct jurisdiction of Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge. Any lands (including those 

in the Snake River Islands National Wildlife Refuge) that were added to Deer Flat National Wildlife 

Refuge assume the purposes for which Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge was established as well as 

keeping any individual purposes that were provided at the time of their establishment or acquisition. 

Refuge Purposes 

 “to further the purposes of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act” and “as a refuge and 

breeding grounds for migratory birds and other wildlife” (E.O. 7655) 

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

(Migratory Bird Conservation Act [16 U.S.C. 715d]) 

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

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

species” (16 U.S.C. 460k-1) and “the Secretary ... may accept and use ... real ... property. 

Such acceptance may be accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive 

covenants imposed by donors” (16 U.S.C. 460k-2) (Refuge Recreation Act [16 U.S.C. 460k460k-4], as amended) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission 

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 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-96 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

of Americans (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 

668dd-668ee et seq.]). 

Description of Use 

Swimming, sunbathing, and picnicking on easily accessible beaches are popular activities during the 

summer months at the Lake Lowell Unit. There are two designated, buoyed swimming areas: at the 

east end of the Upper Dam and at the Lower Dam Recreation Area. At the Upper Dam designated 

swimming area, the buoy line is stretched between two docks used by swimmers and sunbathers. 

There is a buoy line running parallel to the beach at the Lower Dam Recreation Area as well. 

Swimming is common at both of these areas but also occurs from any open shoreline. Visitors also 

regularly swim from and sunbathe on boats in the open water and at Gotts Point and at Parking Lot 7. 

The most popular swimming areas at the Upper and Lower Dams are in close proximity to the dams 

and water control structures associated with those dams. Signs and buoys are posted near these 

structures to warn swimmers about the dangers of swimming near the outlets or jumping off the 

control structures. 

Changes to Refuge Uses 

In the CCP, swimmers and beach users will be directed to the existing designated swimming areas 

near the Upper Dam and at the Lower Dam Recreation Area. This will reduce potential disturbance 

from swimmers and beach users to anglers, who are to be given priority under the National Wildlife 

Refuge Administration Act of 1966, as amended, and to improve emergency response to swimmingrelated incidents. There have been several near-drowning incidents and a few fatalities at Lake 

Lowell in the past few years, and the Refuge is hopeful that directing shoreline swimmers to 

designated areas that are easily accessible to rescue personnel will help to minimize swimming safety 

issues. There will be no lifeguards stationed at the swimming areas. 

Efforts will also be made at the Upper Dam swim area to further separate swimmers and beach users 

from anglers by strategic placement of docks and enforcement of designated areas. Swimming will 

also be allowed in the open water of Lake Lowell from boats outside of no-wake zones. Swimming 

will not be allowed around fishing or other wildlife-dependent facilities (e.g., docks), or immediately 

adjacent to boat launch areas. These changes will ensure that most highly used fishing areas will be 

free of swimming activity. 

Picnicking will be allowed in designated areas at the east end of the Upper Dam and at the Lower 

Dam Recreation Area. Nonwildlife-dependent group events (e.g., weddings, reunions, birthday 

parties, and other gatherings) will be allowed only at the Lower Dam Recreation Area because of the 

availability of parking, restroom, picnic, and trash facilities. Such group events must comply with the 

stipulations listed below to reduce impacts to visitor safety or the ability of other visitors to use the 

Refuge in an unobstructed and undisturbed way. 

Availability of Resources 

Most swimming at Deer Flat NWR will take place at the Upper Dam East and Lower Dam 

Recreation Areas. Most of the costs associated with carrying out improvements are one-time 

expenses (Table B-9). Because the Service has limited capacity to staff and maintain facilities and 

provide law enforcement, the Service will explore all available options to obtain funding to 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-97 

implement these projects, including partnership efforts. Increased volunteer assistance, strengthened 

existing partnerships, and new partnerships will be sought to support these programs in an effective, 

safe, and compatible manner. Refuge staff will increase volunteer recruitment efforts. When provided 

the appropriate training, Refuge volunteers, interns, and various user groups can assist with 

monitoring, education and interpretation programs, and maintenance projects. The Canyon County 

Sheriff’s Office currently purchases, installs, and maintains the swimming buoys. With additional 

assistance as described above, staffing and funding is expected to be sufficient to manage these uses. 

Currently, most maintenance of recreational facilities at the Lower Dam Recreation Area (e.g., 

irrigating and mowing lawns, cleaning restrooms, and maintaining buoys) is provided by the Canyon 

County Department of Parks, Recreation, and Waterways and the Canyon County Sheriff’s Office. If 

the County ever decided to discontinue this assistance, additional costs will be associated with 

maintaining this use. 

Table B-9. Costs to Implement Improvements for Lower Dam Recreation Area Users, 

Swimmers, and Beach Users 

Refuge Activity Required to Allow Use Estimated One-time Cost Estimated Annual Cost 

*Print/reprint general Refuge brochures $3,200 $800 

*Construct and maintain a visitor contact station $480,000 $1,600 

*Install and maintain comfort station at Lower Dam 

Recreation Area (LDRA) 

$150,000 $1,500 

*Rehabilitate LDRA parking area $50,000 

*LDRA site plan $40,000 

*Construct and maintain a nature play area $40,000 

*Install new kiosks and signs at access points and 

maintain signs 

$261,000 $2,700 

*Volunteer coordinator to manage enough volunteers 

for additional outreach at LDRA 

 $51,000 

*Law enforcement officer $62,400 

Total $1,024,200 $120,000 

* Costs marked with an asterisk (*) represent costs that are also entered into other CDs for activities using the same 

resource. For example, rehabilitating the LDRA will benefit swimmers and picnickers, and also boaters, fisherman, 

and other visitors. This same cost has been shown in all CDs that may use the new docks. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use 

The discussion below analyzes impacts of the use as it is described in the CCP. 

General Response of Wildlife to Disturbance 

Immediate responses by wildlife to recreational activity can range from behavioral changes including 

nest abandonment, altered nest placement, and change in food habits, to physiological changes such 

as elevated heart rates, increased energetic costs due to flight or flushing, or even death (Belanger 

and Bedard 1990; Kight and Swaddle 2007; Knight and Cole 1995; Miller and Hobbs 2000; Miller et 

al. 1998; Morton et al. 1989). 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: 

avoidance, habituation, and 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 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-98 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

disturbance; the time of day, time of year, weather; and the animal’s access to food and cover, energy 

demands, and reproductive status (Fernández-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 will respond to disturbance is predictability. Often, when a use is 

predictable—following a trail or boardwalk or at a viewing deck—wildlife will 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 than to 

humans following a distinct (and repeated) path. 

Knight and Cole (1991) suggest that sound may elicit a much milder response from wildlife if 

animals are visually buffered from the disturbance. Burger (1999 as cited by Oberbillig 2000) 

suggests that viewing distances 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 330 feet will 

minimize flushing of foraging or loafing waterbirds. Vos et al. (1985) recommended buffer zones of 

820 feet on land and 490 feet over water for great blue herons. Miller et al. (1998) found that the trail 

zone of influence for forest and grassland birds appears to be approximately 250 feet. Beyond this 

distance, bird abundance, species composition, and nest predation was not affected by even heavily 

used recreational trails.

Although swimming areas often include erratic movement and elevated human noise levels, the 

designated swimming areas on Lake Lowell are not of great concern for wildlife concentrations. 

Keeping most shoreline swimming contained to designated areas will reduce the amount of wildlife 

disturbance associated with the activity. The park-like features of the Lower Dam Recreation Area as 

well as the open water of the Lake Lowell attract wintering and migrating geese in the fall, winter, 

and early spring. In order to eliminate impacts to wintering and migrating waterfowl in both of these 

areas, the lake and Lower Dam Recreation Area are closed to all activities October 1 through April 

14, with the exception of hunting and fishing within 200 yards of certain shoreline areas during a 

portion of the closure. 

Impacts to Habitat 

With use directed to designated beaches, there will be only minimal disturbance to habitat. However, 

illegal activities on designated beaches do pose threats to wildlife. Litter and human waste are 

expected problems as well as trespass in the form of visitors violating the daylight-hours-only 

regulation. Wildfires resulting from beach users are another threat, with fire ignitions potentially 

resulting from campfires, fireworks, or other sources. Campfires and use of fireworks, although 

prohibited, have historically occurred on the beaches and pose a significant threat to habitat and 

wildlife resources. 

Impacts to Listed Species 

There are no listed species known to occur on the Refuge. The counties that surround both units of 

the Refuge have a variety of listed species historically or currently occurring within each county. Of 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-99 

these species only the yellow-billed cuckoo has ever been documented on Deer Flat NWR, and it is 

currently considered a vagrant because sightings are highly unusual. The Columbia spotted frog 

could conceivably exist on the Refuge but has not been documented. The condition of habitat for 

both of these species is either unknown or marginal. The likelihood of any other of the listed species 

that occur in the surrounding counties existing on the Refuge is slim. Most of these other species 

have known populations that occur off-Refuge (e.g., Bruneau hot springs snail, Packard’s milkvetch) 

or roam great distances and/or will not find suitable habitat on the Refuge (e.g., North American 

wolverine, greater sage-grouse). It is anticipated that impacts from swimming and beach use will be 

negligible. If any use results in unacceptable adverse effects to candidate species or habitats, the 

Refuge will impose restrictions to mitigate disturbance. 

Human Health 

Although there have been several near-drowning incidents and a few fatalities at Lake Lowell in the 

past few years, the Refuge is hopeful that directing swimmers to two designated areas that are easily 

accessible to rescue personnel will help to minimize safety issues. There will be no lifeguards 

stationed at the swimming areas. 

There are human health concerns related to swimming in Lake Lowell. Under certain conditions, 

levels of blue-green algae, fecal coliform, and parasites causing swimmer’s itch, can exceed State 

health standards. The Refuge will work with the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) 

and Southwest District Health (SDH) to monitor water quality and, if necessary, close the swimming 

beaches. When testing at the swimming beach indicates health concerns, testing will also be 

conducted at other sites around the lake, and the Refuge will work with IDEQ and SDH to institute 

warnings and closures about water contact at other locations around the lake. 

Impact to Priority Public Uses 

Swimming and beach use are not wildlife-dependent or priority public uses as designated by the 

National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act of 1966, as amended. In areas where swimming and 

beach use occur regularly, fishing is essentially precluded by the noise and commotion, which are not 

conducive to catching fish or a quality fishing experience. Wildlife observation, education, and 

interpretation are priority uses that can also be negatively impacted by the presence of swimmers and 

other beach users. 

Determination 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility 

 Visitors engaged in beach activities, including swimming and picnicking, will be directed to 

two designated areas at the east end of the Upper Dam and at the Lower Dam Recreation 

Area from April 15 through September 30. 

 Shoreline swimming will be allowed in these designated areas and elsewhere, with the 

exception of around fishing or other wildlife-dependent facilities (e.g., docks) or immediately 

adjacent to boat launch areas. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-100 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

 Swimming will be allowed in the open waters of Lake Lowell from boats outside of no-wake 

zones. 

 Designated swim beaches will be monitored for water quality affecting human health. 

 Nonwildlife-dependent noncompetitive group events (e.g., weddings, birthday parties, 

reunions, memorial services, retreats, and other gatherings) with 20 or more participants will 

be allowed only at the Lower Dam Recreation Area with the following stipulations. 

o Events are first come, first served. Facilities cannot be reserved in advance or by 

posted notice. 

o Tent size cannot exceed a total of 20 feet by 20 feet to allow access for general 

visitors. 

o Group events cannot exceed 50 participants to allow access and parking facilities for 

general visitors. 

o Use of audio devices (e.g., radios, recording and playback devices, loudspeakers, 

television sets, public address systems, and musical instruments) cannot cause 

unreasonable disturbance to others in the vicinity, and must comply with 50 C.F.R. 

27.72. 

o Participants may not be under the influence of alcohol to a degree that may endanger 

themselves or other persons or property or unreasonably annoy persons in the 

vicinity. They must comply with 50 CFR 27.81. 

o Participants must place all event trash into the dumpster provided or remove it from 

the site. No glass containers will be allowed. 

o No portable recreational equipment (e.g., inflatable bounce houses, on-water 

trampolines, zip lines, etc.) will be allowed. 

o Participants must park in designated spaces or in a single layer along the cable barrier 

to ensure that emergency personnel can access the area in case of emergency. 

 Use will be restricted to daylight hours only. 

 Open fires and fireworks will be prohibited. 

 Seasonal closures will be implemented as necessary to protect sensitive wildlife habitat. For 

example: 

o Up to 300-yard buffer around eagle nests from February 15 through July 15. 

o Up to 150-yard seasonal closure around osprey nests from March 15 through 

August 1. 

o Up to 500-yard closure around grebe colonies (Berg et al. 2004) until July 15 of the 

following year. If the birds have not renested in the closed area by July 15 of the 

following year, the closure will be removed. Upland portions of the closures will be 

open to use from October 1 through January 31. 

 To determine grebe colony boundaries, the staff biologist will mark nests 

within and especially on the periphery of a colony using a GPS unit capable 

of sub-meter accuracy as part of the regular colony studies. These data points 

will be exported to a georeferenced mapping system, and a 500-yard buffer 

will be drawn around the colony. Buoy locations will then be mapped every 

100–150 yards and exported back into the GPS unit to be used to place the 

buoys in the proper location. In the first year that grebes nest, closure will be 

based on nests established early in the nesting season. In the second year of 

grebe nesting, closure will be based on the full extent of the colony in the 

first year. 

o Up to 250-yard buffer around heron rookeries from February 1 through July 1 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-101 

o Up to 100-yard closure around shorebird feeding and resting areas from July 15 

through September 30 during years when the lake level elevation is lower than 2,522 

feet. 

o Wildlife closure at Gotts Point from October 1 through January 31. 

o Wildlife closure at Murphy’s Neck from October 1 through March 15. 

o Wildlife closure at Lower Dam Recreation Area from October 1 through April 14. 

 Refuge staff will monitor impacts of these activities annually to assess compliance with these 

stipulations, impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat, and conflicts between user groups. 

Monitoring data will be used to modify these stipulations or remove the use if necessary to 

ensure continued compatibility. 

Justification 

Swimming and beach use are not priority public uses as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Administration Act of 1966, as amended. Due to the limited area where most swimming and 

beach use will occur, these uses are expected to result in a low impact to wildlife and wildlife habitat. 

It is anticipated that wildlife populations will find sufficient food resources and resting places such 

that their abundance and use of the Refuge will not be measurably lessened from allowing swimming 

to occur under the prescribed conditions. 

The relatively limited number of individual wildlife species expected to be adversely affected due to 

swimming will not cause wildlife populations to materially decline, the physiological condition and 

production of wildlife species will not be impaired, their behavior and normal activity patterns will 

not be altered dramatically, and their overall welfare will not be negatively impacted. Thus, under 

these conditions, we do not expect the use to materially interfere with or detract from the mission of 

the Refuge System, diminish the purposes for which the Refuge was established, pose significant 

adverse effects on Refuge resources, or cause any undue administrative burden. 

Visitor safety will be increased by directing shoreline swimmers to designated beaches. For many 

visitors, swimming and beach use at Lake Lowell may provide an introduction to a national wildlife 

refuge and good opportunity to reach out to them. 

Mandatory Reevaluation Date 

 2025 Mandatory 10-year Reevaluation (for all uses other than priority public uses) 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision 

 X Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

References 

Alcock, J. 1993. Animal behavior: an evolutionary approach. 5th ed. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer 

Associates. 

Belanger, L. and J. Bedard. 1990. Energetic cost of man-induced disturbance to staging snow geese. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 54:36-41. 

Berg, G., L. Wilkinson, H. Wollis, and D. Prescott. 2004. Western (Aechmophorous occidentalis) 

and eared (Podiceps nigricollis) grebes of Central Alberta: 2004 field summary. Alberta 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-102 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division, Alberta Species at Risk 

Report No. 94. Edmonton, Alberta. 

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. 

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. 

Kight, C.R. and J.P. Swaddle. 2007. Associations of anthropogenic activity and disturbance with 

fitness metrics of eastern bluebirds (Sialia sialis). Biological Conservation 138(1-2):189-197. 

Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole. 1991. Effects of recreational activity on wildlife in wildlands. 

Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 56:238-247. 

Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole. 1995. 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. 

Miller, J.R. and N.T. Hobbs. 2000. Recreational trails, human activity, and nest predation in lowland 

riparian areas. Landscape and Urban Planning 50(4):227-236. 

Miller, S.G., R.L. Knight, and C.K. Miller. 1998. Influence of recreational trails on breeding bird 

communities. Ecological Applications 8(1):162-169. 

Morton, J.M., A.C. Fowler, and R.L. Kirkpatrick. 1989. Time and energy budgets of American black 

ducks in winter. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:401-410. 

Oberbillig, D.R. 2000. Providing positive wildlife viewing experiences. Deborah Richie 

Communications. Missoula, MT. 

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(1):139-145. 

Vos, D.K., R.A. Ryder, and W.D. Graul. 1985. Response of breeding great blue herons to human 

disturbance in northcentral Colorado. Colonial Waterbirds 8:13-22. 
Deor Flat National Wildlife Refuae Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CompattbWty Determlaatloa for 8"1mmlq, Beach Un, and Plcnleklll1 (lncludta1 Lower Dam 

~otlon Ana Uae) (8.10) 

Use is compatible with stipulations. 

Project Leader 

Approval: 

Concurrence: 

Refuge 

Supervisor: 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System: 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

- \\ .~~))~,., 

(Signature) 

·----·1~1- ~o;r-

(Datc) 

8--103 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-104 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-105 

B.11 Compatibility Determination for Walking with Pets (other than 

hunting dogs) 

RMIS Database Use: Pets 

Refuge Name: Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge 

Location: Canyon, Owyhee, Payette, and Washington Counties, Idaho, and Malheur County, Oregon 

Date Established: 1909 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities 

Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge was originally established in 1909 by President Theodore 

Roosevelt as Deer Flat Bird Reservation as a “preserve and breeding grounds for native birds” (E.O. 

1032). In 1937, President Franklin D. Roosevelt revoked Executive Order 1032 and reestablished the 

Refuge as the Deer Flat Bird Reservation to “further the purposes of the Migratory Bird Conservation 

Act” and “as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife” (E.O. 7655). Also 

in 1937, 36 islands in the Snake River were designated as the Snake River Migratory Bird Refuge 

(E.O. 7691). 

In 1940, the Refuges’ names were changed by Presidential Proclamation No. 2416, to Deer Flat 

National Wildlife Refuge and Snake River National Wildlife Refuge respectively. In 1963, Public 

Land Order 3110 transferred all lands of the Snake River National Wildlife Refuge (consisting of 74 

islands) to the direct jurisdiction of Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge. Any lands (including those 

in the Snake River Islands National Wildlife Refuge) that were added to Deer Flat National Wildlife 

Refuge assume the purposes for which Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge was established as well as 

keeping any individual purposes that were provided at the time of their establishment or acquisition. 

Refuge Purposes 

 “to further the purposes of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act” and “as a refuge and 

breeding grounds for migratory birds and other wildlife” (E.O. 7655) 

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

(Migratory Bird Conservation Act [16 U.S.C. 715d]) 

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

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

species” (16 U.S.C. 460k-1) and “the Secretary ... may accept and use ... real ... property. 

Such acceptance may be accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive 

covenants imposed by donors” (16 U.S.C. 460k-2) (Refuge Recreation Act [16 U.S.C. 460k460k-4], as amended) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission 

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 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-106 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

of Americans (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 

668dd-668ee et seq.]). 

Description of Use 

The Refuge currently allows leashed dogs at the Lake Lowell Unit. This use occurs primarily at the 

Lake Lowell Unit on all Refuge roads and trails, as well as off-trail in the North Side, East Side, and 

South Side Recreation Areas. For information about use of dogs while hunting, see the Hunting 

Compatibility Determination. 

The Code of Federal Regulations states that no dog shall be permitted to roam at large on refuge 

lands (50 C.F.R. 26.21(b)). Refuge regulations will also be consistent with the following local 

municipal codes for Canyon County that require a dog that is off the property of the owner to be on a 

physical leash of 6 feet or less. One end of the leash must be attached to the dog, and the other end 

must be in the hand of a person capable of controlling the dog. (Ord. 83-006, 6-30-83, eff. 7-11-83; 

Ord. 91-004, 6-24-91). No person owning, harboring, controlling or keeping any dog shall permit the 

dog to deposit fecal material on any public property without the owner or custodian immediately 

bagging and removing the material and disposing of it in a proper trash receptacle (City of Nampa 

Municipal Code 9-5-9). 

Changes to the Use 

Under the CCP, the Refuge will allow people walking with leashed pets to use designated multi-use 

trails and the Lower Dam Recreation Area during daylight hours and at times of the year when 

walking access is allowed. Visitors walking with their pets will be required to remove feces from the 

Refuge. This public use will be monitored to ensure it does not interfere with wildlife-dependent uses 

or impact wildlife resources. If Refuge personnel observe that visitors with pets are routinely not 

complying with the above requirements, the Service will evaluate the possibility of prohibiting pet 

walking. This CD will be revised in 10 years or possibly sooner to incorporate additional data and 

new information. 

Availability of Resources 

Most of the costs associated with carrying out the improvements are one-time expenses (see Table B10). Because the Service has limited capacity to staff and maintain facilities and provide law 

enforcement, the Service will explore all available options to obtain funding to implement these 

projects, including partnership efforts. Increased volunteer assistance, strengthened existing 

partnerships, and new partnerships will be sought to support these programs in an effective, safe, and 

compatible manner. Refuge staff will increase volunteer recruitment efforts. When provided the 

appropriate training, Refuge volunteers, interns, and various user groups can assist with monitoring, 

education and interpretation programs, and maintenance projects. With additional assistance as 

described above, staffing and funding is expected to be sufficient to manage these uses. 

Most maintenance of recreational facilities at the Lower Dam Recreation Area (e.g., irrigating and 

mowing lawns and cleaning rest rooms) is provided by Canyon County’s Department of Parks, 

Recreation, and Waterways. If the County ever decided to discontinue this assistance, there will be 

additional costs associated with maintaining this facility to the current quality. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-107 

Table B-10. Costs to Implement Improvements Necessary to Allow Pet Walking on 

Designated Trails and in the Lower Dam Recreation Area 

Refuge Activity Required to Allow Use Estimated One-time Cost Estimated Annual Cost 

*Install multiple-use trail regulation signs $7,800 $300 

*Upgrade fire break $37,000 $800 

Pet feces removal station $400 $500 

*Print/reprint general Refuge brochures $3,200 $800 

*Human/wildlife interaction disturbance studies $140,000 

*Law enforcement officer $62,400 

Total $188,400 $64,800 

* Costs marked with an asterisk (*) represent costs that are also entered into other CDs for activities using the same 

resource. For example, upgrading the fire break to a multiuse trail will benefit people walking with pets, but the trail 

could also be used by visitors engaged in wildlife observation, photography, and interpretation. This same cost has 

been shown in all CDs that will use the new trail facility. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use 

The discussion below analyzes the impacts of this use as it is described in the CCP. 

Authors of many wildlife disturbance studies conclude that dogs with people, on-leash dogs, or loose 

dogs provoked a more pronounced disturbance reactions from wildlife than humans alone (Sime 

1999). The disturbance effects of human intrusion increased when people were accompanied by dogs 

in studies of different species including shorebirds (Hoopes 1993; Yalden and Yalden 1989, 1990), 

passerines (Knight and Miller 1996), upland game birds (Baydack 1986) and small mammals 

(Mainini et al. 1993). Another study suggests that harassment of wildlife by domestic dogs is 

opportunistic and is associated with the concentration of wildlife in a given area (Jones & Stokes 

1977). A follow-up study suggests that dog-induced wildlife flushes increase with the increased 

density of dogs (Abraham 2001). Free-running and feral dogs have been known to kill quail, rabbits, 

and deer (Bowers 1953; Lowry and McArthur 1978; Nelson and Woolf 1987). Pure-bred dogs 

trained to hunt can also ferret out ground-nesting birds and small game animals when left to roam 

free (Bowers 1953). 

Domestic dogs can introduce diseases like parvovirus, canine distemper, and plague to wildlife 

populations. Diseases like giardia infection and rabies can be transmitted to wildlife and to humans. 

Muscle cysts can be transmitted through dog feces to ungulate species including mule deer (Sime 

1999). Dog waste is also known to host endo- and ecto-parasites and wildlife can contract diseases 

from contact with dogs or dog wastes (Sime 1999). To reduce this effect on wildlife and people, pet 

owners will be required to pick up their pet’s feces and dispose of it properly, as is also required by 

local county and city ordinances. 

Nussear et al. (2008) inadvertently showed that unleashed dogs increase the zone of coverage (or 

zone of influence) beyond what it will be solely by the handler, thereby increasing the potential to 

disturb or harm wildlife. When wildlife react by moving away from the disturbance or alter behavior 

by hiding they will be less likely to be observed. Users of a national wildlife refuge should be able to 

expect to see wildlife during their visit. Because expectations of seeing wildlife and the amount of 

wildlife actually seen factor into the quality of experience for wildlife-dependent users (Hammitt et 

al. 1993), the reduction in observable wildlife that will be caused by allowing nonwildlife-dependent 

uses could result in avoidance of the Refuge by wildlife-dependent users. To reduce this potential 

negative effect on wildlife and wildlife-dependent visitors, dogs will still be required to be leashed on 

the Refuge. The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, as amended, requires that 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-108 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

priority consideration be given to wildlife-dependent users, and the presence of dogs is not necessary 

for nonhunting, wildlife-dependent recreational activities. 

These studies are important when considering human/dog disturbance on refuges that have a high 

concentration of wildlife. Because Deer Flat NWR is an urban refuge with potentially high 

concentrations of dogs, people walking with dogs will only be allowed to use designated trails and 

the Lower Dam Recreation Area to reduce their interactions with high concentrations of wildlife and 

to provide ample quantities of sanctuary where wildlife can find cover. 

Although Refuge regulations and Canyon County municipal codes require dogs to be under complete 

control by an adequate leash, it is common to see unleashed dogs on Deer Flat NWR trails. In fact, 

the most common violation noted in the Refuge law enforcement logs is “dog(s) off leash.” 

The potential adverse effects associated with pet/wildlife interactions will be minimized by requiring 

dogs to be on leashes and to remain on multiuse trails or in the Lower Dam Recreation Area. Visitor 

safety should be increased and dog fighting and negative pet/visitor interactions should be reduced 

by requiring that pets be on leash at all times. In addition, pet feces will be required to be removed. 

Impacts from pets will be monitored and enforced by Refuge staff to ensure it does not interfere or 

have any undue negative impacts to wildlife resources or compatible, wildlife-dependent uses. 

To reduce impacts to visitors engaging in wildlife-dependent activities, especially those involved in 

environmental education and interpretive programs, pets will not be allowed on the Nature, 

Centennial, Murphy’s Neck, or Boardwalk Trails. These trails are, for the most part, narrower than 

the patrol road trails (East Dike, Kingfisher, Gotts Point, and Observation Hill Trail System), and 

therefore do not lend themselves to multiple uses. The Centennial and Nature Trails are currently 

used for environmental education and interpretive programs. To reduce disturbance to these 

programs and provide adequate space for multiple uses, on-leash pets will only be allowed on the 

entrance road and the East Dike, Kingfisher, and Gotts Point Trails; the Observation Hill Trail 

System; and in the Lower Dam Recreation Area. Keeping pets on designated trails and in the Lower 

Dam Recreation Area will allow wildlife-dependent visitors the opportunity to use several trails 

without having to interact with pets. 

Impacts to Listed Species 

There are no listed species known to occur on the Refuge. The counties that surround both units of 

the Refuge have a variety of listed species historically or currently occurring within each county. Of 

these species only the yellow-billed cuckoo has ever been documented on Deer Flat NWR, and it is 

currently considered a vagrant because sightings are highly unusual. The Columbia spotted frog 

could conceivably exist on the Refuge but has not been documented. The condition of habitat for 

both of these species is either unknown or marginal. The likelihood of any other of the listed species 

that occur in the surrounding counties existing on the Refuge is slim. Most of these other species 

have known populations that occur off-Refuge (e.g., Bruneau hot springs snail, Packard’s milkvetch) 

or roam great distances and/or will not find suitable habitat on the Refuge (e.g., North American 

wolverine, greater sage-grouse). It is anticipated that impacts from pet walking will be negligible. If 

any use results in unacceptable adverse effects to candidate species or habitats, the Refuge will 

impose restrictions to mitigate disturbance. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-109 

Determination 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility 

 Pets will be required to stay on designated multiuse trails and in the Lower Dam Recreation 

Area, in personally owned vehicles, and in parking lots only. Designated multiuse trails 

consist of: 

o Observation Hill Trail System in the North Side Recreation Area; 

o East Dike and Kingfisher Trails in the East Side Recreation Area; and 

o Gotts Point Trail. 

 Pets will be required to be on a physical leash (6 feet or less) at all times. One end of the 

leash must be attached to the pet and the other in the hand of a person capable of controlling 

the pet. 

 Other than what is compliant with stipulation above, training of pets will not be allowed on 

the Refuge. 

 Visitors walking with leashed pets on designated trails, and in the Lower Dam Recreation 

Area will be required to immediately bag and remove fecal material and dispose of it in the 

proper trash receptacles. 

 Seasonal closures will be implemented as necessary to protect sensitive wildlife habitat. For 

example: 

o Up to 300-yard buffer around eagle nests from February 15 through July 15. 

o Up to 150-yard seasonal closure around osprey nests from March 15 through August 1. 

o Up to 500-yard closure around grebe colonies (Berg et al. 2004) until July 15 of the 

following year. If the birds have not renested in the closed area by July 15 of the 

following year, the closure will be removed. Upland portions of the closures will be 

open to use from October 1 through January 31. 

 To determine grebe colony boundaries, the staff biologist will mark nests in 

and especially on the periphery of a colony using a GPS unit capable of submeter accuracy as part of the regular colony studies. These data points will be 

exported to a georeferenced mapping system, and a 500-yard buffer will be 

drawn around the colony. Buoy locations will then be mapped every 100-150 

yards and exported back into the GPS unit to be used to place the buoys in the 

proper location. In the first year that grebes nest, the closure will be based on 

nests established early in the nesting season. In the second year of grebe 

nesting, closure will be based on the full extent of the colony in the first year. 

o Up to 250-yard buffer around heron rookeries from February 1 through July 1. 

o Up to 100-yard closure around shorebird feeding and resting areas from July 15 

through September 30 during years when the lake level elevation is lower than 2,522 

feet. 

o Wildlife closure at Gotts Point from October 1 through January 31. 

o Wildlife closure at Murphy’s Neck from October 1 through March 15. 

o Wildlife closure at Lower Dam Recreation Area from October 1 through April 14. 

 Use will be restricted to daylight hours only. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-110 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Justification 

Walking with pets is not generally considered a wildlife-dependent use of a refuge as defined by 

statute (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.). However, this use on Deer Flat NWR facilities is secondary and 

conducted in conjunction with wildlife-dependent uses like wildlife observation, photography, and 

interpretation. Potential for wildlife disturbance is minimal when the use is conducted as required by 

the stipulations, including restricting the use to designated trails and the Lower Dam Recreation 

Area, requiring pets to be on-leash, and mandating the removal of pet waste. 

Potential for wildlife and habitat disturbance is minimal given the indirect approach of this activity, 

the enforcement of the short leash rule, and the mandatory removal of pet feces. Restricting the 

disturbance to established trails and the Lower Dam Recreation Area will increase the predictability 

of public use on the Refuge, allowing wildlife to habituate to nonthreatening activities. These 

impacts will be monitored and if they, or other impacts, are discovered, this CD will be reevaluated. 

We anticipate that wildlife populations will find sufficient food resources and resting places such that 

their abundance and use of the Refuge will not be measurably lessened from allowing pet walking on 

designated trails and in the Lower Dam Recreation Area. The relatively limited number of 

individuals expected to be adversely affected due to pet walking will not cause wildlife populations 

to materially decline, the physiological condition and production of wildlife species will not be 

impaired, their behavior and normal activity patterns will not be altered dramatically, and their 

overall welfare will not be negatively impacted. 

Refuge users with pets provide the opportunity for the Refuge to reach out to nontraditional Refuge 

user groups and to encourage people walking their pets to observe wildlife and to learn about the 

NWRS. Due to the close proximity of Deer Flat NWR to the cities of Nampa and Caldwell, the 

number and variety of users to this urban refuge is expected to grow. For many of these people, using 

the multiple-use trails and Lower Dam Recreation Area may provide an introduction to a national 

wildlife refuge. 

By enforcing Refuge regulations that are consistent with local municipal codes, as well as 

designating appropriate facilities, this use will not interfere with fulfilling the purposes of Deer Flat 

National Wildlife Refuge. The potential for minimal impacts to Refuge resources from this use, when 

carried out as specified in the stipulations above, will not detract from fulfilling the Refuge purposes, 

vision, and goals or the NWRS mission. 

Mandatory Reevaluation Date 

 2025 Mandatory 10-year Reevaluation (for all uses other than priority public uses) 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision 

 X Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

References 

Abraham, K. 2001. Interactions between dogs and wildlife in parks on the Berkeley Marina. 

Unpublished report, submitted to Berkeley Parks and Recreation. Available at: 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-111 

http://nature.berkeley.edu/classes/es196/projects/2001final/Abraham.pdf. Accessed May 18, 

2012. 

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. 

Berg, G., L. Wilkinson, H. Wollis, and D. Prescott. 2004. Western (Aechmophorous occidentalis) 

and eared (Podiceps nigricollis) grebes of Central Alberta: 2004 field summary. Alberta 

Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division, Alberta Species at Risk 

Report No. 94. Edmonton, Alberta. 

Bowers, R.R. 1953. The free-running dog menace. Virginia Wildlife 14(10):5-7. 

Hammitt, W.E, J.N. Dunlin, and G.R. Wells. 1993. Determinants of quality of wildlife viewing in 

Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Wildlife Society Bulletin 21:21-30. 

Hoopes, E.M. 1993. Relationships between human recreation and piping plover foraging ecology and 

chick survival. Thesis. University of Massachusetts, Amherst. 

Jones & Stokes Associates. 1977. Dog depredation on wildlife and livestock in California. California 

Department of Fish and Game. Jones & Stokes. Sacramento, CA. 64 pp. 

Knight, R.L. and S.G. Miller. 1996. Wildlife responses to pedestrians and dogs. Final report 

submitted to City of Boulder Open Space Department. Department of Fishery and Wildlife 

Biology, Colorado State University. Fort Collins, CO. 24 pp. 

Lowry, D.A. and K.L. McArthur. 1978. Domestic dogs as predators on deer. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 6:38-39. 

Mainini, B., P. Neuhaus, and P. Ingold. 1993. Behavior of marmots Marmota marmota under the 

influence of different hiking activities. Biological Conservation 64:161-164. 

Nelson, T.A. and A. Woolf. 1987. Mortality of white-tailed deer fawns in southern Illinois. Journal 

of Wildlife Management 51(2):326-329. 

Nussear, K.E., T.C. Esque, J.S. Heaton, M.E. Cablk, K.K. Drake, C. Valentin, J.L. Yee, and P.A. 

Medica. 2008. Are wildlife detector dogs or people better at finding desert tortoises 

(Gopherus Agassizii)? Herpetological Conservation and Biology 3(1):103-115. 

Sime, C.A. 1999. Domestic dogs in wildlife habitats. Pages 8.1-8.17 in: G. Joslin 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. 

Yalden, D.W. and P.E. Yalden. 1989. The sensitivity of breeding golden plovers Pluvialis apricaria

to human intruders. Bird Study 36:49-55. 

Yalden, P.E. and D.W. Yalden. 1990. Recreational disturbance of breeding golden plovers Pluvialis 

apricarius. Biological Conservation 51:243-262. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Compatibility Determination for Walking with Pets (other than hunting dogs) (B.11) 

Use is compatible with stipulations. 

Project Leader 

Approval: 

Concurrence: 

Refuge 

Supervisor: 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System: 

B-112 

tcrlate) 

nature) 7(oa"te) 

tJ/.!,s 

(Date) 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-113 

B.12 Compatibility Determination for Wildlife Observation, 

Photography, Interpretation, and Environmental Education 

RMIS Database Use: Wildlife Observation, Photography (wildlife), Interpretation and 

Environmental Education (teaching students) 

Refuge Name: Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge 

Location: Canyon, Owyhee, Payette, and Washington Counties, Idaho, and Malheur County, Oregon 

Date Established: 1909 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities 

Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge was originally established in 1909 by President Theodore 

Roosevelt as Deer Flat Bird Reservation as a “preserve and breeding grounds for native birds” (E.O. 

1032). In 1937, President Franklin D. Roosevelt revoked Executive Order 1032 and reestablished the 

Refuge as the Deer Flat Bird Reservation to “further the purposes of the Migratory Bird Conservation 

Act” and “as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife” (E.O. 7655). Also 

in 1937, 36 islands in the Snake River were designated as the Snake River Migratory Bird Refuge 

(E.O. 7691). 

In 1940, the Refuges’ names were changed by Presidential Proclamation No. 2416, to Deer Flat 

National Wildlife Refuge and Snake River National Wildlife Refuge respectively. In 1963, Public 

Land Order 3110 transferred all lands of the Snake River National Wildlife Refuge (consisting of 74 

islands) to the direct jurisdiction of Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge. Any lands (including those 

in the Snake River Islands National Wildlife Refuge) that were added to Deer Flat National Wildlife 

Refuge assume the purposes for which Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge was established as well as 

keeping any individual purposes that were provided at the time of their establishment or acquisition. 

Refuge Purposes 

 “to further the purposes of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act” and “as a refuge and 

breeding grounds for migratory birds and other wildlife” (E.O. 7655) 

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

(Migratory Bird Conservation Act [16 U.S.C. 715d]) 

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

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

species” (16 U.S.C. 460k-1) and “the Secretary ... may accept and use ... real ... property. 

Such acceptance may be accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive 

covenants imposed by donors” (16 U.S.C. 460k-2) (Refuge Recreation Act [16 U.S.C. 460k460k-4], as amended) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission 

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 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-114 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

of Americans (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 

668dd-668ee et seq.]). 

Description of Use 

Four nonconsumptive wildlife-dependent recreational activities are defined as priority public uses 

under the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act of 1966, as amended: wildlife observation, 

photography, interpretation, and environmental education. These activities can enhance the users’ 

appreciation of the Refuge, the NWRS, wildlife, their habitats, and the human environment. Because 

of its proximity to urban areas, Deer Flat NWR is considered an urban refuge and provides an 

opportunity for many nontraditional refuge users to be exposed to wildlife, habitat, and the NWRS. 

Deer Flat NWR is a popular destination for local visitors as well as tourists from outside the area. In 

FY11, total Refuge visitation was estimated at 228,000, with the majority of visitation occurring 

during the summer months. Further broken down, visitation numbers for the four nonconsumptive 

wildlife-dependent recreational activities are as follows. 

 Wildlife observation and photography: 23,900 

 Interpretation: 21,000 

 Environmental education: 11,000 

The Snake River Islands Unit is also open to the public for wildlife observation and photography 

from June 15 through January 31 on goose-nesting islands and from July 1 through January 31 on 

heron- and gull-nesting islands. Access to islands will be clearly delineated in the Refuge brochure. 

The only way to access these islands is with a boat and the amount of use for this activity is 

unknown. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

On the Lake Lowell Unit, a variety of trails and facilities provide opportunities for visitors who wish 

to view and photograph wildlife while minimizing disturbance to wildlife, including the East Dike 

and Kingfisher Trails in the East Side Recreation Area, the Gotts Point Trail, and the Observation 

Hill Trail System and Centennial and Nature Trails in the North Side Recreation Area. These hiking 

trails allow visitors to walk in close proximity to riparian, lake, wetland, and upland Refuge habitats. 

There are wildlife viewing platforms on the Observation Hill Trail and on the Centennial Trail. There 

is also a bird viewing blind on the Nature Trail where visitors can photograph or observe wildlife. 

The Refuge also has a 29.5-mile driving tour that highlights birding stops and circumnavigates the 

Lake Lowell Unit, as well as a 47-mile driving tour that highlights wildlife viewing opportunities at 

both the Lake Lowell and Snake River Islands Units. When the lake is open to the public, visitors can 

also observe and photograph wildlife on the open water with the use of motorized and nonmotorized 

boats. During the winter, visitors can also observe and photograph wildlife from cross-country skis. 

Interpretation and Environmental Education 

Interpretation and environmental education (EE) opportunities are designed to increase the public’s 

knowledge and understanding of wildlife and wildlife conservation. Many members of the public are 

not familiar with national wildlife refuges and confuse them with other Federal lands (e.g., National 

Parks, Bureau of Land Management lands) or with State and County parks. Locally, the Refuge is 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-115 

commonly referred to as Lake Lowell, and much of the public does not know that it is a national 

wildlife refuge that is part of a nationwide system. Providing information through educational 

programs, written materials, and interpretive panels helps to build an understanding and appreciation 

of the unique purposes and activities of national wildlife refuges. Providing information regarding 

the mission of the Service and the purposes of the Refuge, along with specific resource information, 

to Refuge visitors may alleviate potential negative impacts of visitors on wildlife. 

Most interpretive and EE activities occur at or near the Refuge Visitor Center. Guided activities 

include staff- and volunteer-conducted environmental education programs, teacher workshops, 

interpretive programs, and special events. Unguided activities include interpretive displays in the 

Visitor Center, interpretive panels along the Centennial Trail and at Snake River Islands Unit access 

points, and self-guided trail brochures. The Refuge offers a variety of both on- and off-site hands-on 

EE programs. The Refuge also puts on an annual BioBlitz festival celebrating biodiversity, a Creepy 

Critters Halloween event, and a monthly Wild About Life lecture series. 

Changes to the Uses 

The Refuge will improve and expand facilities and programming to enhance wildlife observation, 

photography, interpretation, and environmental education opportunities as follows. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

 Provide a visitor contact station at the Lower Dam Recreation Area to place a 

welcome/interpretive facility in an area that currently sees a majority of the Refuge’s 

nonwildlife-dependent users. 

 Provide an additional canoe/kayak launch site at Gotts Point to allow users access to an 

expanded no-wake zone. 

 Provide additional trails, for example: 

o 2-mile ABA-accessible interpretive elevated boardwalk between Parking Lots 1 and 

3 to provide better access to riparian and lake habitat not only for people with 

impaired mobility but also for users requesting easier access through the thick 

riparian vegetation at Lake Lowell. 

o 0.65-mile ABA-accessible interpretive loop trail in riparian habitat between Lower 

Dam Recreation Area and Murphy’s Neck. 

o 0.6-mile bike/walking path from the entrance to the Visitor Center along the entrance 

road to provide connectivity to possible bike paths. 

o Interpretive trail through restored native area at Lower Dam Recreation Area. 

o A trail between loops of the existing patrol road west of Visitor Center to provide a 

loop trail experience during eagle nesting season. 

o A trail or improved trail to the Observation Platform from the entrance road parking 

lot. 

o Additional trails from parking lots to the lakeshore on the south side of Lake Lowell 

and at Gotts Point to provide the public increased viewing and educational 

opportunities in riparian habitat types. 

o 1.5-mile self-guided on-water trail looping to the east from Parking Lot 1. 

 Maintain existing observation facilities (e.g., towers, platforms) and develop new facilities, 

for example: 

o A fishing dock/observation platform at north end of Lower Dam Recreation Area 

near existing Environmental Education Building. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-116 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

o Multipurpose (i.e., Big Six) docks along planned 2-mile ABA-accessible interpretive 

elevated boardwalk between Parking Lots 1 and 3. 

o Seasonal shorebird observation/photography blind on the northern shoreline of the 

East Pool east of Tio Lane access for reservation with an SUP. Implement a fee for 

use comparable to fees at other refuges. 

o Photography blind at Upper Dam Marsh for reservation with an SUP. Implement a 

fee for use comparable to fees at other refuges. 

 Provide observation opportunities through wildlife webcams, for example: 

o Maintain existing osprey nest webcam; and 

o Add grebe, heron, or eagle webcams. 

Environmental Education and Interpretation 

 Increase interpretation opportunities for visitors at high-use access points, for example: 

o Use staff and volunteers to facilitate guided/roving interpretive programs (e.g., bird 

walks, nocturnal walks, canoe/kayak paddles); and 

o Develop a nature play area at Lower Dam Recreation Area. 

 Update and replace Visitor Center interpretive materials, for example: 

o Develop Refuge video to show at Visitor Center; and 

o Update and replace existing Visitor Center interpretive signs. 

 Provide at least 4 on-site outreach events (e.g., BioBlitz, Creepy Critters, National Wildlife 

Refuge Week) annually to expand public awareness of interpretive themes. 

 Update EE program to match themes identified in the CCP. 

 Work with local teachers to identify target grades for Refuge EE programs. 

 Focus on moving from off-site to on-site EE programs. 

Access 

 To improve the quality of the nonconsumptive wildlife-dependent recreational activities 

provided at the Refuge and reduce disturbance to wildlife, the following changes will be 

made to Refuge access. 

 Access to Snake River Islands Unit is restricted to June 15 through January 31 on goosenesting islands and from July 1 through January 31 on heron- and gull-nesting islands. 

 Access to Lake Lowell Unit: 

o Wildlife-dependent users will be allowed off-trail in the East Side Recreation Area 

all year. 

o Wildlife-dependent users will be allowed off-trail at Gotts Point from February 1 

through September 30. 

o To protect nesting birds, access will be allowed only on maintained roads and trails 

from February 1 through July 31 in the North Side and South Side Recreation Areas 

and at Murphy’s Neck. During these months, lakeshore access is restricted to 100 

meters on either side of trails accessing the lakeshore. Off-trail travel will be allowed 

August 1 through January 31. 

o Seasonal closures will be in place surrounding important wildlife areas, such as eagle 

and osprey nests, grebe colonies, heron rookeries, and shorebird feeding areas. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-117 

Availability of Resources 

Deer Flat NWR is open to all of the Refuge System’s priority, wildlife-dependent recreational 

activities. Most of the nonstaff costs associated with carrying out the improvements are one-time 

expenses (see Table B-11). Because the Service has limited capacity to staff and maintain facilities 

and provide law enforcement, the Service will explore all available options to obtain funding to 

implement these projects, including partnership efforts. 

Increased volunteer assistance, strengthened partnerships, and new partnerships will be sought to 

support these programs in an effective, safe, and compatible manner. Refuge staff will increase 

volunteer recruitment efforts. When provided the appropriate training, Refuge volunteers, interns, 

and various user groups can assist with monitoring, education and interpretation programs, and 

maintenance projects. With assistance, staffing and funding is sufficient to manage these uses. 

Mowing and irrigation of the EE building lawn at the Lower Dam Recreation Area is conducted by 

Canyon County Department of Parks, Recreation, and Waterways. If the County did not provide this 

assistance, there will be additional Refuge costs for maintaining this facility to the current quality. 

Table B-11. Costs to Administer and Manage Updates to Public Use Programs 

Refuge Activity Required to Allow Use Estimated One-time Cost Estimated Annual Cost 

*Provide and maintain season off-trail use signs $1,400 $400 

*Provide 4.5 miles of new trails for pedestrian access $396,800 

*Provide and maintain interpretive and directional 

signage for new trails 

$28,900 $1,600 

Provide and maintain interpretive and directional 

signage for new observation/photography blinds 

$2,900 $500 

*Provide and maintain signs for public use in hunt areas $1,100 $300 

Provide and maintain directional signage $6,500 

*Install and maintain new docks and buoys $69,600 $7,400 

Install new observation/photography blinds $120,000 

*Install new kiosks and signs at access points and 

maintain signs 

$261,000 $2,700 

*Seasonal nesting closure signs (Lake Lowell and Snake 

River Islands Units) 

$11,000 $5,200 

*Maintain new trails and blinds $4,000 

Covered learning facilities $135,600 

*Construct and maintain visitor contact station $480,000 $1,600 

*Install and maintain comfort stations and vault toilet at 

Lower Dam Recreation Area (LDRA) and Parking Lot 1 

$208,200 $3,000 

*Create LDRA site plan $40,000 

*Rehabilitate LDRA parking area $50,000 

*Print/reprint general Refuge brochures $3,200 $5,200 

Update/rehabilitate Visitor Center $425,000 

Structural evaluation of Visitor Center $25,000 

*Nature play area $40,000 

*Volunteer coordinator $51,000 

Environmental education specialist $51,000 

*Law enforcement officer $62,400 

Total $2,306,200 $196,300 

* Costs marked with an asterisk (*) represent costs that are also entered into other CDs for activities using the same 

resource. For example, rehabilitating the LDRA will benefit wildlife-dependent visitors, and picnickers, swimmers, 

and other visitors. This same cost has been shown in all CDs that may use the LDRA. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-118 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Anticipated Impacts of Uses 

A primary concern for allowing any public use on Deer Flat NWR is to ensure that impacts to 

wildlife and habitat are maintained within acceptable limits and potential conflicts between user 

groups are minimized. The following discussion analyzes the impacts of the uses. 

General Impacts to Wildlife 

After a review of 536 references, Boyle and Sampson (1985) concluded that nonconsumptive 

outdoor recreation activities often have negative impacts to wildlife and their habitat. Immediate 

responses by wildlife to recreational activity can range from behavioral changes including nest 

abandonment, altered nest placement, and change in food habits to physiological changes such as 

elevated heart rates and increased energetic costs due to flight or flushing, or even death (Belanger 

and Bedard 1990; Kight and Swaddle 2007; Knight and Cole 1995a; Miller and Hobbs 2000; Miller 

et al. 1998; 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. 

Human activities along trails disturb wildlife, often resulting in flushing from roosting, feeding, 

nesting, or resting areas. Flushing may result in expenditure of energy reserves, abandonment of 

preferred habitat, and increased exposure to predation during relocation. Wildlife photographers tend 

to have significant disturbance impacts because they may remain close to wildlife for prolonged 

periods (Klein 1993). Casual photographers with low-power lenses may approach wildlife closer than 

other users. Cole (2004) suggests the following factors as most important in determining recreation 

impacts: amount of use, type and behavior of use, timing of use, resistance and resilience of the 

environment, and spatial distribution of use. Specialized wildlife viewers, particularly birders, seek 

out specific and often rare species. Because these activities may occur during sensitive times of the 

year (e.g., nesting), and because they often involve close approaches to wildlife for purposes of 

identification or photography, there is a potential for negative effects (Knight and Cole 1995b). 

According to Knight and Cole (1991), there are three wildlife responses to human disturbance: 

avoidance, habituation, and 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; the time of day, time of year, weather; and the animal’s access to food and cover, energy 

demands, and reproductive status (Fernández-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 will respond to disturbance is predictability. Often, when a use is 

predictable—following a trail or boardwalk or at a viewing deck—wildlife will 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 than to 

humans following a distinct (and repeated) path. 

Knight and Cole (1991) suggest that sound may elicit a much milder response from wildlife if 

animals are visually buffered from the disturbance. Burger (1999 as cited by Oberbillig 2000) 

suggests that viewing distances can serve as useful guides for managers lacking good site-specific 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-119 

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 330 feet will 

minimize flushing of foraging or loafing waterbirds. Vos et al. (1985) recommended buffer zones of 

820 feet on land and 490 feet over water for great blue herons. Miller et al. (1998) found that the trail 

zone of influence for forest and grassland birds appears to be approximately 250 feet. Beyond this 

distance, bird abundance, species composition, and nest predation was not affected by even heavily 

used recreational trails. 

Refuge-specific Impacts 

Refuge visitation that has an emphasis on wildlife observation, photography, education, and 

interpretation are projected to increase in the CCP, therefore, disturbance effects are likely to be 

somewhat higher than present. However, it is anticipated that the design of Refuge facilities and the 

stipulations associated with these uses will be sufficient to mitigate the impacts. 

People who visit Deer Flat NWR and engage in wildlife observation, photography, environmental 

education and/or interpretation typically access the Refuge by motorized vehicles using the 

surrounding public roads and Refuge parking lots. Because of the close proximity to houses and an 

urban setting, some visitors can easily access the Refuge by walking or biking from their place of 

residence. 

Once on the Refuge, visitors have access to a variety of multiuse trails on which to participate in 

these nonconsumptive wildlife uses. Foot travel can create disturbance in or near any habitat and 

result in vegetation trampling as noted above. The current and planned trails system has been 

designed to minimize disturbance to wildlife and habitat and the stipulations presented below are 

intended to further mitigate any potential impacts stemming from these uses. Restricting the 

disturbance to an established trail during the nesting season will increase predictability of public use 

patterns on the Refuge, allowing nesting wildlife to habituate to nonthreatening activities. Providing 

seasonal closures around sensitive wildlife areas will reduce impacts to wildlife while providing 

recreational opportunities in these areas when the wildlife is less vulnerable. 

Under the CCP, two photography/wildlife observation blinds and associated access trails will be 

built, one in the Upper Dam Marsh area and the other near the New York Canal. The construction of 

these blinds may cause a temporary, short-term impact on wildlife species in the immediate area. 

Minimal long-term effects are expected to occur as a result of construction. Increased use of the blind 

areas is expected to occur adding to the likelihood of disturbance but should be compensated for by 

the creation of predictable and concentrated visitation. Educational materials that inform visitors of 

ethical use could reduce impacts and careful placement and camouflaging of blinds will reduce 

disturbance from this user group. 

Most of Deer Flat NWR’s education and interpretation programs are large, organized special events 

that differ from informal day-to-day observation and interpretive activities in that they take place at 

the existing Visitor Center. These programs have the can overfill parking facilities to the point where 

parking lots fill and off-site parking and shuttle service is necessary to avoid safety issues. The 

disturbance associated with these programs are restricted to the area surrounding the Visitor Center 

and are kept in check by Refuge staff or volunteer leaders who are vigilant about minimizing undue 

disturbances. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-120 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Although disturbance to wildlife from these activities will be higher than at present, the overall effect 

to Refuge wildlife is expected to be minor. In addition, if disturbance to wildlife or damage to habitat 

reaches unacceptable levels, the Refuge will limit access to areas where unacceptable impacts occur 

(see Stipulations section). 

Impacts to Listed Species 

There are no listed species known to occur on the Refuge. The counties that surround both units of 

the Refuge have a variety of listed species historically or currently occurring within each county. Of 

these species only the yellow-billed cuckoo has ever been documented on Deer Flat NWR, and it is 

currently considered a vagrant because sightings are highly unusual. The Columbia spotted frog 

could conceivably exist on the Refuge but has not been documented. The condition of habitat for 

both of these species is either unknown or marginal. The likelihood of any other of the listed species 

that occur in the surrounding counties existing on the Refuge is slim. Most of these other species 

have known populations that occur off-Refuge (e.g., Bruneau hot springs snail, Packard’s milkvetch) 

or roam great distances and/or will not find suitable habitat on the Refuge (e.g., North American 

wolverine, greater sage-grouse). It is anticipated that impacts from nonconsumptive, wildlifedependent recreation will be negligible. If any use results in unacceptable adverse effects to 

candidate species or habitats, the Refuge will impose restrictions to mitigate disturbance. 

Impact to Habitat 

Miller et al. (1998) showed that bird species composition was altered near trails in both forested and 

grassland ecosystems. Unpaved or unsurfaced trails are susceptible to a variety of trail impacts 

including vegetation loss and compositional changes to soil structure including compaction and 

erosion (Adkison and Jackson 1996; Dale and Weaver 1974; Leung and Marion 2000). Trail 

widening and creation of side trails (social trails) increase the area of disturbed land (Liddle 1975). 

Impacts that are commonly noted on trails like vegetation damage and soil erosion are unlikely to 

occur on the well-defined, gravel surface of the East Dike, Kingfisher, Gotts Point, Observation Hill, 

and Nature Trails or the concrete surface of the Centennial Trail. Allowing off-trail use may cause 

trampling of plants and disturbance of wildlife. Even though this user group will be required to 

remain on designated trails during sensitive seasons, some users may disturb wildlife by wandering 

off to access the lakeshore or a scenic vista or in pursuit of observational/photographic quarry. 

Control of invasive plant species on the Refuge is a difficult and never-ending battle. Roads and trails 

often function as conduits for movement of plant species, including nonnative, invasive species 

(Benninger-Truax et al. 1992; Hansen and Clevenger 2005). Refuge visitors can inadvertently carry 

propagules from invasive plants on clothing or equipment, spreading those plants to new areas. Once 

established, invasive plants can out-compete native plants, thereby altering habitats and indirectly 

impacting wildlife. Invasive plants on or near these trails will be controlled and monitored as part of 

the Refuge’s IPM Plan (Appendix G). 

Providing and maintaining access points and trails indirectly impacts wildlife by creating barriers to 

movement through vegetation removal and abrupt edge creation, which may lead to increased 

predation (Ratti and Reese 1988). 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-121 

Determination 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility 

 Changes to boating regulations and facilities are described in the Recreational Boating 

Compatibility Determination. 

 To minimize disturbance to wildlife during the nesting season, pedestrian travel will be 

restricted to designated trails from February 1 through July 31 in the North Side and South 

Side Recreation Areas and at Murphy’s Neck. During these months, lakeshore access is 

restricted to 100 meters on either side of trails accessing the lakeshore. Off-trail travel will be 

allowed August 1 through January 31. 

 In the East Side Recreation Area, off-trail travel will be allowed all year because it is a less 

biologically sensitive area. 

 In the Gotts Point area, off-trail travel will be allowed February 1 through September 30. 

 Cross-country skiing access will be allowed only on land. Skiing on ice will be prohibited. 

 Walking on ice for wildlife observation, photography, interpretation, and environmental 

education opportunities will be prohibited. Ice access will be allowed only to access icefishing opportunities in Fishing Areas A and B within 200 yards of the dams, subject to areas 

posted by Reclamation. 

 Lower Dam Recreation Area is open from April 15 through September 30. 

 On the Snake River Islands Unit, off-trail travel will be allowed from June 15 through 

January 31 on goose-nesting islands and from July 1 through January 31 on heron- and gullnesting islands. 

 Recreational access to closed areas will be allowed only under provisions of an SUP with 

stipulations set by the Refuge manager. 

 Use will be restricted to daylight hours only. 

 Open fires will be prohibited. 

 Pedestrians should yield right of way to equestrians. 

 Collection of plants and animals will be prohibited unless an SUP is obtained from the 

Refuge (except fish captured while engaged in recreational fishing). 

 The Refuge will require an SUP for wildlife-dependent groups of over 20 people to avoid 

conflicts with other users and management activities. 

 Seasonal closures will be implemented as necessary to protect sensitive wildlife habitat. For 

example: 

o Up to 300-yard buffer around eagle nests from February 15 through July 15. 

o Up to 150-yard seasonal closure around osprey nests from March 15 through August 

1. 

o Up to 500-yard closure around grebe colonies (Berg et al. 2004) until July 15 of the 

following year. If the birds have not renested in the closed area by July 15 of the 

following year, the closure will be removed. Upland portions of the closures will be 

open to use from October 1 through January 31. 

 To determine grebe colony boundaries, the staff biologist will mark nests in 

and especially on the periphery of a colony using a GPS unit capable of submeter accuracy as part of the regular colony studies. These data points will be 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-122 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

exported to a georeferenced mapping system, and a 500-yard buffer will be 

drawn around the colony. Buoy locations will then be mapped every 100– 150 

yards and exported back into the GPS unit to be used to place the buoys in the 

proper location. In the first year that grebes nest, the closure will be based on 

nests established early in the nesting season. In the second year of grebe 

nesting, closure will be based on the full extent of the colony in the first year. 

o Up to 250-yard buffer around heron rookeries from February 1 through July 1. 

o Up to 100-yard closure around shorebird feeding and resting areas from July 15 

through September 30 during years when the lake level elevation is lower than 2,522 

feet. 

o Wildlife closure at Gotts Point from October 1 through January 31. 

o Wildlife closure at Murphy’s Neck from October 1 through March 15. 

o Wildlife closure at Lower Dam Recreation Area from October 1 through April 14. 

 Refuge staff will monitor impacts of these activities annually to assess compliance with these 

stipulations, impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat, conflicts between user groups, and user 

satisfaction. Monitoring data will be used to modify these stipulations if necessary to ensure 

continued compatibility of these activities. 

Justification 

Wildlife photography, observation, interpretation, and environmental education, when compatible, 

are wildlife-dependent recreational activities considered priority public uses for the NWRS. 

Although these activities can result in disturbance to wildlife, disturbance will be intermittent and 

short-term when activities are conducted according to the stipulations described above. It is 

anticipated that wildlife populations will find sufficient food resources and resting places such that 

their abundance and use of the Refuge will not be measurably reduced from allowing these activities 

to occur. The relatively limited number of individual animals and plants expected to be adversely 

affected will not cause wildlife populations to materially decline, the physiological condition and 

production of Refuge species will not be impaired, their behavior and normal activity patterns will 

not be altered dramatically, and their overall welfare will not be negatively impacted. Thus, allowing 

wildlife photography, observation, interpretation and environmental education to occur under the 

stipulations described above will not materially detract or interfere with the purposes for which the 

Refuge was established or the mission of the NWRS. 

Mandatory Reevaluation Date 

 2030 Mandatory 15-year Reevaluation (for priority public uses) 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision 

 X 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 ed. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer 

Associates. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-123 

Belanger, L. and J. Bedard. 1990. Energetic cost of man-induced disturbance to staging snow geese. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 54:36-41. 

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. 

Berg, G., L. Wilkinson, H. Wollis, and D. Prescott. 2004. Western (Aechmophorous occidentalis) 

and eared (Podiceps nigricollis) grebes of Central Alberta: 2004 field summary. Alberta 

Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division, Alberta Species at Risk 

Report No. 94. Edmonton, Alberta. 

Boyle, S.A. and F.B. Samson. 1985. Effects of nonconsumptive recreation on wildlife: a review. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 13:110-116. 

Cole, D.N. 2004. Environmental impacts of outdoor recreation in wildlands. Pages 107-126 in: M.J. 

Manfredo, J.J. Vaske, B.L. Bruyere, D.R. Field, and P.J. Brown, eds. Society and natural 

resources: a summary of knowledge. Jefferson, MO: Modern Litho. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Hansen, M.J. and A.P. Clevenger. 2005. The influence of disturbance and habitat on the presence of 

nonnative plant species along transport corridors. Biological Conservation 125(2005):249-

259. 

Kight, 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. 

Klein, M.L. 1993. Waterbird behavioral responses to human disturbances. Wildlife Society Bulletin 

21(1):31-39. 

Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole. 1991. Effects of recreational activity on wildlife in wildlands. 

Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 56:238-247. 

Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole. 1995a. 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 D.N. Cole. 1995b. Wildlife responses to recreationists. Pages 51-69 in: R.L. Knight 

and K.J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through management and 

research. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 

Leung, Y. and J.L. Marion. 2000. Recreation impacts and management in wilderness: a state-ofknowledge review. Pages 23-28 in: D.N. Cole, S.F. McCool, W.T. Borrie, and J. O’Loughlin, 

compilers. Wilderness science in a time of change conference—volume 5: wilderness 

ecosystems, threats, and management; 1999 May 23-27; Missoula, MT. Proceedings RMRSP-15-VOL-5. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 395 pp. 

Liddle, M.J. 1975. A selective review of the ecological effects of human trampling on natural 

ecosystems. Biological Conservation 7:17-36. 

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. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-124 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

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. Deborah Richie 

Communications. Missoula, MT. 

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(1):139-145. 

Vos, D.K., R.A. Ryder, and W.D. Graul. 1985. Response of breeding great blue herons to human 

disturbance in northcentral Colorado. Colonial Waterbirds 8:13-22. 
;---

Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Compatibility Determination for Wildlife Observation, Photography, Interpretation, and 

Environmental Education (B.12) 

Use is compatible with stipulations. 

Project Leader 

Approval: 

Concurrence: 

Refuge 

Supervisor: 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System: 

Appendix B. Compatibility DeteITI\inations 

ature) .., ~/ 15'. 

y/, /,~ 

(Date) 

B-125 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-126 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-127 

B.13 Compatibility Determination for Mosquito Management 

RMIS Database Use: Mosquito management

Refuge Name: Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge 

Location: Canyon, Owyhee, Payette and Washington counties in Idaho, and Malheur County in 

Oregon 

Date Established: 1909 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities 

Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge was originally established in 1909 by President Theodore 

Roosevelt as Deer Flat Bird Reservation as a “preserve and breeding grounds for native birds” (E.O. 

1032). In 1937, President Franklin D. Roosevelt revoked Executive Order 1032 and reestablished the 

Refuge as the Deer Flat Bird Reservation to “further the purposes of the Migratory Bird Conservation 

Act” and, “as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife” (E.O. 7655) . Also 

in 1937, 36 islands in the Snake River were designated as the Snake River Migratory Bird Refuge 

(E.O. 7691). 

In 1940, the Refuge names were changed by Presidential Proclamation No. 2416, to Deer Flat 

National Wildlife Refuge and Snake River National Wildlife Refuge respectively. In 1963, Public 

Land Order 3110 transferred all lands of the Snake River National Wildlife Refuge (consisting of 74 

islands) to the direct jurisdiction of Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge. Any lands (including those 

in the Snake River Islands National Wildlife Refuge) that were added to Deer Flat National Wildlife 

Refuge assume the purposes for which Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge was established as well as 

keeping any individual purposes that were provided at the time of their establishment or acquisition. 

Refuge Purposes 

“...to further the purposes of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act” and as a refuge and breeding 

grounds for migratory birds and other wildlife...” E. O. 7655 

 

“... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 

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

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

natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species...” 16 U.S.C. §§ 

460k-1 and “... the Secretary...may accept and use...real...property. Such acceptance may be 

accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors...” 16 

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

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission 

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 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-128 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

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 

This use is not a priority public use as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act. Mosquito monitoring and treatment on the Lake Lowell Unit of the Refuge will be conducted by 

the Canyon County Mosquito Abatement District (CCMAD). The mosquito species documented to 

be breeding on, or residing on the Refuge, and targeted for monitoring and treatment, are Culex 

inornata, Culex pipiens, Culex tarsalis, Culex ervthrothorax, Ochlerotatus nigromaculus, Aedes 

vexans, and Anopheles freebornii. 

The Refuge will allow the CCMAD to continue access to the Refuge for monitoring and controlling 

mosquitoes to address human health concerns in neighboring communities wherever it does not 

directly conflict with resource protection needs. The Lake Lowell sector of the Refuge is located in 

Canyon County near the communities of Nampa and Caldwell, Idaho. CCMAD has been managing 

the mosquito population around the Lake Lowell Sector of the Refuge since 1998. The presence of 

Western Equine Encephalitis (WEE) was detected in cattle on ranch property that borders the south 

boundary of the Refuge in 1999. Active arbovirus surveillance in the adult mosquito population was 

initiated in 2000. In 2006 there was a West Nile Virus outbreak in Idaho. The Lake Lowell Unit 

accounted for 40% of the positive West Nile pools detected and tested in Canyon County during the 

2006 epidemic. In 2010 and again in 2011 there was no disease activity noted in the mosquito 

population on the Refuge. 

CCMAD utilizes Integrated Pest Management principles in controlling mosquito population levels on 

Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge and only uses Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (Bti) within 

Refuge boundaries. CCMAD bases all its mosquito abatement decisions on a comprehensive 

inspection and surveillance program. Both the larval and adult populations are monitored daily 

during the mosquito production season. Treatments to the mosquito larvae population are made when 

dip counts of Culex tarsalis reach five mosquito larvae per dip/10 dips. Only those areas where 

monitoring has shown that larval mosquito populations have reached or exceeded predetermined 

species-specific thresholds will be targeted for treatment. 

Mosquito Monitoring 

To determine pesticide use on the Refuge, larval surveillance is first conducted. Larval surveillance 

locations are throughout the Refuge in both open areas and areas closed to the public. Thresholds are 

determined by standard mosquito dipping techniques done in open water, along banks, under 

vegetation, in flooded areas, in standing water pools that are shallow, in catch basins, and on 

shoreline habitat. 

A two-person inspection team is assigned to the Refuge to monitor mosquito population densities. 

Inspections are conducted on a daily basis starting in late March or early April, depending on 

springtime weather conditions. CCMAD monitors larval stage mosquito populations and identifies 

species using the dipper method, which entails use of a long-handled ladle dipper to collect water 

samples from pools potentially serving as mosquito sources. Dipping occurs about every 1-2 weeks, 

wherever there are pools of standing water. Dip counts are used to estimate the numbers of immature 

mosquitoes and to determine the need for mosquito control. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-129 

The monitoring activities described above are conducted under an annual SUP granted by the Service 

to CCMAD. The Refuge proposes to allow the CCMAD to continue these activities under special 

conditions set forth in the annual SUP. Post treatment monitoring to determine efficacy of control is 

conducted in the same way; using dip method for larval counts and mosquito light traps for adults, 

but more frequently and at and around the specific treatment sites. 

Density determinations for Culex species (primary disease vectors): 

Low: 1-4 larvae per dip. 

Medium: 5-10 larvae per dip. 

High: > than 10 larvae per dip. 

The larvae density action level can be used to determine how much, if any, larval control product is 

to be used. The following is the Action Level Threshold used by CCMAD on the Refuge: 

Low population density: No action taken. 

Medium population density: Use 5-7 lbs. per acre of Bti. 

High population density: Use 7-10 lbs. per acre of Bti. 

Mosquito Control 

Currently the only biological control agents used on the Refuge are Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis 

and B. sphaericus. Bti/Bs agents used: 

 VectoMax FG. EPA reg. no 73049-429 

 Vectobac GR. EPA Reg. No. 73049-486 

 Teknar CG. EPA Reg. No. 73049-19 

 Aquabac G. EPA Reg. No. 62637-3 

1. Bti liquid products are applied by backpack sprayer or hydraulic power spray equipment if large 

areas are treated. 

2. Before aerial applications are conducted, CCMAD will notify the Refuge manager with action 

threshold data and a mapped location of proposed aerial application. 

3. Treatment site will be posted 24 hours before aerial application is made, with the following 

information, and, when feasible, applications will be scheduled at sunrise. 

 Date and approximate time of application. 

 Pesticide used. 

 Contact telephone number of CCMAD for any questions. 

 Method of application (example): Low-flying aircraft dropping granular product. 

Mosquito Treatment (Larvicides/Pupacides) 

There are currently five general categories of larvicides/pupacides used for mosquito control in the 

United States: biological, organophosphate, insect growth regulator, oil, and monomolecular film. 

Temephos is an organophosphate insecticide with broad-spectrum activity and high toxicity toward 

birds and fish, and will therefore not be considered further. Methoprene and diflubenzuron are insect 

growth regulators. Methoprene poses reduced ecological risk and equivalent efficacy compared to 

diflubenzuron. Therefore, diflubenzuron will not be considered further. GB 1111 is a petroleum 

distillate, categorized as an oil. Monomolecular films are an isostearyl alcohol compound. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-130 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Larvicides (Bti). Bti is a microbial insect pathogen used to control larval stages of mosquitoes and 

black flies. It is a naturally occurring, anaerobic, spore-forming bacteria, mass produced using 

modern fermentation technology. Formulated Bti products contain bacterial spores and protein 

endotoxins that are activated in the alkaline mid-gut of insect species and subsequently bind to 

protein-specific receptors of susceptible insect species, resulting in the lethal response (Lacey and 

Mulla 1990). Therefore, Bti must be ingested by the target insect to be effective; mosquito pupa and 

adults are not affected. Bti is available in granular and liquid formulations. The granular formulations 

are applied at rates of 5-20 pounds of formulated product per acre. The liquid formulations are 

applied at rates of 0.25-2.0 pints of formulated product per acre. 

Larvicides (Bsp). Like Bti, Bsp is a microbial insect pathogen with a similar mode of action (Walton 

et al. 1998). Formulated Bsp products used as mosquito larvicides consist of bacterial spores and 

protein endotoxins. Bsp is available in two granular formulations, Vectolex CG and Vectolex WDG. 

Vectolex CG is applied at rates of 5-20 pounds of formulated product per acre. Vectolex WDG is 

applied at rates of 0.5-1.5 pounds of formulated product per acre. Both Bti and Bsp may be applied as 

a spot treatment to small areas or broadcast over larger areas by ground (e.g., backpack, truck 

mounted broadcasters) and/or aerial (fixed-wing or helicopter) equipment. 

Description of Use 

The Refuge will allow the CCMAD to continue access to the Refuge for monitoring and controlling 

mosquitoes to address human health concerns in neighboring communities wherever it does not 

directly conflict with resource protection needs. The Lake Lowell sector of the Refuge is located in 

Canyon County near the communities of Nampa and Caldwell. The Canyon County Mosquito 

Abatement District has been managing the mosquito population around the Lake Lowell Sector of 

the Refuge since 1998. 

Availability of Resources 

Refuge staff responsibilities for projects by non-Service entities will primarily be limited to the 

following: review of proposals, preparation of SUPs, and monitoring of projects to ensure that 

impacts and conflicts remain within acceptable levels. Administrative, logistical, and operational 

support may be provided within the station’s general operating budget. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use 

Specific areas treated as well as the aerial extent of treatment will vary from year to year, depending 

on mosquito populations and environmental conditions. Although most disturbances will be confined 

to the targeted wetland, some disturbance related to accessing the monitoring and treatment sites is 

expected to occur in upland and riparian areas. A primary concern for allowing any use to occur on 

Deer Flat NWR is to ensure that impacts to wildlife and habitat are maintained within acceptable 

limits, and potential conflicts between user groups are minimized. The discussion below analyzes 

impacts of the use as it is described in the CCP. 

Researchers and scientists are not exempt from the negative impacts that human presence has on 

wildlife and wildlife habitat. Even death of animals due to the use of lethal collection methods as 

well as accidental death and injury from trapping, handling, and other invasive procedures (pittagging, force feeding, and blood collection) can occur. During duck banding efforts, it is not 

uncommon for the rocket nets to kill a few (>5) ducks when deployed. In an extreme example, a 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-131 

study conducted in Utah looking at pronghorn fawn mortality noted that 20% of the fawns died due 

to abandonment as a result of researcher handling (Beale and Smith 1973). Some level of disturbance 

is expected with the monitoring and treatment of mosquitos on the Refuge because some of these 

activities will be conducted in areas that are normally closed to the public. These impacts to Refuge 

wildlife and habitats will be minimized because SUPs will include conditions to ensure that impacts 

to wildlife and habitats are kept to a minimum. 

The mere presence of humans can cause disturbance to wildlife. 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 2007; 

Gabrielsen and Smith 1995; Knight and Cole 1991). Knight and Cole (1991) suggest that sound may 

elicit a much milder response from wildlife if animals are visually buffered from the disturbance. 

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 will respond to disturbance is predictability. Often, when a use is 

predictable—following a trail or boardwalk or at a viewing deck—wildlife will 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 than to humans following a 

distinct path. 

Some effects will occur through disturbance that is expected with some activities, especially where 

researchers are entering sanctuaries or sensitive island habitat with colonial nesting birds. 

Disturbance to breeding, resting, and feeding wildlife and their habitats may occur through frequent 

contact with technicians performing monitoring activities. Results of disturbance could include the 

abandonment of nests as a result of frequent visitation to nest or breeding sites. Staff (and contracted 

professionals) conducting research also have the propensity to disturb wildlife with equipment used 

in current and future inventory and monitoring surveys. Grebes are particularly vulnerable to boats, 

which are used extensively when studying them. Trucks and high-powered spotlights may disrupt 

and confuse nocturnal feeding deer as well as foraging owls during spotlight surveys. Low-flying 

aircraft toting FLIR surveying equipment may also cause a disturbance to Refuge wildlife. 

Control of invasive plant species on the Deer Flat NWR is a difficult and never-ending battle. Roads 

and trails often function as conduits for movement of plant species, including nonnative, invasive 

species (Hansen and Clevenger 2005). Invasive plants on or near these trails will be controlled as part 

of the Refuge’s noxious-weed abatement program. Monitoring of invasive species will also be a part 

of this plan, reducing the potential for invasive species to become newly established on the trail. 

Introduction of invasive plants is possible from ground disturbance associated with the transportation 

of source seed on equipment and personnel. 

Most negative impacts associated with mosquito abatement at this station will be offset by the 

positive effects of a strong and viable mosquito control program. Health and human safety both on 

the Refuge and in the surrounding community are a necessary part of this plan. The mosquito 

abatement program is an important tool in maintaining environmental health as well as for ensuring 

the quality of wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities. 

 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-132 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Determination 

___ Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility 

Mosquito monitoring and abatement activities have the potential to disturb wildlife as well as the 

habitat upon which they rely. To minimize impacts to the greatest extent possible, the following 

stipulations will be put in place to ensure compatibility: 

 The minimum number of samples (e.g., water, soils, vegetative litter, plants, 

macroinvertebrates, and vertebrates) will be collected for any project. 

 Mosquito abatement will be conducted under an SUP that will have additional projectspecific stipulations. All SUPs will have a definite termination date in accordance with 5 RM 

17.11. Renewals will be subject to Refuge manager review of research data, status reports, 

compatibility determination compliance, SUP stipulations, and other permits. 

 All chemicals used for mosquito abatement activities must be presented as part of the annual 

SUP and approved by USFWS personnel prior to use. 

 CCMAD are responsible for acquiring and/or renewing any necessary state and federal 

permits prior to beginning or continuing their project. 

 A Section 7 consultation under the ESA is required for activities that may affect a federally 

threatened, endangered, or proposed species. 

 If monitoring or spraying can only be conducted during a sensitive or critical time (i.e., the 

breeding season), it will only be permitted where there are specific protocols to minimize 

disturbance. 

 If unacceptable impacts or issues arise or are noted by Refuge staff, the Refuge manager can 

suspend/modify conditions/terminate on-Refuge activities that are already permitted and in 

progress. 

 Status updates and situation reports are required at least annually, and final reports are due 

within one year of the completion of the seasonal abatement efforts, unless negotiated 

otherwise. 

 At any time, Refuge staff may accompany the mosquito abatement technicians. 

 Highly intrusive or manipulative activities are generally not permitted in order to protect 

wildlife populations and habitat. 

 Mosquito abatement or monitoring activities in sensitive areas may be denied, depending on 

the specific circumstances.

 All Refuge rules and regulations (CFR 50) must be followed unless otherwise accepted in 

writing by Refuge management. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-133 

 Extremely sensitive wildlife habitat areas will be avoided unless sufficient protection is 

implemented to limit the area and/or wildlife potentially impacted by activities. 

 Research activities will be modified to avoid harm to sensitive wildlife and habitat when 

unforeseen impacts arise, such as a wildfire altering landscape conditions or large declines in 

a population.

 All samples and specimens collected from the Refuge are Refuge property. Service personnel 

shall be provided access to the samples and specimens at any time at no cost (unless 

arrangements are made to the contrary). 

 The Refuge biologist will review all research proposals and identify any conditions of the 

research permits that eliminate or minimize negative impacts to any one area, species, or 

habitat of the Refuge. The Refuge biologist will make a recommendation to the Refuge 

manager on whether the research should occur based on weighing the benefits and impacts. 

 Research requiring the collection of animals will only be authorized after careful 

consideration by the Refuge biologist and Refuge manager as to the importance of Refuge 

populations to the conservation of the species, the possible adverse impacts to the Refuge 

populations, and the humaneness of the collection methodology. 

 Refuge staff will monitor mosquito abatement projects to ensure that on-going research is not 

causing long term habitat damage or impacting any animal populations. 

Justification 

Mosquito inventory/monitoring and abatement efforts on refuge lands are inherently valuable to the 

Service because they will expand scientific and environmental health information available for 

resource management decisions. By allowing the use to occur under the stipulations described above, 

it is anticipated that wildlife species that could be disturbed during the use will find sufficient food 

resources and resting places outside of disturbed areas, so their abundance and use will not be 

measurably lessened on the Refuge. 

Refuge monitoring and research can contribute to improved management of fish, wildlife, plants and 

their habitats, visitor services programs, and cultural resources through the application of knowledge 

gained. Biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health will benefit from scientific research 

conducted on natural resources at the Refuge as provided in the 1997 Improvement Act. It is 

anticipated that monitoring of research projects, as needed, will prevent unacceptable or irreversible 

impacts to wildlife and their habitats, and therefore these projects will not materially interfere with or 

detract from fulfilling Refuge purposes; contributing to the mission of the Refuge System; and 

maintaining the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge or the NWRS.

The Refuge manager and biologist will ensure that monitoring and research investigations will 

contribute to the enhancement, protection, conservation, and management of native wildlife 

populations and their habitats on the Refuge, thereby helping the refuges fulfill the purposes for 

which they were established, as well contributing to the mission of the Refuge System. 

 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-134 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Mandatory Reevaluation Date 

 X Mandatory 10-year Reevaluation (for all uses other than priority public uses) 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision 

 X Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

References

Alcock, J. 1993. Animal behavior: an evolutionary approach. Fifth ed. Sinauer Assoc., Sunderland, 

MA. 625pp. 

Beale, D. M. and Smith, A.D., 1973. Mortality of Pronghorn Antelope Fawns in Western Utah The 

Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 37, No. 3 (Jul., 1973), pp. 343-352. 

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, ed. Wildlife and Recreationists: coexistence 

through management and research. Island Press, Washington, D. C. 372pp. 

Fernández-Juricic E., Zollner P.A., LeBlanc C., and Westphal L.M., 2007 Responses of Nestling 

Black-crowned Night Herons (Nycticorax nycticorax ) to Aquatic and Terrestrial 

Recreational Activities: a Manipulative Study. Waterbirds, 30(4):554-565. 2007. The 

Waterbird Society 

Hansen, M.J. and Clevenger, A.P. 2005. The influence of disturbance and habitat on the presence of 

non-native plant species along transport corridors. Biological Conservation 125 (2005) 249–

259 

Knight, R. L. and D. N. Cole. 1991. Effects of recreational activity on wildlife in wildlands in 

Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. 56:238-247. 

Oberbillig, D.R. 2000. Providing positive wildlife viewing experiences. Deborah Richie 

Communications, Missoula, MT. 

 
Deer-Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Compatibility Determination for Mosquito Management (B.13) 

Use is compatible witb stipulations. 

Project Leader 

Approval: 

Concurrence: 

Refuge 

Supervisor: 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System: 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

~ (Signature) (Date) 

B-135 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-136 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix C. Implementation C-1 

Appendix C. Implementation 

C.1 Overview 

Implementation of the comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) will require increased funding for 

some projects, which will be sought from a variety of sources. This plan will depend on additional 

Congressional allocations, partnerships, and grants. There are no guarantees that additional Federal 

funds will be made available to implement any of these projects. Other sources of funds will need to 

be obtained (both public and private). Activities and projects identified will be implemented as funds 

become available. 

Many of the infrastructure and facility projects (i.e., Refuge roads) will be eligible for funding 

through construction or Federal Lands Highway Program funds. 

The CCP proposes several projects to be implemented over the next 15 years. All of these projects 

will be included in Service databases that are used to request funding from Congress. Currently, a 

large backlog of maintenance needs exists on Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge (Deer Flat NWR or 

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

analysis of funding needs. 

Annual revenue sharing payments will continue to Canyon, Payette, Owyhee, and Washington 

Counties in Idaho, and Malheur County in Oregon. At this time, no expansions are planned through 

the purchase of inholdings or through an expanded Refuge boundary. 

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

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

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

management plans. 

C.2 Costs to Implement CCP 

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

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

services, construction, and the like. Recurring costs reflect the future operational and maintenance 

costs associated with the project. Costs have been summarized by their association with either public 

use programs, or wildlife and habitat management. All costs were calculated in 2011. 

C.2.1 One-time and Recurring Costs for Current and Future Management 

Some projects, programs, and maintenance will occur under current and future management. These 

costs are already covered by the current Refuge budget and are included in the tables below. The 

current funding that is received by the Refuge was used as a baseline to start from for future 

management. Some of the programs and projects paid for by this funding are listed below. 

The 2011 budget for nonstaff costs was approximately $204,700. Examples of projects, programs, 

and maintenance that are covered by this budget include the following: 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

C-2 Appendix C. Implementation 

 Current maintenance of existing trails 

 Current maintenance of existing observation facilities 

 Current maintenance of existing buildings 

 Permitting for bass tournaments 

 Current hunting programs on Lake Lowell and Snake River Islands Units (including youth 

waterfowl hunt) 

 Maintenance of existing signage 

 Maintenance of the Lower Dam Recreation Area (if Canyon County partnership continues) 

 Winter wildlife closures of Gotts Point, Lake Lowell, and the Lower Dam Recreation Area. 

 Current wildlife and administrative closures on the southeast end, the northwest end, and 

around the shop complex 

 Seasonal closures around current eagle and osprey nests 

 Partnership with Idaho Department of Fish and Game for carp removal 

 Invasive species control at current acreage 

 One volunteer recognition event per year 

 Current volunteer projects 

 Current events 

 Utilities for existing facilities 

Some programs, projects, and maintenance that are currently paid for by the operational budget of the 

Refuge will be reduced to increase alternative programs without an increase in cost. 

Environmental Education versus Interpretation. For future management, on-site interpretive 

programs will be emphasized over traditional environmental education (EE) programs. These 

interpretive programs could include guided walks, on-water kayak/canoe trips, and guided walks at 

night or into closed areas. In these programs, Refuge staff and volunteers will aim to interact with 

visitors at high-use access points to increase awareness of the Refuge and its wildlife and habitats. In 

order to provide an increase in interpretive programs, the EE program (especially from April 15 

through September 30) will need to be reduced. Scout Days, day camps, off-site programs, and the 

on-site Discover Wildlife Journeys program may be reduced or restructured in order to allow enough 

staff and volunteer time to provide for increased on-site interpretation. By shifting focus from EE to 

interpretation, no extra cost is anticipated for the increase in interpretive programs. 

The following descriptions summarize the costs that will be required for future management per area 

above and beyond the current base operations budget. 

C.2.2 New One-time Costs Related to Public Use 

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

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

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

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

positions and operational costs are reflected in operational or recurring costs. Funds for one-time 

costs will be sought through increases in Refuge base funding, special project funds, grants, and the 

like. The majority of new one-time costs are associated with the upgrade and enhancement of 

facilities, signage, and programs for the visiting public. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix C. Implementation C-3 

Boardwalk. A trail on the south side of the Refuge was suggested by several members of the public 

during the scoping phase of the CCP’s development. Any ground-level trail will be inundated by 

irrigation water for much of the winter, spring, and fall, which will cause major maintenance issues 

and likely result in the trail being unavailable to Refuge visitors. Because of these issues, any trail in 

the riparian zone on the south side of the Refuge will need to be elevated. Cost projections were 

made based on engineering cost estimates and previously constructed boardwalks. Due to the 

projected cost for the 2-mile boardwalk between Parking Lots 1 and 3, it was not proposed for future 

management. Instead, a trail will be evaluated to determine if a lower cost option is available. 

New Trails and Signage. Because current management takes into account public use at its current 

trajectory, some trail upgrades will need to occur. There are currently no trailheads or maps 

designating trails. This has led to confusion over the distinction between trails and firebreaks. 

Visitors currently use a firebreak by the Refuge entrance as a trail, but other firebreaks were not 

meant to be used as trails. In order to eliminate this confusion, the firebreak that stretches from the 

entrance parking area to the observation blind will be turned into a trail even under current 

management. Signage will also be upgraded to ensure that users know when they are on a designated 

trail and what regulations exist. Because of the multiple-use nature of all trails for current 

management, signs will also be needed to address right-of-way and expected behavior for different 

types of uses. Although no new alterations will be made to increase access for nonwildlife-dependent 

users, alterations to the current horse walk-through will need to be made to ensure the safety of 

riders. Confusion about on- and off-trail uses has existed for many years. Although the last 

compatibility determination requires on-trail travel, most visitors are unaware of this regulation. 

Costs associated with a varying number of regulatory signage for trail use are also needed . Costs for 

both interpretive and regulation signs have been accounted for. 

Changes to public use within the hunt areas, as well as a current need to improve safety along the 

Lake Lowell Unit boundary, will also require new signs in the hunt area. These signs will remind 

hunters not to fire over or toward the Refuge boundary, and remind hunters and other users to be 

aware of each other. 

In an attempt to address scoping comments that took issue with pet feces on the trails, the Refuge 

will require visitors walking pets to pick up their pet’s feces for future management. Given the 

current trajectory of use by visitors with pets, and the complaints that the Refuge has already 

received, the Refuge will supply feces removal bags under current management and future 

management. Because pets are allowed in more areas under current management, more bag 

dispensers will be needed. An overview of the costs for new trails and signage is in Table C-1. 

Table C-1. New One-time Costs for New Trails and Signage ($ in thousands) 

New Trails Miles of Trail Cost Priority 

Ground-level trails 4.5 $397 M 

Signs for trails and boardwalk $29 H 

Alterations to allow dogs and horses $1 H 

Hunting area signs $1 H 

Multiuse trail signs $8 H 

Total Cost for Trails and Signs $436 

Dock and Blinds. In order to provide additional opportunities for fishing, wildlife observation, and 

photography, new docks and blinds will be installed at the Refuge for future management. During the 

scoping period, commenters requested additional access to the shoreline for these types of activities. 

Because the Refuge currently does not offer waterfowl hunting opportunities that are accessible to 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

C-4 Appendix C. Implementation 

people with physical disabilities, an ADA-accessible hunting blind will be installed. An overview of 

the number of docks and blinds, as well as the associated costs for current and future management, 

can be found in Table C-2. 

Table C-2. New One-time Costs for New Docks and Blinds ($ in thousands) 

New Docks and Blinds Quantity Cost Priority 

Docks 2 $45 M 

Blinds and signage 2 $123 L 

Accessible hunting dock 1 $25 H 

Total for Docks and Blinds $193 

Kiosks. Many visitors to Lake Lowell do not know that they are visiting a national wildlife refuge. In 

an attempt to address this concern, the Refuge will install kiosks at high-use areas of the Lake Lowell 

Unit and add one additional kiosk at a boat ramp along the Snake River. Both kiosk construction and 

interpretive signage were accounted for in the cost analysis (see Table C-3). 

Table C-3. New One-time Costs for New Kiosks and Associated Signage ($ in thousands) 

New Kiosks Quantity Cost Priority 

Kiosks for access points at Lake 

Lowell and Snake River Islands Units 5 $207 M 

Signs for new kiosks 42 $55 M 

Total for Kiosks $262 

Environmental Education (EE) and Interpretation Facilities. The Refuge currently uses the 

Environmental Education Building at the Lower Dam Recreation Area to provide opportunities for 

self-service environmental education activities for groups. Scout groups are the most frequent users 

of this facility. During a recent facilities condition assessment, regional Service staff identified 

cracking in the exterior walls of both the Visitor Center and the Environmental Education Building. 

Regional staff suggested that the Environmental Education Building be tested for structural 

soundness and updated as needed. For future management, this building will be removed or 

renovated to create a visitor contact station to support the increased interpretive programs at the 

Lower Dam Recreation Area. Therefore, an estimated cost for testing and rehabilitation of the 

Environmental Education Building is included for current management. 

Comments during the scoping process identified the lack of visitor knowledge of the Refuge. In order 

to address this issue, a small visitor contact station will be established at the Lower Dam Recreation 

Area. Providing volunteer and staff contact at this high-use area will increase the ability of the 

Refuge to provide information on its purpose and the importance of its wildlife and habitats. The 

contact station should help increase the enjoyment of visitors by providing information about 

recreational opportunities around the Refuge. This contact station could also act as a base of 

operations for the roving interpreters. 

Covered learning facilities will be constructed for future management. These structures will provide 

covered areas to gather schoolchildren during EE programs. Currently, children have no cover from 

weather during the outdoor portions of their field trips. Because field trips are scheduled mostly in 

the spring and fall, weather can reach extremes of intense sunshine and pouring rain. In an attempt to 

give children a dynamic opportunity to experience nature, the Refuge will install a nature play area 

for future management. The cost of this area includes design. See Table C-4 for analysis of the future 

of environmental education and interpretation facilities. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix C. Implementation C-5 

Table C-4. New One-time Costs for EE and Interpretation Facilities ($ in thousands) 

EE and Interpretation Facilities Cost Priority 

2 covered learning facilities $136 L 

Structural evaluation of Visitor Center $25 H 

Update/rehabilitate Visitor Center $425 M 

Structural evaluation and update/rehab of Environmental 

Education Building - H 

Visitor contact station at Lower Dam Recreation Area $480 M 

Nature play area $40 M 

Total EE and Interpretation Facilities $1,106 

Other Facilities. Two new facilities have been suggested for future management. The Lower Dam 

Recreation Area is in need of renovation. It is currently partially paved, and in disrepair. Parking and 

access for boat launches, buildings, and beaches are extremely restricted on busy weekends. A new 

site plan will also be created to improve functionality, traffic flow, and safety at the Lower Dam 

Recreation Area. Until the site plan is completed, the cost of renovation of the Recreation Area is 

unknown. At a minimum, the beach parking area and road leading to it will need to be rehabilitated. 

Table C-5 presents analysis of these facilities. 

Table C-5. New One-time Costs for Other Facilities ($ in thousands) 

Other New Facilities Cost Priority 

1 comfort station and 1 vault toilet $208 L 

Lower Dam Recreation Area redesign site plan $40 H 

Rehabilitation of beach access/parking $50 M 

Total Other New Facilities $298 

Interpretive and Educational Projects. Changes to the general brochure will be required to keep it 

updated. It is anticipated that a new brochure will need to be created to update maps and text. The 

projected cost is listed in Table C-6. 

Table C-6. New One-time Costs for Interpretive and Educational Projects ($ in thousands) 

Interpretive/ Educational Projects Cost Priority 

Wildlife webcam $10 L 

Refuge video $30 L 

General brochure $3 H 

Total for Projects $43 

Wildlife Disturbance Reduction Signs. No-wake zones, closed areas, and/or seasonally closed 

areas are used to reduce disturbance to wildlife and habitats. Signs providing a boundary of the zone 

or area as well as information about why there is a restriction to access will be installed. Given that 

the goose-nesting closure on the islands will continue, and that island signage is limited at this time, a 

cost associated with continuing the current closure is represented under current management. Table 

C-7 shows the costs associated with providing such signage under future management. 

Table C-7. New One-time Costs for Signs Reducing Wildlife Disturbance ($ in thousands) 

Signs Cost Priority 

Seasonal nesting closures at Lake Lowell Unit $1 H 

Seasonal nesting closures on Snake River Islands Unit $11 H 

Wintering goose closure on Leavitt Tract - H 

Total for Signs $12 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

C-6 Appendix C. Implementation 

Wildlife Disturbance Reduction Buoys. The Refuge and Canyon County Sheriff’s Office currently 

deploy approximately 90 to 95 buoys in Lake Lowell to demarcate no-wake zones, closed areas, and 

swimming areas. For future management, these buoys will be reconfigured. The number of buoys 

needed was originally calculated (in the CCP) based on the requirements of the Service Sign Manual. 

This manual requires signage every 0.25 mile. To increase the public’s understanding of the new 

closures, the number of buoys needed was recalculated at one buoy for every 100-150 yards. Table 

C-8 displays the additional cost required to mark no-wake zones and closures (seasonal or 

permanent) every 100-150 yards for future management. 

Table C-8. New One-time Costs for Buoys Reducing Wildlife Disturbance ($ in thousands) 

Wildlife Disturbance Reduction Buoys Cost Priority 

Permanent no-wake zones, closed areas, seasonally closed 

areas, and swimming areas. $18 H 

Total for Buoys $18 

Law Enforcement and Safety. Refuge visitors not following regulations will also be addressed 

through costs identified in the staffing section, but it is important to look at technologies to, that may 

also reduce the likelihood of illegal activity. Remote video cameras and electronic gates at the 

Refuge may decrease illegal activity, increase the likelihood of law enforcement personnel catching 

people engaged in illegal activity, and provide unobstructed use of the Refuge during daylight hours. 

There is a history of illegal activity on the Refuge (see Chapter 5), and these activities are expected to 

continue and perhaps even increase as the population surrounding the Refuge grows. Because of 

current and potential future illegal activities, the cost for technological solutions differs for current 

and future management. 

Table C-9. New One-time Costs for Safety and Law Enforcement Improvements ($ in 

thousands) 

Improved Safety and Law Enforcement Cost Priority 

Cameras $3 L 

Electronic gates $225 H 

Total for Safety $228 

Research and Monitoring Related to Public Use. There are two different types of research and 

monitoring programs related to public use. The first provides feedback on the quality of public use 

opportunities, and the second studies whether or not our public use programs are compatible with 

the Refuge’s purpose. Deer Flat NWR does not have on-site research showing the interaction of 

public use programs and wildlife. In order to study whether our public use programs can be 

provided without substantially impacting wildlife and habitat, disturbance studies must be 

conducted. Many studies will not have large one-time costs associated with them and will be listed 

in the staffing needs section. The studies listed in Table C-10 will be contracted to outside entities.. 

Table C-11 summarizes the one-time costs needed to provide public uses at Deer Flat NWR. 

Table C-10. New One-time Costs for Public Use Surveys and Research ($ in thousands) 

Public Use Survey and Research Needs Cost Priority 

Study to assess disturbance to grebes, shorebirds, herons 

and landbirds at Lake Lowell (2-year study) $140 H 

Quality of wildlife-dependent public uses $75-$80 M 

Total for Research and Monitoring $215-$220 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix C. Implementation C-7 

Table C-11. Summary of New One-time Costs Related to Public Use ($ in thousands) 

Public Use Improvements One-time Cost 

Providing Recreation While Minimizing Impacts to Wildlife and Habitats 

Buoys $18 

Signs $12 

Subtotal $30 

Public Use Enhancements 

Boardwalk - 

Trails and signs $436 

Docks and blinds $193 

Kiosks $262 

Environmental education and interpretation facilities $1,106 

Other new facilities $298 

Environmental education and interpretation projects $43 

Subtotal $2,338 

Establish a Fee Program 

Subtotal $0 

Enhance Safety and Law Enforcement 

Technology $228 

Subtotal $228 

Studies, Research, and Monitoring Related to Public Uses 

Human-wildlife interaction $140 

Quality of recreation $75-$80 

Subtotal $215-$220 

Total Public-use-related One-time Costs $2,811-$2,816

C.2.3 New One-time Costs for Wildlife and Habitat Management 

Habitat management can be achieved in a variety of ways, which makes estimating costs for 

individual projects difficult before a habitat management plan has been created. For example, the 

treatment of invasive species can be accomplished chemically (with herbicides), mechanically (e.g., 

mowing, discing, chipping), through the use of fire or goats, or by hand. Each of these different 

treatments requires different equipment and staffing to achieve. Because of the variety of ways that 

management can be accomplished, the costs listed in all of the tables below are estimates that will be 

refined as projects are planned and implemented. 

Mudflats. Additional areas of mudflats will be created adjacent to current mudflats by removing 

vegetation removal through discing, burning, and or other mechanical control methods. Mudflats will 

be enhanced by using a disc to create scours to hold pools of water. The projects will occur within 

the life of the CCP. 

Table C-12. New One-time Costs for Mudflat-related Projects ($ in thousands) 

Project Acres Cost Priority 

Create and enhance mudflats 5-25 $1-$6 L 

Total 5-25 $1-$6 

Riparian Areas at Lake Lowell. Riparian zone fragmentation will be reduced by relocating 

firebreaks to coincide with Board of Control drainage and canals. The riparian areas will also be 

enhanced and maintained by reducing nondesirable plants and hazardous fuels, planting desirable 

trees, shrubs and grasses (to replace nondesirables); and enhancing nesting habitat. Because the 

enhancements can be attained through numerous means (e.g., prescribed fire, herbicide, mechanical 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

C-8 Appendix C. Implementation 

removal), costs will differ depending on which tools are used. The estimates below reflect some of 

the most expensive methods in order to capture the highest estimated costs. 

Table C-13. New One-time Costs for Lake Lowell Riparian Projects ($ in thousands) 

Project Acres Cost Priority 

Remove undesirable vegetation 1,200 $210 H 

Plant desirable vegetation 10-15 $5-$7 H 

Relocate fire breaks 100 $18 M 

Total $233-$235 

Riparian Areas at Snake River Islands. The size of the islands in the Snake River Islands Unit 

varies from 1 to 40 acres. Because the prioritization of island enhancement and protection will occur 

after the CCP is completed, an average size of 20 acres was used to create the cost estimates in Table 

C-14. The same theory was used for fencing islands and adjacent lands. An average shoreline size 

was established and used to create the cost estimates. The projects will occur over 15 years. 

Table C-14. New One-time Costs for Snake River Islands Riparian Projects ($ in 

thousands) 

Project Number of Islands Cost Priority 

Remove undesirable vegetation and plant 

desirable vegetation 2-10 $60-$300 H 

Reduce cattle trespass 2-10 $6-$30 M 

Total 2-10 $66-$330 

Wetlands. Emergent wetlands will be enhanced by removing undesirable vegetation, planting 

desirable vegetation, and recontouring. Because some of these enhancements can be achieved using 

various tools (e.g., prescribed fire, herbicide, mechanical removal), the costs will differ depending on 

the tools that are utilized. The estimates below used some of the most expensive methods in order to 

capture the highest estimated costs. The projects will occur throughout the life of the CCP. 

Table C-15. New One-time Costs for Wetlands Projects ($ in thousands) 

Project Acres Cost Priority 

Remove undesirable vegetation 82 $18 M 

Plant desirable vegetation 82 $25 M 

Re-contour wetlands 82 $7 L 

Total 82 $50 

Shrub-steppe Habitat at Lake Lowell. Shrub-steppe habitat will be enhanced by removing 

undesirable vegetation, planting desirable vegetation, and removing unnecessary internal firebreaks. 

Because some of these enhancement goals can be attained through numerous means (e.g., prescribed 

fire, herbicide, mechanical removal), the actual costs of enhancement will differ depending on the 

tools that are utilized. The estimates below used some of the most expensive methods in order to 

capture the highest estimated costs. The projects will occur throughout the life of the CCP. 

Table C-16. New One-time Costs for Lake Lowell Shrub-Steppe Projects ($ in thousands) 

Project Acres Cost Priority 

Remove undesirable vegetation 300 $38 H 

Plant desirable vegetation 150 $36 H 

Remove unnecessary internal firebreaks 4 $1 M 

Total $75 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix C. Implementation C-9 

Shrub-steppe Habitat at Snake River Islands. The size of the islands within the Snake River 

Islands Unit varies from 1 acre to 40 acres. Because the prioritization of island enhancement and 

protection will occur after the CCP is completed, an average size of 20 acres was used to create the 

cost estimates in Table C-17. The projects will occur over the life of the CCP. 

Shrub-steppe habitat will be enhanced through removal of undesirable vegetation, planting of 

desirable vegetation, and removal of unnecessary internal firebreaks. Because some of these 

enhancement goals can be attained through numerous means (e.g., prescribed fire, herbicide, 

mechanical removal), the actual costs of enhancement will differ depending on the tools that are 

utilized. The estimates below used some of the most expensive methods in order to capture the 

highest estimated costs. The projects will occur throughout the life of the CCP. 

Table C-17. New One-time Costs for Snake River Islands Shrub-steppe Projects ($ in 

thousands) 

Project Acres Cost Priority 

Remove undesirable vegetation 40-200 $14-$70 H 

Plant desirable vegetation 40-200 $60-$300 H 

Total 40-200 $74-$370 

Agriculture. Enhancement of the agricultural program will occur through installation of a new well, 

creating better growing conditions. 

Table C-18. New One-time Costs for Agricultural Projects ($ in thousands) 

Project Cost Priority 

Install well $80-$100 L 

Grasslands. Maintenance of the goose browse in the Leavitt Tract will occur by updating the 

irrigation system and reestablishing goose pasture. Efficient and effective irrigation is also part of the 

cooperative land management program at Lake Lowell Unit. In order to provide an adequate amount 

of water to the Refuge’s managed grasslands, the irrigation system will need to be improved. 

Table C-19. New One-time Costs for Grasslands Projects ($ in thousands) 

Project Acres Cost Priority 

Update irrigation $12 M 

Interseed grass 80 $48 M 

Total $60 

Research, Surveys, and Assessments of Wildlife and Habitat. Table C-20 provides costs for 

research, surveys, and assessments that will be contracted. It is important to understand the baseline 

structure of habitats and wildlife so that future changes can be monitored. 

Table C-20. New One-time Costs for Surveys and Research ($ in thousands) 

Public Use Survey and Research Needs Cost Priority 

Prioritization of Refuge islands for wildlife value $30 H 

Analyze historic biological data to assess long-term population trends $30 M 

Contaminants study of DDT in Lake Lowell $250 M 

Contaminants investigation of Leavitt Tract $200 M 

Mule deer study at Lake Lowell Unit (3-year vegetation and population study) $60 M 

Mule deer study at Snake River Islands Unit (3-year vegetation and population study) $80 M 

Cheatgrass removal study (4 years of study and monitoring) $110 H 

Soil survey of shrub-steppe and GIS layer $40 M 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

C-10 Appendix C. Implementation 

Public Use Survey and Research Needs Cost Priority 

Surveys of wetland topography $20 M 

Total for Research and Monitoring $820 

Table C-21 summarizes the one-time costs that are needed to provide wildlife and habitat 

management at both Refuge units. 

Table C-21. Summary of New One-time Costs for Wildlife and Habitat Management ($ in 

thousands) 

Actions Costs 

Enhance Habitat 

Mudflats $1-6 

Riparian at Lake Lowell $233-$235 

Riparian at Snake River Islands $66-$330 

Wetlands $50 

Shrub-steppe at Lake Lowell $75 

Shrub-steppe at Snake River Islands $74-$370 

Agriculture $80-$100 

Grasslands $60 

Subtotal $639-$1,226 

Studies, Research, and Monitoring 

Wildlife and habitat research $820 

Subtotal $820 

Total Wildlife and Habitat Management One-time Costs $1,459-$2,046 

C.2.4 Summary of One-time Costs 

Table C-22. Summary of One-time Costs ($ in thousands) 

Cost Category Cost Per Year 

Public use $2,798-$2,803 

Wildlife and habitat $1,459-$2,046 

Total One-time Costs $4,257-$4,849 

C.2.5 Nonstaff Recurring Costs Related to Public Use 

Facilities: Trails, Boardwalk, Kiosks, Blinds, Environmental Education and Interpretation 

Facilities, and Other Facilities (costs for maintaining docks are discussed under Buoys, Docks, 

and Signs). With new trails, signs, and other public use facilities comes an increase in associated 

maintenance and operations. The following are estimated maintenance costs per year for the new trails. 

In Fiscal Year (FY) 2011, approximately $28,000 was spent on maintaining Refuge buildings. It is 

estimated that $10,000 per year is spent to maintain the current trail system (including herbicide 

treatment, grading, and adding gravel), the observation blind, and platforms. Special maintenance 

projects in 2011 on the Kingfisher Trail and the observation blind cost the Refuge an additional 

$10,000. These expenditures were used as a baseline to estimate new funding needs for the 

maintenance of new facilities. If the visitor contact station replaces the Environmental Education 

Building, the cost of building maintenance should not rise. 

The Refuge currently pays for waste removal in the Gotts Point and Upper Dam Recreation Area 

vault toilets. These vault toilets are currently only pumped, on average, once every two years. 

Visitors have complained about the condition of restrooms, which may be alleviated, in part, by 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix C. Implementation C-11 

monthly pumping. Therefore, monthly pumping, from April through September, has been 

factored into current and future management. The Canyon County Parks, Recreation, and 

Waterways Department maintains the vault toilets in the Lower Dam Recreation Area. If Canyon 

County decides not to continue maintenance at the Lower Dam Recreation Area, the Refuge 

would have to fund restroom maintenance. 

Table C-23. New Recurring Costs for Facilities ($ in thousands) 

Facilities Timing Cost Priority 

Utilities Every year $2 M 

Restroom maintenance Every year $3 L 

Other facilities maintenance Every year $4 M 

Dog feces disposal bags Every year $1 H 

Total Every year $10 

Buoys, Docks and Signs. Due to vandalism, theft, and regular use, some of the Refuge’s signs and buoys 

will have to be replaced annually. It was estimated that 25 percent of the regulation and directional signs 

will need to be replaced yearly, and half of the interpretive signs will need to be replaced during the life of 

the CCP. According to the Canyon County Sheriff’s office, between $10,000 and $20,000 per year is 

spent on maintaining the boat launching docks and buoys on the Refuge. The additional funds needed to 

maintain new buoys and docks were estimated based on an average annual maintenance cost of $15,000 

for the six docks that are currently maintained by Canyon County. Two other docks are maintained by the 

Refuge using the Refuge’s base funding. The funding needed to maintain the current docks will increase 

if Canyon County discontinues their maintenance. Table C-24 captures this cost. 

Table C-24. New Recurring Costs for Buoys, Docks, and Signs ($ in thousands) 

Buoys, Docks, and Signs Timing Cost Priority 

Buoy and dock maintenance Every year $7 H 

Replace 25% of regulatory and directional signs Every year $5 H 

Replace 50% of interpretive signs Every 10 years $56 M 

Total Every year $12 

Total Every 10 years $56 

Environmental Education and Interpretation Projects. Many of the current recurring costs are 

above and beyond the Refuge’s base budget because they have been funded by grants. The grants 

may not always be available, so these costs must be accounted for in recurring costs to maintain the 

program. Costs include but are not restricted to printing of materials, equipment, volunteer awards, 

scholarships for buses, and presenter costs. 

Table C-25. Recurring Costs for New Environmental Education and Interpretation 

Projects ($ in thousands) 

Project Timing Cost Priority 

Teach the teacher Every year $1 M 

EE program Every year $4 M 

Volunteers Every year $1 H 

On-site events Every year $2 H 

Webcam Every year $1 L 

Brochure reprint Every 3 years $3 H 

Total Every year $9 

Total Every 3 years $3 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

C-12 Appendix C. Implementation 

Table C-26 summarizes the recurring costs that are needed to provide public uses at Deer Flat NWR. 

Table C-26. Summary of New Recurring Costs Related to Public Use ($ in thousands) 

Public Use Recurring Costs Timing Cost 

Buildings and trail maintenance Every year $10 

Signs, docks and buoy, maintenance Every year $12 

Environmental education, volunteers, and interpretation Every year $9 

Brochures Every 3 years $3 

Interpretive signs Every 10 years $56 

Total Every year $31 

Total Every 3 years $3 

Total Every 10 years $56 

C.2.6 Nonstaff Recurring Costs Related to Wildlife and Habitat Management 

As explained in Section C.2.3 New One-time Costs for Wildlife and Habitat Management, habitat 

management can be achieved in a variety of ways, which makes estimating costs difficult before a 

habitat management plan has been created. The costs listed below are estimates based on the most 

expensive method of treatment. Because the most expensive method of treatment was used to 

estimate cost, the actual cost of implementation should be lower. These costs will be refined as 

projects are planned and implemented. 

Emergent Beds. Enhancement of emergent habitat will occur through soil disturbance, invasive 

species control, and the seeding/planting of moist soil plants. These efforts are above and beyond 

invasive species control that is currently occurring. 

Table C-27. New Recurring Costs for Emergent-bed Habitat Projects ($ in thousands) 

Project Timing Acres Cost Priority 

Maintain and enhance emergent beds Every year 20 $4 H 

Total Every year 20 $4 

Shrub-steppe Habitat at Lake Lowell. Shrub-steppe habitat will be maintained through removal of 

undesirable vegetation in areas that have been restored. The cost estimated below will not be realized 

until after an area has been rehabilitated. The cost estimate is based on having to use herbicide to 

control nondesirable species on 25 percent of the total restored acreage each year. The per-year 

estimate will be excessive because the entire 300 acres will not be restored within the first year. 

Table C-28. New Recurring Costs for Lake Lowell Shrub-steppe Projects ($ in thousands) 

Project Timing Acres Cost Priority 

Remove undesirable vegetation Every year 75 $23 H 

Total Every year 75 $23 

Shrub-steppe Habitat at Snake River Islands. Shrub-steppe habitat will be maintained in restored 

areas by removing undesirable vegetation. The cost estimated will not be realized until an area is 

rehabilitated. The cost estimate is based on using herbicide to control nondesirable species on 25 

percent of the total restored acreage each year. The per-year estimate is excessive because the entire 

40-200 acres will not be restored in the first year. Costs per acre are more expensive for shrub-steppe 

maintenance on the islands because of the logistical challenges in bringing herbicide to the islands. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix C. Implementation C-13 

Table C-29. New Recurring Costs for Snake River Islands Shrub-steppe Habitat Projects 

($ in thousands) 

Project Timing Acres Cost Priority 

Remove undesirable vegetation Every year 10-50 $4-$18 H 

 

Agriculture. Enhancement of the agricultural program will include annually planting crops along the 

lake’s shoreline. Because the cost of the new plantings will vary depending on the type of crop, the 

most expensive crops were used for the estimate in order to capture the highest estimated cost. 

Table C-30. New Recurring Costs for Agricultural Projects ($ in thousands) 

Project Timing Acres Cost Priority 

Plant crops on shoreline Every year 25 $7 L 

Total Every year 25 $7 

Grasslands. Maintenance of desirable short grasses for goose browse in the Leavitt Tract will occur 

through the use of prescribed fire, herbicide, and/or mechanical control. The actual costs of 

maintenance will differ depending on the tools that are utilized. The estimates below used some of 

the most expensive methods in order to capture the highest estimated costs. These projects will occur 

throughout the life of the CCP. 

Table C-31. New Recurring Costs for Grasslands Projects ($ in thousands) 

Project Timing Acres Cost Priority 

Manage short grasses Every year 80 $12 M 

Total Every year 80 $12 

Table C-32 summarizes recurring costs needed to implement wildlife and habitat maintenance 

projects at Deer Flat NWR. 

Table C-32. Summary of New Recurring Costs for Wildlife and Habitat Management ($ in 

thousands) 

Projects Maintaining Wildlife Habitats Timing Cost 

Emergent beds Every year $4 

Shrub-steppe at Lake Lowell Unit Every year $23 

Shrub-steppe at Snake River Islands Unit Every year $4-$18 

Agriculture Every year $7 

Grasslands Every year $12 

Total Every year $50-$64 

C.2.7 Summary of All Recurring Costs 

Table C-33. Summary of Recurring Costs ($ in thousands) 

Recurring Costs Timing Cost 

Public use Every year $31 

Public use Every 3 years $3 

Public use Every 10 years $56 

Wildlife and habitat Every year $50-$64 

Total Every year $81-$95 

Total Every 3 years $3 

Total Every 10 years $56 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

C-14 Appendix C. Implementation 

C.2.8 Staffing Costs 

Table C-34. Current Permanent Staffing ($ in thousands) 

Staff: Refuge Operations Status Series, Position, and Grade 

Refuge Manager PFT GS-0485-12 

Assistant Refuge Manager PFT GS-0485-11 

Visitor Services Manager PFT GS-0025-11 

Wildlife Biologist PFT GS-0486-09 

Maintenance Worker PFT (vacant) WG-4749-08 

Administrative Assistant PFT (vacant) WG-0303-06 

Total Positions and Salary 6 $448 

Table C-35. Current Temporary Staffing ($ in thousands) 

Staff: Refuge Operations Status Series, Position, and Grade 

Office Aide STEP GS-0303-4 

Youth Conservation Corps Leader TEMP GS-0186-05 

Youth Conservation Corps TEMP Minimum wage 

Youth Conservation Corps TEMP Minimum wage 

Youth Conservation Corps TEMP Minimum wage 

Youth Conservation Corps TEMP Minimum wage 

Total Positions and Salary 6 $47 

Table C-36. Current Operations Funded Interns ($ in thousands) 

Interns Status Series, Position, and Grade 

Environmental Education Specialist TERM Intern 

Volunteer Coordinator TERM Intern 

Biological Science Technician SEASONAL Intern 

Total Positions and Salary 3 $30 

Table C-37. Additional Staff Needed to Implement CCP ($ in thousands) 

Staff: Refuge Operations Status Series, Position, and Grade 

*Biological Science Technician PFT GS-0400-07 

*Environmental Education Specialist PFT GS-1750-07 

*Volunteer Coordinator PFT GS-0025-07 

Law Enforcement Officer PFT GS-0025-09 

Total Positions and Salary 4 $217 

*If these positions were funded, the current interns will not be necessary. 

C.3 Step-down Plans 

The CCP is one of several plans necessary for Refuge management. The CCP provides guidance in 

the form of goals, objectives, and strategies for several 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 of the CCP’s completion. All step-down plans require 

appropriate National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance, and implementation may 

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

appropriate NEPA compliance, may be prepared outside of these step-down plans. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix C. Implementation C-15 

Table C-38. Status of Step-down Plans 

Step-down Plans Status 

Safety Plan Revised 2012 

Integrated Pest Management Plan Created 2012, included as CCP Appendix G 

Fire Management Plan Revised 2012, included as CCP Appendix K 

Habitat Management Plan Within 2 years of CCP completion 

Visitor Services Plan Within 5 years of CCP completion 

Fisheries Management Plan Within 5 years of CCP completion 

Inventory and Monitoring Plan Within 2 years of CCP completion 

Hunt Plan(s) for new hunts Within 3 years of CCP completion 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

C-16 Appendix C. Implementation 

Document continues on next page. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix D. Wilderness Review D-1

Appendix D. Wilderness Review 

D.1 Introduction 

The Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) comprises two units, the 10,500-acre Lake Lowell 

Unit, which includes the 9,000-acre Lake Lowell, and the Snake River Island Unit, which comprises 

104 islands totaling about 1,060 acres (as calculated using GIS). The islands stretch along the Snake 

River for 113 river miles in Idaho and Oregon. 

The Lake Lowell Unit supports several habitat types including riparian forest, shrub-steppe, and 

managed agricultural lands. Lake Lowell itself is an irrigation project managed by the Bureau of 

Reclamation, which operates the lake’s water for agricultural purposes; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service) manages the surface uses. The Snake River islands also support riparian and shrubsteppe/grassland habitats. Both units of the Refuge receive substantial and varied public use, while 

the islands are further influenced by river traffic, including all types of recreational boating. 

D.2 Policy and Direction for Wilderness Reviews 

Service policy (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 re-evaluation of Refuge 

lands existing during the initial 10-year review period of the Wilderness Act of 1964, as amended (16 

U.S. Code [U.S.C.] 1131-1136), as well as new lands and waters added to the National Wildlife 

Refuge System (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). 

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

lands and waters to U.S. Congress for wilderness designation. The wilderness review process 

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

D.2.1 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. 

D.2.2 Wilderness Study 

During the study phase, WSAs are further analyzed 

 For all ecological, recreational, cultural, economic, and symbolic values; 

 For all resources, including wildlife, vegetation, water, minerals, and soils; 

 For existing and proposed public uses; 

 For existing and proposed refuge management activities within the area; and 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

D-2 Appendix D. Wilderness Review 

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

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

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

urbanization, public uses, and safety. 

We evaluate at least an All Wilderness Alternative and a No Wilderness Alternative for each WSA to 

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

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

designation. We may also develop Partial Wilderness Alternatives that evaluate the benefits and 

impacts of managing portions of a WSA as wilderness. 

In the alternatives, we evaluate: 

 The benefits and impacts to wilderness values and other resources; 

 How each alternative will achieve the purposes of the Wilderness Act and the NWRS; 

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

contribution toward achieving the Refuge System mission; 

 How each alternative will affect maintenance and, where appropriate, restoration of 

biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health at various landscape scales; 

 Other legal and policy mandates; and 

 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 Section 4(c) prohibited uses. 

D.2.3 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 the Interior to the President of United States, and ultimately to the U.S. 

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

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

management direction in the final CCP [comprehensive conservation plan] until Congress makes a 

decision on the area or we amended the CCP to modify or remove the wilderness recommendation” 

(610 FW 4.22 B). 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 [National Environmental Policy Act]” 

(610 FW 3.13). 

The following constitutes the inventory phase of the wilderness review for Deer Flat National 

Wildlife Refuge. 

D.3 Previous Wilderness Review 

On June 21, 1972, the Director of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife sent a cover memo, 

draft wilderness study report, and mock-up brochure with a map to the Assistant Secretary of Fish, 

Wildlife, and Parks. The memo states that, with the Assistant Secretary’s concurrence, the Bureau 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix D. Wilderness Review D-3

would conduct a public hearing recommending that 68 islands, constituting approximately 734 acres 

within the Snake River Unit of the Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge, qualify for wilderness 

designation within the National Wilderness Preservation System. (At the time the memo was written, 

the Snake River Islands Unit included 73 islands along 110 miles of the lower Snake River.) The 

Assistant Secretary signed his concurrence on June 21, 1972. 

The draft wilderness study report, titled “Snake River Islands Wilderness Proposal, Snake River 

Unit, Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge, Idaho-Oregon,” states: 

This report was prepared pursuant to the Wilderness Act, Public Law 88-577. Publication of 

the findings and recommendation herein should not be construed as representing either the 

approval or disapproval of the Secretary of the Interior. The purpose of this report is to 

provide information and alternatives for further consideration by the Bureau of Sport 

Fisheries and Wildlife, Secretary of the Interior, and other Federal agencies. 

The draft wilderness study report states in its conclusion: 

These refuge islands are mostly undeveloped and appear to be largely unaffected by man’s 

works. However, the bordering riverbanks and adjacent lands are developed and intensively 

cultivated. Few islands are out of sight of some sort of man-made disturbance. Developments 

include irrigation pumping stations, power lines, towns, bridges, industrial plants, farm 

buildings and feed lots which in many cases extend to the water’s edge. Since the river is 

relatively narrow with many of the islands in close proximity to the shore, man’s presence is 

clearly visible and his activity can be heard from nearly every island in the complex. Hence 

the opportunity for solitude is diminished, yet the value of these islands as wilderness is not 

invalidated by sights and sounds from outside the proposed wilderness. Rather the value of 

these islands is commensurately enhanced by their mere existence amidst an area where man 

and his works dominate the landscape. Therefore, 68 islands containing approximately 734 

acres in the Snake River Unit of the Refuge are considered suitable for inclusion in the 

National Wilderness Preservation System. 

Now, more than 16 years later, during the December 2008 preplanning phase of the Deer Flat 

National Wildlife Refuge CCP, the Service conducted a wilderness review of Refuge lands at Deer 

Flat, both the Lake Lowell and Snake River Units, including re-evaluating the findings and 

conclusions of the 1972 draft wilderness study report. 

D.4 Lands Considered Under This Wilderness Review 

All Service-owned lands and waters within the Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge approved 

boundary were considered during this review of potential wilderness areas. For purposes of the 

review, the Refuge’s two units are analyzed separately: (1) the Lake Lowell Unit and (2) the Snake 

River Unit, including 104 islands (1,200 acres) along 113 river miles from the Canyon-Ada County 

line, Idaho, to Farewell Bend, Oregon. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

D-4 Appendix D. Wilderness Review 

D.5 Wilderness Inventory 

D.5.1 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 

Wilderness 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. 

 Generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of 

man’s work substantially unnoticeable; 

 Has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; 

 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 

 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 Wilderness Act as (1) a roadless area of 5,000 

contiguous acres or more, or (2) a roadless island. “Roadless” is defined as the absence of improved 

roads suitable and maintained for public travel by means of four-wheeled, motorized vehicles that are 

intended for highway use. 

D.5.2 Process of Analysis 

The following evaluation process was used in identifying the suitability of Refuge units for 

wilderness designation: 

 Determination of Refuge unit sizes; 

 Assessment of the units’ capacity to provide opportunities for solitude or primitive and 

unconfined recreation; and 

 Assessment of “naturalness” of Refuge units. 

More detail on the actual factors considered and used for each assessment step follows. 

D.5.2.1 Unit Size 

Roadless areas meet the size criteria if any one of the following standards applies: 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix D. Wilderness Review D-5

 An area with over 5,000 contiguous acres solely in the Service’s 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. 

D.5.2.2 Outstanding Solitude or Primitive or Unconfined Recreation 

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

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

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

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

to qualify under these criteria. 

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

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

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

Primitive recreation activities may provide opportunities to experience challenge and risk, selfreliance, and adventure. 

D.5.2.3 Naturalness and Wildness 

The naturalness and wildness criterion states that the area must generally appear 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 nonnative 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, and (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 must 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 that are being evaluated as potential wilderness. Ecological systems have 

three primary attributes—composition, structure, and function. Composition refers to the components 

that make up an ecosystem, such as the habitat types, native species of plants and animals, and 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

D-6 Appendix D. Wilderness Review 

abiotic (physical and chemical) features. These contribute to the diversity of the area. Structure is the 

spatial arrangement of the components that contributes to the complexity of the area. Composition 

and structure are evaluated to determine the naturalness of the area. Function refers to 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, wind storms, 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 human-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 are relatively unobtrusive on the 

landscape. 

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

process include: 

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

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

Nonnative and invasive species should constitute a negligible portion of the landscape. 

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

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

provide avenues for plant and wildlife dispersal. 

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

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

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

 Due to their size, islands may not meet the habitat guidelines in the first two points above. 

Islands should, however, exhibit the natural cover type with which they evolved, and should 

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. 

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

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

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

recommendation to the Secretary of the Interior. 

D.5.2.4 Supplemental Values 

The Wilderness Act states that an area of wilderness may contain ecological, geological, or other 

features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value. Supplemental values of the area are 

optional, but the degree to which their presence enhances the area’s suitability for wilderness 

designation should be considered. The evaluation should be based on an assessment of the estimated 

abundance or importance of each of the features.
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix D. Wilderness Review D-7

D.6 Inventory Summary and Conclusion 

Based on this inventory, the Lake Lowell Unit does not meet any of the basic criteria for inclusion in 

the National Wilderness Preservation System. The islands within the Snake River Unit meet the size 

criterion but do not meet the criteria for naturalness and wildness, nor do they provide outstanding 

opportunities for solitude or primitive or unconfined recreation. Based on this summary and 

conclusion, further evaluation of these lands under the wilderness study phase is unwarranted. Table 

D-1 summarizes the evaluation and conclusion for each unit. 

Table D-1. Results of Wilderness Inventory for Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge 

Refuge Unit Lake Lowell Unit Snake River Islands 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 

No Yes 

(2) Naturalness and wildness: generally appears to 

have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, 

with the imprint of man’s work substantially 

unnoticeable 

No No 

(3a) Outstanding opportunities for solitude No No 

(3b) Outstanding opportunities for primitive and 

unconfined recreation No No 

(4) Contains ecological, geological, or other features of 

scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value N/A N/A 

Area qualifies as a wilderness study area (meets 

Criteria 1,2, and 3a, or 3b) No No 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

D-8 Appendix D. Wilderness Review 

Document continues on next page. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern E-1 

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

E.1 Introduction 

Early in the planning process, the planning team cooperatively identified species, species groups, and communities 

of concern for Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge (NWR or Refuge). A comprehensive list of these resources was 

compiled based upon review of numerous plans (see Section 1.8 of the Final Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan/Environmental Impact Statement [CCP/EIS]), many of which highlight priority species or habitats for 

conservation. The comprehensive list of potential resources of concern is contained in Table E-3. In addition, a table 

of species and species groups specifically identified in establishing documents for the Refuge was compiled (Table 

E-1). A complete list of current species known to occur on the Refuge is located in Table E-5. 

The table identifying our comprehensive resources of concern was further culled in developing a more targeted 

assemblage of priority resources of concern. Most of the biological emphasis of the CCP is focused on maintaining 

and restoring these priority resources. Table E-4 contains the priority resources of concern identified for the Refuge. 

Definitions for the column headings in Table E-4 are as follows: 

 Focal Species: Species selected as representatives or indicators for the overall condition of the 

conservation target. In situations where the conservation target may include a broad variety of habitat 

structures and plant associations, several different conservation focal species may be listed. In addition, 

species with specific “niche” ecological requirements may be listed as a focal species. Management will be 

focused on attaining conditions required by the focal species. Other species using the conservation target 

will generally be expected to benefit as a result of management for the focal species. 

 Habitat Type: The general habitat description utilized by the focal species. 

 Habitat Structure: The specific and measurable habitat attributes considered necessary to support the focal species. 

 Life History Requirement: The general season of use for the focal species. 

 Other Benefiting Species: Other species that are expected to benefit from management for the selected 

focal species. The list is not comprehensive; see Table E-3 for the Refuge for a more complete list. 

Table E-1. Summary of Species and Habitats Identified in Refuge Purposes 

Conservation Target 

(species/species group or habitat) 

Supporting Habitat 

Type 

Life History 

Requirement Supporting Documentation 

Migratory birds Open water, mudflats, 

and emergent plant beds 

for the reservoir 

Breeding Executive Order (E.O.) 

BIDEH 1032 (February 25, 

1909) 

Migratory birds and other wildlife Open water, mudflats, 

and emergent plant beds 

for the reservoir 

Breeding and 

wintering 

E.O. 7655 “Establishing Deer 

Flat Migratory Waterfowl 

Refuge, Idaho” (Franklin D. 

Roosevelt; July 12, 1937) 

Migratory birds and other wildlife Island habitats: riparian 

and shrub steppe 

Breeding and 

wintering 

E.O. 7691 “Establishing the 

Snake River Migratory 

Waterfowl Refuge, Idaho” 

(Franklin D. Roosevelt; 

August 17, 1937) 

Waterfowl (ducks and geese): 

migratory feeding/resting areas 

Geese: wintering 

Migration and wintering 

habitat 

Feeding, 

resting, and 

wintering 

Migratory Bird Conservation 

Commission Memorandum 

No. 9 (February 20, 1951) 

Mallard and western Canada geese: 

wintering (500,000-800,000 ducks 

and geese annually; terminus of flight 

from prairie provinces of Canada) 

Marshland for nesting 

and for foraging, 

specifically smartweed 

and dwarfish “tealgrass” 

Food for 

waterfowl 

Migratory Bird Conservation 

Commission Memorandum 

No. 8 (February 15, 1955) 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

E-2 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

E.2 Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health 

Natural Plant and Waterfowl Populations with Natural Processes and 

Limiting Factors 

Table E-2 provides an overview of habitats with the plant communities and animals typically 

associated with that habitat type. Not all of the species presented in this table have been documented 

on Deer Flat NWR. 

Table E-2. Summary of Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health (BIDEH) 

Habitats (plant 

communities 

that represent 

existing BIDEH) 

Population/Habitat Attributes 

(age class, structure, serial stage, 

species composition) 

Natural Processes 

Responsible for These 

Conditions 

Limiting Factors 

Alkaline 

wetlands

Seasonal; semipermanent; flat basin 

characterized by high annual/seasonal 

variability in water and salinity levels; 

mosaic, ephemeral layers of wet 

grasslands, shrubs, perennial forbs; fine 

sandy loam/silt loam alkaline soils.

Layers of vegetation include 

 Reed, sedge, rush spp., Sandberg’s 

bluegrass, Nevada bluegrass, redtop, 

common spikerush, inland saltgrass, 

foxtail barley, Nuttall’s alkaligrass, 

alkali sacaton, duckweed, rough 

bugleweed, willowherb, alkali 

mallow, milkweed spp., sumpweed, 

and common cattail; and 

 Sand dropseed, beardless wildrye, 

mugwort, western wheatgrass, 

greasewood spp., yarrow, gray/green 

rabbitbrush, and golden currant. 

Potential conservation species: 

migrating, wintering, breeding 

waterfowl species, American avocet, 

Wilson’s phalarope, dunlin, 

sandpiper, green-backed heron, longbilled curlew, killdeer, black-necked 

stilt, snowy egret, peregrine falcon, 

northern harrier, sandhill crane, 

mallard, and Great Basin spadefoot 

toad. 

Seasonal and annual 

levels of precipitation 

and water levels; 

low/flat land areas 

developed with 

intermittent natural 

springs. Seasonal 

drying with poorly 

drained soils. 

Broad natural channel 

basin area possibly 

formed from glacial 

flood drainage. 

Currently nonexistent; 

Lake Lowell reservoir 

created in 1906 by 

damming three low areas 

in a natural broad channel 

of Deer Flat region. 

Altered hydrology. 

 

Shrub-steppe Semiarid; characterized by three layers 

of vegetation: 

 Dominant sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) 

<2 m including bitterbrush, fourwing 

saltbush, gray/green rabbitbrush, 

greasewood, spiny horsebrush, and 

spiny hopsage;

Periodic fire; shallow 

well-drained soils. 

Loss of perennial grasses; 

invasive species 

encroachment including 

cheatgrass, Canada thistle, 

broadleaved pepperweed, 

hoary cress, rush 

skeletonweed, jointed 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern E-3 

Habitats (plant 

communities 

that represent 

existing BIDEH) 

Population/Habitat Attributes 

(age class, structure, serial stage, 

species composition) 

Natural Processes 

Responsible for These 

Conditions 

Limiting Factors 

 Understory of native bunch grasses 

and forbs including bluebunch 

wheatgrass, Indian ricegrass, 

squirreltail bottlebrush, steppe 

bluebunch, Idaho fescue, Great Basin 

wildrye, Sandberg’s bluegrass, 

perennial bunchgrasses, perennial 

and annual herbs, perennial forbs; 

and 

 Microbiotic crust composed of algae, 

lichens, and mosses. 

Potential conservation species: 

peregrine falcon, ferruginous hawk, 

Swainson’s hawk, American kestrel, 

horned lark, grasshopper sparrow, 

meadowlark, loggerhead shrike, 

burrowing owl, northern pygmy-owl, 

pygmy rabbit, western longnose snake, 

black-throated sparrow, sage sparrow, 

sage thrasher, black-collared lizard, 

and southern Idaho ground squirrel. 

goatgrass, Scotch thistle, 

and nonnative grasses. 

Altered fire regime/return 

interval; past grazing/soil 

disturbance; loss of native 

habitat; fragmentation. 

Widespread presence of 

cheatgrass may cause 

unnatural and severe fires 

to sagebrush-steppe 

habitat. 

Emergent 

wetlands 

 Riverine 

 Palustrine 

 Persistent 

 Nonpersistent 

Seasonal; semipermanent; developing 

and varying according to seasonal 

natural spring inflow, river flow, and 

soil texture/ permeability. 

Diversity of hydric vegetation includes 

sedge, rush, reed spp., flatsedge, 

mannagrass, rough bentgrass, bulrush, 

stinging nettle, common cattail, water 

plantain, milkweed spp., smartweed, 

yellowcress, goldenrod, smooth sumac, 

wood’s rose, and peachleaf willow. 

Potential conservation species: 

migrating, wintering, breeding 

waterfowl species, cinnamon teal, 

northern pintail, lesser scaup, Canada 

geese, white pelican, western grebe, 

tundra swan, shorebird species, rednecked phalarope, American bittern, 

long-billed curlew, violet-green 

swallow, marsh wren, snowy egret, and 

northern leopard frog. 

Periodic flooding; 

seasonal 

fluctuations/drying but 

more permanent water 

situation than typical 

seasonal wetlands; 

natural springs. 

Invasive species including 

Russian olive, salt cedar, 

purple loosestrife, poison 

hemlock, Bohemian 

knotweed, Japanese 

knotweed, houndstongue, 

and white bryony. 

Flood depth and duration; 

habitat loss; altered water 

regimes. 

Water quality issues 

include pollution, 

temperature, and 

contaminants. 

Disturbance from public 

uses. 

Trophic bioaccumulation 

of chemical contaminants 

and heavy metals. 

Riverine islands 

 Shrub-scrub

Seasonal;semipermanent; permanent, 

developing, and varying according to 

seasonal river flow. Native canopy and 

shrub layer dominates include poplar, 

willow, sagebrush, rabbitbrush, hawthorn, 

Periodic, seasonal flood 

events; riparian habitat 

connectivity; 

submergent vegetation, 

upland scrub. Spring 

Encroachments of invasive 

plant species include salt 

cedar, Russian olive, poison 

hemlock, cheatgrass, and 

nonnative grasses. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

E-4 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Habitats (plant 

communities 

that represent 

existing BIDEH) 

Population/Habitat Attributes 

(age class, structure, serial stage, 

species composition) 

Natural Processes 

Responsible for These 

Conditions 

Limiting Factors 

wheatgrass, reedgrass, reed, and sedge 

defined by >30% canopy cover of shrubs 

or small trees <6 m (20 feet) high. 

Potential conservation species: bald 

eagle, osprey, white-throated swift, 

Barrow’s goldeneye, bufflehead, whitewinged scoter, western grebe, redbreasted merganser, canyon wren, sage 

thrasher, snowy egret, double-crested 

cormorant, beaver, river otter, Canada 

goose, bank swallow, mourning dove, 

black-crowned night-heron, yellowbreasted chat, green-tailed towhee, white 

pelican, black rosy-finch, gray rosy-finch, 

trumpeter swan, and shining flatsedge.

flows create scours and 

cut new channels that 

isolate islands. 

Pollution; species 

predation. 

Nonfunctioning floodplain; 

dams reduce/alter flood 

events on Snake River; 

altered water/channel 

regimes. 

Past grazing and invasive 

species produce 

competition and soil 

binding; lack of silt 

deposition; loss of habitat. 

Riverine 

channel 

 Lower 

perennial 

Open, generally flowing water; 

potentially supporting rearing 

anadromous fish; supports resident fish, 

affording fish passage throughout 

watershed. 

Potential conservation species: Canada 

goose, tundra swans, American coot, 

osprey, bald eagle, double-crested 

cormorant, pied-billed grebe, western 

grebe, caspian tern, resident fish, white 

sturgeon, and Idaho springsnail. 

Periodic flooding with 

flood energy variable 

depending on location 

of stream/river in 

landscape, perennial 

water flows, open 

water, submergent 

vegetation. 

Agriculture ad open 

pasture; excess nutrients 

and pollutants. 

Contaminants, siltation, 

water quality, and 

increased temperature. 

Altered hydrology; lack of 

adequate flows to maintain 

dynamic river channel 

morphology. 

Encroachment of invasive 

species includes salt cedar 

and Russian olive. 

Encroachment of 

residential and commercial 

development. 

Large flocks of 

migrating/ 

wintering 

waterfowl 

Snake River Islands; Great Basin 

wetlands. 

Potential conservation species: most 

waterfowl species identified in Purpose 

documents and table of potential 

resources of concern. 

Historical, 

predominant, Pacific 

population of western 

Canada geese and 

waterfowl species. 

Riparian habitats of 

river islands, emergent 

wetlands, alkaline 

marsh, and natural 

springs provide 

migratory connectivity; 

regions of critical 

breeding and wintering 

areas. 

Seasonal drawdown of lake 

for agriculture irrigation 

reduces wetland area. 

Damming; manipulated 

river hydrology. 

Lack of periodic fire. 

Residential and 

commercial development 

within floodplain. 

Water quality issues; 

pollution, contaminants; 

increased temperature. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern E-5 

Habitats (plant 

communities 

that represent 

existing BIDEH) 

Population/Habitat Attributes 

(age class, structure, serial stage, 

species composition) 

Natural Processes 

Responsible for These 

Conditions 

Limiting Factors 

Periodic flooding of 

river plain and lowland 

areas naturally provides 

islands of refuge and 

forage. 

Human disturbance from 

recreational activities. 

Table E-3. Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Potential Resources of Concern 

Species/Species 

Groups/Communities 

Refuge PurposesaBiological Diversity, Integrity and Environmental Health Federal T and E SpeciesbPacific Flyway Waterfowl PlancN. American Waterfowl Management Plan (2004)dPartners in Flight Priority WF Spp B

C

Rs 9 and 10e

ID PIF BCRs 9 and 10fIM West Reg. Shorebird Plan and U.S. Shorebird Cons. PlangIM West Reg. Shorebird Plan and BCR 9and10hN. American Waterbird Conservation PlaniIdaho CWCS Species of Greatest Conservation NeedjBLM Sensitive Species TypekBirds of Cons. Concern 2002 (USFWS) BCR 9 and 10lBCC National (Table 48)

m

USFWS Gamebirds Below Desired Condition(GBBDC)Columbia Plateau Ecoregional AssessmentnLandbird Conservation Strategy 2000o

BIRDS *known to nest 

on Refuge

Migrating waterfowl X X X X 

Nesting waterfowl X X X X 

American avocet * 

(Recurvirostra americana) X X 

23

H 5 

G5, 

S5B, 

S3 

X 

American bittern * 

(Botaurus lentiginosus) X X 

19

M 

M10 

American coot * 

(Fulica americana) X X 

American golden plover 

(Pluvialus dominica) X 

American kestrel * 

(Falco sparverius) X X 

American robin * 

(Turdus migratorius) X 

American tree sparrow 

(Spizella arborea) X PR 

American white pelican 

(Pelecanus 

erythrorhynchos) 

X X 

24

H H X G3, S1B 2 X 

American wigeon* 

(Anas americana) X X X X 

Ash-throated flycatcher 

(Myiarchus tuberculifer) 

18

M 

Baird’s sandpiper 

(Calidris bairdii) X X 1 

Bald eagle * 

(Haleaeetus 

leucocephalus) 

X X 

19

M 

G4, 

S3B, 

S4N, 

E 

1 X PR 

Bank swallow * 

(Riparia riparia) X 

Barrow’s goldeneye 

(Bucephala islandica) X X X X 24

H 5 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

E-6 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Species/Species 

Groups/Communities 

Refuge PurposesaBiological Diversity, Integrity and Environmental Health Federal T and E SpeciesbPacific Flyway Waterfowl PlancN. American Waterfowl Management Plan (2004)dPartners in Flight Priority WF Spp B

C

Rs 9 and 10e

ID PIF BCRs 9 and 10fIM West Reg. Shorebird Plan and U.S. Shorebird Cons. PlangIM West Reg. Shorebird Plan and BCR 9and10hN. American Waterbird Conservation PlaniIdaho CWCS Species of Greatest Conservation NeedjBLM Sensitive Species TypekBirds of Cons. Concern 2002 (USFWS) BCR 9 and 10lBCC National (Table 48)

m

USFWS Gamebirds Below Desired Condition(GBBDC)Columbia Plateau Ecoregional AssessmentnLandbird Conservation Strategy 2000o

Belted kingfisher * 

(Ceryle alcyon) X 

Black rosy-finch 

(Leucosticte atrata) X 

23

H 

G4, 

S3 PR 

Black tern 

(Chlidonias niger) X X 

18

M H X 

G4, 

S1B, 

S1 

3 X 

Black-bellied plover 

(Pluvialis squatarola) X 2 

Black-billed magpie * 

(Pica hudsonia) 

19

H 

Black-capped chickadee * 

(Poecile atricapillus) 

13

M 

Black-chinned 

hummingbird * 

(Archilochus alexandri) 

X 

23

H 

Black-crowned night 

heron * 

(Nycticorax nycticorax) 

X X M-9 X G5, 

S2B 

Black-necked stilt * 

(Himantopus mexicanus) X X 

18

H 5 

G5, 

S3B, 

S3 

Black-throated gray 

warbler 

(Dendroica nigrescens) 

22

H PR 

Black-throated sparrow 

(Amphispiza bilineata) X 

21

M S2B 4 X MA 

Blue-winged teal * 

(Anas discors) X X X 

Bohemian waxwing 

(Bombycilla garrulus) PR 

Bonaparte’s gull 

(Larus philadelphia) X X 

Brewer’s blackbird * 

(Euphagus cyanocephalus) 

15

M 5 

Brewer’s sparrow 

(Spizella breweri) 

24

H 

G5, 

S3B 3 X X MA 

Broad-tailed 

hummingbird * 

(Selasphorus platycercus) 

X 

Brown creeper 

(Certhia americana) 

18

H 

Bufflehead 

(Bucephala albeola) X X X 18

M 

Bullock’s oriole * 

(Icterus bullockii) 

19

M 

Burrowing owl 

(Athene cunicularia) X SOC 

19

M 

G4, 

S2B, 

S2 

5 X X 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern E-7 

Species/Species 

Groups/Communities 

Refuge PurposesaBiological Diversity, Integrity and Environmental Health Federal T and E SpeciesbPacific Flyway Waterfowl PlancN. American Waterfowl Management Plan (2004)dPartners in Flight Priority WF Spp B

C

Rs 9 and 10e

ID PIF BCRs 9 and 10fIM West Reg. Shorebird Plan and U.S. Shorebird Cons. PlangIM West Reg. Shorebird Plan and BCR 9and10hN. American Waterbird Conservation PlaniIdaho CWCS Species of Greatest Conservation NeedjBLM Sensitive Species TypekBirds of Cons. Concern 2002 (USFWS) BCR 9 and 10lBCC National (Table 48)

m

USFWS Gamebirds Below Desired Condition(GBBDC)Columbia Plateau Ecoregional AssessmentnLandbird Conservation Strategy 2000o

Bushtit * 

(Psaltriparus minimus) 

18

M 

California gull * 

(Larus californicus) X 

19

M 

M10 X 

G5, 

S2B, 

S3N 

Calliope hummingbird 

(Stellula calliope) 

23

H 3 PR 

Canada goose * 

(Branta canadensis) X X X X 

Canvasback 

(Aythya valisineria) X X 20

M S2N X 

Canyon wren * 

(Catherpes mexicanus) X 

18

M 

Caspian tern * 

(Sterna caspia) X X 

17

M 

M10 X G5, 

S2B 

Cassin’s finch 

(Carpodacus cassinii) 

19

M 5 MA 

Cassin’s vireo 

(Vireo cassinii) X 

Cattle egret 

(Bubulcus ibis) X X G5, 

S2B 

Chipping sparrow 

(Spizella passerina) 

16

M 

Cinnamon teal * 

(Anas cyanoptera) X X X X 21

H 

Clark’s grebe 

(Aechmophorus clarkii) X 

20

M 

M10 X G5, 

S2B 

Clark’s nutcracker 

(Nucifraga columbiana) 

Common goldeneye 

(Bucephala clangula) X X X 

Common grackle 

(Quiscalus quiscula) X X 

Common loon 

(Gavia immer) X X H 

G5, 

S1B, 

S2N 

Common merganser * 

(Mergus merganser) X X X 

Common poorwill 

(Phalaenoptilus nuttallii) 

21

M 

Common redpoll 

(Carduelis flammea) X 

Common snipe * 

(Gallinago gallinago) X 3 

Common tern 

(Sterna hirundo) X 

M10 X X 

Cooper’s hawk 

(Accipiter cooperii) X 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

E-8 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Species/Species 

Groups/Communities 

Refuge PurposesaBiological Diversity, Integrity and Environmental Health Federal T and E SpeciesbPacific Flyway Waterfowl PlancN. American Waterfowl Management Plan (2004)dPartners in Flight Priority WF Spp B

C

Rs 9 and 10e

ID PIF BCRs 9 and 10fIM West Reg. Shorebird Plan and U.S. Shorebird Cons. PlangIM West Reg. Shorebird Plan and BCR 9and10hN. American Waterbird Conservation PlaniIdaho CWCS Species of Greatest Conservation NeedjBLM Sensitive Species TypekBirds of Cons. Concern 2002 (USFWS) BCR 9 and 10lBCC National (Table 48)

m

USFWS Gamebirds Below Desired Condition(GBBDC)Columbia Plateau Ecoregional AssessmentnLandbird Conservation Strategy 2000o

Dark-eyed junco 

(Junco hyemalis) 

13

M 

Double-crested 

cormorant * 

(Phalacrocorax auritus) 

X X X 

Dunlin 

(Calidris alpina) X X 2 

Eared grebe * 

(Podiceps nigricollis) X 

15

M H-9 X 

Ferruginous hawk 

(Buteo regalis) X X 

23

H 

G4, 

S3B 3 X X X 

Forster’s tern 

(Sterna forsteri) X 

20

M 

H10/ 

M-9 

X 

G5, 

S1B, 

S1 X 

Fox sparrow 

(Passerellailiaco) 

Franklin’s gull 

(Larus pipixcan) X 

24

H H X G4G5, S2B X 

Gadwall* 

(Anas strepera) X X X 17

M 

Glaucous gull 

(Larus hyperboreus) X X 

Golden eagle 

(Aquila chrysaetos) X 

19

H X 

Golden-crowned kinglet 

(Regulus satrapa) X 

Grasshopper sparrow 

(Ammodramus 

savannarum) 

X 

20

H 

G5, 

S2B 5 X X MA 

Gray flycatcher 

(Empidonax wrightii) X 

24

H 

Great blue heron * 

(Ardea herodias) X X 

Great egret 

(Ardea alba) X X G5, 

S1B 

Greater white-fronted 

goose (Anser albifrons) X X X X 

Greater yellowlegs 

(Tringa melanoleuca) X 3 

Green heron * 

(Butorides virescens) X X X 

Green-tailed towhee 

(Pipilo chlorurus) X 

19

M 5 X PR 

Green-winged teal * 

(Anas crecca) X X X 

Gyrfalcon 

(Falco rusticolus) X PR 

Harlequin duck 

(Histrionicus histrionicus) X X X 20

M 

G4, 

S1B 4 X 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern E-9 

Species/Species 

Groups/Communities 

Refuge PurposesaBiological Diversity, Integrity and Environmental Health Federal T and E SpeciesbPacific Flyway Waterfowl PlancN. American Waterfowl Management Plan (2004)dPartners in Flight Priority WF Spp B

C

Rs 9 and 10e

ID PIF BCRs 9 and 10fIM West Reg. Shorebird Plan and U.S. Shorebird Cons. PlangIM West Reg. Shorebird Plan and BCR 9and10hN. American Waterbird Conservation PlaniIdaho CWCS Species of Greatest Conservation NeedjBLM Sensitive Species TypekBirds of Cons. Concern 2002 (USFWS) BCR 9 and 10lBCC National (Table 48)

m

USFWS Gamebirds Below Desired Condition(GBBDC)Columbia Plateau Ecoregional AssessmentnLandbird Conservation Strategy 2000o

Harris’ sparrow 

(Zonotrichia querula) X 

Herring gull 

(Larus argentatus) X X 

Hooded merganser * 

(Lophodytes cucullatus) X X X 22

H 

G5, 

S2B, 

S3N 

Horned grebe 

(Podiceps grisegena) X S1 

Horned lark * 

(Eremophila alpestris) X 

Indigo bunting 

(Passerina cyanea) PR 

Killdeer * 

(Charadrius vociferus) X X 

19

H 3 

Lapland longspur 

(Calcarius lapponicus) PR 

Lark sparrow * 

(Chondestes grammacus) 

20

H 

Lazuli bunting 

(Passerina amoena) X 

19

M 

Least bittern 

(Ixobrychus exilis) X M-9 

Least sandpiper 

(Calidris minutilla) X X 4 

Lesser scaup 

(Aythya affinis) X X D 17

M 

G5, 

S3 X 

Lesser yellowlegs 

(Tringa flavipes) X 2 

Lewis’s woodpecker * 

(Melanerpes lewis) X 

23

H 

G4, 

S3B 3 X X X MA 

Lincoln’s sparrow 

(Melospiza lincolnii) PR 

Loggerhead shrike * 

(Lanius ludovianus) X SOC 

20

H 3 X X X 

Long-billed curlew 

(Numenius americanus) X X SOC 

23

H 5 

G5, 

S2B 5 X X X 

Long-billed dowitcher 

(Limnodromus 

scolopaceus) 

X 5 

MacGillivray’s warbler 

(Oporornis tolmiei) 

21

H 

Mallard * 

(Anas platyrhychos) X X X 

Marbled godwit 

(Limosa fedoa) X 4 S2 X X 

Marsh wren * 

(Cistothorus palustris) X 

20

M 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

E-10 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Species/Species 

Groups/Communities 

Refuge PurposesaBiological Diversity, Integrity and Environmental Health Federal T and E SpeciesbPacific Flyway Waterfowl PlancN. American Waterfowl Management Plan (2004)dPartners in Flight Priority WF Spp B

C

Rs 9 and 10e

ID PIF BCRs 9 and 10fIM West Reg. Shorebird Plan and U.S. Shorebird Cons. PlangIM West Reg. Shorebird Plan and BCR 9and10hN. American Waterbird Conservation PlaniIdaho CWCS Species of Greatest Conservation NeedjBLM Sensitive Species TypekBirds of Cons. Concern 2002 (USFWS) BCR 9 and 10lBCC National (Table 48)

m

USFWS Gamebirds Below Desired Condition(GBBDC)Columbia Plateau Ecoregional AssessmentnLandbird Conservation Strategy 2000o

Mountain bluebird 

(Sialia currucoides) X PR 

Mountain chickadee 

(Poecile gambeli) 

16

M 

Mourning dove * 

(Zenaida macroura) X X X 

Nashville warbler 

(Vermivora ruficapilla) 

20

M 

Northern flicker * 

(Colaptes auratus) X 

15

M 

Northern goshawk 

(Accipiter gentilis) X SOC 

21

H 3 X 

Northern harrier * 

(Circus cyaneus) X X 

18

M X 

Northern pintail* 

(Anas acuta) X X 

X 

D 

G5, 

S5B, 

S2N X 

Northern pygmy-owl 

(Glaucidium gnoma) X X 5 

Northern rough-winged 

swallow * (Stelgidopteryx 

serripennis) 

19

M 

Northern shoveler * 

(Anas clypeata) X X X S2N 

Long-tailed duck – 

Oldsquaw 

(Clangula hyemalis) 

X X X 

Olive-sided flycatcher 

(Contopus cooperi) 

21

H 3 X MA 

Orange-crowned warbler 

(Vermivora celata) 

Osprey * 

(Pandion haliaetus) X X 

17

M 

Pectoral sandpiper 

(Calidris melanotos) X 1 

Peregrine falcon 

(Falco peregrinus) X X 

19

M 

G4T3, 

S2B, 

E 

3 X X X PR 

Pied-billed grebe * 

(Podilymbus podiceps) X X 

Pine siskin 

(Carduelis pinus) 

14

M 

Plumbeous vireo 

(Vireo plumbeus) 

22

H 

Prairie falcon 

(Falco mexicanus) X X 

24

H 3 X X 

Red knot 

(Calidris canutus) X 1 X 

Red-breasted merganser 

(Mergus serrator) X X X 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern E-11 

Species/Species 

Groups/Communities 

Refuge PurposesaBiological Diversity, Integrity and Environmental Health Federal T and E SpeciesbPacific Flyway Waterfowl PlancN. American Waterfowl Management Plan (2004)dPartners in Flight Priority WF Spp B

C

Rs 9 and 10e

ID PIF BCRs 9 and 10fIM West Reg. Shorebird Plan and U.S. Shorebird Cons. PlangIM West Reg. Shorebird Plan and BCR 9and10hN. American Waterbird Conservation PlaniIdaho CWCS Species of Greatest Conservation NeedjBLM Sensitive Species TypekBirds of Cons. Concern 2002 (USFWS) BCR 9 and 10lBCC National (Table 48)

m

USFWS Gamebirds Below Desired Condition(GBBDC)Columbia Plateau Ecoregional AssessmentnLandbird Conservation Strategy 2000o

Red-breasted nuthatch 

(Sitta canadensis) 

14

M 

Redhead * 

(Aythya americana) X X X X 22

H 

Red-necked phalarope 

(Phalaropus lobatus) X X 4 

Red-tailed hawk * 

(Buteo jamaicensis) X X 

Ring-billed gull * 

(Larus delawarensis) X 

15

M X 

Ring-necked duck 

(Aythya collaris) X X 20

M X 

Rock wren * 

(Salpinctes obsoletus) 

19

H 

Ross’s goose (Chen rossii) X X X 

Rough-legged hawk 

(Buteo lagopus) X X PR 

Ruddy duck* 

(Oxyura jamaicensis) X X X 19

M S2N 

Rufous hummingbird 

(Selasphorus rufus) 

22

H X MA 

Sabine’s gull 

(Xema sabini) X X 

Sage sparrow 

(Amphispiza belli) X 

25

H 3 X X PR 

Sage thrasher * 

(Oreoscoptes montanus) X 

22

H 5 X PR 

Sanderling (Calidris alba) X 1 X 

Sandhill crane 

(Grus canadensis) X X X 

24

H 

G5, 

S3B 

Savannah sparrow * 

(Passerculus 

sandwichensis) 

X 

Semi-palmated plover 

(Charadrius semipalmatus) X 3 

Semi-palmated sandpiper 

(Calidris pusilla) X X 1 

Sharp-shinned hawk 

(Accipiter striatus) X X 

18

H 

Short-eared owl * 

(Asio flammeus) 

23

H 

G5, 

S4 5 X MA 

Snow bunting 

(Plectrophenax nivalis) PR 

Snow goose 

(Chen caerulescens) X X X X 

Snowy egret 

(Egretta thula) X X 

14

M 

H-9/

M10 X G5, 

S2B X 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

E-12 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Species/Species 

Groups/Communities 

Refuge PurposesaBiological Diversity, Integrity and Environmental Health Federal T and E SpeciesbPacific Flyway Waterfowl PlancN. American Waterfowl Management Plan (2004)dPartners in Flight Priority WF Spp B

C

Rs 9 and 10e

ID PIF BCRs 9 and 10fIM West Reg. Shorebird Plan and U.S. Shorebird Cons. PlangIM West Reg. Shorebird Plan and BCR 9and10hN. American Waterbird Conservation PlaniIdaho CWCS Species of Greatest Conservation NeedjBLM Sensitive Species TypekBirds of Cons. Concern 2002 (USFWS) BCR 9 and 10lBCC National (Table 48)

m

USFWS Gamebirds Below Desired Condition(GBBDC)Columbia Plateau Ecoregional AssessmentnLandbird Conservation Strategy 2000o

Snowy owl 

(Nyctea scandiaca) PR 

Solitary sandpiper 

(Tringa solitaria) X 2 X X 

Song sparrow * 

(Melospiza melodia) X 

Sora * (Porzana carolina) X 

Spotted sandpiper * 

(Actitus macularius) X X 3 

Spotted towhee * 

(Pipilo maculatus) 

17

M 

Stilt sandpiper 

(Calidris himantopus) X X 1 X 

Swainson’s hawk * 

(Buteo swainsoni) X X 

23

H 

G5, 

S3B 5 X X MA 

Swainson’s thrush 

(Catharus ustulatus) 

Townsend’s solitaire 

(Myadestes townsendi) 

19

M 

Townsend’s warbler 

(Dendroica townsendi) 

22

H 

Trumpeter swan 

(Cygnus buccinator) X X SOC X X X 26

H 

G4, 

S1B, 

S2N 

3 X X 

Tundra swan 

(Cygnus columbianus) X X X X 

Varied thrush 

(Ixoreus naevius) 

22

H PR 

Vaux’s swift 

(Chaetura vauxi) X 

23

H 5 

Vesper sparrow * 

(Pooecetes gramineus) 

16

M 

Violet-green swallow * 

(Tachycineta thalassina) X 

17

M 

Virginia rail * 

(Rallus limicola) X 

Warbling vireo 

(Vireo gilvus) 

18

M 

Western grebe * 

(Aechmophorus 

occidentalis) 

X X 

22

H 

H-9/

M10 X G5, 

S2B 

Western kingbird * 

(Tyrannus jerticalis) 

Western meadowlark * 

(Sturnella neglecta) X 

18

H 

Western sandpiper 

(Calidris mauri) X X 4 

Western screech owl * 

(Otus kennicottii) X 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern E-13 

Species/Species 

Groups/Communities 

Refuge PurposesaBiological Diversity, Integrity and Environmental Health Federal T and E SpeciesbPacific Flyway Waterfowl PlancN. American Waterfowl Management Plan (2004)dPartners in Flight Priority WF Spp B

C

Rs 9 and 10e

ID PIF BCRs 9 and 10fIM West Reg. Shorebird Plan and U.S. Shorebird Cons. PlangIM West Reg. Shorebird Plan and BCR 9and10hN. American Waterbird Conservation PlaniIdaho CWCS Species of Greatest Conservation NeedjBLM Sensitive Species TypekBirds of Cons. Concern 2002 (USFWS) BCR 9 and 10lBCC National (Table 48)

m

USFWS Gamebirds Below Desired Condition(GBBDC)Columbia Plateau Ecoregional AssessmentnLandbird Conservation Strategy 2000o

Western tanager * 

(Piranga cudoviciana) 

20

H 

Western wood-pewee 

(Contopus sordidulus) 

17

M 

White-faced ibis 

(Plegadis chihi) X X SOC 

20

H M X G5, S2B 4 

White-throated sparrow 

(Zonotrichia albicollis) PR 

White-throated swift * 

(Aeronautes saxatalis) X X 

18

M MA 

White-winged scoter 

(Melanitta fusca) X X XD 

Willet (Catoptrophorus 

semipalmatus) X 

20

M 4 

Willow flycatcher 

(Empidonax trailii) 

21

H 3 MA 

Wilson’s phalarope 

(Phalaropus tricolor) X X 

21

M 5 

G5, 

S3B 5 X X 

Winter wren 

(Troglodytes troglodytes) 

Wood duck * 

(Aix sponsa) X X 19

M X 

Yellow warbler * 

(Dendroica petechia) 

18

H 

Yellow-billed cuckoo* 

(Coccyzus americanus) X SOC 

19

M 

G5, 

S2B 1 C 

LT

/L

E 

Yellow-breasted chat * 

(Icteria virens) X 

Yellow-headed blackbird * 

(Xanthocephalus 

xanthocephalus) 

X 

18

M PR 

Yellow-rumped warbler 

(Dendroica coronata) 

16

M 

MAMMALS 

Pygmy rabbit 

(Brachylagus idahoensis) X X 

Southern Idaho ground 

squirrel 

(Spermophilus brunneus 

endemicus) 

X SOC 

AMPHIBIANS 

Northern leopard frog 

(Rana pipiens) X SOC 

G5, 

S2 2 

Western toad 

(Bufo boreas) X SOC 

REPTILES 

Western longnose snake 

(Rhinicheilus lecontei) X 

G5, 

S2 3 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

E-14 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Table E-3 (continued). Category Codes: Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Potential Resources of Concern 

Category Codes: * known to nest on Refuge either Lake Lowell or Snake River Islands 

Refuge Purposes: X - species groups benefiting from waterfowl/Refuge management (1967 Refuge 

Prospectus)

Biological Diversity, Integrity, 

and Environmental Health: 

X - Refuge-compatible species 

Federal T and E: LE - Endangered 

LT -Threatened 

SOC - Species of Concern 

Pacific Flyway Waterfowl Plan: X - species benefiting from waterfowl plan 

North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan: 

D - decreasing long-term trend 

Idaho Partners in Flight: Idaho Bird Conservation (Version 1.0 January 2000) 

H - High priority breeding 

M - Moderate priority in habitat management and monitoring plans/high 

responsibility 

Bold face - Primary breeding habitat available on Refuge 

Intermountain West Regional 

Shorebird Plan: 

 

5 - Critically important 

4 - Very important 

3 - Important 

2 - Slightly important 

1 - Unimportant 

Idaho CWCS: Species of Greatest Conservation Need 

S1- Critically imperiled in Idaho 

S2 - Imperiled in Idaho 

S3 - Vulnerable in Idaho 

S4 - Apparently secure in Idaho; some cause for long-term concern due to 

declines or other factors 

S5 - Secure in Idaho; common, widespread, abundant 

G4 - Apparently secure globally; some cause for long-term concern due to 

declines or other factors 

G5 - Secure globally; common, widespread, abundant 

N - Nonbreeding 

B - Breeding, conservation status refers to breeding populations of this species 

E - State Endangered 

SNR - Unranked: conservation status not yet assessed 

BLM Sensitive Species List: Type 1 - Threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate 

Type 2 - Rangewide/Globally imperiled 

Type 3 - Regional/State imperiled 

Type 4 - Peripheral 

Type 5 - Watch list 

Birds of Conservation Concern: 

Region 1 USFWS 

BCR 9 and 10 X - Regional Birds of Conservation Concern 

BCC/National: X - National Birds of Conservation Concern 

GBBDC: X - Gamebirds below desired condition 

The Nature Conservancy (TNC) 

Columbia Plateau Ecoregional 

Assessment: 

X - Species/Habitats of concern 

Landbird Conservation Plan: IM - Immediate Action 

MA - Management 

PR - Long-term Planning and Responsibility 

Other Plans: Addressed in Plan, no specific category 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern E-15 

Sources/Criteria for Potential Resources of Concern Table 

a Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Purpose: E.O. 7655, July 12, 1937; 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act); 16 U.S.C. 460k-1 (Refuge Recreation Act). 

b USFWS Endangered Species Program. 

c SPPCG (Subcommittee on Pacific Population of Canada Geese). 2000. Pacific Flyway management 

plan for the Pacific Population of Canada Geese (unpublished report). Pacific Flyway Study 

Committee, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, OR. 31 pp. 

d

 NAWMPC (North American Waterfowl Management Plan Committee). 2004. North American 

waterfowl management plan. Implementation framework: strengthening the biological 

foundation. Canadian Wildlife Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Secretaria de Medio 

Ambiente y Recursos Naturales. 106 pp. 

e

 IWJV (Intermountain West Joint Venture) Idaho Steering Committee. 2005. Coordinated 

implementation plan for bird conservation in Idaho. Appendix A, pp. 34-42. Available at: 

http://saltshake.com.s50844.gridserver.com/?get=1.28.148. Accessed May 18, 2012. 

f

 Idaho Partners in Flight 2000. Idaho Bird Conservation Plan, Version 1.0: Appendices 2 and 3 pp. 

118-123. 166 pp. 

g Brown, S., C. Hickey, B. Harington, and R. Gill, eds. 2001. United States shorebird conservation 

plan, 2nd ed. Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences. Manomet, MA. 64 pp. 

h Oring, L.W., L. Neel, and K.E. Oring. 2000. U.S. shorebird conservation plan. Intermountain West 

regional shorebird plan version 1.0. Available at: shorebirdplan.fws.gov/RegionalShorebird/ 

downloads/IMWEST4.doc. Accessed May 18, 2012. 

i Kushlan, J.A., M. Steinkamp, K. Parsons, J. Capp, M.A. 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. Syderman, J. Trapp, J. Wheeler, and K. Wohl. 2002. Waterbird 

conservation for the Americas: the North American waterbird conservation plan, version 1. 

Waterbird Conservation for the Americas. Washington, D.C. 84 pp. 

j 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. 

Available at: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/cwcs/. Accessed May 18, 2012. 

k BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 2011. BLM sensitive species. Available at: 

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/pcp/species/sensitive.html. Accessed May 25, 2012. 

l

 USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2002c. Birds of conservation concern 2002. Division of 

Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 99 pp. Available at: 

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/wind/references/BCC2002.pdf. Accessed June 11, 2012. m USFWS Division of Migratory Bird Management. 2007. Gamebirds below desired condition 

(draft). Available at: http://library.fws.gov/bird_publications/gamebirds_conditions.pdf. 

Accessed June 11, 2012.

n Andelman S., K. Gillem, C. Groves, C. Hansen, J. Humke, T. Klahr, L. Kramme, B. Moseley, M. 

Reid, D. Vander Schaaf, M. Coad, C. Deforest, C. Macdonald, J. Baumgartner, J. Hak, C. 

Hansen, S. Hobbs, L. Lunte, L. Smith, and C. Soper. 1999. The Columbia Plateau 

ecoregional assessment: a pilot effort in ecoregional conservation. The Nature Conservancy. 

Available at: http://waconservation.org/projects/ecoregions/. Accessed May 25, 2012. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

E-16 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

o

 Altman, B. and A. Holmes. 2000. Conservation strategy for landbirds in the Columbia Plateau of 

Eastern Oregon and Washington. Version 1.0. Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight. 97 pp. 

Table E-4 includes focal species and habitat types and structures commonly associated with 

these species. Not all species listed in this table have been documented on the Refuge. 

Table E-4. National Wildlife Refuge System Priority Resources of Concern at the Refuge 

Suggested 

Focal Species 

Habitat 

Type 

Habitat Structure Life History 

Requirement* 

Other Benefiting Species 

Riparian Forests: Lake Lowell and River Islands 

Yellow warbler 

Dendroica 

petechia

Deciduous 

forest and 

shrub 

Mid- to late succession 

multilayered, varied forest >70% 

cover in shrub layer (<10 feet), 

subcanopy layer (>10 feet and 

below the canopy foliage) with 

subcanopy layer contributing 

>40% of the total cover, canopy 

tree closure >20% with native 

species including cottonwood, 

willow, ash, maple, red-osier 

dogwood, elderberry, golden 

currant. 

Nesting, 

foraging, and 

migrating 

Bald eagle, wood duck, 

Lewis’s woodpecker, 

yellow-billed cuckoo, 

osprey, red-tailed hawk, 

northern goshawk, olivesided flycatcher, belted 

kingfisher, great horned 

owl, mourning dove, mule 

deer, red fox 

Song sparrow 

Melospiza 

melodia

Early succession, continuous mesic 

and patchy shrub layer (3-12 feet 

tall) with 30-80% cover with 

scattered herbaceous openings; 

canopy trees >12 feet covering 

<20%; near water. Dense 

underbrush and deep grass of 

native species including willows, 

elm, wild rose, golden currant, 

elderberry, Great Basin wildrye, 

and bluebunch wheatgrass. 

Nesting, 

foraging, and 

migrating 

White-crowned sparrow, 

California quail, western 

tanager, calliope 

hummingbird, blackthroated sparrow, gray 

flycatcher, vesper 

sparrow, savannah 

sparrow, common 

yellowthroat, western 

terrestrial garter snake 

Marsh Wetlands 

Mallard 

Anas 

platyrhychos

Palustrine 

emergent, 

freshwater 

marsh

Seasonally flooded shallow, marsh 

<4-36 inches deep; flooded by 

irrigation inflow April through 

October, seasonal precipitation 

November through March; 30%-

70% cover of emergent vegetation, 

native seed bearing species 

including cattail, bulrush spp., reed 

spp., smartweed, and duckweed. 

Nesting, 

foraging, and 

wintering 

Wood duck, great blue 

heron, American wigeon, 

black-crowned night 

heron, marsh wren, redwinged blackbird, yellowheaded blackbird, western 

meadowlark, mourning 

dove, barn owl, piedbilled grebe, sora, 

American kestrel, painted 

turtle 

Emergent Vegetation: Lake Lowell 

Western grebe 

Aechmophorus 

occidentalis 

Lacustrine, 

littoral 

Shallow-flooded emergent 

community characterized by 50%-

75% cover of moist-soil plants 

(e.g., smartweeds) interspersed 

Nesting and 

loafing 

Pied-billed grebe, Clark’s 

grebe, eared grebe, 

canvasback, American 

coot 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern E-17 

Suggested 

Focal Species 

Habitat 

Type 

Habitat Structure Life History 

Requirement* 

Other Benefiting Species 

Canada goose 

Branta 

canadensis

with Baltic rush, spikerush, 

bulrush, salt grass, bur-reed, and 

cattail. Minimal human disturbance 

during late spring and summer. 

Foraging, 

migrating, and 

wintering 

Tundra swan, doublecrested cormorant, caspian 

tern, black tern, 

Bonaparte’s gull, glaucous 

gull, Franklin’s gull, 

Sabine’s gull 

Mallard 

Anas 

platyrhychos

Foraging, 

migrating, and 

wintering 

Blue-winged teal, 

canvasback, ruddy duck, 

American wigeon, 

gadwall, green-winged 

teal, northern shoveler, 

redhead, common 

merganser, northern 

pintail, northern leopard 

frog 

Shoreline Mudflats: Lake Lowell 

Long-billed 

dowitcher 

Limnodromus 

scolopaceus

Nonpersistent; 

lacustrine 

Sparse to no vegetation; shallow 

flooding (<4 inches) during 

winter/spring; exposed during 

summer/fall by water withdrawals; 

substrate of silt, sand, and gravel; 

minimal human disturbance during 

late spring and summer. 

Foraging, 

loafing, and 

migrating 

American avocet, virginia 

rail, sora, Baird’s 

sandpiper, American 

bittern, great blue heron, 

killdeer, common snipe, 

greater yellowlegs, lesser 

yellowlegs, willet, least 

bittern, western sandpiper, 

semi-palmated plover, 

black-bellied plover, cattle 

egret, white-faced ibis, 

great egret, solitary 

sandpiper, Wilson’s 

phalarope 

Open Water: Lake Lowell 

American 

white pelican 

Pelecanus 

erythrorhynchos

Lacustrine; 

limnetic 

Unconsolidated, open deep water 

with abundant fish; open water 

adjacent to emergent vegetation; 

minimal human disturbance. 

Foraging, 

loafing, and 

migratory 

Osprey, bald eagle, 

common loon, Clark’s 

grebe, common 

merganser, double-crested 

cormorant, Canada goose, 

mallard, California gull, 

caspian tern, ring-billed 

gull, black tern, common 

tern, tundra swan 

Western grebe 

Aechmophorus 

occidentalis

Shrub-steppe: Lake Lowell and River Islands 

Sage thrasher 

Oreoscoptes 

montanus

Reservoir 

uplands: 

shrubsteppe 

Tall mature 

sagebrush 

in 

Unfragmented stands of sagebrush 

spp. >50 acres; mosaic open (5%) 

to moderate (25%) shrub cover; 

variety of ages and heights 

associated with patchy distribution 

including bitterbrush, saltbrush, 

rabbitbrush; open understory of 

bare ground, native perennial forbs 

Nesting, 

foraging, and 

migrating 

Swainson’s hawk, 

northern harrier, 

ferruginous hawk, prairie 

falcon, long-billed curlew, 

killdeer, gray flycatcher, 

western meadowlark, sage 

sparrow, Brewer’s 

sparrow, green-tailed 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

E-18 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Suggested 

Focal Species 

Habitat 

Type 

Habitat Structure Life History 

Requirement* 

Other Benefiting Species 

relatively 

large 

patches 

and bunchgrasses including 

bluebunch wheatgrass, Great basin 

wildrye, and Idaho fescue. 

towhee, rock wren, vesper 

sparrow, horned lark, 

grasshopper sparrow, 

black-tailed jackrabbit, 

badger, yellow-bellied 

marmot, mountain 

cottontail 

Loggerhead 

shrike 

Lanius 

ludovianus

Open stands, 20-40 acres of 

sagebrush, bitterbrush, 

greasewood, native shrub, and 

small trees >50 inches with low 

ground cover; flat topography 

<10% grade; near thick patches of 

shrub; short native grassland. 

Canada goose 

Branta 

canadensis

Riverine 

islands: 

shrubsteppe 

Permanent 

cover of 

sagebrush; 

semipermanent, 

emergent 

willow 

Tall shrub cover <3% consisting of 

dense residual vegetation; mix of 

tall native grasses, forbs, and low 

shrub cover; <50 m from 

wetlands/open water. Vegetation 

including sagebrush spp., fourwing 

saltbush, rabbitbrush spp., golden 

currant, wild rose, willow spp., 

Great basin wildrye, bluebunch 

wheatgrass, Indian ricegrass, 

western wheatgrass, and smooth 

brome. 

Nesting, 

wintering, and 

migrating 

Black rosy-finch, gray 

rosy-finch, green-tailed 

towhee, yellow-breasted 

chat, rock wren, canyon 

wren, vesper sparrow, 

cliff swallow, chukar, redtailed hawk, golden eagle, 

bank swallow, whitethroated swift, raccoon, 

mink 

Mallard 

Anas 

platyrhychos

Agricultural 

Canada goose 

Branta 

canadensis

Agricultural 

pastures, 

croplands 

Short grass/alfalfa (<6 inches); 

winter wheat/barley (4-6 inches 

average winter vegetation height), 

ryegrass preferred (>30%), small 

pastures <100 acre patch size 

adjacent to wetlands. 

Residual crops of corn; cropland 

area buffered by at least 250 

meters to minimize human 

disturbance. 

Foraging, 

wintering, and 

migrating 

Greater white-fronted 

goose, Ross’s goose, 

common goldeneye, great 

blue heron, American 

wigeon, barn owl, shorteared owl, Swainson’s 

hawk, red-tailed hawk, 

coyote, montane vole, 

mule deer, red fox, 

mountain cottontail 

Mallard 

Anas 

platyrhychos

*“Life History Requirement” column only reflects focal species. 

Table E-5. Current List of Wildlife and Plants of Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge 

Common Name Family Genus Species 

Silver maple Aceraceae Acer saccharium 

Water plantain Alismataceae Alisma sp. 

Tumble pigweed Amaranthaceae Amaranthus albus 

Palmer amaranth pigweed Amaranthaceae Amaranthus palmeri 

Redroot pigweed Amaranthaceae Amaranthus retroflexus 

Smooth sumac Anacardiaceae Rhus glabra 

Skunkbush sumac Anacardiaceae Rhus trilobata 

Poison ivy Angcardiaceae Rhus radicans 

Water hemlock Apiaceae Cicuta douglasii 

Poison hemlock Apiaceae Conivum maculatum 

Fern-leaved desert parsley Apiaceae Lomatium dissectum 

Indian hemp dogbane Apocynaceae Apocynum cannabinum 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern E-19 

Common Name Family Genus Species 

Showy milkweed Asclepiadaceae Ascelepias speciosa 

Mexican whorled milkweed Asclepiadaceae Asclepias fascicularis 

False dandelion Asteraceae Agoseris glauca 

Common burdock Asteraceae Arctium minus 

Silver sage Asteraceae Artemisia cana 

Basin big sagebrush Asteraceae Artemisia tridentata trindentata 

Wyoming sagebrush Asteraceae Artemisia tridentata 

wyomingensis 

Musk thistle Asteraceae Carduus nutans 

Spotted knapweed Asteraceae Centaurea stoebe 

Rush skeletonweed Asteraceae Chondrilla juncea 

Gray rabbitbrush Asteraceae Chrysothamnus nauseosus 

Green rabbitbrush Asteraceae Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus 

Canada thistle Asteraceae Cirsium arvense 

Bull thistle Asteraceae Cirsium vulgare 

Hawskbeard Asteraceae Crepis acumenata 

Curlycup gumweed Asteraceae Grindelia squarrosa 

Snakeweed Asteraceae Gutierrezia sarothrae 

Common sunflower Asteraceae Helianthus annuus 

Poverty weed Asteraceae Iva axillaris 

Marsh elder Asteraceae Iva xanthifolia 

Prickly lettuce Asteraceae Lactuca serriola 

Purple aster Asteraceae Machaeranthera canescens 

Scotch thistle Asteraceae Onopordum acanthium 

Goldenrod Asteraceae Solidago spp. 

Common sowthistle Asteraceae Sonchus oleraceus 

Dandelion Asteraceae Taraxacum officinale 

Spiny horsebrush Asteraceae Tetradymia spinosa 

Western yellow salsify Asteraceae Tragopogon dubius 

Common cocklebur Asteraceae Xanthium strumarium 

Fiddleneck Boraginaceae Amsinckia menziesii 

Fiddleneck Boraginaceae Amsinckia retrorsa 

Wintercress Brassicaceae Barbarea orthoceras 

Shepherd’s purse Brassicaceae Capsella bursa-pastoris 

Hoary cress Brassicaceae Cardaria draba 

Blue mustard Brassicaceae Chorispora tenella 

Pinnate tansy mustard Brassicaceae Descurainia pinnata 

Spring draba Brassicaceae Draba verna 

Whitetop Brassicaceae Lepidium draba 

Broadleaved pepperweed Brassicaceae Lepidium latifolium 

Clasping pepperweed Brassicaceae Lepidium perfoliatum 

Yellowcress Brassicaceae Rorippa sp. 

Tumblemustard Brassicaceae Sisymbrium altissimum 

Field pennycress Brassicaceae Thlaspi arvense 

Prickly pear cactus Cactaceae Opuntia polycantha 

Blue elderberry Caprifoliaceae Sambucus nigra ssp. Cerulea 

Jagged chickweed Caryophyllaceae Holosteum umbellatum 

Fourwing saltbush Chenopodiaceae Atriplex canescens 

Kochia Chenopodiaceae Bassia sp. 

Common lambsquarter Chenopodiaceae Chenopodium album 

Spiny hopsage Chenopodiaceae Grayii spinosa 

Russian thistle Chenopodiaceae Salsola kali 

Greasewood Chenopodiaceae Sarcobatus Nees 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

E-20 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Common Name Family Genus Species 

Field bindweed Convolvulaceae Convolvulus arvensis 

White bryony Cucurbitaceae Bryonia alba 

Annual wild cucumber Cucurbitaceae Echinocystis lobata 

Western wild cucumber Cucurbitaceae Marah oreganus 

Sedge Cyperaceae Carex spp. 

Spikerush sp. Cyperaceae Eleocharis sp. 

Hard-stem bulrush Cyperaceae Schoenoplectus acutus 

River bulrush Cyperaceae Schoenoplectus fluviatilis 

Soft-stem bulrush Cyperaceae Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani 

Bulrush Cyperaceae Scirpus sp. 

Common teasel Dipsacaceae Dipsacus fullonum 

Russian olive Elaeagnaceae Elaeagnus angustifolia 

Small matted sandmat Euphorbiaceae Chamaesyce serpens 

Turkey mullein Euphorbiaceae Eremocarpas setigerus 

Leafy spurge Euphorbiaceae Euphorbia esula 

False indigo bush Fabaceae Amorpha fruticosa 

Packard’s milkvetch Fabaceae Astragalus Cusickii var. 

packardiae

Hermit milkvetch Fabaceae Astragalus Eremiticus 

Woollypod milkvetch Fabaceae Astragalus purshii ophiogenes 

Black medic Fabaceae Medicago Lupulina 

Alfalfa Fabaceae Medicago Sativa 

White sweet clover Fabaceae Melilotus Albus 

Yellow sweet clover Fabaceae Melilotus Officinalis 

Strawberry clover Fabaceae Trifolium Fragiferum 

White clover Fabaceae Trifolium Repens 

Storksbill Geraniaceae Erodium Cicutarium 

Golden currant Grossulariaceae Ribes Aureum 

Eurasian watermilfoil Haloragaceae Myriophyllum Spicatum 

Hydrilla Hydrocharitaceae Hydrilla Verticillata 

Yellow flag Iridaceae Iris Pseudacorus 

Black walnut Juglandaceae Juglans Nigra 

Catnip Lamiaceae Nepeta Cataria 

Duckweed Lemnaceae Lemna Minor 

Taper-tip onion Liliaceae Allium Acuminatum 

Asparagus Liliaceae Asparagus Officinalis 

Sego lily Liliaceae Calochurtus Nuttallii 

Purple loosestrife Lythraceae Lythrum Salicaria 

Common mallow Malvaceae Malva neglecta 

Gooseberryleaf globemallow Malvaceae Sphaeralcea grossulariifolia 

Munro’s globemallow Malvaceae Sphaeralcea munroana 

White mulberry Moraceae Morus alba 

White ash Oleaceae Fraxinus americana 

Green ash Oleaceae Fraxinus pennsylvanica 

Tall annual willow herb Onagraceae Epilobium paniculatum 

Lewis’s mockorange Philadelphaceae Philadelphus lewisii 

Broad leafed plantain Plantaginaceae Plantago major 

Jointed goatgrass Poaceae Aegilops cylindrica 

Crested wheatgrass Poaceae Agropyron cristatum 

Intermediate wheatgrass Poaceae Agropyron intermedia 

Siberian wheatgrass Poaceae Agropyron siberiuim 

Bluebunch wheatgrass Poaceae Agropyron spicata 

Rough bentgrass Poaceae Agrostis Scabra 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern E-21 

Common Name Family Genus Species 

Wild oat Poaceae Avena Fatua 

Smooth brome Poaceae Bromus inermis 

Japanese brome Poaceae Bromus japonicus 

Cheatgrass Poaceae Bromus tectorum 

Orchard grass Poaceae Dactycis glomerata 

Salt grass Poaceae Distichlis spicata 

Barnyardgrass Poaceae Echinochloa crus-galli 

Great basin wildrye Poaceae Elymus cinereus 

Bottlebrush squirreltail Poaceae Elymus elimoides 

Tall wheatgrass Poaceae Elytrigia pontica 

Tall fescue Poaceae Festcua arundinaceae 

Six week fescue Poaceae Festcua (Vulpia) octoflora 

Idaho fescue Poaceae Festuca idahoensis 

Mannagrass Poaceae Glyceria sp. 

Smooth annual barley Poaceae Hordeum glancum 

Foxtail barley Poaceae Hordeum jubatum 

Giant wildrye Poaceae Leymus condensatus 

Beardless wildrye Poaceae Leymus triticoides 

Indian ricegrass Poaceae Oryzopsis hymenoides 

Fall panicgrass Poaceae Panicum dichotomiflorum 

Western wheatgrass Poaceae Pascopyrum Smithii 

Reed canarygrass Poaceae Phalaris arundinacea 

Common timothy Poaceae Phleum Pretense 

Bulbous bluegrass Poaceae Poa bulbosa 

Nevada bluegrass Poaceae Poa Nevadensis

Kentucky bluegrass Poaceae Poa Pratensis 

Sandberg’s bluegrass Poaceae Poa secunda 

Rabbitfoot grass Poaceae Polypogon monspeliensis 

Weeping alkaligrass Poaceae Puccinellia distans 

Green foxtail Poaceae Setaria glauca 

Alkali cordgrass Poaceae Spartina gracilis 

Sand dropseed Poaceae Sporobolus cryptandrus 

Needle and thread grass Poaceae Stipa comata 

Medusahead Poaceae Taeniatherum caput-medusae 

Prickly-leaved phlox Polemoniaceae Phlox aculeata 

Long-leafed phlox Polemoniaceae Phlox longifolia 

Water smartweed Polygonaceae Polygonum amphibium 

Prostrate knotweed Polygonaceae Polygonum arenasturm 

Spotted ladysthumb Polygonaceae Polygonum persicaria 

Curly dock Polygonaceae Rumex crispis 

Willow leaves dock Polygonaceae Rumex salicifolius 

Common purslane Portulacaeae Portulaca oleracea 

Curly-leaf pondweed Potamogetonaceae Potamogeton crispus 

Cursed buttercup Ranunculaceae Ranunculus scleratus 

Bur buttercup Ranunculaceae Ranunculus testiculatus 

Biennial cinquefoil Rosaceae Potentilla biennis 

Ornamental plum Rosaceae Prunus spp. 

Bitterbrush Rosaceae Purshia tridentate 

Sweetbriar rose Rosaceae Rosa eglanteria 

Woods’ rose Rosaceae Rosa Woodsia 

Catchweed bedstraw Rubiaceae Galium Aparine 

Cottonwood sp. Salicaceae Populus sp. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

E-22 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Common Name Family Genus Species 

Peachleaf willow Salicaceae Salix amygdaloides 

Coyote willow Salicaceae Salix Exigua 

Pacific willow Salicaceae Salix lucida spp. lasiandra 

Willow Salicaceae Salix salix spp.

Indian paintbrush Scrophulariaceae Castilleja mutis spp.

Woody mullein Scrophulariaceae Verbascum Blattaria 

Common mullein Scrophulariaceae Verbascum Thapsus 

Water speedwell Scrophulariaceae Veronica anagallis-aquatica 

Virginia groundcherry Solanaceae Physalis virginiana 

Bittersweet nightshade Solanaceae Solanum dulcamara 

Black nightshade Solanaceae Solanum Nigrum 

Simplestem bur-reed Sparganiaceae Sparganium Erectum 

Salt cedar Tamaricaceae Tamarix ramosissima 

Tamarisk Tamaricaceae Tamarix ramosissima 

Common cattail Typhaceae Typha Latifolia 

Chinese elm Ulmaceae Ulmus parvifolia 

Stinging nettle Urticaceae Urtica Dioica 

Prostrate vervain Verbenaceae Verbena bracteata 

Virginia creeper Vitaceae Parthenocissus quinquefolia 

Riverbank grape Vitaceae Vitis riparia 

Puncturevine Zygophyllaceae Tribulus terrestris 

Mammals 

Common Name Family Genus Species 

Coyote Canidae Canis latrans 

Red fox Canidae Vulpes vulpes 

North American beaver Castoridae Castor canadensis 

Elk Cervidae Cervus canadensis 

Mule deer Cervidae Odocoileus hemionus 

White-tailed deer Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus 

Mountainvole Cricetidae Microtus montanus 

Deer mouse Cricetidae Peromyscus maniculatus 

Western harvest mouse Cricetidae Reithrodontomys megalotis 

Northern pocket gopher Geomyidae Thomomys talpoides 

Northern pocket gopher Geomyidae Thomomys talpoides 

Black-tailed jackrabbit Leporidae Lepus californicus 

Mountain cottontail Leporidae Sylvilagus nuttalli 

Striped skunk Mephitidae Mephitis mephitis 

House mouse Muridae Mus musculus 

North American river otter Mustelidae Lontra canadensis 

American mink Mustelidae Neovison vison 

Badger Mustelidae Taxidea taxus 

Raccoon Procyonidae Procyon lotor 

Yellow-bellied marmot Sciuridae Marmota flavientris 

Fox squirrel Sciuridae Sciurus niger 

Birds 

Common Name Family Genus Species 

Geese, Swans, and Ducks 

Wood duck Anatidae Aix sponsa 

Northern pintail Anatidae Anas acuta 

American wigeon Anatidae Anas americana 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern E-23 

Birds 

Common Name Family Genus Species 

Green-winged teal Anatidae Anas carolinensis 

Northern shoveler Anatidae Anas clypeata 

Cinnamon teal Anatidae Anas cyanoptera 

Blue-winged teal Anatidae Anas discors 

Eurasian wigeon Anatidae Anas penelope 

Mallard Anatidae Anas platyrhychos 

Gadwall Anatidae Anas strepera 

Greater white-fronted goose Anatidae Anser albifrons 

Lesser scaup Anatidae Aythya affinis 

Redhead Anatidae Aythya americana 

Ring-necked duck Anatidae Aythya collaris 

Greater scaup Anatidae Aythya marila 

Canvasback Anatidae Aythya valisineria 

Canada goose Anatidae Branta canadensis 

Bufflehead Anatidae Bucephala albeola 

Common goldeneye Anatidae Bucephala clangula 

Barrow’s goldeneye Anatidae Bucephala islandica 

Snow goose Anatidae Chen caerulescens 

Ross’s goose Anatidae Chen rossii 

Long-tailed duck Anatidae Clangula hyemalis 

Trumpeter swan Anatidae Cygnus buccinator 

Tundra swan Anatidae Cygnus columbianus 

Harlequin duck Anatidae Histrionicus histrionicus 

Hooded merganser Anatidae Lophodytes cucullatus 

White-winged scoter Anatidae Melanitta deglandi 

Common merganser Anatidae Mergus merganser 

Red-breasted merganser Anatidae Mergus serrator 

Ruddy duck Anatidae Oxyura jamaicensis 

Gallinaceous Birds 

California quail Odontophoridae Callipepla californica 

Northern bobwhite Odontophoridae Colinus virginianus 

Chukar Phasianidae Alectoris chukar 

Wild turkey Phasianidae Meleagris gallopavo 

Gray partridge Phasianidae Perdix perdix 

Ring-necked pheasant Phasianidae Phasianus colchicus 

Loons 

Common loon Gaviidae Gavia immer 

Pacific loon Gaviidae Gavia pacifica 

Grebes 

Clark’s grebe Podicipedidae Aechmophorus clarkii 

Western grebe Podicipedidae Aechmophorus occidentalis 

Horned grebe Podicipedidae Podiceps auritus 

Eared grebe Podicipedidae Podiceps nigricollis 

Pied-billed grebe Podicipedidae Podilymbus podiceps 

Pelicans and Cormorants 

American white pelican Pelecanidae Pelecanus erythrorhynchos 

Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocoracidae Phalacrocorax auritus 

Bitterns, Herons, and Egrets 

Great egret Ardeidae Ardea alba 

Great blue heron Ardeidae Ardea herodias 

American bittern Ardeidae Botaurus lentiginosus 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

E-24 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Birds 

Common Name Family Genus Species 

Cattle egret Ardeidae Bubulcus ibis 

Green heron Ardeidae Butorides virescens 

Snowy egret Ardeidae Egretta thula 

Least bittern Ardeidae Ixobrychus exilis 

Black-crowned night heron Ardeidae Nycticorax nycticorax 

Ibis and Spoonbills 

White-faced ibis Threskiornithidae Plegadis chihi 

New World Vultures 

Turkey vulture Cathartidae Cathartes aura 

Osprey, Kites, Eagles, and 

Hawks 

Cooper’s hawk Accipitridae Accipiter cooperii 

Northern goshawk Accipitridae Accipiter gentilis 

Sharp-shinned hawk Accipitridae Accipiter striatus 

Golden eagle Accipitridae Aquila chrysaetos 

Red-tailed hawk Accipitridae Buteo jamaicensis 

Rough-legged hawk Accipitridae Buteo lagopus 

Ferruginous hawk Accipitridae Buteo regalis 

Swainson’s hawk Accipitridae Buteo swainsoni 

Northern harrier Accipitridae Circus cyaneus 

Bald eagle Accipitridae Haleaeetus leucocephalus 

Osprey Accipitridae Pandion haliaetus 

Falcons 

Merlin Falconidae Falco columbarius 

Prairie falcon Falconidae Falco mexicanus 

Peregrine falcon Falconidae Falco peregrinus 

Gyrfalcon Falconidae Falco rusticolus 

American kestrel Falconidae Falco sparverius 

Rails 

American coot Rallidae Fulica americana 

Sora Rallidae Porzana carolina 

Virginia rail Rallidae Rallus limicola 

Cranes 

Sandhill crane Gruidae Grus canadensis 

Plovers 

Snowy plover Charadriidae Charadrius nivosus 

Semi-palmated plover Charadriidae Charadrius semipalmatus 

Killdeer Charadriidae Charadrius vociferus 

American golden plover Charadriidae Pluvialis dominica 

Black-bellied plover Charadriidae Pluvialis squatarola 

Stilts and Avocets 

Black-necked stilt Recurvirostridae Himantopus mexicanus 

American avocet Recurvirostridae Recurvirostra americana 

Sandpipers 

Spotted sandpiper Scolopacidae Actitis macularius 

Sanderling Scolopacidae Calidris alba 

Dunlin Scolopacidae Calidris alpina 

Baird's sandpiper Scolopacidae Calidris bairdii 

Stilt sandpiper Scolopacidae Calidris himantopus 

Western sandpiper Scolopacidae Calidris mauri 

Pectoral sandpiper Scolopacidae Calidris melanotos 

Least sandpiper Scolopacidae Calidris minutilla 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern E-25 

Birds 

Common Name Family Genus Species 

Semipalmated sandpiper Scolopacidae Calidris pusilla 

Short-billed dowitcher Scolopacidae Limnodromus griseus 

Long-billed dowitcher Scolopacidae Limnodromus scolopacrus 

Marbled godwit Scolopacidae Limosa fedoa 

Red Knot Scolopacidae Calidris canutus 

Long-billed curlew Scolopacidae Numenius americanus 

Lesser yellowlegs Scolopacidae Tringa flavipes 

Greater yellowlegs Scolopacidae Tringa melanoleuca 

Willet Scolopacidae Tringa semipalmata 

Solitary sandpiper Scolopacidae Tringa solitaria 

Snipe 

Wilson’s snipe Scolopacidae Gallinago delicata 

Phalaropes 

Red-necked phalarope Scolopacidae Phalaropus lobatus 

Wilson’s phalarope Scolopacidae Phalaropus tricolor 

Gulls and Terns 

California gull Laridae Larus californicus 

Ring-billed gull Laridae Larus delawarensis 

Lesser Black-backed gull Laridae Larus fuscus 

Glaucous-winged gull Laridae Larus glaucescens 

Bonaparte’s gull Laridae Larus philadelphia 

Franklin’s gull Laridae Larus pipixcan 

Herring gull Laridae Larus smithsonianus 

Thayer's gull Laridae Larus thayeri 

Forster’s tern Laridae Sterna forsteri 

Sabine’s gull Laridae Xema sabini 

Black tern Sternidae Chlidonias niger 

Caspian tern Sternidae Hydroprogne caspia 

Common tern Sternidae Sterna hirundo 

Doves 

Rock dove Columbidae Columba livia 

Eurasian collared dove Columbidae Streptopelia decaocto 

Mourning dove Columbidae Zenaida macroura 

Cuckoos 

Yellow-billed cuckoo Cuculidae Coccyzus americanus 

Owls 

Northern saw-whet owl Strigidae Aegolius acadicus 

Short-eared owl Strigidae Asio flammeus 

Long-eared owl Strigidae Asio otus 

Burrowing owl Strigidae Athene cunicularia 

Snowy owl Strigidae Bubo scandiacus 

Great horned owl Strigidae Bubo virginianus 

Northern pygmy-owl Strigidae Glaucidium gnoma 

Western screech owl Strigidae Megascops kennicottii 

Flammulated owl Strigidae Otus flammeolus 

Barred owl Strigidae Strix varia 

Barn owl Tytonidae Tyto alba 

Nightjars 

Common nighthawk Caprimulgidae Chordeiles minor 

Common poorwill Caprimulgidae Phalaenoptilus nuttallii 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

E-26 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Birds 

Common Name Family Genus Species 

Swifts 

White-throated swift Apodidae Aeronautes saxatalis 

Vaux’s swift Apodidae Chaetura vauxi 

Hummingbirds 

Black-chinned hummingbird Trochilidae Archilochus alexandri 

Broad-tailed hummingbird Trochilidae Selasphorus platycercus 

Rufous hummingbird Trochilidae Selasphorus rufus 

Calliope hummingbird Trochilidae Stellula calliope 

Kingfishers 

Belted kingfisher Cerylidae Megaceryle alcyon 

Woodpeckers 

Northern flicker Picidae Colaptes auratus 

Lewis’s woodpecker Picidae Melanerpes lewis 

Downy woodpecker Picidae Picoides pubescens 

Hairy woodpecker Picidae Picoides villosus 

Flycatchers 

Olive-sided flycatcher Tyrannidae Cantopus cooperii 

Western wood-pewee Tyrannidae Contopus sordidulus 

Cordilleran Tyrannidae Empidonax occidentalis 

Willow flycatcher Tyrannidae Empidonax trailii 

Gray flycatcher Tyrannidae Empidonax wrightii 

Ash-throated flycatcher Tyrannidae Myiarchus cinerascens 

Say’s phoebe Tyrannidae Sayornis saya 

Eastern kingbird Tyrannidae Tyrannus tyrannus 

Western kingbird Tyrannidae Tyrannus verticalis 

Shrikes 

Northern shrike Laniidae Lanius excubitor 

Loggerhead shrike Laniidae Lanius ludovicianus 

Vireos 

Cassin’s vireo Vireonidae Vireo cassinii 

Warbling vireo Vireonidae Vireo gilvus 

Red-eyed vireo Vireonidae Vireo olivaceus 

Plumbeous vireo Vireonidae Vireo plumbeus 

Jays, Magpies, and Crows 

American crow Corvidae Corvus brachyrhynchos 

Common raven Corvidae Corvus corax 

Blue jay Corvidae Cyanocitta cristata 

Steller’s jay Corvidae Cyanocitta stelleri 

Black-billed magpie Corvidae Pica hudsonia 

Larks 

Horned lark Alaudidae Eremophila alpestris 

Swallows 

Barn swallow Hirundinidae Hirundo rustica 

Cliff swallow Hirundinidae Petrochelidon pyrrhonota 

Bank swallow Hirundinidae Riparia riparia 

Northern rough-winged 

swallow Hirundinidae Stelgidopteryx serripennis 

Tree swallow Hirundinidae Tachycineta bicolor 

Violet-green swallow Hirundinidae Tachycineta thalassina 

Chickadees 

Black-capped chickadee Paridae Poecile atricapillus 

Mountain chickadee Paridae Poecile gambeli 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern E-27 

Birds 

Common Name Family Genus Species 

Bushtits 

Bushtit Aegithalidae Psaltriparus minimus 

Nuthatches 

Red-breasted nuthatch Sittidae Sitta canadensis 

White-breasted nuthatch Sittidae Sitta carolinensis 

Creepers 

Brown creeper Certhidae Certhia americana 

Wrens 

Canyon wren Troglodytidae Catherpes mexicanus 

Marsh wren Troglodytidae Cistothorus palustris 

Rock wren Troglodytidae Salpinctes obsoletus 

House wren Troglodytidae Troglodytes aedon 

Pacific wren Troglodytidae Troglodytes pacificus 

Kinglets, Bluebirds, and 

Thrushes 

Golden-crowned kinglet Regulidae Regulus satrapa 

Ruby-crowned kinglet Sylviidae Regulus calendula 

Hermit thrush Turdidae Catharus guttatus 

Swainson’s thrush Turdidae Catharus ustulatus 

Varied thrush Turdidae Ixoreus naevius 

Townsend’s solitaire Turdidae Myadestes townsendi 

Mountain bluebird Turdidae Sialia currucoides 

Western bluebird Turdidae Sialia mexicana 

American robin Turdidae Turdus migratorius 

Mockingbirds and Thrashers 

Gray catbird Mimidae Dumetella carolinensis 

Northern mockingbird Mimidae Mimus polyglottos 

Sage thrasher Mimidae Oeroscoptes montanus 

Starlings 

European starling Sturnidae Sturnus vulgaris 

Pipits 

American pipit Motacillidae Anthus rubescens 

Waxwings 

Cedar waxwing Bombycillidae Bombycilla cedrorum 

Bohemian waxwing Bombycillidae Bombycilla garrulus 

Warblers 

Yellow warbler Parulidae Dendroica petechia 

Townsend’s warbler Parulidae Dendroica townsendi 

Common yellowthroat Parulidae Geothlypis trichas 

Yellow-breasted chat Parulidae Icteria virens 

MacGillivray’s warbler Parulidae Oporornis tolmiei 

Orange-crowned warbler Parulidae Oreothlypis celata 

Nashville warbler Parulidae Oreothlypis ruficapilla 

Yellow-rumped warbler Parulidae Setophaga coronata 

Wilson’s warbler Parulidae Wilsonia pusilla 

Towhees and Sparrows 

Lapland longspur Calcariidae Calcarius lapponicus 

Snow bunting Calcariidae Plectrophenax nivalis 

Grasshopper sparrow Emberizidae Ammodramus savannarum 

Sage sparrow Emberizidae Amphispiza belli 

Black-throated sparrow Emberizidae Amphispiza bilineata 

Lark sparrow Emberizidae Chondestes grammacus 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

E-28 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Birds 

Common Name Family Genus Species 

Dark-eyed junco Emberizidae Junco hyemalis 

Lincoln’s sparrow Emberizidae Melospiza lincalnii 

Song sparrow Emberizidae Melospiza melodia 

Savannah sparrow Emberizidae Passerculus sandwichensis 

Fox sparrow Emberizidae Passerella iliaca 

Green-tailed towhee Emberizidae Pipilo chlorurus 

Spotted towhee Emberizidae Pipilo maculatus 

Vesper sparrow Emberizidae Pooecetes gramineus 

American tree sparrow Emberizidae Spizella arborea 

Brewer’s sparrow Emberizidae Spizella breweri 

Chipping sparrow Emberizidae Spizella passerina 

White-throated sparrow Emberizidae Zonotrichia albicollis 

White-crowned sparrow Emberizidae Zonotrichia leucophrys 

Harris’ sparrow Emberizidae Zonotrichia querula 

Grosbeaks and Allies 

Lazuli bunting Cardinalidae Passerina amoena 

Indigo bunting Cardinalidae Passerina cyanea 

Black-headed grosbeak Cardinalidae Pheuctius melanocephalus 

Western tanager Cardinalidae Piranga ludoviciana 

Blackbirds and Orioles 

Red-winged blackbird Icteridae Agelaius phoeniceus 

Brewer’s blackbird Icteridae Euphagus cyanocephalus 

Bullock’s oriole Icteridae Icterus bullockii 

Brown-headed cowbird Icteridae Molothrus ater 

Great-tailed grackle Icteridae Quiscalus mexicanus 

Common grackle Icteridae Quiscalus quiscula 

Western meadowlark Icteridae Sturnella neglecta 

Yellow-headed blackbird Icteridae Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus 

Finches 

Common redpoll Fringillidae Carduelis flammea 

Pine siskin Fringillidae Carduelis pinus 

American goldfinch Fringillidae Carduelis tristis 

Cassin’s finch Fringillidae Carpodacus cassinii 

House finch Fringillidae Carpodacus mexicanus 

Evening grosbeak Fringillidae Coccothraustes vespertinus 

Black rosy-finch Fringillidae Leucosticte atrata 

Gray-crowned rosy-finch Fringillidae Leucosticte tephrocotis 

Weaver Finches 

House sparrow Passeridae Passer domesticus 

Insects 

Common Name Order Family Genus Species 

Cockroach Blattaria (cockroaches) Blatellidae 

Comb-clawed beetle Coleoptera (Beetles) Alleculidae 

Coleoptera (Beetles) Anobiidae 

Ant-like flower beetle Coleoptera (Beetles) Anthicidae 

Fungus weevils Coleoptera (Beetles) Anthribididae 

Seed beetle Coleoptera (Beetles) Bruchidae 

Metallic wood-boring beetle Coleoptera (Beetles) Buprestidae 

Soldier beetle Coleoptera (Beetles) Cantharidae 

Ground beetle Coleoptera (Beetles) Carabidae 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern E-29 

Insects 

Common Name Order Family Genus Species 

Brown sawyer beetle Coleoptera (Beetles) Cerambycidae 

Milkweed long-horned beetle Coleoptera (Beetles) Cerambycidae Tetraopes tetraophthalmus 

Flea beetle Coleoptera (Beetles) Chrysomelidae 

Case-bearing leaf beetle Coleoptera (Beetles) Chrysomelidae 

Milkweed leaf beetle Coleoptera (Beetles) Chrysomelidae Chrysochus colbaltinus 

Asparagus leaf beetle Coleoptera (Beetles) Chrysomelidae Crioceris asparagi 

Spotted asparagus beetle Coleoptera (Beetles) Chrysomelidae Crioceris Duodecimpunctata 

Spotted cucumber leaf beetle Coleoptera (Beetles) Chrysomelidae Diabrotica spp. 

Elm leaf beetle Coleoptera (Beetles) Chrysomelidae Galerucella luteola 

Gray tiger beetle Coleoptera (Beetles) Cicindelidae 

Ornate checkered beetle Coleoptera (Beetles) Cleridae Trichodes ornatus 

Ladybird beetle (no spots) Coleoptera (Beetles) Coccinellidae 

Ladybird beetle (orange; seven 

spots per elytron Coleoptera (Beetles) Coccinellidae 

Ladybird beetle (black with 

cream spots) Coleoptera (Beetles) Coccinellidae 

Ladybird beetle Coleoptera (Beetles) Coccinellidae Hippodamia convergens 

Water boatman Coleoptera (Beetles) Corixidae 

Tiny fungus beetle Coleoptera (Beetles) Cryptophagidae 

Weevil Coleoptera (Beetles) Curculionidae 

Skin beetle Coleoptera (Beetles) Dermestidae 

Diving beetle Coleoptera (Beetles) Dytiscidae 

Click beetle (dark brown 

species) Coleoptera (Beetles) Elateridae 

Mud-loving beetle Coleoptera (Beetles) Heteroceridae 

Water scavenger beetle Coleoptera (Beetles) Hydrophillidae 

Minute scavenger beetle Coleoptera (Beetles) Latridiidae 

Blister beetle Coleoptera (Beetles) Meloidae Nemognatha spp. 

Soft winged flower beetle Coleoptera (Beetles) Melyridae 

Tumbling flower beetle Coleoptera (Beetles) Mordellidae 

Sap beetle (brown/orange spots 

on elytra) Coleoptera (Beetles) Nitidulidae 

Backswimmer Coleoptera (Beetles) Notonectidae spp. 

Scarab beetle (black species) Coleoptera (Beetles) Scarabaeidae 

May beetle Coleoptera (Beetles) Scarabaeidae Phyllophaga sp. 

False darkling beetle Coleoptera (Beetles) Seraptiidae 

Rove beetle Coleoptera (Beetles) Staphylinidae 

Darkling beetle Coleoptera (Beetles) Tenebrionidae 

European earwig Dermaptera (Earwigs) Forficulidae Forficula auricularia 

Deer fly Diptera (Flies) 

Robber fly Diptera (Flies) Asilidae 

Small minnow mayfly Diptera (Flies) Baetidae 

March flies Diptera (Flies) Bibionidae 

Bee fly (two spots on each wing) Diptera (Flies) Bombyliidae 

Bee fly (brown coastal edge 

species) Diptera (Flies) Bombyliidae 

Green bottle fly Diptera (Flies) Calliforidae 

Bitting midge Diptera (Flies) Ceratopogonidae 

Midge (small green species) Diptera (Flies) Chironomidae 

Grass flies Diptera (Flies) Chloropidae 

Mosquitoes Diptera (Flies) Culicidae 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

E-30 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Insects 

Common Name Order Family Genus Species 

Long-legged fly (gray species) Diptera (Flies) Dolichopodidae 

Dance flies Diptera (Flies) Empididae 

Diptera (Flies) Muscidae 

House fly Diptera (Flies) Muscoididae 

Fungus gnat (brown) Diptera (Flies) Mycetophilidae 

Hump-backed flies Diptera (Flies) Phoridae 

Moth fly Diptera (Flies) Psychodidae 

Dung flies Diptera (Flies) Sarcophagidae 

Dark-winged fungus gnat Diptera (Flies) Sciaridae 

Soldier fly (metallic green 

species) Diptera (Flies) Stratiomyiidae 

Flower flies Diptera (Flies) Syrphidae 

Tachinid fly Diptera (Flies) Tachinidae 

Fruit fly (black-wing/red 

abdomen/green eyes) Diptera (Flies) Tephritidae 

Fruit fly (metallic green 

abdomen/clear wing species) Diptera (Flies) Tephritidae 

Stiletto fly Diptera (Flies) Therevidae 

Crane fly Diptera (Flies) Tipulidae 

Small minnow mayfly Ephemoroptera Baetidae 

Minute pirate bug Hemiptera (True Bugs) Anthocoridae 

Stilt bugs Hemiptera (True Bugs) Berytidae 

Broad-headed bug Hemiptera (True Bugs) Coriscidae 

Water boatman Hemiptera (True Bugs) Corixidae 

Scentless plant bug Hemiptera (True Bugs) Corizidae 

Big-eyed bugs Hemiptera (True Bugs) Geocoridae 

Water strider Hemiptera (True Bugs) Gerridae 

Seed bug (small gray species) Hemiptera (True Bugs) Lygaeidae 

Western big-eyed bug Hemiptera (True Bugs) Lygaeidae Geocoris pallens 

Small milkweed bug Hemiptera (True Bugs) Lygaeidae Lygaeus kalmii 

Tarnished plant bug Hemiptera (True Bugs) Miridae Lygus lineolaris 

Damsel bug Hemiptera (True Bugs) Nabidae 

Backswimmer Hemiptera (True Bugs) Notonectidae 

Stink bug (green species) Hemiptera (True Bugs) Pentatomidae 

Rough plant bug Hemiptera (True Bugs) Pentatomidae Brochymena sp. 

Ambush bug Hemiptera (True Bugs) Phymatidae Phymata americana 

Assassin bug (gray/tan species) Hemiptera (True Bugs) Reduviidae 

Shore bug Hemiptera (True Bugs) Saldidae 

Aphids Homoptera (Aphids and 

Relatives) Aphididae 

Leafhopper nymphs (gray with 

white stripe) 

Homoptera (Aphids and 

Relatives) Cicadellidae 

Delphacid planthopper Homoptera (Aphids and 

Relatives) Delphacidae 

Jumping plantlice (tiny tan/green 

species) 

Homoptera (Aphids and 

Relatives) Psyllidae 

Hymenoptera (Bees, 

Wasps and Ants) Aphaenogaster sp. 

Hymenoptera (Bees, 

Wasps and Ants) Forelius pruinosus (Royer)

Hymenoptera (Bees, 

Wasps and Ants) Aphelinidae 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern E-31 

Insects 

Common Name Order Family Genus Species 

Honey bee Hymenoptera (Bees, 

Wasps and Ants) Apidae Apis mellifera 

Honey bee Hymenoptera (Bees, 

Wasps and Ants) Apidae Apis mellifera 

Large bumble bee Hymenoptera (Bees, 

Wasps and Ants) Apidae Bombus sp. 

Longhorn bee Hymenoptera (Bees, 

Wasps and Ants) Apidae Melissodes sp. 

Hymenoptera (Bees, 

Wasps and Ants) Bethylidae 

Braconid wasp Hymenoptera (Bees, 

Wasps and Ants) Braconidae 

Hymenoptera (Bees, 

Wasps and Ants) Chalcidae 

Cuckoo wasp Hymenoptera (Bees, 

Wasps and Ants) Chrysididae 

Gall wasp Hymenoptera (Bees, 

Wasps and Ants) Cynipidae 

Hymenoptera (Bees, 

Wasps and Ants) Diapriidae 

Hymenoptera (Bees, 

Wasps and Ants) Encyrtidae 

Hymenoptera (Bees, 

Wasps and Ants) Eulophidae 

Hymenoptera (Bees, 

Wasps and Ants) Eupelmidae 

Hymenoptera (Bees, 

Wasps and Ants) Figitidae 

Thatch/Wood ant Hymenoptera (Bees, 

Wasps and Ants) Formicidae Formica rufa spp.

Big headed ant Hymenoptera (Bees, 

Wasps and Ants) Formicidae Pheidole 

Owyhee harvester ant Hymenoptera (Bees, 

Wasps and Ants) Formicidae Pogonomyrmex salinus 

Odorous house ant Hymenoptera (Bees, 

Wasps and Ants) Formicidae Tapinoma sessile 

Pavement ant Hymenoptera (Bees, 

Wasps and Ants) Formicidae Tetramorium caespitum 

Flower bee (red-yellow 

abdomen) 

Hymenoptera (Bees, 

Wasps and Ants) Halictidae 

Sweat bee (blue-green head) Hymenoptera (Bees, 

Wasps and Ants) Halictidae 

Parasitic ichneumon wasp 

(orange/black-wing species) 

Hymenoptera (Bees, 

Wasps and Ants) Ichneumonidae 

Parasitic ichneumon wasp Hymenoptera (Bees, 

Wasps and Ants) Ichneumonidae Ophion sp. 

Leaf-cutting bee Hymenoptera (Bees, 

Wasps and Ants) Megachilidae 

Velvet ant Hymenoptera (Bees, 

Wasps and Ants) Mutillidae 

Fairy flies Hymenoptera (Bees, 

Wasps and Ants) Mymaridae 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

E-32 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Insects 

Common Name Order Family Genus Species 

Hymenoptera (Bees, 

Wasps and Ants) Perilampidae 

Spider wasp Hymenoptera (Bees, 

Wasps and Ants) Pompillidae 

Hymenoptera (Bees, 

Wasps and Ants) Pteromalidae 

Hunting wasp Hymenoptera (Bees, 

Wasps and Ants) Sphecidae 

Thread-waisted wasp Hymenoptera (Bees, 

Wasps and Ants) Sphecidae Ammophilia spp. 

Sand wasp Hymenoptera (Bees, 

Wasps and Ants) Sphecidae Bembix americana 

Caterpillar wasp Hymenoptera (Bees, 

Wasps and Ants) Sphecidae Podalonia spp. 

Tiphiid wasp (brown species) Hymenoptera (Bees, 

Wasps and Ants) Tiphiidae 

Paper wasp Hymenoptera (Bees, 

Wasps and Ants) Vespidae Polistes fuscatus 

Western hornet Hymenoptera (Bees, 

Wasps and Ants) Vespidae Vespula pennsylvanica 

Termites Isoptera 

Ochre ringlet Lepidoptera (Butterflies 

and Moths) Coenonympha tullia 

Northern white skipper Lepidoptera (Butterflies 

and Moths) Heliopetes ericetorum 

Purplish copper Lepidoptera (Butterflies 

and Moths) Lycaena helloides 

Tiger moth Lepidoptera (Butterflies 

and Moths) Arctiidae 

Dogbane tiger moth Lepidoptera (Butterflies 

and Moths) Arctiidae Cycnia tenera 

Banded woollybear moth Lepidoptera (Butterflies 

and Moths) Arctiidae Isia isabella 

Monarch butterfly Lepidoptera (Butterflies 

and Moths) Danaidae Danaus plexippus 

Inchworm moth Lepidoptera (Butterflies 

and Moths) Geometridae 

Western pygmy blue butterfly Lepidoptera (Butterflies 

and Moths) Lycaenidae Brephidium exile 

Gray hairstreak butterfly Lepidoptera (Butterflies 

and Moths) Lycaenidae Strymon melinus 

Euthesanotia-type noctuid Lepidoptera (Butterflies 

and Moths) Noctuidae 

Celery looper moth Lepidoptera (Butterflies 

and Moths) Noctuidae Anagrapha falcifera 

Looper noctuid moth Lepidoptera (Butterflies 

and Moths) Noctuidae Dargida procinctus 

Dart noctuid moth Lepidoptera (Butterflies 

and Moths) Noctuidae Euxoa sp. 

Clandestine dart moth Lepidoptera (Butterflies 

and Moths) Noctuidae Spaelotis clandestina 

Beet armyworm moth Lepidoptera (Butterflies 

and Moths) Noctuidae Spodoptera exigua 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern E-33 

Insects 

Common Name Order Family Genus Species 

Viceroy butterfly Lepidoptera (Butterflies 

and Moths) Nymphalidae Limenitis archippus 

Field crescent butterfly Lepidoptera (Butterflies 

and Moths) Nymphalidae Phyciodes campestris 

Painted lady butterfly Lepidoptera (Butterflies 

and Moths) Nymphalidae Vanessa cardui 

Western tiger swallowtail 

butterfly 

Lepidoptera (Butterflies 

and Moths) Papilionidae Papilio rutulus 

Cabbage white butterfly Lepidoptera (Butterflies 

and Moths) Pieridae Pieris rapae 

Becker’s white butterfly Lepidoptera (Butterflies 

and Moths) Pieridae Pontia beckerii 

Western white butterfly Lepidoptera (Butterflies 

and Moths) Pieridae Pontia occidentalis 

Checkered white butterfly Lepidoptera (Butterflies 

and Moths) Pieridae Pontia protodice 

Diamondback moth Lepidoptera (Butterflies 

and Moths) Plutellidae Plutella xylostella 

Plume moth Lepidoptera (Butterflies 

and Moths) Pterophoridae 

Corn earworm-like grass moth Lepidoptera (Butterflies 

and Moths) Pyralidae 

Crambus grass moth (gray and 

silver) 

Lepidoptera (Butterflies 

and Moths) Pyralidae 

Crambus grass moth (yellow and 

pearl) 

Lepidoptera (Butterflies 

and Moths) Pyralidae 

Diorhyctria-type grass moth Lepidoptera (Butterflies 

and Moths) Pyralidae 

Loxostege-like grass moth Lepidoptera (Butterflies 

and Moths) Pyralidae 

Tan grass moth Lepidoptera (Butterflies 

and Moths) Pyralidae 

Grass moth Lepidoptera (Butterflies 

and Moths) Pyrilidae 

Common ringlet butterfly Lepidoptera (Butterflies 

and Moths) Satyridae Coenonympha ampelos 

Leaf-roller moth (pale yellow) Lepidoptera (Butterflies 

and Moths) Tortricidae 

Leaf-roller moth (pale yellow 

with brown markings) 

Lepidoptera (Butterflies 

and Moths) Tortricidae 

Leaf-roller moth Lepidoptera (Butterflies 

and Moths) Tortricidae Choristoneura spp. 

Green lace-wing Neuroptera 

(nervewings) Chrysopidae 

Ant lion Neuroptera 

(nervewings) Myrmeleontidae 

Snakefly Neuroptera 

(nervewings) Raphidiidae 

Blue-eyed darner Odonata (Dragonflies 

and Damselflies) Aeshnidae Aeshna multicolor 

Narrow winged damselfly Odonata (Dragonflies 

and Damselflies) Coenagrionidae 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

E-34 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Insects 

Common Name Order Family Genus Species 

Gray damselfly Odonata (Dragonflies 

and Damselflies) Coenagrionidae 

Blue damselfly Odonata (Dragonflies 

and Damselflies) Coenagrionidae 

Bluet damselfly Odonata (Dragonflies 

and Damselflies) Coenagrionidae Enallagma sp. 

Skimmer dragonfly (red species) Odonata (Dragonflies 

and Damselflies) Libellulidae Sympetrum spp. 

Skimmer dragonfly (tan species) Odonata (Dragonflies 

and Damselflies) Libellulidae Sympetrum spp. 

Saddlebag skimmer dragonfly Odonata (Dragonflies 

and Damselflies) Libellulidae Tramea spp. 

Damselfly Odonata (Dragonflies 

and Damselflies) Zygopidae 

Short-horned grasshopper (gray 

species) 

Orthoptera 

(Grasshoppers and 

Relatives) 

Acrididae 

Short-horned grasshopper (gray 

with black and yellow 

hindwings; red-legged) 

Orthoptera 

(Grasshoppers and 

Relatives) 

Acrididae 

Short-horned grasshopper (green 

with white stripes) 

Orthoptera 

(Grasshoppers and 

Relatives) 

Acrididae 

Short-horned grasshopper (tan 

species) 

Orthoptera 

(Grasshoppers and 

Relatives) 

Acrididae 

Tree cricket 

Orthoptera 

(Grasshoppers and 

Relatives) 

Grillidae 

Jeruselem cricket 

Orthoptera 

(Grasshoppers and 

Relatives) 

Gryllacrididae 

Praying mantis 

Orthoptera 

(Grasshoppers and 

Relatives) 

Mantidae 

Ant cricket 

Orthoptera 

(Grasshoppers and 

Relatives) 

Myrmecophilidae Myrmecophilus 

Pygmy grasshopper 

Orthoptera 

(Grasshoppers and 

Relatives) 

Tetrigidae 

Katydids 

Orthoptera 

(Grasshoppers and 

Relatives) 

Tettigoniidae 

Plantlouse (tiny) Psocoptera (Plantlice 

and Barklice) 

Thrips Thysanptera (thripes) 

Caddisfly (black species) Trichoptera 

(Caddisflies) 

Caddisfly (small/tan/short 

antennae) 

Trichoptera 

(Caddisflies) 

Caddisfly (mediumsized/tan/long antennae) Trichoptera 

(Caddisflies) 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern E-35 

Insects 

Common Name Order Family Genus Species 

Caddisfly (medium-sized/ graybrown/short antennae) Trichoptera 

(Caddisflies) 

Caddisfly (mediumsized/gray/long antennae) Trichoptera 

(Caddisflies) 

Fish 

Common Family Genus Species 

Largescale sucker Catostomidae Catostomus macrochelius 

Pumpkinseed Centrarchidae Lepomis gibbosus 

Bluegill Centrarchidae Lepomis macrochirus 

Smallmouth bass Centrarchidae Micropterus dolomieu 

Largemouth bass Centrarchidae Micropterus salmoides 

Black crappie Centrarchidae Pomoxis nigromaculatus 

Oriental weatherfish Cobitidae Misgurnus anguillicaudatus 

Common carp Cyprinidae Cyprinus carpio 

Northern pikeminnow Cyprinidae Ptychocheilus oregonensis 

Redside shiner Cyprinidae Richardsonius balteatus 

Brown bullhead Ictaluridae Ameiurus nebulosus 

Channel catfish Ictaluridae Ictalurus punctatus 

Yellow perch Percidae Perca flavescens 

Lahontan cutthroat trout Salmonidae Oncorhynchus larkia henshawi 

Rainbow trout Salmonidae Oncorhynchus mykiss 

Kokanee Salmonidae Oncorhynchus nerka 

Herptiles 

Common Name Family Genus Species 

Racer Colubridae Coluber constrictor 

Striped whipsnake Colubridae Masticophis taeniatus 

Gopher snake Colubridae Pituophis catenifer 

Bull snake Colubridae Pituophis melanoleucuc 

Western terrestrial garter snake Colubridae Thamnophis elegans 

Common garter snake Colubridae Thamnophis sirtalis 

Painted turtle Emydidae Chrysemys picta 

Pacific tree frog Hylidae Pseudacris regilla 

Bullfrog Ranidae Rana catesbeiana 

Northern leopard frog Ranidae Rana pipiens 

Great Basin spadefoot toad Scaphiopodidae Spea intermontana 

Western rattlesnake Viperidae Crotalus viridis 

Other 

Common Name Family Genus Species 

Water mite Acari 

Free-living aquatic worm Nematode 

Scud Amphipoda 

Springtail Collembola 

New Zealand mudsnail Hydrobiidae Potamopyrgus antipodarum

Aquatic worm Oligochaeta 

Wind scorpion Solifudae 

Ink cap fungi Coprinaceae Coprinus spp. 

 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

E-36 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern 

Document continues on next page. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix F. Statement of Compliance F-1

Appendix F. Statement of Compliance 

STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

for Implementation of the 

Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge, Headquartered in Nampa, Canyon County, Idaho 

(with Refuge lands in Payette, Owyhee, and Washington Counties in Idaho; and Malheur County 

in Oregon) 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

The following executive orders and legislative acts have been reviewed as they apply to 

implementation of the Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan (CCP). See 602 FW 3, Exhibit 2 for other potential compliance requirements. 

 National Environmental Policy Act (1969) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) (NEPA). The planning 

process has been conducted in accordance with NEPA Implementing Procedures and 

Department of the Interior and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) procedures, and has 

been performed in coordination with the affected public. 

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. 

 National Historic Preservation Act (1966) (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). The implementation of 

the CCP should not affect cultural resources. The proposed action does not meet the criteria 

of an effect or adverse effect as an undertaking defined in 36 Code of Federal Regulations 

800.9 and Service Manual 614 FW 2. The Service will comply with the National Historic 

Preservation Act if any management actions have the potential to affect any historic 

properties that may be present. 

 Executive Order 12372. Intergovernmental Review. Coordination and consultation with 

affected Tribal, local, and State governments, other Federal agencies, and landowners has 

been completed through personal contact and/or in writing by Service planners, Refuge 

managers, and supervisors. 

 Executive Order 13175. Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments. As required under Secretary of the Interior Order 3206, American Indian 

Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act, the Project 

Leader attempted to consult and coordinate with the Nez Perce, Shoshone-Bannock, and 

Shoshone Paiute Tribes regarding the proposed action. All listed tribes were contacted in 

writing and by phone to assess their interest in the CCP planning process. 

 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. 
F-2 

Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

• Wilderness Act of 1964. The Service has evaluated the suitability of the Refuge for 

wilderness designation and found that no lands within the Refuge meet all necessary criteria 

for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. 

• National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee). 

Appropriate Use Findings were prepared for boating at no-wake speeds, competitive and 

group cycling and jogging, individual cycling and jogging, float plan use, geocaching, 

grazing and farming, high-speed watercraft use, horseback riding, ice skating, remote 

controlled planes, research, swimming and beach use, and walking with dogs. Walking with 

dogs, swimming and beach use, individual cycling and jogging, boating at no-wake speeds, 

horseback riding, and high-speed watercraft use were all found to be appropriate when 

following stipulations set forth in the compatibility determination for each use. Compatibility 

determinations were also prepared for fishing, hunting, wildlife observation, photography, 

interpretation, and environmental education. All wildlife-dependent activities and appropriate 

nonwildlife-dependent activities were found to be compatible with stipulations. 

• Executive Order 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. 

• Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544). CCP implementation is expected 

to result in findings of no significant action. 

• Executive Order 11990. Protection of Wetlands. The CCP is consistent with Executive 

Order 11990 because CCP implementation would protect existing wetlands. 

• Integrated Pest Management, 517 DM 1 and 569 FW 1. 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 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in full 

compliance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and as provided in 

regulations, orders, or permits issued by EPA may be· applied on lands and waters under 

refuge jurisdiction. 

--- Project Lea r, Southeast Idaho 

National lldlife Refuge Complex 

Appendix F. Statement of Compliance 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program G-1 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program 

G.1 Background 

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

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

and habitat management goals and objectives. IPM is also a scientific, adaptive management process 

where available scientific information and best professional judgment of the refuge staff and 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, site-specific management of pest 

species to achieve desired outcomes. In accordance with 43 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) 

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 comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) strategies 

(see Chapter 2 of this CCP) in an adaptive management context to achieve refuge resource 

objectives. 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 are necessary to address pests, this appendix provides a structured procedure for 

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

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

Chapter 6 (Environmental Consequences) of the CCP/EIS. Only pesticide uses that would likely 

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

with appropriate best management practices (BMPs), would be allowed for use on the refuge, where 

necessary. 

This appendix does not describe the more detailed process used to evaluate potential effects 

associated with aerial applications of pesticides. Moreover, it does not address effects of mosquito 

control with pesticides (larvicides, pupacides, or adulticides) based upon identified human health 

threats and presence of disease-carrying mosquitoes in sufficient numbers from monitoring 

conducted on a refuge. However, the basic framework to assess potential effects to refuge biological 

resources and environmental quality from aerial application of pesticides or use of insecticides for 

mosquito management would be similar to the process described in this appendix for ground-based 

treatments of other pesticides. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-2 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program 

G.2 Pest Management Laws and Policies 

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

vertebrate pests on units of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) can be controlled to ensure 

balanced 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 U.S.C. 668dd668ee); 

 Plant Protection Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.); 

 Noxious Weed Control and Eradication Act of 2004 (7 U.S.C. 7781-7786, Subtitle E); 

 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 136-136y); 

 National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C. 4701); 

 Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 4701); 

 Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 136); 

 Executive Order 13148, Section 601(a); 

 Executive Order 13112; and 

 Animal Damage Control Act of 1931 (7 U.S.C. 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” according to 

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 refuges 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 that are considered pests may be managed if the following criteria are met: 

 Threat to human health and wellbeing 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., 

CCP, habitat management plan [HMP]), 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 refuges follow. 

 Protect human health and wellbeing; 

 Prevent substantial damage to important refuge resources; 

 Protect newly introduced species or re-establish native species; 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program G-3 

 Control nonnative (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. 

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 C.F.R. 31.14 (Official Animal Control Operations). 

For example, the incidental removal of beavers 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 areas) managed on refuge lands may be conducted 

without a pest control proposal. We recognize beavers are native species and most of their activities 

on refuge lands represent a natural process beneficial for maintaining wetland habitats. 

Trespass and feral animals also may be controlled on refuge lands. Based upon 50 C.F.R. 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 of 

by the most humane method(s) available and in accordance with relevant Service directives 

(including Executive Order 11643). 

Disposed wildlife specimens may be donated or loaned to public institutions. Donation or loans of 

resident wildlife species would only be made after securing state approval (50 C.F.R. 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 C.F.R. 30.12 

[Sale of Wildlife Specimens]).

G.3 Strategies 

To fully embrace IPM as identified in 569 FW 1, the following strategies, where applicable, will 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 established pests to uninfested 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 to determine 

if current management activities on a refuge may introduce and/or spread invasive species in order to 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-4 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program 

identify appropriate BMPs for prevention. See http://www.haccp-nrm.org/ for more information 

about HACCP planning. 

Prevention may include source reduction, using pathogen-free or weed-free seeds or fill; exclusion 

methods (e.g., barriers) and/or sanitation methods (e.g., wash stations) to prevent re-introductions by 

various mechanisms including vehicles, personnel, livestock, and horses. Because invasive species 

are frequently the first to establish in 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 of prevention with respect to managing 

pests. Methods to prevent the introduction and/or spread of pests on refuge lands follow: 

 Before beginning ground-disturbing activities (e.g., disking, scraping), inventory and 

prioritize pest infestations in project operating areas and along access routes. Refuge staff 

will identify pest species on-site or within reasonably expected potential invasion vicinity. 

Where possible, the refuge staff will begin project activities in un-infested areas before 

working in pest-infested areas. 

 The refuge staff will locate and use pest-free project staging areas. They will avoid or 

minimize travel through pest-infested areas, or restrict use to those periods when spread of 

seed or propagules of invasive plants will be least likely. 

 The refuge staff will determine the need for and, when appropriate, identify sanitation sites 

where equipment can be cleaned of pests. Where possible, the refuge staff will 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 remain on 

roadways. Seeds and plant parts of pest plants will need to be collected, where practical. The 

refuge staff will remove mud, dirt, and plant parts from project equipment before moving it 

into a project area. 

 The refuge staff will clean all equipment before leaving the project site, if operating in areas 

infested with pests. The refuge staff will determine the need for and, when appropriate, 

identify sanitation sites where equipment can be cleaned. 

 Refuge staff, their authorized agents, and refuge volunteers will, 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 them (e.g., incinerating). 

 The refuge staff will evaluate options, including closure, to restrict traffic at sites with 

ongoing restoration of desired vegetation. They will revegatate 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 will use native material, where appropriate 

and feasible. They will use certified weed-free or weed-seed-free hay or straw where certified 

materials are reasonably available. 

 The refuge staff will provide information, training, and appropriate pest identification 

materials to permit holders and recreational visitors. The refuge staff will educate them about 

pest identification, biology, impacts, and effective prevention measures. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program G-5 

 The refuge staff will require grazing permittees to use preventative measures for their 

livestock while on refuge lands. 

 The refuge staff would inspect borrow material for invasive plants prior to use and transport 

onto and/or within refuge lands. 

 The refuge staff will consider invasive plants in planning for road maintenance activities. 

 The refuge staff will restrict off-road travel to designated routes. 

The following are methods to prevent the introduction and/or spread of pests into refuge waters: 

 The refuge staff will inspect boats (including air boats), trailers, and other boating equipment. 

Where possible, they will remove any visible plants, animals, or mud before leaving any 

waters or boat launching facilities. Where possible, the refuge staff will drain water from 

motor, live well, bilge, and transom wells while on land before leaving the site. If possible, 

the refuge staff will 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. 

 Where feasible, the refuge staff will maintain a 100-foot buffer of aquatic pest-free clearance 

around boat launches and docks or quarantine areas when cleaning around culverts, canals, or 

irrigation sites. Where possible, the refuge staff will 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 the Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program: 

Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants, Final Environmental Impact Statement (U.S. Forest 

Service [USFS] 2005: Appendix E). 

Mechanical/Physical Methods. These methods would remove and destroy, disrupt the growth of, or 

interfere with the reproduction of pest species. For plants, 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 C.F.R. 

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, nonlethally trapped animals will be relocated to off-refuge sites with prior approval from the state. 

Each of these tools will 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 will 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 will be 

major factors that can limit the use of many mechanical control methods. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-6 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program 

Some mechanical control methods (e.g., mowing), which will be used in combination with 

herbicides, can be very effective techniques to control perennial species. For example, mowing 

perennial plants followed sequentially by treating the plant regrowth with a systemic herbicide often 

will improve the efficacy of the herbicide compared to herbicide treatment only. 

Cultural Methods. These methods will involve manipulating habitat to increase pest mortality by 

reducing its suitability to the pest. Cultural methods include water-level manipulation, mulching, 

planting winter cover crops, changing planting dates to minimize pest impact, using prescribed 

burning (facilitate revegetation, increase herbicide efficacy, and remove litter to assist in emergence 

of desirable species), flaming with propane torches, using trap crops, having crop rotations that 

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 will 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 will be difficult or no 

longer practical. 

Biological control has advantages as well as disadvantages. Benefits include reducing pesticide use, 

host specificity for target pests, long-term self-perpetuating control, low cost per acre, capacity for 

searching and locating hosts, synchronizing biological control agents to hosts’ life cycles, and the 

low likelihood that hosts will develop resistance to agents. Disadvantages 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 while working well in other 

areas. Biological control agents 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 will 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 will be 

dependent upon the density of its host. After the pest population decreases, the population of the 

biological control agent will decrease correspondingly. This is a natural cycle. Some pest populations 

(e.g., invasive plants) tend to persist for several years after a biological control agent becomes 

established due to seed reserves in the soil, inefficiencies in the agents’ search behavior, and the 

natural lag in population buildup of the agent. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program G-7 

The full range of pest groups potentially found on refuge lands and waters would include disease 

causing organisms, invertebrates (insects, mollusks), vertebrates, and invasive plants (the most 

common group). Often it is assumed that biological control will 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 will ensure introduced agents are approved by the applicable authorities. Except for 

a small number of formulated biological control products registered by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (USEPA) under Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act of 1972 

(FIFRA), most biological control agents are regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 

(USDA’s) Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine (APHIS-PPQ). 

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 biocontrol agents from 

another state. Form 526 may be obtained at www.aphis.usda.gov/permits/ppq_epermits.shtml, or by 

writing to: 

USDA-APHIS-PPQ 

Biological Assessment and Taxonomic Support 

4700 River Road, Unit 113 

Riverdale, MD 20737 

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 the 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, 

subspecies, and variety) and purity (e.g., parasite free, pathogen free, and biotic and abiotic 

contaminants) should be specified in purchase orders. 

Biological control agents are subject to 7 RM 8 (Exotic Species Introduction and Management). In 

addition, the refuge staff would follow the International Code of Best Practice for Classical 

Biological Control of Weeds (http://sric.ucdavis.edu/exotic/exotic.htm) as ratified by delegates to the 

X International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds, Bozeman, Montana, on July 9, 1999. 

This code identifies the following: 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-8 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program 

 Release only approved biological control agents, 

 Use the most effective agents, 

 Document releases, and 

 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 pesticide use proposals (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. 

National Environmental Policy Act (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 (BLM), the USFS, the National Park 

Service, USDA 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 C.F.R. 46.135) is a technique used to avoid redundancies in analysis. 

It also can reduce the bulk of a Service NEPA document, which must only 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 the 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 pest populations, site-specific conditions (e.g., soils, 

topography), known efficacy under similar site conditions, and the capability to use BMPs to 

reduce/eliminate potential effects to non-target species and sensitive habitats, and the potential to 

contaminate surface and groundwater. All pesticide use (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, PUPs would be prepared and 

approved in accordance with 569 FW 1. PUP records would provide a detailed, time-, site-, and 

target-specific description of the proposed use of pesticides on the refuge. All PUPs would be 

created, approved, or disapproved, and stored in the Pesticide Use Proposal System (PUPS), which is 

a centralized database only accessible on the Service’s intranet (https://systems.fws.gov/pups). Only 

Service employees would be authorized to access PUP records for a refuge in this database. 

Application equipment would be selected to provide site-specific delivery to target pests while 

minimizing/eliminating direct or indirect (e.g., drift) exposure to non-target areas and degradation of 

surface and groundwater quality. Where possible, target-specific equipment (e.g., backpack sprayer, 

wiper) would be used to treat target pests. Other target-specific equipment to apply pesticides would 

include soaked wicks or paint brushes for wiping vegetation and lances, hatchets, or syringes for 

direct injection into stems. Granular pesticides may be applied using seeders or other specialized 

dispensers. In contrast, aerial spraying (e.g., fixed wing or helicopter) would only be used where 

access is difficult (remoteness) and/or the size/distribution of infestations precludes practical use of 

ground-based methods. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program G-9 

Because repeated use of one pesticide may allow resistant organisms to survive and reproduce, 

multiple pesticides with variable modes of action would be considered for treatments on refuge lands 

and waters. This is especially important if multiple applications within years and/or over a growing 

season likely would be necessary for habitat maintenance and restoration activities to achieve 

resource objectives. Integrated chemical and non-chemical controls also are highly effective, where 

practical, because pesticide-resistant organisms can be removed from the site. 

Cost may not be the primary factor in selecting a pesticide for use on a refuge. If the least expensive 

pesticide would potentially harm natural resources or people, then a different product would be 

selected, if available. The most efficacious pesticide available with the least potential to degrade 

environmental quality (soils, surface water, and groundwater) and the least potential effect on 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 (Brooks et al. 2004; Masters and Shelly 2001; Masters et 

al. 1996). 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 timeframe. 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. 

G.4 Priorities for Treatments 

For many refuges, the magnitude (number, distribution, and sizes of infestations) of pest problems is 

too extensive and beyond the available capital resources to effectively address during any single field 

season. To manage pests in such a refuge, it would be essential to prioritize treatment of infestations. 

Highest priority treatments would be focused on early detection and rapid response to eliminate 

infestations of new pests, if possible. This would be especially important for aggressive pests 

potentially impacting species, species groups, communities, and/or habitats associated refuge 

purpose(s), NWRS resources of concern (federally listed species, migratory birds, selected marine 

mammals, and interjurisdictional fish), and native species for maintaining/restoring biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health. 

The next priority would be treating established pests that appear in one or more previously uninfested areas. Moody and Mack (1988) demonstrated through modeling that small, new outbreaks of 

invasive plants eventually would infest an area larger than the established, source population. They 

also found that control efforts focusing on the large, main infestation rather than the new, small 

satellites reduced the chances of overall success. The lowest priority would be treating large 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-10 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program 

infestations (sometimes monotypic stands) of well-established pests. In this case, initial efforts would 

focus upon containment of the perimeter followed by work to control/eradicate the established 

infested area. If containment and/or control of a large infestation are not effective, then efforts would 

focus upon halting pest reproduction or managing source populations. Maxwell et al. (2009) found 

treating fewer populations that are sources represents an effective long-term strategy to reduce the 

total number of invasive populations and decrease meta-population growth rates. 

Although state-listed noxious weeds would always be 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 refuge staff. Essential to the longterm 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. 

G.5 Best Management Practices 

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 

Integrated Pest Management policy (569 FW 1), 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 C.F.R. 402. 

The following are BMPs pertaining to mixing/handling and applying pesticides for all ground-based 

treatments of pesticides, which would be considered and used, where feasible, based upon target- and 

site-specific factors and time-specific environmental conditions. Although not listed below, the most 

important BMP to eliminate/reduce potential impacts to non-target resources would be an IPM 

approach to preventing, controlling, eradicating, and containing pests. 

G.5.1 Pesticide Handling and Mixing 

 As a precaution against spilling, spray tanks would not be left unattended during filling. 

 All pesticide containers would be triple rinsed, and the rinsate would be used as water in the 

sprayer tank and applied to treatment areas. 

 All pesticide spray equipment would be properly cleaned. Where possible, rinsate would be 

used as part of the make-up water in the sprayer tank and applied to treatment areas. 

 The refuge staff would triple rinse and recycle (where feasible) pesticide containers. 

 All unused pesticides would be properly discarded at a local “safe send” collection. 

 Pesticides and pesticide containers would be lawfully stored, handled, and disposed of in 

accordance with the label and in a manner safeguarding human health, fish, and wildlife, and 

preventing soil and water contamination. 

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. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program G-11 

G.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 applicable 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, material safety data sheets (MSDSs), 

and PUPs for each pesticide, determining the target pest, appropriate mix rate(s), personal 

protective equipment (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. 

 Low-impact herbicide application techniques (e.g., spot treatment, cut stump, oil basal, 

Thinvert system applications) would be used rather than broadcast foliar applications (e.g., 

boom sprayer, other larger tank wand applications), where practical. 

 Low-volume rather than high-volume foliar applications would be used where low-impact 

methods mentioned 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 <7 miles per hour [mph] and 

preferably 3 to 5 mph) and consistent direction wind conditions with moderate temperatures 

(typically <85°F). 

 Where possible, applicators would avoid spraying during inversion conditions (often 

associated with calm and very low wind conditions) that can cause large-scale herbicide drift 

to non-target areas. 

 Equipment would be calibrated regularly to ensure that the proper rate of pesticide is applied 

to the target area or species. 

 Spray applications would be made at the lowest height for uniform coverage of target pests to 

minimize/eliminate potential drift. 

 If windy conditions frequently occur during afternoons, spraying (especially boom 

treatments) would typically be conducted during early morning hours. 

 Spray applications would not be conducted on days with >30% 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 overspray 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. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-12 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program 

 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 in the opposite direction. 

 Applicators would use scouting for early detection of pests to eliminate unnecessary pesticide 

applications. 

 The refuge staff would consider timing of applications 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, all-terrain vehicle [ATV], tractor) would be thoroughly 

cleaned and PPE would be removed or disposed of on-site by applicators after treatments to 

eliminate the potential spread of pests to un-infested areas. 

G.6 Safety 

G.6.1 Personal Protective Equipment 

All applicators would wear the specific PPE identified on the pesticide label. The appropriate PPE 

should 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 

a National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)–approved respirator. Because 

exposure to concentrated product is usually greatest during mixing, extra care should be taken while 

preparing pesticide solutions. Persons mixing these solutions can be best protected if they wear long 

gloves, an apron, footwear, and a face shield. 

Coveralls and other protective clothing used during an application would be laundered separately 

from other laundry items. Transporting, storing, handling, mixing, and disposing of pesticide 

containers would be consistent with label requirements, USEPA and Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (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. 

G.6.2 Notification 

The restricted entry interval (REI) is the time period after the application after which 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 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program G-13 

also have information 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. 

G.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 monitored 

if one or more of the following criteria are met: personnel are exposed or may have been exposed to 

concentrations at or above the published permissible exposure limits or threshold limit values (see 

242 FW 4); the personnel use pesticides in a manner considered “frequent pesticide use”; or the 

personnel 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 who 

use pesticides infrequently, experience an acute exposure (sudden, short term), or use pesticides with 

a health hazard ranking of 1 or 2 may be medically monitored. 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. 

G.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 

are also 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. 

G.6.5 Record Keeping 

G.6.5.1 Labels and material safety data sheets 

Pesticide labels and MSDSs would be maintained at the refuge shop and laminated copies kept in the 

mixing area. These documents would also 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 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-14 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program 

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. 

G.6.5.2 Pesticide use proposals 

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 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 PUPS, which is a 

centralized database on the Service’s intranet (https://systems.fws.gov/pups). Only Service 

employees can access PUP records in this database. 

G.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) 

 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, percent 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 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program G-15 

(e.g., Refuge Lands Geographic Information System [RLGIS]) 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 C.F.R. 46.145. 

G.7 Evaluating Pesticide Use Proposals 

Pesticides would only be used on refuge lands for habitat management and 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 and minimal potential to degrade environmental quality. Potential effects to listed and nonlisted 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, characteristics of environmental fate, and 

potential to degrade environmental quality for pesticides would be documented in Chemical Profiles 

(see Section G.7.6). 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 G.5) 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. 

G.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 C.F.R. 1502.22. Protocols for ecological risk assessment of 

pesticide uses on the refuge were developed through research and established by the USEPA (2004). 

Assumptions for these risk assessments are presented in Section G.7.2.3. 

The toxicological data used in ecological risk assessments are typically results of standardized 

laboratory studies provided by pesticide registrants to the USEPA to meet regulatory requirements 

under FIFRA. These studies assess the acute (lethality) and chronic (reproductive) effects associated 

with short- and long-term exposure to pesticides on representative species of birds, mammals, 

freshwater fish, aquatic invertebrates, and terrestrial and aquatic plants. Other effects data publicly 

available would also be used for risk assessment protocols described herein. Toxicity endpoint and 

environmental fate data are available from a variety of resources. Some of the more useful resources 

can be found in Section G.7.6. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-16 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program 

Table G-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)a 

Fish 

Acute Median Lethal Concentration (LC50) 

Chronic No Observed Effect Concentration (NOEC) or 

No Observed Adverse Effect Concentration (NOAEC)b

Mammal 

Acute Oral Lethal Dose (LD50) 

Chronic No Observed Effect Concentration (NOEC) or 

No Observed Adverse Effect Concentration (NOAEC)c

a Measurement endpoints typically include a variety of reproductive parameters (e.g., number of eggs, number of 

offspring, eggshell thickness, and number of cracked eggs). 

b Measurement endpoints for early life stage/life cycle typically include embryo hatch rates, time to hatch, growth, 

and time to swim-up. 

c 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. 

G.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 (USEPA 2004). This 

deterministic approach, which is based upon a two-phase process involving estimation of 

environmental concentrations and then characterization of risk, would be used for ecological risk 

assessments. This method integrates exposure estimates (estimated environmental concentration 

[EEC] and toxicological endpoints [e.g., LC50 and oral LD50]) to evaluate the potential for adverse 

effects to species groups (birds, mammals, and fish) representative of legal mandates for managing 

units of the NWRS. This integration is achieved through risk quotients (RQs) calculated by dividing 

the EEC by acute and chronic toxicity values selected from standardized toxicological endpoints or 

published effect (Table G-1). 

RQ = EEC/Toxicological Endpoint 

The level of risk associated with direct effects of pesticide use would be characterized by comparing 

calculated RQs to the appropriate Level of Concern (LOC) established by the USEPA (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: acutelisted 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 adverse effect 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. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program G-17 

Listed species are those federally designated as threatened, endangered, or proposed in accordance 

with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S. Code [U.S.C.] 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 non-listed species would consider effects at the population level. An 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 (nonlisted species) for each taxonomic group (Table G-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 non-listed species. 

Table G-2. Presumption of Unacceptable Risk for Birds, Fish, and Mammals 

Risk Presumption Level of Concern 

Listed Species Nonlisted 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 

Source: EPA (1998). 

G.7.2.1 Environmental exposure 

Following release into the environment through application, pesticides would experience several 

different routes of environmental fate. Pesticides that 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 may be bound to soil particles or organic matter and 

may be transformed by soil micro-organisms or chemical processes. 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; Butler et al. 1998; Extension Toxicology Network [EXTOXNET] 1993; Pope et al. 1999; 

Ramsay et al. 1995). Pesticides that would be injected into the soil may also be subject to the latter 

two fates. 

The aforementioned possibilities are by no means complete, but they do indicate that 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 may also involve transportation of pesticides over long distances (Barry 2004; 

Woods 2004). 

G.7.2.1.1 Terrestrial exposure 

The EEC for exposure to terrestrial wildlife would be quantified using an USEPA screening-level 

approach (USEPA 2004). This screening-level approach is not affected by product formulation 

because it evaluates pesticide active ingredient(s). This approach would vary depending upon the 

proposed pesticide application method: spray or granular. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-18 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program 

G.7.2.1.1.1 Terrestrial—spray application 

For spray applications, exposure would be determined using the Kanaga nomogram method (Pfleeger 

et al. 1996; USEPA 2004, 2005a) through the USEPA’s Terrestrial Residue Exposure model (TREX) version 1.2.3 (USEPA 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 [a.i.] [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 parts 

per million [ppm] per lb a.i./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 G-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 G-3. Average Body Weight of Selected Terrestrial Wildlife Species Frequently Used in 

Research to Establish Toxicological Endpoints 

Species Body Weight (kg) 

Mammal (15 g) 0.015 

House sparrow 0.0277 

Mammal (35 g) 0.035 

Starling 0.0823 

Red-winged blackbird 0.0526 

Common grackle 0.114 

Japanese quail 0.178 

Bobwhite quail 0.178 

Rat 0.200 

Rock dove (aka pigeon) 0.542 

Mammal (1,000 g) 1.000 

Mallard 1.082 

Ring-necked pheasant 1.135 

Source: Dunning (1984). 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program G-19 

G.7.2.1.1.2 Terrestrial—granular application 

Granular pesticide formulations and pesticide-treated seed pose a unique route of exposure for avian 

and mammalian species. The pesticide is applied in discrete units that 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 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 G-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/foot2

)for comparison to USEPA LOCs 

(USEPA 1998). The T-REX version 1.2.3 (USEPA 2005b) contains a submodel that automates 

Kanaga exposure calculations for granular pesticides and treated seed. 

The following formulas would be used to calculate EECs depending upon the type of granular 

pesticide application: 

 In-furrow applications assume a typical value of 1% granules, bait, or seed remain 

unincorporated. 

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/1,000 ft. row)(% a.i.)(1,000 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, seeds are unincorporated. 

mg a.i./ft.

2 

= [(lbs. product/1,000 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)] 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-20 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program 

 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: 

o % of pesticide biologically available = 100% without species -specific ingestion 

rates 

o Conversion for calculating mg a.i./ft.

2 

using ounces: 453,580 mg/lb. /16 = 28,349 

mg/oz. 

The following equation would be used to calculate an RQ based on the EEC calculated by one of the 

above equations. The EEC would be divided by the surrogate LD50 toxicological endpoint multiplied 

by the body weight (Table G-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. 

G.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 

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. 

G.7.2.1.2.1 Habitat treatments 

For the worst-case exposure scenario to non-target aquatic habitats, EECs (Table G-4) would be 

derived from Urban and Cook (1986). The EECs assume an intentional overspray to an entire, nontarget water body (1-foot depth) from a treatment <25 feet from the high-water mark using the 

maximum application rate (acid basis [see above]). However, use of BMPs for applying pesticides 

(see Section G.5.2) 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). 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program G-21 

Table G-4. EECs (ppb) of Pesticides in Aquatic Habitats 

(1-foot depth) Immediately after Direct Application 

Lbs/acre EEC (parts per billion [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 1,103.5 

4.00 1,471.4 

5.00 1,839 

6.00 2,207 

7.00 2,575 

8.00 2,943 

9.00 3,311 

10.00 3,678 

Source: Urban and Cook (1986). 

G.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 

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 (AgDRIFT 2001; Spray Drift Task Force 2003) 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,” 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: maximum application rate (acid basis [see above]), 

low boom (20 inches), fine to medium droplet size, USEPA-defined wetland, and a ≥25-foot distance 

(buffer) from treated area to water. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-22 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program 

G.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 include the BLM, USFS, the National Park Service, 

USDA 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 

C.F.R. 1502.21) is a technique used to avoid redundancies in analysis. It also would reduce the bulk 

of a Service NEPA document, which would only 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 C.F.R. 46.135, the Service would specifically 

incorporate through reference ecological risk assessments prepared by the USFS 

(http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/invasiveplant-eis/Risk-Assessments/Herbicides-Analyzed-InvPlantEIS.htm) and BLM (http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/veg_eis.html). These risk assessments 

and associated documentation are also available in total with the administrative record for the Final 

EIS titled Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program: Preventing and Managing Invasive 

Plants (USFS 2005) and Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management 

Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic EIS (PEIS) (BLM 2007). In accordance with 43 C.F.R. 

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 USFS 

would be incorporated by reference: 

 2,4-D 

 Chlorsulfuron 

 Clopyralid 

 Dicamba 

 Glyphosate 

 Imazapic 

 Imazapyr 

 Metsulfuron methyl 

 Picloram 

 Sethoxydim 

 Sulfometuron methyl 

 Triclopyr 

 Nonylphenol polyethoxylate (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 BLM would be incorporated by reference: 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program G-23 

 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) 

G.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 using the USEPA’s process. These assumptions 

may be risk neutral or may lead to an over- or under-estimation of risk from pesticide exposure 

depending upon site-specific conditions. These assumptions, their application to the conditions 

typically encountered, and whether they may lead to recommendations that are risk neutral, 

underestimate, or overestimate ecological risk from potential pesticide exposure are discussed below. 

 Indirect effects would not be evaluated by ecological risk assessments. These effects include 

the mechanisms of indirect exposure to pesticides: consuming prey items (fish, birds, or 

small mammals), reductions in the availability of prey items, and disturbance associated with 

pesticide application activities. 

 Exposure to a pesticide product can be assessed based upon the active ingredient. However, 

exposure to a chemical mixture (pesticide formulation) may result in effects that are similar 

or substantially different compared to only the active ingredient. Non-target organisms may 

be exposed directly to the pesticide formulation or only various constituents of the 

formulation as they dissipate and partition in the environment. If toxicological information 

for both the active ingredient and formulated product are available, then data representing the 

greatest potential toxicity would be selected for use in the risk assessment process (USEPA 

2004). As a result, this conservative approach may lead to an overestimation of risk 

characterization from pesticide exposure. 

 Because toxicity tests with listed or candidate species or closely related species are not 

available, data for surrogate species would be most often used for risk assessments. 

Specifically, bobwhite quail and mallard duck are the most frequently used surrogates for 

evaluating potential toxicity to federally listed avian species. Bluegill sunfish, rainbow trout, 

and fathead minnow are the most common surrogates for evaluating toxicity for freshwater 

fishes. Sheepshead 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 are 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 would not be limited to the species previously listed as common surrogates. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-24 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program 

 The Kanaga nomogram outputs maximum EEC values that may be used to calculate an 

average daily concentration over a specified interval of time, which is referred to as a timeweighted-average (TWA). The maximum EEC would be selected as the exposure input for 

both acute and chronic risk assessments in the screening-level evaluations. The initial or 

maximum EEC derived from the Kanaga nomogram represents the maximum expected 

instantaneous or acute exposure to a pesticide. Acute toxicity endpoints are determined using 

a single exposure to a known pesticide concentration typically for 48 to 96 hours. This value 

is assumed to represent ecological risk from acute exposure to a pesticide. On the other hand, 

chronic risk to pesticide exposure is a function of pesticide concentration and duration of 

exposure to the pesticide. An organism’s response to chronic pesticide exposure may result 

from either the concentration of the pesticide, length of exposure, or some combination of 

both factors. Standardized tests for chronic toxicity typically involve exposing an organism to 

several different pesticide concentrations for a specified length of time (days, weeks, months, 

years, or generations). For example, avian reproduction tests include a 10-week exposure 

phase. Because a single length of time is used in the test, time response data are usually not 

available for inclusion into risk assessments. Without time response data, it is difficult to 

determine the concentration that elicits a toxicological response. 

 Using maximum EECs for chronic risk estimates may result in an overestimation 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 overestimation of 

risk. TWAs may be used for chronic risk assessments, but they would be applied judiciously 

considering the potential for an underestimation or overestimation of risk. For example, the 

number of days exposure exceeds an LOC may influence the suitability of a pesticide use. 

The greater the number of days the EEC exceeds the LOC, the greater the ecological risk. 

This is a qualitative assessment, and is subject to the reviewer’s expertise in ecological risk 

assessment and tolerance for risk. 

 The length of time used to calculate the TWA can have a substantial effect on the exposure 

estimates, and there is no standard method for determining the appropriate duration for this 

estimate. The T-REX model assumes a 21-week exposure period, which is equivalent to 

avian reproductive studies designed to establish a steady-state concentration for 

bioaccumulative compounds. However, this does not necessarily define the true exposure 

duration needed to elicit a toxicological response. Pesticides that do not bioaccumulate may 

achieve a steady-state concentration earlier than 21 weeks. The duration of time used for 

calculating TWAs would require justification and would not exceed the duration of exposure 

in the chronic toxicity test (approximately 70 days for the standard avian reproduction study). 

An alternative to using the duration of the chronic toxicity study is to base the TWA on the 

application interval. In this case, increasing the application interval would suppress both the 

estimated peak pesticide concentration and the TWA. Another alternative to using TWAs 

would be to consider the number of days that a chemical is predicted to exceed the LOC. 

 Pesticide dissipation is assumed to be first-order in the absence of data suggesting alternative 

dissipation patterns such as biphasic. 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 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 used, if available. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program G-25 

 For species found in the water column, it would be assumed that the greatest bioavailable 

fraction of the pesticide active ingredient in surface waters is freely dissolved in the water 

column. 

 Actual habitat requirements of any particular terrestrial species are not considered, and it is 

assumed that species exclusively and permanently occupy the treated area, or adjacent areas 

receiving pesticide at rates commensurate with the treatment rate. This assumption would 

produce a maximum estimate of exposure for risk characterization. This assumption would 

likely lead to an overestimation of exposure for species that do not permanently and 

exclusively occupy the treated area (USEPA 2004). 

 Exposure through incidental ingestion of pesticide-contaminated soil is not considered in the 

USEPA risk assessment protocols. Research suggests <15% of the diet can consist of 

incidentally ingested soil depending upon species and feeding strategy (Beyer et al. 1994). 

An assessment of pesticide concentrations in soil compared to food item categories in the 

Kanaga nomogram indicates incidental soil ingestion would not likely increase dietary 

exposure to pesticides. Inclusion of soil into the diet would effectively reduce the overall 

dietary concentration compared to the present assumption that the entire diet consists of a 

contaminated food source (Fletcher et al. 1994). An exception to this may be soil-applied 

pesticides in which exposure from incidental ingestion of soil may increase. Potential for 

pesticide exposure under this assumption may be underestimated for soil-applied pesticides 

and overestimated for foliar-applied pesticides. The concentration of a pesticide in soil would 

likely be less than predicted in 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 that 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 a 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 further limited because the permissible spray drop size 

distribution for ground pesticide applications is restricted to American Society of 

Agricultural Engineers (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 postapplication and pertains to those pesticides that have a high vapor pressure. The USEPA is 

currently evaluating protocols for modeling inhalation exposure from pesticides including 

near-field and near-ground air concentrations based upon equilibrium and kinetics-based 

models. Risk characterization for exposure with this mechanism is unavailable. 

 The effect from exposure to dusts contaminated with the pesticide cannot be assessed 

generically as partitioning issues related to application site soils and chemical properties of 

the applied pesticides render the exposure potential from this route highly situation-specific. 

 Dermal exposure may occur through three potential sources: direct application of spray to 

terrestrial wildlife in the treated area or within the drift footprint, incidental contact with 

contaminated vegetation, or contact with contaminated water or soil. Interception of spray 

and incidental contact with treated substrates may pose a risk to avian wildlife (Driver et al. 

1991). However, available research related to wildlife dermal contact with pesticides is 

extremely limited, with the exception of dermal toxicity values, which are common for some 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-26 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program 

mammals used as human surrogates (rats and mice). The USEPA is currently evaluating 

protocols for modeling dermal exposure. Risk characterization may be underestimated for 

this route of exposure, particularly with high-risk pesticides such as some organophosphates 

or carbamate insecticides. If protocols are established by the USEPA for assessing dermal 

exposure to pesticides, they would be considered for incorporation into pesticide assessment 

protocols. 

 Exposure to a pesticide may occur from consuming surface water, dew, or other water on 

treated surfaces. Water-soluble pesticides have the potential to dissolve in surface runoff, and 

puddles in a treated area may contain pesticide residues. Similarly, pesticides with lower 

organic carbon partitioning characteristics and higher solubility in water have a greater 

potential to dissolve in dew and other water associated with plant surfaces. Estimating the 

extent to which such pesticide loadings to drinking water occur is complex and would depend 

upon the partitioning characteristics of the active ingredient, soil types in the treatment area, 

and the meteorology of the treatment area. In addition, the use of various water sources by 

wildlife is highly species-specific. Currently, risk characterization for this exposure 

mechanism is not available. The USEPA is actively developing protocols to quantify 

drinking water exposures from puddles and dew. If and when protocols are formally 

established by the USEPA for assessing exposure to pesticides through drinking water, these 

protocols would be incorporated into pesticide risk assessment protocols. 

 Risk assessments are based upon the assumption that the entire treatment area would be 

subject to pesticide application at the rates specified on the label. In most cases, there is 

potential for uneven application of pesticides due to 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, handling, and application equipment, as well as 

applicator skill. Inappropriate use of pesticides and the occurrence of spills represent a 

potential underestimation of risk. However, they are likely not important factors for risk 

characterization. All pesticide applicators are required to be certified by the state in which 

they apply pesticides. Certification training includes the safe storage, transport, handling, and 

mixing of pesticides, equipment calibration, and proper application with annual continuing 

education. 

 The USEPA relies on Fletcher (1994) for setting the assumed pesticide residues in wildlife 

dietary items. The USEPA (2004) “believes that these residue assumptions reflect a realistic 

upper-bound residue estimate, although the degree to which this assumption reflects a 

specific percentile estimate is difficult to quantify.” Fletcher et al.’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 that 

USEPA residue assumptions for short grass were not exceeded. Baehr and Habig (2000) 

compared USEPA residue assumptions with distributions of measured pesticide residues for 

the USEPA’s UTAB (Uptake, Translocation, Accumulation, and Biotransformation) 

database. Overall residue selection level tends 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 aboveground 

plant material, but others 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. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program G-27 

 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 underestimation or overestimation 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 occur at lower levels for many newer pesticides compared 

with older, more persistent bioaccumulative compounds. The potential for additional 

exposure from pesticides with RQs close to the listed species LOC, 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 by being adsorbed to eroded soil particles. It would also be 

assumed that pesticide active ingredient is not lost from the water body by overtopping or 

flow-through, nor is concentration reduced by dilution. In total, these assumptions would lead 

to a near maximum possible water-borne concentration. However, this assumption would not 

account for the potential to concentrate pesticide through 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. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-28 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program 

 For acute risk assessments, there would be no averaging time for exposure. An instantaneous 

peak concentration would be assumed, where instantaneous exposure is sufficient in duration 

to elicit acute effects comparable to those observed over more protracted exposure periods 

(typically 48 to 96 hours) tested in the laboratory. In the absence of data regarding time-totoxic event, analyses, and latent responses to instantaneous exposure, risk would likely be 

overestimated. 

 For chronic exposure risk assessments, the averaging times considered for exposure are 

commensurate with the duration of invertebrate life-cycle or fish early-life-stage tests (e.g., 

21-28 days and 56-60 days, respectively). Response profiles (time to effect and latency of 

effect) to pesticides likely vary widely with mode of action and species, and should be 

evaluated on a case-by-case basis as available data allow. Nevertheless, because the USEPA 

relies on chronic exposure toxicity endpoints based on a finding of no observed effect, the 

potential for any latent toxicity effects or averaging time assumptions to alter the results of an 

acceptable chronic risk assessment prediction is limited. The extent to which duration of 

exposure from water-borne concentrations overestimate or underestimate actual exposure 

depends on several factors. These include the following: localized meteorological conditions, 

runoff characteristics of the watershed (e.g., soils, topography), the hydrological 

characteristics of receiving waters, environmental fate of the pesticide active ingredient, and 

the method of pesticide application. It should also be understood that chronic effects studies 

are performed using a method that holds water concentration in a steady state. This method is 

not likely to reflect conditions associated with pesticide runoff. Pesticide concentrations in 

the field increase and decrease in surface water on a cycle influenced by rainfall, pesticide 

use patterns, and degradation rates. As a result of the dependency of this assumption on 

several undefined variables, risk associated with chronic exposure may underestimate risk in 

some situations and overestimate risk in others. 

 There are several other factors that can affect non-target species not considered in the risk 

assessment process. These 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 sublethal 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 

these factors is not extensive, limiting their value for the risk assessment process. As this type 

of information becomes available, it would be included, either quantitatively or qualitatively, 

in this risk assessment process. 

 USEPA is required by the Food Quality Protection Act to assess the cumulative risks of 

pesticides that share common mechanisms of toxicity, or act the same within an organism. 

Currently, USEPA has identified four groups of pesticides that have a common mechanism of 

toxicity requiring cumulative risk assessments. These four groups are: the organophosphate 

insecticides, N-methyl carbamate insecticides, triazine herbicides, and chloroacetanilide 

herbicides. 

G.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 FIFRA as 

preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating the effects of a pest, or a plant regulator, defoliant, 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program G-29 

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 in 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 is 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 their associated percent composition be declared on a product label, along with the 

total percentage of all inert ingredients. 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 could potentially 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, and its degradates and inert ingredients, as well as other active 

ingredients in the spray mixture. However, it would only be feasible to conduct deterministic risk 

assessments for each component in the spray mixture singly. Limited scientific information is 

available regarding ecological effects (additive or synergistic) from chemical mixtures that typically 

rely upon broadly encompassing assumptions. For example, the USFS (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 (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry [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: 

 Toxicology, Occupational Medicine, and Environmental Series (TOMES) (a proprietary 

toxicological database including USEPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), the 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-30 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program 

Hazardous Substance Data Bank, and 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). 

 MSDSs from pesticide suppliers. 

 Other sources such as the Farm Chemicals Handbook. 

Because there is a lack of specific inert toxicological data, inert(s) in a pesticide may cause adverse 

ecological effects. However, inert ingredients typically represent only a small percentage of the 

pesticide spray mixture, and it would be assumed that negligible effects would be expected to result 

from inert ingredient(s). 

Although the potential effects of degradates should be considered when selecting a pesticide, it is 

beyond the scope of this assessment process to consider all possible breakdown chemicals of the 

various product formulations containing an active ingredient. Degradates may be more or less mobile 

and more or less hazardous in the environment than their parent pesticides (Battaglin et al. 2003). 

Differences in environmental behavior (e.g., mobility) and toxicity between parent pesticides and 

degradates would make assessing potential degradate effects extremely difficult. For example, a less 

toxic and more mobile, bioaccumulative, or persistent degradate may have potentially greater effects 

on species and/or degrade environmental quality. The lack of data on the toxicity of degradates for 

many pesticides would represent a source of uncertainty for assessing risk. 

A USEPA-approved label specifies whether a product can be mixed with one or more pesticides. 

Without product-specific toxicological data, it would not possible to quantify the potential effects of 

these mixtures. In addition, a quantitative analysis could only be conducted if reliable scientific 

information allowed a determination of whether the joint action of a mixture would be additive, 

synergistic, or antagonistic. Such information would not likely exist unless the mode of action would 

be common among the chemicals and receptors. Moreover, the composition of and exposure to 

mixtures would be highly site- and/or time-specific and, therefore, it would be nearly impossible to 

assess potential effects to species and environmental quality. 

To minimize or eliminate potential negative effects associated with applying two or more pesticides 

as a mixture, the use would be conducted in accordance with the labeling requirements. Labels for 

two or more pesticides applied as a mixture should be completely reviewed, where products with the 

least potential for negative effects would be selected for use on the refuge. This is especially relevant 

when a mixture would be applied in a manner that may already have the potential for an effect(s) 

associated with an individual pesticide (e.g., runoff to ponds in sandy watersheds). Use of a tank mix 

under these conditions would increase the level of uncertainty in terms of risk to species or potential 

to degrade environmental quality. 

Adjuvants generally function to enhance or prolong the activity of pesticide. For terrestrial 

herbicides, adjuvants aid in the absorption into plant tissue. “Adjuvant” is a broad term that generally 

applies to surfactants, selected oils, anti-foaming agents, buffering compounds, drift control agents, 

compatibility agents, stickers, and spreaders. Adjuvants are not under the same registration 

requirements as pesticides, and the USEPA does not register or approve the labeling of spray 

adjuvants. Individual pesticide labels identify types of adjuvants approved for use with the pesticide. 

In general, adjuvants compose a relatively small portion of the volume of pesticides applied. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program G-31 

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. 

G.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 times are 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 are not available, soil half-life data may be 

used. The average or representative half-life value of most important degradation mechanisms 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). 

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) and 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 ppm). Pesticides with solubility <0.1 ppm are virtually insoluble in water; those with 

solubility 100 to 1,000 ppm are moderately soluble, and those with solubility >10,000 ppm are highly 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-32 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program 

soluble (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] 2000). As pesticide solubility increases, there would be 

greater potential for off-site movement. 

The GUS is a quantitative screening tool to estimate a pesticide’s potential to move in the 

environment. It uses soil persistence and adsorption coefficients in the following formula. 

GUS = log10 (t1⁄2) x [4 − log10 (Koc)] 

The potential pesticide movement rating would be based upon its GUS value. Pesticides with a GUS 

<0.1 would considered to have an extremely low potential to move toward groundwater. Values of 

1.0 to 2.0 would be low, 2.0 to 3.0 would be moderate, 3.0 to 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 Oregon State University (OSU) 

Extension Pesticide Properties Database at http://npic.orst.edu/ppdmove.htm. Many of the values in 

this database were derived from the Soil Conservation Service (SCS)/Agricultural Research Service 

(ARS)/Cooperative Extension service (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 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 pore size would lower the likelihood and rate that water would move 

through the soil profile. Clay also serves to adsorb (bind) pesticides to soil particles. Soils 

with high clay content would adsorb more pesticide than soils with relatively low clay 

content. In contrast, sandy soils with coarser texture and lower water-holding capacity would 

have a greater potential for water to leach through them.

 Soil structure describes soil aggregation. Soils with a well-developed soil structure have a 

looser, more aggregated structure that would be less likely to be compacted. Both 

characteristics 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 affects pesticide degradation. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program G-33 

 Soil pH would influence chemical reactions that occur in the soil, which in turn determines 

whether a pesticide will degrade, the 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 BMPs (see below) would be used in an IPM framework to 

treat pests while minimizing effects to non-target biota and protecting environmental quality. 

Along with soil properties, the potential for a pesticide to affect water quality through runoff and 

leaching would consider site-specific environmental and abiotic conditions including rainfall, water 

table conditions, and topography (Huddleston 1996). 

 Water is necessary to separate pesticides from soil. This can occur in two basic ways. 

Pesticides that are soluble move easily with runoff water. Pesticide-laden soil particles can be 

dislodged and transported from the application site in runoff. The concentration of pesticides 

in the surface runoff would be greatest for the first runoff event following treatment. The 

rainfall intensity and route of water infiltration into soil, to a large extent, determine pesticide 

concentrations and losses in surface runoff. The timing of the rainfall after application also 

would have an effect. Rainfall interacts with pesticides at a shallow soil depth (1⁄4 to 1⁄2 inch), 

which is called the mixing zone (Baker and Miller 1999). The pesticide/water mixture in the 

mixing zone would tend to leach down into the soil or runoff depending upon how quickly 

the soil surface becomes saturated and how rapidly water can infiltrate into the soil. Leaching 

would decrease the amount of pesticide available near the soil surface (mixing zone) to 

runoff during the initial rainfall event following application and subsequent rainfall events. 

 Terrain slope would affect the potential for surface runoff and the intensity of runoff. Steeper 

slopes would have greater potential for runoff following a rainfall event. In contrast, soils that 

are relatively flat would have little potential for runoff, except during intense rainfall events. 

In addition, soils in lower areas would be more susceptible to leaching as a result of receiving 

excessive water from surrounding higher elevations. 

 Depth to groundwater would be an important factor affecting the potential for pesticides to 

leach into groundwater. If the distance from the soil surface to the top of the water table is 

shallow, pesticides would have less distance to travel to reach groundwater. Shallower water 

tables that persist for longer periods would be more likely to experience groundwater 

contamination. Soil survey reports are available for individual counties. These reports 

provide data in tabular format regarding the water table depths and the months during which 

it persists. In some situations, a hard pan exists above the water table that would prevent 

pesticide contamination from leaching. 

G.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 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-34 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program 

I>1,000 would have a high potential to volatilize (OSU 1996). Vapor pressure values for pesticides 

are usually available in the pesticide product MSDS or the USDA ARS pesticide database. 

G.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 using quantitative 

assessment/screening tools with threshold values (where appropriate) that would be used to evaluate 

potential biological and other environmental effects to refuge resources. For ecological risk 

assessments presented in these profiles, the “worst-case scenario” would be evaluated to determine 

whether a pesticide could be approved for use considering the maximum single application rate 

specified on pesticide labels for habitat management and croplands/facilities maintenance treatments 

pertaining to refuges. Where the “worst-case scenario” likely would only result in minor, temporary, 

and localized effects to listed and nonlisted species with appropriate BMPs (see Section G.5), the 

proposed pesticide’s use in a PUP would have a scientific basis for approval under any application 

rate specified on the label that is at or below rates evaluated in a Chemical Profile. In some cases, the 

Chemical Profile would include a lower application rate than the maximum labeled rate in order to 

protect refuge resources. As necessary, Chemical Profiles would be periodically updated with new 

scientific information or as pesticides with the same active ingredient are proposed for use on the 

refuge in PUPs. 

Throughout this section, threshold values (to prevent or minimize potential biological and 

environmental effects) would be clearly identified for specific information presented in a completed 

Chemical Profile. Comparison with these threshold values provides an explicit scientific basis to 

approve or disapprove PUPs for habitat management and cropland/facilities maintenance on refuge 

lands. In general, PUPs would be approved for pesticides with Chemical Profiles where there would 

be no exceedances of threshold values. However, BMPs are identified for some screening tools that 

would minimize/eliminate potential effects (exceedance of the threshold value) as a basis for 

approving PUPs. 

Date: Service personnel would record the date when the Chemical Profile is completed or updated. 

Chemical Profiles (e.g., currently approved pesticide use patterns) would be periodically reviewed 

and updated, as necessary. The most recent review date would be recorded on a profile to document 

when it was last updated. 

Trade Name(s): Service personnel would accurately and completely record the trade name(s) from 

the pesticide label, which includes a suffix that describes the formulation (e.g., WP, DG, EC, L, SP, 

I, II, or 64). The suffix often distinguishes a specific product among several pesticides with the same 

active ingredient. Service personnel would record a trade name for each pesticide product with the 

same active ingredient. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program G-35 

Common Chemical Name(s): Service personnel would record the common name(s) listed on the 

pesticide label or 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, which 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 percent 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 the active ingredient 

and 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 online database maintained by Crop Data Management Systems, Inc. (see list 

below). 

G.7.6.1 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 in 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. The most common 

test species in scientific literature are 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 G-1 in Section G.7.1). 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-36 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program 

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). The 

most common test species in scientific literature are 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 G-1 in Section G.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], NOAEC) in mg/kg-bw or 

mg/kg-diet for reproductive test procedure(s) (e.g., generational studies [preferred], fertility, newborn 

weight). The most common test species available in scientific literature are rats and mice. The lowest 

NOEC, NOAEC, No Observed Effect Level [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 G-1 in Section 

G.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. The 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 G-1 in Section G.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). The 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 G-1 in Section G.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). The 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 G-1 in Section G.7.1). 

Fish LC50: For test freshwater or marine species listed in the scientific literature, Service personnel 

would record an LC50 in ppm or mg/L. The most common test species available in the scientific 

literature are 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 G-1 in Section 

G.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, 

Lowest Observable Adverse Effect Concentration [LOAEC] in ppm for test procedure(s) (e.g., early 

life cycle, life cycle). The 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 G-1 in Section G.7.1). 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program G-37 

Other: For test invertebrate as well as non-vascular and vascular plant species available in the 

scientific literature, Service personnel would record LC50, LD50, LOEC, LOEL, NOAEC, NOAEL, or 

EC50 (environmental concentration) values in ppm or mg/L. The 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. 

G.7.6.2 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 1,000 ppm, highly soluble >10,000 ppm (USGS 2000). As pesticide Sw increases, 

there would be greater potential to degrade water quality through runoff and leaching. 

Sw would be used to evaluate the potential for bioaccumulation in aquatic species (see Octanol-Water 

Partition Coefficient [Kow] below). 

Soil Mobility: Service personnel would record available values for soil adsorption coefficient (Koc

[μg/g]). It provides a measure of a chemical’s mobility and leaching potential in soil. Koc values are 

directly proportional to organic content, clay content, and surface area of the soil. Koc data for a 

pesticide may be available for a variety of soil types (e.g., clay, loam, sand). 

Koc values would be used in evaluating the potential to degrade groundwater by leaching (see 

Potential to Move to Groundwater below). 

Soil Persistence: Service personnel would record values for soil half-life, 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). 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-38 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program 

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 BMPs section to minimize potential surface runoff and leaching that can degrade 

water quality: 

o Do not exceed one application per site per year. 

o Do not use on coarse-textured soils where the ground water table is <10 feet and 

average annual precipitation >12 inches. 

o 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 of 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 are 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 would also be categorized as one of 

the following: non-persistent <30 days, moderately persistent = 30 to 100 days, and persistent >100 

days. 

Threshold for Approving PUPs: 

 If soil DT50 ≤100 days, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs to protect 

water quality. 

 If soil DT50 >100 days, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs 

specifically to protect water quality. One or more BMPs such as the following would be 

included in the Specific BMPs section to minimize potential surface runoff and leaching that 

can degrade water quality: 

o Do not exceed one application per site per year. 

o Do not use on coarse-textured soils where the ground water table is <10 feet and 

average annual precipitation >12 inches. 

o 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. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program G-39 

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 BMPs section to minimize potential surface runoff and leaching that 

can degrade water quality: 

o Do not exceed one application per site per year. 

o Do not use on coarse-textured soils where the ground water table is <10 feet and 

average annual precipitation >12 inches. 

o 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 of 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 would also be categorized as one of the following: nonpersistent <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 BMPs section to minimize potential surface runoff and leaching that 

can degrade water quality: 

o Do not exceed one application per site per year. 

o Do not use on coarse-textured soils where the ground water table is <10 feet and 

average annual precipitation >12 inches. 

o Do not use on steep slopes if substantial rainfall is expected within 24 hours or 

ground is saturated. 

Potential to Move to Groundwater: GUS = log10(soil t 1⁄2) × [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. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-40 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program 

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 BMPs section to minimize potential surface runoff and leaching that can degrade 

water quality: 

o Do not exceed one application per site per year. 

o Do not use on coarse-textured soils where the ground water table is <10 feet and 

average annual precipitation >12 inches. 

o Do not use on steep slopes if substantial rainfall is expected within 24 hours or 

ground is saturated. 

Volatilization: Pesticides may volatilize (evaporate) from soil and plant surfaces and move off-target 

into the atmosphere. The potential for a pesticide to volatilize is a function of its vapor pressure, 

which 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 (OSU 1996). Vapor pressure values 

for pesticides are usually available in the pesticide product MSDS or the USDA 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 BMPs section to reduce volatilization and potential to drift and 

degrade air quality: 

o Do not treat when wind velocities are <2 or >10 mph with existing or potential 

inversion conditions. 

o Apply large-diameter droplets possible for spray treatments. 

o Avoid spraying when air temperatures >85°F. 

o Use the lowest spray height possible above target canopy. 

o Where identified on the pesticide label, soil-incorporate pesticide as soon as possible 

during or after application. 

 

Octanol-Water Partition Coefficient (Kow): The octanol-water partition coefficient (Kow) is the 

concentration of a pesticide in octanol and water at equilibrium at a specific temperature. Because 

octanol is an organic solvent, it is considered a surrogate for natural organic matter. Therefore, Kow

would be used to assess potential for a pesticide to bioaccumulate in tissues of aquatic species (e.g., 

fish). If Kow >1,000 or Sw<1 mg/L and soil t1⁄2>30 days, then there would be high potential for a 

pesticide to bioaccumulate in aquatic species such as fish (USGS 2000). 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program G-41 

Threshold for Approving PUPs: 

 If the potential for a pesticide to bioaccumulate in aquatic species is not high, 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 be approved, except under unusual circumstances 

where approval would only be granted by the Washington Office. 

Bioaccumulation/Bioconcentration: This is the physiological process where pesticide 

concentrations in tissue 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. 

G.7.6.3 Worst-Case Ecological Risk Assessment 

Max Application Rates (acid equivalent [ae]): 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, “NS” 

should be written, for “not specified on label” in this table. 

EECs: An ECC represents potential exposure to fish and wildlife (birds and mammals) from using a 

pesticide. EECs would be derived by Service personnel using an USEPA screening-level approach 

(USEPA 2004). For each max application rate (see description under Max Application Rates [acid 

equivalent]), Service personnel would record two EEC values in a Chemical Profile; these would 

represent the worst-case terrestrial and aquatic exposures for habitat management and 

croplands/facilities maintenance treatments. For terrestrial and aquatic EEC calculations, see 

description for data entry under Presumption of Unacceptable Risk/Risk Quotients, which is the next 

field for a Chemical Profile. 

Presumption of Unacceptable Risk/Risk Quotients: Service personnel would calculate and record 

acute and chronic 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 G.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 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-42 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program 

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 (ae 

basis [see above]), low boom (20 inches), fine to medium/coarse droplet size, 20 swaths, USEPAdefined wetland, and 25-foot distance (buffer) from treated area to water. 

See Section G.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 G.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 G-2 in Section G.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 G.7.2 for detailed 

descriptions of acute and chronic RQ calculations and comparison to LOCs to assess risk. 

Threshold for approving PUPs: 

 If RQs≤LOCs, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs. 

 If RQs>LOCs, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs specifically to 

minimize exposure (ecological risk) to bird, mammal, and/or fish species. One or more BMPs 

such as the following would be included in the Specific BMPs section to reduce potential risk 

to nonlisted or listed species: 

o Lower application rate and/or fewer number of applications so RQs≤LOCs. 

o 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 would provide the 

appropriate information regarding control of pests to describe in the section. 

Specific 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 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program G-43 

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 are outweighed by 

the overall resource benefit(s) from the proposed pesticide use in the BMPs section of the PUP. See 

Section G.5 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. They would use the number sequence to uniquely reference data in a Chemical 

Profile. The following online 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, USEPA, Washington, D.C. 

(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. Food and Agriculture Organization (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, USDA, USFS. (http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/risk.htm) 

6. Pesticide Chemical Fact Sheets. Clemson University Pesticide Information Center. 

(http://entweb.clemson.edu/pesticid/Document/Labels/factshee.htm) 

7. Pesticide Fact Sheets. Published by Information Ventures, Inc. for BLM, Department of Interior; 

Bonneville Power Administration, U.S. Department of Energy; and USFS. 

(http://infoventures.com/e-hlth/pesticide/pest-fac.html) 

8. Pesticide Fact Sheets. National Pesticide Information Center. (http://npic.orst.edu/npicfact.htm) 

9. Pesticide Fate Database. USEPA, Washington, D.C. (http://cfpub.epa.gov/pfate/home.cfm). 

10. Pesticide product labels and material safety data sheets. Crop Data Management Systems, Inc. 

(CDMS) (http://www.cdms.net/pfa/LUpdateMsg.asp) or multiple websites maintained by 

agrichemical companies. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-44 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program 

11. Registered Pesticide Products (Oregon database). Oregon Department of Agriculture. 

(http://www.oda.state.or.us/dbs/pest_products/search.lasso) 

12. Regulatory notes. Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Health Canada, Ontario, Canada. 

(http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/pmra-arla/) 

13. Reptile and Amphibian Toxicology Literature. Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, 

Ontario, Canada. (http://www.cws-scf.ec.gc.ca/nwrc-cnrf/ratl/index_e.cfm) 

14. Specific Chemical Fact Sheet – New Active Ingredients, Biopesticide Fact Sheet and Registration 

Fact Sheet. USEPA, Washington, D.C. (http://www.epa.gov/pestidides/factsheets/chemical_fs.htm) 

15. U.S. EPA. 1997. Pesticide Regulation (PR) Notice 97-6. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. Available: http://www.epa.gov/PR_Notices/pr97-6.html. 

16. Weed Control Methods Handbook: Tools and Techniques for Use in Natural Areas. The Invasive 

Species Initiative. The Nature Conservancy. (http://tnsweeds.ucdavis.edu/handbook.html) 

17. Wildlife Contaminants Online. USGS, Department of Interior, Washington, D.C. 

(http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/contaminants-online/) 

18. One-liner database. 2000. USEPA, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, D.C. 

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): 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program G-45 

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): 

Habitat Management Treatments: 

Presumption of Unacceptable Risk Risk Quotient (RQ) 

Listed (T&E) Species Nonlisted Species 

Acute Birds [0.1] [0.5] 

Mammals [0.1] [0.5] 

Fish [0.05] [0.5] 

Chronic Birds [1] [1] 

Mammals [1] [1] 

Fish [1] [1] 

Cropland/Facilities Maintenance Treatments: 

Presumption of Unacceptable Risk Risk Quotient (RQ) 

Listed (T&E) Species Nonlisted Species 

Acute Birds [0.1] [0.5] 

Mammals [0.1] [0.5] 

Fish [0.05] [0.5] 

Chronic Birds [1] [1] 

Mammals [1] [1] 

Fish [1] [1] 

Justification for Use: 

Specific Best Management 

Practices (BMPs): 

References: 

Table CP.1 Pesticide Name 

Trade 

Name 

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. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-46 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program 

G.8 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, MS. 

ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry). 2004. Guidance Manual for the 

Assessment of Joint Toxic Action of Chemical Mixtures. U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, Public Health Service, ATSDR, Division of Toxicology. 62 pp + 

appendices. 

Baehr, C.H. and C. Habig. 2000. Statistical evaluation of the UTAB database for use in terrestrial 

nontarget organism risk assessment. Tenth Symposium on Environmental Toxicology and 

Risk Assessment, American Society of Testing and Materials. April 10-12, 2000 Toronto, 

Ontario, Canada. 

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, HI. 15 pp. 

Baker, J. and G. Miller. 1999. Understanding and reducing pesticide losses. Extension Publication 

PM 1495, Iowa State University Extension. Ames, IA. 6 pp. 

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. Conner, and S. Gerould. 1994. Estimates of soil ingestion by wildlife. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 58:375-382. 

BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 2007. Vegetation treatments using herbicides on Bureau of 

Land Management Lands in 17 western states Programmatic EIS (PEIS). Bureau of Land 

Management, Washington Office. 

Brooks, M.L., C.M. D’Antonio, D.M. Richardson, J.B. Grace, J.E. Keeley et al. 2004. Effects of 

invasive alien plants on fire regimes. BioScience 54:77-88. 

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 pp. 

Calabrese, E.J. and L.A. Baldwin. 1993. Performing ecological risk assessments. Chelsea, MI: Lewis 

Publishers. 

Center, T.D., J.H. Frank, and F.A. Dray, Jr. 1997. Biological control. Pages 245-263 in: D. 

Simberloff, D.C. Schmitz, and T.C. Brown, eds. Strangers in paradise: impact and 

management of nonindigenous species in Florida. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 

Coombs, E.M., J.K. Clark, G.L. Piper, and A.F. Cofrancesco, Jr. 2004. Biological control of invasive 

plants in the United States. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. 467 pp. 

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. 

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. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program G-47 

EXTOXNET. 1993. Movement of pesticides in the environment. Pesticide Information Project of 

Cooperative Extension Offices of Cornell University, Oregon State University, University of 

Idaho, University of California Davis, and the Institute for Environmental Toxicology, 

Michigan State University. 4 pp. 

Fletcher, J.S., J.E. Nellessen, and T.G. Pfleeger. 1994. Literature review and evaluation of the EPA 

food-chain (Kenega) nomogram, an instrument for estimating pesticide residues on plants. 

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 13:1383-1391. 

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 pp. 

Kerle, E.A., J.J. Jenkins, and P.A. Vogue. 1996. Understanding pesticide persistence and mobility for 

groundwater and surface water protection. EM 8561. Oregon State University Extension 

Service. 8 pp. 

Masters, R.A. and R.L. Shelley. 2001. Invited synthesis paper: principles and practices for managing 

rangeland invasive plants. Journal of Range Management 54:502-517. 

Masters, R.A., S.J. Nissen, R.E. Gaussoin, D.D. Beran, and R.N. Stougaard. 1996. Imidazolinone 

herbicides improve restoration of Great Plains grasslands. Weed Technology 10:392-403. 

Maxwell, B.D., E. Lehnhoff, and L.J. Rew. 2009. The rationale for monitoring invasive plant 

populations as a crucial step for management. Invasive Plant Science and Management 2:1-9. 

Mineau, P., B.T. Collins, and A. Baril. 1996. On the use of scaling factors to improve interspecies 

extrapolation to acute toxicity in birds. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 24:24-29. 

Moody, M.E. and R.N. Mack. 1988. Controlling the spread of plant invasions: the importance of 

nascent foci. Journal of Applied Ecology 25:1009-1021. 

Mullin, B.H., L.W. Anderson, J.M. DiTomaso, R.E. Eplee, and K.D. Getsinger. 2000. Invasive Plant 

Species. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology: Issue Paper 13:1-18. 

Oregon State University. 1996. EXTOXNET-Extension Toxicology Network, Pesticide Information 

Profiles. Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. 

Pfleeger, T.G., A. Fong, R. Hayes, H. Ratsch, and C. Wickliff. 1996. Field evaluation of the EPA 

(Kanaga) nomogram, a method for estimating wildlife exposure to pesticide residues on 

plants. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 15:535-543. 

Pope, R., J. DeWitt, and J. Ellerhoff. 1999. Pesticide movement: what farmers need to know. 

Extension Publication PAT 36, Iowa State University Extension, Ames, IA, and Iowa 

Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, Des Moines, IA. 6 pp. 

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, WA. 12 pp. 

Spray Drift Task Force. 2003. A summary of chemigation application studies. Spray Drift Task 

Force, Macon, MS. 

Urban, D.J and N.J. Cook. 1986. Ecological risk assessment. EPA 540/9-85-001. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington D.C. 94 pp. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1990. Laboratory test methods of exposure to 

microbial pest control agents by the respiratory route to nontarget avian species. EPA/600/3-

90/070. Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR. 

USEPA. 1998. A comparative analysis of ecological risks from pesticides and their uses: 

background, methodology and case study. Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office 

of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 105 pp. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-48 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program 

USEPA. 2004. Overview of the ecological risk assessment process in the Office of Pesticide 

Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: endangered and threatened species effects 

determinations. Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, D.C. 101 pp. 

USEPA. 2005a. Technical overview of ecological risk assessment risk characterization; Approaches 

for evaluating exposure; Granular, bait, and treated seed applications. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, D.C. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/ecorisk_ders/toera_analysis_exp.htm. Accessed July 18, 2012. 

USEPA. 2005b. User’s guide TREX v1.2.3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 

Pesticide Programs, Washington, D.C. 22 pp. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/terrestrial/trex/t_rex_user_guide.htm. Accessed July 

18, 2012. 

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 2005. Pacific Northwest Region invasive plant program: preventing and 

managing invasive plants. Final environmental impact statement. 359 pp. 

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2000. Pesticides in stream sediment and aquatic biota – current 

understanding of distribution and major influences. USGS Fact Sheet 092-00, U.S. 

Geological Survey, Sacramento, CA. 4 pp. 

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, HI. 8 

pp. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix H. Public Involvement H-1 

Appendix H. Public Involvement 

H.1 Public Involvement Efforts 

Public involvement was sought in the early stages of development of the comprehensive conservation 

plan and environmental impact statement (CCP/EIS). Prior to beginning public scoping, the Refuge 

created a Stakeholder Scoping Team to help identify people and organizations that would be interested 

in the CCP process. The team met in June 2010 and brainstormed organizations and individuals that 

could help us provide information to the public about the CCP process, maximize public involvement, 

and identify outreach tools that could be used. Invitees to this team included representatives of the 

business, agricultural, hunting, recreation, conservation, and Hispanic communities. 

Public involvement strategies included face-to-face meetings with community organizations, local, 

State, and Federal agencies, elected officials (or their aides), and Refuge users. To inform the broader 

public and invite discussion and feedback, the planning team held public open houses, provided a 

call-in line two times a month, and conducted weekly on-site field outreach. Field outreach included 

distributing pamphlets to visitors and engaging them in conversation regarding the CCP. The Refuge 

also maintained a CCP website where the public could print out comment forms or submit emails 

during the scoping phase. 

During public scoping, three issues were of most interest to Refuge stakeholders: surface water 

recreation, upland recreation, and hunting. We held work sessions for commenters and partners with 

differing viewpoints to identify solutions for difficult issues. The Refuge invited approximately 130 

people to attend the work sessions held from September 23 to September 25, 2010, 47 attended at 

least some part of the work sessions. Six members of the public also viewed the work sessions at 

some point during the three days. To view a summary of the work sessions, please visit the Deer Flat 

NWR Planning website at www.fws.gov/deerflat/refugeplanning.html. 

A brief summary of our public involvement events, meetings, and outreach tools follows. 

H.1.1. Invitation to the Tribes 

 May 27, 2010. Letters were mailed to Robert Bear, Tribal Chairman of Shoshone-Paiute 

Tribes; Alonzo Coby, Fort Hall Business Council (FHBC) Chairman of Shoshone-Bannock 

Tribes; and Samuel Penney, Chairman of the Nez Perce Tribe. 

 May 12, 2011. Emails were sent to Robert Bear, Tribal Chairman of the Shoshone-Paiute 

Tribes, Brooklyn Baptiste, Chairman of the Nez Perce Tribe, and Nathan Small, FHBC 

Chairman of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes to invite them to send a representative to the 

Extended Team Meetings. 

 May 18, 2011. Received word from Brian Kelly and Meggan Laxalt-Mackay of the Service’s 

Ecological Services office that the Shoshone-Paiute prefer to be consulted through the Wings 

and Roots program. Brian Kelly has taken the lead on reinstating a consultation process with 

the Tribe. When the consultation process resumes, the Refuge will be a participant. 

 May 25, 2011. Called and left messages for the chairmen of the Shoshone-Paiute, ShoshoneBannock, and Nez Perce Tribes asking how they would like to be involved in the CCP process. 

 September 20, 2011. Called and left messages for Nathan Small, FHBC Chairman of 

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, and Brooklyn Baptiste, Chairman of the Nez Perce Tribe, asking 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

H-2 Appendix H. Public Involvement 

them how they would like to be involved and letting them know that if there was no response 

by October 30, we would assume that they were not interested in participating in the process. 

 August 29, 2011. Brian Kelly attempted to set up a consultation meeting with the ShoshonePaiute for September 8, 2011. The meeting did not occur. 

 October 27, 2011. Attempted to contact the Natural Resources departments of the Nez Perce 

and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. Left messages for Keith Lawrence and Yvette Tuell. 

 November 1, 2011. Keith Lawrence of the Nez Perce Tribe’s Natural Resources department 

contacted us to let us know that they were not interested in being involved in the CCP, and to 

contact their Cultural Resources department. 

 November 3, 2011. Contacted Pat Baird, archaeologist for the Nez Perce Tribe, who said that 

they wanted to be notified of undertakings and to provide them copies of the Draft and Final 

CCPs. These contacts were added to the mailing list. 

H.1.2 Meetings and Communication with Federal, State, or Local Elected 

Officials and Federal, State, or Local Agencies 

H.1.2.1 Interagency Coordination Team 

 May 27, 2010 Letters. 

Letters requesting involvement on the CCP Interagency Coordinating Team (ICT) were 

sent to U.S. senators and representatives, State of Idaho senators and representatives 

within the Lake Lowell districts, the Governor of Idaho, Canyon County commissioners, 

the mayors of Caldwell and Nampa, Bureau of Reclamation, Idaho Department of Fish 

and Game (IDFG), Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ), Canyon County 

Parks Recreation and Waterways (CCPRW), and the Boise Project Board of Control. 

 ICT Meetings 

July 1, 2010. Attendees included representatives of IDEQ, Bureau of Reclamation, 

CCPRW, Canyon County Commissioners, Senator Crapo’s office, Canyon County 

District 13, and the City of Caldwell. 

November 30, 2010. Attendees included representatives of the City of Nampa, State 

Representative Christy Perry’s office, Canyon County Commissioners, CCPRW, Bureau 

of Reclamation, and the City of Caldwell. 

May 27, 2011. Attendees included representatives of the City of Caldwell, IDEQ, 

Canyon County Commissioners, CCPRW, the offices of Senators Crapo and Risch, the 

office of Congressman Labrador, Canyon County Sheriff’s office, Idaho Department of 

Parks and Recreation, IDFG, and the City of Greenleaf. 

March 14, 2013. Attendees included representatives of the offices of Senators Crapo and 

Risch, the office of Congressman Labrador, the Cities of Nampa, Caldwell, and Greenleaf; 

Canyon County Commissioners, CCPRW, Canyon County Sheriff’s Office, Boise Project 

Board of Control, IDFG, and Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation. 

 ICT Updates 

Updates were sent to the coordination team monthly. ICT updates were sent on August 

2, 2010; September 9, 2010; October 8, 2010; November 10, 2010; January 12, 2011; 

February 22, 2011; March 21, 2011; May 4, 2011; June 9, 2011; July 27, 2011; August 

30, 2011; September 29, 2011; October 25, 2011; November 30, 2011; December 22, 

2011; February 6, 2012; February 23, 2012; April 2, 2012; April 27, 2012; May 31, 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix H. Public Involvement H-3 

2012; July 2, 2012; August 2, 2012; September 5, 2012; October 4, 2012; November 1, 

2012; November 29, 2012; January 3, 2013; March 18, 2013; April 25, 2013; June 6, 

2013. No ICT update was sent in December 2010, because of the meeting held at the end 

of November. No ICT update was sent in April 2011. An update was sent in early May. 

January 2012 update was sent the first week of February. 

 Current Representatives on the ICT 

Kathy Alder – Canyon County Commissioner 

Tom Bicak – Director, CCPRW 

Tom Dale – Mayor, City of Nampa 

Joe Decker – Canyon County Public Information Officer 

Paul Deveau – Project Manager, Boise Project Board of Control 

Steve Dunn – Natural Resource Specialist, Bureau of Reclamation 

Phil Hardy – Regional Director for Congressman Raul Labrador 

Darrin Johnson – Director, Nampa Parks and Recreation 

Dean Johnson – Lands Resource Supervisor, Idaho Department of Lands 

Dustin Miller – Environmental Liaison for Governor Otter 

Susan Miller – Executive Assistant to the Mayor of Caldwell 

Lauri Monnot – Watershed Coordinator, IDEQ 

Christy Perry – Representative for Canyon County District 13 

Scott Reinecker – Regional Director, IDFG 

John Revier – Deputy Chief of Staff for Congressman Simpson 

Bryan Ricker – Regional Director for Senator Crapo 

Mike Roach – Natural Resource Director for Senator Risch 

H.1.2.2 Congressional Meetings/Tours (in addition to ICT involvement) 

 May 27, 2010. Letters requesting involvement on the CCP ICT were sent to U.S. senators and 

representatives, State of Idaho senators and representatives within the Lake Lowell districts, the 

Governor of Idaho, Canyon County commissioners, the mayors of Caldwell and Nampa, 

Bureau of Reclamation, IDFG, Idaho DEQ, CCPRW, and the Boise Project Board of Control. 

 May 26, 2011. Refuge Manager Jennifer Brown-Scott and Deputy Regional Chief of NWRS 

Ben Harrison, met with Senators Crapo and Risch, Congressman Simpson, and Congressman 

Labrador’s staff in Washington D.C. to brief them on the preliminary draft alternatives. 

 August 18, 2011. Refuge Manager Jennifer Brown-Scott, Regional Chief of NWRS Robin 

West, Deputy Regional Director Richard Hannan, and Regional Director Robyn Thorson met 

with representatives from the offices of Senators Crapo and Risch, and Congressmen 

Labrador and Simpson, to discuss public comment and future changes to the preliminary 

draft alternatives. 

 March 20, 2013. Refuge Manager Jennifer Brown-Scott provided informational CCP 

presentation to an aide of Congressman Labrador. 

H.1.2.3 Presentations for Federal, State and County Agencies (in addition to ICT involvement) 

 June 2010. Sent invitations to a presentation on August 3, 2010. No County employees 

responded. 

 August 4, 2010. Held presentation for Idaho’s state agencies. Kurt Stieglitz, IDFG; Thomas 

Woolf, Idaho Department of Agriculture; Jim Vannoy, Idaho Department of Health and 

Welfare; and David Dahms, Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation attended. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

H-4 Appendix H. Public Involvement 

 August 11, 2010. Met with Idaho Department of Lands to discuss management authority. 

 October 11, 2011. Met with IDFG and discussed public comments and potential changes to 

the preliminary draft alternatives. 

 March 14, 2013. Interagency coordinating team meeting. 

 April 4, 2013. Ecological Services meeting. 

H.1.3 Communication with the Public, Local Businesses, and Community 

Organizations 

H.1.3.1 Presentations with Community/Business Organizations 

 During scoping in summer 2010, we contacted over 40 nongovernmental organizations and 

State and county agencies to offer CCP question-and-answer sessions. We met with 23 

groups, including the following: 

June 10, 2010. Informational CCP presentation to Caldwell Kiwanis. 

June 10, 2010. Informational CCP presentation to Southwest Idaho Birders Association. 

June 16, 2010. Informational CCP presentation to Idaho Bass Federation Nation. 

July 10, 2010. Brief speech at the Premier Bass Tournament weigh-in. 

July 12, 2010. Informational CCP presentation to the board of Golden Eagle Audubon 

Society. 

July 13, 2010. Informational CCP presentation to Southern Idaho Sailing Association. 

July 14, 2010. Informational CCP presentation to the Idaho-Oregon Snake River Water 

Trail Coalition. 

July 20, 2010. Informational CCP presentation to the Southwest Irrigation District 

(SWID) Resource Conservation and Development. 

July 21, 2010. Informational CCP presentation to the Friends of Deer Flat Refuge. 

July 26, 2010. Informational CCP presentation to the Intermountain Jet Boat 

Association. 

July 27, 2010. Informational CCP presentation to the Kiwanis Club. 

August 4, 2010. Informational CCP presentation at the Boise Watershed Teacher 

Workshop. 

August 9, 2010. Informational CCP presentation to the Western White Water 

Association. 

August 10, 2010. Informational CCP presentation to the Idaho Waterfowl Association. 

August 10, 2010. Brief presentation at the Caldwell Chamber of Commerce luncheon. 

August 13, 2010. Speech to a floatplane club. 

August 18, 2010. Informational CCP presentation to the Caldwell Rotary Club. 

August 23, 2010. Informational CCP presentation to the Snake River Canyon Scenic 

Byway. 

August 26, 2010. Informational CCP presentation to the Nampa Association of Realtors. 

August 31, 2010. Informational CCP presentation to the Caldwell Optimist Club. 

 Two requests for CCP presentations were received in the winter of 2011. Presentations were 

provided to the following organizations. 

February 14, 2011. Informational CCP presentation to the Woman’s Century Club. 

March 13, 2011. Informational CCP presentation to the Nampa Exchange Club. 

 During the preliminary draft alternatives public comment period in summer 2011, we 

contacted 70 nongovernmental organizations to offer CCP question-and-answer sessions. We 

met with 28 groups, including the following. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix H. Public Involvement H-5 

June 6, 2011. Informational CCP presentation to Idaho Power. 

June 6, 2011. Informational CCP presentation to Snake River Bassmasters. 

June 8, 2011. Informational CCP presentation to the Nampa Exchange Club. 

June 9, 2011. Informational CCP presentation to the Caldwell Kiwanis Club. 

June 9, 2011. Informational CCP presentation to the Lower Boise Watershed Council. 

June 14, 2011. Informational CCP presentation to the Nampa Lions Club. 

June 17, 2011. Informational CCP presentation to a local floatplane club. 

June 21, 2011. Informational CCP presentation to the Ada County Association of 

Realtors. 

June 21, 2011. Informational CCP presentation to the Caldwell Exchange Club. 

June 21, 2011. Informational CCP presentation to Southwest Idaho Resource 

Conservation and Development. 

June 22, 2011. Informational CCP presentation to the Caldwell Optimist Club. 

June 22, 2011. Informational CCP presentation to the Caldwell Rotary Club. 

June 28, 2011. Informational CCP presentation to the Treasure Valley Kiwanis Club. 

June 28, 2011. Informational CCP presentation to the Nampa Rotary Club. 

June 28, 2011. Informational CCP presentation to Lakeside Bassmasters. 

June 29, 2011. Informational CCP presentation to the Sunrise Rotary. 

June 30, 2011. Informational CCP presentation to Idaho Water Sports. 

July 6, 2011. Informational CCP presentation to Idaho Waterfowl Association. 

July 7, 2011. Informational CCP presentation to Bass Federation Nation. 

July 11, 2011. Informational CCP presentation to Western Whitewater Association. 

July 12, 2011. Informational CCP presentation to Golden Eagle Audubon Society. 

July 13, 2011. Informational CCP presentation to the Caldwell Chamber of Commerce. 

July 15, 2011. Informational CCP presentation to the Boise Sailors Association. 

July 21, 2011. Informational CCP presentation to the Nampa Kiwanis Club. 

July 21, 2011. Informational CCP presentation to Idaho Bass Federation. 

July 23, 2011. Informational CCP presentation to the Idaho Recreation Council. 

July 25, 2011. Informational CCP presentation to the Snake River Canyon Scenic 

Byway. 

January 1, 2012. Informational CCP presentation to the Parma Lion’s club. 

October 1, 2012. Informational CCP presentation to the Idaho RC&D. 

 During the Draft CCP/EIS comment period in spring 2013, we contacted 76 agencies and 

nongovernmental organizations to offer CCP question-and-answer sessions. We met with 26 

groups, including the following. 

March 14, 2013. Informational CCP presentation to the Southern Idaho Birding 

Association. 

March 16, 2013. Informational CCP presentation to the Friends of Deer Flat. 

March 19, 2013. Informational CCP presentation to the Parma Lion’s Club. 

March 19, 2013. Informational CCP presentation to the Idaho Gem Fly. 

March 19, 2013, Informational CCP presentation to Southwest Idaho Resource 

Conservation 

March 20, 2013. Informational CCP presentation to the Caldwell Optimists. 

March 20, 2013. Informational CCP presentation to the Caldwell Rotary Club. 

March 20, 2013. Informational CCP presentation to the Nampa/Caldwell Association of 

Realtors. 

March 20, 2013. Informational CCP presentation to Save Lake Lowell. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

H-6 Appendix H. Public Involvement 

March 21, 2013. Informational CCP presentation to the Fly Fishers of Idaho. 

March 25, 2013. Informational CCP presentation to the Intermountain Jet Boat 

Association. 

March 26, 2013. Informational CCP presentation to the Golden Eagle Audubon Society. 

April 2, 2013. Informational CCP presentation to the Lakeside Bassmasters. 

April 4, 2013. Informational CCP presentation to the Idaho BASS Nation. 

April 4, 2013. Informational CCP presentation to the BASS Federation. 

April 8, 2013. Informational CCP presentation to Western Whitewater. 

April 9, 2013. Informational CCP presentation to the Caldwell Chamber of Commerce. 

April 9, 2013. Informational CCP presentation to the Nampa Rotary Club. 

April 10, 2013. Informational CCP presentation to the Snake River Water Trail. 

April 10, 2013. Informational CCP presentation to the Nampa Exchange Club. 

April 20, 2013. Informational CCP presentation to the Boise Sailors Association. 

April 25, 2013. Informational CCP presentation to the Sunrise Club. 

April 29, 2013. Informational CCP presentation to the Canyon County Alliance for 

Responsible Growth. 

April 30, 2013. Informational CCP presentation to the Caldwell Exchange club. 

May 1, 2013. Informational CCP presentation to the Caldwell Lion’s Club. 

May 2, 2013. Informational CCP presentation to Caldwell Kiwanis. 

H.1.3.2 Public Open Houses/Scoping Sessions 

 July 28, 2010. Open House from 12:00 PM to 3:00 PM at the Refuge Visitor Center. 

 August 20, 2010. Open House from 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM at the Refuge Visitor Center. 

 August 21, 2010. Open House from 10:00 AM to 3:00 PM at the Refuge Visitor Center. 

 September 23-24, 2010. Work Session 1. Participation was by invitation. The work sessions 

were open to public viewing. 

 September 24-25, 2010. Work Session 2. Participation was by invitation. The work sessions 

were open to public viewing. 

 June 3, 2011. Open House from 12:00 PM to 3:00 PM and 6:00 PM to 9:00 PM at the Refuge 

Visitor Center. 

 June 4, 2011. Open House from 10:00 AM to 3:00 PM at the Refuge Visitor Center. 

 July 8, 2011. Open House from 12:00 PM to 3:00 PM and 6:00 PM to 9:00 PM at the Refuge 

Visitor Center. 

 July 9, 2011. Open House from 10:00 AM to 3:00 PM at the Refuge Visitor Center. 

 March 29, 2013. Open House from 12:00 PM to 3:00 PM and 6:00 PM to 9:00 PM at the 

Refuge Visitor Center. 

 March 30, 2013. Open House from 10:00 AM to 3:00 PM at the Refuge Visitor Center. 

 April 26, 2013. Open House from 12:00 PM to 3:00 PM and 6:00 PM to 9:00 PM at the 

Refuge Visitor Center. 

 April 27, 2013. Open House from 10:00 AM to 3:00 PM at the Refuge Visitor Center. 

H.1.3.3 Field Outreach 

 June 26, 2010. Staff outreach at Upper Dam East. 

 July 1, 2010. Staff outreach at Gotts Point and Lower Dam Recreation Area. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix H. Public Involvement H-7 

 July 10, 2010. Staff outreach at Gotts Point, the Lower Dam Recreation Area, and the 

Lavender Festival. 

 July 11, 2010. Staff outreach at the Lavender Festival. 

 July 22, 2010. Staff outreach at the Lower Dam Recreation Area. 

 July 30, 2010. Staff outreach at the Lower Dam Recreation Area, the Upper Dam, and Gotts 

Point. 

 August 8, 2010. Staff outreach at Access #7, Lower Dam Recreation Area, Upper Dam East, 

and Upper Dam West. 

 August 14, 2010. Staff outreach at the Lower Dam Recreation Area. 

 August 27, 2010. Staff outreach at the Upper Dam West, Upper Dam East, Lower Dam 

Recreation Area, and Gotts Point. 

 June 25-26, 2011. Staff outreach at the Boise Recreation Festival. 

 July 8-9, 2011. Staff outreach at the Lavender Festival. 

H.1.3.4 CCP Hotline 

 June 23, 2010. Available 5:00 PM to 7:00 PM 

 July 14, 2010. Available 5:00 PM to 7:00 PM 

 July 28, 2010. Available 5:00 PM to 7:00 PM 

 August 11, 2010. Available 5:00 PM to 7:00 PM 

 August 25, 2010. Available 5:00 PM to 7:00 PM 

 September 8, 2010. Available 5:00 PM to 7:00 PM 

H.1.3.5 News Releases 

The following CCP-related news releases were issued to over 100 statewide television, radio, and 

print media contacts. 

 June 21, 2010. Announcement of start of CCP process and opportunities for comment. 

 July 19, 2010. Announcement of upcoming open house about management plan. 

 September 16, 2010. Announcement of CCP Work Sessions. 

 December 28, 2010. Update on status of CCP planning and announcement of release of 

Planning Update #2. 

 May 27, 2011. Announcement of comment period for preliminary draft alternatives. 

 October 25, 2011. Update on status of CCP planning and announcement of release of 

Planning Update #4. 

 March 15, 2013. Announcement of comment period for Draft CCP/EIS and release of 

Planning Update #5. 

H.1.3.6 Press Coverage 

 2010. Idaho Bass Federation Nation, “Lake Lowell.” 

idahobassfederationnation.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/1_IBFN_Header_2nd_Qtr_20

10-Completed.17062425.pdf 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

H-8 Appendix H. Public Involvement 

 April 14, 2010. Idaho Press-Tribune, “Deer Flat Prepares to Update Conservation 

Guidelines.” www.idahopress.com/news/deer-flat-prepares-to-update-conservationguidelines/article_502215ae-4783-11df-9634-001cc4c002e0.html 

 May 02, 2010. Idaho Press-Tribune, “County Seeks Full Access to Popular Recreation Spot.” 

www.idahopress.com/news/county-seeks-full-access-to-popular-recreationspot/article_26b61884-55af-11df-8b7c-001cc4c002e0.html 

 May 02, 2010. KTVB, “Some residents want vehicle ban lifted on Lake Lowell recreation 

spot.” www.ktvb.com/home/Some-SW-Idaho-residents-want-vehicle-ban-lifted92636164.html 

 May 02, 2010. NWCN, “Some Residents Want Vehicle Ban Lifted on Lake Lowell 

Recreation Spot.” www.nwcn.com/news/idaho/Some-residents-want-vehicle-ban-lifted-onLake-Lowell-recreation-spot-92680184.html 

 May 05, 2010. Idaho Press-Tribune, “Public Can Give Views on Lake Lowell Water.” 

www.idahopress.com/news/public-can-give-views-on-lake-lowell-water/article_e36e2b28-

580d-11df-acbc-001cc4c03286.html 

 May 13, 2010. Idaho Press-Tribune, “Find Way to Open Gates at Gotts Point.” 

www.idahopress.com/editorials/find-way-to-open-gates-at-gotts-point/article_6e42822c5e43-11df-bb1c-001cc4c002e0.html 

 June 16, 2010. Idaho Press-Tribune, “Lake Lowell Flush with Water.” 

www.idahopress.com/news/lake-lowell-flush-with-water/article_d8417eec-7907-11df-af0a001cc4c002e0.html 

 June 21, 2010. Press release was sent to local press outlets informing the public of the start of 

public scoping and promoting the CCP hotline. 

 June 21, 2010. Idaho Statesman, “Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Kicks Off 

Comprehensive Planning Process, Wants Public Comment.” 

 July 08, 2010. Idaho Press-Tribune, “Work begins on Deer Flat Wildlife Refuge Plan.” 

www.idahopress.com/news/work-begins-on-deer-flat-wildlife-refuge-plan/article_07500ab4-

8a4c-11df-96bd-001cc4c03286.html 

 July 08, 2010. Snake River Bassmasters, “July 8, 2010.” 

www.srb.idahobassfed.com/news.htm 

 July 19, 2010. Press release was sent to local press outlets informing them of the July and 

August open houses. 

 July 24, 2010. Idaho Press-Tribune, “Refuge Meeting Plan Set for Wednesday.” 

www.idahopress.com/news/refuge-meeting-plan-set-for-wednesday/article_928f891a-96e0-

11df-9834-001cc4c002e0.html 

 July 29, 2010. Idaho Press-Tribune, “Refuge Seeks to Save Water Sports.” 

www.idahopress.com/news/refuge-seeks-to-save-water-sports/article_8d53518e-9b3b-11df874a-001cc4c002e0.html 

 August 09, 2010. Blue Ribbon Coalition, “IDAHO: Help Preserve Recreation on Lake 

Lowell.” www.sharetrails.org/node/13092 

 August 10, 2010. KIVI-TV, “Boaters Beware in Lake Lowell.” 

 August 10, 2010 KBOI AM 670, “Officials Urge Public Comment on Deer Flat National 

Refuge Plan.” 

 August 10, 2010. Big Fish Tackle, Idaho Fishing General, “Will they close lake lowell???” 

www.bigfishtackle.com/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=606371 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix H. Public Involvement H-9 

 August 11, 2010. Idaho Press-Tribune, “Help Save Recreation on Lake Lowell.” 

www.idahopress.com/opinion/editorial/help-save-recreation-on-lake-lowell/article_27eafdbea4dd-11df-b91d-001cc4c03286.html 

 August 12, 2010. KTRV-TV, “Lake Lowell Activities Debate.” 

 August 12, 2011. Boise Riders, Motorcycle Talk, “Help Preserve Recreation on Lake 

Lowell.” boiseriders.net/motorcycle-talk/8977-help-preserve-recreation-lake-lowell.html 

 August 13, 2010. KIVI-TV, “Public to Weigh in on Lake Lowell Management Plan.” 

 August 13, 2010. Mike Crapo, United States Senator, “Lake Lowell Meeting Set to Discuss 

Future Boating.” www.crapo.senate.gov/media/newsreleases/release_full.cfm?id=327192& 

 August 14, 2010. KBOI, Story about boating, open houses, and comments. 

 August 14, 2010. KBOI 2, “Change ‘is coming’ to Lake Lowell, Boaters Fear Worst.” 

www.kboi2.com/news/local/100700244.html 

 August 14, 2010. KTVB and NWCN, “Public Weighs in on Future of Boating at Lake 

Lowell.” www.ktvb.com/news/Is-boating-at-Lake-Lowell-in-danger-100697609.html 

 August 15, 2010. KTVB, “Wildlife Refuge Could Curtail Water Sports on Popular Lake.” 

www.ktvb.com/news/local/64260402.html 

 August 15, 2010. Idaho Press-Tribune, “Crowd Defends Lake Use.” 

www.idahopress.com/news/crowd-defends-lake-use/article_78837816-a83c-11df-96ad001cc4c002e0.html 

 August 17, 2010. Idaho Statesman Blog, “Boaters Gear Up for Fight at Lake Lowell.” 

voices.idahostatesman.com/2010/08/17/rockybarker/boaters_gear_fight_lake_lowell 

 August 24, 2010. KTRV-TV “Canyon County Commissioners Call on Citizens.” 

 August 26, 2010. Idaho Press-Tribune, “‘Save Lake Lowell’ Meeting Today.” 

www.idahopress.com/news/save-lake-lowell-meeting-today/article_22790ba0-b0d6-11df8cb7-001cc4c002e0.html 

 August 27, 2010. Idaho Press-Tribune, “‘Save Lake Lowell’ Group Meets.” 

www.idahopress.com/news/save-lake-lowell-group-meets/article_74e24ece-b199-11df-bab1-

001cc4c002e0.html 

 August 29, 2010. Idaho Press-Tribune, Opinion, “Lake’s Uses Must Be Balanced.” 

www.idahopress.com/opinion/editorial/lake-s-uses-must-be-balanced/article_4d0989a8-

b32e-11df-b457-001cc4c03286.html 

 August 31, 2010. Idaho Press-Tribune, editorial opinion, “Burden of Proof Should Fall on 

Closing Refuge.” 

 August 31, 2010, KBOI AM 670, Sept. Lake Lowell Month to Save Recreation Activities on 

the Lake.” 

 September 01, 2010. KTRV-TV, “Commissioners Worry About Losing Lake Lowell.” 

 September 02, 2010. Idaho Press-Tribune, guest opinion, “We Must Honor Deer Flat’s 

Original Purpose.” www.idahopress.com/opinion/bestread/we-must-honor-deer-flat-soriginal-purpose/article_14dd8458-b626-11df-a884-001cc4c03286.html 

 September 02, 2010. Idaho Press-Tribune, “Officials Support Lowell Recreation.” 

www.idahopress.com/news/officials-support-lowell-recreation/article_271668c8-b64f-11dfb26b-001cc4c002e0.htmls 

 September 03, 2010. Idaho Press-Tribune, “Lake Lowell Issue Continues Debate.” 

 September 04, 2010. Idaho Press-Tribune, “Lowell Plan Shapes Future.” 

www.idahopress.com/news/lowell-plan-shapes-future/article_4b2a1756-b8ab-11df-b7cf001cc4c03286.html 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

H-10 Appendix H. Public Involvement 

 September 08, 2010. Idaho Press-Tribune, Deer Flat editorial opinion, “Wildlife, Recreation 

Can Co-exist.” www.idahopress.com/opinion/bestread/wildlife-recreation-can-coexist/article_d6f138ec-badf-11df-850c-001cc4c03286.html 

 September 08, 2010. Idaho Statesman, “Lake Lowell Recreation Supporters Rally to 

Influence Refuge Planning.” 

 September 09, 2010. Idaho Press-Tribune, “Group Spearheads Opposition to Lake 

Restrictions.” www.idahopress.com/news/group-spearheads-opposition-to-lakerestrictions/article_8505ad2a-bbc9-11df-a3ae-001cc4c002e0.html 

 September 10, 2010. KTVB, “Refuge Managers Receive Hundreds of Comments on Future 

of Lake Lowell.” www.ktvb.com/home/Refuge-managers-receive-hundreds-of-commentson-future-of-Lake-Lowell-102736339.html 

 September 10, 2010, “Small Cost - Big Fun” Idaho Adventures, “Deer Flat National Wildlife 

Refuge Accepting Public Comment Regarding 15 Year Conservation Plan - Last Day for 

Public Comment is Sept. 10th, 2010.” 

smallcostbigfunidahoadventures.blogspot.com/2010/09/deer-flat-national-wildliferefuge.html 

 September 10, 2010. U.S. Congressman Mike Simpson, “Idaho Congressmen Advocate for 

Idaho with Department of Interior.” 

simpson.house.gov/news/email/show.aspx?ID=USOHNXFZXPG5GTBZBJL24EEYXU 

 September 11, 2010. Idaho Press-Tribune, “Simpson, Minnick Weigh in on Lake Lowell, 

Wolves.” www.idahopress.com/news/local/simpson-minnick-weigh-in-on-lake-lowellwolves/article_5e923b80-be2c-11df-8bd7-001cc4c03286.html 

 September 12, 2010. Idaho State Journal, “Minnick, Simpson Send Letter Seeking Progress 

on Wolf Management, Lake Lowell Issues.” www.idahostatejournal.com/news/local 

/minnick-simpson-send-letter-seeking-progress-on-wolf-management-lake/article_485eaaf6-

bd32-11df-a7cf-001cc4c03286.html?mode=jqm_com 

 September 13, 2010. Northwest Cable News, “Refuge Managers Receive Hundreds of 

Comments on Future of Lake Lowell.” www.nwcn.com/news/idaho/Refuge-managersreceive-hundreds-of-comments-on-future-of-Lake-Lowell-102782789.html 

 September 15, 2010. ONEARTH Magazine and KBOI, “A Gem in the Desert or Garbage 

Dump?” www.kboi2.com/communities/nampa/193941521.html 

 September 16, 2010. Press release was sent to local press outlets inviting the public to view 

the September Work Sessions. 

 September 17, 2010. Idaho Press-Tribune, “Deer Flat to Host Use Plan Meetings.” 

www.idahopress.com/news/deer-flat-to-host-use-plan-meetings/article_63225716-c214-11dfaecb-001cc4c03286.html 

 September 21, 2010. Idaho Statesman, “Brainstorming Workshops Planned This Week for 

Deer Flat Conservation Plan.” 

 September 23, 2010. KTRV, “Boating Ban among Ideas at Lake Lowell Brainstorming 

Session.” 

 2011. Idaho Sportsmen’s Caucus Advisory Council, “ISCAC Position Memo on the Deer 

Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Planning (CCP) Process.” 

www.idahosportsmensconnection.com/ourview/pdf/2011DFNWRCCP.pdf 

 January 01, 2011. The Idaho Bass Federation, “January 1, 2011.” 

www.idahobassfed.com/fednews.htm 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix H. Public Involvement H-11 

 January 02, 2011. Idaho Press-Tribune, “Lake Lowell users: We want to play.” 

www.idahopress.com/news/lake-lowell-users-we-want-to-play/article_34dad0da-1639-11e0-

84ce-001cc4c03286.html 

 January 13, 2011. Idaho Press-Tribune, “Local Leaders Concerned about Deer Flat 

Outcome.” 

 January 15, 2011. Idaho Press-Tribune, “Delegation watches Deer Flat process.” 

www.idahopress.com/news/delegation-watches-deer-flat-process/article_351c40c8-2071-

11e0-8d8b-001cc4c03286.html 

 February 21, 2011. Idaho Press-Tribune, “Deer Flat Debate Escalates.” 

www.idahopress.com/news/deer-flat-debate-escalates/article_27d1ac04-3d87-11e0-8e94-

001cc4c03286.html 

 March 16, 2011. U.S. Congressman Mike Simpson, “Simpson Fights for Lake Lowell 

Access.” simpson.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=229665 

 March 17, 2011. Idaho Press-Tribune, “Simpson Seeks Assurances on Lake Lowell.” 

 April 13, 2011. KTVB, “Canyon County Wants More Control over Wildlife Refuge.” 

www.ktvb.com/home/Canyon-County-wants-more-control-over-wildlife-refuge119808859.html 

 April 14, 2011. Idaho Press-Tribune, “Local officials: Give us back Lake Lowell.” 

www.idahopress.com/news/local-officials-give-us-back-lake-lowell/article_caf8d98a-6658-

11e0-927e-001cc4c03286.html 

 April 14, 2011. Refuge Watch, “New Threat to Deer Flat NWR in Idaho.” 

www.refugewatch.org/2011/04/14/new-threat-to-deer-flat-nwr-in-idaho/ 

 April 15, 2011. The Westerner, “Canyon County leaders ask to make Deer Flat National 

Wildlife Refuge county property.” thewesterner.blogspot.com/2011/04/canyon-countyleaders-ask-to-make-deer.html 

 April 21, 2011. Idaho Press-Tribune, Opinion, “County control of Lake Lowell might be best 

alternative.” www.idahopress.com/opinion/editorial/county-control-of-lake-lowell-might-bebest-alternative/article_30c00768-6bb6-11e0-9b76-001cc4c002e0.html 

 May 04, 2011. Western Whitewater Association, “Deer Flat Refuge update 0511.” 

www.westernwhitewater.org 

 May 11, 2011. Idaho Press-Tribune, Opinion, “Commissioners’ Lake Lowell letter 

misguided.” www.idahopress.com/opinion/bestread/commissioners-lake-lowell-lettermisguided/article_e8530614-7b5b-11e0-9df9-001cc4c03286.html 

 May 27, 2011. Boise Guardian, “Crapo Warns Of Choppy Waters For Lake Lowell Users.” 

boiseguardian.com/2011/05/27/chopper-waters-ahead-for-lake-lowell-users/ 

 May 27, 2011. Idaho Press-Tribune, “Refuge officials present Lake Lowell options.” 

www.idahopress.com/news/refuge-officials-present-lake-lowell-options/article_1343151a8897-11e0-8440-001cc4c002e0.html 

 May 27, 2011. KTVB, “Proposed Changes to Lake Lowell.” www.ktvb.com/home/Proposedchanges-to-Lake-Lowell-122754999.html 

 May 27, 2011. James E. Risch, US Senator for Idaho, “Statement on Deer Flat NWR 

Proposal.” www.risch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?ID=d52655e8-2482-4c3cba22-6f196ce12fa8 

 May 27, 2011. Labrador Congress, “Statement on Fish & Wildlife Service CCP Affecting 

Lake Lowell.” www.labrador4idaho.com/press-kit/statement-on-fish-wildlife-service-ccpaffecting-lake-lowell/ 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

H-12 Appendix H. Public Involvement 

 May 27, 2011. Mike Crapo, United States Senator, “Crapo on Lake Lowell: If It Isn’t 

Broken, Don’t Fix It.” 

www.crapo.senate.gov/media/newsreleases/release_full.cfm?id=333042& 

 May 28, 2011. Idaho Press-Tribune, “Four Options, One Lake.” 

 May 28, 2011. Idaho Press-Tribune, “Refuge releases draft proposals for new wildlife plan.” 

www.idahopress.com/news/refuge-releases-draft-proposals-for-new-wildlifeplan/article_836adfea-88e6-11e0-8609-001cc4c002e0.html 

 May 28, 2011. Idaho Statesman, “Recreation Restrictions Loom for Lake Lowell.” 

 May 28, 2011. Meanchicken, River Jet Boating Forum, “Lake Lowell Planning update was 

released.” meanchicken.net/webmain/forum/viewtopic.php?f=82&t=6374 

 May 28, 2011. Politicalnews.me, “Crapo on Lake Lowell: If It Isn’t Broken, Don’t Fix It.” 

politicalnews.me/?id=7699 

 May 29, 2011. Idaho Press-Tribune, “In Idaho, refuge becomes venue for anti-fed fight.” 

www.idahopress.com/news/state/in-idaho-refuge-becomes-venue-for-anti-fedfight/article_8b4f116f-adcb-503e-8eb5-509a99a0de3b.html 

 May 29, 2011. Westport News. 

 May 31, 2011. Green Technology World, “Comments Sought on Deer Flat National Wildlife 

Refuge Preliminary Draft Alternatives - NEWS RELEASE.” 

green.tmcnet.com/news/2011/05/31/5544771.htm 

 May 31, 2011. Idaho Waterfowl Association Forums, General Discussion, “Deer Flat 

Proposals.” www.idahowaterfowl.org/forums/index.php?action=printpage;topic=1665.0 

 May 31, 2011. Mike Crapo, United States Senator, “Crapo Office Taking Public Comment in 

Nampa, Glenns Ferry, Horseshoe Bend.” 

www.crapo.senate.gov/media/newsreleases/release_full.cfm?id=333056& 

 May 31, 2011. Refuge Watch, “Management Plan for Deer Flat NWR Sparks More 

Controversy.” www.refugewatch.org/2011/05/31/management-plan-for-deer-flat-nwr-sparks 

more-controversy/ 

 June 02, 2011. The Idaho Bass Federation, “June 2, 2011.” 

www.idahobassfed.com/fednews.htm 

 June 02, 2011. Snake River Bassmasters, “June 2, 2011.” 

www.srb.idahobassfed.com/news.htm 

 June 03, 2011. Idaho Association of Soil Conservation Districts, “Federal Legislative 

Roundup: June 3 to June 10, 2011.” https://iascd.wordpress.com/tag/deer-flat-nationalwildlife-refuge/ 

 June 09, 2011. Capital Press, “Farmers oppose recreation limits at Deer Flat lake.” 

www.capitalpress.com/content/se-deer-flat-061011 

 June 22, 2011. Idaho Press-Tribune, “Tea Party Boise plans Save Lake Lowell parade.” 

www.idahopress.com/news/tea-party-boise-plans-save-lake-lowell-parade/article_580746dc9c95-11e0-b5ae-001cc4c03286.html 

 June 23, 2011. Idaho Press-Tribune, “Idaho Congressional Delegation requests Lake Lowell 

comment period extension.” www.idahopress.com/news/idaho-congressional-delegationrequests-lake-lowell-comment-period-extension/article_b64ec7a2-9de3-11e0-a9f2-

001cc4c03286.html 

 June 24, 2011. Idaho Press-Tribune, “Idaho delegates want more public comments on lake.” 

www.idahopress.com/news/state/idaho-delegates-want-more-public-comments-onlake/article_b66ebd82-273d-57f3-b4b4-36f1333146d4.html 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix H. Public Involvement H-13 

 June 24, 2011. KTVB, “Idaho Leaders Want More Public Comments on Lake Lowell.” 

www.ktvb.com/home/Idaho-leaders-want-more-public-comments-on-Lake-Lowell124518364.html 

 June 25, 2011. Capital Press, “Idaho delegates want more public comments on lake.” 

www.capitalpress.com/content/AP-lake-lowell-federal-fight-062411 

 June 26, 2011. Refuge Watch, “Idaho Delegation Asks for 4-Month Extension of Deer Flat 

NWR Comment Period.” www.refugewatch.org/2011/06/26/idaho-delegration-asks-for-4-

month-extension-of-deer-flat-nwr-comment-period/ 

 June 28, 2011. The Idaho Bass Federation, “June 28, 2011.” 

www.idahobassfed.com/fednews.htm 

 July, 2011. The Golden Eagle, “Comments Sought on Deer Flat Birding and New 

Management Plan Proposals.” www.goldeneagleaudubon.org/newsletterpdfs/nl11/geas1107.pdf 

 July 01, 2011. Refuge Forums, Idaho Flyaway Forum, “Attn IWA Members: Deer Flat 

Meeting 7/6 7pm.” www.refugeforums.com/refuge/showthread.php?t=857902 

 July 03, 2011. Idaho Press-Tribune, “What does Lake Lowell mean to you?” 

www.idahopress.com/news/local/what-does-lake-lowell-mean-to-you/article_3b6ec6b4-

a544-11e0-9da6-001cc4c002e0.html 

 July 05, 2011. Biking Bis, “Proposed bicycling ban at Idaho wildlife refuge could have farreaching impacts.” www.bikingbis.com/2011/07/05/proposed-bicycling-ban-at-idahowildlife-refuge-could-have-far-reaching-impacts/ 

 July 07, 2011. The Idaho Bass Federation, “July 7, 2011.” 

www.idahobassfed.com/fednews.htm 

 July 07, 2011. Idaho Bassmasters, “Lake Lowell - Important Message.” 

www.idahobassmasters.org/club-news-and-updates/243-lake-lowell-important-message 

 July 07, 2011. Idaho Press-Tribune, “Embroiled in fight, Idaho refuge meets with public.” 

www.idahopress.com/news/state/embroiled-in-fight-idaho-refuge-meets-withpublic/article_faf6cf20-0d30-51d8-9a51-aacbd819858b.html 

 July 07, 2011. KTVB and KIVI, “Embroiled in Fight, Idaho Refuge Meets with Public.” 

www.ktvb.com/home/Embroiled-in-fight-Idaho-refuge-meets-with-public-125158654.html 

 July 07, 2011. Twin Rivers Cycling, “Proposed bicycling ban at Idaho wildlife refuge could 

have far-reaching impacts.” twinriverscyclists.wordpress.com/2011/07/07/proposedbicycling-ban-at-idaho-wildlife-refuge-could-have-far-reaching-impacts/ 

 July 09, 2011. KIVI, “The Day Recreation Died.” 

 July 10, 2011. Idaho Press-Tribune, “Boat lovers: Lake Lowell + restrictions = bad 

economy.” www.idahopress.com/news/boat-lovers-lake-lowell-restrictions-badeconomy/article_be712c10-aabb-11e0-b00d-001cc4c002e0.html 

 July 11, 2011. Capital Press, “Boat Parade Protests ‘Death of Recreation’.” 

www.capitalpress.com/content/se-death-of-recreation--071511 

 July 14, 2011. Idaho Press-Tribune, Opinion, “3 plans I’d support for lake.” 

www.idahopress.com/opinion/bestread/plans-i-d-support-for-lake/article_8c67d800-add0-

11e0-a5a5-001cc4c03286.html 

 July 16, 2011. The Idaho Bass Federation, “July 16, 2011.” 

www.idahobassfed.com/fednews.htm 

 July 16, 2011. Snake River Bassmasters, “July 16, 2011.” 

www.srb.idahobassfed.com/news.htm 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

H-14 Appendix H. Public Involvement 

 July 21, 2011. Idaho Press-Tribune, “County commissioners continue Lake Lowell talks 

Friday.” www.idahopress.com/news/local/government/county-commissioners-continue-lakelowell-talks-friday/article_e0d4b5c0-b3d4-11e0-8722-001cc4c002e0.html 

 July 21, 2011. Idaho Public Television, “Idaho’s Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Plan 

Stirs Controversy.” 

 July 21, 2011. KUOW, EarthFix, “Idaho’s Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Plan Stirs 

Controversy.” EarthFix.kuow.org/communities/article/controversy-over-deer-flat-nationalwildlife-refug/ 

 July 21, 2011. HCN.org, The Goat Blog, “Boats vs. birds.” www.hcn.org/blogs/goat/boatsvs.-birds 

 July 22, 2011. Aaron Kunz, “Fight over Deer Flat heats up as commissioners threaten to 

declare Lake Lowell a local historic property.” aaronkunz.wordpress.com/2011/07/22/fightover-deer-flat-heats-up-as-commissioners-threaten-to-declare-lake-lowell-a-local-historicproperty/ 

 July 22, 2011. Idaho Press-Tribune, “County says Deer Flat has no authority over Lake 

Lowell.” www.idahopress.com/news/local/government/county-says-deer-flat-has-noauthority-over-lake-lowell/article_4b5c14c2-b481-11e0-9b4e-001cc4c002e0.html 

 July 22, 2011. KIVI, “Community Comes Together to Fight Government Take Over of Lake 

Lowell.” 

 July 22, 2011. KTVB, “Canyon County Says Feds Have No Rights on Lake Lowell.” 

www.ktvb.com/home/Canyon-County-says-feds-have-no-rights-on-Lake-Lowell126039193.html 

 July 22, 2011. KUOW, EarthFix, “Local Idaho Officials Take On Feds Over National 

Wildlife Refuge.” EarthFix.kuow.org/communities/article/commissioners-hope-making-lakelowell-historic-pro/

 July 23, 2011. Idaho Press-Tribune, “County to feds: You don’t have control over water.” 

www.idahopress.com/news/county-to-feds-you-don-t-have-control-overwater/article_ac35a6dc-b4e0-11e0-95e8-001cc4c002e0.html 

 July 23, 2011. Idaho Press-Tribune, “Officials argue for local control of Lake Lowell.” 

www.idahopress.com/news/state/officials-argue-for-local-control-of-lakelowell/article_64fd3ef1-aeff-5208-8f85-d26c665e8e7d.html 

 July 25, 2011. Idaho Business Review, “Southwest Idaho officials argue for local control of 

Lake Lowell.” idahobusinessreview.com/2011/07/25/southwest-idaho-officials-argue-forlocal-control-of-lake-lowell/#ixzz2fq5IL29i

 July 29, 2011. Governor C. L. “Butch, “Idaho’s comments on Lake Lowell.” 

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Governor-C-L-ButchOtter/292986829831?sk=notes#!/notes/governor-c-l-butch-otter/idahos-comments-on-lakelowell/10150251047115770

 July 30, 2011. KTVB, “Otter Spars with Feds over Control of Lake Lowell.” 

www.ktvb.com/home/Otter-spars-with-feds-over-control-of-Deer-Flat-126461363.html 

 July 31, 2011. Idaho Press-Tribune, “Lake Lowell lawsuit ill-advised.” 

www.idahopress.com/opinion/editorial/lake-lowell-lawsuit-ill-advised/article_589deba6-

bb39-11e0-92a6-001cc4c002e0.html 

 August 02, 2011. OPB, Environment, Oregon, “Deer Flat Puts A Name On Public Access 

Battle.” www.opb.org/news/article/deer-flat-puts-name-public-access-battle/ 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix H. Public Involvement H-15 

 August 03, 2011. Idaho Press-Tribune, Opinion, “We don’t concede feds control Lake 

Lowell.” www.idahopress.com/opinion/bestread/we-don-t-concede-feds-control-lakelowell/article_f41d80c6-bd89-11e0-bfb2-001cc4c03286.html 

 August 10, 2011. Idaho Business Review, “Boating outfitters say Lake Lowell plan bad for 

business.” idahobusinessreview.com/2011/08/10/boating-outfitters-say-lake-lowell-plan-badfor-business/#ixzz2fq67oBDZ 

 August 11, 2011. Capital Press, “State officials join fight over feds’ lake grab.” 

www.capitalpress.com/content/se-lake-lowell-081211 

 August 16, 2011. Idaho Press-Tribune, “Feds have jurisdiction over Lake Lowell.” 

 August 25, 2011. Fox News, “Taking Liberties: Birds Vs. Boaters.” 

www.foxnews.com/us/2011/08/25/taking-liberties-birds-vs-boaters/ 

 August 30, 2011. The View From Montana, “Story of Two Reservoirs: Lowell Lake ID & 

Georgetown Lake MT.” tvfmontana.org/?p=139 

 August 30, 2011. Western Whitewater Association, “Interagency Coordinating Team 

Monthly Update August 30, 2011.” 

www.westernwhitewater.org/Pages%20Information/Temp/Deer%20Flat%20Interagency%20

Coordinating%20Team%20august%202011.html 

 September 2, 2011. Idaho Press-Tribune, Opinion, “There’s too much carp going on at Lake 

Lowell.” www.idahopress.com/opinion/editorials/there-s-too-much-carp-going-on-at-lakelowell/article_f59e0dce-d51e-11e0-96c6-001cc4c002e0.html 

 October 2011. B.A.S.S. Times, “Idaho anglers battle FWS for access on popular Lake 

Lowell.” 

 October 19, 2011. KUOW, EarthFix, “A ‘Trust Forced on the West’ Creates Balancing Act 

on Public Lands.” earthfix.kuow.org/land/article/a-trust-forced-on-the-west-createsbalancing-act-o/ 

 October 20, 2011. Idaho Public Television, “The People’s Land.” 

 October 25, 2011. KTVB, “Updated Conservation Plan for Deer Flat Refuge Released.” 

www.ktvb.com/home/Updated-conservation-plan-for-Deer-Flat-Refuge-released132564953.html 

 October 26, 2011. Idaho Press-Tribune, “Public Affects Lowell Options.” 

www.idahopress.com/news/public-affects-lake-lowell-options/article_85b6572e-ff98-11e0-

ba7b-001cc4c03286.html 

 October 26, 2011. Idaho Statesman, “Public input changes plan for Deer Flat.” 

 October 27, 2011. Idaho Press-Tribune, Opinion, “Modified Lake Lowell plan shows 

compromise.” www.idahopress.com/opinion/editorial/modified-lake-lowell-plan-showscompromise/article_3f39d570-004a-11e1-8f0a-001cc4c002e0.html 

 November 03, 2011. Capital Press Publication, “Wildlife Agency backs off on Lake.” 

www.capitalpress.com/content/SE-lake-lowell-update-110411 

 November 11, 2011. Boise Weekly, “Wildlife vs. Recreation at Deer Flat Refuge?” 

www.boiseweekly.com/boise/wildlife-vs-recreation-at-deer-flatrefuge/Content?oid=2547778 

 November 17, 2011. MagicValley.com, “Fear of Change Challenges Minidoka National 

Wildlife Refuge Update.” magicvalley.com/news/local/mini-cassia/fear-of-changechallenges-minidoka-national-wildlife-refuge-update/article_e608d9b2-e4c2-5876-86f0-

ba4dc8bd4e84.html 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

H-16 Appendix H. Public Involvement 

 December 23, 2011. Idaho Press-Tribune, “Vote on the top local news stories of 2011.” 

www.idahopress.com/news/vote-on-the-top-local-news-stories-of/article_c711c71c-2d24-

11e1-916e-001871e3ce6c.html 

 January 1, 2012. Idaho Press-Tribune, “Top Local Stories of 2011.” 

www.idahopress.com/news/local/top-local-stories-of/article_4d96c452-3439-11e1-a4da001871e3ce6c.html 

 February 2, 2012. Western Canyon Chronicle, “Jan 24th Presentation: Status of Wildlife 

Conservation Rulemaking for Lake Lowell.” 

 March 10, 2012. Idaho Press-Tribune, “Lake Lowell Focus of Joint Memorial.” 

www.idahopress.com/news/local/lake-lowell-focus-of-joint-memorial/article_1b24c014-

6a7b-11e1-b784-001871e3ce6c.html?TNNoMobile 

 March 15, 2012. Southern Idaho Sailing Association, “Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge 

Planning Update #5.” www.idahosailing.com/lake_lowell_changes 

 March 18, 2012. Idaho Press-Tribune, “Canyon County Sheriff Candidates Discuss Lake 

Lowell, Jail at Forum.” www.idahopress.com/vip_headlines/canyon-county-sheriffcandidates-discuss-lake-lowell-jail-at-forum/article_f3747c6c-70c4-11e1-a8ff001871e3ce6c.html 

 March 29, 2012. Idaho Press-Tribune, “Deer Flat draft plan months away.” April 02, 2012. 

Idaho Business Review, “Business Briefs.” idahobusinessreview.com/2012/04/02/businessbriefs-128/ 

 April 02, 2012. KTVB, “Draft plan for Deer Flat due out in June.” 

www.ktvb.com/home/Draft-plan-for-Deer-Flat-due-out-in-June-145699075.html 

 April 10, 2012. Idaho Press-Tribune, “Park Hopes to pull in water skiers.” 

www.idahopress.com/vip_headlines/park-hopes-to-pull-in-water-skiers/article_08b56a02-

82d4-11e1-8828-001a4bcf887a.html 

 April 12, 2012. Idaho Press-Tribune, “Lowell Opens for boating Sunday.” 

www.idahopress.com/news/local/lake-lowell-opens-for-boating-sunday/article_0acd899c8459-11e1-8f0e-0019bb2963f4.html 

 April 14, 2012. Idaho Press-Tribune, “Canyon County leaders plan for future.” 

 April 15, 2012. KTVB, “Lake Lowell opens for boating.” www.ktvb.com/home/LakeLowell-opens-for-boating-147507655.html 

 May 11, 2012. Idaho Statesman, Letters to the editor, “Support Christy Perry.” 

 May 27, 2012. Idaho Statesman, “Collision Course over Deer Flat plan?” 

 June 8, 2012. Idaho Press-Tribune, “Sales of Sobba’s book to benefit friends of 100-year-old 

Deer Flat.” www.idahopress.com/news/local/sales-of-former-caldwell-police-chief-bobsobba-s-book/article_ab1a2a90-b118-11e1-94b2-001a4bcf887a.html 

 June 25, 2012. Canyon County, “Commissioners React to CCP Draft Proposal.” 

www.canyonco.org/Home/Home-News/Archived-News/Commissioners-React-to-CCPDraft-Proposal.aspx 

 July 12, 2012. Capital Press, “County defends lake rights.” 

www.capitalpress.com/content/SE-reservoir-fight-071312 

 August 10, 2012. Idaho Press-Tribune, Opinion, “Remember: Irrigators built Lake Lowell.” 

www.idahopress.com/members/remember-irrigators-built-lake-lowell/article_a19f47b2-

e28b-11e1-a7f1-001a4bcf887a.html 

 August 25, 2012. Idaho Press-Tribune, Your Views, “Commissioners put Historical Society 

in bind.” www.idahopress.com/members/commissioners-put-historical-society-inbind/article_f28c4ca6-ee48-11e1-aa47-0019bb2963f4.html 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix H. Public Involvement H-17 

 November 28, 2012. Idaho Press-Tribune, “Refuge waits OK on draft conservation plan.” 

www.idahopress.com/members/refuge-waits-ok-on-draft-conservationplan/article_cb5574d8-391a-11e2-ae98-0019bb2963f4.html 

 March 08, 2013. Keller Williams Realty, “Lake Lowell Nampa and Caldwell Idaho is Under 

Attack.” bzybeerealtor.com/post/3653171/lake-lowell-nampa-and-caldwell-idaho-is-underattack 

 March 11, 2013. Idaho Press-Tribune, “Deer Flat to release conservation plan Friday.” 

www.idahopress.com/news/local/deer-flat-to-release-conservation-planfriday/article_b22bb782-8a7e-11e2-80ab-0019bb2963f4.html 

 March 12, 2013. Idaho Statesman Blog, “Deer Flat is releasing a draft of its comprehensive 

plan on Friday, March 15.” blogs.idahostatesman.com/deer-flat-is-releasing-a-draft-of-itscomprehensive-plan-on-friday-march-15/ 

 March 12, 2013. Idaho Press-Tribune, “Deer Flat will release conservation plan Friday.” 

www.idahopress.com/members/deer-flat-will-release-conservation-planfriday/article_5b52b90a-8ad9-11e2-b222-001a4bcf887a.html 

 March 13, 2013. KBOI, “Refuge wants your input for Deer Flat management.” 

www.kboi2.com/news/local/Nampa-Idaho-Lowell-lake-boats-deer-flat-198306751.html 

 March 14, 2013. Idaho Press-Tribune, “New Deer Flat plan eliminates most of wake-free 

zone.” www.idahopress.com/news/new-deer-flat-plan-eliminates-most-of-wake-freezone/article_4fbdf21e-8cd5-11e2-a6de-0019bb2963f4.html 

 March 14, 2013. KTVB, “Latest plan for Lake Lowell makes big splash.” 

www.ktvb.com/home/Possible-management-plan-for-Lake-Lowell-satisfies-many198345721.html 

 March 15, 2013. Idaho Statesman blog, “Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge releases latest 

management proposal.” blogs.idahostatesman.com/deer-flat/#storylink=misearch 

 March 15, 2013. Idaho Press-Tribune, “Deer Flat’s new plan may cool controversy.” 

www.idahopress.com/members/deer-flat-s-new-plan-may-coolcontroversy/article_950322de-8d1d-11e2-8dda-001a4bcf887a.html 

 March 15, 2013. The Idaho Bass Federation, “March 15, 2013.” 

www.idahobassfed.com/fednews.htm 

 March 16, 2013. Idaho Statesman, “Deer Flat draft plan released Friday.” 

idahostatesman.com/2013/03/16/2494073/deer-flat-draft-planreleased.html#storylink=misearch 

 March 17, 2013. Idaho Statesman, “Can Idaho manage public lands better than the feds?” 

(Does not specifically mention DFNWR) 

www.idahostatesman.com/2013/03/17/2495395/can-idaho-manage-public-lands.html 

 March 17, 2013. Idaho Press-Tribune, “Feds release new draft plan for Deer Flat.” 

www.idahopress.com/news/state/feds-release-new-draft-plan-for-deer-flat/article_41f787c6-

247b-5f06-9b8a-7e2ee95f3f3d.html 

 March 18, 2013. KINF 99.1 FM, “Feds release new draft plan for Deer Flat.” 

www.idahonewsradio.com/breakinglocalnews/story.aspx?ID=1914465 

 March 18, 2013. KUOW, EarthFix, “New Plan Seeks Wildlife-Recreation Balance At 

Idaho’s Deer Flat Refuge.” EarthFix.kuow.org/flora-and-fauna/article/new-plan-seekswildlife-recreation-balance-at-idah/ 

 March 21, 2013. Mike Crapo, United States Senator, “Delegation Encourages Lake Lowell 

Comments.” www.crapo.senate.gov/media/newsreleases/release_full.cfm?id=341102 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

H-18 Appendix H. Public Involvement 

 March 22, 2013. Idaho Republicans, “Delegation Encourages Lake Lowell Comments.” 

idgop.org/delegation-encourages-lake-lowell-comments/ 

 March 22, 2013. Idaho Travel Recreation, “Feds release new draft plan for Deer Flat.” 

www.idahotravelrecreation.com/blog/2013/03/22/feds-release-draft-plan-deer-flat/ 

 March 22, 2013. Politicalnews.me, “Delegation Encourages Lake Lowell Comments.” 

politicalnews.me/?id=22259 

 March 23, 2013. Idaho Statesman, “What’s on the horizon for Deer Flat?” 

 March 23, 2013. Idaho Statesman, “New Deer Flat proposal aims to balance wildlife, 

recreation needs.” idahostatesman.com/2013/03/23/2504254/whats-on-the-horizon-fordeer.html#storylink=misearch 

 March 28, 2013. Idaho Statesman Blog, “Public comment, open house at Deer Flat National 

Wildlife Refuge Friday, Saturday.” blogs.idahostatesman.com/public-comment-open-houseat-deer-flat-national-wildlife-refuge-friday-saturday/ 

 March 29, 2013. Idaho Press-Tribune, “Deer Flat Refuge to host open house.” 

www.idahopress.com/members/deer-flat-refuge-to-host-open-house/article_5894da4c-9824-

11e2-8bdb-0019bb2963f4.html 

 March 30, 2013. Idaho Press-Tribune, “Lake Lowell enforcement duties concern county 

officials.” www.idahopress.com/members/lake-lowell-enforcement-duties-concern-countyofficials/article_0f10e25e-98f0-11e2-b3ab-0019bb2963f4.html 

 April, 2013. Treasure Valley Back Country Horsemen, “April 2013 Newsletter.” 

www.tvbch.com/TVBCH_newsletter_2013-04c.doc 

 April 02, 2013. Capital Press, “Feds compromise on standoff over Lake Lowell proposal.” 

www.capitalpress.com/content/SE-Deer-Flat-040513 

 April 02, 2013. Idaho Bassmasters, “Urgent Response needed to Lake Lowell Planning 

Proposal.” www.idahobassmasters.org/club-news-and-updates/289-urgent-response-neededto-lake-lowell-planning-proposal 

 April 03, 2013. Idaho Press-Tribune, “Credit all around for promising Lake Lowell 

proposal.” www.idahopress.com/members/credit-all-around-for-promising-lake-lowellproposal/article_ae783dfa-9bee-11e2-b74a-0019bb2963f4.html 

 April 03, 2013. Capital Press, “Feds compromise on standoff over Lake Lowell proposal.” 

www.capitalpress.com/content/SE-Deer-Flat-040513 

 April 08, 2013. El.e.men’tal Idaho, “A Deer Flat National Refuge Center Plan Reboot.” 

elementalidaho.org/2013/04/12/4813-a-deer-flat-national-refuge-center-plan-reboot/ 

 April 13, 2013. City-Data Forum, Boise area, “Lake Lowell closing due to overregulation??” 

www.city-data.com/forum/boise-area/1840581-lake-lowell-closing-due-overregulation.html 

 April 19, 2013. Canyon Soil Conservation District, Spring Issue, “The Refuge’s Draft 

CCP/EIS is Available for Public Comments.” 

 April 19, 2013. Assault n’ Prepper, “Idaho: Hunting Included in New Management Plan for 

Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge.” assaultnprepper.com/blog/2013/04/idaho-huntingincluded-in-new-management-plan-for-deer-flat-national-wildlife-refuge/ 

 April 19, 2013. NRA-ILA, “Idaho: Hunting Included in New Management Plan for Deer Flat 

National Wildlife Refuge.” www.nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2013/4/idahohunting-included-in-new-management-plan-for-deer-flat-national-wildliferefuge.aspx?s=%22Oregon%22&st=&ps= 

 May 09, 2013. Idaho Statesman Outdoors, “Lake Lowell Deadline for comments May 15.” 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix H. Public Involvement H-19 

 May 09, 2013. Idaho Press-Tribune, “Sailors critical of Deer Flat plan.” 

www.idahopress.com/members/sailors-critical-of-deer-flat-plan/article_41420c5e-b861-

11e2-8bb4-0019bb2963f4.html 

 May 09, 2013. KBOI, “Feds aim to sink regatta at Lake Lowell.” 

www.kboi2.com/news/local/lake-lowell-206986121.html 

 May 10, 2013. Idaho Statesman, “Proposed Deer Flat changes too restrictive to 

recreationists.” 

 May 10, 2013. KTVB, “Sailboat races could be ‘gone with the wind’ under proposal.” 

www.ktvb.com/home/Sailboat-races-could-be-gone-with-the-wind-under-proposal207024261.html 

 May 12, 2013. Idaho Press-Tribune, “Sailing group faces headwind at SW Idaho refuge.” 

www.idahopress.com/news/state/sailing-group-faces-headwind-at-sw-idahorefuge/article_656561c5-cdba-5b08-8178-6c44b58e7ec6.html 

 May 13, 2013. Cruising Outpost Magazine, “Sailboat Regattas To Be Banned On Lake 

Lowell In Southern Idaho.” cruisingoutpost.com/2013/05/sailboat-regattas-banned-lakelowell-southern-idaho/ 

 May 13, 2013. Idaho Press-Tribune, “Civic agenda.” www.idahopress.com/news/local/civicagenda/article_dd30f57a-bb96-11e2-b842-001a4bcf887a.html 

 May 13, 2013. Idaho Press-Tribune, “County to Deer Flat: We will use Lake Lowell as we 

wish.” www.idahopress.com/news/local/government/county-to-deer-flat-we-will-use-lakelowell-as/article_75c24c7c-bc13-11e2-98cb-0019bb2963f4.html 

 May 14, 2013. Idaho Press-Tribune, “County rejects Deer Flat plan.” 

www.idahopress.com/members/canyon-county-rejects-deer-flat-plan/article_6e6f1f9c-bc52-

11e2-80eb-0019bb2963f4.html 

 May 14, 2013. USA Today, State-by-State, “Idaho.” 

 May 15, 2013. Capital Press, “SW Idaho officials bristle at Lake Lowell limits.” 

www.capitalpress.com/content/AP-lake-lowell-051513 

 May 15, 2013. Idaho Press-Tribune, “Petition now available for Deer Flat plan.” 

www.idahopress.com/petition-now-available-for-deer-flat-plan/article_05d6b298-bd2d-11e2-

9f0c-001a4bcf887a.html 

 May 15, 2013. Idaho Press-Tribune, “SW Idaho officials bristle at Lake Lowell limits.” 

www.idahopress.com/news/state/sw-idaho-officials-bristle-at-lake-lowelllimits/article_05a0c57b-b053-5993-84f8-d20d32526d8d.html 

 May 15, 2013. Idaho Statesman, “Water fight with feds brewing in Canyon County.” 

idahostatesman.com/2013/05/15/2576383/water-fight-with-fedsbrewing.html#storylink=misearch 

 May 15, 2013. KTVB, “County commissioners take issue with Deer Flat management plan.” 

www.ktvb.com/home/Deer-Flat-management-plan-could-restrict-activities-on-Lake-Lowell--

207587611.html 

 May 15, 2013. KUOW, EarthFix, “SW Idaho Officials Refuse To Enforce Lake Lowell 

limits.” EarthFix.kuow.org/water/article/sw-idaho-officials-refuse-to-enforce-lake-lowell-l/ 

 May 15, 2013. Mountain West News, “USFWS plan for Idaho wildlife refuge sparks water 

fight with Canyon County.” www.mountainwestnews.org/Index.aspx?recentEd=2873 

 May 15, 2013. The Spokesman-Review, “Canyon commissioners threaten defiance over birdprotection rules on Lake Lowell.” www.spokesman.com/blogs/boise/2013/may/15/canyoncommissioners-threaten-defiance-over-bird-protection-rules-lake-lowell/ 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

H-20 Appendix H. Public Involvement 

 May 15, 2013. The Westerner, “Commissioners: Feds do not have authority over Lake 

Lowell.” thewesterner.blogspot.com/2013/05/commissioners-feds-do-not-have.html 

 May 16, 2013. Idaho Press-Tribune, Opinion, “Find way to continue sailing race at Lake 

Lowell.” www.idahopress.com/members/find-way-to-continue-sailing-race-at-lakelowell/article_b637cd54-bdc1-11e2-a401-0019bb2963f4.html 

 May 16, 2013. Idaho Press-Tribune, Opinion, “No legitimate reason to cancel sail race.” 

www.idahopress.com/members/no-legitimate-reason-to-cancel-sailboatrace/article_7f29c08c-bdc2-11e2-ab46-0019bb2963f4.html 

 May 16, 2013. Idaho Press-Tribune, “Canyon County won’t rule out Lake Lowell Lawsuit.” 

www.idahopress.com/members/canyon-county-won-t-rule-out-lake-lowelllawsuit/article_189b5cd0-bde1-11e2-ae58-0019bb2963f4.html 

 May 16, 2013. Capital Press, “SW Idaho officials bristle at Lake Lowell limits.” 

www.capitalpress.com/content/AP-lake-lowell-051513 

 May 16, 2013. The Idaho Bass Federation, “The Idaho Bass Federation (TIBF) meeting 

Minutes, Thursday, May 16, 2013, 7:00pm.” www.idahobassfed.com/maymin13.htm 

 May 25, 2013. Idaho Press-Tribune, Opinion, “County says it will ignore Lake Lowell rules.” 

 June 4, 2013. Idaho Press-Tribune, Opinion, “Restrictions at Lake Lowell would be 

illogical.” www.idahopress.com/members/restrictions-at-lake-lowell-would-beillogical/article_bc20d5b4-ccab-11e2-8844-0019bb2963f4.html 

 June 9, 2013. Idaho Press-Tribune, Opinion, “Canyon County commissioners take wrong 

approach on Lake Lowell.” www.idahopress.com/members/canyon-county-commissionerstake-wrong-approach-on-lake-lowell/article_d4861bb4-cf08-11e2-b8ca-0019bb2963f4.html 

H.1.3.7 Planning Updates 

 July 15, 2010. Planning Update 1 was mailed to individuals on our mailing list and adjacent 

landowners. Copies of the update were available at the Visitor Center and at outreach events. 

Adjacent landowners in Malheur County were accidentally left off of the initial mailing. 

They received Planning Update 1 and Planning Update 2 in December. This planning update 

let the public know of the Refuge’s intent to begin a planning process, provided an overview 

of the CCP process, and requested public comment. 

 November 29, 2010. Planning Update 2 was mailed to individuals on the CCP mailing list. 

Adjacent landowners not on the mailing list received postcards informing them of the 

availability of the planning update on the Refuge’s website. Copies of the planning update 

were also available at the Visitor Center and outreach events. This planning update provided 

an overview of comments received during the summer scoping period. 

 May 27, 2011. Planning Update 3 was mailed to individuals on the CCP mailing list. 

Adjacent landowners not on the mailing list received postcards informing them of the 

availability of the planning update on the Refuge’s website. Copies of the planning update 

were also available at the Visitor Center and outreach events. This planning update provided 

an overview of preliminary draft alternatives and requested public comment. 

 October 25, 2011. Planning Update 4 was mailed to individuals on the CCP mailing list. 

Adjacent landowners not on the mailing list received postcards informing them of the 

availability of the planning update on the Refuge’s website. Copies of the planning update 

were also available at the Visitor Center and outreach events. This planning update provided 

an overview of comments received after the release of the preliminary draft alternatives and 

explained some of the changes that would be made based on those comments. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix H. Public Involvement H-21 

 March 15, 2013. Planning Update 5 was mailed to individuals on the CCP mailing list. 

Adjacent landowners not on the mailing list received postcards informing them of the 

availability of the planning update on the Refuge’s website. Copies of the planning update 

were also available at the Visitor Center and outreach events. This planning update presented 

a summary of the alternatives proposed in the Draft CCP/EIS and requested public comment. 

H.1.3.8 Other Tools 

 The Refuge website featured CCP information, Refuge fact sheets, frequently asked 

questions, and comment forms. 

 CCP information flyers and outreach “business cards” were placed in over 40 local 

businesses. 

 CCP informational “half sheets” and/or outreach “business cards” were handed out at every 

presentation and outreach event and were passed out during field outreach. 

 Refuge and CCP fact sheets were created and made available at presentations and outreach 

events, and in the Visitor Center. 

 The Refuge created CCP messages that played on the Headquarters/Visitor Center phone 

lines if someone was put on hold or called after business hours. 

 Participated in Senator Crapo’s press conference at the Lower Dam Recreation Area on 

August 14, 2010. 

 Article in the Southwest Idaho Birders Association July newsletter 

 Article in the Idaho Bass Federation Nation spring newsletter 

 Article in the Deer Flat NWR Volunteer newsletter 

 Draft CCP video PowerPoint posted on Refuge website 

 Spanish language translation of Planning Updates #3 (preliminary alternatives) and #5 (Draft 

CCP/EIS) posted on Refuge website 

H.1.3.9 Federal Register Notices 

 July 15, 2010. Federal Register published notice of intent to prepare a CCP/EIS and a request 

for comments. 

 March 15, 2013. Federal Register published notice of action to release Draft CCP/EIS and 

make it available for public comment. 

H.1.3.10 Field Reviews 

 June 16-19, 2008. Wildlife and Habitat Management Field Review on Refuge. 

Approximately 30 participants. 

 September 9-11, 2008. Public Uses Field Review on Refuge. Approximately 25 participants. 

H.2 Response to Comments 

This appendix contains a summary of all the comments we received on the Draft CCP/EIS, during 

the official public comment period, held from March 15 to May 15, 2013. During the 60-day 

comment period, we received comments from 170 entities or individuals as well as one petition 

signed by 426 people. All written comments were reviewed and organized so that an objective 

analysis, summary, and presentation of the comments could be made. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

H-22 Appendix H. Public Involvement 

Each original piece of correspondence was assigned an identification number and identified with the 

last name and first initial of the commenter. Note that for simplicity’s sake, the word “letter” is 

generally used throughout this appendix to refer to any comment or reference document we received 

by letter, fax, email, or other forms. 

Some individual commenters mailed a number of letters and/or reference materials. Multiple 

correspondences from a commenter are counted as one comment letter. Telephone calls from the 

public were also received. All callers were encouraged to place their comments in writing so they 

could be included in the public record. 

A database was created to log correspondence from each of the commenters. To help analyze the 

nature and extent of comments received, a number of themes and subthemes were identified within 

the letters. Comments were coded manually and electronically within the identified themes. 

Comments were grouped into 21 categories based upon management actions considered in the Draft 

CCP/EIS’ alternatives or based on topics of particular interest as indicated by comments themselves. 

The categories are: CCP/EIS process, the purpose of Lake Lowell, water rights, wildlife and habitat 

management, trapping, water quality, public use management (general), facilities, refuge access, 

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

partnerships, nonwildlife-dependent recreation, boating (general), boating (closures), boating (nowake zones), economic effects, hydropower facility, and editorial comments. 

Due to the volume and similarity of written comments received, most comments have been 

paraphrased from the originals, and in some cases consolidated with others where the Service’s 

response is the same. In some cases we have included specific language from a letter that best 

summarized similarly written comments. 

We received comments both in opposition to and in support of each alternative. Where the comment 

provided some level of detail or was based on a real or perceived fact, we provided a response. 

Where the comment expressed solely an opinion and was not supported by any assertion, the Service 

considered the comment in selection of our Preferred Alternative, but did not respond to the 

comment in this appendix, other than to thank the writers for expressing their opinions and thoughts. 

H.2.1 Changes Made to the Final CCP 

Table H-1 shows the major changes between the Draft and Final CCP. For additional information, 

see Chapter 2 and Maps 4–9 in the CCP/EIS. 

Table H-1. Summary of Changes to Alternative 2 between the Draft and Final CCP/EIS. 

Theme Alternative 2 

Draft CCP/EIS 

Alternative 2 

Final CCP/EIS 

Public Use 

Youth 

Waterfowl Hunt 

Open only southeast of 

Parking Lot 1. 

Open in all designated waterfowl hunt zones, not in area southeast of 

Parking Lot 1. 

Ice fishing Not allowed. Allowed in Fishing Areas A and B within 200 yards of the dams, 

subject to areas posted by the Bureau of Reclamation (see Map 3). 

Walking with 

on-leash dogs 

Allowed on designated 

trails. 

Allowed on designated trails and at Lower Dam Recreation Area 

(LDRA). 

Jogging, 

bicycling, and 

Groups of more than 4 

people would need to 

Groups with 10 or fewer people would not require an SUP. Groups 

of more than 10 people would require an SUP. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix H. Public Involvement H-23 

Theme Alternative 2 

Draft CCP/EIS 

Alternative 2 

Final CCP/EIS 

horseback 

riding 

obtain a special use 

permit (SUP). Groups 

of more than 10 people 

would be prohibited. 

Trapping Not included in Draft 

CCP/EIS 

Trapping would not be allowed on the Lake Lowell Unit. Trappers 

would be allowed to use the Snake River Islands to access trapping 

sites below high water that are under the State’s jurisdiction. The use 

of licensed trappers for predator management under the provisions of 

50 CFR 31.16, would be considered if it is identified as a 

management need. 

Sailing regattas Not allowed at Lake 

Lowell Unit. 

Allow at Lake Lowell Unit every other week in April and May, with 

other stipulations to ensure that each regatta does not restrict the 

ability of other users to enjoy the Refuge. 

Swimming Allowed only in two 

designated areas. 

Encouraged in two designated areas, but allowed elsewhere, with the 

exception of around fishing or other wildlife-dependent facilities 

(e.g., docks), or immediately adjacent to boat launch areas. 

Nonwildlifedependent 

organized group 

activities 

Allowed at LDRA only, 

and by SUP. 

Allowed only at LDRA. Stipulations laid out in the Swimming, 

Beach Use, and Picnicking Compatibility Determination (see 

Appendix B). If staffing and funding levels allow at a later time, 

events may be required to obtain an SUP, and a fee may be assessed 

for the SUP. 

Clarifying edits Throughout the 

document. 

Edits were incorporated to improve the clarity and accuracy of the 

document. 

H.2.2 Summary of Comments Received 

This section provides a summary of the individual comments received on the Draft CCP/EIS 

followed by the Service’s responses to those comments. The comments are organized into 21 

categories based on management actions considered in the Draft CCP/EIS alternatives or based on 

topics of particular interest as indicated by comments themselves. 

H.2.2.1 CCP/EIS Process 

1. Comment summary: Comments supported or opposed each of the alternatives we identified 

in the Draft CCP/EIS. Some favored Alternative 1 since it meant no changes would occur in 

the current management. Others agreed with our preferred alternative (Alternative 2), 

believing it will provide a balanced approach to recreation and wildlife management. Others 

favored Alternatives 3 or 4 because they provide better protections for wildlife and habitat as 

well as wildlife-dependent recreationists. 

Response: The Service acknowledges and appreciates these comments. 

2. Comment summary: Management actions are required only if there is proof that a problem 

exists, there are no studies, data, or evidence that wildlife are being negatively impacted by 

recreational activities on Lake Lowell. Wildlife have been coexisting with multiple uses and 

there is no reason to change current management. 

Response: As discussed in Section 1.4, the Service undertook a comprehensive conservation 

planning process for the Refuge because the National Wildlife Refuge System 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

H-24 Appendix H. Public Involvement 

Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee, et seq.), as amended by the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57), requires CCPs to set 

forth management guidance for a refuge for a period of 15 years. 

In developing a CCP, National Wildlife Refuge System policy requires that best available 

science be used. Studies need not have been conducted on the particular Refuge. Many 

studies have shown that human-caused disturbance can be detrimental to wildlife, as cited 

throughout the document especially in Chapter 2 and Appendix B. The most relevant studies 

were used to assess the effects of recreational activities on wildlife before proposing 

management strategies. Rationales for these strategies are in Section 2.4. 

Deer Flat Refuge was established primarily for the protection of migratory birds and other 

wildlife (see Section 1.7.2). As noted in Section 1.6.2.2, according to the Refuge 

Administration Act, as amended, the fundamental mission of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System “is wildlife conservation: wildlife and wildlife conservation must come first.” The 

Refuge Administration Act also identifies six priority wildlife-dependent recreational 

activities for the Refuge System—hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, 

and environmental education and interpretation—that the Service should make extra efforts 

to facilitate on refuges, where compatible with the wildlife and wildlife habitat mission. 

Other activities can be allowed if deemed appropriate (see Appendix A) and if they can be 

implemented without impairing existing or future wildlife-dependent uses. Therefore, where 

conflicts arise between protections for wildlife and habitat and recreational activities, priority 

must be given to wildlife and habitat. 

H.2.2.2 Purpose of Lake Lowell 

3. Comment summary: The infrastructure and water in Lake Lowell were built and owned 

through tax dollars for local use. Concerns of ownership of the water and the management of 

the established reservoir and the regulations imposed by executive order are in need of 

justification. 

Response: We recognize that the Refuge is an overlay refuge on Reclamation’s Lake Lowell 

reservoir, and Reclamation has primary jurisdiction over the manipulation of Lake Lowell’s 

water levels. The Board of Control has the day-to-day responsibility of controlling Lake 

Lowell’s water levels. The executive order that established Deer Flat NWR states that the 

Refuge does not have the legal authority to manipulate water levels. The Service also 

recognizes that Refuge operations are secondary to operations and maintenance of the 

irrigation project.

Under the Refuge Administration Act, each refuge must be managed to fulfill the Refuge 

System mission as well as the specific purposes for which it was established. The Refuge was 

established to provide refuge and breeding grounds for migratory birds and other wildlife, 

subject to use by the Department of the Interior for Reclamation work originally identified in 

E.O. 1032, and re-established and renamed in 1937 under E.O. 7655. This means that the 

Service has an obligation to manage uses of the Refuge consistent with the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Administration Act (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee, et seq.) and other laws, 

regulations, and policies governing the Refuge System, but our management may not 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix H. Public Involvement H-25 

interfere with operation of the reservoir for irrigation purposes. For more information on 

Refuge history, see Appendix I. 

4. Comment summary: Lake Lowell and surrounding resources should continue to be 

managed by state and local governments such as Idaho Department of Fish and Game and 

Canyon County. 

Response: Deer Flat Refuge was designated in February 1909, three days after water started 

flowing in the New York Canal to fill the reservoir. Although there was no on-site Refuge 

staff until 1937, the Refuge has been managed by the Service since 1909. The Service 

appreciates ongoing partnerships with Canyon County and IDFG to facilitate law 

enforcement, maintenance, and fish and wildlife management. The Service looks forward to 

continuing coordination and partnerships with both Canyon County and IDFG. 

Prior to initiation of the CCP process, the Service and Reclamation concluded that the 

Service has jurisdiction over surface water and public uses on Lake Lowell. Because it was 

determined that the Service has responsibility for the management of all public uses within 

the Refuge, including on-water recreational uses, these uses must be legally compatible with 

the purposes of the Refuge. For more information on Service policy and mandates, see 

Section 1.6.3. 

H.1.2.3 Water Rights 

5. Comment summary: The Board of Control’s water conservation projects should not be 

viewed by the Service as a source of water for the Service’s programs. The water managed 

by the Board of Control is dedicated by law to its landowners. 

Response: The Service recognizes that it does not possess a water right for the water within 

Lake Lowell. 

6. Comment summary: The Board of Control welcomes partnerships and collaboration in 

order to protect and enhance wildlife habitat protection in Idaho. However, the Project cannot 

enter into any agreements that would 1) prevent or restrict it from providing irrigation water 

to its Districts for distribution the Districts'’ landowners, or that would 2) prevent or restrict 

the Board of Control from conducting maintenance and cleaning operations, or that would 3) 

prevent or restrict the Board of Control from taking emergency action to prevent or minimize 

damage from flooding events.... Given the uncertain nature of water availability the Board of 

Control cannot commit to maintain any particular reservoir elevation for non-irrigation 

purposes, including for the Service. 

Response: The Service understands the irrigation purpose of Lake Lowell and that 

administrative responsibility for water level management lies with Reclamation and the 

Board of Control. We also appreciate the Board of Control’s invitation to continue to explore 

a partnership for maintaining a water level appropriate for nesting and foraging habitat for 

grebes, fish, and other wildlife from April through July, while still meeting the Board of 

Control’s mission of providing water to irrigators. Further discussions between parties would 

be needed to assist with each other’s established purpose and mission. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

H-26 Appendix H. Public Involvement 

H.1.2.4 Wildlife and Habitat Management 

7. Comment summary: Pointing to a provision respecting state authority contained in the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (NWRSAA or Act), as amended, the 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) states that management of resident fish and 

wildlife on refuge lands is under the State of Idaho’s jurisdiction, including the stocking of 

resident fish species in Lake Lowell. IDFG states that it looks forward to working with the 

Service to develop a fisheries management plan, but that any language limiting IDFG’s 

ability to manage the fisheries is unacceptable. 

Response: All uses of national wildlife refuges are subject to the provisions of the 

NWRSAA. The Secretary is authorized, “under such regulations as he may prescribe,” to 

“permit the use of any area within the System for any purpose ... whenever he determines 

that such uses are compatible with the major purposes for which such areas were established 

...” (16 U.S.C. § 668dd(d)(1)(A)); see also id. § 668dd(d)(3)(A) [The Secretary shall not 

permit a use of a refuge “unless the Secretary has determined that the use is a compatible 

use”]). 

The provision cited by IDFG states: Nothing in the Act shall be construed as affecting the 

authority, jurisdiction, or responsibility of the several States to manage, control, or regulate 

fish and resident wildlife under State law or regulations in any area within the System. 

Regulations permitting hunting or fishing of fish and resident wildlife within the System shall 

be, to the extent practicable, consistent with State fish and wildlife laws, regulations, and 

management plans. (Id. § 668dd(m) 

The United States Courts of Appeals for both the Ninth and Tenth Circuits have found that 

Congress invoked its power under the Property Clause of the Constitution when it enacted the 

NWRSAA, and that the Act plainly gives the Service the authority to manage national 

wildlife refuges (Nat’l Audubon Soc’y v. Davis, 307 F.3d 835, 854 [9th Cir. 2002]; 

Wyoming v. United States, 279 F.3d 1214, 1228 [10th Cir. 2002]). Further, both Federal 

circuits held that the provision cited by IDFG was not meant to eviscerate Federal authority 

over refuge management. Rather, they concluded that it reflects Congress’s intent for 

ordinary principles of conflict preemption to apply. This means to the extent that actual 

conflict persists between State and Federal policies, State law is pre-empted by the 

NWRSAA (307 F.3d at 854; 279 F.3d at 1234). 

Nevertheless, we have a clear responsibility, not only pursuant to Section 668dd(m) but other 

provisions of the NWRSAA and our own policies, to coordinate and cooperate with IDFG in 

administering Deer Flat NWR. We look forward to working with IDFG in this effort. 

Regulations implementing the NWRSAA are found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 50 

C.F.R. Subchapter C. Policies implementing the NWRSAA specific to hunting and fishing 

are found in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual at 605 FW 2 and 605 FW 3, 

respectively. The policy on coordination and cooperative work with State fish and wildlife 

agencies is found at 601 FW 7. In addition, the Compatibility Policy, which regulates uses on 

national wildlife refuges in collaboration with the purposes of the NWRSAA can be found in 

65 Federal Register 62458-62483 (Oct. 18, 2000). We will do everything we can to 

accommodate IDFG’s proposals consistent with applicable Federal laws and our regulations 

and policies. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix H. Public Involvement H-27 

8. Comment summary: The Boise Project Board of Control (BPBOC) states that it has 

authority to remove vegetation on the banks of Lake Lowell as part of its operation and 

maintenance duties because these trees and brush consume water that belongs to the 

irrigation districts’ landowners and the Federal government does not have water right for 

aesthetic, wildlife or recreation purposes. BPBOC states that it will continue to carry out that 

function in the vicinity of the conduit and irrigation works and that the alternative chosen by 

the Service must recognize the primary authority of the BPBOC to carry out its irrigation and 

maintenance functions even when those functions might conflict with the goals of the 

Service. 

Response: We agree that Refuge operations are secondary to operation and maintenance 

(O&M) of the irrigation project, including control of vegetation where, for example, 

Reclamation finds that it is unreasonably interfering with canal bank stability or necessary 

access. Accordingly, nothing in the CCP is intended to interfere with O&M of the irrigation 

project. However, we understand BPBOC’s comment to extend beyond normal O&M 

activities to removal of vegetation from the reservoir shoreline based on ownership of the 

water rights. The trees and shrubs growing along the margins of Lake Lowell are a function 

of the way the reservoir water levels are managed by Reclamation and BPBOC, a situation 

unrelated to the ownership of water rights. In addition, the comment does not cite any legal 

authority for this assertion and we are not aware of any. Taken to its logical conclusion, it 

would mean that downstream water right owners throughout the State of Idaho could remove 

vegetation on upstream property simply because it might use water. Therefore, unless 

Reclamation determines that it is necessary for O&M of the irrigation project, removal of 

vegetation along the reservoir shoreline would be governed by Refuge regulations. 

9. Comment summary: Providing further protection for waterbirds may increase their 

population, thus negatively impacting Lake Lowell’s fish populations. 

Response: Deer Flat Refuge was established as a refuge and breeding grounds for migratory 

birds and other wildlife. Protection of migratory birds takes priority over protection of 

nonnative fish. The Service looks forward to working with IDFG to manage fish populations 

in order to continue to provide a high-quality fishing experience. 

10. Comment summary: Referenced studies show that water level fluctuations and water 

quality problems (especially nutrient loads) were the main concerns for nesting grebes in 

Idaho, those problems should be addressed first. 

Response: The Service looks forward to working with partners to improve Lake Lowell’s 

water quality; the CCP includes a number of strategies to improve water quality (summarized 

in Section 2.3.1). Board of Control, in cooperation with Reclamation, manages the water 

level. The CCP includes a proposal for the Service to consult and collaborate with both 

agencies to explore the possibility of maintaining a water level appropriate for providing 

nesting and foraging habitat for grebes, fish, and other wildlife, from April through July, 

while still meeting the Board of Control’s mission of providing water to irrigators (see 

Section 2.3.1). 

11. Comment summary: At one time, the Refuge was controlling the carp population by 

allowing carp to be harvested commercially. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

H-28 Appendix H. Public Involvement 

Response: Carp removal has occurred intermittently through a Special Use Permit (SUP) for 

many years to enhance submergent vegetation and moist-soil plants in Lake Lowell. A 

commercial fisherman currently uses a beach seine to harvest carp. Current seining 

operations, which remove an estimated 50 to 125 tons of biomass annually, likely do not 

remove enough of the carp population (estimated at 4,800 tons of biomass) to result in 

significant water quality improvements or promote submergent plant growth. 

The Refuge looks forward to working with IDFG and other partners to develop and 

implement methods to reduce carp biomass in Lake Lowell. Potential methods include 

mechanical removal, chemical treatments, biological treatments, and carp exclusion devices. 

Carp impacts and potential treatments are further discussed in Wildlife and Habitat Objective 

1.1 in Section 2.4.1. 

12. Comment summary: Stock sunfish to enhance the prey base for piscivorous birds and for 

anglers at Lake Lowell. Another comment identified that nonnative fish should not be 

stocked unless they have become an important food source for wildlife. 

Response: The Refuge is committed to developing a cooperative agreement with the State of 

Idaho for resident fish and wildlife management. The Refuge will continue to coordinate with 

IDFG regarding stocking fish species identified in Objective 2.4.3.1. Stocking other fish 

species would require additional planning. The Refuge plans to work in close cooperation 

and coordination with IDFG for management of fishing opportunities on the Refuge and in 

setting population management goals and objectives. These strategies will most likely benefit 

piscivorous birds as well as increase fishing opportunities. 

13. Comment summary: The Refuge’s management of invasive weeds is concerning, the 

Service has not done an effective job of treating invasive species. All invasives should be 

aggressively treated, perhaps in partnership with Canyon County Weed Control. The CCP 

should include specific actions to control invasive species including implementation 

schedules, and the Service should minimize the use of herbicides and explore alternative 

methods like the use of goats. 

Response: The Service is aware of the major problems that invasive species and noxious 

weeds present on all public lands, including the Refuge, and invasive species control is a 

priority for the Refuge to address. As noted in Section 2.2.2, the Service will use an 

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) plan (see Appendix G) to identify weed control methods 

based upon effectiveness, cost, and minimal ecological disruption (which considers minimum 

potential effects to nontarget species and the Refuge environment). 

The Service will continue to work with various Federal, State, and local agencies to 

implement invasive species control. Appendix C identifies that a habitat management stepdown plan will be developed within 2 years of CCP implementation. The habitat 

management plan will identify specific areas that need to be prioritized for treatment, as well 

as integrated pest management strategies to be used. 

14. Comment summary: The existence of brush piles is a concern, volunteers should be 

recruited to remove them for fire safety. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix H. Public Involvement H-29 

Response: Under Objective 2.3.2.1, we identify issuance of firewood collection permits as a 

strategy to help manage fuel loads in riparian areas by removing some of the dead and 

downed debris. It could also be used to clear mudflat habitat for migrating shorebirds. 

15. Comment summary: Predator management on the Refuge is a concern, the Service should 

reduce the number of crows, magpies, starlings, and other predators. 

Response: As expressed in Section 2.2.2, the Refuge is concerned about controlling invasive 

species because of their effects on native species and habitat. The Service would continue to 

work with our State and local partners to control the impacts of nonnative animals (e.g., 

starlings, bullfrogs, house cats, etc.). While the Refuge purpose is to protect migratory birds, 

the Service will continue to work with our State and local partners to identify and mitigate 

impacts of native species (e.g., crows and magpies) that present a management concern. 

16. Comment summary: The amount of tree removal proposed in Objective 2.3.1.3 is 

concerning, and a balance between the needs of fish/fishermen and shorebirds should be 

considered. 

Response: Tree removal is proposed in an area near Farm Field 5 that was historically kept 

open to provide duck trapping sites and is currently within a closed section of the Refuge. 

Because of the topography of the area and the narrow vegetation line, these spots are used by 

migrating shorebirds even when the water level is high. The Service proposes to continue to 

remove trees from approximately 25 acres of sparsely vegetated riparian zone to keep these 

areas free from vegetation. There is an estimated 760 acres of riparian habitat on the Lake 

Lowell Unit, and impacts to fish and fishermen from this action are not anticipated. 

H.1.2.5 Trapping 

17. Comment summary: The Idaho Trappers Association suggested that trapping is a valuable 

tool for controlling furbearers during nesting season and that the Service should open the 

Refuge to licensed trappers. Different strategies and dates were also suggested that would 

allow public commercial trapping in order to benefit waterfowl on the Snake River Islands. 

Response: The Service recognizes that trapping is a valuable tool that land managers use for 

wildlife management purposes. However, trapping on the Refuge would not be safe because 

of concerns about injury to domestic pets as well as Refuge visitors. 

The Snake River Islands Unit would continue to be open to public access from June 15 to 

January 31 on goose-nesting islands and from July 1 to January 31 on heron- and gull-nesting 

islands. Trappers may use the islands during those months to access trapping sites below high 

water that are under the jurisdiction of the State of Idaho. Should the Service determine that 

predators are negatively impacting waterfowl nesting on the Snake River Islands Unit, we 

will consider all management options to remedy the situation, including the use of licensed 

fur trappers. 

18. Comment summary: The Idaho Trappers Association pointed out that the Refuge does not 

have to determine “appropriateness” of trapping because the form for “Finding of 

Appropriateness of a Refuge Use” (form 3-2319) states “This form is not required for 

wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described in 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

H-30 Appendix H. Public Involvement 

a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997” and trapping 

by licensed fur trappers would clearly fall under the category of “take regulated by the State,” 

and could therefore be found to be an appropriate activity on the Refuge. 

Response: Trapping is not a Refuge use that needs to be evaluated under the Service’s 

Appropriate Use Policy. We have considered allowing a commercial/recreational trapping 

program on the Refuge and have concluded that this use would not be safe. 

Public commercial/recreational trapping on the Refuge, especially at the Lake Lowell Unit, 

has a high likelihood of capturing and causing injury to nontarget wildlife and domestic pets. 

Visitors who are unfamiliar with trapping procedures could further injure their pets or 

themselves by trying to free a captured pet or wildlife. 

The limited space and high urban use of this Refuge are not conducive to a public trapping 

program because the potential for conflict between trapping and recreation visitors would be 

high. Given the potential for disturbance to wildlife-dependent uses and wildlife, this use is 

not consistent with the purpose of the Refuge or its visitor use goals. 

The Snake River Islands would continue to be open to public access from June 15 to January 

31 on goose-nesting islands and from July 1 to January 31 on heron- and gull-nesting islands. 

Trappers may use the islands to access trapping sites below high water that are under the 

jurisdiction of the State of Idaho. 

19. Comment summary: The Idaho Trappers Association cautioned that relocating furbearing 

animals is not recommended from a biological standpoint and that “the American Veterinary 

Medical Association, the National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians, and the 

Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists all oppose relocation of mammals because 

of the risk of disease transmission, especially amongst raccoons, skunks, and foxes.” 

Response: The Service has not proposed relocation of furbearing animals in the CCP. 

H.1.2.6 Water Quality 

20. Comment summary: The Boise Project “believes that a water quality improvement 

feasibility study was encompassed in the Lake Lowell Addendum to the Lower Boise TMDL 

and this objective oversteps the authority of The Service.” 

Response: The Federal Clean Water Act (CWA; 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) requires that 

states and tribes restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the 

nation’s waters. States and tribes, pursuant to Section 303 of the CWA, are to adopt waterquality standards necessary to protect fish, shellfish, and wildlife while providing for 

recreation in and on the nation’s waters whenever possible. Section 303(d) of the CWA 

establishes requirements for states and tribes to identify and prioritize water bodies that are 

water quality limited (i.e., water bodies that do not meet water-quality standards). Lake 

Lowell is on this list. For waters identified on this list, states and tribes must develop a total 

maximum daily load (TMDL) for pollutants, which is set at a level expected to achieve 

water quality standards. The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) published 

the final TMDL for pollutants in Lake Lowell in 2010. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix H. Public Involvement H-31 

Although water quality issues are not within the management authority of the Refuge, 

contaminants in Lake Lowell may have an impact on wildlife resources and recreational 

opportunities at the Refuge. Before assessing ways to reduce contaminants, we must first 

identify and quantify their presence, and assess their impacts on the public and wildlife. Once 

there is a better understanding of the contaminants issue, the Refuge would be able to work 

with partners to address potential problems and identify solutions. 

21. Comment summary: The U.S. EPA expressed appreciation for the Service’s responsiveness 

to scoping comments, and support for strategies in Section 2.2.1.1 for addressing water 

quality. They recommend that the Service prioritize carp population reductions and reduce 

sediment runoff for improved canal maintenance. 

Response: Carp impacts and potential treatments are further discussed in Objective 2.3.1.1 

and in a previous comment regarding commercially harvesting carp from Lake Lowell. 

22. Comment summary: The Board of Control uses best management practices (BMPs) to 

address siltation and water quality issues and strives to continually improve as more 

information is learned and new technologies become available. The Board of Control doubts 

that the Service has greater knowledge and judgment concerning what constitutes the best 

management practices where irrigation operations and delivery are concerned. The Board of 

Control also feels the Service has attempted to impede regular maintenance functions on 

drains leading to Lake Lowell. This interference is inappropriate and oversteps the Service’s 

authorities. 

Response: The Service agrees that the Board of Control may have more knowledge and 

judgment where maintenance of irrigation operations and delivery are concerned. The Refuge 

would like to establish a partnership and coordinate with the Board of Control and 

Reclamation to identify ways to reduce future siltation and correct current siltation issues 

without damaging wildlife habitat or impeding the delivery of irrigation water. 

The Refuge is also cognizant of the Board of Control’s responsibility for maintenance of 

irrigation operations and delivery. The Board of Control did not provide any specifics and the 

Refuge is not aware of any interference to impede the irrigation purpose or administrative 

responsibility for water level management conducted by Reclamation and the Board of 

Control. The Refuge remains very concerned about water quality impacts on both wildlife 

and Refuge visitors and plans to be an active partner in working toward improving the water 

quality of Lake Lowell. 

H.1.2.7 Public Use Management—General

23. Comment summary: Several specific strategies were suggested for implementing proposed 

actions. For example: providing restrooms on the south side of Lake Lowell, providing 

additional trash receptacles at access points, providing summer camps on a variety of 

suggested topics, providing binocular and camera rentals, expanding the book store in the 

Visitor Center, conducting more outreach to inform the public that Lake Lowell is part of the 

Refuge, and constructing an outdoor amphitheater for educational programs. 

Response: The purpose of the CCP is to provide overall long-term management direction, 

and includes strategies to improve visitors’ experiences, including a strategy to “Provide 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

H-32 Appendix H. Public Involvement 

additional bathroom facilities at high-use access points” (Objective 2.4.1.1). Specific 

management decisions about recommended strategies will be developed as part of the Visitor 

Services step-down plan, which is planned to be completed within 5 years and will include 

public input. The Service acknowledges these comments and will incorporate them as 

appropriate into the Visitor Services step-down plan. 

24. Comment summary: Comments were received in support of continuing wildlife-dependent 

recreational activities, and eliminating some or all wildlife-dependent recreational activities 

(including elimination of all hunting or specifically youth hunting). 

Response: As noted in Section 1.6.2.2, according to the Refuge Administration Act, as 

amended, the fundamental mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System “is wildlife 

conservation: wildlife and wildlife conservation must come first.” The Refuge 

Administration Act also identifies six priority wildlife-dependent recreational activities for 

the Refuge System (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation) that the Service must make efforts to facilitate on 

refuges where the uses are compatible. All of the priority wildlife-dependent recreational 

activities have been determined to be compatible at the Refuge, and will continue with 

stipulations identified in the compatibility determinations in Appendix B. 

25. Comment summary: More clearly mark and improve signage on multi-use trails and 

provide better directional signage off-Refuge to help people find the Refuge. 

Response: As noted in Objective 2.4.1.1, to better welcome and orient visitors, the CCP 

includes strategies to install entrance signs at high-use visitor access points and along hightraffic roads bordering the Refuge. And, install signs on main roads and other appropriate 

locations to identify the Refuge’s visitor facilities nearby (e.g., boat launch, fishing area, 

Visitor Center), and to provide trail signs at all trailheads. 

H.1.2.8 Facilities 

26. Comment summary: Additional visitor facilities are needed. Providing additional 

recreational facilities described in the Draft CCP/EIS’ Preferred Alternative, including more 

ADA-accessible trails, wildlife observation and photography facilities, docks, and disabled 

access for all activities is supported. 

Response: The selected alternative includes all of the facilities proposed in comments. 

Providing a variety of recreational opportunities and facilities provides multiple points of 

entry for visitors of different comfort and skill levels. 

Installation of the proposed facilities does depend on funding. Funding would be sought 

through increases in Refuge base funding, special project funds, grants, and the like. See 

Appendix C for additional implementation information. 

27. Comment summary: Access roads should be paved or oiled and more parking be provided. 

Response: The Refuge would consider upgrading, expanding, or providing additional access 

points as funds for road improvements and maintenance become available. Consideration of 

factors such as the effects on runoff and erosion, on wildlife habitat, and on existing wildlife-
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix H. Public Involvement H-33 

dependent recreational opportunities would be assessed while developing a Visitor Services 

step-down plan. A Visitor Services Plan is scheduled to be completed within 5 years of CCP 

implementation and we will request public input during its development. The Service 

acknowledges these comments and will incorporate them as appropriate into the Visitor 

Services step-down plan. 

28. Comment summary: The Refuge should provide additional facilities on the south side of 

Lake Lowell within areas that are inundated during high water, including providing duck 

blinds and a trail between Parking Lot 1 and Parking Lot 7. 

Response: Given the fluctuating water levels of Lake Lowell, facilities installed on land 

below the high water level of the lake require either high expense or management challenges. 

For example, installing duck blinds was considered, however, it was determined to not be 

practical, given that water levels fluctuate from year to year and even during waterfowl 

hunting season. The proposal to install a trail on the south side below high water was also 

considered, in our Draft CCP/EIS, in Alternative 3. However, the expense of building a 

boardwalk that would remain accessible during all water levels—nearly six million dollars, 

was determined to be too high. 

29. Comment summary: A walking and bicycling path around the entire lake should be 

considered. 

Response: As noted in Section 2.2 of the Draft CCP/EIS, this idea was considered but 

rejected, because it would remove habitat and increase disturbance to wildlife and wildlifedependent recreationists. In addition, the existence of wildlife closure areas on the Refuge 

would make it impossible to have a bike loop around the entire lake. This proposal may be 

best explored by other entities as an easement on land adjacent to the Refuge. The Refuge 

would be happy to discuss connecting existing or proposed new Refuge trails with a trail 

system installed adjacent to the Refuge by other agencies. 

30. Comment summary: The College of Idaho Museum of Natural History proposed installing 

research stations. 

Response: The Refuge looks forward to working with the College of Idaho Museum of 

Natural History to better understand their proposal and identify how the Refuge and Museum 

can mutually benefit from potential research stations. 

H.1.2.9 Refuge Access 

31. Comment summary: Providing access to the Refuge through designated entrances only, 

would alienate law-abiding users who would like to use the most convenient point to gain 

access, therefore, visitors should continue to be able to access the Refuge over fences 

adjacent to private property and over fences along roadways, including between the Tio Lane 

and Gotts Point entrances and off of Lakeshore Drive. 

Response: As noted in Objective 2.4.1.1, we will provide access to the Refuge through 

designated entrances only. Refuge visitors can currently access recreational activities 

adjacent to 17 designated entrances scattered around the Lake Lowell Unit, and the 

infrastructure associated with each access reduces habitat availability as well as recreational 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

H-34 Appendix H. Public Involvement 

opportunities. By restricting access through designated entrances only, users who are 

interested in enjoying areas farther away from crowds (e.g., the area between the Tio Lane 

and Gotts Point entrances) have the ability to do that by walking farther from the designated 

entrances. Continuing to allow access to the Refuge over fences could result in an increase in 

habitat impacts (through increased social trailing and spread of invasive plant seeds) and 

wildlife disturbance, especially given anticipated increased development over the next 15 

years that could increase demand for this sort of access from private lands. 

32. Comment summary: Develop a new designated entrance between the Tio Lane and Gotts 

Point entrances. 

Response: As noted in Objective 2.4.1.1, we will provide access to the Refuge through 

designated entrances only. The Service considered but rejected providing another Refuge 

access in this area. Visitors can currently access duck hunting opportunities through a short 

walk east of the Gotts Point entrance in the East Side Recreation Area and at several 

locations in the South Side Recreation Area. Because these areas are a short distance from 

designated entrances, they can become crowded. Currently, visitors who are interested in 

enjoying areas farther away from crowds have the ability to do that by walking farther from 

the designated entrances. Designating another entrance in this area would reduce the variety 

of duck hunting experiences available on the Refuge. 

33. Comment summary: The Refuge should work with private landowners along Lake Shore 

Drive to develop an agreement to provide access across private property to a proposed new 

entrance and trail providing access to the East Dike Trail and the Tio Lane parking lot from 

the southeast Refuge boundary. 

Response: Refuge visitors can currently access recreational activities adjacent to 17 

designated entrances at the Lake Lowell Unit. The infrastructure associated with each access 

reduces habitat availability as well as recreational opportunities. Although an additional 

designated entrance might be considered, the Service considers the financial and habitat 

impacts of the Refuge access proposed by the commenter to be unwarranted given the 

availability of access to the same area (Leavitt Tract and East Dike Trail) through an existing 

entrance that is less than a 3-mile drive away. 

34. Comment summary: The Refuge should close as much land as possible to overland vehicles 

such as ATVs with the exception of research vehicles. 

Response: The Refuge does not allow vehicles, including ATVs, to travel off of designated 

roads, and no change to this restriction is in the CCP. 

35. Comment summary: Gotts Point should be reopened to vehicles to increase access to the 

area. A separate comment encourages the Gotts Point closure and validates our desired result 

for the area, to be safe for families while enjoying water-related activities. 

Response: Gotts Point is currently open to public access from February 1 to September 30. 

The road to the point was closed to reduce illegal activities and vandalism. The Service 

proposes to re-open the road to Gotts Point (Objective 2.4.3.1) upon completion of a 

memorandum of understanding or cooperative agreement with Canyon County to resolve 

law-enforcement issues and retain the family-friendly nature of the area. Providing vehicle 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix H. Public Involvement H-35 

access to Gotts Point will provide more opportunities for both wildlife-dependent and 

nonwildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. 

36. Comment summary: The gate at Gotts Point should be relocated 150 yards farther west to 

provide a gear drop off area for uses that require substantial equipment. 

Response: The Service plans to re-open the road to Gotts Point when a law-enforcement 

agreement is in place. Given that the current Gotts Point parking lot allows access to all 

recreational opportunities in that area (e.g., lakeshore, trails), the Service considers the 

investment of funds and staff needed to move the gate a short distance to be unwarranted. 

37. Comment summary: Support for charging fees was expressed, if used to fund fee-payer 

activities or if recreational access to the Refuge is left unchanged. Opposition to charging 

fees to access public lands was also expressed. 

Response: In Section 2.2.2, we identify a feasibility assessment will be conducted to evaluate 

whether to charge an entrance and/or boat launch fee to provide funding to maintain visitor 

facilities and hire visitor services and law enforcement staff. Determining whether a fee 

would be implemented will be based on the feasibility assessment and appropriate public 

input. 

H.1.2.10 Hunting 

38. Comment summary: IDFG requested that fall turkey hunting be allowed on the Snake River 

Islands Unit because they anticipate a growing turkey population and would like to be able to 

use hunting as a management tool. 

Response: In Section 2.2.2, opportunities for hunting of additional species (e.g., turkey) will 

be addressed in future step-down planning efforts occurring in close coordination with IDFG. 

Opening a new turkey hunt will require both a hunt plan and a National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) analysis. This process would require additional information and analysis 

before a decision could be made. The Service looks forward to working with IDFG to 

evaluate the possibility of opening a turkey hunt on the islands. 

39. Comment summary: Opposition to the proposed shotgun shell limit for waterfowl hunters 

on the Lake Lowell Unit was expressed, as was support for the limit to potentially allow 

more people the opportunity to hunt, and to encourage hunters to wait for birds to come 

within range before shooting. 

Response: As noted in Objective 2.4.2.1, limiting waterfowl hunters to 25 shotgun shells in 

possession per hunter per day will help address complaints about sky busting. 

40. Comment summary: Modify designated Refuge hunting areas to either (1) close to hunting 

those lands with the most biodiversity of plants and animals; or (2) open the area east of 

Parking Lot 1 to hunting. 

Response: Existing hunting areas were assessed to determine whether they are appropriate, 

based on concerns that high-quality habitat be protected as a refuge from hunting and that 

other wildlife-dependent recreationists have access to areas without hunting. Through this 

assessment, it was determined that existing designated hunting areas are appropriate. The 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

H-36 Appendix H. Public Involvement 

area east of Parking Lot 1 is particularly high-quality habitat for waterfowl and other 

waterbirds and therefore would not be opened to hunting. 

41. Comment summary: IDFG pointed out that it was unclear whether the youth waterfowl 

hunt area proposed east of Parking Lot 1 in the Draft CCP/EIS in alternatives 2 and 4 would 

allow hunting only during the designated youth waterfowl hunt dates set by the Fish and 

Game Commission or whether youth-only hunting would be allowed in that area during the 

rest of the hunting season as well. 

Response: After clarifying discussions with IDFG to indicate the Refuge’s intent to limit 

hunting during the designated youth waterfowl hunt dates to the proposed new area and not 

to allow youth hunting in the rest of the regular waterfowl hunting area between Parking Lots 

1 and 8, IDFG and the Refuge decided that the best youth hunting opportunity will be 

provided by allowing hunting during the designated youth waterfowl hunt dates, in the 

regular waterfowl hunting area between Parking Lots 1 and 8. 

42. Comment summary: Lead shot, bullets, and sinkers should be banned to reduce impacts “to 

avian scavengers, like Bald Eagles, and diving water birds, like grebes and loons” and affects 

to air, water, and soil quality. 

Response: Lead shot has been and will continue to be banned on the Refuge. Lead shot is the 

perfect size and shape for dabbling waterfowl to pick up and store in their crop, which can 

cause a variety of toxicity problems for both the waterfowl that eat the shot and predators that 

may eventually eat the waterfowl. Lead bullets have not been banned because their larger 

size prevents their ingestion by most wildlife. 

There are some concerns regarding the toxicity of lead tackle and bullets to certain species, 

but the extent of these problems does not seem to be as dire or as well supported in literature 

as the use of lead shot. Whenever possible, refuges try to be consistent with State rules and 

regulations regarding fish and game in order to avoid confusion. The State of Idaho does not 

currently ban the use of lead fishing tackle. If new findings surface regarding impacts to 

wildlife from lead tackle the Service will take appropriate measures. 

H.1.2.11 Fishing 

43. Comment summary: Allow ice fishing in Fishing Areas A and B, 200 yards in front of the 

Lower and Upper Dams. 

Response: Ice fishing will be allowed in Fishing Areas A and B within 200 yards of the 

dams, subject to areas posted by the Bureau of Reclamation. Lake Lowell is currently closed 

to boating from October 1 through April 14 to provide habitat for wintering waterfowl, and 

reduce disturbance from human-caused flushing events. However, human-powered boats are 

allowed in Fishing Areas A and B to allow wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities with 

minimal disturbance to wildlife. Restricting ice fishing to these areas would reduce 

disturbance to waterfowl using the lake, but would still provide ice fishing opportunities 

when ice conditions allow. Anglers would be responsible for checking ice conditions and 

confirming that they are safe. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix H. Public Involvement H-37 

44. Comment summary: Alternatives 3 and 4 in the Draft CCP/EIS would close “several of the 

best fishing spots on Lake Lowell,” and therefore concentrate anglers into lower-quality 

areas, shorten the boat-fishing season (Alt 3), and increase the time required to access 

preferred fishing spots because of no-wake zones, thus reducing fishing time. 

Response: The Service selected the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2) for implementation, 

as it is presented in the Final CCP/EIS, because it provides the best balance of protecting 

wildlife and habitat and providing quality wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. 

NEPA requires us to consider a range of alternatives when developing an EIS. The range of 

alternatives we identified in the Draft CCP/EIS helped Refuge staff develop, track, and 

present a variety of ideas for public review and comments, which helped to stimulate useful 

discussions and ideas that ultimately shaped our selected alternative. 

45. Comment summary: Several comments indicated that there is some confusion about what 

fishing access would be allowed in the Draft CCP/EIS Preferred Alternative. Included in 

these comments were requests to allow fishing at the north end of Murphy’s Neck, to create 

more year-round fishing opportunities, and to clarify regulations for wading anglers from 

February 1 to July 31 when lakeshore access is restricted to 100 yards of shoreline on either 

side of trails accessing the lakeshore. 

Response: In the CCP, we allow shoreline fishing at the north end of Murphy’s Neck from 

March 15 through September 30. It is closed the rest of the year to reduce disturbance to 

wintering waterfowl. We will also increase year-round fishing opportunities by allowing 

shoreline fishing from any open shoreline during waterfowl hunting season, rather than just 

from Fishing Areas A and B. This has been clarified in Objective 2.4.3.1. We will also allow 

wading access to fishing anywhere at Lake Lowell from April 15 to September 30. In areas 

where walking access to the shoreline is limited to maintained roads and trails during the 

nesting season, bank fishing is limited to 100 yards of shoreline on either side of trails 

accessing the lakeshore. Note that anglers can wade anywhere during these times. This has 

also been clarified in Objective 2.4.3.1. In addition, ice fishing will be allowed in Fishing 

Areas A and B within 200 yards of the dams, subject to areas posted by the Bureau of 

Reclamation (see Map 3). 

46. Comment summary: Lake Lowell should not be closed to bass fishing. 

Response: The Service has not considered closing Lake Lowell to bass fishing. In fact, the 

CCP process has sought to improve conditions for wildlife-dependent users like bass anglers 

while balancing the needs of wildlife. 

H.1.2.12 Wildlife Observation and Photography 

47. Comment summary: Access should be allowed in Fishing Areas A and B for all wildlifedependent activities throughout the year. 

Response: All wildlife-dependent recreational activities are allowed in that area between 

April 15 and September 30 from any type of boat, and during the rest of the year from 

human-powered boats. However, local weather conditions make safety a major concern for 

recreational users who rely on the structural integrity of the ice on Lake Lowell to enjoy their 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

H-38 Appendix H. Public Involvement 

sport (see Section 2.2.1.1). In addition, ice fishing will be allowed, so there would be 

additional safety concerns associated with the possibility of falling into fishing holes. Lake 

Lowell is currently closed to boating from October 1 through April 14 to provide habitat for 

wintering waterfowl and reduce disturbance from human-caused flushing events. Unlike 

fishing, which cannot be conducted from the shoreline when the lake is covered with ice, 

other wildlife-dependent activities can still be conducted from shore. Therefore, all ice-based 

activities other than fishing would be prohibited. 

H.1.2.13 Environmental Education and Interpretation 

48. Comment summary: The National Park Service requested that the Refuge interpret and 

mark the Oregon Trail corridor on the Refuge. 

Response: We would be happy to work with the National Park Service’s Regional Trails 

office to identify, mark, and interpret the Oregon Trail corridor on the Refuge. 

49. Comment summary: To reduce the number of harassment incidents that swallows nesting 

under the Walter’s Ferry Bridge endure, install an interpretive sign at the boat ramp at 

Walter’s Ferry, regarding the benefits of swallows to insect control. 

Response: The Refuge has a kiosk at the Walter’s Ferry boat ramp that includes Refuge 

information and a map of the adjacent section of the Snake River Islands Unit, however, the 

boat ramp is managed by IDFG. We will provide the comment to IDFG, and we would be 

happy to partner with IDFG to install interpretive signs at this and other Snake River Islands 

Unit access points to educate visitors about wildlife. 

H.1.2.14 Partnerships 

50. Comment summary: Refuge staff should work with partner agencies to conduct law 

enforcement activities, and develop and conduct environmental education activities. 

Response: The Refuge appreciates the assistance of a variety of organizations and local, 

State, and Federal agencies in maintaining and improving existing Refuge programs. As 

identified in Objective 2.4.5.1, the Service plans to maintain existing partnerships and build 

additional partnerships to increase our partners’ knowledge of the Refuge’s purpose, and 

leverage resources to increase the effectiveness of the Refuge’s programs, including 

environmental education and interpretation, fishing, hunting, wildlife photography and 

observation, compatible nonwildlife-dependent surface-water recreation, water quality, 

urbanization and agriculture, and invasive species. 

51. Comment summary: The Canyon County Commissioners stated that “Canyon County will 

not allow its legislative or executive power to be used to enforce the on-water regulations 

proposed by FWS.” In addition, “in the event FWS provides the Refuge with federal law 

enforcement personnel and resources sufficient to enforce its regulations, Canyon County 

will cease its provision of Parks assistance and labor (without which the Refuge will 

apparently be unable to maintain appropriately hygienic conditions in its bathrooms, mowed 

lawns, or parking lots) to the Refuge.” 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix H. Public Involvement H-39 

Response: The Refuge considers Canyon County to be a valuable partner in law enforcement 

as well as maintenance of public use areas and would like to continue to work with the 

County. We appreciate that the County currently provides most of the on-water law 

enforcement at Lake Lowell, and maintenance of recreational facilities at the Lower Dam 

Recreation Area (e.g., irrigating and mowing lawns, cleaning restrooms, and maintaining 

buoys). 

As noted in Appendix B, if the County discontinued their assistance and labor, there would 

be additional Refuge costs and labor associated with maintaining various uses, and we would 

have to re-assess the Refuge’s ability to provide the recreational opportunities that are 

currently available. 

H.1.2.15 Nonwildlife-dependent Recreation 

52. Comment summary: Although recognizing that the sole purpose of the Reclamation project at 

Lake Lowell is to capture and deliver irrigation flows, the Board of Control states that 

Reclamation has a duty to provide recreational facilities and opportunities for the public and 

that the Service must be mindful of Reclamation’s responsibility in this regard. 

Response: Reclamation advises us that neither the project authorization nor its statutory 

authority creates a duty to provide public recreation at Lake Lowell. The 1905 Lake Lowell 

authorization does not provide any authority for recreation or require Reclamation to ensure 

that recreational facilities are provided. The Federal Water Project Recreation Act, Public 

Law 98-72, governs Reclamation’s recreation authority if the project authorization does not 

provide for recreation. However, it is Reclamation’s position that this statute encourages, but 

does not require Reclamation to provide recreational opportunities and facilities in 

cooperation with non-Federal partners and by using cost-sharing. It does not add recreation as 

a project purpose to a Reclamation project nor impose a Federal recreation obligation. 

Significantly for Lake Lowell, P.L. 98-72 also excludes areas that are administered by a 

Federal agency “in connection with an authorized Federal program for the conservation and 

development of fish and wildlife” (16 U.S.C. § 460l-12). 

53. Comment summary: Canyon County states that the Federal government does not have 

authority to control on-water uses of a reservoir in which it does not have water rights, 

therefore, the Service has no regulatory authority over surface water uses of Lake Lowell. 

Response: We agree that the Federal government does not have a water right for the water 

collected at Lake Lowell, and we have not asserted that a water right is the legal basis for the 

Federal government’s authority to regulate surface uses. Rather, the basis for this authority is 

Federal ownership of the lands underlying the reservoir, the United States Constitution, and 

Federal statutes. 

The lands under Lake Lowell were withdrawn or acquired by the United States prior to 

completion of the Reclamation project in 1909.1

 On February 25, 1909, President Theodore 

 

1

 Two parcels were owned by the State. On February 24, 1909, the State granted the United States a rightof-way over and across these parcels in perpetuity for construction and maintenance of the reservoir. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

H-40 Appendix H. Public Involvement 

Roosevelt established the Deer Flat Bird Reservation by Executive Order 1032. President 

Franklin D. Roosevelt issued a new executive order on July 12, 1937 revoking E.O. 1032 and 

establishing the Deer Flat Migratory Waterfowl Refuge. Although the lands were reserved 

for refuge purposes subject to use by the Department of the Interior (DOI) for Reclamation 

operations and incidental purposes, they are included in the National Wildlife Refuge System 

(16 U.S.C. § 668dd(a)(1)). See also 16 U.S.C. § 668dd(a)(6) (stating that each area included 

in the refuge system by an executive order will continue to be part of the Refuge System until 

otherwise specified by an Act of Congress). 

The Property Clause contained in Article IV, § 3 of the Constitution gives Congress authority 

to make rules governing the property of the United States. As it relates to the National 

Wildlife Refuge System, Congress has exercised this power by enacting a number of laws 

that authorize the Secretary of the Interior, through the Service, to regulate activities on 

national wildlife refuges, including waterborne activities. For example, the National Wildlife 

System Administration Act (NWRSAA), as amended, authorizes the Secretary, “under such 

regulations as he may prescribe, to ... permit the use of any area within the System for any 

purpose, including but not limited to hunting, fishing, public recreation and accommodations, 

and access whenever he determines that such uses are compatible with the major purposes for 

which such areas were established ...” (16 U.S.C. § 668dd(d)(1)(A)). The NWRSAA also 

states that “the Secretary shall not initiate or permit a new use of a refuge or expand, renew 

or extend an existing use of a refuge, unless the Secretary has determined that the use is a 

compatible use and that the use is not inconsistent with public safety” (16 U.S.C. § 

668dd(d)(3)(A)(i)). The Refuge Recreation Act permits the Secretary to administer refuge 

areas for public recreation, but only to the extent that it is “not inconsistent with ... the 

primary objectives” for which the area was established (16 U.S.C. § 460k). It also directs the 

Secretary to curtail public recreation within areas whenever he considers such action to be 

necessary. Thus, both the NWRSAA and Refuge Recreation Act provide authority to the 

Service to control activities on national wildlife refuges. In fact, under the terms of these 

laws, such activities may not take place unless permitted. These statutory provisions have 

been implemented by the Service in regulations found at 50 C.F.R. Subchapter C. The 

regulations describe the process for opening a refuge to public access and use and, in relevant 

part, prohibit boating and water-skiing unless otherwise permitted (50 C.F.R. §§ 27.32-33). 

Likewise, Reclamation’s jurisdiction over water-borne activities on its facilities does not 

depend on ownership of a water right. Federal law provides that the United States holds the 

right to manage and operate Reclamation projects (43 U.S.C. §§ 491, 498; United States v. 

Pioneer Irrigation District, 157 P.3d 600, 603) (Idaho 2007). Reclamation’s regulations 

govern the use of Reclamation facilities by the public, including recreation and boating. The 

preamble to this regulation explains that Reclamation has proprietary jurisdiction over its 

facilities and property, including water legally stored in such facilities under state law (71 

Federal Register 19790, 19791) (Apr. 17, 2006)). However, it is important to note that 

Reclamation regulations also provide that public conduct on Reclamation lands and 

waterbodies administered by other Federal agencies under statute or other authority will be 

governed by the regulations of those agencies (43 C.F.R. § 423.3(d)). 

 

These two parcels were included in the description of the Refuge in both E.O. 1032 and E.O. 7655 and 

are managed as part of the refuge. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix H. Public Involvement H-41 

In addition, the State’s laws regulating boating and other uses on navigable waters within 

Idaho (although not purporting to control Federal reservoirs) are not tied to the existence of a 

water right. Therefore, we are not aware of any legal basis to conclude that water right 

ownership is a necessary prerequisite to regulating surface uses of Lake Lowell. 

54. Comment summary: Provide camping facilities, perhaps at Gotts Point. 

Response: Camping is considered appropriate on a national wildlife refuge only when no 

reasonable (based on time, distance, and expense) lodging opportunities are available offrefuge and when staff resources needed to manage camping do not detract from the quality of 

another priority wildlife-dependent recreational use. There are other private and public 

campgrounds nearby that accommodate both recreational vehicles and tent campers with a 

high level of service; therefore, we will continue to not allow camping. 

55. Comment summary: Continue to allow swimming at various locations at Lake Lowell, 

rather than only at designated areas at the Lower Dam Recreation Area and Upper Dam as 

proposed in the Draft CCP/EIS in the Preferred Alternative. 

Response: We will direct swimmers to designated areas at the Lower Dam Recreation Area 

and the east end of the Upper Dam to minimize safety concerns and reduce impacts of 

swimmers on wildlife and wildlife-dependent recreationists. We will also continue to allow 

swimming from boats in the open water of Lake Lowell that are outside of no-wake zones 

and fishing or other wildlife-dependent recreation facilities (e.g., docks), or immediately 

adjacent to boat launch areas. For more information, see rationale for Objective 2.4.1.4. 

56. Comment summary: Comments supported our proposal to require dogs to be leashed, 

because of their effect on wildlife and habitat, and concerns for visitors’ safety. Another 

request encouraged the Refuge to allow dogs to be off leash when nobody else is around. 

Response: The CCP requires dogs to be leashed except when accompanying someone 

engaged in allowed hunting. Leashed pets must remain on designated trails and in the Lower 

Dam Recreation Area, and visitors with leashed pets must bag and remove fecal material. 

Although walking with pets is not a wildlife-dependent recreational activity, it is often 

conducted in conjunction with wildlife-dependent uses like wildlife observation, 

photography, and interpretation. The potential for wildlife disturbance is minimal when the 

use is conducted in accordance with the stipulations listed above. See the Walking with Pets 

(other than hunting dogs) compatibility determination in Appendix B for more information. 

57. Comment summary: Ice skating should be allowed. 

Response: Because of local weather conditions, safety is a major concern for recreational 

users who rely on the structural integrity of the ice on Lake Lowell to enjoy their sport (see 

Section 2.2.1.1). In addition, ice fishing will be allowed, so there would be additional safety 

concerns associated with the possibility of ice skaters falling into fishing holes. In addition, 

Lake Lowell is closed to boating from October 1 through April 14 to provide habitat for 

wintering waterfowl and reduce their disturbance from human-caused flushing events. Unlike 

fishing, which cannot be conducted from the shoreline when the lake is covered with ice, 

other wildlife-dependent activities can still be conducted from shore. All ice-based activities 

other than fishing will therefore be prohibited. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

H-42 Appendix H. Public Involvement 

58. Comment summary: Refuge staff should plant a new generation of shade trees for years of 

future nonwildlife related uses at the park areas located at both ends of the lake. 

Response: The Service will maintain shade trees at the Lower Dam Recreation Area because 

it provides a different habitat type than is found elsewhere on the Refuge (open canopy with 

limited understory) and particularly benefits waterfowl and raptors, especially in winter. 

The park located adjacent to the east Upper Dam boat launch is a Canyon County park. The 

Refuge will convey this comment to the Canyon County Department of Parks, Recreation, 

and Waterways. 

59. Comment summary: Commenter spent time on Lake Lowell with his father as a child and 

would like to pass on the same experiences to his children and grandchildren. 

Response: All of the activities that are currently enjoyed on the Refuge would continue to be 

allowed, with a few changes to protect wildlife and encourage more participation in wildlifedependent recreation. The CCP allows for a variety of recreation year-round. 

60. Comment summary: Sailing regattas should be allowed because they do not exclude the 

general public, increase wildlife disturbance, increase safety concerns, or require additional 

management resources; they enhance wildlife-dependent activities; and they provide a 

positive economic impact for the state and local vendors. Some commenters were even 

concerned that all sailing would be prohibited. 

Response: Changes were incorporated in the CCP to allow sailing regattas with certain 

stipulations to address concerns about safety and interactions with other users. For further 

information about the activity and required stipulations, see the appropriate use determination 

in Appendix A and compatibility determination in Appendix B. 

In addition, as noted in Appendix B, currently most on-water law enforcement and boatingrelated dock maintenance is provided by the Canyon County Sheriff’s Office. If the Sheriff’s 

Office decided to discontinue this assistance, there would be additional Refuge costs for 

maintaining this use and the ability of the Refuge to provide this use may be impaired. 

H.1.2.16 Boating—General 

61. Comment summary: Extend the boating season beyond the current season (April 15-

September 30) by either having an earlier start or a later end to the season, or by allowing 

boating all year. 

Response: Deer Flat Refuge was established primarily for the protection of migratory birds 

and other wildlife (see Section 1.7.2). As noted in Section 1.6.2.2, according to the Refuge 

Administration Act, as amended, the fundamental mission of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System is “wildlife conservation: wildlife and wildlife conservation must come first.” 

The Refuge Administration Act also identifies six priority wildlife-dependent recreational 

activities for the Refuge System (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation) that the Service should make extra efforts to 

facilitate on refuges, where compatible with the refuge’s wildlife and wildlife habitat 

purposes. However, where conflicts arise between protections for wildlife and habitat and 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix H. Public Involvement H-43 

providing wildlife-dependent recreation, priority must be given to wildlife and habitat. The 

Service determined that the existing boating season provides appropriate wildlife protections. 

62. Comment summary: The time that boats have to be off the water should be tied to civil 

twilight (half-hour after sunset); currently, it approximates twilight, but is not tied to it. The 

results are that sometimes, boats must be off the water 15 or 20 minutes before it is really 

necessary, and also that someone has to change the signs that tell the time boats need to be 

off the water. Instead of posting a time when boats must be off the water, the Refuge should 

notify boaters that they must be off the water by civil twilight and post a table showing the 

times of civil twilight throughout the boating season. 

Response: The time boats must be off the water cannot be tied directly to civil twilight, 

because the Refuge closes to visitors at civil twilight, and boaters need time to trailer and 

prepare their boats in order to depart before civil twilight. It is especially important that 

boaters are prepared to depart the Lower Dam Recreation Area by civil twilight, because an 

automatic gate closes, and can prevent boaters from exiting the parking lot shortly after civil 

twilight. We considered but rejected extending Refuge hours beyond civil twilight, because 

of concerns for visitor safety and to reduce potential illegal activity after dark. 

There are currently signs at the major boat ramps (east Upper Dam, west Upper Dam, and 

Lower Dam Recreation Area) that indicate “Boats must be off water by...” with the time 

indicated on an interchangeable time sign. These signs were installed at the request of the 

Canyon County Sherriff’s Office Marine Patrol officers to better communicate to boaters the 

end of boating hours and help officers ensure that boaters would be off the water in sufficient 

time to allow officers to safely search for and assist or rescue any stragglers who might be 

having mechanical or safety concerns. They also help boaters plan their departure before the 

gate closes at the Lower Dam Recreation Area. 

Because Refuge staff insert the appropriate time sign as sunset shifts during the season, it is 

not always possible to have the boats off-water time match an appropriate time between 

sunset and civil twilight. Currently, the boats off-water sign is changed so that it indicates a 

time anywhere from one to thirty minutes after sunset, to provide time to depart before civil 

twilight. 

Given that boaters require different amounts of time to trailer and prepare their boats for 

departure, the Service will discuss with the Canyon County Sherriff’s Office Marine Patrol 

the possibility of replacing the “Boats must be off water” signs with “Gate closes at” signs 

(for the Lower Dam Recreation Area) or “Refuge closes at” signs (for the Upper Dam boat 

ramps) that would indicate times anywhere from one to thirty minutes after civil twilight. 

Alternatively, the Service could notify boaters that they must be off-water by civil twilight 

and post a table showing the times of civil twilight throughout the boating season as 

suggested by the commenter. Either approach could allow boaters a bit more flexibility to 

plan their boating and still comply with the Refuge closure time. 

63. Comment summary: Motorized boating should be eliminated or restricted to no-wake 

because high-speed motorized boating is unsafe, causes wildlife disturbance, detracts from 

user experiences, was not foreseen when the Refuge was established, and is available at many 

other local lakes and reservoirs that are not national wildlife refuges. There should be one day 

a week or even a half day during which the lake is open only to no-wake activities. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

H-44 Appendix H. Public Involvement 

Response: The use of a boat often provides a vehicle for participating in wildlife-dependent 

recreational activities (e.g., fishing, wildlife observation, and photography), so boating is 

often allowed on national wildlife refuges. Typically, however, high-speed boating and towbehind activities are not permitted on national wildlife refuges. As noted in Section 5.5.1, 

because the Refuge was unstaffed in its early history and because of an erroneous assumption 

that administrative responsibility for on-water uses rests with Reclamation, recreational 

activities that would typically not be allowed on a refuge have been allowed at Deer Flat 

NWR. 

Refuge staff worked closely with regional and national staff to identify areas where 

traditional uses such as high-speed boating can continue, while still providing adequate 

habitat for wildlife. Nonwildlife-dependent boating visitors provide the Refuge opportunities 

to reach out to nontraditional user groups and to encourage boating users to observe wildlife 

and learn about the NWRS. Due to the close proximity of the Refuge to the cities of Nampa 

and Caldwell, the number and variety of users to this urban Refuge are expected to grow. For 

many of these people, boating at Lake Lowell may provide an introduction to a national 

wildlife refuge 

The Service considers that with the stipulations identified in the Recreational Boating 

Compatibility Determination (e.g., seasonal closures and no-wake zones, see Appendix B), 

high-speed boating and tow-behind activities can be compatible with the Refuge’s purpose 

and the mission of the NWRS. The Service will monitor impacts of boating activities 

annually to assess compliance with the stipulations, impacts to waterfowl, shorebirds, 

waterbirds (especially grebes), and other migratory birds as well as wildlife habitat; and 

conflicts between user groups. Monitoring data would be used to modify these stipulations if 

necessary, to ensure continued compatibility of these activities.

64. Comment summary: Two-stroke motors and unmufflered modified V-8 automobile engines 

should be banned because of the levels of pollution, exhaust, noise, and speed that they 

produce. Limit the size of boats. 

Response: The size of boats is already limited by the size of existing boat ramps. There are 

no plans to expand the ramps to accommodate larger boats. The Service considered banning 

two-stroke motors, but was informed that some newer two-stroke engines are capable of 

performance similar to four-stroke engines. Also, where possible, the Service tries to be 

consistent with local regulations and there are no restrictions on motor type in this area. As 

identified in Objective 2.4.1.4, the Service will enforce existing Idaho State noise ordinances 

and promote the use of CARB star-rated motors at the level of two stars and above. The 

Refuge is open to working with partners to assess the impacts of different kinds of motors on 

water quality and wildlife/habitat. 

65. Comment summary: Explain the Service’s ability to enforce the proposed noise ordinance. 

The decibel limit allowed on county and city streets may not be appropriate for a national 

wildlife refuge. 

Response: The scientific literature related to decibel limits that will reduce disturbance for 

particular species is limited. As identified in Objective 2.4.1.4, the Service will enforce 

existing Idaho State noise ordinances to be as consistent as possible with local regulations 

and increase protections for wildlife from noise disturbance. Service law enforcement 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix H. Public Involvement H-45 

partners with State and local agencies to enforce regulations, and would continue to enforce 

Refuge regulations to the greatest extent possible. 

66. Comment summary: Restricting public use on Lake Lowell would negatively impact the 

environment through increased fossil fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions, 

because some boaters would choose to drive farther to access recreational opportunities at 

another lake or reservoir. 

Response: All existing recreational activities will continue, with some restrictions, including 

more no-wake zones and seasonal closures to protect sensitive wildlife habitat. As projected 

in Table 6-3 in the Draft CCP/EIS, the Service anticipates a reduction in the number of 

visitors participating in nonwildlife-dependent boating on the assumption that some users 

would be displaced from the lake because there is less area available for high-speed boating 

and tow-behind activities. 

However, the Service anticipates that this would have a negligible long-term negative effect 

on air quality because it is unlikely that a large enough number of visitors would be displaced 

to cause a larger effect. 

67. Comment summary: What is the feasibility of enforcing no-wake zones and other 

regulations given current rate of noncompliance with no-wake zones, current Refuge law 

enforcement staffing, and the difficulty of identifying distances from protected features that 

are not marked with buoys? Is the cost of educating the public and purchasing buoys worth 

the benefit? 

Response: The Service intends to educate the public about the wildlife benefits of no-wake 

zones and seasonal closures through signs and brochures and hopes that an educated public 

will comply with regulations. However, we understand that this will not always be the case. 

Service law enforcement officers will enforce these and other Refuge regulations. Although 

Service enforcement staff is limited, they will do their best to respond as often as possible. 

The no-wake zones on the east end of the lake and at the Narrows will be clearly marked with 

buoys placed every 100 to 150 yards, and will be easily identifiable and enforceable. The nowake zone on the south side of the lake shifts with fluctuating water levels; therefore, it will 

not be marked with buoys. Officers will use appropriate discretion and provide necessary 

information when interacting with visitors who are unknowingly violating an unmarked nowake zone versus those who are flagrantly violating no-wake zones. 

68. Comment summary: The Refuge should dredge the Narrows and/or dredge or extend boat 

ramps. 

Response: The Narrows is a narrow area that connects the East and West Pools. The Bureau 

of Reclamation established what is now called the “equalizer” in this area during the 

construction of the reservoir. The area is approximately three-quarters of a mile long and 

approximately 50 feet wide, varying throughout its entirety. The purpose of the equalizer was 

to maintain flow between the two pools at low surface elevations. 

The lakebed topography in front of the west end of the Upper Dam and Lower Dam ramps 

does not have the necessary slope to extend current ramps. Dredging and maintenance 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

H-46 Appendix H. Public Involvement 

dredging is expensive, may adversely impact the environment (e.g., release contaminants 

bound in lake-bottom sediments), and is often complicated since suitable sites must be 

located for placement of the dredged material. Dredging more of the existing channel or boat 

ramps would not provide wildlife value and would only be a temporary correction because 

wave action and substrate deposition would fill in manipulated areas. 

H.1.2.17 Boating—Closures

69. Comment summary: Limiting public access to some areas of the lake through seasonal 

closures and no-wake zones would be unsafe, because it would force more boaters into a 

small area, and would reduce awareness and appreciation for the Refuge because the Service 

is restricting access to places visitors currently enjoy. 

Response: The Service sought a balance between wildlife protections and recreational 

activities by emphasizing seasonal, movable closures to protect wildlife during sensitive 

times (e.g., nesting, migratory shorebird feeding and resting) rather than permanent on-water 

closures. Although these seasonal closures will reduce the area available for boating, they 

will be primarily concentrated in emergent vegetation along the shoreline. The majority of 

both pools of the lake would be available for high-speed boating, so the total acreage 

available for high-speed boating would be similar to the status quo alternative in the Draft 

CCP/EIS. In addition, all activities that have been enjoyed historically will still be allowed. 

By providing information about why seasonal closures and no-wake zones are in place, we 

can increase visitors’ awareness and appreciation of the Refuge. By requiring travel through 

new or expanded no-wake zones at a no-wake speed, awareness may increase, because 

opportunities to observe wildlife and habitat will improve. 

70. Comment summary: Boaters using electric motors, push poles, and other manual propulsion 

devices should be allowed to enter seasonal nesting closures to allow for wildlife-dependent 

activities without damaging nesting areas or disturbing wildlife. Commenters also observed 

that a fully mature emergent weed bed becomes impenetrable, eliminates human access, and 

creates protection for the nesting colony. 

Response: The seasonal closures were based on recommendations from disturbance literature 

(see rationale for Objective 2.4.1.4). Any type of human presence in the closure area, whether 

motorized or nonmotorized, causes wildlife disturbance, therefore, there are no exceptions to 

the seasonal closures in the CCP. 

71. Comment summary: Clarify how the proposed 500-yard grebe nesting closures will be 

implemented. A 1,000-yard closure measured from a nest at the center of the colony should 

be implemented. 

Response: The sizes of seasonal wildlife closures for important wildlife areas (e.g., nesting, 

foraging) were determined using the best available science (see Recreational Boating 

Compatibility Determination in Appendix B). The suggested buffer for nesting grebes is 500 

yards. To determine grebe colony boundaries, the Refuge biologist will mark nests within 

and especially on the periphery of a colony, using a global positioning system (GPS) capable 

of sub-meter accuracy as part of the regular colony studies. These data points would be 

exported to a geo-referenced mapping system, and a buffer up to 500 yards would be drawn 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix H. Public Involvement H-47 

around the colony. Buoy locations would then be mapped every 100 to 150 yards and 

exported back into the GPS unit to be used to place the buoys in the proper location. In the 

first year that grebes nest, the closure would be based on nests established early in the nesting 

season. In the second year of a grebe nesting closure, the closure would be based on the full 

extent of the colony in the first year. 

72. Comment summary: The closures to protect nesting habitat are supported, in particular the 

concept of seasonal, movable closures to protect important wildlife areas. 

Response: The Service acknowledges these comments, as well as the scoping comments that 

proposed the idea of flexible seasonal closures. 

73. Comment summary: The Service should identify the maximum amount of habitat necessary 

to protect a given species so that the seasonal, movable closures around sensitive wildlife 

areas (see Recreational Boating Compatibility Determination in Appendix B) would not end 

up including most of the emergent beds as proposed in Alternatives 3 and 4 in the Draft 

CCP/EIS. 

Response: Deer Flat Refuge was established primarily for the protection of migratory birds 

(see Section 1.7.2). As noted in Section 1.6.2.2, according to the Refuge Administration Act, 

as amended, the fundamental mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System “is wildlife 

conservation: wildlife and wildlife conservation must come first.” 

The Refuge Administration Act also identifies six priority wildlife-dependent recreational 

activities for the Refuge System (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation) that the Service should make extra efforts to 

facilitate on refuges, where compatible with the refuge’s wildlife and wildlife habitat 

purposes. However, where conflicts arise between protections for wildlife and habitat and 

providing wildlife-dependent recreation, priority must be given to wildlife and habitat. 

The species the Service is protecting through seasonal closures (e.g., grebes, herons, etc.) 

require specific types of habitat for nesting. Because of limited availability of suitable habitat 

(e.g., vegetation, water level, etc.), it is unlikely that they would nest in a way that would 

result in seasonal closures like those proposed in Alternatives 3 and 4, in the Draft CCP/EIS. 

This limited availability of adequate habitat is the reason that the Service shifted from 

proposing permanent closures of emergent beds (as identified during presentations of 

preliminary draft alternatives) to seasonal, movable closures that provide wildlife protections 

while also maintaining space available for wildlife-dependent recreation. 

74. Comment summary: The proposed seasonal closures would restrict access to prime fishing 

spots and other recreational activities. Unless grebes often re-use the same nesting colony, 

the proposal to continue grebe nesting closures through July 15 of the following year should 

be eliminated. Also, seasonal nesting closures should “end at the normal fledging date for the 

affected species.” 

Response: See first paragraph of response to comment 73, for a discussion of relative 

priorities of wildlife and wildlife-dependent recreation. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

H-48 Appendix H. Public Involvement 

Nesting grebes at Lake Lowell have typically used the same area to set up their colonies from 

year to year. The Refuge is attempting to limit human-caused disturbance in those areas at the 

beginning of the nesting and boating season when grebes are establishing territories. The 

seasonal closures will begin and end at appropriate times (e.g., the start of nest territory 

establishment and typical fledging time for nesting closures and the typical arrival and 

departure of migrating shorebirds for seasonal shorebird closure) based on best available 

science and observations at Deer Flat Refuge. 

75. Comment summary: The Refuge should expand the seasonal closure around the bald eagle 

nesting area if needed. 

Response: The size of the seasonal nesting closures are based on recommendations presented 

in peer-reviewed literature that the Refuge considers best available science. If the size or 

seasonal restrictions prove to be inadequate in the future, the Refuge will take appropriate 

measures to adjust them accordingly. 

76. Comment summary: The emergent vegetation on the south side of the lake should be 

protected by a 50-yard buffer closed to human entry. 

Response: A similar closure was proposed in the Draft CCP/EIS in Alternatives 3 and 4. Our 

selected alternative, Alternative 2, will adequately protect wildlife while still allowing access 

to popular fishing areas along the south shore. 

H.1.2.18 Boating—No-Wake Zones 

77. Comment summary: Both opposition and support were expressed for the Narrows no-wake 

zone. Opposition comments to the no-wake zone included safety concerns when reducing 

speed in the Narrows in windy conditions, the restriction is unnecessary during high water 

levels when the Narrows isn’t narrow, the no-wake zone will discourage boaters from 

traveling from the East Pool to the West Pool when water levels are low, thus concentrating 

usage in the East Pool, and the proposal was not included in the preliminary draft 

alternatives. Support for the Narrows no-wake zone was expressed, because it would reduce 

disturbance from wakes to anglers fishing in the Narrows. 

Response: As noted in Section 1.6.2.2, according to the Refuge Administration Act, as 

amended, the fundamental mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System “is wildlife 

conservation: wildlife and wildlife conservation must come first.” The Refuge 

Administration Act also identifies six priority wildlife-dependent recreational activities for 

the Refuge System (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation) that the Service should make extra efforts to 

facilitate on Refuges, where compatible. 

Compatibility determinations have been developed for both fishing and recreational boating 

activities (see Appendix B). In order for on-water recreational activities to be compatible, it 

has been determined that the stipulations laid out in Appendix B must be followed, including 

the reduction of disturbance provided by no-wake zones and seasonal closures. 

No-wake zones are a common management tool that allows use in sensitive areas. For 

example, public boat docks are typically surrounded by a no-wake zone to reduce the danger 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix H. Public Involvement H-49 

of fast-moving vessels and the wake they create in such high-use areas. No-wake zones 

require boaters to slow down and be more aware of their surroundings. The Refuge has a 

number of sensitive areas, including irrigation structures, boat ramps, swimming areas, high 

public use areas, and sensitive wildlife habitats. 

The Narrows no-wake zone was proposed in the preliminary draft alternatives and in our 

Draft CCP/EA preferred alternative because it has several sensitive areas. The south shore 

has a large expanse of smartweed that is used as nesting and foraging habitat by a variety of 

migratory birds. The north shore has historically had a bald eagle nest in the strip of trees 

along the lakeshore. Anglers congregate in the middle of the Narrows on a feature known as 

the “Equalizer” that channels water between Lake Lowell’s two pools and holds large 

quantities of bass. 

The Narrows no-wake zone still allows passage to both pools, reduces the amount of wake 

that affects nesting water birds and stationary anglers, and slows boaters down so they are 

more aware of their surroundings and can more easily avoid collisions with waterbirds, 

anglers, and other boats. 

78. Comment summary: The proposed no-wake zone on the south side of the lake is 

unnecessary given that after May 30, “access into the emergent weed beds becomes virtually 

impossible.” The no-wake zone should be narrowed to 200 feet rather than 200 yards. 

Support for the no-wake zone was also expressed, to protect habitat. 

Response: Although it may be difficult to enter the emergent weed beds in late spring and 

summer, the no-wake buffer actually requires no-wake speeds within 200 yards of the edge 

of the emergent bed. This would reduce disturbance to nesting, resting, and foraging birds 

from both the noise and speed of fast-moving boats. See also the general discussion of nowake zones in the first two paragraphs of the response to comment 76 and compatibility 

determinations in Appendix B. 

79. Comment summary: The placement of the proposed expansion of the no-wake zone on the 

east end of the lake appears to be arbitrary, and its benefit is unclear, this is a preferred area 

for water skiing. The Boise Sailors Association suggested that the no-wake zone boundary be 

shifted to the east boundary of the Gotts Point parking lot. Support for this no-wake zone was 

also expressed, because it will reduce the risk of fishing boats getting knocked against the 

concrete fish structure east of Gotts Point. 

Response: During the CCP scoping process, the Service received requests from anglers, 

wildlife watchers, and photographers to provide more areas to conduct their activities with 

minimal disturbance from high-speed boating activities. The proposed expansion of the nowake zone also reduces safety concerns associated with the concrete fish structures east of 

Gotts Point. The expansion of the existing no-wake zone on the east end of the lake was 

proposed primarily to accommodate these requests and to provide an area with less wildlife 

disturbance. Some suggested that the no-wake zone be expanded even farther, to start at 

Parking Lot 2 rather than Parking Lot 1. 

Deer Flat Refuge was established primarily for the protection of migratory birds (see Section 

1.7.2). As noted in Section 1.6.2.2, according to the Refuge Administration Act, as amended, 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

H-50 Appendix H. Public Involvement 

the fundamental mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System “is wildlife conservation: 

wildlife and wildlife conservation must come first.” 

The Refuge Administration Act also identifies six priority wildlife-dependent recreational 

activities for the Refuge System (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation) that the Service should make extra efforts to 

facilitate on refuges, where compatible with the refuge’s wildlife and wildlife habitat 

purpose. Other activities can be allowed if deemed appropriate (see Appendix A) and if they 

can be implemented without impairing existing or future wildlife-dependent uses. Where 

conflicts arise between protections for priority wildlife-dependent recreational activities and 

other recreational activities, priority must be given to the priority wildlife-dependent 

recreational activities. 

Gotts Point is one of the most popular locations at Lake Lowell for shoreline anglers, and this 

no-wake boundary was devised to include all of Gotts Point to minimize disturbance from 

wakes for shoreline anglers. Also, having the no-wake-zone boundary terminate at a 

prominent point is valuable to visitors and law enforcement because it provides a clearer 

visual reference to help understand and enforce the limits of the no-wake zone. 

80. Comment summary: The concrete fish structures east of Gotts Point should be removed. 

Response: The cement structures provide habitat for fish and will remain in Lake Lowell. 

81. Comment summary: Why is it necessary to control boat wakes given that wind creates 

waves too. 

Response: While wind does produce waves, unpredictable, omni-directional wake created by 

boats, is more difficult for wildlife to adapt to than waves created by wind. Wildlife species, 

like colonial surface-water nesters, can generally adapt to waves that result from a prevailing 

wind. Storm events that are capable of destroying nests and nesting habitat are part of the 

natural order of things. Although wake from wind can be damaging, the purpose of the 

proposed no-wake zones is to reduce the amount of human-caused disturbance from wakes in 

order to improve nesting success. 

As noted in Section 1.6.2.2, according to the Refuge Administration Act, as amended, the 

fundamental mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System “is wildlife conservation: 

wildlife and wildlife conservation must come first.” The Refuge Administration Act also 

identifies six priority wildlife-dependent recreational activities for the Refuge System 

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

interpretation) that the Service should make extra efforts to facilitate on refuges, where 

compatible. 

Compatibility determinations have been developed for both fishing and recreational boating 

activities (see Appendix B). In order for on-water recreational activities to be compatible, it 

has been determined that the stipulations laid out in Appendix B must be followed, including 

the reduction of disturbance provided by no-wake zones and seasonal closures. 

82. Comment summary: A fishing boat going slow, 5 mph, in a no-wake zone, actually creates 

a bigger wake than when that same boat is on plane. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix H. Public Involvement H-51 

Response: Given that the size of a boat’s wake at any speed depends on the design of the 

boat, no-wake zones will require each boater to travel at a speed that does not create a 

wake—5 mph or a slower speed if that is necessary to not produce a wake. No-wake zones 

minimize disturbance to wildlife and wildlife-dependent recreationists. 

83. Comment summary: Certain groups (including law enforcement, administration, and 

anglers or tournament anglers) should not be required to comply with no-wake zones and 

closed areas. 

Response: Management activities (e.g., law enforcement) are exempted from regulations as 

required to achieve management goals, but will be conducted in a way that minimizes 

wildlife disturbance to the greatest extent possible. 

Priority wildlife-dependent and nonwildlife-dependent recreational activities can be allowed 

on national wildlife refuges only when determined to be compatible with wildlife and 

wildlife habitat. To ensure that these activities are compatible, the compatibility 

determinations (see Appendix B) include stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility. 

Compatibility determinations for fishing and recreational boating both require compliance 

with proposed closures and no-wake zones to minimize disturbance to wildlife and habitat. 

Allowing exceptions for certain users would both increase wildlife disturbance and be unfair 

to other recreationists not receiving similar exemptions. 

H.1.2.19 Economic Effects 

84. Comment summary: Additional restrictions to current public uses would have a negative 

economic impact on local businesses (e.g., boat- and fishing-related businesses and 

convenience stores), state boat license revenue, and local housing values. 

Response: According to the economic effects analysis compiled by the U.S. Geological 

Survey’s (USGS) Policy Analysis and Science Assistance Branch, the selected alternative 

would have a negligible long-term positive effect on the economy of Ada and Canyon 

Counties. See the Draft or Final CCP/EIS analysis in Table 6-1 and Section 6.6, Economic 

Effects. 

85. Comment summary: Open Lake Lowell to all recreational activities all year to provide an 

economic benefit to gas stations, boat dealers, sporting goods stores, etc. 

Response: Deer Flat Refuge was established primarily for the protection of migratory birds 

(see Section 1.7.2). The existing boating season (April 15-September 30) has been in effect 

for many years and was established to provide adequate habitat, with minimal human 

disturbance, for migratory birds during migration and over-wintering at Lake Lowell. 

Reducing the boating closure (October 1-April 14) would increase disturbance to migratory 

birds and other wildlife, and would contradict the Refuge’s purpose. 

86. Comment summary: Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation expressed concern that the 

Draft CCP/EIS—Alternatives 3 and 4, would alter the intent of projects funded through 

Waterways Improvement Fund grants awarded to Canyon County and result in a conversion. 

Idaho Administrative Procedures Act (IDAPA) Rule 26.01.31.350 regarding conversions 

requires, “No project funded by Recreational Program Grant Funds shall, without the prior 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

H-52 Appendix H. Public Involvement 

written approval of the director, be converted to uses other than for the authorized purposes 

specified in the original recreational program grant application, grant agreement, or 

Memorandum of Understanding.” 

Response: Our selected alternative (Alternative 2) would not alter the intent of previously 

funded Waterways Improvement Fund grants to Canyon County. 

87. Comment summary: The CCP should “prevent mining, or other industrial exploitation, 

including above and below ground water diversion.” 

Response: Any activity on Refuge lands has to be appropriate and compatible with the 

purpose of the Refuge to serve as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other 

wildlife. It is unlikely that mining or other industrial activities would be considered 

appropriate and compatible. Water diversion, on the other hand, is the original and overlying 

purpose for the reservoir (Lake Lowell) and the Service does not have jurisdiction over how 

that is regulated and used. 

88. Comment summary: The plan should “forbid the exchange of such lands for other lands 

offered by any private corporations or individuals for any purpose.” 

Response: The Service does have the authority to exchange lands. Any proposal for a land 

exchange would be evaluated to determine if the subject exchange is in the interests of both 

the Bureau of Reclamation and the Service in carrying out their respective responsibilities at 

the Lake Lowell Unit, or in the interest of the Service for the Snake River Islands Unit of the 

Refuge. 

H.1.2.20 Hydropower Facility 

89. Comment summary: The Board of Control has authority to build hydropower facilities on 

the Refuge and opposes any element of the CCP that might interfere with this authority, 

pointing specifically to plans to develop Richard’s Point Hydroelectric Project. 

Response: Pursuant to Executive Order 7655, which established the Refuge, the Service’s 

jurisdiction over lands that were withdrawn for the Reclamation project is subject to 

“Reclamation work and incidental purposes.” According to the Bureau of Reclamation, the 

project encompassing Lake Lowell was authorized with the single purpose of irrigation; 

hydropower was not an authorized project purpose. Therefore, the Service has operated under 

the principle that Refuge management cannot interfere with the irrigation purpose of the 

project and activities associated with the irrigation purpose, such as operations and 

maintenance activities, but that other activities, such as hydropower, can be allowed only if 

consistent and compliant with statutory and regulatory authorities governing Refuge 

management. 

The Service is aware that the President recently signed into law P.L. 113-24, the Bureau of 

Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act, we do not know 

the extent of its applicability to the proposed Richard’s Point project. However, we would be 

glad to discuss this with Reclamation and the Board of Control as appropriate. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix H. Public Involvement H-53 

H.1.2.21 Editorial Comments 

90. Comment: “The Draft CCP/EIS references the Idaho Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor 

Recreation and Tourism Plan (SCORTP) on Page 6-58. The draft EIS states ‘According to 

the 2006-2010 Idaho SCORTP report (IDPR 2006), 73 percent of surveyed Idahoans said that 

the most they were willing to travel to their favorite outdoor recreation site for less than one 

day’s activity was two hours or more.’ The 2006-2010 SCORTP report actually found that 

the most Idahoans were willing to travel to their favorite outdoor recreation site for less than 

one day’s activity was two hours or less, not more.” 

Response: Correction has been made. 

91. Comment: Draft CCP/EIS, page 5-27, 2nd paragraph. “Recommend changing the sentence 

‘Based on the assumption that administrative responsibility for on-water uses rested with 

Reclamation no compatibility determinations were developed for on-water recreation at this 

time’ to something along the lines:

Based on an erroneous assumption that administrative responsibility for on-water uses rested 

with Reclamation, no compatibility determinations were developed for on-water recreation at 

this time. Both the FWS and Reclamation have since confirmed that the USFWS has 

administrative responsibility for on-water uses as described earlier on page [insert page 

reference 1 for Lake Lowell]. This is because the USFWS’s management of on-water uses 

will not conflict with Reclamation’s off-stream storage of water in Lake Lowell for irrigation 

purposes; in addition, the USFWS’s legal authorities provide that the USFWS needs to 

manage Lake Lowell for wildlife refuge purposes too.” 

Response: Changed as follows: Based on an erroneous assumption that administrative 

responsibility for on-water uses rested with Reclamation, no compatibility determinations 

were developed for on-water recreation at this time. Both the Service and Reclamation have 

since confirmed that the Service has administrative responsibility for on-water uses at Lake 

Lowell as described earlier on page 1-1. The Federal Water Project Recreation Act, Public 

Law 98-72, governs Reclamation’s recreation authority if the project authorization does not 

provide for recreation. It does not add recreation as a project purpose to a Reclamation 

project or impose a Federal recreation obligation. Significantly for Lake Lowell, P.L. 98-72 

also excludes areas that are administered by a Federal agency “in connection with an 

authorized Federal program for the conservation and development of fish and wildlife.” (16 

U.S.C. § 460l-12). 

92. Comment: Draft CCP/EIS, page 1-2, 4th paragraph. Add “maintenance” after “operation” in 

the first sentence, and clarify that the Deer Flat Dams and diversion works are not reserved 

works in the last sentence. 

Response: Changes have been made. 

93. Comment: Draft CCP/EIS, page 5-34, Table 5-7. “The following revisions should be made 

to the table: at Black Canyon Reservoir, Reclamation manages recreation while Idaho 

Department of Fish and Game manages the adjacent Montour Wildlife Management Area 

under an agreement with Reclamation. Boise National Forest manages recreation at 

Arrowrock and Anderson Ranch Reservoirs under an agreement with Reclamation. At 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

H-54 Appendix H. Public Involvement 

Cascade Reservoir, Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation manages recreation along with 

Reclamation.” 

Response: Changes have been made. 

94. Comment: Draft CCP/EIS, page 1-25, 3rd bullet. This statement should clarify that the 

Board of Control has the day-to-day responsibility of controlling Lake Lowell’s water levels. 

Response: Change has been made. 

95. Comment: Draft CCP/EIS, page 180 (3-32). “The Implementation Plan was finalized in 

October 2012.” 

Response: Proper citation to final Implementation Plan inserted. 

96. Comment: Draft CCP/EIS, page 180 (3-32). “Update to 2010 (or 2012) Integrated Report 

depending on whether it is approved by the time this is finalized.” 

Response: Proper citation to 2010 Integrated Report inserted, and text modified as 

appropriate. 

97. Comment: Draft CCP/EIS, page 181 and 182 (3-33 and 3-34). “Special Resource Waters are 

no longer a use designation in our water quality standards. There is no longer a special 

resource category; we want to protect wildlife everywhere regardless of whether it is a 

designated wildlife refuge or management area. Wildlife habitat is an assumed use for all 

surface waters as listed in table 3-14.” 

Response: Left unchanged because the term Special Resource Waters was used in the TMDL 

developed for Lake Lowell (IDEQ 2010) as cited. 

98. Comment: Windsporters should be permitted short, direct crossing [of no-wake zones] and 

must not dwell nor conduct their ‘play’ within that band. 

Response: Objective 2.4.1.4 identifies that kiteboarders and windsurfers are allowed to 

launch from any open shoreline, but they must comply with no-wake zones. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix I. Refuge Establishment History I-1

Appendix I. Refuge Establishment History 

 February 25, 1909, President Theodore Roosevelt signed Executive Order (E.O.) 1032 

establishing several reservoir sites in the western United States, including the Deer Flat 

Reservoir, “as preserves and breeding grounds for native birds,” subject to Bureau of 

Reclamation (Reclamation) uses and any other existing rights. The E.O. also states, “It is 

unlawful for any person to hunt, trap, capture, willfully disturb or kill any bird of any kind 

whatever, or take the eggs of such birds within the limits of these reservations, except under 

such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary of Agriculture.” 

 January 12, 1937, Migratory Bird Conservation Commission (MBCC) Memorandum 

Number 13, “Snake River Migratory Waterfowl Refuge, Canyon and Owyhee Counties, 

Idaho,” stated in the History section: “This unit embraces a group of islands in the Snake 

River. Its strategic location on that flyway and its proximity to the Deer Flat Reservation 

makes it an important refuge possibility. The islands within the proposed refuge limits fall in 

three legal classifications: natural islands surveyed by the General Land Office prior to 1890 

when Idaho became a state; natural islands not survey by the General Land Office and 

therefore public domain; islands formed since 1890, titles to which are vested in Idaho. The 

purpose is to purchase some 640 acres of privately owned and State owned islands, and 

obtain jurisdiction over the public lands through E.O. Then arrange with the Idaho State Fish 

and Game Commission to close a portion of the adjacent river as a sanctuary....” 

 July 12, 1937, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued E.O. 7655 “Establishing Deer Flat 

Migratory Waterfowl Refuge, Idaho,” revoking and superseding E.O. 1032. E.O. 7655 states 

“to effectuate further the purposes of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (45 Stat. 1222), it 

is ordered that all lands owned or controlled by the United States within the following 

described area comprising 10,252.76 acres, more or less, in Canyon County, Idaho, be, and 

they are hereby, reserved and set apart for the use of the Department of Agriculture, subject 

to existing valid rights, as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other 

wildlife: Provided, that any private lands within the area described shall become a part of the 

refuge hereby established upon the acquisition of title thereto or lease thereof by the United 

States ... Most of the above-described lands have been withdrawn for use in connection with 

the Deer Flat Reclamation Project and are primarily under the jurisdiction of the Department 

of the Interior; and the reservation herein made of such lands shall be subject to the use 

thereof by the said Department for reclamation work and incidental purposes. 

 Executive Order No. 1032 of February 25, 1909, in so far as it reserved certain lands within a 

reservoir site in Idaho as the Deer Flat Bird Reservation, as modified, is hereby revoked. This 

refuge shall be known as the Deer Flat Migratory Waterfowl Refuge” (Federal Register, 

Volume 2, Number 135, Page 1454, July 15, 1937).

 August 17, 1937, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued E.O. 7691 “Establishing the Snake 

River Migratory Waterfowl Refuge, Idaho”: “to effectuate further the purposes of the 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act (45 Stat. 1222), it is ordered that all islands in the Snake 

River within the exterior limits of the following described area, owned or controlled by the 

United States, or of which the United States has the use for migratory bird refuge purposes, 

be, and they are hereby, withdrawn from settlement, location, sale, or entry, and reserved and 

set apart, subject to valid existing rights, for the use of the Department of Agriculture as a 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

I-2 Appendix I. Refuge Establishment History 

refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife; Provided, that upon the 

acquisition of title to or lease of any privately-owned island by the United States, or upon the 

termination of any private right to or appropriation of any public-land island within the area, 

or upon the acquisition of control by the United States of any island within area, in any other 

manner, such islands shall be reserved and become part of the refuge.... 

 This refuge shall be known as the Snake River Migratory Waterfowl Refuge.” 

 July 27, 1940, Presidential Proclamation No. 2416 (54 Stat. 2720) changed the name of the 

“Deer Flat Migratory Waterfowl Refuge” to the “Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge” and 

changed the name of the “Snake River Migratory Waterfowl Refuge” to the “Snake River 

National Wildlife Refuge.” 

 February 20, 1951, MBCC Memorandum Number 9 Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge, 

Canyon County, Idaho, gave purchase approval for 74.34 acres (Tract 5 for 61 acres from 

J.B. De Motto and Tract 8 for 13.34 acres, with an easement for electric power line from 

G.M. Jenkins). 

 MBCC Memorandum Number 9 also stated, “The Deer Flat Refuge is an important link in 

the system of national wildlife refuges in the Pacific Flyway. It is primarily a resting and 

feeding ground for ducks and geese and a considerable number of geese winter on the area. 

This refuge will be of even greater importance if proposed power impoundments on the 

Snake River are completed. Such impoundments will eliminate many small islands in the 

Snake River that are presently serving as feeding areas for waterfowl. The primary need on 

this refuge is additional land areas that can be planted to food for waterfowl. There is 

presented for consideration at this time two tracts of land that can be developed for feeding 

purposes” 

 December 2, 1953, as mitigation for wildlife losses resulting from construction of the C.J. 

Strike Reservoir, the Idaho Power Company purchased and donated Dilly Island (21.26 

acres) to the Service (November 22, 1971, Region 1 Realty Supervisor’s memo and January 

27, 1964, Service memo to the files). 

 January 26, 1955, Public Land Order (PLO) 1060 “Reserving Certain Public Lands As 

Addition to Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge” stated “Subject to valid existing rights, the 

following described public lands in Canyon County, Idaho, are hereby withdrawn from all 

forms of appropriation under the public land laws, including the mining but not the mineral 

leasing laws, and reserved as an addition to the Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge” (adding 

280 acres to the Refuge). 

 February 15, 1955, MBCC Memorandum Number 8, “Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge, 

Canyon County, Idaho,” gave purchase approval for Tract 51 (80 acres) from M.H. Leavitt, 

Canyon County, Idaho. Exceptions were rights-of-way for ditches, tunnels, telephone and 

power lines, and mineral rights in the State of Idaho. The option for purchase provided for the 

conveyance of 15 water shares in the Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District, which is 

sufficient to irrigate 15 acres of land. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix I. Refuge Establishment History I-3

 MBCC Memorandum Number 8 stated, “The Deer Flat Refuge is an important link in the 

system of national wildlife refuges in the Pacific Flyway, and is one of the principal 

wintering grounds for mallard and Canada geese in that flyway. Between 500,000 and 

800,000 ducks and geese winter on this refuge each year. It is the terminus of a distinct flight 

from the prairie provinces of Canada. The Irrigation District which operates the reservoir 

draws down the water heavily in the early summer, and a considerable acreage of flats is 

exposed for the growth of smartweed and the important dwarfish “tealgrass,” both of which 

are of great appeal to geese and other waterfowl as food. Under the refuge management 

program, the Fish and Wildlife Service has reclaimed substantial part so these flats of a 

dense, smothering growth of willows which formerly covered the area. The construction of 

dams on the Snake and other rivers in this area for flood and power purposes has drawn 

increased numbers of waterfowl to this vicinity, and has created the problem of providing 

additional food to take care of the flocks and to prevent crop depredation. Also, there is a 

pressing need for additional marshlands that can be developed and used for nesting 

purposes...There is presented for consideration at this time a tract of land located 

immediately east of the existing refuge. This tract consists of both marsh and agricultural 

land, and its acquisition will increase the effectiveness of the refuge.” 

 October 21, 1955, PLO 1239 added one tract of 10.25 acres to the refuge stating, “The lands 

are withdrawn for reclamation purposes by Departmental orders of December 22, 1903 and 

February 7, 1906.” 

 March 7, 1958, PLO 1597 “Reserving Lands for Use of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 

Connection with Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge” added 120 acres to the Refuge: “1. 

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

described public lands in Idaho are hereby withdrawn from all forms of appropriation under 

public land laws, including the mining but not the mineral leasing laws, or the act of July 31, 

1947 (61 Stat. 367: 30 U.S. Code [U.S.C.] 601-604) as amended, and reserved for use of the 

Service as an addition to the Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge. 2. The Bureau of Land 

Management shall continue to administer and dispose of sand, gravel, and other road building 

material in the NE 1⁄4, SW 1⁄4, Section 26, pursuant to the act of July 31, 1937, supra subject to 

such provisions as it shall prescribe to insure that the surface of the lands be restored as 

nearly as possible to their original condition. 3. This order shall take precedence over but 

shall not otherwise affect the Department Order of April 2, 1935, establishing Grazing 

District No. 1.” 

 April 8, 1963, PLO 3016 “Addition to Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge” added 26 islands 

to the refuge (264.41 acres, including a small portion of McCrea Island) on the Idaho side of 

the Snake River between Homedale and Farewell Bend. “Subject to valid existing rights, all 

islands owned by the United States within the exterior limits of the following described areas 

in the Snake River, Idaho, are hereby withdrawn from all forms of appropriation under the 

public land laws, including the mining laws, and reserved for use of the Bureau of Sport 

Fisheries and Wildlife.” 

 April 26, 1963, PLO 3047 added 32 acres to the Lake Lowell Unit of the refuge. 

 June 28, 1963, PLO 3110, “Abolishment of Snake River National Wildlife Refuge; Transfer 

of Lands to Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge,” stated “The Snake River National Wildlife 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

I-4 Appendix I. Refuge Establishment History 

Refuge, heretofore established by E.O. 7691...is hereby abolished, and the lands now 

comprising the said refuge are transferred to and consolidated with the Deer Flat National 

Wildlife Refuge. The lands consist of islands in the Snake River and are located within the 

following described areas....” 

 July 31, 1963, PLO 3168, “Withdrawing Public Lands for Use of the Bureau of Sport 

Fisheries and Wildlife, an Addition to the Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge,” added 11 

islands in Idaho and part of a twelfth (159.53 acres) on the Oregon side of the Snake River 

between Homedale and Farewell Bend. The PLO stated, “1. Subject to valid existing rights, 

all islands owned by the United States within the exterior limits of the following described 

areas in the Snake River, Idaho, are hereby withdrawn from all forms of appropriation under 

the public land laws, including the mining laws, and reserved for use of [the Service]...2. 

Grazing of domestic livestock on the lands shall be in accordance with provisions of the 

Taylor Grazing Act of June 28, 1934 (48 Stat. 1269; 43 U.S.C. 315) as amended, and the 

regulations in 43 C.F.R. [Code of Federal Regulations], but shall be subordinate to the use of 

the lands for wildlife purposes.” 

 “but shall be subordinate to the use of the lands for wildlife purposes.” 

 June 3, 1965, PLO 3661, “Partial Revocation of the Executive Order No. 7655 (Deer Flat 

National Wildlife Refuge),” added approximately 0.93 acres to the Lake Lowell Unit of the 

Refuge, stating “The land is acquired.” 

 February 12, 1968, PLO 4366, “Addition to Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge,” added 

Fields Island (2.91 acres) to the Refuge, located in both Idaho and Oregon. “1. Subject to 

valid existing rights, the following described lands, are hereby withdrawn from all forms of 

appropriation under the public land laws, including the mining laws (30 U.S.C., Ch. 2), but 

not from leasing under the mineral leasing laws, and reserved as an addition to the Deer Flat 

National Wildlife Refuge... 2. Grazing of domestic livestock on the lands shall be in 

accordance with provisions of the Taylor Grazing Act of June 28, 1934 (48 Stat. 1269; 43 

U.S.C. 315) as amended, and the regulations in 43 C.F.R. 

 May 28, 1968, PLO 4425, “Addition to Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge,” added 16.9 

acres to the Snake River Islands Unit of the Refuge. “1. Subject to valid existing rights, the 

following described lands, are hereby withdrawn from all forms of appropriation under the 

public land laws, including the mining laws (30 U.S.C., Ch. 2), but not from leasing under 

the mineral leasing laws, and reserved as an addition to the Deer Flat National Wildlife 

Refuge.... 2. Grazing of domestic livestock on the lands shall be in accordance with 

provisions of the Taylor Grazing Act of June 28, 1934 (48 Stat. 1269; 43 U.S.C. 315) as 

amended, and the regulations in 43 C.F.R., but shall be subordinate to the use of the lands for 

wildlife purposes.” 

 November 20, 1968, the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife signed a memorandum of 

understanding (MOU) with the City of Marsing, Idaho, allowing the city use of Marsing 

Island as a park and recreation area; on February 23, 1972, the Bureau reported the island as 

excess property to the General Services Administration (GSA) and on May 11, 1972, the 

MOU between the Bureau and the City of Marsing was terminated. On June 21, 1972, 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix I. Refuge Establishment History I-5

Marsing Island was assigned to the Reclamation by GSA and later deeded to the City of 

Marsing. 

 October 24, 1975, PLO 5545 added 175 acres to the Lake Lowell Unit of the refuge, stating, 

“Except for any private lands which may be involved, the lands described in paragraph 1. 

above remain withdrawn from all forms of appropriation under the public land laws, 

including the mining laws, for the Payette-Boise Reclamation Project.” 

 On June 26, 2002, a lawsuit with the State of Idaho regarding ownership of islands in the 

Snake River was settled. The State of Idaho had filed suit on September 15, 1997, claiming 

title to islands and portions of islands that were part of the Snake River Island Unit of the 

Refuge. The suit was based on the State’s contention that these islands were formed after 

statehood (July 4, 1890) and, therefore, belonged to the State. The State laid claim to 63 of 

the islands that were part of the Refuge at the time. In 1936, certain islands in the Snake 

River had been identified as under Federal or State ownership by Idaho and Service 

personnel, ownership determinations that were not founded on science. In its defense, the 

Service contracted various experts to gather data and refute the State’s claim. Work was 

conducted on the geomorphology, soil, and location of the ordinary high water mark. Based 

on the findings of these scientific investigations, a settlement was negotiated, whereupon, a 

few islands previously identified as part of the Refuge became State property, and several 

islands previously thought to be State property became part of the Refuge. 

 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

I-6 Appendix I. Refuge Establishment History 

Document continues on next page. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix J. Contributors J-1 

Appendix J. Contributors 

J.1 Core Planning Team 

The core planning team consists of persons responsible for the preparation and completion of the 

CCP/EIS. They are the primary strategists, analysts, and writers. To avoid scheduling and logistical 

conflicts, the core team has a limited number of participants. This CCP is the result of extensive, 

collaborative, and enthusiastic efforts by the members of the core planning team below. 

Name Title Organization 

Annette de Knijf Refuge Manager, Deer Flat NWR FWS 

Jennifer Brown-Scott Former Refuge Manager, Deer Flat NWR FWS 

Krystal Clair Outdoor Recreation Planner, Middle Snake Field Office Reclamation 

Stan Culling Deputy Refuge Manager, Deer Flat NWR FWS 

Steve Dunn Natural Resource Specialist, Middle Snake Field Office Reclamation 

Charles Houghten Chief, Lands Division, Region 1 FWS 

Elaine Johnson Former Refuge Manager, Deer Flat NWR FWS 

Susan Kain Visitor Services Manager, Deer Flat NWR FWS 

Carl Mitchell Former Wildlife Biologist, Southeast Idaho Refuges 

Complex 

FWS 

Addison Mohler Former Wildlife Biologist, Deer Flat NWR FWS 

Kendra Niemec Former Deputy Refuge Manager, Deer Flat NWR FWS 

Sharon Selvaggio Former Planner, Division of Planning and Visitor Services, 

Region 1 

FWS 

Amy Wing Former Planner, Division of Planning and Visitor Services, 

Region 1 

FWS 

J.2 Internal Extended Planning Team and Reviewers 

In addition to the core planning team, the following FWS staff participated on the extended team. 

Extended team members provided technical expertise, assisted with data collection, and/or reviewed 

and provided feedback during drafting of the CCP/EIS. 

Name Title Organization 

Randy Aulbach Maintenance Worker, Deer Flat NWR FWS 

Brad Bortner Former Supervisory Wildlife Biologist, Migratory Birds 

and Habitats Programs, Region 1 

FWS 

Dar Crammond Former Hydrologist, Water Resources Branch, Region 1 FWS 

Daniel Eckstrom Former Office Aide, Deer Flat NWR FWS 

Joe Engler Regional Biologist, Region 1 FWS 

Todd Fenzl Former Zone Law Enforcement Officer FWS 

Robert Flores Former Refuge Supervisor, NWRS, Region 1 FWS 

Mike Gregg Wildlife Biologist FWS 

Rich Hannan Deputy Regional Director, Region 1 FWS 

Ben Harrison Former Deputy Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge 

System, Region 1 

FWS 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

J-2 Appendix J. Contributors 

Name Title Organization 

Joan Jewett Former Public Affairs Specialist, Region 1 FWS 

Kay Kier-Haggenjos Technical Writer-Editor, Region 1 FWS 

Kevin Kilbride Wildlife Biologist, Branch of Refuge Biology, Region 1 FWS 

Meggan LaxaltMackey Former Public Affairs Specialist, Snake River Fish and 

Wildlife Office 

FWS 

Barbara Locati Former Administrative Officer, Deer Flat NWR FWS 

Mike Marxen Branch Chief, Visitor Services and Communications, 

Region 1 

FWS 

Kendra Maty GIS Specialist, Region 1 FWS 

Scott McCarthy Branch Chief, Refuge Planning, Region 1 FWS 

Ray Portwood Zone Law Enforcement Officer FWS 

Chris Reighn Biologist, Snake River Fish and Wildlife Office FWS 

Robyn Thorson Regional Director, Region 1 FWS 

Nick Valentine Archaeologist/Museum Specialist, Region 1 FWS 

Robin West Former Regional Chief, NWRS, Region 1 FWS 

J.3 External Extended Planning Team and Reviewers 

In addition to the core planning team, the following external subject-matter experts participated on 

the extended team. Extended team members provided technical expertise, assisted with data 

collection, and reviewed and provided feedback during drafting of the CCP/EIS. 

Name Title Organization 

Bob Carter Urbanization Specialist Boise Project Board of Control 

Vern Case Director, Riverside Irrigation District 

and Chairman 

Board of Idaho Water Users 

Association 

Duane Casey Lake Lowell Water Master Boise Project Board of Control 

David Dahms Boating Program Manager Idaho Department of Parks and 

Recreation 

Wendy Davis Recreation Program Supervisor Nampa Parks and Recreation 

Paul Deveau Project Manager Boise Project Board of Control 

Jeff Dillon Regional Fishery Manager IDFG 

Greg Humphreys Environmental Protection Specialist Federal Highways Administration 

Darrin Johnson Director Nampa Parks and Recreation 

Ben Keyes Lieutenant, Marine Patrol Section Canyon County Sheriff’s Office 

Lynne Koontz Economist USGS 

Joe Kozfkay Fisheries Biologist IDFG 

Susan Law Alternative Transportation Planner Federal Highways Administration 

Philip Milburn Wildlife Biologist ODFW 

Steve Nadeau Regional Wildlife Manager IDFG 

Tim Page Assistant Project Manager Boise Project Board of Control 

Jake Powell Wildlife Biologist IDFG 

Scott Reinecker Southwest Regional Manager IDFG 

Deb Root Planner Canyon County Development 

Services 

Natalie Sexton Wildlife Biologist (Human Dimensions) USGS 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix J. Contributors J-3 

Name Title Organization 

Rick Ward Environmental Staff Biologist IDFG 

Craig Wiedmeier Licensing Supervisor IDFG 

J.4 Involved in Pre-Planning Meetings and Not on Extended Team 

The following people participated in wildlife and habitat and/or public use reviews during

preplanning and did not subsequently participate on the extended team. 

Name Title Organization 

Paul Bicak Former Marine Patrol Canyon County Sheriff’s Office 

Tom Bicak Director Canyon County Parks, Recreation, 

and Waterways 

Jim Budolfson Retired Reclamation 

Greg Burak Environmental Staff Biologist IDFG 

Ed Burnett Director Canyon County Mosquito 

Abatement District 

A.J. Church Former Staff Office of Senator Mike Crapo 

Matt Erickson Conservation Officer IDFG 

Diane French Former Biological Technician, Deer Flat 

NWR 

FWS 

Bruce Haak Non-game Wildlife Biologist IDFG 

Dennis Hardy Recreational Maintenance Foreman IDFG 

David Hopper Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Snake River 

Fish and Wildlife Office 

FWS 

Matt How Visitor Services and Communication, 

Region 1 

FWS 

Steve Humphries Biologist Ducks Unlimited 

Lyndell Jackson Former President Friends of Deer Flat National 

Wildlife Refuge 

David Loper Director, Environmental Health Services Southwest District Health 

Jim Martell Director Canyon County Weed and Gopher 

Control 

Jerry Neufeld Extension Agent University of Idaho 

Lauri Monnot Watershed Coordinator IDEQ 

Michael Morse Contaminant Specialist, Snake River 

Fish and Wildlife Office 

FWS 

Andy Ogden Wildlife Habitat Biologist IDFG 

Dan Papp Former Wildlife Educator IDFG 

Bob Peyton Assistant Refuge Supervisor, NWRS, 

Region 1 

FWS 

Steve Reddy Extension Agent University of Idaho 

Mike Shipman Member Friends of Deer Flat Wildlife 

Refuge 

Amy Ulappa Former EE Specialist, Deer Flat NWR FWS 

Jim Vannoy Environmental Health Program Manager Idaho Department of Health and 

Welfare 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

J-4 Appendix J. Contributors 

Name Title Organization 

Linda Watters Former Assistant Refuge Supervisor, 

NWRS, Region 1 

FWS 

Lynnette Wilfling Member Friends of Deer Flat National 

Wildlife Refuge 

Bruce Zoellick Fisheries Biologist BLM 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix K. Fire Management Plan K-1 

Appendix K. Fire Management Plan 

DEER FLAT NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

2009	

 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

K-2 Appendix K. Fire Management Plan 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix K. Fire Management Plan K-3 

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 5

1.1 Purpose of the Fire Management Plan (FMP) ........................................................................................ 5

1.2 General Description of Refuge ............................................................................................................... 5

1.3 Significant Values to Protect................................................................................................................... 6

Key Critical Values to Protect .................................................................................................................. 6

2.0 Policy, Land Management Planning, and Partnerships ........................................................................... 6

2.1 Implementation of Fire Policy ................................................................................................................ 6

2.1.1 Federal Interagency Wildland Fire Policy ........................................................................................... 6

2.1.2 National Fire Plan ................................................................................................................................ 7

2.1.3 Department of the Interior (DOI) Fire Policy ...................................................................................... 7

2.1.4 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fire Policy .......................................................................................... 7

2.1.5 Refuge Specific Fire Management Policy ........................................................................................... 8

2.2 Land/Resource Management Policy ....................................................................................................... 8

2.2.1 Land/Resource Planning Docurments .................................................................................................. 8

2.2.2 Compliance with Regulatory Acts ....................................................................................................... 8

Threatened and Endangered Species Compliance.................................................................................... 8

Cultural Resource Compliance................................................................................................................. 8

NEPA Compliance ....................................................................................................................................8

2.3.1 Internal Partnerships ............................................................................................................................ 9

Fire Prevention and Education Specialist ................................................................................................ 9

2.3.2 External Partnerships ........................................................................................................................... 9

BLM Agreement ........................................................................................................................................9

Local Fire Departments............................................................................................................................ 9

Fire Program Analysis Participation ....................................................................................................... 9

Idaho State Fire Plan Working Group...................................................................................................... 9

County Wildfire Protection Plan............................................................................................................. 10

Treasure Valley Fire Prevention and Safety Cooperative ...................................................................... 10

Bureau of Reclamation ........................................................................................................................... 10

3.0 Fire Management Unit Characteristics ................................................................................................. 10

3.1 Area Wide Management Considerations .............................................................................................. 10

3.1.1 Management Goals, Objectives and Contraints from CCP’s and other Planning Documents ........... 10

Goals.......................................................................................................................................................11

Objectives................................................................................................................................................11

3.1.2 Management Goals, Objectives and Constraints from other Sources ................................................ 11

3.1.2.1 Cost Effectiveness ........................................................................................................................... 12

3.1.3 Common Characteristics of the Fire Management Units ................................................................... 12

Climate and Topography ........................................................................................................................ 12

Deer Flat NWR Climate.......................................................................................................................... 12

Normal Fire Season ................................................................................................................................13

Fire History.............................................................................................................................................13

Wildlife Species.......................................................................................................................................13

Water Quality..........................................................................................................................................14

Prescribed Fire & Mechanical History .................................................................................................. 14

Vegetation ...............................................................................................................................................14
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

K-4 Appendix K. Fire Management Plan 

Fire Behavior..........................................................................................................................................16

3.2 Fire Management Units ......................................................................................................................... 16

3.2 Lake Lowell Fire Management Unit ..................................................................................................... 17

3.2.1 Lake Lowell FMU Characteristics ..................................................................................................... 17

3.2.2 Lake Lowell FMU Fire Environment ............................................................................................... 18

3.2.3 Lake Lowell FMU Objectives and Constraints .................................................................................. 18

3.2.4 Lake Lowell FMU Values to Protect ................................................................................................. 18

3.3.1 Snake River Island FMU Characteristics ........................................................................................... 19

3.3.3 Snake River Islands FMU Objectives and Constraints ...................................................................... 19

4.0 Wildland Fire Operational Guidance .................................................................................................... 20

4.1.1 Appropriate Management Response .................................................................................................. 20

General AMR Constraints....................................................................................................................... 21

Interagency Operations .......................................................................................................................... 21

4.1.2 Preparedness ...................................................................................................................................... 21

Annual Refuge Fire Readiness Activities................................................................................................ 22

Supplies and Equipment.......................................................................................................................... 22

Communications .....................................................................................................................................22

4.1.3 Detection ............................................................................................................................................ 22

4.1.4 Dispatch, Initial Response, and Initial Attack .................................................................................... 22

4.1.5 Extended Attack and Large Fire Management ................................................................................... 23

4.1.6 Aviation Operations ........................................................................................................................... 23

4.1.7 Reviews and Investigations ................................................................................................................ 23

4.1.9 Reports ............................................................................................................................................... 23

4.2 Hazardous Fuels Management .............................................................................................................. 24

4.2.1 Prescribed Fire program for Hazardous Fuels and Habitats .............................................................. 24

4.2.1.1 Program Overview .......................................................................................................................... 24

4.2.1.2 Effect of National and Regional Preparedness Levels .................................................................... 25

4.2.1.3 Project Planning .............................................................................................................................. 25

4.2.1.4 Project Implementation ................................................................................................................... 25

4.2.1.5 Smoke Management ........................................................................................................................ 26

4.2.1.6 After Action and Escaped Fire Reviews ......................................................................................... 27

4.2.1.7 Reports ............................................................................................................................................ 27

4.2.2 Non-Fire Hazardous Fuels Treatment Program ................................................................................. 27

4.2.3 Process to Identify Hazardous Fuels Treatments ............................................................................... 27

4.3 Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation ......................................................................................... 28

4.4 Prevention, Mitigation, and Education ................................................................................................. 28

Fire Investigation....................................................................................................................................29

Public Information and Education.......................................................................................................... 30

5. Monitoring and Evaluation ..................................................................................................................... 30

5.1 Fire Management Plan .......................................................................................................................... 30

5.1.1 Annual Fire Management Plan Review ............................................................................................. 30

5.1.2 Fire Management Plan Terminology ................................................................................................. 30

5.2 Treatment Effectiveness ........................................................................................................................ 30

List of Appendices ...................................................................................................................................... 31
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix K. Fire Management Plan K-5 

1.0 Introduction 

This plan is written as an operational guide for managing the wildland fire and prescribed fire programs at 

Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) which includes two fire management units (FMU) the Lake 

Lowell FMU and the Snake River Islands (FMU). It defines levels of protection needed to ensure safety, 

protect facilities and resources, and to restore and perpetuate natural processes, given current 

understanding of the complex relationships in natural ecosystems. 

The two FMUs were originally two separate wildlife refuges both serving as a refuge and breeding 

ground for migratory birds and other wildlife until becoming one in 1963. Habitat protection from 

wildland fire and the use of prescribed fire along with mechanical fuel reduction to manipulate habitat as 

outlined in this plan will be used to address the needs of wildlife to meet the resource goals and objectives 

for the refuge. 

1.1 Purpose of the Fire Management Plan (FMP) 

This plan is written to meet Department and Service requirements that every area with burnable 

vegetation must have an approved FMP. (620 DM 1.4) It enables the Refuge to meet a Service 

requirement that Refuges review and/or revise FMPs at a minimum of five-year intervals or when 

significant land use changes are proposed. (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, which 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. 

Completion of an FMP enables Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge 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 Refuge 

Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge is located in Idaho’s Treasure Valley along the southwest border of 

the city of Nampa. The refuge encompasses 11,860 acres in two units: Lake Lowell and the Snake River 

Islands. These units lie within two states (Idaho and Oregon) and five counties (Canyon, Payette, 

Owyhee, Washington in Idaho, and Malheur in Oregon). The Snake River Islands Unit, which includes 

over 100 islands, are spread over 113 miles of river. The islands range in size from less than an acre to 

over 50 acres, with total acreage of 1,220 acres. The Lake Lowell unit is an overlay of an off-stream 

Bureau of Reclamation irrigation project. 

With the increase in population and the urban development of previously natural areas, the Refuge sees 

thousands of visitors each year seeking recreation opportunities. The refuge offers boating, fishing, and 

wildlife viewing among other activities. High visitor use coupled with the flashy fuels found on the 

Refuge, create added fire management concerns. 

A map of the Refuge can be found in Appendix A of this document. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

K-6 Appendix K. Fire Management Plan 

1.3 Significant Values to Protect

Key Critical Values to Protect 

 The Refuge is adjacent to three federally listed Communities at Risk, (Nampa, Marsing, 

Caldwell). 

 Air quality is a concern at the Refuge due to its location in the Treasure Valley, which is a non 

attainment area for ozone and pm.2.5 (Appendix A). 

 Appropriate measures will be taken to protect sites with cultural significance during wildland fire 

suppression efforts. Prescribed fire mechanical fuels reduction planning will include a review of 

known sites that may be impacted. 

 The Refuge stands as an important sanctuary for outdoor enthusiasts and hosts thousands of 

visitors every year who wish to pursue recreational opportunities such as boating, fishing, and 

wildlife viewing among other activities. 

 Private property with homes and outbuildings surround the Refuge separated only by a road or 

fence. Refuge facilities and structures also lie scattered near grass and sagebrush fuels which 

could put them at risk in the event of a fire. 

 The Refuge was designated to protect habitat for migratory birds along the Pacific Flyway. Much 

of the native habitats found on the Refuge are not fire tolerant. High intensity fires could result in 

the loss of important habitat for waterfowl, upland birds, and song birds. 

 Eagle nesting/roosting areas along the lake need to be protected from unplanned wildfire. 

 Water quality issues affecting Lake Lowell from any potential wildfire will be mitigated. 

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 are summarized below. 

2.1.1 Federal Interagency Wildland Fire Policy 

This FMP implements these guiding principles of federal wildland fire policy: 

 Firefighter and public safety is 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 set 

the objectives for the use and desired future condition of the various public 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 must be 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. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix K. Fire Management Plan K-7 

 Standardization of policies and procedures among federal agencies is an ongoing objective. 

2.1.2 National Fire Plan 

This FMP meets the policy and direction criteria in the 2001 National Fire Plan because it emphasizes the 

following primary goals of the 10 Year Comprehensive Strategy and Cohesive Strategy for Protecting 

People and Sustaining Natural Resources: 

 Improving fire prevention and suppression. 

 Reducing hazardous fuels. 

 Restoring fire-adapted ecosystems. 

 Promoting community assistance. 

2.1.3 Department of the 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 is the first priority of the wildland fire management program and all 

associated activities. 

 Only trained and qualified leaders and agency administrators will be responsible for, and conduct, 

wildland fire management duties and operations. 

 Trained and certified employees will participate in the wildland fire management program as the 

situation requires, and non-certified employees will provide needed support as necessary. 

 Fire management planning, preparedness, wildfire, and prescribed fire operations, other 

hazardous fuel operations, monitoring, and research will be conducted on an interagency basis 

with involvement by all partners to the extent practicable. 

 The responsible agency administrator has coordinated, reviewed, and approved this FMP to 

ensure consistency with approved land management plans, values to be protected, and natural and 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

K-8 Appendix K. Fire Management Plan 

cultural resource management plans, and that it addresses 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. 

 Wildland fire is used to meet identified resource management objectives and benefits when 

appropriate. 

 Prescribed fire and other treatment types will be employed whenever they are the appropriate tool 

to reduce hazardous fuels and the associated risk of wildfire to human life, property, and cultural 

and natural resources and to manage our 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. 

2.1.5 Refuge Specific Fire Management Policy 

A Comprehensive Conservation Plan has not been completed for the Refuge. Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act, a categorical exclusion has been prepared and can be found in Appendix C. In 

compliance with the ESA, an Intra-Service Section 7 consultation was also completed and is on file at the 

refuge headquarters. 

2.2 Land/Resource Management Policy 

2.2.1 Land/Resource Planning Documents 

The Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge operates under the direction of a land management plan that was 

created in 1995. The Refuge is in the initial planning stages of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

process. 

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 Refuge Manager; copies are on file at 

the refuge 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 refuge headquarters. 

NEPA Compliance 

A Categorical Exclusion for fire management operations (wildland fire suppression, prescribed fire, and 

mechanical fuels reduction) was signed by the Refuge Manager and is included in Appendix C of this 

document. This Categorical Exclusion will be reviewed annually. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix K. Fire Management Plan K-9 

2.3.1 Internal Partnerships 

FWS Pacific Region Regional Office fire management program determined that all fire management 

operations in southern Idaho for FWS will be the responsibility of Zone Fire Management Officer 

currently stationed at the Southeast Idaho National Wildlife Refuge Complex office in Pocatello, Idaho. 

Fire Prevention and Education Specialist 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pacific Northwest Region Refuges Fire Management group and the 

Branch of Fire Management have a memorandum of understanding (MOU) outlining the jointly funded 

fire management specialist position. The MOU outlines the responsibilities of both parties related to the 

position. For the region, the position works as the prevention and education specialist. The Refuge is 

designated as the official duty station and the Southwest Idaho National Wildlife Refuge Complex Fire 

Management Officer holds the supervisory responsibility for the position. The signed agreement is 

located in Appendix F of this plan. 

2.3.2 External Partnerships 

Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge participates in multiple external partnerships related to fire 

management with federal, state, and local agencies and departments. The refuge enters into partnerships 

and official agreements when there is a mutual benefit to those involved. 

BLM Agreement 

Due to the lack of a dedicated fire crew stationed at the Refuge, Deer Flat NWR has entered into an 

intragovernmental agreement with the Boise District Bureau of Land Management. Under the agreement, 

located in Appendix F of this plan, the BLM will provide wildland fire suppression and dispatch services 

for lands located within the Refuge. This includes initial attack and preliminary fire investigation. The 

FWS will pay $2000 to the BLM annually to offset costs. 

Local Fire Departments 

The Fire Departments of Nampa, Caldwell, Marsing, and Upper Deer Flat border the Refuge and Refuge 

land falls within their fire protection districts. The Refuge staff is actively pursuing interagency 

agreements with these departments some of which have existing cooperative agreements with the Bureau 

of Land Management. 

Fire Program Analysis Participation 

Deer Flat NWR is a chartered member of the Southwest Idaho Wildland Fire Cooperative Fire Planning 

Unit formed to support and contribute to the development of landscape scale interagency fire planning 

and budgeting as directed by national fire policy and the Office of Business Management. Cooperating 

agencies in the fire planning unit are the Boise and Payette National Forests, Boise District Bureau of 

Land Management, Idaho Department of Lands Southwest Idaho Supervisory Area, and Southern Idaho 

Timber Protective Association. 

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 the Refuge represents the FWS as a part of this group. They participate in 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

K-10 Appendix K. Fire Management Plan 

ISFPWG subcommittees as appropriate. Subcommittees include those focused on fire education, 

restoration, and communication to promote state-wide projects and emphasis items. 

County Wildfire Protection Plan 

Canyon County has developed a County Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) that identifies potential fuel 

reduction opportunities in the area. As part of Canyon County, Deer Flat NWR is mentioned in the plan. 

The CWPP is posted at this website Idaho Department of Lands CWPP. 

Treasure Valley Fire Prevention and Safety Cooperative 

Deer Flat NWR is an active member of the Treasure Valley Fire Prevention and Safety Cooperative 

partnering with the Boise National Forest, Boise District Bureau of Land Management, Idaho Department 

of Lands, State Fire Marshal’s Office, and the city fire departments of Caldwell, Nampa, Meridian, and 

Boise. The mission of the Cooperative is to promote an interagency exchange of ideas and resources to 

deliver consistent messages to the public about fire education topics. 

Bureau of Reclamation 

A memorandum of understanding (MOU) exists between the Refuge and the Bureau of Reclamation 

(BOR) to outline joint responsibilities for the operation and management of the lands and waters within 

the Lake Lowell Fire Management Unit at the Refuge. This MOU can be found on file at the Refuge 

headquarters. 

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 and occurrence the wildland fire program complexity at Deer Flat NWR is 

moderate. The CCP for Deer Flat NWR is currently under development and when completed will further 

define future desired conditions for the refuge. In the interim this FMP will identify the Lake Lowell area 

of the Refuge as one FMU and the Snake River Islands as the other FMU. 

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 CCP’s and other Planning Documents 

The CCP process for Deer Flat NWR is currently in the planning/development phase; management goals 

and objectives were obtained from draft planning documents. The following general fire management 

goals and objectives have been developed by refuge staff and regional biologists in the interim.

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: 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix K. Fire Management Plan K-11 

Goals 

 Maintain and protect lacustrine habitats associated with Lake Lowell. 

 Enhance, maintain, and protect riparian forest benefiting migratory birds and other ripariandependent species. 

 Enhance, maintain, and protect wetland habitats for the benefit of migratory birds and other 

wildlife. 

 Enhance, maintain, and protect shrub steppe habitats characteristic of the area. 

 Protect agricultural crop areas which provide support to migrating waterfowl and resident wildlife 

as well as providing fuel breaks. 

 Gather scientific information (inventories, monitoring, research, and assessments) to support 

adaptive management decisions under objectives for Goals 1-6. 

Objectives 

 Use mechanical, physical, biological, and chemical means to eradicate, control or contain 

invasive plants, woody species, and shrubs such as Russian olive, salt cedar, and scotch thistle. 

 Enhance, maintain, and protect riparian forests through use of prescribed fire, mechanical or 

chemical treatment. 

 Enhance, maintain, and protect emergent wetlands through use of prescribed fire, mechanical or 

chemical treatment to result in 30-70 percent of a mosaic of desired native emergent vegetation 

including cattail, bulrushes, sedges, rushes, smartweeds, and wild millet to support a diverse 

assemblage of wetland-dependent wildlife and birds. 

 Enhance, maintain, and protect shrub steppe through use of prescribed fire, mechanical or 

chemical treatment to create a mosaic of shrubs and herbaceous understory. 

 Monitoring activities will be conducted to evaluate achievement of objectives for prescribed fire, 

mechanical or chemical treatments as appropriate. 

 Rehabilitation of burned areas will take place to reduce the infestation of invasive species, to 

protect water quality, and to restore native sagebrush steppe habitat. 

3.1.2 Management Goals, Objectives and Constraints from other Sources 

The following operational standards are pertinent to the Refuge, as found in the 

FWS manual (095 FW 3): 

 Manage fire suppression to minimize risks to firefighter and public safety. 

 An initial action and an appropriate management response are required for every wildfire on or 

threatening refuge lands. 

 The range of appropriate management responses to wildfires may include direct or indirect attack 

of high and/or low intensities or surveillance and monitoring to ensure fire spread will be limited 

to a designated area. 

 Reduce and maintain fuels in WUI areas to provide for public and firefighter health and safety. 

 Reduce and maintain fuels in non-WUI areas to provide for firefighter health and safety and to 

protect habitats critical to endangered species, migratory birds, and ecosystem integrity. 

 Use prescribed fire as a tool to restore ecosystem integrity and endangered species habitat. 

 Prepare and implement an effective fire prevention plan to minimize unwanted fires. 

 Investigate all unplanned human-caused fires. 

 Retardants and foams will not be used within 300 feet of any waterway. 

 Minimize and, where necessary, mitigate human-induced impacts to resources, natural processes, 

or improvements attributable to wildland fire activities. 

 Ground disturbed by suppression activities will be rehabilitated. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

K-12 Appendix K. Fire Management Plan 

 Heavy equipment use will be closely monitored 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 refuge 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 and Topography 

The entire Refuge is influenced by its location in the Snake River Valley. Elevation at the visitor center is 

about 2,550 feet above sea level with an average rainfall between 8 and 11 inches. During the summer 

the climate is generally arid with little rainfall between May and October. Temperature extremes can 

range from minus 25 degrees to 110 degrees Fahrenheit. The growing season averages six months. 

Winds tend to follow the orientation of the valleys with an occasional destructive wind blowing due to the 

passing of a cold front or thunderstorm. 

The FMUs share similar topography with rolling sagebrush hills scattered along relative flat areas. 

Deer Flat NWR Climate 

Spring Summer Fall 

Average Max Temp (F) 65 91 66 

Average Min Temp (F) 37 54 36 

Average Mean Relative Humidity (%) 50 37 47 

Average Min Relative Humidity (%) 26 17 26 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix K. Fire Management Plan K-13 

Normal Fire Season 

Due to the arid conditions of this area, fires can occur almost any month of the year. The majority of the 

fires have occurred during June to August time frame. Most fires are human-caused due to high visitor 

use. 

Fire History 

From 1997 to 2007 the Refuge has experienced 30 wildfires for a total of 320 acres. The majority and 

largest fires have occurred in the sagebrush steppe habitat with a few occurring in the dense riparian area 

next to Lake Lowell. The majority of all of the fires recorded on the Refuge have been human-caused. 

Fire frequency on the Refuge has ranged from 16 fires in one year (1977) to a gap of five years without a 

fire (from 1951 to 1956). See fire history spreadsheet in Appendix E. 

Wildlife Species 

The Refuge is a major waterfowl wintering area in southwest Idaho and eastern Oregon. In spring and 

summer, water is released from Lake Lowell to irrigate surrounding farm fields. This draw-down of the 

lake exposes mud flats that provide abundant habitat for shorebirds. The lake also produces a bumper 

crop of aquatic vegetation for birds to feed on, particularly smartweed. In fall, smartweed seeds provide a 

feast for migratory ducks heading south. In winter, Lake Lowell is home to as many as 150,000 ducks and 

15,000 Canada geese, and to the many bald eagles and other raptors attracted to the bounty provided by 

the large flocks of waterfowl. The refuge also has marsh areas where the water is manipulated to provide 

feeding, nesting, and resting habitat for mallards, sora rails, yellow-headed blackbirds, and other wildlife. 

 

Habitats surrounding the lake include riparian forest, shrub-steppe uplands, and crops. The riparian forest 

is predominantly cottonwood, peachleaf willow, and coyote willow. These forested areas provide food, 

nesting sites, and cover from predators for a variety of tree-dependent species, including a variety of song 

birds. 

 

Sagebrush, rabbitbrush, and the bunchgrass Great Basin wild rye dominate the uplands near the lake and 

on the islands. Herbivores like rabbits, gophers, mule deer, and grasshoppers, feed on upland plants and 

rely on those plants for nesting sites and cover. Approximately 240 acres of refuge land is irrigated 

cropland managed to provide food and cover for wildlife. 

 

Local farmers grow corn, beans, peas, wheat, and alfalfa. The farmers keep a share of the crop and leave 

the rest for wildlife. Pheasants, deer, quail and other wildlife feed and nest in these fields. In fall and 

winter, local Canada geese, as well as migrant geese and other waterfowl from the north, harvest the 

abundant food available in refuge fields. 

 

Other species occurring on the refuge include red-tailed hawks, northern harriers, American kestrels, 

great-horned owls, western screech owls, long-eared owls, and northern saw-whet owls Kestrels, screech 

owls, and saw-whet owls use wood duck nest boxes extensively for their nesting and winter roosting. The 

Refuge also has a resident mule deer population. Other refuge resident mammals include red fox, coyote, 

raccoon, badger, muskrat, fox squirrel, cottontail rabbit, and various small rodents. Beaver use the area 

along the New York Canal with numerous bank dens but the population is very small. On occasion river 

otters are sighted on the lake. 

The 101 islands of the Snake River FMU are distributed along 113 river miles between the Canyon-Ada 

County line in Idaho and Farewell Bend in Oregon. The islands provide a variety of habitats, including 

areas dominated by grasses and sagebrush. The Snake River Islands provide an important nesting habitat 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

K-14 Appendix K. Fire Management Plan 

for Canada geese, ducks, herons, shorebirds, gulls, cormorants, and various songbirds. The islands are 

open to public use with the exception of a closure from February 1 to May 31, to protect nesting birds. 

 

No currently listed threatened or endangered species are known to inhabit the Refuge although rare and 

sensitive species such as Bald Eagles, utilize the refuge. These species can be especially sensitive to 

disturbance during their nesting seasons. 

Water Quality 

Migratory birds and the aquatic life that inhabit the Refuge rely on healthy water. Any use of fire 

suppression chemicals such as foam or fire retardant will comply with the standards outlined in Chapter 

12 of the Interagency Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation Operations. 

Water quality could also be affected by run-off and sediments which could result from an intense burn on 

a slope followed by precipitation. 

 

Prescribed Fire & Mechanical History 

Prescribed fires have not been conducted at the Refuge in the last 10 years due to concerns with smoke 

management, proximity to wildland urban interface, and the lack of fire personnel on site. However, 18 

mechanical treatments for 1,002 acres have been completed at Deer Flat during the last decade on the 

Lake Lowell FMU (Appendix E). Treatments include mastication in riparian forests, Russian olive tree 

removal and chipping, and disking firelines. 11.5 miles of firelines are annually disked to reduce the 

potential risk of wildfire spreading off of the refuge. The disk lines have been tested during wildfire 

incidents in the past ten years and have been a key factor during suppression efforts. Mechanical and 

prescribed burn treatments have been proposed for the Snake River FMU although none have been 

completed. 

Vegetation 

The vegetation/habitat for the Refuges is described in the individual FMU characteristics with acreage 

and percentages. Vegetation types can be generally described as grasslands (FM 1/3), and shrub (FM 

2/6), and forest (FM 8/10). 

 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix K. Fire Management Plan K-15 

 

 

Fuel Model 6: Sagebrush. 

Fuel Model 1: Grassland. 

Fuel Model 1: Lacustrine 

emergent.

Fuel Model 3: Emergent. 

Fuel Model 2: Sagebrush and 

grass.

Fuel Model 1: Agricultural field.
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

K-16 Appendix K. Fire Management Plan 

Fire Behavior 

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). Weather data used in the modeling is 20 year data from 

the Boise South RAWS station (102601) located at the Boise Airport. 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 78%, live woody moisture 79% 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 4-12 

2 34-314 6-18 

6 36-207 6-15 

8 2-10 1-3 

10 10-55 5-13 

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. There are two FMUs at Deer Flat NWR. 

Fire Management Units 

FWS Fire Management Units within the FMP Total Acres Burnable Acres 

Lake Lowell 10,548 5,039 

Snake River Islands 1,220 1,220 

Totals 11,768 6,259 

Fuel Model 10: Cottonwood 

forest. 

Fuel Model 6: Willow. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix K. Fire Management Plan K-17 

3.2 Lake Lowell Fire Management Unit 

3.2.1 Lake Lowell FMU Characteristics 

Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1909 as a resting and breeding ground for 

migratory birds and other wildlife with an emphasis on wintering waterfowl. The Lake Lowell FMU is 

located in the state’s largest metropolitan area, the Treasure Valley, which creates a complex situation for 

fire managers. This FMU lies entirely in Canyon County which has a rich history in farming and 

agricultural activities. In recent years, population and urbanization are increasing rapidly with 

agricultural areas being developed throughout the county. County managers anticipate an average annual 

increase in population of 5.5 percent over the next several years. Much of the Refuge is bordered by 

private property with homes and outbuildings directly adjacent to refuge land resulting in a wildland 

urban interface situation raising concerns about managing fire on the Refuge. The potential for a fire to 

burn off of the Refuge onto private property must be considered during all fire activities at Deer Flat 

NWR. Four fire departments have jurisdictional responsibility for this private land (Appendix A). 

The habitats in the Lake Lowell FMU include wetlands (lacustrine and emergent), cottonwood and 

willow forests, shrub steppe uplands, and cultivated agricultural areas, (see table below). 

Fuel Model Composition Lake Lowell FMU 

Vegetation Type Fuel Model Acres Percent 

Cultivated Agricultural Land FM 1 328 2.5% 

Lacustrine, Emergent Wetland FM 1 1,248 12% 

Emergent Wetland FM 3 43 .04% 

Cottonwood Forest FM 8/10 1,131 11% 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

K-18 Appendix K. Fire Management Plan 

Willow Forest FM 6 1,152 11% 

Shrub Wetland FM 6 342 3.2% 

Shrub steppe Upland FM 6 762 7% 

Lake Lowell open water 5,480 52% 

Administrative sites 62 .05% 

Total 10,548 100 

3.2.2 Lake Lowell FMU Fire Environment 

All fire operations in the Lake Lowell FMU must consider the wildland urban interface situation which 

exists. A thorough safety and risk management analysis must be completed to ensure firefighter and 

public safety. 

With the number of visitors the Refuge gets annually, the presence of the public is almost certain during 

fire operations. The traffic and other considerations must be considered when making tactical decisions. 

Mainly due to the invasion of non-native cheatgrass, the shrub steppe upland vegetation around the 

Refuge has a history of frequent, fast moving intense fires. The heavy down/dead fuel loading in the 

Cottonwood Forest surrounding Lake Lowell has posed control and mop-up problems during past wildfire 

incidents. 

Along the shore of the lake, a band of debris or organic layer exists that can complicate mop-up efforts 

with long term smoldering requiring lots of water to extinguish. The band is affected by the level of the 

water in the lake. As the lake level goes up the layer of organic matter may be submerged. As the lake 

level goes down particularly in summer/fall when water levels are low, the band may require 

consideration. 

3.2.3 Lake Lowell FMU Objectives and Constraints 

 Due to concerns with the wildland urban interface situation around Lake Lowell, wildfires in this 

FMU will be aggressively suppressed. 

 Hazardous fuels treatments will be applied where appropriate; mechanical treatments will be 

considered over prescribed burning to limit the smoke impacts to the valley. 

 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. 

 Downed and standing dead trees will be protected when feasible to provide nesting and foraging 

habitat for migratory birds. 

 Firebreaks, disk lines, or native plant vegetated areas (greenbelts) will be created and/or 

maintained to mitigate the risk of wildfire moving into areas of concern such as the wildland 

urban interface or rare and sensitive habitats. 

 Prescribed fire, mechanical treatment (disking, moving, etc.), or chemical treatment will be used 

to set back succession or to remove extensive emergent stands. 

3.2.4 Lake Lowell 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 Caldwell, Nampa, and Marsing are adjacent to the 

Refuge. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix K. Fire Management Plan K-19 

 Sagebrush/grassland habitats located on the north side of the Refuge. 

 Sensitive areas of the Refuge are the riparian habitat along Lake Lowell. 

 Cultural resource sites (documented at refuge headquarters). 

 Refuge structures scattered along the north shore of the lake including refuge headquarters, 

residences, maintenance area, etc. 

3.3.1 Snake River Island FMU Characteristics 

The Snake River Islands FMU, which includes over 100 islands, is spread over 113 miles of river. The 

islands range in size from less than an acre to over 50 acres, with total acreage of 1,220 acres. Islands 

within the Snake River are the primary nesting area of southwest Idaho's "local/resident" Canada goose 

population. Geese nest on nearly all of the refuge islands. 

A wide variety of raptors use the islands throughout the year including American kestrel, great horned 

owl, long-eared owl, northern harrier, osprey, screech owl, barn owl, saw-whet owl, prairie falcon, redtailed hawk, and turkey vulture. 

Islands in this FMU vary greatly in their vegetative cover. Islands at the upstream end are fairly open in 

the middle and are dominated by shrubs such as sagebrush and greasewood. Islands in the downstream 

section are more heavily vegetated with some large stands of cottonwood with an open grassy middle. 

All of the islands have some willow invasion along their edge depending upon the amount of river 

washing. Russian olive is also an aggressive invader on many of the islands. A vegetation acreage break 

down for this FMU is not available, vegetation/fuel models present include FM 1,2,6,8. 

3.3.2 Snake River Island FMU Fire Environment 

Access to and from any fire operation on one of the Snake River Islands will have to be made by boat or 

helicopter which could slow response time or make determining a safety zone before approaching the fire 

critical. 

Consideration must also be given to the proximity to the mainland and expected fire behavior. In one 

known case, a fire has spotted from one of the islands to the mainland near Marsing. Historically, the 

shore has been sparsely populated with private structures, but development has increased and the number 

of homes has increased creating more concern should a fire ignite. 

3.3.3 Snake River Islands FMU Objectives and Constraints 

 The full range of appropriate management response (AMR) will be considered to any unplanned 

ignition; however, due to island being surrounded by water and access problems the suppression 

strategy typically will be a limited perimeter control strategy. A more aggressive strategy will be 

used if the fire spots off the island onto the shore and poses a threat to values to protect. 

 Use prescribed fire, mechanical, and/or chemical manipulation to enhance habitat where 

appropriate. 

 Any mechanical or prescribed fire treatment completed will have to be followed up with chemical 

treatments to limit the spread of invasive vegetation. 

 The waterfowl and raptor 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. 

 Downed and standing dead trees will be protected when feasible to provide nesting and foraging 

habitat for migratory birds. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

K-20 Appendix K. Fire Management Plan 

3.3.4 Snake River Islands FMU Values to Protect 

 Habitat for water fowl nesting. 

 River bank private property. 

4.0 Wildland Fire Operational Guidance 

The procedures used to implement the fire management plan (FMP) for Deer Flat NWR 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) whose responsibility is to: 

 Assess the fire situation and make a report to dispatch as soon as possible. 

 Use guidance in this FMP or a delegation of Authority to determine and implement an 

appropriate management response. 

 Determine organization, resource needs, strategy and tactics. 

 Brief incoming and assigned resources on the organization, strategy and tactics, weather and fire 

behavior, LCES (lookouts, communication, escape routes, and safety zones) 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 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix K. Fire Management Plan K-21 

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 refuge, (completed surveys are on file at the refuge 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 Refuge coordinates with the BLM in fire management operations. The Refuge 

coordinates with this agency for dispatch services through Boise Interagency Logistics Center. Any 

wildfire AMR actions would be coordinated through the appropriate dispatch centers with neighboring 

federal agencies. 

4.1.2 Preparedness 

Deer Flat NWR is not funded for a dedicated fire crew. The Regional Fire Education Specialist is 

currently stationed at the refuge 1⁄2 time and may be available to coordinate initial attack activities. The 

FWS has an Intragovernmental agreement with Boise BLM for initial attack fire response. The SE Idaho 

NWRC FMO and Deer Flat NWR Project Leader will meet with federal and local cooperators (BLM and 

Nampa Fire Department) 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 refuge 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 the Refuge Project Leader to update Delegations of Authority 

with suppression constraints. 

 Fire qualified personnel work with the Complex FMO to schedule annual medical examinations 

prior to the 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. 

 Prior to fire season the Refuge step-up plan will be reviewed by the Complex FMO and the 

Refuge Project Leader; the plan will be implemented during fire season according to daily fire 

weather forecasts. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

K-22 Appendix K. Fire Management Plan 

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 

Annual Fire Physical x 

Annual Refresher Training x 

Annual Fitness Testing x 

Review and Update Fire Management Plan x 

Supplies and Equipment 

Deer Flat NWR maintains a small fire cache at the shop for use on fires including tools, nomex, pumps, 

and water handling equipment. Prior to the fire season all refuge fire suppression equipment will be 

inspected to determine readiness. All equipment will be brought to a duty ready status. Equipment will 

be checked to ensure the refuge has enough gear to meet the normal unit strength requirements. 

Communications 

The Refuge utilizes BLM communications systems, including repeaters and radio frequencies for fire 

operations. The FWS has a radio frequency use MOU with the Idaho State BLM which is included in 

Appendix F. Canyon County Fire Radio Frequencies are included in Appendix G. 

4.1.3 Detection 

The fire detection system relies on reports of fires by the public, law enforcement agencies and refuge 

staff. Regardless of how any fires are discovered they need to be reported to the Refuge Project Leader, 

Complex FMO, and Boise Dispatch (384-3400) immediately so suppression actions can be started 

without delay. Information for fire size-up/information to be provided to Boise Dispatch Center can be 

found in the Initial Attack Size Up document in Appendix G. 

4.1.4 Dispatch, Initial Response, and Initial Attack 

The Refuge is a cooperator in the response area for the Boise Dispatch Center. Mobilization of fire 

resources to and from the Refuge is handled through Boise Dispatch. 

As stated above (Appendix F), the Boise District Bureau of Land Management will provide primary 

initial attack services for Deer Flat NWR. Initial attack shall include a determination of fire cause. The 

Project Leader will coordinate with Boise Dispatch for the need for further fire investigation. The Zone 

Law Enforcement Officer will also be informed of any suspected human-caused fire. 

 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix K. Fire Management Plan K-23 

All fire communications will operate on the assigned frequencies located in Appendix F. 

Upon discovery of a fire, all subsequent actions will be based on the following: 

 The Project Leader or designee will provide the IC with a Delegation of Authority. 

 The Incident Commander (IC) will locate, size-up, and coordinate suppression actions. The IC 

will start the 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 Refuge staff 

and Boise Dispatch Center to complete a Wildland Fire Decision Support System 

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. The refuge staff will request assistance from the Regional Office fire management staff or 

BLM 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 

Aircraft may be used in all phases of fire management operations. All aircraft must be National Business 

Center Aviation Management Directorate or Forest Service approved. Air operations at Deer Flat NWR 

will be coordinated through Boise Dispatch Center and must adhere to all DOI aviation policy. 

4.1.7 Reviews and Investigations 

Reviews and investigations are used by wildland fire and aviation managers to assess and improve the 

effectiveness and safety of organizational operations. Brief descriptions of various reviews and 

associated procedures and requirements, including those for serious wildland fire accidents, entrapments, 

and fire trespass are listed in the corresponding Red Book chapter. 

Incident Commanders and Single Resource Bosses will ensure After Action Reviews (AAR) take place in 

a timely manner and that any significant issues are brought to the attention of the Complex FMO and 

Refuge Project Leader. 

4.1.9 Reports 

The Complex 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. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

K-24 Appendix K. Fire Management Plan 

 All escaped prescribed fires. When a fire exceeds and cannot be brought back into prescription, it 

will be declared a wildfire. A separate new report will be 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 Refuge fire staff.

4.2 Hazardous Fuels Management 

All prescribed fire treatments on the Refuge 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 activities at the Refuge qualify as categorical exclusions consistent with 

Departmental NEPA regulations at 43 CFR 46.210, 43 CFR 46.205,and Departmental NEPA procedures 

at 516 DM 8. 

4.2.1.1 Program Overview 

Prescribed fire can be a useful tool for restoring and maintaining natural conditions and processes at the 

Refuge. 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 

by the Refuge staff and Complex FMO. 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 

Refuge Project Leader will approve prescribed fire plans after review of the plan by the Complex FMO. 

Due to the proximity to the wildland urban interface and smoke concerns, no prescribed fire treatments 

have been implemented at the Refuge in the last 10 years. Prescribed fire can be a viable habitat 

treatment tool for the refuge if smoke and WUI issues are properly mitigated. 

The prescribed burn window for the Refuge is generally late-fall to early-Spring. This can depend on the 

loading and type of vegetation being burned. Detailed prescribed burn plans will be developed for each 

planned treatment which will address fuel loading, weather conditions, adjacent properties, and potential 

smoke concerns. Specific FMU hazardous fuels objectives and history is described in chapter 3. 

Some specific objectives for the Refuge program include: 

 Conduct a vigorous hazardous fuels reduction program with the highest professional and 

technological standards 

 Identify the hazardous fuels reduction method most appropriate to specific situations and areas 

 Efficiently accomplish resource management objectives through the application of prescribed 

fire, mechanical, and chemical fuel reduction methods 

 Continually evaluate the hazardous fuels reduction program to better meet program goals by 

refining prescriptions treatments and monitoring methods, and by integrating applicable technical 

and scientific advancements 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix K. Fire Management Plan K-25 

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 Refuge is early spring and 

late fall; national and regional preparedness levels are low at this time of year. 

4.2.1.3 Project Planning 

The FMO will coordinate with the Project Leader to identify high priority fuels treatment projects. All 

prescribed fire treatments on the Refuge will follow guidance outlined in the Interagency 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 Project Leader 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 Project Leader 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 Project Leader has final approval authority for the 

Prescribed Fire Plan and the "GO/NO-GO" checklist, the Prescribed Fire Burn Boss has the responsibility 

to make the on-site tactical decisions to safely complete the project. The 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. 

Weather information from the National Weather Service, RAWS station, and other local weather stations 

will be monitored by the burn boss the week before planned ignition to determine if suitable conditions 

exist for project completion. A spot weather forecast will be requested, (via the internet) from the Boise 

NWS office for each day of planned ignition. The burn boss or designee will monitor onsite weather 

every 2 hour during unit ignition. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

K-26 Appendix K. Fire Management Plan 

When all prescription criteria are within the acceptable range, the Prescribed Burn Boss will select an 

ignition time based on current and predicted weather forecasts. The Burn Boss will 

Ensure that the Agency Administrator GO/NO-GO Checklist is valid and complete and sign the 

Prescribed Fire GO/NO-GO Checklist the morning of planned ignition.

 

A thorough briefing will be given by the Prescribed Burn Boss and specific assignments and placement of 

personnel will be discussed, (using briefing outline in Prescribed Fire Plan). A spot weather forecast will 

be obtained on the day of ignition and all prescription elements will be rechecked to determine if all 

elements are still within the approved ranges. If all prescription elements are met, a test fire will be 

ignited to determine on-site fire behavior conditions as affected by current weather. If conditions are not 

satisfactory, the test fire will be suppressed and the burn will be rescheduled. If conditions are 

satisfactory the burn will continue as planned. 

A prescribed fire must be declared a wildfire by those identified in the burn plan when that person(s) 

determines that the contingency actions have failed or are likely to fail and cannot be mitigated. 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 (WFDSS) undertaken when needed. The 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 and fire 

departments will be call 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 

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 prescribed burns 

through scientific monitoring of weather conditions and formal coordination of burns. 

Prior to the burn season the Fire Management Officer submits a list of planned burn projects to the 

Missoula Monitoring Unit via internet. This information creates a data base describing the type of burn, 

number of acres in each unit, and unit location and elevation. Each burn unit is assigned an identification 

number. The day before the planned ignition, the burn boss accesses the internet data base to submit a 

proposed prescribed burn for the following day. The program coordinator and a meteorologist provide 

timely restriction messages for airsheds with planned burning. 

The Missoula Monitoring Unit issues daily decisions which can restrict burning when atmospheric 

conditions are not conducive to good smoke dispersion. Restrictions may be directed by airshed, 

elevation or by special impact zones around populated areas. The burn boss will access the daily decision 

notice from the monitoring unit via the internet. Prescribed burn projects will not be conducted if the 

Missoula Monitoring Unit posts a burning restriction for the airshed in which the refuge is located. 

Deer Flat NWR is located in the Treasure Valley which is a non-attainment area for air quality, (Ozone 

and PM 2.5). Any prescribed fire treatments conducted will take special consideration for the nonattainment area. Critical and other smoke sensitive areas will be addressed with more detail in each burn 

plan. See Non-Attainment Map in Appendix A. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix K. Fire Management Plan K-27 

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. 

All prescribed fires declared a wildfire will have an investigative review initiated by the Project Leader. 

The level and scope of the review will be determined by policy and procedures of the Interagency 

Standards for Fire and 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 Project Leader 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 Complex FMO, who will file 

an Individual Fire Report (DI-1202) electronically within 10 days of it being declared out. The Complex 

FMO or assistant will also complete a prescribed fire critique and FFI monitoring report within one 

month of project completion. 

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 Refuge, mechanical and chemical treatment strategies are available as non-fire 

management tools. The following objectives for non-fire treatments of hazardous fuels at the Refuge 

include: 

 Establish defensible space along wildland-urban interface boundary and around Refuge 

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 

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. 

The Refuge has an active program of mowing and disking fire breaks along the refuge boundary. Fire 

breaks are mowed/disked generally in late spring to early summer, (see Appendix A for disk line map). 

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 Project Leader based on changing habitat 

conditions on the Refuge, changes in management objectives, and changes in management techniques or 

new information. The Complex FMO and Refuge staff will coordinate with federal and state partners and 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

K-28 Appendix K. Fire Management Plan 

review existing County Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPP) 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 Project Leader will coordinate with the Incident Commander, Complex FMO, and Regional Office 

fire staff to determine if an ES or BAR plan is needed for a Wildland fire incident. The Project Leader 

will form an interdisciplinary team which could include fire and resource specialists to develop and write 

the ESR 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, and comply with legal requirements. Each ES or 

BAR Plan will include a cost/risk analysis of proposed emergency rehabilitation treatment actions to 

assist agency administrators and reviewing authorities in assessing the proposed actions. The level and 

sophistication of the analysis should be commensurate with the scope and complexity of the plan. 

ES plans should be submitted to the Regional Fire Management Coordinator (RFMC) within 7 calendar 

days of the wildfire containment. If additional time is needed, extensions may be negotiated with the 

(RFMC). BAR plans must be submitted before the end of the fiscal year in which the wildfire fire occurs. 

Additional ES and BAR guidance may be found in the FWS Directives (095 FW3) and the Interagency 

Burned Area Emergency Response Guidebook. 

4.4 Prevention, Mitigation, and Education 

The fire education program for the Refuge 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 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix K. Fire Management Plan K-29 

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 Refuge 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 Refuge, 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 the 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 Refuge 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 as outlined in the Southern Idaho Fire Restrictions and Closures Guide. The Complex 

FMO will recommend when such restrictions may be necessary. Closures will be authorized by the 

Project Leader in consultation with the Complex FMO. 

The Refuge is bordered by private property which could be at risk to wildfire should one start on the 

refuge. Light fuels such as cheatgrass in some areas near private property elevate the risk of rapid fire 

spread. These areas will be addressed in (CWPP) and treated by chemical, mechanical or prescribed fire 

means as appropriate to reduce the risk. Refuge personnel will work with interagency partners to educate 

the community on fire mitigation techniques, consequences of doing or not doing the prescribed 

treatment, and issues related to any resulting smoke. A message of personal responsibility and Firewise 

principles will be included in any public contacts regarding fire mitigation. 

Fire Investigation 

Fire management personnel will attempt to locate and protect the probable point of origin and record 

pertinent information required to determine fire cause. They will be alert for possible evidence, protect 

the scene and report findings to the fireline supervisor. 

Prompt and efficient investigation of all suspicious fires will be carried out. However, fire management 

personnel should not question suspects or pursue the fire investigation unless they are currently law 

enforcement commission qualified. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

K-30 Appendix K. Fire Management Plan 

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 Project Leader may request a Fire Investigator through Boise 

Dispatch. 

Public Information and Education 

Educating the public on the value of fire as a natural process and as an effective tool to reduce risk to 

communities and resources from wildfire 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 as well as other mitigation techniques such as 

mechanical and chemical treatments. This may include supplemental handouts, signs, personal contacts, 

auto tour routes, or media releases. When possible, interpretive presentations will address the fire 

management program and explain the role of fire in the environment. 

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. 

5. Monitoring and Evaluation 

Monitoring and evaluation are part of the Refuge 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 Fire Management Plan 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 

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. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix K. Fire Management Plan K-31 

List of Appendices 

Appendix A: Maps 

Appendix B: Refuge Staff Fire Contact List 

Appendix C: Categorical Exclusion for Fire Management Operations 

Appendix D: Deer Flat NWR Climate Charts and Graphs 

Appendix E: Prescribed and Wildfire History 

Appendix F: Interagency Agreements & Delegations 

Appendix G: Initial Attack Fire Size Up 

Appendix H: Behave Plus Runs 

Appendix I: Radio Frequency List 

Appendix J: Step-up Plan 

Appendix K: Updates 

Appendices A-J are available at request from the Refuge. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

K-32 Appendix K. Fire Management Plan 

Appendix K: Annual Updates
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix K. Fire Management Plan K-33 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

K-34 Appendix K. Fire Management Plan 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix K. Fire Management Plan K-35 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

K-36 Appendix K. Fire Management Plan 

 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix L. Lake Lowell Recreation Data 

Appendix L. Lake Lowell Recreation Data 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix L. Lake Lowell Recreation Data 

Document continues on next page. 
 

Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge—Lake Lowell Water 

Based Recreation Data Summary 

By Rudy M. Schuster 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Government. 

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual 

copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report. 
ii

Contents 

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Sampling Methods: Lake Lowell .................................................................................................................................... 2

Boater Observation Data Collection Methods ............................................................................................................ 2

Boater Observation Sampling Locations, Time Blocks, & Sampling Schedule ....................................................... 5

Parking Lot and Vehicle Count Method ...................................................................................................................... 8

Results ..........................................................................................................................................................................10

Number of Vessels Observed ...................................................................................................................................10

East section of the East Pool .................................................................................................................................10

Headquarters section of the East Pool ..................................................................................................................11

West Pool ..............................................................................................................................................................12

Boater Characteristic Description ..............................................................................................................................13

Vessel Type ..........................................................................................................................................................13

Vessel Size ...........................................................................................................................................................14

Location in the Pool ...............................................................................................................................................14

Recreational boating activity ..................................................................................................................................15

Activity summary for locations in pools ..................................................................................................................16

Compliance with no wake zone .............................................................................................................................17

Vessel Speed ........................................................................................................................................................18

Summary of boater characteristics ........................................................................................................................18

Parking Lot Traffic Counter Data ...............................................................................................................................19

Parking lot traffic count results: Upper Dam West Entrance ..................................................................................20

Parking lot traffic count results: Upper Dam East Entrance ...................................................................................22

Parking lot traffic count results: Parking Lot 1 .......................................................................................................24
iii

Parking lot traffic count results: Lower Dam Recreation Area Entrance ................................................................26

Parking lot traffic count results: Parking Lot 7 .......................................................................................................28

Parking lot traffic count summary ..........................................................................................................................29

References Cited ..........................................................................................................................................................30

Appendix 1: Lake Use Observation Data Sheet

Appendix 2: Boater Observation Sampling Schedule

Appendix 3: Parking Lot Count Data Sheet

Figures 

Figure 1. Map of Lake Lowell .................................................................................................................................... 6

Tables 

Table 1. Categories for variables on observation collection sheet ........................................................................... 2

Table 2. East section of the East Pool: Low and Peak number of vessels during observation period ................... 10

Table 3. Headquarters section of the East Pool: Low and Peak number of vessels during observation period ..... 11

Table 4. West Pool: Low and Peak number of vessels during observation period................................................. 12

Table 5. Vessel type summary data for all observations ........................................................................................ 13

Table 6. Vessel size summary data for all observations ........................................................................................ 14

Table 7. Location summary data for all observations............................................................................................. 15

Table 8. Activity summary data for all observations ............................................................................................... 15

Table 9. Location of Activities in West Pool ........................................................................................................... 16

Table 10. Location of Activities in Headquarters section of the East Pool ............................................................... 16

Table 11. Location of Activities in East section of the East Pool .............................................................................. 17

Table 12. Compliance summary for vessels in East section of the East Pool no wake zone ................................... 18
iv

Table 13. Vessel speed summary data for all observations ..................................................................................... 18

Table 14. Vehicle to trailer weighting ratios1 from parking lot counts from 4/15-9/30/11 .......................................... 19

Table 15. Summary descriptive statistics for vehicle traffic counts from magnetic counter ...................................... 20

Table 16. Minimum, maximum and average number of trailers estimated using trailer weight ratios ...................... 20

Table 17. Parking lot traffic count results: Upper Dam West Entrance, 5/19/11 to 6/1/11 ....................................... 21

Table 18. Parking lot traffic count results: Upper Dam West Entrance, 9/1/11 to 9/14/11 ....................................... 21

Table 19. Average number of vehicles per day Upper Dam West Entrance ............................................................ 22

Table 20. Parking lot traffic count results: Upper Dam East Entrance, 5/19/11 to 6/1/11 ........................................ 23

Table 21. Parking lot traffic count results: Upper Dam East Entrance, 9/1/11 to 9/14/11 ........................................ 23

Table 22. Average number of vehicles per day Upper Dam East Entrance ............................................................. 24

Table 23. Parking lot traffic count results: Parking Lot 1, 5/19/11 to 6/1/11 ............................................................. 25

Table 24. Parking lot traffic count results: Parking Lot 1, 9/1/11 to 9/14/11 ............................................................. 25

Table 25. Average number of vehicles per day Parking Lot 1 ................................................................................. 26

Table 26. Parking lot traffic count results: Lower Dam Recreation Area Entrance, 5/19/11 to 6/1/11 ...................... 27

Table 27. Parking lot traffic count results: Lower Dam Recreation Area Entrance, 9/1/11 to 9/14/11 ...................... 27

Table 28. Average number of vehicles per day Lower Dam Recreation Area Entrance .......................................... 28

Table 29. Parking lot traffic count results: Parking Lot 7, 9/1/11 to 9/14/11 ............................................................. 28

Table 30. Average number of vehicles Parking Lot 7 .............................................................................................. 29
1

Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge—Lake Lowell Visitor 

Use Data Summary 

By Rudy M. Schuster 

Introduction 

Established in 1909, Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge is one of the oldest refuges in the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. The Refuge has two units, Lake Lowell and the Snake River Islands. 

The Lake Lowell Unit is 10,636 acres and includes the almost 9,000-acre Lake Lowell and surrounding 

lands. The Refuge offers the six priority wildlife-dependent activities (fishing, hunting, wildlife 

observation, wildlife interpretation, wildlife photography and environmental education) as defined in 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act as amended by the Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 as well as other non-wildlife-dependent activities. The purpose of this study 

is to describe use characteristics of recreational boaters on Lake Lowell. This study does not address 

use in other parts of the Refuge or other recreational activities. 

The sampling and data collection consisted of observations of boat activity made from fixed 

vantage points on the west and east pools of Lake Lowell to develop vessels-at-one-time (VAOT) 

estimates for three areas: the West Pool, the Headquarters section of the East Pool, and the East section 

of the East Pool. A complete description of the sampling locations and a map are provided below. 
2

Traffic counters were also used to collect data on the number of vehicles entering the parking lots. Data 

were collected between April 15 and September 30, 2011. 

Sampling Methods: Lake Lowell 

Boater Observation Data Collection Methods 

Observers were located on-shore at three vantage points (see Figure 1) that provided a view of 

activity on the Lake. The observers collected data in 20 minute intervals (three times an hour). Based on 

the sampling blocks (described below), there was a maximum of 10 observation periods when vessels 

were counted per sampling day, per observer. Boat activity was recorded the first time the boat was 

observed during the 20 minute observation period. However, any individual boat could be counted again 

at the next observation period. Thus, each observation is a stand-alone VAOT estimate for that 

observation period. The following data was collected at each observation period: time of day, type of 

vessel, and vessel size, activity, and speed. Compliance with the no-wake postings were recorded within 

the no-wake portion of the East section of the East Pool only since neither the Headquarters section of 

the East Pool or the West Pool have large no-wake zones. Data were collected on a field data sheet. 

Following each survey, weather conditions, average wind speed, average temperature, and water surface 

conditions were also recorded to summarize the conditions during the survey period. A copy of the 

boater observation data collection sheet can be found in Appendix 1. The observation categories are 

listed in Table 1. 

Table 1. Categories for variables on observation collection sheet 

Variable Categories 

Vessel 

Type Motorboat Pontoon 

boat 

Human 

powered 

Sail 

boat 

Personal 

watercraft 

Kite 

board 

Wind 

surfer Other 
3

Travel was defined as a vessel moving through the survey area in a single direction from one 

point to another. Milling was assigned to vessels transitioning through the survey area in several 

directions (greater than two headings) with no apparent destination. Vessels classified as ski/tubing or 

fishing included only those that were actively engaged in those activities. The mere observation of 

fishing poles, skis, wakeboards, inner tubes, or other recreational equipment on a vessel did not result in 

an activity being classified as fishing or ski/tubing. Vessels classified as recreational included wind 

surfers and kite boarders, or vessels anchored with people swimming nearby or picnicking and not 

fishing and/or observing wildlife. 

Speed classifications were qualitatively determined for each vessel pass observed in the survey 

area based largely on Gorzelany (2005). Speed classifications assigned to vessels under power included 

Idle, Slow, Plowing, Cruising, and Planing. Wind powered (i.e. under sail) and human powered (i.e. 

oar/paddle) speeds were recorded as applicable following the same criteria listed below. Speed 

classifications were defined as follows: 

 Idle Speed – The minimum speed that maintains steerage of a vessel, or the speed at 

which a vessel is normally docked. Little or no displacement of water is observable from 

either the bow or stern, and the vessel remains level in the water at all times. This speed 

is estimated at approximately one to three miles per hour. 

 Slow Speed – The speed at which all vessels are completely off plane and fully settled in 

the water. Some minimal water displacement at either the bow or stern (or both) may be 

observed. This speed is estimated at approximately five to seven miles per hour. 

Speed Idle Slow Plowing Cruising Planing Under 

Sail Paddling 

Activity Travel Milling Skiing & 

Tubing Fishing Recreation-other 

Size Less than 16 

feet 

16 to 25 

feet 26 to 39 feet 
4

 Plowing Speed – An intermediate speed between cruising speed and slow speed. The 

bow of the vessel typically rides higher than the stern, and substantial displacement of 

water occurs. Depending on the size and type of vessel, plowing may occur at a variety 

of speeds. This speed designation is used specifically for vessels with planing-type hulls. 

For the purpose of this study, Plowing Speed is estimated at approximately eight to 10 

miles per hour. 

 Cruising Speed – A qualitative speed designation uniquely applied to a relatively fast 

moving vessel with a non-planing type hull (i.e. a pontoon boat or displacement hull 

vessel). This speed classification is identified by noticeable water displacement from the 

bow and/or stern and an observed speed faster than the previously defined speed 

classifications. Vessels at Cruising Speed are estimated to travel at speeds between 11 

and 20 miles per hour. 

 Planing Speed - A vessel traveling at sufficient speed to partially raise the bow out of the 

water. The majority of planing vessels are estimated to travel at speeds in excess of 

15mph, however vessel planing speeds vary widely depending on vessel size and hull 

design. 

Vessel speed was qualitatively determined and is therefore subject to individual observer 

interpretation. Physical and environmental factors, including wind speed/direction, may affect vessel 

speed as well as the degree of water displacement from the bow and/or stern. Observers were instructed 

to consider these factors and request the opinion of their fellow observer (when possible) if they were 

undecided between two vessel speeds. In instances where a decision between two speeds was difficult, 

observers selected the slower speed. This may provide a potential underestimate or more conservative 

assessment. 
5

Boater compliance was evaluated for the no wake zone in the east section of the east pool and 

classified as either compliant (a vessel which is maintaining a speed that did not produce a wake) or 

non-compliant (a vessel that was determined to be producing a wake in an area posted as “no wake”). 

This assessment was made by the observer in the field. 

Efforts were made throughout the survey to ensure the quality and consistency of the data 

collected. Training sessions were conducted at each site prior to study commencement. The training 

session allowed the observers to gain familiarity with the field data collection sheets, data collection 

methods, and geographic characteristics unique to each survey site. Binoculars and spotting scopes were 

available to observers. 

Boater Observation Sampling Locations, Time Blocks, & Sampling Schedule 

Use levels on the Lake were organized into three categories: 1) Low use, 2) High use, and 3) 

Peak use days. Peak use days are times that are known to be the highest levels of use on the lake (e.g. 

Memorial Day, Labor Day). High use days are non-holiday days when use levels are known to be high 

(e.g. weekends in August, opening day). Finally, low use days are week days and other less popular 

times. For the purposes of this study, these use estimates were made based on the expert judgment of 

Refuge management. 

Lake Lowell was organized into the following three use zones for the purpose of this study. The 

west pool was observed from the Lower Dam observation point. Two vantage points were necessary in 

the east pool due to the topography of the area; the east section of the east pool was observed from the 

Viewing Platform east of the Visitor Center (Headquarters section of the East Pool or Headquarters 

section) and the Gotts Point observation point (East section of the East Pool or East section). Refer to 

Map 1. 
!(

!(

!(

West Pool

HQ Section of

East Pool

East Section of

East Pool

West Pool OP

HQ Section OP

East Section OP

Data Sources: USFWS Refuge Boundaries from USFWS/R1; 2009 Idaho NAIP Imagery from USDA

File: 12-005-9 Map Date: 05/03/2012

No Wake Zone

Observation Points !( West Pool OP !( HQ Section OP !( East Section OP

Approximate Observation Areas

West Pool

HQ Section of East Pool

East Section of East Pool

012 0.5

Miles
7

The plan included allowing observers to be in the field collecting data between 7am and 9pm. 

Five time blocks were used for the study. The blocks were three hours long; except for block 5 that was 

a two hour block. The time blocks used were: 7am to 10am; 10am to 1pm; 1pm to 4pm; 4pm to 7pm; 

and 7pm to 9pm. These time blocks accounted for the variation in recreation activity styles (e.g., 

morning fishing, afternoon water skiing, after dinner cruising). Actual observation times in the field 

were dependent on the random schedule generated and the availability of observers from the Refuge. 

The full sampling schedule can be found in Appendix 2. The schedule was stratified into the three zones 

on the Lake as described in the sampling location section. A combination of purposive and random 

methods were used to design the schedule. Peak use days were purposively sampled. Peak days 

represent potential boater conflicts and other stresses on the system that are important for management 

to identify and understand. Low and high use days were randomly selected. 

 The following definitions apply to the sampling schedule. A Sampling Day is a single date that 

sampling took place (e.g. April 15 or July 4). A Sampling Block is the three hour block that the field 

technician spends in the field. A Sampling Episode is when data is being collected from one of the 

vantage points (e.g. on April 15 observations will be made at the Gotts Point vantage point). An 

Observation period is when the field technician records boat data on the lake. One observation period 

occurs every 20 minutes, allowing for a maximum of 10 observation periods during each three hour 

sampling block. 

There are a total of 169 potential sampling days between April 15, 2011 and September 30, 

2011: 9 holiday days (3 holiday weekends), 42 regular weekend days, and 118 regular weekdays. The 

original sampling plan included the following. Each of the 3 lake zones would be sampled twice on peak 

use holiday weekends. This would result in a total of 6 sampling days during peak use times. Each zone 

would be sampled 3 times in each time block during high use days, resulting in 15 sampling days during 
8

high use days. Finally, each zone would be sampled 4 days in each time block during low use times, 

resulting in 20 sampling days on low use days. 

Minor modifications were necessary due to issues such as weather, availability of field 

personnel, and other unforeseen issues. Prior to each field day the data collection team consulted local 

weather forecasts to avoid poor weather that may influence boat traffic patterns or compromise personal 

safety. When possible, the next available sampling day of the same use type in the same use zone was 

selected to replace the missed sampling episode. 

The final sampling schedule resulted in the following number of observations at each location: 

903 observations at the west pool; 740 observations at the Headquarters section of the East Pool; and 

453 observations at the East section of the East Pool. The data collection methods produced a diversity 

of types of use days (low, medium, and high), times of day, and locations on the Lake. However, the 

results may not apply to locations, days, and times of the day that were not included in the analyses. 

Parking Lot and Vehicle Count Method 

An NC-200 Portable Traffic Analyzer which utilizes Vehicle Magnetic Imaging was used to 

count vehicles entering the parking areas. These devices count vehicles in only one direction of travel. 

Traffic counters and support for using the counters was provided by U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Central Federal Lands Highway Division (CFLHD) located in Lakewood Colorado. 

A sampling schedule was designed to collect traffic data from each of the use level days at five 

different parking areas. The parking areas were: 1) Upper Dam West Entrance, 2) Upper Dam East 

Entrance, 3) Parking Lot 1, 4) Lower Dam Recreation Area Entrance, and 5) Parking Lot 7. Traffic data 

collection consisted of setting up the counter and collecting data for 14 continuous days. This occurred 

twice for each parking area. The 14 day sampling periods included all three use level designations (low 

use days, high use days, and peak use days). The two week periods were: May 19 to June 1 and 
9

September 1 to September 14. A technical issue meant that data were collected at Parking Lot 7 only in 

September. 

A single set-up configuration was designed for each of the parking areas and used during both 

sampling episodes. A research technician was stationed at the parking area to do a one-time calibration 

of the traffic count method. For a two-hour period the observer counted the number of vehicles entering 

the area and the number of boats. Observer vehicle counts were compared to traffic counter data to 

confirm the accuracy of the counters. 

A ratio of vehicles with trailers and without was established to estimate the total number of 

vessels entering the system on the sample days. The ratio was created using data from regular parking 

lot vehicle counts performed by Refuge staff and volunteers. One parking lot count consisted of a 

Refuge volunteer spending one hour in each parking lot and counting the number of vehicles, trailers, 

number of people per vehicle, and their apparent activity. Data were used from a total of 87 parking lot 

counts across all lots with traffic counters. Counts were conducted throughout the 2011 season (May to 

September), distributed across times of the day (morning, afternoon, evening), and conducted on 

weekdays and weekends. Specific day and time blocks for parking lot counts were determined by a preexisting random sampling schedule established by the refuge. 

Ratio weights were established by dividing the average number of trailers by the average number 

of vehicles observed during the observations for that lot. For example, if 100 vehicles entered a parking 

area and 50 of them were pulling trailers, the ratio weight used for that lot would be 0.50. A weight of 

0.50 indicates that half of the vehicles were pulling trailers. Outliers in the data were adjusted because 

there is the possibility of peak use levels during holiday events. Any values beyond three standard 

deviations from the average were brought into the third standard deviation based on data for each 

individual lot. Only two outliers were identified and adjusted. 
10

Results 

Number of Vessels Observed 

This section reports the number of vessels-at-one-time (VAOT) observed in the East section of 

the East Pool, Headquarters section of the East Pool, and West Pool for the particular time block. The 

range provides a sense of the variation in Lake use. The observations were made at 20 minute intervals. 

The data are stratified by the use level categories: weekday low use, weekend high use, and holiday 

peak use. The results are shown in Tables 2, 3, and 4. 

East section of the East Pool 

Use in the East section of the East Pool during low use and high use days was not very different; 

with the exception of one day when the peak number of vessels on a weekend day was 11. The highest 

number of vessels observed on the East section of the East Pool was 23 during the 4th of July weekend. 

Table 2. East section of the East Pool: Low and Peak number of vessels during observation period 

Date Use Level Designation Time interval Low # vessels observed Peak # vessels observed Range 

 

5/13/11 Weekday low use 1:00 pm to 3:40 pm 2 7 5 

8/15/11 Weekday low use 4:00 pm to 6:40 pm 1 1 

9/16/11 Weekday low use 10:00 am to 12:40 pm 1 2 1 

 

4/30/11 Weekend high use 1:00 pm to 3:40 pm 1 3 2 

6/4/11 Weekend high use 10:00 am to 12:40 pm 6 11 5 

7/16/11 Weekend high use 7:00 pm to 8:40 pm 3 8 5 

8/14/11 Weekend high use 10:00 am to 12:40 pm 2 8 6 

 

7/2/11 Holiday peak use 4:00 pm to 6:40 pm 11 23 12 

9/5/11 Holiday peak use 10:00 am to 12:20 pm 1 8 7 
11

Headquarters section of the East Pool 

Peak use in the Headquarters section of the East Pool on low use days ranged from 1 to 11 

vessels. Peak use on weekend high use days ranged from 4 to 51 vessels. However, the report of 51 is 

not consistent with other counts from this area. The observer indicated that the number was accurate and 

that July 10th 2011 was an unusually high use day. Holiday peak use days were similar to other weekend 

high use days; peak use ranged from 6 to 14. Use levels in the Headquarters section of the East Pool 

were consistent across the three use strata. 

Table 3. Headquarters section of the East Pool: Low and Peak number of vessels during observation period 

Date Use Level Designation Time interval Low # vessels observed Peak # vessels observed Range 

 

5/5/11 Weekday low use 10:00 am to 12:40 pm 1 11 10 

5/23/11 Weekday low use 1:00 pm to 4:00 pm 1 2 1 

6/24/11 Weekday low use 10:00 am to 12:40 pm 3 10 7 

7/19/11 Weekday low use 7:40 pm to 8:20 pm 3 4 1 

8/10/11 Weekday low use 1:00 pm to 3:40 pm 2 10 8 

9/1/11 Weekday low use 12:00 pm to 12:20 pm 1 1 

9/26/11 Weekday low use 4:00 pm to 6:00 pm 1 3 2 

 

4/24/11 Weekend high use 10 am to 12:40 pm 1 4 3 

6/18/11 Weekend high use 1:00 pm to 1:20 pm 3 4 1 

7/10/11 Weekend high use 4:30 pm to 7:00 pm 30 51 21 

8/6/11 Weekend high use 10:00 am to 12:40 pm 5 11 6 

8/28/11 Weekend high use 4:00 pm to 7:00 pm 1 13 12 

 

5/30/11 Holiday peak use 1:00 pm to 4:00 pm 1 6 5 

9/3/11 Holiday peak use 10 am to 12:40 pm 3 14 11 
12

West Pool 

Peak use in the West Pool on low use days ranged from 1 to 21 vessels. The peak of 21 vessels 

on August 5th 2011 was again not consistent with other low use day observations. The next highest 

report was 9. Weekend high use peak use ranged from 1 to 23 vessels. Finally, peak use on holiday peak 

use days ranged from 3 to 19 vessels. In general, the low use days are lower than both the weekend and 

holiday days. The weekend and holiday days were similar. The highest number of vessels observed in 

the West Pool was 23 at one time. 

Table 4. West Pool: Low and Peak number of vessels during observation period 

Date Use Level Designation Time interval Low # vessels observed Peak # vessels observed Range 

 

5/3/11 Weekday low use 9:00 pm to 9:40 pm 1 2 1 

5/18/11 Weekday low use 11:00 am to 12:40 pm 2 1 1 

6/29/11 Weekday low use 1:00 pm to 3:20 pm 2 2 

7/11/11 Weekday low use 10:00 am to 12:40 pm 3 5 2 

8/5/11 Weekday low use 7:00 pm to 9:00 pm 10 21 11 

8/23/11 Weekday low use 7:00 pm to 9:00 pm 1 9 8 

9/21/11 Weekday low use 1:00 pm to 3:40 pm 4 8 4 

 

4/16/11 Weekend high use 3:00 pm to 6:00 pm 3 19 16 

5/7/11 Weekend high use 4:00 pm to 7:00 pm 1 1 

6/12/11 Weekend high use 10:00 am to 12:40 pm 1 21 20 

7/24/11 Weekend high use 7:00 pm to 9:00 pm 4 21 17 

8/20/11 Weekend high use 1:00 pm to 3:40 pm 6 23 17 

 

5/29/11 Holiday peak use 10:00 am to 12:40 pm 1 3 2 

7/3/11 Holiday peak use 7:00 pm to 8:40 pm 11 19 8 
13

Boater Characteristic Description 

Results of the boater characteristics data are reported in both raw numbers and percentages of 

boats observed. Percentages allow for comparison across the three pools. The observers collected data in 

20 minute intervals; one observation every 20 minutes. 

Vessel Type 

 Results of the vessel type data are shown in Table 5. The majority of vessels on Lake Lowell are 

motorboats. The Headquarters section of the East Pool has the most pontoon boats (3%) compared to 

the West Pool and East section of the East Pool (2% and <1%, respectively). The distribution of human 

powered boats was similar. Less than 1% of all boats observed were sailboats in the Headquarters 

section of the East Pool and none were observed in the West Pool or East section of the East Pool. The 

largest percentage of personal watercraft were observed in the Headquarters section of the East Pool 

(7%); closely followed by the West Pool (6%) and finally the East section of the East Pool (4%). No 

windsurfers were observed. 

Table 5. Vessel type summary data for all observations 

West Pool Headquarters section East section Total 

 

 # % # % # % # % 

Motorboat 799 88% 613 85% 415 92% 1827 88% 

Pontoon Boat 19 2% 19 3% 1 <1% 39 2% 

Human powered1

 27 3% 30 4% 16 3% 73 3% 

Sailboat 6 <1% 6 <1% 

Personal watercraft 57 6% 54 7% 19 4% 130 6 

Kite surfer 

Wind surfer 

Other 1 <1% 1 <1% 

Total observations 903 722 451 2073 

1

Kayak\canoe\float 
14

Vessel Size 

The vessel size data are shown in Table 6. Almost all of the vessels are 25 feet long or less. The 

majority are 16 to 25 feet long. The smaller vessels (<16 feet) appear to use the West Pool and 

Headquarters section of the East Pool more than the East section of the East Pool. Less than 1% of the 

vessels observed were larger than 25 feet. Most of them were observed in the West and Headquarters 

section of the East Pools. 

Table 6. Vessel size summary data for all observations 

West Pool Headquarters section East section Total 

 

 # % # % # % # % 

Less than 16 feet 134 14% 99 14% 37 8% 270 13% 

16 to 25 feet 759 84% 615 85% 414 92% 1788 86% 

26 to 39 feet 7 <1% 8 <1% 15 <1% 

Total observations 900 722 451 2073 

Location in the Pool 

 The location data are shown in Table 7. The totals indicate that the majority of boaters were 

observed in open water. The East section of the East Pool had the largest variation with 64% on open 

water, 15% in emergent beds, 18% on the edge of emergent beds, and 3% at the bank. The West Pool 

had the second most variation and the Headquarters section of the East Pool was the most 

homogeneous. 
15

Table 7. Location summary data for all observations 

West Pool Headquarters section East section Total 

 

 # % # % # % # % 

Open Water 652 72% 602 83% 288 64% 1542 74% 

Emergent bed 105 12% 24 3% 69 15% 198 9% 

Edge of emergent bed 76 8% 40 6% 83 18% 199 9% 

Bank 15 2% 7 <1% 11 3% 33 2% 

Dock 55 6% 48 7% 103 5% 

Total observations 903 721 451 2075 

Recreational boating activity 

The recreational activity data are shown in Table 8. Most boats were engaged in some kind of 

activity when observed; the totals show that only 21% of observed vessels were traveling or milling. 

The most popular activity was fishing (38% of total observations). Fishing was the most popular activity 

on both the West Pool and the East section of the East Pool and second most popular on the 

Headquarters section of the East Pool. Skiing and tubing was the second most popular activity overall. 

Skiing and tubing was the most popular activity on the Headquarters section of the East Pool and second 

most popular on the West Pool and East section of the East Pool. Travel was the third most popular 

activity on all three pools. 

Table 8. Activity summary data for all observations 

West Pool Headquarters section East section Total 

 

 # % # % # % # % 

Travel 179 20% 149 21% 61 13% 389 19% 

Milling 17 2% 17 2% 9 2% 43 2% 

Skiing & Tubing 198 22% 209 29% 96 21% 503 24% 

Fishing 360 40% 195 27% 238 53% 793 38% 
16

Recreation1

 91 10% 96 13% 45 10% 232 11% 

Docked 57 6% 56 8% 2 1% 115 6% 

Total observations 902 722 451 2075 

1

Vessels classified as recreational included wind surfers and kite boarders, or vessels anchored with people swimming 

nearby or picnicking and not fishing and/or observing wildlife. 

Activity summary for locations in pools 

 Tables 9, 10, and 11 show that the majority of people in all three Pools were located in open 

water (East section 72%; HQ section 83%, West Pool 64%). The most popular activities in open water 

were consistent in the three pools: skiing & tubing, fishing and travel. Almost all of the boats in the 

emergent beds and on the edge of the emergent beds were being used for the activity of fishing. 

Table 9. Location of Activities in West Pool 

Travel Milling Skiing & Tubing Fishing Recreation Docked Total

 

 # %1 # %1 # %1 # %1 # %1 # %1 # 

Open Water 162 25% 16 2% 196 30% 191 29% 84 13% 2 <1% 652 

Emergent Bed 4 4% 100 95% 1 1% 105 

Edge of Emergent Bed 6 8% 1 1% 2 3% 67 88% 76 

Bank 5 33% 1 7% 6 40% 3 20% 15 

Dock 22

 4% 1 2% 52 95% 55 

1Percentage of vessels being used for this activity of the total number of vessels observed in this location 

2 Two vessels were observed pulling away or approaching the dock and were classified as traveling while in proximity to the 

dock. 

Table 10. Location of Activities in Headquarters section of the East Pool 

Travel Milling Skiing & Tubing Fishing Recreation Docked Total 

 

 # %1 # %1 # %1 # %1 # %1 # %1 # 

Open Water 145 24% 17 3% 209 35% 136 23% 91 15% 4 1% 602 

Emergent Bed 4 17% 20 83% 24 

Edge of Emergent Bed 39 97% 1 3% 40 

Bank 4 57% 3 43% 7 

Dock 48 100% 48 

1Percentage of vessels being used for this activity of the total number of vessels observed in this location 
17

Table 11. Location of Activities in East section of the East Pool 

Travel Milling Skiing & Tubing Fishing Recreation Docked Total 

 

 # %1 # %1 # %1 # %1 # %1 # %1 # 

Open Water 60 21% 9 3% 95 33% 80 28% 44 15% 288 

Emergent Bed 1 1% 67 97% 1 1% 69 

Edge of Emergent Bed 83 100% 83 

Bank 1 9% 8 73% 2 18% 11 

Dock 

1Percentage of vessels being used for this activity of the total number of vessels observed in this location 

Compliance with no wake zone 

The compliance data for the no wake zone in the East section of the East Pool are shown in 

Table 12. Vessels were classified as either Compliant – A vessel which is maintaining a speed that did 

not produce a wake, or Non-compliant – A vessel that was determined to be producing a wake in an area 

posted as “no wake.” Vessel speed was qualitatively determined and is therefore subject to individual 

observer interpretation. Physical and environmental factors, including wind speed/direction, may affect 

vessel speed as well as the degree of water displacement from the bow and/or stern. Observers were 

instructed to consider these factors and request the opinion of their fellow observer (when possible) if 

they were undecided between two vessel speeds. In instances where a decision between two speeds was 

difficult, observers selected the slower speed. This may provide a potential underestimate or more 

conservative assessment. A total of 346 vessels were observed in the East section of the East Pool no 

wake zone. Of the vessels in the no wake zone, 88% were compliant and 12% were not. 

 
18

Table 12. Compliance summary for vessels in East section of the East Pool no wake zone 

 # % 

 

Compliant 303 88% 

Non-compliant 43 12% 

Total observations 346 

Vessel Speed 

 The largest percentage of the observed vessels were idling (see Table 13). This is consistent with 

the recreational activity summary indicating that most vessels were fishing. The second largest category 

was planing. This is also consistent with skiing and tubing being second most popular activities and 

travel as the third most popular. 

Table 13. Vessel speed summary data for all observations 

West Pool Headquarters East section of the East Pool Total 

 

 # % # % # % # % 

Idle 439 49% 271 38% 268 59% 978 47% 

Slow 118 13% 76 10% 16 4% 210 10% 

Plowing 19 2% 11 1% 11 3% 41 2% 

Cruising 31 3% 44 6% 22 5% 97 5% 

Planing 296 33% 319 44% 128 28% 743 36% 

Under sail 1 <1% 1 <1% 

Paddling 6 <1% 6 <1% 

Total observations 903 722 451 2076 

Summary of boater characteristics 

The following description is based on the summary data in tables 5 through 13. The typical 

vessel on Lake Lowell is a motorboat between 16 to 25 feet in length and can be found in open water. 
19

The most common activities people in the vessels participate in are fishing or skiing and tubing. Most of 

the vessels are not moving (fishing or standing) and many are moving at a planing speed while skiing 

and tubing. Of the vessels that do enter the no wake zone in the east section of the east pool, most 

comply with the no wake regulation. 

Parking Lot Traffic Counter Data 

The traffic counter data are displayed in Tables 14 through 29. One table is provided for each 14-day 

sampling episode and one summary table for each parking lot sampled. Vehicle trailer ratios were 

created as described in the methods section and used to estimate the number of trailers entering the 

system based on the traffic counts. This provides an estimate of the vessels being launched on Lake 

Lowell on a given day. The vehicle to trailer ratio weights, that indicate what portion of the vehicles in 

the parking lot are apparently pulling trailers, are shown in Table 14 for each parking lot. Parking Lot 1, 

the Lower Dam Entrance, and the Upper Dam East entrance had the largest trailer traffic of the five lots. 

Parking Lot 7 had the lowest vehicle to trailer ratio. 

Table 14. Vehicle to trailer weighting ratios1 from parking lot counts from 4/15-9/30/11 

Parking Lot Ratio/weight 

 

Upper Dam West Entrance 0.52 

Upper Dam East Entrance 0.70 

Parking Lot 1 0.78 

Lower Dam Recreation Area Entrance 0.73 

Parking Lot 7 0.14 

1Weighting ratios indicate the proportion of vehicles in the parking lot pulling trailers. 

The summary descriptive statistics for the traffic counter data collected during all of the days in 

each of the parking lots is shown in Tables 15 and 16. The range and standard deviation are indicators of 

the variability in use at each parking lot. Given the difference in parking lot size it is not appropriate to 
20

directly compare the variability between the lots. Within each lot a low range and standard deviation 

indicate that the amount of use at the parking lot is relatively consistent. A high range and standard 

deviation would suggest that use levels are variable. 

Table 15. Summary descriptive statistics for vehicle traffic counts from magnetic counter 

Parking Lot Range Minimum Maximum Average Standard Deviation 

 

Upper Dam West Entrance 105 32 137 70 28.9 

Upper Dam East Entrance 180 62 242 110 38.2 

Parking Lot 1 50 4 54 22 12.0 

Lower Dam Recreation Area Entrance 601 99 700 240 147.9 

Parking Lot 7 29 14 43 27 9.3 

Table 16. Minimum, maximum and average number of trailers estimated using trailer weight ratios 

Parking Lot Minimum Maximum Average 

 

Upper Dam West Entrance 17 71 36 

Upper Dam East Entrance 43 169 77 

Parking Lot 1 3 42 17 

Lower Dam Recreation Area Entrance 72 511 175 

Parking Lot 7 2 6 4 

Parking lot traffic count results: Upper Dam West Entrance 

The traffic counter data for the Upper Dam West Entrance are displayed in Tables 17, 18, and 

19. The number of vehicles entering the Upper Dam West parking lot on low use weekdays ranged from 

32 to 68 with 17 to 35 trailers respectively; and the average number of vehicles on low use days was 53 

with 28 trailers. There was not much difference between the weekend high use and peak use day results. 

The number of vehicles on weekend high use days ranged from 69 to 124 (36 to 64 trailers). The 
21

number of vehicles on peak use days ranged from 62 to 137 (32 to 71 trailers). The average for high use 

days was 99 and peak use days was 100 (52 and 51 trailers, respectively). 

Table 17. Parking lot traffic count results: Upper Dam West Entrance, 5/19/11 to 6/1/11 

Date Day of week Use Level Designation Number of vehicles Trailer Estimate1

 

5/19/11 Thursday Weekday low use 40 21 

5/20/11 Friday Weekday low use 70 36 

5/23/11 Monday Weekday low use 33 17 

5/24/11 Tuesday Weekday low use 57 30 

5/25/11 Wednesday Weekday low use 38 20 

5/26/11 Thursday Weekday low use 39 20 

5/27/11 Friday Weekday low use 32 17 

5/31/11 Tuesday Weekday low use 78 41 

6/1/11 Wednesday Weekday low use 54 28 

 

5/21/11 Saturday Weekend high use 114 59 

5/22/11 Sunday Weekend high use 69 36 

 

5/28/11 Saturday Holiday peak use 62 32 

5/29/11 Sunday Holiday peak use 72 37 

5/30/11 Monday Holiday peak use 109 57 

1

The vehicle to trailer weighting ratio is 0.52 

Table 18. Parking lot traffic count results: Upper Dam West Entrance, 9/1/11 to 9/14/11 

Date Day of week Use Level Designation Number of vehicles Trailer Estimate1

 

9/1/11 Thursday Weekday low use 68 35 

9/2/11 Friday Weekday low use 47 24 

9/6/11 Tuesday Weekday low use 74 38 

9/7/11 Wednesday Weekday low use 59 31 

9/8/11 Thursday Weekday low use 64 33 

9/9/11 Friday Weekday low use 55 29 

9/12/11 Monday Weekday low use 51 27 
22

9/13/11 Tuesday Weekday low use 57 30 

9/14/11 Wednesday Weekday low use 51 27 

 

9/10/11 Saturday Weekend high use 90 47 

9/11/11 Sunday Weekend high use 124 64 

 

9/3/11 Saturday Holiday peak use 110 57 

9/4/11 Sunday Holiday peak use 112 58 

9/5/11 Monday Holiday peak use 137 71 

1

The vehicle to trailer weighting ratio is 0.52 

Table 19. Average number of vehicles per day Upper Dam West Entrance 

Use Level Designation Average number of vehicles Trailer Estimate1

 

Holiday peak use 100 52 

Weekend high use 99 51 

Weekday low use 53 28 

1

The vehicle to trailer weighting ratio is 0.52 

Parking lot traffic count results: Upper Dam East Entrance

The traffic counter data for the Upper Dam East Entrance are displayed in Tables 20, 21, and 22. 

The number of vehicles entering the Upper Dam East parking lot on low use weekdays ranged from 62 

to 123 with 43 to 86 trailers respectively; and the average on low use days was 90 vehicles with 63 

trailers. There was overlap of the high use day and peak use day ranges. However, there appears to be 

the potential for extreme peak use levels at this parking area. The number of vehicles on weekend high 

use days ranged from 131 to 156 (92 to 109 trailers). The number of vehicles on peak use days ranged 

from 79 to 242 (55 to 169 trailers). The average for high use days was 142 and peak use days was 145 

(99 and 102 trailers, respectively). The highest vehicle use count observed in this lot during the data 

collection was 242 on September 5, 2011. 
23

Table 20. Parking lot traffic count results: Upper Dam East Entrance, 5/19/11 to 6/1/11 

Date Day of week Use Level Designation Number of vehicles Trailer Estimate1

 

5/19/11 Thursday Weekday low use 85 60 

5/20/11 Friday Weekday low use 123 86 

5/23/11 Monday Weekday low use 65 46 

5/24/11 Tuesday Weekday low use 110 77 

5/25/11 Wednesday Weekday low use 88 62 

5/26/11 Thursday Weekday low use 63 44 

5/27/11 Friday Weekday low use 65 46 

5/31/11 Tuesday Weekday low use 97 68 

6/1/11 Wednesday Weekday low use 62 43 

 

5/21/11 Saturday Weekend high use 156 109 

5/22/11 Sunday Weekend high use 134 94 

 

5/28/11 Saturday Holiday peak use 79 55 

5/29/11 Sunday Holiday peak use 111 78 

5/30/11 Monday Holiday peak use 152 106 

1

The vehicle to trailer weighting ratio is 0.70 

Table 21. Parking lot traffic count results: Upper Dam East Entrance, 9/1/11 to 9/14/11 

Date Day of week Use Level Designation Number of vehicles Trailer Estimate1

 

9/1/11 Thursday Weekday low use 80 56 

9/2/11 Friday Weekday low use 107 75 

9/6/11 Tuesday Weekday low use 88 62 

9/7/11 Wednesday Weekday low use 92 64 

9/8/11 Thursday Weekday low use 102 71 

9/9/11 Friday Weekday low use 106 74 

9/12/11 Monday Weekday low use 102 71 

9/13/11 Tuesday Weekday low use 90 63 

9/14/11 Wednesday Weekday low use 106 74 

 

9/10/11 Saturday Weekend high use 148 104 
24

9/11/11 Sunday Weekend high use 131 92 

 

9/3/11 Saturday Holiday peak use 149 104 

9/4/11 Sunday Holiday peak use 140 98 

9/5/11 Monday Holiday peak use 242 169 

1

The vehicle to trailer weighting ratio is 0.70 

Table 22. Average number of vehicles per day Upper Dam East Entrance 

Use Level Designation Average number of vehicles Trailer Estimate1

 

Holiday peak use 145 102 

Weekend high use 142 99 

Weekday low use 90 63 

1

The vehicle to trailer weighting ratio is 0.70 

Parking lot traffic count results: Parking Lot 1 

The traffic counter data for Parking Lot 1 are displayed in Tables 23, 24, and 25. The number of 

vehicles entering Parking Lot 1 on low use weekdays ranged from 4 to 34 with 3 to 27 trailers 

respectively; and the average on low use days was 19 vehicles with 15 trailers. There was not much 

difference between the high use day and peak use day ranges. The number of vehicles on weekend high 

use days ranged from 13 to 54 (10 to 42 trailers). The number of vehicles on peak use days ranged from 

12 to 47 (9 to 37 trailers). The average for high use days (31 vehicles) was higher than the average for 

peak use days (24 vehicles) (24 and 19 trailers, respectively). The highest vehicle count for Parking Lot 

1 was observed during a regular high use weekend and not during a holiday peak use weekend (54 

vehicles on May 22, 2011). 
25

Table 23. Parking lot traffic count results: Parking Lot 1, 5/19/11 to 6/1/11 

Date Day of week Use Level Designation Number of vehicles Trailer Estimate1

 

5/19/11 Thursday Weekday low use 34 27 

5/20/11 Friday Weekday low use 30 23 

5/23/11 Monday Weekday low use 25 20 

5/24/11 Tuesday Weekday low use 20 16 

5/25/11 Wednesday Weekday low use 21 16 

5/26/11 Thursday Weekday low use 24 19 

5/27/11 Friday Weekday low use 29 23 

5/31/11 Tuesday Weekday low use 33 26 

6/1/11 Wednesday Weekday low use 22 17 

 

5/21/11 Saturday Weekend high use 43 34 

5/22/11 Sunday Weekend high use 54 42 

 

5/28/11 Saturday Holiday peak use 28 22 

5/29/11 Sunday Holiday peak use 16 12 

5/30/11 Monday Holiday peak use 47 37 

1

The vehicle to trailer weighting ratio is 0.78 

Table 24. Parking lot traffic count results: Parking Lot 1, 9/1/11 to 9/14/11 

Date Day of week Use Level Designation Number of vehicles Trailer Estimate1

 

9/1/11 Thursday Weekday low use 4 3 

9/2/11 Friday Weekday low use 18 14 

9/6/11 Tuesday Weekday low use 13 10 

9/7/11 Wednesday Weekday low use 6 5 

9/8/11 Thursday Weekday low use 18 14 

9/9/11 Friday Weekday low use 16 12 

9/12/11 Monday Weekday low use 15 12 

9/13/11 Tuesday Weekday low use 8 6 

9/14/11 Wednesday Weekday low use 12 9 

 

9/10/11 Saturday Weekend high use 13 10 

9/11/11 Sunday Weekend high use 13 10 
26

 

9/3/11 Saturday Holiday peak use 16 12 

9/4/11 Sunday Holiday peak use 12 9 

9/5/11 Monday Holiday peak use 23 18 

1

The vehicle to trailer weighting ratio is 0.78 

Table 25. Average number of vehicles per day Parking Lot 1 

Use Level Designation Average number of vehicles Trailer Estimate1

 

Holiday peak use 24 19 

Weekend high use 31 24 

Weekday low use 19 15 

1

The vehicle to trailer weighting ratio is 0.78 

Parking lot traffic count results: Lower Dam Recreation Area Entrance 

The traffic counter data for the Lower Dam Recreation Area Entrance are displayed in Tables 

26, 27, and 28. The number of vehicles entering the Lower Dam Recreation Area parking lot on low use 

weekdays ranged from 99 to 353 with 72 to 258 trailers respectively; and the average on low use days 

was 157 vehicles with 115 trailers. There was overlap between the high use day and peak use day 

ranges. There was also an extreme peak use value observed at this lot. The number of vehicles on 

weekend high use days ranged from 312 to 486 (228 to 355 trailers). The number of vehicles on peak 

use days ranged from 197 to 700 (144 to 511 trailers). The average for high use days was 387 and peak 

use days was 390 (283 and 285 trailers, respectively). The highest vehicle count observed during the 

data collection was 700 on September 5, 2011. 
27

Table 26. Parking lot traffic count results: Lower Dam Recreation Area Entrance, 5/19/11 to 6/1/11 

Date Day of week Use Level Designation Number of vehicles Trailer Estimate1

 

5/19/11 Thursday Weekday low use 162 118 

5/20/11 Friday Weekday low use 353 258 

5/23/11 Monday Weekday low use 129 94 

5/24/11 Tuesday Weekday low use 174 127 

5/25/11 Wednesday Weekday low use 117 85 

5/26/11 Thursday Weekday low use 137 100 

5/27/11 Friday Weekday low use 112 82 

5/31/11 Tuesday Weekday low use 176 128 

6/1/11 Wednesday Weekday low use 200 146 

 

5/21/11 Saturday Weekend high use 405 296 

5/22/11 Sunday Weekend high use 486 355 

 

5/28/11 Saturday Holiday peak use 197 144 

5/29/11 Sunday Holiday peak use 216 158 

5/30/11 Monday Holiday peak use 357 261 

1

The vehicle to trailer weighting ratio is 0.73 

Table 27. Parking lot traffic count results: Lower Dam Recreation Area Entrance, 9/1/11 to 9/14/11 

Date Day of week Use Level Designation Number of vehicles Trailer Estimate1

 

9/1/11 Thursday Weekday low use 138 101 

9/2/11 Friday Weekday low use 192 140 

9/6/11 Tuesday Weekday low use 161 118 

9/7/11 Wednesday Weekday low use 143 104 

9/8/11 Thursday Weekday low use 170 124 

9/9/11 Friday Weekday low use 115 84 

9/12/11 Monday Weekday low use 144 105 

9/13/11 Tuesday Weekday low use 111 81 

9/14/11 Wednesday Weekday low use 99 72 

 

9/10/11 Saturday Weekend high use 344 251 

9/11/11 Sunday Weekend high use 312 228 
28

 

9/3/11 Saturday Holiday peak use 380 277 

9/4/11 Sunday Holiday peak use 489 357 

9/5/11 Monday Holiday peak use 700 511 

1

The vehicle to trailer weighting ratio is 0.73 

Table 28. Average number of vehicles per day Lower Dam Recreation Area Entrance 

Use Level Designation Average number of vehicles Trailer Estimate1

 

Holiday peak use 390 285 

Weekend high use 387 283 

Weekday low use 157 115 

1

The vehicle to trailer weighting ratio is 0.73 

Parking lot traffic count results: Parking Lot 7 

The traffic counter data for Parking Lot 7 are displayed in Tables 29 and 30. Data were only 

collected for one two-week period in this lot. The number of vehicles entering Parking Lot 7 on low use 

weekdays ranged from 14 to 36 with 2 to 5 trailers respectively; and the average on low use days was 23 

vehicles with 3 trailers. There was not much difference between the high use day and peak use day 

ranges. The number of vehicles on weekend high use days ranged from 23 to 42 (3 to 6 trailers). The 

number of vehicles on peak use days ranged from 26 to 43 (4 to 6 trailers). The average for high use 

days was 32 and peak use days was 35 (4 and 5 trailers, respectively). 

Table 29. Parking lot traffic count results: Parking Lot 7, 9/1/11 to 9/14/11 

Date Day of week Use Level Designation Number of vehicles Trailer Estimate1

 

9/1/11 Thursday Weekday low use 19 3 

9/2/11 Friday Weekday low use 31 4 

9/6/11 Tuesday Weekday low use 18 3 

9/7/11 Wednesday Weekday low use 22 3 

9/8/11 Thursday Weekday low use 29 4 
29

9/9/11 Friday Weekday low use 36 5 

9/12/11 Monday Weekday low use 21 3 

9/13/11 Tuesday Weekday low use 19 3 

9/14/11 Wednesday Weekday low use 14 2 

 

9/10/11 Saturday Weekend high use 42 6 

9/11/11 Sunday Weekend high use 23 3 

 

9/3/11 Saturday Holiday peak use 26 4 

9/4/11 Sunday Holiday peak use 43 6 

9/5/11 Monday Holiday peak use 37 5 

1

The vehicle to trailer weighting ratio is 0.14 

Table 30. Average number of vehicles Parking Lot 7 

Use Level Designation Average number of vehicles Trailer Estimate1

 

Holiday peak use 35 5 

Weekend high use 32 4 

Weekday low use 23 3 

1

The vehicle to trailer weighting ratio is 0.14 

Parking lot traffic count summary 

The Lower Dam Recreation Area was the highest use lot and exhibited the largest variation in 

use levels with the highest individual count of vehicles (700 vehicles on September 5, 2011). Parking 

Lots 1 and 7 were similar in terms of use with averages of 22 and 27 respectively. However, Parking 

Lot 1 displayed greater variation in use with a range of 50 vehicles compared to 29 vehicles in Lot 7. 

Sampling occurred on both Memorial Day (5/28 to 5/30 2011) and Labor Day (9/3 to 9/5 2011) 

weekends. Parking lot counts were consistently higher on Labor Day weekend compared to Memorial 

Day weekend. 

 
30

References Cited 

Gorzelany, J.F., 2005 Recreational boater traffic surveys of Broward County, Florida: technical 

report submitted to Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 89 pp. 
1

Appendix 1: Lake Use Observation Data Sheet 

Lake Lowell Recreational Lake Use Study 

 Page #: of: 

ZONE: WEATHER: DATE: WIND SPEED / DIRECTION: TIME WINDOW: AVERAGE TEMPERATURE: OBSERVER(S): LAKE SURFACE CONDITION: 

CODES 

TYPE: motorboat (1), pontoon boat (2), human powered -kayak/canoe/float (3), sailboat (4), personal watercraft (5), 

 kite boarder (6), wind surfer (7), other (8) SIZE: less than 16 ft (1), 16 - 25 (2), 26 - 39 (3), 40 - 64 (4), 65 - 109 (5) SPEED: Idle (0), Slow (1), Plowing (2), Cruising (3), Planing (4), Under sail (5) Paddling 

(6) 

LOCATION: Open water (1), Emergent bed (2), edge of emergent bed (3), bank (4), Dock (5) ACTIVITY: Travel (1), Milling (2), Skiing & tubing (3), Fishing (4), Recreation (5), Docked (6), COMPLIANCE: Compliant (0), Non-compliance (1), Not Applicable (NA) 

RECORD # 

TIME 

TYPE 

SIZE 

ACTIVITY 

LOCATION 

SPEED 

COMPLIANCE COMMENTS 
1

Appendix 2: Boater Observation Sampling Schedule 

date use level survey location time block

Sunday, April 24, 2011 high 2=HQ Platform 2=10am to 1pm

Tuesday, April 26, 2011 low 1=lower dam 1=7am to 10am

Saturday, April 30, 2011 high 3=Gotts Point 3=1pm to 4pm

Thursday, May 05, 2011 low 2=HQ Platform 2=10am to 1pm

Saturday, May 07, 2011 high 1=lower dam 4=4pm to 7pm

Friday, May 13, 2011 low 3=Gotts Point 3=1pm to 4pm

Sunday, May 15, 2011 high 2=HQ Platform 1=10am to 1pm

Wednesday, May 18, 2011 low 1=lower dam 1=10am to 1pm

Monday, May 23, 2011 low 2=HQ Platform 4=4pm to 7pm

Sunday, May 29, 2011 peak 1=lower dam 2=10am to 1pm

Monday, May 30, 2011 peak 2=HQ Platform 3=1pm to 4pm

Saturday, June 04, 2011 high 3=Gotts Point 1=10am to 1pm

Tuesday, June 07, 2011 low 3=Gotts Point 5=7pm to 9pm

Sunday, June 12, 2011 high 1=lower dam 2=10am to 1pm

Thursday, June 16, 2011 low 1=lower dam 4=4pm to 7pm

Saturday, June 18, 2011 high 2=HQ Platform 3=1pm to 4pm

Friday, June 24, 2011 low 2=HQ Platform 2=10am to 1pm

Wednesday, June 29, 2011 low 3=Gotts Point 3=1pm to 4pm

Saturday, July 02, 2011 peak 3=Gotts Point 4=4pm to 7pm

Sunday, July 03, 2011 peak 1=lower dam 5=7pm to 9pm

Sunday, July 10, 2011 high 2=HQ Platform 4=4pm to 7pm

Monday, July 11, 2011 low 1=lower dam 2=10am to 1pm

Saturday, July 16, 2011 high 3=Gotts Point 5=7pm to 9pm

Tuesday, July 19, 2011 low 2=HQ Platform 5=7pm to 9pm

Sunday, July 24, 2011 high 1=lower dam 5=7pm to 9pm

Thursday, July 28, 2011 low 3=Gotts Point 1=10am to 1pm

Friday, August 05, 2011 low 1=lower dam 5=7pm to 9pm

Saturday, August 06, 2011 high 2=HQ Platform 1=10am to 1pm

Wednesday, August 10, 2011 low 2=HQ Platform 3=1pm to 4pm

Sunday, August 14, 2011 high 3=Gotts Point 2=10am to 1pm

Monday, August 15, 2011 low 3=Gotts Point 4=4pm to 7pm

Saturday, August 20, 2011 high 1=lower dam 3=1pm to 4pm

Tuesday, August 23, 2011 low 1=lower dam 5=7pm to 9pm

Sunday, August 28, 2011 high 2=HQ Platform 4=4pm to 7pm

Thursday, September 01, 2011 low 2=HQ Platform 1=10am to 1pm

Saturday, September 03, 2011 peak 2=HQ Platform 1=10am to 1pm

Monday, September 05, 2011 peak 3=Gotts Point 2=10am to 1pm

Friday, September 16, 2011 low 3=Gotts Point 2=10am to 1pm

Saturday, September 17, 2011 high 3=Gotts Point 5=7pm to 9pm

Wednesday, September 21, 2011 low 1=lower dam 3=1pm to 4pm

Monday, September 26, 2011 low 2=HQ Platform 4=4pm to 7pm
1

Appendix 3: Parking Lot Count Data Sheet 

LAKE LOWELL PARKING LOT COUNTS

Date:_____________ Weekend WeekdayArea: Lower Dam Upper Dam West Upper Dam East Parking Lot 1 or 7Time Block: 7am to 9 am 1pm to 3pm 5pm to 7pmObserver:

__________________________________

Time Start:

______________

Time End:____________________

Weather:____________________________________________________________________________________________

Time Car Truck/Van

Vehicle w/ Trailer

Motor‐

cycle RV

Approx

Length Activity Comment

Motorized

Boat Nonmotorized Boat Jet ski

Activity: 1 = Fishing 2 = Water Skiing 3 = Jet skiing 4 = Sailing 5 = Other Recreation

Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix M. Regional Economic Impacts M-1 

Appendix M. Regional Economic Impacts of Current and 

Proposed Management Alternatives for Deer 

Flat National Wildlife Refuge 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

M-2 Appendix M. Regional Economic Impacts 

Document continues on the following page. 

 
1

DRAFT for REVIEW 

Regional Economic Impacts of Current and 

Proposed Management Alternatives for 

Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge 

By Lynne Koontz, Catherine M. Cullinane Thomas, and Erik Larsen 

Introduction 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 requires all units of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System to be managed under a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). The CCP 

must describe the desired future conditions of a Refuge and provide long range guidance and 

management direction to achieve refuge purposes. The Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) is 

in the process of developing a range of management goals, objectives, and strategies for the CCP. The 

CCP must contain an analysis of expected effects associated with current and proposed Refuge 

management strategies. 

For CCP planning, a regional economic analysis provides a means of estimating how current 

management (No Action Alternative) and proposed management activities (Action Alternatives) affect 

the local economy. This type of analysis provides two critical pieces of information: 1) it illustrates the 

Refuge’s contribution to the local community; and 2) it can help in determining whether economic 

effects are or are not a real concern in choosing among management alternatives. 

It is important to note that the economic value of the Refuge encompasses more than just the impacts 

on the regional economy. The Refuge also provides substantial nonmarket values (values for items not 

exchanged in established markets) such as maintaining endangered species, preserving wetlands, 

educating future generations, and adding stability to the ecosystem (Carver and Caudill, 2007). 

However, quantifying these types of nonmarket values is beyond the scope of this study. 

This report first presents a description of the local communities and economy near the Refuge. Next, 

the methods used to conduct a regional economic impact analysis are described. An analysis of the 

final CCP management strategies that could affect stakeholders and residents and the local economy is 

then presented. The management activities of economic concern in this analysis are: 
2

 Purchases of goods and services within the local community; 

 Personnel salary spending; 

 Revenues generated from Refuge Revenue Sharing; and 

 Spending in the local community by Refuge visitors 

Regional Economic Setting 

Located southwest of Boise, Idaho, the Refuge has two units, Lake Lowell and the Snake River 

Islands. The Lake Lowell Unit encompasses more than 10,500 acres, including the almost 9,000-acre 

Lake Lowell and surrounding lands. The Snake River Islands Unit contains about 1,200 acres on over 

100 islands. These islands are distributed along 113 river miles from the Canyon-Ada County Line in 

Idaho to Farewell Bend in Oregon. 

Refuge visitors can enjoy a variety of wildlife-dependent recreational activities, (i.e., wildlife-watching 

and photography, hunting, fishing, and environmental education and interpretation), as well as nonwildlife dependent recreational activities, including recreational boating, horseback riding, and dog 

walking. These recreational opportunities attract outside visitors and bring in dollars to the community. 

Associated visitor activities—such as spending on food, gasoline, and overnight lodging in the area—

provides local businesses with supplemental income and increases the local tax base. Management 

decisions for the Refuge about public use, expansion of services, and habitat improvement may either 

increase or decrease visitation to the complex and, thus, affect the amount of visitor spending in the 

local economy. 

For the purposes of an economic impact analysis, a region (and its economy) is typically defined as all 

counties within a 30-60 mile radius of the impact area. Only spending that takes place within this 

regional area is included as stimulating changes in economic activity. The size of the region influences 

both the amount of spending captured and the multiplier effects. After consultation with the Refuge 

staff, it was decided that only the Lake Lowell Unit would be considered for the economic analysis due 

to the relatively small amount of visitation to the Snake River Islands Unit. The Lake Lowell Unit lies 

within Canyon County, Idaho. The city of Boise, located in Ada County, is approximately 28 miles 

from the Refuge. Most of the economic activity related to the Lake Lowell Unit is located within 

Canyon and Ada counties. Therefore, this two-county area comprises the local economic region for 

this analysis. The next sections describe the socioeconomic characteristics and trends in the two-county 

region. 
3

Population and Density 

Table 1 summarizes the population characteristics of Idaho and the local two-county area. In 2010, the 

U.S. Census Bureau estimated the total population for the two counties to be 581,288, or 37% of 

Idaho’s total population. Ada County was the most heavily populated county in both the study area 

and the state with 392,365 residents in 2010. Canyon County (188,923 residents) was the second most 

populous county of the state in this same year (United States Census Bureau, 2012; Idaho Department 

of Labor, 2011a; Idaho Department of Labor, 2011b). In the years leading up to the economic 

recession of the late 2000s, the two-county area experienced rapid population growth, with the 

respective populations of Ada and Canyon Counties increasing by 24% and 36% between the years of 

2000 and 2008 (United States Census Bureau, 2012). The rapid population growth in the study area 

throughout the majority of the past decade has been motivated by several factors, including a healthy 

labor market, relatively low real estate prices, ample opportunity for outdoor recreation, and easy 

access to the Boise Metro Area (Idaho Department of Labor, 2011b; Cauchon, 2007). 

Table 1. Population Estimates for the State and Counties Near the Refuge 

Area Population 

(2010)† 

% Change 

(2000-2010)† 

Persons per 

Square Mile 

(2010) † 

Expected Population 

Growth (2010-2030) ‡ 

Idaho 1,567,582 21.1% 19 31% 

Ada County 392,365 30.4% 373 42% 

Canyon County 188,923 43.7% 322 34% 

Source: † (United States Census Bureau, 2012) and ‡ (Church, 2003) 

In the final two years of the decade, population growth in the study area slowed due to repercussions 

of the national economic recession, with the populations of Ada and Canyon Counties averaging only 

2.0% and 3.0% growth, respectively, during these years (United States Census Bureau, 2012). Despite 

slowed growth from 2008 to 2010, the Treasure Valley and Boise Metro Area remain among some of 

the fastest growing regions of the state over the past decade; they are expected to continue to be so 

over the coming decades (Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2010; Church, 2003). 

In 2010, the population densities of both counties in the region were between 300-400 persons per 

square mile, with Ada County being more densely populated (373 persons per square mile) than 

Canyon County (322 persons per square mile) (United States Census Bureau, 2012). Both counties 

had substantially higher population densities than the state of Idaho as a whole (nineteen persons per 

square mile in 2010). In the case of Ada County, the high population density is largely due to the city 

of Boise, which accounted for over half (52%) of the county’s 2010 populace (United States Census 

Bureau, 2012). Similarly, the cities of Nampa (81,557 residents) and Caldwell (46,237 residents) 

collectively accounted for 68% of the population of Canyon County in 2010 (United States Census 

Bureau, 2012). Rural areas are more sparsely populated than the data shown in Table 1. 
4

Population Projections

Future population projections for the two-county area as well as the state of Idaho are characterized by 

in-migration over the next twenty years. The population of Idaho is expected to increase by 31% over 

the course of the next two decades, and, by 2030, it is projected to reach nearly two million (Church, 

2003). During these years, Idaho is anticipated to be one of the fastest growing states, with growth rate 

projections consistently among the top ten in the nation (United States Census Bureau, 1996). In 2010, 

the most populated regions in Idaho included parts of the Treasure Valley and Boise Metro Regions 

(i.e., Ada and Canyon Counties) (United States Census Bureau, 2012). These regions, which 

correspond to some of the state’s largest population centers (e.g., the cities of Boise, Nampa, 

Caldwell), are expected to remain the most populated areas statewide over the next two decades. The 

Treasure Valley and Boise Metro Region is expected to be the fastest growing region in the state over 

the next twenty years, with Valley, Boise, Ada, and Canyon Counties averaging a growth rate of 42% 

over this time horizon. The two counties that make up the study area are expected to remain among 

the fastest growing counties in the state, with Ada and Canyon Counties projected to be the first and 

eighth fastest growing counties statewide over the next two decades (Church, 2003). 

 

Gender, Age and Racial Composition 

In 2010, the median age of residents in Canyon County (31.6 years) was lower than the state median 

of 34.6 years and the Ada County median of 34.8 years (United States Census Bureau, 2012) (United 

States Census Bureau, 2012). In 2010, the racial demographics of Ada County were very similar to 

those of the state (Table 2). In Canyon County the percentage of Hispanic or Latino residents was 

approximately 13% higher while the percentage of white residents was 6% lower than the state average 

(United States Census Bureau, 2012). 

Table 2. Racial Demographics for the State and Counties Near the Refuge (2010) 

Area Idaho Ada County Canyon County 

% of Total Population 

White alone 89.0% 90.3% 83.0% 

Hispanic or Latino 11.2% 7.1% 23.9% 

Two or more races 2.5% 2.9% 3.0% 

Asian alone 1.2% 2.4% 0.8% 

Black or African American alone 0.6% 1.1% 0.6% 

American Indian and Alaska Native alone 1.4% 0.7% 1.0% 

Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander alone 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 

Source: (United States Census Bureau, 2012)
5

 Economic Conditions and Trends 

Unemployment and Poverty 

Since the early 1990s, trends in the unemployment rate in the state of Idaho have generally paralleled 

the national average, with unemployment trending downward in the late 1990s to reach levels below 

the national average by the mid-2000s before increasing again in the latter half of the same decade 

(Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011a). The period of expansion in the early 2000s may be attributed to 

several factors, including the growth of several service industries, the continued development of the 

state’s technology sector, and increasing demand for local government and construction services as the 

state’s population continued to grow (Idaho Division of Financial Management, 2004). In 2008, 

Idaho’s unemployment rate trended sharply upward as the state began to feel the recessionary effects 

of a sluggish national economy, with the construction, manufacturing, financial services, 

administrative and support services, and retail trade industries suffering the greatest job losses in the 

state’s economy (Idaho Department of Labor, 2011c; Idaho Department of Labor, 2009). Since 1990, 

unemployment in the study area exhibited similar trends as statewide unemployment, with Ada County 

and Canyon County averaging unemployment rates of 4.0% and 5.8%, respectively, over the past two 

decades (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011a). Between 2008 and 2010, unemployment in the twocounty area saw a sharp increase, particularly in Canyon County where the combined effects of slowed 

population growth, a struggling housing market, and rising lumber, concrete, and fuel prices decreased 

the local demand for labor (Idaho Department of Labor, 2011a). 

Table 3 summarizes measures of unemployment, poverty, and income in the two-county area. In 2010, 

the median household income in Idaho as a whole was $43,490, which was about $6,500 lower than 

the national median household income of $50,046 (United States Census Bureau, 2012). Median 

household income in the region averaged $46,672, with the median income in Ada County ($50,612) 

being substantially higher than that in Canyon County ($42,732). 

Table 3. Unemployment, Poverty, and Household Income for the State and Counties Near the Refuge 

Area Median 

Household 

Income 

2010 

Unemployment 

Rate 

2010 

Net Change in 

Unemployment 

Rate 

2007-2010 

Percent of Persons 

Below Poverty 

2010 

Idaho $43,490 9.5% 6.5% 25.0% 

Ada County $50,612 8.9% 6.4% 29.8% 

Canyon County $42,732 11.3% 7.8% 16.2% 

Source: United States Census Bureau, 2012 

As shown in Table 3, poverty levels in Canyon County (16.2%) were below the state average of 25% 

in 2010. In contrast, poverty levels in Ada County (29.8%) were greater than the state average in 

2010. The two-county area averaged 23% of its population below the 2010 poverty line (United States 

Census Bureau, 2012). 
6

Employment and Income by Industry 

Table 4 summarizes employment by industry for the two-county area. In 2009, total employment in 

the local area represented 339,730 jobs with about 77% of these jobs located in Ada County. Sixty 

percent of the total employment in the study area came from five main sectors (Bureau of Economic 

Analysis, 2010): professional, scientific, management, administration, and waste services; educational, 

health, and social services; retail trade; finance, insurance, real estate, and rental and leasing; and 

public administration. In 2008, the two largest employers in Ada County were Micron Technology and 

Hewlett Packard; these companies remain some of the largest local employers in Ada County (Ada 

County Accounting Department, 2008; Idaho Department of Labor, 2011b). In Canyon County, the 

largest local employers in the past decade have been in the education, manufacturing, health care, food 

processing, and wood processing sectors. These employers currently include the Caldwell and Nampa 

School Districts, the St. Alphonsus Medical Center, Plexus, the Amalgamated Sugar Company, and 

Woodgrain Milwork Incorporated (Idaho Department of Labor, 2011a; City of Nampa Department of 

Planning and Zoning, 2003). 

Professional, scientific, management, administration, and waste services accounted for the largest 

percentage of total employment in the region, with 15.6% of total local employment coming from this 

sector. In the two-county area, most jobs in education, health, and social services (77%) and public 

administration (87%) were located in Ada County, which is home to both the state capital and Boise 

State University. These sectors were the second and fifth largest sectors of the local economy, 

respectively, and accounted for 13.1% and 10.3% of total employment in the combined two-county 

area (Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2010). 

On the whole, farm employment accounted for a relatively small share (1.5%) of total employment in 

the region. Employment from this sector, however, did account for a larger share of total employment 

located in Canyon County (4% of total in-county employment) than Ada County ( less than one 

percent). On the whole, Ada County was much less dependent on farm earnings (less than one percent 

of total in-county farm earnings) than the state as a whole, which had about 4.0% of its total earnings 

coming from farming; the opposite is true of Canyon County, which had 4.7% of its total earnings 

from farming (Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2010). 

Table 4. Employment by Industry for the Counties Near the Refuge 

Ada 

County 

Canyon 

County 

Two-County 

Area 

Total Employment (jobs) in 2009 262,868 78,862 339,730 

Percent of Employment by Sector 

Professional, scientific, management, admin., and waste services 17% 9% 16% 

Educational, health, and social services 13% 13% 13% 

Retail trade 11% 13% 11% 
7

Finance, insurance, real estate, and rental & leasing 11% 8% 10% 

Public administration 10% 11% 10% 

Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation, and food services 9% 6% 8% 

Manufacturing 6% 10% 7% 

Construction 6% 8% 7% 

Other Services (except public administration) 5% 6% 5% 

Wholesale trade 4% 3% 4% 

Transportation and Warehousing 2% 4% 3% 

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 1% 6% 2% 

Information Services 2% 1% 2% 

Source: (Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2010) 

Land Use and Ownership Changes Surrounding Refuge Lands 

Current Land Use 

Idaho’s Treasure Valley lies within a flat lowland known as the Snake River Plain. The Treasure 

Valley stretches across the southwest corner of the state and is bounded by the Boise Front Range to 

the northeast and the Owyhee Mountains to the southwest (Petrich, Wilkins, Tondee, & Morse, 2002). 

This valley closely coincides with the two-county study area, and it houses some of Idaho’s largest 

metropolitan areas, including the cities of Boise, Caldwell, and Nampa, which collectively accounted 

for about 21% of the state’s 2010 population (United States Census Bureau, 2012). As of 2008, about 

30% of the land in the two-county area near the Refuge was federally owned, with the majority of 

federal land ownership accounted for by Bureau of Land Management holdings (21% of all land in the 

two-county area). About 65% of the land in the study area was privately owned and the remaining 4% 

was State-owned (Conservation Biology Institute, 2006 [data complied using the Economic Profile 

System-Human Dimensions Toolkit (EPS-HDT) developed by Headwaters Economics]). 

Ada County is largely covered by grassland and shrubland, which account for about 75% of all land 

cover in the County. Mixed cropland is also prevalent, accounting for 17% of the land cover (NASA, 

2006 [data complied using EPS-HDT]). As of 2008, urban development accounted for 6% of all land 

cover in the County, with the greater Boise area (i.e., the cities of Boise, Eagle, Garden City, Kuna, 

Meridian, and Star) accounting for 332,646 residents, or about 85% of the county’s total 2010 

population (United States Census Bureau, 2012). Land ownership in Ada County in 2008 was 49% 

private, 43% Federal, 7% State, and 1% under other ownership (i.e. Tribal, City, County, or Other) 

(Conservation Biology Institute, 2006 [data complied using EPS-HDT]). 

Canyon County is less urbanized with about 3% of the county’s land cover being urban development in 

2008. Mixed croplands accounted for about 75% of the county’s land cover, grassland accounted for 

14%, and shrubland accounted for 4% (NASA, 2006 [data complied using EPS-HDT]). Water 
8

accounted for an additional 2% of land cover in Canyon County with the majority of this coming from 

Lake Lowell, which covers a total of 14.5 square miles of the county’s land (NASA, 2006 [data 

complied using EPS-HDT]; United States Bureau of Reclamation, n.d.). In 2010, the largest 

municipalities in Canyon County included Nampa (81,557 residents), Caldwell (46,237 residents), and 

Middleton (5,524 residents), which collectively accounted for about 34% of the county’s total 

population (United States Census Bureau, 2012). Land ownership in Canyon County in 2008 was 

93% private, 6% Federal, 5% State owned, and 1% under other ownership (i.e. Tribal, City, County, 

or Other) (Conservation Biology Institute, 2006 [data complied using EPS-HDT]). 

Changes in Land Use

As populations grow, the spread of American cities across the rural landscape has several potential 

environmental impacts including, for example, decreased watershed permeability, increased noise and 

air pollution, and the loss of arable land and open spaces (McMahan, Weber, & Sauder, 2002). In 

addition to these environmental impacts, urban sprawl may have significant economic impacts on local 

communities through increased costs of public community services such as emergency response, 

infrastructure, or public works and utilities (Chen, 2000; Speir & Stephenson, 2002). Population 

growth in Idaho over the past decades has been cause for the continued conversion of rural lands to 

urban purposes. Between 1982 and 1997, Idaho ranked 35th in the nation for the most rural acres 

converted for urban growth purposes, with 205,000 acres of rural land being converted (Goodwin, 

2003). About half (45%) of this transformation took place between 1992 and 1997, with over 27,000 

of these acres occurring in the two-county study area during this five year period. Land conversion in 

Ada and Canyon Counties between 1992 and 1997 occurred faster than in any other region in Idaho, 

with Ada County converting land at a rate of 4,480 acres per year and Canyon County averaging 2,600 

acres per year (United States Department of Agriculture, 2000). Between 1997 and 2007, an additional 

130,100 acres of land was developed statewide, resulting in 557,600 total acres of developed land in 

Idaho and representing a 61% increase from 1982 levels (United States Department of Agriculture, 

2009). These trends of urbanization and sprawl are likely to continue in the future as statewide and 

local area populations are projected to continue growing over the next few decades. 

Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Activities 

Methods for a Regional Economic Impact Analysis 

Economic input-output models are commonly used to determine how economic sectors will and will 

not be affected by demographic, economic, and policy changes. The economic impacts of the 

management alternatives for the Refuge were estimated using IMPLAN (Impact Analysis for 
9

Planning), a regional input-output modeling system developed by the USDA Forest Service. IMPLAN 

is a computerized database and modeling system that provides a regional input-output analysis of 

economic activity in terms of 10 industrial groups involving more than four hundred economic sectors 

(Olson and Lindall, 1999). The IMPLAN model draws upon data collected by the Minnesota IMPLAN 

Group from multiple federal and state sources including the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, and the U.S. Census Bureau (Olson and Lindall, 1999). For the Refuge analysis, the 

year 2009 IMPLAN 3.0 data profiles for Ada and Canyon counties were used for the local area 

analysis. The IMPLAN county level employment data estimates were found to be comparable to the 

US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System 

data for the year 2009. 

Because of the way industries interact in an economy, activity in one industry affects activity levels in 

several other industries. For example, if more visitors come to an area, local businesses will purchase 

extra labor and supplies to meet the increase in demand for additional services. The income and 

employment resulting from visitor purchases from local businesses represent the direct effects of 

visitor spending within the economy. Direct effects measure the net amount of spending that stays in 

the local economy after the first round of spending; the amount that doesn’t stay in the local economy 

is termed a leakage (Carver and Caudill, 2007). In order to increase supplies to local businesses to 

meet increased demand, input suppliers must also increase their purchases of inputs from other 

industries. The income and employment resulting from these secondary purchases by input suppliers 

are the indirect effects of visitor spending within the economy. Employees of the directly affected 

businesses and input suppliers use their incomes to purchase goods and services. The resulting 

increased economic activity from new employee income is the induced effect of visitor spending. The 

indirect and induced effects are known as the secondary effects of visitor spending. “Multipliers” (or 

“Response Coefficients”) capture the size of the secondary effects, usually as a ratio of total effects to 

direct effects (Stynes, 1998). The sums of the direct and secondary effects describe the total economic 

impact of visitor spending in the local economy. 

For each alternative, regional economic effects from the IMPLAN model are reported for the following 

categories: 

 Employment represents the change in the number of jobs generated in the region from a 

change in regional output. IMPLAN estimates for employment include both full time and part 

time workers, which are measured in total jobs. 

 Labor Income includes employee wages and salaries, including income of sole proprietors and 

payroll benefits. 

 Value Added measures contribution to Gross Domestic Product. Value added is equal to the 

difference between the amount an industry sells a product for and the production cost of the 

product, and is thus net of intermediate sales. 
10

This economic impact analysis provides the potential economic effects associated with the 

implementation of the management alternatives for the Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge. The CCP 

provides long range guidance and management direction to achieve the Refuge purposes over a 15-

year timeframe. The planning team developed and analyzed four alternatives including current 

management. The economic impacts reported in this report are on an annual basis in 2011 dollars. 

Large management changes often take several years to achieve. The estimates reported for all the 

alternatives represent the final average annual economic effects after all changes in management have 

been implemented. 

Impacts from Refuge Revenue Sharing 

Under provisions of the Refuge Revenue Sharing (RRS) Act, local counties receive an annual payment 

for lands that have been purchased by full fee simple acquisition by the Service. Payments are based on 

the greater of 75 cents per acre or 0.75% of the fair market value of lands acquired by the Service. The 

exact amount of the annual payment depends on Congressional appropriations, which in recent years 

have tended to be less than the amount to fully fund the authorized level of payments. In fiscal year 

2010 (FY10), actual RRS payments were 21% of authorized levels. FY10 RRS payments (made in 

2011) totaled $4,547 to communities in Canyon County. Table 5 shows the resulting economic 

impacts of RRS payments under all alternatives. Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, 

RRS payments for Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 would generate total annual economic impacts of $1.9 

thousand in labor income and $2.8 thousand in value added in the local two-county area. 

Table 5. Annual Impacts from Refuge Revenue Sharing Payments for all Alternatives. 

 Employment Labor income Value Added 

 (# full & part time jobs) (Thousands, $2011) (Thousands, $2011) 

Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 

Direct effects 0 $1.4 $1.8 

Secondary effects 0 $0.5 $1.0 

Total economic impact 0 $1.9 $2.8 

Impacts from Public Use and Access Management 

Refuge Visitor Expenditures in Local Economy 

Spending associated with recreational visits to national wildlife refuges generates significant economic 

activity. The FWS report Banking on Nature: The Economic Benefits of National Wildlife Refuges 
11

Visitation to Local Communities, estimated the impact of national wildlife refuges on their local 

economies (Carver and Caudill, 2007). According to the report, more than 34.8 million visits were 

made to national wildlife refuges in FY 2006 which generated $1.7 billion of sales in regional 

economies. Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, spending by national wildlife refuge 

visitors generated nearly 27,000 jobs, and over $542.8 million in employment income (Carver and 

Caudill, 2007). Approximately eighty-two percent of total expenditures were from non-consumptive 

activities, twelve percent from fishing, and six percent from hunting (Carver and Caudill, 2007). 

The priority “Big-Six” wildlife dependent uses are offered on the Lake Lowell Unit including: hunting, 

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

Additionally, several other non-priority uses occur on the Refuge including non-wildlife dependent 

boating, swimming, jogging, and picnicking. 

This section focuses on the regional economic impacts associated with Refuge visitation. Annual 

visitation estimates are based on several Refuge statistic sources including: visitors entering the Visitor 

Center/Office, counting vehicles at dispersed access sites, and general observation by Refuge 

personnel. Annual visitation estimates are on a per visit basis. Visitor spending profiles are estimated 

on an average per day (8 hours) basis. Because some visitors only spend short amounts of time visiting 

the Refuge, counting each visit as a full visitor day would overestimate the economic impact of Refuge 

visitation. In order to properly account for the amount of spending, the annual number of visits were 

converted to visitor days. Results from a recent visitor survey conducted during the summer of 

2011(Sexton et. al., 2012) showed that Refuge visitors spend on average: five hours for fishing and 

non-wildlife dependent boating; four hours for swimming; and three hours for wildlife related nonconsumptive activities (wildlife watching & photography, environmental education, and interpretation) 

and land-based non-wildlife dependent activities (walking, jogging, picnicking). Refuge personnel 

estimate that big game and waterfowl hunters spend six hours while upland game and other migratory 

bird hunters spend approximately 4 hours on the Refuge. 

To determine the local economic impacts of visitor spending, only spending by persons living outside 

of the local two-county area are included in the analysis. The rationale for excluding local visitor 

spending is twofold. First, money flowing into Ada and Canyon counties from visitors living outside 

the local area (hereafter referred to as non-local visitors) is considered new money injected into the 

local economy. Second, if residents of the local two-county area visit the Refuge more or less due to 

the management changes, it is likely that they will correspondingly change the spending of their money 

elsewhere in that local area, resulting in no net change to the local economy. These are standard 

assumptions made in most regional economic impact analyses at the local level. However, it is 

possible that potential Refuge management actions that would restrict boating and other non-priority 

recreation at the Refuge could result in visitors from the local area shifting their expenditures from 

Canyon County to Ada County or possibly going outside of Ada and Canyon counties to boat and 

recreate at reservoirs outside of the two-county area. To address the contribution of local Refuge 
12

visitation, Appendix A provides a contribution analysis of local visitor expenditures in the two-county 

area. Refuge personnel determined the percentage of non-local Refuge visitors based on . Table 6 

shows the estimated percent of current Refuge visits and visitor days by visitor activity. 

Table 6. Estimated Current Annual Refuge Visitation. 

Visitor Activity 

Total 

annual 

number of 

visits

Number of 

hours spent 

at the Refuge 

Total annual 

number of 

visitor daysa

Percentage of 

non-local visits 

(%) 

Number of 

non-local 

visitor 

days

a

Priority Uses: 

Fishing 45,300 5 28,313 7% 1,982 

Big game hunting 75 6 56 8% 5 

Waterfowl hunting 5,000 6 3,750 8% 300 

Other migratory bird hunting (mourning 

dove) 100 4 50 8% 4 

Upland game hunting 1,100 4 550 8% 44 

Non-Consumptive: wildlife watching & 

photography, environmental education, 

and Interpretation 

55,900 3 20,963 10% 2,096 

Non-priority uses: 0 

Non-wildlife dependent boating 49,400 5 30,875 13% 4,014 

Swimming and other beach activities 38,700 4 19,350 13% 2,516 

Land-based non-wildlife dependent 

(walking, jogging, and other activities 

(e.g., picnicking)) 

27,800 3 10,425 13% 1,355 

Total Visitation 223,375 114,331 12,315 a

One visitor day = 8 hours. 

The Refuge staff used several sources to project changes in visitation by activity over the next 15 years 

for each alternative. The Refuge staff estimated visitor projections based on the following 

considerations: Idaho and national visitation trend data; changes in recreational programs, facilities, 

and resources under each alternative; and changes observed in visitation at Deer Flat NWR over the 

last 10 years (Refuge staff experience/judgment). Table 7 shows projected annual average number of 

visits and visitor days for each activity and alternative. 

Table 7. Annual Average Number of Refuge Visits and Visitor Days by Activity and Alternative 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

Total Visits 

Priority Uses:    

Fishing 48,430 48,430 23,260 12,710 
13

Big game hunting 125 125 125 125 

Waterfowl hunting 5,350 5,350 3,090 4,280 

Other migratory bird hunting (mourning dove) 110 110 50 40 

Upland game hunting 1,180 1,180 550 410 

Non-Consumptive: wildlife watching & 

photography, environmental education, and 

Interpretation 

93,410 125,560 123,080 103,850 

Non-priority uses: 

Non-wildlife dependent boating 55,080 50,040 21,480 0 

Swimming and other beach activities 60,290 54,260 40,700 0 

Land-based non-wildlife dependent (walking, 

jogging, and other activities (e.g., picnicking) 32,280 30,970 27,140 11,500 

Total Annual Visits 296,255 316,025 239,475 132,915 

Total Visitor Days 

Priority Uses:       

Fishing 30,269 30,269 14,538 7,944 

Big game hunting 94 94 94 94 

Waterfowl hunting 4,013 4,013 2,318 3,210 

Other migratory bird hunting (mourning dove) 55 55 25 20 

Upland game hunting 590 590 275 205 

Non-Consumptive: wildlife watching & 

photography, environmental education, and 

Interpretation 

35,029 47,085 46,155 38,944 

Non-priority uses: 

Non-wildlife dependent boating 34,425 31,275 13,425 0 

Swimming and other beach activities 30,145 27,130 20,350 0 

Land-based non-wildlife dependent (walking, 

jogging, and other activities (e.g., picnicking) 12,105 11,614 10,178 4,313 

Total Visitor Days 146,724 152,124 107,356 54,729 

Non-local Visitor Days 

Priority Uses: 

Fishing 2,119 2,119 1,018 556 

Big game hunting 8 8 8 8 

Waterfowl hunting 321 321 185 257 

Other migratory bird hunting (mourning dove) 4 4 2 2 

Upland game hunting 47 47 22 16 

Non-Consumptive: wildlife watching & 

photography, environmental education, and 

Interpretation 

3,503 4,709 4,616 3,894 

Non-priority uses: 

Non-wildlife dependent boating 4,475 4,066 1,745 0 

Swimming and other beach activities 3,919 3,527 2,646 0 

Land-based non-wildlife dependent (walking, 

jogging, and other activities (e.g., picnicking) 1,574 1,510 1,323 561 

Total Non-local Visitor Days 15,970 16,310 11,564 5,293 
14

A visitor usually buys a wide range of goods and services while visiting an area. Major expenditure 

categories include lodging, restaurants, supplies, groceries, and recreational equipment rental. In this 

analysis we use average daily visitor spending profiles from the Banking on Nature report (Carver and 

Caudill, 2007) that were derived from the 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife 

Associated Recreation (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2007). The National Survey reports trip related 

spending of state residents and non-residents for several different wildlife-associated recreational 

activities. For each recreation activity, spending is reported in the categories of lodging, food and 

drink, transportation, and other expenses. Carver and Caudill (2007) calculated the average per-person 

per-day expenditures by recreation activity for each FWS region. We used the spending profiles for 

nonresidents for FWS Region 1 (Region 1 includes Idaho), and updated the 2006 spending profiles to 

2011 dollars using the Consumer Price Index Inflation Calculator. Average daily spending profiles for 

nonresident visitors to Region 1 for fishing ($65.98 per-day), big game hunting ($94.98 per-day), 

upland game hunting ($172.41 per-day) and waterfowl hunting ($192.73 per-day) were used to 

estimate non-local visitor spending for Refuge fishing and hunting related activities. The average daily 

nonresident spending profile for non-consumptive wildlife recreation (observing, feeding, or 

photographing fish and wildlife) ($121.59 per-day) was used for all non-consumptive wildlife viewing 

activities including non-priority swimming and beach activities and land-based non-wildlife dependent 

activities. 

Banking on Nature does not include a spending profile for boating. To account for expenditures by 

boaters, it was assumed that boaters have similar expenditures to other non-consumptive wildlife 

recreators, but have additional fuel expenses to power their motor boats. Based on this assumption, the 

boater spending profile for this analysis was constructed by adding average daily boating fuel 

expenditure costs to the average daily nonresident spending profile for non-consumptive wildlife 

recreation from the Banking on Nature report. Average daily boating fuel expenditures per party were 

estimated by multiplying the average outboard fuel consumption for 2- and 4-stroke boats (3.2 

gallons/hour; Nissan Marine, 2012) by the U.S. average conventional retail gasoline prices for the 

summer of 2011 (May-August) ($3.68; U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2012). Average daily 

boating fuel expenditures per person were then calculated by dividing average daily boating fuel 

expenditures per party by the average number of persons in a boating party (4 persons/party; Sexton et. 

al., 2012). This resulted in an average daily boating fuel expenditure of $23.57 per-day and total 

nonresident daily boating expenditures of $145.16 per-day. 

Total spending by non-local Refuge visitors was determined by multiplying the average non-local 

visitor daily spending by the number of non-local visitor days at the Refuge. The economic impacts of 

each alternative were estimated using IMPLAN. Table 8 summarizes the economic impacts associated 

with current non-local Refuge visitation by activity for Alternative 1. Under Alternative 1, non-local 

Refuge visitors would spend approximately $1.95 million in the local economy annually. This 
15

spending would directly account for 19 jobs, $538.2 thousand in labor income, and $877.6 thousand in 

value added in the local economy. The secondary or multiplier effects would generate an additional 9 

jobs, $309.6 thousand in labor income, and $546.2 thousand in value added. Accounting for both the 

direct and secondary effects, spending by non-local visitors for Alternative 1 would generate total 

economic impacts of 28 jobs, $847.8 thousand in labor income, and $1.4 million in value added. 

Table 8. Average Annual Impacts of Non-Local Visitor Spending by Activity for Alternative 1. 

 Employment Labor income Value Added 

 Alternative 1 (# full & part time jobs) (Thousands, $2011) (Thousands, $2011) 

Priority uses 

Fishing

Direct effects 1 $36.4 $58.7 

Secondary effects 1 $20.8 $36.6 

Total effect 2 $57.1 $95.3 

Hunting (big game, waterfowl, and other migratory birds) 

Direct effects 1 $17.9 $28.6 

Secondary effects 0 $9.8 $17.3 

Total effect 1 $27.6 $45.8 

Non-Consumptive (wildlife watching & photography, env. 

education, and interpretation) 

Direct effects 4 $111.4 $182.1 

Secondary effects 2 $67.7 $118.9 

Total effect 6 $179.1 $301.0 

Non-priority uses

Non-wildlife dependent boating 

Direct effects 7 $197.9 $322.6 

Secondary effects 3 $105.3 $187.0 

Total effect 10 $303.1 $509.6 

Swimming and other beach activities 

Direct effects 4 $124.7 $203.8 

Secondary effects 2 $75.7 $133.0 

Total effect 6 $200.4 $336.8 

Land-based non-wildlife dependent (walking, jogging, and 

other activities, e.g., picnicking) 

Direct effects 2 $50.1 $81.8 

Secondary effects 1 $30.4 $53.4 

Total effect 3 $80.5 $135.2 

Aggregate Non-local visitation 

Direct effects 19 $538.2 $877.6 

Secondary effects 9 $309.6 $546.2 

Total effect 28 $847.8 $1,423.8 

Table 9 summarizes the economic impacts associated with current non-local Refuge visitation by 

activity for Alternative 2. Under Alternative 2, non-local Refuge visitors would spend approximately 

$1.99 million in the local economy annually. This spending would directly account for 19 jobs, $543.9 

thousand in labor income, and $887.1 thousand in value added in the local economy. The secondary or 
16

multiplier effects would generate an additional 10 jobs, $314.4 thousand in labor income, and $554.6 

thousand in value added. Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, spending by non-local 

visitors for Alternative 2 would generate total economic impacts of 29 jobs, $858.4 thousand in labor 

income, and $1.4 million in value added. 

Table 9. Average Annual Impacts of Non-Local Visitor Spending by Activity for Alternative 2. 

 Employment Labor income Value Added 

 Alternative 2 (# full & part time jobs) (Thousands, $2011) (Thousands, $2011) 

Priority uses 

Fishing

Direct effects 1 $36.4 $58.7 

Secondary effects 1 $20.8 $36.6 

Total effect 2 $57.1 $95.3 

Hunting (big game, waterfowl, and other migratory birds) 

Direct effects 1 $17.9 $28.6 

Secondary effects 0 $9.8 $17.3 

Total effect 1 $27.6 $45.8 

Non-Consumptive (wildlife watching & photography, env.l 

education, and interpretation) 

Direct effects 5 $149.8 $244.8 

Secondary effects 3 $91.0 $159.8 

Total effect 8 $240.7 $404.7

Non-priority uses     

Non-wildlife dependent boating 

Direct effects 6 $179.8 $293.1 

Secondary effects 3 $95.6 $169.9 

Total effect 9 $275.4 $463.0 

Swimming and other beach activities 

Direct effects 4 $112.2 $183.4 

Secondary effects 2 $68.1 $119.7 

Total effect 6 $180.3 $303.1 

Land-based non-wildlife dependent (walking, jogging, and 

other activities (e.g., picnicking) 

Direct effects 2 $48.0 $78.5 

Secondary effects 1 $29.2 $51.3 

Total effect 3 $77.2 $129.8 

Aggregate Non-local visitation 

Direct effects 19 $543.9 $887.1 

Secondary effects 10 $314.4 $554.6 

Total effect 29 $858.4 $1,441.6 

Table 10 summarizes the economic impacts associated with current non-local Refuge visitation by 

activity for Alternative 3. Under Alternative 3, non-local Refuge visitors would spend approximately 

$1.4 million in the local economy annually. This spending would directly account for 13 jobs, $377.8 
17

thousand in labor income, and $616.6 thousand in value added in the local economy. The secondary or 

multiplier effects would generate an additional 6 jobs, $222.4 thousand in labor income, and $391.6 

thousand in value added. Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, spending by non-local 

visitors for Alternative 3 would generate total economic impacts of 19 jobs, $600.1 thousand in labor 

income, and $1 million in value added. 

Table 10. Average Annual Impacts of Non-Local Visitor Spending by Activity for Alternative 3. 

 Employment Labor income Value Added 

 Alternative 3 (# full & part time jobs) (Thousands, $2011) (Thousands, $2011) 

Priority uses 

Fishing 

Direct effects 1 $17.5 $28.2 

Secondary effects 0 $10.0 $17.6 

Total effect 1 $27.4 $45.8 

Hunting (big game, waterfowl, and other migratory birds) 

Direct effects 0 $10.1 $16.2 

Secondary effects 0 $5.5 $9.8 

Total effect 0 $15.6 $26.0 

Non-Consumptive (wildlife watching & photography, 

environmental education, and interpretation) 

Direct effects 5 $146.8 $240.0 

Secondary effects 3 $89.2 $156.7 

Total effect 8 $236.0 $396.7 

Non-priority uses     

Non-wildlife dependent boating 

Direct effects 3 $77.2 $125.8 

Secondary effects 1 $41.1 $72.9 

Total effect 4 $118.2 $198.7 

Swimming and other beach activities 

Direct effects 3 $84.1 $137.6 

Secondary effects 1 $51.1 $89.8 

Total effect 4 $135.3 $227.4 

Land-based non-wildlife dependent (walking, jogging, and 

other activities (e.g., picnicking) 

Direct effects 1 $42.1 $68.8 

Secondary effects 1 $25.6 $44.9 

Total effect 2 $67.6 $113.7 

Aggregate Non-local visitation 

Direct effects 13 $377.8 $616.6 

Secondary effects 6 $222.4 $391.6 

Total effect 19 $600.1 $1,008.2 

Table 11 summarizes the economic impacts associated with current non-local Refuge visitation by 

activity for Alternative 4. Under Alternative 4, non-local Refuge visitors would spend approximately 
18

$631 thousand in the local economy annually. This spending would directly account for 5 jobs, $164.5 

thousand in labor income, and $268.3 thousand in value added in the local economy. The secondary or 

multiplier effects would generate an additional 2 jobs, $98.7 thousand in labor income, and $173.5 

thousand in value added. Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, spending by non-local 

visitors for Alternative 4 would generate total economic impacts of 7 jobs, $263.2 thousand in labor 

income, and $441.8 thousand in value added. 

Table 11. Average Annual Impacts of Non-Local Visitor Spending by Activity for Alternative 4. 

 Employment Labor income Value Added 

 Alternative 4 (# full & part time jobs) (Thousands, $2011) (Thousands, $2011) 

Priority uses 

Fishing

Direct effects 0 $9.5 $15.4 

Secondary effects 0 $5.5 $9.6 

Total effect 0 $15.0 $25.0 

Hunting (big game, waterfowl, and other migratory birds) 

Direct effects 0 $13.3 $21.2 

Secondary effects 0 $7.1 $12.7 

Total effect 0 $20.4 $33.9 

Non-Consumptive (wildlife watching & photography, 

environmental education, and interpretation) 

Direct effects 4 $123.9 $202.5 

Secondary effects 2 $75.2 $132.2 

Total effect 6 $199.1 $334.7 

Non-priority uses     

Non-wildlife dependent boating 

Direct effects 0 $0.0 $0.0 

Secondary effects 0 $0.0 $0.0 

Total effect 0 $0.0 $0.0 

Swimming and other beach 

activities 

Direct effects 0 $0.0 $0.0 

Secondary effects 0 $0.0 $0.0 

Total effect 0 $0.0 $0.0 

Land-based non-wildlife dependent (walking, jogging, and 

other activities (e.g., picnicking) 

Direct effects 1 $17.8 $29.2 

Secondary effects 0 $10.8 $19.0 

Total effect 1 $28.7 $48.2 

Aggregate Non-local visitation 

Direct effects 5 $164.5 $268.3 

Secondary effects 2 $98.7 $173.5 

Total effect 7 $263.2 $441.8 
19

Table 12 summarizes the total economic impacts associated with current non-local Refuge visitation 

by alternative. As shown in Table 12, the total annual average economic impacts for Alternative 2 

would be similar to Alternative 1. The impacts for Alternative 3 would be approximately 30% less than 

the impacts for Alternative 1. Alternative 4 would have the largest decrease in impacts (approximately 

70-75%) compared to Alternative 1. 

Table 12. Average Annual Impacts of Non-Local Visitor Spending by Alternative. 

 Employment Labor income Value Added 

 (# full & part time jobs) (Thousands, $2011) (Thousands, $2011) 

Alternative 1 

Direct effects 19 $538.2 $877.6 

Secondary effects 9 $309.6 $546.2 

Total economic impact 28 $847.8 $1,423.8 

Alternative 2 

Direct effects 19 $543.9 $887.1 

Secondary effects 10 $314.4 $554.6 

Total economic impact 29 $858.4 $1,441.6 

Alternative 3 

Direct effects 13 $377.8 $616.6 

Secondary effects 6 $222.4 $391.6 

Total economic impact 19 $600.1 $1,008.2 

Alternative 4 

Direct effects 5 $164.5 $268.3 

Secondary effects 2 $98.7 $173.5 

Total economic impact 7 $263.2 $441.8 

Impacts from Refuge Administration 

Staff – Personal Purchases 

Refuge employees reside and spend their salaries on daily living expenses in the local area, thereby 

generating impacts within the local economy. Household consumption expenditures consist of 

payments by individuals/households to industries for goods and services used for personal 

consumption. The IMPLAN modeling system contains household consumption spending profiles that 

account for average household spending patterns by income level. These profiles allow for leakage of 

household spending to outside the region. The IMPLAN household spending pattern for households 
20

earning $35-50 thousand dollars per year was used to reflect the average salary of full-time permanent 

employees at the Refuge ($46,000 per year). Table 13 illustrates current Refuge staffing and additional 

positions needed under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. 

Table 13. Current Staffing and Additional Positions Needed to Implement the CCP. 

Current Refuge Staff Positions (Alternative 1) 

Refuge Manager 

Assistant Refuge Manager 

Visitor Services Manager 

Wildlife Biologist 

Maintenance Worker 

Administrative Assistant 

Office Aid 

Youth Conservation Corps Leader (full-time seasonal) 

Youth Conservation Corps (4 full-time seasonal positions) 

Environmental Education Specialist (Intern) 

Volunteer Coordinator (Intern) 

Biological Science Technician (Intern) 

Additional positions needed to implement the CCP (for Alt 2,3, 4) 

*Biological Science Technician 

*Environmental Education Specialist 

*Volunteer Coordinator 

Law Enforcement Officer 

*If these positions were funded, the current interns would not be necessary. 

Refuge personnel estimate that annual salaries total around $524.6 thousand for Alternative 1 and 

would increase to $711.1 thousand under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Table 14 shows the economic 

impacts associated with spending of salaries in the local two-county area by Refuge employees under 

all Alternatives. For Alternative 1, salary spending by Refuge personnel would generate additional 

secondary effects (i.e. additional non-refuge jobs in the local economy) of 4 jobs, $133.9 thousand in 

labor income, and $249.3 thousand in value added in the local economy. Alternatives 2,3, and 4 would 

generate additional secondary effects of 5 jobs, $181.5 thousand in labor income, and $338 thousand in 

value added in the local economy. 

Table 14. Annual Local Impacts of Salary Spending by Deer Flat NWR Personnel for by Alternative.

 Employment Labor income Value Added 

 (# full & part time jobs) (Thousands, $2011) (Thousands, $2011) 

Alternative 1 
21

Direct effects 0 $0.0 $0.0 

Secondary effects 4 $141.1 $254.7 

Total economic impact 4 $141.1 $254.7 

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 

Direct effects 0 $0.0 $0.0 

Secondary effects 6 $191.2 $345.2 

Total economic impact 6 $191.2 $345.2 

Work-related Purchases 

A wide variety of supplies and services are purchased for Refuge operations and maintenance 

activities. Refuge purchases made in the local two-county area contribute to the local economic 

impacts associated with the Refuge. Major local expenditures include: supplies and services related to 

annual maintenance costs for trails, buildings and signage, and small equipment; auto repairs, parts, 

and fuel; and utilities. Current Refuge non-salary recurring expenditures average approximately $204.7 

thousand per year. Average annual costs (including recurring costs and the annual average of one-time 

project costs over the life of the plan) are anticipated to increase by $83.8 thousand for Alternative 1, 

$397 thousand for Alternative 2, $832.8 thousand for Alternative 3, and $362.6 thousand for 

Alternative 4. Total average annual non-salary costs would total $288.5 thousand for Alternative 1, 

$601.7 thousand for Alternative 2, $1.04 million for Alternative 3, and $567.3 thousand for Alternative 

4. The large increase in costs under Alternative 3 are related to the construction of a boardwalk. 

According to Refuge records, approximately 80% of the annual non-salary budget expenditures are 

spent on goods and services purchased in the local two-county area. Table 15 shows the economic 

impacts associated with work-related expenditures in local communities near the Refuge. For 

Alternative 1, work-related purchases would generate a total economic impact of 3 jobs, $122.9 

thousand in labor income, and $179.3 thousand in value added. Work-related purchases under 

Alternative 3 would generate the largest total economic impact of 15 jobs, $536.6 thousand in labor 

income, and $734.4 thousand in value added. 

Table 15. Local Economic Impacts of Refuge Related Purchases by Alternative 

 Employment Labor income Value Added 

 (# full & part time jobs) (Thousands, $2011) (Thousands, $2011) 

Alternative 1 

Direct effects 2 $76.5 $100.1 

Secondary effects 1 $46.4 $79.2 

Total economic impact 3 $122.9 $179.3 

Alternative 2 

Direct effects 5 $177.4 $212.9 

Secondary effects 3 $103.7 $176.3 
22

Total economic impact 8 $281.1 $389.2 

Alternative 3 

Direct effects 9 $326.9 $385.5 

Secondary effects 6 $209.7 $348.9 

Total economic impact 15 $536.6 $734.4 

Alternative 4 

Direct effects 4 $165.4 $199.2 

Secondary effects 3 $95.1 $162.3 

Total economic impact 7 $260.5 $361.5 

Summary of Economic Impacts for Alternative 1 (Status Quo) 

Table 16 summarizes the direct and total economic impacts in the two-county area of Refuge 

management activities for Alternative 1. Under Alternative 1, management activities directly related to 

Refuge operations generate an estimated 21 jobs, $616.0 thousand in labor income, and $979.5 

thousand in value added in the local economy. Including direct, indirect, and induced effects, all 

Refuge activities generate a total economic impact of 35 jobs, $1.1 million in labor income, and $1.8 

million in value added. In 2009, total labor income was estimated at $14.8 billion and total 

employment was estimated at 367.7 thousand jobs for the local two-county area (IMPLAN 2009 data). 

Thus, total economic impacts associated with Refuge operations under Alternative 1 represent less than 

.01 percent of total income and total employment in the overall two county area economy. Total 

economic effects of Refuge operations play a larger role in the communities in Canyon County near 

the Refuge where most of the Refuge-related expenditures and public use related economic activity 

occurs. 

Table 16. Summary of all Refuge management activities for Alternative 1 

 Employment Labor income Value Added 

 (# full & part time jobs) (Thousands, $2011) (Thousands, $2011) 

Revenue Sharing & 

Refuge Administrationa 

Direct effects 2 $77.8 $101.9 

Total Effects 7 $265.9 $436.8 

Non-local Public Use 

Activities 

Direct effects 19 $538.2 $877.6 

Total Effects 28 $847.8 $1,423.8 

Aggregate Impacts 

Direct effects 21 $616.0 $979.5 
23

Total effects 35 $1,113.6 $1,860.7 

a. Staff salary spending and work related purchases 

Summary of Economic Impacts for Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) 

Table 17 summarizes the direct and total economic impacts in the two-county area of Refuge 

management activities for Alternative 2. Under Alternative 2, management activities directly related to 

Refuge operations would generate an estimated 24 jobs, $722.7 thousand in labor income, and $1.1 

million in value added in the local economy. Including direct, indirect, and induced effects, all Refuge 

activities would generate a total economic impact of 43 jobs, $1.3 million in labor income, and $2.2 

million in value added. In 2009, total labor income was estimated at $14.8 billion and total 

employment was estimated at 367.7 thousand jobs for the local two-county area (IMPLAN 2009 data). 

Thus, total economic impacts associated with Refuge operations under Alternative 2 represent less than 

.01 percent of total income and total employment in the overall two county area economy. Total 

economic effects of Refuge operations play a larger role in the communities in Canyon County near 

the Refuge where most of the Refuge-related expenditures and public use related economic activity 

occurs. 

Table 17. Summary of all Refuge management activities for Alternative 2 

 Employment Labor income Value Added 

 (# full & part time jobs) (Thousands, $2011) (Thousands, $2011) 

Revenue Sharing & 

Refuge Administrationa 

Direct effects 5 $178.8 $214.7 

Total Effects 14 $474.2 $737.3 

Non-local Public Use 

Activities 

Direct effects 19 $543.9 $887.1 

Total Effects 29 $858.4 $1,441.6 

Aggregate Impacts 

Direct effects 24 $722.7 $1,101.8 

Total effects 43 $1,332.6 $2,178.9 

a. Staff salary spending and work related purchases 

Table 18 summarizes the change in economic effects associated with Refuge operations under 

Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1. Due to increases in visitation and administration, 

Alternative 2 would generate 8 more jobs, $219.0 thousand more in labor income, and $318.3 thousand 

more in value added as compared to Alternative 1.
24

Table 18. Change in economic impacts under Alternative 2 compared to Alternative 1 

 Employment Labor income Value Added 

 (# full & part time jobs) (Thousands, $2011) (Thousands, $2011) 

Revenue Sharing & 

Refuge Administrationa 

Direct effects (+) 3 (+) $100.9 (+) $112.8 

Total Effects (+) 7 (+) $208.4 (+) $300.5 

Non-local Public Use 

Activities 

Direct effects no change (+) $5.7 (+) $9.5 

Total Effects (+) 1 (+) $10.6 (+) $17.8 

Aggregate Impacts 

Direct effects (+) 3 (+) $106.7 (+) $122.3 

Total effects (+) 8 (+) $219.0 (+) $318.3 

a. Staff salary spending and work related purchases 

Summary of Economic Impacts for Alternative 3 

Table 19 summarizes the direct and total economic impacts in the two-county area of Refuge 

management activities for Alternative 3. Under Alternative 3, Refuge management activities directly 

related to Refuge operations would generate an estimated 22 jobs, $706.0 thousand in labor income, 

and $1.0 million in value added in the local economy. Including direct, indirect, and induced effects, 

all Refuge activities would generate a total economic impact of 40 jobs, $1.3 million in labor income, 

and $2.1 million in value added. In 2009, total labor income was estimated at $14.8 billion and total 

employment was estimated at 367.7 thousand jobs for the local two-county area (IMPLAN 2009 data). 

Thus, total economic impacts associated with Refuge operations under Alternative 3 represent less than 

.01 percent of total income and total employment in the overall two county area economy. Total 

economic effects of Refuge operations play a larger role in the communities in Canyon County near 

the Refuge where most of the Refuge-related expenditures and public use related economic activity 

occurs. 

Table 19. Summary of all Refuge management activities for Alternative 3 

 Employment Labor income Value Added 

 (# full & part time jobs) (Thousands, $2011) (Thousands, $2011) 

Revenue Sharing & 

Refuge Administrationa 

Direct effects 9 $328.3 $387.4 

Total Effects 21 $729.8 $1,082.5 

Non-local Public Use 

Activities 
25

Direct effects 13 $377.8 $616.6 

Total Effects 19 $600.1 $1,008.2 

Aggregate Impacts 

Direct effects 22 $706.0 $1,003.9 

Total effects 40 $1,329.9 $2,090.7 

a. Staff salary spending and work related purchases 

Table 20 summarizes the change in economic effects associated with Refuge operations under Alternative 3 as 

compared to Alternative 1. Due to substantial increases in Refuge administration (including the construction of a 

boardwalk), Alternative 3 would generate 5 more jobs, $216.3 thousand more in labor income, and $230.0 

thousand more in value added as compared to Alternative 1.

Table 20. Change in economic impacts under Alternative 3 compared to Alternative 1 

 Employment Labor income Value Added 

 (# full & part time jobs) (Thousands, $2011) (Thousands, $2011) 

Revenue Sharing & 

Refuge Administrationa 

Direct effects (+) 7 (+) $250.4 (+) $285.5 

Total Effects (+) 14 (+) $463.9 (+) $645.6 

Non-local Public Use 

Activities 

Direct effects (-) 6 (-) $160.4 (-) $261.1 

Total Effects (-) 9 (-) $247.6 (-) $415.6 

Aggregate Impacts 

Direct effects (+) 1 (+) $90.0 (+) $24.4 

Total effects (+)5 (+) $216.3 (+) $230.0 

a. Staff salary spending and work related purchases 

Summary of Economic Impacts for Alternative 4 

Table 21 summarizes the direct and total economic impacts in the two-county area of Refuge 

management activities for Alternative 4. Under Alternative 4, Refuge management activities directly 

related to Refuge operations would generate an estimated 9 jobs, $331.4 thousand in labor income, and 

$469.3 thousand in value added in the local economy. Including direct, indirect, and induced effects, 

all Refuge activities would generate a total economic impact of 20 jobs, $716.8 thousand in labor 

income, and $1.2 million in value added. In 2009, total labor income was estimated at $14.8 billion 

and total employment was estimated at 367.7 thousand jobs for the local two-county area (IMPLAN 

2009 data). Thus, total economic impacts associated with Refuge operations under Alternative 4 

represent less than .01 percent of total income and total employment in the overall two county area 

economy. Total economic effects of Refuge operations play a larger role in the communities in Canyon 
26

County near the Refuge where most of the Refuge-related expenditures and public use related 

economic activity occurs. 

Table 21. Summary of all Refuge management activities for Alternative 4 

 Employment Labor income Value Added 

 (# full & part time jobs) (Thousands, $2011) (Thousands, $2011) 

Revenue Sharing & 

Refuge Administrationa 

Direct effects 4 $166.8 $201.0 

Total Effects 13 $453.6 $709.5 

Non-local Public Use 

Activities 

Direct effects 5 $164.5 $268.3 

Total Effects 7 $263.2 $441.8 

Aggregate Impacts 

Direct effects 9 $331.4 $469.3 

Total effects 20 $716.8 $1,151.3 

a. Staff salary spending and work related purchases 

Table 22 summarizes the change in economic effects associated with Refuge operations under Alternative 4 as 

compared to Alternative 1. Due to substantial decreases in visitation, Alternative 4 would generate 15 less jobs, 

$396.8 thousand less in labor income, and $709.4 thousand less in value added as compared to Alternative 1.

Table 22. Change in economic impacts under Alternative 4 compared to Alternative 1 

 Employment Labor income Value Added 

 (# full & part time jobs) (Thousands, $2011) (Thousands, $2011) 

Revenue Sharing & 

Refuge Administrationa 

Direct effects (+) 2 (+) $89.0 (+) $99.1 

Total Effects (+) 6 (+) $187.8 (+) $272.7 

Non-local Public Use 

Activities 

Direct effects (-) 14 (-) $373.7 (-) $609.3 

Total Effects (-) 21 (-) $584.6 (-) $982.1 

Aggregate Impacts 

Direct effects (-) 12 (-) $284.7 (-) $510.2 

Total effects (-) 15 (-) $396.8 (-) $709.4 

a. Staff salary spending and work related purchases 
27

References 

Ada County Accounting Department, 2008, September 30, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, 

accessed online February 27, 2012, at 

http://www.adaweb.net/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=rZNNJeWZikQ%3D&tabid=1409 

Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2010, United States Department of Labor: Bureau of Labor Statistics, 

accessed on line January 19, 2012, at http://www.bea.gov/regional/region/reis 

Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011a, United States Department of Labor: Bureau of Labor Statistics, 

Achived New Releases, accessed on line January 18, 2012, at 

http://www.bls.gov/schedule/archives/all_nr.htm#SRGUNE 

Carver, E. & Caudill, J., 2007, Banking on Nature 2006: The Economic Benefits to Local 

Communities of National Wildlife Refuge Visitation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division 

of Economics, Washington, DC. 

Cauchon, D., 2007, September 28, No End in Sight for Idaho's Growth, USA Today. 

Chen, D. D., 2000, The Science of Smart Growth, Scientific American, 84. 

Church, John, 2003, 2003 County Economic Forecast: Historic and Forcast County Population 2000-

2003, Idaho Economics, accessed on line Jannuary 22, 2011, at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/areas/pop/pop_proj.htm 

City of Nampa Department of Planning and Zoning, 2003, Employment, accessed on line February 27, 

2012, at http://www.cityofnampa.us/revitalization/economy/employment.pdf 

Conservation Biology Institute, 2006, Protected Areas Database, compiled using Headwaters 

Economics Economic profile system-human dimensions toolkit 

Goodwin, A., 2003, Sprawl Threatens Quality of Life, Study Says, accessed on line January 25, 2012, 

at spokesmanreview.com: http://www.spokesmanreview.com/newsstory.asp?date=070703&ID=s1378246 

Headwaters Economics, 2008, Economic profile system-human dimensions toolkit (EPS–HDT), 

available for download online at http://headwaterseconomics.org/tools/eps-hdt, downloaded 

September 05, 2011 

Idaho Department of Labor, 2009, Idaho Economic Update, accessed on line January 25, 2012, at 

http://labor.idaho.gov/publications/EconUpdate_Sept_2009.pdf 

Idaho Department of Labor, 2011a, Canyon County: Work Force Trends, Boise: Idaho Department of 

Labor. 

Idaho Department of Labor, 2011b, Ada County: Work Force Trends, Boise: Idaho Department of 

Labor. 

Idaho Department of Labor, 2011c, Idaho's Job Recovery to Remain Slow in 2011, Boise: Idaho 

Department of Labor. 

Idaho Division of Financial Management, 2004, Idaho Economic Forecast, Boise: Idaho Division of 

Financial Management. 

McMahan, J. B., Weber, K. T., & Sauder, J. D., 2002, Using Remotely Sensed Data in Urban Sprawl 

and Green Space Analyses, Intermountain Journal of Sciences, 30-37. 

NASA, 2006, MODIS Land Cover Type, compiled using Headwaters Economics profile systemhuman dimensions toolkit 

Nissan Marine, 2012, Nissan Outboard Fuel Consumption: accessed online March 1, 2012, at 

http://www.nissanmarine.com/tech_talk/gas_mileage.html 
28

Olson, D., and Lindall, S., 1999, IMPLAN professional software, analysis and data guide: Minnesota 

IMPLAN Group, Inc. 

Petrich, C., Wilkins, M., Tondee, C., & Morse, T., 2002, Western Snake River Plain- Treasure Valley 

General Description, accessed on line January 24, 2012, at 

http://imnh.isu.edu/digitalatlas/hydr/snakervr/wsrptvlg.htm 

Sexton, N.R., Dietsch, A.M., Don Carlos, A.W., Koontz, L., Solomon, A. and Miller, H., 2012, 

National Wildlife Refuge visitor survey 2010/2011: Individual refuge results (Deer Flat): U.S. 

Geological Survey Data Series 643. 

Speir, C., & Stephenson, K., 2002, Does Sprawl Cost Us All?: Isolating the Effects of Housing 

Patterns on PUblic Water and Sewer Costs. Journal of the American Planning Association, 56-

70. 

Stynes, D., 1998. Guidelines for measuring visitor spending: Department of Parks, Recreation and 

Tourism Resources, Michigan State University. 

United States Bureau of Reclamation, n.d., Lake Lowell, accessed on line January 24, 2012, at 

http://www.recreation.gov/recAreaDetails.do?contractCode=NRSO&recAreaId=112&agencyC

ode=129 

United States Census Bureau, 1996, Population Projections for State by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic 

Origin: 1995 to 2025, accessed on line January 23, 2012, at 

http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/ppl47.html 

United States Census Bureau, 2012, American FactFinder 2, accessed on line January 18, 2012, at 

American FactFinder 2: http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml 

United States Department of Agriculture, 2000, Idaho Natural Resource Trends, accessed on line 

January 25, 2012, at ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/ID/news/nri_97.pdf 

United States Department of Agriculture, 2009, Summary Report: 2007 National Resources Inventory,

Washington D.C.: Natural Resourses Convervation Service and Center for Survey Statistics 

and Methodology. 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 2007, 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and 

Wildlife-Associated Recreation: Idaho. U.S. Census Bureau.

United States Energy Information Administration, 2012, Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update: accessed 

online March 1, 2012, at http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/gasdiesel/ 

Appendix A 

As mentioned in the Impacts from Public Use and Access Management section, when determining the 

economic impacts of visitor spending, only spending by non-locals are included in the analysis. This 

spending generates new income and employment, and has an economic impact on the region. 

Evaluating it shows the gain to the region from having the Refuge (Carver and Caudill, 2007). In this 

Appendix, total spending by both locals and non-locals is evaluated to show the significance of 

visitation to Deer Flat NWR to the local economy under Alternative 1 (Status Quo). As noted by 
29

Carver and Caudill (2007), significance shows the economic activity in a region that is connected to 

Refuge activities, but does not reflect income and employment that would be lost if the Refuge were 

not a part of that economy. 

Table A shows local and non-local visitation to Deer Flat NWR under Alternative 1. To capture 

spending by local visitors, we used the spending profiles in Carver and Caudill (2007) for residents for 

FWS Region 1 and update the 2006 spending profiles to 2011 dollars using the Consumer Price Index 

Inflation Calculator. Average daily spending profiles for resident visitors to Region 1 for fishing 

($40.82 per-day), big game hunting ($41.15 per-day), upland game hunting ($40.54 per-day) and 

waterfowl hunting ($55.58 per-day) were used to estimate local visitor spending for Refuge fishing and 

hunting related activities. The average daily resident spending profile for non-consumptive wildlife 

recreation (observing, feeding, or photographing fish and wildlife) ($33.35 per-day) was used for all 

non-consumptive wildlife viewing activities including non-priority swimming and beach activities and 

land-based non-wildlife dependent activities. As described in the Impacts from Public Use and Access 

Management section, local boater expenditures were e by adding average daily boating fuel 

expenditure costs ($23.57 per-day) to the average daily resident spending profile for non-consumptive 

wildlife recreation ($33.35 per-day) from the Banking on Nature report. Total spending by local refuge 

visitors was determined by multiplying the average local visitor daily spending by the number of local 

visitor days at the Refuge. 

Table A. Estimated Annual Deer Flat NWR Local and Non-local Visitation by Visitor Activity for Alternative 1 

Alternative 1 

Total 

number of 

visits 

Number of 

local visits 

Number of 

non-local 

visits 

Number 

local 

visitor 

daysa

Number of 

non-local 

visitor 

daysa

Priority uses 

Fishing 48,430 45,040 3,390 28,150 2,119 

Hunting (big game, waterfowl, and 

other migratory birds) 6,765 6,224 541 4,371 380 

Non-Consumptive (wildlife watching 

& photography, environmental 

education, and interpretation) 

93,410 84,069 9,341 31,526 3,503 

Non-priority uses 

Non-wildlife dependent boating 55,080 47,920 7,160 29,950 4,475 

Swimming and other beach activities 60,290 52,452 7,838 26,226 3,919 

Land-based non-wildlife dependent 

(walking, jogging, and other activities 

(e.g., picnicking) 

32,280 28,084 4,196 10,531 1,574 

Total Visitation 296,255 263,788 32,467 130,754 15,970 a One visitor day = 8 hours 
30

Table B summarizes the total economic significance associated with both local and non-local visitation 

under the status quo Alternative 1. Under Alternative 1, local and non-local Refuge visitors would 

spend a combined $7.3 million in the local economy annually. Accounting for both direct and 

secondary effects, spending by local and non-local visitors for Alternative 1 account for a total 

economic significance of 88 jobs, $3.3 million in labor income, and $5.5 million in value added in the 

local two-county area. 

Table B. Total Annual Impacts of Local and Non-Local Visitor Spending for Alternative 1 

 Employment Labor income Value Added 

 (# full & part time 

jobs) (Thousands, $2011) (Thousands, $2011) 

Local Spending 

 Direct effects 55 $1,585.0 $2,566.4 

 Secondary effects 24 $825.8 $1,470.9 

 Total economic significance 79 $2,410.8 $4,037.2 

Non-local Spending 

 Direct effects 19 $538.2 $877.6 

 Secondary effects 9 $309.6 $546.2 

 Total economic impact 28 $847.8 $1,423.8 

Total economic significance 88 $3,258.5 $5,461.0 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix N. Acronyms and Abbreviations N-1 

Appendix N. Acronyms and Abbreviations 

Act National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (also 

Improvement Act or NWRSIA) 

ABA Architectural Barriers Act 

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act 

AFA Acre Feet per Annum 

AHM Adaptive Harvest Management 

AMA Academy of Model Aeronautics 

AQI Air Quality Index 

ARPA Archaeological Resources Protection Act 

Audubon National Audubon Society 

AUM Animal Unit Month 

BCC Birds of Conservation Concern 

BCR Bird Conservation Region 

BIDEH Biological Diversity, Integrity and Environmental Health 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

BMPs Best Management Practices 

Bti. Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis 

C.F.R. Code of Federal Regulations 

CCC Civilian Conservation Corps 

CCP Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CCPRW Canyon County Parks, Recreation, and Waterways 

CD Compatibility Determination 

CEQ White House Council on Environmental Quality 

CFS Cubic Feet per Second 

CIG Climate Impacts Group 

CMP Corridor Management Plan 

CWA Clean Water Act 

CWCS Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy 

DDE Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene 

DO Dissolved Oxygen 

DPS Distinct Population Segment 

E.O. Executive Order 

EE Environmental Education 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

ENSO El Niño/Southern Oscillation 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

EPS–HDT Economic Profile System-Human Dimensions Toolkit 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

FHBC Fort Hall Business Council 

Friends Friends of Deer Flat Wildlife Refuge 

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (also Service, USFWS) 

FY Fiscal Year 

GHGs Green House Gases 

GIS Geographic Information System 

GPS Global Positioning System 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

N-2 Appendix N. Acronyms and Abbreviations 

GSA General Services Administration 

ha Hectare 

HAER Historic American Engineering Record 

IBA Important Bird Area 

ICT CCP Interagency Coordinating Team 

IDAPA Idaho Administrative Procedure Act 

IDEQ Idaho Department of Environmental Quality 

IDFG Idaho Department of Fish and Game 

IDPR Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation 

IDWR Idaho Department of Water Resources 

IMPLAN Impact Analysis for Planning 

Improvement Act National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (also Act, 

NWRSIA) 

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

IPM Integrated Pest Management 

ISHS Idaho State Historical Society 

LCC Landscape Conservation Cooperative 

LDRA Lower Dam Recreation Area 

LE Law Enforcement 

LEIS Legislative Environmental Impact Statement 

MBCC Migratory Bird Conservation Commission 

MMS Maintenance Management System 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

MRA Minimum Requirements Analysis 

MSL Mean Sea Level 

NAGPRA Native American Graves Repatriation Act 

NAWMPC North American Waterfowl Management Plan Committee 

NCDC National Climatic Data Center 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NOI Notice of Intent 

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NSRE National Survey on Recreation and the Environment 

NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Unit 

NWR National Wildlife Refuge 

NWRS National Wildlife Refuge System 

ODEQ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 

ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

PDO Pacific Decadal Oscillation 

PIF Partners in Flight 

PLO Public Land Order 

PM Particulate Matter 

PMU Population Management Unit 

ppm Parts Per Million 

PUP Pesticide Use Proposal 

Reclamation Bureau of Reclamation 

RM River Mile 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix N. Acronyms and Abbreviations N-3 

RMP Resource Management Plan 

RONS Refuge Operating Needs System 

RRS Refuge Revenue Sharing Act 

SCORTP Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation and Tourism Plan 

SDH Southwest District Health 

Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (also FWS, USFWS) 

SGCN Species of Greatest Conservation Need 

SMU Smoke Management Unit 

SUP Special Use Permit 

SWID Southwest Irrigation District 

T and E Threatened and Endangered 

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load 

TNC The Nature Conservancy 

U.S.C. United States Code 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USFS U.S. Forest Service 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (also FWS, Service) 

USG Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups 

USGCRP U.S. Global Climate Change Research Program 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

USHCN U.S. Historical Climatology Network 

VAOT Vessels At One Time 

VCS Visitor Contact Station 

VRM Visual Resource Management 

WPA Works Progress Administration 

WQS Water Quality Standard 

WRCC Western Regional Climate Center 

WSA Wilderness Study Area 

 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

N-4 Appendix N. Acronyms and Abbreviations 

Document continues on next page. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix O. Glossary O-1 

Appendix O. Glossary 

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, 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. 

Anadromous. Fish that hatch and rear in fresh water, migrate to the ocean (salt water) to grow and 

mature, and migrate back to fresh water to spawn and reproduce. (www.streamnet.org/glossary.html)

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 Acquisition Boundary. National wildlife refuge boundary approved by the National Fish 

and Wildlife Service Director for potential acquisition of lands by the Service. 

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. 

(www.merriam-webster.com) 

Avifaunal. All the birds present in a region, environment, or period of time. (Encarta Dictionary)

Benefiting Resources. Those species, species groups, or resources expected to benefit from actions 

taken for a Resource of Concern. 

Big Six. Wildlife-dependent recreational uses under Refuge System Improvement Act include 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation. 

Bioaccumulation. A process where chemicals are retained in fatty body tissue and increase in 

concentration over time. (U.S. EPA Pesticide Glossary, http://epa.gov/pesticides/glossary/) 

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 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

O-2 Appendix O. Glossary 

they occur (Service Manual 601 FW 3). The Refuge 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. (Service Manual 601 FW 3) 

Biome. A division of the world’s vegetation that corresponds to a defined climate and is 

characterized by specific types of plants and animals (e.g., tropical rain forest or desert). (Encarta 

Dictionary) 

Birds of Conservation Concern. A category assembled by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Division of Migratory Birds identifying the migratory and nonmigratory species (beyond those 

already designated as Federally threatened or endangered) that represent the Division’s highest 

conservation priorities. (FWS, Division of Migratory Birds) 

Board of Control; the Boise Project. Boise Project Board of Control and the Payette Division 

irrigation districts coordinate reservoir releases for irrigation, power generation, flood protection, 

municipal and industrial water use, recreation, water quality, and a healthy fishery. (Reclamation, 

www.usbr.gov/pn/project/boise_index.html) 

Bureau of Reclamation. The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and 

protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the 

interest of the American public. (Reclamation, www.usbr.gov/library/glossary) 

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 

C.F.R. 1508.4) 

Colonial (Nesting). A group of individuals that nest in the same area at the same time. Grebes, great 

blue herons, and gulls are examples of colonial nesting species at Deer Flat NWR.

(www.fws.gov/birds/documents/whichbirdscolonial.pdf). 

Compatibility Determination. A written determination signed and dated by the refuge manager and 

regional chief signifying that a proposed or existing use of a national wildlife refuge is a compatible 

use or is not a compatible use. The Director makes this delegation through the Regional Director. 

(Service Manual 603 FW 2) 

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 Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge (Service Manual 603 

FW 2.6). 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. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix O. Glossary O-3 

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 Refuge System; maintains and, where 

appropriate, restores the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of each refuge and 

the Refuge System; helps achieve the goals of the National Wilderness Preservation System, if 

appropriate; and meets other mandates. (Service Manual 602 FW 1.4) 

Concern. See Issue.

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 Habitat Fragmentation. 

Conservation Targets (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 actions. (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 Open File Report 99-108, 

Assessing Environmental Contaminant Threats to Lands Managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service). 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 percentage of an area, projected onto a horizontal surface, occupied by a 

particular plant species. 

Cultural Resource Inventory. A professionally conducted study designed to locate and evaluate 

evidence of cultural resources present within a defined geographic area. Inventories may involve 

various levels, including background literature search, comprehensive field examination to identify 

all exposed physical manifestations of cultural resources, or sample inventory to project site 

distribution and density over a larger area. Evaluation of identified cultural resources to determine 

eligibility for the National Register follows the criteria found in 36 C.F.R. 60.4. (Service Manual 614 

FW 1.7) 

Cultural Resources. The physical remains, objects, historic records, and traditional life ways that 

connect us to our nation’s past. (FWS, Considering Cultural Resources, 

http://www.fws.gov/nativeamerican/graphics/Cultural_Resources_Overview.pdf) 

Department of the Interior. The U.S. Department of the Interior serves as steward and guardian of 

the nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage. It manages federal lands, such as national parks 

and refuges; honors the nation’s trust responsibilities to tribal communities; and promotes 

conservation and wise use of natural resources. (U.S. Department of the Interior website) 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

O-4 Appendix O. Glossary 

Decadence. Marked by decay or decline. For plants, showing little or no new growth. (Adapted from 

Merriam-Webster online dictionary, www.merriam-webster.com) 

Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE). A chemical compound formed by the loss of hydrogen 

chloride (dehydrohalogenation) from DDT, of which it is one of the more common breakdown 

products. DDT is an organochlorine pesticide that was once widely used to control insects on 

agricultural crops. Consuming large amounts of DDT over a short time would most likely affect the 

nervous system. (Public Health Statement of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 

Centers for Disease Control) 

Direct Loss. Loss of food or loss of habitat as nonnative species out-compete native species.

Distinct Population Segment (DPS). A subdivision of a vertebrate species that is treated as a 

species for purposes of listing under the Endangered Species Act. To be so recognized, a potential 

distinct population segment must satisfy standards specified in a FWS or NOAA Fisheries policy 

statement (See the February 7, 1996, Federal Register, pages 4722-4725). The standards require it to 

be separable from the remainder of and significant to the species to which it belongs. (FWS, 

Endangered Species Glossary, http://www.fws.gov/endangered/glossary.html) 

Disturbance. Significant alteration of habitat structure or composition, or of the behavior or wildlife. 

May be natural (e.g., fire) or human-caused events. (e.g., aircraft overflight). 

East Pool. That part of Lake Lowell that is east of the Narrows (see CCP Map 3). 

Ecosystem. A dynamic and interrelating complex of plant and animal communities and their 

associated nonliving 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. 

Elevation. The elevation above sea level of the surface water at Lake Lowell.

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, 

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/glossary.html) 

Endangered Species (State). A plant or animal species in danger of becoming extinct or extirpated 

in a state within the near future if factors contributing to its decline continue. Populations of these 

species are at critically low levels or their habitats have been degraded or depleted to a significant 

degree. 

Enhance. To improve the condition of an area or habitat, usually for the benefit of certain native 

species. 

Environmental Assessment (EA). 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 C.F.R. 

1508.9) 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix O. Glossary O-5 

Environmental Education Study Sites. Outdoor locations where groups of students engage in 

hands-on activities within an environmental education curriculum. 

Environmental Health. Composition, structure, and functioning of soil, water, air, and other abiotic 

features comparable with historic conditions, including the natural abiotic processes that shape the 

environment. (Service Manual 601 FW 3) 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). A detailed written statement required by Section 102(2) 

(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act, analyzing the environmental impact of a proposed 

action, adverse effects of the project that cannot be avoided, alternative courses of action, short term 

uses of the environment versus the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity and any 

irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources. (Adapted from 40 C.F.R. 1508.11 and 42 

U.S.C. 4332) 

Ethnography. The study and systematic recording of human cultures; also: a descriptive work 

produced from such research. 

Executive Order. A President’s or Governor’s declaration which has the force of law, usually based 

on existing statutory powers, and requiring no action by the Congress or state legislature. 

Experimental Population. A population (including its offspring) of a listed species designated by 

rule published in the Federal Register that is wholly separate geographically from other populations 

of the same species. An experimental population may be subject to less stringent prohibitions than 

are applied to the remainder of the species to which it belongs. (FWS, Endangered Species Glossary, 

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/glossary.html) 

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 C.F.R. 1508.13) 

Fluviatile. Belonging to, existing in or about, or produced by the action of streams or rivers. 

(Webster’s Third New International Dictionary Unabridged online) 

Focal Conservation Target. A suite of conservation targets that for purposes of planning are sorted 

and condensed to represent threats to biological integrity diversity and environmental health at the 

refuge level. 

Goal. Descriptive, open-ended, and often broad statement of desired future conditions that conveys a 

purpose but does not define measurable units. (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6) 

Habitat. Suite of existing environmental conditions required by an organism for survival and 

reproduction. The place where an organism typically lives. 

Habitat Fragmentation. The division of continuous patches into smaller pieces which are partly or 

fully disconnected from one another by infrastructure, agricultural fields, or human settlements 

(www.biology-online.org). The opposite of Connectivity. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

O-6 Appendix O. Glossary 

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. (Service Manual 620 FW 1.4) 

Habitat Restoration. Management emphasis designed to move ecosystems to desired conditions and 

processes and/or to healthy ecosystems. 

Herptiles. A general term for amphibians and reptiles. 

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. (Service Manual 601 FW 3) 

Hydrology. study of the occurrence, distribution, movement and properties of the waters of the earth 

and their relationship with the environment within each phase of the water cycle (USGS website 

http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/hydrology.html). 

Hydrophytic. Hydrophytic vegetation is the community of macrophytic plant life that occurs in 

areas where the frequency and duration of inundation or soil saturation produce permanently or 

periodically saturated soils of sufficient duration to exert a controlling influence on the plant species 

present (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual). 

Hypolimnion. The lower zone of a thermally stratified lake, below the thermocline, and usually 

depleted in oxygen during summer stagnation. (www.streamnet.org/glossary.html) 

Important Bird Area. A site that provides essential habitat for one or more species of bird and that 

is recognized as being important on a global, continental, or state level. 

Indicator. A measurable characteristic of a key ecological attribute that strongly correlates with the 

status of the key ecological attribute, something that serves as a sign or symptom. 

Inholding. Refers to lands within an Approved Refuge Boundary that are not owned by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. These can be private lands or lands owned by City, County, State, or other 

Federal agencies. 

Integrated Pest Management (IPM). The use of pest and environmental information in conjunction 

with available pest control technologies to prevent unacceptable levels of pest damage by the most 

economical means and with the least possible hazard to persons, property, and the environment. (U.S. 

EPA Pesticide Glossary, http://epa.gov/pesticides/glossary/f-l.html#i) 

Interpretation. A teaching technique that combines factual information with stimulating 

explanation, frequently used to help people understand natural and cultural resources. 

(www.yourdictionary.com) 

Invasive. Nonnative species disrupting and replacing native species. 

(www.thebiotechdictionary.com) 

Inventory. A survey of the plants or animals inhabiting an area. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix O. Glossary O-7 

Inviolate Sanctuary. Management purpose for migratory birds under the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 715d). 

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 602 FW 1.6) 

Key Ecological Attributes. 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. 

Lacustrine. Pertaining to, produced by, or inhabiting a lake. (U.S. EPA, Terms of Environment) 

Macrophyte. A macroscopic plant, commonly used to describe aquatic plants that are large enough 

to be visible to the naked eye. (www.biology-online.org) 

Maintenance. The upkeep of constructed facilities, structures, 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 assure 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) 

Methylmercury. CH3Hg+, organic form of mercury and the form of mercury that is most easily 

bioaccumulated in organisms; a neurotoxin. Methylmercury can accumulate up the food chain in 

aquatic systems and lead to high concentrations in fish, which, when consumed by humans, can 

result in an increased risk of adverse effects in highly exposed or sensitive populations. (USGS, 

Toxic Substances Hydrology Program) 

Migration. The seasonal movement from one area to another and back. 

Migratory Birds. Those species of birds listed under 50 C.F.R. 10.13. (Service Manual 720 FW 1) 

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 C.F.R. 1500) 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). 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, 

http://www.fws.gov/nativeamerican/graphics/Cultural_Resources_Overview.pdf) 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

O-8 Appendix O. Glossary 

National Wildlife Refuge. A designated area of land, water, or an interest in land or water within the 

Refuge System, excluding coordination areas. (Service 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. 668dd-668ee, et seq.). 

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. (Service Manual 601 FW 3) 

NephelometricTurbidity Unit (NTU). A unit measuring the lack of clarity of water, used by water 

and sewage treatment plants, in marine studies, and so on. Water containing 1 milligram of finely 

divided silica per liter has a turbidity of 1 NTU. 

Nonconsumptive Recreation. Recreational activities that do not involve harvest, removal, or 

consumption of fish, wildlife, or other natural resources. 

Noxious Weed. A plant species designated by Federal or State law as generally possessing one or 

more of the following characteristics: aggressive or difficult to manage; parasitic; a carrier or host of 

serious insect or disease; or nonnative, new, or not common to the United States. According to the 

Federal Noxious Weed Act (Public Law 93-629), a noxious weed is one that causes disease or had 

adverse effects on humans or their environment and therefore is detrimental to the agriculture and 

commerce of the United States and to 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) 

Obligate Species. A plant or animal that occurs only in a narrowly defined habitat such as a tree 

cavity, rock cave, or wet meadow. (www.streamnet.org/glossary.html)

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. 

Organochlorines. Compounds that contain carbon, chlorine, and hydrogen. Their chlorine-carbon 

bonds are very strong, which means that they do not break down easily. They are highly insoluble in 

water, but are attracted to fats. Since they resist metabolism and are readily stored in fatty tissue of 

any animal ingesting them, they accumulate in animals in higher trophic levels. (USFWS, Pacific 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix O. Glossary O-9 

Region Ecological Services, http://www.fws.gov/Pacific/ecoservices/envicon/pim/reports/ 

contaminantinfo/contaminants.html) 

Otoliths. A structure of the inner ear of vertebrates. In fish, this structure is used for balance, 

orientation, and sound detection. The otoliths of fish provide useful information on age, growth rate, 

life history, recruitment, and taxonomy of individuals (Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 

http://tagotoweb.adfg.state.ak.us/oto/). 

Outreach. The process of providing information to the public on a specific issue through the use of 

the media, printed materials, and presentations. 

Pacific Flyway. One of several major north-south travel corridors for migratory birds. The Pacific 

Flyway is west of the Rocky Mountains. 

Palustrine. Pertaining to a marsh or wetlands; wet or marsh habitats. (U.S. EPA, Terms of 

Environment) 

Passerine. Of or relating to the largest order (Passeriformes) of birds, which includes over half of all 

living birds; birds having feet that are adapted for perching, including all songbirds. 

(www.OxfordDictionaries.com) 

Permanent Wetland. Characterized by saturated soil and shallow ponding of water (6 inches deep) 

throughout winter and early spring. 

Piscivorous. Habitually feeding on fish; fish-eating. 

Planning Team. The primary U.S. Fish and Wildlife staff and others who played a key role in 

developing and writing a CCP. Planning teams are interdisciplinary in membership and function. 

Teams generally consist of a Planning Team Leader, Refuge Manager, staff biologists, a state natural 

resource agency representative, and other appropriate program specialists (e.g., social scientist, 

ecologist, 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 602 FW 1.6) 

Plant Association. A classification of plant communities based on the similarity in dominants of all 

layers of vascular species in a climax community 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. 

Preferred Alternative. This is the alternative determined (by the decision maker) to best achieve a 

refuge’s 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. 

Preplanning. The first phase of comprehensive conservation planning process. It includes 

identifying the planning area and data needs; establishing the planning team and planning schedule; 

reviewing available information; preparing a public involvement plans and conducting internal 

scoping. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

O-10 Appendix O. Glossary 

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. 

Propagule. A structure (such as a cutting, a seed, or a spore) that propagates a plant.

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. 

Public Land Order. Public lands consist of that class of land remaining from the original public 

domain that was acquired by the United States by treaty, purchase, or cession from a foreign power. 

Quality Hunt. Each refuge includes input during development of a CCP that helps define and 

evaluate wildlife-dependent recreation programs such as hunting and contains the following 

attributes: 

(1) Minimizes conflicts with neighboring landowners; 

(2) Promotes accessibility and availability to a broad spectrum of the American people; 

(3) Promotes resource stewardship and conservation; 

(4) Promotes public understanding and increases public appreciation of America’s natural 

resources and our role in managing and conserving these resources; 

(5) Provides reliable/reasonable opportunities to experience wildlife; 

(6) Uses facilities that are accessible to people and blend into the natural setting; and 

(7) Uses visitor satisfaction to help define and evaluate programs. 

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 602 FW 1.6) 

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. (Service Manual 620 FW 1.4) 

Restore. To bring back to a former or original condition. (Webster’s II) 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix O. Glossary O-11 

Salmonid. A bony soft-finned fish of the family Salmonidae, Order Salmoniformes, that includes 

salmon, trout, whitefish, and char. (Encarta Dictionary)

Scoping. A stage in the development of a CCP in which a refuge uses news releases, and other 

appropriate media to notify the public of the opportunity to participate in the planning process and to 

help identify issues, concerns, and opportunities related to the project. 

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, 

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/glossary.html) 

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 602 FW 1.6) 

Strategy. A specific action, tool, technique, or combination of actions, tools, and techniques used to 

meet unit objectives. (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6) 

Stress. The impairment or degradation of a key ecological attribute for a conservation target. (TNC 

2000) 

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, http://www.fws.gov/endangered/glossary.html) 

Threatened Species (State). A plant or animal species likely to become endangered in a state within 

the near future if factors contributing to population decline or habitat degradation or loss continue. 

Traditional Cultural Property. A historic property that is eligible for inclusion in the National 

Register of Historic Places because of its association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living 

community that (a) are rooted in that community’s history, and (b) are important in maintaining the 

continuing cultural identity of the community. (National Register Bulletin 38, Guidelines for 

Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties)

Transmissivity. The rate which groundwater flows horizontally through an aquifer. 

Trophic. A position in a food chain occupied by a group of organisms with similar feeding mode. 

(www.biology-online.org) 

Trust Species. A resource such as endangered species or migratory birds and fish that the 

government holds in trust for the people through law or administrative act. Federal trust species 

include threatened and endangered species, as well as migratory birds (e.g., waterfowl, wading birds, 

shorebirds, neotropical migratory songbirds).

Upland. Any area that does not meet the definition of a wetland because the associated hydrologic 

regime is not sufficiently wet to elicit development of vegetation, soils, and/or hydrologic 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

O-12 Appendix O. Glossary 

characteristics associated with wetlands. (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation 

Manual)

Vegetation Type (Also Habitat Type, Forest Cover Type). 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 602 FW 1.6) 

Waterfowl. Resident and migratory ducks, geese, and swans. 

Water Quality. A term used to describe the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of 

water, usually in respect to its suitability for a particular purpose. 

Watershed. The land area that drains water to a particular stream, river, or lake. It is a land feature 

that can be identified by tracing a line along the highest elevations between two areas on a map, often 

a ridge. Large watersheds, like the Mississippi River Basin, contain thousands of smaller watersheds. 

West Pool. That part of Lake Lowell that is west of the Narrows (see CCP Map 3). 

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) 

Wildlife-dependent Recreational Use. A use of a refuge involving hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, photography, environmental education, or 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 602 FW 1.6) 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix P. References Cited P-1 

Appendix P. References Cited 

This appendix contains all references cited in Chapters 1 through 5. References for citations in 

appendices A-O are part of each individual appendix, and are not duplicated in the following list. 

Ada County Accounting Department. 2008. Comprehensive annual financial report, September 30, 

2008. Available at: http://www.adaweb.net/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=rZNNJeWZikQ% 

3D&tabid=1409. Accessed February 27, 2012. 

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 ed. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer 

Associates. 

Allen, E.B., ed. 1988. The reconstruction of disturbed arid lands: an ecological approach. Boulder, 

CO: Westview Press. 

Allen, J.H., G.L. Nuechterlein, and D. Buitron. 2008. Weathering the storm: how wind and waves 

impact western grebe nest placement and success. Waterbirds 31(3):402-410 (doi: 

10.1675/1524-4695-31.3.402). 

Andelman S., K. Gillem, C. Groves, C. Hansen, J. Humke, T. Klahr, L. Kramme, B. Moseley, M. 

Reid, D. Vander Schaaf, M. Coad, C. Deforest, C. Macdonald, J. Baumgartner, J. Hak, C. 

Hansen, S. Hobbs, L. Lunte, L. Smith, and C. Soper. 1999. The Columbia Plateau 

ecoregional assessment: a pilot effort in ecoregional conservation. The Nature Conservancy. 

Available at: http://waconservation.org/projects/ecoregions/. Accessed May 18, 2012. 

Angelstam, P. 1997. Landscape analysis as a tool for the scientific management of biodiversity. 

Ecological Bulletins 46:140-170. 

Apfelbaum, S.I. 1985. Cattail (Typha spp.) management. Natural Areas Journal 5:9-17. 

Asplund, T.R. 2000. The effects of motorized watercraft on aquatic ecosystems. Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Integrated Science. Services and University of 

Wisconsin, Water Chemistry Program. Madison, WI. 21 pp. 

Audubon. 2012. Idaho’s Important Bird Areas program. Available at: 

http://iba.audubon.org/iba/viewState.do?state=US-ID Accessed May 18, 2012. 

Auld, J.W. 2001. Consumers, cars, and communities: the challenge of sustainability. International 

Journal of Consumer Studies 25:228-237. 

Baker, W.L. 2006. Fire and restoration of sagebrush ecosystems. Wildlife Society Bulletin 

34(1):177-185. 

Banks, P.B. and J.V. Bryant. 2007. Four-legged friend or foe? Dog walking displaces native birds 

from natural areas. Biology Letters 2007(3):611-613. 

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. 

Beckham, S.D. 1995. An interior empire: historical overview of the Columbia Basin. Submitted to 

Eastside Ecosystem Management Project. Lake Oswego, OR: Stephen Dow Beckham. 150 

pp. 

Belanger, L. and J. Bedard. 1989. Responses of staging greater snow geese to human disturbance. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 53(3):713-719. 

Belanger, L. and J. Bedard. 1990. Energetic cost of man-induced disturbance to staging snow geese. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 54:36-41. 

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.
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

P-2 Appendix P. References Cited 

Belnap, J. and D. Eldridge. 2001. Disturbance and recovery of biological soil crusts. Pages 363-383 

in: J. Belnap and O.L. Lange, eds. Biological soil crusts: structure, function, and 

management. New York: Springer-Verlag. 

Belnap, J. and O.L. Lange, eds. 2001. Biological soil crusts: structure, function, and management. 

New York: Springer-Verlag. 

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. 

Berg, G., L. Wilkinson, H. Wollis, and D. Prescott. 2004. Western (Aechmophorous occidentalis) 

and eared (Podiceps nigricollis) grebes of Central Alberta: 2004 field summary. Alberta 

Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division, Alberta Species at Risk 

Report No. 94. Edmonton, Alberta. 

BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 1999. Owyhee resource management plan (RMP). U.S. 

Department of the Interior BLM Lower Snake River District Office. Boise, ID. 140 pp. 

BLM. 2001. Southeast Oregon resources management plan and record of decision. U.S. Department 

of the Interior BLM Vale District Office. Vale, OR. 714 pp. 

BLM. 2002. Management considerations for sagebrush (Artemisia) in the western United States: a 

selective summary of current information about the ecology and biology of woody North 

American sagebrush taxa. USDI Bureau of Land Management. Washington, D.C. 73 pp. 

BLM. 2008. Four Rivers Field Office analysis of the management situation. U.S. Department of the 

Interior BLM Boise District Office. Boise, ID. 303 pp. 

BLM. 2010. Public land statistics. Available at: http://www.blm.gov/public_land_statistics/. 

Accessed May 18, 2012. 

Bouffard, S.H. 1982. Wildlife values versus human recreation: Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge. 

Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 47:553-558. 

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. Betz, J.M. Bowker, B.K. Donald, 

S.H. Mou, J.C. 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. 

Bowles, A.E. 1995. Responses of wildlife to noise. Pages 109-156 in: R.L. Knight and K.J. 

Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife recreationists: coexistence through management and research. 

Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 

Boyle, S.A. and F.B. Samson. 1985. Effects of nonconsumptive recreation on wildlife: a review. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 13:110-116. 

Brooks, M.L. and D.A. Pyke. 2001. Invasive plants and fire in the deserts of North America. Tall 

Timbers Research Station Miscellaneous Publication 11:1-14. 

Brown, S., C. Hickey, B. Harington, and R. Gill, eds. 2001. United States shorebird conservation 

plan, 2nd ed. Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences. Manomet, MA. 64 pp. 

Bruening, S. 2002. Animal diversity web: Lithobates catesbeianus. Available at: 

http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Lithobates_catesbeianus.ht

ml. Accessed May 1, 2012. 

Bunnell, F.L., I. Houde, B. Johnston, and E. Wind. 2002. How dead trees sustain live organisms in 

western forests. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-181. USDA Forest Service. 28 pp. 

Bunting, S.C., J.L. Kingery, and M.A. Schroeder. 2003. Assessing the restoration potential of altered 

rangeland ecosystems in the interior Columbia Basin. Ecological Restoration 21:77-86. 

Burch, S. and T. Koch. 2006. Nationwide malformed amphibian survey project Deer Flat National 

Wildlife Refuge, Idaho. Final report for FY 2005. Snake River Fish and Wildlife Office, 

USFWS. Boise, ID. 6 pp. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix P. References Cited P-3 

Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2010. United States Department of Labor: Bureau of Labor statistics. 

Available at: http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=70&step=1&isuri=1&acrdn=5. 

Accessed October 22, 2012. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2011. United States Department of Labor: Bureau of Labor Statistics 

archived news releases. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/schedule/archives/all_nr 

.htm#SRGUNE. Accessed January 18, 2012. 

Burger, A.E. 1997. Status of the western grebe in British Columbia. Wildlife Working Report WR87. B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks. Victoria, British Columbia. 40 pp. 

Burger, J. 1998. Effects of motorboats and personal watercraft on flight behavior over a colony of 

common terns. Condor 100:528-534. 

Campbell, K. 2003. Lake Lowell irrigation return drains water quality monitoring results April 2002 

through October 2002. Idaho State Department of Agriculture. Boise, ID. 4 pp. 

Canyon County. 2009. The impacts of irrigated agriculture and the economic base of Canyon 

County. Agricultural Economics Research Series No. 01-2010. Available at: 

http://canyoncountyfb.org/documents/The_Economy_of_Canyon_County_2009.pdf. 

Accessed November 2013. 

Canyon County. 2011a. Canyon County 2020 comprehensive plan. Available at: 

http://www.canyonco.org/dsd.aspx?id=1116. Accessed June 11, 2012. 

Canyon County. 2011b. Canyon County, Idaho zoning, revised December 21, 2011. Available at: 

http://www.canyonco.org/dsd.aspx?id=1116. Accessed May 16, 2011. 

Canyon Highway District. 2009. Average daily traffic map. Available at: 

http://canyonhd4.org/userfiles/file/Average%20Daily%20Traffic%20Count%20Map.pdf. 

Accessed November 17, 2011. 

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 of Economics. 

Washington, D.C. 382 pp. 

Casola, J.H., L. Cuo, B. Livneh, D.P. Lettenmaier, M.T. Stoelinga, P.W. Mote, and J.M. Wallace. 

2009. Assessing the impacts of global warming on snowpack in the Washington cascades. 

Journal of Climate 22:2758-2772. 

Castrovillo, P.J. 2010. Invertebrate survey of Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge. Unpublished 

report. Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge. 21 pp. 

Cauchon, D. 2007. No end in sight for Idaho’s growth. USA Today. September 28. 

Causey, M.K. and C.A. Cude. 1980. Feral dog and white-tailed deer interactions in Alabama. Journal 

of Wildlife Management 44:481-484. 

Chandler, J. 2003. Redband trout and bull trout associated with the Hells Canyon Complex. Hells 

Canyon FERC License Application. Idaho Power Company, Boise, ID. 168 pp. 

Chawla, L. 1988. Children’s concern for the natural environment. Children’s Environments Quarterly 

5(3):13-20. 

Chen, D.D. 2000. The science of smart growth. Scientific American 283(6):84-91. 

Church, J. 2003. 2003 county economic forecast: historic and forecast county population 2000-2003, 

Idaho economics. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/areas/pop/popp_id.htm. 

Accessed October 23, 2012. 

CIG (Climate Impacts Group, University of Washington). 2011. Climate variability. Available at: 

http://cses.washington.edu/cig/pnwc/clvariability.shtml. Accessed April 20, 2011. 

City of Caldwell. 2010. City of Caldwell 2030 comprehensive plan. Available at: 

http://www.cityofcaldwell.com/file_depot/0-10000000/10000-

20000/13986/folder/59467/Comprehensive+Plan+-+adopted+May+2010.pdf. Accessed July 

8, 2011. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

P-4 Appendix P. References Cited 

City of Nampa Department of Planning and Zoning. 2003. Employment. Available at: 

http://www.cityofnampa.us/revitalization/economy/employment.pdf. Accessed February 27, 

2012. 

City of Nampa. 2004. City of Nampa comprehensive plan. Available at: 

http://www.cityofnampa.us/downloads/21/Nampa%20Comp%20Plan%202004.pdf. 

Accessed May 13, 2011. 

Cole, C.A., T.L. Serfass, M.C. Brittingham, and R.P. Brooks. 1996. Managing your restored wetland. 

Cooperative Extension Service. Pennsylvania State University, University Park. 

Cole, D.N. 2004. Environmental impacts of outdoor recreation in wildlands. Pages 107-126 in: M.J. 

Manfredo, J.J. Vaske, B.L. Bruyere, D.R. Field, and P.J. Brown, eds. Society and natural 

resources: a summary of knowledge. Jefferson, MO: Modern Litho. 

Cole, D.N. and J.L. Marion. 1988. Recreation impacts in some riparian forests of the eastern United 

States. Environmental Management 12:99-107. 

Cole, D.N. and P.B. Landres. 1995. Indirect effects of recreation on wildlife. Pages 183-202 in: R.L. 

Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through 

management and research. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 

Cole, D.N. and R.L. Knight. 1990. Impacts of recreation on biodiversity in wilderness. Natural 

Resources and Environmental Issues Vol. 0, Article 6. Available at: 

http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/nrei/vol0/iss1/6. Accessed May 18, 2012. 

Coleman, J.S., S.A. Temple, and S.R. Craven. 1997. Facts on cats and wildlife: a conservation 

dilemma. Bulletin 7148. Cooperative Extension Publications, University of Maine. Available 

at: http://umaine.edu/publications/7148e/. Accessed May 18, 2012. 

Colorado Division of Wildlife. 2008. Recommended buffer zones and seasonal restrictions for 

Colorado raptor nests. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Research Center. Fort Collins, CO. 7 

pp. 

COMPASS. 2010. Choice 2035. Available at: http://www.compassidaho.org/prodserv/demoforecasts.htm. Accessed December 1, 2011. 

Conservation Biology Institute. 2006. Protected areas database, compiled using Headwaters 

Economics Economic profile system-human dimensions toolkit. Available at: 

http://www.consbio.org/products. Accessed May 18, 2012. 

Cordell, H.K. 2008. The latest trends in nature-based outdoor recreation. Forest History Today 

Spring 2008:4-10. 

Corkran, C.C. and C. Thoms. 1996. Amphibians of Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia. 

Edmonton, Canada: Lone Pine Publishing. 

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and 

deepwater habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Washington, D.C. Available at: http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/wetlands/classwet 

/index.htm. Accessed May 18, 2012. 

Cox, R.D. and V.J. Anderson. 2004. Increasing native diversity of cheatgrass-dominated rangeland 

through assisted succession. Journal of Rangeland Management 57:203-210. 

Crooks, D.R. and M.E. Soule. 1999. Mesopredator release and avifaunal extinctions in a fragmented 

system. Nature 400:563-566. 

Cunningham, R. 2012. Phone conversation regarding commercial carp removal operations on Lake 

Lowell between Rich Cunningham, Owner, Opaline Aqua Farms, Melba, ID, and Addison 

Mohler, Wildlife Biologist, Deer Flat NWR, June 21, 2012. 

Cywinski, K. 2004. The effects of motorized watercraft on waterfowl. Summer Solstice 9(2). 

Dahl, T.E. 1990. Wetlands losses in the United States 1780s to 1980s. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. 13 pp. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix P. References Cited P-5 

Dahl, T.E. 2000. Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 1986 to 1997. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. 82 pp. 

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. 

Daszak, P., A. Strieby, A.A. Cunningham, J.E. Longcore, C.C. Brown, and D. Porter. 2004. 

Experimental evidence that the bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) is a potential carrier of 

chytridiomycosis, an emerging fungal disease of amphibians. Herpetological Journal 14:201-

207. 

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 (Volume II). 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, Oregon. 114 pp. 

Available at: http://www.fws.gov/pacific/planning/main/docs/NV/stillwater/4%20Volume% 

20II/Appendix%20L/App%20L%20final%20lit%20review.pdf. Accessed May 18, 2012. 

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 recreation trails in western Montana. USA 

Environmental Management 22(2):255-262. 

Dietsch, A. 2011. Personal communication between Alia Dietsch, Social Scientist (STEP), Policy 

Analysis & Science Assistance Branch, Fort Collins Science Center/U.S. Geological Survey, 

and Susan Kain, Visitor Services Program Manager, Deer Flat NWR, January 19, 2012, 

regarding analysis of subset of survey data. 

Dixon, M.D. and W.C. Johnson. 1999. Riparian vegetation along the middle Snake River, Idaho: 

zonation, geographical trends, and historical changes. Great Basin Naturalist 59(1):18-34. 

Dobkin, D.S. 1994. Conservation and management of neotropical migrant landbirds in the northern 

Rockies and Great Plains. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho Press. 

Dobkin, D.S. and J.D. Sauder. 2004. Shrubsteppe landscapes in jeopardy. Distributions, abundances, 

and the uncertain future of birds and small mammals in the intermountain West. High Desert 

Ecological Research Institute. Bend, OR. 47 pp. 

Dunn, S. 2012. Personal communication between Steven Dunn, Natural Resource Specialist, Bureau 

of Reclamation, and Jennifer Brown-Scott, Refuge Manager, Deer Flat NWR, February 14, 

2012, regarding date of closure and first storage at Lake Lowell.

Ecovista and IDFG (Idaho Department of Fish and Game). 2004. Middle Snake subbasins 

assessment. Northwest Power and Conservation Council. Portland, OR. 58 pp. 

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2011. New Zealand mudsnail. Region 10 Pacific 

Northwest. Available at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/ECOCOMM.NSF/B724CA698F605 

4798825705700693650/7BCDBF15A89BDC13882574160054BCE8?OpenDocument. 

Accessed May 18, 2012. 

Farmer, Adrian H. and Alfred H. Parent. 1997. Effects of the landscape on shorebird movements at 

spring migration stopovers. Condor 99(3):698-707. 

FAA (Federal Aviation Administration). 2012. Wildlife strike database. Available at: http://wildlifemitigation.tc.faa.gov/wildlife/default.aspx. Accessed May 18, 2012. 

Federal Register. 1998. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; proposed threatened status 

for the plant Thelypodium howellii ssp. spectabilis (Howell’s spectacular thelypody). Federal 

Register 63:1948-1954. 

Federal Register. 2009. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: listing Lepidium papilliferum 

(slickspot peppergrass) as threatened species throughout its range. Federal Register 

74:52014-52064. Available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2009-10-08/pdf/E9-

24039.pdf. Accessed April 27, 2013. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

P-6 Appendix P. References Cited 

Federal Register. 2011. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; designation of critical habitat 

for Lepidium papilliferum (slickspot peppergrass). Federal Register 76:27184-27215. 

Fernández, G., N. Warnock, D.B. Lank, and J.B. Buchanan. 2010. Conservation plan for the western 

sandpiper (Calidris mauri), version 1.1, February 2010. Western Hemisphere Shorebird 

Reserve Network and Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences. Manomet, MA. 48 pp. 

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. 

Ferrari, R. 1995. Lake Lowell 1994 reservoir survey. Bureau of Reclamation, Sedimentation and 

River Hydraulics Group, Water Resources Services, Technical Service Center. Denver, CO. 

13 pp. 

Fleischner, T.L. 1994. Ecological costs of livestock grazing in western North America. Conservation 

Biology 8(3):629-644. 

Fletcher, K. 2011. Proposed Idaho environmental literacy plan. Available at: 

http://www.idahoee.org/PDFs/Proposed_%20Idaho_ELP.pdf. Accessed May 18, 2012. 

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. 

Geist, V. 1978. Behavior. Pages 283-296 in: J.L. Schmidt and D.L. Gilbert, eds. Big game of North 

America: ecology and management. Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole Books. 

GeoEngineers. 2006. Focused site inspection report U.S. Fish and Wildlife Deer Flat National 

Wildlife Refuge abandoned Canyon County landfill Nampa, Idaho. GeoEngineers. Boise, ID. 

20 pp. 

Goodwin, A. 2003. Sprawl threatens quality of life, study says. Available at: 

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/news-story.asp?date=070703&ID=s1378246. Accessed 

January 25, 2012. 

Green, T.J. 1982. House form and variability at Givens Hot Springs, southwest Idaho. Idaho 

Archaeologist 6:33-43. 

Green, R.E., S.J. Cornell, J.P.W. Scharlemann, and A. Balmford. 2005. Farming and the fate of wild 

nature. Science 307(5709):550-555. 

Greenwalt, L.A. 1978. The National Wildlife Refuge System. Pages 399-412 in: H.P. Brokaw, ed. 

Wildlife and America. Washington, D.C.: Council on Environmental Quality. 

Groves, C.R., B. Butterfield, A. Lippincott, B. Csuti, and J.M. Scott. 1997. Atlas of Idaho’s wildlife. 

Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise. 

411 pp. 

Gutzwiller, K.J. and H.A. Marcum. 1993. Avian responses to observer clothing color: caveats from 

winter point counts. Wilson Bulletin 105:628-636. 

Hamann, B., H. Johnston, P. McClelland, S. Johnson, L. Kelly, and J. Gobielle. 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. Committee on Effects of Recreation on Wildlife, 

Montana Chapter of the Wildlife Society. 307 pp. 

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, Vol. 43, W06427 

(doi:10.1029/2006WR005099). 

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(2005):249-

259. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix P. References Cited P-7 

Hanus, S., H. Wollis, and L. Wilkinson. 2002. Western (Aechmophorus occidentalis) and eared 

(Podiceps nigricollis) grebes of central Alberta: inventory, survey techniques and 

management concerns. Species at Risk Report No. 41. Alberta Sustainable Resource 

Development, Fish and Wildlife Division. Edmonton, Canada. 52 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(3):290-298. 

Hayes, G.F. and K.D. Holl. 2003. Cattle grazing impacts on annual forbs and vegetation composition 

of mesic grasslands in California. Conservation Biology 17(6):1694-1702. 

Headwaters Economics. 2008. Economic profile system-human dimensions toolkit (EPS–HDT). 

Available at: http://headwaterseconomics.org/tools/eps-hdt. Accessed September 5, 2011. 

Heberlein, T.A. 1991. Changing attitudes and funding for wildlife: preserving the sport hunter. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 19(4):528-534. 

Hoshovsky, M.C. and J.M. Randall. 2000. Management of invasive species. In: C.C. Bossard, J.M. 

Randall, and M.C. Hoshovsky, eds. Invasive plants of California’s wildland. Berkeley, CA: 

University of California Press. Available at: http://www.cal-ipc.org/ip/management/ipcw/ 

mois.php. Accessed May 30, 2012. 

Howe, M.A. 1987. Wetlands and waterbird conservation. American Birds 41:204-209. 

Hudson, M.S. 1983. Waterfowl production of three age-classes of stock ponds in Montana. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 47:112-117. 

Huffman, K. 1999. San Diego South Bay survey report - effects of human activity and water craft on 

wintering birds in South San Diego Bay. USFWS. 45 pp. 

Hull, A.C., Jr. and J.F. Pechanec. 1947. Cheat grass-a challenge to range research. Journal of 

Forestry 45:555-564. 

Idaho Department of Labor. 2009. Idaho economic update. Available at: http://labor.idaho.gov/ 

publications/EconUpdate_Sept_2009.pdf. Accessed January 25, 2012. 

Idaho Department of Labor. 2011a. Canyon County: work force trends. Idaho Department of Labor. 

Boise, ID. 2 pp. 

Idaho Department of Labor. 2011b. Ada County: work force trends. Idaho Department of Labor. 

Boise, ID. 2 pp. 

Idaho Department of Labor. 2011c. Idaho’s job recovery to remain slow in 2011. Idaho Department 

of Labor. Boise, ID. 4 pp. 

Idaho Division of Financial Management. 2004. Idaho economic forecast. Idaho Division of 

Financial Management. Boise, ID. 73 pp. 

Idaho Partners in Flight. 1998. Riparian riches: habitat management for birds in Idaho. Available at: 

http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/pif/pubs/riparian_riches_pif_98_view2.pdf. Accessed May 18, 

2012. 

Idaho Partners in Flight. 2000. Idaho bird conservation plan version 1.0. Available at: 

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/nongame/brochureBirdConservePlan.pdf. 

Accessed May 18, 2012. 166 pp. 

Idaho Power Company. 2003. Feasibility of reintroduction of anadromous fish above or within the 

Hells Canyon Complex. Technical report appendix E.3.1-2. Idaho Power Company. Boise, 

ID. 54 pp. 

Idaho Soil and Water Conservation Commission. 2012. Lake Lowell watershed 

(17050114SW004_06) total maximum daily load implementation plan for agriculture. Soil 

and Water Conservation Commission, Boise, ID. 34 pp. 

IDEQ (Idaho Department of Environmental Quality). 2001. Strategy for the development of an 

airshed management program for the Treasure Valley. Available at: 

http://www.deq.state.id.us/media/352830-airshed_management_entire.pdf. Accessed July 18, 

2011. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

P-8 Appendix P. References Cited 

IDEQ. 2007. Historical AQI data – Canyon County. Available at: 

http://www.deq.idaho.gov/Applications/AQReportFrame/histCanyon.pdf. Accessed October 

28, 2011. 

IDEQ. 2010. Lake Lowell TMDL: addendum to the lower Boise River subbasin assessment and total 

maximum daily loads. IDEQ Boise Regional Office. Boise, ID. 247 pp. Available at: 

http://www.deq.idaho.gov/media/451719-

_water_data_reports_surface_water_tmdls_boise_river_lower_lake_lowell_addendum.pdf. 

Accessed June 11, 2012. 

IDEQ. 2011a. Air quality in the Boise region. Available at: http://www.deq.idaho.gov/air/ 

data_reports/monitoring/bro.cfm. Accessed April 20, 2011. 

IDEQ. 2011b. Surface water: water quality improvement plans (TMDLs). Available at: 

http://www.deq.idaho.gov/water/data_reports/surface_water/tmdls/overview.cfm#TMDL. 

Accessed May 20, 2011. 

IDEQ. 2011c. Surface water: Water Quality Criteria. Available at: http://www.deq.idaho.gov/waterquality/surface-water/water-quality-criteria.aspx. Accessed July 20, 2012. 

IDEQ. 2011d. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality Final 2010 Integrated Report. Idaho 

Department of Environmental Quality. Boise, ID. 776 pp. 

IDEQ and ODEQ (Oregon Department of Environmental Quality). 2004. Snake River–Hells Canyon 

total maximum daily load (TMDL). Boise, ID, and Pendleton, OR. 633 pp. + appendices. 

IDFG (Idaho Department of Fish and Game). 1965. Federal aid to fish restoration annual completion 

report: Water Quality Investigation Report F 34-R-8. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 

Boise, ID. 28 pp. 

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/ 

public/wildlife/cwcs/. Accessed May 18, 2012. 

IDFG. 2007. Idaho fisheries management plan 2007-2012. Idaho Conservation Data Center, Idaho 

Department of Fish and Game. Boise, ID. 410 pp. 

IDFG. 2009a. Waterfowl fall and winter surveys, production, summer banding, and harvest. Project 

W-170-R-33. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Boise, ID. 56 pp. Available at: 

https://research.idfg.idaho.gov/wildlife/Wildlife%20Technical%20Reports/Waterfowl%20St

atewide%20PR09.pdf. Accessed May 18, 2012. 

IDFG. 2009b. Fishery management annual report, southwest region. IDFG 09-130. Idaho 

Department of Fish and Game. Boise, ID. 142 pp. 

IDFG. 2010a. Fishery management annual report, southwest region. IDFG 11-110. Idaho Department 

of Fish and Game. Boise, ID. 136 pp. Available at: 

https://research.idfg.idaho.gov/Fisheries%20Research%20Reports/mgt11-

110Kozfkay2010%20Fisheries%20Management%20Annual%20Report%202010%20Southw

est%20Region.pdf. Accessed May 2, 2012. 

IDFG. 2010b. Project W-170-R-34: Annual Report, Mule Deer Study I, Job 2, July 2, 2009 to June 

30, 2010. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Boise, ID. 97 pp. 

IDPR (Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation). 2003. Idaho SCORTP 2003–2007: statewide 

comprehensive outdoor recreation plan. Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation. Boise, 

ID. 328 pp. 

IDPR. 2006. Recreation next: 2006-2010 Idaho statewide comprehensive outdoor recreation plan. 

Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation. Boise, ID. 396 pp. 

IDPR. 2010. Boat registration data 2005-2009. http://parksandrecreation.idaho.gov/datacenter/ 

recreation_statistics.aspx. Accessed November 29, 2011. 

IDWR (Idaho Department of Water Resources). 2011. Irrigation rights finder. Available at: 

http://maps.idwr.idaho.gov/IrrigationRightsFinder/Map. Accessed July 6, 2011. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix P. References Cited P-9 

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. Climate change 2007: the physical 

science basis. In: S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. 

Tignor, and H.L. Miller, eds. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment 

Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom, and 

New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Available at: 

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4_wg1_full_report.pdf 

ISHS (Idaho State Historical Society). 1970. Fur trade posts in Idaho. ISHS Reference Series 

Number 62. Idaho State Historical Society. Boise, ID. 3 pp. 

ISHS. 1982. Fort Boise (Riverside) ferry. ISHS Reference Series Number 756. Idaho State Historical 

Society. Boise, ID. 5 pp. 

ISHS. n.d. ISHS Reference Series Number 29. Location of Fort Boise, 1834-1855. Available at: 

http://history.idaho.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/reference-series/0029.pdf. 

Ivey, G.L. 2004. Conservation assessment and management plan for breeding western and Clark’s 

grebes in California. Prepared for American Trader Trustee Council: an interagency group 

comprised of representatives from the California Department of Fish and Game, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Corvallis, 

Oregon. 

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. 208 pp. 

IWJV (Intermountain West Joint Venture) Idaho Steering Committee. 2005. Coordinated 

implementation plan for bird conservation in Idaho. Available at: 

http://saltshake.com.s50844.gridserver.com/?get=1.28.148. Accessed May 18, 2012.

Jackson, Z., J.M.C. Quist, J.A. Downing, and J.G.G. Larscheid. 2010. Common carp (Cyprinus 

carpio), sport fishes, and water quality: ecological thresholds in agriculturally eutropic lakes. 

Lake and Reservoir Management 26:14-22. 

Jahn, L.R. and J.B. Trefethen. 1978. Funding wildlife conservation programs. Pages 456-470 in: H.P. 

Brokaw, ed. Wildlife and America: contributions to an understanding of American wildlife 

and its conservation. Washington, D.C.: Council on Environmental Quality. 

Jankovsky-Jones, M. 2001. Wetland conservation strategy for the middle and western Snake River 

and lower reaches of its major tributaries including the Boise River and Payette River. Idaho 

Conservation Data Center. IDFG National Resource Policy Bureau. Boise, ID. 175 pp. 

Johnson, S. 1994. Recreational boating impact investigations—Upper Mississippi River system, pool 

4, Red Wing, Minnesota. EMTC 94-S004. Prepared for the National Biological Survey, 

Environmental Management Technical Center. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 

Lake City, MN. 48 pp. + appendices. 

Kahl, R. 1991. Boating disturbance of canvasbacks during migration at Lake Poygan, Wisconsin. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 19(3):242-248. 

Kaiser, M. and E. Fritzell. 1984. Effects of river recreationists on green-backed heron behavior. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 48(2):561-567. 

Kauffman, J.B. and W.C. Krueger. 1984. Livestock impacts on riparian ecosystems and streamside 

management implications ... a review. Journal of Range Management 37(5):430-438. 

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. 

Kight, 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. 

Klein, M.L. 1993. Waterbird behavioral responses to human disturbances. Wildlife Society Bulletin 

21(1):31-39. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

P-10 Appendix P. References Cited 

Knapton, R.W., S.A. Petrie, and G. Herring. 2000. Human disturbance of diving ducks on Long Point 

Bay, Lake Erie. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(4):923-930. 

Knick, S.T. and J.T. Rotenberry. 2002. Effects of habitat fragmentation on passerine birds breeding 

in Intermountain shrubsteppe. Studies in Avian Biology 25:131-141. 

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. 

Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole. 1991. Effects of recreational activity on wildlife in wildlands. 

Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 56:238-247. 

Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole. 1995a. 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 D.N. Cole. 1995b. Wildlife responses to recreationists. Pages 51-69 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., G.N. Wallace, and W.E. Riebsame. 1995. Ranching the view, subdivisions versus 

agriculture. Conservation Biology 9:459-461. 

Knight, R.L. and K.J. Gutzwiller, eds. 1995. Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through 

management and research. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 

Knight, R.L. and S.G. Miller. 1996. Wildlife responses to pedestrians and dogs. Final report 

submitted to City of Boulder Open Space Department. Department of Fishery and Wildlife 

Biology, Colorado State University. Fort Collins, CO. 24 pp. 

Knight, R.L., D.P. Anderson, and N.V. Marr. 1991. Responses of an avian scavenging guild to 

anglers. Biological Conservation 56:195-205. 

Knopf, F.L. 1994. Avian assemblages on altered grasslands. Studies in Avian Biology 15:247-257. 

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. 

Knowles, N., M.D. Dettinger, and D.R. Cayan. 2006. Trends in snowfall versus rainfall in the 

western United States. Journal of Climate 19(18):4545-4559. 

Kochert, M.N. and M. Pellant. 1986. Multiple use in the Snake River Birds of Prey Area. Rangelands 

8(5):217-220. 

Korschgen, C., L. George, and W. Green. 1985. Disturbance of diving ducks by boaters on a 

migrational staging area. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13:290-296. 

Korschgen, C.E. and R.B. Dahlgren. 1992. Human disturbances of waterfowl: causes, effects, and 

management. Waterfowl Management Handbook. Fish and Wildlife Leaflet 13.2.15. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 8 pp. 

Kozfkay, J. 2011. Idaho Department of Fish and Game news release: dealing with Lake Lowell’s 

carp. August 8, 2011. Available at: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/media/ 

viewNewsRelease.cfm?newsID=5957. Accessed May 18, 2012. 

Kozfkay, J. 2012. Personal communication between Joe Kozfkay, Regional Fisheries Manager, Idaho 

Department of Fish and Game and Jennifer Brown-Scott, Refuge Manager, Deer Flat NWR, 

April 4, 2012, regarding comments on Deer Flat Internal Review Draft CCP. 

Krammerer, J.C. 1990. Water fact sheet: largest rivers in the United States. Open file report 87-242. 

U.S. Geological Survey. Reston, VA. 2 pp. 

Kushlan, J.A., M. Steinkamp, K. Parsons, J. Capp, M.A. 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. Syderman, J. Trapp, J. Wheeler, and K. Wohl. 2002. Waterbird 

conservation for the Americas: the North American waterbird conservation plan, version 1. 

Waterbird Conservation for the Americas. Washington, D.C. 84 pp. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix P. References Cited P-11 

Lake Ripley Management District. 2003. Lake Ripley watercraft census and recreational carrying 

capacity analysis. Available at: http://lakeripley1.homestead.com/files/Lake_Ripley 

_Carrying_Capacity_Report.pdf. Accessed May 18, 2012. 

Lawrence, G.E. 1950. The diving and feeding activity of the western grebe on the breeding grounds. 

Condor 52:3-16. 

Liddle, M.J. 1975. A selective review of the ecological effects of human trampling on natural 

ecosystems. Biological Conservation 7:17-36. 

Liebman, M. and E. Dyck. 1993. Crop rotation and intercropping strategies for weed management. 

Ecological Applications 3(1):92-122. 

Louv, R. 2005. Last child in the woods: saving our children from nature-deficit disorder. Chapel Hill, 

NC: Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill. 

Lovell, B.B. 1980. Soil survey of Malheur County, Oregon–northeastern part. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Washington, D.C. 53 pp. 

Lowry, D.A. and K.L. McArthur. 1978. Domestic dogs as predators on deer. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 6:38-39. 

Mac, M.J., P.A. Opler, C.E. Puckett Haecker, and P.D. Doran. 1998. Status and trends of the nation’s 

biological resources. Vols. 1 and 2. U.S. Geological Survey. Reston, VA. 911 pp. Available 

at: http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/sandt/SNT.pdf. Accessed May 31, 2013. 

Madsen, J. 1995. Impacts of disturbance on migratory waterfowl. Ibis 137:S67-S74. 

Malde, H.E. 1991. Quaternary geology and structural history of the Snake River Plain, Idaho and 

Oregon. Pages 251-281 in: R.B. Morrison, ed. Quaternary nonglacial geology: conterminous 

United States. Boulder, CO: Geological Society of America. 

Mancuso, M. 1999. The status of Astragalus cusickii var. packardiae (Packard’s milkvetch). Idaho 

Department of Fish and Game, Idaho Conservation Data Center. Boise, ID. 26 pp. 

Manning, A. and L. Hartley. 2006. Important sites for aquatic birds in Idaho. Version 2.0. 

Coordinated bird monitoring (CBM) effort. Available at: 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CF0

QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fgreatbasin.wr.usgs.gov%2FCBM%2FContent%2FPublicatio

ns%2FIDAHO_Important%2520sites%2520for%2520aquatic%2520birds_ver2.doc&ei=ypq

2T_-RBobX6gGhn73DCg&usg=AFQjCNGyGlzb1wMx1nFtirUGMxn8EsuPRg&sig2= 

iOPXHQUsbAK1KLvW4AfCBQ. Accessed May 18, 2012. 

McLandress, M.R. and D.R. Raveling. 1981. Changes in diet and body composition of Canada geese 

before spring migration. Auk 98:65-79. 

Meador, M.R. and R.M. Goldstein. 2003. Assessing water quality at large geographic scales: 

relations among land use, water physicochemistry, riparian condition, and fish community 

structure. Environmental Management 31(4):0504-0517. 

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. Available at: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ 

oa/climate/research/ushcn/. Accessed May 18, 2012. 

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, R.F. and L. Eddleman. 2001. Spatial and temporal changes of sage grouse habitat in the 

sagebrush biome. Technical Bulletin 151. Agricultural Experiment Station, Oregon State 

University. Corvallis, OR. 39 pp. 

Miller, S.A. and T.A. Crowl. 2006. Effects of common carp on macrophytes and invertebrate 

communities in a shallow lake. Freshwater Biology 51:85-94. 

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. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

P-12 Appendix P. References Cited 

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. 

Mote, P.W. and E.P. Salathé. 2009. Future climate in the Pacific Northwest. Chapter 1 in: J. Littell, 

M.M. Elsner, L.W. Binder, and A. Snover, eds. Washington climate change impacts 

assessment. Climate Impacts Group, University of Washington. Seattle, WA. 24 pp. 

Mote, P.W. and E.P. Salathé. 2010. Future climate in the Pacific Northwest. Climatic Change 102(1-

2):29-50 (doi: 10.1007/s10584-010-9848-z). 

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. 

Moulton, C. 2010. Personal communication between Colleen Moulton, Avian Ecologist, Idaho 

Department of Fish and Game, and Kendra Niemec, Assistant Refuge Manager, Deer Flat 

NWR, December 6, 2010, e-mail regarding colonial waterbirds. 

NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration). 2006. MODIS land cover type, compiled 

using Headwaters Economics profile system-human dimensions toolkit. Available at: 

http://modis-land.gsfc.nasa.gov/. Accessed May 18, 2012. 

National Academy of Sciences. 2008. Understanding and responding to climate change: highlights of 

national academies reports. 2008 ed. Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, National 

Academy of Sciences. Washington, D.C. 28 pp. 

NAWMPC (North American Waterfowl Management Plan Committee). 2004. North American 

waterfowl management plan. Implementation framework: strengthening the biological 

foundation. Canadian Wildlife Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Secretaria de Medio 

Ambiente y Recursos Naturales. 106 pp. 

NCDC (National Climate Data Center). 2010 state of the climate, annual 2010. Available at: 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/2010/13. Accessed October 25, 2011. 

Nelson, T.A. and A. Woolf. 1987. Mortality of white-tailed deer fawns in southern Illinois. Journal 

of Wildlife Management 51(2):326-329. 

Nissan Marine. 2012. Nissan outboard fuel consumption. Available at: 

http://www.nissanmarine.com/tech_talk/gas_mileage.html. Accessed March 1, 2012. 

Northwest Habitat Institute. 2011. Interactive biodiversity information system. Available at: 

http://www.nwhi.org/index/ibis. Accessed May 18, 2012. 

Novitzki, R.P, R.D. Smith, and J.D. Fretwell. 1999. Restoration, creation, and recovery of wetlands: 

wetland functions, values, and assessment. In: National water summary on wetland resources. 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2425. Available at: 

http://water.usgs.gov/nwsum/WSP2425/index.html. Accessed May 18, 2012. 

O’Connor, J.E. 1993. Hydrology, hydraulics, and geomorphology: Bonneville Flood. Special Paper 

274. Geological Society of America. Boulder, CO. 83 pp. 

O’Connor, J.E. and J.E. Costa. 2004. The world’s largest floods, past and present—their causes and 

magnitudes. Circular 1254. U.S. Geological Survey. Reston, VA. 13 pp. 

Oberbillig, D.R. 2000. Providing positive wildlife viewing experiences. Deborah Richie 

Communications. Missoula, MT. 

ODFW (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2010. New Zealand mudsnails: how to prevent 

the spread of New Zealand mud snails through field gear. Available at: 

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/conservationstrategy/invasive_species/docs/NZ_Mudsnails_10-

page.pdf. Accessed May 18, 2012. 

ODFW. 2011. Oriental weatherfish fact sheet. Available at: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/ 

conservationstrategy/invasive_species/oriental_weatherfish.asp. Accessed November 8, 

2011. 

Olson, D. and S. Lindall. 1999. IMPLAN professional software, analysis, and data guide. Stillwater, 

MN: Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix P. References Cited P-13 

ORBIC (Oregon Biodiversity Information Center). 2010. Oregon threatened and endangered plant 

field guide: Thelypodium howellii ssp. spectabilis. Available at: 

http://orbic.pdx.edu/plants/view_plants2.php. Accessed June 20, 2012. 

Oring, L.W., L. Neel, and K.E. Oring. 2000. U.S. shorebird conservation plan. Intermountain West 

regional shorebird plan version 1.0. Available at: shorebirdplan.fws.gov/RegionalShorebird/ 

downloads/IMWEST4.doc. Accessed May 18, 2012. 

Orr, E.L. and W.N. Orr. 1996. Geology of the Pacific Northwest. New York: McGraw Hill 

Publishing Company. 

Owens, N.W. 1977. Responses of wintering brant geese to human disturbance. Wildfowl 28:5-14. 

Available at: http://www.wwt.org.uk/what-we-do/publications/wildfowl/archive/. Accessed 

July 24, 2012. 

Owyhee County. 2002. Owyhee County comprehensive plan. Available at: http://owyheecounty.net/ 

docs/adminforms/Owyhee%20County%20Comp%20Plan080910.pdf. Accessed May 16, 

2011. 

Palmberg, I.E. and J. Kuru. 2000. Outdoor activities as a basis for environmental responsibility. 

Journal of Environmental Education 31:4, 32-36. 

Patterson, M.P. and L.B. Best. 1996. Bird abundance and nesting success in Iowa CRP fields: the 

importance of vegetation structure and composition. American Midland Naturalist 

135(1):153-167. 

Payette County. 2006. Payette County comprehensive plan. Payette County, ID. 118 pp. 

Pease, M.L., R.K. Rose, and M.J. Butler. 2005. Effects of human disturbances on the behavior of 

wintering ducks. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33(1):103-112. 

Peck, G.K. and R.D. James. 1983. Breeding birds of Ontario: nidiology and distribution, vol. 1. Nonpasserines. Life Science Publishing, Royal Ontario Musuem. Toronto, ON. 38 pp. 

Pellant, M., B. Abbey, and S. Karl. 2004. Restoring the Great Basin desert, U.S.A.: integrating 

science, management, and people. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 99:169-179. 

Plew, M.G. 2000. The archaeology of the Snake River plain. Boise, ID: Boise State University. 

Ponzetti, J.M. 1997. Assessment of medusahead and cheatgrass control techniques at Lawrence 

Memorial Grassland Preserve 1996 annual report. January 14, 1997. The Nature Conservancy 

of Oregon. 17 pp. 

Priest, T.W., C.W. Case, J.E. Witty, R.K. Preece, Jr., G.A. Monroe, H.W. Biggerstaff, G.H. Logan, 

L.M. Rasmussen, and D.H. Webb. 1972. Soil survey of Canyon area, Idaho. U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Washington, D.C. 84 pp. 

Quigley, T.M., R.W. Haynes, and R.T. Graham, eds. 1996. Integrated scientific assessment for 

ecosystem management in the interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and 

Great Basins. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-382. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR. 303 pp. 

Rasmussen, L.M. 1976. Soil survey of Payette County, Idaho. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil 

Conservation Service. Washington, D.C. 74 pp. 

Raveling, D.G. 1979. The annual energy cycle of the cackling Canada goose. Pages 81-93 in: R.L. 

Jarvis and J.C. Bartonek, eds. Management and biology of Pacific Flyway geese. Corvallis, 

Oregon: OSU Book Stores. 

Reclamation (Bureau of Reclamation). 1977. Water quality study, Boise Valley. Volume 1 (excerpts 

from Volume 2 [raw data]). January 1977. R-2. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Boise, ID. 

Reclamation. 1980. Algae blooms and phosphorus loading in Lake Lowell, Boise Project, Idaho. July 

1980. Water and Power Resources Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Boise, ID. 31 pp. 

Reclamation. 2011. Project details: Boise Project. Available at: http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Project. 

jsp?proj_Name=Boise%20Project&pageType=ProjectDataPage#Group22155. Accessed 

April 19, 2011. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

P-14 Appendix P. References Cited 

Reclamation. n.d. Lake Lowell, ID. Available at: http://www.recreation.gov/recAreaDetails.do 

?contractCode=NRSO&recAreaId=112&agencyCode=129. Accessed January 24, 2012. 

Rich, T.D., C.J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, P.J. Blancher, M.S.W. Bradstreet, G.S. Butcher, D.W. 

Demarest, E.H. Dunn, W.C. Hunter, E.E. Iñigo-Elias, J.A. Kennedy, A.M. Martell, A.O. 

Panjabi, D.N. Pashley, K.V. Rosenberg, C.M. Rustay, J.S. Wendt, and T.C. Will. 2004. 

Partners in Flight North American landbird conservation plan. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 

Ithaca, NY. 110 pp. 

Rich, T.D., M.J. Wisdom, and V.A. Saab. 2005. Conservation of priority birds in sagebrush 

ecosystems. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-191. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service. 18 pp. 

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(1):139-145. 

Rodgers, J.A., Jr. and S.T. Schwikert. 2002. Buffer-zone distances to protect foraging and loafing 

waterbirds from disturbance by personal watercraft and outboard-powered boats. 

Conservation Biology 16(1):216-224. 

Saab, V.A. and T.D. Rich. 1997. Large-scale conservation assessment for neotropical migratory land 

bird in the Interior Columbia River Basin. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-399. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 63 pp. 

Safina, C. and J. Burger. 1983. Effects of human disturbance on reproductive success in the black 

skimmer. Condor 85:164-171. 

Salathé, E.P., L.R. Leung, Y. Qian, and Y. Zhang. 2010. Regional climate model projections for the 

state of Washington. Climatic Change 102(1-2):51-75 (doi: 10.1007/s10584-010-9849-y). 

Severson, K.E. and C.E. Boldt. 1978. Cattle, wildlife, and riparian habitats in the western Dakotas. 

Pages 94-103 in: Management and use of northern plains rangeland. Regional Rangeland 

Symposium. North Dakota State University. Bismarck, ND. 

Sexton, N.R., A.M. Dietsch, A.W. Don Carlos, L. Koontz, A.N. Solomon, and H.M. Miller. 2012. 

National wildlife refuge visitor survey 2010/2011: individual refuge results (Deer Flat). Data 

Series 643. U.S. Geological Survey. Reston, VA. 69 pp. 

Shaw, D.W.H. 1998. Changes in population size and colony location of breeding waterbirds at Eagle 

Lake, California between 1970 and 1997. Thesis. California State University, Chico. 

Sime, C.A. 1999. Domestic dogs in wildlife habitats. Pages 8.1-8.17 in: G. Joslin 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. 

Simonds, W.J. 1997. The Boise Project. Bureau of Reclamation History Program. Denver, CO. 58 

pp. 

Skagen, S.K., R.L. Knight, and G.H. Orians. 1991. Human disturbances of an avian scavenging 

guild. Ecological Applications 1:215-225. 

Smith, J.P., C.J. Farmer, S.W. Hoffman, G.S. Kaltenecker, K.Z. Woodruff, and P.F. Sherrington. 

2008. Trends in autumn counts of migratory raptors in western North America. Pages 217-

252 in: K.L. Bildstein, J.P. Smith, E. Ruelas I., and R.R. Veit, eds. State of North America’s 

birds of prey. Series in Ornithology No. 3. Nuttall Ornithological Club and American 

Ornithologists’ Union. Cambridge, MA, and Washington, D.C. 466 pp. 

Smithers, A. 2006. Deer Flat abnormal amphibian report. Unpublished report. Deer Flat National 

Wildlife Refuge, ID. 5 pp. 

Snake River Canyon Scenic Byway. 2009. Corridor Management Plan 

Sorensen, P.W. 2006. Developing pheromones for use in carp control. Project report. 11 pp. 

Available at: http://archive.leg.state.mn.us/docs/2007/mandated/070063.pdf. Accessed 

January 3, 2013. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix P. References Cited P-15 

Sorensen, P.W. and T.R. Hoye. 2007. A critical review of the discovery and application of a 

migratory pheromone in an invasive fish, the sea lamprey Petromyzon marinus. Journal of 

Fish Biology 71:100-114. 

Sorensen, P.W. and N.E. Stacey. 2004. Brief review of fish pheromones and discussion of their 

possible uses in the control of non-indigenous teleost fishes. New Zealand Journal of Marine 

and Freshwater Research 38:399-417. 

Sorensen, P.W. and L.A. Vrieze. 2003. The chemical ecology and potential application of the sea 

lamprey migratory pheromone. Journal of Great Lakes Research 29 (Supplement 1):66-84. 

26 pp. 

Speir, C. and K. Stephenson. 2002. Does sprawl cost us all?: isolating the effects of housing patterns 

on public water and sewer costs. Journal of the American Planning Association 68(1):56-70. 

SPPCG (Subcommittee on Pacific Population of Canada Geese). 2000. Pacific Flyway management 

plan for the Pacific Population of Canada Geese (unpublished report). Pacific Flyway Study 

Committee, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, OR. 31 pp. 

Stalmaster, M.V. and J.L. Kaiser. 1997. Flushing responses of wintering bald eagles to military 

activity. Journal of Wildlife Management 61(4):1307-1313. 

Steel, P.E., P.D. Dalke, and E.G. Bizeau. 1957. Canada Goose production at Gray’s Lake, Idaho, 

1949-1951. Journal of Wildlife Management 21(1):38-41. 

Stevens, L.E., B. 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, technical coordinators. 

Importance, preservation and management of riparian habitat: a symposium. General 

Technical Report RM-43. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 217 pp. 

Steward, J. 1938. Basin-Plateau aboriginal sociopolitical groups. Bulletin No. 120. Bureau of 

American Ethnology. Washington, D.C. 346 pp. 

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. 

Stollberg B.P. 1950. Food habits of shoal-water ducks on Horicon Marsh, Wisconsin. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 14(2):214-217. 

Storer, R.W. and G.L. Nuechterlein. 1992. Western grebe (Aechmorphorus occidentalis) and Clark’s 

grebe (Aechmorphorus clarkia). In: A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. Birds of North America, No. 

26. Philadelphia, PA: Academy of Natural Sciences and American Ornithologists’ Union. 24 

pp. 

Stynes, D.J. 2012. Economic contributions of the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails 

Network to local economies. Technical Report. Michigan State University. 74 pp. 

Talbot, T. 1931. The journals of Theodore Talbot, 1843 and 1849-52. Portland, OR: Binford and 

Mort. 

Taylor A. and R. Knight. 2003. Wildlife responses to recreation and associated visitor perceptions. 

Ecological Applications 13(4):951-963. 

Taylor, D.M. and C.H. Trost. 1987. The status of rare birds in Idaho. The Murrelet 68(3) 

(Autumn):69-93. 

Taylor, D.M. and C.H. Trost. 1992. Use of lakes and reservoirs by migrating shorebirds in Idaho. 

Great Basin Naturalist 52 (2):179-184. 

Taylor, D.M., C.H. Trost, and B. Jamison. 1992. Abundance and chronology of migrant shorebirds in 

Idaho. Western Birds 23:49-78. 

Taylor, D.M. 2000. Status of the yellow-billed cuckoo in Idaho. Western Birds 31:252-254. 

Thomas, C.M. and S. Burch. 2005. Evaluation of inorganic and organochlorine contaminants in 

sediment and biota from Lake Lowell, Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge: final report. 

Snake River Fish and Wildlife Office. Boise, ID. 41 pp. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

P-16 Appendix P. References Cited 

Tomback, D.F., S.F. Arno, and R.E. Keane. 2001. The compelling case for management intervention. 

Pages 3-25 in: D.F. Tomback, S.F. Arno, and R.E. Keane, eds. Whitebark pine communities: 

ecology and restoration. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 

Trulio, L.A. and J. Sokale. 2008. Foraging shorebird response to trail use around San Francisco Bay. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 72(8):1775-1780. 

Turley, N.J.S. and A.M.A. Holthuijzen. 1999. Migrant shorebird use of mudflats along Brownlee 

Reservoir. Technical Report E.3.2-15 in license application for the Hells Canyon Complex. 

Idaho Power Company. Boise, ID. 24 pp. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Pacific Northwest reservoir system. Portland District visual 

information, January 11, 2010. Available at Portland District office. Map available at: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pacific_Northwest_River_System.png. Accessed August 20, 

2012. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 1996. Population projections for states by age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin: 

1995 to 2025. Available at: 

http://www.census.gov/population/projections/files/methodology/ppl47.pdf. Accessed June 3, 

2013. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. State and county quickfacts. Available at: http://quickfacts.census.gov. 

Accessed February 8, 2012. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2012. American FactFinder 2. Available at: http://factfinder2.census.gov/ 

faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. Accessed January 18, 2012. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2000. Idaho natural resource trends. Available at: ftp://ftpfc.sc.egov.usda.gov/ID/news/nri_97.pdf. Accessed January 25, 2012. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2009. Summary report: 2007 national resources inventory. Natural 

Resources Conservation Service and Center for Survey Statistics and Methodology. 

Washington, D.C. 127 pp. 

U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2012. Gasoline and diesel fuel update. Available at: 

http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/gasdiesel/. Accessed March 1, 2012. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1990, updated in 1996. Refuge management plan (RMP). 

Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge. Nampa, ID. 33 pp. 

USFWS and U.S. Census Bureau. 2007. 2006 national survey of fishing, hunting and wildlifeassociated recreation. Available at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/fhw06-nat.pdf. 

Accessed May 18, 2012. 

USFWS. 1968. Master plan for Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge. Deer Flat National Wildlife 

Refuge, Nampa, ID. 240 pp. 

USFWS. 1970. Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Lake Lowell sector recreation management plan. 

Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge. Nampa, ID. 45 pp. 

USFWS. 1980. Master plan for Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge. Deer Flat National Wildlife 

Refuge. Nampa, ID. 17 pp. 

USFWS. 1994. Native American policy. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/northeast/ 

nativeamerican/imp_plan.html. Accessed May 18, 2012. 

USFWS. 1995. Recovery Plan for the Lahontan Cutthroat Trout. Available at: 

http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/950130.pdf. Accessed June 5, 2013 

USFWS. 1996 (1990, updated 1996). Refuge management plan (RMP). Deer Flat National Wildlife 

Refuge. Nampa, ID. 

USFWS. 2000. 1998 Lake Lowell water quality assessment, Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge, 

planning aid and contaminants study for U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Snake River Area 

Office. USFWS, Snake River Basin Office. Boise, ID. 20 pp. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix P. References Cited P-17 

USFWS. 2002a. Writing refuge management goals and objectives: a handbook (draft). U.S. 

Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Washington, D.C. 34 pp. 

USFWS. 2002b. Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) draft recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. Portland, OR. 7 pp. 

USFWS. 2005. USFWS biological opinion for Bureau of Reclamation operations and maintenance in 

the Snake River Basin above Brownlee Reservoir. Snake River Fish and Wildlife Office. 

Boise, ID. 436 pp. 

USFWS. 2007a. McNary and Umatilla National Wildlife Refuges comprehensive conservation plan 

and environmental assessment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, OR. 27 pp. 

USFWS. 2007b. USFWS five-year review of Bruneau hot springsnail. Snake River Fish and Wildlife 

Office. Boise, ID. 36 pp. 

USFWS. 2008. Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge wildlife and habitat management review. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, OR. 27 pp. 

USFWS. 2009a. Wildland fire management plan: Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. Nampa, ID. 34 pp. 

USFWS. 2009b. Identifying refuge resources of concern and management priorities: a handbook. 

U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Washington, D.C. 

USFWS. 2010a. Bull trout final critical habitat justification: rationale for why habitat is essential, and 

documentation of occupancy. Chapter 23 Mid-Columbia recovery unit—mainstem Snake 

River critical habitat unit. 1,035 pp. 

USFWS. 2010b. Malheur National Wildlife Refuge invasive carp control workshop meeting notes, 

March 23-25, 2010, Community Center, Burns, OR. Available at: 

http://www.fws.gov/malheur/pdf/carp_workshop_notes.pdf. Accessed May 18, 2012. 

USFWS. 2011a. Hunt plan, environmental assessment, and compatibility determination for a 

controlled mule deer hunt on the Lake Lowell Unit of the Deer Flat National Wildlife 

Refuge. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/deerflat/recreation/deerhuntplan.html. Accessed 

May 30, 2012. 

USFWS. 2011b. Air quality. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/refuges/airquality/. Accessed October 

2011. 

USFWS. 2011c. Waterfowl population status, 2011. U.S. Department of the Interior. Washington, 

D.C. 80 pp. 

USFWS. 2011d. Species assessment and listing priority form for the Southern Idaho ground squirrel. 

Available at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/candidate/assessments/2012/r1/A0EO_V01.pdf. 

Accessed May 18, 2012. 

USFWS. 2011e. Species assessment and listing priority form for Packard’s milkvetch. Available at: 

http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/candidate/assessments/2012/r1/Q3N8_P01.pdf. Accessed May 18, 

2012. 

USFWS. 2011f. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service species assessment and listing priority assignment 

form for the Columbia spotted frog (Great Basin DPS), as of April 15, 2011. Available at: 

http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/candidate/assessments/2012/r8/D027_V01.pdf. Accessed June 20, 

2012. 

USFWS. 2011g. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recovery outline for Lepidium papilliferum (slickspot 

peppergrass). Available at: 

http://www.fws.gov/pacific/ecoservices/endangered/recovery/documents/2011_LEPA%20Re

covery_Outline_Final_9-26-11.pdf. Accessed April 27, 2013. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

P-18 Appendix P. References Cited 

USFWS. 2013. Species profile for southern Idaho ground squirrel. Available at: 

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A0EO. Accessed 

June 5, 2013. 

USGCRP (U.S. Global Climate Change Research Program). 2009. Global climate change impacts in 

the United States. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. 

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 1951. Weiser South quadrangle, Idaho-Oregon. 7.5-minute series 

topographic map. USGS. Denver, CO, and Reston, VA. 

USGS. 1952. Olds Ferry SE quadrangle, Idaho-Oregon. 7.5-minute series topographic map. USGS. 

Denver, CO, and Reston, VA. 

USGS. 1967. Owyhee quadrangle, Oregon-Idaho. 7.5-minute series topographic map. USGS. 

Denver, CO, and Reston, VA. 

USGS. 1968. Adrian quadrangle, Oregon-Idaho. 7.5-minute series topographic map. USGS. Denver, 

CO, and Reston, VA. 

USGS. 1971a. Lake Lowell quadrangle, Idaho. 7.5-minute series topographic map. USGS. Denver, 

CO, and Reston, VA. 

USGS. 1971b. Wilder quadrangle, Idaho. 7.5-minute series topographic map. USGS. Denver, CO, 

and Reston, VA. 

USGS. 1971c. Homedale quadrangle, Idaho. 7.5-minute series topographic map. USGS. Denver, CO, 

and Reston, VA. 

USGS. 1971d. Marsing quadrangle, Idaho. 7.5-minute series topographic map. USGS. Denver, CO, 

and Reston, VA. 

USGS. 1974a. Olds Ferry quadrangle, Idaho-Oregon. 7.5-minute series topographic map. USGS. 

Denver, CO, and Reston, VA. 

USGS. 1974b. Moores Hollow quadrangle, Oregon-Idaho. 7.5-minute series topographic map. 

USGS. Denver, CO, and Reston, VA. 

USGS. 1974c. Payette quadrangle, Idaho-Oregon. 7.5-minute series topographic map. USGS. 

Denver, CO, and Reston, VA. 

USGS. 1975. Parma quadrangle, Idaho-Oregon. 7.5-minute series topographic map. USGS. Denver, 

CO, and Reston, VA. 

USGS. 1992a. Opalene Gulch quadrangle, Idaho. 7.5-minute series topographic map. USGS. Denver, 

CO, and Reston, VA. 

USGS. 1992b. Givens Hot Springs quadrangle, Idaho. 7.5-minute series topographic map. USGS. 

Denver, CO, and Reston, VA. 

USGS. 1992c. Wilson Peak quadrangle, Idaho. 7.5-minute series topographic map. USGS. Denver, 

CO, and Reston, VA. 

USGS. 1992d. Walters Butte quadrangle, Idaho. 7.5-minute series topographic map. USGS. Denver, 

CO, and Reston, VA. 

USGS. 2011. USGS surface-water data for Idaho. Available at: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/id/nwis/sw. 

Accessed July 6, 2011. 

Van Daele, L.J. and H.A. Van Daele. 1982. Factors affecting the productivity of ospreys nesting in 

west-central Idaho. Condor 84:292-299. 

Vavra, M. 2005. Livestock grazing and wildlife: developing compatibilities. Rangeland Ecology and 

Management 58(2):128-134. 

Vickery, P.D. and J.R. Herkert, eds. 1999. Ecology and conservation of grassland birds of the 

western hemisphere. Studies in Avian Biology 19. Norman, OK: Cooper Ornithological 

Society. 

Visit Idaho. 2011. Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area. Available 

at: http://www.visitidaho.org/attraction/wildlife/morley-nelson-snake-river-birds-of-preynational-conservation-area. Accessed May 18, 2012. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix P. References Cited P-19 

Vos, D.K., R.A. Ryder, and W.D. Graul. 1985. Response of breeding great blue herons to human 

disturbance in northcentral Colorado. Colonial Waterbirds 8:13-22. 

Washington County. 2010. Washington County comprehensive plan. Washington County, ID. 67 pp. 

Watson, A.E., M.J. Niccolucci, and D.R. Williams. 1993. Hikers and recreational stock users: 

predicting and managing recreation conflicts in three wildernesses. Intermountain Research 

Station Research Paper INT-468. U.S. Forest Service. 37 pp. 

West, N.E. 1996. Strategies for maintenance and repair of biotic community diversity on rangelands. 

Pages 327-347 in: R.C. Szaro and D.W. Johnston, eds. Biodiversity in managed landscapes: 

theory and practice. New York: Oxford University Press. 

West, N.E. and J.A. Young. 2000. Intermountain valleys and lower mountain slopes. Pages 255-284 

in: M.G. Barbour and W.D. Billings, eds. North American terrestrial vegetation. 2nd edition. 

Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. 

West, T.O. and W.M. Post. 2001. Soil organic carbon sequestration rates by tillage and crop rotation. 

Soil Science Society of America Journal 66(6):1930-1946. 

White-Robinson, R. 1982. Inland and salt marsh feeding of wintering brent geese in Essex. Wildfowl 

33:113-118. 

Whitson, P.D. 1974. The impact of human use upon the Chisos Basin and adjacent lands. Scientific 

Monograph Series Number 4. National Park Service. 92 pp. 

Whittaker, P.L. 1978. Comparison of surface impact by hiking and horseback riding in the Great 

Smoky Mountain National Park. Management Report 24. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

National Park Service. 80 pp. 

Wiedmeier, C. 2011. Personal communication between Craig Wiedmeier, License Operations 

Supervisor, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, and Susan Kain, Visitor Services Program 

Manager, Deer Flat NWR, November 18, 2011, regarding historical IDFG fishing and 

hunting license sales. 

Williams, G.L. 1985. Classifying wetlands according to relative wildlife value: application to water 

impoundments. Pages 110-119 in: M.D. Knighton, compiler. Proceedings of water 

impoundments for wildlife: a habitat management workshop. U.S. Forest Service, St. Paul, 

MN. 

Wilson, J.P. and C.M. Ryan. 1988. Landscape change in the Lake Simcoe-Couchiching Basin, 1800-

1983. Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe canadien 32(3):206-222. 

Wilson, R.A. 1997. The wonders of nature: honoring children’s ways of knowing. Available at: 

http://www.earlychildhoodnews.com/earlychildhood/article_view.aspx?ArticleID=70. 

Accessed May 18, 2012. 

Winter, G.J., C. Vogt, and J.S. Fried, 2002. Fuel treatments at the wildland-urban interface: common 

concerns in diverse regions. Journal of Forestry 100(1):15-21. 

Wolder, M. 1993. Disturbance of wintering northern pintails at Sacramento National Wildlife 

Refuge, California. M.S. thesis. Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA. 

Wood, S.H. and D.M. Clemens. 2002. Geologic and tectonic history of the western Snake River 

Plain, Idaho and Oregon. Pages 69-103 in: Bill Bonnichsen, C.M. White, and Michael 

McCurry, eds. Tectonic and magmatic evolution of the Snake River Plain volcanic province. 

Idaho Geological Survey Bulletin 30: 69-103. 

WRCC (Western Regional Climate Center). 2011a. Climate of Idaho. Available at: 

www.wrcc.dri.edu/narratives/IDAHO.htm. Accessed April 19, 2011. 

WRCC. 2011b. Average wind direction by state. Available at: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/ 

htmlfiles/westwinddir.html. Accessed May 10, 2011. 

WRCC. 2011c. Average wind speeds by state. Available at: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/ 

htmlfiles/westwind.final.html#IDAHO. Accessed July 7, 2011. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

P-20 Appendix P. References Cited 

Yalden, D.W. and P.E. Yalden. 1989. The sensitivity of breeding golden plovers Pluvialis apricaria

to human intruders. Bird Study 36:49-55. 

Yanch, J. 2006. Status of the western grebe (Aechmophorus occidentalis) in Alberta. Alberta Wildlife 

Status Report No. 60. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife 

Division. Edmonton, Canada. 42 pp. 

Yensen, D. 1982 A grazing history of southwestern Idaho with emphasis on the Birds of Prey Study 

Area. Bureau of Land Management. Boise, ID. 82 pp. 

Zambrano, L., M. Scheffer, and M. Martinez-Ramos. 2001. Catastrophic response of lakes to 

benthivorous fish introductions. Oikos 94:344-350. 

Zoellick, B.W., H.M. Ulmschneider, B.S. Cade, and A.W. Stanley. 2004a. Distribution and 

composition of mammalian predators along the Snake River in southwestern Idaho. 

Northwest Science 79(4):265-272. 

Zoellick, B.W., H.M. Ulmschneider, and A.W. Stanley. 2004b. Isolation of Snake River islands and 

mammalian predation of waterfowl nests. Journal of Wildlife Management 68(3):650-662.