U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge

13751 Upper Embankment

Nampa, ID 83607

Phone: 208/467 9278

Fax: 208/467 1019

http://www.fws.gov/deerflat

National Wildlife Refuge System Information

1 800/344 WILD

March 2013

The mission of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

is working with others to conserve, protect, and

enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their

habitats for the continuing benefit of the

American people.

Cover Photo:

Mule deer overlooking refuge

Addison Mohler, USFWS 
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 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

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

Lead Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Region

Cooperating Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Snake River Area Office

Responsible Official: Robyn Thorson, Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Region 

Contact: Jennifer Brown-Scott, Refuge Manager, Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge 

 13751 Upper Embankment Road, Nampa, Idaho 83686-8046, phone: (208) 467-9278 

Abstract: The Fish and Wildlife Service is required to manage units of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

in accordance with a comprehensive conservation plan (CCP). This is the Draft CCP and Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) for Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge); in it, we address issues and 

opportunities; examine potential impacts on natural and cultural resources; and analyze the following range 

of alternatives, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act. 

Alternative 1 (status quo alternative). Under Alternative 1, current wildlife, habitat, and public use 

management would continue. Invasive species control and limited restoration would be our habitat 

management focus. The no-wake zone on Lake Lowell would continue, and the lake would be closed from 

October 1 to April 14 for migratory birds. 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 be open from June 1 to January 31 for free-roam activities and 

shoreline fishing. 

Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative). We would protect Lake Lowell’s shoreline feeding and nesting sites for 

wintering and migratory birds under Alternative 2 by closing the lake from October 1 to April 14, establishing 

a 200-yard no-wake zone on the south side and in the Narrows, and expanding the southeast no-wake zone to 

Gotts Point. Nearly all existing recreation would continue; fishing and wildlife interpretation would be 

emphasized, and with increased law enforcement, Gotts Point would open to vehicles. We would increase 

wildlife inventory and monitoring (IM), invasive species control, and restoration on the Snake River Islands 

Unit, and we would adjust closures to protect nesting and wading birds. Wildlife observation and hunting for 

deer, upland species, and waterfowl would be allowed. Most islands would be open for shoreline fishing and 

free-roam activities from June 15 to January 31; heron- and gull-nesting islands would be open from July 1 to 

January 31.

Alternative 3. Under Alternative 3, we would protect Lake Lowell’s wildlife resources by closing emergent 

plant beds in Murphy’s Neck and from Parking Lots 3 to 8; closing the lake seasonally for wintering/migrating 

birds; closing areas within 500 yards of grebe-nesting sites; and 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 earlier, on September 20, for a youth hunt. Upland 

bird and controlled waterfowl hunting would be allowed, horseback riding and dog walking would not, and 

bicycling would be limited. Wildlife IM, 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, which would be open from June 15 to January 31 for fishing and free-roam activities. Heronand gull-nesting islands would be open from July 1 to January 31. 

Alternative 4. Alternative 4 would provide the most protection for Lakes Lowell’s wildlife resources by 

restricting boating to no-wake speeds only and closing the southeast end to public use. The lake would 

continue to be closed from October 1 to April 14, and portions of the Refuge would be closed to the public 

year-round. No horseback riding, dog walking, or bicycling would occur. Upland game hunting would not be 

allowed; however, waterfowl hunting would be allowed on the south side from Parking Lots 1 to 8. Wildlife 

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

would be adjusted to protect nesting and wading birds. Prescribed fire and aerial application of herbicide 

and/or seed may be used. Wildlife observation and hunting for deer, upland species, and waterfowl would 

occur on the islands, which would be open for fishing and free-roam activities from June 15 to January 31. 

Heron- and gull-nesting islands would be open from July 1 to January 31. 

Public Comments: Public comments are due to Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge by May 15, 2013. 

 

Deer Flat 

National Wildlife Refuge 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and 

Environmental Impact Statement 

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 

February 2013 

Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Table of Contents i 

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 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 Proposed 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......... 1-19

1.9 Planning and Issue Identification ............................................................................................... 1-21

1.9.1 Planning Process Overview ................................................................................................ 1-21

1.9.2 Major Issues to be Addressed in the CCP ........................................................................... 1-22

1.9.3 Issues outside the Scope of the CCP ................................................................................... 1-24

1.10 Refuge Goals .............................................................................................................................. 1-26

1.10.1 Wildlife and Habitat Goals ................................................................................................. 1-26

1.10.2 Public Use and Cultural Resources Goals .......................................................................... 1-26

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

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

2.2 Actions/Alternatives Considered but Dismissed .......................................................................... 2-1

2.3 Alternatives .................................................................................................................................. 2-3

2.3.1 Features Common to All Alternatives .................................................................................. 2-3

2.3.2 Features Common to All Action Alternatives (Alternatives 2-4) ....................................... 2-10

2.3.3 Alternative Descriptions ..................................................................................................... 2-12

2.4 Wildlife and Habitat Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ............................................................. 2-25

2.5 Public Use and Cultural Resource Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ........................................ 2-51

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 ................................................................................................................................... 3-11

3.2.1 Lake Lowell ........................................................................................................................ 3-11

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
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Table of Contents ii 

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 .................................................................................................... 3-26

3.6 Fire ............................................................................................................................................. 3-27

3.7 Air Quality .................................................................................................................................. 3-28

3.8 Visual Quality ............................................................................................................................ 3-29

3.9 Water Quality ............................................................................................................................. 3-30

3.9.1 Lake Lowell ........................................................................................................................ 3-32

3.9.2 Snake River ......................................................................................................................... 3-35

3.10 Surrounding Land Uses .............................................................................................................. 3-36

3.10.1 Lake Lowell Unit ................................................................................................................ 3-36

3.10.2 Snake River Islands Unit .................................................................................................... 3-38

3.11 Environmental Contaminants ..................................................................................................... 3-38

3.11.1 Lake Lowell Unit ................................................................................................................ 3-38

3.11.2 Snake River Islands Unit .................................................................................................... 3-39

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 ............................................................................................................................. 4-10

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 .................................................................................. 4-19

4.4 Major Species Groups ................................................................................................................ 4-20

4.4.1 Fish ..................................................................................................................................... 4-20

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

4.4.3 Mammals ............................................................................................................................ 4-23

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

4.4.5 Invertebrates ....................................................................................................................... 4-24

4.5 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species ........................................................................ 4-24

4.6 Invasive and Nuisance Species ................................................................................................... 4-30

4.6.1 Plants .................................................................................................................................. 4-30

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

4.7 Wildlife and Habitat Research, Inventory, and Monitoring ....................................................... 4-33

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
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Table of Contents iii 

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

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 .............................................................................. 5-24

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 ......................................................................................................... 5-31

5.6 Illegal Uses ................................................................................................................................. 5-31

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

5.6.2 East Upper Dam Boat Launch ............................................................................................ 5-32

5.6.3 Lower Dam Recreation Area .............................................................................................. 5-32

5.6.4 South Side Recreation Area ................................................................................................ 5-32

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

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

5.6.7 Lake Lowell ........................................................................................................................ 5-33

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

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

5.7 Area Outdoor Recreational Opportunities and Trends ............................................................... 5-34

5.7.1 Nearby Recreational Opportunities .................................................................................... 5-34

5.7.2 Outdoor Recreation Rates and Trends ................................................................................ 5-35

5.8 Social/Economic Environment ................................................................................................... 5-36

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

5.8.2 Population and Density ....................................................................................................... 5-37

5.8.3 Gender, Age, and Racial Composition ............................................................................... 5-38

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

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

Chapter 6 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................ 6-1

6.1 Introduction to Effects .................................................................................................................. 6-1

6.2 Effects Common to All Alternatives ............................................................................................ 6-7

6.2.1 Integrated Pest Management ................................................................................................. 6-7

6.3 Effects to the Physical Environment ............................................................................................ 6-7

6.3.1 Effects to Hydrology ............................................................................................................. 6-7

6.3.2 Effects to Water Quality ....................................................................................................... 6-8
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Table of Contents iv 

6.3.3 Effects to Air Quality ............................................................................................................ 6-9

6.3.4 Effects to Visual Quality .................................................................................................... 6-11

6.4 Effects to Wildlife and Habitats ................................................................................................. 6-12

6.4.1 Effects to Open-water Habitat and Associated Wildlife: Lake Lowell .............................. 6-12

6.4.2 Effects to Emergent-bed Habitat and Associated Wildlife: Lake Lowell ........................... 6-20

6.4.3 Effects to Riparian Habitat and Associated Species ........................................................... 6-24

6.4.4 Effects to Shrub-steppe Habitat and Associated Species .................................................... 6-28

6.4.5 Effects to Mudflats and Associated Species: Lake Lowell ................................................. 6-32

6.4.6 Additional Effects to Waterfowl ......................................................................................... 6-35

6.4.7 Effects to Threatened and Endangered Species .................................................................. 6-38

6.5 Effects to Public Uses ................................................................................................................. 6-39

6.5.1 Estimating Annual Recreation Visits .................................................................................. 6-39

6.5.2 Projected User Numbers in 15 Years .................................................................................. 6-39

6.5.3 Effects from Wildlife and Habitat Management Actions on Recreational Opportunities 

and Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................... 6-44

6.5.4 Effects from Public Use and Public Use Management Actions on Quality Waterfowl 

Hunting ............................................................................................................................... 6-45

6.5.5 Effects from Public Use and Public Use Management Actions on Quality Upland 

Game Hunting ..................................................................................................................... 6-47

6.5.6 Effects from Public Use and Public Use Management Actions on Quality Big Game 

Hunting ............................................................................................................................... 6-48

6.5.7 Effects from Public Use and Public Use Management Actions on Quality Fishing ........... 6-49

6.5.8 Effects from Public Use and Public Use Management Actions on Quality Wildlife 

Observation and Photography ............................................................................................. 6-52

6.5.9 Effects from Public Use and Public Use Management Actions on Quality 

Environmental Education ................................................................................................... 6-54

6.5.10 Effects from Public Use and Public Use Management Actions on Quality 

Interpretation ....................................................................................................................... 6-56

6.5.11 Effects from Public Use and Public Use Management Actions on Water-based 

Nonwildlife-dependent Recreation ..................................................................................... 6-57

6.5.12 Effects from Public Use and Public Use Management Actions on Land-based 

Nonwildlife-dependent Recreation ..................................................................................... 6-59

6.5.13 Effects from Public Use and Public Use Management on Cultural Resources .................. 6-61

6.5.14 Amount of Illegal Use ........................................................................................................ 6-63

6.5.15 Environmental Justice ......................................................................................................... 6-63

6.6 Economic Effects ....................................................................................................................... 6-63

6.6.1 Methods for a Regional Economic Impact Analysis .......................................................... 6-63

6.6.2 Impacts from Revenue Sharing ........................................................................................... 6-65

6.6.3 Impacts from Public Use and Access Management ............................................................ 6-65

6.6.4 Impacts from Refuge Administration ................................................................................. 6-72

6.6.5 Summary of Economic Impacts for Alternative 1 (Status Quo) ......................................... 6-74

6.6.6 Summary of Economic Impacts for Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) ......................... 6-74

6.6.7 Summary of Economic Impacts for Alternative 3 .............................................................. 6-75

6.6.8 Summary of Economic Impacts for Alternative 4 .............................................................. 6-76

6.7 Cumulative Effects ..................................................................................................................... 6-77

6.7.1 Potential Effects from Climate Change .............................................................................. 6-78

6.7.2 Effects from Reasonably Foreseeable Events and Activities from Others ......................... 6-78

6.8 Other Effects............................................................................................................................... 6-81

6.8.1 Potential Impacts on Adjacent Lands and their Associated Natural Resources ................. 6-81

6.8.2 Potential Impacts to Nearby Residents ............................................................................... 6-81
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Table of Contents v 

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 Use Study .................................................................................................................. L-1

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

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 ............................................................................................. 1-17

Map 4. Alternative 1 (Status Quo) ........................................................................................................... 2-77

Map 5. Alternative 2 (Preferred) .............................................................................................................. 2-79

Map 6. Alternative 2 (Preferred) Trails Map Index ................................................................................. 2-81

Map 7. Alternative 2 (Preferred) Trails Map Inset Maps ......................................................................... 2-83

Map 8. Alternative 3 ................................................................................................................................ 2-85

Map 9. Alternative 4 ................................................................................................................................ 2-87

Map 10. Lake Lowell Unit with Various Lake Levels ............................................................................. 3-15

Map 11. Lake Lowell Unit Soils Map ...................................................................................................... 3-23

Map 12. Lake Lowell Unit Habitat Map .................................................................................................. 4-35

Map 13. Snake River Islands Unit Habitat Map ...................................................................................... 4-37

Map 14. Lake Lowell Unit Current Public Use Facilities Map ............................................................... 5-15

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

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
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Table of Contents vi 

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 ....................................................... 4-7

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

Tables 

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

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

Table 2-1. Summary of Alternatives by Issue .......................................................................................... 2-22

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 ....................................................... 3-12

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 ........ 3-25

Table 3-10. Soil Types Mapped for the Snake River Islands Unit of Deer Flat NWR ............................ 3-27

Table 3-11. 2006 Air Quality Index for Canyon County ......................................................................... 3-29

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

Quality Standards .............................................................................................................. 3-31

Table 3-13. State of Idaho Water Quality Categories .............................................................................. 3-32

Table 3-14. Beneficial Uses of Waters within Idaho and Lake Lowell Designations ............................. 3-33

Table 3-15. Snake River Islands Unit–Specific 303(d) Listings for the Snake River (RM 335-449) ..... 3-35

Table 3-16. City of Nampa Land Use Inventories ................................................................................... 3-37

Table 4-1. Priority Resources of Concern at the Refuge ........................................................................... 4-9

Table 4-2. Acreages of Habitat Types at the Refuge ............................................................................... 4-10

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 1 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. Visitors may engage in more 

than one activity per visit. ................................................................................................. 5-19

Table 5-6. Lake Lowell Fishing Access by Season ................................................................................. 5-23

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 ....................................................... 5-35

Table 5-9. Population Estimates for Idaho and the Two Counties near Deer Flat Refuge ...................... 5-37

Table 5-10. Racial Demographics for the State and Counties near Deer Flat Refuge (2010) ................. 5-38

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

Flat Refuge ........................................................................................................................ 5-39

Table 5-12. Employment by Industry for the Counties near Deer Flat Refuge ....................................... 5-39

Table 6-1. Summary of Potential Effects of CCP/EIS Alternatives for Deer Flat NWR .......................... 6-2

Table 6-2. Estimates of FY11 Visits to the Lake Lowell and Snake River Islands Units. Visitors 

may engage in more than one activity per visit. ................................................................ 6-39

Table 6-3. Deer Flat NWR’s Current and Projected Annual Visits in 15 Years, by Alternative ............. 6-42
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Table of Contents vii 

Table 6-4. Annual Impacts from Refuge Revenue Sharing Payments Under Any CCP/EIS 

Alternative ......................................................................................................................... 6-65

Table 6-5. Estimated Current Annual Refuge Visitation ......................................................................... 6-66

Table 6-6. Average Annual Impacts of Nonlocal Visitor Spending by Activity for Alternative 1 .......... 6-68

Table 6-7. Average Annual Impacts of Nonlocal Visitor Spending by Activity for Alternative 2 .......... 6-69

Table 6-8. Average Annual Impacts of Nonlocal Visitor Spending by Activity for Alternative 3 .......... 6-69

Table 6-9. Average Annual Impacts of Nonlocal Visitor Spending by Activity for Alternative 4 .......... 6-70

Table 6-10. Average Annual Impacts of Nonlocal Visitor Spending by Alternative .............................. 6-71

Table 6-11. Current Staffing and Additional Positions Needed to Implement the CCP .......................... 6-72

Table 6-12. Annual Local Impacts of Salary Spending by Deer Flat NWR Personnel by Alternative ... 6-72

Table 6-13. Local Economic Impacts of Refuge-related Purchases by Alternative ................................ 6-73

Table 6-14. Summary of All Refuge Management Activities for Alternative 1 ...................................... 6-74

Table 6-15. Summary of All Refuge Management Activities for Alternative 2 ...................................... 6-75

Table 6-16. Change in Economic Impacts under Alternative 2 Compared to Alternative 1 ................... 6-75

Table 6-17. Summary of All Refuge Management Activities for Alternative 3 ...................................... 6-76

Table 6-18. Change in Economic Impacts under Alternative 3 Compared to Alternative 1 ................... 6-76

Table 6-19. Summary of All Refuge Management Activities for Alternative 4 ...................................... 6-77

Table 6-20. Change in Economic Impacts under Alternative 4 Compared to Alternative 1 ................... 6-77

 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Table of Contents viii 

Document continues on next page. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Executive Summary i 

Executive Summary 

This document is a summary of the combined Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement (Draft CCP/EIS) for the 15-year management of Deer Flat National 

Wildlife Refuge (NWR or Refuge), located in Canyon, Payette, Owyhee, and Washington Counties, 

Idaho, and Malheur County, Oregon. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is required by the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (as amended) to develop and 

implement a CCP for the 15-year management of all national wildlife refuges. This Draft CCP/EIS 

evaluates and compares four alternatives for the conservation of fish, wildlife, and plants within Deer 

Flat NWR primarily through monitoring of their populations, reduction of human-caused 

disturbance, management and restoration of habitats, and control of invasive and feral species. The 

four draft alternatives also include management of wildlife-dependent public uses (i.e., the Service’s 

“Big Six”: wildlife observation and photography, hunting, fishing, environmental education, and 

interpretation) and nonwildlife-dependent uses in a manner that is compatible with the primary 

conservation purposes for Deer Flat NWR. The environmental consequences section of the Draft 

CCP/EIS evaluates the impacts from management activities and public uses on Refuge resources and 

is the basis for determining the compatibility of public uses. Appropriateness findings and 

compatibility determinations that are part of the Service’s Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2) are 

included with the Draft CCP/EIS as appendices. 

The three draft action alternatives (Alternatives 2-4) are the outcome of a public planning process 

that was initiated in 2010. The Service began the process of developing a CCP with release of a 

Notice of Intent in the Federal Register on July 15, 2010. Open houses were held on July 28, August 

20, and August 21, 2010 at the Deer Flat NWR Visitor Center in Nampa, Idaho. Comments were also 

solicited on the preliminary draft alternatives at open houses on June 3, June 4, July 8, and July 9, 

2011. For additional information see the Summary of Public Involvement in Appendix H. 

We describe four alternatives for future management of the Refuge in Chapter 2, and we analyze 

each alternative’s potential effects on the biological, cultural, recreational, and economic 

environment in Chapter 6. Alternative 2 is identified as the Preferred Alternative, because it would 

reduce disturbance to wildlife and habitats, positively impact habitats through removal of undesirable 

species and restoration and rehabilitation of desired species, and increase the quality and accessibility 

of wildlife-dependent recreation, while allowing for most current public uses to continue. 

Refuge Information and Background 

Deer Flat NWR encompasses approximately 11,000 acres and was originally established by 

Theodore Roosevelt in 1909 to provide a Refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other 

wildlife. The Refuge consists of an overlay on a nearly 9,000-acre Bureau of Reclamation 

(Reclamation) irrigation facility, adjacent uplands, and approximately 104 islands in the Snake River. 

As an overlay, management of the Refuge can not impede the irrigation purpose of the Reclamation 

Reservoir. The Refuge provides habitat for over 215 bird species including waterfowl, waterbirds, 

shorebirds, raptors, and passerines and is an important resting and wintering area for birds migrating 

along the Pacific Flyway. The Refuge has also documented over 25 species of mammals and 

invertebrates falling into 13 different scientific orders. 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 Refuge provides 

opportunities for all six wildlife-dependent recreation activities as well as a variety of nonwildlife-
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

ii Executive Summary 

dependent activities. The Service manages the Refuge as part of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

(Refuge System). 

Refuge Purposes, Vision, and Management Goals 

The current Refuge purposes are: 

 “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) 

 “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). 

The Service’s vision for Deer Flat NWR included in the Draft CCP/EIS is stated as 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. 

This vision for Deer Flat Refuge would be achieved through management toward the following goals 

as stated in the Draft CCP/EIS. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Executive Summary iii 

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. 

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 both the Lake Lowell Unit and the Snake River 

Islands Unit. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

iv Executive Summary 

Management Issues 

The following major issues were identified and expressed by the public, various constituents, and 

Service staff, and have been analyzed and addressed during CCP development. 

Wildlife and Habitat Management Issues 

 How should Refuge habitats be managed for resident and migratory wildlife species? 

 Which habitats should the Refuge consider priorities for active management? 

 What types of biological research and monitoring priorities? 

 What is the Refuge’s role in improving water quality? 

 How does the Refuge address the issue of invasive and undesirable nonnative plant and 

animal species? 

Public Use Management Issues 

 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? 

 How can the Refuge provide opportunities for nonwildlife-dependent recreation in a way that 

does not negatively impact wildlife, habitats, and visitors engaging in wildlife-dependent 

recreation and education? How can the Refuge increase the quality of its waterfowl and 

upland hunts? 

 How should limited Refuge resources be allocated between environmental education 

programs as compared to outreach and interpretation to the general visitor? 

 How can the Refuge improve safety for its visitors and reduce the amount of illegal activity? 

Management Alternatives 

The Draft CCP/EIS includes four alternatives. Alternative 1 reflects the current management of Deer 

Flat NWR. Alternative 2 is the Service’s preferred management alternative and is generally a more 

intensive approach to management of Refuge resources when compared with current management 

under Alternative 1. The primary emphasis of Alternative 2 is reduced disturbance to important 

breeding, nesting and feeding areas, the reduction of undesirable plant and animal species, and the 

improvement of compatible recreation opportunities. Alternative 3 represents a more restrictive 

management approach when compared with Alternative 1 or Alternative 2. Alternative 4 represents 

the most intensive management approach. 

The Service has selected Alternative 2 as its Preferred Alternative because it best fulfills the Refuge’s 

purposes and Service mission by providing needed protections for wildlife and habitats, while 

continuing to allow most recreational activities currently found on the Refuge. The dynamic seasonal 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Executive Summary v 

wildlife closures that would be implemented under Alternative 2 would allow the Refuge to adapt to 

changes in the nesting and feeding requirements of wildlife, while ensuring that only areas that are 

actively being used by wildlife are closed to potentially-disturbing activities. This technique provides 

more flexible protections for wildlife as well as more opportunities for compatible recreational uses, 

especially fishing, than the other action alternatives (Alternatives 3 and 4). Seasonal on-trail 

regulations would provide wildlife protection while still allowing users to experience Refuge habitats 

and increase the opportunity for wildlife viewing when wildlife are less sensitive to disturbance. 

Because of the improvement in wildlife protections, and the opportunity to interact with both 

traditional and nontraditional Refuge visitors in a way that promotes knowledge of, and involvement 

in the Refuge, its habitats and wildlife, the Preferred Alternative is expected to best achieve the 

Refuge’s purpose and fulfill the Service’s mission. 

Alternative 1 (Status Quo, No Action Alternative) 

Alternative 1 is the no action alternative required by the National Environmental Policy Act. 

Management of wildlife, habitat, and public uses would continue at current levels as described 

below. 

Lake Lowell Unit 

Management of Wildlife and Habitat. Management of Refuge wildlife would continue to involve 

basic population monitoring activities. Management of Refuge habitats would continue to involve 

primarily invasive species control and limited restoration. Invasive plant control would be conducted 

by one staff member and volunteers using mechanical, chemical, and biological controls. 

A no-wake zone would continue to the southeast of Parking Lot 1, and the entire lake would close for 

winter migration from October 1 to April 14 each year. No other on-water protection would be 

provided for wildlife. The emergent vegetation along the shoreline of Lake Lowell would remain 

unprotected. This vegetation provides erosion control, nesting habitat for grebes and other birds, and 

foraging habitat for waterfowl and wading birds, as well as forage, nesting, and brood rearing habitat 

for numerous fisheries. 

Management of Public Uses. Existing public uses would continue and include the “Big Six” 

wildlife-dependent recreational activities as well as nonwildlife-dependent activities such as 

horseback riding, biking, jogging, motorized boating, use of personal watercraft, waterskiing, 

picnicking, and swimming. Under Alternative 1, there are few actions that would alter when, where, 

or how public uses are allowed to occur within the Refuge. Nearly the entire Refuge would continue 

to be available for on-trail public recreation, including wildlife observation, photography, jogging, 

bicycling, on-leash dog walking, and horseback riding. No additional trail or lake access would be 

provided. Upland and waterfowl hunting would continue to be allowed between Parking Lots 1 and 

8, and from the east boundary of Gotts Point to the east boundary of the Leavitt Tract. A youth 

waterfowl hunt would continue to be hosted in current waterfowl hunt zones. A controlled deer hunt 

would continue to be allowed between Parking Lot 8 and the New York Canal. Gotts Point would 

remain closed to vehicular traffic, and limited bank fishing opportunities would exist around the lake. 

Lake users would continue to participate in numerous surface water recreational activities. 

The lake would open to boating on April 15 and close on September 30. The current no-wake zone, 

from Parking Lot 1 east, would remain in place. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

vi Executive Summary 

Environmental education would continue to be conducted for on- and off-site programs. Public 

contact with Deer Flat NWR staff would remain limited and intermittent due to the small number of 

Refuge employees. Opportunities for visitors to obtain additional information while visiting the 

Refuge would remain largely dependent on kiosks, brochures, and the availability of volunteers. 

Snake River Islands Unit 

Management of Wildlife and Habitat. Under Alternative 1, management of Refuge wildlife would 

continue to involve basic population monitoring activities. Because of the logistical difficulties and 

small staff, limited invasive species control and/or restoration efforts would be conducted on the 

Snake River islands. 

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

and deer, upland, and waterfowl hunting. The Snake River islands would continue to be open from 

June 1 to January 31 for off-trail, free-roam activities, including shoreline fishing. 

Alternative 2 (Service Preferred): Protect Wildlife Using No-wake Zones and 

New Seasonal Closures while Providing for a Variety of Recreational 

Activities 

Alternative 2 would emphasize connecting urban families to nature by providing access to new 

facilities as well as a wide range of wildlife-dependent and nonwildlife-dependent recreational 

activities. Activities would be managed differently than in the status quo alternative to protect 

wildlife, reduce conflicts between users, and increase safety. On Lake Lowell, the Refuge would 

protect shoreline feeding and nesting sites through no-wake zones and seasonal closures. Emphasis 

would be placed on developing the interpretive programs with the goal of increasing visitor 

awareness of Deer Flat NWR’s purpose and goals and to encourage conservation-oriented visitor 

behavior. Gotts Point would be opened to vehicular traffic upon completion of a cooperative 

agreement with Canyon County for increased law enforcement presence. 

Lake Lowell Unit 

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

200-yard no-wake zone is proposed along the south side of the lake between Parking Lots 1 and 8. 

The entire lake would continue to be closed for the benefit of wintering and migrating birds from 

October 1 to April 14 each year. No-wake zones would also be required in the Narrows, and the 

existing no-wake zone on the southeast end of the lake would be expanded to start at a line between 

Gotts Point and Parking Lot 1. Motorized boats would be allowed in the no-wake zones; however, 

boaters would be allowed to travel only at speeds that do not create a wake (generally <5 mph). 

Alternative 2 would also create seasonally closed areas, such as heron rookeries, eagle nests, and 

grebe nesting colonies, to protect bird species. An increase in habitat enhancement through invasive 

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

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

decisions. 

Management of Public Uses. The Preferred Alternative 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 would focus on increasing participation in all six priority 

wildlife-dependent recreational activities. Fishing and interpretation would be emphasized to serve a 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Executive Summary vii 

growing urban and diverse population. Management of public uses would seek to connect people 

with nature and build support for wildlife conservation. 

Snake River Islands Unit 

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

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

species control (following the Integrated Pest Management Plan) and restoration efforts. Islands 

management would be prioritized using several factors and managed accordingly. The most 

biologically intact islands would receive higher management priority (see Objective 2.2). 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. 

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

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

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

January 31. Heron- and gull-nesting islands (four to six islands) would be open for off-trail, freeroam activities from July 1 to January 31. 

Alternative 3: Protect Wildlife Using a No-wake Zone in the East Pool with 

Seasonal and Permanent Closures while Providing for a Variety of 

Recreational Activities 

Under Alternative 3, the Refuge would protect habitat in nesting and feeding sites and in open-water 

habitat by establishing a no-wake zone in the East Pool, morning restrictions on wake-causing 

activities in the West Pool, and other seasonal and permanent closures. A no-wake zone in the East 

Pool would make that portion of the lake more suitable for fishing and wildlife observation. Overall, 

Alternative 3 attempts to increase the quality of wildlife-dependent recreation by eliminating 

horseback riding and dog walking and segregating high-speed boating from wildlife-dependent users. 

However, a drawback of the no-wake zone changes would be an increase in the amount of time it 

would take wildlife-dependent users to reach high-quality wildlife areas. Under Alternative 3, the 

Refuge would not be open to some activities including horseback riding and dog walking. Bicycling 

would only be allowed on the trail adjacent to the entrance road. 

Lake Lowell Unit 

Management of Wildlife and Habitat. Emergent plant beds in Murphy’s Neck and emergent plant 

beds from Parking Lots 3 to 8 would be closed to human activity all year. The entire lake would be 

closed seasonally to protect wintering and migrating birds. All active and historical grebe nesting 

colonies would be closed to public use by establishing a 500-yard closure during boating season. 

There would be a 100-yard seasonal closure (from July 15 through September 30) to protect 

shorebird habitat along the shoreline from Murphy’s Neck to the Narrows. A 200-yard closed area 

and a 200-yard no-wake zone would protect emergent beds and wildlife on the south side of the West 

Pool. An increase in habitat enhancement through invasive species removal and vegetation 

manipulation is proposed. Increases in wildlife and habitat research and assessments would be 

focused on providing a strong scientific base for future management decisions. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

viii Executive Summary 

Management of Public Uses. Under Alternative 3, the lake would be open to use from April 15 to 

September 20 with only no-wake activities allowed in the East Pool and wake-causing activities 

allowed from noon to one hour before sunset in the West Pool. If feasible, a wildlife 

observation/photography boardwalk would be constructed between Parking Lots 1 and 3. To improve 

the quality of both upland and waterfowl hunting, upland game bird hunting would be allowed only 

on the east end of the Refuge from the west boundary of the Leavitt Tract to the entrance at 

Greenhurst Road. A controlled waterfowl hunt (e.g., permit system or sign-in/out) would be allowed 

only on the south side of the lake between Parking Lots 3 and 8 with a daily limit of 25 shotgun 

shells per hunter. Other wildlife-dependent activities would be allowed concurrent with the upland 

hunt and on the boardwalk on the south side of the lake. However, because there is a higher demand 

by waterfowl hunters and less visibility on the South Side Recreation Area, all trails in the waterfowl 

hunt area would be closed to the nonhunting public from Parking Lots 3 through 8. The boating 

season would end on September 20 in order to increase the quality of the youth hunt and reduce the 

possibility of unsafe hunter/boater interactions. 

Snake River Islands Unit 

Management of Wildlife and Habitat. Under Alternative 3, Refuge staff would emphasize 

management of the Snake River Islands Unit by increasing wildlife inventory and monitoring efforts 

and increasing invasive species control (following the Integrated Pest Management Plan) and 

restoration efforts. The islands’ management would be prioritized using several factors and managed 

accordingly. 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. 

Management of Public Uses. Existing public uses would continue; these uses consist of wildlife 

observation and deer, upland and waterfowl hunting on 1,219 acres. Most of the Snake River Islands 

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

January 31. Heron- and gull-nesting islands (four to six islands) would be open for off-trail, freeroam activities from July 1 to January 31. 

Alternative 4: Protect Wildlife with Entire Lake Designated as No-wake Zone 

with an Emphasis on Wildlife-dependent Recreation 

Alternative 4 is the most protective alternative, providing wildlife restrictions not found in 

Alternatives 1 through 3. Habitat management would restore, maintain, or mimic natural ecosystem 

processes as often as possible. To provide adequate sanctuary for Refuge species, increase visitors’ 

opportunities to appreciate wildlife, and provide the best possible wildlife-dependent recreational 

opportunities, fishing, hunting, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, 

and interpretation would be the only recreational activities allowed on the Refuge. The entire lake 

would be a no-wake zone. 

To provide a sanctuary for waterfowl, shorebirds, and waterbirds, as well as fish and other wildlife, 

all the emergent beds would be closed to public access. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Executive Summary ix 

Lake Lowell Unit 

Management of Wildlife and Habitat. To reduce disturbance to feeding and resting wildlife, only 

boating at no-wake speeds would be allowed on Lake Lowell. 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 closure that would be closed year-round to the public 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 is proposed. Increases in wildlife and habitat research 

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

decisions. 

Management of Public Uses. Under Alternative 4, there are numerous actions that would alter when, 

where, and how public uses would be allowed. Boating would be allowed at no-wake speeds on all 

areas of the lake open to the public from April 15 to September 30. Several portions of the Refuge 

would be closed to all public activity (see Map 9). The Refuge would not be open to nonwildlifedependent activities including horseback riding, pet walking, bicycling, and ice skating. 

Alternative 4 includes several elements to protect wildlife and enhance recreational experiences at 

the Refuge. 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. 

Snake River Islands Unit 

Management of Wildlife and Habitat. Under Alternative 4, Refuge staff would emphasize 

management of the Snake River Islands Unit by increasing wildlife inventory and monitoring efforts 

and increasing invasive species control (following the Integrated Pest Management Plan) and 

restoration efforts. The islands’ management would be prioritized using several factors and managed 

accordingly. 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. 

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

and deer, upland and waterfowl hunting on 1,219 acres. The Snake River Islands Unit would be open 

for off-trail, free-roam activities from June 15 to January 31. Under Alternative 4, shoreline fishing 

would also be available from June 15 to January 31 each year on all islands. 

Environmental Consequences 

Implementation of each alternative presented in the Draft CCP/EIS would be expected to cause both 

beneficial and adverse impacts to Refuge resources, recreation opportunities, and local communities 

and their economies. The following briefly summarizes the various impacts anticipated from each of 

the three alternatives. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

x Executive Summary 

Alternative 1 (Status Quo). Overall, we anticipate Alternative 1 would have the least positive 

impacts to wildlife and habitats. It would also have a negative impact on wildlife-dependent 

activities. These adverse impacts would result primarily from future increases in visitation and, 

limited protections for wildlife from human-caused disturbance. Specific negative impacts would be 

associated with: 

 Continued high-speed use of areas adjacent to sensitive habitats and wildlife species, 

 Continued use of upland areas adjacent to sensitive habitats and wildlife species, 

 Continued use of all trails by nonwildlife-dependent users, 

 Continuation of current invasive species control program with minimal mapping, monitoring 

and/or increase in removal area, and 

 Increases in visitation. 

Important beneficial impacts from Alternative 1 would result from partnerships that could be formed 

to explore water quality improvement projects. 

Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative). We anticipate Alternative 2 would have greater long-term 

beneficial impacts on fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats, as well as on recreation opportunities, 

than Alternative 1. Beneficial impacts would be related primarily to: 

 Targeted seasonal closures of foraging, resting and nesting areas, 

 Increases in planning, monitoring, and coverage area of invasive species removal, 

 Enhancement of riparian, mudflat and emergent habitats through vegetation removal, 

 A smaller increase in visitation than that found in Alternative 1, 

 Increased access to quality hunting and fishing opportunities for youth and visitors with 

mobility impairments, 

 Increases in visitor facilities, including a visitor contact station, trails, and blinds, 

 Retargeting of the environmental education and interpretation programs to reach more on-site 

visitors, 

 Opportunities for separation of nonwildlife-dependent uses from wildlife-dependent uses 

through the use of designated trails and no-wake zones, 

 Seasonal opportunities for off-trail travel, and 

 Partnerships to improve water quality. 

Short-term adverse impacts may occur to air quality, visitors, wildlife, or habitats from research and 

restoration activities. Long-term negative effects may be felt by some hunters as nonhunters are 

allowed off-trail. Some long-term negative effects to wildlife and habitats may occur from the 

construction of new public use facilities. 

Alternative 3. Alternative 3 is expected to result in additional beneficial impacts to wildlife, habitats, 

and nonconsumptive wildlife-dependent public uses than Alternative 2 but would negatively impact 

nonwildlife-dependent users more than Alternatives 1 and 2. Positive impacts from Alternative 3 

would be related primarily to: 

 Increases in habitat and wildlife protection from human-caused disturbance through larger 

and longer closures and no-wake zones than those found in Alternative 2, 

 Regulations allowing upland uses on-trail only, 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Executive Summary xi 

 Increases in planning, monitoring, and coverage area of invasive species removal, 

 Enhancement of riparian, mudflat, and emergent-bed habitats through vegetation removal, 

 A decrease in visitation from current levels, which would lead to less habitat and wildlife 

disturbance, 

 Increased access to quality hunting and fishing opportunities for youth and visitors with 

mobility impairments, 

 Increases in visitor facilities including a boardwalk, visitor contact station, trails, and blinds, 

 Retargeting of the environmental education and interpretation programs to reach more on-site 

visitors, 

 Increases in the quality of wildlife-dependent recreation through the removal of almost all 

nonwildlife-dependent upland uses, and 

 Partnerships to improve water quality. 

Negative impacts in Alternative 3 would mostly affect nonwildlife-dependent and consumptive 

wildlife-dependent recreation. Negative impacts to public uses from Alternative 3 would be related 

primarily to: 

 Reductions in waterfowl and upland hunting acreage at Lake Lowell, 

 Increased difficulty in reaching fishing sites in the East Pool due to the no-wake zone, 

 Containment of high speed watercraft to the West Pool, 

 Removal of almost all nonwildlife-dependent upland recreation, and 

 Increases in closed areas over Alternative 2. 

The enforcement of on-trail regulations would be expected to negatively impact wildlife observers 

and photographers. 

Alternative 4. Alternative 4 is expected to result in the most long-term beneficial impacts to wildlife, 

habitats, and nonconsumptive wildlife-dependent public uses but would negatively impact 

nonwildlife-dependent users more than Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. Positive impacts from Alternative 4 

would be related primarily to: 

 Increases in habitat and wildlife protection from human-caused disturbance through larger 

and longer closures and no-wake zones than those found in Alternative 3, 

 Regulations allowing upland uses on-trail only, 

 Increases in planning, monitoring, and coverage area of invasive species removal, 

 Enhancement of riparian, mudflat, and emergent-bed habitats through vegetation removal, 

 Lower visitation rates then under Alternative 3, which would lead to less habitat and wildlife 

disturbance, 

 Increased access to quality hunting and fishing opportunities for youth and visitors with 

mobility impairments, 

 Increases in visitor facilities including a visitor contact station, trails, and blinds, 

 Improvements to the environmental education program to better meet the needs of teachers, 

 Increases in the quality of wildlife-dependent recreation through the removal of almost all 

nonwildlife-dependent uses, and 

 Partnerships to improve water quality. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

xii Executive Summary 

Negative impacts in Alternative 4 would mostly affect nonwildlife-dependent and consumptive 

wildlife-dependent recreation. Negative impacts to public uses from Alternative 4 would be related 

primarily to: 

 Reductions in waterfowl hunting acreage at Lake Lowell, 

 Removal of upland hunting from Lake Lowell, 

 Increased difficulty in reaching fishing sites in the East Pool due to the entire lake being a nowake zone, 

 Removal of nonwildlife-dependent on-water recreation, and 

 Removal of almost all nonwildlife-dependent upland recreation, 

The enforcement of on-trail regulations would be expected to negatively impact wildlife observers 

and photographers. 

More detailed information about the effects of various alternatives on wildlife, habitat, and public use 

can be found in Chapter 6. 
Western screech owl

©Dick McKee Chapter 1 Introduction and Background

Chapter 5HumanEnvironment

Chapter 4BiologicalEnvironment

Chapter 3PhysicalEnvironment

Chapter 2Alternatives, Goals,Objectives, and Strategies

Chapter 1Introduction andBackground

Chapter 6EnvironmentalConsequences

Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

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 NWRS 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. In this Draft Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (CCP/EIS) for the Refuge, we describe four alternatives 

for managing the Refuge for 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 reservoir completed 

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

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 Interior for reclamation work (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 (Act) (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee, et seq.) and 

other laws, regulations, and policies governing the Refuge System, but our management may not 

interfere with operation of the reservoir for irrigation purposes. In 1994, compatibility determinations 

were created for upland uses occurring at the Refuge, but due to unanswered questions about 

administrative control, none were completed for on-water uses at that time. As a result of a preplanning task prior to initiation of the CCP process, the Service and Reclamation concluded that in 

fact the US Fish and Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuge System has jurisdiction over surface 

water and public uses on Lake Lowell. Now, because it has been 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 examined as part of the CCP process to ensure that they are 

legally compatible with the purposes of the Refuge. 

The Refuge encompasses nearly 11,700 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 more than 10,500 acres within Idaho’s Canyon County, including the 

9,000-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 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

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. 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 the 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. 

In 1909, only three days after water was diverted from the Boise River into the New York Canal to 

fill Deer Flat Reservoir, President Theodore Roosevelt established the reservoir as the nation’s 

twenty-first national wildlife refuge, calling it Deer Flat Bird Reservation (E.O. 1032). This overlay 

Refuge on Reclamation’s irrigation reservoir was established to provide refuge and breeding grounds 

for migratory birds and other wildlife. 

Reclamation operated Deer Flat Reservoir until April 1, 1926, when operation was turned over to the 

Boise Project Board of Control (Board of Control). The Board of Control was formed by contracts 

between Reclamation and five irrigation districts—Big Bend, Boise-Kuna, Nampa & Meridian, New 

York, and Wilder—representing the water users that make up the project. Reclamation retained the 

operation and maintenance of certain parts of the system, referred to as the “reserved works.” 

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). 

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

______________________________________________________________________________________________ Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1. Introduction and Background

______________________________________________________________________________________________

1-3
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

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

______________________________________________________________________________________________ Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background

______________________________________________________________________________________________

1-5
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

1-6 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

Document continues on next page. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

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 island 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 on 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 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 Lake Lowell and 

Snake River Islands 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 Proposed Action 

We are proposing to implement a CCP for Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge. This document is the 

Refuge’s Draft CCP/EIS. CCPs set forth management guidance for a refuge for a period of 15 years, 

as required by the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd668ee, et seq.), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

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

 The purposes of a refuge; 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

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. 

National Wildlife Refuge System 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.” 

The proposed action in this Draft CCP/EIS is to implement Alternative 2, which has been identified 

as the Service’s Preferred Alternative. We have developed and examined three other alternatives for 

future management of the Refuge and identified anticipated effects (see Chapter 6) for each 

alternative, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 

U.S.C. 4321-4347). A fifth alternative was partially developed then dismissed due to its similarity to 

Alternative 3. 

The goals, objectives, and strategies under Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) best achieve the 

purpose and need for the CCP, while maintaining balance among the varied management needs and 

programs. Alternative 2 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 details on the specific components and actions constituting the range of 

alternatives, 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 wetland habitats, and shrub-steppe 

habitat) for the benefit of migratory birds and other wildlife. 

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

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

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

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 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-9 

1.6 Legal and Policy Guidance 

The Refuge is part of the National Wildlife Refuge System, 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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, an agency within the 

Department of the Interior. The Service is the principal Federal agency responsible for conserving, 

protecting, and enhancing the nation’s fish and wildlife populations and their habitats. The mission of 

the Service is: “working with others, to conserve, protect and enhance fish and wildlife and their 

habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.” Although we share this responsibility 

with other Federal, State, Tribal, local, and private entities, the Service has specific trust 

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

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

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

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

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

conservation programs. 

1.6.2 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). 

The goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System, 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. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

1-10 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

 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 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

(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. 

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 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-11 

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 existing and proposed uses for the Deer Flat Refuge are in 

Appendices A and B of this Draft CCP/EIS. 

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 selection of the preferred alternative. It is Service policy to 

develop CCPs in an open public process; we are committed to securing public input throughout the 

process. Appendix H of the Draft CCP/EIS details public involvement that has occurred so far in 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://refuges.fws.gov/policymakers/nwrpolicies.html. 

In developing a CCP, 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 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

1-12 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

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

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

expanding a refuge, refuge unit, or refuge subunit. 

Unless 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 current 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 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

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 

are 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 626 9,993 10,619 

Snake River Islands Unit 1,219 0 1,219 

Deer Flat NWR 1,845 9,993 11,838 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 11,612 

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). 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

1-14 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

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 

species (such as waterfowl or shorebirds), that are vulnerable because they occur at high densities 

due to their congregative behavior (Audubon 2012). 

Deer Flat Refuge 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, as a 

wintering area, and as 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, blackcrowned 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 Draft 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 National Wildlife Refuge System 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 this 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. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-15 

 A Master Plan written around 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. 

 A Refuge Management Plan was also signed in 1990 and had a draft update in 1996 (USFWS 

1996). This plan emphasizes the Refuge’s importance to wildlife and wildlife-dependent 

recreation. This plan states the need for clearly defined jurisdiction over recreational 

activities. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

1-16 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

Document continues on next page. 
Greenh

Lower Dam 

Recreation Area

Upper Dam 

Gotts Point

P1

Murphy's Neck

P2

P3

P4

P5

P6

P7

P8

Orchard Avenue

West Roosevelt

Iow

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

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background

______________________________________________________________________________________________

1-17
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

1-18 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

Document continues on next page.
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-19 

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 will 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 this new funding came the responsibility of each 

state to develop a comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy (CWCS). IDFG prepared its CWCS 

in 2005 (IDFG 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). This 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 the Pacific population of Western 

Canada geese while optimizing recreational opportunities and controlling depredation and nuisance 

problems. The plan provides several management recommendations, including population 

monitoring, harvest management, and research. 

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

1-20 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

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 management 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. 

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

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-21 

herons, egrets, ibis, and pelicans), and solitary nesting marshbirds (e.g., cranes, rails, coots, bitterns, 

and loons). Shorebirds and waterfowl are covered by other bird conservation initiatives and are 

therefore excluded from this plan. The goal of this 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 CCP/EIS. 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 around the Refuge 

System’s six priority wildlife-dependent public uses—hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, and environmental education and interpretation—and existing, compatible nonwildlifedependent public uses, as well as the transportation and infrastructure associated with both types of 

uses. 

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 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

1-22 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

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 solicit comments on an interim planning product, our 

preliminary draft alternatives. The preliminary draft alternatives were created to give the public an 

idea of the spectrum of alternatives that the Refuge was considering and ask for comments on how to 

improve these alternatives. Public comments were solicited on the preliminary alternatives through 

public open houses and outreach to stakeholder groups. In addition, extended team meetings that 

included representatives from IDFG, the Boise Project Board of Control, Oregon Department of Fish 

and Wildlife (ODFW), and others, were held in June 2011 to discuss the merits and issues of the 

preliminary draft alternatives and strategies. In October 2011, a planning update was issued 

summarizing public comments and the potential revisions to the preliminary draft alternatives 

resulting from those comments. A more detailed summary of public involvement to date is in 

Appendix H. 

The CCP process facilitates incremental development of the CCP/EIS with public involvement at key 

steps. An internal draft of the Refuge’s CCP/EIS was distributed to extended team reviewers in April 

2012 for comments. We considered all comments from the public and extended team during the 

development and evolution of our alternatives for this Draft CCP/EIS. We are opening a public 

comment period of 45 days or more on the Draft CCP/EIS, and we may modify Alternative 2, the 

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 has been released to the public, 

the Regional Director for the Service’s Pacific Region can select an alternative for implementation. 

We will document the decision in a Record of Decision, and announce it in a Federal Register notice 

and planning update. 

1.9.2 Major Issues to be 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 Draft 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 in the Draft 

CCP/EIS, through habitat adjustments and more efficient and effective methods of invasive 

species removal across the Refuge. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-23 

 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 

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 is analyzed in the Draft CCP/EIS, as are 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, the Refuge needs to gain a better understanding of 

how:

o Wildlife use the Refuge; 

o Wildlife/human interactions affect wildlife use of the Refuge; 

o Wildlife use patterns change over time; and 

o 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 disturbance to wildlife, possibly to levels that may alter wildlife 

movements, impact productivity, and reduce available food resources. In the CCP we identify 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

1-24 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

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 

accessibility of these wildlife-dependent Refuge activities for people of all levels of physical 

ability. 

 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 have 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 addressed in the 

plan. 

 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 does not have a Refuge LE officer assigned to it. The 

Service’s Zone LE officer, who is responsible for eastern Oregon, eastern Washington, all of 

southern Idaho, and northern Nevada, provides LE assistance. Assistance is also provided by 

the Canyon County Sheriff’s Office, the Canyon County Marine Deputies, and IDFG 

Conservation Officers, 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 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-25 

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 the 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 

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 USFWS. 

 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. The executive order that established Deer Flat NWR states the Refuge does not 

have the legal 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 the CCP. 

 Refuge boundary. No modifications to the Refuge boundary were considered or are 

proposed in this Draft 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, and 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 USFWS. 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. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

1-26 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

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. 

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

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-27 

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

1-28 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

Document continues on next page. 
Canada goose and gosling

Jennifer Brown-Scott, USFWS Chapter 2 Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Chapter 5 Human

Environment

Chapter 4BiologicalEnvironment

Chapter 3PhysicalEnvironment

Chapter 2Alternatives, Goals,Objectives, and Strategies

Chapter 1Introduction andBackground

Chapter 6EnvironmentalConsequences

Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

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

Chapter 2 Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

2.1 Considerations in Alternative Designs 

The Refuge’s purposes (see Chapter 1) serve as the foundation on which this long-term conservation 

plan is constructed as mandated by the NWRS Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 

668dd-668ee, et seq.). Deer Flat Refuge’s purposes and natural resource considerations are therefore 

fundamental in formulating alternatives for this CCP. In drafting the alternatives for this plan, the 

Service also reviewed and considered a variety of resource, social, economic, and organizational 

aspects important for managing the Refuge. These background conditions are described more fully in 

Chapters 1, 3, 4, and 5. As is appropriate for a national wildlife refuge, resource considerations were 

fundamental in designing alternatives. House Report 105-106 accompanying the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57) states that “the fundamental mission 

of our System is wildlife conservation: wildlife and wildlife conservation must come first.” 

Alternatives development was an iterative process that began with the planning team developing the 

draft Refuge vision statement, goals, and objectives. After reviewing available scientific reports and 

studies to better understand ecosystem trends and the latest scientific recommendations for species 

and habitats, the core team generated a list of important issues related to the management of the 

Refuge through a collaborative process involving FWS staff, cooperating agencies, and local 

stakeholders. The general public provided comments during the first scoping comment period from 

July through September 2010 and again in response to preliminary draft alternatives from May 

through July 2011. All substantive comments submitted during these steps were considered in 

developing these alternatives (see Appendix H for a detailed discussion of public involvement). Due 

to issues raised about safety, negative impacts to priority public uses, and interest in preserving some 

lower impact nonpriority public uses, a new alternative was added to the draft alternatives. This 

alternative is presented as Alternative 2, the Preferred Alternative. 

2.2 Actions/Alternatives Considered but Dismissed 

The alternatives development process under NEPA is designed to allow the planning team to 

consider a wide range of issues and feasible management actions. Actions and alternatives that are 

not feasible, are unsafe, that impact critical resources, or are incompatible with Refuge goals may be 

considered but then eliminated from further analysis. During the alternatives development process, 

the planning team considered the actions detailed below. All of these actions were ultimately 

eliminated from further analysis for the reasons provided. 

Public Access in Closed Areas. Deer Flat NWR, like many refuges, has explicit purposes that were 

put in place over the past century. One of these purposes is “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for 

any other management purpose, for migratory birds (16 U.S.C. 715d, Migratory Bird Conservation 

Act).” Year-round and seasonal closures give the animals that use these areas a place to rest, feed, 

breed, and raise young with reduced disturbance. Therefore, closure of areas year-round or 

seasonally would continue to be an important management tool at Deer Flat NWR. 

Additional Nonwildlife-dependent Uses. Several nonwildlife-dependent uses that currently do not 

occur on the Refuge were considered but eliminated from further study. These activities have been 

determined to have unacceptable levels of disturbance to wildlife or unacceptable public safety 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

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

issues, or they would interfere with users engaged in compatible wildlife-dependent uses. Therefore, 

these uses were not included in the range of alternatives. Based on guidance in the Service’s 

Appropriate Uses Policy 603 FW 1 (2006), these uses were determined to be not appropriate. For 

further details, see Appendix A. 

Loop Bike Trail. A proposal to install a bike trail inside the Refuge boundary around the entire Lake 

Lowell Unit was considered but rejected because it would remove habitat and increase disturbance to 

wildlife and wildlife-dependent 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. 

Changes to Existing Farming Program and Force-account Farming. The Refuge considered 

several options for cooperative farming as goals and objectives were developed, including restoration 

of existing farm ground to native habitat, expanding the cooperative farming program, moving to 

force-account farming, or maintaining the status quo. Currently, cooperators farm approximately 258 

acres of Refuge land to provide food and browse for migratory waterfowl; however those crops are 

exhausted within a few days by the birds. 

Expanding the cooperative farming program on the Refuge would require converting native habitat to 

cropland and acquiring additional water rights. It would also require either recruiting additional 

cooperative farmers or doing force-account farming with Refuge staff. Because force-account 

farming would require additional staff and the purchase of farming equipment, this option was 

eliminated due to the extensive cost and labor involved. 

In addition, the Refuge does not have sufficient water rights for the existing crop acreages, and 

converting additional acreage to crops would only exacerbate this problem. Even maintaining 

cooperative farming at its current status would require that an additional well be installed near Farm 

Field 5. The remnant sagebrush-steppe habitat, (including the acreage that was considered for 

conversion to agricultural lands) provides habitat for wildlife including meadowlarks, badgers, mule 

deer, and loggerhead shrikes. It also provides an opportunity for the visiting public to view and learn 

about this habitat and its associated wildlife. 

The proposal to expand farming was therefore considered but rejected because the high cost would 

not be balanced by significant benefit to wintering waterfowl or other wildlife. The proposal to 

eliminate farming was considered but rejected because restoration of 280 acre of cropland to 

sagebrush-steppe habitat would be extremely costly for minimal gain. The remnant sagebrush-steppe 

habitat does not connect to off-site larger habitat tracts that would benefit sagebrush-steppedependent species. However, the current crops provide food for wintering waterfowl (primarily 

geese), pheasant, deer, and mourning doves.

Fire Tower Conversion. The suggestion that the Civilian Conservation Corps fire tower be 

renovated into an observation platform was considered but rejected because of concerns about safety, 

accessibility, feasibility, and the cost of creating an additional entrance to the Refuge. 

Fishing. The Refuge considered requiring lead-free fishing tackle and, when the bass fishery is catch 

and release, barbless hooks. Lead-free tackle and barbless hooks were rejected after discussion with 

IDFG. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-3 

Preliminary Draft Alternative 4. During public scoping, it became clear that the relatively minor 

differences between preliminary draft Alternatives 3 and 4 did not support the need for separate 

alternatives. Therefore, to reduce confusion, preliminary draft Alternatives 3 and 4 are now 

represented by a single alternative (Alternative 3). This document’s Alternative 4 was initially 

presented in as preliminary draft Alternative 2. 

2.3 Alternatives 

2.3.1 Features Common to All Alternatives 

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 FWS would 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 and 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. 

Knowledge and monitoring of regional and local climate trends on Refuge resources would 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. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

2-4 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

The Refuge would 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 Administration Act directs the FWS 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 FWS 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 Refuge. When 

evaluating the appropriate management direction for the Refuge (e.g., in compatibility 

determinations), the FWS would use sound professional judgment to determine the Refuge’s 

contribution to biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health at multiple landscape scales. 

Sound professional judgment would incorporate field experience, knowledge of Refuge resources, an 

understanding of the Refuge’s role within the ecosystem, applicable laws and best available science, 

including consultation with others both inside and outside the FWS. 

Cultural Resource Protection and Section 106 Compliance. Actions that may affect cultural 

resources would be reviewed by the Regional Archaeologist. Those undertakings that are found to 

have the potential to affect cultural resources would undergo further examination and evaluation, 

under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), dependent on the nature and 

extent of the effect. 

Deer Hunt at Lake Lowell Unit. A Lake Lowell Unit deer hunt was implemented under a different 

planning process (USFWS 2011a) and began in fall 2012. This hunt would continue under all 

alternatives. 

Feral and/or Nuisance Animal Control. The proximity of Deer Flat NWR to an urban interface 

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 

Refuge 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 plan, all alternatives would include 

provisions for addressing a feral animal problem including the assessment of impacts to the resources 

and appropriate measures of control. Controlling pest species can have a variety of positive impacts 

including: (1) The reduction of damage to Refuge resources and facilities; (2) The protection of 

humans, wildlife, and domestic animals from diseases carried by pest species; (3) The prevention of 

damage to adjacent private landowners; (4) The control of exotic and/or feral species so that native 

wildlife species can thrive; and (5) The protection of quality wildlife-oriented recreational 

experiences by the public. 

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.” 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-5 

Fire Management. Fire management activities would conform to guidelines contained in USFWS 

policy and an approved fire management plan for the Refuge. The current fire management plan can 

be found in Appendix K. 

Implementation Subject to Funding Availability. After the CCP is completed, actions would be 

implemented over a period of 15 years as funding becomes available. Draft project priorities and 

projected staffing/funding needs are included in Appendix C. 

Invasive Species Control and Integrated Pest Management. In accordance with 517 DM 1 and 

569 FW 1, an integrated pest management (IPM) approach would be used, where practicable, to 

eradicate, control, or contain pest and invasive species (herein collectively referred to as pests) on 

Refuge lands. IPM would involve using methods based upon effectiveness, cost, and minimal 

ecological disruption, which considers minimum potential effects to 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 would be needed on Refuge lands, the most specific (selective) chemical 

available for the target species would be used unless considerations of persistence or other 

environmental and/or biotic hazards would preclude it. In accordance with 517 DM 1, pesticide 

usage would be further restricted because only pesticides registered with the 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 would refer to a biologically substantial decrease in 

environmental quality as indicated by a variety of potential factors including declines in native 

species populations or communities, degraded habitat quality or long-term habitat loss, and/or altered 

ecological processes. Environmental harm may be a result of direct effects of pests on native species 

including preying and feeding on them; causing or vectoring diseases; preventing them from 

reproducing or killing their young; out-competing them for food, nutrients, light, nest sites, or other 

vital resources; or hybridizing with them so frequently that within a few generations, few if any truly 

native individuals remain. Environmental harm also can be the result of an indirect effect of pest 

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 that alter entire plant and animal communities and eliminate or 

sharply reducing 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 

pesticides for pest management on Refuge lands, where necessary. Throughout the life of the CCP, 

most proposed pesticide uses on Refuge lands would be evaluated for potential effects to Refuge 

biological resources and environmental quality. These potential effects would be documented in 

“Chemical Profiles” (see Appendix G). Pesticide uses with appropriate and practical best 

management practices (BMPs) for habitat management as well as cropland/facilities maintenance 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

2-6 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

would be approved for use on Refuge lands where there likely would be only minor, temporary, and 

localized effects to species and environmental quality based upon non-exceedance of threshold 

values in Chemical Profiles. 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., mosquito-borne disease). 

Maintenance and Updating of Existing Facilities. Periodic maintenance and updating of Refuge 

buildings and facilities would be necessary regardless of the alternative selected. 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 would use principles of universal design so that they would be 

usable by all people to the greatest extent possible, without separate or segregated access for people 

with disabilities. 

Monitoring Effects of Public Use Programs on Wildlife. Staff would 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 would assess the quality of the 

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

programs. Quality for priority wildlife-dependent 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 increase 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. 

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. Aerial application began in 2004 to reduce 

wildlife disturbance from ground applications. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-7 

Response to Mosquito-Borne Diseases. Mosquito populations on Refuge lands would 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 a forage 

base for fish and wildlife including migratory birds. To protect human and wildlife health and safety, 

the State or a local vector control agency would be allowed to control mosquito populations on 

refuge lands. Pesticide treatments (larvicides, pupacides, or adulticides) would be allowed on Refuge 

lands only if local, current population monitoring and/or disease surveillance data indicate Refugebased mosquitoes pose a health threat to humans and/or wildlife. As previously described, mosquito 

treatments would be allowed on Refuge lands in accordance with IPM principles applicable to all 

pests (see Appendix G). Proposed pesticide uses for mosquito control would use appropriate and 

practical BMPs, where possible, given potential effects documented in Chemical Profiles.

After approval of the CCP, a disease contingency plan would be prepared addressing response to 

mosquito-borne disease outbreaks on and/or adjacent to Refuge lands. The disease contingency plan 

also would 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 would 

actively participate in planning and studies pertaining to development, transportation, recreation, 

contamination, and other potential concerns that may affect Refuge resources. The Service would 

continue to cultivate working relationships with County, State, and Federal agencies to stay abreast 

of current and potential developments and would use outreach and education as needed to raise 

awareness of Refuge resources and their dependence on the local environment. 

Prohibit Ice Skating, Ice Fishing and Cross-country Skiing on the Lake. Safety is a major 

concern for recreational users that 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. Combining this 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. 

Signs are posted near recreation areas warning the public to stay off the ice because systematic ice 

evaluations by qualified personnel are not conducted on Lake Lowell. 

Lake Lowell is currently closed to boating from October 1 through April 14 to provide habitat for 

wintering waterfowl, reduce disturbance from human-caused flushing events and improve public 

safety. Under all action alternatives, the lake would be closed to all human access during those 

months, including ice fishing and ice skating. For more information, please see the Ice Skating 

Appropriate Use Determination in Appendix A, and the Fishing and Wildlife Observation, 

Photography, Interpretation, and Environmental Education Compatibility Determinations in 

Appendix B.

Reductions in the Refuge’s Carbon Footprint. The Service has developed the Strategic Plan for 

Responding to Accelerating Climate Change in the 21st Century (2009), and a five-year action plan 

outlining specific actions needed to implement the strategic plan. The action plan calls for the 

Service to make its operations carbon-neutral by 2020. The Refuge would 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 would also reduce the carbon 

footprint of land management activities by using energy-efficient techniques where feasible and in 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

2-8 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

line with management goals. The Refuge would also explore ways of offsetting any remaining 

carbon balance, such as carbon sequestration. 

Research. Research projects would be allowed on the Refuge in accordance with Service policy 

guidelines and SUP provisions. Researchers focusing on the Refuge’s high-priority research projects 

would be given enhanced consideration. See the Research Compatibility Determination (Appendix 

B) for further details. 

State Coordination. The Service would 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 would 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 would require additional planning. The Refuge is committed 

to developing a cooperative agreement with the State of Idaho 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 would 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 

would 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 implementation of native habitat restoration, survey, and 

monitoring activities, and environmental education (EE) and interpretation programs would 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 Draft 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. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-9 

Work with Board of Control and Bureau of Reclamation on 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 

(http://www.usbr.gov/pn/hydromet/dfcgi.html), the average elevation was estimated to range from 

2,520 to 2,516 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 would continue to explore with 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, this would be at or above an elevation of approximately 2,520 

feet. However, Refuge staff would continue to monitor waterbird nesting to determine appropriate 

target water levels. In addition, the Refuge would explore with the Board of Control the possibility of 

dropping water level to at or below approximately 2,515 feet by September 1 to provide mudflats for 

foraging shorebirds while still meeting the Board of Control’s irrigation mission. 

Refuge staff would also like to work with Board of Control staff to improve both agencies efficiency 

by finding ways to assist each other’s purpose, such as working together on water conservation 

educational projects. 

Work with Partners to Improve Lake Lowell 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 

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 the pollutants that is set at a level expected to achieve water quality standards. 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 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

2-10 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

improving the water quality of the lake. Several strategies for addressing water quality are included 

in this CCP: 

 Work toward reducing carp population (Wildlife and Habitat Objectives 1.1 and 1.4) 

 Conduct water-quality monitoring to aid in evaluating the current TMDL (Wildlife and 

Habitat Objective 6.3) 

 Promote the use of CARB star-rated motors at the level of 2 stars and above (Public Use 

Objective 1.4) 

 Develop a water quality education program (Public Use Objective 4.1) 

 Develop a working group to investigate potential water-quality improvement actions (Public 

Use Objective 6.2) 

 Work closely with 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; Public Use Objective 6.2) 

 Attend applicable water quality meetings with IDEQ and the Lower Boise Watershed 

Advisory Group to develop partnerships, increase knowledge, and leverage resources (Public 

Use Objective 6.2) 

It has been brought to the attention of Refuge staff that 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 would 

eventually make them unusable for these activities. There is currently no plan to reduce future 

siltation or correct the current siltation issues. The Refuge would work 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. 

2.3.2 Features Common to All Action Alternatives (Alternatives 2-4) 

Assess Feasibility of Fees. A feasibility assessment would 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 would include impacts to the 

community, the cost-benefit ratio of charging and collecting a fee, and other relevant factors. 

Conduct Community Outreach. Many Refuge visitors do not realize that they are at a National 

Wildlife Refuge or, if they do, they do not understand the mission of Deer Flat NWR and the NWRS 

and how national wildlife refuges differ from County parks. In addition, many local community 

members do not realize that there is a nearby national wildlife refuge. To increase community 

awareness, support, and appreciation for the Refuge and its purpose, the Refuge would 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 would cover the same themes as those eventually identified for EE 

(see Public Use Objective 4.1) as well as basic information about Refuge programs (e.g., hunting 

regulations). 

Enhance Law Enforcement. The law enforcement program would 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. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-11 

Emphasize Snake River Islands Unit. Under all action alternatives, Refuge staff would emphasize 

management of the Snake River Islands by increasing wildlife inventory and monitoring efforts and 

increasing invasive species control and restoration efforts. The islands’ management would be 

prioritized using several factors and managed accordingly. The most biologically intact islands would 

receive higher management priority (see Wildlife and Habitat Objective 2.2). 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. 

Expand Hunting. Opportunities for hunting of additional species would be addressed in a future 

step-down planning efforts occurring in close coordination with IDFG. Changes proposed to current 

hunting opportunities can be found in Section 2.5.2. 

Improvements in Hunting Safety. Hunting and nonhunting areas would be clearly marked with 

signs, both 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 would also be erected on the Refuge boundary 

reminding upland hunters not to shoot across or toward the boundary to reduce the potential for shot 

to travel onto private lands and public roads. 

Improve Safety and Traffic Flow. A transportation study for the Lower Dam Recreation Area and 

the east Upper Dam boat launch would 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 would 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 would be removed or blocked because there is no designated access to the lake at those 

locations and pedestrian safety has been of concern. Finally, parking at Parking Lot 7 would be 

restricted to the parking area and not be allowed between the parking area and the lakeshore in order 

to facilitate access for visitors launching boats. 

Limit Organized Group Activities. Nonwildlife-dependent competitive events and group training 

for competitive events (e.g., cross-country training/meets, and sailing regattas) would not be allowed 

because they exclude the general public, increase wildlife disturbance, affect the quality of wildlifedependent activities, require additional management resources, and increase safety concerns. Sailing 

regattas are run along a set buoyed course. Having a “race course” for minimally maneuverable 

sailboats in the middle of the many other high-speed activities would create a safety hazard. 

Weddings, reunions, birthday parties, and other gatherings would be allowed only at the Lower Dam 

Recreation Area by SUP. Permits would require special conditions that may include restrictions on 

tent size, attendance, noise-causing devices, or any other items that could impact visitor safety or the 

ability for other visitors to use the Refuge in an unobstructed way. A fee may be assessed for the 

SUP. See also the Competitive and Group Jogging, Competitive and Group Cycling, and 

Competitive and Group Rowing Appropriate Use Determinations in Appendix A, and the 

Recreational Boating Compatibility Determination in Appendix B. 

Wildlife-dependent group activities (e.g., fishing tournaments) could be allowed by an SUP that 

would limit the number of participants, times of use, and areas of use so they would not cause an 

undue impediment to other wildlife-dependent recreationists (see Public Use Objective 3.1). 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

2-12 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

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. The Refuge 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. 

2.3.3 Alternative Descriptions 

2.3.3.1 Range of Alternatives 

The range of alternatives in this Draft CCP/EIS provides different scenarios for the future 

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

protecting wildlife and habitat vary from area closures to more expansive protective measures. 

Alternative 1, the status quo, is the least protective, and Alternative 4 is the most protective of 

wildlife. Alternative 4 protects the greatest amount of habitat by restricting horseback riding and dog 

walking and making the entire lake a no-wake zone. Alternative 2 (the Preferred Alternative) and 

Alternative 3 allow more of the traditional recreational uses to continue on Lake Lowell while still 

meeting wildlife compatibility standards. This would be accomplished by designating no-wake zones 

and creating seasonal and year-round closures to protect the Refuge’s most sensitive habitats. Given 

the current available science, the areas proposed as closed and no-wake zones in the action 

alternatives provide adequate protection for Refuge wildlife. 

Over the next 15 years, monitoring and research would continue to inform Refuge management on 

the level of successful implementation and achievement of Refuge objectives and strategies. In 

particular, our monitoring and research of the potential effects and disturbance to wildlife caused by 

recreational use activities may result in the Refuge proposing new or modified management 

objectives or strategies. Changes to management objectives may result in a CCP amendment or 

revision. Major revisions would include public outreach and appropriate NEPA compliance. 

2.3.3.2 Definitions 

To help the reader in understanding this section, 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 Deer Flat NWR as well as for 

all national wildlife refuges. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-13 

Nonwildlife-dependent Recreation: At Deer Flat 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. 

2.3.3.3 Alternative 1 (Status Quo, No Action Alternative) 

Alternative 1 is the no action alternative required by NEPA. Wildlife and habitat and public use 

management would continue at current levels as described below. 

Lake Lowell Unit 

Management of Wildlife and Habitat. Management of Refuge wildlife in this unit would continue 

to involve basic population monitoring activities. Management of Refuge habitats in this unit would 

continue to involve primarily invasive species control and limited restoration. Invasive plant control 

would be conducted by one staff member and volunteers using mechanical, chemical, and biological 

controls. 

A no-wake zone would continue to the east of Parking Lot 1, and the entire lake would close for 

winter migration from October 1 through April 14 each year. No other on-water protection would be 

provided for wildlife. The emergent vegetation along the shoreline of Lake Lowell would remain 

unprotected; this vegetation provides erosion control, nesting habitat for grebes and other birds, 

foraging habitat for waterfowl and wading birds, as well as forage, nesting, and brood-rearing habitat 

for numerous fisheries. 

Management of Public Uses. Existing public uses would continue and include the “Big Six” 

wildlife-dependent recreational activities as well as nonwildlife-dependent activities such as 

horseback riding, biking, jogging, motorized boating, using personal watercraft, waterskiing, 

picnicking, and swimming. Under Alternative 1, there are few actions that would alter when, where, 

or how public uses are allowed to occur within the Refuge. Nearly the entire Refuge would continue 

to be available for on-trail public recreation, including wildlife observation, photography, jogging, 

bicycling, on-leash pet walking, and horseback riding. No additional trail or lake access would be 

provided. Upland and waterfowl hunting would continue to be allowed between Parking Lots 1 and 8 

and from the east boundary of Gotts Point to the east boundary of the Leavitt Tract. A youth 

waterfowl hunt would continue to be hosted in current waterfowl hunt zones. A controlled deer hunt 

would continue to be allowed between Parking Lot 8 and the New York Canal. Gotts Point would 

remain closed to vehicular traffic, and limited bank-fishing opportunities would exist around the lake. 

Lake users would continue to participate in numerous surface water recreational activities. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

2-14 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

The lake would open to boating on April 15 and close on September 30. The current no-wake zone, 

from Parking Lot 1 east, would remain in place. 

EE would continue to be conducted through on- and off-site programs. Public contact with Deer Flat 

NWR staff would remain limited and intermittent due to the small number of Refuge employees. 

Opportunities for visitors to obtain additional information while visiting the Refuge would remain 

largely dependent on kiosks, brochures, and the availability of volunteers. 

Snake River Islands Unit 

Management of Wildlife and Habitat. Under Alternative 1, management of Refuge wildlife in this 

unit would continue to involve basic population monitoring activities. Because of the logistical 

difficulties and small staff, limited restoration efforts and/or invasive species control would be 

conducted on the Snake River Islands Unit. 

Management of Public Uses. Existing public uses would continue on this unit; these uses consist of 

wildlife observation and deer, upland and waterfowl hunting. The Snake River Islands are open from 

June 1 through January 31 for off-trail, free-roam activities, including shoreline fishing. 

2.3.3.4 Alternative 2 (Service Preferred): Protect Wildlife Using No-wake Zones and 

New Seasonal Closures while Providing for a Variety of Recreational Activities 

Alternative 2 would emphasize connecting urban families to nature by providing access to new 

facilities, as well as a wide range of wildlife-dependent and nonwildlife-dependent recreational 

activities. Activities would be managed differently than in the status quo alternative to protect 

wildlife, reduce conflicts between users, and increase safety. Under Alternative 2, fishing access 

would be promoted, and wildlife interpretation would be emphasized and integrated into all visitor 

activities to increase awareness and appreciation of Refuge resources. Under Alternative 2, the 

Service would protect and enhance habitat throughout the Refuge. In Lake Lowell specifically, the 

Refuge would protect shoreline feeding and nesting sites through no-wake zones and seasonal 

closures. 

The Preferred Alternative provides protections and enhancements for wildlife not found in the status 

quo alternative while still allowing almost all upland and on-water recreational opportunities 

currently occurring at the Refuge. 

Lake Lowell Unit 

Management of Wildlife and Habitat. Alternative 2 would provide needed protections for lakedependent 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 would continue to be closed for the benefit of wintering and 

migrating birds from October 1 through April 14 each year. No-wake zones would also be required in 

the Narrows, and the existing no-wake zone on the southeast end of the lake would be expanded to 

start at a line between Gotts Point and Parking Lot 1. In the no-wake zone, boaters would be allowed 

to travel only at speeds that do not create a wake (generally <5 mph). The Preferred Alternative 

would 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 under the Preferred Alternative include: 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-15 

 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. 

 Inventory and map noxious weeds and prioritize treatment with a variety of tools including 

mechanical, herbicide and prescribed fire consistent with the Integrated Pest Management 

Plan. 

Management of Public Uses. The Preferred Alternative 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 would focus on increasing participation in all six priority 

wildlife-dependent recreational activities. Fishing and interpretation would be emphasized to serve a 

growing urban and diverse population. Management of public uses would seek to connect people 

with nature and build support for wildlife conservation. Deer Flat NWR would be one of the few, if 

not only, refuges in the NWRS that allows activities such as use of personal watercraft, waterskiing, 

wakeboarding, kiteboarding, and windsurfing in waters under Service jurisdiction. It is anticipated 

that participants in these activities would be exposed to interpretive messages that encourage 

appropriate, conservation-oriented visitor behavior to benefit wildlife. 

The Preferred Alternative 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 would be provided at the Lower Dam Recreation Area. Suitability 

would be assessed for providing a 0.65-mile Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)–

accessible interpretive loop trail in riparian habitat between the Lower Dam Recreation Area 

and Murphy’s Neck. 

 Gotts Point would be opened to vehicular traffic upon completion of a cooperative 

agreement with Canyon County for increased law enforcement presence. Other potential 

solutions (e.g., electronic gates, improved lighting) might also be implemented. Access to the 

water’s edge would be improved for visitors with mobility impairments. 

 Environmental education and interpretive programs would continue. Emphasis would be 

placed on developing interpretive programs, with the goal of increasing visitor awareness of 

Deer Flat NWR purpose and goals and to encourage appropriate, conservation-oriented 

visitor behavior. On-site interpretation would involve updating visitor center displays, 

installing additional interpretive signage, and providing more interpretive tours. Public 

contact with Deer Flat NWR staff and volunteers would significantly increase from 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

2-16 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Alternative 1. EE would continue at a reduced level, and the program would emphasize onsite and teacher-led programs. 

 Upland, waterfowl, and deer hunt areas would be maintained as described in the status quo 

alternative, except that the youth waterfowl hunt would be provided to the southeast of 

Parking Lot 1. Each waterfowl hunter would have a limit of 25 shotgun shells per day. 

 Wildlife-dependent activities such as fishing, wildlife observation, and photography would 

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 would 

be developed at Parking Lots 2, 3, 4, and 7. 

 Walking with on-leash dogs, horseback riding, bicycling, and other nonwildlifedependent activities would be allowed on designated trails only (see Map 7). Narrower trails 

and those used by EE groups would be designated for pedestrian use only. As described 

above (see Section 2.3.2), ice skating, ice fishing, and competitive group activities would not 

be allowed. 

 Wake-causing activities (generally >5 mph) would be allowed in the East and West Pools 

from April 15 through September 30 outside of the no-wake zones and seasonal closures. 

 Boardwalk. A feasibility assessment would be completed to determine whether trail access 

between Parking Lots 1 and 3 could be provided at a lesser cost than is estimated for the 

proposed boardwalk in Alternative 3. Other fishing docks would be provided as shown on 

Map 5. 

 Swimming. To increase safety and reduce impacts to anglers, swimming would be allowed 

only in designated swimming areas at the Upper and Lower Dams. 

Snake River Islands Unit 

Management of Wildlife and Habitat. Under Alternative 2, Refuge staff would 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. Islands management would be prioritized using several factors and managed accordingly. 

The most biologically intact islands would receive higher management priority (see Objective 2.2). 

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. 

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

observation and deer, upland, and waterfowl hunting on 1,219 acres. Most of the Snake River Islands 

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

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

free-roam activities from July 1 through January 31. 

2.3.3.5 Alternative 3: Protect Wildlife Using a No-wake Zone in the East Pool and 

Permanent and Seasonal Wildlife Closures while Providing for a Variety of 

Recreational Activities 

Under Alternative 3, the Refuge would protect habitat in nesting and feeding sites and in open-water 

habitat by establishing a no-wake zone in the East Pool, morning restrictions on wake-causing 

activities in the West Pool, and other seasonal and permanent closures. A no-wake zone in the East 

Pool would make that portion of the lake more suitable for fishing and wildlife observation. Overall, 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-17 

Alternative 3 attempts to increase the quality of wildlife-dependent recreation by eliminating 

horseback riding and dog walking and segregating high-speed boating from wildlife-dependent users. 

However, a drawback of the no-wake zone changes would be an increase in the amount of time it 

would take wildlife-dependent users to reach high-quality wildlife areas. Under Alternative 3, the 

Refuge would not be open to some activities including horseback riding and dog walking. Bicycling 

would only be allowed on the trail adjacent to the entrance road. 

Alternative 3 would provide additional protection for wildlife not found in the status quo alternative 

or Alternative 2 while allowing most surface-water recreational activities currently occurring and 

some of the current upland uses. Wake-causing uses would be allowed only in the West Pool. 

Lake Lowell Unit 

Management of Wildlife and Habitat. Emergent plant beds in Murphy’s Neck and emergent plant 

beds from Parking Lots 3 to 8 would be closed to human activity all year. The entire lake would be 

closed seasonally to protect wintering and migrating birds. All active and historical grebe nesting 

colonies would be closed to public use by establishing a 500-yard closure during boating season 

(Berg et al. 2004). There would be a 100-yard seasonal closure (from July 15 through September 30) 

to protect shorebird habitat along the shoreline from Murphy’s Neck to the Narrows (Rodgers and 

Smith 1997). A 200-yard closed area and a 200-yard no-wake zone would protect emergent beds and 

wildlife on the south side of the West Pool. 

Specific wildlife and habitat management objectives under Alternative 3 include: 

 Maintain 100 and enhance 250 acres of emergent wetland plant beds along the lake shoreline. 

 Maintain 350 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 and enhance 1,200 acres of riparian forest habitat at Lake Lowell Unit. 

 Maintain 70 and enhance 85 acres of nonlake wetland basins in three units to diversify 

wetland habitats and improve water quality. 

 Maintain 520 and enhance 300 acres of sagebrush-steppe habitat at Lake Lowell Unit to 

benefit key migrating birds including sage thrasher, 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. 

 Inventory and map noxious weeds and prioritize treatment with a variety of tools including 

mechanical, herbicide and prescribed fire consistent with the Integrated Pest Management 

Plan. 

Management of Public Uses. Under Alternative 3, the lake would be open to use from April 15 

through September 20 with only no-wake activities allowed in the East Pool and wake-causing 

activities allowed from noon to one hour before sunset in the West Pool. Alternative 3 includes 

several elements to protect wildlife and enhance the Refuge recreational experience. These include: 

 Lower Dam Recreation Area facilities. A visitor contact station and a fishing and 

observation dock/platform would be provided at the Lower Dam Recreation Area. Suitability 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

2-18 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

would be assessed for providing a 0.65-mile ADA-accessible interpretive loop trail in 

riparian habitat between the Lower Dam Recreation Area and Murphy’s Neck. 

 Gotts Point would be managed the same as under Alternative 2 and be opened to vehicular 

traffic upon completion of a Cooperative Agreement with Canyon County for increased law 

enforcement presence. Other potential solutions (e.g., electronic gates and improved lighting) 

might also be implemented. Access to the water’s edge would be improved for visitors with 

mobility impairments. 

 Environmental education and interpretive programs would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Emphasis would be placed on developing the interpretive programs with the goal of 

increasing visitor awareness of Deer Flat NWR purpose and goals and to encourage 

appropriate, conservation-oriented visitor behavior. EE would continue at a reduced level, 

and the EE program would emphasize on-site programs. 

 Boardwalk. A boardwalk for wildlife-dependent activities would be constructed between 

Parking Lots 1 and 3. Over-water access would be provided along the boardwalk on two 

docks. Other fishing docks would also be provided as shown on Map 8. 

 Upland and waterfowl hunt areas. To improve the quality of both upland and waterfowl 

hunting, upland game bird hunting would be allowed only on the east end of the Refuge from 

the west boundary of the Leavitt Tract to the entrance at Greenhurst Road. A controlled 

waterfowl hunt (e.g., permit system or sign-in/out) would be allowed only on the south side 

of the lake between Parking Lots 3 and 8 with a daily limit of 25 shotgun shells per hunter. 

Other wildlife-dependent activities would be allowed concurrent with the upland hunt and on 

the boardwalk on the south side of the lake. However, because there is a higher demand by 

waterfowl hunters and less visibility on the South Side Recreation Area, all trails in the 

waterfowl hunt area would be closed to the nonhunting public from Parking Lots 3 through 8. 

The boating season would end on September 20 in order to increase the quality of the youth 

hunt and reduce the possibility of unsafe hunter/boater interactions. 

 Wildlife-dependent activities such as wildlife observation and photography would be 

allowed on-trail year-round. 

 Nonwildlife-dependent activities. Under Alternative 3, the Refuge would not be open to 

some activities including horseback riding and dog walking. Bicycling would only be 

allowed on the trail adjacent to the entrance road. 

 Swimming. To increase safety and reduce impacts to anglers, swimming would only be 

allowed in a designated swimming area at the Lower Dam Recreation Area. 

Snake River Islands Unit 

Management of Wildlife and Habitat. Under Alternative 3, Refuge staff would emphasize 

management of the Snake River Islands Unit by increasing wildlife inventory and monitoring efforts 

and increasing invasive species control (following the IPM Plan) and restoration efforts. The islands’ 

management would be prioritized using several factors and managed accordingly. The most 

biologically intact islands would receive higher management priority (see Wildlife and Habitat 

Objective 2.2). 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. 

Management of Public Uses. Existing public uses would continue; these uses consist of wildlife 

observation and deer, upland bird, and waterfowl hunting on 1,219 acres. Most of the Snake River 

Islands Unit would be open for off-trail, free-roam activities, including shoreline fishing, from June 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-19 

15 through January 31. Heron- and gull-nesting islands (four to six islands) would be open for offtrail, free-roam activities from July 1 through January 31. 

2.3.3.6 Alternative 4: Protect Wildlife with Entire Lake Designated as No-wake Zone 

with an Emphasis on Wildlife-dependent Recreation 

Alternative 4 is the most protective alternative, providing wildlife restrictions not found in 

Alternatives 1 through 3. Habitat management would restore, maintain, or mimic natural ecosystem 

processes as often as possible. To provide adequate sanctuary for Refuge species, increase visitors’ 

opportunities to appreciate wildlife, and provide the best possible wildlife-dependent recreational 

opportunities, fishing, hunting, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, EE, and interpretation 

would be the only recreational activities allowed on the Refuge. The entire lake would be a no-wake 

zone. 

To provide a sanctuary for waterfowl, shorebirds, and waterbirds, as well as fish and other wildlife, 

all the emergent beds would be closed to public access. The shoreline from Murphy’s Neck to the 

Narrows would be protected by a year-round 100-yard closure to provide undisturbed loafing and 

feeding habitat for shorebirds and waterfowl (Rodgers and Smith 1997). Trees would be removed in 

this area to enhance mudflats for migrating shorebirds. 

Lake Lowell Unit 

Management of Wildlife and Habitat. The entire lake would continue to be closed for wintering 

and migrating birds from October 1 through April 14 each year. Emergent-bed closures and creation 

of a no-wake zone on all open areas of the lake would provide added protection for nesting, feeding, 

and resting wildlife in open-water and emergent-bed habitats. Specific wildlife and habitat 

management objectives under Alternative 4 include: 

 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. 

 Inventory and map noxious weeds and prioritize treatment with a variety of tools including 

mechanical, herbicide and prescribed fire consistent with the Integrated Pest Management 

Plan. 

Management of Public Uses. Under Alternative 4, there are numerous actions that would alter 

when, where, and how public uses would be allowed. Boating would be allowed at no-wake speeds 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

2-20 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

on all areas of the lake open to the public from April 15 through September 30. Several portions of 

the Refuge would be closed to all public activity (see Map 9). The Refuge would not be open to 

nonwildlife-dependent activities including horseback riding, dog walking, bicycling, and ice skating. 

Alternative 4 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 would be provided at the Lower Dam Recreation Area. Suitability 

would be assessed for providing a 0.65-mile ADA-accessible interpretive loop trail in 

riparian habitat between the Lower Dam Recreation Area and Murphy’s Neck. 

 Gotts Point would remain closed to vehicular traffic. To improve fishing and wildlife 

observation/photography opportunities at Gotts Point, an ADA-accessible trail would provide 

access to the water’s edge. 

 EE and interpretive programs would continue. Emphasis would be placed on developing 

the EE program to better meet the needs of teachers and students in neighboring districts. Onsite interpretation would involve updating visitor center displays, interpretive panels, and 

outreach. On-site outreach would predominantly be conducted by volunteers. Public contact 

with Deer Flat NWR staff would increase from Alternative 1 but would remain limited and 

intermittent due to the small number of Refuge employees and the emphasis on the EE 

program. Opportunities for visitors to obtain additional information while visiting the Refuge 

would remain largely dependent on kiosks, brochures, and the availability of volunteers. 

 Hunting. 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 through 8 with a daily limit of 25 shotgun shells per hunter. 

 A youth waterfowl hunt following IDFG regulations would be provided from Parking Lot 1 

to the New York Canal by human- or electric-powered boat, within 200 yards of shore, and in 

upland areas within 200 yards of the water’s edge. 

 Wildlife-dependent activities such as fishing, wildlife observation, and photography would 

be allowed on-trail year-round. Shoreline access would be developed at Parking Lots 2, 3, 4, 

and 7. 

 Uses not allowed. Under Alternative 4, the Refuge would not be open to nonwildlifedependent activities, including horseback riding, swimming, walking with dogs, and 

bicycling. 

Snake River Islands Unit 

Management of Wildlife and Habitat. Under Alternative 4, Refuge staff would 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 would be prioritized using several factors and managed 

accordingly. The most biologically intact islands would receive higher management priority (see 

Wildlife and Habitat Objective 2.2). 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. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-21 

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

observation and deer, upland bird, and waterfowl hunting on 1,219 acres. The Snake River Islands 

Unit would be open for off-trail, free-roam activities from June 15 to January 31. Under Alternative 

4, shoreline fishing would also be available from June 15 to January 31 each year on all islands. 
Table 2-1. Summary of Alternatives by Issue 

Issue Alternative 1 

(Current Management) 

Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) 

Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

How would the Refuge protect its valuable resources on the Lake Lowell Unit? 

Recreational boating 

Maintain no-wake zone at the east end of the lake. 

Expand the no-wake zone to the east of a line between Parking Lot 1 and Gotts Point and at the Narrows. Add nowake zone 200 yards from the edge of the vegetation between Parking Lots 1 and 8. 

Keep wake-allowed zone on the West Pool from noon through sunset, except for a 200-yard no-wake zone on the south side of the West Pool. Establish East Pool as no-wake zone. Make all uses subject to mudflat and emergent-bed protections. 

Establish entire lake as no-wake. Close the southeast end and the emergent beds to all use. 

Boating season Open lake April 15 through September 30. Open lake April 15 through 

September 20. 

Open lake April 15 through September 30. 

Protection of emergent beds 

Keep all emergent beds open to public use. 

Keep all emergent beds open to public use, except 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. 

Close these areas to public use during boating season: Murphy’s Neck, emergent beds from Parking Lots 3 through 8, and 500 yards around all active and historical grebe nesting colonies. 

Close these areas to public use during boating season: Murphy’s Neck, all emergent beds, and 500 yards around all active and historical grebe nesting colonies. 

Protection of mudflats 

Keep all mudflats open to public use. 

Seasonally close mudflats when water levels below 2,522 feet around shorebird areas in the East and West Pools. 

Establish 100-yard buffer from West Pool mudflats open from April 15 through July 14. 

Close 100-yard buffer from West Pool mudflats year-round. 

Creation of mudflats 

No shoreline tree removal. Remove 5 to 25 acres of shoreline vegetation adjacent to West Pool mudflats. 

Noise No decibel limit enforced. Enforce State/County decibel limits.Swimming Allow swimming at East 

Upper Dam swim beach and elsewhere. 

Allow swimming only at designated areas at Lower Dam Recreation Area and Upper Dam. 

Allow swimming only in designated area at the Lower Dam Recreation Area. 

Swimming not allowed. 

Upland access Allow access on maintained 

roads and trails only (except for hunting). 

Allow wildlife-dependent activities off-trail in East Side Recreation Area year-round, at Gotts Point February 1 through September 30, and in all other open areas August 1 through January 31. Allow nonwildlifedependent activities allowed on 

Allow only wildlife-dependent activities, except for limited bicycling. Allow access only on maintained roads and trails (except for hunting). 

Allow only wildlife-dependent activities. Allow access only on maintained roads and trails (except for hunting). 

 Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

2-22

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
Issue Alternative 1 

(Current Management) 

Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) 

Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

designated trails only. 

Upland activities Allow walking, jogging, bicycling, and horseback riding and 

dogs on-leash. 

Allow only wildlife-dependent activities allowed, except for limited bicycling. 

Allow only wildlife-dependent activities allowed. 

How would the Refuge protect its valuable resources on the Snake River Islands Unit? 

Nesting protection 

Open islands to public use June 1 through January 31. 

Most Refuge islands would be open to public use outside of goose nesting season, from June 15 through January 31. Some Refuge islands (currently four to six islands) would be open to public use July 1 through January 31 to reduce disturbance to nesting herons, gulls, and terns. 

How would the Refuge provide safe, accessible, high quality compatible wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities in the future? 

Wildlife observation and photography 

Maintain existing observation and trail facilities. 

Maintain existing and add additional trails and observation facilities (see pink icons on Maps 5, 8, and 9). 

Environmental education (EE) and interpretation 

Maintain current EE program. 

Increase interpretive opportunities and programs. Reduce the size of current EE program by emphasizing on-site programs. 

Tailor EE to meet local teachers’ needs and Refuge EE themes. 

Maintain existing facilities at Lower Dam Recreation Area (LDRA). 

Redesign LDRA to include new facilities and trails. 

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. 

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. 

Allow upland game hunting at Snake River Islands Unit. Allow upland game bird hunting at Lake Lowell Unit during entire upland season from west boundary of Leavitt Tract to entrance at Greenhurst Road. No upland hunting allowed in emergent beds. 

Allow upland game hunting at Snake River Islands Unit. No upland hunting opportunities at Lake Lowell Unit. 

Locations 

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. 

Allow on Snake River Islands. Allow 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. 

Allow at Snake River Islands Unit. Allow at Lake Lowell Unit \ between Parking Lots 3 and 8. 

Allow at Snake River Islands Unit. Allow at Lake Lowell Unit between Parking Lots 1 and 8. Locations 

Shell limit No shotgun shell limit. Daily limit of 25 shotgun shells per hunter on Lake Lowell Unit. Type of hunt Offer general season hunt. Establish a controlled hunt (e.g., 

sign-in/out at parking areas or 

Offer general season hunt 

 Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

______________________________________________________________________________________________

2-23
Issue Alternative 1 

(Current Management) 

Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) 

Alternative 3 Alternative 4 application/lottery system). 

Youth hunt Allow youth hunt in all 

designated waterfowl hunting zones. 

Allow youth hunt east of Parking Lot 1. 

Allow youth hunt in all designated waterfowl hunting zones. 

Allow youth hunt east of Parking Lot 1. 

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 Allow from shoreline in all 

open Refuge areas. During waterfowl hunting season, restrict to Fishing Areas A and B. 

Provide additional shoreline fishing access from designated trails and docks (see Maps 5 and 7). 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. 

Provide additional shoreline fishing access from designated trails and docks. Allow access in all open areas of lake. Allow shoreline access at Murphy’s Neck March 15 to September 30. During waterfowl hunting season, restrict fishing to Fishing Areas A and B and to new fishing facilities outside of the hunt areas. 

Provide additional shoreline fishing access from designated trails and docks. Allow access in all open areas of lake. During waterfowl hunting season, restrict fishing to Fishing Areas A and B and to new fishing facilities outside of the hunt areas. 

Fees and Permits No fees or permits required. 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. 

Allow every other weekend from the Upper Dam West, July 1 through end of boating season. 

Gotts Point Access 

Allow walk-in access only. Allow vehicle access (contingent on signed agreement with County 

Sheriff to reduce illegal activities). 

Allow walk-in access only on accessible trail from parking to shoreline trails. 

 Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

2-24

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-25 

2.4 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 

Refuge System 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 2002). 

The draft goals for Deer Flat NWR for the 15 years following completion of the CCP are presented 

on the following pages in tables. Each goal is followed by the objectives that pertain to that goal. 

Some objectives pertain to multiple goals and have simply been placed in the most reasonable spot. 

Similarly, some strategies pertain to multiple objectives. 

The order of goals does not imply any priority in this CCP. Priority actions are identified in the 

staffing and funding analysis (see Appendix C). 

 The objective statement sometimes indicates specific items (e.g., acreages) from the 

Preferred Alternative that vary in the other alternatives. Values of those items for other 

alternatives are displayed in the short table under each objective statement. As applicable, 

each other alternative shows substitute text for the item or items in italics. 

 If an objective is not in a particular alternative, a blank is used to indicate that this objective 

is not addressed in that alternative. 

Below each objective statement are the strategies that could be employed to accomplish the 

objectives. Note the following: 

 Check marks (✓) alongside each strategy show which alternatives include that strategy. If a 

column for a particular alternative does not include a check mark for a listed strategy, it 

means that strategy would not be used in that alternative. 

Other 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 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

2-26 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

2.4.1 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 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; see Section 2.3.1 for more detail) 

Alternatives Objective is modified by replacing type in italics with 

text in these columns. Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Protect total emergent acreage 845 845 845 845 

Acreage maintained 100 100 100 100 

Acreage enhanced 0 250 250 250 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

*Implement boating closures to protect emergent beds for grebe 

nesting and other wildlife. See Public Use Objective 1.4. 

  

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). 

  

*In the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2), areas critical to nesting birds (e.g., grebe colonies, heron 

rookeries, and bald eagle nests) would be closed to public entry on a seasonal basis. These areas would be 

sized appropriately according to best available science. The area would remain closed until no nesting is 

observed within the same area the following year. 

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 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-27 

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 provide 

food for the thousands of ducks that use the lake in the winter and 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 would explore appropriate measures to create openings 

(e.g., discing) and channels in the larger expanses of smartweed to facilitate grebe foraging and 

movement. 

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 piedbilled 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 would 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 would 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 the 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 have been made regularly in Refuge files and historical Refuge pamphlets. The 

shoreline and its emergent vegetation are an important habitat for a wide variety of wildlife, but these 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

2-28 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

areas are especially important for nesting and breeding grebes in Idaho. In order to protect this habitat, the 

Refuge has proposed various measures, including implementing no-wake zones and seasonal boating 

closures to protect emergent beds to provide grebes and other waterbirds opportunities to nest, forage, and 

rest with minimal disturbance. The general and Refuge-specific effects of human-caused disturbance to 

wildlife are presented in Chapter 6 and Appendix B. 

The emergent beds also provide an important buffer. Allen et al. (2008) found that such buffers are 

important means of protecting grebe nests from wind- and/or boat-caused wakes. In addition, boats with 

frequent starts, stops, and “nearplane” speeds increased the potential for habitat impacts. Increased 

sedimentation and/or resuspension of sediments in the lake, by either boating activity or natural wind 

events, increases turbidity and resuspends phosphorus and other pollutants that adhere to soil particles 

(IDEQ 2010). 

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 uproot and eliminate 

submerged vegetation, increase turbidity, and decrease the overall abundance and diversity of the 

invertebrate community (Miller and Crowl 2006). Treatments using the natural plant chemical rotenone 

are expensive, are not target-specific, and may not be practical for a lake the size of Lake Lowell at full 

pool. Recently, IDFG completed a project to estimate and provide recommendations to reduce the carp 

population in Lake Lowell. IDFG (Kozfkay et al. 2011) recommended three options for significant carp 

reduction: physical control such as seining, a yet-to-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. 

Carp removal has occurred intermittently for many years to enhance submergent vegetation and moistsoil plants in Lake Lowell. Through an 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 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 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 

Alternatives Objective is modified by replacing type in 

italics with text in these columns. Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Protect total mudflat acreage 100-800 100-800 100-800 100-800 

Acreage maintained 350 350 350 350 

Acreage enhanced 0 560 560 560 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-29 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Work with the Board of Control to explore the possibility of 

dropping water level elevation to 2,515 feet by September 1. 

  

Implement seasonal or permanent closures to prevent 

disturbance to migrating shorebirds. See Public Use 

Objective 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 the 

depleted fat reserves used in their migratory flight (Dugan et al. 1981). 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. Lake Lowell, a reservoir created in 1909, has been shown to be important for shorebirds. 

The Intermountain West Regional Shorebird Plan (Oring et al. 2000) identified Lake Lowell as one of 

only two sites in Idaho with greater than 5,000 shorebirds in more than half the years surveyed. The peak 

was just under 12,000 shorebirds in 1990 (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 mid-July and mid-August (Taylor and Trost 1992). 

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 et al. 1992; Turley and 

Holthuijzen 2003). 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 would benefit shorebird populations and provide 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

2-30 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

increasing viewing opportunity for Deer Flat Refuge visitors. 

Deer Flat NWR does not have any jurisdiction to manage the water levels of Lake Lowell and water 

levels fluctuate with irrigation demands (see Chapter 3). The Refuge would 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 those 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 have the potential to 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 the 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, in the Preferred Alternative, the shorebird area at the northern 

shoreline of the East Pool east of Tio Lane access would be closed seasonally to boating when the water 

level elevation falls below 2,522 feet (see Public Use Objective 1.4). A shorebird observation blind would 

be installed to provide the public an opportunity to observe the shorebirds while minimizing disturbance 

(see Public Use Objective 1.3). The general and Refuge-specific effects of human-caused disturbance to 

wildlife are presented in Chapter 6 and Appendix B. 

Objective 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 would 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 

Alternatives Objective is modified by replacing type in 

italics with text in these columns. Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Total acreage created 0 5-25 5-25 5-25 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Remove 5-25 acres of shoreline vegetation adjacent to 

current mudflats through 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. For example, according to the 1975 Refuge Annual Narrative, short willows and forbs were 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-31 

clipped with a tractor and rotary beater to retard succession on shoreline in the area adjacent to Farm 

Field 5. In addition, firewood permits were regularly issued in the 1960s through late 1970s, which likely 

provided additional areas of mudflat above and/or at elevations that are now covered by riparian habitat. 

Over time, these activities ceased, and a riparian habitat developed along the lakeshore as it appears 

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 would 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 would be removed and monitored to see if shorebirds use the area. If 

these first plots are used by shorebirds, then additional acreages would be treated. 

Objective 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 humancaused disturbance year-round 

Alternatives Objective is modified by replacing type in 

italics with text in these columns. Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Protect total open-water acreage (estimated at full pool on 

July 21, 2009) 6,430 6,430 6,430 6,430 

Maintained acreage (estimated at full pool on July 21, 

2009) 6,430 6,430 6,430 6,430 

Enhanced acreage (estimated at full pool on July 21, 2009) 0 6,430 6,430 6,430 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Implement carp reduction in x acres of open water. See 

Wildlife and Habitat Objective 1.1. 100 6,430 6,430 6,430 

Continue winter waterfowl boating closure and current nowake zones on 6,430 acres of open water. See Public Use 

Objective 1.4. 

   

Implement new no-wake zones and/or closures to minimize 

disturbance to wildlife species that are dependent on openwater habitat. See Public Use Objective 1.4. 

  

Work with partners to improve water quality in Lake 

Lowell. 

  

Rationale: The importance of the Lake Lowell Unit to migratory birds is discussed in Wildlife and 

Habitat Objective 1.1. The open-water habitat provided by Lake Lowell 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 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

2-32 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

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 Obj. 1.1.

Grebes nest in the emergent beds of Lake Lowell (see Wildlife and Habitat Objective 1.1) and rear their 

young in the open water, typically from June through October. The water level drops at this time (see 

Wildlife and Habitat Objective 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 is diminished 

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 (D. Anderson, as cited in Ivey 2004), and small chicks can become separated from their parents and 

die of exposure if adults have to dive to avoid motorboats (Shaw 1998; Storer and Nuechterlein 1992). 

Creating no-wake zones would provide a sanctuary for grebes to forage and raise their young with fewer 

disturbances. 

The open water of Lake Lowell is also important for waterfowl, primarily as wintering habitat, but some 

nesting also occurs on the Refuge. Proposed closed areas and no-wake zones would 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 edges and rear their young in the open water, typically 

in early summer. Refuge annual narratives throughout the 1960s and early 1970s document nesting 

waterfowl and a fairly significant number of spring waterfowl migrants using the lake. It appears that 

nesting and spring migration have declined over time. Reasons for the decline likely include habitat 

alteration (see Wildlife and Habitat Objective 2.1), fluctuating water levels (see Chapter 3), and/or 

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 

Chapter 6 and Appendix B. 

It is essential that grebes, waterfowl, and other wildlife have locations on the lake where they can feed, 

roost, and raise young undisturbed. To provide places to feed, raise their young, and roost with little or no 

disturbance to waterfowl and waterbirds (e.g., grebes and pelicans), the Preferred Alternative includes 

strategies that seasonally close portions of the lake to public use and implement no-wake zones. For more 

information on the general and Refuge-specific effects of human-caused disturbance to wildlife see 

Chapter 6. 

The lake itself 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.
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-33 

Therefore, disturbance and flushing events during this critical time are more disruptive than during 

warmer months outside of the migration period. 

2.4.2 Goal 2 (Riparian): Protect, maintain, and enhance riparian forest, 

benefiting migratory birds and other riparian-dependent species. 

Objective 2.1. Protect, maintain, and enhance riparian forests – Lake Lowell 

Protect 1,900, maintain 520, 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 

Alternatives Objective is modified by replacing type in 

italics with text in these columns. Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Protect total riparian acreage 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 

Maintained acreage 520 520 520 520 

Enhanced acreage 0 1,200 1,200 1,200 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

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 with the exception of 

the area designated for mudflat creation 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 

 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

2-34 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

birds, and other wildlife. See Public Use Objective 1.3. 

Require visitors to stay on trail to prevent disturbance 

to neotropical migrants, nesting wading birds, and other 

wildlife. See Public Use Objective 1.3. 

  

Implement land-based seasonal closures to protect 

nesting and wintering areas. See Public Use Objective 

1.3. 

  

Issue SUPs for firewood collection as appropriate to 

maintain appropriate 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. 

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). Over 60 

percent of western neotropical birds use riparian areas during the breeding season or as a stopover for 

migration (Krueper 1993). 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 [Bird Conservation Plan] 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 around 35 nests and are 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 would identify potential suitable habitats and take measures to 

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. In the Preferred 

Alternative, seasonal closures would be placed around any colonies to mitigate potential impacts from 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-35 

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 Chapter 6 and Appendix B. 

The Refuge has an opportunity to enhance riparian areas on the Lake Lowell Unit. Planting desirable 

species would accelerate riparian regeneration, enhance habitat quality, and provide habitat for 

neotropical species. Highest-priority areas for enhancement would 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 

would 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). In the Preferred Alternative, there would therefore 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. In all alternatives, management would 

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 multiaged stands, controlling 

invasive species, and establishing native understory in existing riparian forests. Selected snags, logs, and 

piles of woody debris would 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 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 would 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 would 

provide interested parties with a usable resource while benefitting the Refuge’s wildlife. Fire breaks 

would be strategically placed in vulnerable areas to reduce the probability of an out-of-control wildfire 

destroying large swaths of riparian habitat in consultation and cooperation with the Refuge Fire 

Management Officer. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

2-36 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Objective 2.2. Protect, maintain, and enhance riparian forests – Snake River Islands 

Protect 105, maintain 105, and enhance 105 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 would 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 

Alternatives Objective is modified by replacing type in 

italics with text in these columns. Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Protect all islands 104 104 104 104 

Maintained islands 104 104 104 104 

Enhanced islands 0 104 104 104 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Plant desirable tree and shrub species following invasive 

species treatment and/or removal on two to 10 islands. 

  

Maintain downed and standing dead trees (including 

invasive tree and shrub species that are treated and 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 1.3 and 3.1. 

  

 All Refuge islands closed February 1 through May 31.   

 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). 

 4-6 4-6 4-6 

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 Wildlife 

and Habitat Objective 2.1. Meador and Goldstien (2003) also suggest the universal importance of riparian 

zones to the maintenance and restoration of diverse fish communities in streams. 

Vegetative structure varies from island to island, but most include both upland and riparian habitat. The 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-37 

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 would 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. 2004a). See Wildlife and Habitat Objective 6.4. By starting with 

small projects, the Refuge can monitor effectiveness, predict future funding needs, and develop a longterm strategy for enhancing riparian habitat on all of the Refuge islands. 

To effectively protect riparian zones on the islands, functional partnerships with adjacent landowners 

would be important. Unauthorized grazing occurs on the islands periodically, especially when low water 

flow allows easy access. Maintaining collaborative efforts with landowners would 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 

would 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 would be 

extended to June 15. The general and Refuge-specific effects of human-caused disturbance to wildlife are 

presented in Chapter 6 and Appendix B. 

2.4.3 Goal 3 (Wetlands): Protect, maintain, and enhance nonlake wetland 

habitats for the benefit of migratory birds and other wildlife. 

Objective 3.1. Protect, maintain, and enhance emergent wetlands 

Protect 85, maintain 70, 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). These 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 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

2-38 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

 <5% cover of invasive plants (e.g., purple loosestrife) 

 Wetland areas of importance to nesting and migrating birds and other wildlife protected from humancaused disturbance 

Alternatives Objective is modified by replacing type in 

italics with text in these columns. Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Protect total wetland acreage 85 85 85 85 

Maintained acreage 70 70 70 70 

Enhanced acreage 0 85 85 85 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

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 use to 

wildlife use) for existing water rights on the Leavitt Tract. 

  

Reseed and/or revegetate 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 a 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 the wetlands on the Lake 

Lowell Unit. 

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 be varied 

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

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-39 

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 would be developed following completion of the CCP. 

The Refuge has minimal water-management capabilities on these wetlands. Refuge staff would work 

toward ensuring the dependability of water to these wetland areas. With the exception of Rambo Pond, 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 would 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 

Wildlife and Habitat Objective 5.2). 

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

habitats characteristic of the historic Columbia Basin. 

Objective 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 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

2-40 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

 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 

Alternatives Objective is modified by replacing type in 

italics with text in these columns. Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Protect total shrub-steppe acreage 830 830 830 830 

Maintained acreage 520 520 520 520 

Enhanced acreage 0 300 300 300 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Seed and plant native shrubs, forbs, and bunchgrasses with 

primary 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 x acres of restored steppe habitat to research cheatgrass 

control methods. Priority would be given to the North Side 

Recreation Area and adjacent areas, as well as the CC 

Lightning Fire area and adjacent areas. 

0 163 163 163 

Remove and rehabilitate unnecessary internal fire breaks 

through green-stripping. 

  

Use prescribed fire and mechanical treatments for hazardous 

fuels reduction. 

  

Implement land-based seasonal closures to protect nesting 

and wintering areas. See Public Use Objective 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 1.3. 

 

Restrict travel to designated roads and trails to reduce and/or 

prevent habitat impacts and disturbance to wildlife. See 

Public Use Objective 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). 

  

Apply mechanical, chemical, and biological to invasive 

species. 

 

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

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-41 

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). Less than 3 

percent of the area dominated by sagebrush in the United States lies within areas that receive permanent 

legal protection (Scott et al. 2001; Wright et al. 2001). An estimated 99 percent of historical sagebrush 

habitats in the Snake River Plain had been converted to cropland by the early 1980s (Hironaka et al. 

1983). 

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 would 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 would attempt to continue, 

augment, and improve past restoration efforts. The strategic placement of fire breaks would be reevaluated, and those identified as superfluous would be exploited for green-stripping and restoration 

efforts. 

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 it is 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 would be required to stay on trails from February 1 to July 31. In addition, dogs would be 

required to be on leash and be allowed only on designated trails (see Public Use Objective 1.4). The 

general and Refuge-specific effects of human-caused disturbance to wildlife are presented in Chapter 6 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

2-42 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

and Appendix B. 

Objective 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 

Alternatives Objective is modified by replacing type in italics 

with text in these columns. Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Protect all islands 0 104 104 104 

Maintained number of islands 104 104 104 104 

Enhanced number of islands 0 104 104 104 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Seed and plant native shrubs, forbs, and bunchgrasses, particularly 

following invasive species treatments on x islands. 0 2-10 2-10 2-10 

Use prescribed fire and mechanical treatment to reduce hazardous 

fuels on x islands. 0 2-10 2-10 2-10 

Eliminate trespass livestock grazing through appropriate methods 

to include law enforcement or fencing on Refuge islands or 

landowner land. 

  

Aerially apply the herbicide metsulfuron to control extensive 

infestations of whitetop on x islands. 0 2-10 2-10 2-10 

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 1.3 and 3.1. 

 All Refuge islands closed February 1 through May 31.  

 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). 

0 4-6 4-6 4-6 

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 Wildlife and Habitat Objective 4.1 above. 

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

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-43 

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 would be based on GIS modeling that includes a ranking system that 

would identify the most biologically intact islands which are likely to provide good habitat. Factors that 

would be modeled would include size, current condition (existing habitat, noxious weeds, nesting 

activity), neighboring land use, and isolation (measure of flow and channel depth) (see Wildlife and 

Habitat Objective 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. 

Protection and management of shrub-steppe habitat on the islands presents a different set of challenges 

than at the Lake Lowell Unit. Fluctuating water levels cause some of the 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 ensure control of any livestock trespassing on 

the Snake River Islands Unit. 

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 would be prioritized and treated accordingly. 

Alternative methods for invasive species control on the islands would 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 costeffective 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, for 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) would be closed from February 1 through June 30. The general and Refugespecific effects of human-caused disturbance to wildlife are presented in Chapter 6 and Appendix B. 

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

grasslands and agricultural crops to support migrating waterfowl as well as 

resident wildlife. 

Objective 5.1. Maintain grain and forage crops 

Maintain a diversity of grain and green forage crops on 250 acres, benefitting migratory birds (e.g., 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

2-44 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Canada geese, dabbling ducks) and other resident wildlife. Croplands would 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) 

Alternatives Objective is modified by replacing type in italics 

with text in these columns. Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Maintained acreage 250 250 250 280 

Enhanced acreage 0 varies* varies* varies* 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

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%. 25% ≥25% ≥25% ≥25% 

Implement lake 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). 

   

*Enhanced acreage (i.e., shoreline plantings) would vary depending on water levels and the ability to 

agree on appropriate in-water acreages with the Board of Control. 

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 feeding 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 would be essential for waterfowl management. Although wintering waterfowl 

numbers have declined over time, numerous waterfowl still winter at Deer Flat NWR (see Chapter 4). The 

crops on the Refuge 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 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-45 

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 have a dramatic effect on reductions in the amount 

of weed species present in agricultural fields (Liebman and Dyck 1993) and on the improvement of 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 would also continue on cooperatively 

farmed land. The proposed strategies are either existing management practices or work toward improving 

the existing farming program. In addition to BMPs, special conditions currently in place would continue, 

including restrictions on pesticide uses, limits to the types of crops grown, no grass-crop 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. Conditions under which cooperative farming would be 

managed would be spelled out in a cooperative land management plan. 

Objective 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 

Alternatives Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Protect total managed grassland acreage 80 80 80 80 

Maintained acreage 80 80 80 80 

Enhanced acreage 80 80 80 80 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Strategy 

applies to alternatives () or is modified by 

replacing text in italics with the text in this row.

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

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. 

AprilSept. 

  
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

2-46 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Develop cooperative land management plan and 

grazing management plan. 

   

Conduct grazing fee market analysis to evaluate 

current grazing fees. 

   

Implement closure of Leavitt Tract during hunting 

seasons. See Public Use Objectives 2.1 and 2.2.  

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 national wildlife refuges if it achieves a management goal that would 

benefit wildlife. The only area on the Refuge that currently has grazing is the Leavitt Tract. The purpose 

of the grazing 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 by early October each year and to reduce the accumulation of thatch, 

which can reduce the number of shoots. Other tools to manage grasslands for the benefit of 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 and help maintain diversity (Hayes and Holl 2003). Grazing 

has also been shown to increase native annual forb species and cover, as well as 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 would continue to be allowed 

at the Leavitt Tract to benefit wintering Canada geese, but Refuge staff would 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 would 

address these concerns. The cooperative land management plan would be written after the CCP is 

complete and would 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, and constructs access roads. The grazing management plan would 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 would also identify what habitat and/or 

wildlife would be monitored to determine the benefits and/or impacts of the grazing program. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-47 

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

responsible adaptive management decisions for the Refuge’s trust resources. 

Objective 6.1. Monitoring activities 

The following is a prioritized list of monitoring activities to support resource management decisions on 

the Refuge. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

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/or animal (e.g., zebra and 

quagga mussels [Dreissena polymorpha and D. rostriformis 

bugensis) problems on the Refuge. 

   

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 would 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. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

2-48 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

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 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 would be able to make adjustments, should disturbance reach unacceptable 

levels. 

Objective 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 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

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 Refuge units. 

  

Inventory bat use on both Refuge units.   

Inventory riparian habitat structure and composition 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 would 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 6.3 Research 

The following is a prioritized list of research projects to support resource management decisions on the 

Refuge. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Conduct research to determine species-specific thresholds for 

disturbances from public use and habitat management actions 

   
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-49 

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), size, 

movements, 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 cheatgrassdominated areas, followed by native bunchgrass planting is a 

successful restoration technique (Cox and Anderson 2004). 

  

Research on 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 would help the Refuge to better accomplish the goals and 

objectives defined in this plan as well as study issues that would 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 Deer Flat NWR 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 would be able to make adjustments, should 

disturbance reach unacceptable levels. 

Objective 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. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

2-50 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

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 longterm 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 domestic livestock 

operations (as protection from cowbird parasitism and 

trespass). For isolation, consider the worst-case scenario 

(lowest anticipated 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 Refuge 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 

would 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 would 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 proposed to be collected is baseline information, such as the vegetation map and accurate 

bathymetry of the lake, and would 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 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-51 

2.5 Public Use and Cultural Resource Goals, Objectives, and 

Strategies 

2.5.1 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 1.1. Welcome and orientation 

Within two years of the plan’s approval, develop a visitor services plan to integrate welcome and 

orientation features, facilities, programs, activities, and experiences on the Refuge. Welcome and 

orientation features would: 

 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 2.3.1 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Install entrance signs at high-use visitor access points and along hightraffic 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 would 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 five years of implementation of the CCP, 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 site plan for either the Upper Dam East, Upper Dam West, or 

Lower Dam Recreation Area boat launch to provide at least one ADAaccessible boating opportunity. 

   

Construct a visitor contact station (VCS) at Lower Dam Recreation 

Area. If possible, the existing EE building would be used for the VCS. 

Continue to allow use of EE building for environmental education 

activities until building is converted to VCS. 

  

Allow access to Refuge through designated entrances only.   

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 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

2-52 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

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 would 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 and provide accurate, timely, and appropriate orientation materials and information on 

Refuge facilities, programs, activities, and experiences. These strategies would 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 would 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 would explain, when possible, the wildlife or habitat 

benefit of Refuge regulations to encourage compliance. 

The Lower Dam Recreation Area would 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 would 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 would 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 have been proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3 in response to several comments 

requesting improved and additional restroom facilities. 

Objective 1.2. On-site interpretation 

Within two 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 would 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 2.3.1 

Alternatives Objective is modified by replacing type in italics 

with text in these columns. Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Number of visitors participating annually in guided and 

unguided interpretive programs 21,000 37,700 37,700 25,400 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Strategy applies to 

alternatives () or is modified by replacing text in italics with 

the text in this row.

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Increase interpretive opportunities for visitors at high-use access 

points. For example: 

 

 Use staff and volunteers to facilitate guided/roving   
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-53 

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 community-based design effort 

involving key stakeholder groups. 

 

Within three years of CCP implementation, 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. 

2 4 4 3 

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 by external groups as 

follows: 

 Wildlife-dependent recreation groups may use the Visitor 

Center auditorium for organizational meetings with no fee. 

Other groups may use it for a $20 fee. 

 

 Only wildlife-dependent recreation groups may use the 

Visitor Center auditorium for organizational meetings. 

  

Rationale: Interpretation, when compatible, is a priority public use of the NWRS because it can foster an 

understanding of and appreciation for our natural resources. Many visitors to national wildlife refuges, 

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. In all 

alternatives, the Refuge would work with partners to provide enhanced interpretive opportunities at both 

units. 

Interpretive themes would 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 

In the Preferred Alternative, interpretation would be emphasized over EE because we would 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 would therefore be more 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

2-54 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

efficient than EE programming to increase visitor understanding of interpretive themes and to increase 

compliance with Refuge regulations. These programs would 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. In the Preferred Alternative, 

additional interpretive materials would be added and existing materials would be updated. Welcome and 

orientation/interpretive kiosks would be installed at the most-used visitor access points. Interpretive 

panels would 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) would be implemented to provide land- and water-based 

interpretive opportunities. 

To increase guided interpretive opportunities, staff-, volunteer-, or concessionaire-guided interpretive 

opportunities would 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). 

Objective 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 would emphasize opportunities for casual visitors and beginning to moderate 

birders. Wildlife observation and photography programs would be characterized by: 

 Occasional guided opportunities in otherwise-closed areas when that would allow visitors access to 

unique wildlife/habitat observation opportunities 

 Integration with interpretive program to provide visitors with opportunities to make their own 

discoveries 

 Consistency with quality criteria in Section 2.3.1 

Alternatives Objective is modified by replacing type in italics with 

text in these columns. Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Number of miles of trail available for wildlife and nature 

observation and photography 10 13 14.5 12 

Number of developed viewing facilities (e.g., platforms, and 

blinds) 3 5 5 4 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-55 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Strategy applies to 

alternatives () or is modified by replacing text in italics with the 

text in this row.

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

See Public Use Objective 1.4 for boating regulations and rationale.    

Allow walking access to Snake River Islands Unit for wildlife 

observation and photography: 

 From June 1 to January 31.  

 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 on the Snake River Islands Unit to 

prevent disturbance to waterfowl and colonial-nesting birds. 

 All Refuge islands closed February 1 to May 31.  

 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 to Lake Lowell Unit for wildlife observation 

and photography: 

 On all maintained roads and trails.  

 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. 

 

 In areas accessed through the Lower Dam Recreation Area, offtrail travel allowed April 15 to September 30. 

   

 On designated roads and trails.  

 Off-trail travel may be restricted in areas that have been 

rehabilitated (e.g., after a fire) to allow time for plants to reestablish. 

 

Implement land-based seasonal closures on the Lake Lowell Unit 

to protect important wildlife areas. See Maps 5-9. 

 Protect all active and historical grebe nesting colonies by 

establishing a 500-yard area 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 would be reopened. Upland portions of the closures would be open to use 

from October 1 to January 31. 

 

 Protect all active and historical grebe nesting colonies by  
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

2-56 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

establishing a 500-yard area not open to public use during 

boating season. If there is no nesting in a historical colony for 

three years, the closure around that colony would be reopened. 

 Establish 300-yard buffer around eagle nests from February 15 

to July 15. 

  

 Establish 150-yard seasonal closure around osprey nests from 

March 15 to August 1. 

 Establish 250-yard buffer around heron rookeries from 

February 1 to July 1. 

  

 Establish 100-yard closure 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. 

   

 Continue wildlife closure at Murphy’s Neck from October 1 to 

January 31. 

 

 Establish wildlife closure at Murphy’s Neck from October 1 to 

March 14. 

 

 Murphy’s Neck closed to entry throughout the year. 

 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. 

 

Maintain existing trails and develop new at appropriate locations to 

provide wildlife observation and photography opportunities. For 

example: 

 

 Provide 2-mile ADA-accessible interpretive elevated boardwalk 

between Parking Lots 1 and 3 with multipurpose (e.g., fishing, 

observation) docks. 

 

 Assess suitability for providing a 0.65-mile ADA-accessible 

interpretive loop trail in riparian habitat between Lower Dam 

Recreation Area and Murphy’s Neck that would include access 

to shoreline fishing. 

 

 Assess suitability for providing a 0.65-mile ADA-accessible 

interpretive loop trail in riparian habitat between Lower Dam 

Recreation Area and Murphy’s Neck that would not 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 1.5-mile self-guided or virtual geocaching on-water 

trail looping to the east from Parking Lot 1. 

 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-57 

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 multipurpose (e.g., fishing, observation) docks along 

proposed 2-mile ADA-accessible interpretive elevated 

boardwalk between Parking Lots 1 and 3. 

 

 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 ADA-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 FWS and many other natural resource agencies interested in maintaining an active 

constituency. Providing accessible observation and photography opportunities would 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 would be 

intermittent and short-term when activities are conducted according to the stipulations designated in the 

Wildlife Observation, Photography, Interpretation, and Environmental Education Compatibility 

Determination (Appendix B). Pedestrian travel would 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 would 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 would reduce impacts to wildlife while providing 

recreational opportunities in these areas when the wildlife is less vulnerable. 

To provide more observation and photography opportunities, several 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 

would not be considered in upland areas that have been restored (the Sage Fire area northwest of the 

Visitor Center and the CC Lightning 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 would be inundated by irrigation water for much of the winter, 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

2-58 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

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 would need to be elevated. Due to the 

projected cost for the 2-mile boardwalk between Parking Lots 1 and 3, it is not proposed in the Preferred 

Alternative; instead, the trail concept would be investigated further to determine if a lower-cost option is 

available. 

Objective 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 opportunities to enjoy land-based, 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 2.3.1 

* In the Preferred Alternative, areas critical to nesting birds (e.g., grebe colonies, heron rookeries, bald 

eagle nests) would be closed to public entry on a seasonal basis. These areas would be sized appropriately 

according to best available science. The area would remain closed until no nesting is observed within the 

same area the following year. 

Alternatives Objective is modified by replacing type in italics with 

text in these columns. Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Number of acres available for boating on Lake Lowell 9,000 Varies 5,800 5,400 

Number of acres available for wake-causing activities on Lake 

Lowell 7,300 Varies 3,212 0 

Number of designated swim beaches 1 2 1 0 

Number of miles of trail available for walking on-leash pets, and 

riding horses 10.5 8.75 0 0 

Number of miles of trail available for bicycling 10.5 8.75 0.75 0 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Nonwildlife-dependent motorized and nonmotorized boating would 

be allowed on Lake Lowell under all alternatives. No-wake zones, 

seasonal lake closures, and area closures would be applied to protect 

wildlife and reduce conflicts with wildlife-dependent recreational 

activities. See Maps 5-9 for details related to each alternative. 

 

 Allow boating from April 15 to September 30 during daylight 

hours. Provide a no-wake zone east from the line between 

Parking Lot 1 and the shore to the northeast. 

 

 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 

 

 Open East and West Pools of lake to no-wake boating from 

April 15 to September 20. Allow wake boating in West Pool 

from noon to sunset. Close area east from the line between 

Parking Lot 1 and the shore to the northeast. 

 

 Allow no-wake boating from April 15 to September 30 during 

daylight hours. Close area east from the line between Parking 

Lot 1 and the shore to the northeast. 


Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-59 

 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 Maps 5-9. 

 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. 

 

 Establish no-wake area in the Narrows between the east and 

west pools. 

  

 Prohibit human activity in emergent plant beds from Parking 

Lots 3 through 8 during boating season. 

 Protect emergent plant beds on south side of West Pool with a 

200-yard no-wake buffer. 

 Prohibit human activity in emergent beds at Murphy’s Neck all 

year. 

 

 Prohibit human activity in emergent plant beds during boating 

season. 



 Protect all active and historical grebe nesting colonies by 

establishing a 500-yard area 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 

would be reopened. Upland portions of the closures would be 

open to use from October 1 through January 31. 

 

 Protect all active and historical grebe nesting colonies by 

establishing a 500-yard area not open to public use (Berg et al. 

2004) during boating season. If there is no nesting in a 

historical colony for three years, the closure around that colony 

would be reopened. 

 

To protect sensitive nesting habitat, institute appropriate seasonal 

closures. See Maps 5-9. 

 300-yard seasonal closure around eagle nests (Anthony et al. 

1995) from February 15 to July 15. 

  

 150-yard seasonal closure around osprey nests from March 15 

to August 1. 

  

 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 

appropriate seasonal closures. See Maps 5-9. 

 100-yard seasonal closure around sensitive shorebird areas 

(Rodgers and Smith 1997) from July 15 to September 30 when 

water level elevation falls below 2,522 feet. 

 

 100-yard area along the shoreline from Murphy’s Neck to the 

Narrows not open to human activity from July 15 to the end of 

boating season. Open April 15 to July 14. 

 

 100-yard area along the shoreline from Murphy’s Neck to the 

Narrows not open to human activity. 



Allow tow-behind activities (e.g., waterskiing, wakeboarding) in 

areas open to wake activities. 

  
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

2-60 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Prohibit boaters from anchoring or pulling onto land adjacent to 

closed areas. 

  

To minimize disturbance to shoreline vegetation and on-water 

nesting species, prohibit internal or external wake-generating 

devices (e.g., ballasts and hydrofoils) on motorized boats. 

  

To reduce the likelihood of introducing invasive species, prohibit the 

use of internal or external ballasts. 

  

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. 

  

 The Lower Dam Recreation Area and limit use to wakeallowed areas. 

Allow swimming as follows: 

 From April 15 to September 30 from any open shoreline, with 

designated swim beach at East Upper Dam boat launch. From 

boats in open water outside of no-wake zones. 

 

 From April 15 to September 30 at designated swim beaches at 

East Upper Dam boat launch and at Lower Dam Recreation 

Area in a small buoyed area closed to boating and monitored 

for water quality effects to human health. 

 

 From April 15 to September 30 at Lower Dam Recreation Area 

in a small buoyed area closed to boating and monitored for 

water quality effects to human health. 

 

To protect important wildlife areas, implement land-based seasonal 

closures surrounding important wildlife areas. See Public Use 

Objective 1.3. 

  

Allow horseback riding access to Lake Lowell Unit for wildlife 

observation and photography as follows: 

 On all maintained roads and trails.  

 On designatedmulti-use trails (see Map 7).  

Require groups of more than four horses and riders required to 

obtain a SUP. Prohibit groups larger than 10 people. 

 

Allow walking with on-leash pets as follows: 

 On all maintained roads and trails, with no requirement for 

removal of pet feces. 

 

 On designated multiuse trails (see Map 7), with 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 as follows: 

 On all maintained roads and trails.  

 On designated multi-use trails.  

 On proposed trail adjacent to the entrance road  

Require groups of more than four joggers or bicyclists to obtain a 

SUP. Prohibit groups larger than 10 people. 

 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-61 

Allow picnicking as follows: 

 In any open area.  

 In designated areas at the east end of the Upper Dam and at the 

Lower Dam Recreation Area. 

  

Allow only nonalcoholic beverages on the Refuge.  

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 Recreational Boating Compatibility Determination in 

Appendix B). To reduce impacts of boating activity on wildlife and habitat, seasonal closures or no-wake 

zones would be implemented around important wildlife areas, such as eagle nests, grebe colonies, osprey 

nests, heron rookeries, and shorebird feeding areas. Although most literature recommends from 400 to 

1,500-yard disturbance buffers for osprey, 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. Osprey 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 would 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, would provide adequate habitat for 

migratory birds. 

In the Preferred Alternative, the West Pool and western portion of the East Pool would continue to allow 

wake boating activities and be managed for a safe, multiuse experience. The east end of the East Pool 

would be managed for wildlife-dependent 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 to other users. 

Boating capacity decisions would be made with the Canyon County Marine Patrol and other boating 

management experts. These decisions would 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, 

we would 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 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 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. 

Although there have been several drowning-related incidents (mostly near-drownings, but there was one 

swimming fatality in Fiscal Year 2011) at Lake Lowell in the past few years, the Refuge is hopeful that 

limiting shoreline access for swimming to designated areas that are easily accessible to rescue personnel 

would help to minimize safety issues. There would be no lifeguards stationed at the swimming areas. If 

swimming is managed according to the stipulations in the Swimming, Beach Use, and Picnicking 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

2-62 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

(including Lower Dam Recreation Area) Compatibility Determination (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 of these people, swimming and beach use at Lake Lowell may provide an introduction to a 

national wildlife refuge.

There is currently a human health and safety concern related to swimmers in Lake Lowell. During certain 

conditions, there are blue-green algae blooms, swimmer’s itch is reported, and fecal coliform levels 

exceed State health standards. The Refuge would work with IDEQ and Southwest District Health (SDH) 

to monitor water quality and, if necessary, close the swimming beach. When testing at the swimming 

beach indicates health concerns, testing would also be conducted at other sites around the lake, and the 

Refuge would work with IDEQ and SDH to institute warnings and closures about water contact at other 

locations. 

Upland nonwildlife-dependent uses: In the Preferred Alternative, visitors would be allowed to walk 

with their pets in accordance with the stipulations in the Walking with Pets Compatibility Determination 

(see Appendix B), including restricting leashed pets to designated trails and requiring removal of waste. 

Keeping pets on designated trails would 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 would increase predictability of public use patterns on 

the Refuge, allowing wildlife to habituate to nonthreatening activities (see Horseback Riding, Jogging and 

Bicycling Compatibility Determination, Appendix B). Groups of more than four horses and riders would 

be required to obtain an SUP. Groups larger than 10 people would not be allowed to use the Refuge 

because large groups may restrict use for other wildlife-dependent users because of limited space both on 

trails and in parking lots. 

To reduce impacts to visitors engaging in wildlife-dependent activities, especially those involved in EE 

and interpretive programs, pets, horses, and bikes would not be allowed on the Nature, Centennial, 

Murphy’s Neck, or Boardwalk Trails (for more information on trails, see Chapter 5) in the Preferred 

Alternative. 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 would be allowed only on the entrance road, the 

East Dike, Kingfisher, and Gotts Point Trails, and the Observation Hill Trail System. Off -leash dogs have 

been reported in the act of fighting in public use areas. Off-leash pets increase the potential for injury to 

visitors through biting incidents or trampling of children. In an attempt to address scoping comments that 

took issue with pet feces on trails, visitors walking pets would be required to pick up their pet’s feces 

under the Preferred Alternative. 

Allowing visiting with pets, horseback riding, jogging, and bicycling provides opportunities to reach out 

to nontraditional Refuge user groups to encourage them to observe wildlife and to learn about the 

National Wildlife 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. 

In the Preferred Alternative, picnicking would be allowed only in designated areas at the east end of the 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-63 

Upper Dam and at the Lower Dam Recreation Area to reduce the potential for conflict with wildlifedependent activities (e.g., fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography). 

2.5.2 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 2.1. 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 

would include youth hunting opportunities and opportunities for hunters with disabilities. Hunts would 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 

 ADA compliance 

 Consistency with quality criteria in Section 2.3.1 

Alternatives Objective is modified by replacing type in italics with 

text in these columns. Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Number of acres available for waterfowl hunting on the Lake Lowell 

Unit 2,250 2,250 1,300 1,800 

Number of acres available for waterfowl hunting on the Snake River 

Islands Unit 1,219 1,219 1,219 1,219 

Number of waterfowl hunter visits per season 5,000 5,000 2,900 4,000 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Allow waterfowl hunting allowed on all islands in the Snake River 

Islands Unit. 

   

Allow waterfowl hunting at the Lake Lowell Unit (see Maps 4, 5, 8, 

and 9) 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.

  

 Waterfowl hunting allowed between Parking Lots 3 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.

 

Prohibit waterfowl hunting on foot from the ice on the Lake Lowell 

Unit. 

  

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   
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

2-64 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

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 that dogs be 

leashed unless actively hunting and remain under strict voice control 

at all times. 

   

Provide youth waterfowl hunt in accordance with IDFG regulations 

at designated area. Allow hunting from an electric- or humanpowered boat within 200 yards of the shoreline of hunt zones on the 

south side of the lake. 

 

 Youth hunt within all designated waterfowl hunt zones.  

 Youth hunt east of Parking Lot 1. Walk-in access or humanpowered boats only within 200 yards of the water’s edge. 

 

Establish a controlled hunting opportunity (e.g., sign-in/out at 

parking areas or lottery). 

Evaluate whether to charge a hunt fee and/or institute a more 

structured hunt opportunity. 

 

Provide ADA-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 per hunter on Lake Lowell 

Unit. 

  

Rationale: Hunting, when compatible, is identified as one of the priority recreational uses of the NWRS. 

Waterfowl hunting would therefore continue to be allowed in the Preferred Alternative. 

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 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 would be posted at Refuge access 

points to notify Refuge users when a hunt is underway. 

To encourage young hunters, access for the IDFG annual Youth Waterfowl Hunt would be provided east 

of Parking Lot 1 in the Preferred Alternative to provide a higher-quality hunt in an area used by higher 

concentrations of ducks. 

In the Preferred Alternative, Refuge staff would evaluate whether to charge a fee and/or institute a more 

structured hunt opportunity to address complaints about limited access due to all-day hunters and a “good 

old boys’ club” in which some hunters new to the area feel pressured to hunt elsewhere. We considered 

but rejected the possibility of a controlled hunt with blinds because it would require too much 

management, due to the fluctuating water levels at Lake Lowell. 

There would be a 25-shot limit 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 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-65 

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 2.2. Hunting upland game birds 

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 would include opportunities for disabled hunters. The hunt would 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 

 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 2.3.1 

Alternatives Objective is modified by replacing type in italics with 

text in these columns. Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Number of acres available for upland game hunting on the Lake 

Lowell Unit 2,250 2,250 400 0 

Number of acres available for upland game hunting on the Snake 

River Islands Unit 1,219 1,219 1,219 1,219 

Number of upland hunter visits per season 1,100 1,100 510 390 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Allow upland game hunting on the Snake River Islands Unit.    

Allow upland bird hunting at the Lake Lowell Unit as follows: 

 From the east boundary of the Leavitt Tract west to the 

Greenhurst Road entrance at Gotts Point and between Parking 

Lots 1 and 8. 

 

 From the west boundary of the Leavitt Tract west to the 

Greenhurst Road entrance at Gotts Point. Hunting not allowed 

within the emergent vegetation beds. 



During upland hunting season: 

 Allow public use activities in all upland hunting areas.  

 Allow wildlife-dependent 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 that dogs be leashed 

unless actively hunting and remain under strict voice control at all 

times. 

   

Evaluate whether to implement restricted hunting hours to reduce 

conflicts with waterfowl hunters. 

 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

2-66 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Rationale: Hunting, when compatible, is identified as one of the priority recreational uses of the NWRS. 

Upland hunting would therefore 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 would not be supplemented, and no habitat management would be performed solely for the 

benefit of these species. 

To improve safety and minimize conflict with other priority uses, signs would be posted at Refuge access 

points to notify Refuge users when a hunt is underway. 

Refuge staff would 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 2.3. 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 would 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 2.3.1 

*See Section 2.3.1 for Deer Hunting at Lake Lowell Unit 

Alternatives Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Number of acres available for deer hunting on the Snake River 

Islands Unit 1,219 1,219 1,219 1,219 

Number of deer hunter visits per season 75 75 75 75 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

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 would therefore continue to be provided at the Snake River Islands Unit in all action 

alternatives. Lead buckshot is prohibited to reduce consumption of lead shot by target and nontarget 

species. 

2.5.3 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 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 would include youth event(s) and opportunities 

for disabled anglers. The fishing opportunity would be characterized by: 

 Close cooperation and coordination with IDFG and ODFW for management of fishing opportunities 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-67 

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 

 ADA-compliant accessibility

 Consistency with quality criteria in Section 2.3.1 

* In the Preferred Alternative, areas critical to nesting birds (e.g., grebe colonies, heron rookeries, bald 

eagle nests) would be closed to public entry on a seasonal basis. These areas would be sized appropriately 

according to best available science. The area would remain closed until no nesting is observed within the 

same area the following year. 

Alternatives Objective is modified by replacing type in italics 

with text in these columns. Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Number of acres available for fishing on the Lake Lowell Unit 9,000 Varies 5,800 5,400 

Number of miles of shoreline available for fishing on the Snake 

River Islands Unit 66 66 66 66 

Number of angler visits per season 45,300 45,300 21,700 11,900 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

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 May 31.  

 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). 

4-6 4-6 4-6 

Apply boating regulations and facilities described in Public Use 

Objective 1.4 for Lake Lowell Unit to float tubes used for fishing. 

   

Allow wading access to fishing 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: 

 From any open shoreline except during waterfowl hunting 

season. During waterfowl hunting season in Fishing Areas A 

and B. 

 

 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.


Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

2-68 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

 In areas accessed through the Lower Dam Recreation Area, 

off-trail travel allowed April 15 to September 30. 

   

 From designated trails and docks except during waterfowl 

hunting season. 

 

 During waterfowl hunting season in Fishing Areas A and B, 

on the Lower Dam Recreation Area multipurpose dock, and 

from docks on trail between Parking Lots 1 and 3. 

 

 During waterfowl hunting season in Fishing Areas A and B. 

 Implement seasonal closures surrounding important wildlife 

areas (e.g., eagle nests, grebe colonies, osprey nests, heron 

rookeries, and shorebird feeding and resting areas). See Public

Use Objective 1.3. 

  

Implement land-based seasonal closures on the Lake Lowell Unit 

to protect important wildlife areas. See Maps 5 through 9. 

 Protect all active and historical grebe nesting colonies by 

establishing a 500-yard area 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 would be 

reopened. Upland portions of the closures would be open to 

use from October 1 to January 31. 

 

 Protect all active and historical grebe nesting colonies by 

establishing a 500-yard area not open to public use during 

boating season. If there is no nesting in a historical colony for 

three years, the closure around that colony would be 

reopened. 

  

 Establish a 300-yard buffer around eagle nests from February 

15 to July 15. 

  

 Establish a 150-yard seasonal closure around osprey nests 

from March 15 to August 1. 

 Establish a 250-yard buffer around heron rookeries from 

February 1 to July 1. 

  

 Establish a 100-yard closure 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. 

   

 Continue wildlife closure at Murphy’s Neck from October 1 

to January 31. 

 

 Establish wildlife closure at Murphy’s Neck from October 1 

to March 14. 

 

 Murphy’s Neck closed to entry throughout year. 

 Continue wildlife closure at Lower Dam Recreation Area 

from October 1 to April 14. 

   

Provide access at Gotts Point as follows: 

 Open Gotts Point to vehicle access up to the first lakeshore 

parking area. 

 

 Fully open Gotts Point to vehicle access upon completion of 

memorandum of understanding (MOU) or cooperative 

agreement with Canyon County to resolve law-enforcement 

issues. 

 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-69 

 Provide ADA-accessible trail from Gotts Point parking area 1 

to parking area 2 and then to the water. 



 Provide designated fishing ADA-accessible trails from 

parking areas at Gotts Point. 

  

 Provide ADA-accessible dock at Gotts Point.   

Access to Murphy’s Neck for fishing may be moved to the 

Murphy’s Neck trail if a trail is installed (see Public Use 

Objective 1.3). 

 

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 ADA-accessible interpretive loop trail in 

riparian habitat between Lower Dam Recreation Area and 

Murphy’s Neck if that trail is installed. 

 

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. 

 

 Along a proposed 2-mile, ADA-accessible interpretive 

elevated boardwalk between Parking Lots 1 and 3. 



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. 

  

 From July 1 to end of boating season. All no-wake zones, area 

closures, and State fishing regulations must be followed 

(including catch and release). Bass tournaments only allowed 

every other weekend (to provide opportunities for 

nontournament anglers). All bass tournaments must launch 

from the west Upper Dam boat launch. Fee to be adjusted to 

reflect cost recovery needs, with 30-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 

   
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

2-70 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

fish species would 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 

would therefore continue to be provided at the Snake River Islands and Lake Lowell Units in the 

Preferred Alternative. 

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. According to a survey conducted by IDFG, most Idaho anglers fish 

from the bank (IDFG 2007), so additional trails and docks would be provided to facilitate shoreline access 

and fishing. Improved facilities would mitigate negative impacts associated with concentrated shoreline 

fishing. These facilities would 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 would be provided at 

major fishing access points. 

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 ADA-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. In the Preferred Alternative, the road to Gotts Point would be reopened upon 

completion of an MOU with Canyon County to formalize agreements about law enforcement and 

maintenance. 

Refuge staff would monitor angling activities on Deer Flat NWR and apply adaptive management as 

issues arise. Monitoring efforts would be a part of an overall fisheries management plan that would help 

guide fisheries management into the future. 

2.5.4 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 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 would be emphasized over off-site programs. As a result of 

participating in Refuge EE programs, students would show an 80 percent increase in understanding about 

the topic presented, as measured by pre- to post-tests. EE programs would 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 

 Positive teacher feedback 

 Consistency with quality criteria in Section 2.3.1 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-71 

Alternatives Objective is modified by replacing type in italics with 

text in these columns. Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Number of students participating annually in on- and off-site 

programs 11,000 9,400 9,400 11,000 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

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 teacherled 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 

would 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 programming that is better suited to other educational venues or 

that is 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). 

  

Rent Environmental Education Building to groups for EE activities 

with camping allowed. (Note: EE building would be available for 

EE activities until remodeled into or replaced with a Visitor 

Contact Station in Alternatives 2 through 4; see Public Use 

Objective 1.1). 

 

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 would therefore continue to be provided 

in the Preferred Alternative. However, under Alternative 2, we expect a wider range of user groups, and 

interpretation has greater flexibility than EE to reach broader audiences. Therefore, interpretation would 

be emphasized over EE in the Preferred Alternative (and Alternative 3). 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 would 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 that is better suited to other 

educational venues or that is delivered at other local educational sites would be eliminated. Restructuring 

of Refuge EE programs would consider the Proposed Idaho Environmental Literacy Plan (Fletcher 2011). 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

2-72 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

EE themes would 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. Possible 

themes would 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 would 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 would be top priority because these areas are closer to the Lake Lowell Unit where 

staff members are stationed. Requests from Ada, Payette, and Washington Counties in Idaho and Malheur 

County in Oregon would be second priority. Although the Snake River Islands Unit falls within Payette, 

Washington, and Malheur Counties, the distance from Refuge Headquarters makes it less feasible to 

respond to as many of these requests. Given that the Refuge does not fall within Ada County and there are 

many other EE opportunities and resources based in Ada County, requests from Ada County would not be 

top priority. 

We would 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 the training, become comfortable with the 

educational materials, and become familiar with the Refuge, we anticipate slowly but gradually moving 

toward 75 percent of on-site programs being led by teachers over the life of the CCP. 

EE study sites would be constructed under Alternatives 2 through 4. These structures would provide 

covered areas to gather students 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. 

2.5.5 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 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 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

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   
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-73 

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 creating a sense of 

community pride in the Refuge would 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, we would partner with others who can enforce Refuge regulations. We would use positively 

worded signs and explain the rationale behind regulations in brochures, signs, and interpretive talks. 

Finally, we would install infrastructure that would help to reduce illegal activities (e.g., lights and 

automatic gates). 

Many comments were provided during the scoping period about visitors not following regulations, so the 

Refuge would 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. 

2.5.6 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 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 Strategy applies to 

alternatives () or is modified by replacing text in italics with the text 

in this row.

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Offer at least 5 volunteer orientation, refresher, and training sessions 

annually. 3+ 5 5 5 

Hold at least 2 volunteer appreciation events annually. 1 2 2 1 

Hold at least at least 3 community work days annually. 2 3 3 2 

Maintain at least 8 trained EE volunteers annually. 5 8 8 10 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

2-74 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

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 these 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 an 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 

would provide major benefits to both habitat management and public use programs. Increasing 

participation of local residents in even one-time activities would increase awareness of and support for the 

Refuge and its programs. 

Objective 6.2. Partners and Friends 

Maintain and enhance at least one partnership within each of the following themes to increase partner 

knowledge of the Refuge’s purpose and leverage resources to increase the effectiveness of the Refuge’s 

programs. Partnership themes consist of: 

 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 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Work with Friends Group board on board development, member 

recruitment, and member involvement. 

   

Work with partners to facilitate EE and interpretive opportunities such 

as: 

 Partner with Caldwell, Nampa, and Vallivue School Districts to 

develop educational programming for multiple disciplines and 

grade levels to maximize the Refuge as an educational resource. 

  

 Conduct outreach to colleges that identifies possible use of the 

Refuge as a research, field lab, or service learning opportunity. 

  

 Partner with Caldwell YMCA to create programs for a proposed 

day camp. 

  

 Work with 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 develop 

programs 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. 

  
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-75 

 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 hunting 

opportunities such as working with local County and City 

Developmental Services Departments to create hunting safety zones 

around designated hunt areas. 

  

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 events to encourage participation in 

fishing by youth (e.g., Kids’ Fishing Day). 

   

 Work with partners to provide events to encourage participation in 

fishing 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 other partners to develop and implement 

methods to reduce carp biomass in Lake Lowell. 

   

 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. 

2.5.7 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. 

Objective 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 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Develop systematic cultural resource inventory and monitoring plan 

consistent with Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

  
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

2-76 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

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. 

Objective 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 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

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. 
!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 

P1 Tract

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

Rim Road

Midland Blvd

Fishing Area A

Fishing Area B

Narrows

Low Line Canal

New

York

Canal

¬«45

¬«55

¬«55

¥84

Wake 4/15 - 9/30

Wake 4/15 - 9/30

No Wake

4/15 - 9/30

Lower

Dam 

Tio Lane

0 0.5 1 2

M iles

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

MAP 4 - ALTERNATIVE 1

(Status Quo)

 U.S. Fish & W ildlife Service

Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge - Lake Lowell Unit

Canyon County, Idaho

Existing Entrance Road

Multiuse Trail

Refuge Boundary

Fishing Areas A & B

Open During Hunt Season

Waterfowl Hunt Area

Upland Hunt Area

Wildlife Habitat and/or Administration Area

Closed All Year - Except as noted for hunting

No-Wake Zone

Wake Zone

Wintering/Migration Closures:

Lower Dam - 10/1 - 4/14 Gotts Point 10/1 - 1/31 Murphy's Neck - 10/1 - 1/31

Eagle Nesting/Perching Area Closed 2/15 - 7/15

Other Refuge Land

PRODUCED IN T HE DIVISIO N OF REA LT Y & REFUG E INF ORM ATIO N

PORT LAND, OREG O N

MAP DAT E: 05/14/2012

MERIDIA N: BO ISE

FILE: 11-069-1-ALT1_11x17.M XD

UT M ZO NE 11

NA D 83
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impac

2-78 

Document continues on next page. 
\"

\"

!D

?"

!D

!D

!° !r

!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

Rim Road

Midland Blvd

Fishing Area A

Fishing Area B

Narrows

Low

Line Canal

New

York

Canal

Canal

¬«45

¬«55

¬«55

¥84

Wake 4/15 - 9/30

Wake 4/15 - 9/30

No Wake

4/15 - 9/30

Lower

Dam

Tio Lane 

 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service MAP 5 - ALTERNATIVE 2

(Preferred) Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge - Lake Lowell Unit 

Canyon County, Idaho

0 0.5 1 2

M iles

Existing Entrance Road

Multiuse Trail

Walking Trail

Proposed Road (Gotts Point)

Proposed Multiuse Trail

Proposed Walking Trail

Refuge Boundary

Fishing Areas A & B

Open During Hunt Season

Youth Waterfowl Hunt Area

Waterfowl Hunt Area

Upland Hunt Area

Wildlife Habitat and/or Administration Area

Closed 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 Closed 2/15 - 7/15

Osprey Nesting Area Closed 3/15 - 8/1

Heron Rookery Seasonal Closure (2/1 - 7/1)

Grebe Colony Closure (500yd 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 2 /2 0 1 2

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 .M X D

U T M Z O N E 1 1

N A D 8 3
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impac

2-80 

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

55

¬«

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 /1 4 /2 0 1 2

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 .M X D

U T M Z O N E 1 1

N A D 8 3

Existing Entrance Road

Multiuse Trail

Walking Trail

Proposed Road (Gotts Point)

Proposed Multiuse

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
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

2-82 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Document continues on next page. 
298765431232

 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service MAP 7 - ALTERNATIVE 2 - 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 /1 8 /2 0 1 2

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 .M X D

U T M Z O N E 1 1

N A D 8 3

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

!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

Multiuse Trail

Walking Trail

Proposed Multiuse Trail

Proposed Walking Trail

Proposed Road (Gotts Point)

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
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impac

2-84 

Document continues on next page. 
\"

\"

!D

!D

?"

!D

!D

!°

!r

!y !j

d[

!j

!j

d[

!y!j

["

@" !y

["

["

!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

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

New

York

Canal

Canal

¬«45

¬«55

¬«55

¥84

Noon - Sunset

Wake

No Wake

4/15 - 9/20

4/15 - 9/20

Tio Lane

Lower

Dam

 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service MAP 8 - ALTERNATIVE 3

Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge - Lake Lowell Unit 

Canyon County, Idaho

0 0.5 1 2

M iles

Current Use

@" Refuge Visitor Center

!y Improved Boat Ramp

d[ Unimproved Boat Ramp

!D Dock

!j Parking Area

[" Wildlife Viewing Platform/Blind

Proposed Facilities

!° Nature Play Area

!r Designated Swimming Area

!D Dock

\" Observation/Photo Blind

?" Visitor Contact Station

Existing Entrance Road

WalkingTrail

Proposed Walking Trail

Proposed Multiuse Trail

Proposed Road (Gotts Point)

Refuge Boundary

Fishing Areas A & B

Open During Hunt Season

Waterfowl Hunt Area

Upland Hunt Area

Wildlife Habitat and/or Administration Area

Closed All Year - Except as noted for hunting

No-Wake Zone (<5mph)

Wake Zone

Shorebird Closure 7/15 - 9/20

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 Closed 2/15 - 7/15

Other Refuge Land

PRODUCED IN T HE DIVISION O F REALTY & REFUG E INFO RM ATIO N

PORT LAND, OREG O N

MAP DATE : 05/17/2012

MERIDIAN: BO IS E

FILE: 11-069-3-ALT3_11x17.MX D

UT M ZO NE 11

NA D 83
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impac

2-86 

Document continues on next page. 
!D

\"

?" !D

!D

!y !j

d[

!j

!j

d[

!y!j

["

@" !y

["

["

!D

!D

!j

!j

!D

!j

Greenhurst Rd

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

Lowell RdMalt Road

South Indiana

Lake Avenue

Midway Road

Walker Lake

Farner Road

Lake Shore Drive

Lake Shore Drive

Lake Shore Drive

Rim Road

Midland Blvd

Fishing Area A

Fishing Area B

Narrows

Low Line Canal

New York

Canal

¬«45

¬«55

¬«55

¥84

No-Wake

No-Wake

4/15 - 9/30

4/15 - 9/30

Lower Dam 

Recreation Area

Upper Dam 

Tio Lane

Lower

Dam

Current Use

@" Refuge Visitor Center

!y Improved Boat Ramp

d[ Unimproved Boat Ramp

!D Dock

!j Parking Area

[" Wildlife Viewing Platform/Blind

Proposed Facilities

!D Dock

\" Photo Blind

?" Visitor Contact Station

 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service MAP 9 - ALTERNATIVE 4

Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge - Lake Lowell Unit 

Canyon County, Idaho

0 0.5 1 2

M iles

Exsiting Entrance Road

Walking Trail

Proposed Walking Trail

Refuge Boundary

Fishing Areas A & B

Open During Hunt Season

Youth Waterfowl Hunt Area

Waterfowl Hunt Area

Wildlife Habitat & Administration Area

Closed All Year - Except as noted for hunting

No-Wake Zone (<5mph)

Wintering/Migration Closures:

Lower Dam - 10/1 - 4/14 Gotts Point 10/1 - 1/31 Murphys Neck 10/1 - 3/14

Eagle Nesting/Perching Area Closed 2/15 - 7/15

Other Refuge Land

P R O D U C E D IN TH E D I V I S IO N O F R E A L T Y & R E F U G E I N FO R M A T IO N

P O R TL A N D , O R E G O N

M A P D A TE : 0 5 / 1 7 /2 0 1 2

M E R I D IA N : B O IS E

FI L E : 1 1 -0 6 9 -4 -A L T 4 _ 1 1 x1 7 .M X D

U TM Z O N E 1 1

N A D 8 3
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impac

2-88 

Document continues on next page. 
Darkling beetle 

©Mike Shipman Chapter 3 Physical Environment

Chapter 5HumanEnvironment

Chapter 4BiologicalEnvironment

Chapter 3PhysicalEnvironment

Chapter 2Alternatives, Goals,Objectives, and Strategies

Chapter 1Introduction andBackground

Chapter 6EnvironmentalConsequences

Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-1 

Chapter 3 Physical Environment 

This chapter describes the existing conditions of the physical environment in the Deer Flat NWR 

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. Although Deer Flat NWR 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 (Western Regional Climate Center 

[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. It 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 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

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
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

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 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

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 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

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 

Global Top 10 Warmest Years 

(January-December) 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 

Source: NCDC (2010). 

The instrumental record refers to the period with 

recorded temperatures. Anomalies are differences 

from the mean. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

3-6 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

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 

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). Data recorded each April 1 show that snowpacks have declined 25 percent over the past 

40 to 70 years (Mote et al. 2005). 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. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-7 

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. 

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). 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

3-8 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

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. 

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 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-9 

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. 

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 (see Figure 3-7). The projected trends 

are very small relative to the interannual variability in precipitation. Seasonally, precipitation is 

projected by Mote and Salathé (2009, 2010) to decrease in the summer and increase in the 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, 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

3-10 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

drought stress, and forest fire frequency. Salathé et al. (2010) project 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 

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 

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 be likely be a tendency for higher 

winter flows and possible increased risk of flooding, 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 whose hydrologies are largely determined by snowpack runoff and/or 

groundwater input. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-11 

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 

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. 

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. Lake Lowell 

inlets and outlets are shown in Figure 3-8. Table 3-5 describes the average annual outflows from the 

lake. 

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). 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

3-12 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

Figure 3-8. Lake Lowell Inlets and Outlets 

Source: IDEQ (2010). 

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). 

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 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-13 

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. 

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 10 shows average low and average high 

water levels at Lake Lowell. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

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. 
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 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

3-16 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

Document continues on next page. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

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 

Source: IDWR (2011). 

cfs: cubic feet per second. 

afa: acre-feet per annum. 

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 107,510 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 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

3-18 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

portion of the river that contains the Snake River Islands Unit forms the border between Idaho and 

Oregon. 

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 gage and the Weiser gage. 

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 

Source: USGS (2011). 

cfs: cubic feet per second. 

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 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-19 

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). 

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 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

3-20 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

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 

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 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-21 

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). 

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 11). 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 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

3-22 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

Document continues on next page. 
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 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

3-24 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

Document continues on next page.
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-25 

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, cheatgrass, 

and shadescale 

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, 

cheatgrass, 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 

Cheatgrass, 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 

Cheatgrass, medusahead 

wildrye, and annual weeds 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

3-26 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

Soil Series Typical Root Zone Soil 

Profile of Soil Series Soil Formation Typical Native Vegetation 

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). 

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). Vegetation occurring on islands in the Refuge differs from the soil survey’s 

characterization of vegetation found on Riverwash soils. Islands on the Refuge contain trees and 

thick stands of vegetation in many areas, and there are also islands on which vegetation has been 

altered due to 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 riparian vegetation of islands 

was 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 documented 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 islands in the Snake River Islands Unit were 

mapped for soil types in the 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. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-27 

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).

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

3-28 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

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 Resources. 

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 vision of this program 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). Refuge 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 NWR 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 

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

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-29 

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 

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. 

USFWS has not classified the viewsheds of the Refuge, 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 Deer 

Flat NWR units based on the BLM Visual Resource Management (VRM) classification system 

(classes 1 through 4). VRM is classified based on measures of scenic quality, sensitivity levels, and 

distance zones. Scenic quality is a measure of visual appeal, visual sensitivity is a measure of public 

concern for scenic quality, and 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 the areas with the most alteration or disturbance in the viewshed. For example, 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

3-30 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

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 area surrounding the Refuge. In contrast 

to the surrounding area, 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 humanmade structures including the 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). 

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 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-31 

(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. 

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

3-32 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

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. 

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 once the TMDL Implementation Plan is released (release is anticipated in summer 

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 2008 Integrated (303[d]/305[b]) Report’s list of waters impaired 

by nonpollutants (IDEQ 2009), which indicates the lake is listed for “nutrient suspected impairment” 

and “low dissolved oxygen due to suspected organic enrichment” (IDEQ 2009). 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 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-33 

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). 

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 self-propagating 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. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

3-34 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

Idaho Surface Water Use 

Designations 

Description Lake 

Lowell 

Designated 

Beneficial 

Uses 

Impaired 

Designated 

Beneficial 

Use 

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 

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 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-35 

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 portion of the river containing the Refuge islands. TMDL 

implementation and management in this portion of the state is a joint effort between the States of 

Idaho and Oregon. 

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 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

3-36 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

Segment (from upstream to 

downstream) 

State 303(d) Listed Pollutants State-designated Beneficial Uses 

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). 

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 current 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 current 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) 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-37 

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 would surround a larger 

core area of low-density 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 

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

3-38 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

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 

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 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-39 

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 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

3-40 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 2Alternatives, Goals,Objectives, and Strategies

Chapter 1Introduction andBackground

Chapter 6EnvironmentalConsequences

Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

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. 2004a). 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 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

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 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

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

4-4 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

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

Source: Quigley et al. (1996). 

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 

nonfunctioning floodplain, loss in perennial species diversity, grazing disturbance and resulting 

encroachment of invasive species, and altered fire regime. 

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 also appear to have declined 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-5 

from the pre-dam to early post-dam period, with the four highest annual peak flows all occurring in 

the first 8 years of record (1914, 1917, 1919, and 1921) prior to the completion of the American Falls 

Reservoir in 1927 (Brennan et al. 1996). 

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

4-6 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

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 

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. 

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

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-7 

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 

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

Source: Quigley et al. (1996). 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

4-8 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

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. 

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 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-9 

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. 

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 Lowell 

Western grebe Pied-billed grebe, Clark’s grebe, eared grebe, canvasback, American 

coot 

Canada goose Tundra swan, double-crested cormorant, Caspian tern, black tern, 

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, semipalmated 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, 

Western grebe Caspian 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, 

long-billed 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, yellowbreasted 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, red-tailed hawk, coyote, montane vole, mule deer, red fox, 

mountain cottontail 

Mallard 

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

4-10 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

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 12 shows habitats at the Lake 

Lowell Unit, and Map 13 shows 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 

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 the 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 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-11 

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). 

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 12 

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

4-12 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

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. 

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

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-13 

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 (see 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 

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

4-14 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

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 to increases 

in open-water habitat due to water development projects, open-water habitat has likely increased in 

the vicinity of Boise due to the numerous former gravel pits that are filled with water (JankovskyJones 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. 

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 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-15 

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 

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

4-16 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

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 forest benefits 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. 2004a) 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. 2004a). Cowbird parasitism was also identified as a factor affecting nesting success of 

landbirds on islands (USFWS 2008). 

4.3.4.4 Refuge Management Activities 

The Refuge manages riparian forests for migratory landbirds and other riparian-dependent species 

including mammals and herptiles. 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 been undertaken 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. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-17 

4.3.5 Shrub-steppe: Lake Lowell and Snake River Islands 

4.3.5.1 Overview 

The Refuge contains approximately 830 acres of shrub-steppe habitat on the Lake Lowell Unit 

(USFWS 2008). 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 of shrub-steppe habitat (USFWS 

2008). 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., 

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 lands managed by the BLM (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 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

4-18 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

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, the BLM (Pellant et al. 2004). 

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

Source: Knick et al. (2003). 

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

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-19 

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 

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. 

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 4-1, approximately 15 percent, or 1,298,189 acres, of the Middle Snake River 

Subbasin is used for agricultural purposes (Ecovista and IDFG 2004). Agriculture 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). 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

4-20 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

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 

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 

and Zambrano et al. 2001 as cited in IDFG 2010a:61). 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 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-21 

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, 

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

4-22 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

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 (Connelly and Wackenhut 1990 as cited in 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 

USFWS 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 

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 Snake River Birds of Prey 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 mid-March 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 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-23 

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 

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

4-24 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

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 the spring and 

summer. 

A complete list of all invertebrates documented on the Refuge is included in Appendix E. 

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 

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 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-25 

Species Federal Statusa Idaho Statusb Breeds on Refugec

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 

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 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

4-26 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Species Federal Statusa Idaho Statusb Breeds on Refugec

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. 

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. No bull trout have 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-27 

been documented in the mainstem Snake River above Brownlee Dam since 1959 (USFWS 2005). 

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 would 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. 

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 

2010a). 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 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

4-28 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

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 in 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 habitat for this species on the Refuge, there are no known populations of 

this species on the Refuge and this species 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 (Yensen 1991). 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 

deepest parts of the river at the margins of rapids (USFWS 2005). Historically, this species has been 

known to occur from RM 487 to RM 673.5, but currently it is only known to be present from RM 

666 (tailwaters of the Milner Pool) to RM 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 portions of the Snake River 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 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-29 

that dominate the habitat on the knolls and along the edge of the wet meadow habitat between the 

knolls. Associated species include greasewood, saltgrass, giant wildrye, and alkali cordgrass 

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. It occurs in relatively intact habitat dominated by 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. 

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, Idaho; 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 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

4-30 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

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) would 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 

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

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-31 

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 (Tait 2007). 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. 

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 

quality and reproduces quickly, impacting native invertebrate populations by competing for food and 

habitat. The mudsnail has a detrimental impact on fish populations, vegetation, and other native biota 

(ODFW 2010). They have become established in most large river systems, and educating the public 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

4-32 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

on proper decontamination of equipment 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 began studying ways to improve the fishery at the lake 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 will 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. 

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). 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-33 

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 

upon wildlife, feral animal populations may also disturb wildlife that may be feeding or nesting 

nearby. 

The occurrence of feral animals on Deer Flat NWR 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 Refuge visitors frequently pick up and/or call 

in stray dogs and cats that have been dumped on the Refuge by folks who presumably cannot care for 

the animals any longer and assume that they will be cared for here. The proximity of the Refuge to 

the urban interface makes it vulnerable not only to feral animals seeking resources but pets that are 

uncontrolled and allowed to wander freely. Deer Flat 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 range of 

a voice command from an owner can kill or injure wildlife. 

4.7 Wildlife and Habitat Research, Inventory, and Monitoring 

The Refuge lacked a biologist on staff 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. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

4-34 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Document continues on the next page. 
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 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

4-36 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 

Submer

Palustri

Shrubst

1

Sheet 1 of 11

INDEX

0 0.25

Nampa

Weiser

Ontario

1

6

9

8

7

245

11

10

3

OREGON

IDAHO

SHEET INDEX
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

4-38 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 2Alternatives, Goals,Objectives, and Strategies

Chapter 1Introduction andBackground

Chapter 6EnvironmentalConsequences

Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

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 consult 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 of western Idaho 

living in small and widely scattered groups in southwestern Idaho. The archaeological record 

documents a long tradition of residential use and intensive harvest of plant and animal resources 

focused on the river environment (Raymond 2002). 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 

1938:165-172), 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 

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 we see today. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

5-2 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

5.1.2.1 Hudson’s Bay Company 

The fur trade here was conducted in part by the North West Company and was 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 1813. Fort Boise originally served Hudson’s Bay Company as a fur-trading 

post. As the supply of furs declined, emphasis switched to salmon fishing (Idaho State Historical 

Society [ISHS] 1970:2). At the same time, company policy declared each post should be selfsufficient 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 1970:2). 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, the Homestead Act, and the increasing presence of the U.S. military. Discovery of gold in 

the area in 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 abundant and steady supply of water 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 proposed legislation that passed 

in 1902 as the Newlands Reclamation Act. This act of Congress set up a public-private partnership 

through which the Federal government would design and build large-scale irrigation projects that 

would eventually be turned over to local control. 

One of the earliest federal reclamation projects under the Newlands Reclamation Act, the BoisePayette Project, assisted or subsumed the various private irrigation schemes, to provide a steady and 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-3 

coherent irrigation source. Deer Flat Reservoir, now called Lake Lowell, was the first reservoir 

completed for the Boise Project. The successful completion of the Boise Project succeeded in its goal 

of bringing 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 Project 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, firecracked 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. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

5-4 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

On Lake Lowell there are four structures listed together on the NRHP (27-17688); the Upper and 

Lower Embankment, the Forest (Middle) embankment and the 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 

(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 1 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 authorized boundary. Both extend beyond 

the boundary. 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. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-5 

5.1.3.3 Sites within 1 Mile of the Refuge Authorized Boundaries 

A review of cultural resource sites records for sites that occur within 1 mile of the Refuge boundary 

was conducted to help characterize the types of sites that may be found on the Refuge and to better 

evaluate the effects that Refuge activities may have on resources outside its current boundary. There 

are 195 sites and isolates found within 1 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 site type. 

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 1 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 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

5-6 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

Site Number Era Site Name Description 

10CN55 Prehistoric Open 

10CN56 Historic Open 

10CN57 Prehistoric Rock art 

10CN58 Prehistoric Open 

10CN59 Prehistoric Open 

10CN60 Prehistoric Rock art 

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 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-7 

Site Number Era Site Name Description 

10OE1692 Historic Warm Springs Ferry, Enterprise Post Office Open 

10OE1990 Prehistoric Open 

10OE1991 Prehistoric Open 

10OE1992 Prehistoric Open 

10OE1993 Both Open 

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 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

5-8 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

Site Number Era Site Name Description 

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 

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 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-9 

Site Number Era Site Name Description 

87-17143 Historic Unknown Building 

87-17144 Historic Unknown Building 

87-17313 Historic Brad Laird House Building 

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 because of Federal undertakings for the Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National 

Conservation Area, several cultural resource surveys have occurred on both sides of the river in the 

southern end of the Refuge. There are many recorded prehistoric occupation sites, rock art sites, 

historic structures, and historic debris. This plethora of surveys creates a bias as to the density of sites 

in that stretch 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 in this location is 

genuinely high. 

Few of the islands in Snake River have been systematically surveyed. One that has been surveyed is 

Sand Island in the Birds of Prey area. 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, we need to consider any site or structure 

greater than 50 years of age. An island with the enough longevity, market value, or other significance 

will 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 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

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 alternatives being considered, 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. 

Regardless of the alternative chosen, 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 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

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 ADA-accessible wildlife viewing platform and administrative 

access. (The road accesses Refuge agricultural field 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 1-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 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 0.75-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 October 1 through April 14. 

There is a 0.5-mile, unpaved road leading to Gotts Point from the Greenhurst Road Entrance that 

parallels the administrative road described above. This road is currently gated at a parking lot and is 

closed to vehicles. The road from the parking area to Gotts Point (0.33-mile) is gated but open for 

foot, bicycle, and horse travel from October 1 through April 14. 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 the summer of 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 in 2012. 

A major County road (with traffic of 2,817 vehicles per day, according to the Canyon 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. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

5-12 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

5.2.2.2 Lake Lowell Unit Parking Areas and Access Points 

There are 19 parking areas around the lake. All parking areas 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, the Visitor Center, the east and west ends of the Upper Dam, 

the 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 that are open to pedestrians, (dogs must be kept on leash), bicyclists, and 

equestrians. In winter, they 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-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 ADA-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 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

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 14 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, a small wildlife-viewing room, a 900-square-foot 

auditorium with a seating capacity of about 75, and public restrooms. The Visitor Center is open 

year-round from 8 AM to 4 PM weekdays and 10 AM to 4 PM Saturdays, except on Federal 

holidays. According to a recent survey, 36 percent of visitors indicated that they had gone to the 

Refuge Visitor Center during their visit (Sexton et al. 2012). However, only 22 percent of visitors 

were actually contacted at the Refuge Visitor Center during the survey effort. Of those visitors who 

were contacted at other locations during the survey effort (n=162), only 23 percent indicated that 

they did “go to a Visitor Center at the Refuge” (pers. comm., A. Dietsch 2011). 

Due to overcrowding in Refuge offices and the desire to find room on the Refuge for Service 

employees currently working in leased space, in 2011 additional administrative space was added to 

the building, and the parking area was repaved and enlarged. The Visitor Center parking lot provides 

42 parking spaces (including two ADA-accessible spaces) but provides no parking identified for 

buses, RVs, or vehicles with trailers. 

Other facilities in the North Side Recreation Area include ADA-accessible wildlife-viewing 

platforms near the west Upper Dam boat ramp and on the Observation Hill Trail west of the Visitor 

Center, a wildlife-viewing blind along the Nature Trail, an ADA-accessible fishing dock at the west 

end of the Upper Dam (available mid-April to early October), a paved boat ramp with two docks, and 

an outhouse at the boat launch parking area. The parking lot has 88 designated parking spaces (36 

trailer spaces, 44 car spaces, two ADA-accessible trailer spaces, and six ADA-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, a swimming 

beach designated by docks and a buoy line, and two picnic tables. The Refuge parking lot has 38 

parking spaces (23 trailer spaces, 13 car spaces, and two ADA-accessible spaces). 

The Canyon County park across the street provides 56 parking spaces (12 trailer spaces, 42 car 

spaces, and two ADA-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 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

5-14 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

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 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, causing potential safety issues if 

emergency vehicles need to pass or if drivers decide to pass the gridlocked vehicles by driving into 

oncoming traffic. 

5.2.4.3 Lower Dam Recreation Area 

Facilities at the Lower Dam Recreation Area include a paved boat ramp with three docks (one is 

ADA-accessible), a park-like picnic area that is sprinkler-irrigated with a covered picnic shelter and 

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 (141 car spaces 

and two ADA-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, a large meeting space, a kitchen, and a 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. In recent years, the water tests have 

shown unacceptable levels of coliform in the water used in this building. Alterations to the well head 

in 2011 have hopefully resolved this issue. 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 2518-2519 

feet) when it becomes unsafe to launch boats. Most users of these launches have small watercraft—

primarily johnboats, canoes, kayaks, and float tubes. Both launches are used during the spring and 

summer boating season 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 14 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 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impac

5-16 

Document continues on next page. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

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 0.33-mile road/trail and is accessible by foot, bike, and 

horse. 

5.2.4.7 Maintenance Area 

The maintenance area includes the main shop, a boat house, an 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 needed by Service employees using the 

administrative office 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. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

5-18 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

Under the Improvement Act, each refuge is required to complete a compatibility determination for 

existing uses, which estimate the timeframe, location, manner, and purpose of each 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 

Deer Flat NWR provides opportunities for all of the wildlife-dependent priority public uses (the “Big 

Six”) listed in the Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, as amended (i.e., hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation). In addition to 

providing the Big Six activities, many nonwildlife-dependent public uses also currently occur on the 

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

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-19 

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. 

Table 5-5. Visitor Counts during Fiscal Years (FY) 2010 and 2011. 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 from 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, home of 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. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

5-20 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

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 percent) were part of a group during their visit. Priority Use Visitors spent significantly less 

time (average about three hours) during their visit than Mixed Use Visitors. 

Surveyed visitors were generally satisfied with the Refuge (see Appendix L): 

 90 percent were satisfied with the recreational activities and opportunities. 

 85 percent were satisfied with the information and education about the Refuge and its 

resources. 

 87 percent were satisfied with the services provided by employees or volunteers. 

 89 percent were satisfied with the Refuge’s job of conserving 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 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-21 

 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: 

 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. Deer Flat NWR 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 to access the lake through the gate 

east of Parking Lot 8. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

5-22 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

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 

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 fishing from boats 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. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-23 

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 ADA-accessible fishing dock at the west Upper Dam boat 

ramp. This is the only ADA-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. 

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 (pers. comm., J. 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 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 that are 

caught during tournaments are placed in an IDFG holding tank after being weighed and measured 

and are returned to the lake at the end of the tournament. 

In an attempt 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 was moved to Gotts 

Point in 2010. The number of youth anglers attending Kids Fishing Day has increased each year and 

reached 190 in 2011. Volunteers and partners from Canyon County Parks and Recreation, the 

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, this activity presents safety 

concerns. In addition, there are concerns about disturbance to wildlife resting on the ice or in open 

patches of water. The Refuge does not have any specific regulation addressing ice fishing. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

5-24 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

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 showed high mercury concentrations (see 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 recently 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 Refuge 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 and the Kingfisher Trail allows access to 

riparian forests and the lakeshore. Gotts Point is a popular place for photographing sunsets. 

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 

ADA-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, a 47-mile Snake River 

Islands Unit Bird Tour (that guides visitors past 10 Refuge islands) and a 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 near Refuge islands. 

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 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 of Deer Flat Wildlife 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-25 

Refuge. 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 roughly 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 with more than 50 percent of their students receiving free and reduced 

lunch. 

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 the demand 

cannot be met with current staffing levels. Educators whose requests cannot be accommodated are 

referred to the 10 Refuge Traveling Trunks that are 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 each 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. We have had occasional requests for other on-site camping and occasional requests for nonEE uses of this facility. 

5.4.5 Environmental Interpretation 

The Visitor Center includes interpretive displays about Refuge history, local natural history 

(including wildlife and habitats), Refuge management activities, the role of the reservoir 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, the NWRS, and the Service. There is 

currently no movie focusing 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 half-mile Nature Trail. In addition, several interpretive signs that were 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. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

5-26 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

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 our full-time 

Friends EE Intern. 

Many Refuge visitors do not realize that they are at a national wildlife refuge or, if they do, they 

don’t understand the mission of Deer Flat NWR and the NWRS. Although brochures are provided in 

brochure boxes on regulation 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. With the exception 

of the Visitor Center, high-use Refuge areas are not staffed with staff or volunteers. 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 Snake River Islands Unit. 

5.5 Other Refuge Uses 

Although not considered priority uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System as defined by the 

Refuge System Administration Act, as amended, there are currently several types of nonwildlifedependent 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 Deer 

Flat NWR 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 Refuge Manager assigned to Deer Flat NWR, and public use 

activities went unchecked. In 1911, a Service representative noted 30 rowboats and three gasolinepowered launches on the lake. By the time the first Refuge Manager arrived, the Refuge was mostly 

used for picnicking, swimming, fishing, and boating. Starting in the 1940s, many new uses began to 

occur on the Refuge including motorboat regattas, waterskiing, ice skating, waterski jumping, 

retriever meets, a water show, movie filming, and refreshment and motorboat concessions. By 1950, 

the amount of public use activity at Deer Flat NWR 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 

on the Refuge 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. And, in 1969 the Refuge Manager wrote that recreation is a 24-hour-perday 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 de-emphasize nonwildlife-dependent recreation, but 

because the Refuge had been long-used for picnicking, swimming, boating and waterskiing, they 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-27 

doubted these activities could ever be phased out. A “non-program use evaluation” stated that none 

of the types of boating currently allowed 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. 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. The compatibility 

determinations for upland uses were extended in 1999. 

Between 1980 and the 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 been occurring 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. Therefore, 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 that were 

completed in 1994 (extended by signature in 1999). These compatibility determinations do not take 

into consideration the timeframe of the use or the budget and staffing needed to manage the use, 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 compatibility 

determinations, so it is difficult to know what types of information were relied on to make the 

decisions. As part of the CCP process, the compatibility determinations for all Refuge uses have been 

reassessed using the best science available at this time to take into consideration impacts to wildlife 

and habitat as well as wildlife-dependent users (see 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 not adequate for current demand, as indicated by long lines to launch boats and 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

5-28 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

inadequate parking. All ramps are subject to closure due to low water levels. Nonwildlife-dependent 

boaters conflict with anglers and wildlife watchers/photographers. Currently, many nonmotorized 

boaters launch at Parking Lot 1, which is inside the no-wake zone, to avoid the high-speed motorized 

traffic. Unfortunately, Parking Lot 1 often closes before the end of the boating season because of 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 of the lake 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 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 southeast end of the lake. Canyon County Marine Patrol 

deputies currently maintain the boating and swimming docks. According to the USGS lake use study 

(see Appendix L), 88 percent of vessels observed in this no-wake 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 (see Appendix L), most (88 percent) are motorboats and 

most (86 percent) are 16 to 25 feet long. The survey divided the lake into three areas: the West Pool 

(west of the Narrows), the Headquarters section of the East Pool (east of the narrows to the line from 

Gotts Point south to the south shore), and the 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 of 

observed boats) and second-most popular on the Headquarters section of the East Pool (27 percent of 

observed boats). 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 (see 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 and tubing and other tow-behind activities, the second-most common 

vessel speed (36 percent of boats observed) was planing (i.e., traveling at sufficient speed to partially 

raise the bow out of the water). 

According to the USGS lake use study (see Appendix L), most boats at Lake Lowell (74 percent) 

were observed in open water. Boat 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 where more boaters were fishing, 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). 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-29 

The USGS lake use study (see Appendix L) also estimated low and peak numbers of vessels 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. Number of boats per acre calculated for these three areas based on the USGS lake use 

study’s (see Appendix L) peak VAOT results do 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 to hold sailing 

regattas at the lake, launching from the Lower Dam Recreation Area. These are reasonably small 

events, with 17 registered participants in the most recent regatta. The regattas follow a set course 

demarcated by buoys. Members of the Southern Idaho Sailing Association provide “sail-alongs” for 

those who are new to sailing and are interested in 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 speed 

limit is 25 miles per hour, vehicles often travel faster, posing a safety hazard to those recreating on 

the road. 

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 communicated to the public, and people do leave roads and 

trails. Horseback riding and bicycling are not very common. Some equestrians and bicyclists go offtrail, 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, at the Lower Dam Recreation Area, at 

Gotts Point, and occasionally at other Refuge accesses. Swimming also occurs in conjunction with 

recreational boating activities. As recently as 2011, swimming fatalities have occurred at the Refuge. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

5-30 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

The 2011 fatality occurred outside of the designated swimming area, and emergency response was 

delayed due to confusion over where the victim was located. 

Swimming may occur from Refuge islands, although there are no designated swim 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. Additional 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. 

Lake Lowell has persistent problems with water quality and is on the State’s 303(d) list as an 

impaired water body (see Chapter 3). Nutrient-rich irrigation return flows have combined with 

shallower depth and high water temperatures during summer 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 is aware, no agency is monitoring water quality for swimming-related health risks. 

The Refuge will report large algal blooms and reports of other health concerns to Southwest District 

Health and work with them to test water quality and assess suitability for water contact. Southwest 

District Health will issue warnings if they feel that 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 caching is not allowed 

on the Refuge, but caches are now often placed on private land accessed through off-trail travel 

across Refuge land. The demand for geocaching could potentially be met by providing virtual 

geocaches—GPS coordinates to legally accessible scenic, historic, or wildlife-related locations—but 

virtual geocaching is currently not available. 

5.5.7 Winter Sports 

Ice skating and ice fishing occur occasionally on the Refuge. Both of these ice-dependent sports 

occur during a time when the lake is closed to public use for wintering wildlife. Ice sports also raise 

concerns about safety, because there are no trained staff members available to conduct systematic ice 

evaluations and 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 on the frozen lake. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-31 

5.5.8 Picnicking and Events 

The Lower Dam Recreation Area offers both a covered picnic shelter and scattered picnic tables. 

Visitors often request to reserve 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 size of 

events, sound systems or bands, or large tents or 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 it difficult for general 

visitors to use the Refuge, 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 

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 does not 

have any LE staff. LE assistance is provided by the 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, the Canyon County Marine deputies, and IDFG, but these agencies 

increasingly have other priorities and obligations. These agencies are unable to enforce Refugespecific 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 areas of the Refuge have 

been restricted. The decision to make Gotts Point a walk-in only area and the closure of gates at 

Parking Lots 1 through 7 during portions of the year were both responses to these types of 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. Use of these social trails has increased the 

sphere of disturbance to wildlife and impacts to wildlife habitat—both upland and riparian habitats. 

Unscientific observations by Refuge staff have indicated that these activities create disturbances to 

wildlife. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

5-32 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

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 use of fireworks and 

occasional vehicle trespass on the beach. This area is across from the County park, and the 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 on the 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 officers from IDFG, many hunters responsible for 

violating State hunting regulations have been caught and held accountable for their actions. 

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 sometimes 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 1-mile County road. With its relative isolation and 

thick riparian habitat, this location has several enforcement issues. It is a favored location for 

paintballers. The seclusion of this area draws 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. This area is open to hunting and therefore has some resource violations. The most 

common violations along the Kingfisher Trail are similar to violations seen at the North Side 

Recreation Area (e.g., off-leash dogs and horseback riding, walking, jogging, and biking off the 

maintained road or trail). 

5.6.6 Gotts Point 

In the years leading up to the 2007 closure of the road at Gotts Point, 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 a host of other unlawful activities 

such as drug use and solicitation. The area had been closed several times for extended periods in the 

past while repair and replacement work were completed. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-33 

While enforcement issues are not as pervasive as they once were when the road was open out to the 

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 airspace is restricted over the Refuge and the use of float planes on national wildlife 

refuges is not allowed by law (50 C.F.R. 27.34), we get occasional reports that float planes have 

landed on the lake. A citation was issued in 2005 to someone 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, the County Marine Patrol reports violations of the day use only regulation by Refuge 

boaters. These violations are a safety concern because of their potential to 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 

USGS lake use study (see Appendix L), 12 percent of vessels observed in this no-wake zone were 

not in compliance with the no-wake regulation during a lake use study in 2011. 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. 

5.6.8 Snake River Islands Unit 

Law enforcement coverage has been lacking on the islands because of limited staffing and logistical 

difficulties. Common law enforcement issues on the islands include litter, fires, camping, and 

trespass during the waterfowl-nesting season. Hunting violations include use of lead shot for upland 

game, building permanent hunting blinds, and hunting game that are not open (e.g., raccoons, 

turkeys). 

As with many other Federal lands, the use of Refuge lands for the growing of illegal drugs has 

become commonplace. Refuge officers work diligently on the Lake Lowell Unit and the Snake River 

Islands Unit to locate and remove illegal grow sites. In 2011, a small marijuana grow 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 trend 

in the local area and may be associated with the poor state of the local economy and the high 

occurrence of foreclosures. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

5-34 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

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). 

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 and IDFG X X X X X X X X 

Arrowrock 56 miles Reclamation and Boise National 

Forest 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 X X X X X X X X 

Anderson 

Ranch 106 miles Reclamation and Boise National Forest X X X X X X X X 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-35 

5.7.2 Outdoor Recreation Rates and Trends 

Although the housing boom has slowed in the Treasure Valley and across the nation, population in 

the surrounding area is likely to continue to grow, and demand for recreational opportunities is likely 

to 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). 

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 

also increased by 26 percent in the 2002-2005 timeframe. 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 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. The IDPR also reports day-use visits at parks increased slightly 

between 2002 and 2006, from approximately 2,000,000 to 2,100,000 respectively (IDPR 2006). 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

5-36 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

IDPR (2006:10) 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. 

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 1998). 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 twocounty 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 2012b). The next sections 

describe the socioeconomic characteristics and trends in the two-county region. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-37 

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. Canyon County (188,923 residents) was the 

second-most populous county of the state in this same year (Idaho Department of Labor 2011a, 

2011b; U.S. Census Bureau 2012a). 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 24 percent and 36 percent respectively between the years of 2000 and 

2008 (U.S. Census Bureau 2012b). 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 (2012b) and b Church (2003). 

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 2012b). 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 2012b). 

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 2012b). 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 

2012b). 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 2012b). 

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 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

5-38 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

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 Counties 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 (U.S. Census Bureau 2012b). 

In 2010, the racial demographics of Ada County were very similar to those of the state (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 2012b). 

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 (2012b). 

Note: Percentages may add to more than 100 percent because individuals may report more than one race. 

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, 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 (Idaho Department of Labor 2009, 2011c). Since 1990, unemployment in the study area 

exhibited similar trends as 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 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). 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-39 

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 2012b). 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 (2012b). 

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 2012b). 

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 

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 

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% 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

5-40 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

Ada 

County 

Canyon 

County 

Two-county 

Region 

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 total 

employment in the region. Employment from this sector, however, did account for a larger share of 

total employment located in Canyon County (4 percent of total 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 total in-county farm earnings) than the state as a whole, which had about 4.0 

percent of its total earnings coming from farming. Canyon County is more 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). 

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 accounted for by BLM holdings (21 percent of 

all land in the two-county area). About 65 percent of the land in the study area was privately owned 

and the remaining 4 percent was State-owned (Conservation Biology Institute 2006; data compiled 

using the Economic Profile System Human Dimensions Toolkit [EPS-HDT] developed by 

Headwaters Economics [2006]). 

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 

being 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 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 5. Human Environment 5-41 

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 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 (McMahan et al. 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 and 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 thirty-fifth 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 percent) of this transformation took place between 1992 and 1997, 

and over 27,000 of these acres were converted 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 (U.S. 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 percent increase from 1982 levels (U.S. 

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. 

 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

5-42 Chapter 5. Human Environment 

Document continues on next page. 
Chapter 6 Environmental Consequences

Badger

©Mike Shipman

Chapter 5HumanEnvironment

Chapter 4BiologicalEnvironment

Chapter 3PhysicalEnvironment

Chapter 2Alternatives, Goals,Objectives, and Strategies

Chapter 1Introduction andBackground

Chapter 6EnvironmentalConsequences

Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-1 

Chapter 6 Environmental Consequences 

6.1 Introduction to Effects 

This chapter presents a summary comparison of the environmental effects of implementing the 

alternatives described in Chapter 2 on the current state of the physical environment, habitats and 

wildlife, cultural, and socioeconomic resources (as described in Chapters 3-5). The cumulative 

impacts associated with implementing Alternatives 1 through 4 are also addressed in this chapter. 

The effects of each alternative’s actions are measured against the current condition of Refuge 

habitats, wildlife, facilities, biological programs, and public use programs to determine the effect’s 

magnitude. The effects of all alternatives, including Alternative 1, are based on expected change over 

the life of the CCP. For example, although Alternative 1 is known as the status quo alternative, it is 

likely that public use will continue to grow over the next 15 years if no changes to Refuge 

management are implemented. The effects of this projected growth in visitation on wildlife, habitats, 

and the quality of public use programs are examined. Table 6-1 summarizes the effects of each 

alternative when compared to the current condition. At times, comparisons are made between the 

effects of alternatives (e.g., the effects of Alternative 1 in comparison to the effects of Alternative 2). 

When this occurs, the alternatives that are being compared are named. If no alternative is explicitly 

identified, then the comparison is being made against the current Refuge condition. 

The information used in this CCP/EIS was obtained from Refuge staff members’, CCP planning team 

and extended team personal knowledge of resources (based on field visits and experience), existing 

databases and inventories, consultations with other professionals, and relevant scientific literature. 

The terms identified below were used to describe the scope, scale, and intensity of effects on natural, 

cultural, and recreational resources. 

 Negligible. Resources would not be affected, or the effects would be at or near the lowest 

level of detection. Resource conditions would not change, or the effects would be so slight 

that there would not be any measurable or perceptible consequence to a population, wildlife 

or plant community, recreation opportunity, visitor experience, or cultural resource. 

 Minor. Effects would be detectable but localized, small, and of little consequence to a 

population, wildlife or plant community, recreation opportunity, visitor experience, or 

cultural resource. Mitigation, if needed to offset adverse effects, would be easily 

implemented and successful. 

 Intermediate. Effects would be readily detectable and localized, with consequences to a 

population, wildlife, or plant community, recreation opportunity, visitor experience, or 

cultural resource. Mitigation measures would be needed to offset adverse effects and would 

be extensive, moderately complicated to implement, and probably successful. 

 Significant (major). Effects would be obvious and would result in substantial consequences 

to a population, wildlife or plant community, recreation opportunity, visitor experience, or 

cultural resource within the local area and region. Extensive mitigating measures may be 

needed to offset adverse effects and would be large-scale in nature, very complicated to 

implement, and may not have a guaranteed probability of success. In some instances, major 

effects would include the irretrievable loss of the resource. 

Duration of effects has been defined as follows: 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

6-2 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

 Short-term or temporary. An effect that is anticipated to last less than a year or a season. 

 Long-term. An effect anticipated to change a resource or its condition for longer than a year 

or a season. 

Table 6-1. Summary of Potential Effects of CCP/EIS Alternatives for Deer Flat NWR 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 

(Preferred Alt.) 

Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

Effects to Wildlife, Habitats, and the Physical Environment 

Hydrology Negligible. The Refuge has no control over lake levels and river flows. Refuge 

actions/activities have only an imperceptible influence on water use/quantity. 

Water quality Negligible long-term 

negative effects due to 

increased motorboat use. 

Water quality in Lake 

Lowell is poor, due to 

actions beyond FWS 

control. Refuge actions 

and activities have 

minimal contributions to 

water quality. 

Negligible long-term 

negative effects due to 

increased motorboat 

use. Water quality in 

Lake Lowell is poor, 

due to actions beyond 

FWS control. Refuge 

actions and activities 

have minimal 

contributions to water 

quality. 

Negligible long-term positive effect due 

to restrictions on motorboat use. 

Water quality in Lake Lowell is poor, due 

to actions beyond FWS control. Refuge 

actions and activities have minimal 

contributions to water quality. 

Air quality Negligible long-term 

negative effects because 

increase in visitation 

would result in increased 

vehicle and motorboat 

use. 

Negligible long-term 

negative effects 

because increase in 

visitation would result 

in increased vehicle 

and motorboat use. 

Negligible long-term positive effect due 

to reduction in visitation and restrictions 

on motorboat use. 

Minor short-term negative effects related to initiation of prescribed 

burns. 

Visual quality Minor long-term 

negative effect due to 

increased visitation and 

no regulations to reduce 

wildlife disturbance and 

increase wildlifeviewing opportunities. 

Negligible long-term effects. Negative effects of increased signage 

and construction are balanced out by increased quality of wildlife 

viewing and increased access to viewing opportunities. 

Open-water 

wildlife habitats 

and species 

Intermediate to 

significant long-term 

negative effects. 

Wildlife species and 

habitats are subjected to 

increased day-time 

disturbances by highspeed boating and other 

water sports. Acreage of 

open water impacted by 

high-speed boating ≈

6,400. 

Minor long-term 

positive effects. 

Positive effects of 

small increases in nowake zones would be 

balanced by negative 

effects caused by 

increased visitation. 

Acreage of open 

water impacted by 

high-speed boating ≈

4,700. 

Intermediate longterm positive 

effects by 

providing a large 

no-wake area and 

areas closed to all 

use. Acreage of 

open water 

impacted by highspeed boating ≈

2,400. 

Significant longterm positive 

effects due to 

eliminating highspeed boating on 

entire lake and 

reduction in 

visitation. Acreage 

of open water 

impacted by highspeed boating = 0. 

Emergent beds 

and associated 

species 

Significant long-term 

negative effects to 

nesting and feeding 

habitats for waterbirds, 

waterfowl, and 

shorebirds due to 

Minor long-term 

positive effects due to 

providing no-wake 

zones adjacent to 

shore areas of highest 

wildlife use and 

Intermediate longterm positive 

effects due to 

closures of the 

southeast end of 

the lake as well as 

Significant longterm positive 

effects due to the 

removal of wakecausing activities 

coupled with the 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-3 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 

(Preferred Alt.) 

Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

increased visitation, 

unrestricted public use, 

and minimal habitat 

management. There 

would be 0 acres of 

emergent beds protected 

from all uses and 280 

acres buffered from 

high-speed boating by 

no-wake zones. 

seasonal closures 

around nesting and 

feeding areas. The 

number of acres of 

emergent beds that are 

protected from all 

uses would vary 

because of dynamic 

seasonal closures, and 

700 acres would be 

buffered from highspeed boating by nowake zones. 

emergent beds 

between Parking 

Lots 3 and 8 and in 

Murphy’s Neck 

and no-wake zones 

adjacent to most of 

these closed areas. 

There would be 

680 acres of 

emergent beds 

protected from all 

uses because of 

closed areas and 

210 acres buffered 

from high-speed 

boating by nowake zones. 

closure of all 

emergent beds and 

the southeast end 

of the lake. There 

would be 870 acres 

of emergent beds 

protected from all 

uses because of 

closed areas and 40 

acres buffered from 

high-speed boating 

by no-wake zones. 

Riparian areas 

and associated 

species 

Minor long-term 

negative effects as 

riparian habitat would 

continue to be subjected 

to a variety of impacts 

stemming from 

increased human use. 

These effects could be 

balanced by long-term 

positive effects if ontrail-only regulations are 

renewed and enforced. 

Minor long-term 

positive effects due to 

implementing 

seasonal closures and 

on-trail-only 

regulations during 

sensitive nesting 

periods. Increases in 

visitation would 

reduce the positive 

impacts of these 

regulations. 

Minor long-term 

positive effects 

from only allowing 

wildlife-dependent 

on-trail travel and 

improved habitat 

management. 

Construction of a 

boardwalk and 

increased use in the 

area of the 

boardwalk would 

negatively impact 

this portion of 

riparian habitat. 

Minor short-term 

negative effects 

related to 

construction of 

trail through 

riparian habitat. 

Intermediate longterm positive 

effects from only 

allowing wildlifedependent on-trail 

travel and 

improved habitat 

management. 

Shrub-steppe 

habitat and 

associated 

species 

Minor long-term 

negative effects as 

shrub-steppe habitat 

would continue to be 

subjected to a variety of 

impacts stemming from 

increased human use. 

These effects could be 

balanced by long-term 

positive effects if ontrail-only regulations are 

renewed and enforced. 

Minor long-term 

positive effects 

related to seasonal 

trail use regulations, 

allowing nonwildlifedependent uses on 

designated trails only, 

and proposed habitat 

improvements. 

Intermediate longterm positive 

effects from 

allowing only ontrail wildlifedependent 

activities, and 

improved habitat 

management. 

Intermediate longterm positive 

effects from 

allowing only ontrail wildlifedependent uses, 

improved habitat 

management, and a 

decrease in overall 

visitation. 

Minor short-term negative effects related to construction of new 

facilities and an additional trail on the Observation Hill Trail 

System. 

Mudflats and 

associated 

Intermediate long-term 

negative effects resulting 

from increased humanIntermediate long-term positive effects 

resulting from both improved habitat 

management and seasonal to year-round 

Intermediate longterm positive 

effects due to year-
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

6-4 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 

(Preferred Alt.) 

Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

species caused disturbance to 

mudflats and associated 

species. 560 acres of 

productive mudflat 

habitat would be open to 

disturbance. 

public use closures. All productive mudflat 

acreage would be protected through 

seasonal closures. 

round closure of 

mudflats in the 

West Pool and the 

waters adjacent to 

them, along with a 

year-round closure 

adjacent to the 

mudflats in the 

southeast end of the 

lake. All productive 

mudflat acreage 

would be protected 

through seasonal 

closures. 

Waterfowl 

populations 

Negligible effects to waterfowl populations and habitats from hunt program. Waterfowl 

harvest on the Refuge accounts for a small portion of the overall waterfowl numbers based on 

mid-winter surveys at both the Flyway and State levels, and harvest numbers are not expected 

to increase under any of the alternatives. 

Threatened and 

endangered 

species 

Negligible effects as there are no known federally endangered, threatened, or candidate species 

that occur on the Refuge other than through occasional vagrant use. 

Effects to Public Uses and Human Environment 

Waterfowl 

hunting 

Negligible long-term 

negative effect due to 

minimal control of 

invasive weeds affecting 

quality of hunt. 

Minor long-term 

positive effect. 

Waterfowl hunt area 

would remain 

unchanged, except 

youth hunt area would 

be in an area 

previously closed to 

hunting. 

Minor long-term 

negative effect. 

Waterfowl hunt 

areas would be 

reduced, but hunt 

quality should 

increase from 

reduced crowding. 

Negligible effect. 

Similar to 

Alternative 3 

except that the 

South Side 

Recreation Area 

waterfowl hunt 

area would be 

larger and the 

youth hunt area 

would be in an area 

previously closed 

to hunting. 

Upland game 

hunting 

Negligible long-term 

negative effect due to 

minimal control of 

invasive weeds. Upland 

hunt areas would remain 

unchanged. 

Negligible effect on 

opportunities to enjoy 

quality upland 

hunting. Hunt areas 

would remain 

unchanged. 

Minor long-term 

negative effect as 

the upland game 

bird hunt area 

would be reduced, 

but reduced 

disturbance from 

nonwildlifedependent 

activities in the 

hunting area 

should increase 

hunt quality. 

Significant longterm negative 

effect due to 

completely 

eliminating upland 

game bird hunting 

on the Lake Lowell 

Unit. 

Big game 

hunting 

Negligible long-term 

negative effect due to 

minimal control of 

invasive weeds. Hunt 

areas would remain 

Negligible effects on 

opportunities to enjoy 

quality big game 

hunting. Hunt areas 

would remain 

Negligible to minor 

negative effects on 

opportunities to 

enjoy quality big 

game hunting. 

Negligible effects 

on opportunities to 

enjoy quality big 

game hunting. 

Hunt areas remain 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-5 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 

(Preferred Alt.) 

Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

unchanged. unchanged. Anglers 

would have access to 

hunting area during 

hunting season. 

Hunt areas remain 

unchanged. Only 

wildlife-dependent 

public use 

activities allowed 

in hunting zones, 

but proposed 

boardwalk may 

increase use by 

wildlife-dependent 

users. 

unchanged. Only 

wildlife-dependent 

public use 

activities allowed 

in hunting zones, 

which would 

reduce disturbance 

to target species 

and reduce safety 

concerns. 

Fishing Negligible long-term 

negative effects due to 

spread of invasive weeds 

and minimal weed 

management. 

Minor long-term 

positive effect. 

Although access 

restrictions would 

increase, most fishing 

areas would remain 

accessible by boat. 

Habitat and access 

improvements would 

improve quality of 

fishing experience. 

Intermediate longterm negative 

effect. Fishing 

access would be 

reduced with 

permanent onwater closures and 

increased no-wake 

zones. Improved 

access for bank 

fishing. 

Significant longterm negative 

effect due to 

increased 

restriction in areas 

open to fishing 

compared to other 

alternatives and 

increased no-wake 

zones. Gotts Point 

would remain 

closed to vehicles. 

Wildlife 

observation and 

photography 

Minor long-term 

negative effect because 

access would be 

restricted to trails only. 

Recreational 

opportunities would 

otherwise remain 

unchanged. 

Minor long-term 

positive effect. Offtrail access would be 

allowed in some areas 

year-round and in 

other areas seasonally. 

Additional viewing 

facilities would 

provide additional 

opportunities. 

Negligible or 

minor long-term 

negative effect. No 

off-trail access 

would be allowed, 

but additional 

viewing facilities 

would provide 

additional 

opportunities. 

Minor long-term 

negative effect. 

Similar to 

Alternative 3 

except that fewer 

miles of trails and 

fewer viewing 

facilities would be 

available. 

Environmental 

education 

Negligible effects as 

current programs would 

be continued. 

Minor long-term positive effect. Although 

emphasis would be on interpretation over 

EE, shift in EE to emphasize teacher-led, 

on-site programs would improve the quality 

of EE experiences. However, the number of 

EE participants would decrease. 

Intermediate longterm positive 

effect. Similar to 

Alternatives 2 and 

3 except that 

emphasis on EE 

over interpretation 

would increase 

number of guided 

opportunities. 

Interpretation Negligible effects as 

current programs would 

be continued. 

Intermediate long-term positive effect. 

Emphasis would be on interpretation over 

EE, so there would be increased guided and 

unguided interpretive opportunities. 

Intermediate longterm positive 

effect. Despite 

emphasis on EE 

over interpretation, 

there would be an 

increase in guided 

and unguided 

interpretive 

opportunities. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

6-6 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 

(Preferred Alt.) 

Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

Water-based 

nonwildlifedependent 

recreation 

Negligible effects as 

current uses would be 

continued. 

Minor long-term 

negative effect. Area 

accessible by boat 

would remain 

unchanged, but those 

areas would be 

subject to seasonal 

wildlife closures and 

more no-wake zones. 

Intermediate longterm negative 

effect related to 

fewer swimming 

areas, more closed 

areas of lake, more 

no-wake zones, 

and slightly shorter 

boating season. 

Significant longterm negative 

effect as no 

nonwildlifedependent 

recreation would 

be allowed. 

Land-based 

nonwildlifedependent 

recreation 

Negligible long-term 

negative effect, due to 

increases in visitation (if 

access continues offtrail). Minor long-term 

negative effect related to 

restricting access to 

trails only. 

Minor long-term 

negative effects as 

nonwildlifedependent activities 

would be allowed 

only on East Dike, 

Kingfisher, and Gotts 

Point Trails and the 

Observation Hill Trail 

System. 

Significant longterm negative 

effects as dogs and 

horses would not 

be allowed and 

bicycling would be 

allowed only along 

the proposed trail 

adjacent to the 

entrance road. 

Significant longterm negative 

effects. Similar to 

Alternative 3, but 

bicycling would 

not be allowed. 

Cultural 

resources 

Negligible to minor 

long-term negative 

effect due to inadequate 

inventory and 

interpretation of cultural 

resources. 

Minor long-term 

positive effect from 

stronger inventory, 

evaluation, and 

protection of and 

education about 

cultural resources. 

Minor long-term 

positive effect 

from stronger 

inventory, 

evaluation, and 

protection of and 

education about 

cultural resources. 

Minor long-term 

positive effect from 

stronger inventory, 

evaluation, and 

protection of and 

education about 

cultural resources. 

Environmental 

justice 

Negligible effect due to 

maintaining current 

uses. 

Minor long-term 

positive effect due to 

the potential to 

provide a positive 

effect on lowerincome communities 

by increasing access 

to wildlife-dependent 

recreational 

opportunities. 

Minor long-term negative effect through 

implementation of fees and the removal 

of swimming at the Upper Dam. 

Economic 

environment 

Negligible long-term 

positive effect due to a 

direct increase of 21 jobs 

and $979,000 added to 

the economy of Ada and 

Canyon Counties. Total 

increase only accounts 

for less than 0.01% 

impact in these counties. 

Negligible long-term 

positive effect due to 

a direct increase of 24 

jobs and $1.1 million 

added to the economy 

of Ada and Canyon 

counties. Total 

increase only 

accounts for less than 

0.01% impact in these 

counties. 

Negligible longterm positive effect 

due to a direct 

increase of 22 jobs 

and $706,000 

added to the 

economy of Ada 

and Canyon 

counties. Total 

increase only 

accounts for less 

than 0.01% impact 

in these counties. 

Negligible longterm positive effect 

due to a direct 

increase of nine 

jobs and $469,000 

added to the 

economy of Ada 

and Canyon 

counties. Total 

increase only 

accounts for less 

than 0.01% impact 

in these counties. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-7 

6.2 Effects Common to All Alternatives 

6.2.1 Integrated Pest Management 

Potential effects to the biological and physical environment associated with the proposed site-, time-, 

and target-specific use of pesticides would be presented in Pesticide Use Proposals (PUPs) on the 

Refuge. PUPs and potential effects from chemical pest control would be evaluated using scientific 

information and analyses documented in Chemical Profiles (see Appendix G). These profiles provide 

quantitative assessment and screening tools and threshold values to evaluate potential effects to 

species groups (birds, mammals, and fish) and environmental quality (water, soil, and air). PUPs 

(including appropriate BMPs) would be approved when the Chemical Profiles provide scientific 

evidence that potential impacts to the Refuge’s biological resources and its physical environment are 

likely to be only minor, temporary, or localized in nature. Along with the selective use of pesticides, 

PUPs would also describe other appropriate IPM strategies (biological, physical, mechanical, and 

cultural methods) to eradicate, control, or contain pest species in order to achieve resource 

management objectives. 

The effects of these nonpesticide IPM strategies to address pest species on Refuge lands would be 

similar to those effects described elsewhere within this chapter, where they are discussed specifically 

as habitat management techniques to achieve resource management objectives on the Refuge. For 

example, the effects of mowing to control invasive plants in an improved pasture would be similar to 

those effects summarized for mowing, where it would be specifically used to provide short-grass 

foraging habitat for wintering geese. 

Based on scientific information and analyses documented in Chemical Profiles (see Appendix G), 

most pesticides approved for use on Refuge lands would be of relatively low risk to nontarget 

organisms as a result of low toxicity or short-term persistence in the environment. Thus, potential 

impacts to Refuge resources and neighboring natural resources from pesticide applications would be 

expected to be minor, temporary, or localized in nature, except for certain mosquito treatments 

necessary to protect health and safety. 

6.3 Effects to the Physical Environment 

Topics addressed in this section consist of direct and indirect effects to hydrology, water quality, air 

quality, and visual quality. 

6.3.1 Effects to Hydrology 

None of the alternatives would be expected to have any measurable effect on the local hydrology. 

The water contained in the Lake Lowell Unit of Deer Flat NWR is not controlled by the Refuge, and 

none of the action alternatives consider future activities that change the inflows or outflows 

associated with the operations of the reservoir. The Refuge also has no jurisdiction over the water in 

the Snake River, so actions considered in these alternatives would have no influence on regular instream flows or local hydrological patterns. A very slight change in the amount of water used in the 

surrounding landscape may occur due to vegetation restoration and removal adjacent to the lake. 

These changes should be imperceptible. The capacity of the lake may also be very slightly affected 

by water displacement caused from additions of docks or any other in-water structure. Given the 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

6-8 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

extremely low level of change to hydrology from the action alternatives, we anticipate that the effect 

would be negligible. 

6.3.2 Effects to Water Quality 

Lake Lowell is an impaired water body with multiple inputs coming from surrounding agricultural 

land and containing high concentrations of fertilizers and chemicals associated with farming 

practices. Under any of the alternatives, the Service would continue to work with other Federal and 

State agencies to identify and implement water quality improvements. Strategic planning that would 

have any effect on the long-term improvements of water quality cannot be undertaken without the 

full partnership with cooperating agencies. 

With the action alternatives, the overall water quality, water chemistry, temperature, and risk of 

contaminant release would remain relatively unchanged. Negligible short-term impacts to water 

quality could occur under all alternatives, stemming from the control of invasive plant species and 

short-term sedimentation associated with construction and maintenance activities. All of the action 

alternatives include mechanical removal of shoreline vegetation, which has the potential to expose 

soils to wind and water erosion. These activities would include the use of BMPs, be confined to small 

areas, and be short-term in nature; therefore, mechanical removal of shoreline vegetation would not 

be expected to introduce substantial amounts of additional sediment into the lake. The use of 

herbicides or pesticides to control invasive plants, which is included in the action alternatives, also 

poses several environmental risks, including drift, volatilization, persistence in the environment, 

water contamination, and harmful effects to wildlife (Hoshovsky and Randall 2000). In situations 

where mechanical and biological invasive plant control methods are ineffective, the Refuge may use 

approved herbicides in accordance with the Refuge’s IPM program. The use of BMPs would reduce 

the risk of negative effects to water quality. 

Removal of carp from Lake Lowell has potential to positively impact water quality. As explained in 

Chapter 4, by rooting around in muddy substrates while feeding, carp damage roots and stir up 

sediment, causing otherwise clear waters to become muddy (Kozfkay 2011). Sediment and organic 

material can then become suspended in the water column. The removal of carp under all alternatives 

is expected to decrease turbidity and improve water quality. 

The operation of motorboats on the Lake Lowell Unit of Deer Flat NWR would change across 

alternatives. In the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2), boats would be allowed to operate on the 

lake as they have in the past with minor changes to no-wake zones and closed areas. In Alternatives 3 

and 4, there may be a negligible long-term positive effect in water quality through a reduction in 

motorboat use due to wake restrictions and, under Alternative 4, the elimination of high-speed 

boating. The continued monitoring of motorboat use on the Lake Lowell Unit and enforcement of 

current and future Federal, State, and local laws that seek to reduce negative environmental effects 

associated with motorboats are expected to have a positive effect over the current state on both 

wildlife and visitor use. Given that Alternative 1 would result in the greatest increase in visitation 

over time, it would have the most long-term negative effect on water quality when measured against 

current conditions. Given that the largest issues with water quality in Lake Lowell are derived from 

sedimentation, other issues created from return flows, and airborne contaminants, the small amount 

of positive or negative change occurring from Refuge management activities is expected to have a 

negligible effect on water quality. Without having a full understanding of the horsepower, types, 

manufacture year, and usage of motors on the lake, it is impossible to quantify any potential impacts 

from changes in boating. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-9 

The operation of motorboats by visitors to the Snake River Islands Unit is difficult to calculate 

because visitors may also visit islands that are not part of the Refuge or may engage in in-river 

recreation in the river itself (e.g., fishing, hunting). Therefore, the amount of additional river usage 

by individuals solely visiting Refuge islands is unknown. Given the estimated visitation of the 

Refuge-owned islands and the fact that some of these visitors are disembarking on the islands while 

on the water for other purposes, travel to and from the islands is expected to have a negligible effect 

on water quality when measured against current conditions, under all alternatives. 

6.3.3 Effects to Air Quality 

The action alternatives would be expected to have negligible long-term effects to air quality 

compared to current management. Proposed restoration activities may result in temporary increases 

in vehicle emissions (from tractors and heavy equipment) due to the proposed restoration and 

construction activities identified in the action alternatives. In Alternatives 1 and 2, a slight increase in 

vehicular and motorboat emissions could be expected over time due to an increase in visitation over 

time from the current condition, while a decrease in visitation could be expected to decrease 

vehicular and motorboat emissions in Alternatives 3 and 4. Given the reduction in visitation and the 

no-wake speeds expected in Alternative 4, there may be a long-term positive effect on air quality 

when compared to the current state. However, the magnitude of the effect on county-wide air quality 

is difficult to calculate and would most likely be negligible. 

Some minor short-term negative impacts to local air quality may result from the use of prescribed 

fire. Historically, prescribed fire has been used on the Refuge as a means of controlling or 

rehabilitating plant communities. The use of prescribed fire is proposed in all of the action 

alternatives to enhance both the upland and riparian habitats around the Refuge. Fire performs 

several important functions in these habitats including increased nutrient availability, suppression of 

woody vegetation, removal of thatch, and exposing of bare soil for seed germination. Prescribed fire 

may be used to control undesirable vegetation such as cheatgrass and monocultures of false indigo 

and cattails. Smoke produced by prescribed burns may temporarily impact local air quality, wildlife 

habitat and visitor experience. According to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Clean Air Act directives, 

our policy is to protect and enhance the quality of the Nation’s air resources to promote the 

conservation of fish and wildlife resources, and to protect the public health and welfare and 

the productive capacity of populations. In order to accomplish this, we will comply with all 

applicable Federal, interstate, State, regional, and local air quality regulations. (561 FW 2.2, 

Clean Air Act) 

In addition, prescribed fire management directive states the following: 

Prescribed fire and other hazardous fuel treatments must comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other legislation and policies related to endangered 

species, air quality, ... (621 FW 1, Fire Management Program 1.16, D.)

Local residents’ acceptance of Refuge decisions to use prescribed fire and tolerance of short-term 

impacts to air quality sometimes depend on the areal extent of the treatment, the degree of planning 

that precedes implementation, the adequacy of the resources (human, equipment, and fiscal) available 

to the managing agency, and the proximity of the fuel treatment to developed areas (Winter et al. 

2002). In all alternatives, the Service would work with the local communities and minimize adverse 

air quality impacts through participation in the Montana/Idaho Airshed Group. The group members 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

6-10 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

consist of Federal, Tribal, State and private land managers in Idaho and Montana. The intent of the 

Airshed Group smoke management program is to minimize or prevent smoke impacts while using 

fire to accomplish land management objectives. 

The combustion products (smoke) from forest wildfires or prescribed burns can affect visibility and 

the quality of life of certain population subgroups that are particularly smoke-sensitive, including 

those with respiratory ailments such as asthma (Winter et al. 2002). According to regional fire 

management staff, these impacts can be minimized by proper timing and preparation for burning. 

Under all alternatives, the Southeast Idaho National Wildlife Refuge Complex Fire Management 

Officer submits a list of planned burn projects to an online database managed by the Smoke 

Management Unit (SMU) in Missoula, Montana (http://www.smokemu.org/index.cfm). Information 

about each burn project consists of the type of burn, fuel type and loading, number of acres in each 

unit, legal location, and elevation. Each burn unit is assigned an identification number. The day 

before the planned ignition, the burn boss accesses the online SMU database to submit a proposed 

prescribed burn for the following day. 

The SMU meteorologist then develops a daily smoke dispersion forecast by airshed and posts to the 

SMU website. The SMU smoke management program coordinator develops daily burn unit 

recommendations during spring and fall and posts to the SMU website. In addition, IDEQ may 

review the dispersion forecast and burn proposals daily and relay any issues or concerns to the SMU. 

The SMU issues daily decisions, which can recommend against burning when atmospheric 

conditions are not conducive to good smoke dispersion. Restrictions may be directed by airshed, 

elevation, or special impact zones around populated areas. The burn boss accesses the daily decision 

notice from the SMU website the day before planned ignition. In all alternatives, prescribed burn 

projects would only be conducted when the SMU does not post a burning restriction for the airshed 

in which the Refuge is located. 

No nonattainment areas are located in or near the Refuge, and specific smoke-sensitive areas are 

identified in individual burn plans and appropriate mitigation measures have been identified for all 

alternatives. 

The Refuge prepared a fire management plan in 2009, which guides the Refuge’s wildland fire and 

prescribed fire programs (Appendix K). This plan defines levels of protection needed to provide for 

firefighter and public safety, protect facilities and resources, and restore and perpetuate natural 

processes affected by fire. The fire management plan also defines levels of ambient air quality that 

would postpone the use of fire. The plan is written to comply with a Service-wide requirement that 

refuges with burnable vegetation develop a fire management plan (620 DM 1). 

Many of the strategies applied to reaching the goals and objectives of this plan included various 

methods of vegetation management. In addition to fire, strategies include chemical, biological, and 

mechanical control. Application of herbicide may result in drift that could contribute to localized 

impacts to air quality. Because applicators are trained to minimize drift by managing droplet size and 

only applying during light winds (less than 10 miles per hour) and because any drift would rapidly 

dissipate, this effect is expected to be negligible under all alternatives. Emissions from the heavy 

equipment, tractors, ATVs and passenger vehicles used during spraying and transit to and from 

restoration areas would also have a small impact on air quality. This impact is also expected to be 

negligible and short-term because of the limited amount of rehabilitation planned, standard 

compliance with BMPs and the offsetting benefits of habitat improvements. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-11 

Overall, the strategies proposed in the action alternatives are expected to have a negligible long-term 

and minor short-term (during the period of burning) effects on air quality. 

6.3.4 Effects to Visual Quality 

The implementation of any of the action alternatives is expected to have minor effects on visual 

quality (i.e., scenery). Kiosks and docks would be placed in strategic locations. These additions 

would be designed to enhance visitors’ ability to appreciate natural or cultural resources within the 

immediate area and are expected to have a negligible effect on visual quality. The largest proposed 

construction project would be a 2-mile boardwalk between Parking Lots 1 and 3 on the south side of 

the Lake Lowell Unit under Alternative 3. This project is proposed to be developed within the treed 

area on the south side of the Refuge and should mostly be hidden from the view of those on the water 

and in the upland, as well as for drivers passing by. The most common public uses in this area are 

waterfowl and upland hunting, and the proposed boardwalk has the potential to have a significant 

long-term effect on waterfowl hunters that use the riparian area. Larger construction projects are 

slated for the Lower Dam Recreation Area, which is already developed with parking areas, 

bathrooms, and buildings. Any changes to the Lower Dam Recreation Area should have negligible 

impacts to its visual quality. 

Although construction of new facilities may have some negative impact on visual quality, they would 

be designed to help enhance the visitor’s experience of the scenic beauty of the Refuge by providing 

access to new areas of the Refuge, providing guidance to visually interesting portions of the Refuge, 

and/or providing better access to currently used areas (e.g., docks). 

If buoys or signs are used to identify no-wake zones and closed areas, the view of the shoreline for 

on-water users may be degraded. The increase in signage required to designate no-wake and/or 

closed areas along the perimeter of the lake in Alternatives 3 and 4 would cause a negative long-term 

effect to visual quality of the shoreline from the water. However, these restrictions on use would also 

have a positive impact on visual quality by reducing disturbance and allowing better wildlife 

viewing. Because the closed areas would be adjusted to coincide with nesting areas in Alternative 2, 

the amount of necessary signage/buoys would probably lead to a negligible long-term effect by 

increasing both the amount of signage and also the amount of viewable wildlife. 

The expected reduction of users in Alternative 4 could increase each visitor’s ability to enjoy the 

scenic beauty of the Refuge, while a large projected increase in users under Alternatives 1 and 2 

could detract from the visual quality. Visitation under Alternative 3 is expected to increase slightly 

providing a negligible effect on visual quality. 

The action alternatives are expected to have negative effects on visual quality from new construction 

and signage, while they are expected to have positive effects on visual quality from increased access, 

increased user knowledge, decreased habitat disturbance, and, in Alternative 4, decreased interaction 

with other visitors. Because of the positive and negative long-term effects expected within the action 

alternatives, the overall effect would be negligible. The increase in visitation under Alternative 1 is 

expected to negatively impact visual quality. Without regulations in place to reduce disturbance to 

Refuge habitats, this alternative is expected to have a minor long-term negative effect on visual 

quality. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

6-12 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

6.4 Effects to Wildlife and Habitats 

Changes in habitat and public use management can have both positive and negative effects on 

wildlife and habitats. The same action (e.g., invasive species control) can have both beneficial effects 

(e.g., removal of undesirable vegetation) and negative impacts (e.g., removal of nontarget species 

through overspray). Even keeping the status quo (Alternative 1) can have negative effects on Refuge 

habitats over time. For example, the current invasive species control programs involves 

opportunistically treating invasive species as they are located if time and resources permit. If this 

type of invasive species control were allowed to continue, Refuge habitats would be impacted 

negatively as the undesirable plants were allowed to continue spreading. 

Facilities associated with public uses can also cause irreversible habitat loss or modification. General 

locations for new or modified facilities have been indicated in the strategies under Goals 1, 3, and 4 

and identified on the public use maps for each alternative (Maps 4-9). Exact dimensions and 

locations for new facilities would be determined in the site design stage, prior to construction. Most 

of these structures (i.e., trails and a visitor contact station) would be placed in shrub-steppe areas; 

accordingly, most of the habitat loss due to facilities is addressed under this habitat type. A few other 

projects (i.e., docks, boardwalk, canoe/kayak launches) may impact small portions of emergent beds 

or riparian habitat. 

Effects of actions from each alternative on wildlife and habitats, measured against the current 

condition of the Refuge, are addressed within each specific habitat type below. Because waterfowl 

use many types of habitats, use the Refuge in all seasons, and are addressed in multistate planning 

efforts, effects to waterfowl species are discussed separately (see Section 6.4.6). Effects to threatened 

and endangered species are also covered separately (see Section 6.4.7). 

6.4.1 Effects to Open-water Habitat and Associated Wildlife: Lake Lowell 

Open-water habitat refers to the limnetic zone or the water that is well lit, free of emergent vegetation 

and is typically away from the shore of the lake. At full pool there are approximately 6,400 acres of 

open-water habitat on Lake Lowell but that number drops in the late summer and early fall as 

demands for irrigation increase. Although Lake Lowell is not a natural lake and requires human 

manipulation to maintain, the habitats created by the reservoir are especially important to local and 

migratory wildlife looking for suitable water sources in the highly degraded Snake River Plain and 

shrub-steppe desert. Wildlife species that rely on the open water of Lake Lowell include but are not 

limited to ducks, geese, gulls, pelicans, grebes, osprey, bald eagles, beavers, muskrats, and various 

species of fish, amphibians, and aquatic invertebrates. Other species of wildlife, such as deer, 

coyotes, badgers, most hawks and owls, passerine birds, snakes, and terrestrial invertebrates, are 

likely to use the open-water habitat periodically but are not reliant on it for their existence. 

Alternative 1: Under the status quo alternative, open-water habitat would continue to be subjected 

to a variety of impacts stemming from human use and presence. There would continue to be no use 

restrictions throughout the majority of the lake, and current closures may not adequately protect trust 

resources. Avian species that rely on the open water for food and space, such as pelicans, grebes and 

gulls, would continue to be a secondary consideration behind nonwildlife-dependent recreational 

uses of the Refuge. A number of species that use open-water habitat would continue to be subjected 

to long-term negative impacts during daylight hours from April to September. The productivity of 

these species at Lake Lowell could continue to decline as motorboating and other water sports 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-13 

continue to increase on the reservoir, impacting approximately 6,400 acres of open water. It is 

anticipated that most species of wildlife using the lake would be subjected to general impacts of 

human presence, but some species like nesting grebes and herons would be more susceptible to the 

impact of boating traffic on open water because of their reliance on this habitat for feeding, nesting, 

and escape from predators. 

Alternative 2: Under the Preferred Alternative, more open-water habitat and associated wildlife 

would be protected from the effects of human presence, with expanded and strategically placed nowake zones along with seasonal closures of sensitive nesting areas that extend into the open-water 

habitat. Space with reduced or no human intrusion would be available for species that depend on 

open water. High-speed boating would still impact 4,700 acres of open-water habitat. Impact to most 

wildlife species would be more or less uniform as provisions in this alternative specifically target 

species that are more susceptible to impacts stemming from open-water recreational activities. 

Alternative 3: Tow-behind or wake-causing activities (e.g., water skiing, wake boarding, and tubing) 

would be restricted to the West Pool of the lake and the remainder would be considered a no-wake 

zone. The southeast portion of the open-water habitat on Lake Lowell would be closed and 

considered a sanctuary. More open-water habitat would be set aside for wildlife and nonwildlifedependent recreation would be restricted to portions of the lake that would likely have only minor 

negative impacts to wildlife. High-speed boating would still impact approximately 2,370 acres of 

open-water habitat. 

Alternative 4: All open-water habitat on Lake Lowell would be restricted to no-wake speeds, and 

the southeast end would be closed and considered a sanctuary. Human activity would be restricted to 

only wildlife-dependent recreation, and impacts to wildlife would likely be negligible. Under this 

alternative, no open-water habitat would be impacted by high-speed boating. Impacts to wildlife 

species under this alternative would be minimal because a blanket protection would be provided 

Refuge-wide. 

6.4.1.1 Effects of Wildlife and Habitat Management Actions 

All on-water management activities may have short-term or temporary negative impacts to wildlife 

due to the presence of Refuge personnel near wildlife using open-water habitats. Because these 

activities are short-term and are intended to improve long-term conditions, any negative effects to 

grebes are expected to be negligible and far outweighed by intended positive effects. The removal of 

carp is expected to have significant long-term positive effects on open-water habitats. The population 

of carp in Lake Lowell is estimated at 1.2 million (IDFG 2010a). Carp are thought to represent a high 

threat to the submerged vegetation’s ecological functions due to their impacts on submergent 

vegetation and water quality. Treatments using the natural plant chemical rotenone are expensive, not 

target-specific, and may not be practical for a lake the size of Lake Lowell. Although elimination of 

carp is not expected, reduction in carp numbers would positively affect Refuge habitats. Carp 

removal is proposed under all alternatives. 

IDFG recommended three options for substantial carp reduction: physical control such as seining, a 

yet-to-be studied biological control using a koi-herpes virus, or chemical control using a rotenone 

treatment applied to the lake in extreme low water and/or low storage years. It is thought that 

physical control may not be the best option for controlling carp at Lake Lowell for four reasons: the 

size of Lake Lowell, age of the carp found (young), carp’s reproduction success in the lake, and high 

natural mortality for these carp. These same characteristics may indicate that suppression of 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

6-14 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

spawning could result in an overall reduction in the population (IDFG 2010a). Although rotenone has 

the potential to depress the carp population for a period of time, carp populations would rebound if 

not continually managed after treatment with rotenone. For example, carp populations in Lake 

Lowell that were decreased with rotenone in the 1960s have grown over time to reach their current 

levels. Studies on carp movement conducted by IDFG, as well as future research into the currently 

untested use of koi-herpes virus, should assist in determining the most beneficial removal process. 

These removal techniques have the potential to cause both significant positive and negative effects. 

The negative effects of physical control include the complications of by-catch (i.e., nontarget species 

being killed or injured). Because all fish species in Lake Lowell are nonnative and were stocked at 

some point, injury or removal is not as much of a concern as if they were native species. Because 

these species can be restocked, the impact should be short-term and of limited scope. Chemical and 

biological controls may have unforeseen consequences that could cause negative impacts to 

nontarget species. Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing what these impacts may be, how long 

they may persist, or how destructive they may be. Working with the Service’s Regional biologists to 

assess each type of control method before it is used, based on use elsewhere, should reduce 

unforeseen impacts. If mechanical control techniques are used, there is expected to be negligible 

short-term negative impacts to nontarget species. The removal of carp from Lake Lowell would 

likely have a significant long-term positive effect on the vegetation and invertebrate communities as 

well as the water quality. 

Effects from different approaches to carp control: 

Under the Action Alternatives, a variety of approaches may be used at Deer Flat Refuge (following 

further assessment) to achieve the stated target and restore vegetative cover. Approaches may include 

non-selective removal or exclusion devices such as the application of piscicide; use of barriers; or 

water manipulation. Selective devices such as commercial harvest and recreational angling may also 

be used. Chemo-attractants or chemorepellents may be used in conjunction with any of these 

methods. The following paragraphs specifically examine the effect of usage of piscicide (specifically 

rotenone), angling, commercial harvest and chemo-attractants/chemo-repellents. Barriers could also 

encompass a wide range of potential designs but there is no design in place and therefore will not be 

further analyzed. Water manipulation is unlikely to be used as a tool for the Refuge’s lacustrine 

habitats due to the sheer size of the lake and the inability to alter any irrigational use for wildlife 

purposes without substantial coordination with other agencies. 

Piscicide: 

Piscicides are chemicals that kill fish. Rotenone is a natural substance derived from several tropical 

and sub-tropical plants. It is a broad-spectrum piscicide that is toxic to most fish over the range at 

which it is toxic to carp. For carp, it is known to be toxic to juvenile and adult fish. An overview of 

the effects of rotenone is available in a U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) document developed for 

a Bonita Creek (Arizona) project (USBR 2010). Fish eggs are much more resistant to rotenone 

treatments than larval or adult stages. For example, newly fertilized rainbow trout eggs were 41 to 

106 times more resistant; salmon eggs are 10 times more resistant than the fish; and carp eggs are 50 

times more resistant (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife [ODFW] date unknown). 

Although both fish and aquatic macroinvertebrates are highly susceptible to rotenone (Skaar 2001), 

most macroinvertebrate populations quickly recover to pretreatment levels (Lennon 1970; 

Schnick1974b). Gill-breathing amphibians (i.e., frog and toad tadpoles and larval salamanders) are 

also adversely affected (Hamilton 1941). Amphibian adults and reptiles are less sensitive than fish 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-15 

and should not be harmed when rotenone is applied at concentrations typically used in fisheries 

management (Farringer 1972). Fall applications of rotenone reduce or eliminate impacts on 

amphibians because most species are in the adult stage of development. 

Rotenone is very unstable in the environment (half-life measured in days) and completely breaks 

down within 1 to 4 weeks depending on pH, alkalinity, temperature, dilution, and exposure to 

sunlight (Schnick 1974). It also adsorbs strongly to organic matter in sediment and is rapidly 

degraded (Dawson et al. 1983). Rapid neutralization (oxidation) occurs when rotenone is mixed with 

potassium permanganate or sodium permanganate (Engstrom-Heg 1971; Finlayson et al. 2000). Inert 

ingredients in the liquid formulation of rotenone consist of petroleum hydrocarbons as solvents and 

emulsifiers (primarily naphthaline, methylnaphthalenes, trichloroethylene, and xylenes). Studies of 

residual concentrations in water treated with liquid formulations indicate that solvent levels are 

below toxic thresholds (Ling 2003). 

Commercial Harvest: 

Commercial harvest has the potential to be an important tool in the control of carp in Lake Lowell. It 

has been successfully used in several locations, including Utah Lake, Utah. Meronek et al. (1996) 

conducted a review of fish control projects and found that success rates for physical removal methods 

ranged from 33 percent to 57 percent. A recently released study (Weber et al. 2011) modeled the 

effect of commercial harvest of carp on size structure, abundance, and egg production, recruitment, 

and growth. The study found exploitation simulations in which a 575-mm (22.6 inches) length 

restriction represented commercial gear selectivity. Simulated common carp size structure declined 

modestly (9%-37%) in all simulations. The abundance of common carp declined dramatically (28%-

56% of starting levels) at low levels of exploitation (0%-20%), but exploitation greater than 40 

percent had little additive effect, the final populations only being reduced 49 percent to 79 percent 

despite high exploitation (>90%). At a moderate level of exploitation (40%), maximum lifetime egg 

production was reduced to 77 percent to 89 percent of starting levels, indicating the potential for 

recruitment overfishing. Exploitation further reduced common carp size structure, abundance, and 

egg production when simulations were not size selective. 

Commercial harvest currently occurs on Lake Lowell but it is a small operation. Large-scale 

operation is being explored in cooperation with the IDFG and a commercial company that is actively 

seeking places with carp infestations. If used, fishing would be limited to seasons and locations that 

would minimize disturbance to lake wildlife and native fish. In addition to the likely positive effects 

of reducing carp abundance, egg production, and size structure, commercial fishing may lead to 

negative short-term impacts on water quality (increased turbidity) and the aquatic habitat (benthic 

disturbance). 

Non-commercial Angling: 

This method may include bow-hunting or other methods used by recreational anglers to catch fish. 

Fishing effects are explored in the Fishing CD in Appendix B. This method is likely to have 

negligible effects on the population of carp due to the huge population in existence and the small 

number of anglers that actively target carp. 

Chemo-attractants and/or Chemo-repellants: 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

6-16 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

These may be used in conjunction with one or more of the techniques mentioned above. Pheromones 

(as a particular class of natural chemo-attractants and repellents) are recognized as potent modulators 

of behavior (and physiology) that may be effectively used to attract, repel, or guide fish movement, 

and/or disrupt normal mating behavior (Sorensen and Stacey 2004). When developed and deployed 

together with other techniques as part of an integrated approach, they may have the potential to 

greatly increase the efficiency of control efforts (Sorensen and Stacey 2004). A variety of different 

pheromones are produced by any individual species, some of which are species-specific and others 

not (Sorensen 2006). According to Sorensen and Hoye (2007), “Pheromones have the distinct 

advantages of being potent, easy and potentially inexpensive to produce and apply, and 

environmentally benign” (see also Sorensen and Vrieze 2003; Twohey et al. 2003). However, as 

discussed by Sorensen and Hoye (2007), the challenge of isolating and applying pheromones for any 

species is likely to be considerable. In the case of the sea lamprey migratory pheromone, it took a 

large team over 16 years to identify three components at a cost of over a million dollars. Therefore, 

use of pheromone technology (except experimentally) may be premature, since pheromones used for 

pest control in the United States are considered “pesticides” by the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) and must pass through the normal pesticide registration process. In addition, the normal 

procedures prior to use of a pesticide would apply, requiring considerable time and funds. 

Experimental use in the research phase must also have a special permit. Effects would need to be 

further developed in a pesticide use proposal (PUP). 

The removal of vegetation to create more of a diverse interface between open water and emergent 

vegetation habitat is also a goal in all of the action alternatives. Marsh birds (e.g., egrets, herons, ibis) 

can often be seen along the open water and emergent vegetation interface foraging for food. Western 

and Clark’s grebes nest in the emergent vegetation but need access to open water in order feed and 

brood their young. Removal of some sections of the smartweed bed in order to create more edge 

effect may have minor short-term impacts to the open-water habitat in the way of resuspension of 

sediment, reduced oxygen content, and disturbance to fish and wildlife in the immediate vicinity. The 

effects of this habitat modification would likely have a minor long-term positive impact on most 

wildlife that use this habitat and a moderate to significant long-term positive effect on nesting grebes. 

Conducting wildlife surveys, monitoring, and inventory also have the potential to affect wildlife that 

use the open water. For instance, during grebe brood count surveys, biologists using motorboats 

routinely displace and disturb groups of grebes foraging and rearing their young in the open water. 

Waterfowl, secretive marsh birds, and raptors all tend to flush and escape the presence of humans 

even when those humans are trying to study them. The negative effects associated with the work of 

researchers on Lake Lowell are expected to be short-term and minor. Biologists are typically very 

aware of the effects of their presence and attempt to minimize disturbance. The Refuge provides food 

and space (in the way of closed areas and time restrictions for recreational use) for flushed wildlife to 

restore energy levels that may be depleted by disturbance. The purpose of research and studies is to 

determine criteria for which management can make decisions to improve conditions for wildlife 

thereby mitigating disturbance effects. 

6.4.1.2 Effects of Public Use and Public Use Management 

General responses of wildlife and habitat to human disturbance have been described in many sources. 

Immediate responses by wildlife to human presence 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, and even death (Belanger 

and Bedard 1990; Kight and Swaddle 2007; Knight and Cole 1995a; Miller and Hobbs 2000; Miller 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-17 

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. 

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). Studies have shown that the severity of the effects depends upon the distance of the 

disturbance to the animal(s) and the disturbance’s duration, frequency, predictability, and visibility to 

wildlife (Burger 1998; Knight and Cole 1991; Miller et al. 1998; Rodgers and Smith 1997; Vos et al. 

1985). Habituation is defined as a form of learning in which individuals stop responding to stimuli 

that carry no reinforcing consequences for the individuals that are exposed to them (Alcock 1993). A 

key factor for predicting how wildlife would respond to disturbance is predictability. Often, when a 

use is predictable—following a trail or boardwalk or at a viewing deck—wildlife 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. The third response, attraction, can be a variety of 

different scenarios. For example, bears habitually feeding in landfills or campsite dumpsters is a form 

of attraction. Attraction can also be associated with the purpose of the Refuge, to provide and 

maintain habitats and suitable conditions for wildlife use, either naturally or through management 

actions. 

Habitats on which wildlife species rely may also be impacted by visitor use under all alternatives. 

Unpaved or unsurfaced trails are susceptible to a variety of impacts from recreationists including 

vegetation loss due to trampling and soil compaction and erosion (Adkison and Jackson 1996; Dale 

and Weaver 1974; Leung and Marion 1996). Trail widening and creation of side trailing (social 

trailing) increases the area of disturbed land (Liddle 1975). 

Clark’s and western grebes exemplify species that experience the negative impacts caused by 

unrestricted public use of open-water habitats. Grebes nest in the emergent beds of Lake Lowell and 

rear their young in the open water, typically from June through October. During the 2010 and 2011 

nesting season, as water levels dropped and feeding habitat became shallower, grebes moved more 

into the open water. Grebe chicks are altricial (dependent on adults for protection) and ride between 

the wings on their parents’ back until they are two to four weeks old. Back-brooding is essential for 

survival of young chicks as their plumage is not developed to withstand long periods of swimming 

and they are not adapted to loaf on shore (Storer and Nuechterlein 1992). As grebes move more into 

the open water, the potential for disturbance by open-water recreational activities is greatly increased. 

High-speed boating leads to disruption of feeding areas, which may lead to a loss of production and 

displacement of waterbirds from preferred habitats (Burger 1997). Grebe adults and chicks are often 

killed by boats (Anderson, as cited in Ivey 2004) and small chicks can become separated from their 

parents and die of exposure if adults have to dive to avoid motorboats (Shaw 1998; Storer and 

Nuechterlein 1992). Current recreational uses on Lake Lowell have the potential to cause significant 

effects on the nesting population of grebes. 

Shorebirds are also negatively impacted by public use of open water. Public use may affect 

shorebirds through disturbance effects associated with visitors in close proximity to feeding and 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

6-18 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

resting areas. The scope of disturbance depends on public use activities, size of the group(s), the 

season of use, and the location and duration of the activity. 

Mudflats used most by shorebirds are those near the New York Canal at the east end of the lake. 

Even though this area is within a no-wake zone, the open water and adjacent emergent beds (if 

flooded) are open to boaters until September 30. The recreational activities in this area have the 

potential to disturb migrating shorebirds. The consequences of human disturbance, in terms of 

physical condition or survival, are currently unknown (Fernández et al. 2010) but 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). Increased public use adjacent to shorebird feeding and 

resting areas would cause a negative impact by decreasing their ability to use these habitats. 

Waterfowl are also expected to be negatively impacted by increased public use of open water areas. 

Boating impacts on waterfowl depend on the noise, speed, and proximity of watercraft (Cywinski 

2004). Some impacts of watercraft (powerboats or personal watercraft) on waterfowl include flushing 

and disturbance. Flushing tends to reduce the time waterfowl spend feeding and causes them to feed 

at night or to leave prime feeding grounds. Flushing also increases the energy expenditure of 

waterfowl, which can reduce their ability to complete migration or successfully reproduce in the next 

breeding season. For migrating and wintering waterfowl, effects include increased energy 

expenditure and depleted fat reserves and potential changes in migration patterns (Korschgen and 

Dahlgren 1992). In a disturbance study on Lake Erie, birds flew away from the disturbance, altering 

the diving ducks’ daily patterns of habitat use as the ducks tended to leave a preferred feeding area 

for a suboptimal area (Knapton et al. 2000). 

Using the general effects and response information explained above as well as knowledge of Refugespecific species, the following effects are expected for the various alternatives. 

Alternative 1: A significant amount of human activity occurs in the open-water habitat of Lake 

Lowell. In a 2011 lake use study conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (see Appendix 

L), 74 percent of users were active in the open-water habitat of Lake Lowell. Because there would be 

virtually no change to public use regulations on the Refuge and public use is estimated to increase 

over time, there would be a significant long-term negative impact to wildlife from human 

disturbance. All 6,400 acres of open-water habitat would be open to high-speed boating in this 

alternative. 

Alternative 2: The increase in open-water areas closed to high-speed boating (through the 

implementation of no-wake zones) should provide a minor long-term positive effect on wildlife using 

those areas relative to the current state. The no-wake zone in the Narrows and on the southeast end of 

the lake would reduce the speed and potentially noise caused by watercraft. It may also reduce the 

number of craft using those particular areas. Taking into account the research cited above, the 

reduction in speed, noise, and use in these areas should positively impact shorebirds, waterfowl, and 

grebes by providing less-disturbed areas to feed and rest. However, an increase in overall visitation is 

likely to increase use in areas where high-speed boating is allowed, causing a minor long-term 

negative effect in these areas. The positive and negative aspects of this alternative cancel each other 

out, leaving a negligible effect on open-water habitat and the wildlife associated with it. In this 

alternative, 4,700 acres (73 percent) of open-water habitat would be open to high-speed boating 

activities. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-19 

Alternative 3: Alternative 3 would have an intermediate long-term positive on wildlife using openwater habitats by providing a large no-wake area (the entire East Pool) and a substantial portion of 

open water that would be closed to all use (at the southeast end). The open-water closure 

encompasses or is adjacent to areas where shorebird feed and rest; areas where grebes nest, feed, and 

rest; and open-water areas highly used by waterfowl. The closed area would provide an undisturbed 

opportunity for waterfowl, grebes, and shorebirds, as well as other wildlife, to feed and rest. It would 

also reduce disturbance to nesting areas. The no-wake zone and closed area would provide an area of 

reduced disturbance that would encompass or be adjacent to areas that are currently the highest used 

habitats on the lake for wildlife feeding, nesting, and resting and would therefore provide an 

intermediate long-term positive effect on wildlife and habitats. Only a modest increase in visitation is 

expected under Alternative 3, which should not create the same negative effects as expected in 

Alternative 2. Approximately 2,370 acres (37 percent) of the lake would be exposed to high-speed 

boating activities under this alternative. 

Alternative 4: Alternative 4 would have a significant long-term positive impact to wildlife and openwater habitat by reducing human-caused disturbance on the entire lake. The closed area in the 

southeast end of the lake would be the same size as the closed area in Alternative 3; however, the nowake zone covering the entire lake would provide a greater reduction in human disturbance on the 

lake. All nesting, feeding, and resting areas on the lake would be free of high-speed boating and most 

likely experience less visitation; therefore, these areas would be less disturbed by noise, wake, speed, 

and human presence. 

6.4.1.3 Overall Effects 

The majority of effects to wildlife that use the open-water habitat associated with Deer Flat NWR 

would be positive, when compared to the current condition, under the three action alternatives. By 

design, these alternatives seek to deviate from the status quo in order to decrease human disturbance 

in the open-water habitat. The reduction of invasive carp, modification of habitat, and research under 

all alternatives would benefit Refuge fish and wildlife. The proposed no-wake zones and closures in 

Alternatives 3 and 4 would add to these benefits. With a slight increase in public use, Alternative 3 is 

expected to provide intermediate long-term positive effects. With the decrease in public use that is 

expected under Alternative 4, a significant long-term positive effect is expected. The expected 

increase in public use under Alternative 1, with a lack of reduced disturbance zones for wildlife, 

would result in intermediate to significant negative consequences for Refuge wildlife (particularly for 

migratory birds). The increase in visitation under Alternative 2 would lessen the positive effects of 

proposed no-wake zones and habitat improvements, resulting in only minor long-term positive 

effects. 

6.4.2 Effects to Emergent-bed Habitat and Associated Wildlife: Lake Lowell 

Emergent-bed habitat refers to the vegetative zone characterized by inundated weed beds and other 

flooded vegetation that is typically adjacent to open-water habitat. At full pool, there are 

approximately 845 acres of emergent-bed habitat on the Lake Lowell Unit, but that number drops in 

the late summer and early fall as demands for irrigation increase. The Snake River Islands Unit may 

have a small amount of emergent-bed habitat, but jurisdictional boundaries limit the ability of 

Service staff to implement appropriate management strategies. Again, even though Lake Lowell is 

not a natural lake and requires human manipulation to maintain, the habitat created by the reservoir is 

especially important to local and migratory wildlife looking for suitable water sources in the highly 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

6-20 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

degraded Snake River Plain and shrub-steppe desert. Emergent beds are particularly desirable in that 

they are considered some of the most productive habitats on earth (Novitzki et al. 1999). Grebes at 

Lake Lowell nest in the emergent beds and large nesting colonies have been noted along the south 

shore of Lake Lowell. Although regular grebe nesting surveys were not conducted until 2010, 

references to nesting grebes have occurred regularly in Refuge files and historical Refuge pamphlets. 

The shoreline and emergent vegetation provide important habitat for a wide variety of wildlife, but 

these areas are especially important for nesting and breeding grebes in Idaho (IDFG 2005). In order 

to protect this habitat, the Refuge has proposed different measures to provide grebes and other 

waterbirds opportunities to nest, forage, and rest with minimal disturbance. Eleven species of 

waterfowl, including mallard, cinnamon teal, wood duck, and gadwall, nest around the lake edges 

and rear their young in the open water, typically in the early summer. Other wildlife species that rely 

on the emergent beds of Lake Lowell include but are not limited to pelicans, herons, egrets, fish, 

amphibians, and aquatic invertebrates. Deer, coyotes, badgers, most hawks and owls, passerine birds, 

snakes, and terrestrial invertebrates likely use emergent vegetation periodically but are not reliant on 

it for their existence. 

All Alternatives: The carp removal project would continue and would expect to realize wildlife and 

habitat benefits as the population of carp in Lake Lowell is reduced. Water quality and other research 

and investigations would increase with the help of partners. 

Alternative 1: No changes would be made to public use activities or habitat and wildlife 

management above and beyond those listed in Section 6.2. Nesting, feeding, and resting grebes, 

herons, eagles, waterfowl, and other wildlife would be increasingly disturbed by proximity of the 

public as visitation continues to grow. As a result, Alternative would have intermediate to significant 

long-term negative impacts to these species. 

Action Alternatives (2-4): Habitat management would include a more strategic approach to invasive 

species management, opening channels to provide access to open water, increases in research and 

monitoring, over Alternative 1, and identification of optimal water levels for emergent beds. Public 

use management actions include increases in no-wake zones and closed areas (seasonally closed in 

Alternative 2) to reduce human disturbance to wildlife. 

6.4.2.1 Effects of Management Actions 

Management actions proposed as part of this CCP/EIS are intended to provide long-term positive 

effects to wildlife species including waterfowl and grebes. The action alternatives propose strategies 

that would improve wildlife habitat by creating a diverse assemblage of native plants, reducing the 

amount of invasive species, and reducing the amount of human disturbance in sensitive areas. Some 

management actions may have short-term or temporary negative impacts to waterfowl or grebes by 

removing vegetation, manipulating water levels, and causing short-term disturbances such as the use 

of heavy equipment. These activities are short-term, temporary habitat modifications and are 

intended to improve long-term conditions. 

All Alternatives (1-4): Under all alternatives, carp removal would continue, although carp removal 

under the action alternatives would potentially be more robust than current carp removal strategies. 

Because carp uproot and eliminate submerged vegetation, increase turbidity, and decrease the overall 

abundance and diversity of the invertebrate community (Miller and Crowl 2006), the removal of carp 

under all alternatives is expected to improve the quality of the habitat, water quality, and 

survivability of fish eggs and fingerlings. Increased survival of fish would result in a greater food 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-21 

source for Refuge wildlife. Under all alternatives, staff would also work with partners to find 

additional ways to improve water quality. Improving water quality would be beneficial for emergent 

beds and their associated wildlife. The presence of humans performing monitoring activities would 

likely cause a short-term negative impact, but the ability to improve water quality would provide a 

far greater positive impact. There would be an increase in research, inventory, and monitoring under 

all alternatives with the greatest increases realized in the action alternatives. Increases in research, 

inventory, and monitoring may cause some short-term negative impacts, but the knowledge gained 

from the studies would improve the management of the emergent beds and their associated wildlife 

in the future. 

Alternative 1: Other than those common effects listed in Section 6.2, there would be no change in 

habitat and wildlife management under this alternative. The invasive species control programs would 

continue to opportunistically treat invasive species as they are located if time and resources permit 

and minimally apply the concepts of IPM. New infestations of purple loosestrife and other aquatic 

invasive species may be left untreated, leading to more and more habitat being taken over by these 

undesirable species. The lack of desirable species, like smartweed, would reduce food sources 

available to waterfowl and other wildlife and may cause them to seek feeding habitat elsewhere. If 

the food source is greatly compromised, breeding species may be forced to leave Lake Lowell. A 

reduction in desirable plants like smartweed might also make it more difficult for wildlife to find 

suitable nesting material if the infestation of nondesirable vegetation is extensive, resulting in 

significant long-term negative impacts for these species. 

Action Alternatives (2-4): These alternatives propose to increase access to open water from 

emergent beds by opening channels in the emergent beds. These channels would positively impact 

nesting grebes and waterfowl by providing easy access to open water feeding areas from more 

densely vegetated nesting areas. Increased and targeted reduction of invasive species in the action 

alternatives would create a more diverse assemblage of native and desirable plant species. 

Alternatives 2 through 4 also include various methods of mapping, monitoring, and controlling 

invasive species on the Refuge that would follow the IPM Plan (see Appendix G). Control measures 

include biological, chemical, and mechanical methods in keeping with Service policy. Impacts from 

invasive vegetation management can vary depending on size, timing, and location of control. Impacts 

to nontargeted vegetation from the use of equipment and from herbicide overspray, as well as 

impacts to habitat and wildlife from human presence during treatment, can all create potential 

negative effects. These effects are considered temporary and would be negligible especially when 

considering the long-term positive effects of wildlife habitat that is free of the infestation of invasive 

species. Reduction of invasive species in emergent beds is expected to benefit waterbirds, waterfowl, 

and fish. 

Increases in research, inventory, and monitoring in Alternatives 2 through 4 would be above and 

beyond those identified in Alternative 1 and may cause some short-term negative impacts. However, 

the knowledge gained from the studies would improve the management of the emergent beds and 

their associated wildlife in the future. 

The Refuge has identified an optimal water level for the emergent beds in the action alternatives. If 

the Board of Control is able to accommodate these levels while still meeting its irrigation purpose, 

there would be a significant positive effect on the emergent beds and the wildlife that use them. 

Nesting grebes and other on-water nesting birds would benefit the most from emergent beds that stay 

inundated throughout the spring and summer. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

6-22 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

6.4.2.2 Effects of Public Use and Public Use Management 

Using the general effects and response of wildlife and habitat to human disturbance described in 

Section 6.4.1.2, as well as knowledge of Refuge-specific species, the following effects could be seen 

versus the current state. 

Alternative 1: The amount of human activity that occurs in the emergent beds near the shores of 

Lake Lowell is not fully known. In a 2011 lake use study conducted by the USGS (see Appendix L), 

less than 20 percent of users were active in the emergent beds or on the edge of emergent beds. These 

users were typically anglers who were fishing from boats. Three factors would lead to an 

intermediate to significant long-term negative impact to wildlife from human disturbance from this 

alternative. First, wildlife in and adjacent to these areas are highly susceptible to disturbance. Second, 

under this alternative, there would be virtually no change to public use regulations on the Refuge. 

Third, public use is estimated to increase over time. In this alternative, 0 acres of emergent beds 

would be protected from all uses, and 280 acres would be buffered from high-speed boating by nowake zones. 

Increased public use in the emergent beds is likely to negatively impact Clark’s and western grebes 

that nest in the emergent beds of Lake Lowell. Because the breeding population of Clark’s and 

western grebes is listed as imperiled by the State of Idaho (IDFG 2005), any potential negative 

impact to their nesting habitat should be seen as significant. Species are designated imperiled in 

Idaho if few populations exist, there is a rapid decline in numbers, or other factors make the species 

vulnerable to range wide extinction or extirpation (IDFG 2005). Clark’s and western grebes are also 

candidate species for listing as threatened or endangered in Washington State, and Clark’s grebes are 

a species of concern in Arizona, Montana, and Wyoming (Ivey 2004). In Canada, the western grebe 

is considered a sensitive species in Alberta (Hanus et al. 2002; Yanch 2006) and is on British 

Columbia’s provincial Red List (i.e., candidates for endangered or threatened status) because of 

population declines, few active breeding sites, and the vulnerability of those sites to habitat erosion 

and human disturbance (Burger 1997). 

High-speed boat wakes have the ability to tip or flood grebe nests, causing abandonment (Burger 

1997). The effects of human disturbance to wildlife populations is discussed throughout this 

document, and the proximity of humans to grebe nests, especially for long durations of time, or at 

high-speeds, could also cause nest or colony abandonment. Under the status quo alternative, public 

uses are allowed in the emergent beds, even where nesting is occurring. Public use of these areas is 

likely to increase over time. 

Shorebirds would be negatively affected by increased visitation under Alternative 1 in much the 

same way as was discussed above (Section 6.4.1.2). The disturbance to shorebirds would be even 

greater given the proximity of the emergent habitats to the mudflats used by shorebirds. 

The effects of increasing visitation would also negatively affect nesting and feeding waterfowl. 

Disturbance can reduce courtship behavior and decrease egg and duckling survival. Disturbed adults 

may leave their eggs, nestlings, or ducklings, thus reducing survival rates (Korschgen and Dahlgren 

1992). Dabbling ducks use the emergent zone for feeding. Disturbance of these areas could result in 

the use of less suitable feeding areas or the need to locate feeding areas off-refuge. Smartweed is an 

especially good source of food for waterfowl, with ducks using the seeds, the plant, and the 

invertebrates that live among the smartweed. Public use programs can affect waterfowl either 

through direct alteration of habitat as a result of facility construction, physical alteration of habitat 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-23 

from off-trail use, and disturbance effects associated with visitors in close proximity to nesting, 

feeding, and roosting waterfowl. The physical impact of public use activities depends upon the size 

of the group(s), the season of use, and the location and the duration of the activity. The construction 

and maintenance of visitor use facilities (i.e., trails, pullouts, and photography blinds) could have 

effects on soils, vegetation, and possibly hydrology in specific areas. This could potentially increase 

erosion and cause localized soil compaction (Liddle 1975); reduced seed emergence (Cole and 

Landres 1995); alteration of vegetative structure and composition; and sediment loading (Cole and 

Marion 1988). 

Alternative 2: Identifying buffer distances for nesting waterbird colonies, shorebird feeding areas, 

and other sensitive wildlife species would allow the Refuge to implement seasonal closures that 

would reduce human disturbance in these areas. Reduction of human disturbance should lessen 

human-caused nest abandonment, increase the amount of time spent on nests by adults, and reduce 

human-caused flushing events. Providing no-wake zones adjacent to shore and areas of highest 

wildlife use would lessen the impacts of wake and speed on wildlife. A no-wake zone would also 

reduce public use to those visitors that are willing to travel approximately 5 miles per hour or slower. 

Grebes and other on-water nesting birds that nest in the no-wake and seasonally closed areas would 

be expected to experience fewer instances of nesting disturbance due to boat wakes. The reduction in 

human use in the no-wake zones and seasonally closed areas would also be expected to lower the 

instances of flushing from feeding and nesting areas for a variety of wildlife species (e.g., eagles, 

herons, grebes, shorebirds, waterfowl). The three docks proposed in Alternative 2 could impact 

between 1,050 and 2,400 square feet of emergent-bed habitat depending on the size of the docks. 

Given that these docks are proposed for areas outside of known nesting colonies, their impact should 

be minimal. In this alternative, a varied number of acres of emergent beds would be protected from 

all uses because of dynamic seasonal bird closures, and 700 acres would be buffered from high-speed 

boating by no-wake zones. 

Alternative 3: Initiating closures of the southeast end of the lake as well as emergent beds between 

Parking Lots 3 and 8 and in Murphy’s Neck would provide habitat for resting, feeding, and nesting 

waterbirds that is protected from human disturbance. These closures would allow undisturbed use of 

areas that would only be protected by no-wake zones in Alternative 2. Nesting colonies may grow 

throughout the season as birds that were forced to abandon nests create a second nesting site or as 

late-arriving birds select nesting sites. This alternative may provide more protection for these types of 

nesters because their nests may be outside of the boundaries of the seasonal nesting closures created 

in Alternative 2. There would be an overall reduction in disturbance to emergent beds and the 

wildlife that use them. Providing large swaths of closed emergent beds would make it easier for birds 

to find food for themselves and their chicks adjacent to nesting sites. The four docks that are 

proposed under this alternative could impact between 1,400 and 3,200 square feet of emergent-bed 

area, depending on the size of the docks. Given that these docks are proposed for areas outside of 

known nesting colonies, their impact should be minimal. In this alternative, 680 acres of emergent 

beds would be protected from all uses because of closed areas, and 210 acres would be buffered from 

high-speed boating by no-wake zones. 

Alternative 4: The removal of wake-causing activities in Alternative 4, coupled with the closure of 

all emergent beds and the southeast end of the lake, would provide the greatest reduction in damage 

from wakes and in flushing and abandonment caused by human disturbance. This reduction would 

significant positive benefit for waterbirds, shorebirds, waterfowl, and other wildlife that use the 

emergent beds. This alternative would provide an even larger area free from human disturbance to 

food sources, making it easier for birds to find food for themselves and their chicks adjacent to 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

6-24 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

nesting sites. Removal of high-speed boaters from the lake would most likely reduce the overall use 

of the lake by boaters, further reducing human disturbance to wildlife. The two docks that are 

proposed under this alternative could impact between 700 and 1,600 square feet of emergent-bed 

area, depending on the size of the docks. Given that these docks are proposed for areas outside of 

known nesting colonies, their impact would be minimal. In this alternative, 870 acres of emergent 

beds would be protected from all uses because of closed areas, and 40 acres would be buffered from 

high-speed boating by no-wake zones. 

6.4.2.3 Overall Effects 

The majority of effects to wildlife that use emergent-bed habitat associated with Deer Flat NWR 

would be positive under the three action alternatives. By design these alternatives seek to deviate 

from the status quo in order to provide adequate space in emergent-bed habitat. Protection measures 

proposed in the action alternatives would result in positive cumulative effects for fish and wildlife 

that use these habitats. The continued growth of visitation without increased public use management 

would lead to a significant negative effect to emergent beds and the wildlife species that use them for 

feeding, resting, nesting, and rearing under Alternative 1. Alternative 2 would provide a minor longterm positive effect by providing no-wake zones adjacent to shore areas of highest wildlife use and 

seasonal closures around nesting waterbirds and feeding shorebirds. Alternative 3 would provide 

intermediate long-term positive effects due to closures of the southeast end of the lake as well as 

emergent beds between Parking Lots 3 and 8 and in Murphy’s Neck and by implementing no-wake 

zones adjacent to most of these closures. Alternative 4 would provide significant long-term positive 

effect due to the removal of wake-causing activities coupled with the closure of all emergent beds, 

and the southeast end of the lake. 

6.4.3 Effects to Riparian Habitat and Associated Species 

Riparian habitat refers to the interface between the upland areas and wetland areas of the Refuge. The 

riparian zone is characterized by hydric soils that support a vegetative community dominated by 

water-dependent plants. There are approximately 1,900 acres of riparian habitat on the Lake Lowell 

Unit and 630 acres on the Snake River Islands Unit. The total number of acres for both Refuge units 

fluctuates depending on precipitation, water use, and flow regimes. Although Lake Lowell is not a 

natural lake and requires human manipulation to maintain, the riparian habitat created by the 

reservoir is especially important to local and migratory wildlife looking for suitable habitat in the 

highly degraded Columbia Basin and shrub-steppe desert. Over 60 percent of western neotropical 

birds use riparian areas during the breeding season or as a stopover for migration (Krueper 1993). 

One study has shown that some riparian areas harbor up to 10 times the number of neotropical 

migrants than do 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 (57%) use riparian habitat. Many of Idaho’s mammals, 

amphibians, reptiles, fish, and mollusks also depend on riparian habitat for survival (Idaho Bird 

Conservation Plan 2000). 

Alternative 1: Under the status quo alternative, riparian habitat would continue to be subjected to a 

variety of impacts stemming from human use and presence. The closure for the nesting eagle in the North 

Side Recreation Area would continue to be the only riparian closure specific to nesting wildlife. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-25 

Alternative 2: The Preferred Alternative would have minor long-term positive effects to riparian 

habitat relative to Alternative 1 and the current condition, by implementing strategic seasonal 

closures that would surround active nesting areas thereby reducing human presence during sensitive 

periods. Space within these closures would provide intact riparian habitat with reduced or no human 

intrusion. 

Alternative 3: This alternative would provide minor long-term positive effects to additional riparian 

habitat acres permanently closed (outside of the hunt season) to provide for riparian-dependent 

species. Wildlife and nonwildlife-dependent recreation would be restricted to portions of the Refuge 

that would likely have fewer negative impacts to wildlife using riparian habitat. 

Alternative 4: Riparian protections in this alternative would be similar to Alternative 3. However, 

human activity under Alternative 4 would be restricted to only wildlife-dependent recreation, which 

would reduce disturbance and provide an intermediate, long-term positive effect on riparian habitats 

and the wildlife using them. 

6.4.3.1 Effects of Habitat and Wildlife Management Actions 

Alternative 1: Invasive species would continue to be removed on an opportunistic basis with no plan 

or strategy in place to direct or prioritize areas in need of treatment. New infestations of tamarisk, 

white bryony, poison hemlock, and other undesirable species may be left untreated, leading to more 

and more habitat being taken over by these undesirable species. The lack of desirable species, like 

cottonwood and willow, would reduce the attractiveness of the Refuge riparian area to nesting and 

migrating birds such as neotropical migrants, bald eagles, herons, and cormorants. Under this 

alternative, fire management would continue to focus on the current firebreaks and minimal removal 

of undesired vegetation. As dead and downed trees, rank vegetation, and ladder fuels continue to 

accumulate, the possibility of a catastrophic fire increases. If the growth of undesirable vegetation 

and increase in large fires is extensive, the loss of healthy riparian habitat from the Refuge could 

cause dramatic negative effects, because intact riparian habitat is so important. 

Action Alternatives (2-4): Alternatives 2 through 4 also include various methods of mapping, 

monitoring, and controlling invasive species on the Refuge that would follow the IPM Plan (see 

Appendix G). Control measures include biological, chemical, and mechanical methods in keeping 

with Service policy. Impacts from invasive vegetation management can vary depending on size, 

timing, and location of control. Impacts to nontargeted vegetation from the use of equipment and 

from herbicide overspray, as well as impacts to habitat and wildlife from human presence during 

treatment, can all create potential negative effects. These effects are considered temporary and would 

be negligible especially when considering the long-term positive effects of wildlife habitat that is free 

of the infestation of invasive species. Reduction of invasive species in riparian habitat is expected to 

benefit a wide variety of wildlife on the Refuge. 

Removal of unwanted invasive or noninvasive vegetation through the use of controlled burning and 

mechanical techniques is expected to increase the health of the riparian areas by allowing new 

growth and reducing the chances of a large catastrophic wildfire. Although removal of vegetation 

would have temporary negative impacts to wildlife species, the increase of overall health of the 

managed area would be a long-term positive benefit for the habitat and wildlife. For example, in 

order to create an opening in a riparian forest to increase edge effect (attractive to many species of 

wildlife due to the variance in habitat condition), some portions of vegetation would be removed 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

6-26 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

mechanically. It is highly likely that some passerine birds would be displaced as perches, nesting 

sites, and territories are removed. 

Under the action alternatives, the removal of undesirable, nonnative animals (e.g., feral cats and feral 

dogs) from the Refuge is proposed. Removal of these animals from the Refuge would reduce 

predation on native wildlife, and reduce the possibility of domestic animals spreading disease to 

Refuge wildlife. Removal of feral animals would reduce the amount of predation on passerine bird 

species, small mammals, and reptiles. Removal of feral cats and dogs would also reduce the amount 

of wildlife disturbance and reduce the possibility of disease transmission, thus benefiting a wide 

variety of wildlife species. 

Increases in research, inventory, and monitoring would be above and beyond those identified in 

Alternative 1 and may cause some short-term negative impacts. However, the knowledge gained 

from the studies would improve the management of the riparian areas and their associated wildlife in 

the future. 

6.4.3.2 Effects of Public Use and Public Use Management 

Using the general effects and responses of wildlife and habitat to human disturbance described in 

Section 6.4.1.2, as well as knowledge of Refuge-specific species, the following effects could be seen 

versus the current state. 

A new Lake Lowell Unit deer hunt was recently implemented under a different planning process 

(USFWS 2011a) and began in fall 2012. The majority of this new hunt takes place in the riparian 

area on the south side of the Lake Lowell Unit, and the effects of this hunt on wildlife and habitat are 

discussed as part of that environmental assessment (EA) (USFWS 2011a). None of the alternatives 

propose to make changes to this new hunt. 

Historically, deer hunting has been allowed on the Snake River Islands Unit. None of the alternatives 

propose to make changes to this hunt. In general, deer hunting (along with its management) on the 

Refuge involves human presence in riparian habitat, which may result in impacts. In areas open to 

public use, social trails fragment viable wildlife habitat and increase user impact on the natural 

system. Wildlife (both deer and other nontarget species) typically respond to recreationists 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). 

Alternative 1: Under the status quo alternative, riparian habitat would continue to be subjected to a 

variety of impacts stemming from human use and presence. The enforcement of on-trail-only 

recreation could have a long-term positive effect by reducing impacts from off-trail travel. Currently, 

this Refuge regulation is not well known or enforced, even though the last compatibility 

determination for walking and jogging stated on-trail use only as a stipulation. There would be no 

new closures to protect wildlife nesting or wintering adjacent to highly used public use trails. If the 

1994 compatibility determinations for upland uses were regulated, there could be a benefit to wildlife 

over the current state by ensuring that all upland users (aside from hunters) stay on designated trails. 

Overall, however, there would, be minor long-term negative impacts due to the projected increase in 

Refuge users under this alternative if on-trail regulations are not renewed or enforced. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-27 

Alternative 2: Off-trail recreational use by wildlife-dependent users would be allowed all year in the 

East Side Recreation Area. All visitors would be required to stay on-trail from February 1 through 

July 31 in the North Side and South Side Recreation Areas and at Murphy’s Neck to protect breeding 

and nesting birds, such as bald eagles, red-tailed hawks, great blue herons, grebes, egrets, 

cormorants, and others. The access point to Murphy’s Neck would be moved to the Lower Dam 

Recreation Area (LDRA), with a fully ADA-accessible trail from the LDRA through the riparian area 

to Murphy’s Neck. This trail may have minor negative effects on the wildlife using the immediately 

adjacent riparian area. Expansion of on-water no-wake and seasonally closed areas is expected to 

have a long-term positive effect on wildlife using the riparian areas adjacent to these areas. Wildlife 

like nesting herons and bald eagles are expected to benefit from these changes through a decrease of 

human-caused disturbance. Allowing nonwildlife-dependent visitors to use only the Observation Hill 

Trail, the Kingfisher Trail, and the East Dike Trail, and not allowing any nonwildlife-dependent 

group activities would lessen the impacts to wildlife on these trails and elsewhere on the Refuge. 

Alternative 3: Under this alternative, a 2-mile long boardwalk is proposed to be constructed between 

Parking Lots 1 and 3. This would result in disruption to approximately 2 acres of riparian habitat that 

is currently minimally used by visitors outside of the hunting season. The construction of this 

boardwalk may reduce the positive effects of the other public use management strategies. 

Alternatives 3 and 4: These alternatives propose that only wildlife-dependent activities be allowed 

in the uplands and that all upland use (except for hunting) occur on maintained roads and trails. The 

combination of fewer visitors using the uplands (because there would be no nonwildlife-dependent 

activities allowed), and keeping them on roads and trails would greatly reduce human disturbance to 

wildlife in the riparian areas versus the current state. The uses that are likely to occur are also more 

likely to be slower (i.e., no jogging) and less disturbing (i.e., no dogs) than current activities. The 

reduction of high-speed boating in Alternative 3, and the removal of high-speed boating in 

Alternative 4along with the removal of boating activities near the majority of the shoreline is 

expected to benefit wildlife using riparian areas adjacent to the lakeshore (e.g., nesting herons and 

eagles) through a reduction in noise and proximity of humans to nesting wildlife. 

6.4.3.3 Overall Effects 

Some of the negative effects of an increase in visitation in Alternative 1 could be countered by 

enforcing the 1994 compatibility determination for upland uses. However, if current levels of 

enforcement are continued, this alternative would have a minor long-term negative impact versus the 

current condition because of increased visitation projected under Alternative 1. Under Alternative 2, 

wildlife is protected through the use of on-trail-only requirements during months when wildlife is 

most vulnerable. Allowing nonwildlife-dependent users to only use the Observation Hill Trail, the 

Kingfisher Trail, and the East Dike Trail would lessen the impacts to wildlife and elsewhere on the 

Refuge. Not allowing nonwildlife-dependent group activities on the Refuge under Alternatives 2 and 

3 would positively impact wildlife adjacent to all designated trails. Increases in public use may 

reduce some of the positive effects seen in these alternatives over the current state. The reduction in 

or complete removal of nonwildlife-dependent uses in Alternatives 3 and 4 is expected to positively 

impact the wildlife of the Refuge, by reducing fast-paced activities, human interactions with wildlife, 

and the noise associated with group and nonwildlife-dependent uses. A decrease in public use is also 

expected under Alternative 4, which is expected to decrease human-caused disturbance to wildlife. 

The modest increase in public use under Alternative 3 is not expected to counter the positive effects 

created by the proposed actions. However, the boardwalk proposed under Alternative 3 would cause 

direct impacts to riparian resources on the south side of the lake. Alternative 4 would have the most 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

6-28 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

positive effects to wildlife and riparian habitat with no nonwildlife-dependent uses being allowed and 

a reduction in future visitation over the current state. Taking into consideration all impacts, the 

changes to public use management in Alternatives 2 and 3 would lead to minor long-term positive 

effects to riparian habitat and wildlife species. Changes under Alternative 4 would lead to an 

intermediate long-term positive effect. 

6.4.4 Effects to Shrub-steppe Habitat and Associated Species 

Shrub-steppe refers to the upland areas above the influence of the wetland zones around the Refuge. 

The shrub-steppe habitat is characterized by dry soils that are exploited by mostly nonnative 

vegetation. Native vegetation that does exist is dominated by sagebrush, four-winged saltbush, and 

various grasses. 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 (e.g., northern harriers, mule 

deer, badgers, gopher snakes). There are approximately 830 acres of shrub-steppe habitat on the Lake 

Lowell Unit and 550 acres on the Snake River Islands Unit. 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. Uplands on the Snake River Islands typically occur in the middle 

of the islands and are often surrounded by a circle of riparian vegetation. The shrub-steppe habitat on 

the Refuge is highly fragmented; the area near the Visitor Center has the largest contiguous piece of 

this habitat (550 acres). 

Sagebrush shrub-steppe ecosystems and the wildlife that depend on them are thought to be among the 

most imperiled in North America (Dobkin and Sauder 2004; Knick et al. 2003; Knick and 

Rotenberry 2002; Mac et al. 1998). Populations of shrubland and grassland birds, which represent an 

important component of the biodiversity of 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 oncegreater 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). Large-scale conservation and restoration of sagebrush lands are 

becoming high priorities for natural resource agencies because of the declines in the populations of 

widely distributed species such as sage-grouse (BLM 2002). Nationally, less than 3 percent of the 

area dominated by sagebrush lies within areas that receive permanent legal protection (Scott et al. 

2001; Wright et al. 2001). An estimated 99 percent of historical sagebrush habitats in the Snake 

River Plain had been converted to cropland by the early 1980s (Hironaka et al. 1983). 

Alternative 1: Under the status quo alternative, shrub-steppe habitat would continue to be subjected 

to a variety of impacts stemming from human use and presence. Wildlife species that rely on shrubsteppe habitat would be expected to endure additional human-caused disturbance because of the 

projected increase in visitation under this alternative. 

Alternative 2: The Preferred Alternative would offer additional protections in shrub-steppe habitat 

by implementing seasonal on-trail regulations that would surround active nesting areas thereby 

reducing human presence during sensitive periods. Space within these closures would provide intact 

shrub-steppe habitat with reduced or no human intrusion. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-29 

Alternative 3: On-trail use requirements and fewer nonwildlife-dependent activities would provide 

additional shrub-steppe habitat protections. A small projected reduction in visitation to the Refuge 

would also be expected to result in a decrease in human-caused wildlife disturbance. 

Alternative 4: Alternative 4 would offer the most protections for sage-steppe habitat and associated 

wildlife. The projected reduction in visitation and allowing only on-trail wildlife-dependent uses 

would be expected to greatly reduce human-caused impacts to wildlife. 

6.4.4.1 Effects of Habitat and Wildlife Management Actions 

Management actions proposed as part of this plan are intended to provide long-term positive effects 

to shrub-steppe habitat and associated wildlife. The action alternatives propose strategies that would 

improve the quality of shrub-steppe habitat by reducing the amount of invasive species, most notably 

cheatgrass, and creating a diverse assemblage of native grass plants to improve the fuel levels and 

reduce chances of destructive fires. Many of these management actions would have short- term or 

temporary negative impacts to wildlife species. For example, a controlled burn to reduce the amount 

of cheatgrass duff and help establish a native grass understory would likely displace the wildlife 

species in the immediate area. However, the reduction of cheatgrass would provide a long-term 

positive benefit. 

Alternative 1: Invasive species would continue to be removed on an opportunistic basis with no plan 

or strategy in place to direct or prioritize areas in need of treatment. New infestations of cheatgrass, 

poison hemlock, white bryony, tamarisk, whitetop, and other undesirable species may be left 

untreated, leading to more and more habitat being taken over by these undesirable species. The lack 

of desirable species, such as native bunchgrasses, wheatgrass, and Idaho fescue, would reduce the 

attractiveness of the Refuge shrub-steppe habitat to nesting and migrating birds such as burrowing 

owls, western meadowlarks, and Savannah sparrows. Under this alternative, fire management would 

continue to focus on the current firebreaks and minimal removal of undesired vegetation. As 

cheatgrass continues to accumulate, the possibility of a widespread catastrophic fire increases. If the 

growth of undesirable vegetation and increase in large fires is extensive, the loss of healthy shrubsteppe habitat from the Refuge would negatively impact species that rely on shrub-steppe habitat. 

Action Alternatives (2-4): Alternatives 2 through 4 also include various methods of mapping, 

monitoring, and controlling invasive species on the Refuge that would follow the IPM Plan (see 

Appendix G). Control measures include biological, chemical, and mechanical methods in keeping 

with Service policy. Impacts from invasive vegetation management can vary depending on size, 

timing, and location of control. Impacts to nontargeted vegetation from the use of equipment and 

from herbicide overspray, as well as impacts to habitat and wildlife from human presence during 

treatment, can all create potential negative effects. These effects are considered temporary and would 

be negligible especially when considering the long-term positive effects of wildlife habitat that is free 

of the infestation of invasive species. Reduction of invasive species in shrub-steppe habitat is 

expected to benefit a wide variety of plant and wildlife species. 

Removal of unwanted invasive or noninvasive vegetation through the use of controlled burning and 

mechanical techniques is expected to increase the health of the shrub-steppe areas by allowing 

growth of native plants like Wyoming big sagebrush, bluebunch wheatgrass, and Idaho fescue, and 

reducing the chances of a large catastrophic wildfire. Although these removal methods would have 

temporary negative impacts to wildlife species, the increase of overall health of the managed area 

would be a long-term positive benefit for the habitat and wildlife. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

6-30 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

Under the action alternatives, the removal of undesirable, nonnative animals (e.g., feral cats and 

dogs) from the Refuge is proposed. Removal of these animals from the Refuge would reduce 

predation on native wildlife, and reduce the possibility of domestic animals spreading disease to 

Refuge wildlife. Removal of feral animals such as domestic cats would reduce the amount of 

predation on passerine bird species, small mammals, and reptiles. Removal of cats and dogs would 

also reduce the amount of wildlife disturbance and reduce the possibility of disease transmission 

benefiting a wide variety of wildlife species. 

Removing unnecessary internal firebreaks within the shrub-steppe habitat of the Refuge would 

reduce fragmentation of habitat. This action would also reduce the number of firebreaks requiring 

maintenance, thereby leaving more time for other habitat management activities. 

Increases in research, inventory, and monitoring would be above and beyond those identified in 

Alternative 1 and may cause some short-term negative impacts. However, the knowledge gained 

from the studies would improve the management of the shrub-steppe habitat and its associated 

wildlife in the future (e.g., a study to determine the most effective cheatgrass removal techniques 

could make restoration of native habitats more cost effective and efficient in the future, leading to 

more restored acres). 

6.4.4.2 Effects of Public Use and Public Use Management 

Using the general effects and responses of wildlife and habitat to human disturbance described in 

Section 6.4.1.2, as well as knowledge of Refuge-specific species, the following effects could be seen 

versus the current state. 

Deer hunting would take place on a small amount of upland habitat on both units of Deer Flat NWR. 

These hunts are more associated with riparian habitat as discussed above, and additional effects in 

upland habitat are expected to be minimal and similar to those discussed in the riparian section 

above. 

Alternative 1: Under the status quo alternative, shrub-steppe habitat would continue to be subjected 

to a variety of impacts stemming from human use and presence. Compatibility determinations for 

upland uses last completed in 1994 required uses to be on-trail only. Enforcement of the on-trail-only 

regulation could have a positive long-term effect by reducing impacts from off-trail travel. Currently, 

this Refuge regulation is not well known or enforced. There would be no additional closures to 

protect wildlife nesting or wintering areas adjacent to highly used trails. If the 1994 compatibility 

determinations for upland uses were enforced, there could be a benefit to wildlife over the current 

state by ensuring that all upland users (aside from hunters during hunting season) stay on designated 

trails. There would, however, be negative impacts due to the projected increase in Refuge users under 

this alternative. 

Action Alternatives (2-4): Creation of an additional trail on the Observation Hill Trail System is 

expected to reduce trespass on the seasonally closed portion of the trail. 

Alternative 2: Off-trail recreational use by wildlife-dependent users would be allowed all year in the 

East Side Recreation Area. All visitors would be required to stay on-trail from February 1 through 

July 31 in the North Side and South Side Recreation Areas to protect breeding and nesting birds, 

such as quail, killdeer, kingbirds, horned larks, and sage thrashers. Modifying the current firebreak 

from the entrance parking lot to the observation platform may increase use of this trail and also 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-31 

increase human disturbance to wildlife in its vicinity. Under Alternative 2, the construction of new 

facilities would be expected to result in loss of shrub-steppe acreage, with the amount varying 

depending on the construction option chosen for the visitor contact station: approximately 4 acres if a 

new visitor contact station is built and 2.9 acres if the existing Environmental Education Building is 

converted into the visitor contact station. Some of the new facilities would be installed at the Lower 

Dam Recreation Area, most of which has already been converted to manicured lawn. Approximately 

2 acres of more natural habitat would also be disturbed. 

Alternative 3: Under this alternative, horseback riding and dog walking would not be allowed, all 

users would be required to stay on-trail at all times, and nonwildlife-dependent group activities 

would not be allowed. These changes from the current state would be expected to have an 

intermediate long-term positive impact on wildlife using sagebrush-steppe habitats through a 

reduction of noise, pet-caused wildlife disturbance, unpredictability of visitor travel, soil and 

vegetation compaction, human-caused wildlife disturbance, and a only a modest increase in overall 

visitation. Under Alternative 3, the construction of new facilities would be expected to result in loss 

of shrub-steppe acreage, with the amount varying depending on the construction option chosen for 

the visitor contact station: approximately 3.7 acres if a new visitor contact station is built and 2.6 

acres if the existing Environmental Education Building is converted into the visitor contact station. 

Approximately 1.8 acres would be disturbed outside of the Lower Dam Recreation Area. 

Alternative 4: Alternative 4 would have the greatest long-term positive impacts to wildlife and 

habitats because only on-trail wildlife-dependent activities would be permitted and there is a 

projected reduction of overall visitation under this alternative. These changes from the current state 

would be expected to have a long-term positive impact on wildlife using sagebrush-steppe habitats 

through a reduction of noise, speed of visitor travel, unpredictability of visitor travel, pet-caused 

wildlife disturbance, soil and vegetation compaction, human-caused wildlife disturbance, and a 

reduction in overall visitation. Under Alternative 4, the construction of new facilities would be 

expected to result in loss of shrub-steppe acreage, with the amount varying depending on the 

construction option chosen for the visitor contact station: approximately 1.9 acres if a new Visitor 

Contact Station is built and 0.7 acre if the existing Environmental Education Building is converted 

into the Visitor Contact Station. Approximately 0.5 acre would be disturbed outside of the Lower 

Dam Recreation Area. 

6.4.4.3 Overall Effects 

All alternatives have the potential to have some positive effect on shrub-steppe habitats and 

associated wildlife. The negative impact of increased visitation in Alternative 1 would reduce any 

positive effects that could be seen from enforcement of on-trail regulations. If on-trail regulations are 

not renewed or enforced, the increase in visitation would create a minor long-term negative effect on 

all 830 acres of shrub-steppe habitat. Although Alternative 2 does not restrict use to trails year-round, 

the seasonal trail use regulations, the proposal to allow nonwildlife-dependent uses on designated 

trails only, and proposed habitat improvements are expected to provide an overall minor long-term 

positive effect on 520 acres of shrub-steppe habitat. Because Alternative 3 proposes to not allow 

nonwildlife-dependent group activities, dog walking, horseback riding, or off-trail use, along with 

only a small increase in overall visitation and proposed changes in habitat management, it is expected 

to have an overall intermediate long-term positive effect on 520 acres of shrub-steppe habitat. 

Because Alternative 4 proposes to allow only on-trail wildlife-dependent uses, improve habitat 

management, and see a decline in overall visitation, it is expected to have the least amount of 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

6-32 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

negative impact and have an intermediate long-term positive effect on shrub-steppe habitat and 

associated wildlife on all 830 acres of shrub-steppe habitat. 

6.4.5 Effects to Mudflats and Associated Species: Lake Lowell 

According to the Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, shorebird species have declined 

worldwide due, in part, to loss of habitat and human disturbance (Brown et al. 2001). Restoration, 

maintenance, and protection of habitat, especially mudflats, would be of great value to shorebird 

populations at Deer Flat NWR. Late in the summer, as Lake Lowell is drawn down for irrigation, 

numerous species of shorebirds use the exposed mudflats for feeding. Shorebirds depend upon 

wetland stopover sites to replenish depleted fat reserves used in their migratory flight (Dugan et al. 

1981). 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 across 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. Chapter 4 of this document further 

explores the importance of mudflats in the Intermountain West, Idaho, and Deer Flat NWR. 

Management actions proposed as part of this CCP are intended to provide long-term positive effects 

to mudflats and associated wildlife. The action alternatives propose strategies that would improve the 

quality and quantity of this habitat by reducing the amount of recreational disturbance and 

encroachment of unwanted vegetation as well as improving upon what exists. 

Alternative 1: There would be no change to the current state of habitat and wildlife or public use 

management. Refuge visitation is expected to increase. With no additional wildlife or habitat buffers 

being created, human-caused disturbance to feeding and resting shorebirds is also expected to 

increase. 

Alternative 2: Seasonal closure of highly used mudflats would provide protection for feeding and 

resting shorebirds against human-caused wildlife disturbance. Habitat management improvements to 

existing mudflats, such as vegetation discing and removal, shoreline scouring, and firewood 

collection, are also expected to enhance the existing mudflat habitat. These enhancements, along with 

the removal of vegetation in order to create more mudflat habitat in the West Pool, are expected to 

have intermediate long-term effects on shorebirds. 

Alternative 3: Seasonal closure of the mudflats and the waters adjacent to them in the West Pool, 

along with a year-round closure adjacent to the mudflats in the southeast end of the lake, would 

provide less-disturbed feeding and resting areas for shorebirds. Habitat management improvements 

to existing mudflats such as vegetation discing and removal, shoreline scouring, and firewood 

collection are also expected to enhance the existing mudflat habitat. These enhancements, along with 

the removal of vegetation in order to create more mudflat habitat in the West Pool, are expected to 

have intermediate long-term effects on shorebirds. 

Alternative 4: The year-round closure of mudflats in the West Pool and the waters adjacent to them, 

along with a year-round closure adjacent to the mudflats in the southeast end of the lake, would 

provide less-disturbed feeding and resting areas for shorebirds. Habitat management improvements 

to existing mudflats such as vegetation discing and removal, shoreline scouring, and firewood 

collection are also expected to enhance the existing mudflat habitat. These enhancements, along with 

the removal of vegetation in order to create more mudflat habitat in the West Pool, are expected to 

have intermediate long-term effects on shorebirds. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-33 

6.4.5.1 Effects of Habitat and Wildlife Management Actions 

Management actions proposed as part of this plan are intended to provide long-term positive effects 

to wildlife species including shorebirds. The action alternatives propose strategies that would 

improve shorebird habitat, namely the mudflats that are exposed in the fall as irrigation demands 

drawn-down lake levels. These improvements to shorebird habitat would consist of creating 

additional mudflats with more predictable exposures and discing vegetation to incorporate organic 

matter into the soil and encourage invertebrate growth. 

Alternative 1: There would be no changes to the management of the mudflats or the species 

associated with them. 

All Action Alternatives (2-4): Changes to management of the mudflats, including vegetation 

removal and creation of shallow pools of water, are expected to create long-term positive impacts on 

the mudflats and associated species. Shorebirds such as plovers, American avocets, western 

sandpipers, and marbled godwits would benefit from the removal of vegetation by having feeding 

areas that are free from predator perches. They would also benefit from the shallow scours by having 

more food and water’s edge available as the lake is drawn down. Because of fluctuating water levels 

and the exposure of the mudflats, improvements to mudflats can only be done when conditions are 

right for shorebirds to be present, thereby causing disturbance. Measures to avoid negative 

interaction would be in place and habitat improvement activities are anticipated to be short-term, 

improving conditions in the long term. Any negative effects to shorebirds are expected to be 

negligible and far outweighed by intended positive effects. 

6.4.5.2 Effects of Public Use and Public Use Management 

Public use may affect shorebirds through disturbances associated with visitors in close proximity to 

feeding and resting areas. The scope of disturbance depends on public use activities, group sizes, the 

season of use, and the location and duration of the activity. The construction and maintenance of 

visitor use facilities (in this case an observation/photography blind in the Action Alternatives) could 

have effects on soils, vegetation, and possibly hydrology in a specific area. The construction, 

maintenance and use of this could potentially increase erosion, cause localized soil compaction 

(Liddle 1975); reduced seed emergence (Cole and Landres 1995), alter vegetative structure and 

composition; and cause sediment loading (Cole and Marion 1988) in the immediate area. 

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 and is currently 

open to the public for numerous recreational activities including hunting and wildlife observation. 

Bird watchers walk in from Tio Lane to observe shorebirds in late summer and early fall and upland 

game hunters hunt mourning doves in dry smartweed beds adjacent to the mudflats. The 

consequences of human disturbance, in terms of physical condition or survival, are currently 

unknown (Fernández et al. 2010) but 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 that shorebird numbers decreased, with increasing trail use, with 

higher trail-use days averaging 25 percent fewer birds than lower use days (Trulio and Sokale 2008). 

Using this information, the general effects on and responses of wildlife and habitat to human 

disturbance described in Section 6.4.1.2, as well as knowledge of Refuge-specific species, the 

following effects could be seen versus the current state. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

6-34 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

Alternative 1: Because there are no proposed changes to public use management under Alternative 1 

and Refuge visitation is expected to rise, human-caused disturbance to mudflats and the species 

associated with them is expected to increase over time resulting in a long-term negative impact. 

Alternative 2: Strategic seasonal closures surrounding mudflat areas used by feeding and resting 

shorebirds are expected to reduce human-caused disturbance in these areas. Fewer disturbances 

should lead to fewer instances of flushing and allow the shorebirds to feed more and create fuel 

reserves that would be used during migration. Shorebirds such as sandpipers, black-necked stilts, 

sanderlings, and red knots are expected to benefit from these changes. 

Alternative 3: A seasonal closure of the entire mudflat in the West Pool and adjacent waters and a 

year-round closure that encompasses the mudflat in the southeast end of the lake are expected to 

reduce human-caused disturbance even more than Alternative 2. Fewer disturbances should lead to 

fewer instances of flushing and allow the shorebirds to feed more and create fuel reserves that would 

be used during migration. 

Alternative 4: A year-round closure of the entire mudflat in the West Pool and adjacent waters and a 

year-round closure that encompasses the mudflat in the southeast end of the lake are expected to 

reduce human-caused disturbance even farther than Alternative 3. Fewer disturbances should lead to 

fewer instances of flushing and allow the shorebirds to feed more and create fuel reserves that would 

be used during migration. Shorebirds like dowitchers, lesser yellowlegs, and long-billed curlews are 

expected to benefit from these changes. 

6.4.5.3 Overall Effects 

With no change to the current state of habitat and wildlife or public use management, and a projected 

increase in visitation, Alternative 1 is expected to have intermediate long-term negative effects on the 

mudflats and associated wildlife. Alternatives 2 through 4 are all expected to have intermediate longterm positive impacts to Refuge mudflats through both habitat and public use management changes. 

Alternative 4 is expected to have the greatest positive impact on mudflats and associated species. 

6.4.6 Additional Effects to Waterfowl 

6.4.6.1 Effects of Waterfowl Hunting on Local, Regional and Flyway Waterfowl 

Populations 

Migratory game birds are those bird species designated in conventions between the United States and 

several foreign nations for protection and management. Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 

U.S.C. 703-712), the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to determine when “hunting, taking, 

capture, killing, possession, sale, purchase, shipment, transportation, carriage, or export of any...bird, 

or any part, nest, or egg” of migratory game birds can take place and to adopt regulations for this 

purpose. These regulations are written after giving due regard to “the zones of temperature and to the 

distribution, abundance, economic value, breeding habits, and times and lines of migratory flight of 

such birds” and updated annually (16 U.S.C. 704(a)). The responsibility for managing and 

conserving migratory birds in the United States was delegated to the Service. 

In acknowledgment of regional differences in hunting conditions, the Service administratively 

divided the nation into four flyways for the purpose of managing migratory game birds: Atlantic, 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-35 

Mississippi, Central, and Pacific. Each flyway has a flyway council, a formal organization generally 

composed of one member from each state and province in that flyway. The Refuge is within the 

Pacific Flyway and allows hunting for ducks, geese (on the Snake River Island Unit), and coots. 

Because the Migratory Bird Treaty Act stipulates that all hunting seasons for migratory game birds 

are closed unless specifically opened by the Secretary of the Interior, the Service annually 

promulgates regulations (50 C.F.R. 20) establishing the frameworks from which states may select 

season dates, bag limits, shooting hours, and other options for each migratory bird hunting season. 

The Service annually prescribes frameworks, or outer limits, for dates and times when hunting 

migratory birds may occur, and the number of birds that may be taken and possessed. These 

frameworks are necessary to allow states to select seasons and limits for recreation and sustenance; 

aid Federal, State, and Tribal governments in the management of migratory game birds; and permit 

harvests at levels compatible with population status and habitat conditions. The frameworks are 

essentially permissive, in that migratory bird hunting would not be allowed without them. Therefore, 

annual Federal regulations both allow and limit migratory bird hunting. 

The process for adopting migratory game bird hunting regulations, located in 50 C.F.R. Part 20, is 

constrained by three primary factors. Legal and administrative considerations dictate how long the 

rulemaking process lasts. Most importantly, however, the biological cycle of migratory game birds 

controls the timing of data-gathering activities and thus the dates on which these results are available 

for consideration and deliberation. The process of adopting migratory game bird hunting regulations 

includes two separate regulation development schedules, based on “early” and “late” hunting season 

regulations. 

Early hunting seasons generally begin prior to October 1. Late hunting seasons generally start on or 

after October 1 and include most waterfowl seasons not already established. There are basically no 

differences in the processes for establishing either early or late hunting seasons. For each cycle, 

Service biologists and others gather, analyze, and interpret biological survey data and provide this 

information to all those involved in the process through a series of published status reports and 

presentations to Flyway Councils and other interested parties. Because the Service is required to take 

the abundance of migratory birds and other factors into consideration, it undertakes a number of 

surveys throughout the year in conjunction with the Canadian Wildlife Service, state and provincial 

wildlife-management agencies, and others. To determine the appropriate frameworks for each 

species, the Service considers factors such as population size and trend, geographical distribution, 

annual breeding effort, the condition of breeding and wintering habitat, the number of hunters, and 

the anticipated harvest. After frameworks are established for season lengths, bag limits, and areas for 

migratory game bird hunting, migratory game bird management becomes a cooperative effort of 

Federal and State governments. After the Service establishes final frameworks for hunting seasons, 

the states may select season dates, bag limits, and other regulatory options for the hunting seasons. 

States may always be more conservative in their selections than the Federal frameworks but never 

more liberal. Season dates and bag limits for national wildlife refuges open to hunting, including 

Deer Flat NWR, are never longer or larger than the State regulations. 

NEPA considerations by the Service for hunted migratory game bird species are addressed by the 

programmatic document, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Issuance of Annual 

Regulations Permitting the Sport Hunting of Migratory Birds (FSES 88-14), filed with the EPA on 

June 9, 1988. A Notice of Availability was published in the Federal Register on June 16, 1988 (53 

FR 22582), and a Record of Decision was signed on August 18, 1988 (53 FR 31341). Current year 

NEPA considerations for waterfowl hunting frameworks are covered under a separate Environmental 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

6-36 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

Assessment—Duck Hunting Regulations for 2006-2007, and an August 24, 2006, Finding of No 

Significant Impact. Further, in a notice published in the September 8, 2005, Federal Register (70 FR 

53376); the Service announced its intent to develop a new supplemental environmental impact 

statement for the migratory bird hunting program. Public scoping meetings were held in the spring of 

2006, as announced in a March 9, 2006, Federal Register notice (71 FR 12216). 

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. Refuge annual 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. 

Waterfowl hunting would essentially continue to occur as it is currently under all four alternatives. 

Small changes in the hunt areas in Alternatives 3 and 4 would likely have negligible impact on the 

Refuge’s waterfowl numbers. There may be a small increase in harvest numbers under the action 

alternatives relative to the status quo due to the likelihood of increased waterfowl use of improved 

habitat. Even though small changes in management and enforcement of Refuge rules may slightly 

increase harvest numbers, it is expected to have negligible effect on regional waterfowl populations. 

The Federal Harvest Information Program estimates that 16,800 hunters in Idaho spent 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. 

Deer Flat NWR personnel have performed winter waterfowl surveys since 1951. 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 this Refuge are best understood as an index (best used to measure trends over time) and not a true 

census at any particular time. For instance, Refuge waterfowl survey numbers (commonly between 

300,000 and 500,000 ducks) for the late 1970s positively correlate with the anecdotal “skies were 

black with ducks” local sentiment. More recent and lower numbers (between 30,000 and 100,000) 

correlate with the frequently heard question, “Where have all the ducks gone?” 

6.4.6.2 Effects of Hunting on Waterfowl 

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; Thomas 

1983; White-Robinson 1982). Waterfowl are wary, seeking refuge from all forms of disturbance, but 

particularly those associated with loud noise and rapid movement (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 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-37 

disturbance compels waterfowl to change feeding habits like feeding only at night or deserting 

feeding areas entirely resulting in weight loss (Korschgen and Dolgren 1992). 

6.4.6.3 Effects of Waterfowl Hunting on Waterfowl Habitat Use 

The effects of human presence in wildlife habitat are discussed above in Section 6.4.1.2. The effect 

that hunting can have on distribution and use of habitat by waterfowl has also been well studied. 

Belanger and Bedard (1995) concluded that disturbance caused by hunting can modify the 

distribution and use of various habitats by birds (Madsen 1995; Owens 1977). Another study that 

took place at Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge found statistically significant differences in the 

densities of northern pintails among hunting units, units adjacent to hunting units, units adjacent to 

auto tour route, and units isolated from disturbance (Wolder 1993). Prior to the opening of hunting 

season, pintails had been fairly evenly distributed throughout usable habitat. Not surprisingly, after 

hunting season started the pintails moved to more isolated wetlands and units closed to hunting and 

therefore removed from hunting pressure, indicating an avoidance of disturbed areas. Belanger and 

Bedard (1989) studied the effect of disturbances to staging greater snow geese in a Quebec bird 

sanctuary and found that disturbance to a flock of geese influenced goose use of the sanctuary on the 

following day. When disturbance exceeded two events per hour, it produced a 50-percent drop in the 

mean number of geese present in the sanctuary the next day. These studies corroborate what is 

apparent at Deer Flat NWR during winter waterfowl surveys. Closed areas or sanctuaries 

(approximately 1,330 acres or 13 percent of Refuge lands) typically hold larger numbers of ducks 

and geese than areas that are open to public hunting. 

Disturbance due to hunting may also cause waterfowl to alter feeding and resting routines resulting in 

decreased energy intake and increased energy expenditure. Wintering black ducks at Chincoteague 

NWR experienced reduced energy intake and doubled energy expenditure because of increased 

avoidance of disturbance (Morton et al. 1989). Belanger and Bedard (1995) analyzed flushing 

responses and feeding habits of snow geese and found that high disturbance rates (more than two 

times per hour) limited the ability of the geese to adequately compensate for energy loss even with 

altered feeding regimes. 

Hunters may also cause damage to the physical habitat that waterfowl rely upon. 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 potentially cause structural damage to plants and 

increase soil compaction and erosion (DeLuca et al. 1998; Whittaker 1978). These impacts are 

unlikely to occur on the well-defined, gravel surface of Refuge trails; however, social trails 

associated with off-trail use remain an issue for Refuge Managers as 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 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). Propagules of nonnative plants can be 

transported into new areas on hunters’ boots, clothing, dogs, and equipment. There is the possibility 

that these transports could be new nonnative plants not currently found at the Refuge or in a 

particular area of the Refuge. Once established, invasive plants can out-compete native plants, 

thereby altering habitats and indirectly impacting wildlife. Invasive plants would be controlled and 

monitored as part of the Refuge’s IPM Plan (see Appendix G). 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

6-38 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

6.4.6.4 Overall Effects 

With regard to the effects on the Refuge’s current harvest of waterfowl, the impacts of continuing the 

recreational hunting program would be negligible. Waterfowl harvest on the Refuge accounts for a 

small portion of the overall waterfowl numbers based on mid-winter surveys at both the Pacific 

Flyway and State levels. Therefore, and in consideration of the regulatory oversight of the harvest 

conducted at the flyway level prior to each season, we conclude that waterfowl hunting would not 

have a significant impact on local, regional, or Pacific Flyway waterfowl populations. Hunting can 

contribute to the well-being of wildlife by providing financial, educational, and sociological benefits 

to hunters, who are thereby committed to the availability of wildlife for their sport. 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 has been among the largest support base for funding state wildlife management agencies 

(Heberlein 1991; Jahn and Trefethen 1978), 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 that bring hunters into 

contact with Refuge activities and facilitate awareness of wildlife issues beyond hunting. 

6.4.7 Effects to Threatened and Endangered Species 

There are no listed or candidate species known to occur on the Refuge. There are various counties 

that surround both units of the Refuge that have a variety of listed species historically or currently 

occurring within the county. Of these species, only the yellow-billed cuckoo has ever been 

documented on Deer Flat NWR, and it is currently considered a vagrant as 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 and Packard’s milkvetch) or roam great distances and/or would not find 

suitable habitat on the Refuge (e.g., North American wolverine, greater sage-grouse). It is anticipated 

that impacts to listed or candidate species or their habitats from recreational uses would be 

negligible. If any use results in unacceptable adverse effects to listed or candidate species or habitats, 

the Refuge would impose restrictions to mitigate disturbance. 

6.5 Effects to Public Uses 

Welcoming visitors and providing opportunities for them to enjoy wildlife-dependent public uses is 

an important role of the Refuge System. This section includes assessment of the change in Refuge 

user numbers expected under each of the alternatives, of how management actions under each 

alternative could affect quality opportunities for the Refuge System’s priority (i.e., hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation and photography, environmental education, and interpretation) and nonpriority 

(e.g., recreational boating, swimming, jogging, and horseback riding) public uses, as well as the 

amount of illegal uses and environmental justice considerations. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-39 

6.5.1 Estimating Annual Recreation Visits 

Estimates of FY11 visitation based on the sampling techniques described in Section 5.3.2 are 

provided in Table 6-2. 

Table 6-2. Estimates of FY11 Visits to the Lake 

Lowell and Snake River Islands Units. Visitors 

may engage in more than one activity per visit. 

Recreational Activity Visits 

Waterfowl hunting 5,100 

Upland game hunting 1,100 

Mourning dove hunting 100 

Big game hunting 75 

Shoreline or dock fishing 18,300 

Boat fishing 27,000 

Wildlife watching and photography 23,900 

Environmental education 11,000 

Interpretation (including Visitor Center) 21,000 

Nonwildlife-dependent boating 49,400 

Swimming and other beach activities 38,700 

Walking and Jogging 16,500 

Other Activities (e.g., picnicking) 11,300 

Total 223,475 

Source: 2011 Refuge Annual Performance Plan database. 

6.5.2 Projected User Numbers in 15 Years 

Refuge decisions about features of public use management—such as how many facilities to build, 

where to build them, how much staff time to devote to programs, and how much parking to 

provide—influence visitation for years to come. Similarly, and often playing a greater role, 

demographic shifts, cultural preferences, and economics influence Refuge visitation. Even small 

annual shifts can have a profound effect over time. 

The CCP team projected the number of visits that would be expected at the end of 15 years, by 

alternative (Table 6-3). The population projections and outdoor recreation trend data and projections 

used in making those projections are summarized below. 

The 2010 census showed a 21.1-percent increase in Idaho’s population from 2000 through 2010, with 

population increases of 43.7 percent and 30.4 percent over the same period in Canyon and Ada 

counties, respectively (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). COMPASS (2010) projected a 3.6-percent 

average percent increase per year between 2010 and 2025 for Canyon County and 3.1-percent 

average percent increase per year for the region (i.e., Ada and Canyon Counties) in the same time 

frame. The growing state and regional populations, coupled with an increasing interest in naturebased recreation and tourism within Idaho and nationally, would influence public uses at the Refuge 

under all management alternatives. 

Many of the public use opportunities currently provided at the Refuge are very popular within Idaho 

and are projected to attract new participants in the coming years. IDPR began tracking outdoor 

recreation trends in 2002 in the first Idaho Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation and 

Tourism Plan (SCORTP) for 2003 through 2007 (IDPR 2003). Comparing the 2002 data with their 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

6-40 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

most recent survey data from 2004-2005 (IDPR 2006), the data show substantial increases in a twoyear period for the following activities: geocaching (154 percent), outdoor photography (44 percent), 

jet boating (30 percent), bird watching (29 percent), canoeing (26 percent), walking for exercise (22 

percent), and watching wildlife other than fish (21 percent). The data also reveal a substantial 

decrease for running (26 percent). 

IDPR (2010) reports boat license sales statewide. Given that about 95 percent of Lake Lowell Unit 

visitors are from within a 50-mile radius (see Appendix L), the boat licensing data in neighboring 

counties (Ada, Canyon, Owyhee, and Payette Counties) were used. Although the data are limited and 

shows fluctuations that cannot be interpreted easily, the data are reasonably well described with a 

logarithmic equation. This yields a 12-percent increase over baseline in projected boat licenses after 

15 years. This is similar to a projection by Bowker et al. (1999) of a 1-percent constant annual 

growth rate in number of days involved in motorboating. 

Hunting and fishing license data provided by Wiedmeier (pers. comm., 2011) show a quite small 

(0.46 percent) constant annual increase in hunting licenses sold statewide between 2005 and 2010. 

Fishing license sales show a more uneven but the trend, when analyzed, again shows a small (0.46 

percent) constant annual increase in fishing licenses. 

Bowker et al. (1999) developed models to project future outdoor recreation participation to 2050 

based on data from the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE) conducted in 

1995. The NSRE is the only ongoing assessment of national recreation trends. According to the 

Bowker report, fishing, hunting, wildlife watching and photography, hiking, walking, biking, 

horseback riding, picnicking and family gatherings, motorboating, and visiting beaches are projected 

to increase at a rate higher than population growth within the Rocky Mountain region (including 

Idaho). Bowker, et al. (1999) projected that nonpool swimming would increase at a rate that keeps 

pace with population growth. 

Finally, Cordell (2008) describes general trends in nature-based recreation, comparing data from the 

NSRE completed between 1999 and 2001 to the survey completed between 2005 and 2008. Refuge 

activities that were among the fastest-growing nature-based outdoor activities from 2000 through 

2007 included viewing and photographing nature, kayaking, visiting water, visiting nature centers, 

and big game hunting. 

Table 6-3 displays visitation projections by use. The current number of Refuge visits is displayed, as 

well as the expected visits that would occur by the end of CCP implementation for each of the 

alternatives. Projected changes in visitation by use over the next 15 years for Alternative 1 were 

estimated using equations that fit observed trends described above, over a 15-year horizon. Visitation 

increases or decreases for the other alternatives by the end of 15 years were estimated based on the 

following considerations: 

 Changes in recreational programs, facilities, and resources under each alternative (for more 

information on effects from proposed changes see Sections 6.5.3 through 6.5.12); 

 Changes observed in visitation at Deer Flat NWR over the last 10 years (Refuge staff 

experience and best professional judgment); and 

 Trend data described above. 

Potentially contingent changes (e.g., restriction in upland game hunt hours based on results of visitor 

use surveys) are not reflected in these visitation projections. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-41 

Table 6-3. Deer Flat NWR’s Current and Projected Annual Visits in 15 Years, by Alternative 

Recreational Activity 

Current 

Visits Annual Visits at the End of 15 Years Assumptions 

(2011) Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Waterfowl hunting 5,100 5,450 5,450 3,150 4,360 Alt 1: Assume linear trend line at 0.46% annual increase based on IDFG (pers. comm., C. Wiedmeier 2011) trend data. For deer hunting, assume all 45 tags 

in the new Lake Lowell controlled hunt would be filled each year. Alt 2: Same 

as Alternative 1 because no change in hunt area. Alts 3 and 4: For waterfowl, upland game, and mourning dove hunts, assume reduction proportional to reduced acreage available for hunting. 

Upland game hunting 1,100 1,180 1,180 550 410 Mourning dove hunting 100 110 110 50 40 Big game hunting 75 125 125 125 125 Fishing 45,300 48,430 48,430 23,260 12,710 

Alt 1: Assume linear trend line at 0.46% annual increase based on Wiedmeier (pers. comm., 2011) trend data. Alt 2: Same as Alt 1, assuming minimal 

impact of more no-wake zones and of seasonal closures around wildlife nesting or feeding areas. Alt 3: Assume 60% reduction in fishing in the East Pool due to increased time to access fishing spots. Use USGS data (see Appendix L) for percentage of anglers who fish in emergent beds to determine displacement from emergent beds closed to fishing. Alt 4: Same assumptions as Alt 3 but 60% reduction for entire lake because all no wake. 

Wildlife watching and photography 

23,900 49,690 52,170 49,690 47,200 

Alt 1: Assume 5% constant annual growth rate (compounded, exponential trend line) based on projections from Bowker et al. (1999) and Cordell (2008) for various wildlife viewing, photography, and nonconsumptive activities. Alt 2: Assume a 5% higher number of baseline visits from Alt 1 because of improved facilities. Alt 3: Assume same as Alt 1 because restriction to on-trail travel balanced by improved facilities. Alt 4: Assume 5% lower number of baseline visits from Alt 1 because of restriction to on-trail travel and fewer improved facilities. 

Environmental education 11,000 11,000 14,650 14,650 16,980 

Current visits include Refuge programs, EE Building users, and traveling trunks. Alt 1: Assume remains the same because current staff are doing maximum # possible programs. Alts 2 and 3: Assume demand increases at 

rate of local population growth (COMPASS 2010). However, overall decrease caused by increased staff emphasis on interpretation balanced by increase in teacher-led programs, and no EE Building. Alt 4: Assume increase despite no 

EE Building because of increased staff emphasis on EE and more teacher-led programs. 

Interpretation 21,000 32,720 58,740 58,740 39,670 

Current visits include Visitor Center (VC) visits and participants in interpretive programs. Alt 1: Assume demand increases at rate of local 

population growth (COMPASS 2010). Alts 2 and 3: Assume staff/volunteers 

make 30 interpretive contacts on 3 days per week during 12 peak visitation weeks. Assume contacts at new Visitor Contact Station (VCS) about same as 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

6-42 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

Recreational Activity 

Current 

Visits Annual Visits at the End of 15 Years Assumptions 

(2011) Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

at VC. Although it would be open seasonally, it is at a higher-use location than the VC. Alt 4: Assume reduced staff/volunteers contacts because reduced focus on interpretation (30 contacts on 3 days per week during 8 peak visitation weeks). Assume reduced contacts at the new VCS because only wildlife-dependent activities would be allowed. 

Nonwildlifedependent boating 

49,400 55,080 50,040 21,480 0 

Alt 1: Assume growth based on logarithmic equation derived from IDPR (2010). Although boating visits would eventually be limited by available parking, projected increases are not expected to exceed parking capacity except on a few days each summer. Alt 2: 19% of ski/tubing currently happens in east section of the East Pool (see Appendix L), which approximately corresponds with the proposed no-wake zone. Assume 25% of those who currently ski/tube in that area would be displaced from the lake and the remainder would move to other parts of the East Pool. Alt 3: Assume 39% reduction of Alt 1 projection because 39% of categories corresponding with defined nonwildlife-dependent boating activities (skiing/tubing plus recreation) in USGS study (see Appendix L) currently occur in the West Pool. Although some displaced from the East Pool would move to west, assume that is balanced by amount displaced by AM no-wake restriction. Alt 4: No 

nonwildlife-dependent activities allowed. 

Swimming and other beach activities 

38,700 60,290 54,260 40,700 0 

Alt 1: Assume increase at rate of population growth (COMPASS 2010) based on (Bowker et al. 1999) projection. Alt 2: Assume 90% of current swimming 

and beach uses would occur at areas designated for swimming in Alt 2 based on best professional judgment. Alt 3: Assume 75% of beach uses in Alt 2 would occur at the LDRA based on best professional judgment. Alt 4: No swimming allowed. 

Walking and jogging 16,500 19,160 19,160 15,330 11,500 

Alt 1: Assume 1% constant annual increase (Bowker et al. 1999). Alt 2: Same 

as Alt 1, assuming most walking/jogging already occurs on wider trails. Alt 3: 

Assume reduction by 20% because dogs would not be allowed. Alt 4: Assume reduction by 25% because jogging would not be allowed. 

Other activities (e.g., picnicking) 11,300 13,120 11,810 11,810 0 

Alt 1: Assume 1% constant annual increase (based on Bowker et al. 1999 projection for picnicking). Alt 2: Assume 90% of current picnicking activity occurs at areas designated for picnicking in Alt 2. Alt 3: Assume same as Alt 2. Alt 4: No such activities allowed. 

Total (% change from current visits) 

223,475 296,255 (+32.6%) 316,025 (+41.5%) 239,475 (+7.2%) 132,915 (-40.5%) These totals may include some double-counting. For example, projected interpretation visits include contact with nonwildlife-dependent users. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-43 

6.5.3 Effects from Wildlife and Habitat Management Actions on 

Recreational Opportunities and Cultural Resources 

Many management actions are proposed to benefit wildlife and habitat on both the Lake Lowell and 

Snake River Islands Units. Some of these activities may temporarily have minor negative effects on 

visitors from noise, presence of machinery and staff, and potentially restricted access while the 

treatments are implemented. However, most are expected, over the course of the CCP, to have longterm positive effects on wildlife habitat and therefore on wildlife-dependent recreational 

opportunities. These long-term effects are discussed in the next several paragraphs for major wildlife 

and habitat management actions proposed in the action alternatives. 

Efforts to remove carp would have variable effects on recreational opportunities depending on the 

strategy selected. Short-term effects of seining would be negligible, because seining is usually more 

effective in fall and winter when the lake is already closed to boats. The long-term improvement in 

open-water and emergent-bed habitats expected from a reduction in carp biomass through any of the 

strategies would have an overall intermediate positive effect on waterfowl hunting, fishing, and 

wildlife observation and photography by improving wildlife habitat and a negligible long-term effect 

on other activities. If chemical or biological controls were selected for carp control, they could have 

longer-term negative consequences for all recreational activities through consequences to nontarget 

sportfish species. Working with Service Regional biologists to assess each type of control method 

before it is used, based on use elsewhere, should reduce unforeseen impacts. 

Opening channels in emergent beds could have a minor short-term negative effect on access for 

wildlife-dependent and nonwildlife-dependent lake activities during cutting of channels. However, it 

would have a minor long-term positive effect on fishing and waterfowl hunting by improving access 

to emergent beds. 

Use of prescribed fire in the upland and riparian habitats is proposed in the action alternatives. 

Although there would be short-term negative impacts to local air quality, limitations on access during 

prescribed burns, and a short-term displacement of species, use of prescribed fire would have a minor 

long-term positive effect on wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities by improving fish and 

wildlife habitat. 

Reduction in invasive plants in various habitats through improved invasive plant control would have 

a minor long-term positive effect on wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities by improving fish 

and wildlife habitat. 

Discing of fire lines would continue in the action alternatives, but some would be removed in riparian 

and upland habitats to reduce habitat fragmentation. This would have a minor negative effect on ease 

of access for off-trail users in Alternative 2. However, it would not reduce access in Alternatives 3 

and 4, where travel is required on designated trails (except during hunting). 

Discing of mudflats near Farm Field 5 would have a minor positive effect on wildlife observation 

and photography opportunities by improving shorebird habitat, and therefore shorebird viewing 

opportunities. It would have a negligible effect on other wildlife-dependent and nonwildlifedependent opportunities. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

6-44 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

In the action alternatives, implementation of seasonal or year-round closures and access restrictions 

(e.g., on-trail requirements and no-wake zones) to protect important wildlife areas (e.g., eagle nests, 

grebe colonies, osprey nests, heron rookeries, shorebird feeding areas, and wintering waterfowl 

closures) would reduce visitor access to some areas. Some of these closures and access restrictions 

would be implemented based on wildlife activity, so areas that had at one time been closed to protect 

wildlife activity would be reopened if that activity shifts or disappears. The effects of these closures 

and access restrictions are discussed below in Sections 6.5.4 through 6.5.12 by each type of 

opportunity. 

In all alternatives, staff would 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. 

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, establishes the Federal 

Government’s policy on historic preservation and the programs through which that policy is 

implemented. An impact to cultural resources would be considered significant if it adversely affects a 

resource listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). In 

general, an adverse effect may occur if a cultural resource would be physically damaged or altered, 

isolated from the context considered significant, or affected by project elements that would be out of 

character with the significant property or its setting. Title 36 C.F.R. 800 defines effects and adverse 

effects on historic resources. Cultural resource surveys will be conducted before conducting any 

major habitat restoration project. Earth-moving activities occurring in proximity to known sites 

would be monitored because of the potential for buried cultural material in these areas. If any cultural 

materials are uncovered during excavation, the Regional Historic Preservation Officer would be 

contacted to review the materials and recommend a treatment that is consistent with applicable laws 

and policies. The habitat management and restoration projects proposed under all of these 

alternatives would not be expected to have an adverse effect on historic resources. Major disturbance 

would be avoided by the survey and consultation process as described in Section 106 of NHPA. 

6.5.4 Effects from Public Use and Public Use Management Actions on 

Quality Waterfowl Hunting 

Indicators of effects on waterfowl hunting opportunities are (1) acres available for general waterfowl 

hunting; (2) area available for youth waterfowl hunt; and (3) management actions that affect hunt 

quality. 

6.5.4.1 Lake Lowell Unit 

Under Alternative 1, waterfowl hunting would be allowed in the East Side and South Side Recreation 

Areas. Human- or electric-powered boats could be used up to 200 yards from the shore. In the East 

Side Recreation Area, waterfowl hunting would be walk-in only. A youth waterfowl hunt would be 

allowed in all designated waterfowl hunt zones in accordance with IDFG regulations. There would be 

no blinds or designated hunting spots. Portable blinds would be 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 would be available on a first-come, first-served basis. Installation of an ADA-compliant 

hunting opportunity at an appropriate location would be proposed under all alternatives, including the 

status quo. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-45 

Few changes are proposed in Alternative 1. Invasive plant control would continue to be minimal, and 

therefore invasive plant infestations would increase, thus reducing waterfowl habitat quality. This 

would have a minor long-term negative effect on waterfowl hunting opportunity. 

In Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative), the waterfowl hunt area would remain the same as the status 

quo, with the exception of the youth hunt area, which would be restricted to an area previously closed 

to waterfowl hunting east of Parking Lot 1 to the New York Canal. Although this would reduce the 

total area available for the youth hunt (1,940 acres in Alternative 1 and 190 acres in Alternative 2), it 

would open an area that provides better waterfowl habitat and where hunters would be less disturbed 

by late-season boaters using the waterfowl hunt area. This would therefore likely create a higherquality youth hunt. An ADA-accessible waterfowl hunting blind would be installed at an appropriate 

location to improve hunting opportunity for hunters with physical disabilities. Waterfowl hunters 

would also be limited to 25 shotgun shells per day. This should increase the quality of the hunt by 

reducing sky busting (described in Objective 2.1) and encouraging ethical behavior. However, 

limiting number of shotgun shells would also potentially limit hunting opportunity. In Alternative 2, 

unlike the other alternatives, anglers would have access to fishing from open shoreline within hunting 

areas during hunting season. This could increase disturbance to target species from other users and 

increase safety concerns. However, signs would also be posted at all hunting access points to notify 

Refuge users when a hunt is underway, which may actually provide a higher-quality hunt by 

discouraging incursion of non-hunters and thus reducing disturbance to target species from other 

users and reducing safety concerns. Also, using results of visitor use surveys, we would evaluate 

whether to implement restricted upland game hunting hours to reduce conflicts with waterfowl 

hunters. Both these actions to reduce conflict with other users should increase the quality of the 

waterfowl hunt. 

Alternative 3 would reduce the size of the waterfowl hunting area by reducing the hunt area in the 

South Side Recreation Area to between Parking Lots 3 and 8 and in the East Side Recreation Area to 

west of the Leavitt Tract. This would reduce the area available for waterfowl hunting from 2,250 to 

1,300 acres. It would also reduce the number of waterfowl hunters by changing the waterfowl hunt to 

a controlled hunting opportunity (e.g., sign-in/out at parking areas or lottery). This would reduce 

waterfowl hunting opportunities but should increase hunt quality by reducing crowding. The youth 

waterfowl hunt area would be larger than the area designated in Alternative 2 but would be in an area 

with lower-quality waterfowl habitat. Only wildlife-dependent public use activities would be allowed 

in waterfowl hunting zones, which would reduce disturbance to hunters. 

Alternative 4 is similar to Alternative 3 except that the South Side Recreation Area waterfowl 

hunting area would be larger, but waterfowl hunting would not be allowed in the East Side 

Recreation Area, so only 1,800 acres would be available. The youth waterfowl hunt would shift to 

the east as in Alternative 2. Only wildlife-dependent public use activities would be allowed, which 

would reduce disturbance to upland hunters from nonwildlife-dependent users. 

In all action alternatives, carp removal efforts, opening channels in emergent beds, and reduction in 

invasive plants would be expected to have a minor positive effect on waterfowl hunting by improving 

waterfowl habitat. However, reduction in fire line discing would have a minor negative effect on 

hunting access by reducing ease of access. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

6-46 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

6.5.4.2 Snake River Islands Unit 

In Alternative 1, waterfowl hunting, including the youth hunt, would be allowed on all Refuge 

islands. There would be no blinds or designated hunting spots. Portable blinds would be 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 would be available on a first-come, first-served basis. 

No recreational changes are proposed in the action alternatives that would affect the quantity or 

quality of waterfowl hunting on the Snake River Islands Unit. 

6.5.4.3 Overall Effects 

In Alternative 1, there would be a negligible long-term effect on waterfowl hunting since reduction 

of hunt quality due to the spread of invasive plants would be balanced by an improvement in hunter 

access through the construction of a new ADA-accessible hunting opportunity. In Alternative 2, there 

would be a minor long-term positive effect on visitor opportunities to enjoy quality waterfowl 

hunting opportunities. In Alternative 3, the hunt area would be reduced from 2,250 acres in 

Alternative 1 to 1,300 acres, but that would be partially offset by increased hunt quality and 

reduction of crowding from implementing a controlled hunt and improvements in waterfowl habitat 

through wildlife and habitat management actions, having an overall minor long-term negative effect 

on waterfowl hunting. In Alternative 4, reduction of the hunt area from 2,250 acres in Alternative 1 

to 1,800 acres, offset by improved habitat for the youth hunt and improvements in waterfowl habitat 

through wildlife and habitat management actions, would have an overall negligible effect on 

waterfowl hunting opportunity. Overall, because no recreational changes are proposed, we expect 

negligible effects on waterfowl hunting opportunities at the Snake River Islands Unit in all 

alternatives. 

6.5.5 Effects from Public Use and Public Use Management Actions on 

Quality Upland Game Hunting 

Indicators of effects on upland hunting opportunities are (1) acres available for upland hunting; and 

(2) management actions that affect hunt quality. 

6.5.5.1 Lake Lowell Unit 

In Alternative 1, upland game bird hunting (including mourning dove) would be allowed in the East 

Side and South Side Recreation Areas at the Lake Lowell Unit. Few changes are proposed in 

Alternative 1. Invasive plant control would continue to be minimal, and therefore invasive plant 

infestations would increase, thus reducing upland habitat quality. This would have a minor long-term 

negative effect on upland hunting. 

In Alternative 2, the upland game hunt area would remain the same as the status quo. In Alternative 

2, unlike the other alternatives, anglers would have access to fishing from open shoreline within 

hunting areas during hunting season. This could increase disturbance to target species from other 

users and increase safety concerns. However, signs would be posted at all hunting access points to 

notify Refuge users when a hunt is underway, which may actually provide a higher-quality hunt by 

discouraging incursion of non-hunters and thus reducing disturbance to target species from other 

users and reducing safety concerns. Using results of visitor use surveys, we would periodically 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-47 

evaluate whether to implement restricted upland game hunting hours to reduce conflicts with 

waterfowl hunters, although this potential effect is not evaluated here. If such a reduction in hunting 

hours were implemented, the total upland hunting opportunity would be reduced. These changes 

would have a negligible effect on upland hunting. 

Alternative 3 would reduce the size of the upland game bird hunting area from 2,250 (Alternatives 1 

and 2) to 400 acres by eliminating the hunt in the South Side Recreation Area and eliminating the 

Leavitt Tract from the hunt zone in the East Side Recreation Area. Only wildlife-dependent public 

use activities would be allowed in the remaining upland hunting zones, which would increase hunt 

quality by reducing disturbance to target species from other users and reducing safety concerns. 

Reduction in the hunt area would have an intermediate long-term negative effect. 

In Alternative 4, upland game bird hunting would be completely eliminated from the Lake Lowell 

Unit, which would have a significant negative effect on upland hunting opportunities. 

In all action alternatives, prescribed fire and reduction in invasive plants would be expected to have a 

minor positive effect on upland hunting by improving upland game habitat. However, reduction in 

fire line discing would have a minor negative effect on hunting access by reducing ease of access. 

6.5.5.2 Snake River Islands Unit 

In Alternative 1, upland game hunting would continue to be allowed on all Refuge islands. No 

recreational changes are proposed that would affect the quantity or quality of upland game hunting 

on the Snake River Islands Unit. 

6.5.5.3 Overall Effects 

In Alternative 1, there would be a negligible long-term negative effect on upland game bird hunting 

from the spread of invasive plants due to minimal invasive species management. Alternative 2 would 

have a negligible effect on visitor opportunities to enjoy quality upland game bird hunting 

opportunities. In Alternative 3, the hunt area would be reduced, but reduced disturbance from 

nonwildlife-dependent activities in the hunting area and improvements in upland habitat through 

wildlife and habitat management actions should increase hunt quality, having an overall minor 

negative effect on upland game bird hunting. Alternative 4 would have a significant negative longterm effect on upland game bird hunting opportunities by completely eliminating the opportunity on 

the Lake Lowell Unit of the Refuge. 

Overall, negligible effects on upland game hunting opportunities would be expected at the Snake 

River Islands Unit in all alternatives. 

6.5.6 Effects from Public Use and Public Use Management Actions on 

Quality Big Game Hunting 

Indicators of effects on big game hunting opportunities are (1) acres available for big game hunting; 

and (2) management actions that affect hunt quality. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

6-48 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

6.5.6.1 Lake Lowell Unit 

A new Lake Lowell Unit deer hunt was recently implemented under a different planning process 

(USFWS 2011a) and began in fall 2012. This hunt would continue unchanged under all alternatives. 

In Alternative 2, unlike the other alternatives, anglers would have access to fishing from open 

shoreline within hunting areas during hunting season. This could increase disturbance to target 

species from other users and increase safety concerns. However, signs would be posted at all hunting 

access points to notify Refuge users when a hunt is underway, which may actually provide a higherquality hunt by discouraging incursion of non-hunters and thus reducing disturbance to target species 

from other users and reducing safety concerns. Under Alternatives 3 and 4, there would be no upland 

bird hunting within the deer hunting zone and only wildlife-dependent public use activities would be 

allowed in hunting zones, which may reduce disturbance to target species from other users and 

reduce safety concerns. However, in Alternative 3, the proposed boardwalk between parking lots 1 

and 3 does fall within the deer hunting area, so wildlife-dependent boardwalk users may increase 

disturbance to target species from other users and increase safety concerns. Overall, changes in 

access to the deer hunt area would have a negligible to minor negative effect of disturbance on deer 

hunt quality. 

In all action alternatives, prescribed fire and reduction in invasive plants would be expected to have a 

minor positive effect on deer hunting by improving habitat. However, reduction in fire line discing 

would have a minor negative effect on hunting access by reducing ease of access. 

6.5.6.2 Snake River Islands Unit 

In Alternative 1, big game hunting would be allowed on all Refuge islands. No recreational changes 

are proposed in the action alternatives that would affect the quantity or quality of waterfowl hunting 

on the Snake River Islands Unit. 

6.5.6.3 Overall Effects 

In Alternative 1, there would be a negligible long-term negative effect on big game hunting from the 

spread of invasive plants due to minimal invasive species management. In the action alternatives, a 

negligible effect would be expected due to hunting acres remaining the same as presently available. 

6.5.7 Effects from Public Use and Public Use Management Actions on 

Quality Fishing 

Indicators of effects on fishing opportunities are (1) acres available for boat fishing; (2) area 

available for shoreline fishing; (3) facilities available for dock fishing; and (4) management actions 

that affect fishing quality. 

6.5.7.1 Lake Lowell Unit 

In Alternative 1, the entire lake would be open to fishing from boats between April 15 and September 

30. Between October 1 and April 14, fishing would be 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 would be allowed from 

open shoreline, with the exception of waterfowl-hunting season, when fishing would be allowed only 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-49 

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. During 

the boating season, there would continue to be an ADA-accessible fishing dock at the West Upper 

Dam boat ramp. This is currently the only ADA-accessible fishing opportunity at the Refuge and the 

only designated fishing dock. SUPs would continue to be issued for fishing tournaments with special 

provisions. Currently some ice fishing occurs when the lake freezes. 

Under all action alternatives, signs would be posted at hunting access points to notify Refuge users 

when a hunt is underway. This would improve the fishing experience by improving the safety of 

fishing visitors. In addition, new fishing facilities (including ADA-accessible fishing access trails and 

ADA-accessible docks) would improve fishing quality by providing more accessible shoreline 

fishing opportunities. Wading access to fishing at the Lake Lowell Unit would be restricted to the 

boating season (April 15-September 30) except in Fishing Areas A and B. Although the lake is 

currently closed during that time, the restriction on wading access to fishing is not being 

communicated to the public, and visitors sometimes wade or use float tubes between October 1 and 

April 14. If Alternative 1 were selected, this requirement would be enforced, reducing fishing access. 

Finally, if it were possible to increase bottom structure to benefit fish without interfering with the 

irrigation purpose of the reservoir, the increased structure would improve fishing opportunities by 

providing fish habitat. 

Under Alternative 1, invasive plant control would continue to be minimal, and therefore invasive 

plant infestations would increase, thus reducing fish habitat quality. This would have a negligible 

long-term negative effect on fishing. 

In Alternative 2, the fishing area accessible by boat would remain the same, with the exception of 

those areas subject to seasonal wildlife closures (e.g., grebe, eagle, and heron nesting and shorebird 

feeding). The number of acres closed seasonally would vary depending on wildlife activity. If 

seasonal closures like those proposed as part of Alternative 2 had been implemented in 2011, 170 

acres would have been closed between February 1 and July 1 and 1,050 acres between April 15 and 

September 30. There would be additional no-wake areas, including an expansion of the no-wake 

zone in the East Pool, a 200-yard no-wake buffer along the south shore, and a no-wake area in the 

Narrows between the East and West Pools. Although these no-wake areas would increase the time it 

would take to reach some fishing spots, most of the available fishing area would still be accessible by 

boat with the exception of those areas subject to seasonal wildlife closures as discussed above. 

Access for fishing tournaments would remain unchanged from the status quo. 

In Alternative 2, access to bank fishing would remain the same in the East Side Recreation Area and 

at Gotts Point, again with the exception of those areas subject to seasonal wildlife closures. Gotts 

Point would also be fully open to vehicle access upon completion of an MOU with Canyon County to 

resolve law enforcement issues, and ADA-accessible trails and a dock would be provided to improve 

fishing access at Gotts Point. Access to bank fishing would be restricted to trails during the nesting 

season (February 1-July 31) in all other areas, and open to off-trail travel the rest of the year. 

Additional trails would be developed to provide fishing access, including at popular fishing access 

points at Parking Lots 4 and 7 on the south side, from a proposed trail at Murphy’s Neck, and at 

Gotts Point. In addition, ADA-accessible docks would be provided at appropriate locations, including 

at the Lower Dam Recreation Area, east end of the Upper Dam, Gotts Point, and at Parking Lot 1. 

Fishing opportunities would also increase during waterfowl hunting season, because fishing would be 

available from the all areas open to access, rather than just Fishing Areas A and B. After the 

disabled-accessible 0.65-mile trail proposed in Murphy’s Neck were installed, access to Murphy’s 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

6-50 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

Neck for fishing may be moved from road-side parking on Orchard Avenue to the Murphy’s Neck 

trail. If that change were made it would increase the distance shoreline anglers would need to walk, 

but it would also improve visitor safety and accessibility for people with disabilities. Ice fishing 

would not be allowed. Because of additional fishing access through new facilities and reopening of 

Gotts Point to vehicles, there would be a minor long-term positive effect on fishing access. 

Alternative 3 would reduce the fishing area from 7,300 acres accessible by boat in Alternative 1 to 

5,800 acres, because the current no-wake zone on the east end of the lake and the emergent beds 

between Parking Lots 3 and 8 on the south side and at Murphy’s Neck would be closed. In addition, 

historical grebe nesting colonies would be closed throughout the boating season, and there would be 

a seasonal closure to protect shorebird foraging habitat from Murphy’s Neck to the Narrows, as well 

as other seasonal closures as in Alternative 2. There would also be additional no-wake areas, 

including the entire East Pool, a 200-yard buffer from the emergent vegetation on the south side in 

the West Pool, and in the West Pool from sunrise to noon, thus increasing the time it would take to 

reach many fishing spots, but also reducing disturbance from wake-causing boats and increasing the 

opportunity to fish from nonwake-causing boats. The lake would close to boating 10 days earlier than 

under Alternative 1. 

Access to bank fishing would be restricted to trails and docks in all areas, thus restricting bank 

fishing access further than under Alternative 2. Additional trails and docks would be developed to 

provide additional fishing access, and Gotts Point would be fully open to vehicle access upon 

completion of an MOU with Canyon County to resolve law enforcement issues. 

Alternative 4 reduces the fishing area accessible by boat to 5,400 acres, because emergent beds 

would be closed between Parking Lots 1 and 3 and at Murphy’s Neck, and a 100-yard area along the 

shore would be closed between Murphy’s Neck and the Narrows. The entire lake would be open only 

to no-wake boating, thus increasing the time it would take to reach many fishing spots, but also 

reducing disturbance from wake-causing boats and increasing the opportunity to fish from nonwakecausing boats. Eliminating nonwildlife-dependent boating activities would reduce disturbance to 

anglers and therefore improve the quality of the angling experience. 

Access to bank fishing would be similar to Alternative 3, with the following exceptions. Gotts Point 

would remain closed to vehicle access, and an ADA-accessible trail would be installed from Gotts 

Point parking area 1 to parking area 2 and then to the water. Two additional trails accessing the lake 

for fishing would also be installed at Parking Lots 2 and 3. 

In all action alternatives, carp removal efforts and reduction in invasive plants would be expected to 

have a minor positive effect on fishing by improving fish habitat. Opening channels in emergent beds 

would improve access to fishing spots in emergent beds. However, the reduction in fire line discing 

would have a minor negative effect on fishing access by reducing ease of access along firebreaks. 

6.5.7.2 Snake River Islands Unit 

In Alternative 1, fishing would be allowed from all Refuge islands between June 1 and January 31. 

The Service does not have jurisdiction over the waters of the Snake River, so no management actions 

are proposed to improve fish habitat. In Alternatives 2 through 4, all islands would be closed for bank 

fishing until June 15 to protect nesting geese. A few islands (four to six currently) would not open 

until July 1 to protect colonial-nesting birds. Delaying opening of Refuge islands for fishing from 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-51 

shore until June 15 or July 1 would reduce the opportunity to fish from shore during late spring and 

early summer. However, there are few users at that time of year. 

6.5.7.3 Overall Effects 

In Alternative 1, there would be a negligible long-term negative effect on fishing from the spread of 

invasive plants due to minimal invasive species management. 

In Alternative 2, although fishing access would be restricted during the nesting season in some areas 

and no-wake zones would increase the time it would take to reach some fishing spots, most of the 

available fishing area would still be accessible by boat, management actions would improve fish 

habitat, and additional trails and docks would improve access at popular fishing areas. Overall, these 

changes would have a minor long-term positive effect on fishing opportunities. Although the Lake 

Lowell Unit would be closed to ice fishing, this would have a negligible effect on fishing 

opportunities because very few little ice fishing occurs currently. 

In Alternative 3, fishing access would be reduced because of permanent on-water closures and 

increased no-wake zones. This would be partially offset by reductions in disturbance to anglers from 

wake-causing activities. Although there would be improved access for bank fishing, overall there 

would be an intermediate long-term negative effect on access to fishing at the Lake Lowell Unit. 

In Alternative 4, reductions in disturbance to anglers from wake-causing activities would partially 

offset the further restrictions to on-water fishing access. Gotts Point would also remain closed to 

vehicles. Overall there would be a significant long-term negative effect on fishing opportunities. 

Although access to bank fishing on the Snake River Islands Unit would be slightly reduced in all 

action alternatives because of lengthened nesting closures, not many anglers fish from shore above 

the mean high water line. Because no other changes are proposed to fishing access or regulations, we 

expect a negligible effect on fishing opportunity on the Snake River Islands Unit. 

6.5.8 Effects from Public Use and Public Use Management Actions on 

Quality Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Indicators of effects on wildlife observation and photography opportunities are (1) number of miles 

of trail available; (2) facilities available for wildlife observation and photography; and (3) 

management actions that affect wildlife observation and photography quality. 

6.5.8.1 Lake Lowell Unit 

In Alternative 1, wildlife observation and photography would continue to 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, and the Kingfisher Trail allows access to riparian forests and the lakeshore. Gotts Point is a 

popular place for photographing sunsets. A total of 10 miles of trail would continue to be available. 

Most wildlife-watching and photography facilities would continue to be located in the North Side 

Recreation Area and include the Visitor Center viewing room and spotting scope, an osprey nesting 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

6-52 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

webcam, trails, two ADA-accessible wildlife-viewing platforms, and a wildlife-viewing blind. Three 

developed viewing facilities would continue to be available. 

Although the most recent compatibility determinations allow walking and jogging (with the 

exception of competitive jogging) on roads, trails, and firebreaks and not off-trail, the requirement to 

remain on roads, trails, and firebreaks is not being communicated to the public. People frequently 

leave trails for wildlife watching and photography, and for other recreational activities. If Alternative 

1 were selected, this requirement would be enforced, reducing off-trail access. 

Under Alternative 1, the lake would continue to be open to motorized and nonmotorized boats for 

wildlife observation and photography between April 15 and September 30 and to nonmotorized boats 

in Fishing Areas A and B the rest of the year. 

Under all action alternatives, signs would be posted at hunting access points to notify Refuge users 

when a hunt is underway. This would improve the observation and photography experience by 

improving the safety and awareness of visitors. In Alternative 2, off-trail access for wildlife 

observation and photography would be allowed in the East Side Recreation Area, Lower Dam 

Recreation Area and Gotts Point. Gotts Point would also be fully open to vehicle access upon 

completion of an MOU with Canyon County to resolve law enforcement issues. Access would be 

restricted to trails during the nesting season (February 1-July 31) in the North Side and South Side 

Recreation Areas but open to off-trail travel the rest of the year. Thus, off-trail access would increase 

beyond that available in Alternative 1. There would also be some seasonal wildlife closures (e.g., 

eagle and heron nesting) that would restrict access, but these closures should increase the quality of 

observation and photography opportunities by reducing wildlife disturbance. There would be a larger 

no-wake area for wildlife observation and photography. An additional 3 miles of trails for a total of 

13 miles and an additional two blinds and platforms would be developed for observation and 

photography on land, and an on-water self-guided or virtual geocaching opportunity would be 

developed. In addition, those trails and facilities developed primarily for fishing access (see Section 

6.5.7.1) would also be available for observation and photography. 

Alternative 3 is similar to Alternative 2 except that no off-trail access would be allowed except in the 

Lower Dam Recreation Area from April 15-September 30. Additional trails and facilities would be 

the same as in Alternative 2, except that the firebreak to the observation platform west of the Visitor 

Center from the entrance road parking lot would be rehabilitated rather than upgraded to a trail, a 2-

mile boardwalk is proposed between Parking Lots 1 and 3. There would therefore be a total of 14.5 

miles of trail and four new blinds and platforms. In addition, no on-water self-guided or virtual 

geocaching opportunity would be developed. A reduction in the area available for waterfowl and 

upland game bird hunting would improve the wildlife observation and photography experience in 

those areas by providing a less disturbed and safer opportunity. 

Alternative 4 is similar to Alternative 3 except that the boardwalk and its associated docks and the 

bike/walking trail along the entrance road would not be developed, so only 12 miles of trails and only 

two new viewing facilities would be available. Eliminating hunting from the East Side Recreation 

Area would reduce potential conflicts between user groups and thus improve the quality of wildlife 

observation and photography. Eliminating nonwildlife-dependent recreational activities would reduce 

wildlife disturbance and therefore improve wildlife observation and photography opportunities. As in 

Alternative 3, a reduction in the area available for waterfowl and upland game bird hunting would 

improve the wildlife observation and photography experience in those areas by providing a less 

disturbed and safer opportunity. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-53 

In all action alternatives, carp removal efforts, prescribed fire, reduction in invasive plants, and 

discing of mudflats would be expected to have a minor positive effect on wildlife observation and 

photography by improving wildlife habitat and therefore viewing opportunities. However, reduction 

in fire line discing would have a minor negative effect by reducing ease of access for wildlife 

observation and photography. 

6.5.8.2 Snake River Islands Unit 

Under Alternative 1, wildlife observation and photography would continue to be allowed on all 

Refuge islands between June 1 and January 31 and viewing of islands from the shore year-round. 

In Alternatives 2 through 4, all islands would be closed for wildlife watching and photography until 

June 15 to protect nesting geese. A few islands (four to six currently) would not open until July 1 to 

protect colonial-nesting birds. Delaying opening of Refuge islands for fishing from shore until June 

15 or July 1 would reduce the opportunity to wildlife watching and photography during late spring 

and early summer, but there is currently minimal use at that time of year. 

6.5.8.3 Overall Effects 

In Alternative 1, the requirement to stay on trail would begin to be enforced, thus reducing access to 

wildlife observation and photography opportunities and having a minor long-term negative effect. 

Wildlife and habitat management actions would be expected to improve wildlife viewing 

opportunities. Although observation and photography access would be restricted during the nesting 

season in some areas in Alternative 2, those restrictions would improve opportunities by reducing 

wildlife disturbance. In addition, off-trail travel would be allowed year-round in some areas and 

seasonally in others and additional trails and viewing facilities would also improve access. Overall, 

these changes would therefore have a minor positive effect on observation and photography 

opportunities. In Alternative 3, although restricting wildlife observation and photography to on-trail 

travel would restrict opportunities, providing additional facilities and wildlife and habitat 

management actions would have a positive effect, suggesting an overall negligible or minor longterm negative effect on wildlife observation and photography opportunities. In Alternative 4 would 

be similar to Alternative 3, except with fewer new facilities, resulting in a minor long-term negative 

effect on access to observation and photography opportunities. 

Although the time in late spring and early summer available for wildlife observation and 

photography on the Snake River Islands Unit would be slightly reduced in all action alternatives, not 

many users visit the islands during those times. Therefore, this reduction would have a negligible 

effect on observation and photography opportunities on the Snake River Islands Unit. 

6.5.9 Effects from Public Use and Public Use Management Actions on 

Quality Environmental Education 

Indicators of effects on EE opportunities are (1) number of students participating annually in on- and 

off-site EE programs; and (2) management actions that affect quality of EE opportunities. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

6-54 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

6.5.9.1 Lake Lowell Unit 

In Alternative 1, the Refuge would continue to offer EE programs and materials correlated with state 

educational standards both on- and off-site. Requests for on-site programs usually peak in May, 

while demand for off-site programs is fairly steady between October and May. During FY11, 

approximately 11,000 people participated in Refuge-led programs, about half on-site and half offsite. In 2010, the Friends of Deer Flat Wildlife Refuge began providing bus scholarships to fund field 

trips from local schools. Some requests for guided EE programs have been turned down each year 

since 2008 because the demand cannot be met with current staffing levels. The Environmental 

Education Building at the Lower Dam Recreation Area would continue to be available for rent 

between April 15 and September 30 by teachers and youth group leaders conducting EE programs. 

In Alternative 2, interpretation would be emphasized over EE. However, appropriate themes and 

target grades would be selected to refine the scope of the remaining EE programs to that best suited 

for Refuge field trips, classroom programs, and traveling trunks. Similarly, existing nonschool EE 

programs (e.g., day camps, Scout Day, Youth Conservation Corps) would be modified to be 

consistent with the selected themes. Refuge-specific instructor training would be developed so that 

teachers would lead 75 percent of on-site educational programs by the end of 15 years, allowing for 

more on-site programs than limited Refuge staffing would allow. At least two covered learning 

facilities would be provided in areas that facilitate EE programs on designated themes. This might 

include a portable learning lab (trailer) to be used in areas away from the Visitor Center. Finally, the 

Environmental Education Building at the Lower Dam Recreation Area would no longer be available 

to rent because it would be converted to or replaced by a visitor contact station. Overall, a decrease to 

9,400 participants in EE programs is projected. 

Alternative 3 would be the same as Alternative 2 for EE opportunities. 

In Alternative 4, EE would be emphasized over interpretation, but EE opportunities would otherwise 

be the same as in Alternative 2. Eliminating nonwildlife-dependent recreational activities would 

reduce wildlife disturbance and therefore improve the quality of on-site EE opportunities. The same 

number of EE program participants are projected as in Alternative 1. 

6.5.9.2 Snake River Islands Unit 

In Alternative 1, there are no EE activities on the Snake River Islands Unit. No changes are proposed 

in the action alternatives for EE opportunities on the Snake River Islands Unit. 

6.5.9.3 Overall Effects 

The effect of Alternative 1 would be negligible because current programs would be continued. In 

Alternatives 2 and 3, there would be a minor long-term positive effect on EE opportunities. Although 

the shift in the EE program to emphasize teacher-led programs would, overall, increase quality of onsite EE opportunities, there would be a reduction in the total number of EE program participants. 

Alternative 4 would provide similar though slightly increased guided EE opportunities compared to 

Alternatives 2 and 3. The quality of the EE experience would also be expected to be higher because 

of the elimination of nonwildlife-dependent recreational activities. Alternative 4 would have an 

intermediate long-term positive effect on EE opportunities. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-55 

6.5.10 Effects from Public Use and Public Use Management Actions on 

Quality Interpretation 

Indicators of effects on interpretive opportunities are (1) number of visitors participating annually in 

guided and unguided interpretive programs and (2) management actions that affect quality of 

interpretation opportunities. 

6.5.10.1 Lake Lowell Unit 

In Alternative 1, interpretive displays would continue to be available in the Visitor Center. Near the 

Visitor Center is the self-guided Nature Trail with a brochure about habitat that corresponds with 

numbered posts along the half-mile trail, as well as the Centennial Trail with interpretive signs about 

the history of the Refuge and reservoir. As is currently the case, regularly scheduled, staff-led 

interpretive walks and talks would not be offered due to limited staff, despite requests from the 

public. Volunteer-guided walks are popular when offered in conjunction with special events. 

Although brochures would continue to be provided in brochure boxes on regulation signs at all major 

access points, there would continue to be no interpretive signs or maps at the Lake Lowell Unit, with 

the exception of those along the Centennial Trail. Other than staff and volunteers at the Visitor 

Center, there would continue to be no staff or volunteers stationed at high-use Refuge areas. 

Currently, 21,000 visitors participate annually in guided and unguided interpretive programs, 

including visiting the Visitor Center. 

In Alternative 2, interpretation would be emphasized over EE. Guided interpretive opportunities 

would be increased by providing volunteer- and staff-led guided and roving interpretive programs at 

high-use visitor access points on selected themes and by doubling from two to four the number of 

special events hosted on-site. Unguided opportunities would be provided by installing additional 

interpretive signs on new and existing trails and facilities, as well as by installing a nature exploration 

area at the Lower Dam Recreation Area. Although use of the Visitor Center auditorium would be 

restricted to wildlife-dependent recreation groups, this would not reduce interpretive opportunities, as 

current nonwildlife-dependent groups are not providing interpretive opportunities. Project an increase 

to 37,700 participants annually. 

Alternative 3 would be the same as Alternative 2 for interpretive opportunities. 

In Alternative 4, EE would be emphasized over interpretation, but EE and interpretive opportunities 

would otherwise be the same as in Alternative 2, except that there would be no nature exploration 

area at the Lower Dam Recreation Area and only three special events would be hosted on-site. 

Eliminating nonwildlife-dependent recreational activities would reduce wildlife disturbance and 

therefore improve the quality of interpretive opportunities. A smaller increase to 25,400 participants 

annually would be projected. 

6.5.10.2 Snake River Islands Unit 

In Alternative 1, there would continue to be interpretive signs and maps at many of the most-used 

boat launches that access the Snake River Islands Unit. No changes are proposed in the action 

alternatives for interpretive opportunities on the Snake River Islands Unit. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

6-56 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

6.5.10.3 Overall Effects 

The effect of Alternative 1 would be negligible as current programs would be continued. In 

Alternatives 2 and 3, there would be an intermediate long-term positive effect on interpretive 

opportunities, because the staff and volunteer emphasis on interpretation would increase guided and 

unguided opportunities. Alternative 4 would provide similar though reduced opportunities for 

interpretation compared to Alternatives 2 and 3. The quality of the interpretive experience would also 

be expected to be higher because of the elimination of nonwildlife-dependent recreational activities. 

Alternative 4 would have an intermediate long-term positive effect on interpretive opportunities. 

6.5.11 Effects from Public Use and Public Use Management Actions on 

Water-based Nonwildlife-dependent Recreation 

Indicators of effects on water-based nonwildlife-dependent activities are (1) acres available for 

boating; (2) acres available for wake-generating activities; (3) number of designated swim beaches; 

(4) types of activities allowed; and (5) management actions that affect water-based nonwildlifedependent recreational opportunities. 

6.5.11.1 Lake Lowell Unit 

In addition to the priority wildlife-dependent activities that would continue to be allowed at the Lake 

Lowell Unit under Alternative 1, many water-based nonwildlife-dependent public uses would also 

continue to occur. The lake would continue to be open to boating between April 15 and September 

30. A total of 9,000 acres would be available for boating, and 7,300 acres available for wake-causing 

activities. Between October 1 and April 14, human-powered boats or boats with electric motors 

would continue to be allowed for waterfowl hunting in the South Side Recreation Area and humanpowered boats would continue to be allowed in Fishing Areas A and B. Improved boat ramps would 

continue to be located at the Lower Dam Recreation Area and the east and west ends of the Upper 

Dam. Unimproved ramps would continue to be available at Parking Lots 1 and 7. All ramps would 

continue to be subject to closure due to low water levels. There would continue to be a no-wake zone 

on the east end of the lake. Although boating supports fishing, wildlife watching, and photography, 

the majority (65 percent) of boaters at the lake are pursuing nonwildlife-dependent recreation (see 

Table 6-2). Nonwildlife-dependent boating activities include motorized and nonmotorized boating; 

tow-behind activities such as waterskiing and wakeboarding; use of personal watercraft; and sailing, 

windsurfing, and kiteboarding; these activities would continue to be allowed. SUPs have been issued 

in recent years to hold sailing regattas at the lake, launching from the Lower Dam Recreation Area, 

and these events would still be allowed under Alternative 1. 

Swimming and other beach activities are popular at Lake Lowell. Under Alternative 1, the only 

designated swimming beach would continue to be at the east end of the Upper Dam. Swimming is 

likely to continue to occur along any open shoreline and from boats in open water as well. 

Ice skating occurs occasionally on Lake Lowell in winter. Because of safety concerns, (see Section 

2.3.1) ice-related activities would not be allowed under any of the alternatives. 

In Alternative 2, the area accessible by boat would remain the same as in Alternative 1, with the 

exception of those areas subject to seasonal wildlife closures (e.g., grebe, eagle, and heron nesting 

and shorebird feeding). The number of acres closed seasonally would vary depending on wildlife 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-57 

activity. If seasonal closures such as those proposed under Alternative 2 had been implemented in 

2011, 170 acres would have been closed between February 1 and July 1 and 1,050 acres between 

April 15 and September 30. Such seasonal closures would have a minimal effect on nonwildlifebased activities, because they would mostly occur in open water (see Appendix L) where closures 

would be minimal. At least one additional launch would be provided for kayaks and canoes. This 

new launch would have a minor positive effect on boating opportunities. 

There would be additional no-wake areas, including an expansion of the no-wake zone in the East 

Pool. According to the USGS lake use study (see Appendix L), only about 19 percent of all towbehind activities and 19 percent of other recreation (e.g., swimming from boats) occurred in this area, 

and some of these users would presumably shift into the wake-allowed areas. There would also be a 

no-wake zone in the Narrows and a 200-yard no-wake buffer along the south shore, but users in the 

open water in these areas could also presumably shift into the wake-allowed areas. 

Boaters would not be allowed to use internal or external wake-generating devices (e.g., ballasts). 

They would also not be allowed to anchor or pull onto land adjacent to closed areas. However, less 

than 2 percent of boaters anchor along the bank (see Appendix L). 

Kiteboarding and windsurfing would still be allowed to launch from any open shoreline but would be 

required to comply with no-wake zones. Although sailing would still be allowed, organized regattas 

would not. This would have a negligible to minor negative effect, as there are typically only two 

regattas per year with fewer than 25 participants per event. 

Ice skating would not be allowed. This would have a negligible to minor negative effect on 

recreational opportunities, because very few people ice-skate on Lake Lowell. 

Swimming would be allowed only at two designated swim beaches (at the east Upper Dam boat 

launch and the Lower Dam Recreation Area). This would have a minor negative effect on swimming 

opportunities, because most swimming currently occurs in these two areas. These areas would be 

monitored for water quality affecting human health, thus increasing the safety of swimmers. 

In Alternative 3, the area accessible by boat would be reduced from Alternative 2, because the 

current no-wake zone on the east end of the lake and the emergent beds between Parking Lots 3 and 

8 on the south side and at Murphy’s Neck would be closed. In addition, historical grebe nesting 

colonies would be closed throughout the boating season, and there would be a seasonal closure to 

protect shorebird foraging habitat from Murphy’s Neck to the Narrows, as well as other seasonal 

closures as in Alternative 2. There would therefore be 5,800 acres available for boating. In addition, 

the lake would close to boating on September 20 rather than September 30, thus slightly reducing the 

length of the boating season. 

There would also be additional no-wake areas, including the entire East Pool, a 200-yard buffer from 

the emergent vegetation on the south side in the West Pool, and in the West Pool from sunrise to 

noon, thus eliminating many opportunities for nonwildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. This 

would leave 3,212 acres available for wake-causing activities. The lake would close to boating 10 

days earlier than under Alternative 1. 

Kiteboarding and windsurfing would be further restricted from Alternative 2, with launching allowed 

only from the Lower Dam Recreation Area. Typical wind conditions make launching in this location 

difficult. However, because there are not many days when wind conditions allow kiteboarding and 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

6-58 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

windsurfing and therefore there are not many participants in these activities, this restriction would 

have an intermediate long-term negative effect on recreational opportunities. 

These changes would have an intermediate negative effect on recreational opportunities at Lake 

Lowell. However, there are three reservoirs within 60 miles of Lake Lowell (see Table 5-7) that offer 

similar nonwildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. 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. 

As in Alternative 2, boaters would not be allowed to use internal or external wake-generating devices 

(e.g., ballasts) or to anchor or pull onto land adjacent to closed areas. 

Swimming would be allowed only at a designated swim beach at the Lower Dam Recreation Area. 

Eliminating the swimming beach at the Upper Dam would have an intermediate negative effect on 

swimming opportunities, because it is currently very popular, especially with those who live closer to 

the Upper Dam. 

In Alternative 4, no nonwildlife-dependent recreational activities would be allowed. 

6.5.11.2 Snake River Islands Unit 

The Refuge does not have management control of lands below the ordinary high water mark and 

therefore has no control over water-based activities in the Snake River. 

6.5.11.3 Overall Effects

In Alternative 1, there would be no changes to water-based nonwildlife-dependent recreational 

opportunities, leading to a negligible long-term effect. Overall, proposed changes in Alternative 2 

would have a minor long-term negative effect on water-based nonwildlife-dependent recreation 

because of seasonal wildlife closures and more no-wake zones. In Alternative 3, with fewer 

swimming areas, more closed areas, and more no-wake zones, there would be an intermediate longterm negative effect on water-based recreational opportunities. In Alternative 4, no nonwildlifedependent recreation would be allowed, which would have a significant long-term negative effect. 

6.5.12 Effects from Public Use and Public Use Management Actions on 

Land-based Nonwildlife-dependent Recreation 

Indicators of effects on land-based nonwildlife-dependent activities are (1) miles of trail available for 

walking on-leash pets, and riding horses; (2) miles of trail available for bicycling; (3) types of 

activities allowed; and (4) management actions that affect land-based nonwildlife-dependent 

recreational opportunities. 

6.5.12.1 Lake Lowell Unit 

In addition to providing the priority wildlife-dependent activities in Alternative 1, many land-based 

nonwildlife-dependent public uses would also continue to occur. Walking with dogs, jogging, 

bicycling, and horseback riding currently occur throughout the year, both on- and off-trail. 10.5 miles 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-59 

of trail are available for walking on-leash dogs, riding horses, and bicycling. Track teams have 

historically used the road/trail west of the Visitor Center for practice sessions, even though the most 

recent compatibility determination did not allow competitive jogging. This restriction has been 

enforced in recent years and would continue to be enforced under Alternative 1. Geocaching 

currently occurs on the Refuge. Local geocachers have been notified that caching is not allowed on 

the Refuge, but caches are still often placed on the Refuge or on private land accessed through offtrail travel across Refuge land. Geocaching would continue to be prohibited under Alternative 1. 

Picnicking would continue to be allowed as it currently occurs: primarily at the Lower Dam 

Recreation Area, which offers both a covered picnic shelter and scattered picnic tables. People also 

picnic at other access points. Visitors often request to reserve the shelter for weddings, birthdays, or 

other events, and it is would continue to be available on a first-come, first-served basis. Crosscountry skiing would continue to be 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. 

Under all action alternatives, signs would be posted at hunting access points to notify Refuge users 

when a hunt is underway. This would improve the experience of nonwildlife-dependent visitors by 

improving the safety and awareness of these visitors. 

Although the most recent compatibility determinations allow walking and jogging (with the 

exception of competitive jogging) on roads, trails, and firebreaks and not off-trail, the requirement to 

remain on roads, trails, and firebreaks is not being communicated to the public, and visitors 

frequently leave trails. If Alternative 1 were selected, this requirement would be enforced, reducing 

off-trail access. 

In Alternative 2, unleashed dogs would not be allowed on the Refuge. Leashed dogs, horses, and 

bikes would not be allowed on the Nature, Centennial, or Murphy’s Neck Trails. However, 

nonwildlife-dependent activities would be allowed on the wider trails (entrance road and the East 

Dike, Kingfisher, and Gotts Point Trails, and the Observation Hill Trail System) that provide 

adequate space for multiple-use activities. In addition, owners would be required to remove dog 

feces. 8.75 miles of trail would be available for walking on-leash dogs, riding horses, and bicycling. 

There would also be some seasonal wildlife closures (e.g., eagle and heron nesting) that would 

restrict access to a variable number of acres annually. Walking with dogs, horseback riding, and 

bicycling currently occur mostly on the designated trails, so the proposed changes would have a 

minor negative effect on nonwildlife-dependent recreational opportunities and a minor positive effect 

on wildlife-dependent recreationists using the narrow trails. Cross-country skiing would not be 

allowed. This would have a negligible to minor negative effect on recreational opportunities, because 

very few people cross-country ski Lake Lowell. 

Picnicking would be allowed only in designated areas at the east end of the Upper Dam and at the 

Lower Dam Recreation Area. This is where most picnicking currently happens, so the proposed 

change would have a minor negative effect on picnicking opportunities. Nonwildlife-dependent 

group activities (e.g., weddings, birthday parties, memorial services, retreats, and other activities) 

would be allowed only at the Lower Dam Recreation Area, and an SUP would be required with 

appropriate stipulations. 

In Alternative 3, dogs and horses would not be allowed at the Refuge, and bicycling would be 

allowed only along the proposed trail adjacent to the entrance road (0.75 miles). This would have a 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

6-60 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

significant negative effect on the opportunity to participate in dog walking, horseback riding, and 

bicycling. 

Alternative 4 would be similar to Alternative 3 except that bicycling would not be allowed. 

6.5.12.2 Snake River Islands Unit 

Currently, nonwildlife-dependent recreational activities rarely occur on the Refuge islands. The 

alternatives do not propose to change the nonwildlife-dependent activities that are allowed on the 

islands. Delaying opening of Refuge islands to public entry from June 1 as in Alternative 1 until June 

15 or July 1 in the action alternatives would slightly reduce recreational opportunities. However, this 

would have a negligible effect because there are so few people that access the islands for these uses. 

In Alternative 4, no nonwildlife-dependent recreational activities would be allowed. 

6.5.12.3 Overall Effects 

In all alternatives, the effects to land-based recreation on the Snake River Islands Unit would be 

negligible. 

In Alternative 1, the requirement to stay on trail on Lake Lowell Unit would begin to be enforced, 

thus reducing access and having a minor long-term negative effect. Overall, proposed changes in 

Alternative 2 would have a minor long-term negative effect on land-based nonwildlife-dependent 

recreation because of a reduction in miles of trail available for walking on-leash dogs, riding horses, 

and bicycling on the Lake Lowell Unit. Alternative 3, with the elimination of horseback riding and 

walking with dogs and the reduction in areas open for bicycling, would have a significant long-term 

negative effect on land-based recreational opportunities. In Alternative 4, no nonwildlife-dependent 

recreation would be allowed on either Unit, which would have a significant long-term negative 

effect. 

6.5.13 Effects from Public Use and Public Use Management on Cultural 

Resources 

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, establishes the Federal 

Government’s policy on historic preservation and the programs through which that policy is 

implemented. An impact to cultural resources would be considered significant if it adversely affects a 

resource listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). In 

general, an adverse effect may occur if a cultural resource would be physically damaged or altered, 

isolated from the context considered significant, affected by project elements that would be out of 

character with the significant property or its setting. Title 36 C.F.R. 800 defines effects and adverse 

effects on historic resources. 

Cultural resource surveys will be conducted before the onset of any major construction project. These 

projects may include, but are not limited to, the construction of roads, trails, bridges, dikes, and 

visitor facilities. Earth moving activities occurring in proximity to known sites would be monitored 

because of the potential for buried cultural material in these areas. If any cultural materials are 

uncovered during excavation, the Regional Historic Preservation Officer would be contacted to 

review the materials and recommend a treatment that is consistent with applicable laws and policies. 

Any new cultural resources identified during the survey would be recorded and evaluated for 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-61 

eligibility to the NRHP. If any sites are determined to be eligible to the NRHP, the restoration plans 

would need to be assessed for potential effects to the historic property. If effects are possible, the 

proposal would be reviewed to ensure that the effects have the least impact to original materials and 

are in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties. Changes that comply with the Secretary’s Standards would have no adverse effect on 

Historic Properties. Once an assessment has been completed, the findings would be forwarded to 

State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) for concurrence. Implementation of the procedures 

described above is expected to avoid adverse effects to historic resources; however, additional 

analysis under NHPA may be required once specific details are known. 

The construction and public use facilities proposed under all of the alternatives would not be 

expected to have an adverse effect on historic resources. Major disturbance would be avoided by the 

survey and consultation process as described in Section 106 of NHPA described above. Expansion of 

facilities and trails under the alternatives would receive the same scrutiny, to ensure they would not 

detract from cultural resources; therefore, no adverse effects to cultural resources as a result of 

human activity within the Refuge are anticipated. 

Incorporating cultural history as an integral part of interpretive and environmental education 

programming can have a positive effect on cultural resources. By providing a deeper understanding 

of the cultural resources and the role they represent on the landscape may foster appreciation and 

respect for cultural resources. Cultural history as explored in the setting of a wildlife refuge is about 

how people have interacted with, shaped, and been influenced by the environment. Native uses of 

plants for food, shelter, and tools; the cultural significance of certain animal species for food, 

identity, etc.; and traditional management and/or harvesting activities (fish weirs, controlled 

burning). 

Section 110 of the NHPA requires Federal agencies to create a program to identify and protect 

historic properties. This program includes the nomination of eligible properties to the National 

Register of Historic Places; the designation of a qualified agency historic preservation officer; 

conducting agency programs and activities so that preservation values are considered; and the 

authority of Federal agencies to include the costs of preservation activities within overall project 

costs during undertakings. Many opportunities exist to comply with Section 110, including but not 

limited to the development of interpretive materials and exhibits, Refuge-based cultural heritage 

curriculum and resources for use both on and off Refuge, and a systematic program for recording and 

evaluating the Refuge’s cultural resources. These opportunities also present excellent prospects for 

partnerships with tribal communities and historical societies. 

Development of a more comprehensive understanding and inventory of cultural resources onsite 

would occur under Alternatives 2, 3 and 4. The increased gathering of data and knowledge will help 

the refuge to protect and understand the cultural resources of this area which is a slight positive effect 

for cultural resources as they would be more protected. 

Under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 Partnerships, interpretation, and education would be expanded, 

compared to Alternative 1. This work will strengthen current partnerships and provide high quality 

interpretation and education which would assist in laying the ground work for establishment of more 

effective partnerships and coordination. This would contribute to the public’s understanding and 

appreciation for archaeological and historic resources and would be a slight positive effect to cultural 

resources. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

6-62 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

Overall Effects 

Under Alternative 1 cultural resources would receive basic consideration under Section 106 of the 

NHPA on a project (undertaking) by project basis resulting in a minor negative long-term effect. 

Under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 increases in consideration provided through proactive cultural 

resource inventories and evaluations and an increase in the interpretation of cultural resources are 

expected to result in a minor long-term positive effect. 

6.5.14 Amount of Illegal Use 

Some of the same Refuge qualities that attract legitimate Refuge visitors—solitude, open public 

spaces, wooded areas, and minimal human interference—also attract individuals seeking places for 

illegal activities. Under all alternatives, the Refuge intends to curb illegal activities and create a safer 

environment for visitors. We would use a variety of techniques to improve visitor understanding of 

Refuge regulations. We would continue to partner with other law enforcement agencies, including 

meeting annually to discuss law enforcement and emergency response needs, issues, and 

opportunities to partner. Under all action alternatives, we would also work with the County Sheriff to 

(1) develop an MOU to increase on-refuge patrols on both land and water, to enforce existing State 

decibel limits, and to allow enforcement of other Refuge regulations, and (2) codify Refuge 

regulations or create a joint jurisdiction agreement so that the County Sheriff’s deputies can enforce 

Refuge regulations. The action alternatives also provide the potential to use a variety of technical 

enhancements to deter and identify illegal activities. The actions outlined above would result in 

intermediate positive effects to recreational opportunities by creating a safer environment for all 

users. 

6.5.15 Environmental Justice 

Given the limited demographic information available for visitors of Deer Flat NWR, it is difficult to 

determine if there would be any increased impacts to lower-income or diverse communities. Because 

Alternative 1 is not proposing any major changes, there should be no environmental justice issues 

different from the status quo. An increase in free facilities and interpretation opportunities under 

Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) has the potential to provide a positive effect on lower-income 

communities by increasing access to wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. The potential for 

the removal of swimming at the Upper Dam as proposed in Alternative 3 may disproportionately 

impact lower-income or diverse communities. It is possible under Alternative 4 that some lowerincome communities may be negatively impacted by the reduction in free swimming and picnicking 

opportunities. 

6.6 Economic Effects 

The following economic effects analysis was compiled by the Policy Analysis & Science Assistance 

Branch of the USGS. 

6.6.1 Methods for a Regional Economic Impact Analysis 

Economic input-output models are commonly used to determine how economic sectors would and 

would not be affected by demographic, economic, and policy changes. The economic impacts of the 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-63 

management alternatives for the Refuge were estimated using IMPLAN (Impact Analysis for 

Planning), a regional input-output modeling system developed by the U.S. 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 400 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 

U.S. 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 would 

purchase extra labor and supplies to meet the increased 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 does not 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 cost of goods. 

This economic impact analysis provides the potential economic effects associated with the 

implementation of the CCP/EIS’s management alternatives for Deer Flat Refuge. The economic 

impacts reported here 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. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

6-64 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

6.6.2 Impacts from 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 percent of the fair market value of lands acquired 

by the Service. Even though there is a formula to determine these payment amounts, the exact 

amount of the annual payment depends on Congressional appropriations, which may or may not 

follow the RRS Act formula. In recent years, the appropriations have been lower than the fully 

funded amount (i.e., the amount determined by applying the RRS Act formula). In FY10, actual RRS 

payments were 21 percent of authorized levels. FY10 RRS payments (made in 2011) totaled $4,547 

to communities in Canyon County. Table 6-4 shows the resulting economic impacts of RRS 

payments under all alternatives. Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, RRS payments 

under any one of the four CCP/EIS alternatives 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 6-4. Annual Impacts from Refuge Revenue Sharing Payments Under Any CCP/EIS 

Alternative 

Employment 

(# full and part time 

jobs)

Labor income 

(Thousands, $2011)

Value Added 

(Thousands, $2011)

Direct effects 0 $1.4 $1.8 

Secondary effects 0 $0.5 $1.0 

Total Economic Impact 0 $1.9 $2.8 

Note: The annual impact from Refuge revenue sharing payments would be the same regardless of which of the four 

CCP alternatives is selected for implementation. 

6.6.3 Impacts from Public Use and Access Management 

6.6.3.1 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 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 in 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 82 percent of total expenditures were from nonconsumptive 

activities, 12 percent from fishing, and 6 percent from hunting (Carver and Caudill 2007). 

The priority “Big Six” wildlife-dependent uses—hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, interpretation, and environmental education—are offered on the Lake Lowell Unit. 

Additionally, several other nonpriority uses occur on the Refuge including nonwildlife-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 sources of Refuge statistics including counts of visitors 

entering the Visitor Center, counts of vehicles at dispersed access sites, and general observation by 

Refuge personnel. Annual visitation estimates are on a per-visit basis. Visitor spending profiles are 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-65 

estimated on an average per-day (8-hour) 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 nonwildlife-dependent boating; four hours for swimming; and three hours for 

wildlife-related nonconsumptive activities (wildlife watching and photography, environmental 

education, and interpretation) and land-based nonwildlife-dependent activities (walking, jogging, and 

picnicking). Refuge personnel estimate that big game and waterfowl hunters spend six hours and that 

upland game and other migratory bird hunters spend approximately four 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 nonlocal 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 would 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 

nonpriority 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 for recreation opportunities at reservoirs outside of the two-county area. For more 

information the contribution of local Refuge visitation, see Appendix M, which provides a 

contribution analysis of local visitor expenditures in the two-county area. Refuge personnel 

determined the percentage of nonlocal Refuge visitors based on parking lot surveys. Table 6-5 shows 

the estimated percent of current Refuge visits and visitor days by visitor activity. 

Table 6-5. 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 Nonlocal 

Visits 

Number of 

Nonlocal 

Visitor 

Daysa

Priority Uses 

Fishing 45,300 5 28,313 7% 1,982 

Big game hunting 75 6 56 8% 5 

Waterfowl hunting 5,100 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 

Nonconsumptive: wildlife watching 

and photography, environmental 

education, and interpretation 

55,900 3 20,963 10% 2,096 

Nonpriority Uses 0 

Nonwildlife-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 nonwildlife-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 = eight hours. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

6-66 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

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 (i.e., Refuge staff experience and judgment). 

A nonlocal 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 (the National Survey; USFWS and U.S. Census Bureau 

2007). The National Survey reports trip-related spending of state residents and nonresidents 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 (which 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 nonlocal visitor spending for Refuge 

fishing and hunting related activities. The average daily nonresident spending profile for 

nonconsumptive wildlife recreation (observing, feeding, or photographing fish and wildlife) ($121.59 

per day) was used for all nonconsumptive wildlife viewing activities including nonpriority swimming 

and beach activities and land-based nonwildlife-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 nonconsumptive wildlife 

recreationists, along with additional fuel expenses to power motorboats. 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 nonconsumptive wildlife 

recreation from Banking on Nature. Average daily boating fuel expenditures per party were 

estimated by multiplying the average outboard fuel consumption for two- and four-stroke boats (3.2 

gallons per 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 (four persons per 

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 nonlocal Refuge visitors was determined by multiplying the average nonlocal 

visitor daily spending by the number of nonlocal visitor days at the Refuge. The economic impacts of 

each alternative were estimated using IMPLAN. Table 6-6 summarizes the economic impacts 

associated with current nonlocal Refuge visitation by activity for Alternative 1. Under Alternative 1, 

nonlocal Refuge visitors would spend approximately $1.95 million in the local economy annually. 

This spending would directly account for 19 jobs, $538.4 thousand in labor income, and $877.6 

thousand in value added in the local economy. The secondary or multiplier effects would generate an 

additional nine jobs, $309.7 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 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-67 

would generate total economic impacts of 28 jobs, $848.1 thousand in labor income, and $1.4 million 

in value added. 

Table 6-6. Average Annual Impacts of Nonlocal Visitor Spending by Activity for Alternative 1 

Alternative 1 Employment 

(# full and part time jobs)

Labor income 

(Thousands, $2011)

Value Added 

(Thousands, $2011)

Priority uses

Fishing 

Direct effects 1 $36.4 $58.7 

Secondary effects 1 $20.8 $36.6 

Total effect 2 $57.2 $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 $27.7 $45.9 

Nonconsumptive (wildlife watching and photography, environmental education, and interpretation) 

Direct effects 4 $111.4 $182.1 

Secondary effects 2 $67.7 $118.9 

Total effect 6 $179.1 $301.0 

Nonpriority uses

Nonwildlife-dependent boating 

Direct effects 7 $197.9 $322.6 

Secondary effects 3 $105.3 $187.0 

Total effect 10 $303.2 $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 nonwildlife-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 Nonlocal visitation 

Direct effects 19 $538.4 $877.6 

Secondary effects 9 $309.7 $546.2 

Total effect 28 $848.1 $1,423.8 

Table 6-7 summarizes the economic impacts associated with current nonlocal Refuge visitation by 

activity for Alternative 2. Under Alternative 2, nonlocal 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 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 nonlocal 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. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

6-68 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

Table 6-7. Average Annual Impacts of Nonlocal Visitor Spending by Activity for Alternative 2 

Alternative 2 Employment 

(# full and part time jobs)

Labor income 

(Thousands, $2011)

Value Added 

(Thousands, $2011)

Priority uses

Fishing 

Direct effects 1 $36.4 $58.7 

Secondary effects 1 $20.8 $36.6 

Total effect 2 $57.2 $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 $27.7 $45.8 

Nonconsumptive (wildlife watching and photography, environmental education, and interpretation) 

Direct effects 5 $149.8 $244.8 

Secondary effects 3 $91.0 $159.8 

Total effect 8 $240.8 $404.6 

Nonpriority uses

Nonwildlife-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 nonwildlife-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 Nonlocal visitation 

Direct effects 19 $544.1 $887.1 

Secondary effects 10 $315.4 $554.6 

Total effect 29 $858.6 $1,441.7 

Table 6-8 summarizes the economic impacts associated with current nonlocal Refuge visitation by 

activity for Alternative 3. Under Alternative 3, nonlocal Refuge visitors would spend approximately 

$1.4 million in the local economy annually. This spending would directly account for 13 jobs, $377.8 

thousand in labor income, and $616.6 thousand in value added in the local economy. The secondary 

or multiplier effects would generate an additional six jobs, $222.5 thousand in labor income, and 

$391.7 thousand in value added. Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, spending by 

nonlocal visitors for Alternative 3 would generate total economic impacts of 19 jobs, $600.3 

thousand in labor income, and $1 million in value added. 

Table 6-8. Average Annual Impacts of Nonlocal Visitor Spending by Activity for Alternative 3

Alternative 3 Employment 

(# full and part time jobs)

Labor income 

(Thousands, $2011)

Value Added 

(Thousands, $2011)

Priority uses 

Fishing

Direct effects 1 $17.5 $28.2 

Secondary effects 0 $10.0 $17.6 

Total effect 1 $27.5 $45.8 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-69 

Alternative 3 Employment 

(# full and part time jobs)

Labor income 

(Thousands, $2011)

Value Added 

(Thousands, $2011)

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 

Nonconsumptive (wildlife watching and 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 

Nonpriority uses

Nonwildlife-dependent boating 

Direct effects 3 $77.2 $125.8 

Secondary effects 1 $41.1 $72.9 

Total effect 4 $118.3 $198.7 

Swimming and other beach activities 

Direct effects 3 $84.1 $137.6 

Secondary effects 1 $51.1 $89.8 

Total effect 4 $135.2 $227.4 

Land-based nonwildlife-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 $67.7 $113.7 

Aggregate Nonlocal visitation 

Direct effects 13 $377.8 $616.6 

Secondary effects 6 $222.5 $391.7 

Total effect 19 $600.3 $1,008.3 

Table 6-9 summarizes the economic impacts associated with current nonlocal Refuge visitation by 

activity for Alternative 4. Under Alternative 4, nonlocal Refuge visitors would spend approximately 

$631.0 thousand in the local economy annually. This spending would directly account for five 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 two jobs, $98.6 thousand in labor 

income, and $173.5 thousand in value added. Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, 

spending by nonlocal visitors for Alternative 4 would generate total economic impacts of seven jobs, 

$263.1 thousand in labor income, and $441.8 thousand in value added. 

Table 6-9. Average Annual Impacts of Nonlocal Visitor Spending by Activity for Alternative 4 

Alternative 4 Employment 

(# full and part time jobs)

Labor income 

(Thousands, $2011)

Value Added 

(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 

Nonconsumptive (wildlife watching and photography, environmental education, and interpretation) 

Direct effects 4 $123.9 $202.5 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

6-70 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

Alternative 4 Employment 

(# full and part time jobs)

Labor income 

(Thousands, $2011)

Value Added 

(Thousands, $2011)

Secondary effects 2 $75.2 $132.2 

Total effect 6 $199.1 $334.7 

Nonpriority uses

Nonwildlife-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 nonwildlife-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 $28.6 $48.2 

Aggregate Nonlocal visitation 

Direct effects 5 $164.5 $268.3 

Secondary effects 2 $98.6 $173.5 

Total effect 7 $263.1 $441.8 

Table 6-10 summarizes the total economic impacts associated with current nonlocal Refuge visitation 

by alternative. The total annual average economic impacts for Alternative 2 would be similar to 

Alternative 1. The impacts for Alternative 3 would be approximately 30 percent less than the impacts 

for Alternative 1. Alternative 4 would have the largest decrease in impacts (approximately 70 

percent) compared to Alternative 1. 

Table 6-10. Average Annual Impacts of Nonlocal Visitor Spending by Alternative 

Employment 

(# full and part time jobs)

Labor income 

(Thousands, $2011)

Value Added 

(Thousands, $2011)

Alternative 1 

Direct effects 19 $538.4 $877.6 

Secondary effects 9 $309.7 $546.2 

Total economic impact 28 $848.1 $1,423.8 

Alternative 2 

Direct effects 19 $544.1 $887.1 

Secondary effects 10 $314.5 $554.6 

Total economic impact 29 $858.6 $1,441.7 

Alternative 3 

Direct effects 13 $377.8 $616.6 

Secondary effects 6 $222.5 $391.7 

Total economic impact 19 $600.3 $1,008.3 

Alternative 4 

Direct effects 5 $164.5 $268.3 

Secondary effects 2 $98.6 $173.5 

Total economic impact 7 $263.1 $441.8 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-71 

6.6.4 Impacts from Refuge Administration 

6.6.4.1 Personal Purchases by Staff 

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 and 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 

earning $35 to $50 thousand per year was used to reflect the average salary of full-time permanent 

employees at the Refuge ($46 thousand per year). Table 6-11 lists current Refuge staffing and 

additional positions needed under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. 

Table 6-11. 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 under Alternatives 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 6-12 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 four jobs, $141.1 

thousand in labor income, and $254.7 thousand in value added in the local economy. Alternatives 2, 

3, and 4 would generate additional secondary effects of five jobs, $191.2 thousand in labor income, 

and $345.2thousand in value added in the local economy. 

Table 6-12. Annual Local Impacts of Salary Spending by Deer Flat NWR Personnel by 

Alternative 

Employment 

(# full and part time jobs)

Labor income 

(Thousands, $2011)

Value Added 

(Thousands, $2011)

Alternative 1 

Direct effects 0 $0.0 $0.0 

Secondary effects 4 $141.1 $254.7 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

6-72 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

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 

Note: There are no direct effects to employment because direct effects are measured as increases in off-Refuge 

employment. 

6.6.4.2 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 nonsalary recurring expenditures average approximately 

$204.7 thousand per year. Average annual costs (including recurring costs and the annual average of 

one-time project costs in 2011 dollars over the life of the CCP) are anticipated to increase by $83.8 

thousand for Alternative 1, $397.0 thousand for Alternative 2, $832.8 thousand for Alternative 3, and 

$362.6 thousand for Alternative 4. Total average annual nonsalary 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 increases in costs under Alternative 3 are related to the 

construction of a boardwalk. According to Refuge records, approximately 80 percent of the annual 

nonsalary budget expenditures are spent on goods and services purchased in the local two-county 

area. Table 6-13 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 three 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 6-13. Local Economic Impacts of Refuge-related Purchases by Alternative 

Employment 

(# full and part time 

jobs)

Labor income 

(Thousands, $2011)

Value Added 

(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 

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 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-73 

6.6.5 Summary of Economic Impacts for Alternative 1 (Status Quo) 

Table 6-14 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 would 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 

(i.e., secondary 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, for the local two-county area, total 

labor income was estimated at $14.8 billion, and total employment was estimated at 367.7 thousand 

jobs (2009 IMPLAN data). Thus, total economic impacts associated with Refuge operations under 

Alternative 1 represent less than 0.01 percent of total income and total employment in the overall 

economy of the two-county area. 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 occur. For more information about local effects, see 

Appendix A of the Regional Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives 

for Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge located in Appendix M. 

Table 6-14. Summary of All Refuge Management Activities for Alternative 1 

Employment 

(# full and part time jobs)

Labor income 

(Thousands, $2011)

Value Added 

(Thousands, $2011)

Revenue Sharing and Refuge Administrationa 

Direct effects 2 $77.8 $101.9 

Total effectsb 7 $265.9 $436.8 

Nonlocal Public Use Activities 

Direct effects 19 $538.2 $877.6 

Total effectsb 28 $847.8 $1,423.8 

Aggregate Impacts 

Direct effects 21 $616.0 $979.5 

Total effectsb 35 $1,113.6 $1,860.6 a

 Staff salary spending and work-related purchases. b Total effects encompass direct, indirect, and induced effects. 

6.6.6 Summary of Economic Impacts for Alternative 2 (Preferred 

Alternative) 

Table 6-15 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 (2009 IMPLAN 

data). Thus, total economic impacts associated with Refuge operations under Alternative 2 represent 

less than 0.01 percent of total income and total employment in the overall economy of the twocounty area. 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-userelated economic activity occurs. For more information about local effects, see Appendix A of the 

Regional Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Deer Flat 

National Wildlife Refuge located in Appendix M. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

6-74 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

Table 6-15. Summary of All Refuge Management Activities for Alternative 2 

Employment 

(# full and part time jobs)

Labor income 

(Thousands, $2011)

Value Added 

(Thousands, $2011)

Revenue Sharing and Refuge Administrationa 

Direct effects 5 $178.8 $214.7 

Total effectsb 14 $474.2 $737.3 

Nonlocal Public Use Activities 

Direct effects 19 $543.9 $887.1 

Total effectsb 29 $858.4 $1,441.6 

Aggregate Impacts 

Direct effects 24 $722.7 $1,101.8 

Total effectsb 43 $1,332.6 $2,178.9 a

 Staff salary spending and work-related purchases. b Total effects encompass direct, indirect, and induced effects. 

Table 6-16 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 eight more jobs, $219.0 thousand more in labor income, and $318.3 

thousand more in value added as compared to Alternative 1. 

Table 6-16. Change in Economic Impacts under Alternative 2 Compared to Alternative 1 

Employment 

(# full and part time jobs)

Labor income 

(Thousands, $2011)

Value Added 

(Thousands, $2011)

Revenue Sharing and Refuge Administrationa 

Direct effects +3 +$101.0 +$112.8 

Total effectsb +7 + $208.3 +$300.5 

Nonlocal Public Use Activities 

Direct effects no change +$5.7 +$9.5 

Total effectsb +1 +$10.6 +$17.8 

Aggregate Impacts 

Direct effects +3 +$106.7 +$122.3 

Total effectsb +8 + $219.0 +$318.2 a

 Staff salary spending and work-related purchases. b Total effects encompass direct, indirect, and induced effects. 

6.6.7 Summary of Economic Impacts for Alternative 3 

Table 6-17 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, $706.1 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 (2009 IMPLAN 

data). Thus, total economic impacts associated with Refuge operations under Alternative 3 represent 

less than 0.01 percent of total income and total employment in the overall economy of the twocounty area. 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-userelated economic activity occurs. For more information about local effects, see Appendix A of the 

Regional Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives for Deer Flat 

National Wildlife Refuge located in Appendix M. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-75 

Table 6-17. Summary of All Refuge Management Activities for Alternative 3 

 

Employment 

(# full and part time jobs)

Labor income 

(Thousands, $2011)

Value Added 

(Thousands, $2011)

Revenue Sharing and Refuge Administrationa 

Direct effects 9 $328.3 $387.4 

Total effectsb 21 $729.8 $1,082.5 

Nonlocal Public Use Activities 

Direct effects 13 $377.8 $616.6 

Total effectsb 19 $600.1 $1,008.2 

Aggregate Impacts 

Direct effects 22 $706.1 $1,004.0 

Total effectsb 40 $1,329.9 $2,090.7 a

 Staff salary spending and work-related purchases. b Total effects encompass direct, indirect, and induced effects. 

Table 6-18 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 five more jobs, $216.2 

thousand more in labor income, and $230.1 thousand more in value added as compared to Alternative 

1. 

Table 6-18. Change in Economic Impacts under Alternative 3 Compared to Alternative 1 

Employment 

(# full and part time jobs)

Labor Income 

(Thousands, $2011)

Value Added 

(Thousands, $2011)

Revenue Sharing and Refuge Administrationa

Direct effects +7 +$250.5 +$285.5 

Total effectsb +14 +$463.9 +$645.7 

Nonlocal Public Use Activities 

Direct effects -6 -$160.4 -$261.0 

Total effectsb -9 -$247.7 -$415.6 

Aggregate Impacts 

Direct effects +1 +$90.0 +$24.4 

Total effectsb +5 +$216.2 +$230.1 a

 Staff salary spending and work-related purchases. b Total effects encompass direct, indirect, and induced effects. 

6.6.8 Summary of Economic Impacts for Alternative 4 

Table 6-19 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 nine jobs, $331.3 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 (2009 IMPLAN data). Thus, total economic impacts associated with Refuge operations under 

Alternative 4 represent less than 0.01 percent of total income and total employment in the overall 

economy of the two-county area. 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. For more information about local effects, see 

Appendix A of the Regional Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Alternatives 

for Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge located in Appendix M. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

6-76 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

Table 6-19. Summary of All Refuge Management Activities for Alternative 4 

Employment 

(# full and part time jobs)

Labor Income 

(Thousands, $2011)

Value Added 

(Thousands, $2011)

Revenue Sharing and Refuge Administrationa

Direct effects 4 $166.8 $201.0 

Total effectsb 13 $453.6 $709.5 

Nonlocal Public Use Activities 

Direct effects 5 $164.5 $268.3 

Total effectsb 7 $263.2 $441.8 

Aggregate Impacts 

Direct effects 9 $331.3 $469.3 

Total effectsb 20 $716.8 $1,151.3 a

 Staff salary spending and work-related purchases. b Total effects encompass direct, indirect, and induced effects. 

Table 6-20 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 6-20. Change in Economic Impacts under Alternative 4 Compared to Alternative 1 

Employment 

(# full and part time jobs)

Labor income 

(Thousands, $2011)

Value Added 

(Thousands, $2011)

Revenue Sharing and Refuge Administrationa 

Direct effects +2 +$89.0 +$99.1 

Total effects +6 +$187.7 +$272.7 

Nonlocal Public Use Activities 

Direct effects -14 -$373.7 -$609.3 

Total effects -21 -$584.6 -$982.0 

Aggregate Impacts 

Direct effects -12 -$284.6 -$510.2 

Total effects -15 -$396.9 -$709.3 a

 Staff salary spending and work-related purchases. b Total effects encompass direct, indirect, and induced effects. 

6.7 Cumulative Effects 

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing the provisions of NEPA 

define several different types of effects that should be evaluated in an EIS including direct, indirect, 

and cumulative (40 C.F.R. 1508.7-1508.8). Direct and indirect effects are addressed in the resourcespecific sections of this Draft CCP/EIS (Sections 6.1-6.4). This section addresses cumulative effects. 

According to the CEQ, cumulative effects can result from the incremental effects of a project when 

added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the area, regardless of the 

entity undertaking the action. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but 

cumulatively significant actions over a period of time. This analysis is intended to consider the 

interaction of activities at Deer Flat NWR and with other actions occurring over a larger spatial and 

temporal frame of reference. 

It should be noted that the cumulative effects analysis has essentially been completed by virtue of 

comprehensive nature by which direct and indirect effects associated with implementing the various 

alternatives has been presented in the previous sections of this chapter and in the compatibility 

determinations (Appendix B). The analysis in this section primarily focuses on effects associated 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-77 

with reasonably foreseeable future events and/or actions regardless of what entity undertakes that 

action. 

6.7.1 Potential Effects from Climate Change 

If snowpacks decline and temperatures rise (see Section 3.2 for more detail), lower lake levels may 

be seen during the spring and summer months. These lower levels could negatively impact on-water 

nesting birds, spawning fish, and other wildlife that rely on emergent vegetation for feeding, resting, 

nesting, or breeding. If water levels and vegetation patterns change, protections under the Preferred 

Alternative would be able to adapt to the change by shifting with wildlife use. Protections under 

Alternatives 3 and 4 are stationary and could end up protecting unproductive habitat as water levels 

fall. 

Lower river levels, hotter temperatures, and the potential for more frequent wildland fires could 

negatively impact the upland and riparian vegetation on the Refuge. Increases in invasive and 

undesirable exotic species may be seen, as well as loss of native vegetation. The cheatgrass-infested 

uplands of Lake Lowell Unit would burn rapidly and the increase in temperature would make it even 

more difficult for native plants to outcompete the invasives during fire rehabilitation. All alternatives 

propose the use of fire breaks to reduce the amount of damage caused by wildfires at the Lake 

Lowell Unit. 

Higher water levels in the fall and winter should have a negligible impact to most wildlife species. 

However, deer using the Refuge for cover may move to adjacent private lands as water levels rise 

and dry upland habitat becomes limited. 

Lower water levels would also shorten the boating season and negatively affect shoreline fishing 

access. Depending on the amount of water available in the lake, fishing and wildlife observation 

docks proposed in the action alternatives may reduce the impacts to these uses. However, extremely 

low water and high water temperature can result in increased mortality of sportfish in the lake. 

If water levels increase in the fall, current uplands may be inundated on the south side of the lake. 

This could negatively impact deer hunting and upland game hunting (in Alternatives 1 and 2) by 

reducing the area available for these activities. Higher water levels may also negatively impact 

waterfowl hunting on the south side by making it more difficult to reach the open water of the lake 

through inundated riparian zones. 

6.7.2 Effects from Reasonably Foreseeable Events and Activities from 

Others 

Throughout this analysis, effects to resources of concern have been considered. The overall effect of 

an alternative stemming from the combination of individual actions included in that alternative was 

assessed. For example, the cumulative effects of the hunt program are covered where applicable in 

previous sections of this chapter. If no effect from an activity (such as hunting) is listed or discussed 

(e.g., as in Section 6.5.11, Effects from Public Use and Public Use Management Actions on Waterbased Nonwildlife-dependent Recreation), this means that in our judgment, that activity is not 

considered to have any effect on the resource in question. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

6-78 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

6.7.2.1 Effects from Increased Development and Population Growth 

As described in Chapter 4, cumulatively, there has been a substantial modification to native habitats 

of the Treasure Valley over the past 100 years, including changes to hydrology, vegetation 

(especially the influx of invasive species), and fire regimes. As described in Section 6.3.2, regional 

human populations are expected to continue to grow throughout the life of the CCP. Given these 

trends, region-wide biological integrity may be at risk. Over time, the Refuge, although relatively 

small, may become increasingly valuable for the persistence of native wildlife and habitat. The lack 

of increased management in many habitats under Alternative 1 could cause future degradation of 

Refuge habitats, leaving the Refuge less able to accommodate increasing wildlife needs as 

surrounding lands are developed. Active improvement of riparian, open water, mudflat, upland, and 

wetland habitats in the action alternatives would increase or maintain the value of Refuge lands and 

waters for a wide variety of native wildlife. 

The increase in regional population is expected to be mirrored by an increase in Refuge visitation 

under Alternatives 1 and 2. The lack of public use regulations under Alternative 1 would be expected 

to make it increasingly difficult for wildlife, especially nesting waterbirds, to use the Refuge 

successfully. The increase in visitation without adequate increases in recreation management could 

reduce the number and/or diversity of wildlife and leave the Refuge less capable of accommodating 

increasing wildlife needs. All action alternatives increase public use management to reduce 

disturbance to wildlife during their most sensitive life stages (e.g., migrating, wintering, breeding, 

and nesting). 

The action alternatives emphasize habitat improvements for waterfowl, other migratory birds and 

other wildlife, and would improve the ability of the Refuge to provide nesting habitat for migratory 

waterbirds, passerines, and raptors; feeding areas for shorebirds and other seasonal migrants; and 

habitat improvements for other native species. However, actions proposed under the Draft CCP/EIS 

would not reverse or halt the regional trend toward reduced biological integrity within the region. 

Under all alternatives, biological diversity (the number of species present on the Refuge) would 

probably remain about the same, with some potential reduction possible in Alternative 1. 

6.7.2.2 Effects from Public Use Programs 

Although mortality would occur to some wildlife under the Refuge’s hunt program, the analysis 

presented previously in this chapter supports the conclusion that there would be no adverse 

population-level impacts to hunted or nonhunted wildlife species, even when added to other hunt 

programs regionally or nationally. 

6.7.2.3 Effects from Water Quality 

As discussed above, Lake Lowell is an impaired water body with multiple inlets coming from 

surrounding agricultural land containing high concentrations of fertilizers and chemicals associated 

with farming practices. Without intervention, we can reasonably expect continued inflow and 

accumulation of sediments and contaminants. The recently published TMDL (IDEQ 2010) will 

attempt to improve water quality through voluntary actions on private lands. Several CCP strategies 

are included in all action alternatives to work with partners toward investigating and improving Lake 

Lowell water quality issues. If water quality continues to deteriorate, increases in phosphorus, 

sedimentation, and other contaminants may cause increasing negative impacts to visitors and 

wildlife. If these increases result in a threat to human health (e.g., blue-green algae blooms) 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-79 

recreation may need to be curtailed. Increasing contaminants and sedimentation may reduce nesting 

success, destroy nesting habitats, or impact food resources for wildlife. 

6.7.2.4 Effects from New Boat Trailer Parking Facilities 

Canyon County Parks, Recreation, and Waterways is planning to expand the availability of boat 

trailer parking at the Lake Lowell Park across from the east Upper Dam boat launch. Additional 

parking may increase on-water use, especially in the East Pool. The lack of public use regulations 

under Alternative 1 would be expected to make it increasingly difficult for wildlife, especially 

nesting waterbirds, to use the Refuge successfully. The increase in visitation without adequate 

increases in recreation management could reduce the number and/or diversity of wildlife and leave 

the Refuge less capable of accommodating increasing wildlife needs. The no-wake zones and 

closures provided under the action alternatives should reduce impacts from this increase in use. The 

increase in visitation could also reduce the quality of visitor experiences because of increased 

crowding. 

6.7.2.5 Effects from the Snake River Canyon Scenic Byway 

The Snake River Canyon Scenic Byway committee developed a Corridor Management Plan (CMP) 

in 2009. The Byway emphasizes agricultural heritage, and includes portions of the Snake River 

Islands Unit of the Refuge along the Byway Loop, as well as a Super Side Trip to the Lake Lowell 

Unit. Implementation of the Byway CMP during the life of the CCP would be expected to include 

potential facilities development (e.g., overlooks), marketing, and signage that could increase 

awareness of and visitation to both units of the Refuge. Increases in recreation management proposed 

under the action alternatives should reduce impacts from the potential increase in use. 

6.7.2.6 Effects from the Snake River Water Trail 

Canyon County Parks, Recreation, and Waterways and many other partners have recently developed 

a plan for implementing a Snake River Water Trail from Glenns Ferry, Idaho, to Farewell Bend, 

Oregon, which completely includes the Snake River Islands Unit of the Refuge. A water trail is a 

water route that provides recreational and educational opportunities for motorized and nonmotorized 

boaters and commercial opportunities for river communities. The plan includes proposals for 

facilities development as well as marketing and promotion of the trail. Implementation of the Water 

Trail may increase awareness of and visitation to Refuge islands, including clarification of Refuge 

regulations on Water Trail signage and publications. The extension of closures on islands with goose, 

heron, and/or gull nesting should help to reduce negative impacts to wildlife during their most 

sensitive life stages. 
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

6-80 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

6.8 Other Effects 

6.8.1 Potential Impacts on Adjacent Lands and their Associated Natural 

Resources 

6.8.1.1 Effects from Increased Invasive Species 

Alternative 1 would continue maintenance of most Refuge habitats with current management 

approaches. Over time, the lack of increased invasive species removal, introduction of new treatment 

techniques, and targeted removal programs would be expected to cause an increase in invasive 

species and a decrease in the abundance of native vegetation on the Refuge. On-refuge invasive 

species would also be expected to spread to adjacent lands and impact Refuge neighbors or lands 

downstream of the Snake River Islands Unit. Under all action alternatives, increased efforts would be 

made to reduce invasive species populations on the Refuge, even though they may become more 

prevalent on surrounding lands. 

6.8.2 Potential Impacts to Nearby Residents 

6.8.2.1 Effects from Public Use Management 

The Service would improve the availability and quality of wildlife-dependent recreation, but within a 

regional context there would be little cumulative difference in recreational opportunity. Given that 

Lake Lowell is the only large lake in Canyon County, the removal of nonwildlife-dependent 

recreation from Alternative 4 is expected to make a difference in the availability of on-water 

activities in the county. Although the other alternatives limit the scope of nonwildlife-dependent use, 

none remove the uses entirely from the Refuge and are therefore not expected to create a cumulative 

difference in recreational opportunity.