kootenai national wildlife refuge draft fishing plan nwr... · 2020-03-30 · area or fishing...
TRANSCRIPT
Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Fishing Plan and
Hunt Program Minor Amendment March 2020
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge 287 Westside Road
Bonners Ferry, Idaho 83805 Boundary County
Submitted By: Project Leader
______________________________________________ ____________ Signature Date Concurrence: Refuge Supervisor
______________________________________________ ____________ Signature Date Approved: Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System
______________________________________________ ____________ Signature Date
Kootenai NWR Draft Fishing Plan Page 2 March 2020
Table of Contents I. Introduction……………………………...………………………………………...4 II. Statement of Objectives…………………..…………………………………….…8
III. Description of Fishing Program…………………………………………………..9
A. Areas to be Opened to Fishing……………………………………9
B. Species to be Taken, Fishing Periods, Fishing Access………....11
C. Fishing Permit Requirements……………...………………….…11
D. Consultation and Coordination with the State…………………...11
E. Law Enforcement……………………………………....…….…..12
F. Funding and Staffing Requirements …………………………….12
IV. Conduct of the Fishing Program….………………………………………………13
A. Fishing Permit Application, Selection, and/or Registration Procedures.………………………………………………………..13
B. Refuge-Specific Fishing Regulations………………………..……13
C. Relevant State Regulations ………………………………….……13
D. Other Rules and Regulations for Fishing…………………………14
V. Public Engagement.………………………………………………………………..14
A. Outreach Plan for Announcing and Publicizing the Fishing Program……………………………………………………...……14
B. Anticipated Public Reaction to the Fishing Program ………….…14
C. How the Public Will be Informed of Relevant Rules and
Regulations…………………………………………………..……14
Kootenai NWR Draft Fishing Plan Page 3 March 2020
References References ………………………………………………………………………15 Appendices Appendix A: Categorical Exclusion for Changes to the Hunting and Fishing Program at Kootenai NWR………………………………………………16 Appendix A: Compatibility Determinations……………………………27 Draft Revised Compatibility Determination for Fishing …………………………………………………………………………..…28 Draft Revised Compatibility Determination for Migratory Bird Hunting …………………………………………………………………………..…40
List of Tables
Table 1: Costs to Administer and Manage a Fishing Program at Kootenai NWR ………………………………………………………………………….…13
List of Figures
Map A: Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge, and Fishing Access Locations ……………………………………...……………………………………………10
Kootenai NWR Draft Fishing Plan Page 4 March 2020
KOOTENAI NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE DRAFT FISHING PLAN
I. Introduction The United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s (hereafter referred to as the Service or USFWS, interchangeably) National Wildlife Refuges are guided by the mission and goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), the purposes of an individual refuge, Service policy, and laws and international treaties. Relevant guidance includes the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, and selected portions of the Code of Federal Regulations and Fish and Wildlife Service Manual. Kootenai NWR (NWR, Refuge) was established in 1964 “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” Thus, the management priority is to provide spring and fall migration habitat for migratory waterfowl and to provide breeding habitat for waterfowl and other waterbirds. While the National Wildlife Refuge System’s policy on biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health (601 FW 3) states that refuge habitats may also be managed to benefit other species (e.g. native fish, amphibians, and mammals) where feasible and appropriate, it should not detract from the purpose for which the refuge was originally established. Refuge Purpose:
• “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715 et seq. (Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929).
Kootenai NWR, located in Idaho’s northernmost county, Boundary County, is nestled within a glacial valley, bordered by the Selkirk Mountains to the west, the Kootenai River to the north, and the Kootenai River and Deep Creek to the east. The 2,774-acre Refuge includes a mixture of managed wetlands, meadows, riparian forest, and cultivated agricultural fields (to produce grain for waterfowl) in the valley bottom adjacent to the west bank of the Kootenai River. The forested western portion of the Refuge ascends the foothills of the Selkirk Mountains. Federal ownership of the tracts adjoining the west bank of the Kootenai River and 2 miles of the west bank of Deep Creek begins at the mean high water line. The Service owns both banks of Deep Creek for 0.3 miles in the southern portion of the Refuge (WRIA 2015). For thousands of years, the Kootenai River inundated the valley floor each spring, creating a mixture of floodplain forests, river meanders, old oxbows, and wet meadows. The river and its tributaries teemed with white sturgeon, burbot, and kokanee, along with redband, cutthroat, and bull trout. During the spring and fall, multitudes of ducks, geese, and swans passed through the valley as they migrated between their nesting areas in Canada and their wintering grounds in the south. In the winter, deer, elk, and moose utilized the valley for food and cover, escaping the deep snows of the higher elevations.
Kootenai NWR Draft Fishing Plan Page 5 March 2020
Beginning in 1921, 47 miles of the Kootenai River, along with many of its tributaries, were diked in order to drain the bottomland for agriculture. In 1925, the area that would become the Refuge was diked and established as Drainage District Number 7. By 1947, farming dominated the fertile river valley and 95 percent of what was once the largest wetland complex in the state of Idaho, some 22,000 acres, had been lost. Realizing that there was “a pressing need for the restoration of waterfowl habitat in this part of the Pacific Flyway to increase nesting habitat, provide feeding, and resting areas during migration” the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission approved 2,767.21 acres for acquisition on June 24, 1964. As of 1985 all lands within the Kootenai NWR acquisition boundary had been acquired. Today, the Refuge is one of five protected areas which together provide 80 percent of low elevation wetlands in the Idaho portion of the Kootenai River Valley. A total of 310 vertebrate species have been recorded on the Refuge, including over 220 bird species of which 80 species commonly use the Refuge for nesting and feeding. The current management priority of the Refuge is to provide spring and fall migration habitat for migratory waterfowl, and to provide breeding habitat for waterfowl and other waterbirds. The Refuge is an important migration stop for migratory waterfowl as it is strategically located along a major migration corridor of the Pacific Flyway. Peaks of 25,000-40,000 ducks usually occur on the Refuge in the fall, with approximately 80-85 percent being mallards. Canada geese also reach their peak numbers of about 3,500-4,000 in the fall. Tundra swans usually peak at 300-500 in the spring, but 200-300 are common in the fall. Since the Kootenai River is now diked, a system of dikes, ditches, and pumps are used to maintain wetland habitat that benefits a wide array of waterfowl, waterbirds, and other species. Habitat management also benefits raptors, migratory landbirds, and shorebirds. In line with Refuge System policy on biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health (601 FW 3) refuge habitats may also be managed to benefit other species (e.g., native fish, amphibians, and mammals) where feasible and appropriate. Myrtle Creek and Deep Creek, portions of which flow through or adjacent to the Refuge, host a number of salmonid species, including rainbow trout (both native redband trout and strains of hatchery origin), non-native brook trout, the Federally listed bull trout (Threatened), mountain whitefish, and kokanee. Native westslope cutthroat trout and non-native brown trout occur in the drainage but have not been documented in Refuge waters in recent years. The mission of the NWRS, as outlined by the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (NWRSAA), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.), 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.”
Kootenai NWR Draft Fishing Plan Page 6 March 2020
The NWRSAA mandates the Secretary of the Interior in administering the System to (16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(4):
● Provide for the conservation of fish, wildlife, and plants, and their habitats within the NWRS;
● Ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the NWRS are maintained for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans;
● Ensure that the mission of the NWRS described at 16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(2) and the purposes of each refuge are carried out;
● Ensure effective coordination, interaction, and cooperation with owners of land adjoining refuges and the fish and wildlife agency of the States in which the units of the NWRS are located;
● Assist in the maintenance of adequate water quantity and water quality to fulfill the mission of the NWRS and the purposes of each refuge;
● Recognize compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses as the priority general public uses of the NWRS through which the American public can develop an appreciation for fish and wildlife;
● Ensure that opportunities are provided within the NWRS for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses; and
● Monitor the status and trends of fish, wildlife, and plants in each refuge. Therefore, it is a priority of the Service to provide for wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities, including hunting and fishing, when those opportunities are compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The refuge was opened to waterfowl hunting in 1966, and opened to upland bird hunting and big game hunting in 1970. The Refuge was formally opened to sport fishing in 1979. The Refuge’s current fishing regulations, limiting fishing to the banks of Myrtle Creek, have been in place since 1993. The effects of the existing fishing program were evaluated during the Refuge’s Comprehensive Conservation Planning (CCP) process. The CCP made no changes to the fishing area or fishing regulations on the Refuge. This Fishing Plan is a step-down plan from the CCP (USFWS 2011) and would be a minor modification of the CCP by expanding the area open to bank fishing to include the banks of Deep Creek. Recreational fishing is already a popular sport on northern Idaho’s rivers, lakes, and streams. Species that have been documented in Myrtle Creek include native redband trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss gairdneri), mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni), kokanee (Oncorhynchus nerka), and the Federally listed (threatened) bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus); hatchery strains of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss); and non-native brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) (IDFG Fishing Planner, https://idfg.idaho.gov/ifwis/fishingplanner/water/1164107487395). Recent surveys conducted by the Service (2011-2013) found that the fish population of Myrtle Creek was comprised predominately of rainbow trout and longnose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae). Occasional species seen included mountain whitefish, brook trout, westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi) (likely rainbow/cutthroat hybrids), bull trout, kokanee, and northern pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus oregonensis).
Kootenai NWR Draft Fishing Plan Page 7 March 2020
Early spawning kokanee from Kootenay Lake, BC are present in the main stem Kootenai River and some west side tributaries (occasionally including Myrtle Creek) during the summer and fall (IDFG 2019a). As part of a kokanee re-introduction program into west-side tributaries of the Kootenai River, kokanee eggs were planted into man-made redds in Myrtle Creek in 2003-2005 and 2007 (USFWS 2011). Adult returns have been inconsistent, likely due to buildup of sand/silt at the mouth of Myrtle Creek that blocks access to upstream habitat when creek flows decrease in the fall (USFWS 2011). Species that have been documented in Deep Creek include native redband trout, mountain whitefish, kokanee, and bull trout; hatchery strains of rainbow trout; non-native brook trout; and non-native warmwater species (largemouth bass [Micropterus salmoides], pumpkinseed [Lepomis gibbosus], and yellow perch [Perca flavescens]) (IDFG Fishing Planner, https://idfg.idaho.gov/ifwis/fishingplanner/water/1163833487079). Redband trout are native to the Kootenai River drainage and present in the main stem Kootenai River and above barriers in some tributaries. The only known pure strain redband trout populations remaining in Idaho tributaries include the adfluvial population from Deep Creek. Hatchery rainbow trout have not been stocked in the Deep Creek drainage since 1986. Westslope cutthroat trout, and non-native brook and brown trout, are present within the drainage and may be present in the Refuge reach of Deep Creek, albeit in small numbers.
As noted above, the Federally listed (Threatened) bull trout is known to occur in Myrtle Creek and Deep Creek. A recovery plan for this species was completed in 2015 (USFWS 2015). In October 2010 the Service identified Myrtle Creek as critical habitat for bull trout foraging, migration, and over-wintering, and Deep Creek as critical habitat for foraging and migration (75 FR 200, 50 CFR Part 17; USFWS 2010). Recent surveys have not documented bull trout spawning in Myrtle Creek (USFWS 2013). The IDFG is responsible for sustaining Idaho’s fish and wildlife, and the habitats upon which they depend, while meeting the demand for hunting, fishing, trapping, and other wildlife recreation (IDFG Strategic Plan, 2015). IDFG’s statewide, multi-year Fisheries Management Plan provides guidance and policy direction to fishery biologists for each major river basin in Idaho (IDFG 2019a). A top priority is to manage populations so that sport fisheries are sustainable and demands are met through natural production of wild or native fish species where feasible. IDFG uses a variety of harvest rules and fishing gear restrictions on different waters to provide a diversity of sport fishing opportunities. II. Statement of Objectives In 2011, the CCP for the Kootenai NWR was approved (USFWS 2011). The CCP addressed future management of the refuge, including providing opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental education, and interpretation). This fishing plan is a step down plan of the CCP, and as such contains more detailed information describing the Refuge’s fishing program.
Kootenai NWR Draft Fishing Plan Page 8 March 2020
Fishing opportunities on the Refuge are limited due to the small size of the Refuge, need for sanctuary area for migratory birds, and water quality issues in the lower reaches of Deep Creek and Myrtle Creek (USFWS 2011). The Refuge currently allows fishing from the east bank of Myrtle Creek, but has not placed emphasis on this program. Most fishing occurs on the upper portion on Myrtle Creek near the Myrtle Falls parking area. The primary species taken is rainbow trout (which may include native redband trout and hybrids of hatchery strains of rainbow trout and redband trout). Non-native brook trout may be taken in small numbers. Bull trout must be released if caught. The east bank of the portion of Myrtle Creek along the auto tour road which is very steep. Most fishing appears to occur at the cobbled reach of the creek near the Myrtle Falls Trail and parking lot. A short section of trail leads to this fishing area. There are no facilities specifically dedicated to fishing. Fishing is consistent with the refuge CCP goal: “Fishing and hunting enthusiasts will enjoy opportunities to fish and hunt big game and upland game on the Refuge. Fishing and/or hunting programs will provide a reasonable chance of success with little or no interference by others; minimize impacts to non-target species and habitats; promote compliance with laws and regulations; and promote ethical behavior,” and the CCP objective to “Provide fishing opportunities in Myrtle Creek for anglers of all ages and abilities.” Under the CCP, fishing was allowed from the banks of Myrtle Creek only. The fishing plan amends the CCP by expanding the Refuge’s fishing area to include the banks of Deep Creek. Recreational fishing will be permitted in accordance with state, federal, and refuge-specific regulations and seasons to ensure that it does not interfere with the conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats, or conflict with other public use activities. Fishing Plan Goals Goal 1: Provide quality angling opportunities for trout and other coldwater fish species. The Service strives to complement IDFG’s goals which are to maintain and restore naturally-produced fish populations to provide opportunities for consumptive and non-consumptive recreational fisheries and to manage non-native fish and hatchery-based fisheries to optimize user benefits. IDFG is working to increase opportunities for fishing by increasing the quality and quantity of fisheries in Idaho, and access to those fisheries. Goal 2: Minimize impacts to Refuge resources, including threatened bull trout. Fishing Plan Objective The objective of a fishing program at Kootenai NWR, as stated in the Refuge’s CCP (2011) is to: “Provide fishing opportunities in Myrtle Creek and Deep Creek for anglers of all ages and abilities.” The program will:
• Include clear and concise regulations that are readily available to visitors on the refuge website, in refuge brochures, and at information kiosks;
Kootenai NWR Draft Fishing Plan Page 9 March 2020
• Pose minimal conflict with overall wildlife and habitat objectives, and minimal impacts to Refuge resources; and
• Pose minimal conflict with other priority public use activities. • Fishing and/or hunting programs will provide a reasonable chance of success with
little or no interference by others; minimize impacts to non-target species and habitats; promote compliance with laws and regulations; and promote ethical behavior
Fishing Plan Strategies:
a. Open access to fishing along the banks of Deep Creek, in accordance with Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) fishing seasons and regulations.
b. Anglers may access the banks of Myrtle Creek and Deep Creek by foot. Boats are prohibited from entering the mouth of Myrtle Creek. To reduce the potential for wildlife disturbance caused by anglers, boats may not land on the banks of Deep Creek.
c. Work with partners to periodically (approximately every 3 years) monitor fish populations in Myrtle Creek and Deep Creek, to inform potential changes to the fishing program that are more protective of bull trout;
d. The Service will provide fishing line recycling containers for anglers to discard their used monofilament line.
e. Fishing use will be monitored to ensure that levels of human activity are not at a level that may cause significant disturbance to wildlife, especially migratory birds or other sensitive resources, or negative impacts to habitat. If the use is causing unacceptable levels of disturbance or habitat impacts, it will be limited to prevent these negative impacts.
III. Description of Fishing Program
A. Areas to be Opened to Fishing The Service will allow fishing on the Refuge as follows: from the banks of Myrtle Creek, and from the banks of Deep Creek. See attached map.
!!
!!!!!
!!!!!
!!!
!!!
!!!
!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!
!!
!!!!!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!©
!©
!©
!l
Kootenai NWR Draft Fishing Plan Page 11 March 2020
B. Species to be Taken, Fishing Periods, and Fishing Access
FISHING: Anglers are required to comply with species and take limits as defined in IDFG fishing regulations. Fishing Periods: Fishing areas will be open for anglers to access during daylight hours only (legal sunrise to legal sunset), year-round, 7 days per week. Access: Anglers may access Myrtle Creek via the Myrtle Creek Falls trailhead parking lot. Anglers may access fishing on Deep Creek via the 2.2-mile Deep Creek Trail, which is open year-round and runs along a dike on the west side of Deep Creek. There are parking areas for trail users at the northern terminus of the trail (on Riverside Road) and the southern terminus (Lions Den Road). Additional parking is available across Westside Road next to the Headquarters Office and next to the Environmental Education Center. There are no special entry or access procedures for anglers using the refuge. For specific access questions contact the Refuge Manager at: Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge 287 Westside Road, Bonners Ferry ID 83805 208/267-3888 [email protected] or Inland Northwest National Wildlife Refuge Complex 26010 S. Smith Road, Cheney, WA 99004 509/235-4723 [email protected]
C. Fishing Permit Requirements Anglers who are eligible to fish under Idaho law are eligible to fish on the Refuge. They must obtain an Idaho fishing license and follow Idaho state laws, limits, and regulations. No Refuge permit is required.
D. Consultation and Coordination with the State This fishing plan is a step down plan from the Kootenai NWR CCP (USFWS 2011). Public involvement was sought throughout the development of the CCP. Public involvement strategies included face-to-face meetings or phone conversations with key agencies, federally elected officials (or their aides), Tribal representatives, and local refuge users. The refuge staff also held open houses and sent planning updates to inform the public, invite discussion, and solicit feedback. A summary of public involvement is included in Appendix K of the CCP; public comments on the DCCP/EA and the Service’s responses to comments are included in Appendix
Kootenai NWR Draft Fishing Plan Page 12 March 2020
M of the CCP. On July 23, 2019, FWS regional senior staff had a hunting and fishing coordination meeting with the IDFG leadership team, including the Director, Deputy Director, Wildlife Chief, Fisheries Chief, Region Manager, support staff, and an Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA) Governmental Affairs representative. The IDFG leadership team outlined the State’s priorities, and the Service and IDFG came to mutual agreement on phasing of hunting and fishing openings and expansions on Idaho National Wildlife Refuges, including opening Deep Creek on Kootenai NWR for fishing in 2020. The Service has asked for a review of this Draft Plan by the IDFG district office that covers our area to help adjust our plan to align, where possible, with IDFG’s management goals. We have continued to consult and coordinate on specific aspects of the fishing plan. IDFG is in agreement with the refuge’s fishing plan, as it will help meet state objectives.
E. Law Enforcement
Enforcement of refuge violations normally associated with management of a National Wildlife Refuge is the responsibility of commissioned Federal Wildlife Officers. Other officers, special agents, state game wardens, and the local Sheriff’s Department may assist the refuge’s full time federal wildlife officer. The following methods are used to control and enforce fishing regulations:
• Refuge fishing area boundaries will be clearly posted; • The refuge will post fishing regulations on the refuge website, refuge information kiosks,
and at the refuge office; • The refuge will provide a brochure or tear sheet that shows fishing areas at refuge kiosks
and at the refuge office (also available for downloading on the refuge website); and • USFWS law enforcement staff will randomly check anglers for compliance with federal
and state laws. USFWS officers will conduct patrols on a regular basis to ensure compliance with state, federal, and refuge regulations. Officers will also monitor and collect data on fishing activities in the field to ensure it does not interfere with other wildlife-dependent uses. If necessary, the program will be modified accordingly.
F. Funding and Staffing Requirements
Annual costs to administer the fishing program at Kootenai NWR, including salary, equipment, law enforcement, brochures, and maintenance, totals approximately $5,500. Both one-time costs (e.g. signage) and annual salary costs (for law enforcement, creel surveys, etc) are necessary in order to protect bull trout, which is federally listed as threatened and which inhabits Myrtle Creek.
Kootenai NWR Draft Fishing Plan Page 13 March 2020
Costs to Administer and Manage Fishing Program at Kootenai NWR Activity or Project One Time Expenses
($) Recurring Expenses
($/year) Develop Fishing Plan $1,000
Interpretive and administrative signs, and kiosk
$ 5,500
Establishment and maintenance of low impact fishing access trail to creek
$ 3,000 $ 2,000
Fishing brochure $ 1,500 $ 500 Annual program management—Salaries (creel surveys, LE, etc.)
$ 3,000
Totals $ 11,000 $ 5,500 IV. Conduct of the Fishing Program
A. Fishing Permit Application, Selection, and/or Registration Procedures No special application or registration process is required.
B. Refuge-Specific Fishing Regulations Listed below are refuge-specific regulations that pertain to fishing on Kootenai NWR as of the date of this plan. These regulations may be modified as conditions change or if refuge expansion continues/occurs. Sport Fishing: We allow sport fishing on designated areas of the refuge subject to the following condition: We allow bank fishing only.
C. Relevant State Regulations
Myrtle Creek and Deep Creek are within the IDFG Panhandle Region. Within this region, all waters are open all year, except for Special Rule Waters. Deep Creek and its tributaries falls under a Special Rule: Rainbow Trout catch-and-release December 1 through Friday before Memorial Day weekend. Applicable State regulations for the Panhandle Region, including bag limits and regulations for special rule waters, can be found at: https://idfg.idaho.gov/sites/default/files/seasons-rules-fish-2019-2021-panhandle.pdf Complete Idaho fishing regulations can be found at:
Kootenai NWR Draft Fishing Plan Page 14 March 2020
https://idfg.idaho.gov/sites/default/files/seasons-rules-fish-2019-2021.pdf
D. Other Refuge Rules and Regulations for Fishing See CCP and CD Stipulations
• Fishing is allowed during daylight hours (sunrise to sunset) only. • Bank fishing only. Fishing from boats, float tubes, or other personal flotation
devices is prohibited. V. Public Engagement
A. Outreach for Announcing and Publicizing the Fishing Program The refuge maintains a mailing list, for news release purposes, to local newspapers, radio, and websites. Special announcements and articles may be released in conjunction with fishing seasons. In addition, information about fishing will be available at the Refuge headquarters or on the Kootenai NWR website: https://www.fws.gov/refuge/kootenai/.
B. Anticipated Public Reaction to the Fishing Program Fishing is a popular and well established use in north Idaho, including in waters on and adjacent to the Refuge. Therefore, the Service does not anticipate any controversy as a result of expanding this use on Kootenai NWR. Fishing provides visitors with the joy of experiencing wildlife on their public lands, and as such, helps fulfill the mission of the NWRS.
C. How Anglers Will Be Informed of Relevant Rules and Regulations General information regarding fishing and other wildlife-dependent public uses can be obtained at the Refuge office, or at Inland Northwest NWRC headquarters at 26010 S. Smith Road, Cheney, WA 99004. Maps and regulations are available on the station website at: www.fws.gov/refuge/kootenai, the Refuge office, and information kiosks. The 2019-2021 Idaho fishing regulations can be found at https://idfg.idaho.gov/sites/default/files/seasons-rules-fish-2019-2021.pdf or call the Refuge Manager at 208/267-3888. The Service has an informational kiosk that contains information about fishing and other available wildlife-dependent recreational uses. Information about these opportunities are also available through the internet via the Kootenai NWR website. These forms of interpretive material will help educate the public on refuge regulations and how they can minimize wildlife and habitat disturbance.
VI. Compatibility Determination Fishing and all associated program activities proposed in this plan are compatible with the
Kootenai NWR Draft Fishing Plan Page 15 March 2020
purposes of the refuge. See attached Kootenai NWR Compatibility Determination for Fishing. References IDFG (Idaho Department of Fish and Game). 2019a. Fisheries Management Plan 2019-2024.
Boise, ID. 402 pp. Available at: https://idfg.idaho.gov/sites/default/files/2019-2024-idaho-fisheries-management-plan-original.pdf Accessed August 15, 2019.
IDFG 2019 b. 2019-2021 Idaho Fishing Seasons and Rules. Boise, ID. 64 pp. Available at: https://idfg.idaho.gov/sites/default/files/seasons-rules-fish-2019-2021.pdf Accessed December 4, 2019.
USFWS. 1988. Sport hunting decision document package for Kootenai NWR. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1. Portland, OR.
USFWS. 1985. Sport fishing decision document package for Kootenai NWR. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1. Portland, OR.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for Bull Trout in the Coterminous United States. Available at: https://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout/pdf/BTCHFR101810.pdf
USFWS. 2011a. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment, Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011b. Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1. Available at: https://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/Kootenai%20NWR%20CCP%20-%20Sept%202011.pdf
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Recovery plan for the coterminous United States population of bull trout. Available at: https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/Final_Bull_Trout_Recovery_Plan_092915-corrected.pdf
Kootenai NWR Draft Fishing Plan Page 16 March 2020
Appendix A
Categorical Exclusion for Changes to the Hunting and Fishing Programs at Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge
1
U. S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION STATEMENT FOR
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is proposing to expand fishing and migratory bird hunting opportunities at Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge, NWR) in accordance with the Refuge’s 2011 Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP), Hunt Plan (Hunt Program Amendment, USFWS 2013) and Fishing Plan (USFWS 2020), which are incorporated by reference. We propose to expand areas where fishing is allowed from the banks of Myrtle Creek only, to the banks of Myrtle Creek and Deep Creek. We propose to add snipe to migratory birds that can be hunted on the Refuge.
Within the spirit and intent of the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and other statutes, orders, and policies that protect fish and wildlife resources, I have established the following administrative record and determined that the following proposed action is categorically excluded from NEPA documentation requirements consistent with 40 CFR 1508.4, 43 CFR 46.205, and 516 DM 8.5.
The Service has fully satisfied the other requirements for expanding these opportunities on the Refuge, including: ☒ determining that the opportunities are compatible with the purposes for which the Refuge was
established and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (see attached Compatibility Determination);
☒ ensuring the opportunities are consistent with existing state, local, and Refuge-specific regulations (50 CFR § 32);
*Use of signs and brochures may supplement the Refuge-specific regulations ☒ complying with the National Environmental Policy Act; ☒ complying with the Endangered Species Act section 7 evaluation; OR ☐ not applicable because there are no threatened or endangered species present; ☒ complying with the National Historic Preservation Act section 106 consultation; OR ☐ not applicable because there are no cultural or historic resources present;
Signature_______________________________________ Date: ___________ Title_____________________________________
2
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION Proposed Action: Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge (NWR; Refuge) is proposing to expand recreational hunting opportunities for migratory birds by adding snipe to the species that may be hunted on the Refuge. We propose to expand areas where fishing is allowed from the banks of Myrtle Creek only, to the banks of Myrtle Creek and Deep Creek. The proposed action represents a minor change in the amount or type of public use on Service or state-managed lands, and is in accordance with existing regulations, management plans, and procedures. Environmental effects related to migratory bird hunting and fishing were analyzed in detail in the Kootenai NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) (USFWS 2011). The Kootenai NWR Hunt Program Amendment (USFWS 2013) and the Kootenai NWR Fishing Plan (USFWS 2020) were prepared as step down plans to the CCP.
Categorical Exclusion: These proposed actions are covered by the following categorical exclusion: 516 DM 8.5 B (7): Minor changes in the amounts or types of public use on Service or state-managed lands, in accordance with existing regulations, management plans, and procedures.
Discussion: An action by the Service that only results in “minor changes in the amounts or types of public use on Service or State-managed lands, in accordance with existing regulations, management plans, and procedures” is categorically excluded from further NEPA analyses, because it has been determined to be a class of action which does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment (516 DM 8.5 B (7)).
The Refuge was opened to waterfowl hunting, consistent with IDFG regulations, in 1966. Under the CCP, the existing waterfowl hunt (duck, goose, and coot; four days per week during the State season) continued, but a consistent 200-yard buffer, open to retrieval of waterfowl only, was established along the western edge of the Auto Tour Route and the Deep Creek Trail. This change provided for consistency between the north and south waterfowl hunt units and more easily enforceable hunt boundaries; reduced user conflicts; and provided for public safety. Although the establishment of the buffer decreased the total amount of available waterfowl hunting acreage (from approximately 765 acres to 582 acres), it did not significantly affect waterfowl hunting opportunities since waterfowl typically do not occupy the habitat in the buffer areas. Other aspects of the waterfowl hunt remained unchanged (e.g., hunting by foot access only; both fixed blinds and free-roam areas). The Refuge was formally opened to sport fishing in 1979. The Refuge’s current fishing regulations, limiting fishing to the banks of Myrtle Creek, have been in place since 1993. Existing hunting and fishing programs were evaluated during the Refuge’s CCP process. The CCP made no changes to the fishing area or fishing regulations on the Refuge. The Refuge’s Fishing Plan (USFWS 2020) is a step-down plan from the CCP (USFWS 2011) and represents a minor modification of the CCP by expanding the area open to bank fishing to include the banks of Deep Creek.
Extraordinary Circumstances (43 CFR 46.215) : Could This Proposed Action: Yes No ☐ ☒ a. Have significant adverse effects on public health or safety? ☐ ☒ b. Have significant impacts on such natural resources and unique geographic
characteristics as historic or cultural resources; park, recreation or refuge lands; wilderness areas; wild or scenic rivers; national natural landmarks; sole or principal drinking water aquifers; prime farmlands; wetlands (EO 11990); floodplains (EO 11988); national monuments; migratory birds; and other
3
ecologically significant or critical areas? ☐ ☒ c. Have highly controversial environmental effects or involve unresolved conflicts
concerning alternative uses of available resources [NEPA section 102(2)(E)]? ☐ ☒ d. Have highly uncertain and potentially significant environmental effects or
involve unique or unknown environmental risks? ☐ ☒ e. Establish a precedent for future action or represent a decision in principle about
future actions with potentially significant environmental effects? ☐ ☒ f. Have a direct relationship to other actions with individually insignificant but
cumulatively significant environmental effects? ☐ ☒ g. Have significant impacts on properties listed, or eligible for listing, on the
National Register of Historic Places as determined by the bureau? ☐ ☒ h. Have significant impacts on species listed, or proposed to be listed, on the List
of Endangered or Threatened Species, or have significant impacts on designated Critical Habitat for these species?
☐ ☒ i. Violate a Federal law, or a State, local, or tribal law or requirement imposed for the protection of the environment?
☐ ☒ j. Have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on low income or minority populations (EO 12898).
☐ ☒ k. Limit access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites on Federal lands by Indian religious practitioners or significantly adversely affect the physical integrity of such sacred sites (EO 13007).
☐ ☒ l. Contribute to the introduction, continued existence, or spread of noxious weeds or non-native invasive species known to occur in the area or actions that may promote the introduction, growth, or expansion of the range of such species (Federal Noxious Weed Control Act and EO 13112).
☐ ☒ m. Have material adverse effects on resources requiring compliance with Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management), Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands), or the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act?
(If any of the above exceptions receive a “Yes” check (X), an EA/EIS must be prepared.)
The Federally listed (Threatened) bull trout is known to occur in Myrtle Creek and Deep Creek. In October 2010 the Service identified Myrtle Creek as critical habitat for bull trout foraging, migration, and over-wintering, and Deep Creek as critical habitat for foraging and migration (75 FR 200, 50 CFR Part 17; USFWS 2010). A recovery plan for this species was completed in 2015 (80 FR 58767 58768; USFWS 2015). The presence and associated activity of anglers would have the potential to affect, but would not adversely affect, bull trout. The presence of migratory bird hunters would have no effect to bull trout since they do not occur on areas of the Refuge where migratory bird hunting occurs. Section 7 consultation for listed species under Service jurisdiction concluded expanding fishing on the Refuge to include Deep Creek, and adding snipe to migratory bird species that may be hunted on the Refuge would have no effect on bull trout (Attachment 1). Other listed species (white sturgeon, Canada lynx, grizzly bear, and woodland caribou) were historically present in the Refuge area but are unlikely to occur on the Refuge.
The Service has determined that expanding recreational hunting and fishing opportunities is the type of undertaking that does not have the potential to cause effects on historic properties (36CFR800.3.a.1. the implementing regulations of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act - NHPA). No ground disturbing activities are proposed and opening the area would not alter, directly or indirectly, any characteristic of a historic property. The undertaking may proceed without further consideration of NHPA Section 106.
4
References
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for Bull Trout in the Coterminous United States. Available at: https://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout/pdf/BTCHFR101810.pdf
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Available at: https://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/Kootenai%20NWR%20CCP%20-%20Sept%202011.pdf
U.S Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge Hunt Program Amendment.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Recovery plan for the coterminous United States population of bull trout. Available at: https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/Final_Bull_Trout_Recovery_Plan_092915-corrected.pdf
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2020. Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge Draft Fishing Plan.
Within the spirit and intent of the Council of Environmental Quality's regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other statutes, orders, and policies that protect fish and wildlife resources, I have established the following administrative record and have determined: ☒ The proposed action is covered by a categorical exclusion as provided by 43 CFR
§46.210 or 516 DM 8.5. No further NEPA documentation will therefore be made. ☐ An Extraordinary Circumstance (43 CFR 46.215) could exist for the proposed action
and, so an EA/EIS must be prepared.
Service signature approval:
Signature_______________________________________ Date: ____________
Title_____________________________________
5
Attachment 1
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation
Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Form For
Proposed Fishing and Migratory Bird Hunting Program Expansions at Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge
Refuge Name: Kootenai NWR Address: 287 Westside Road, Bonners Ferry ID 83805 Phone: (208) 267-3888 Refuge Action: Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge (NWR; Refuge) is proposing to open Deep Creek to fishing in accordance with existing state, local, and refuge-specific regulations (50 CFR 32), and to add snipe to species of migratory birds that can be hunted on the Refuge. Part 1
I. Project Overview 1. Project Location
Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge, Boundary County, Idaho. Latitude: 48°42'25.18"N, Longitude: 116°24'53.56"W
2. Description of the Proposed Action The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service; USFWS, interchangeable) is proposing to expand fishing opportunities on the Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) in Idaho, and to add snipe to the species of migratory birds that can be hunted on the Refuge. The purposes of the proposed action are to address Secretarial Orders 3347 and 3356 by more closely aligning Refuge hunting and fishing regulations with Idaho state regulations. Fishing and migratory bird hunting would coincide with all state regulations and season dates as established by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG). Currently fishing is allowed from the banks of Myrtle Creek only. Boats are not allowed to enter Myrtle Creek. We propose to also allow fishing from the banks of Deep Creek. Landing of boats on the banks of Deep Creek would not be allowed. A Fishing Plan documenting the current fishing program and proposed expansion, a Categorical Exclusion, and Compatibility Determinations for fishing and migratory game bird hunting have been prepared. The Fishing Plan, and the opening of the Refuge to snipe, are minor amendments of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP; USFWS 2011). Detailed descriptions of the program and the environmental effects associated with providing these opportunities are described in those documents.
3. Project Timeline The Refuge is currently open to migratory bird (waterfowl) hunting, and Myrtle Creek is open to fishing. Deep Creek will be opened to fishing in the fall of 2020 and remain open until closed.
4. Federally Listed Species and Critical Habitat
A. Listed species and/or their critical habitat: Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), listed as threatened. The Refuge contains critical habitat for bull trout. In October 2010 the Service identified Myrtle Creek as critical habitat for bull trout foraging, migration, and over-wintering, and Deep Creek as critical habitat for foraging and migration (75 FR 200, 50 CFR Part 17; USFWS 2010). Kootenai River white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus), listed as endangered. The Refuge does not contain critical habitat for Kootenai River white sturgeon. Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis) - the Refuge does not contain critical habitat for Canada lynx. Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) - the Refuge lies outside the Selkirk Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone.
B. Proposed species and/or proposed critical habitat: N/A C. Candidate species1: N/A
II. Effects Determination and Response Requested: Determination A. No effect/no adverse modification Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis): As described in the Section 7 consultation conducted in 2013 for the Hunt Plan Program Amendment, and which is incorporated by reference, (USFWS 2013) Refuge hunt programs do not occur within a Lynx Analysis Unit, affect lynx designated critical habitat, or occur in areas that lynx are typically found (i.e. high elevation boreal forest). Furthermore, the Refuge's lack of suitable foraging and denning habitat, coupled with existing human disturbances likely precludes lynx from occurring on the Refuge. These conclusions also apply to areas of the Refuge where fishing is conducted. Therefore, the potential for, or effects of the proposed minor changes to the Refuge’s hunting and fishing programs to lynx are expected to be insignificant. critical habitat: No critical habitat present. Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos): As described in the Section 7 consultation conducted in 2013 for the Hunt Plan Program Amendment, and which is incorporated by reference, (USFWS 2013) Refuge hunt programs occur outside the Selkirk Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone. Grizzly bears are a wide-ranging species and transient bears occasionally wander onto the Refuge, as it shares its western border with the Myrtle Bear Management Unit (BMU). Additionally, we do not anticipate grizzly bears to be present during the fall hunting season as they are expected to be using high elevation habitat adjacent to the Refuge at this time. Furthermore, the Myrtle BMU exceeds the standards for core habitat that research recommends; therefore it is likely that grizzly bears will
make use of high quality habitat located inside the Myrtle BMU instead of the habitat found on Refuge lands. Because a certain level of existing disturbance along open roads and trails on the Refuge already exists, the proposed amendment is unlikely to create a level of disturbance above that of normal traffic patterns that may be discernible by bears. It is unlikely that the Amendment will result in any additional impacts to grizzly bears over and above that which they currently experience due to exiting Refuge management practices. Furthermore, the proposed amendment will not occur within a BMU area, thus there will be no changes in core size, road densities, or linear road miles to the adjacent Myrtle BMU. These conclusions also apply to areas of the Refuge where fishing is conducted. Therefore, the potential for, or effects of the proposed minor changes to the Refuge’s hunting and fishing programs to grizzly bear are expected to be insignificant. critical habitat: No critical habitat present.
B. May affect, but is not likely to adversely affect species/adversely modify critical habitat Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus): Bull trout were listed as threatened in the coterminous United States in 1999 (USFWS 1999). A recovery plan for this species was completed in 2015 (80 FR 58767 58768; USFWS 2015). Bull trout are members of the family Salmonidae and are char native Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Nevada, Montana and western Canada. Compared to other salmonids, bull trout have more specific habitat requirements that appear to influence their distribution and abundance. They need cold water to survive, so they are seldom found in waters where temperatures exceed 59 to 64 degrees (F). They also require stable stream channels, clean spawning and rearing gravel, complex and diverse cover, and unblocked migratory corridors. Bull trout exhibit two forms: resident and migratory. Resident bull trout spend their entire lives in the same stream/creek. Migratory bull trout move to larger bodies of water to overwinter and then migrate back to smaller waters to reproduce. Resident and juvenile bull trout prey on invertebrates and small fish. Adult migratory bull trout primarily eat fish. Resident bull trout range up to 10 inches long and migratory forms may range up to 35 inches and up to 32 pounds. Bull trout are currently listed coterminously as a threatened species. (USFWS Species Profile, https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/speciesProfile?spcode=E065) In October 2010 the Service identified Myrtle Creek as critical habitat for bull trout foraging, migration, and over-wintering, and Deep Creek as critical habitat for foraging and migration (75 FR 200, 50 CFR Part 17; USFWS 2010). Surveys conducted in Myrtle Creek (2010-2013) documented bull trout use of the creek, but no evidence of spawning. Myrtle Creek and Deep Creek are within the IDFG Panhandle Region. Within this region, all waters are open all year, except for Special Rule Waters. Deep Creek and its tributaries falls under a Special Rule: Rainbow Trout catch-and-release December 1 through Friday before Memorial Day weekend (IDFG 2019). At this time, due to the light fishing pressure (estimated at one or two anglers per week) in Myrtle Creek, the Refuge fishing program is conducted in accordance with state regulations. Under IDFG regulations, bull trout must be released if caught. There is potential for incidental take (hooking mortality) of bull trout by anglers catching and releasing fish or pursuing other species (USFWS 2015a). At the time of listing in 1999, this was identified as one of the factors affecting the species in several areas (USFWS 1999). Today, angling regulations have been adjusted in all states where bull trout occur to minimize angling impacts to bull trout, and legal, managed bull trout harvest is permitted in a handful of locations
with relatively robust bull trout populations (USFWS 1999). Current state fishing regulations have generally resolved most pre-listing concerns about overutilization of bull trout by anglers, although incidental bycatch mortality may impact bull trout in some core areas (Fredenberg 2014). Bull trout numbers appear to have responded positively to angling restrictions in some areas (USFWS 2005b; Erhardt and Scarnecchia 2014). Bull trout can be locally vulnerable to angling pressure, particularly in late summer, when they stage for spawning in small streams. Enhanced enforcement of existing regulations, combined with angler education, is generally the best remedy to address this issue, and may include site-specific actions to control access and enforce take prohibitions (USFWS 2015a). Because of light fishing pressure, impacts to bull trout related to the fishing expansion are expected to be negligible. While at a range-wide scale the Service considers angling impacts to be a relatively minor threat, some significant localized impacts may remain that should be considered in core area management (USFWS 2015a). If future monitoring reveals that fishing has a significant negative impact to bull trout or habitat, then the Refuge will coordinate with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) to develop stream specific regulations. However, at this time, the proposed fishing expansion would have the potential to affect, but would not adversely affect, bull trout. The presence of migratory bird hunters would have no effect to bull trout since bull trout habitat (Myrtle Creek and Deep Creek) lie outside the area where migratory bird hunting occurs. For these reasons, expanding fishing on the Refuge to include Deep Creek, and adding snipe to migratory bird species that may be hunted on the Refuge would have no effect on bull trout. Critical Habitat: In October 2010 the Service identified Myrtle Creek as critical habitat for bull trout foraging, migration, and over-wintering, and Deep Creek as critical habitat for foraging and migration (75 FR 200, 50 CFR Part 17; USFWS 2010); see map at https://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout/finalcrithab/index.cfm?unit=30. Because of very light fishing pressure on the Refuge, and the fact that fishing is allowed only from banks, effects to bull trout critical habitat would be negligible. Kootenai River white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus): The Kootenai River distinct population segment of the white sturgeon was listed as endangered on September 6, 1994 (USFWS 1994; 59 FR 45989). A final recovery plan was signed in 1999 (USFWS 1999). A draft revised recovery plan was released in 2018 (USFWS 2018). The Kootenai River white sturgeon is 1 of 18 land-locked populations of white sturgeon known to occur in western North America. Kootenai sturgeon occur in Idaho, Montana, and British Columbia, Canada, and are restricted to approximately 167.7 River Miles (RM) of the Kootenai River extending from Kootenai Falls, Montana, located 31 RM below Libby Dam, Montana, downstream through Kootenay Lake to Corra Linn Dam at the outflow from Kootenay Lake in British Columbia. Approximately 45 percent of the species range is located within British Columbia. Many Kootenai sturgeon migrate within this restricted portion of the Kootenai River system to spawn in the Kootenai River, and they spend part of their life in Kootenay Lake in British Columbia. The wild population now consists of an aging cohort of large, old fish. The population declined from approximately 7,000 white sturgeon in the late 1970s to 760 fish in 2000. At the current mortality rate of 9 percent per year, fewer than 500 adults remained in 2005 and there may be fewer than 50 remaining by 2030. Current data indicate that population abundance declines by about half every 7.4 years. During the last 14 years of intensive monitoring (using techniques proven suitable elsewhere) only one hatching embryo has been found and no free-swimming larvae or young-of-the-year
have been captured. Estimates show that annually an average of 10 juvenile sturgeon are naturally reproduced in the Kootenai River (USFWS Species Profile, https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/speciesProfile?spcode=E087). Kootenai River white sturgeon are known to inhabit the Kootenai River near the mouths of Myrtle and Deep Creeks. They historically may have occurred in Deep Creek, and an occasional transient fish may occur. The lower reach of Deep Creek is affected by backwaters of the Kootenai River and habitat quality is not conducive to the use of the creek by this species (USFWS 2015b). Sturgeon have never been documented in Myrtle Creek. critical habitat: No critical habitat present. Critical habitat for Kootenai sturgeon was designated on September 6, 2001 (USFWS 2001; 66 FR 46548). An interim rule designating additional critical habitat was published on February 8, 2006 (USFWS 2006; 71 FR 6383), and a final rule published on July 9, 2008 (USFWS 2008; 73 FR 39505). The stretch of the Kootenai River that lies adjacent to the Refuge has been designated critical habitat for the Kootenai River white sturgeon. The critical habitat begins upstream of the Refuge at RM 159.7, below the confluence with the Moyie River, runs downstream past RM 152.7 at Bonners Ferry, and continues downstream into the meander reach to RM 141.4, for a total of 18.3 RM (USFWS 2015b). There is not critical habitat within the Refuge boundary, and the Refuge’s hunting and fishing programs have no impact to critical habitat for this species.
________________________ ________ Signature of Preparer Date Evaluation by Project Leader: 1. For A & B above: Concurrence ______ Non-concurrence _______ 2. For C above: Formal consultation required _______ 3. For D above: Conference required _______ _____________________________ _________ Signature of Project Leader Date
References Erhardt, J.M., and D.L. Scarnecchia. 2014. Population changes after 14 years of harvest closure
on a Migratory population of bull trout in Idaho. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 34:482-492.
Fredenberg, W. 2014. Evaluating Potential Impact of Angler Bycatch on Threatened Bull Trout
in Western Montana. Proceedings of the Wild Trout Symposium XI-Looking Back and Moving Forward. Pages 254-262.
[IDFG] Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 2019. 2019-2021 Idaho Fishing Seasons and Rules. Boise, ID. 64 pp. Available at: https://idfg.idaho.gov/sites/default/files/seasons-rules-fish-2019-2021.pdf Accessed December 4, 2019.
[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of threatened status for bull trout in the conterminous United States. November 1, 1999. Federal Register 64:58910-58933.
[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; designation of critical habitat for the bull trout. September 26, 2005. Federal Register 70: 56212-56311.
[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005b. Bull trout core area templates – complete core area by core area analysis. W. Fredenberg and J. Chan, editors. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.
[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Critical Habitat Revised Designation for the Kootenai River Population of the White Sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus): Final rule.
[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; revised designation of critical habitat for bull trout in the coterminous United States; final rule. October 18, 2010. Federal Register 75:63898-64070. Available at: https://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout/pdf/BTCHFR101810.pdf
[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Available at: https://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/Kootenai%20NWR%20CCP%20-%20Sept%202011.pdf
[USFWS] U.S Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Section 7 consultation for the Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge Hunt Program Amendment.
[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015a. Recovery plan for the coterminous United States population of bull trout. Available at: https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/Final_Bull_Trout_Recovery_Plan_092915-corrected.pdf
[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015b. Water resources inventory and analysis. [USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2018. Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the Kootenai
River White Sturgeon. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. vi + 33 pp. Available at: https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/Kootenai_River_White_Sturgeon_Draft_Revised_RP_20181211a.pdf
[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2020. Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge Draft Fishing Plan.
Kootenai NWR Draft Fishing Plan Page 17 March 2020
Appendix B- Compatibility Determinations
Draft Revised Compatibility Determination for Fishing at Kootenai NWR
Draft Revised Compatibility Determination for Migratory Bird Hunting
Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge Draft Revised Compatibility Determination for Sport Fishing RMIS Database Uses: Fishing
Refuge Name: Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge
Location: Boundary County, Idaho
Date Established: 1964
Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:
• Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, as amended (16 U.S.C. 715 et seq.) • Executive Order 7681, dated July 30, 1937 • Refuge Recreation Act as amended [16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4] • Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended [16 U.S.C. 742a-742j, not including 742l]
Refuge Purpose(s):
“for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715 et seq. (Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929).
National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: “To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.).
Description of Use:
Current Use: Sport fishing in Myrtle Creek has been allowed on the Refuge since 1965, with anglers visiting the Refuge in order to pursue salmonids. Salmonids documented in the creek include rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), non-native brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni), kokanee (Oncorhynchus nerka), and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), which is Federally listed as threatened (Kruse 2005; Jones and Faler 2011). Of these, rainbow trout are by far the most numerous sport fish species and the most likely to be pursued by anglers. Sport fishing on Myrtle Creek is allowed in accordance with State regulations subject to the following conditions: 1) bank fishing only, and 2) fishing from boats, float tubes, or other personal flotation devices is prohibited. No fees or special permits are required to fish on the Refuge.
Prior to 2011, the Idaho statewide fishing season for rivers and streams, which would apply to Myrtle Creek, opened the Saturday of Memorial Day weekend and ran through November 30. In 2011, Idaho shifted away from statewide rules toward regional rules and year-round seasons and bag limits. This change reduced the number of exceptions by 33 percent and simplified the rules for the public. As a result, Myrtle Creek is now included in the “All Waters Open All Year” general fishing season (IDFG 2011). At this time, due to the light fishing pressure in Myrtle Creek, the Refuge fishing program is conducted in accordance with state regulations. Under IDFG regulations, bull trout must be
released if caught. If future monitoring reveals that fishing is detrimental to bull trout, kokanee (a species of concern in Idaho), or their habitat in Myrtle Creek, then the Refuge will coordinate with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) to develop stream specific regulations. Educational materials in the form of brochures, interpretive signs, and pocket-sized salmonid identification cards will be provided to anglers. All of the various forms of media will provide information on salmonid identification, allowable hook types/bait, and angler ethics. Where the use is conducted: Fishing is currently allowed from the banks of Myrtle Creek. The creek enters the Refuge at its western boundary and is wholly contained within refuge boundaries as it flows into the Kootenai River. The lower reach of Myrtle Creek, approximately 1.6 miles in length, is heavily silted due to backwater from the Kootenai River and is constrained by a steep 37-foot high dike therefore, salmonids typically do not inhabit this section. Rather, it is the upper and middle reaches of the creek, about 0.8 miles in length, which contain prime salmonid habitat and where most fishing occurs. Most fishing occurs on the upper portion on Myrtle Creek near the Myrtle Falls parking area. Based upon staff observations it is believed that there is little fishing pressure (estimated at one or two anglers per week) although monitoring of angler use has not been conducted within the past decade. Public parking is available on the Refuge at the Myrtle Creek Falls trailhead parking lot. Additional parking is available across Westside Road next to the Headquarters Office and next to the Environmental Education Center. Why this use is being proposed: The purpose of this proposed action is to provide compatible wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities on Kootenai NWR and to offer additional fishing opportunities and greater alignment with the state as mandated by Secretarial Orders numbers 3347 and 3356. The need of the proposed action is to meet the Service’s priorities and mandates as outlined by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (NWRSIA) of 1997. The NWRSIA “recognize(s) compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses as the priority general uses of the NWRS” and “ensure that opportunities are provided within the NWRS for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses” 16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(4)). Proposed Changes to the Use: We propose to also allow fishing from the banks of Deep Creek in accordance with IDFG regulations. Deep Creek lies within the IDFG Panhandle Region. Within this region, all waters are open all year, except for Special Rule Waters. Deep Creek and its tributaries falls under a Special Rule: Rainbow Trout catch-and-release December 1 through Friday before Memorial Day weekend (IDFG 2019). Species that have been documented in Deep Creek include native redband trout, mountain whitefish, kokanee, and bull trout; hatchery strains of rainbow trout; non-native brook trout; and non-native warmwater species (largemouth bass [Micropterus salmoides], pumpkinseed [Lepomis gibbosus], and yellow perch [Perca flavescens]) (IDFG Fishing Planner, https://idfg.idaho.gov/ifwis/fishingplanner/water/1163833487079). Rainbow trout and non-native warmwater species are likely the most common and likely to be taken by anglers fishing the Refuge reach of Deep Creek. Anglers may access fishing on Deep Creek via the 2.2-mile Deep Creek Trail, which is open year-round and runs along a dike on the west side of Deep Creek. There are parking areas for trail users at the northern terminus of the trail (on Riverside Road) and the southern terminus (Lions Den Road). Landing of boats on the banks of Deep Creek would be prohibited.
Availability of Resources:
The following funds will be required to administer the Refuge’s fishing program. Educational signs and brochures protect bull trout in Refuge waters by decreasing the likelihood of inadvertent take.
Costs to Administer and Manage Research Program at the Refuge. Activity or Project One Time Expenses ($) Recurring Expenses ($/year) Interpretive and administrative signs, and kiosk
$ 5,500
Establishment and maintenance of low impact fishing access trail to creek
$ 3,000 $ 2,000
Fishing brochure $ 1,500 $ 500 Annual program management—Salaries (creel surveys, LE, etc.)
$ 3,000
Totals $ 10,000 $ 5,500
Anticipated Impacts of Described Use:
Impacts of Current Use Evaluated in 2011 Compatibility Determination: Impacts to Fish: As well as direct mortality to target species, other impacts of fishing include stress and mortality in fish that are hooked but released, impacts to spawning areas and redds caused by wading, and impacts to vegetation on streambanks caused by anglers. Several fish species of management concern are known to be present in Refuge waters, including the threatened bull trout and kokanee, a species of management concern to the State and the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho. Bull trout inhabit Myrtle Creek upstream of the Refuge’s pedestrian bridge due to the presence of a plunge pool below the 120-foot tall falls, large boulders and clean gravel, high velocity, and steep canyon walls surrounded by mature riparian vegetation which shade the creek year round. The Kootenai River white sturgeon, an endangered species, and burbot, an imperiled species with an approved Conservation Strategy Plan, are known to inhabit the Kootenai River near the mouth of Myrtle Creek but neither of these species has ever been documented in Myrtle Creek. Kokanee, whose runs into the tributaries of the Kootenai River once numbered into the thousands up to the 1980s, have declined so dramatically during the past several decades that they are now considered to be “functionally extinct” (Ireland 2007). Considered the biological engines of most lake and river ecosystems in the Pacific Northwest, species such as sturgeon, bull trout, burbot, and rainbow trout are highly dependent upon kokanee as forage (Ireland 2007). Within the past decade, the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho has been working to restore kokanee populations through the use of egg plants in some westside tributaries of the Kootenai River including Myrtle Creek. Roberts and White (1992) established that the effects of angler wading on trout eggs and pre-emergent fry in artificial redds was dependent upon wading frequency and the stage of egg or fry development. They found that twice-daily wading killed up to 96 percent of eggs and pre-emergent fry while a single wading episode just before hatching killed up to 43 percent. Wading killed the most eggs and fry from the time of chorion (egg shell) softening to the start of emergence from the gravel. Therefore, restricting wading can protect limited salmonid spawning habitat in small streams such as Myrtle Creek, particularly since the stretch of Myrtle Creek used by anglers contains the greatest potential for salmonid spawning habitat.
Trout fishing is one of the most popular types of fishing in the United States and according to the Service’s 1996 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, 31 percent of all freshwater anglers fished for trout (USFWS 1999). Of all of the freshwater anglers in Idaho, 86 percent were trout anglers owing to the presence of this popular game fish throughout the State (USFWS 1999). Thus, this amount of fishing pressure certainly has an impact on native salmonids within the State.
Since anglers visit the Refuge in order to pursue salmonids, the presence of bull trout in Myrtle Creek raises a concern since the Columbia River population of bull trout was listed as threatened by the Service on June 10, 1998. The Kootenai River Recovery Unit forms part of the range of the Columbia River population. While the historic distribution of bull trout within the Kootenai River Recovery Unit is relatively intact, its abundance in portions of the watershed has been reduced with the remaining populations considered fragmented (USFWS 2002).
Believed to be a glacial relict, there are two distinct life-history strategies, migratory and resident, which occur throughout the bull trout’s range. Stream-resident (fluvial) bull trout complete their entire life cycle in the tributaries where they spawn and rear whereas migratory (adfluvial) bull trout spawn in tributary streams. The juveniles usually rear in natal streams from one to four years before migrating downstream to either a large river or lake where they spend their adult life, returning to the tributary to spawn. Resident and migratory forms are believed to exist together (50 CFR Part 17). Bull trout spawn from August through November. Eggs may hatch in winter or early spring but the alevins may stay in the gravel for an extended period after their yolks are absorbed. The bull trout’s growth, maturation, and longevity vary with the environment but their first spawning typically occurs after age four. Bull trout may live 10 or more years (USFWS 1998).
Bull trout have much more specific habitat requirements than most other salmonids. Throughout their various life stages, bull trout rely on foraging, migration, and overwintering habitat in order to complete the important parts of their life cycle. Habitat characteristics such as water temperature, stream size, substrate composition, cover, and hydraulic complexity are associated with the bull trout’s distribution and abundance (USFWS 1998).
The Service revised the designation of critical habitat for bull trout pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Under the Final Rule (50 CFR Part 17) which became effective on November 17, 2010, Deep Creek and Myrtle Creek were included on the list of water bodies designated as critical habitat for bull trout. Myrtle Creek was identified as critical habitat for bull trout foraging, migration, and over-wintering, and Deep Creek was identified as critical habitat for foraging and migration. The Service defines critical habitat as the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and which may require special management considerations or protection (emphasis added).
According to the Final Rule, the “decline of the bull trout is primarily due to habitat degradation and fragmentation, blockage of migratory corridors, poor water quality, past fisheries management practices, impoundments, dams, water diversions, and the introduction of non-native species. Climate change may exacerbate some of these impacts” particularly since bull trout are critically dependent upon large patches of suitably cold water habitat (50 CFR Part 17).
Brook trout have been “extensively planted” in Idaho (Simpson and Wallace 1982) and occur throughout the drainage. Non-native, brook trout not only compete with bull trout for forage and spawning habitat but also pose a threat of hybridization. During Jones and Faler’s July 2009 fish population assessment of Myrtle Creek, one bull trout/brook trout hybrid was collected. Since both species occur in the Kootenai River basin and are known to hybridize, this specimen provides evidence that hybridization is occurring within the drainage. Other threats to bull trout populations include illegal harvest, an increasing number of anglers, and angler misidentification and incidental take due to hooking mortality (USFWS 2002). The take of brook trout by Refuge anglers would have a beneficial, though minor, effect to bull trout and native redband or cutthroat trout inhabiting Refuge waters through reduction of competition and/or hybridization.
Fishing regulations imposed to protect a particular species are wholly dependent upon the angler’s knowledge and understanding of, and willingness to adhere to, the regulations, in addition to their ability to correctly identify various fish species. A study conducted by Schmetterling and Long (1999) in west central Montana examined the ability of anglers to correctly identify six salmonid species found in the area (all six species also inhabit Idaho waters). Comparisons were made based upon the number of years fishing and whether the angler was a resident or nonresident. The study found that while anglers correctly identified salmonid species 63 percent of the time, they frequently confused related species such as bull trout, brook trout, and brown trout. Bull trout were correctly identified by only 44 percent of anglers. Residents were found to be better at identifying bull trout than nonresidents and anglers with more than 10 years of angling experience were significantly better at identifying fish. “Unintentional illegal harvest or angler noncompliance with fishing regulations due to an inability to identify fish species can undermine management goals and significantly affect catch-and-release fisheries” (Schmetterling and Long 1999) leading to continued “taking” of listed species.
This study raises serious questions for an agency responsible for the recovery of a listed species since “the loss of individual fish from small populations such as bull trout can significantly affect recovery efforts due to genetic drift where individuals can enhance populations” (Schmetterling and Long 1999). In addition, angler misidentification, high among nonresidents, is particularly problematic for national wildlife refuges which routinely attract visitors from outside the area to engage in the “Big 6” wildlife dependent activities.
Many managers argue that offering catch-and-release angling is an effective fisheries conservation strategy while still affording anglers a recreational opportunity. This is based upon the assumption that since hooked fish are released (non-consumptive use), the population experiences low mortality and minimal sub-lethal effects. Unfortunately according to the literature, fish mortality can occur even under the auspices of a catch-and-release angling program. Studies have shown that most fish that die under catch-and-release regulations do so a while after their release hence, they die unnoticed (Cooke and Suski 2005). Lukacovic’s review of recreational catch-and-release mortality found that even if the mortality rate of released fish is low, it still needs to be considered as part of the fishing mortality in order to properly manage the fishery.
Factors influencing fish survival in a catch-and-release fishery are physical injury, water temperature, and stress (Lukacovic). Physical injuries occur due to types of hooks, bait type and size, fish behavior, and angler experience. The location of the hook wound has been shown to be the most important factor influencing mortality in catch-and-release angling. Single hooks, particularly if used with natural baits, result in higher mortalities than treble hooks (Muoneke
and Childress 1994) especially since natural baits tend to be swallowed more frequently as opposed to artificial lures/flies. Thus, the restriction of only using single, barbless, non-baited hooks in a catch-and-release fishery would decrease hooking mortality.
Fish experience cumulative stress during the hooking, fighting, and landing process. Stress related mortality can vary with changes in environmental conditions such as air and water temperatures. Higher water temperatures are directly correlated to higher fish mortalities in catch-and-release angling (Lukacovic). Once landed, the length of air exposure especially during hot weather increases stress-related mortality. Since larger fish tend to fight longer and are typically more difficult to handle than smaller fish, they experience greater mortality. “Larger fish have a greater difficulty eliminating carbon dioxide from their bloodstream and re-oxygenating their tissues after extreme physical exertion” (Lukacovic). In addition, during their period of recovery, their ability to respond to other stressors such as predator avoidance or prey capture is reduced (Cooke and Suski 2005).
Fish also experience sub-lethal behavioral disturbances which “include changes in activity patterns, swimming speeds, movement, or habitat use” (Cooke and Suski 2005). “Sub-lethal physiological disturbances associated with catch-and-release angling include osmoregulatory imbalances, depletion of energy stores, build-up of metabolic wastes, tissue damage, hormonal changes and cardiovascular disturbances” (Cooke and Suski 2005).
Based upon research conducted regarding a catch-and-release fishery, Cooke and Suski (2005) provide five generalizations: “(1) the duration of the angling event increases the physiological disturbance, (2) air exposure is harmful to fish and should be minimized, (3) extreme water temperatures magnify the level of disturbance and angling should be avoided at those temperatures, (4) barbless hooks and artificial lures or flies can greatly reduce handling time, hooking injuries, and likelihood of mortality, and (5) angling immediately prior to or during the reproductive period could affect fitness and should be avoided.”
Parker et al. (2007) found that implementation of restrictive regulations did not necessarily eliminate bull trout mortality. In fact, poaching of bull trout has been identified as a key factor limiting the success of restrictive regulations in Alberta. Also, the ease of angler access to small water bodies has been shown to lead to increased angler effort and has been associated with declines in bull trout abundance (Parker et al. 2007). While small, easily accessible streams or lakes containing highly vulnerable bull trout populations could be well signed to educate anglers and enforcement of restrictive regulations increased, they may not be of enough benefit to recover declining bull trout populations.
The bull trout’s Draft Recovery Plan (USFWS 2002) identified the need to revegetate denuded riparian areas in Deep Creek; restore the stream channel in Myrtle Creek; experimentally remove established brook trout populations in Deep Creek; minimize unintentional bull trout mortality in the Kootenai River and its tributaries; and improve instream habitat in Deep Creek and Myrtle Creek as actions necessary for the recovery of the bull trout. Other ways to minimize the unintentional mortality of bull trout can include offering the public a fishing program in Myrtle Creek under very restrictive catch-and-release guidelines or to discontinue fishing altogether so as to provide bull trout the greatest level of protection. Since fishing pressure is believed to be light at this time, Refuge staff, in coordination with IDFG, will develop a monitoring plan to determine if the bull trout population is negatively impacted by the public fishing program. Direct Impacts (Disturbance): Direct impacts are those that have an immediate effect on
wildlife, and indirect or cumulative impacts are those that would affect habitat, wildlife access to resources, or those that collectively or ultimately affect wildlife. Immediate responses by wildlife to recreational activity can range from behavioral changes including nest abandonment or change in food habits, physiological changes such as elevated heart rates due to flight, or even death (Knight and Cole 1995). Long-term effects are often more difficult to assess but may include altered behavior, vigor, productivity or death of individuals; altered population abundance, distribution, or demographics; and altered community species composition and interactions. Knight and Cole (1991) found that wildlife responses to human disturbance include avoidance, habituation, and attraction. The magnitude of the avoidance response may depend on a number of factors including the type, distance, movement pattern, speed, and duration of the disturbance, as well as the time of day, time of year, weather and the animal’s access to food and cover, energy demands, and reproductive status (Knight and Cole 1991, Gabrielsen and Smith 1995). Knight and Cole (1991) also suggested that sound may elicit a much milder response from wildlife if animals are visually buffered from the disturbance.
Anticipated direct impacts include disturbance to wildlife by human presence which typically results in a temporary displacement of individuals or groups. Since the exact amount of fishing pressure on Myrtle Creek is unknown at this time but is assumed to be low, perhaps one to two anglers per week, the impact of human presence on non-target wildlife, such as avian species, will be minimal due to the location of where anglers will likely congregate to pursue salmonids (upper reach). American dippers have been observed at various times feeding in the upper reach of Myrtle Creek and the mature stand of riparian vegetation along the upper reach of Myrtle Creek is considered prime habitat for warblers and flycatchers. Waterfowl are not present in the upper reach of Myrtle Creek due to high stream velocity, mature riparian vegetation, and rocky substrate. Waterfowl, particularly Canada geese, typically use the lower reach of Myrtle where the stream channel widens, velocity is significantly decreased, and the substrate is silty; an area which salmonid anglers do not use.
Indirect Impacts (Habitat and Physical Environment): The indirect impacts of angling activities will depend upon a number of variables including the season of use, duration of the activity, location, and number of users. Angling activities may negatively impact littoral and riparian habitats by disturbance, such as trampling and erosion, and pollution, namely littering (O’Toole et al. 2009). O’Toole et al. (2009) found that “terrestrial and aquatic macrophyte density, height, and diversity were lower at high angling-activity sites.” Angler education and outreach will be necessary to mitigate these potential impacts.
Potential Conflicts between User Groups: The current Myrtle Creek Parking Lot, located at the Myrtle Creek Falls trailhead would be used by hikers and anglers. There is a designated parking spot for Americans with Disabilities (ADA) in the lot. It is expected that no conflicts between various user groups will arise since anglers will be fishing along the banks of Myrtle Creek whereas hikers will remain on the trail on their way to the Myrtle Creek Falls Overlook. There is ample parking in the Myrtle Creek Falls trailhead parking lot with additional parking available across the road adjacent to the Headquarters Office and adjacent to the Environmental Education Center. Update to the impact assessment (2020): The presence of spawning brook trout and the presence of small juvenile rainbow trout and mountain whitefish shows that Myrtle Creek provides some adequate spawning and early rearing habitat for salmonids (Idaho Fishery Resource Office 2013). However, fisheries surveys conducted in 2010-2013 documented low numbers of bull trout in Myrtle Creek. Most
bull trout were medium sized; only a few juveniles were observed (Jones and Faler 2011, Idaho Fishery Resources Office 2012, 2013, 2014). An intensive spawning survey was conducted during the 2011 field season in coordination with the Service’s Idaho Fishery Resource Office to determine whether bull trout are naturally reproducing in Myrtle Creek (Idaho Fishery Resource Office 2012). This survey, and subsequent surveys in 2012 and 2013, failed to document any adult bull trout in spawning colors, and no bull trout displaying spawning behavior such as redd building, indicating that Myrtle Creek probably does not support bull trout spawning (Idaho Fishery Resource Office 2012, 2013, 2014). Therefore, the fishing program has no impacts to bull trout reproduction. Kokanee were observed spawning in Myrtle Creek in 2011, but not in 2012 or 2013 (Idaho Fisheries Resource Office 2012, 2013, 2014). The Final Recovery Plan for bull trout was released in 2015 (USFWS 2015a). The Plan noted that there is potential for incidental take (hooking mortality) of bull trout by anglers catching and releasing fish or pursuing other species, and that at the time of listing in 1999, this was identified as one of the factors affecting the species in several areas. Today, angling regulations have been adjusted in all States where bull trout occur to minimize angling impacts to bull trout, and legal, managed bull trout harvest is permitted in a handful of locations with relatively robust bull trout populations (USFWS 1999). Current State fishing regulations have generally resolved most pre-listing concerns about overutilization of bull trout by anglers, although incidental bycatch mortality may impact bull trout in some core areas (Fredenberg 2014). Bull trout numbers appear to have responded positively to angling restrictions in some areas (USFWS 2005; Erhardt and Scarnecchia 2014). The Recovery Plan noted that bull trout can be locally vulnerable to angling pressure, particularly in late summer, when they stage for spawning in small streams, and concluded that enhanced enforcement of existing regulations, combined with angler education, is generally the best remedy to address this issue, and may include site-specific actions to control access and enforce take prohibitions (USFWS 2015a). While at a range-wide scale the Service considers angling impacts to be a relatively minor threat to bull trout, some significant localized impacts may remain that should be considered in core area management (USFWS 2015a). If future monitoring reveals that fishing has a significant negative impact to bull trout or habitat, then the Refuge will coordinate with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) to develop stream specific regulations. Impacts associated with the proposed changes to the use: The types of impacts to fish and other wildlife caused by allowing fishing from the banks of Deep Creek are the same as those listed above. However, the impacts would be lower because the Refuge reach of Deep Creek is impacted by backwaters of the Kootenai River. Temperature and turbidity is higher than in the middle reach of Myrtle Creek (USFWS 2015b), and therefore the lower reach of Deep Creek adjacent to the Refuge is likely less utilized by native salmonids for foraging, migration, and spawning. Because of light fishing pressure, impacts to bull trout related to the proposed fishing expansion are expected to be negligible. In October 2010 the Service identified Deep Creek as critical habitat for bull trout foraging and migration (75 FR 200, 50 CFR Part 17; USFWS 2010); see map at https://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout/finalcrithab/index.cfm?unit=30. Because of very light fishing pressure on the Refuge, the fact that fishing is allowed only from banks, effects to bull trout critical habitat from allowing fishing along the Refuge reach of Deep Creek would be negligible.
Kootenai River white sturgeon are known to inhabit the Kootenai River near the mouths of Myrtle and Deep Creeks. They historically may have occurred in Deep Creek, and an occasional transient fish may occur. As noted above, the lower reach of Deep Creek is affected by backwaters of the Kootenai River and habitat quality is not conducive to the use of the creek by this species (USFWS 2015b).
Public Review and Comment:
Public review and comment on the 2011 Compatibility Determination for Fishing were solicited in conjunction with the release of the Draft CCP/EA for Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge (USFWS 2011) in order to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and with Service policy. Appendix M of the CCP (USFWS 2011) contains a summary of the comments and Service Responses. The CCP/EA contained a detailed analysis of the environmental effects of fishing on the Refuge. The proposed change is a minor amendment to the CCP and therefore categorically excluded from further analysis under NEPA. Public review and comments for this Draft Revised Compatibility Determination will be solicited in conjunction with release of the Fishing Plan for Kootenai NWR (USFWS 2020), before implementing changes to the Refuge’s fishing program.
Determination:
Use is Not Compatible X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations
Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:
User Stipulations:
• Fishing on the Refuge is restricted to bank fishing, during daylight hours (sunrise
to sunset) only. • Fishing from boats, float tubes, or other personal flotation devices on Myrtle Creek
is prohibited. • Landing of boats on the banks of Deep Creek within the Refuge is prohibited.
Justification:
Fishing and environmental education and interpretation, are priority wildlife-dependent uses for the National Wildlife Refuge System through which the public can develop an appreciation for fish and wildlife (Executive Order 12996, March 25, 1996 and the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57). The Service’s policy is to provide expanded opportunities for wildlife-dependent uses when compatible and consistent with sound fish and wildlife management and to ensure that they receive enhanced attention during planning and management. Although these activities can result in disturbance to wildlife and habitat, disturbances on the Refuge are expected to be intermittent and minor, and are not expected to diminish the value of the Refuge for its stated purposes. Disturbances to wildlife and habitat will be minimized by limiting the use to the public during daylight hours only. The stipulations stated above will ensure proper control of the use and provide management flexibility should detrimental impacts develop. Facilitating this use on the Refuge will increase visitor knowledge and appreciation of fish and wildlife resources. This enhanced understanding will foster increased public stewardship of
natural resources and support for the Service’s management actions in achieving the refuge purposes and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
It is anticipated that wildlife populations will find sufficient food resources and resting places such that their abundance and use of the Refuge will not be measurably lessened from allowing fishing along Myrtle Creek and Deep Creek. The relatively limited number of individuals expected to be adversely affected due to fishing will not cause wildlife populations to materially decline, the physiological condition and production of wildlife species will not be impaired, their behavior and normal activity patterns will not be altered dramatically, and their overall welfare will not be negatively impacted. Thus, allowing fishing will not materially interfere with or detract from the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System or the purposes for which the Refuge was established.
References:
50 CFR Part 17. 2010. Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for Bull Trout in the
Coterminous United States; Final Rule. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
Cooke, S.J., and C.D. Suski. 2005. Do we need species-specific guidelines for catch-and-release recreational angling to effectively conserve diverse fishery resources? Biodiversity and Conservation 14: 1195-1209.
Erhardt, J.M., and D.L. Scarnecchia. 2014. Population changes after 14 years of harvest closure on a Migratory population of bull trout in Idaho. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 34:482-492.
Fredenberg, W. 2014. Evaluating Potential Impact of Angler Bycatch on Threatened Bull Trout in Western Montana. Proceedings of the Wild Trout Symposium XI-Looking Back and Moving Forward. Pages 254-262.
Gabrielson, G.W. and E.N. Smith 1995. Physiological responses of wildlife to disturbance. Pages 95-107 in R. L. Knight and K. J. Gutzwiller, ed. Wildlife and Recreationists; coexistence through management and research. Island Press, Washington, D. C. 372 pp.
Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 2011. 2003 Idaho Sport Fishing Economic Report. URL: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/fish/misc/03econstudy/default.cfm Accessed on 1/28/2011.
Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 2011. 2011-2012 Fishing Seasons and Rules Including Steelhead. Boise.
Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 2019. 2019-2021 Idaho Fishing Seasons and Rules. Boise, ID. 64 pp. Available at: https://idfg.idaho.gov/sites/default/files/seasons-rules-fish-2019-2021.pdf Accessed December 4, 2019.
Idaho Fishery Resource Office. 2012. Fall survey of bull trout in Myrtle Creek on the Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge. Annual Report of Progress for 2011. Technical Fisheries Report by the Idaho Fishery Resource Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Orofino, Idaho. 6 pp.
Idaho Fishery Resource Office. 2013. Fall survey of bull trout in Myrtle Creek on the Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge. Annual Report of Progress for 2012. Technical Fisheries Report by the Idaho Fishery Resource Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Orofino, Idaho. 16 pp.
Idaho Fishery Resource Office. 2014. Fall survey of bull trout in Myrtle Creek on the Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge. Annual Report of Progress for 2013. Technical Fisheries Report by the Idaho Fishery Resource Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Orofino,
Idaho. 10 pp. Ireland, S. 2007. Excerpts from Kootenai Tribe’s BPA FY2007-2009 Native Fish Restoration
Proposal. Bonners Ferry, Idaho. 5 pp. Jones, R.N. and M. Faler. 2011. A preliminary inventory and assessment of aquatic resources
and associated management issues on the Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge. Revised. Technical Fisheries Report by the Idaho Fishery Resource Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Orofino, Idaho. 28 pp.
Knight, R.L., Cole, D.N. 1991. Effects of recreational activity on wildlife in wildlands. Transcripts of the 56th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference (238-246).
Knight, R.L., and D.N. Cole. 1995. Factors that influence wildlife responses to recreationists. Pages 71-79 in R. L. Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller (eds.) Wildlife and recreationists; coexistence through management and research. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Kruse, G. 2005. Myrtle Creek Biological Assessment: 2004 Phase II Final Report. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Kootenai National Wildlife Service. Hayden, Idaho. 63 pp.
Lukacovic, R. Recreational Catch-and-Release Mortality Research in Maryland. MD DNR Fisheries Feature Story. URL: http://www.dnr.state.md.us/fisheries/recreational/articles/crmortalityresearch.html Accessed on 1/26/2011.
Muoneke, M.I. and W.M. Childress. 1994. Hooking Mortality: A review for recreational fisheries. Reviews in Fisheries Science, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 123-156.
O’Toole, A.C., K.C. Hanson, and S.J. Cooke. 2009. The Effect of Shoreline Recreational Angling Activities on Aquatic and Riparian Habitat within an Urban Environment: Implications for Conservation and Management. Environmental Management (2009) 44:324-334.
Parker B.R., D.W. Schindler, F.M. Wilhelm, and D.B. Donald. 2007. Bull Trout Population Responses to Reductions in Angler Effort and Retention Limits. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 27: 848-859.
Roberts, B.C. and R.G. White. 1992. Effects of Angler Wading on Survival of Trout Eggs and Pre- emergent Fry. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 12: 450-459.
Schmetterling, D.A. and M.H. Long. 1999. Montana Anglers’ Inability to Identify Bull Trout and Other Salmonids. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, Missoula. Fisheries Vol. 24, No. 7.
Simpson, J.C. and R.L. Wallace. 1982. Fishes of Idaho. University Press of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Draft: A Framework to Assist in Making Endangered Species Act Determinations of Effect for Individual or Grouped Actions at the Bull Trout Subpopulation Watershed Scale.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Trout Fishing in the U.S. Addendum to the 1996 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Report 96-4.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of threatened status for bull trout in the conterminous United States. November 1, 1999. Federal Register 64:58910-58933.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Chapter 4, Kootenai River Recovery Unit, Oregon. 89 p. In: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Draft Recovery Plan. Portland, Oregon.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Bull trout core area templates – complete core area by core area analysis. W. Fredenberg and J. Chan, editors. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; revised
designation of critical habitat for bull trout in the coterminous United States; final rule. October 18, 2010. Federal Register 75:63898-64070. Available at: https://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout/pdf/BTCHFR101810.pdf
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015a. Recovery plan for the coterminous United States population of bull trout. Available at: https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/Final_Bull_Trout_Recovery_Plan_092915-corrected.pdf
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015b. Water resources inventory and analysis.
Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only):
2035_ Mandatory 15-year Re-evaluation date (for priority public uses) Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation date (for all uses other than priority public uses)
NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision:
Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement X__ Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
Refuge Compatibility Determination for Fishing
Use is compatible with stipulations.
Project Leader Approval: _____________________________________________ ________________
(Signature)
(Date)
Concurrence:
Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System: _____________________________________________ ________________
(Signature)
(Date)
1
Draft Revised Compatibility Determination for Migratory Bird Hunting on Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge Use: Hunting (Duck, Goose, Coot, Snipe)
Refuge Name: Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge
Location: Boundary County, Idaho
Date Established: 1964
Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:
• Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, as amended (16 U.S.C. 715 et seq.) • Executive Order 7681, dated July 30, 1937 • Refuge Recreation Act as amended [16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4] • Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended [16 U.S.C. 742a-742j, not including 742l]
Refuge Purpose(s):
“for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715 et seq. (Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929).
National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: “To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.).
Description of Use:
Current Use: The Refuge has provided a public waterfowl hunting area since it was established. The Refuge’s waterfowl hunting program represents one of a limited number of public waterfowl hunting opportunities in northern Idaho. Other public hunting is available at Idaho Fish and Game (IDFG) wildlife management areas (McArthur Lake WMA, Boundary-Smith Creeks WMA, and Pend Oreille WMA) as well as The Nature Conservancy’s Ball Creek Ranch. Duck and goose hunting is allowed during the State youth waterfowl hunt (last weekend in September) and 4 days per week (Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday and Sunday) during the State duck and goose seasons (Oct 2-Jan 14). Shooting hours correspond to State regulations (½ hour before sunrise until sunset). Hunters are allowed entry to the hunt units after 3:00 am on hunt days. Eighteen spaced blinds are provided; free-roam hunting is also allowed in the hunt area. Two blinds are ADA accessible and must be reserved in advance. Staff takes reservations for the two ADA blinds, unlocks the gate to the blinds, and puts up reserved signs. No advance notice is required to reserve an ADA blind, but it is preferred to call by noon on the day before requested reservation. All other blinds are occupied on a first-come, first-served basis. Refuge staff conducts annual maintenance on the hunt blinds, including repairing the structures, mowing in areas surrounding the blinds to create open water, and managing water to flood the hunt area.
Supporting access to the hunting blinds are eight parking areas and a network of seasonally mowed trails, covering approximately 1.26 miles, but could be more if the southern hunt blinds become more active or more northern blinds are accessible before higher water levels. These trails are mowed by refuge staff to provide waterfowl hunters access to designated hunting blinds. Secondary maintenance roads and internal dikes are used to reduce annual trail maintenance efforts. The Deep Creek Trail and Island Pond Trail are also used by hunters to access the hunt area and/or blinds. Waterfowl hunters are allowed to use dogs for retrieval of game and non-motorized boats, launched from Center Ditch at Center Parking Lot, to access the hunt areas.
The waterfowl hunting program was evaluated in the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (USFWS 2011a). Under the CCP (USFWS 2011b) and Hunt Plan (USFWS 2013), most of the hunt program and facilities remained the same as the existing program. Changes in the program were made to increase safety for non-hunting visitors and improve hunt quality for disabled hunters. Under the CCP, acreage where waterfowl hunting is allowed was reduced from 770 acres to 582 acres of the Refuge (see Map 5 in CCP). This area encompasses 503 acres (37 percent) of the Refuge fall waterfowl habitat. The reduction in size of the hunt area was the result of establishing a 200 yard no shooting zone adjacent to the Auto-Tour Route and Deep Creek Trail. This buffer consists primarily of grasslands and riparian forest. Only 45 acres of fall waterfowl habitat is included in the buffer area.
Both free-roam and fixed blind hunting occur in the same areas, unless user group conflicts arise in the future. An additional ADA accessible blind will be constructed on the north hunt unit. South Pond will be open to hunting from the ADA blind only. An adaptive management strategy, based upon hunter surveys and data on habitat quality and waterfowl use of wetlands, will be used to determine the location of fixed blinds and free-roam hunt areas. A 200 yard non-shooting area has been established along the west side of the Auto Tour Route (ATR) and the Deep Creek Trail to provide for safety. This has little effect upon hunting opportunities since these areas contain very little fall waterfowl habitat. Retrieval of game is allowed in the non-shooting area but weapons must be unloaded when retrieving game within this area.
See Implementation section (Appendix C of the CCP) to determine priority of projects associated with these uses as funding becomes available.
Why this use is being proposed: This use is defined as a wildlife-dependent recreational use under the Improvement Act. The purpose of this proposed action is to provide compatible wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities on Kootenai NWR and to offer additional hunting opportunities and greater alignment with the state as mandated by Secretarial Orders numbers 3347 and 3356. The need of the proposed action is to meet the Service’s priorities and mandates as outlined by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (NWRSIA) of 1997. The NWRSIA “recognize(s) compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses as the priority general uses of the NWRS” and “ensure that opportunities are provided within the NWRS for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses” 16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(4)). Proposed Changes to the Use: We propose to allow hunting of snipe in conjunction with the existing waterfowl hunt. Wilson’s snipe is the species known to occur on the Refuge. Snipe may be hunted only in areas open to waterfowl hunting. Other than the addition of snipe, there would be no changes to the hunt as described above.
3
Availability of Resources: Although, a great deal of the program and associated projects can be accomplished through the use of existing staff, resources, and facilities, the following funding needs are required to fully administer the use as envisioned in the CCP. For the one-time expenses, all available sources will be investigated. Staffing and funding are expected to be sufficient to manage these uses. Costs to Administer and Manage Waterfowl Hunting Program at the Refuge.
Activity One Time Expense Recurring Expense Development and Administration of Hunt Plan and associated documentation
$ 10,000 $500
Development and maintenance of signs, replace hunt blinds
$ 14,500 $ 500
Administration and support costs (include management, law enforcement and maintenance staff costs)
0 $25,000
Biological staff to monitor hunt program 0 $5,500 Development and printing Hunting Leaflet 3,500 500 Totals $28,000 $32,000
Anticipated Impacts of Described Use:
Impacts of Current Use Evaluated in 2011 Compatibility Determination:
The direct effect of hunting on waterfowl is mortality, wounding, and disturbance. Effect on distribution and use of habitat: Belanger and Bedard (1995) concluded that disturbance caused by hunting can modify the distribution and use of various habitats by birds (Owens 1977; White-Robinson, 1982; Madsen 1985). In Denmark, Madsen (1995) experimentally tested disturbance effects of hunting by the establishment of two experimental reserves where hunting activity was manipulated such that sanctuary areas were created in different parts of the study area in different hunting seasons. In both areas, waterbird numbers increased, most strongly in hunted species (3-40 fold increase), with highest densities found in sanctuary areas, irrespective of where these sanctuaries were sited. At Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge, in California, researchers found statistically significant differences in the densities of northern pintails among hunting units, units adjacent to hunting units, units adjacent to auto tour route, and units isolated from disturbance (Wolder 1993). Prior to the opening of hunting season, pintail used units in proportion to their availability, indicating no preference to particular areas. During the hunting season, 50 to 60 percent of the pintails on the Refuge were located on the isolated units that contained 26 to 28 percent of the refuge wetlands, suggesting a strong waterfowl preference for areas of little human activity. Units along the auto tour route and adjacent to hunting units maintained pintails at similar proportions to their availability. Three to 16 percent of the pintails on the Refuge were located on hunted units (36 to 40 percent of the available habitat) during non-hunt days (4 days per week) and almost entirely absent on days when hunting was taking place, indicating an avoidance of the hunted areas. Belanger and Bedard (1989) studied the effect of disturbances to staging greater snow geese in a Quebec bird sanctuary over 471 hours of observation. They found that the level of disturbance (defined as any event causing all or part of the goose flock to take flight) that prevailed on a given day in fall influenced goose use of the sanctuary on the following day. When disturbance exceeded two events per hour, it produced a 50 percent drop in the mean number of geese
present in the sanctuary the next day. Effects on energetics and survival: Hunting limits access of waterfowl to food resources and may modify migration timing. Madsen (1988 as cited by Dalgren and Korschgen 1992) suggested that hunting on the coastal wetlands of Denmark modified waterfowl movements and caused birds to leave the area prematurely. However, Kahl (1991) suggested that lack of adequate access to food may decrease survival of canvasbacks by causing birds to remain on a staging site longer and forage under suboptimal conditions, or by causing birds to migrate in shorter flights with more frequent stops. Disturbance due to hunting has caused waterfowl to cease feeding or resting activities, thus decreasing energy intake and increasing energy expenditure. At Chincoteague NWR, Morton et al. (1989a) found that wintering black ducks experienced reduced energy intake while doubling energy expenditure by increasing the time spent in locomotion in response to disturbance. Belanger and Bedard (1995) in a quantitative analysis, estimated that neither the response to disturbance by flying away and promptly returning to the foraging site to resume feeding, nor the response of flying away (leaving the foraging site for a roosting site—thus interrupting feeding) allowed snow geese to balance their daytime energy budget. At high disturbance rates (>2/hour; these included hunting and transport related disturbance), Belanger and Bedard (1985) estimated that an increase in night feeding as a behavioral compensation mechanism could not counterbalance energy lost during the day. Likewise, geese could not compensate for a loss in feeding time by increasing their daily foraging behavior to maximize food intake during undisturbed periods. Belanger and Bedard suggested mitigation with spatial or temporal buffer zones. Considerations for design of hunt units: Fox and Madsen (1997) found that mobile hunting activity close to roosting and or feeding areas is more disturbing than hunting from fixed points or where birds are shot moving between such areas. For sanctuary areas, they recommended areas with regular shape, maximum practicable size, and with a diameter of three times the escape flight distance (at a minimum) of the most sensitive species present. Flock size also affects flush distance, larger flocks tending to react at a greater distance. Based on estimated flight distances from boats, Kahl (1991) recommended that sanctuaries should be at least 1.5-2.0 km square and encompass as much of a feeding area as feasible. Potential impacts to other wildlife: This use may impact the bald eagle, which was recently de-listed from the Federal list of threatened and endangered species, but is still listed as threatened by the State of Idaho. Waterfowl hunting takes place in areas that can be used by bald eagles for perching or foraging. Thus, eagles can potentially be disturbed by being pushed out of roosting/perching areas or temporarily prevented from using certain areas due to the presence of hunters. Eagles are also attracted to areas where there is hunting and habitat management for waterfowl because of increased food sources. Eagles are widely known to feed on waterfowl that is either not retrieved by hunters or wounded during hunting. In some areas, waterfowl hunting has provided a net benefit for eagles. Potentially, eagles could be shot; however, that is an illegal activity under several Federal laws and has not been documented on the Refuge. Waterfowl hunting is only open four days per week, which provides eagles with access to hunted areas the remaining three days. Further, portions of the Refuge are completely closed to hunting, which provides perching and foraging habitat for displaced eagles. Waterfowl hunting would not have a significant impact on bald eagles. Impacts to other wildlife-dependent recreational uses: Hunting (especially gunshot noise) has the potential to disturb refuge visitors engaged in other wildlife-dependent recreational uses. To
5
minimize this potential conflict, the Refuge has designated defined hunting areas that will be separated spatially from hiking trails and the Auto Tour Route. See Map 5 in Chapter 2 of the CCP (USFWS 2011b) for public use locations and facilities. Summary and application to Kootenai NWR: The studies cited above display the variety and scale of negative impacts to waterfowl from hunting. In full consideration of these studies, a waterfowl hunting program at Kootenai, implemented as described in the CCP and Hunt Plan, is not expected to have a major effect on refuge waterfowl populations. The most likely effect of the waterfowl hunt would be a temporary shift in waterfowl populations away from hunted areas to non-hunted areas on the Refuge. There are very few areas of undisturbed fall waterfowl habitat in close proximity to the Refuge to accommodate disturbed birds. The fall waterfowl habitat (grain fields, shallow flooded seasonal and semi-permanent wetland, and moist soil habitat for foraging and permanent open water for loafing) available to migratory birds is estimated at 1,362 acres. Approximately 503 acres (37 percent of the existing fall refuge waterfowl habitat base) is open to waterfowl hunting 4 days per week. Break out of waterfowl habitat types in hunt and sanctuary units is provided in Table 2. The hunt units contain about 40 percent of the available foraging habitat and 22 percent of the loafing habitat. A better way of looking at the availability of waterfowl habitat is to weight the acres by the number of days they are available during a specific time period. This metric can be referred to as habitat use days. Since the waterfowl hunting season encompasses approximately 105 days, there are a total of 145,734 habitat use days (acres of fall waterfowl habitat X days). With hunting only being allowed on 4 days per week the number of habitat use days affected by hunting equates to 31,186 use days, or only 21.4 percent of the total available habitat use days. The sanctuary area provided for waterfowl is more than 1,000 acres, exceeding the size (0.5-0.7 square miles) recommended by Kahl (1991), and it has a low edge to area ratio. In addition to considerations concerning habitat availability, hunters will be limited to 25 shells per day per hunter, with non-toxic shot permitted only. Table 2. Distribution of fall waterfowl habitat in hunt units.
Cropland Moist Soil
Seasonal Emergent Wetland
Semipermanent Emergent
Wetland
Permanent Open
Water
Total Fall Waterfowl
Habitat
Current 93.7 33.7 137.7 199.5 84.2 548.7 Refuge Total 273.1 34.9 378.4 442.6 293.5 1422.6 Percent of Total 34.3% 96.4% 36.4% 45.1% 28.7% 38.6% Proposed 81.8 111.6 64.4 183.2 61.9 503.0 Refuge Total 207.3 136.4 318.6 424.4 275.2 1361.9 Percent of Total 39.5% 81.8% 20.2% 43.2% 22.5% 36.9%
Impacts to other wildlife dependent recreational users are expected to be minimal with spatial separation of hunting from non-hunting public use facilities. Although the proposed Kootenai waterfowl hunt will include a mixture of mobile and hunting from fixed points, the CCP does include consideration of providing only hunting from fixed blinds if an unacceptable level of disturbance and conflict develops between fixed blind and free-roam hunters. The current low use (50-60 on opening weekend, 8-12 on weekend days, and much fewer on weekdays) does not warrant this shift at this time. The use of moist soil management to improve wetland habitat for waterfowl and other wildlife
is a habitat management strategy outlined in the CCP. If moist soil management is implemented and successful there may be the potential for increased disturbance effects to foraging waterfowl due to hunting. If monitoring during the time frame of the CCP (15 years) indicates that a significant amount of disturbance is occurring, changes to the Kootenai waterfowl hunt program may be evaluated. Although by its very nature, waterfowl hunting has very few if any positive effects on waterfowl and other birds while the activity is occurring, it is well recognized that this activity has given many people a deeper appreciation of wildlife and a better understanding of the importance of conserving their habitat, which has ultimately contributed to the Refuge System mission. Impacts associated with the proposed changes to the use:
Snipe are expected to be taken incidentally by hunters pursuing waterfowl, and likely in small numbers. Therefore direct impacts to local populations through hunting mortality is expected to be minor to negligible, and impacts to regional populations would be negligible. The types of impacts to fish and other wildlife and their habitats caused by adding snipe to the migratory bird species that may be hunted on the Refuge are the same as those listed above. Additional effects to nontarget species would be negligible for the reasons described above. Effects to other user groups would be negligible since we do not expect an increase in hunting use of the refuge due to allowing take of snipe.
Public Review and Comment:
Public review and comment on the 2011 Compatibility Determination for Waterfowl Hunting were solicited in conjunction with the release of the Draft CCP/EA for Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge (USFWS 2011) in order to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and with Service policy. Appendix M of the CCP (USFWS 2011) contains a summary of the comments and Service Responses. The CCP/EA contained a detailed analysis of the environmental effects of waterfowl hunting on the Refuge. Further detail on the Refuge hunting program was provided in the Hunt Program Amendment (USFWS 2013). The proposed change is a minor amendment to the CCP, and therefore categorically excluded from further analysis under NEPA.
Public review and comments for this Draft Revised Compatibility Determination will be solicited in conjunction with release of the Service’s 2020-21 Proposed Sport Hunting and Fishing Rule, before implementing changes to the Refuge’s fishing program.
Determination:
Use is Not Compatible X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations
Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:
• Hunters must obey all State and Federal hunting regulations. • Daily limit of 25 shells per hunter, non-toxic shot only. • Hunting permitted from stationary hunting sites and free roam. • Hunting limited to Tuesday, Thursday Saturday, and Sunday only. When travelling
to and retrieving downed birds in the buffer area all firearms must be unloaded. • Hunting dogs will be under hunter control at all times. • Hunt areas will be well separated from other public use areas of the Refuge.
7
• Hunt areas and no hunting zones will be well posted. • Refuge/Complex staff will conduct law enforcement, maintain hunting facilities, and
monitor wildlife impacts.
Justification:
Waterfowl hunting at Kootenai NWR as described in this CD contributes to the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System by providing a wildlife-oriented recreational benefit to Americans. By limiting the numbers of hunters and days of hunting as well as always providing sanctuary from human disturbance in other areas of the Refuge, this waterfowl hunting program will not interfere with the Refuge achieving its purposes of providing sanctuary and a breeding ground for migratory birds. It is anticipated that wildlife populations will find sufficient food resources and resting places such that their abundance and use of the Refuge will not be measurably lessened from allowing hunting to occur on the Refuge. The relatively limited number of individuals expected to be adversely affected due to hunting will not cause wildlife populations to materially decline, the physiological condition and production of wildlife species will not be impaired, their behavior and normal activity patterns will not be altered dramatically, and their overall welfare will not be negatively impacted. Thus, allowing hunting to occur with stipulations will not materially detract or interfere with the purposes for which the Refuge was established or the Refuge System mission. Hunting is one of the six wildlife-dependent recreational uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System as stated in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. This program as described was determined to be compatible because: hunter use levels on Kootenai NWR are relatively low during most days of the waterfowl hunting season (October through November) and sufficient restrictions will ensure that high-quality feeding and resting habitat would be available in relatively undisturbed areas to accommodate the needs of the waterfowl and other wetland birds.
References:
Belanger, L. and Bedard, J. 1989. Responses of staging greater snow geese to human disturbance.
J. Wildl. Management 53:713-719. Belanger, L. and J. Bedard. 1995. Hunting and waterfowl. Pages 243-256 in R.L. Knight and
K.J. Gutzwiller, ed. Wildlife and Recreationists: coexistence through management and research. Island Press, Washington, D.C., 372 pp.
Dahlgren, R.B. and C.E. Korschgen. 1992. Human disturbances of waterfowl: an annotated bibliography. Resource Publ. 188. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., 62 pp.
Fox, A.D. and J. Madsen. 1997. Behavioral and distributional effects of hunting disturbance on waterbirds in Europe: implications for refuge design. J. Appl. Ecol. 34:1-13.
Kahl, R. 1991. Boating disturbance of canvasbacks during migration at Lake Poygan, Wisconsin. Wild. Soc. Bull. 19:242-248.
Madsen, J. 1995. Impacts of disturbance on migratory waterfowl. Ibis 137:S67-S74. Madsen, J. 1988. Autumn feeding ecology of herbivorous wildfowl in the Danish Wadden Sea,
and impact of food supplies and shooting on movements. Danish Review of Game Biology 13:1- 32.
Madsen, J. 1985. Impact of disturbance on field utilization of pink-footed geese in West Jutland, Denmark. Biol. Conserv. 33:53-63.
Morton J. M., A.C. Fowler and R.L. Kirkpatrick. 1989. Time and energy budgets of American black ducks in winter. J. Wildl. Manage. 53(2):401-410.
Owens, N. W. 1977. Responses of wintering brant geese to human disturbance. Wildfowl
28:5-14. White-Robinson, R. 1982. Inland and saltmarsh feeding of wintering brent geese in Essex. Wildfowl 33:113-118.
Wolder, M. 1993. Disturbance of wintering northern pintails at Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge, California. M.S. Thesis, Humboldt State Univ., Arcata, California, 62 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011a. Environmental Assessment for the Draft Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011b. Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge Hunt Program Amendment (Hunt Plan). On file at Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge, Bonners Ferry, ID. 14 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015b. Water resources inventory and analysis. On file at Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge, Bonners Ferry, ID.
Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date (provide month and year for “allowed” uses only): 2035 Mandatory 15-year Re-evaluation date (for priority public uses) Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation date (for all uses other than priority public uses)
NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision:
Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
9
Refuge Compatibility Determination for Migratory Bird Hunting
Use is compatible with stipulations.
Project Leader Approval: _____________________________________________ ________________
(Signature)
(Date)
Concurrence:
Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System: _____________________________________________ ________________
(Signature)
(Date)