Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              Approval of Submission ii
Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Finding of No Significant Impact iii
Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Finding of No Significant Impact
for the
Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Boundary County, Idaho
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has completed a Comprehensive Conservation Plan
(CCP) and Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge).
The CCP will guide management of the Refuge for 15 years. The CCP/EA describes our proposals
for managing the Refuge and their effects on the human environment under three alternatives,
including the no action alternative.
Decision
Based on our comprehensive review and analysis in the CCP/EA, we selected Alternative 2 for
implementation, because it will guide management of the Refuge in a manner that:
 Achieves the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, and the purposes, vision, and
goals of the Refuge.
 Maintains and restores the ecological integrity of the Refuge’s habitats and populations.
 Addresses the important issues identified during the CCP scoping process.
 Addresses the legal mandates of the Service and the Refuge.
 Is consistent with the scientific principles of sound wildlife management and endangered
species recovery.
 Facilitates priority public uses appropriate and compatible with the Refuge’s purposes and
the Refuge System mission.
Summary of the Actions to be Implemented
Implementing the selected alternative will have no significant impacts on the environmental
resources identified in the CCP/EA. Refuge management under the selected alternative will protect,
maintain, and enhance habitat for priority species and resources of concern, and improve the public’s
opportunities to enjoy wildlife-dependent recreation.
Under Alternative 2, an emphasis on providing migration habitat for waterfowl would remain.
Wetlands, croplands, and grasslands would continue to be managed for migratory waterfowl,
breeding waterfowl and waterbirds, shorebirds, deer, and elk. Repairs and improvements to the
existing water management infrastructure would enhance the Refuge’s ability to manage wetlands.
Wetland habitat management activities would be intensified to improve habitat for waterfowl and
other wildlife. Over the 15-year lifespan of the CCP, the Refuge would increase the acreage of
moist-soil wetlands from 10-20 acres (current) to 75-100 acres, to provide natural food sources for
waterfowl. Once moist soil habitat is established, 50-75 acres of croplands would be restored to
native upland grassland or wet meadow, while 125-200 acres of small grains and green browse would
continue to be provided annually for migratory waterfowl. Waterfowl use of the Refuge should be no
less than Alternative 1 and could increase if specific habitat management strategies are implemented.
Finding of No Significant Impact iv
Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Approximately 200 acres of existing riparian habitat would be protected and enhanced, and an
additional 35-50 acres of native riparian habitat would be restored. Coniferous forest would be
thinned to reduce risk of wildfire and wildfires would continue to be suppressed. The Refuge would
work with partners to examine the feasibility of, and develop strategies for, restoring degraded stream
habitats, and associated riparian habitat, for the benefit of native fish, including the federally
threatened bull trout.
The Refuge would continue to provide quality opportunities for wildlife observation and
photography. The Auto Tour Route would continue in its current location. One trail would be closed
to reduce wildlife disturbance, but new wildlife viewing and photography facilities would be added.
Public uses that are currently allowed on the Refuge would continue, except that leashed dog walking
and jogging would be allowed on the Auto Tour Route only, to reduce disturbance to wildlife.
Interpretive signs and materials, including online materials, would be developed and added.
Interpretation and environmental education programs would increase with the assistance of
temporary staff, volunteers, and the Friends Group.
Waterfowl hunting would continue to be allowed 4 days per week, in accordance with the State’s
season. The waterfowl hunt area would be reduced to 582 acres due to the expansion of the non-shooting
area from its current 83 acres to 266 acres, to provide a 200-yard buffer zone to ensure
safety of visitors using the Auto Tour Route and Deep Creek Trail. This should have little effect upon
hunting opportunities since these areas are rarely hunted. Current regulations, which allow both free-roam
and fixed blind hunting, would continue. However, the location of fixed blinds and free-roam
hunt areas may be adjusted based upon hunt program monitoring, and/or data on habitat quality and
waterfowl use of wetlands. 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.
Big game and grouse hunting would continue to be allowed west of Lions Den Road. Turkey hunting
would also be allowed west of Lions Den Road. Big game and upland game (grouse only) hunting
west of Westside Road would be discontinued due to public safety concerns, increasing law
enforcement violations, and low hunt quality. Special permit and/or depredation hunts would be
developed, in consultation with Idaho Department of Fish and Game, for white-tailed deer and elk
within the area that is currently closed to big game hunting if monitoring demonstrates a need for
population control. Current fishing regulations would continue (fishing would be allowed from the
banks of Myrtle Creek only).
Public Involvement and Changes Made to the Selected Alternative Based on
Comments
The planning process incorporated a variety of public involvement techniques in developing and
reviewing the CCP. This included two open houses at the start of the planning process, four planning
updates, numerous meetings with partners and elected officials, and public review and comment on
preliminary alternatives and the Draft CCP/EA. The details of the Service’s public involvement
program are described in the CCP, Appendix K. The Service received a total of 10 comments (8
letters and 2 verbal comments) during the public comment period. Based on the public comments we
received and considered, and errors found after publication of the Draft CCP/EA, Alternative 2 as
described in the CCP/EA has been slightly modified.
Finding of No Significant Impact v
Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
 In Chapter 2 (Management Direction), page 2-2, the summary description of current
Kootenai River hydrology will be updated to more accurately reflect current conditions.
 In Chapter 2 (Management Direction), additional text was added to strategies under
Objectives 6.2 and 7.2 (conduct a feasibility study for restoring Myrtle Creek, conduct a
hydrogeomorphic study of the refuge) to include the evaluation of altering the dike system to
allow overflow of a portion of the historic floodplain.
 In Chapter 2 (Management Direction), the waterfowl hunt area under future management has
been changed from 605 to 582 acres, and the retrieval (no shooting) zone in the waterfowl
hunt area has been changed from 225 to 266 acres. The map for future public use
management (Chapter 2, Map 5) has been updated to reflect these changes. In Chapter 5, the
current waterfowl hunt area has been corrected from 740 to 765 acres, and the retrieval zone
from 91 to 83 acres. The map of current public use facilities (Map 7) has been corrected to
reflect the current retrieval zone in the waterfowl hunt area. These changes reflect the fact
that the current retrieval zone was incorrectly depicted in the Draft CCP.
 Additional text was added in hunting management strategies to indicate that a revised hunt
plan will be prepared within 2 years of CCP completion. Changes to hunting would only take
effect after hunt plan compliance and federal rule making processes are complete.
 Additional text was added in fishing strategies to reflect current fishing regulations in the
CFR.
 In Chapter 5, information on outdoor recreation rates and trends have been updated to reflect
the most recent Idaho Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation and Tourism Plan
(SCORTP).
 In Appendix C (Implementation), separate waterfowl hunting, big game and upland game
hunting plans have been combined into a single hunting plan.
Conclusions
Based on review and evaluation of the information contained in the supporting references, I have
determined that implementing Alternative 2 as the CCP for the Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge is
not a major Federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment
within the meaning of section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
Accordingly, we are not required to prepare an environmental impact statement.
This Finding of No Significant Impact and supporting references are on file at Inland Northwest
National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 26010 S. Smith Road, Cheney, Washington 99004 and U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Planning and Visitor Services, 911 NE 11th Avenue,
Portland, Oregon, 97232. These documents can also be found on the Internet at
http://pacific.fws.gov/planning/. These documents are available for public inspection. Interested
and affected parties are being notified of our decision.
Table of Contents vii
Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Table of Contents
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background ............................................................................................ 1-1
1.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.2 Proposed Action ....................................................................................................................... 1-2
1.3 Purpose and Need for the CCP ................................................................................................. 1-7
1.4 Content and Scope of the CCP ................................................................................................. 1-7
1.5 Refuge Planning and Management Guidance .......................................................................... 1-8
1.6 Refuge Establishment and Refuge Purposes .......................................................................... 1-13
1.7 Relationship to Ecosystem Management Goals ..................................................................... 1-19
1.8 Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities ...................................................................................... 1-31
1.9 Refuge Vision ......................................................................................................................... 1-32
1.10 Refuge Goals ........................................................................................................................ 1-33
1.11 Planning Process ................................................................................................................... 1-34
1.12 References ............................................................................................................................ 1-35
Chapter 2. Management Direction ...................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................. 2-1
2.2 Management Directions Considered but Not Developed ......................................................... 2-1
2.3 Description of Management Direction ..................................................................................... 2-2
2.4 Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ........................................................................................... 2-15
2.5 Kootenai NWR Public Use Goals and Objectives.................................................................. 2-34
2.6 References .............................................................................................................................. 2-44
Chapter 3. Physical Environment ....................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Climate .................................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Climate Change ........................................................................................................................ 3-4
3.3 Hydrology ............................................................................................................................... 3-17
3.4 Topography and Bathymetry .................................................................................................. 3-31
3.5 Geology and Geomorphology ................................................................................................ 3-31
3.6 Soils ....................................................................................................................................... 3-34
3.7 Fire ......................................................................................................................................... 3-38
3.8 Air Quality .............................................................................................................................. 3-44
3.9 Water Quality ......................................................................................................................... 3-46
3.10 Environmental Contaminants ............................................................................................... 3-51
3.11 Surrounding Land Uses ........................................................................................................ 3-53
3.12 References ............................................................................................................................ 3-54
Chapter 4. Refuge Biology and Habitat .............................................................................................. 4-1
4.1 Historic Conditions and Changes in Wildlife and Habitat ....................................................... 4-1
4.2 Selection of Priority Resources of Concern ........................................................................... 4-18
4.3 Waterfowl and Supporting Habitat ......................................................................................... 4-23
4.4 Native Grasslands ................................................................................................................... 4-37
4.5 Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats .......................................................................................... 4-44
4.6 Riparian and Floodplain Forest/Shrub .................................................................................... 4-51
4.7 Coniferous Forests .................................................................................................................. 4-58
4.8 Instream Habitat ..................................................................................................................... 4-64
4.9 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species .................................................................... 4-76
4.10 Wildlife and Habitat Research and Monitoring Efforts ........................................................ 4-80
4.11 References ............................................................................................................................ 4-84
Chapter 5. Refuge Facilities and Public Use Programs ...................................................................... 5-1
viii Table of Contents
Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
5.1 Infrastructure and Administrative Facilities ............................................................................. 5-1
5.2 Recreation Overview ................................................................................................................ 5-5
5.3 Waterfowl Hunting ................................................................................................................... 5-9
5.4 Big Game Hunting and Upland Game Hunting...................................................................... 5-16
5.5 Fishing ................................................................................................................................... 5-17
5.6 Wildlife Viewing and Photography ........................................................................................ 5-18
5.7 Environmental Education ....................................................................................................... 5-19
5.8 Interpretation/Outreach ........................................................................................................... 5-19
5.9 Cultural Resources Interpretation ........................................................................................... 5-20
5.10 Nonwildlife-dependent Recreation ....................................................................................... 5-20
5.11 Illegal Uses ........................................................................................................................... 5-21
5.12 Area Outdoor Recreational Opportunities and Trends ......................................................... 5-21
5.13 References ............................................................................................................................ 5-28
Chapter 6. Cultural Resources and Social/Economic Environment ................................................... 6-1
6.1 Archaeological and Cultural Resources ................................................................................... 6-1
6.2 Social/Economic Environment ............................................................................................... 6-26
6.3 References .............................................................................................................................. 6-30
Maps
Map 1. Location map for refuges of the Inland Northwest National Wildlife Refuge Complex. ..... 1-2
Map 2. Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge and vicinity. .................................................................. 1-4
Map 3. Refuge land status and tracts. .............................................................................................. 1-14
Map 4. Future Management, Wildlife and Habitat. ........................................................................... 2-7
Map 5. Future Management, Public Use. ............................................................................................ 2-9
Map 6. Refuge water management infrastructure. ........................................................................... 3-27
Map 7. Current public use facilities. ................................................................................................ 5-11
Tables
Table 1.1. Kootenai NWR Acquisition History and Land Status Summary. ................................... 1-16
Table 1.2. Protected Bottomland Habitat in the Lower Kootenai River Valley (Idaho, British
Columbia). ....................................................................................................................................... 1-20
Table 1.3. Significant Concentrations of Birds Noted to Identify the Kootenai NWR as an
Idaho State Important Bird Area. ...................................................................................................... 1-22
Table 2.1. Summary of Future Management ................................................................................... 2-11
Table 3.1 Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary, Bonners Ferry, Idaho (Station
101079). Period of Record: 5/1/1907 to 7/31/2009 ........................................................................... 3-2
Table 3.2. Change in Annual Mean Temperature and Precipitation.* ................................................ 3-6
Table 3.3. Increased Risk from Climate Change for Historic and Current Habitat of Westslope
Cutthroat Trout as Percentages of Currently Occupied or Historic Habitat. .................................... 3-15
Table 3.4. Hourly Averages of PM2.5 during the 2010 Fall Crop Residue Burning Season. ........... 3-45
Table 3.5. Selected Numeric Criteria Supportive of Designated and Existing Beneficial Uses
(cold water aquatic life and salmonid spawning) in Idaho Water Quality Standards. ...................... 3-48
Table 4.1. State Listed Noxious weeds and Other Weeds of Concern Occurring on Kootenai
NWR, and Herbicide Treatments. ..................................................................................................... 4-17
Table of Contents ix
Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Table 4.2. Priority Resources of Concern for the CCP. ................................................................... 4-19
Table 4.3. Waterfowl and Supporting Habitat--Ecological Attributes, Indicators, and Condition
Parameters.* ..................................................................................................................................... 4-35
Table 4.4a. Upland (Dry) Prairie Ecological Attributes, Indicators, and Condition Parameters. .... 4-40
Table 4.4b. Bottomland (Wet) Prairie Ecological Attributes, Indicators, and Condition
Parameters. ....................................................................................................................................... 4-42
Table 4.5. Grassland Ecological Attributes, Indicators, and Condition Parameters. ....................... 4-43
Table 4.6. Common Plant Species of the Four Wetland Vegetation Zones of Kootenai NWR
Wetlands. ......................................................................................................................................... 4-49
Table 4.7. Wetland and Deepwater Ecological Attributes, Indicators, and Condition
Parameters. ....................................................................................................................................... 4-49
Table 4.8. Focal Species for Riparian Woodland and Shrub Habitat in Idaho. ............................... 4-55
Table 4.9. Riparian Scrub/Shrub Ecological Attributes, Indicators, and Condition Parameters. .... 4-56
Table 4.10. Floodplain Forest Canopy and Understory Ecological Attributes, Indicators, and
Condition Parameters. ....................................................................................................................... 4-57
Table 4.11. Aspen Forest Ecological Attributes, Indicators, and Condition Parameters. ................ 4-57
Table 4.12. Coniferous forest types on Kootenai NWR. ................................................................. 4-59
Table 4.13. Bird Species Heard or Observed in Coniferous Forest Habitat on the Kootenai
NWR in July 2008 and June and July 2010. ..................................................................................... 4-61
Table 4.14. Mixed Moist Forest Ecological Attributes, Indicators, and Condition Parameters. ..... 4-62
Table 4.15. Dry Forest Ecological Attributes, Indicators, and Condition Parameters. .................... 4-62
Table 4.16. Kokanee Returns to Kootenai NWR, 1965-2010. ........................................................ 4-70
Table 4.17. Instream Ecological Attributes, Indicators, and Condition Parameters Necessary to
Support Bull Trout Life Cycles. ........................................................................................................ 4-72
Table 4.18. Special Status Species Known to Occur or Likely to Have Historically Occurred
on Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge. ............................................................................................ 4-76
Table 5.1. Kootenai NWR Public Use Activity from 1984 through 1996. ........................................ 5-8
Table 5.2. Waterfowl Hunting Summary for 1987 through 1997. ................................................... 5-14
Table 5.3. Activity Rankings for Selected Outdoor Recreational Activities in Idaho. .................... 5-24
Table 5.4. Participation in Selected Outdoor Recreational Activities in the Kaniksu National
Forest Area. ...................................................................................................................................... 5-26
Table 5.5. Participation in Wildlife-Dependent Recreational Activities in Idaho, 2006. ................ 5-26
Table 5.6. Participation Projections for Selected Outdoor Recreation Activities in the Rocky
Mountain Region. ............................................................................................................................. 5-27
Table 5.7. Estimated Waterfowl Harvest Numbers from USFWS’s Waterfowl Hunter Survey
for Idaho, 1988-2006. ....................................................................................................................... 5-28
Table 6.1. Historic and Modern Kootenai (Ktunaxa) Bands. ............................................................ 6-3
Table 6.2. Tribal Affiliations with Lands Now Part of Kootenai Refuge. ....................................... 6-10
Table 6.3. Settlers on Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge, 1894 (T62N-1E), 1896 (T62N-1W). .. 6-15
Table 6.4. Selected Population and Associated Social Statistics, Local Counties. .......................... 6-27
Table 6.5. Boundary County Business Statistics. ............................................................................ 6-28
Table 6.6. Boundary County Output, Employment, Labor Income, Other Value Added, 2004. .... 6-29
Table 6.7. Kootenai Refuge Visitor Recreation-related Expenditures (2004). ................................ 6-30
Table 6.8. Kootenai Refuge Economic Effects Associated with Visitation. ................................... 6-30
x Table of Contents
Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Figures
Figure 3.1. 1948 Flood in Downtown Bonners Ferry, ID. ................................................................. 3-5
Figure 3.2. Outflow from Libby Dam, 2005-2009. .......................................................................... 3-19
Figure 3.3. Average daily gage height of the Kootenai River at Bonners Ferry prior to
construction of the Libby Dam. ........................................................................................................ 3-20
Figure 3.4. Average daily gage height of the Kootenai River at Bonners Ferry after
construction of the Libby Dam. ........................................................................................................ 3-20
Figure 3.5. Average daily gage height of the Kootenai River at Bonners Ferry 1999-2010. .......... 3-21
Figure 3.6. Myrtle Creek Falls in 1967. ........................................................................................... 3-22
Figure 3.7. General Land Office map of T62N, R1W, Boise Meridian (including present-day
Kootenai NWR), showing original course of Myrtle Creek. ............................................................ 3-25
Figure 3.8. The lower Kootenai River Valley, depicting the Purcell Trench, with the Selkirk
Range to the west and the Purcell Range to the east. ........................................................................ 3-33
Figure 3.9. Location of earthquakes in Boundary County Idaho. .................................................... 3-34
Figure 3.10. Seismic Shaking Hazard of Idaho. .............................................................................. 3-34
Figure 3.11. Soil map of Kootenai Refuge. ..................................................................................... 3-35
Figure 3.12. Fire history of the northern Idaho Panhandle, 1885-1926. Large fires occurred in
the Selkirks, west of the Refuge, in 1889, 1918, 1922, and 1926. .................................................... 3-39
Figure 3.13. Fires in the North Idaho Panhandle, 1930-2010, including the Myrtle Creek Fire
(2003) west of the Refuge. ................................................................................................................ 3-41
Figure 4.1. “Paddler’s Lake—widening of the Kootenay—from hills just above Chelemta on
left bank looking S. across the Kootenay Valley.” James Alden, Northwestern Boundary
Survey, ca. 1860. ................................................................................................................................ 4-3
Figure 4.2. “Chelemta Depot. From the Right Bank of the Kootenay Looking Up.” James
Alden, Northwestern Boundary Survey, ca. 1860. ............................................................................. 4-4
Figure 4.3. Drainage districts in the Kootenai River valley. The first district was created in
1920 and the last district (No. 16) in 1947. District 7 (today’s Refuge) was created in 1925. ........... 4-7
Figure 4.4. Former landowner, Wayne Tucker, harvesting grain on the Refuge, 1965. .................... 4-9
Figure 4.5. Postcard of the Kootenai River Valley, circa 1965. The new Kootenai NWR is the
hatched area to the left of the river. .................................................................................................. 4-10
Figure 4.6. 1973 refuge brochure showing wetlands that existed at that time. ................................ 4-12
Figure 4.7. Average daily populations of dabbling ducks on Kootenai NWR by week, 1966-
1997. ................................................................................................................................................. 4-24
Figure 4.8. Average daily populations of diving ducks on Kootenai NWR by week, 1966-
1997. ................................................................................................................................................. 4-24
Figure 4.9. Average daily populations of geese on Kootenai NWR by week, 1966-1997. ............. 4-25
Figure 4.10. Average daily populations of tundra swans on Kootenai NWR by week, 1966-
1997. ................................................................................................................................................. 4-25
Figure 4.11. Annual duck use days and estimated breeding populations of ducks, 1965-1996. ..... 4-27
Figure 4.12. Annual duck use days and annual precipitation totals, 1965-1996. ............................ 4-27
Figure 4.13. Fall and spring dabbling duck use days, 1966-1997. .................................................. 4-28
Figure 4.14. Dabbling duck winter use and snowfall, 1978-1996. .................................................. 4-28
Figure 4.15. Fall and spring diving duck use days, 1978-1997. ...................................................... 4-29
Figure 4.16. Annual goose use days, 1965-1996. ............................................................................ 4-30
Figure 4.17. Fall and spring Canada goose use, 1978-1996. ........................................................... 4-31
Figure 4.18. Winter goose use, 1978-1996. ..................................................................................... 4-31
Figure 4.19. Annual swan use days, 1966-1996. ............................................................................. 4-32
Figure 4.20. Fall and spring swan use days, 1965-1996. ................................................................. 4-33
Table of Contents xi
Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Figure 4.21. Deep Creek, May 11 2010 (left) and June 11, 2010 (right). ........................................ 4-66
Figure 4.22. Adult kokanee preparing to spawn in Myrtle Creek just below the Refuge’s
bridge (Sept. 2008). ........................................................................................................................... 4-71
Figure 4.23. Bill Krause with large Kootenai River white sturgeon, circa 1940. ............................ 4-78
Figure 5.1. Average Annual Visitation at Kootenai NWR, 1965-2010. ............................................ 5-6
Figure 5.2. Recreational visits to Kootenai NWR in fiscal year 2010, by type of visit. .................... 5-7
Figure 5.3. Annual harvest of waterfowl per hunter at Kootenai NWR, 1965-1998. ...................... 5-15
Figure 5.4. Estimated number of waterfowl species harvested at Kootenai NWR (2000-2009). .... 5-15
Figure 5.5. New bike route signs installed in 2010. ......................................................................... 5-20
Figure 6.1. Kootenai sturgeon-nosed canoe. ...................................................................................... 6-5
Figure 6.2. Kootenai people that attended conference with Capt. John Webster, Bonners Ferry,
Idaho, May 31, 1911. .......................................................................................................................... 6-9
Figure 6.3. Ferry Crossing on the Kootenai River at Bonners Ferry, circa 1864. ........................... 6-11
Figure 6.4. Bonner Water and Light Company powerhouse on Myrtle Creek, circa 1906. ............ 6-12
Figure 6.5. Sign on Diking District # 1, circa 1940. ........................................................................ 6-17
Figure 6.6. Kootenai people that attended a land sale meeting, Bonners Ferry, Idaho, 1927. ......... 6-20
Figure 6.7. District # 7 May, 1948 Flood......................................................................................... 6-23
Figure 6.8. Looking east from a nearby hill on part of the nine farmsteads established on the
former Colony Ranch in Drainage District Number Five. Boundary Farms, Idaho. ........................ 6-23
Figure 6.9. Ex-mill worker clears 8-acre field after bulldozer has pulled the stumps. Boundary
County, Idaho. .................................................................................................................................. 6-24
Appendices
Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations ............................................................................. A-1
Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations ................................................................................. B-1
Appendix C. Implementation ....................................................................................................... C-1
Appendix D. Wilderness Review for Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge ................................... D-1
Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern ............................................................................ E-1
Appendix F. Kootenai NWR CCP Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program ....................... F-1
Appendix G. Acronyms and Abbrevations ................................................................................... G-1
Appendix H. Glossary ................................................................................................................... H-1
Appendix I. Statement of Compliance ......................................................................................... I-1
Appendix J. CCP Team Members ................................................................................................ J-1
Appendix K. Public Involvement ................................................................................................. K-1
Appendix L. Wildlife and Plants of Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge .................................... L-1
xii Table of Contents
Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-1
Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background
1.1 Introduction
Nestled in a glacial valley, flanked on the west by the Selkirk Mountains and on the east by the
Purcell Range, lies the Kootenai River. For thousands of years, spring floods of the Kootenai River
inundated the valley floor, creating a mixture of floodplain forests, river meanders, old oxbows, and
wet meadows—the largest wetland complex in what would eventually become the State of Idaho.
The river also laid down rich soils that would later attract farmers to the region.
The Kootenai River and its tributaries teemed with white sturgeon, burbot, kokanee, redband trout,
cutthroat trout, and bull trout. In spring and fall, multitudes of ducks, geese, and swans passed
through the valley as they migrated between nesting areas in Canada and wintering grounds to the
south. In winter, the valley provided food and shelter for deer, elk, and moose. This was the
ancestral home of the Kootenai (Ktunaxa) people. They were a “river people” who gained much of
the livelihood from the valley’s abundant fish and waterfowl. Their material culture, from their fish
traps and weirs to their unique sturgeon-nosed bark canoes, reflected their focus on wetland and river
resources.
David Thompson’s 1808 expedition marked the first Euro-American incursion into the region, but the
valley changed little until the discovery of gold in Canada increased traffic through the area on the
Wildhorse Trail. As the mines played out, northern Idaho became known for its vast timber
resources, attracting large timber interests from the East. As the easily accessible timber was cut
over, farms and ranches appeared in the fertile river valley and its surrounding benchlands.
Beginning in 1921, 47 miles of the Kootenai River, and many of its tributaries, were diked in order to
drain the bottomland for agriculture. In 1925, the area that would one day become a national wildlife
refuge was established as Drainage District # 7. By 1947, farming dominated the fertile river valley
and 95 percent of the original wetlands had been lost. The huge flocks of waterfowl that once
darkened the skies became a distant memory.
In the early 1960s, the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission (MBCC) realized that there was “a
pressing need for the restoration of waterfowl habitat in this part of the Pacific Flyway.” The MBCC
noted that waterfowl “generally pass over the Kootenai Valley for lack of resting or feeding areas.”
So, on June 24, 1964, the MBCC authorized the acquisition of land to create Kootenai National
Wildlife Refuge.
Until 1972 when the Libby Dam in Montana became operational, the Kootenai River rose
dramatically in June, with snowmelt rushing down from the mountains. Despite the dike building
projects along the river, spring floods remained a threat to the valley farmers. Libby Dam
construction eliminated the spring floods and removed the bottomlands from the influence of the
river. Today, only remnants of the diverse floodplain habitats that once covered the Kootenai River
Valley remain.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manages Kootenai NWR habitats in a highly altered ecosystem.
Thousands of ducks, geese, and swans visit Refuge wetlands, now managed to partially mimic the
natural cycles of flooding and drying. Croplands complement the productivity of wetland habitats
and sanctuary areas ensure that waterfowl can feed and rest undisturbed. When the winter snows
1-2 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background
Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
blanket the land, elk descend from the mountains to find food and shelter here. Spring brings not
only waterfowl, but songbirds that nest in the Refuge’s forests and grasslands. The Refuge is also a
place where people can share a bond with nature, and each other by passing on outdoor traditions to
new generations. As the population of the region increases, the Refuge will become even more
important to wildlife and those seeking to connect with nature.
The Kootenai NWR’s boundary encompasses 2,774.29 acres of Kootenai River bottomlands and
uplands in Boundary County, Idaho (see Maps 1 and 2). The Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge is
part of the Inland Northwest National Wildlife Refuge Complex, which also includes Turnbull and
Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuges, both located in Washington State.
1.2 Proposed Action
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), manage the Kootenai NWR as part of the National
Wildlife Refuge System. This document is the Refuge’s Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). A
CCP sets forth management guidance for a refuge for a period of 15 years, as required by the
National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.) as amended by the
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57). The
Administration Act requires CCPs to identify and describe:
 The purposes of the refuge;
 The fish, wildlife and plant populations, their habitats, and the archaeological and cultural
values found on the refuge;
 Significant problems that may adversely affect wildlife populations and habitats and ways to
correct or mitigate those problems;
 Areas suitable for administrative sites or visitor facilities; and
 Opportunities for fish- and wildlife-dependent recreation.
National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) planning policy (Service Manual Part 602, 602
FW 3, June 21, 2000) states that the purpose of CCPs is to: “describe the desired future conditions of
a refuge and provide long-range guidance and management direction to achieve refuge purposes;
help fulfill the National Wildlife Refuge System mission; maintain and, where appropriate, restore
the ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System; . . . and meet other mandates.”
The Service developed and examined alternatives for future management of Kootenai NWR through
the CCP process. These were presented in the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and
Environmental Assessment (USFWS 2011). The various alternatives address the major issues and
relevant mandates identified during the process and are consistent with the principles of sound fish
and wildlife management. We evaluated three alternatives for the Refuge’s CCP and selected
Alternative 2 as the preferred alternative.
The preferred alternative was slightly modified between the draft and final documents based upon
comments received from the public, other agencies, and organizations. The Service’s Regional
Director for the Pacific Region made the final decision about the alternative to the implemented.
£¤95
¬«20
¬«20
Little Pend Oreille NWR
Turnbull NWR
Kootenai NWR
Spokane
Coeur d'Alene
Waa ss hh ii nn gg tt oo nn
IIdd aa hh oo
Moo nn tt aa nn aa
BBrr ii tt ii sshh CCoo ll uumbb ii aa
§¨¦90
§¨¦90
£¤2
£¤2
£¤2
£¤95
£¤2
£¤95
£¤195
£¤395
£¤195
£¤2
£¤395
£¤95
UV200
CC oo ll uu mm bb ii aa RR ii vv ee rr
SS pp oo kk aa nn ee RR
ii vv ee rr
CCoo eeuu rr dd ''AAlleenn ee
LLaakk ee
LLaakk ee
PPeenn dd OOrree ii ll llee
PPrr iieesstt
LLaakk ee
PP ee nn dd OO rr ee ii ll ll ee RR ii vv ee rr
KK oo oo tt ee nn aa ii RR ii vv ee rr
Inland Northwest National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Final CCP
OR ID
WA
Map Date: 9/20/2011 File: 11-071-7.mxd
Data Source: ESRI StreetMap North America, ShadedRelief_World_2D
0 10 20
Miles
Map 1
0 10 20
Kilometers E
USFWS Approved Acquisition Boundary
National Wildlife Refuge Acquired Land
Regional Landcover (NLCD 2001)
Cultivated Crops
Evergreen Forest
Shrub/Scrub
AREA ENLARGED
I-3
1-4 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background
Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
To preserve the quality of our map, this side was left blank intentionally.
UV3
MM oo yy ii ee RR ii vv ee rr
UV3
UV3
UV3a
UV21
UV1
UV95
£¤2
£¤2
£¤95
KK oo oo tt ee nn aa ii RR ii vv ee rr
KK oo oo tt ee nn aa ii RR ii vv ee rr
Kootenai
NWR
McArthur Lake WMA
Boundary Creek WMA
& Smith Creek Tract
Ball Creek
Ranch Preserve
Hideaway Islands
ACEC/RNA
Creston Valley WMA
DD ee ee pp CC rr ee ee kk
Bonners
Ferry
Creston
£¤95
£¤95
!
!
BBrr ii tt ii ss hh CC oo ll uumbb ii aa
II dd aa hh oo
MMoo nn tt aa nn aa
PPrr iieesstt
LLaakk ee
KKoo oott eennaa yy
LLaakk ee
MMccAArr tthhuu rr LLaakk ee
RRee sseerr vvoo ii rr
SS ee ll kk ii rr kk
MM oo uu nn tt aa ii nn ss
PP uu rr cc ee ll ll
MM oo uu nn tt aa ii nn ss
CC aa bb ii nn ee tt
MM oo uu nn tt aa ii nn ss
Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge and Vicinity
Final CCP
OR ID
WA
Map Date: 9/20/2011 File: 11-071-8.mxd
Data Source: ESRI StreetMap North America, ShadedRelief_World_2D, BLM Surface Ownership
Map 2
AREA ENLARGED
0 5 10
Miles
0 5 10
Kilometers
E
Wildlife Conservation Areas Surface Ownership (U.S.)
Bureau of Land Management
Private
State
U.S. Forest Service
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
I-5
1-6 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background
Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
To preserve the quality of our map, this side was left blank intentionally.
Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-7
1.3 Purpose and Need for the CCP
The purpose of the CCP is to provide the Service, the Refuge System, partners, and the public with a
15-year management plan for improving the Refuge’s habitat conditions and infrastructure, for fish,
wildlife, and public use. An approved CCP will ensure that the Service manages the refuge to
achieve its purposes, vision, goals, and objectives; and help fulfill the mission of the Refuge System.
The CCP will provide reasonable, scientifically grounded guidance for the long-term conservation of
native plants and animals, with emphasis on migratory birds and improving the Refuge’s wetland,
grassland, riparian, and forest habitats. The CCP will identify appropriate actions for protecting and
sustaining the biological features of the refuge; migrating and breeding waterfowl and their habitats;
the migratory landbird and waterbird populations that use the refuge; and threatened, endangered, or
rare species. A final purpose of the CCP is to provide guidance and evaluate the priority public use
programs on the refuge, including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental
education, and interpretation.
The CCP is needed for a variety of reasons. Primary among these is the need to provide migration
habitat for waterfowl in the Kootenai River Valley. There is a need to improve habitat conditions on
the Refuge’s wetland, grassland, riparian, and forest habitats to improve productivity and species
diversity, and control invasive species. There is a need to address the Refuge’s contributions to the
recovery of Federal and State listed species native to the lower Kootenai River and northern Idaho,
including the bull trout and the Kootenai River white sturgeon. There is also the need to protect and
restore habitat values for other sensitive, rare, and declining species of the Kootenai River Valley.
There is a need to analyze Refuge public use programs for the Refuge System’s wildlife-dependent
priority public uses and to determine what improvements or alterations should be made in the pursuit
of compatible, higher quality programs, and to accommodate increasing numbers of visitors while
providing for the needs of wildlife.
1.4 Content and Scope of the CCP
This CCP provides guidance for management of refuge habitats and wildlife and administration of
public uses on refuge lands and waters. This CCP is intended to comply with both the Refuge System
Administration Act and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C.
4321-4347). The CCP includes the following information.”
 An overall vision for the refuge and its role in the local ecosystem (Chapter 1).
 Goals and objectives for specific habitats, research, inventory, monitoring, and public use
programs, as well as strategies for achieving the objectives (Chapter 2).
 A description of the Refuge’s physical environment (Chapter 3).
 A description of the Refuge’s wildlife species and species groups identified as priority
resources of concern and their habitats; their condition and trends on the refuge and within
the local ecosystem; the desired ecological conditions for sustaining them, and a short
analysis of threats to resources of concern and their habitats (Chapter 4).
 A description of the Refuge’s administrative and public use facilities, and public use
programs (Chapter 5).
1-8 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background
Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
 A description of the Refuge’s historic and cultural resources, socioeconomic environment,
and special designation areas (Chapter 6).
 Evaluations of existing and proposed public uses for appropriateness and compatibility with
the Refuge’s purposes (Appendices A and B).
 An outline of the projects, staff, and facilities needed to support the management direction
(Appendix C).
1.5 Refuge Planning and Management Guidance
The refuge is managed as part of the Refuge System within a framework provided by legal and
policy guidelines. This CCP is primarily guided by the provisions of the mission and goals of the
Refuge System, the purposes of the refuge as described in its acquisition authority, Service policy,
and Federal laws. The following summaries are provided as background for the CCP.
1.5.1 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The refuge is managed by the Service, an agency within the Department of the Interior. The Service
is the principal Federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing the Nation’s
fish and wildlife populations, and their habitats.
The mission of the Service is “working with others, to conserve, protect, and enhance fish and
wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.” Although we share this
responsibility with other Federal, state, tribal, local, and private entities, the Service has specific trust
responsibilities for migratory birds, endangered and threatened species, and certain anadromous fish
and marine mammals. The Service has similar trust responsibilities for the lands and waters we
administer to support the conservation and enhancement of fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats.
The Service also enforces Federal wildlife laws and international treaties for importing and exporting
wildlife, assists with state fish and wildlife programs, and helps other countries develop wildlife
conservation programs.
1.5.2 National Wildlife Refuge System
The Service manages the 150-million acre Refuge System. The Refuge System is the world��s largest
network of public lands and waters set aside specifically for conserving wildlife and protecting
ecosystems. From its inception in 1903, the Refuge System has grown to encompass more than 550
national wildlife refuges; thousands of small wetlands and other special management areas; and
millions of acres of islands and their surrounding marine environments in remote areas of the Pacific
Ocean. The needs of wildlife and their habitats come first on refuges, in contrast to other public
lands that are managed for multiple uses.
National Wildlife Refuge System mission and goals. The mission of the Refuge System is:
“to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation,
management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and
plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of
present and future generations of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge
System Administration Act of 1966, as amended)(16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.)
Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-9
Wildlife conservation is the fundamental mission of the Refuge System. The goals of the Refuge
System, as articulated in the Mission Goals and Purposes Policy (Service Manual Part 601 (601 FW
1)) are to:
 Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats, including species that are
endangered or threatened with becoming endangered.
 Develop and maintain a network of habitats for migratory birds, anadromous and inter-jurisdictional
fish, and marine mammal populations that is strategically distributed and
carefully managed to meet important life history needs of these species across their ranges.
 Conserve those ecosystems, plant communities, wetlands of national or international
significance, and landscapes and seascapes that are unique, rare, declining, or
underrepresented in existing protection efforts.
 Provide and enhance opportunities to participate in compatible wildlife-dependent recreation
(hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and
interpretation).
 Foster understanding and instill appreciation of the diversity and interconnectedness of fish,
wildlife, and plants, and their habitats.
Law and policy pertaining to the Refuge System. Refuges are guided by various Federal laws and
executive orders, Service policies, and international treaties. Fundamental to the management of
every refuge are the mission and goals of the Refuge System and the designated purposes of the
refuge unit as described in establishing legislation, executive orders, or other documents establishing,
authorizing, or expanding a refuge.
Key concepts and guidance of the Refuge System derive from the National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act of 1966 (Administration Act) as amended (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee); the Refuge
Recreation Act of 1962 as amended (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4); Title 50 of the Code of Federal
Regulations; and the Service Manual. The Administration Act is implemented through regulations
covering the Refuge System, published in Title 50, subchapter C of the Code of Federal Regulations
and policies contained in the Service Manual. These regulations and policies govern general
administration of units of the Refuge System.
Many other laws apply to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and management of Refuge System
lands. Examples include the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, and the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. Brief descriptions of laws pertinent to Kootenai NWR are
included in this chapter. A complete list of laws pertaining to the Fish and Wildlife Service and the
Refuge System can be found at http://laws.fws.gov.
Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4). The Refuge Recreation Act authorized
the Secretary of the Interior to administer refuges, hatcheries, and other conservation areas for
recreational use, when such uses do not interfere with the area’s primary purposes. It provided for
public use fees and permits, and penalties for violating regulations. It also authorized the acceptance
of donated funds and real and personal property, to assist in carrying out its purposes. Enforcement
provisions were amended in 1978 and 1984 to make violations misdemeanors in accordance with the
uniform sentencing provisions of 18 U.S.C. 3551-3586.
National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.) as amended by the
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (Public Law 105-57). Of all the laws governing
activities on national wildlife refuges, the Refuge Administration Act exerts the greatest influence.
1-10 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background
Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Refuge Improvement Act) amended
the Administration Act by defining a unifying mission for all refuges, including a new process for
determining compatible uses on refuges, and requiring that each refuge be managed under a
comprehensive conservation plan. Key provisions of the Refuge Administration Act follow.
 Comprehensive conservation planning. A CCP must be completed for each refuge by the
year 2012, as is required by the Refuge Administration Act. Each CCP will be revised every
15 years or earlier if monitoring and evaluation determine that changes are needed to achieve
the Refuge’s purposes, vision, goals, or objectives. The Refuge Administration Act also
requires that CCPs be developed with the participation of the public. Public comments,
issues, and concerns are considered during the development of a CCP, and together, with the
formal guidance, can play a role in selecting the plan. The CCP provides guidance in the
form of goals, objectives, and strategies for refuge programs, but may lack some of the
specifics needed for implementation. Therefore, step-down management plans will be
developed for individual program areas as needed, following completion of the CCP. The
step-down plans are founded on management goals, objectives and strategies outlined in a
CCP, and require appropriate NEPA compliance.
 Wildlife conservation; biological diversity, integrity and environmental health. The Refuge
Administration Act expressly states that the conservation of fish, wildlife and plants, and
their habitats is the priority of Refuge System lands, and that the Secretary of the Interior
shall ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of refuge lands
are maintained. House Report 105–106 accompanying the Improvement Act states “… the
fundamental mission of our System is wildlife conservation: wildlife and wildlife
conservation must come first.”
 Refuge purposes. Each refuge must be managed to fulfill the Refuge System mission and the
specific purpose(s) for which the refuge was established. The purposes of a refuge are
specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, executive order, agreement, public land
order, donation document, or administrative memorandum establishing, authorizing, or
expanding a refuge, refuge unit, or refuge subunit. When a conflict exists between the
Refuge System mission and the purpose of an individual refuge, the refuge purpose may
supersede the mission.
 Priority public uses on refuges. The Administration Act superseded some key provisions of
the Refuge Recreation Act regarding compatibility, and also provided significant additional
guidance regarding recreational and other public uses on units of the Refuge System. The
Refuge Administration Act identifies six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses. These
uses are hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education
and interpretation. The Service is to grant these six wildlife-dependent public uses special
consideration during planning for, management of, and establishment and expansion of units
of the Refuge System. When determined compatible on a refuge-specific basis, these six
uses assume priority status among all uses of the refuge in question. The Service is to make
extra efforts to facilitate priority wildlife-dependent public use opportunities.
Compatibility and Appropriate Refuge Uses policies (603 FW 2 and 1). With few exceptions,
lands and waters within the Refuge System are different from multiple-use public lands in that they
are closed to all public access and use unless specifically and legally opened. No refuge use may be
allowed or continued unless it is determined to be appropriate and compatible. Generally, an
Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-11
appropriate use is one that contributes to fulfilling the refuge purpose(s), the Refuge System mission,
or goals or objectives described in a refuge management plan. A compatible use is a use that in the
sound professional judgment of the refuge manager will not materially interfere with or detract from
the fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge.
The six wildlife-dependent recreational uses described in the Refuge Administration Act (hunting,
fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation) are
defined as appropriate. When determined to be compatible, they receive priority consideration over
other public uses in planning and management. Other nonwildlife-dependent uses on a refuge are
reviewed by the refuge manager to determine if the uses are appropriate. If a use is determined
appropriate, then a compatibility determination is completed.
When preparing a CCP, refuge managers must re-evaluate all general public, recreational, and
economic uses (even those occurring to further refuge habitat management goals) occurring or
proposed on a refuge for appropriateness and compatibility. Updated appropriate use and
compatibility determinations for uses for the Kootenai NWR are in Appendices A (Appropriateness)
and B (Compatibility) of this CCP.
Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health policy (601 FW 3). The Refuge
Administration Act directs the Service to “ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health of the National Wildlife Refuge System are maintained for the benefit of
present and future generations of Americans …” The policy is an additional directive for refuge
managers to follow while achieving refuge purpose(s) and the Refuge System mission. It provides
for the consideration and protection of a broad spectrum of native fish, wildlife, and habitat resources
found on refuges and associated ecosystems. When evaluating the appropriate management direction
for refuges (e.g., in compatibility determinations), refuge managers will use sound professional
judgment to determine their refuge’s contribution to biological integrity, diversity, and environmental
health at multiple landscape scales. Sound professional judgment incorporates field experience,
knowledge of refuge resources, an understanding of the refuge’s role within an ecosystem, applicable
laws, and best available science, including consultation with others both inside and outside the
Service. The policy states that “the highest measure of biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health is viewed as those intact and self-sustaining habitats and wildlife populations
that existed during historic conditions.”
Wildlife-dependent Recreation policies (605 FW 1-7). The Refuge Administration Act states that
“compatible wildlife-dependent recreation is a legitimate and appropriate general public use of the
System.” A series of recreation policies provide additional guidance and requirements to consider
after a recreational use has been determined to be compatible. These policies also establish a quality
standard for visitor services on national wildlife refuges. Through these policies, we are to
simultaneously enhance wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities, provide access to quality
visitor experiences, and manage refuge resources to conserve fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats.
New and ongoing recreational uses should help visitors focus on wildlife and other natural resources,
and provide an opportunity to display resource issues, management plans, and how the refuge
contributes to the Refuge System and the Service’s mission. The policies also require development
of a visitor services plan.
1-12 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background
Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
1.5.3 Biological Resource Protection Acts
The Refuge’s plant and animal species are protected under several Federal laws, including the
following.
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544). Through Federal action and by
encouraging the establishment of State programs, the 1973 Endangered Species Act (ESA) provided
for the conservation of ecosystems upon which threatened and endangered species of fish, wildlife,
and plants depend. The ESA:
 Authorizes the determination and listing of species as endangered and threatened;
 Prohibits unauthorized taking, possession, sale, and transport of endangered species;
 Provides authority to acquire land for the conservation of listed species, using land and water
conservation funds;
 Authorizes establishment of cooperative agreements and grants-in-aid to States that establish
and maintain active and adequate programs for endangered and threatened wildlife and
plants;
 Authorizes the assessment of civil and criminal penalties for violating the act or regulations;
and
 Authorizes the payment of rewards to anyone furnishing information leading to arrest and
conviction for any violation of the act or any regulation issued there under.
Both the Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) implement and enforce the
ESA. The Service has primary responsibility for terrestrial and freshwater organisms, while NMFS
has jurisdiction over most marine and anadromous fish listed under the ESA. Under the ESA, the
Service has primary responsibility for the Kootenai River white sturgeon and bull trout. Listed
species and species of concern found on the Refuge are described in section 1.7.5 of this chapter and
in Chapter 4, Section 4.9.
Section 7 of the ESA requires Federal agencies to ensure that actions authorized, funded, or carried
out by them are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species, or modify critical
habitat. The Service will consult internally regarding potential impacts of projects on listed species
found within the refuge. For candidate species and species of concern, refuge management activities
are focused on protecting habitat and reducing threats so that these species do not need the protection
of the ESA.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703-712). The framers of the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act were determined to put an end to the commercial trade in birds, and their feathers, that by the
early years of the 20th century had wreaked havoc on the populations of many native bird species.
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act decreed that all migratory birds and their parts (including eggs, nests,
and feathers) were fully protected. It is the domestic law that affirms or implements the United
States’ commitment to four international conventions (with Canada, Japan, Mexico, and Russia) for
the protection of a shared migratory bird resource. Each of the conventions between two nations
protect selected species of birds that are common to both countries (i.e., they occur in both countries
at some point during their annual life cycle). All of the Refuge’s bird species are protected under this
act, with the exception of nonnative species (European starling, house sparrow, and rock dove).
Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-13
1.5.4 Historic Preservation Acts
The Refuge’s historic resources are protected under several Federal laws, including:
 Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470aa-470ll).
 Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1960, as amended (16 U.S.C. 469-469c).
 Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act of 1935 (16 U.S.C. 461-462, 464-467).
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470-470b, 470c-470n).
 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (25 U.S.C. 3001-13)
 Executive Order 11593 Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment. (May 6,
1971)
1.6 Refuge Establishment and Refuge Purposes
1.6.1 Refuge Purpose
The Refuge Administration Act directs the Service to manage refuges to achieve their purposes. The
purposes for which a refuge is established form the foundation for planning and management
decisions. Refuge purposes are the driving force in the development of the refuge vision statements,
goals, objectives, and strategies in a CCP and are critical to determining the compatibility of existing
and proposed refuge uses.
The purposes of a refuge are specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, executive order,
agreement, public land order, donation document, or administrative memorandum establishing,
authorizing, or expanding a refuge, refuge unit, or refuge subunit. Unless these documents indicate
otherwise, purposes dealing with the conservation, management, and restoration of fish, wildlife, and
plants, and the habitats on which they depend take precedence over other purposes in the
management and administration of any unit.
Where a refuge has multiple purposes related to fish, wildlife, and plant conservation, the more
specific purpose will take precedence in instances of conflict. When an additional unit is acquired
under an authority different from the authority used to establish the original unit, the addition takes
on the purpose(s) of the original unit, but the original unit does not take on the purpose(s) of the
newer addition. When a conflict exists between the Refuge System mission and the purpose of an
individual refuge, the refuge purpose may supersede the mission.
On June 24, 1964 the MBCC approved 2,767.21 acres for acquisition under the funding authority of
the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (MBCA) of 1929 (45 Stat. 1222), as amended, to create the
Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge (Map 3). Refuge establishment was authorized by Section 5 of
the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of February 18, 1929 (16 U.S.C. 715-715d, 715e, 715f-715r, as
amended) (45 Stat. 1222), and Section 6 of the Act as amended by the Migratory Bird Hunting and
Conservation Stamp Act of March 16, 1934 (16 U.S.C. 718-718h, as amended), (48 Stat. 451, as
amended), and the Section 301 of the Act of June 15, 1935 (49 Stat. 381). Section 5 of the MBCA
was amended by the Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978 (92 Stat. 3110). The Migratory
Bird Conservation Act (MBCA) established the Refuge purpose: “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or
for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” This purpose applies to all units of the
Refuge, which were acquired using Migratory Bird Conservation funds under the authority of the
MBCA.
1-14 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background
Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
The Service also has a conservation easement for 0.14 acres along the Kootenai River (Easement No.
4973) from the State of Idaho. This lease is authorized by the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 “… for
the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife
resources …” (16 U.S.C. 742a-742j, as amended). This purpose applies only to the conservation
easement, and not other Refuge units.
1.6.2 Refuge Acquisition History and Management Direction
Biological Ascertainment Reports were completed in 1961 and 1963. On December 10, 1963, the
Regional Land Review Committee approved 2,050 acres of farmland in the Kootenai River Valley
for acquisition, noting that “The restoration of habitat in this area completes a link of the Pacific
Flyway, between Canadian breeding grounds, the Turnbull National Wildlife Refuge, and the
Columbia River Basin in the State of Washington.”
The Migratory Bird Conservation Commission (MBCC) authorized the Kootenai NWR on June 24,
1964 (MBCC Memorandum #6). In the presentation before the MBCC, the justification for
establishing Kootenai NWR 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, and to facilitate waterfowl management techniques in crop protection.”
Management and development proposed in the MBCC memo also gives some insight into the intent
of the MBCC, in terms of management for particular species. Managed pastures were specifically to
benefit Canada geese and “some ducks” (not specified). Management for specific plants typical of
shallow, seasonal wetlands and cereal grains indicates a strong emphasis on providing migration
habitat for dabbling ducks and Canada geese, as well reducing depredation on neighboring farms. It
is also clear from the memo that the MBCC envisioned providing habitat for duck and goose
production. This is consistent with a letter from Noble E. Buell, Chairman, Land Acquisition
Advisory Committee, to Director of Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, April 1, 1964, which
stated that the Kootenai NWR “will be used primarily for waterfowl breeding with the development
of 900 acres of marsh and open potholes.” (However, in the final justification, which appeared in the
MBCC memo, there was a more balanced emphasis between providing migration and breeding
habitat.) It also appears that there was an intention to provide increased hunting opportunities since it
was noted that currently such opportunities were limited in the area.
A management plan published shortly after Refuge establishment states that the Refuge would
primarily be managed for mallards, pintail, green-winged teal, American wigeon, wood ducks,
Canada geese (Western Canada geese would use the Refuge for nesting), with “lesser use by white-fronted
and snow geese.” A number of waterbirds, shorebirds, landbirds, upland game birds, big
game species and fish were expected to receive “incidental benefits” from waterfowl management.
The first 117.19 acres of the Refuge were purchased from Arthur W. Hart in accordance with the
Migratory Bird Conservation Act (Warranty Deed, August 31, 1964). The remaining Refuge tracts
were authorized by the same act and purchased from 1965 to1985 with funds authorized by the
Migratory Bird Conservation Act (see Table 1.1).
V18
V27
V19
V11
V12
V22 V21
V13
V20
V26
UV19a
UV2M
UVE7
UVE2
UV16-I
VR1 V14
V15
V16 V17
V17
V14
V23
V23a
V15a
V17a VM1 VP1
V24
V25
116°22'0"W
116°22'0"W
116°23'0"W
116°23'0"W
116°24'0"W
116°24'0"W
116°25'0"W
116°25'0"W
116°26'0"W
116°26'0"W
48°44'0"N
48°44'0"N
48°43'0"N
48°43'0"N
48°42'0"N
48°42'0"N
48°41'0"N
48°41'0"N
Land Status and Refuge Tract Numbers
Final CCP
Map Date: 9/20/2011 File: 11-071-9.mxd
Data Source: BLM Ownership, USDA National Agriculture Imagery Program 2009
Map 3
0 0.5 1
Miles
0 0.5 1
Kilometers
E
Land Ownership
USFWS Approved Acquisition Boundary
USFWS Owned Tracts
USFWS Easement
Bureau of Land Management
U.S. Forest Service
State
Private
I-15
1-16 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background
Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
To preserve the quality of our map, this side was left blank intentionally.
Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-17
Table 1.1. Kootenai NWR Acquisition History and Land Status Summary.
Tract
No
Date
acquired
Acres Interest Acquisition
authority
Funding
authority
Additional Information
12 8/31/64 117.19 Fee MBCA MBCF Warranty deed executed and filed August
31, 1964.
14 3/12/65 764.44 Fee MBCA MBCF Warranty deed executed Feb 23, 1965
and filed March 12, 1965.
23 3/18/65 15.29 Fee MBCA MBCF Warranty deed executed March 12, 1965
and filed March 18, 1965.
13 3/22/65 201.8 Fee MBCA MBCF Warranty deed executed March 1 1965
and filed March 22, 1965. Includes no
water rights.
17a 3/29/65
7.39 Fee MBCA MBCF Warranty deed executed and filed March
17 432.7 Fee MBCA MBCF 29, 1965.
19a 3/29/65 1.89 Fee MBCA MBCF Warranty deed executed and filed March
19 254.12 Fee MBCA MBCF 29, 1965.
24 4/21/65 187.0 Fee MBCA MBCF Warranty deed executed March 19, 1965
and filed April 21, 1965.
20 4/22/65 75.21 Fee MBCA MBCF Warranty deed executed April 15, 1965
and filed April 22, 1965.
21 4/22/65 109.9 Fee MBCA MBCF Warranty deed executed April 10, 1965
and filed April 22, 1965.
15a 5/25/65 3.67 Fee MBCA MBCF Warranty deed executed May 5, 1965 and
15 126.6 Fee MBCA MBCF filed May 25, 1965.
16-I 9/7/65 6.63 Fee MBCA MBCF Warranty deed executed and filed Sept 7,
16 22.57 Fee MBCA MBCF 1965.
25 9/23/65 80.0 Fee MBCA MBCF Warranty deed executed Sept. 7, 1965
and filed Sept. 23, 1965.
26 9/23/65 26.94 Fee MBCA MBCF Warranty deed July 27, 1965 and filed
Sept. 23, 1965.
18 9/29/65 79.88 Fee MBCA MBCF Warranty deed executed Jan 14, 1965 and
filed August 25, 1965. Indian Land Deed
to US approved by BIA August 24, 1965
and filed Sept 29, 1965.
(Tract 18 was originally the Ann Temo
Indian allotment #52 dated Oct 12,
1908.)_
27 9/29/65 72.06 Fee MBCA MBCF Tract 27 was part of original Tract 18,
which was discovered to have 2
ownerships after MBCC approval. (Tract
27 was the original Moshell Temo Indian
allotment #53 dated Oct 12, 1908.) Tract
27 assigned to 2nd ownership. Indian
Land Deed to US approved by BIA
August 24, 1965 and filed Sept 29, 1965.
Warranty deed executed Dec 23, 1964
and filed Sept 29, 1965.
1-18 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background
Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Tract
No
Date
acquired
Acres Interest Acquisition
authority
Funding
authority
Additional Information
11 5/25/66 176.69 Fee MBCA MBCF Acquired through condemnation.
Judgment on Declaration of Taking filed
5/25/66. Purpose: “to preserve the
waterfowl resource and more effectively
carry out the purpose of the Act of
February 18, 1929, and for such other
uses as may be authorized by Congress or
Executive Order.”
22 6/4/71 2.0 Fee MBCA MBCF “for use in the conservation of migratory
birds”
Court decree dated June 4, 1971 (District
Court, First Judicial District of the State
of Idaho) decreed that “Drainage District
No. 7 of the County of Boundary, State of
Idaho, having been duly declared
organized by decree of this Court dated
the 14th day of September, 1925, is
hereby dissolved pursuant to laws of the
State of Idaho, Section 42-2910, and that
title to all property, rights or interest that
may have been owned by said District is
hereby vested in the United States of
America, acting by and through the
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife,
Department of the Interior.”
2M 5/27/81 0.14 Conser-vation
easement
Fish and
Wildlife
Act of
1956
Easement granted by State of Idaho for
the construction, use, and maintenance of
a water pump and intake line.
State of ID Easement No. 4973.
23a 3/08/85
10.18 Fee MBCA MBCF Price reapproval for 10 acres, 2/5/85.
Warranty deed executed March 4, 1985
and filed March 8, 1985.
Sources: Land Record System tract report, Division of Realty and Refuge Information, USFWS Region 1.
Current Flyway Technical Committee management priorities for the upper Kootenai River Valley
place emphasis on spring and fall migration habitat for migratory waterfowl. In addition, the Refuge
provides important stop-over habitat for migratory swans that overwinter in southeastern Oregon
(e.g., Malheur NWR) and nest in northeastern British Columbia and northwestern Alberta. Because
of the importance of upper Kootenai River for migrating waterfowl and waterbirds, greater emphasis
is now placed upon management for seasonal wetlands and crops for fall and spring migration. The
general “migratory birds” purpose of the Refuge allows for such flexibility in management emphasis
(particular species, habitats, or life history stages) in response to overall Flyway needs, changes in
species abundance and distribution, regional habitat losses, and other factors.
Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-19
Land Status
Kootenai NWR lies within Boundary County, Idaho and is bordered by the Selkirk Mountains to the
west, and the Kootenai River to the north, and the Kootenai River and Deep Creek to the east. On
June 24, 1964 the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission approved 2,767.21 acres for acquisition
(MBCC Memorandum #6). The Refuge establishment date is reported as August 31, 1964,
concurrent with the purchase by the Service of the first 117.19 acres from Arthur W. Hart. There are
2,774.29 acres of fee title lands within Kootenai NWR (see Table 1.1 below). As of March 8, 1985
all lands identified as within the Kootenai NWR acquisition boundary have been acquired. Federal
ownership of the tracts adjoining the Kootenai River and Deep Creek begins at the mean high water
line.
A number of people with interest in tracts of land prior to establishment of Kootenai NWR were
given extended use of the tracts and access under a variety of terms, which have now expired.
Several rights of way pertained to Drainage District 7 which was dissolved on June 4, 1971 by Court
Decree. At that time all rights of way and reservations for the drainage district reverted to the United
States. The sale of several tracts was subject to rights of way or easements for public roads, power
and water lines, and other facilities. In addition, mineral rights are outstanding on Tracts 17, 17a,
19, 19a, 20, 21, 25 and 26 (total: 988.15 acres).
1.6.3 Summary of Purposes and Management Direction for the Refuge
The purposes for Kootenai NWR have been identified in legal documentation establishing and
adding refuge lands. Because the Refuge was originally established “for use as an inviolate
sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds,” this represents the priority for
Refuge management. In accordance with Director’s Order No.132, all lands acquired since the
original establishment of the Refuge retain this purpose. 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. Habitat management would also benefit 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. However,
management for these species should not conflict with or detract from the purpose for which the
refuge was originally established (migratory birds).
1.7 Relationship to Ecosystem Management Goals
1.7.1 Regional Setting and Other Protected Areas
Kootenai NWR is located in the ecoregion known as the Canadian Rocky Mountains, in the
Okanogan Highlands section (IDFG 2005). The lower Kootenai River—also known as the “meander
reach”—lies within the Purcell Trench, which extends roughly from Bonners Ferry, Idaho to the
river’s entry into Kootenay Lake in British Columbia. Within this area, the river meanders across the
flat valley floor. Historically, this portion of the Kootenai River Valley was an ecologically rich and
productive environment, a complex of riparian and bottomland forests, sloughs, oxbows, and
wetlands that supported a wide diversity of wildlife prior to Euro-American contact.
1-20 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background
Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
The Kootenai River’s natural floodplain was drained and levees built as farms were established in the
valley in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Today the Purcell Trench contains the largest contiguous
block of agricultural habitat, approximately 68,000 acres (USDA 2005) along the Kootenai River.
Draining the wetlands and flood prevention from the river dikes and Libby Dam eliminated nearly all
of the wetland habitat within the Idaho portion of the Kootenai River Valley (approximately 35,000-
40,000 acres). Of the 50,000-acre lower Kootenai River Valley in Boundary County, 22,000 acres
have been converted to farmland. By 1960, less than 1,000 acres of wetlands remained in the Idaho
portion of the valley. Relatively recent establishment of four wildlife management areas (McArthur
WMA, Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge, Boundary Creek WMA, and the Ball Creek Ranch) has
resulted in the restoration of approximately 3,100 acres of wetlands, riparian areas, and associated
upland habitat in Idaho’s portion of the Kootenai River Valley (Boundary County Comprehensive
Plan 2008). The National Wetlands Inventory identified 3,834.1 acres of low-elevation (0-2,500 feet
elevation) palustrine and lacstrine wetlands in the Idaho portion of the Kootenai River Valley (KVRI
2004). Currently, 3,086 acres (80 percent) of low elevation wetlands lie within five protected areas;
of this, 1,202 acres (31 percent) occur on the Refuge (see Table 1.2 below). The Refuge manages the
largest wetland complex on the Idaho portion of the Kootenai River Valley.
Approximately 25,000 acres of bottomland habitat of the valley are natural areas under Federal (US
and Canada), state or provincial, or local ownership (see Table 1.2). Of this, more than two-thirds is
part of the Creston Valley Wildlife Management Area (WMA) in British Columbia. The Creston
Valley WMA is the largest area of protected bottomland habitat in the lower Kootenai River Valley.
It includes 17,000 acres of Provincial Crownland set aside for wildlife conservation and protection,
of which approximately 9,500 acres are wetlands. Located on a wide river delta entering the deep
waters of Kootenay Lake, the site was designated as a Wetland of International Importance in 1994.
The Creston Valley area plays a significant role in support of food chains in this part of the South
Columbia Mountains ecosection, as well as supporting migrating species using this flyway. The
Creston area regularly supports over 100,000 waterfowl during migration periods; single day
concentrations may exceed 40,000 on occasion. The WMA provides some of the most important
waterbird habitat in British Columbia including the second largest breeding colony of western grebes
in the province, the only breeding colony of Forster’s terns, the largest breeding colony of black
terns, and the largest breeding population of wood ducks in British Columbia. Most of the WMA’s
wetlands are under some form of water control regime, and are maintained by a system of dikes,
control structures, and pumps that have created a series of managed wetland impoundments that
control flood and drought cycles for wildlife production. Some agricultural activity takes place as a
management tool (Ramsar Convention on Wetlands 2001).
The 1,425-acre Boundary Creek WMA were acquired in 1999 using funds provided by the sale of
hunting licenses, tags and state waterfowl stamps and the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA).
The WMA is managed by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) to develop wildlife and
fish habitat and to provide public access for hunting, fishing and other recreational pursuits.
Development activities focus on restoring historic wetlands, promoting native vegetative
communities and promoting compatible public recreation. About 525 acres of the WMA is wetlands,
most of which are acres restored after 1999.
McArthur Lake WMA was one of Idaho’s first land purchases using Pittman-Robertson funding, in
1942. About 600 acres of the 1,207-acre WMA is McArthur Lake Reservoir created by damming
Deep Creek. The WMA was acquired to provide waterfowl breeding, nesting, and summer-fall use
areas to replace marshlands converted to farmland in the nearby Kootenai River Valley, and to
Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-21
provide the public with opportunities for waterfowl and big game hunting, fishing and wildlife
viewing.
The Nature Conservancy’s (TNC’s) Ball Creek Ranch, a preserve located 12 miles northwest of
Bonners Ferry, was acquired in August 2000. The 2,600 acre preserve includes four miles of
Kootenai River frontage, two tributaries to the river (Ball Creek and Trout Creek). TNC has restored
approximately 550 acres of wetlands and associated habitat in partnership with the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) and Ducks Unlimited. The Conservancy has been managing the
property for a variety of uses including wildlife habitat, public recreation, farming, and cattle
ranching. A working farm and ranch operates on two-thirds of the preserve.
In the fall of 2003 Ducks Unlimited (DU) acquired the 756-acre Smith Creek tract in the floodplain
of the Kootenai River using funding from a North American Wetlands Conservation (NAWCA)
grant. The owner of this tract had previously enrolled the land in a perpetual wetland protection
easement under the Federal Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP). Management of the Smith Creek
tract, under agreement with DU, was assumed by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, who
already managed the Boundary Creek WMA immediately to the north of the Smith Creek tract
(Ducks Unlimited 2010).
Hideaway Islands was designated by the BLM as an area of critical environmental concern (ACEC)
in 1985 to preserve riparian plant communities in an unmodified condition for the primary purpose of
research and education. It was designated as a Research Natural Area (RNA) in 2007. The RNA
consists of two islands along the Kootenai River, located approximately five air miles east of
Bonners Ferry, Idaho. The islands contain a good example of a black cottonwood/red-osier dogwood
riparian plant community in various stages of ecological succession. This community type is
considered very rare in Idaho, with five or fewer occurrences known statewide. A western choke
cherry and a Suksdorf hawthorn at this site have been measured as the largest in Idaho (Bureau of
Land Management 2007).
Table 1.2. Protected Bottomland Habitat in the Lower Kootenai River Valley (Idaho, British
Columbia).
Area Total
Acres
Wetland
Acres*
Ownership
Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge (ID) 2,774 1,202 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Boundary Creek WMA 1,425 525 Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game
McArthur Lake WMA 1,207 600 Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game
Ball Creek Ranch Preserve 2,600 550 The Nature Conservancy
Smith Creek 756 209 Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game
Hideaway Islands ACEC/RNA 76 0 Bureau of Land Management
Totals, Lower Kootenai River Valley,
Idaho 8,838 3,086
Creston Valley Wildlife Management
Area (British Columbia)
17,000 9,500
Government of the Province of
British Columbia (British Columbia
Department of Environment, Parks
and Wildlife), Government of Canada
Totals, Lower Kootenai River Valley
(Idaho and British Columbia) 25,838 12,586
Wetland Acres: Lacustrine, Palustrine
1-22 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background
Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Important Bird Areas (IBAs)
The Important Bird Areas (IBA) program is a global effort to identify the most important areas for
maintaining bird populations and focusing conservation efforts on protecting these sites. Within the
United States, the program has been promoted and maintained by the American Bird Conservancy
(ABC) and the National Audubon Society (NAS). The ABC is coordinating the identification of
nationally significant IBAs while NAS is working to identify sites in individual states. The NAS is
working within each state to identify a network of sites across the U.S. that provide critical habitat
for birds. This effort recognizes that habitat loss and fragmentation are the most serious threats
facing populations of birds across North America and around the world. By working through
partnerships, principally the North American Bird Conservation Initiative, to identify those places
that are critical to birds during some part of their life cycle (breeding, wintering, feeding, migrating),
the intent is to mitigate the effects that habitat loss and degradation have on bird populations. The
IBA program has become a key component of many bird conservation efforts. More information is
available at http://www.audubon.org/bird/iba/index.html.
In Idaho, the goals of the IBA program are to identify the sites that are the most essential for long-term
conservation of birds, and to take action to ensure the conservation of these sites. An IBA is a
site that provides essential habitat for one or more species of birds. The IBA selection process
examines sites based on:
 The presence and abundance of birds, and/or
 The condition and quality of habitat.
The IBAs are chosen using standard biological criteria and expert ornithologists’ review. All sites
nominated as potential IBAs are rigorously evaluated to determine whether they meet the necessary
qualifications. The IBAs represent discrete sites, both aquatic and terrestrial, that are critically
important to birds during their annual life cycle (e.g., breeding, migration, and/or wintering periods).
Idaho’s Important Bird Areas (IBA) program was launched in 1996 as a partnership between Idaho
Partners in Flight and the Idaho Audubon Council. An IBA Technical Committee encouraged
nominations and reviewed materials for candidate IBAs. From 1997 through 2000, the committee
reviewed and voted on nominations. To date, 52 sites have been identified as IBAs in Idaho. Thirty-seven
are wetland sites and 15 are upland sites; 11 are globally recognized, such as American Falls
Reservoir, Oxford Slough, and Minidoka National Wildlife Refuge (IDFG 2010).
The Kootenai NWR is listed as an Idaho State-level IBA based on large concentrations of migrating
waterfowl (up to 40,000 ducks, 4,000 geese, and 500 tundra swans). The Idaho State IBA criteria
applicable to the Refuge include:
 D4ii, Waterfowl: Regularly support more than 2,000 waterfowl over a short period of time
during and portion of the year, not including sedentary Canada geese.
 D4iv, Seabirds and colonial waterbirds: Regularly support more than 50 pairs of colonial
nesting birds (grebes, pelicans, cormorants, herons, egrets, ibis) over the course of the
breeding season, or regularly supports more than 25 pairs of nesting terns over the course of
the breeding season; or regularly supports more than 2,500 pairs of nesting gulls over the
course of the breeding season, or more than 500 wintering gulls over a short period of time.
 D4v: Shorebirds: Regularly support at least 100 shorebirds over a short period of time
during any part of the year.
Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-23
The IBA website notes that “Species diversity is one of Kootenai NWR’s greatest assets. 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. Although over 100 species of birds
have been recorded nesting on the Refuge, including the threatened Bald Eagle, the Refuge is better
known for providing habitat for migrating waterfowl. 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 in the fall to about
3,500-4,000. Tundra Swans usually peak at 300-500 in the spring, but 200-300 are common in the
fall.”
Table 1.3. Significant Concentrations of Birds Noted to Identify the Kootenai NWR as an Idaho
State Important Bird Area.
Species or Group Season Average Maximum
Ducks FM 14,000 30,000
Canada Goose FM 4,000
Tundra Swan SM, FM 40 F 500 SM, 300 FM
Bald Eagle B, W 1 pair breeding, 0-7
wintering (mean = 3)
7
Black Tern B 50 pairs
Shorebirds FM (August-Sept) n.d. “Moderate use during
migration”
Key: FM= Fall migration, SM=Spring migration, F=Fall, B=Breeding, W=Wintering
Source: USFWS Waterfowl Survey Data, Kootenai NWR; Steenhof, Bond and Dunn 2008 (Midwinter Bald Eagle Count)
1.7.2 Regional Conservation Plans
A brief summary of the major regional conservation plans we considered in the development of this
CCP follows.
Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (2005). In 2001, the U. S. Congress began
to appropriate Federal funds through the State Wildlife Grants program (SWG) to help meet the need
for conservation of all fish and wildlife. Along with this new funding came the responsibility of each
state to develop a Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS). The Idaho Department
of Fish and Game prepared its Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS) in 2005 to
coordinate the efforts of all partners working toward conservation of wildlife and wildlife habitats
across the state. The aim of Idaho’s CWCS is to provide a common framework that will enable
conservation partners to jointly implement a long–term approach for the benefit of Species of
Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN). The Strategy identifies 229 SGCN (103 invertebrates, 126
vertebrates) and associated habitats; provides an ecological, habitat–based framework to aid in the
conservation and management of SGCN; recommends actions to improve the population status and
habitat conditions of SGCN; and describes an approach for long–term monitoring to assess the
success of conservation efforts and to integrate new information as it becomes available. The CWCS
“promotes proactive conservation to ensure cost–effective solutions instead of reactive measures
enacted in the face of imminent losses” (IDFG 2005).
Kootenai NWR lies within the Okanogan Highlands ecological section described in the CWCS.
Species of greatest conservation need (SGCNs) that are considered imperiled or vulnerable in Idaho
under this plan, and which occur on the Refuge include: kokanee (reintroduced via egg planting in
the fall of 2003), bull trout, northern alligator lizard, lesser scaup, red-necked and western grebe
1-24 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background
Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
(breed on the Refuge in small numbers); and black tern (breeds on Refuge). The northern leopard
frog has been observed on the Refuge some years ago but whether it still occurs on the Refuge is not
known at this time. Several species with current secure status, but are considered SCGN due to the
need to monitor trends, also occur on the Refuge (e.g., northern pintail).
Canadian Rocky Mountains Ecoregional Assessment (2004). This ecoregional assessment,
produced by The Nature Conservancy in 2003, includes a portfolio of sites that collectively conserve
biological diversity in the Canadian Rocky Mountains ecoregion. It also includes an assessment of
multi-site threats and priorities for conservation action. Conservation targets identified in the
ecoregional assessment that occur on the Refuge include bull trout, northern leopard frog (current
presence on Refuge is not confirmed), bald eagle (the TNC identifies nesting and wintering sites as
conservation targets), short-eared owl, Townsend’s big-eared bat (point location near Refuge;
predicted occurrence on slopes of Selkirks), permanent wetlands (aquatic beds), seasonal (spring
flooded) wetlands (sedge meadows), and seasonal (fall flooded) wetlands (Rumsey et al. 2003).
Kootenai River Subbasin Plan (2004). The Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC)
was formed by the States of Idaho, Oregon, Washington, and Montana to protect and mitigate fish
and wildlife that are affected by development and operation of hydropower systems on the Columbia,
Snake, and Kootenai Rivers while assuring an adequate power supply. The council established the
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program to guide efforts to protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and
wildlife resources. Through the Fish and Wildlife Program, the Columbia Basin was divided into 62
subbasins for planning purposes. A plan was then developed for each subbasin. These plans contain
the strategies that drive the implementation of the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program, direct
Northwest Power and Conservation Council funding of projects that respond to impacts from the
development and operation of the Columbia River hydropower system. The subbasin plan that
applies to the Refuge is the Kootenai River Subbasin Plan (Northwest Power and Conservation
Council 2004).
The Kootenai River Subbasin Plan identifies bull trout, westslope cutthroat trout, Columbia River
redband trout, kokanee, burbot, and white sturgeon as focal species. Conditions of habitats used by
terrestrial target species was also assessed (wetland, riparian, grassland/shrub, xeric (ponderosa pine)
forest, and mesic forest. Class 1 and Class 2 waters for bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout and
Class 1 and Class 2 terrestrial subunits were considered near-term opportunities for protection (Class
1) and restoration (Class 2). The focal fish species primarily use waters adjacent to the Refuge,
although Myrtle Creek, part of which lies within the Refuge’s boundaries, provides some habitat for
native salmonids. Deep Creek and Myrtle Creek are considered Class 2 waters in the Plan.
Conservation Strategy for Northern Idaho Wetlands (1997). This plan identified wetland types,
acreages, and status in North Idaho; divides wetlands into four management categories (based on the
following criteria: richness, rarity, condition, and viability), and identifies wetlands that are
irreplaceable or where sensitivity to disturbance is high (Jankovsky-Jones 1997).
Class I sites represent examples of plant communities in near pristine condition and often provide
habitat for high concentrations of state rare plant or animal species. The high quality condition of the
plant community is an indicator of intact site features such as hydrology and water quality. Impacts
to Class I sites should be avoided as these sites cannot be mitigated for if lost, and alteration (and in
some cases enhancement) of these sites will result in significant degradation. There are no lowland
Class I sites in the Kootenai River Valley.
Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-25
Class II sites may provide habitat for state rare plant or animal species. However, human influences
are apparent (i.e., portions of wetland in excellent condition; however drier, accessible sites are
impacted). Good to excellent assemblages of common plant community types or the occurrence of
rare community types qualifies a site as Class II. Wetlands with unique biological, geological, or
other features may be included here. In the lower Kootenai River Valley, MacArthur Lake is
considered a Class II site.
Reference sites represent high quality assemblages of common community types in the survey area or
areas where changes in management practices can be documented. The use of a reference area as a
model for restoration or enhancement projects is the best way to replicate wetland functions and the
distribution and composition of native plant communities. Reference areas may also serve as donor
sites for plant material. The Plan identified Hideaway Islands and Shorty’s Island as having some of
the last remnant stands of riparian shrublands and forest on the Kootenai River. Hideaway Islands is
currently designated as a Bureau of Land Management Area of Critical Environmental Concern
(ACEC) and Research Natural Area (RNA). Shorty’s Island is privately owned and currently has no
protections.
Habitat sites have moderate to outstanding wildlife values, such as food chain support or
maintenance of water quality, and may have high potential for designation as or expansion of existing
wildlife refuges or managed areas. Human influences are often present and management may be
necessary to maintain natural communities. Kootenai NWR is classified as a habitat site under this
plan since habitat was highly altered from pre-settlement conditions, and is intensively managed.
North American Waterfowl Management Plan - Intermountain West Joint Venture. The North
American Waterfowl Management Plan is an international action plan, signed by the United States,
Canada, and Mexico, to conserve migratory birds throughout the continent. The goal of the plan is to
return waterfowl populations to their 1970s levels by conserving wetland and upland habitats.
Transforming the goals into on-the-ground actions is accomplished through partnerships called joint
ventures. Joint ventures are comprised of individuals, corporations, conservation organizations, and
local, state, provincial, and Federal agencies. Habitat joint ventures restore and enhance wetlands
and associated upland habitats.
The Refuge falls under a focus area plan for Idaho developed by the Intermountain West Habitat
Joint Venture, which includes Washington, Oregon and California east of the Cascades and the Sierra
Nevada; all of Idaho and Utah and most of Nevada; western Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado; and
northern Arizona and New Mexico. The Coordinated Implementation Plan for Bird Conservation in
Idaho (IWJV 2005) one of a series of “focus area” plans developed from the 1990s on to provide a
broad overview of wetland and wildlife resources, and describe conservation needs and opportunities
in general areas identified as “target areas” for Joint Venture action. The Plan identified 36 priority
Bird Habitat Conservation Areas (BHCAs) in Idaho which should be considered by the IWJV for all
bird conservation projects. BHCAs display areas where bird habitat conservation projects may take
place, where state partners believe the best opportunity exists for effective conservation activities.
However, the BHCAs have no official status. BHCA designation simply notes where conservation
activities could occur. Kootenai NWR lies within BHCA 20 (Kootenai River and Watershed).
Priority habitat areas identified in the Plan include:
 Riparian (priority species: bald eagle; calliope hummingbird; blue grouse; willow flycatcher;
yellow-billed cuckoo);
1-26 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background
Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
 Non-riverine wetlands (priority species: Wilson’s phalarope; trumpeter swan; black tern;
white-faced ibis; American white pelican; common loon);
 Cedar-hemlock forest (priority species: Vaux’s swift; brown creeper; varied thrush; winter
wren; golden-crowned kinglet; Townsend’s warbler);
 Ponderosa pine forest (priority species: white-headed woodpecker; pygmy nuthatch; Lewis’s
woodpecker; flammulated owl); and
 Low elevation mixed conifer forest (priority species: Lewis’s woodpecker; Williamson’s
sapsucker; dusky flycatcher; varied thrush; brown creeper)
Riparian, non-riverine wetlands, and ponderosa pine forest and are considered Priority A (high to
medium value to birds, high to medium threat, high to medium opportunity for protection,
restoration, and or enhancement of habitat) while low elevation mixed conifer forest and cedar-hemlock
forest are considered Priority B (Medium overall rating: one criterion may be high—e.g.,
habitat value, threat, opportunity—but generally of medium importance to birds statewide). The
Kootenai River and watershed is a priority BHCA for riparian, containing 12,472 ac of this habitat;
cedar-hemlock forest (54,279 ac); low elevation mixed conifer forest (160,356 ac).
Intermountain West Regional Shorebird Plan (2000). The United States Shorebird Conservation
Plan (Brown et al. 2001) includes 11 regional plans reflecting major shorebird flyways and habitats
within the United States. The Intermountain West Regional Working Group was formed under the
auspices of the national plan to formulate shorebird management goals for the Intermountain West
(IM). The purpose of this management plan is to address shorebird management needs on a regional
basis while considering Pacific Flyway and national levels of need.
The Intermountain West Regional Shorebird Plan (Oring et al. 2000) notes that perhaps a million
shorebirds breed in the Intermountain West and millions more migrate through the area each year.
The plan recognizes that finding ample high quality fresh water will be the greatest challenge faced
by shorebirds in the Intermountain West. The regional plan articulates seven goals, plus associated
objectives and strategies related to habitat management, monitoring and assessment, research,
outreach and planning. The planning goal includes objectives to coordinate shorebird planning and
projects with other migratory bird initiatives and specifically with the IWJV. The
IWRSP identifies 11 species of shorebirds that regularly breed in the region, as well as 23 additional
species that are annual migrants.
The Refuge does not support large numbers of breeding or migrating shorebirds. Traditionally,
killdeer have been the only species of shorebird using the Refuge in any significant numbers; small
numbers of other shorebirds passing through in the fall. In 2003, Kootenai NWR completed a 175-
acre wetland restoration project on the north end of the Refuge. One of the units restored was set
aside for experimental shorebird habitat management, a habitat type not managed for in the past. The
West River’s Bend Unit was plowed/disked, planted to wheat, and then flooded during spring, 2004.
The unit itself is a very shallow flooding unit, mostly sheet water. The strategy was to keep most of
the unit in sparse vegetation early in the year while the wheat is still emerging, leaving a large
amount of mudflat habitat for shorebirds. The unit was then flooded and drawn down repeatedly
throughout the spring and summer. Once the wheat matured, the unit was tilled and replanted
following a similar reflooding schedule. One week after the first flooding, 12 long-billed curlews
were observed foraging in the new habitat while at full pool (50 percent sheet water and 50 percent
sparse green emerging wheat). In addition to curlews, Wilson’s phalarope, spotted sandpipers, and
killdeer also used the new wetland (Thomas 2005). This suggests that managing for mudflat and/or
Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-27
shallow water habitat could increase shorebird use of the Refuge. Proposed changes in wetland
management under all action alternatives will create increased shallow water conditions and moist
soil which will provide foraging habitat for shorebirds.
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan (2006). This Intermountain West Waterbird
Conservation Plan (IWWCP) is one of several regional step-down plans designed to implement the
North American Waterbird Conservation Plan (NAWCP, Kushlan et al. 2002). Waterbirds are
wetland-dependent species including both colonial breeders (e.g., gulls, terns, most grebes,
cormorants, herons, egrets, ibis and pelicans), and solitary nesting marshbirds (e.g., cranes, rails,
coots, bitterns and loons). Shorebirds and waterfowl are covered by other bird conservation
initiatives and, thus, are excluded from this plan. The goal of the IWWCP is to maintain healthy
populations, distributions, and habitats of waterbirds throughout the Intermountain West region. It
includes four Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs 9, 10, 15, and 16).
Included are a description of waterbird populations and habitats; a review of threats and management
issues; population and habitat objectives for priority species and habitats; monitoring and research
recommendations; and conservation strategies for management, monitoring, and outreach. The plan
is intended to facilitate waterbird conservation through on-the-ground projects and the incorporation
of waterbird population and habitat objectives into joint venture projects, land use planning
documents, and the conservation efforts of a diverse array of partners found throughout the
Intermountain West region.
Breeding and migrant waterbird species are ranked and prioritized for the Intermountain West region
based on modified national NAWCP rankings (colonial species) and national, state, and Partners In
Flight (PIF) listings (marshbirds) in each of the four Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) within the
planning area. Three waterbirds are identified as species of high concern in BCR 10, which includes
the Refuge: Franklin’s gull, American white pelican, and common loon. An additional 14 species
were identified as species of moderate conservation concern in BCR 10 (black tern, greater sandhill
crane (RMP), Virginia rail, sora, California gull, Forster’s tern, western grebe, Clark’s grebe, pied-billed
grebe, snowy egret, great blue heron, black-crowned night-heron, American bittern, and white-faced
ibis. Waterbirds ranked as high or moderate conservation concern are considered priorities for
conservation action in the Intermountain West region. The Plan identifies key actions for the
conservation of these species.
Kootenai River Valley Wetlands and Riparian Conservation Strategy (2004). The goal of this
strategy is to develop a comprehensive and geographically specific process to identify local
watershed objectives, priorities, community issues, and historic land use effects on the lower
Kootenai River watershed. The Strategy builds on baseline information gathered through previous
wetland conservation activities performed by the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho (KVRI 2004).
1.7.3 Pacific Flyway Management Plans
The Pacific Flyway Council (Council) is an administrative body that forges cooperation among
public wildlife agencies for the purpose of protecting and conserving migratory game birds in
western North America. The Council has prepared numerous management plans to date for most
populations of swans, geese, and sandhill cranes in the Pacific Flyway (www.pacificflyway.gov).
These plans typically focus on populations, which are the primary unit of management, but may be
specific to a species or subspecies. Management plans serve to:
1-28 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background
Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
 Identify common goals;
 Coordinate collection and analysis of biological data;
 Establish the priority of management actions and responsibility for them; and
 Emphasize research needed to improve management.
The Council creates flyway management plans to help state and Federal agencies cooperatively
manage migratory game birds under common goals. Management strategies are recommendations,
but do not commit agencies to specific actions or schedules. Fiscal, legislative, and priority
constraints influence the level and timing of implementation. Pacific Flyway plans generally guide
management and research for a 5-year planning horizon. Several of these plans pertain to species
found on the Refuge. A brief summary of the flyway management plans we considered in the
development of this CCP follows.
Pacific Flyway Management Plan for the Pacific Population of Western Canada Geese (2000).
The Pacific population of western Canada geese (Branta canadensis moffitti) nest in central and
southern British Columbia, northwestern Alberta, northern and southwestern Idaho, western
Montana, northwestern Nevada, northern California, and throughout Idaho and Oregon. A large
segment of this population is nonmigratory and resident throughout the year. In response to human
activities, such as transplants and artificial nesting structures, the population has expanded its historic
distribution. Agricultural practices, residential expansion, and park development have further
expanded this population. In some urbanized areas, the geese have become acclimated to human
interaction and reside in parks.
The goals for the Pacific population of western Canada geese are to maintain a level and distribution
that will optimize recreation opportunities and minimize depredation and/or nuisance problems in
agricultural and urban areas.
Pacific Flyway Management Plan for the Western Population of Tundra Swans (2001). The
goal of the tundra swan plan is to “ensure the maintenance of the western population of tundra swans,
at a size and distribution that will provide for all their benefits to society” (Pacific Flyway Council
2001). Objectives of the plan include maintaining a population of at least 60,000 swans in their
current geographic distribution to provide suitable public benefits. For the most part, swans use
lands which will continue to be managed for waterfowl in general with consideration being given to
swans and other waterfowl species that are more dependent upon natural and managed wetlands than
agricultural areas. Refuge wetlands provide migration habitat for up to 500 tundra swans. The
management practices in the CCP will ensure the continuation of that habitat.
1.7.4 Partners in Flight Landbird Conservation Plans
Partners in Flight (PIF) is an international coalition of government agencies, conservation groups,
academic institutions, private organizations, and citizens dedicated to the long-term maintenance of
healthy populations of native landbirds. Partners in Flight focuses their resources toward goals of
improving monitoring and inventory, research, management, and education programs involving birds
and their habitats. The PIF strategy is to stimulate cooperative public and private sector efforts in
North America and the Neotropics to meet these goals. Specific strategies for accomplishing the
goals are contained in regional landbird conservation plans. These plans describe priority habitats
and species, and provide recommended management actions to conserve priority habitats and
species.
Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-29
Idaho Bird Conservation Plan (2000). This plan focuses on restoring healthy ecosystems that will
maintain productive and complete bird communities. The plan identifies priority bird species, and
then uses those species and other information on habitat trends to focus on the highest priority
habitats. Thus, this plan takes a habitat-based approach, rather than a species-based approach, to
conserving bird populations. The Plan identifies four high priority habitats for birds in Idaho:
Riparian; Non-riverine Wetlands; Sagebrush Shrublands; and Dry Ponderosa Pine/Douglas-fir/Grand
Fir Forests. For each of these habitats, their importance to birds, habitat descriptions, State
objectives and issues, and strategies and tasks for meeting those objectives are described (Ritter
2000). Three of the priority habitats identified in the plan (riparian, non-riverine wetlands, and dry
ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir forest) occur on the Refuge. Priority 1 breeding bird species known to
breed on KNWR include bald eagle, calliope hummingbird, red-naped sapsucker, and Hammond’s
flycatcher. Another Priority 1 species, Lewis’s woodpecker, occurs on the Refuge but breeding has
not been confirmed.
1.7.5 Recovery Plans
Three species of plant and animals that currently or historically occurred on or near the Kootenai
National Wildlife Refuge are listed as threatened (T) or endangered (E) under the Endangered
Species Act: bull trout (T), Kootenai River white sturgeon (E), grizzly bear (T), and Canada lynx (T).
(The gray wolf was recently removed from the endangered species list by Congressional action; see
below.) Bull trout have been documented to occur in Myrtle Creek (USFWS 2010). The Refuge lies
within the historic range of grizzly bear, Canada lynx, and white sturgeon. Grizzly bears occur in the
Selkirk Range and have been sighted within 3 to 4 miles of the Refuge. The amount of human
intrusion typically keeps them from entering the Refuge. Woodland caribou, which are listed as
endangered, occur in low numbers in the Selkirk Range but typically use habitat above 4,000 feet
elevation and would be unlikely to descend the lower slopes of the Selkirks near the Refuge.
The peregrine falcon was formerly listed as endangered but was delisted in 1999. The bald eagle was
delisted in 2007, and the Service published National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines to give
landowners and others guidance on how to ensure that actions they take on their property are
consistent with the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Recovery plans are prepared by the Service for most endangered species. These plans specify actions
that are believed to be necessary to protect and recover the species. A brief description of Federal
recovery plans follows.
Bull Trout Draft Recovery Plan (2002). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a final rule
listing the Columbia River population of bull trout as a threatened species on June 10, 1998 (63 FR
31647). Critical habitat was designated in 2005 and revised in 2010. The Kootenai River is one of
32 critical habitat units on 3,500 water body segments across the five states. These areas are
clustered into six recovery units where recovery efforts will be focused. The Kootenai River
Recovery Unit includes streams and rivers in Montana, Idaho, and British Columbia. Within the
Unit, the historic distribution of bull trout is relatively intact. But abundance of bull trout in portions
of the watershed has been reduced, and remaining populations are fragmented. Bull trout on the
Refuge belong to the Lower Kootenai River subpopulation, downstream of Kootenai Falls through
Idaho to the United States/Canada border. Adult bull trout appear to be well distributed throughout
the Kootenai River in Idaho, but at very low densities (USFWS 2002). Extensive fish population
sampling has found no indication of reproducing local populations of bull trout in any Idaho
1-30 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background
Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
tributaries (PBTTAT 1998). The harvest of bull trout is no longer legal in the Kootenai River
drainage in the United States.
On October 12, 2010 the Service revised the 2005 critical habitat designation for bull trout. The final
rule identified 32 critical habitat units on 3,500 water body segments across the five states, including
8,772 stream miles in Idaho (more than any other state) and 170,218 acres of lakes or reservoirs
(second only to Montana). Myrtle Creek was added to critical habitat as a part of the revision.
Recovery Plan for the White Sturgeon, Kootenai River Population (1999). The Kootenai River
white sturgeon (KRW sturgeon) was federally listed as endangered on September 6, 1994 (59 FR
45989). The Recovery Plan for the Kootenai River white sturgeon (USFWS 1999) states that the
Kootenai River population of the sturgeon may be reclassified or downlisted to threatened status if:
 Natural production of white sturgeon occurs in at least 3 different years of a 10-year period; a
naturally produced year class is demonstrated when at least 20 juveniles from a year class are
sampled at more than 1 year of age.
 The estimated white sturgeon population is stable or increasing and juveniles reared through
a conservation aquaculture program are available to be added to the wild population each
year for a 10-year period. Each of these year classes must be large enough to produce 24 to
120 sturgeon surviving to sexual maturity.
 A long-term Kootenai River Flow Strategy is developed in coordination with interested state,
Federal, and Canadian agencies, and the Kootenai Tribe, at the end of the 10-year period
based on recruits of ongoing conservation efforts, sturgeon habitat research, and fish
productivity studies. An important element of this strategy is demonstration of the
repeatability of . environmental conditions necessary to produce recruits (as described above)
in future years.
Kootenai Refuge is within the historic range of Kootenai River White sturgeon and Myrtle Creek
could potentially provide rearing habitat. Feasibility studies required for restoring lower Myrtle
Creek are included as a strategy in the CCP (see Chapter 2).
Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (First Revision, 1993, Original Approved 1982). The grizzly bear
was listed as threatened in the lower 48 states on July 28, 1975 (40 FR 31734-31736). The Refuge is
adjacent to the Selkirk Mountain recovery zone of northern Idaho, northeast Washington, and
southeast British Columbia (2,200 sq mi) which has a population of approximately 40 to 50 bears
(Wakkinen and Kasworm 2004). In 1999, the Fish and Wildlife Service first issued a warranted but
precluded finding to uplist the Selkirk Mountains recovery zone population to endangered status.
However, this uplisting action continues to be precluded by higher priority listing actions.
Canada lynx. The Canada lynx was listed as threatened in the lower 48 states on March 24, 2000.
Critical habitat was designated in 2009, but a recovery plan has not yet been prepared.
Gray wolf, Northern Rocky Mountain population. The Northern Rocky Mountain (NRM)
population of the gray wolf (including Idaho) was delisted on April 2, 2009. Until August 2010,
wolves in Idaho were managed under a State management plan. Under this plan, Idaho would always
manage for more than 15 breeding pairs and 150 wolves with a target population level of about 500
wolves. Regulatory protections for most of the NRM population of gray wolf were reinstated in
order to comply with the District of Montana court order dated August 5, 2010. The court ruled that
the delisting of the Northern Rocky Mountain Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of the gray wolf
Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-31
was not valid and returned wolves to the list of endangered species. The court order covered wolves
in Idaho north of Interstate 90. South of Interstate 90, wolves were protected as an experimental
population, which provided more flexibility compared to those classified as endangered north of the
Interstate. Endangered wolves could only legally be taken when authorized by a permit issued by the
Service or if exempted by an incidental take statement associated with a consultation with the Service
which resulted in a Biological Opinion. Livestock owners were prohibited from taking wolves seen
actively chasing, attacking, or killing their livestock; only authorized agents could take chronically
depredating endangered wolves. In October, the governor of Idaho announced that the State of Idaho
would no longer manage wolves as a designated agent under the Endangered Species Act.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published a final rule in the Federal Register on October 26,
2010. In order to enforce the court order, this final rule corrected the gray wolf listing for the
northern half of Montana, the northern panhandle of Idaho, the eastern third of Washington and
Oregon, and north-central Utah as endangered and reinstated the former special rules designating the
gray wolf in the remainder of Montana and Idaho as nonessential experimental populations.
Although this action was published in the Federal Register on October 26, 2010, the court order had
legal effect immediately upon its filing on August 5, 2010. In April 2011, gray wolves were removed
from the Endangered Species list by Congressional action. This action reverted management of gray
wolves to the State of Idaho.
1.8 Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities
1.8.1 Major Issues to be Addressed in the CCP
T