U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Minidoka Planning Update 2, May 2012 © Ingrid Taylar/Creative Commons Bald eagle pair Thank You for Participating! The U.S. Fish and Wildlife with a comment form, to local organizations submitted comments Service (Service) is developing conservation and interest groups; describing their concerns a Comprehensive Conservation research organizations; local, and providing suggestions for Plan (CCP) and Environmental State, and Federal government managing the Refuge. Assessment (EA) for Minidoka agencies; Tribes; and other National Wildlife Refuge (NWR/ members of the public who have This second planning update Refuge). This plan will guide the expressed an interest in the categorizes the comments received management of the Refuge for planning process. The planning and lists primary management the next 15 years. As part of this update was also posted on the issues that will be used to refine process, we have been seeking Refuge website and was available goals and objectives and draft public input on management issues, at the Refuge office and at public management alternatives. We concerns, and opportunities. meetings. would like to thank everyone who This planning update provides has provided comments and we information on the status of the Update #1 described the CCP invite you to continue sharing your planning process and what we have process; Refuge purposes; draft ideas with us. Your participation heard from people so far. wildlife, habitat, and public use continues to be critical to the goals; and preliminary issues to success of this planning effort. In October 2011, the Service be considered in the CCP. One mailed Planning Update #1, along hundred and forty-nine people or

In This Update: Refuge Vision Statement...... Page 2 What’s Next? What Were Your Concerns?...... Page 2 (Upcoming Meetings and Milestones)...... Page 6 Key Issues...... Page 3-5 Whom to Contact ...... Page 6 2 Draft Vision Statement Minidoka NWR Over 100 years ago, the lake and molting season; colonial waterbirds on outdoor traditions to future wetlands produced by Minidoka raise their young; and untold generations. We will honor and build Dam created an oasis for numbers of migrating birds stop upon President Roosevelt’s vision waterbirds in ’s arid Snake to rest. Upland species such as and work with partners to ensure River Plain. President Theodore sage and sharp-tailed grouse, mule that the Refuge continues to be an Roosevelt’s vision to preserve and deer, elk, and antelope also thrive. oasis for wildlife for another 100 enhance special places led to the The Refuge provides opportunities years. creation of Minidoka National for people of all ages and abilities Wildlife Refuge. Here, ducks, to connect with nature, and pass geese, and grebes gather during © Dave Menke/USFWS American white pelicans © Political Graveyard/Creative Commons President Theodore Roosevelt Birders enjoy the Refuge © USFWS What Were Your Concerns for the Refuge? The initial public scoping period A total of 149 comments were description of comments received for preparation of a draft CCP/ received during initial scoping. during scoping, we have posted EA for Minidoka NWR began Comment forms were returned a Scoping Report on the Refuge in October 2011 and ended on by mail or hand delivered to the website at http://www.fws.gov/ January 31, 2012. Two public Refuge; responses also came in by pacific/planning/main/docs/ID/ meetings were held: the first in email and by phone. Three State docsminidoka.htm. Pocatello, Idaho, on October 25, of Idaho agencies responded: the 2011, and the second in Burley, Department of Fish and Game Issues Summarized Idaho, on October 26, 2011. At (IDFG), Department of Parks and these meetings, Refuge staff Recreation, and Water Resource Some comments were about broad explained the CCP process; Board. The Environmental or long-range issues, while others Refuge purposes, vision, and Protection Agency (EPA) provided suggested very specific or detailed management; and preliminary comments, as did the offices of strategies that could be used to management issues, concerns, Senator Mike Crapo and State achieve biological or public use and opportunities that had been Senator Dean Cameron. We also objectives. Many comments came identified early in the planning received responses from local from people who visit the Refuge process. They also answered community agencies. to boat and fish, or as visitors to questions from attendees and State Park. Some took written comments. Those The CCP planning team reviewed opposed closing Lake Walcott to citizens who attended the meetings and categorized the comments boating. Others suggested changes provided comments on issues and under the major planning issues to public use programs on the opportunities associated with described in this update. For those Refuge, for example, expanding management of Minidoka NWR. who would like to see a detailed the areas open for boating, 3

Concerns for the Refuge...continued from page 2 extending boating seasons, and limited access (e.g., during bass Refuge’s smallmouth bass fishery. allowing greater public access to tournaments) be allowed in Several individuals suggested the Refuge. Additional comments currently “closed to boating” slight adjustments of existing addressed the desire for increased areas. Others (primarily anglers) buoy lines. Additional comments hunting opportunities, larger felt that the current open and included allowing fishing boats hunting areas, and improved closed areas of the lake provided a with trolling motors into closed accessibility for disabled hunters. good balance between recreation areas during fishing tournaments, There were also comments and wildlife sanctuary and should opening boat fishing access from regarding the condition of be changed little, if at all. Some upstream to Refuge roads, from opening new or previously closed roads to respondents were not in favor of Gifford Springs, planting more improving the quality of existing expanding public recreation at fish, and allowing ATV access for access roads. Minidoka because they felt this ice fishing. IDFG also suggested would detract from the peaceful the Refuge consider redefining Comments were also received and uncrowded experience watercraft allowed into areas on topics related to wildlife they currently enjoy. Several closed to boating, suggesting they and habitat, including reducing comments requested boating be open to “all non-motorized American white pelican and carp seasons be extended beyond the water craft,” not just float tubes. numbers, and working closely with current September 30th end the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) date, extending until first ice. Commenters suggested additional to manage water levels for benefits Comments were also received areas be created for waterfowl to migratory birds. Comments regarding moving current buoy and upland game hunting and also addressed the need to protect lines, allowing fishing boats only, allowing big game hunting. river shorelines and riparian not allowing personal watercraft, The possibility of opening up habitat by eliminating access by creating “No Wake” zones, and a limited black powder season cattle that graze on adjacent State providing more float tubing in was mentioned. The Refuge was and Bureau of Land Management areas of low current. encouraged to provide greater (BLM) lands. Other comments accessibility and opportunities for addressed such issues as invasive Some commenters felt that disabled hunters, and to expand species control and improving and managers of Minidoka NWR and modernize accessible hunting increasing waterfowl habitat. have decreased access in the last facilities and better mark open several years, making it difficult and closed areas. Concerns were What are the Key Issues for to get to favorite fishing holes expressed that habitat quality in the Refuge? and previously available points. the hunt area had deteriorated, Suggestions were made to re-open making the area difficult to hunt. Issue 1: How will the Refuge manage closed roads and improve existing public use opportunities while roads. Non-Consumptive Uses ensuring protection of fish, wildlife, (Environmental Education, Interpretation, Wildlife and their habitats? Consumptive Uses (Hunting and Fishing) Observation, and Photography) Public Access and Boating As mentioned above, many of We received comments citing Nearly 80 percent of the overall the comments received involved the value, uniqueness, and comments received were about boating; however, many people boating, fishing, or overall access who commented on boating to Lake Walcott. The majority also commented on fishing. of the comments simply stated, Many anglers encouraged the “Don’t Close Lake Walcott to Refuge to retain the current Boating.” Some commenters “closed to boating” areas, and requested that more of Lake were not in favor of opening Walcott be opened to boating, significantly larger areas to that watercraft have unimpeded boating traffic, fearing it would © Robe Posse/Creative Commons access to the entire lake, or that have a negative impact on the Smallmouth bass 4

Concerns for the Refuge...continued from page 3 importance of quality wildlife Migratory Birds management focus for the Refuge. viewing opportunities offered at Several respondents, including One of the central questions that Minidoka NWR—that Minidoka IDFG, cited the importance of will be considered in developing NWR provides a place to get away the Refuge in providing stopover management alternatives is from the crowds where one can habitat for migrating birds. which areas will be prioritized watch wildlife while fishing from Comments stressed the need for treatments and whether shore. for protection of nesting habitat. those treatments will involve Some commenters questioned eradication or suppression. Cattle Other respondents described the protection of American white trespass and its impacts will be bringing family and friends to pelican nesting areas, saying that analyzed in detail in the CCP. the Refuge to birdwatch and they had unacceptable impacts hike the shorelines. A number of on fisheries. Removal of nesting Issue 3: How will the Refuge individuals told of growing up in habitat as a means to lower manage habitat and public uses, the area, bringing their children pelican numbers was suggested. given changes to BOR’s reservoir and grandchildren to the Refuge The Refuge was reminded of the management? to not only fish and boat, but also need to work with BOR officials to teach them about wildlife. to fluctuate water levels to create In 2010, BOR issued a final mudflats for migrating wading Environmental Impact Statement Key issues to be addressed in the birds. and Record of Decision for CCP: The CCP will address the replacement of the spillway needs of wildlife (the purposes for Invasive Species and headgate structures at which the Refuge was established) Comments were received Minidoka Dam. With the spillway and our legal mandate to provide encouraging the Refuge to replacement, BOR would be compatible wildlife-dependent continue its fight against invasive able to hold consistent water public uses (hunting, fishing, species. It was stated that habitat levels in Lake Walcott year wildlife observation, photography, quality in the hunt area was round. Several commenters were environmental education, and degraded due to invasive species, concerned that this could have interpretation). All public use making the area difficult to hunt undesirable impacts to habitat activities will be evaluated and more prone to wildfire. for fall-migrating waterfowl and for appropriateness and shorebirds and public uses (e.g., ice compatibility. Changes may be Livestock Trespass fishing). proposed to the timing, location, Respondents expressed concerns and manner of public uses if about the negative impacts to Key issues to be addressed in it is determined that without shoreline habitats caused by the CCP: BOR manages Lake these changes, the uses would trespass of cattle from adjacent Walcott for irrigation purposes. be incompatible with Refuge State and Federal lands. They The Service has no control over purposes. The fundamental suggested the Refuge explore water management of the lake, questions are: Which areas of the opportunities to eliminate the but would consult with BOR Refuge should be open to public impacts of grazing that currently on manipulating water levels, use and which areas should take place on nearby lands. where feasible and consistent remain undisturbed sanctuary? with management for irrigation How much use can the Refuge Key issues to be addressed in the purposes, to facilitate migratory accommodate while meeting CCP: Providing quality wildlife bird feeding. Alternatives for needs of focal wildlife species? habitat for a variety of migratory habitat management and public How and when should Refuge birds will be a priority in the uses in the CCP will take changes usage be managed between development of the CCP/EA, as in reservoir management into different user groups? the purpose of the Refuge is as a consideration. Issues that will be preserve and breeding grounds addressed in the CCP include how Issue 2: How will the Refuge for native birds. The control of can we work within BOR’s new manage habitats to ensure the invasive species has been, and water management framework conservation of focal resources? will continue to be, a major to provide quality habitat for 5

Concerns for the Refuge...continued from page 4 waterbirds and improve riparian Key issues to be addressed in the habitat? How should we manage CCP: Through the CCP process, Issues Outside boat and ice fishing access under the Service will assess what is BOR’s new water management known about global climate the Scope of the framework? change and how it affects the species and ecosystems that CCP Issue 4: What role will the Refuge depend on the Refuge, as well Commenters suggested the play in management of resources at as which issues can be further spraying of mosquitos within the landscape scale? studied at the Refuge and (Park). ecosystem level, and how this Several commenters made a Climate Change information can be incorporated correlation between fees paid to The EPA made extensive into Refuge management. The enter the Park, or register boats, comments on climate change, Service will also identify lands and the use of Lake Walcott. including the following: that are of potential acquisition Although Lake Walcott State Park • The CCP must consider and interest. Lands identified will is located within the boundaries analyze the impacts of climate be those that have the highest of the Refuge, it is managed and change. potential to add to the habitat • The Refuge Vision Statement run by the Idaho Department of values of the Refuge, or that Parks and Recreation (IDPR) should incorporate the role of simplify the Refuge boundary to climate change in shaping future under a management agreement improve management efficiency. between the Service, BOR, and conditions. Options include exchange of IDPR. The Refuge does not • The CCP should outline a plan land and water rights with the charge fees for entrance to, or to inventory and monitor climate State, private landowners, or the use of, the Refuge, nor does it change-related variables and BLM; withdrawal from BLM; or receive funds from Park entrance trends. purchase from willing sellers. • The CCP should include fees or boat registrations. These climate change information In all management alternatives, are fees charged by the State of in environmental education the Service will work with State Idaho. Therefore, these comments programs. and Federal partners to manage will not be addressed in the CCP. • The CCP should address adjacent lands for the benefit of However, we intend to update the ongoing environmental threats, fish and wildlife. management agreement between including the synergistic effects the Service, BOR, and the State of climate change and other All of these issues and any others regarding the management of stressors. identified will be considered Lake Walcott State Park. in detail in the CCP. We are Refuge Expansion considering your comments as we The Refuge received comments A few comments were received develop preliminary management regarding the use of water and encouraging the Refuge to alternatives and to develop draft water rights outside the scope explore the possibility of goals and objectives. Your input of recreation. Commenters acquiring adjacent lands, and will also be helpful in developing were concerned about surface expanding the Refuge boundary if strategies to meet the Refuge’s water rights and the use of water possible. biological and public use goals and for irrigation purposes. They objectives encouraged the Refuge to work Work with Partners as the with local irrigation districts to The EPA commented that the CCP establish an injection well on the Refuge should work closely with process Refuge to aid in recharging the BLM on surrounding lands and continues. local aquifer. Due to the specific with their land management plans nature of these requests, this for the benefit of both wildlife and issue is outside the scope of water resources. the CCP, and will be addressed © Donna Dewhurst Canvasback hen separately. Minidoka National Wildlife Refuge 961 East Minidoka Dam Road Rupert, ID 83350

6 Comments or Suggestions? Contact Us Address comments, questions, and requests for further information to:

Jeff Krueger, Refuge Manager Visit us online at Minidoka National Wildlife Refuge www.fws.gov/minidoka 961 East Minidoka Dam Road Rupert, Idaho 83350 or our Complex website at www.fws.gov/grayslake/seidaho/index. -or our Complex Office- html

Southeast Idaho Email your comments to: National Wildlife Refuge Complex [email protected] or 4425 Burley Drive, Suite A [email protected] Chubbuck, ID 83202 (Please place “Minidoka NWR CCP” in the subject line.

What’s Next? Upcoming Milestones

Planning Update 3/Alternatives...... Fall 2012 Public Review/Comment on draft CCP/EA....Winter/Spring 2012-13 Final CCP...... Spring 2013