A Second Affair

If you write one love letter to a place you’ve never been to, it might be construed as endearing. Like the time I wrote a letter to Muggsy Bogues, who I had not met, but was my favorite basketball player in 1993 (well before Space Jam came out, I’ll have you know).

But do it again, and perhaps it’s not so cute. As if my 16 year old self had penned a crayon-scrawled letter to Jennifer Love Hewitt, upon whom I had a big ol’ crush circa 2003. 

And so it is with something like shame that I write this follow-up to my love letter to Mud Lake WMA. Yet again, I write to another place I’ve not technically been: Camas National Wildlife Refuge. 

I guess, if I wanted to, I could make a bit stronger of a claim to having visited Camas NWR than I could reasonably do about Mud Lake WMA. I have at least laid eyes on Camas NWR, as it abuts upon Interstate-15, right across the freeway from the town of Hamer, whose name I read on the green freeway sign as hammer during most of my life. 

What’s In A Name

Camas National Wildlife Refuge, as the National in the name suggests, is administered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Mud Lake Wildlife Management Area, my first love, is administered by the State of Idaho Department of Fish and Game. I am not an administrator, and do not procedurally understand the difference between these two designations. I am, afterall, both an American and an Idahoan.

Maybe the most important thing I can say about federal versus state administration of these important wetlands that lie downstream of the Kilgore Project’s potential mine site is that the Mud Lake Wildlife Management Area 2014-2023 Management Plan is 107 pages long, while the Camas National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment clocks in at 926.

Yikes.

But since I didn’t read all of either document, perhaps the federal government shouldn’t take my grief too seriously. In which case, the State of Idaho shouldn’t accept my relief too willingly, either.

A Note On What Wildlife Refuges Are

As a part of the National Wildlife Refuge network, Camas NWR is part of “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.” So says the Draft Comprehensive Plan (DCP).

As opposed to other types of protected land, such as the state-administered Mud Lake WMA, habitat conservation is the primary focus of Wildlife Refuges. Or in the words of the writers of the DCP, “[t]he needs of wildlife and their habitats come first on [R]efuges, in contrast to other public lands that are managed for multiple uses.”

As a part of this goal, Wildlife Refuges in general, and therefore Cama NWR in particular, seek to:

“*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.”

Zooming Out, Zooming In

At first glance, it seems silly that these two sets of wetlands – which I would need to visit and circumambulate to verify that they are not, in fact, the same set of wetlands, so close are they drawn on the Road & Recreation Atlas of Idaho that I use – should be administered by different governmental agencies at different levels of jurisdiction. Silly in the same arbitrary sense in which I once stood on the banks of the Rio Grande in Big Bend National Park and threw a rock into Mexico. 

But maybe this zooming out and in along the levels of administrative jurisdiction actually points to something more organic and important about these places. An accidental lesson in ecology from a fractured bureaucratic structure.

Please allow me to use a handful of the Draft Comprehensive Plan’s 926 pages to elucidate some varying levels of recognized impact that Camas NWR has on scales ranging from local to global. 

A Preview Of The Scales

Here’s a teaser for the sections to come (*Spoiler Alert*, the key will continue to lie in the interconnectedness of Camas NWR with habitats and species all over the Western Hemisphere and beyond, as cited above). So says the DCP (boldness of selected text is mine):

The Ecological Integrity Assessment for Camas NWR (Kittel et al. 2012) concluded that Camas NWR has some of the best condition low elevation wetlands within the local Beaver-Camas watershed. Camas NWR also has some of the best base-of-the-foothills positioned wetlands in the entire Upper Snake River Watershed, especially along the northern edge of the Snake River Plain. The location of Camas’ wetland and riparian areas within a landscape that has largely been converted to intensive production agriculture, as well as its position within an interior arm of the Pacific Flyway, make it strategically important for supporting wildlife movement and long-term conservation of wetland-dependent species. [see Draft Comprehensive Plan if you’re interested in the citation]

To be totally honest, if you’ve read this far, you’ve gotten the gist of all that follows. Feel free to stop reading here and go comment to the Forest Service against exploratory drilling for the proposed cyanide heap leach mine (the Kilgore Project) that could one day sit dangerously at the top of the Camas Creek watershed that drains into Camas NWR.

Local – Camas-Beaver Watershed

Although it is a part of a vast national system of conservation-minded land protection, Camas NWR is first and foremost subject to the wildlife protection goals laid out by the State of Idaho Department of Fish and Game. In the words of the Draft Comprehensive Plan (boldness is my own): 

Camas NWR is within the Snake River Basalts Section of the Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (ICWCS). Eighty-eight Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) were identified in the Snake River Basalts Section of the Idaho CWCS. An additional 15 CWCS species with State rankings of S1 (Critically Imperiled), S2 (Imperiled), or S3 (Vulnerable) are known to inhabit Camas NWR, but were not identified as SGCN for the Snake River Basalts Section.

With these numbers, we wade back into the tricky territory of who-names-what-what. I refuse, at this point, to dissect different agencies’ different designations of Critical or Important. What matters for me here, though, is that 103 species that have been identified by some state or federal agency as being of great local conservation need have been identified in Camas NWR. 

Regional – Intermountain West

The Camas Creek watershed, whose superficial terminus lies just downstream from Camas NWR at Mud Lake WMA, is one of many, many watersheds that compose North America’s Intermountain West. The DCP elucidates the importance of wetlands like Camas NWR in the Intermountain West in this way:

Due to its arid to semi-arid climate, wetlands are scarce in the region (Ratti and Kadlec 1992). Wetlands in the Intermountain West region account for about 1 percent of the surface area (1.6 million acres) compared to 6 percent (22.5 million acres) in the Midwest region (Dahl 1990). [see Draft Comprehensive Plan if you’re interested in those citations]

This Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan (IWWCP) is one of several regional step-down plans designed to implement the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan.  Camas NWR has documented the occurrence of seven high and three moderate priority IWWCP species for BCR 9 (Great Basin). The Refuge contains colonial waterbird breeding habitat for one (Franklin’s gull) of two high concern colonial BCR 9 species. The IWWCP identified Camas NWR as one of 44 notable waterbird sites within the Intermountain West.

Please add to your list another 11 regionally important wildlife species that rely on Camas NWR. 

You might also feel free to jot down the fact that Camas NWR is one of 44 notable waterbird sites across the entire Intermountain West, a fact that will become more impressive to you the more times you drive across the vastness of Nevada.

Multi-Regional – Intersection of the Pacific, Great Basin, and Northern Rocky Regions

We can zoom out even further, and expand our scope beyond the Beaver-Camas Creek watershed and even beyond the Intermountain West. US Fish and Wildlife grants that Camas NWR is important on a Pacific scale. 

The Camas NWR is a part of USFWS Region 1 (Pacific Region), which includes the mainland states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. The Refuge is within BCR 9 (Great Basin), but also borders BCR 10 (Northern Rockies). Of the 34 mainland species identified in the Region 1 BCC list, 20 have been documented at Camas NWR. Additionally, 15 of the 28 Birds of Conservation Concern from BCR 9- Great Basin, and 15 of the 22 from BCR 10-Northern Rockies, occur at the Refuge.

Here are another 50 species that US Fish and Wildlife have deemed of inter-regional Conservation Concern at Camas NWR.

Continental/Global – The Americas, The Pacific Rim

The National Audubon Society, an important society of birders and bird lovers, has designated Camas NWR as an Important Bird Area. According to Audubon’s website:

As the U.S. partner for BirdLife International, Audubon spearheads an ambitious effort to identify, monitor, and protect the most important places for birds. We also collaborate with 19 international partners to extend a web of protection throughout the Western Hemisphere. To date Audubon has identified 2,758 IBAs covering 417 million acres of public and private lands in the United States.

There are 720 Globally important areas, 113 continentally important areas, and 1,999 locally important areas. (I know these numbers don’t add up to the 2,758 in the quote above, but as you’ll see below, the maths aren’t the vital thing here).

While Camas NWR makes up the lowliest of these important areas, holding local importance to Audubon, Mud Lake WMA, but a few stones’ throws downstream the same Camas Creek, is of global importance. 

I’ve never been a good administrator, and probably never will be, but I’m willing to look the other way if you want to go ahead and call Camas NWR an area of Global Importance, too.

I do.  

People In The Refuge

Here’s one final tidbit from the Draft Comprehensive Plan (again, boldness of the text is mine).

Generally, the Refuge does not receive high visitation. Average annual visitation over 2007-2012 was 6,600 (see Table 5.5). The majority of visitors engage in wildlife watching and wildlife photography. Bird watching appears to draw the most visitors, since the Refuge is known locally as a “birding hotspot.” More Idaho State birding records have been captured at the Refuge than at any other site in the State, attracting an increasing number of experienced birders. Wildlife photographers visit the Refuge year-round to photograph a variety of wildlife and scenic views, particularly looking east toward the Grand Tetons mountain range. Elk and white-tailed deer are popular subjects for wildlife photographers, especially during the fall rutting season.

If you are one of the 6,600 people who have visited Camas NWR in any of the years since 2007, then you have a vested interest in keeping Camas NWR clean and protected.

Besides, consider how much more you enjoy wildlife photography than photographs of environmental disasters.

Bad Math

I suppose I should do something with all the numbers that I imposed bold text upon.

I counted a total 164 sensitive species that use Camas WMA.

I know there is almost certainly some overlap in the species listed across agencies that are cited in the DCP. I did not cross reference those lists. Nor will I. Please be as surprised and impressed as I am with the fact that the number of sensitive species in Camas NWR is at least over 100.

Protect What’s Protected: A Plea

I have seen 926 thoughtful pages study and explanation that give me great hope that Camas National Wildlife Refuge is being and will continue to be cared for.

Unfortunately, outside of the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s purview is the protection of all the upstream waters that feed into these protected places.

In this larger protection effort, it’s up to all of us who use or appreciate these special wetlands – or appreciate the many other beings who do use them – to act in order to protect the upstream waters they depend on.

A cyanide heap leach mine and its earthen tailings dam containing heavy-metals laced toxic slurry just upstream from protected wetlands is not good stewardship. It’s not good anything. Nor is it good for anything, except the Excellon Resources executives who are more interested in Creating Wealth than in recreating locally or conserving our sensitive habitats.