CHAPTER 2. PLANNING PROCESS AND ISSUES · 2006. 1. 24. · Columbia Gorge Refuges CCP Chapter 2 -...

Chapter 2 - Planning Process and Issues 2-1

CHAPTER 2. PLANNING PROCESS AND ISSUES

Planning Process

The planning process for this CCP involvedthree primary steps: (1) preplanning, (2)public involvement and scoping, and (3)draft and final plan development. Each stepis described below in more detail. Preplanning

During spring of 2000, the Serviceassembled a core planning team to prepare aCCP and Environmental Assessment (EA)for the Gorge Refuges. Core team members(see Appendix C) included Service stafffrom the Ridgefield National WildlifeRefuge Complex and Region 1 Division ofRefuge Planning. Recognizing the need foradditional expertise, the core teamassembled an extended planning team thatincluded interdisciplinary specialists fromthe Service, Washington Department of Fishand Wildlife (WDFW), and U.S. ForestService. In addition to providinginformation and analysis to the coreplanning team, the extended planning teamreviewed the draft CCP/EA.

Early in the planning process, the teams metto develop a list of preliminary issues,concerns, and opportunities to be addressedin the planning effort. These issues werelater refined based on public input andfurther analysis by the teams. Prior toholding public meetings, the Yakama IndianNation, Confederated Tribes of the WarmSprings, and Chinook Tribe were invited toparticipate in the process.

Public Involvement and Scoping

Public scoping meetings were held inWashougal and Stevenson, Washington, onSeptember 20 and 21, 2000. Meetingparticipants considered the preliminaryissues, concerns, and opportunitiesidentified by the planning teams, identifiedadditional issues, and provided comments tothe Service. The first planning update,mailed to potentially affected interests inSeptember 2000, described the planningprocess, advertised the public meetings, andrequested comments on the preliminaryissues, concerns, and opportunities. Thecomments received were summarized in ascoping report (see Appendix B).

Public scoping continued up to release of thedraft CCP/EA to the public. Key scopingmeetings during this period are describedbelow according to the main topicsdiscussed.

Feasibility Studies to Remove or ModifyDikes at Steigerwald Lake and PierceRefuges.Topics included defining the scope,objectives, and constraints for the feasibilitystudies. Participants included the Service,COE, Port of Camas-Washougal, andWDFW.

Mosquito Management at Franz LakeRefuge.The Service held numerous meetings withthe Southwest Washington Health District,Multnomah County Vector Control,Columbia Drainage Vector Control, and

Columbia Gorge Refuges CCP


Skamania County Mosquito ControlBoard.12 The Skamania County proposed aprogram to control, monitor and researchmosquito populations at Franz Lake Refuge. The Refuge prepared a CompatibilityDetermination for these uses. Public reviewof and comment on the CompatibilityDetermination occurred from June 14through July 12, 2002. Refuge staff metwith local legislative representatives,Skamania County Mosquito Control Boardrepresentatives, and local residents to reviewthe Compatibility Determination. It wasapproved on October 31, 2002.12

Water Level Management at SteigerwaldLake.The Service met with the Port of Camas-Washougal to discuss water levelmanagement on the Refuge, and how itaffects the Port’s operations.

Oak Habitat Conservation Planning.The Service participated in the review of aproposal by the Washington StateDepartment of Natural Resources (WDNR)to establish the Washougal Oaks NaturalResource Conservation Area and NaturalArea Preserve. This area would include aportion of oak woodland at SteigerwaldLake Refuge. Field trip participantsincluded WDNR, the U.S. Forest Service,members of the Natural Heritage AdvisoryCouncil, Washington’s Natural HeritageProgram, Washington State Parks, and theService.

Biodiversity Working Group - Beacon RockState Park.Participants in semi-annual meetings todiscuss research and management issues onand adjacent to Beacon Rock State Park

(adjacent to Pierce Refuge) includedWashington State Parks, WashingtonDepartment of Natural Resources, U.S.Forest Service, Chinook Trail Association,The Nature Conservancy, Columbia LandTrust, and the Service. Meeting topicsincluded biological surveys, resourceplanning, invasive species control,management and restoration of grasslands,hiking trails, salmon habitat assessments andmanagement, and land acquisition.

Western Pond Turtle Management.The core planning team met several timeswith the WDFW to discuss an ongoingprogram to establish a self-sustainingpopulation of the western pond turtle atPierce Refuge. These discussions resultedin a memorandum of understanding betweenWDFW and the Service for coordinatedrelease, monitoring, and research of pondturtles at Pierce Refuge. Additionalmeetings were held to review managementalternatives.

Outdoor Recreation.The Service met with several agencies andgroups to discuss recreational use on andimmediately adjacent to the Gorge Refuges. The core planning team met frequently withthe U.S. Forest Service and WashingtonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife. TheService attended several public meetingsand field trips on a master plan for CaptainWilliam Clark Park at Cottonwood Beach. Wildlife viewing opportunities adjacent toPierce Refuge were discussed at a meetingwith staff from the City of North Bonnevilleand Skamania County.

At a regularly scheduled meeting of theBackcountry Horsemen of Washington, the



Service gained input on equestrian trail use,safety, and compatibility with other usergroups. Meetings to discuss outdoorrecreation issues, concerns, andopportunities were held with the members ofthe Lower Columbia River EstuaryPartnership. Opportunities for opening awaterfowl hunting program on the GorgeRefuges were discussed with theWashington Waterfowl Association.

Draft and Final CCP Development

Following identification of issues, concerns,and opportunities, the core planning teambegan drafting the CCP and EA. Information on the context of the GorgeRefuges in relation to its surroundingecosystem was compiled, including existingmanagement plans for the lower ColumbiaRiver. Information on the Refuges’physical, biological, and socioeconomicenvironment was also studied (see Chapter4, Refuge and Resources Description). From this information and discussions withthe extended planning team, the coreplanning team developed a vision statementfor each Refuge and a set of overarchinggoals for all three Refuges. In April 2001, asecond planning update was mailedsummarizing public comments and listingthe draft goals and vision statements. Afterrefining the goals, the core team draftedthree management alternatives. Anticipatedeffects of each alternative on the physical,biological, socioeconomic, cultural, andhistoric environment were evaluated, andalternatives were adjusted.

The draft CCP/EA was released for a 30-daypublic comment period on August 20, 2004. The affected public was notified of the

availability of these documents through aFederal Register notice, news release tolocal newspapers, the Service’s refugeplanning website, and a planning update. Tribal governments were contacted directlyfor comments. Copies of the draft CCP/EAand/or planning update were distributed toan extensive mailing list. In addition, theService gave presentations on the draftCCP/EA at public meetings held by theColumbia River Gorge Commission andSkamania County Commissioners, and metwith staff from the WDFW, City ofWashougal, and City of North Bonneville. The final CCP was revised from the draftCCP/EA based on public comment receivedon the draft document. Comment letters andService response to comments are presentedin Appendix O.

Conservation Targets

Service policy (601 FW 3) directs Refugemanagers to use the CCP planning processto determine the appropriate managementdirection to maintain, and where appropriaterestore, biological integrity, biologicaldiversity, and environmental health whileachieving refuge purposes. The RefugeSystem’s conservation focus is on nativespecies and natural communities such asthose found under historic conditions (i.e.,prior to substantial human related changes tothe landscape).

Scientists have long recognized thatbiological diversity exists at varioustaxonomic levels (family, genus, species,subspecies, population) and landscape scales(refuge, ecosystem, national, international). Evaluating existing levels of biologicaldiversity can be a daunting task because



Bald eagle. Photo copyright Jim Cruce

refuges are home to literally thousands ofspecies and potentially hundreds of naturalcommunities. Focusing on a smaller set offeatures that will have a high likelihood ofconserving the full array of biologicaldiversity on a refuge is more practical. Conservation targets, a term coined by TheNature Conservancy,10 are those features orelements of biodiversity that are the focus ofconservation within a system ofconservation areas. Conservation targetsmay be biologically based features, such asspecies and communities or environmentallyderived targets based on such factors assoils, climate, and elevation, that serve assurrogates for biological features. Mostimportant, a suite of conservation targetsshould represent a variety of spatial scalesand levels of biological organization, asappropriate to the region and as availableinformation allows.7

Conservation Targets for the GorgeRefuges

The process used to select and evaluateconservation targets for the Gorge Refugesconsisted of the following three steps.

Step 1: Select Conservation Targets

Conservation targets for the Gorge Refugesare listed in Appendix D. These 42 targetsinclude species, communities, and speciesassemblages that meet one or more of thefollowing criteria; each target must beeither:

• Identified in Refuge purposes;• A special status species (e.g., federally- or

state-listed; Birds of ConservationConcern);

• Tracked by the Washington State NaturalHeritage Program;

• Identified in pertinent existing plans (e.g.,Partners in Flight Landbird Plan); or

• A species of local interest or concern.

For planning purposes, it was necessary toaddress an even smaller suite ofconservation targets at the Refuge levelbecause it is difficult to individually assessall of the conservation targets that occur at aRefuge and to develop goals and objectivesfor each one. Through a sorting andaggregation process, “focal conservationtargets” were selected for the GorgeRefuges, that serve as surrogates for the 42conservation targets (Table 2-1).

The primary purpose for selecting the focalconservation targets was to pinpoint threatsto biodiversity and to develop strategies toabate or eliminate these threats and enhancethe overall biological integrity, diversity,and environmental health of the Refuges. Focal conservation targets are a planningtool which may need adjustment over timeas new threats emerge and existing threatsare abated, or if the conservation situationchanges significantly.



Table 2-1. Focal conservation targets selected in the CCP planning process to represent theconservation targets for the Gorge Refuges. Conservation Targets in bold font are documentedto occur on one or more of the Gorge Refuges.

Focal ConservationTargets

Conservation Targets

Wetland Complex Yuma myotis bat, great blue heron, Canada goose, peregrinefalcon, bald eagle, purple martin, dabbling ducks (andother waterfowl), northwestern salamander, western toad,red-legged frog, western pond turtle, Bradshaw’s lomatium

Riparian System Swainson’s thrush, northern harrier, yellow-billed cuckoo, olive-sided flycatcher, yellow warbler, willow flycatcher,bald eagle, purple martin, rufous hummingbird,northwestern salamander, western toad, red-legged frog,western pond turtle, Pacific giant salamander, LarchMountain salamander, Cascade torrent salamander

Columbia River Shoreline Columbia yellowcress

Grasslands Townsend’s western big-eared bat, gray-tailed vole, Yuma myotis bat, brush prairie pocket gopher, Canada goose,Vaux’s swift, northern harrier, western meadowlark,western pond turtle, white-top aster, Bradshaw’s lomatium

Oak Woodland and OakSavanna

Townsend’s western big-eared bat, western gray squirrel, Lewis’s woodpecker, slender-billed white-breastednuthatch, Bewick’s wren, western pond turtle, tall bugbane,Oregon white oak/oval-leaf viburnum - poison oak (plantcommunity)

High-Gradient Streams andAnadromous Fish

Pacific giant salamander, Cascade torrent salamander,western brook lamprey, Pacific lamprey, chum salmon,coho salmon, steelhead, Chinook salmon, bull trout

Step 2: Identify and Evaluate KeyEcological Attributes of ConservationTargets

Key ecological attributes are criticalcomponents of a target’s life history, habitat,physical processes, or communityinteraction. If a key attribute is degraded

(e.g., water quality), or missing (e.g.,pollinators), it would seriously jeopardizethe target’s integrity.10 Key ecologicalattributes for the selected targets aredescribed in Appendix J. For manyattributes, historical conditions are the bestmeasure of the desired condition.



Chum salmon. Photo: USFWS

Step 3: Draft Management Objectives

In the third and final step, the teamevaluated existing or on-the-groundconditions of the key ecological attributesand compared these conditions torequirements identified in Step 2. Contrasting existing conditions with historicconditions clarified key problems that mayadversely affect populations and habitats ofnative fish, wildlife, and plants, found on theRefuges. These problems and associatedissues raised during scoping were the basisfor the biological objectives andmanagement strategies in Chapter 3.

Planning Issues

Using information gathered from all of theaforementioned sources, the core planningteam defined the major issues to address inthe CCP/EA and developed the followingissue statements.

Fisheries

The Gorge Refuge watersheds providespawning and rearing habitat for severalspecies of anadromous fish, includingspecies listed or candidates for listing underthe Endangered Species Act. Pierce Refugesupports one of the last chum salmon runsstill existing within the lower ColumbiaRiver. Spawning habitat is criticallyimportant for recovery of chum salmon withspawning occurring in a 0.4-mile-long reachof Hardy Creek.

There are complete or partial blockages tofish habitat in Indian Mary Creek and HardyCreek at Franz Lake and Pierce Refugesrespectively.

At Steigerwald Lake Refuge, salmonidproduction in the Gibbons Creek watershedis lower than would be expected from awatershed of this size.1 A number of factorsare believed to be negatively impacting theaquatic ecosystem, including habitatfragmentation, especially by road culverts;removal of riparian vegetation; in-streamhabitat simplification through loss of largewoody debris; and spawning habitatdegradation by heavy inputs of finesediment. Construction of a flood controllevee in 1966 isolated the Steigerwald Lakewetlands from the Columbia River andcreated a barrier to anadromous fish.2 Realignment of the Gibbons Creek channelin 1992 onto an elevated dike partiallyrestored fish access to the upper watershed. The elevated channel can adequately passfish (except chum salmon) only at normalflows. At higher flows, fish can be shuntedover a spillway into the wetlands isolatingthem from the Columbia River.



Western pond turtle. Photo USFWS

Western Pond Turtle

In cooperation with the Service, theWashington Department of Fish andWildlife is releasing western pond turtles atPierce Refuge with the objective ofestablishing a self-sustaining population inthe Columbia River Gorge. Evidence ofsuccessful breeding will confirm that a self-sustaining population has been established. Long-term monitoring of turtles will benecessary, not only to verify nesting but alsoto determine sources of predation and toevaluate competition between western pondturtle and co-occurring native westernpainted turtle. Additional studies will beneeded for the Service to evaluate thesuitability of Steigerwald Lake Refuge as arelease site for western pond turtles.

Pierce Refuge was selected as a release sitefor western pond turtles because it containssuitable habitat that is isolated from roadsand other centers of human activity. Refugemanagement activities such as mowing

grasslands and draining wetlands to removenonnative species have the potential todirectly or indirectly impact western pondturtle survival and production. Establishinga western pond turtle population should becoordinated and conducted in a mannercomplimentary and compatible with otherexisting natural resource, recreation,cultural, and historical managementprograms at Pierce Refuge.

Water Quality

Contaminated water and fine sediments areentering Steigerwald Lake Refuge fromGibbons Creek flows. Non-point sources of pollution in the creek upstream of theRefuge include urban runoff, leakingunderground septic tanks, land development,and agricultural and silvicultural practices. The creek is on the State 303(d) list as awater quality limited waterbody for fecalcoliform bacteria. Gibbons Creek watershedalso suffers from high water temperature,nitrate concentration, elevated totalphosphorus concentration, and high levels offine sediments.1,4

When Gibbons Creek was rerouted in 1992,the remnant Gibbons Creek channel carryingwaters from Steigerwald Lake becameanother concern at the Refuge. The channelreceives wastewater and stormwater runofffrom industrial facilities operating adjacentto the Refuge. Water samples collectedfrom the remnant channel in 1994 and 1995exceeded State water quality criteria for pH,temperature, fecal coliform, turbidity, anddissolved oxygen.5 Samples collected froma storm sewer violated pH, hexavalentchromium, total chromium, copper, zinc,and arsenic criteria. Sediments from the



remnant channel have exhibited elevatedlevels of arsenic, chromium, copper, zinc,cadmium, and lead.

In comparison to the Gibbons Creekwatershed, potential sources of waterpollution within the watersheds of FranzLake and Pierce Refuges are minimal;however, water quality is not monitored inthese areas. The upper watershed at PierceRefuge has among the highest road density,stream crossing density, and miles of roadswith slopes exceeding 50 percent, of anywatershed in the Washington side of theColumbia River Gorge National ScenicArea.13 This watershed also contains trailsoriginating at Beacon Rock State Park. Roads and trails can reduce water qualitythrough runoff, erosion, soil disturbance,and vegetative loss.

Clark County is monitoring water quality inGibbons Creek for one year as part of itswatershed cleanup plan. There is no waterquality testing for water entering Franz Lakeand Pierce Refuges. Impacts of degradedwater quality on Refuge fish, wildlife, andhabitats are currently unknown.

Wetland Management

Steigerwald Lake and Pierce Refugescontain diked wetlands (impoundments)with water control structures. These areused to manage water levels to suppress thedominance of invasive species, particularlyreed canarygrass, and to provide aquatichabitat for native wildlife. The PierceRefuge impoundments are either too deep ortoo densely vegetated with reed canarygrass

to support a diverse native emergent plantcommunity. Managing water at SteigerwaldLake requires factoring in two issues. First,the Columbia River dike isolates thewetlands from the river, making it difficultto manage for productive native emergentand wet meadow communities. The areashistorically supporting these nativecommunities are now dominated bynonnative reed canarygrass, a species whichis difficult and costly to control. The mostcost-effective treatment for large areasinvolves disking (tillage) to remove deadcanarygrass with follow-up application ofherbicide during the growing season.9 Along with these treatments, it is essentialthat sufficient water depths be maintainedthroughout late winter and early spring toprevent canarygrass regrowth. Currently,the Gorge Refuges lack sufficient resources,including staff, equipment, and watercontrol, to effectively manage and monitorits wetlands.

The second water level management issue atSteigerwald Lake Refuge is the presence ofthe Port of Camas-Washougal IndustrialPark downstream from the Refuge’s watercontrol structures. The Port has requestedthe Service manage the lakebed as astormwater detention basin by maintaininglow water levels in the winter. The Port hasthree flood pumps which they operate toremove water from the outflow ofSteigerwald Lake. During periods of highrainfall, the Port would like to rely on thefull capacity of the lakebed to store wateruntil the pumps can lower the waterelevation in preparation for the next stormevent.



Riparian Habitat Management

Riparian habitat on the Gorge Refugesincludes bottomland forest and scrub-shrubvegetation. Columbia River ripariancommunities evolved under a dynamichydrologic regime. Human activities havesubstantially altered these processes, withprofound effects to riparian habitat. Mostnotably, the construction and operation of219 dams in the Columbia River watershedhas lengthened spring freshet and loweredpeak flows.8 Extreme or repeatedfluctuations in water elevations resultingfrom operation of Bonneville Dam haveaccelerated bank erosion in some areas andincreased sedimentation rates in others.

Agricultural and silvicultural land usepractices prior to establishment of the GorgeRefuges further reduced riparian areas andleft behind isolated patches of forest cover. Natural regeneration of cottonwood-ash andscrub-shrub riparian habitats is limited bythe altered hydrologic processes, maintenance of adjoining grasslands bymowing and grazing, and competition frominvasive plants. Some natural regenerationis occurring at Pierce Refuge, and a minimalamount of planting has occurred along thestreams. However, there has been nofollow-up monitoring or weed control.

Invasive Species

Invasive species are nonnative species thatharm or are likely to cause harm to theenvironment, economy, and human health

when introduced to an area. Invasivespecies pose a serious threat to nativespecies through competition and predation. For example, reed canarygrass forms dense,persistent stands within Refuge wetlands,moist meadows, and riparian habitats, whichreduces native plant diversity. Densethickets of Himalayan blackberry preventnative shrubs and trees from establishing,thereby negatively impacting forest standstructure and reducing food resources fornative wildlife. Carp and nutria degradeaquatic habitat for native species, whileother introduced vertebrates such as bullfrogand bass prey on native amphibians andreptiles.

Nationwide, impacts from invasive speciesare considered to be the most critical issuefacing wildlife refuges. Hundreds ofnonnative species inhabit the PacificNorthwest, and the tide of invasives iscertain to continue. The Gorge Refuges arestrategically located to receive new invaderssuch as mitten crab and zebra mussel. Current levels of surveillance may beinadequate to detect newly arrived speciesbefore they become firmly established. Theimpacts of nonnative species are not wellunderstood, and the most appropriate andcost effective response is often uncertain. Current management actions to combatinvasive species focus on control anderadication, with little action on prevention,education, research, and monitoring.



Oak community. Photo USFWS

Oak Community Management

Oak communities in Washington State aredeclining in extent and condition.3 The oakcommunity at Steigerwald Lake Refuge is aparticularly rare plant association and isconnected to the largest oak woodlandcommunity of its kind in the region.

Along the edges of the oak woodlands andamong small, disjunct stands of oak,invasive plants have displaced nativeunderstory species. Nonnative species,particularly Himalayan blackberry, suppressnatural regeneration of oaks. Refugegrassland management practices inhibit orprevent oaks from recolonizing historichabitat. Further, historic prevention offrequent low intensity burns in oakwoodlands is allowing Douglas-fir toovertop oaks, which may displace them.

With no active management of oak habitatoccurring on the Gorge Refuges, the longterm viability of this important habitat typeis jeopardized.

Grassland Management

Most grassland habitat at Pierce andSteigerwald Lake Refuges is the product oflogging, ranching, and farming operationsthat occurred prior to the Service takingownership of the land. Previous landownersdrained wetlands, cleared native vegetation,and planted nonnative grasses to createpastures for livestock. The Service hascontinued to maintain the same pastures aswinter browse for Canada geese. Mowing,grazing, and fertilizer help to maintain short,nutritious grass forage for the geese. Herbicide spraying and biological controlagents are used to control weeds in problemareas. Pasture management is, however,labor intensive, and implementation andresults have been inconsistent due to limitedstaff. Moreover, the amount of pastureexceeds the area currently being used by thegeese, providing opportunities for an oldfield and native grassland managementprogram to benefit a wider variety of nativespecies.

Inventory, Monitoring and Research Needs The National Wildlife Refuge SystemImprovement Act requires the Service tomonitor the status and trends of fish,wildlife, and plants on each refuge in theSystem. Though acquired approximately 15years ago, few biological surveys (other thanfor fish) have been conducted on the GorgeRefuges. At Steigerwald Lake Refuge,wintering Canada geese were surveyedbetween 1996 and 2004. These goosesurveys were suspended after 2004 due tofunding and staffing declines. Other speciesof birds are surveyed by a qualifiedvolunteer on a monthly basis. Avian pointcounts conducted at Pierce and Franz Lake



Refuges have been discontinued due to otherpriorities. Baseline surveys of wildlife andassociated habitats are particularly lacking. This lack of data hinders the Refuge’sability to use adaptive management toevaluate the effectiveness of its managementpractices and make any necessary coursecorrections.

In Fulfilling the Promise,11 the Serviceacknowledged the need for each refuge inthe Refuge System to identify management-oriented research needs based on RefugeSystem, ecosystem, and refuge goals. Refuges need to develop an effectiveprogram to identify and provide resourcesrequired, as well as involve partners toaccomplish high priority research. Severalresearch projects have been completed orare in progress on the Gorge Refuges (seeChapter 4). Priority management-orientedresearch needs have not been identified,however, and a program to attract qualifiedresearchers has not been developed. Aswith most refuges, the Gorge Refuges lackthe staff to engage in complex, multi-yearresearch projects.

Compatibility of Mosquito Control at FranzLake Refuge

Columbia River floodwaters provideoptimal breeding conditions for mosquitoeson Franz Lake and other wetland areasconnected to the river. Residents ofSkamania, Washington, who consider FranzLake Refuge to be a major source ofmosquitoes in their community, areconcerned about the nuisance and healthrisks associated with large numbers of bitingmosquitoes. The mosquitoes can beextremely annoying; however, there havebeen no recorded cases of mosquito-born

disease in humans in Clark or SkamaniaCounties.6 Similarly, there are no confirmedincidences of West Nile virus infectinghumans in Washington. In the UnitedStates, West Nile virus is transmitted byinfected mosquitoes, primarily members ofthe Culex species. The most commonspecies of mosquito in the Franz LakeRefuge area are Aedes vexans and A.sticticus. Experimentally, Aedes vexansexhibit moderate infection and transmissionrates for West Nile virus.

Local mosquito control districts haverequested permits from the Service to treatmosquito larvae at Franz Lake Refuge. TheService has permitted the Skamania CountyMosquito Control District to monitor andtreat mosquitoes within specific areas ofFranz Lake Refuge, as stipulated in theService’s Compatibility Determinationapproved in October 2002.12 This documentis available, upon request, at the office forSteigerwald Lake Refuge. The only controlagent currently authorized for use on theRefuge is the larvicide Bacillusthuringiensis var israelensis (B.t.i.). Theuse of B.t.i. to reduce the number ofmosquito larva has been determined to becompatible when applied to a specific areaeast of Franz Lake dike, provided nosalmonids are present during treatment. Application of B.t.i. west of the dike wouldnot be compatible with the Refuge’sconservation efforts due to the presence offederally-listed salmonids in this area andbecause potential impacts of B.t.i on theaquatic food web are not adequately known.

Site-specific research is needed to address: (1) the overlap in seasonal habitat usebetween listed salmonids and mosquitolarvae, and (2) the efficacy and non-target



effects of B.t.i. treatments. Until furtherresearch and evaluations are completed tosupport a compatible use determination, theService can not approve B.t.i. mosquitotreatments west of the Franz Lake dike. Issues of mosquito treatment are not furthuraddressed within the CCP. These issueswere addressed in a separate planningdocument and will be reevaluated withinfuture Compatibility Determinations, as site-specific research and evaluations arecompleted.

Public Access and Use

The public currently has limitedopportunities to visit the Gorge Refuges. Inaddition to occasional staff-led events andenvironmental education activities at Pierceand Steigerwald Lake Refuges, year-roundaccess to Steigerwald Lake Refuge along theColumbia River Dike Trail is available. Theonly road onto Franz Lake Refuge crossesprivate property. The Service acquired aneasement on the road strictly foradministrative purposes; therefore, publicuse does not currently occur at the Refuge.

The Refuge System Improvement Actdirects the Secretary of the Interior to giveserious consideration to increasingopportunities for wildlife-dependentrecreational uses when they are compatibleand consistent with sound principles of fishand wildlife management.

Opportunities at Steigerwald Lake Refugefor wildlife observation, wildlifephotography and environmental educationand interpretation may improve in the futurewith development of the visitor center andinterpretive trail already approved for

construction (funding is currently beingsought). Scoping comments indicate thatthe public has a strong interest in Refugestaff becoming more involved in nearbycommunities and informing residents aboutRefuge programs and resources.

Opportunities for opening Steigerwald LakeRefuge to limited waterfowl hunting andfishing are also explored in the CCP. Whileopportunities exist on the Gorge Refuges toprovide high-quality, compatible publicuses, a majority of public commentsreceived during the scoping periodrecommended the Service maintain orreduce existing public access whileproviding remote or off-site viewingopportunities to protect unique and sensitiveresources.

When Steigerwald Lake Refuge wasestablished, non-wildlife-dependentrecreational uses that had been occurring onthe Columbia River Dike Trail for manyyears were unofficially allowed to continue. In a 1999 Environmental Assessment toconstruct the Steigerwald Lake GatewayCenter, the Service issued a decision toclose 0.6 miles of the trail to horses, dogs,and bicycles. This closure was deemednecessary to provide the public with a high-quality, wildlife-dependent recreationalexperience. The closure has not beenimplemented and the trail remainsunofficially open to the public. Horsebackriders are opposed to the closure due to thelack of alternative areas for riding during thewet winter and spring period. Peoplewalking dogs, on- or off-leash, is a commonuse of the trail. The compatibility of theseuses with Refuge purposes has not beenevaluated.



References

1. Barndt, S., J. Taylor, T. Coley, B. Ensign,J. Stone, and M. Yoshinaka. 2003. Determinates of Gibbons Creek watershedcondition and health: results of the GibbonsCreek watershed analysis, 1997-1999. U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, Columbia RiverFisheries Program Office, Vancouver, WA.

2. Bicknell, R. J. 1988. Steigerwald LakeNational Wildlife Refuge annual report.Washington Department of Wildlife,Vancouver, WA.

3. Chappell, C. B, R. C. Crawford, C.Barrett, J. Kagan, D. H. Johnson, M.O’Mealy, G. A. Green, H. L. Ferguson, W.D. Edge, E. L. Greda, and T. A. O’Neil.2001. Wildlife habitats: descriptions, status,trends, and system dynamics. in: Johnson,D. H., and T. A. O'Neil, ManagingDirectors. Wildlife-habitat relationships inOregon and Washington. Oregon StateUniversity Press, Corvallis, OR.

4. Ehinger, W. 1993. Summary of ambientmonitoring data collected from theColumbia Gorge basin, WRIA 27-29.Washington State Department of Ecology,Olympia, WA.

5. Erickson, K., and J. Tooley. 1996.Gibbons Creek remnant channel receivingwater study. Washington State Departmentof Ecology, Olympia, WA.

6. Grendon, J. 2000. The history of vectorborne disease in Washington. NorthwestMosquito Vector Control AssociationDisease Surveillance Workshop.Unpublished.

7. Groves, C. R. 2003. Drafting aconservation blueprint: a practitioner's guideto planning for biodiversity. Island Press,Covelo, CA.

8. Habegger, E. P., W. Dunwiddie, and J.Gehring. 1998. Effects of river level onpopulation dynamics of Rorippa columbiaeon Pierce Island, Washington. The NatureConservancy, Washington Field Office,Seattle, WA.

9. Paveglio F. L., and K. M. Kilbride. 2000. Response of vegetation to control of reedcanarygrass in seasonally managed wetlandsof southwestern Washington. WildlifeSociety Bulletin 28(3): 730-740.

10. The Nature Conservancy. 2000. TheFive-S Framework for site conservation: apractitioner's handbook for site conservationplanning and measuring conservationsuccess. The Nature Conservancy,Arlington, VA.

11. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Fulfilling the Promise, the National WildlifeRefuge System, Visions for wildlife, habitat,people and leadership. U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

12. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Compatibility Determination for mosquitomonitoring, control, and research. U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service, Ridgefield NationalWildlife Refuge Complex, Ridgefield, WA.

13. U.S. Forest Service. 2002. WesternWashington Columbia River tributarieswatershed analysis. U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service, Hood River,OR.

Date post:	28-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

CHAPTER 2. PLANNING PROCESS AND ISSUES · 2006. 1. 24. · Columbia Gorge Refuges CCP Chapter 2 -...

Documents