CHAPTER 2. PLANNING PROCESS AND ISSUES · 2014. 12. 13. · analysis to the core planning team, the extended planning team reviewed the draft CCP/EA. Early in the planning process,

Chapter 2 - Planning Process and Issues 2-1

CHAPTER 2. PLANNING PROCESS AND ISSUES

Planning Process

Planning guidance for the development ofthis draft CCP/EA is contained in theRefuge Planning Chapter of the ServiceManual (602 FW 1-4). The Refuge SystemImprovement Act and the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirethe Service to seek public involvement inenvironmental planning, and to consider allreasonable alternatives, including a noaction alternative, which represents acontinuation of current managementpractices. Draft alternatives for the GorgeRefuges are described in Chapter 3. Thepotential effects of each alternative areanalyzed in Chapter 5.

The planning process for the Draft CCP/EAinvolved three primary steps: (1)preplanning, (2) public scoping, and (3) plandevelopment. These steps are describedbelow in more detail. Preplanning

During spring of 2000, the Serviceassembled a core planning team to prepare adraft CCP/EA for the Gorge Refuges. Thisteam consists of Service staff from theRidgefield National Wildlife RefugeComplex and Region 1 Division of RefugePlanning. Recognizing the need foradditional expertise, the core teamassembled an extended planning team thatincludes interdisciplinary specialists fromthe Service, Washington Department of Fishand Wildlife, and U.S. Forest Service. Inaddition to providing information andanalysis to the core planning team, the

extended planning team reviewed the draftCCP/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 wouldbe refined later 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 Scoping

Public scoping meetings were held inWashougal and Stevenson, Washington, onSeptember 20 and 21, 2000. Theparticipants at these meetings considered thepreliminary issues, concerns, andopportunities identified by the planningteams, and identified additional issues andprovided comments for the Service toconsider. The first planning update, mailedto potentially affected interests in September2000, described the planning process,advertised the public meetings, andrequested comments on the preliminaryissues, concerns, and opportunities. Thecomments recorded at the public scopingmeetings, on comment sheets, in letters, andin e-mails are summarized in Appendix B,the Scoping Report.

Per Service policy (602 FW 3), scopingcontinued until the draft CCP/EA wascompleted. The Service met with agencies,local governments, organizations, specialinterest groups, and citizens to further

Columbia Gorge Refuges Draft CCP/EA


explore issues and gather additionalinformation. Key meetings during thisperiod are described below according to themain topics discussed.

Feasibility Studies to Remove or ModifyDikes at Steigerwald Lake and PierceRefuges.Meetings were held on March 25 and June11, 2003. Participants included the Service,COE, Port of Camas-Washougal, andWDFW. Topics included defining thescope, objectives, and constraints for thefeasibility studies.

Mosquito Management at Franz LakeRefuge.Mosquito control has been and will likelycontinue to be a major issue for the GorgeRefuges and nearby communities,particularly the town of Skamania. Duringdevelopment of the draft CCP, the Serviceheld numerous meetings with the SouthwestWashington Health District, MultnomahCounty Vector Control, Columbia DrainageVector Control, and Skamania CountyMosquito Control Board.12 The SkamaniaCounty Mosquito Control Board 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 on June25, 2002, to review the CompatibilityDetermination. It was approved on October31, 2002.12

Water Level Management at SteigerwaldLake.The Service met with the Port of Camas-Washougal on May 9, 2001, to discuss waterlevel management 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 trips occurred on May7, 2002, and February 23, 2003. Participants included WDNR, the U.S.Forest Service, members of the NaturalHeritage Advisory Council, Washington’sNatural Heritage Program, Washington StateParks, and the Service.

Biodiversity Working Group - Beacon RockState Park.The Service participated in a series ofinformal meetings to discuss research andmanagement issues on and adjacent toBeacon Rock State Park (adjacent to PierceRefuge). Participants included WashingtonState Parks, Washington Department ofNatural Resources, U.S. Forest Service,Chinook Trail Association, The NatureConservancy, and the Service. Meetingtopics included 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 preliminarydraft alternatives.

Outdoor Recreation.The Service met with several agencies andgroups to discuss recreational use on andimmediately adjacent to the Gorge Refuges. At a regularly scheduled meeting of theWashington Backcountry HorseridersAssociation, the Service gained input onequestrian trail use, safety, and compatibilitywith other user groups. Clark County heldseveral public meetings and field trips todevelop a master plan for Captain WilliamClark Park at Cottonwood Beach.

Hunting opportunities at Steigerwald LakeRefuge were discussed with the WashingtonWaterfowl Association. Wildlife viewingopportunities adjacent to Pierce Refuge werediscussed at a meeting with the Town ofNorth Bonneville and the North BonnevilleGolf Course.

Meetings to discuss outdoor recreationissues, concerns and opportunities, were alsoheld with the members of the LowerColumbia River Estuary Partnership. Thecore planning team also met with the U.S.Forest Service and Washington Departmentof Fish and Wildlife to draft the CCP/EA.

Draft CCP Development

Following identification of issues, concerns,and opportunities, the core planning teambegan drafting the CCP and EA. Informationon the Gorge Refuges and lower ColumbiaRiver ecosystem, including existingecosystem management plans, is compiledin Chapter 4. Information on the Refuges’physical, biological, and socioeconomicenvironment was also considered. Based onthis information and discussions with theextended planning team, the core planningteam developed a vision statement for eachRefuge and an overarching set of goals forall the Refuges. In April 2001, a secondplanning update was mailed summarizingpublic comments and listing the GorgeRefuges’ draft goals and vision statements. After refining the goals, the core teamdrafted three management alternatives, andobjectives and management strategies foreach alternative (Chapter 3). Anticipatedeffects of each alternative on the physical,biological, socioeconomic, cultural, andhistoric environment were evaluated(Chapter 5), and alternatives were adjusted.

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).



Bald eagle. Photo copyright Jim Cruce

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 becauserefuges 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 focusof conservation 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 Refugeswas patterned after The NatureConservancy’s Five-S Framework for SiteConservation.10 For the purposes of thisCCP, the framework was modified to moreclosely align with Service policy. Theprocess consisted of the following steps.

Step 1: Select Conservation Targets

Conservation targets for the Gorge Refugesare listed in Appendix D and Table 2-1. These 42 targets include species,communities, and species assemblages thatmeet one or more of the following criteria;each target must be either:

• 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.11



Focal conservation targets are often priorityrefuge plant and animal species, speciesgroups, and communities, as defined inService policy 620 FW 1, but this is not arequirement.

The primary purpose for selecting the focalconservation targets was to pinpoint threatsto biodiversity and to develop strategies to

abate 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.

Focal ConservationTargets

Conservation Targets

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

Riparian System Swainson’s thrush, northern harrier, yellow-billed cuckoo, olive-sided flycatcher, yellow warbler, willow flycatcher, baldeagle, purple martin, rufous hummingbird, northwesternsalamander, western toad, red-legged frog, western pond turtle, Pacific giant salamander, Larch Mountain 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’sswift, 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-breasted nuthatch,Bewick’s wren, western pond turtle, tall bugbane, Oregon white oak/oval-leaf viburnum - poison oak (plant community)

High-Gradient Streams andAnadromous Fish

Pacific giant salamander, Cascade torrent salamander, westernbrook 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. In other words, if a key attributeis degraded (e.g., water quality), or missing(e.g., pollinators), it would seriouslyjeopardize the target’s integrity.10 Keyecological attributes for the selected targetsare described in Appendix J. For manyattributes, historical conditions are the bestmeasure of the desired condition.

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. Existingconditions are described in Chapter 4. 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 biological objectives and managementstrategies proposed 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.

Invasive Species

Invasive species are nonnative species thatharm or are likely to cause harm to theenvironment, economy, and human healthwhen introduced to an area. Invasivespecies pose a serious threat to nativespecies through competition and predation. Reed canarygrass forms dense, persistentstands within Refuge wetlands, moistmeadows, 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 conditions for native species,while other introduced vertebrates such asbullfrog and bass prey on native amphibiansand reptiles, with the potential to extirpatethese and other species from the Refuges.

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.



Chum salmon. Photo: USFWS

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 only three substantialspawning areas for threatened chum salmonin the Columbia River near Bonneville Dam. Spawning habitat is critically important forrecovery of chum salmon, and a 0.4-mile-long reach of Hardy Creek is used forspawning.

Salmonid production in the Gibbons Creekwatershed is lower than would be expectedfrom a watershed of this size.1 A number offactors are believed to be negativelyimpacting the aquatic ecosystem, includinghabitat fragmentation, especially by roadculverts; removal of riparian vegetation; in-stream habitat simplification through loss oflarge woody debris; and spawning habitatdegradation by heavy inputs of finesediment. Construction of a flood controllevee in 1966 isolated the Steigerwald Lakewetlands from the Columbia River and

created a barrier to anadromous fish.2 Realignment of the channel in 1992, onto anelevated dike, partially restored fish accessto the upper watershed. The elevatedchannel can adequately pass fish (exceptchum salmon) only at normal flows. Athigher flows, fish can be shunted over aspillway into the wetlands isolating themfrom the Columbia River.

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

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 mowinggrasslands and draining wetlands to removenonnative species have the potential to



Western pond turtle. Photo USFWS.

directly 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 ofpollution 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

Water quality in the remnant channel formedby rerouting Gibbons Creek in 1992, isanother concern at Steigerwald LakeRefuge. The channel receives wastewaterand stormwater runoff from industrialfacilities operating adjacent to the Refuge. Water samples collected from the remnantchannel in 1994 and 1995, exceeded Statewater quality criteria for pH, temperature,fecal coliform, turbidity, and dissolvedoxygen.5 Samples collected from a stormsewer violated pH, hexavalent chromium,total chromium, copper, zinc, and arseniccriteria. Sediments from the remnantchannel have exhibited elevated levels ofarsenic, 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 canarygrassto 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 consistent water levels be maintainedthroughout late winter and early spring toprevent reinfestation by canarygrass. Currently, the Gorge Refuges lack sufficientresources, including staff, equipment, andwater control, to effectively manage andmonitor its 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 maintaining

low 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 habitats 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-willowand riparian scrub-shrub is limited by thealtered hydrologic processes, maintenanceof grasslands by mowing and grazing, andcompetition from invasive plants. Somenatural regeneration is occurring at PierceRefuge and a minimal amount of plantinghas occurred along the streams. However,there has been no follow-up monitoring orweed control.



An Oak community. Photo USFWS.

Oak Woodlands 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 and ranching operations thatoccurred 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. Canada geese are counted inwinter and other species of birds areoccasionally surveyed by qualifiedvolunteers. Avian point counts conducted atPierce and Franz Lake Refuges have beendiscontinued due to other priorities.



Baseline surveys of wildlife and associatedhabitats are particularly lacking. This lackof data hinders the Refuge’s ability to useadaptive management to evaluate theeffectiveness of its management practicesand make any necessary course corrections.

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-borndisease in humans in Clark or SkamaniaCounties.6 Similarly, there are no confirmed

incidences 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.

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 The onlycontrol agent currently authorized for use onthe Refuge is the larvicide Bacillusthuringiensis var israelensis (B.t.i.). Theuse of B.t.i. to reduce the number ofmosquito larva, is also compatible whenapplied to a specific area east of Franz Lakedike, provided no salmonids are presentduring treatment. Application of B.t.i. westof the dike would not be compatible with theRefuge’s conservation efforts due to thepresence of federally-listed salmonids in thisarea and because potential impacts of B.t.i.on the aquatic food web are not adequatelyknown.

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



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 forconstruction (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 or

reduce 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 1999, 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.

Issues Outside the Scope of theCCP/EA

Aerial photographs of the Columbia Rivershoreline at Franz Lake Refuge takenbetween 1930 and 1997, indicate theshoreline has been eroding. Prior toinitiating the CCP planning process, theService developed a draft EnvironmentalAssessment addressing shoreline erosion. The Franz Lake Refuge Slope StabilizationEA was distributed to the public in 2002. Comments received on the draft will beaddressed, an Endangered Species Actconsultation will occur, and a final decisionwill be made.



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.

Documents

CHAPTER 2. PLANNING PROCESS AND ISSUES · 2014. 12. 13. · analysis to the core planning team, the extended planning team reviewed the draft CCP/EA. Early in the planning process,