Columbia National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

              Columbia
National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and
Environmental Assessment
Prepared by:
Columbia National Wildlife Refuge
Mid-Columbia National Wildlife Refuge Complex
64 Maple Street
Burbank, Washington 99323
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Pacific Northwest Planning Team
911 NE 11th Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97232
July 2011
Columbia National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Table of Contents i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................. vi
Maps
Map 1 – Location ........................................................................................................................... 1
Map 2 – Land Ownership .............................................................................................................. 2
Map 3 – Habitat Types, Management Units 1-5 ............................................................................ 3
Map 4 – Habitat Types, Management Unit 6 ................................................................................. 4
Map 5 – Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, Management Unit 6 .................................................................. 5
Map 6 – Alternative 1, Management Units 1-5 ............................................................................. 6
Map 7 – Alternative 2, Management Units 1-5 ............................................................................. 7
Map 8 – Alternative 3, Management Units 1-5 ............................................................................. 8
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background ........................... 1-1
1.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.2 Proposed Action ....................................................................................................................... 1-2
1.3 Purpose and Need for Action ................................................................................................... 1-2
1.4 Columbia NWR Purposes and Establishment History ............................................................. 1-3
1.5 Legal and Policy Mandates ...................................................................................................... 1-4
1.5.1 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act ........................................................ 1-4
1.5.2 National Wildlife Refuge System Mission and Goals ...................................................... 1-5
1.5.3 Tribal Rights and Interests ................................................................................................ 1-5
1.5.4 State of Washington Wildlife Management ...................................................................... 1-6
1.5.5 Public Uses of Columbia NWR ........................................................................................ 1-7
1.6 Relationship to Other Planning Efforts .................................................................................... 1-7
1.6.1 Columbia River/Basin Region .......................................................................................... 1-7
1.6.2 Migratory Bird Plans ......................................................................................................... 1-8
1.6.3 Other Service Plans ........................................................................................................... 1-9
1.6.4 Other Federal Agency Plans ........................................................................................... 1-10
1.6.5 Washington State Plans ................................................................................................... 1-11
1.7 Step-Down Plans .................................................................................................................... 1-14
1.8 CCP Review, Amendment, and Revision .............................................................................. 1-15
1.9 Issues, Concerns and Opportunities ....................................................................................... 1-15
1.9.1 Issues Addressed in the CCP .......................................................................................... 1-15
1.9.2 Issues Outside the Scope of the CCP .............................................................................. 1-17
Columbia National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
ii Table of Contents
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-1
2.1 Considerations in Alternative Design ...................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Alternative Descriptions .......................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2.1 Alternative 1 – No Action ................................................................................................. 2-1
2.2.2 Alternative 2 – Emphasis On Wildlife-Dependent, Non-Consumptive, Passive Visitor Use
.................................................................................................................................................... 2-2
2.2.3 Alternative 3 – Emphasis On Wildlife-Dependent, Consumptive, Active Visitor Use .... 2-3
2.3 Features Common to All Alternatives ..................................................................................... 2-3
2.3.1 Compliance and Cooperation With State Plans ................................................................ 2-3
2.3.2 Implementing Policies on “Closed Until Open” ............................................................... 2-3
2.3.3 Implementation Subject to Funding Availability .............................................................. 2-4
2.3.4 Refuge Revenue Sharing Payment .................................................................................... 2-4
2.3.5 Tribal Coordination ........................................................................................................... 2-4
2.3.6 Wilderness and Wild & Scenic Rivers Review ................................................................ 2-4
2.3.7 Integrated Pest Management ............................................................................................. 2-5
2.3.8 Monitor Effects of Visitor Use on Wildlife ...................................................................... 2-6
2.3.9 Regulatory Compliance..................................................................................................... 2-6
2.3.10 Maintaining/Upgrading Existing Facilities ..................................................................... 2-7
2.3.11 State Coordination........................................................................................................... 2-7
2.3.12 Volunteer Opportunities .................................................................................................. 2-7
2.3.13 Adaptive Management .................................................................................................... 2-7
2.3.14 Planning and Review of Development Activities ........................................................... 2-7
2.3.15 Biological Integrity ......................................................................................................... 2-7
2.3.16 Natural Processes ............................................................................................................ 2-8
2.3.17 Best Management Practices ............................................................................................ 2-9
2.4 Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ........................................................................................... 2-11
Goal 1. Protect, maintain and, where feasible, enhance and restore upland habitats, plant
communities, and wildlife species representative of the Columbia Basin. ............................... 2-12
Goal 2. Protect, maintain and, where feasible, enhance and restore a diverse assemblage of
open-water and riparian habitats and wildlife species characteristic of the Columbia Basin. .. 2-23
Goal 3. Protect and maintain a diverse assemblage of wetland habitats characteristic of the
Columbia Basin. ........................................................................................................................ 2-29
Goal 4. Gather scientific information (inventories, monitoring, research, and assessments) to
support adaptive management decisions. .................................................................................. 2-36
Goal 5. Provide access and opportunities for high-quality recreation compatible with resource
protection. ................................................................................................................................ 2-41
Columbia National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Table of Contents iii
Goal 6. Visitors will understand and appreciate the importance of the Channeled Scablands area
within the Columbia Basin through interpretation, environmental education, and wildlife-dependent
recreation. ................................................................................................................ 2-44
Goal 7. Provide high-quality hunting and fishing programs on the refuge that promote visitor
appreciation and support for refuge programs. ......................................................................... 2-48
Goal 8. Manage cultural and geological resources for their educational, scientific, and cultural
values for the benefit of present and future generations of refuge users and communities. ..... 2-51
Goal 9: Contribute to the protection of the long-term environmental health of the Columbia
Basin ecosystem through land exchanges, agreements, acquisition, and disposal of refuge lands
and/or interests. ......................................................................................................................... 2-53
2.4.1 Habitat Type Summary ................................................................................................... 2-55
Chapter 3. Physical Environment ........................................ 3-1
3.1 Geographic/Ecosystem Setting ................................................................................................ 3-1
3.2 Climate .................................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.3 Geology and Soils .................................................................................................................... 3-2
3.3.1 Geology ............................................................................................................................. 3-2
3.3.2 Soils .................................................................................................................................. 3-2
3.4 Hydrology and Water Quality .................................................................................................. 3-3
3.4.1 Hydrology ......................................................................................................................... 3-3
3.4.2 Water Quality .................................................................................................................... 3-4
3.5 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................... 3-5
3.6 Adjacent Land Uses ................................................................................................................. 3-6
3.7 Vegetation and Habitats ........................................................................................................... 3-7
3.7.1 Grasslands ......................................................................................................................... 3-8
3.7.2 Sagebrush/Shrub-Steppe ................................................................................................... 3-9
3.7.3 Greasewood ..................................................................................................................... 3-10
3.7.4 Scrub-Shrub .................................................................................................................... 3-10
3.7.5 Cliffs, Talus Slopes, and Rock Outcroppings ................................................................. 3-11
3.7.6 Farm Fields – Small Grain and Green Forage Crops ...................................................... 3-11
3.7.7 Seep Streams and Channels ............................................................................................ 3-11
3.7.8 Shallow Water Lakes ...................................................................................................... 3-11
3.7.9 Instream and Riparian ..................................................................................................... 3-12
3.7.10 Seasonal Alkali Wetlands ............................................................................................. 3-12
3.7.11 Emergent Marsh ............................................................................................................ 3-12
3.7.12 Moist Soil Management Areas ...................................................................................... 3-13
3.7.13 Willow Woodland ......................................................................................................... 3-13
Columbia National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
iv Table of Contents
3.8 Wildlife ................................................................................................................................. 3-13
3.8.1 Mammals ......................................................................................................................... 3-13
3.8.2 Birds ............................................................................................................................... 3-16
3.8.3 Reptiles and Amphibians ................................................................................................ 3-24
3.8.4 Fish ................................................................................................................................. 3-25
3.9 Threatened, Endangered, and Rare Species ........................................................................... 3-29
3.9.1 Steelhead – Redband Trout ............................................................................................. 3-29
3.9.2 Northern Leopard Frog ................................................................................................... 3-29
3.9.3 Washington Ground Squirrel .......................................................................................... 3-29
3.9.4 Greater Sage-Grouse ....................................................................................................... 3-29
3.9.5 Pygmy Rabbit .................................................................................................................. 3-30
3.10 Invasive and Pest Species .................................................................................................... 3-30
3.11 Cultural Resources and History ........................................................................................... 3-32
3.11.1 Pre-Historic and Historic Resources ............................................................................. 3-32
3.12 Socioeconomics ................................................................................................................... 3-33
Chapter 4. Environmental Analysis ..................................... 4-1
4.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 4-1
4.1.1 Overview of Effects Analysis ........................................................................................... 4-2
4.2 Effects to Geology and Soils .................................................................................................... 4-3
4.3 Effects to Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................. 4-4
4.4 Effects to Air Quality ............................................................................................................... 4-5
4.5 Effects to Biological Resources ............................................................................................... 4-6
4.5.1 Terrestrial Habitats and Wildlife ....................................................................................... 4-6
4.5.2 Wetland and Aquatic Habitats, Fish and Wildlife .......................................................... 4-19
4.5.3 Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive Species ............................................................... 4-28
4.6 Integrated Pest Management Program/Plan ........................................................................... 4-32
4.7 Effects to Cultural Resources ................................................................................................. 4-33
4.8 Economic Effects ................................................................................................................... 4-34
4.9 Environmental Justice ............................................................................................................ 4-35
4.10 Cumulative, Long-Term and Irreversible Effects ................................................................ 4-36
4.10.1 Cumulative/Indirect Effects .......................................................................................... 4-36
4.10.2 Potential Irretrievable & Irreversible Commitments .................................................... 4-40
4.10.3 Relationship Between Short-Term Uses of the Human Environment and Enhancement of
Long-Term Productivity ........................................................................................................... 4-40
Columbia National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Table of Contents v
Chapter 5. Consultation, Coordination, Preparation ......... 5-1
5.1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Policy ..................................................................................... 5-1
5.2 Agency Consultation and Coordination ................................................................................... 5-1
5.3 Native American Government Consultation ............................................................................ 5-1
5.4 Formal Scoping ........................................................................................................................ 5-1
5.4.1 Notice of Intent ................................................................................................................. 5-2
5.4.2 Other Public Notices ......................................................................................................... 5-2
5.4.3 Public Scoping Open House ............................................................................................. 5-2
5.5 Other Sources of Input—Resource Reviews ........................................................................... 5-2
5.6 Planning Updates ..................................................................................................................... 5-3
5.7 List of Preparers ....................................................................................................................... 5-3
5.7.1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Planning Team ................................................................ 5-3
5.7.2 Contractors ........................................................................................................................ 5-3
5.7.3 Additional Assistance—Review, Consultation ................................................................. 5-4
5.7.4 Columbia National Wildlife Refuge Management ........................................................... 5-4
Appendices
Appendix A – Glossary and Abbreviations ............................................................................... A-1
Appendix B – Applicable Laws, Executive Orders, and Policies .............................................. B-1
Appendix C – Appropriate Use Findings................................................................................... C-1
Appendix D – Compatibility Determinations ............................................................................ D-1
Appendix E – Management Priorities ........................................................................................ E-1
Appendix F – Statement of Compliance .................................................................................... F-1
Appendix G – Integrated Pest Management .............................................................................. G-1
Appendix H – Wilderness Review ............................................................................................. H-1
Appendix I – Literature Cited ..................................................................................................... I-1
Appendix J – Distribution List .................................................................................................... J-1
Columbia National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
vi Table of Contents
Executive Summary
The Columbia National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) will provide
direction to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on management of the Columbia National
Wildlife Refuge (CNWR) for the next 15 years. The CCP will provide the framework for making
decisions on conserving natural, cultural, and recreational resources; managing visitor use;
developing facilities; and addressing day-to-day operations of CNWR. The CCP will ensure that
future opportunities are realized and problems addressed effectively. (Outlined in Chapter 2.)
CNWR encompasses a biologically diverse landscape containing an irreplaceable natural and historic
legacy.1 Limited development over the years has allowed CNWR to become a haven for important
and increasingly scarce objects of scientific, historic, and cultural interest.2 It supports a broad array
of increasingly uncommon native plants and animals.3 Migrating birds and hundreds of other native
plant and animal species rely on its natural ecosystems.4 (Described in Chapter 3.)
Columbia National Wildlife Refuge Purposes
CNWR was established in 1944 as “. . . a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other
wildlife” and as “. . . an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory
birds.” Since then, CNWR has been managed ever since to fulfill this purpose and the mission of the
National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) to “administer a national network of lands and waters for
the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant
resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations
of Americans.” (Described more fully in Chapter 1.)
Issues To Be Addressed
A Notice of Intent to begin development of this CCP and environmental assessment (EA) was
published in the Federal Register on May 28, 2009. This began an extended process to identify
issues that needed to be addressed and the management alternatives that would best address those
issues. Along the way, the Service received assistance and input from other agencies, internal
resource reviews, and the public through formal scoping, a public open house, newsletter appeals,
and other means. The following key issues were identified (defined as matters of controversy,
dispute, or general concern over resource management activities, the environment, or land uses)
during the planning process.5 (Described fully in Chapter 1, Section 1.9, and addressed in Chapter
2.)
1) How will migratory birds be managed to both increase populations in the Pacific Flyway
and provide quality recreational opportunities?
1 For example, the shrub-steppe habitat is disappearing from eastern Washington at a rapid pace. The blocks of
shrub-steppe on CNWR connect to larger blocks on the Hanford Reach National Monument and on nearby Bureau
of Reclamation lands.
2 Ibid.
3 For example, Washington ground squirrels, redband trout and ferruginous hawks.
4 While the landscape (e.g., abundance of wetlands) is the result of an artificial construct, namely the Columbia
Basin Irrigation Project, the wetlands, lakes, etc., function the same as naturally occurring wetlands in the Columbia
Basin.
5 This CCP either directly addresses these issues, or it lays the foundation to address them in subsequent, more
detailed “step-down plans.”
Columbia National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Table of Contents vii
2) How will upland areas be managed to provide contiguous habitat throughout the Columbia
Basin?
3) How will wetlands be managed given the artificial water situation and the topography of
the landscape?
4) How can the populations of listed (under the state and/or Federal Endangered Species Act)
and rare species be enhanced?
5) How do we best provide visitors access and quality recreational opportunities?
6) What, if any, land acquisition or divestment should take place?
7) What staffing levels and skills will be needed into the future?
In order to address these issues, the Service, in partnership with the public and other agencies,
identified and developed two management alternatives for this draft CCP, as well as considering the
‘No-Action Alternative.’ Full descriptions of the alternatives can be found in Chapter 2.
Alternative 1: No Action
Alternative 1 assumes no change from existing management and thus provides a baseline for
evaluating impacts of the other alternatives. Management would continue much as is, consistent with
available funding and staffing. CNWR lands would continue to be managed using a mix of natural
processes and substantial management intervention. Public use would remain a blend of active and
passive opportunities.
Alternative 2
Under Alternative 2, major biological actions remain similar to Alternative 1, except that 175 acres
of emergent wetlands in Marsh Unit III would be converted to riparian habitat; the Crab Creek
channel would be restored; specialized habitats (e.g., rock outcroppings) would receive more planned
attention; farming would emphasize low-impact techniques; and management of state and Federal
species of concern would be emphasized. Visitor use would be focused around passive recreation,
and some uses might be restricted or eliminated to enhance the natural functioning of the various
habitats. The existing plans that direct refuge management would still continue to do so, and new,
step-down plans on signs, cultural resource management, habitat management, and other actions
related to the goals and objectives in this CCP would be developed.
Alternative 3
Biological actions under Alternative 3 are much the same as Alternative 2, except farming will focus
on traditional practices. A much greater emphasis on visitor services exists under Alternative 3, and
the types of use would change. Waterfowl and big game hunting opportunities would be
substantially expanded by opening new areas; providing for additional weapons; and implementing
additional youth hunt days, areas, and seasons. New interpretive and educational programs would be
developed. The development of additional plans and guidance would be the same as described in
Columbia National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
viii Table of Contents
Alternative 2. However, water rights and/or agreements would be pursued to ensure the availability
of water for moist soil management.
Preferred Alternative
At this time, the Service does not have a preference in alternatives; a preferred alternative will be
selected after receiving input from members of the public, other agencies and governments, and
interest groups.
Possible Consequences/Impacts
The alternatives are assessed for their potential consequences to biological, geological,
paleontological, recreational, aesthetic, and economic resources and systems. Chapter 4 provides a
detailed analysis of these impacts.
Maps
Grant Cou nty
Adams County
Mattawa
Othello
Royal City
26
262
24
17
Map 1 - Location
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Columbia National Wildlife Refuge
Adams and Grant Counties, Washington
Columbia
NWR
Pasco
Yakima
Othello
Seattle
Olympia
Spokane
Richland
Kennewick
Moses Lake
Map01_CMBCCP_Location
UTM Zone 11N
NAD 83
0 5 Miles
0 5 Kilometers
Columbia NWR
Warden
Mattawa
Othello
Vantage
Royal City
90
26
17
262
243
24
Map 2 - Land Ownership
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Columbia National Wildlife Refuge
Adams and Grant Counties, Washington
Map02_CMBCCP_Land_Ownership
Bureau of Land Management
Bureau of Reclamation
Yakima Training Center (DoD)
WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife
WA State Agency
Private Individual or Company
Private Non-Industrial Owner
Undetermined
Hanford Reach NM
Columbia NWR
Columbia NWR Approved Boundary
UTM Zone 11N
NAD 83
0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles
0 1 2 3 4 5 Kilometers
Warden
Othello
262
26
17
24
Map 3 - Habitat Types, Management Units 1 - 5
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Columbia National Wildlife Refuge
Adams and Grant Counties, Washington
Map03_CMBCCP_HabTypes_MU1-5
MU-1
MU-2
MU-3
MU-4
MU-5
MU-6
Columbia NWR Management Units
Habitat Type (acres)
Open water (825)
Wetland / Riparian (2,551)
Shrub-steppe (24,463)*
Agriculture (753)
Cliff / Talus (781)
Road / Admin (283)
*Shrub-steppe acreage includes
burned areas (see inset).
Note: Acreages reported above also
include MU 6 (shown separately on
Map 4).
0 1 2 Miles
0 1 2 Kilometers
UTM Zone 11N
NAD 83
Burned areas (3,194 acres)
Areas Burned
by Wildfires
on Columbia NWR
Mattawa
Royal City
26
243
Map 4 - Habitat Types, Management Unit 6
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Columbia National Wildlife Refuge
Adams and Grant Counties, Washington
Map04_CMBCCP_HabTypes_MU6
MU-1
MU-2
MU-3
MU-4
MU-5
MU-6
Columbia NWR Management Units
Habitat Type (acres)
Open water (825)
Wetland / Riparian (2,551)
Shrub-steppe (24,463)*
Agriculture (753)
Cliff / Talus (781)
Road / Admin (283)
*Shrub-steppe acreage includes
burned areas in other MUs
(see Map 3 inset).
Note: Acreages reported above are
for the entire refuge. MUs 1 - 5 are
shown separately on Map 3.
There is no agriculture in MU6.
0 1 2 Miles
0 1 2 Kilometers
UTM Zone 11N
NAD 83
Royal Branch
Canal
Lower Crab Creek
Crab Creek Lateral
Wahluke Branch Canal
Royal City
243
26
Map 5 - Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, Management Unit 6
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Columbia National Wildlife Refuge
Adams and Grant Counties, Washington
Map05_CMBCCP_Alt1-3_MU6
Open to Public Year Round
Open to Hunting during
Waterfowl Season
Open to Public Mar 1 - Sep 30
Open Water
Road
Columbia NWR boundary
UTM Zone 11N
NAD 83
0 1 2 Miles
0 1 2 Kilometers
Farm Unit
226 - 227
Marsh Unit 1
Marsh Unit 3
Potholes
Reservoir
McManamon Rd
Morgan Lake Rd
Potholes Canal
Royal Creek
Crab Creek Lateral
West Canal
Lower Crab Creek 24
17
26
262
Othello
Warden
Map 6 - Alternative 1, Management Units 1 - 5
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Columbia National Wildlife Refuge
Adams and Grant Counties, Washington
Map06_CMBCCP_Alt1_MU1-5
Open to Public Year Round
Open to Hunting during
Waterfowl Season
Open to Public Apr 16 - Jan 31
Open to Hunting during
Waterfowl Season
Open to Public Mar 1 - Sep 30
Hunting on Wed, Sat, Sun, and
designated Federal Holidays only
Managed Wetland (Marsh Unit)
Open Water
Road
Campground
Columbia NWR boundary
UTM Zone 11N
NAD 83
0 1 2 Miles
0 1 2 Kilometers
Farm Unit
226 - 227
Marsh Unit 1
Marsh Unit 3
Potholes
Reservoir
McManamon Rd
Morgan Lake Rd
Convert Soda Lake
Campground to Habitat
ADA Fishing Area*
Convert Bluebird
Campground to Habitat
ADA Hunt Area*
Close Morgan Lake
Convert Marsh Unit 3 Road at Night
to Riparian Habitat
New Interpretive Trail*
Remove Hunt Blinds
Seasonal Photo Blind*
Potholes Canal
Royal Creek
Crab Creek Lateral
West Canal
Lower Crab Creek 24
17
26
262
Othello
Warden
Map 7 - Alternative 2, Management Units 1 - 5
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Columbia National Wildlife Refuge
Adams and Grant Counties, Washington
Map07_CMBCCP_Alt2_MU1-5
UTM Zone 11N
NAD 83
*Site Not Yet Determined
Open to Public Year Round
Open to Hunting during
Waterfowl Season
Open to Public Apr 16 - Jan 31
Open to Hunting during
Waterfowl Season
Open to Public Mar 1 - Sep 30
Hunting on Wed, Sat, Sun, and
designated Federal Holidays only
Managed Wetland (Marsh Unit)
Open Water
Road
Campground
Columbia NWR boundary
0 1 2 Miles
0 1 2 Kilometers
Farm Unit
226 - 227
Marsh Unit 1
Marsh Unit 3
Potholes
Reservoir
McManamon Rd
Morgan Lake Rd
Convert Soda Lake Campground
to Day Use Only
ADA Fishing Area*
Convert Bluebird Campground
to Day Use Only
ADA Hunt Area*
Convert Marsh Unit 3
to Riparian Habitat
New Interpretive Trail*
Seasonal Photo Blind*
Permanent Wildlife Viewing
& Photo Blind*
Close Marsh Unit 1
to Deer Hunting
Potholes Canal
Royal Creek
Crab Creek Lateral
West Canal
Lower Crab Creek 24
17
26
262
Othello
Warden
Map 8 - Alternative 3, Management Units 1 - 5
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Columbia National Wildlife Refuge
Adams and Grant Counties, Washington
Map08_CMBCCP_Alt3_MU1-5
*Site Not Yet Determined
Open to Public Year Round
Open to Hunting during
Waterfowl Season
Open to Public Apr 16 - Jan 31
Open to Hunting during
Waterfowl Season
Open to Public Mar 1 - Sep 30
Hunting on Wed, Sat, Sun, and
designated Federal Holidays only
Youth Only Waterfowl Hunt Area
Managed Wetland (Marsh Unit)
Open Water
Road
ADA Auto Tour Route with Stops
Campground
Columbia NWR boundary
UTM Zone 11N
NAD 83
0 1 2 Miles
0 1 2 Kilometers
Chapter 1
Introduction and
Background
Columbia National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-1
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background
1.1 Introduction
Surprising to most people outside the Northwest, the landscape of eastern Washington is that of a
desert. In its natural state, almost all of Columbia National Wildlife Refuge (CNWR) would be
considered desert, with the exception of the naturally ephemeral Crab Creek. However, rather than a
desert of cacti and mesquite, eastern Washington’s desert is that of a shrub-steppe, with sagebrush
and bunch grasses.
However, like most of eastern Washington, much of CNWR is no longer in its natural state. The
construction of the Columbia Basin Irrigation Project (CBIP) forever altered the landscape, bringing
water to the desert. On CNWR, seepage from irrigation structures and reservoirs has created
wetlands, riparian areas, and small lakes. The once seasonal Crab Creek has become perennial, even
providing habitat for endangered salmonids.
The creation of these lakes and wetlands has been augmented by the area’s geologic history. During
the last Ice Age, sheets of ice spreading down from Canada blocked rivers with dams of ice.
Occasionally—or perhaps hundreds of times—the dams failed, sending floodwaters greater than the
flow of all the world’s rivers combined tearing across eastern Washington’s lava fields, gouging
coulees, redistributing boulders, depositing massive sand and gravel bars, scraping the land bare in
some areas, leaving behind rich soils elsewhere. Nowhere are these depressions and geologic nooks
more prevalent than on CNWR. The Drumheller Channeled Scablands formed just the right
topography to capture the new hydrology created by the CBIP and were designated a National
Natural Landmark.
Water in the desert means an abundance of life. In its original state, the land supported coyotes,
rattlesnakes, mule deer, horned larks, sage sparrows, and other creatures of the shrub-steppe,
although densities were limited. Water has changed all this, however. Many of the naturally
occurring species can be found at higher densities (e.g., mule deer). Other species are newcomers,
totally dependent on the artificial water; black-necked stilts and American avocets are some of the
flashier. Still more species that may have made an occasional appearance can now be found in great
numbers: Canada geese, northern pintails, and the refuge’s most famous visitors, lesser Sandhill
cranes. It was because of this newly created wildlife oasis, and the need to provide suitable
mitigation for the CBIP, that CNWR was created in 1944 “for migratory birds and other wildlife.”
The CBIP did more than create the need for, and provide water to, CNWR. It also created irrigated
farmland, which secondarily provided a food source for many of CNWR’s species. For example, the
great concentration of Sandhill cranes found on the refuge in the spring is a recent event, beginning
in earnest in the late 1980s. Before then, the cranes likely passed through the area on their way to
breeding grounds in south-central Alaska without more than a brief stop, if that. Now, leftover grain
in farmers’ fields has become an important food source for migrating cranes, concentrating them by
the thousands for several weeks in late winter and early spring. Other wildlife, most notably
migrating waterfowl, mule deer, and numerous rodent species, also take advantage of the harvest.
While much of the habitat found on CNWR (most of the lakes, wetlands, springs, and perennial
streams) is there as the result of an artificial situation, it is important to note that the habitats
Columbia National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
1-2 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background
themselves are not artificial. Natural wetlands and shallow lakes can be found within the Columbia
Basin, and those on the refuge function the same way as naturally occurring ones found elsewhere
within the area. So, while many of the habitat types on CNWR would naturally be found in far
smaller acreages, if at all without seepage water from the CBIP, the only non-natural habitat types
present are farm fields and moist soil management areas.
Another thing that water brings is recreational use. Without water, there wouldn’t be any fishing,
waterfowl hunting, or boating. It’s likely that there would be less hiking, biking, horseback riding, or
sightseeing; visitors are drawn to water and the vegetation and wildlife it fosters. Water brings the
Sandhill cranes, the migrating songbirds, and the waterfowl that people come to see and learn about
and collect on their ‘life-lists.’ It provides the serenity and the visual contrasts that draw the eye, and
then the feet, of visitors. Without water, recreation and visitor use would be dramatically different on
CNWR and certainly at a dramatically reduced level.
1.2 Proposed Action
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is proposing to adopt and implement a Comprehensive
Conservation Plan (CCP) for Columbia National Wildlife Refuge; this is the draft CCP. The CCP
sets forth management guidance for a refuge for a period of 15 years, as required by the National
Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (Administration Act) of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 688dd-688ee),
as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (Improvement Act) of 1997
(Public Law 105-57). The Improvement Act mandated that CCPs be developed for all refuges in the
National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS).
In order to adopt and implement a final CCP, the Service must follow and fulfill the requirements of
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347). The
Service believes NEPA requirements can be met through environmental impact analysis in an
environmental assessment (EA); this document is also the draft EA. If, following a prescribed
comment period, this holds to be true, the Service will likely adopt the draft EA as final and issue a
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) in order to select a final management alternative as its
CCP for CNWR.
1.3 Purpose and Need for Action
The purpose of the CCP is to provide reasonable, scientifically grounded guidance for improving
CNWR’s shrub-steppe, riparian, wetland, and cliff-talus habitats for the long-term conservation of
native plants and animals and migratory birds. The CCP will identify appropriate actions for
protecting and sustaining the cultural and biological features of CNWR; the refuge’s wintering
waterfowl populations and habitats; the growing migratory shorebird populations that use the refuge;
and threatened, endangered, or rare species. A final purpose of the CCP is to provide guidance for
providing high-quality public use programs in hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography,
environmental education, and interpretation.
The CCP is needed for a variety of reasons. Primary among these are the need to establish improved
habitat conditions on the refuge’s shrub-steppe, riparian, wetland, and cliff-talus habitats, many of
which are highly degraded by invasive plants and animals, and to identify and deal with key threats
to these habitats, including altered fire regimes and fragmentation. There is a need to address
Columbia National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-3
CNWR’s contributions to state-listed species that rely on the refuge, such as Washington ground
squirrels. There is a need to analyze wildlife-dependent public use programs and to determine what
improvements or alterations should be made in the pursuit of higher-quality programs.1 There is a
need to determine whether and how CNWR should continue to offer camping and other non-wildlife-dependent
uses, including horseback riding and boating. There is a need to address strategies to
better prevent use of refuge lands and waters for illegal uses, including off-road use, trash dumping,
vandalism, and graffiti. Finally, there is a need to describe the steps that should be taken to better
protect cultural resources.
1.4 Columbia NWR Purposes and Establishment History
The Service’s interest in the “Lower Crab Creek” as a wildlife area existed by the 1930’s, although
more than a decade passed until any action took place. Field representatives for the Service first
approved the concept of the refuge on January 23, 1942. During January through August of 1943,
the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, composed of the Secretary of the Interior as chairman,
the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Commerce, two senators, and two congressmen,
approved the acquisition of 2,336 acres of land for a refuge. The CNWR became established with
the first purchase of land (120 acres) on June 13, 1944.
While there have been many individual land acquisitions for the refuge, very few administrative
actions have been involved in the form of executive orders, public land orders, etc. Initially,
Executive Order 9337 (April 24, 1943) authorized the Secretary of the Interior to withdraw and
reserve lands of the public domain and other lands owned or controlled by the United States, granting
the base authority for establishment and growth of CNWR.2 Pursuant to that Executive Order, Public
Land Order 243 (September 6, 1944) directed that “. . . the following-described public lands in
Washington are hereby withdrawn . . . for the use of the Department of the Interior as a refuge . . .,”
thereby more than quintupling the new refuge created less than three months earlier.3 The
withdrawal accompanying this order added 12,365 acres, fully 42% of the present-day refuge. Since
then, 89 separate land transactions have brought CNWR to where it is to today.
The September 1944 withdrawal specified that the land was to be “. . . a refuge and breeding ground
for migratory birds and other wildlife” under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. §
715d) “. . . for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory
birds.”4 Most subsequent land transactions have been for this same purpose, i.e., migratory bird
protection and enhancement.
1 This includes the “Big Six” wildlife-dependent uses identified in the Improvement Act: hunting, fishing,
wildlife observation, photography, environmental education and interpretation.
2 In 1952 (May 26), Executive Order 10355 superseded Executive Order 9337 and delegated to the Secretary of
the Interior “. . . the authority of the President to withdraw or reserve lands of the United States for public purposes.”
3 The reservation made by this order was/is “. . . subject to Federal Power Project Number 510 of June 19,
1924” (i.e., the CBIP). It is a project feature of the CBIP.
4 The meaning of the phrase “inviolate sanctuary” has been modified over the years. An inviolate sanctuary
means that migratory game birds may not be hunted in more than 40 percent of the area acquired, reserved, or set
apart as a refuge.
Columbia National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
1-4 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background
Management Agreements
By a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) and the
Service, approved by the Secretary of the Interior on September 6, 1955, the BOR agreed that the
withdrawal of certain public lands for its CBIP would be reserved for use by the Service. The BOR
further consented to the Service administering certain right-of-way lands, subject to the primary
jurisdiction of the BOR. These lands under agreement with the BOR amount to 1,524 acres of
CNWR’s 29,656 acres. An additional 6,000+ acres between Corfu and the Columbia River are
managed under agreement with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) as
scattered parcels.
1.5 Legal and Policy Mandates
The Service is the primary federal agency responsible for conserving and enhancing the nation’s fish
and wildlife populations and their habitats. Although the Service shares this responsibility with other
federal agencies; tribal, state and local governments; and private entities, the Service has specific
responsibilities for migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, and certain anadromous fish
The Service also has similar management responsibilities for refuge lands and waters to support the
conservation and enhancement of fish and wildlife.
Refuges are guided by various Federal laws, executive orders, Service policies, and international
treaties (see Appendix B for a more complete list and discussion of relevant mandates). Fundamental
to the management of every refuge are the mission and goals of the NWRS and the designated
purposes of the individual refuge as described in establishing legislation, executive orders, or other
documents establishing, authorizing, or expanding a refuge.
Key concepts and guidance of the NWRS are derived from the Administration Act, as amended; the
Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. § 460k-460k-4), as amended; Title 50 of the Code of
Federal Regulations; and the Service Manual. The Administration Act is implemented through
regulations covering the NWRS, published in Title 50, Subchapter C of the Code of Federal
Regulations and policies contained in the Service Manual. These regulations and policies govern
general administration of units of the NWRS.
In addition to the mandates discussed below, many other laws apply to the Service and management
of NWRS lands. Examples include the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, and the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended. A list and brief description of each
can be found at laws.fws.gov and in Appendix B.
1.5.1 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act
The Improvement Act amends the Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 by defining a unifying
mission for all national wildlife refuges, including a new process for determining compatible uses on
refuges and requiring that each refuge be managed under a CCP. The Improvement Act expressly
states that wildlife conservation is the priority of NWRS lands and that the Secretary of the Interior
shall ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of refuge lands are
maintained. Each refuge must be managed to fulfill the NWRS mission and the specific purposes for
Columbia National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-5
which the refuge was established. The first priority of each national wildlife refuge is to conserve,
manage and, if needed, restore fish and wildlife populations and habitats according to its purpose.
The Improvement Act requires that a CCP be completed for each refuge by the year 2012 and that
the public have an opportunity for active involvement in plan development and revision. It is Service
policy that CCPs are developed in an open public process; the agency is committed to securing
public input throughout the process.
1.5.2 National Wildlife Refuge System Mission and Goals
The mission of the NWRS is:
To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation,
management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant
resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and
future generations of Americans. (16 USC § 668dd et seq.)
The NWRS has grown to include more than 150 million acres and 553 national wildlife refuges. The
NWRS is the largest collection of lands specifically managed for fish and wildlife conservation in the
nation. The needs of wildlife and their habitats come first on refuges, in contrast to most other public
lands which are managed for multiple uses.
The administration, management and growth of the NWRS are guided by the following goals.
 Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats, including species that are
endangered or threatened with becoming endangered.
 Develop and maintain a network of habitats for migratory birds, anadromous and inter-jurisdictional
fish, and marine mammal populations that is strategically distributed and
carefully managed to meet important life history needs of these species across their ranges.
 Conserve those ecosystems, plant communities, wetlands of national or international
significance, and landscapes and seascapes that are unique, rare, declining, or
underrepresented in existing protection efforts.
 Provide and enhance opportunities to participate in compatible wildlife-dependent recreation
(hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and
interpretation).
 Foster understanding and instill appreciation of the diversity and interconnectedness of fish,
wildlife, and plants and their habitats.
1.5.3 Tribal Rights and Interests
It is possible that the application of tribal treaty rights will be discussed at many levels during
meetings with Tribes as part of the CCP process. Although the Tribes and the Service may discuss
tribal treaty rights, the Service believes that defining the application of treaty rights is outside the
scope of this CCP. At their request, the Service will meet with area Tribes independent of the CCP
process to develop Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) and other instruments that are
respectful of the rights and needs of the tribes, in accordance with Service tribal policies, and
consistent with preserving the natural and cultural resources of CNWR.
Columbia National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
1-6 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background
The Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation (Yakama Nation), Confederated Tribes of
the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR), and Nez Perce Tribe all have treaties negotiated with the
United States government (see Appendix B). The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation
(CCT) are a federally recognized tribe, some of whose constituent tribes or bands are descendants of
people who used the area. In addition, the Wanapum, which did not negotiate a treaty with the
United States, also historically occupied and used this area and maintain traditional connections to
the refuge to this day.
Through these treaties, the tribes retained certain lands for exclusive use (the four reservations) and
also retained the rights to continue traditional activities outside the reservations. These reserved
rights include those to hunt, gather foods and medicines, and pasture livestock on open and
unclaimed lands.
Tribal access to the refuge for gathering and other traditional practices is guided by the Service
Native American Policy. The existing Service Native American Policy, Executive Order (EO)
13175, and legislation provides guidance for directing on-going consultation. The Native American
Policy, in particular, assists the Service in accomplishing its mission of resource protection while
also guiding the federal government’s interactions with tribes to:
. . . assist Native Americans in protecting, conserving and utilizing their reserved
guarantee of statutorily identified trust resources. The Service will consult with
Native American governments on fish and wildlife resource matters of mutual interest
and concern to keep Native American governments involved in such matters from
initiation to completion of related Service activities. . . . The Service will continue to
involve Native American governments in all Service actions that may affect cultural
or religious interests, including archaeological sites. The Service is guided by such
legislation as the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, the Native American
Graves Protection Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Native American
Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, and Archaeological Resources Protection
Act.
1.5.4 State of Washington Wildlife Management
The Service has primary jurisdiction of fish and wildlife on refuge lands as established through a
variety of laws, policies, and directives related to migratory and resident fish and wildlife resources
on Federal lands. However, fish and wildlife resources in the state of Washington belong to the
residents of the state, and the Improvement Act states in part, “Nothing in this Act shall be construed
as affecting the authority, jurisdiction, or responsibility of the several States to manage, control, or
regulate fish and resident wildlife under State law or regulations in any area within the [NWRS].
Regulations permitting hunting or fishing of fish and resident wildlife within the [NWRS] shall be, to
the extent practicable, consistent with State fish and wildlife laws, regulations, and management
plans.”
CNWR is part of the NWRS; federal management activity involving migratory birds and other
wildlife residing on units of the NWRS is a federal function specifically authorized by Congress. It
is, therefore, for the Secretary of the Interior to determine whether units of the NWRS shall be open
to public uses, such as hunting and fishing, and on what terms such access shall be granted.
However, in recognition of the existing jurisdictional relationship between the states and the federal
Columbia National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-7
government, Congress has directed that, to the maximum extent practicable, such public uses shall be
consistent with state laws and regulations (43 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 24.4). Consistent
with the Improvement Act, the Director of the Service will “interact, coordinate, cooperate and
collaborate with state fish and wildlife agencies in a timely and effective manner on the acquisition
and management of national wildlife refuges” (Director’s Order Number 148).
1.5.5 Public Uses of Columbia NWR
Two of the priorities of the NWRS are to protect the biological resources entrusted to the Service and
the irreplaceable cultural resources found within the NWRS. However, wherever possible and
compatible with resource protection, a national wildlife refuge should be open and available to the
public for its use and enjoyment. Consistent with the National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act, the Service makes a special effort to provide wildlife-dependent public use
opportunities across the NWRS. Balancing these often-conflicting goals is accomplished through a
variety of means, including the development of CCPs.
To determine what uses can be allowed on a national wildlife refuge, the Service firsts determines
whether the use is appropriate. Generally, an appropriate use is one that contributes to fulfilling the
refuge purposes, the Refuge System mission, or goals or objectives described in a refuge
management plan. For this CCP, Service staff applied a series of questions/standards to determine
whether a use was appropriate (see Appendix C). If the activity was determined to be an appropriate
use of CNWR, the Service developed a compatibility determination (CD). A CD determines whether
the proposed activity is compatible with the refuge’s purposes and the mission of the NWRS. Only if
the activity is determined compatible with resource protection by the Mid-Columbia River National
Wildlife Refuge Complex (MCRNWRC) Project Leader with concurrence by the Region 1 National
Wildlife Refuges Chief is it allowed to occur. The CDs for CNWR are presented in Appendix D.
1.6 Relationship to Other Planning Efforts
When developing a CCP, the Service considers the goals and objectives of existing national, regional
and ecosystem plans; state fish and wildlife conservation plans; and other landscape-scale plans
developed for the same watershed or ecosystem in which the refuge is located. To the extent
possible, the CCP is expected to be consistent with the existing plans and assist in meeting their
conservation goals and objectives (Part 602 FW 3.3). This section summarizes some of the key plans
reviewed by members of the core team while developing the CCP.
1.6.1 Columbia River/Basin Region
Wintering Waterfowl Redistribution Plan: This plan, a partnership effort between WDFW,
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), and the Service, modified hunting areas and
regulations in the Columbia Plateau area with the purpose of “redistributing” waterfowl (mainly from
the Umatilla/Boardman area to the Yakima subbasin area). Because basin-wide numbers of
wintering waterfowl have dropped sharply since the plan was first implemented (possibly due to
area-wide cropping changes, climate change, and habitat improvements in California) the Columbia
Basin Wintering Waterfowl Plan is currently being updated.
Columbia National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
1-8 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background
Subbasin Plans: The Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC) has overseen the
development of plans for each of the 60 interior tributary subbasins of the Columbia River. Subbasin
plans are expected to assess the biological potential of the subbasin and to describe opportunities for
restoration. Plans also describe the amount of habitat change that has occurred within the subbasin
and limiting factors (analogous to stresses/sources in this plan). The plans will be the basis for
review of proposals for the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) each year by the fish and
wildlife agencies and tribes, the Independent Scientific Review Panel, and the NPCC. All of CNWR
is situated within the Lower Mid-Columbia Mainstem Subbasin. Focal habitats included in the
subbasin plan occurring on CNWR include interior riparian wetlands and shrub-steppe/interior
grasslands. These habitats include a set of focal species selected for the subbasin plan. Quantitative
objectives were written for each focal habitat, based on the needs of selected focal species. The
CNWR will have the opportunity every five years to submit project proposals for BPA funding that
are consistent with the subbasin plan.
The Nature Conservancy Columbia Plateau Ecoregional Assessment: This assessment identified
a portfolio of sites that, collectively and with appropriate conservation action, could maintain all
viable native species and communities within the analysis area. In addition, it provides an
assessment of threats to the sites and develops multi-site strategies to conserve the biodiversity of the
ecoregion. The document and assessment are in the process of being updated.
Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Plan: This project was an ambitious effort
covering the majority of the Inland Northwest and is one of the best sources of broad-scale
ecosystem analysis for the region. The scientific assessment which underlies the plan identified
numerous threats to the ecological integrity of the basin. Within the vicinity of CNWR, the report
lists the primary opportunities to address the risks to ecological integrity as: 1) maintenance or
restoration of riparian condition; 2) restoration of productive aquatic areas; and 3) conservation of
fish strongholds and unique aquatic areas.
1.6.2 Migratory Bird Plans
Birds of Conservation Concern: Based on the efforts and assessment scores of three major bird
conservation efforts (Partners In Flight, the United States Shorebird Conservation Plan and the North
American Waterbird Conservation Plan), this report identifies, by Service Region and by Bird
Conservation Region (BCR), the bird species most in need of conservation attention. CNWR is
located within BCR Region 9, for which 29 species are listed.
Partners in Flight (PIF), Columbia Plateau Plan: The primary goal of the Conservation Strategy
for Landbirds in the Columbia Plateau of Eastern Oregon and Washington is to ensure long-term
maintenance of healthy populations of native landbirds. Specific management activities and
strategies are recommended.
North American Waterfowl Management Plan: The North American Waterfowl Management
Plan, signed by the United States and Canada in 1986 and by Mexico in 1994, provides a strategy to
protect North America’s remaining wetlands and to conserve waterfowl populations through habitat
protection, restoration, and enhancement. The plan contains population goals for several species and
groups of species by season or life stage. The plan was updated in 2004 with an emphasis on
strengthening the biological foundation, using a landscape approach and expanding partnerships.
Additional strategic guidance was provided in a 2004 update, with specific population objectives by
Columbia National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-9
species. Implementation of this plan is accomplished at the regional level through partnerships,
within 11 Joint Venture areas. CNWR is located within the area of the Intermountain West Joint
Venture.
Pacific Flyway Plans: Flyway management plans are the products of Flyway Councils, developed
to help state and Federal agencies cooperatively manage migratory game birds. These plans typically
focus on populations. The Pacific Flyway Council has prepared 26 management plans to date in
either draft or final form available at pacificflyway.gov/Abstracts.asp#rmts. The following flyway
management plans pertain to CNWR and the CCP:
• Canada Geese: Lesser and Taverner’s, Pacific Western, Rocky Mountain, Western,
Depredation Control
• Greater White-fronted Geese: Pacific, Tule
• Snow Geese: Wrangel Island Lesser, Western Canadian Arctic Lesser
• Ross’ Geese
• Swans: Pacific Trumpeter, Rocky Mountain Trumpeter, Western Tundra, Eastern Tundra
• Sandhill Cranes: Pacific Coast, Central Valley
• Mourning Dove: National Mourning Dove Plan
Intermountain West Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan: According to this plan, the
Intermountain West is North America’s most important inland area for maintaining the continent’s
shorebird populations. The plan identifies major shorebird issues in the region and outlines regional
goals and objectives in the areas of habitat management, monitoring and assessment, research,
outreach, and planning. Key issues identified in the plan include water quality and quantity;
maintenance and enhancement of populations of long-billed curlew, mountain plover and upland
sandpiper; depredation of eggs and young; regional coordination; agriculture/shorebird interface; and
wintering sites. Concern ranking scores are provided for each of the 34 shorebird species breeding or
moving through the region. Species ranked as “critically important” include snowy plover, black-necked
stilt, American avocet, long-billed curlew, long-billed dowitcher, and Wilson’s phalarope.
Intermountain West Region Waterbird Conservation Plan: This plan identifies the 41 waterbird
species inhabiting the Intermountain West. The plan provides detailed background information for
each species by BCR, including population estimates, identification of important areas, and an
itemization of threats. For each BCR, species were categorized as high, moderate, or low concern, or
as “not currently at risk.” Specific objectives are provided, usually framed in terms of overall
population goals. Some habitat objectives are provided as well. The plan provides a useful section
on research and education/outreach needs .
1.6.3 Other Service Plans
Several Service plans address management on either the MCRNWRC or CNWR:
Columbia National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
1-10 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background
1.6.3.1 CNWR Master Plan
The CNWR Master Plan, completed in January of 1986, outlined the direction for the refuge through
goals and objectives based on the establishing legislation and refuge purposes. The primary goals
were to: 1) enhance wildlife diversity through habitat management, with a focus on sensitive,
threatened, and endangered species; 2) meet migratory bird objectives by providing adequate
wintering habitat, primarily for waterfowl; 3) respond to existing public demand for resource and
refuge information; 4) provide quality hunting and fishing opportunities with maximum
administrative efficiencies; 5) increase waterfowl production, with an emphasis on mallards,
redheads, and Canada geese; 6) improve the quality of refuge-related interpretation, wildlife
observation and environmental education programs; and 7) cooperate with other agencies,
institutions of higher education, and private individuals to provide appropriate technical assistance
and research opportunities. Through the Master Plan, stepdown plans were created to outline how
these goals and objectives would be completed. After the Improvement Act, the CCP became the
vehicle through which to update all Master Plans throughout the NWRS.
1.6.3.2 Cooperative Farming Management Plan
This plan identifies crops to be planted and farming methods to be used on CNWR to benefit
waterfowl and other migratory birds; the primary crops are grains and green browse. The current
farming program is administered through cooperative farming agreements, split 75/25 between the
cooperative farmer and CNWR. Crop selection and rotations are based on numerous factors,
including wildlife and soil needs, nutrient cycling, preventing pest cycles, and current market value.
On average, the rotation is green browse for three to four years, followed by corn, and then a small
grain. With this type of administration, the cooperator pays for water, maintenance of infrastructure,
approved herbicide/pesticide application(s), and any additional costs associated with the farming.
1.6.3.3 Refuge Hunting Plan
In order for hunting to be allowed on a national wildlife refuge, a hunt plan must be approved. The
CNWR Hunting Plan outlines the species that may be hunted, the general regulations that must be
followed, the areas available for hunting, and the compatibility of hunting with refuge resources.
Following completion of this CCP, it is likely the hunting plan will be revised.
1.6.3.4 CNWR Fire Management Plan
The 2009 Mid-Columbia River National Wildlife Refuge Complex Fire Management Plan details
how the refuge will respond to the threat of wildfire and determines under what circumstances to use
fire as a management tool. This plan will remain as is, and no changes to fire management
capabilities or opportunities are proposed in this draft CCP.
1.6.4 Other Federal Agency Plans
Several other Federal agencies undertake actions and/or have planning efforts that could impact
CNWR. Among these are BOR irrigation and water storage efforts, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission hydropower licensings and power transmission activities, Federal Highways
Administration transportation actions, etc. It is almost certain that at some point throughout the life
Columbia National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-11
of the CCP, one or more of these agencies will undertake or propose actions that will impact the
refuge.
NOAA-Fisheries Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Plan
The Upper Columbia Spring Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Plan was developed for the
recovery of Upper Columbia River Spring Chinook (endangered), Upper Columbia River steelhead
(threatened) and bull trout (threatened). The mission for the Upper Columbia Spring Chinook
Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Plan is to:
To restore viable and sustainable populations of salmon, steelhead, and other at-risk species
through collaborative, economically sensitive efforts, combined resources, and wise resource
management of the Upper Columbia region.
The plan is an outgrowth and culmination of several conservation efforts in the Upper Columbia
Basin, including current efforts related to the Endangered Species Act (ESA), state and tribal-sponsored
recovery efforts, subbasin planning, and watershed planning. It is to be used to guide
Federal agencies charged with species recovery and to inform state and local agency planning and
land use actions. The goal of this plan is to offer options for future actions that strive to secure the
survival of species.
1.6.5 Washington State Plans
The Service is committed to participating in Washington State planning efforts and assisting in their
implementation, where feasible and affordable.
1.6.5.1 Washington Natural Heritage Plan
This plan describes Washington State programs, especially the Natural Areas Program, for
conservation of the State’s biological diversity. Species and ecosystem types (habitat associations)
are ranked in terms of conservation priority. Of approximately 800 plant and wetland communities
located within the State, 250 are considered priorities for conservation. Lists of rare animals, rare
plants, and priority communities are located at www.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/.
1.6.5.2 Washington Greater Sage-Grouse Recovery Plan5
This plan identifies specific recovery areas and select recovery methods for the Washington
population of greater sage-grouse. CNWR is located within an area for implementation of one of the
state’s top five priorities, mainly by providing a connection between the Yakima Training Center
(YTC) through the Hanford Reach National Monument (Monument) and on to northern Grant and
Douglas Counties.
CNWR will participate in the State of Washington Sage-Grouse Recovery Plan to the extent possible
and practical to establish a new population of sage-grouse on the refuge and surrounding lands within
the Columbia Basin. The refuge could serve as a corridor to link the sage-grouse populations of the
5 Much of this description was taken or summarized from the State of Washington Greater Sage-Grouse
Recovery Plan (2004).
Columbia National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
1-12 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background
YTC and Douglas/Grant Counties.8 This participation will mainly focus on evaluating the
importance of the refuge to state restoration efforts, assessing the current condition of habitats which
might support sage-grouse by conducting vegetation surveys in sagebrush and riparian habitats, and
creating partnerships with other landowners to promote sage-grouse restoration if feasible. The
Service is also open to discussions of translocating sage-grouse to CNWR in the future if recovery
proceeds to that point.
1.6.5.3 Washington Pygmy Rabbit Recovery Plan9
The current Washington population is estimated to be fewer than 250 rabbits. Of the five pygmy
rabbit areas known to remain in Washington, the largest may be comprised of fewer than 150 rabbits.
Due to its limited distribution and fragile population size, the pygmy rabbit was listed as a threatened
species by the Washington Wildlife Commission in 1990; it was reclassified to endangered in 1993.
It is listed as a Candidate Category 2 species by the Service.
The pygmy rabbit is the only rabbit native to North America that digs its own burrows. It is also
uniquely dependent upon sagebrush, which comprises up to 99% of its winter diet. Dense sagebrush
and relatively deep, loose soil are important characteristics of pygmy rabbit habitat. The primary
factor contributing to the decline of the pygmy rabbit in Washington has been loss of habitat due to
agricultural conversion.
As one of the last remaining large areas of sagebrush, together with the Monument and other
federal/state lands, CNWR may be able to play a role in recovery efforts. Whether any lands on
CNWR are suitable for pygmy rabbits would need to be assessed, but an area known to be suitable
for habitation has been identified on the nearby Wahluke Slope of the Monument. In any event,
CNWR will take any active role it can in recovery efforts.
Recovery strategies for this species include protection of existing habitat, identification and
management of lands for creation of new habitat, monitoring of the pygmy rabbit population, and
research to better understand the effects of management actions. Grazing, if it occurs in pygmy
rabbit areas, should be managed to be compatible with pygmy rabbit habitat needs. In all pygmy
rabbit areas, steps should be taken to reduce the risk of range fire. To increase the extent of pygmy
rabbit habitat, efforts should be directed at identifying lands where soil conditions are suitable for
pygmy rabbits. If necessary, lands with appropriate soil conditions should be restored or enhanced to
provide pygmy rabbit habitat. Pygmy rabbits should be introduced to selected vacant habitat. Other
strategies, including enforcement, data management, cooperative work with landowners and other
agencies, research, and public information should all play a role in pygmy rabbit recovery efforts.
1.6.5.4 Washington Leopard Frog Recovery Plan10
In Washington, records indicate that the leopard frog once inhabited at least 18 general areas in
eastern Washington, many of these along the Columbia River and its major tributaries. However,
8 Part of the CNWR is in the Potholes Management Unit identified in the Washington recovery plan.
9 Much of this description was taken or summarized from the Washington State Recovery Plan for the Pygmy
Rabbit (1995).
10 Much of this description was taken or summarized from the Washington State Status Report for the
Northern Leopard Frog (1999).
Columbia National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-13
sightings of leopard frogs in Washington since 1970 have been from just three counties: Grant,
Whitman and Pend Oreille. Field surveys conducted since 1992 confirmed the species in only two
areas in the state, both of which are in the Crab Creek drainage in Grant County.11 Four separate
leopard frog sites at one area in the Crab Creek drainage, and two separate occupied sites at the other
area in the Crab Creek drainage, have been located. The number of leopard frogs at each of these
localities is not known. The number of occupied sites within areas appears to change over time, with
surveys indicating some sites disappearing and some newly located.
There are a variety of factors that have the potential to adversely affect or extirpate the remaining
leopard frog populations in Washington: agricultural chemicals: vehicles on roads are a significant
mortality source as frogs travel between breeding ponds and larger summer, fall and overwintering
water bodies; bullfrogs and introduced fish are known to eat amphibians and are thought to cause
significant declines in leopard frog populations; and use changes, including irrigation projects and
development have contributed to changes in the hydrology of many areas; disease may also have
contributed to the decline witnessed in Washington. Research, monitoring and evaluation of the
factors potentially causing the decline of leopard frogs are essential to their conservation.
As noted above, the Crab Creek drainage is one of the few remaining sites in Washington where
northern leopard frogs are found. The northern leopard frog ranges into a wide variety of habitats,
even hay fields and grassy woodlands, but apparently requires a high degree of vegetative cover for
concealment. Leopard frogs require permanent deep water for overwintering, in proximity to
seasonal ponds and wetlands for breeding. These are conditions that can be found or replicated on
the refuge.
As part of CNWR’s efforts to support the state in its recovery plan, the Service will protect and,
where feasible, restore wetland and open water habitats to meet the life-history needs of the northern
leopard frog.12 Other actions might include:
• Assessing the current condition of habitats which might support northern leopard frogs.
• Discontinuing fishing and fish stocking on selected lakes, removing existing fish, and
controlling bullfrogs.13
• Translocating northern leopard frogs to CNWR.
11 One historic but unsurveyed area, on the campus of Washington State University, may still be populated by
frogs most likely liberated from laboratory experiments.
12 Northern leopard frog habitat on the CNWR is characterized by:
• Permanent deep water for overwintering.
• Breeding ponds (semi-permanent of seasonal) with a maximum depth of 5-6.5 feet.
• No fish or bullfrog populations.
• No connection to any other body of water.
• Periodic (every 4-5 years) dewatering.
13 As noted in the 2000 CNWR Biological Review.
Columbia National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
1-14 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background
1.6.5.5 Washington Ground Squirrel Recovery Plan
Loss of habitat as a result of conversion of shrub-steppe to cropland may be the greatest negative
factor affecting the Washington ground squirrel population; the CBIP is responsible for much of the
habitat loss in the squirrel’s range in Washington. Agriculture has focused on the same arable, deep
soil communities used by Washington ground squirrels, and the species is unable to persist in soils
that are regularly cultivated. Some researchers estimate that nearly two-thirds of the species’ historic
range has been converted to agriculture. Other factors likely contributing to the species decline
include predators, disease, overgrazing and historic destruction by ranchers, farmers and varmint
hunters; the species was finally protected by state law in 1997.
The Washington ground squirrel is a candidate for federal listing under the federal Endangered
Species Act. It is listed as state endangered in Oregon and became a state candidate species in
Washington in the early 1990s. One of the factors hindering its listing in Washington is that
relatively little knowledge concerning the species exists for Washington. For example, population
estimates do not exist for Washington, although peripheral range contractions have been reported for
every decade since the 1970s, presumably reflecting a declining population trend.
While the Washington ground squirrel is not an endangered or threatened species within the state of
Washington, because CNWR currently supports Washington ground squirrels, this CCP lays out
protection and recovery objectives and strategies (see Goal 4).
1.7 Step-Down Plans
CCPs are intended to provide a framework for management direction. As such, they often take a
broad view of a refuge, leaving finer details to other subsequent plans. Additional plans stemming
from a CCP are known as step-down plans (Service 2000, Refuge Manual 602 FW 4). The CCP
provides the framework and priorities for management, and the step-down plans provide
management detail, allowing the process to be tiered and broken into manageable efforts.
The Service considers this CCP to be a landscape-scale plan, whereby general management direction
is set but details for the management of programs are left to be determined in subsequent step-down
plans.
Several resource areas and issues will be addressed in the step-down plans. A few of these plans
currently exist in some form, although the selection of a preferred management alternative may
necessitate their revision. For example, the MCRNWRC’s Fire Management Plan (2009) may need
to be revised based on changes in visitor use patterns, new areas open, or additional land acquisitions.
The Cooperative Farming Management Plan for CNWR may need revisions, depending on the
alternative chosen. In addition to the Cooperative Farming and Wildland Fire Management Plans,
existing, likely and possible step-down plans include, but are not limited to:
• Cultural Resources Management
• Fisheries (Including Fishing and Fish Stocking)
• Habitat Management
• Hunting
• Interpretation and Education
Columbia National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-15
• Landscape Design Standards/Aesthetics
• Law Enforcement and Emergency Response
• Inventory and Monitoring
• Visitor Services
• Mosquito Management
When these plans are developed, the public will be invited to assist in their development, in most
instances directly through public scoping and/or workshops (to the extent legally allowed), and in all
instances through public review of the plans and all supporting NEPA documentation.
1.8 CCP Review, Amendment, and Revision
The CCP is intended to be a dynamic plan based on the concept of adaptive management. Consistent
with this concept, the CCP will be reviewed annually to determine whether it requires amendment or
revision. The Service will document and make minor plan modifications whenever this review, or
any other monitoring or evaluation process, suggests that changes are needed to achieve the refuge’s
purpose, vision, and goals. Modifications will be coordinated with partners and subject to
appropriate NEPA compliance.
More extensive revisions of the CCP will occur when significant new information becomes available,
ecological conditions change, a significant boundary change occurs, or when the need for major
changes has been identified during annual plan reviews. Service guidelines state that a review should
occur every 15 years, or sooner if necessary. All plan revisions will follow the procedures outlined
in Service planning policies for preparing CCPs and will require NEPA compliance. When the CCP
requires a major revision, the CCP process will start anew at the preplanning phase.
1.9 Issues, Concerns and Opportunities
Much of a CCP is driven by the issues identified by the Service, or raised by the public and other
organizations/agencies/governments, that affect the refuge.
1.9.1 Issues Addressed in the CCP
The following issues are within the scope of the CCP/EA and are considered by the Service to be the
major issues to address in the planning process.
1.9.1.1 Habitats
• Which, if any, areas should be restored and to what habitat types?
• What habitat conditions should be targeted and restored on CNWR’s shrub-steppe, riparian,
riverine, wetland, and cliff-talus habitats, many of which are highly degraded by invasive
plants and animals?
• How can CNWR best prevent wildfires fostered by highly flammable invasive cheatgrass in
the shrub-steppe?
• What are the best methods for maintaining productivity and diversity in wetlands?
Columbia National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
1-16 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background
• What actions should be taken to sustain and restore priority species and habitats over the next
15 years?
1.9.1.2 Waterfowl
• Which specific waterfowl management tools and techniques—including providing crop and
sanctuary areas—should be used on the refuge? Where?
• What role should CNWR play in providing wintering waterfowl habitat and hunting areas
within the Columbia Basin?
1.9.1.3 Sandhill Cranes
• What role will CNWR play in supporting the population of this species?
1.9.1.4 Shorebirds and Other Birds
• How will CNWR best manage a thriving shorebird migration and breeding area?
• Should more attention be paid to migrating and resident songbirds, raptors, and game birds?
1.9.1.5 State and Federal Listed and Candidate Species
• What actions should the refuge take to protect and enhance habitat for ground squirrels?
• What, if any, role can the refuge play in sage-grouse and northern leopard frog recovery?
• What actions can be taken to protect and restore habitat values for other declining species?
1.9.1.6 Wildlife-Dependent Uses
• Which “Big Six” activities are appropriate and compatible at CNWR and what, if any, level
of resources should be committed to them?
• What, if any, improvements to these activities can be provided to enhance public enjoyment
and ensure quality experiences for visitors?
• What information should be provided to visitors, both to enhance their experience and to
protect refuge resources? How? What media?
1.9.1.7 Non-wildlife-Dependent Uses
• Is camping appropriate on CNWR? What should be done with camping areas?
• Should the refuge continue to offer additional non-wildlife-dependent recreational
opportunities, such as horseback riding and biking? Should those opportunities be
expanded?
• What facilities and program support should be offered?
1.9.1.8 Cultural Resources
• What steps should be taken to better protect and interpret cultural resources?
Columbia National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-17
1.9.1.9 Law Enforcement and Resource Damage Prevention
• Should there be an officer located at CNWR?
• Should Morgan Lake Road remain open 24 hours/day?
• How can the refuge better prevent illegal uses, including trash dumping, littering, off-road
vehicle use, target shooting, marijuana growing, underage drinking, visitor use in closed
areas, cattle trespass, vandalism, and hunting and fishing violations?
1.9.2 Issues Outside the Scope of the CCP
The refuge manages several tracts of BOR lands as part of CNWR. Similarly, adjoining tracts of
lands to those managed by CNWR are managed for the BOR by WDFW, in particular the lands
encompassing Upper and Lower Goose Lakes. These lands may be better managed as part of
CNWR, primarily because the Service has personnel working in close proximity and the state does
not. Management by the Service would potentially solve road access issues. This would require a
change to the refuge’s approved boundary and the likelihood of the Service taking over management
of the area is low. Since there are no discussions on this issue at present, it is deemed to be outside
the scope of this CCP.
Chapter 2
Alternatives, Goals,
Objectives,
Strategies
Columbia National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-1
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
2.1 Considerations in Alternative Design
During development of the Draft CCP alternatives presented in this chapter, the Service reviewed
and considered a variety of resource, social, economic, and organizational aspects important for
managing the refuge. As is appropriate for a national wildlife refuge, resource considerations were
fundamental in designing alternatives. House Report 105-106 accompanying the Improvement Act
states “. . . the fundamental mission of our System is wildlife conservation: wildlife and wildlife
conservation must come first.”
The Service planning team reviewed and used available scientific information (reports and studies) to
better understand ecosystem trends and the latest scientific recommendations for species and habitats.
The team met with staff from local, state, and federal agencies and elected officials to ascertain
priorities and problems as perceived by others. Refuge staff also met with refuge users, nonprofit
groups, and community organizations to solicit their comments and ideas, which were considered
during CCP development. The details of public participation can be found in the Columbia National
Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan Scoping Report.
After gathering as much information as possible, the planning team, with considerable assistance
from the Service’s Pacific Regional Office, combined this data with CNWR’s purposes and
determined the conservation targets (areas of management focus) which were to be included in the
CCP process. From this flowed the goals, objectives, and strategies which the planning team felt
should be included in the CCP. Each goal, objective, and strategy was carefully evaluated for how it
benefitted, augmented, and ‘fit’ with Service trust resources; CNWR’s purposes; identified
conservation targets; key refuge and state species; and the principles of “biological diversity,
integrity, and environmental health” (BIDEH). Once the range of acceptable management goals and
objectives was determined, the objectives and strategies were logically organized into reasonable
alternatives. For CNWR, the reasonable range of acceptable actions could be described and covered
through three alternatives: a ‘no action’ alternative and two alternatives involving changes in some
programs.
2.2 Alternative Descriptions
Each alternative (see Maps 5-8) describes a combination of habitat and visitor use management
prescriptions designed to achieve a vision for CNWR and its purposes and goals. These alternatives
provide different ways to address and respond to major public issues, management concerns, and
opportunities identified during the planning process to date. All of the major issues, activities, and
management concerns were evaluated and addressed for each alternative.
2.2.1 Alternative 1 – No Action
This alternative assumes no significant change in current management programs and is considered
the base from which to compare other alternatives. Under this alternative, refuge management would
continue much as is, consistent with available funding and staffing. Refuge lands would continue to
be managed using a mix of natural processes and substantial management intervention. For example,
Columbia National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
2-2 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
many wetland areas are mainly allowed to follow natural succession—although noxious weed
control, prescribed fire, and other ‘maintenance’ actions are undertaken—but several moist soil
management areas require water level manipulation, dike maintenance, extensive soil preparation,
planting, and other treatments. Several specialized habitats, such as rock outcroppings and alkali
wetlands, receive little direct attention, while a cooperative farming program to provide food sources
for migratory birds and other wildlife involves extensive management. Considerable attention is
provided to waterfowl habitat, while little active management is undertaken for state or Federal
species of concern, such as the Washington ground squirrel and sage-grouse.
Public use is also a blend of active and passive. Camping is provided at two locations, although the
Bluebird Campground is reserved for educational purposes.1 Stocking of sport fish occurs, but few
specialized fishing facilities are provided (e.g., ADA-compliant2 fishing platforms), apart from gravel
parking lots for cars. Most hunting has minimal oversight, other than refuge-specific regulations and
law enforcement, but CNWR does have a hunting lottery for a few waterfowl blinds. Hiking is
allowed, but few trails are provided. Interpretation is generally limited to a few signs, and
environmental education programs are limited and sporadic. However, considerable staff and
monetary resources and organizational effort go into an annual Sandhill Crane Festival that attracts
hundreds of people from throughout the Northwest and the rest of the United States.
Current refuge management is described throughout the goals, objectives, and strategies to follow
and in Chapter 3, Affected Environment. Although the Service has no integrated plan to guide the
management of all of its resources and uses, current management of the refuge is guided, in part, by
the plans outlined in Chapter 1.
2.2.2 Alternative 2 – Emphasis On Wildlife-Dependent, Non-Consumptive,
Passive Visitor Use
Under Alternative 2, major biological actions remain similar to Alternative 1, except that 175 acres
of emergent wetlands in Marsh Unit III would be converted to riparian habitat; the Crab Creek
channel would be restored; specialized habitats (e.g., rock outcroppings) would receive more planned
attention; farming would emphasize low-impact techniques; and management of state and Federal
species of concern would be emphasized. For example, under Alternative 2, the Service would
consider additional translocations of Washington ground squirrels to the refuge.3
Visitor use would be focused around passive recreation, and some uses might be restricted or
eliminated to enhance the natural functioning of the various habitats. For example, horseback riding,
bicycling, and camping would be eliminated under this alternative. Providing or construction of
additional facilities would be limited, mainly involving seasonal photography blinds and an ADA-compliant
fishing area and hunting blind. The waterfowl hunting lottery would be eliminated
(hunting would still be allowed), and permanent blinds removed, excluding ADA-compliant blinds.
Morgan Lake Road would be closed to overnight travel. Interpretive and educational programs
would remain limited, although numerous informational brochures would be developed to enhance
passive recreational use of the refuge. The Sandhill Crane Festival would remain a priority.
1 If the draft Appropriate Uses determination for camping (Appendix C) is finalized, camping would be
eliminated even under the No Action alternative.
2 ADA = Americans With Disabilities Act.
3 In late February of 2011, the WDFW translocated several Washington ground squirrels to the refuge.
Columbia National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-3
The existing plans that direct refuge management would continue to do so, and new step-down plans
on informational and interpretive signs, cultural resource management, habitat management, and
others related to the goals and objectives in this CCP would be developed. In addition, new guidance
on issues like inadvertent discoveries of Native American artifacts and remains and the needs of local
schools would also be developed.
2.2.3 Alternative 3 – Emphasis On Wildlife-Dependent, Consumptive, Active
Visitor Use
Biological management actions under Alternative 3 are much the same as Alternative 2, except
farming would focus on traditional practices. A much greater emphasis on visitor services exists
under Alternative 3, and the types of use would change. As in Alternative 2, camping would be
eliminated at both the Bluebird and Soda Lake Campgrounds; however, the Soda Lake Campground
would be converted to day-use facilities, and the area around the Bluebird Campground would be
available by permit for day use as an educational site. As in Alternative 2, ADA-compliant facilities
would be developed to promote hunting and fishing. Waterfowl and big game hunting opportunities
would be substantially expanded by opening new areas; providing for additional weapons; and
implementing additional youth hunt days, areas and seasons; the waterfowl hunting lottery would be
retained. The current use of horses and bicycles would be retained, and Morgan Lake Road would
remain open for 24-hour use. A new hiking and interpretive trail would be developed within the
Drumheller Channel National Natural Landmark. Seasonal and permanent wildlife observation
blinds would be provided. New interpretive and educational programs would be developed, and as in
Alternative 2, new brochures to aid visitors would be developed. The Sandhill Crane Festival would
remain a priority. Since fish stocking is allowed under Alternative 3, it would only be discontinued
in the lakes with the highest likelihood of success for northern leopard frog recovery as determined
by interdisciplinary teams of experts.
The development of additional plans and guidance would be the same as described in Alternative 2.
However, water rights and/or agreements would be pursued to ensure the availability of water for
moist soil management.
2.3 Features Common to All Alternatives
All of the alternatives contain some common features. To reduce the length and redundancy of the
individual alternative descriptions, common features are presented below.
2.3.1 Compliance and Cooperation With State Plans
To the extent possible, the CCP would support and complement the Washington State recovery plans
for Washington ground squirrels, greater sage-grouse, northern leopard frogs, and any other relevant
species. Where feasible, the CCP and its implementation would mesh with other Washington State
plans and programs, e.g., hunting and fishing regulations.
2.3.2 Implementing Policies on “Closed Until Open”
By policy, all national wildlife refuges are considered closed when created. Then, as appropriate and
compatible uses are identified, areas are opened to the public for those uses. This process was never
Columbia National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
2-4 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
followed at CNWR. Instead, the refuge has historically been considered open, and then closures
were implemented to benefit wildlife and habitats. With completion of the CCP, the Service would
“open” the appropriate areas to the appropriate uses; the process needs to be followed in order to
ensure that “wildlife comes first.”
2.3.3 Implementation Subject to Funding Availability
Under any of the alternatives, actions would be implemented over a period of 15 years as funding
becomes available. It is the intent of the planning team that annual priorities will follow the final
CCP guidelines, although funding initiatives, unforeseeable management issues, and budgets may
vary from year to year. The CCP will be reviewed every five years and updated as necessary
throughout its life.
2.3.4 Refuge Revenue Sharing Payment
Annual payments to Adams and Grant Counties under the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (16 U.S.C.
715s) would continue according to the established formula and subject to payments authorized by
Congress.
2.3.5 Tribal Coordination
Regular communication with Native American Tribes that have an interest in the refuge (Yakama
Nation, CTUIR, Nez Perce, CCT) would continue for issues of shared involvement. Currently the
Service seeks assistance from Tribes on issues related to cultural resources education and
interpretation, special programs, and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).
2.3.6 Wilderness and Wild & Scenic Rivers Review
The Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136), as amended, provides the following description
of wilderness:
“A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the
landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are
untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of
wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act as an area of undeveloped Federal land
retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human
habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions . . .”
The Wilderness Act directed the Secretary of the Interior, within 10 years, to review every roadless
area of 5,000 acres or more within Department of the Interior (DOI) lands and to recommend to the
President the suitability of each qualifying area for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation
System. Service policy (Part 602 FW 3.4 C.(1) (c)) requires that wilderness reviews be completed as
part of the CCP process. If it is determined that the potential for wilderness designation is found, the
process moves on to the wilderness study phase. As part of the process for this draft CCP/EA, the
planning team completed an initial wilderness review and found that currently there are no lands on
CNWR that meet wilderness criteria.
Columbia National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-5
A Secretarial Directive requires that all DOI agencies complete a wild and scenic rivers eligibility
assessment when conducting land planning. The only stream on CNWR is Crab Creek, which does
not meet the standards of free flow, as defined by Section 16 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and
thus is not eligible for designation.
2.3.7 Integrated Pest Management
In accordance with 517 DM 1 and 569 FW 1, an integrated pest management (IPM) approach would
be utilized, where practicable, to eradicate, control, or contain pest and invasive species (herein
collectively referred to as pests) on refuge lands. IPM would involve using methods based upon
effectiveness, cost, and minimal ecological disruption, which considers minimum potential effects to
non-target species and the refuge environment. Pesticides may be used where physical, cultural, and
biological methods, or combinations thereof, are impractical or incapable of providing adequate
control, eradication, or containment. If a pesticide is needed on refuge lands, the most specific
(selective) chemical available for the target species would be used, unless considerations of
persistence or other environmental and/or biotic hazards would preclude it. In accordance with 517
DM 1, pesticide usage would be further restricted because only pesticides registered with the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in full compliance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and as provided in regulations, orders, or permits issued by the EPA
may be applied on lands and waters under refuge jurisdiction.
Environmental harm by pest species would refer to a biologically substantial decrease in
environmental quality as indicated by a variety of potential factors, including declines in native
species populations or communities, degraded habitat quality or long-term habitat loss, and/or altered
ecological processes. Environmental harm may be a result of direct effects of pests on native
species, including preying and feeding on them; causing or vectoring diseases; preventing them from
reproducing; killing their young; out-competing them for food, nutrients, light, nest sites, or other
vital resources; or hybridizing with them so frequently that within a few generations few, if any, truly
native individuals remain. Environmental harm also can be the result of an indirect effect of pest
species. For example, decreased waterfowl use may result from invasive plant infestations reducing
the availability and/or abundance of native wetland plants that provide forage during the winter.
Environmental harm may involve detrimental changes in ecological processes. For example,
cheatgrass infestations in shrub-steppe can greatly alter fire return intervals, displacing native species
and communities of bunch grasses, forbs, and shrubs. Environmental harm may also cause or be
associated with economic losses and damage to human, plant, and animal health. For example,
invasions by fire-promoting grasses that alter entire plant and animal communities, eliminating or
sharply reducing populations of many native plant and animal species, can also greatly increase fire-fighting
costs.
See Appendix G for the refuge’s IPM program documentation to manage pests for this CCP. Along
with a more detailed discussion of IPM techniques, this documentation describes the selective use of
pesticides for pest management on refuge lands, where necessary.
Throughout the life of the CCP, most proposed pesticide uses on CNWR lands would be evaluated
for potential effects to biological resources and environmental quality. These potential effects would
be documented in “Chemical Profiles” (see Appendix G). Pesticide uses with appropriate and
practical best management practices (BMPs) for habitat management, as well as cropland/facilities
Columbia National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
2-6 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
maintenance, would be approved for use on refuge lands where there likely would be only minor,
temporary, and localized effects to species and environmental quality based on non-exceedance of
threshold values in Chemical Profiles. However, pesticides may be used on refuge lands where
substantial effects to species and the environment are possible (exceed threshold values) in order to
protect human health and safety (e.g., mosquito-borne disease).
Response to Mosquito-Borne Diseases
Mosquito populations on refuge lands would be allowed to fluctuate and function unimpeded unless
they pose a threat to wildlife and/or human health. The Service recognizes mosquitoes are native
invertebrates inhabiting aquatic habitats and provide a forage base for fish and wildlife, including
migratory birds. To protect human and wildlife health and safety, state or local Mosquito Control
Districts would be allowed to control mosquito populations on refuge lands. However, pesticide
treatments (larvicides, pupacides and/or adulticides) would be allowed on refuge lands only if local,
current population monitoring and/or disease surveillance data indicate refuge-based mosquitoes
pose a health threat to humans and/or wildlife. (See Appendix D for the CD providing details
regarding mosquito population monitoring, disease surveillance, and treatments.) As previously
described, mosquito treatments would be allowed on refuge lands in accordance with IPM principles
applicable to all pests (see Appendix G). Proposed pesticide uses for mosquito control would utilize
appropriate and practical BMPs, where possible, given the potential effects documented in Chemical
Profiles.
After approval of the CCP, a disease contingency plan (DCP) would be prepared addressing response
to mosquito-borne disease outbreaks on and/or adjacent to CNWR lands. Much of the information in
the previously mentioned CD (e.g., IPM treatment options) would be incorporated, with additional
specificity, where necessary, into this plan. The DCP also would include other information, such as
the history of mosquito-borne diseases on and/or adjacent to CNWR, as well as measures to protect
refuge visitors, Service-authorized agents, and Service employees when a health threat or emergency
is identified by health officials.
2.3.8 Monitor Effects of Visitor Use on Wildlife
Monitoring to assess effects of visitor use on wildlife would be conducted. Monitoring would be
needed to ensure that permitted uses remain compatible over time and that the visitor uses do not
materially interfere with, or detract from, the biological integrity of the refuge, meeting the refuge’s
purposes, or fulfilling the mission of the NWRS. If necessary, the areas and/or timing of visitor use
would be modified or eliminated to provide secure and adequately sized sanctuary areas for
migratory birds and trust species.
2.3.9 Regulatory Compliance
All activities in all alternatives requiring review, permits, and clearances (e.g., Section 106 of the
NHPA, consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, 401 water quality permits)
would undergo the appropriate review and obtain the necessary permits and/or clearances.
Columbia National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-7
2.3.10 Maintaining/Upgrading Existing Facilities
Periodic maintenance and upgrading of the refuge buildings and facilities will be necessary,
regardless of the alternative selected, for safety and accessibility and to support staff and
management needs.
2.3.11 State Coordination
Under all alternatives, the Service will continue to maintain regular discussions and partnership with
the appropriate agencies within the State of Washington. This includes coordination to implement
Washington State plans and programs as outlined above and in Chapter 1.
2.3.12 Volunteer Opportunities
Volunteer opportunities occur in all alternatives. These are recognized as components of successful
management of public lands and may become vital to the implementation of refuge programs, plans,
and projects, especially in times of declining budgets.
2.3.13 Adaptive Management
Adaptive management is a management philosophy and decision process that incorporates flexibility
and continual learning. It involves monitoring and evaluation of refuge accomplishments, comparing
accomplishments to objectives, and changing management strategies or objectives, as necessary, to
achieve desired results. It is not a “trial and error” process; instead, adaptive management
emphasizes learning-while-doing. It is based on available scientific information and the best
professional judgment of refuge staff while considering site-specific biotic and abiotic factors on the
refuge. In the presence of accelerated climate change, adaptive management is an increasingly
important management-decision process. The refuge will employ adaptive management as a standard
operating procedure under all alternatives.
2.3.14 Planning and Review of Development Activities
The Service will actively participate in planning and studies for ongoing and future development
projects, water pollution and other potential concerns that may adversely affect CNWR’s wildlife
resources, habitats and/or environmental quality. The Service will cultivate working relationships
with pertinent county, state, and federal agencies and other governments to stay abreast of current
and potential developments. The Service will use outreach and education as needed to raise
awareness of CNWR’s resources and dependence on the local environment.
2.3.15 Biological Integrity
The Administration Act directs the Service to “ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health of the [NWRS] are maintained for the benefit of present and future generations
of Americans . . .” The policy is an additional directive for the Service to follow while achieving
CNWR’s purposes and the NWRS mission. It provides for the consideration and protection of the
broad spectrum of native fish, wildlife, and habitat resources found on the refuge. When evaluating
the appropriate management direction for the refuge (e.g., in compatibility determinations), the
Columbia National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
2-8 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
Service will use sound professional judgment to determine CNWR’s contribution to biological
integrity, diversity and environmental health at multiple landscape scales. Sound professional
judgment will incorporate field experience, knowledge of CNWR’s resources, an understanding of
the refuge’s role within the ecosystem, applicable laws and best available science, including
consultation with others both inside and outside the Service. The policy states that “the highest
measure of biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health is viewed as those intact and self-sustaining
habitats and wildlife populations that existed during historic conditions.”6
2.3.16 Natural Processes
Wherever possible, natural processes would be protected and allowed to occur on CNWR. In other
words, the idea is to ‘let nature take its course,’ to the extent possible. Among the natural processes
that would be encouraged:
• Natural succession would be allowed to occur where it doesn’t interfere with other purposes
(e.g., maintaining moist soil management area functionality).
• Natural recolonization of disturbed areas by plants and animals would be emphasized when
feasible.
• Beavers would be allowed to manipulate the landscape when not interfering with refuge
operations or damaging private or government property.
• The natural fire cycle (i.e., mainly fire reoccurrence) would be recreated to the extent
possible. The paradox is that fire suppression actions (e.g., construction of fire breaks) and
biological actions (e.g., replanting of native grasses following a fire) would be needed to
achieve a more natural fire regime overall.
Obviously, an entirely hands-off approach to the refuge is not feasible, or even desirable, but actions
taken would be aimed at maintaining and/or restoring natural processes. For example, livestock
could be fenced out of riparian areas to allow natural succession. Certain animal populations may
need to be controlled to keep the ecosystem in balance. As mentioned, fire suppression would be
needed to allow for natural processes. Controlling invasive species through chemical and mechanical
means would occur. Stream restoration may be needed, but soft techniques (e.g., willow bundles)
would be emphasized over hardened structures. In short, there would be active management, but that
management would be aimed at mimicking, as well protecting and fostering, natural processes.
The physical methods to promote more natural ecosystems just described would be augmented, and
may even be offset in some instances, by soft management techniques. Social engineering would be
employed to protect habitats and promote natural processes. Instructive materials would be
developed and widely distributed to educate the public on how to interact with the environment (e.g.,
Leave No Trace). There may be a need for seasonal, or even complete, closures of certain areas.
Law enforcement would be emphasized. Partnerships would be a priority to accomplish everything
from ensuring appropriate land access to educating the public on resource use. Volunteers would be
needed to accomplish the same needs. Establishing official trails can lessen impacts of social
6 There is one caveat, however. Management for a refuge’s purpose(s) is the highest priority, so maintenance
and/or restoration of biological integrity, diversity and environmental health cannot compromise or conflict with
refuge purpose(s).
Columbia National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-9
trailing, steer people away from critical resources, and provide a venue for education. The overall
idea is to make anticipation of problems a priority and head those problems off before physical
means are needed to correct the problem.
2.3.17 Best Management Practices
In order to avoid or mitigate environmental impacts from proposed actions, the Service will use
numerous well-accepted BMPs when implementing this CCP.
2.3.17.1 Avoidance of Sensitive Resources
Under all alternatives, visitor activity centers, visitor facilities, and both non-vehicular and vehicular
travel routes would be sited to minimize effects by avoiding sensitive natural and cultural resources.
Potential adverse effects from visitor use would be further minimized through closures or special
restrictions at sites with seasonal protection needs or sites vulnerable to or experiencing resource
damage. Group size limitations may be used for specific sites or activities as needed to protect
sensitive resources. Visitor use would be managed using informational signs, educational materials,
trails, protective devices, and law enforcement patrols. Because threatened, endangered, or sensitive
(TE&S) species migrate through CNWR, construction projects and public use patterns would be
scheduled seasonally to avoid adverse effects.
2.3.17.2 Proper Use of Chemicals in Controlling Non-native Invasive Species
The use of chemicals to control non-native invasive species would be conducted in accordance with
Washington State Department of Ecology (WDOE) and EPA laws and regulations, Service policy,
and label directions. Pesticide Use Proposals (PUPs) would be completed annually and approved at
the local, regional, or national level as required by Service policy. These PUPs also constitute the
IPM Plan under current standards.
2.3.17.3 Implementation of Integrated Pest Management Plan
An IPM Plan for invasive plant species control prescribes a methodology for treatment that includes
inventories and population mapping, assessments of risk, prioritization of treatments, integrated
treatment implementation, and effective monitoring. This approach considers direct effects on soils,
vegetation, watershed function, and biodiversity in all treatment recommendations. In sensitive plant
communities, the use of multiple tools (e.g., chemical, biological, cultural, mechanical) may be
necessary to prevent weed invasion and spread, as well as disturbance of soils and plant community
structure and function. Use of biological control agents (e.g., insects, microorganisms, pathogens)
for control of non-native invasive plant species would be implemented in accordance with Service
policies only after such organisms have been subjected to testing and evaluation by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) and approved for release.
Established populations of non-native invasive plants, such as yellow star-thistle, rush skeletonweed,
and knapweed, would require extensive integrated treatments to control. Each weed treatment would
be conducted in accordance with the IPM Plan and in accordance with stipulations set forth in annual
PUPs. Additionally, special use permits (SUPs) for activities, such as research projects and
commercial tours, would include stipulations designed to prevent the spread of invasive species.
Columbia National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
2-10 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
Because many components of resource management incorporate methods of invasive species control,
some of which are highly visible and potentially controversial (e.g., controlled burns, aerial
spraying), information and education would be used to inform the public about the IPM program.
2.3.17.4 Restoration Activities
Native seeds and/or plants derived from the Columbia Basin will be used as a priority for all
planting/restoration projects on CNWR.7 Providers of native seed or native plants to the refuge
would provide documentation for the origin of seed or plants and would also, in the case of seed,
provide certification that the seed provided to CNWR is free of noxious weed contamination. These
requirements will be included in any scope of work prior to contracting the production and supply of
plant materials. Plant materials may be refused if they do not meet these requirements.
Occasionally, small amounts of seed may be collected from CNWR to be provided to plant nurseries
and grown into seedling plants to be replanted onto the refuge. In these cases, Service staff would
supervise the selection of species for collection and the actual collection of seed from plants on
CNWR. Seed collection needs for species and amounts would be based on annual restoration and
rehabilitation needs. Seeds would be collected during the appropriate season as dictated by plant
species phenology, and the parent plant would not be damaged or harmed in any way during seed
collection. Seed would be collected from no more than 20 percent of individuals within a population,
and no more than 50 percent of the total seed production from individual plants would be collected
annually.
2.3.17.5 Natural Resource Data Collection and Monitoring
Inventories would be conducted to obtain data related to habitat conditions; wildlife populations and
habitat requirements; restoration treatment locations, timing, and effectiveness; resource protection
measures; invasive species control; TE&S species; and other areas of management concern.
Resource information would be collected using global positioning system (GPS) technology,
permanent monitoring plots, point counts, and pedestrian transect surveys. The information collected
would be used to improve existing data sets, mapping, and scientific knowledge concerning species,
habitats, restoration needs, treatment effectiveness, land disturbance events, and other areas of
concern.
Existing and new fish, wildlife, water, and vegetation monitoring programs would be conducted by
Service staff, volunteers, or cooperators to support adaptive management. These programs would
entail monitoring and evaluation of habitat management and restoration activities, TE&S species, and
public uses. Periodic monitoring (every five to seven years) of priority sensitive plant communities
would be conducted in permanent monitoring plots.
2.3.17.6 Cultural Resource Inventories
Prior to implementation of any ground-disturbing projects, the applicable cultural resource
compliance investigation would be undertaken. This investigation may entail a literature review,
records search, field survey, and tribal consultation. If cultural resources are present, appropriate
procedures would be implemented to protect them per Federal laws and Service policies and
guidelines.
7 Depending upon the amount of seed required and specific project needs, either seed or plants may be used in
restoration activities.
Columbia National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-11
2.3.17.7 Fire Management
Fire management activities would conform to guidelines set forth in Service policy and the approved
Fire Management Plan for the MCRNWRC. Wildland fire would be suppressed when possible;
suppression techniques would be employed that minimize surface disturbance in the vicinity of
sensitive resources. Fire control policies would be implemented to reduce the risk of human-caused
wildland fire.
2.3.17.8 Facility Design/Aesthetic Considerations
Landscape design standards would be developed to protect CNWR’s natural beauty, scenic vistas,
and cultural heritage and to ensure that all site developments and facility improvements contribute to,
rather than detract from, aesthetic appeal. Facility design and placement would be carefully planned
with landscape integrity in mind. Future interpretive sites and signs would be designed to have an
unobtrusive profile, with framing and supports that blend with the environment. Visitors would be
encouraged to use natural-colored equipment where appropriate.
2.4 Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
Goals and objectives are the unifying elements of successful refuge management. They identify and
focus management priorities, resolve issues, and link to refuge purposes, Service policy, and the
National Wildlife Refuge System mission.
A CCP describes management actions that help bring a refuge closer to its vision. The vision
broadly reflects the refuge’s purpose(s), the NWRS mission and goals, other statutory requirements,
and larger-scale plans as appropriate. Goals then define general targets in support of the vision,
followed by objectives that direct effort into incremental and measurable steps toward achieving
those goals. Finally, strategies identify specific tools and actions to accomplish objectives.
In the development of this CCP, the Service has prepared an EA. The EA evaluates alternative sets
of management actions derived from a variety of management goals, objectives, and implementation
strategies.
The goals for CNWR for the next 15 years under the CCP are presented on the following pages.
Each goal is followed by the objectives that pertain to that goal. Some objectives pertain to multiple
goals and have simply been placed in the most reasonable spot. Similarly, some strategies pertain to
multiple objectives. The order of goals does not imply any priority in this CCP. Below each
objective statement are the strategies that could be employed in order to accomplish the objectives.
Alternative 1 is the ‘no-action alternative,’ which assumes no significant change in current
management programs. Strategies included under either Alternative 2 or 3, but not under Alternative
1, represent a change in current management direction.8
8 However, if an existing use is found to be ‘not appropriate,’ or is not compatible with refuge purposes or
resources (see Appendices C and D), then that use will not be allowed even under Alternative 1.
Columbia National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
2-12 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
Goal 1. Protect, maintain and, where feasible, enhance and restore upland
habitats, plant communities, and wildlife species representative of the
Columbia Basin.
Objective 1.1 - Protect, Maintain, and Enhance Native Bunchgrass Habitat
Protect, maintain, and conduct enhancement on 4,250 acres of native bunchgrass habitat for
the benefit of a diverse assemblage of native species, including western meadowlarks, long-billed
curlews, and other native wildlife.
This nati