Lewis and Clark National Wildlife Refuge and Julia Butler Hansen Refuge for the Columbian White-tailed Deer Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement

              Lewis and Clark National Wildlife Refuge and
Julia Butler Hansen Refuge for the Columbian White-tailed Deer
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement
Wahkiakum County, Washington, and Clatsop and Columbia Counties, Oregon
Type of Action: Administrative
Lead Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
Responsible Official: Robyn Thorson, Regional Director
For Further Information: Charlie Stenvall, Project Leader
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Complex
3888 SR 101
Ilwaco, Washington 98624
Abstract: We developed alternatives, including preferred and no action alternatives, as required by National
Environmental Policy Act regulations, for each of the following refuges. Two alternatives were developed for
the Lewis and Clark National Wildlife Refuge and three alternatives were developed for the Julia Butler
Hansen Refuge for the Columbian White-tailed Deer (refuges). We compared and assessed issues,
opportunities, and options for managing the refuges in the alternatives. Summaries of the alternatives follow:
Lewis and Clark Refuge
Alternative 1 (No Action). Under Alternative 1 no changes to current management would occur, and we
would: Monitor refuge islands and treat invasive plant infestations as funded; protect wintering and foraging
habitat for migratory waterfowl and bald eagles; and provide hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and
photography.
Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative). Under Alternative 2 current management would continue, and we
would: Expand partnerships for managing invasive species; recruit graduate students to conduct wildlife and
habitat research; explore options for managing State-owned lands within the refuge’s acquisition boundary;
expand wildlife observation and photography opportunities; initiate a wilderness study for eligible refuge
lands; and develop partnerships to ensure dredge spoil islands provide benefits for wildlife.
Julia Butler Hansen Refuge for the Columbian White-tailed Deer
Alternative 1 (No Action). Under Alternative 1 no changes to current management would occur, we would:
Maintain and protect habitats; establish early successional riparian forest habitat; manage predators January
through April; and provide wildlife-dependent public use programs.
Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative). Under Alternative 2 current management would continue, and we
would: Close a section of Steamboat Slough to waterfowl hunting to improve public safety; manage predators
year-round as needed to achieve Columbian white-tailed (CWT) deer recovery goals; establish an experimental
CWT deer population upriver; develop two trails; open Crims and Price islands to waterfowl hunting; improve
interpretive media; and initiate a wilderness study for eligible refuge lands;.
Alternative 3. Under Alternative 3 current management would continue, and we would: Conduct predator
management January through August to achieve recovery goals for the CWT deer; develop a bicycle and
hiking trail; open Crims and Price islands to waterfowl hunting; close a small section of Steamboat Slough to
waterfowl hunting to improve public safety; install new interpretive exhibit panels; develop curriculum for the
refuge’s study sites; and initiate a wilderness study for eligible refuge lands.
Lewis and Clark National Wildlife Refuge
and Julia Butler Hansen Refuge for the
Columbian White-tailed Deer
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Impact Statement
Prepared by:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Complex
3888 SR 101
Ilwaco, Washington 98624
August 2010
Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long-term guidance for management decisions and set forth goals,
objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes and identify the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s best
estimates of future needs. These plans detail program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above current
budget allocations, and as such, are primarily used for strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. The
plans do not constitute a commitment for staffing increases, operational and maintenance increases, or funding for
future land acquisition.
This page left blank intentionally
Lewis and Clark and Julia Butler Hansen National Wildlife Refuges CCP/EIS
Table of Contents i
Table of Contents
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background ......................................................... 1-1
1.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Proposed Action ................................................................................................................... 1-2
1.3 Purpose and Need for the CCP ........................................................................................... 1-2
1.4 Content and Scope of the CCP ........................................................................................... 1-9
1.5 National Wildlife Refuge System Laws and Directives .................................................. 1-10
1.5.1 Planning and Management Guidance ......................................................................... 1-10
1.5.2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mission ..................................................................... 1-10
1.5.3 National Wildlife Refuge System .............................................................................. 1-10
1.5.4 National Wildlife Refuge System Mission and Goals ............................................... 1-11
1.5.5 National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act .............................................. 1-11
1.5.6 Relationship to Previous and Future Refuge Plans .................................................... 1-12
1.5.7 Future Planning .......................................................................................................... 1-13
1.6 Refuge Establishment and Refuge Purposes ................................................................... 1-13
1.6.1 Lewis and Clark National Wildlife Refuge Purposes and Acquisition History ......... 1-14
1.6.2 Summary of Purposes and Management Direction for the Lewis and Clark
Refuge ........................................................................................................................... 1-16
1.6.3 Julia Butler Hansen Refuge for the Columbian White-tailed Deer Purposes and
Acquisition History ....................................................................................................... 1-17
1.6.4 Summary of Purposes and Management Direction for the Julia Butler Hansen
Refuge ........................................................................................................................... 1-19
1.7 Relationship to Ecosystem Management Goals .............................................................. 1-20
1.7.1 Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan .......................................................................................................... 1-20
1.7.2 Oregon Natural Heritage Plan .................................................................................... 1-21
1.7.3 Oregon and Washington Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy ................ 1-21
1.7.4 Mainstem Lower Columbia River and Columbia Estuary Subbasin Plan ................. 1-21
1.7.5 Columbian White-tailed Deer Recovery Plan ............................................................ 1-22
1.7.6 North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Pacific Coast Joint Venture ............ 1-22
1.7.6.1 Habitat Objectives ................................................................................................ 1-23
1.7.6.2 Actions Specific to the Refuges ........................................................................... 1-23
1.7.7 Pacific Flyway Management Plans ............................................................................ 1-24
1.7.7.1 Canada Goose Agricultural Depredation Control in Oregon and Washington ... 1-24
1.7.7.2 Cackling Canada Geese ....................................................................................... 1-25
1.7.7.3 Pacific Population of Western Canada Geese ...................................................... 1-25
1.7.7.4 Western Population of Tundra Swans ................................................................. 1-25
1.7.7.5 Dusky Canada Geese ........................................................................................... 1-26
1.7.8 Partners in Flight Landbird Conservation Plans ........................................................ 1-26
1.7.9 U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, Northern Pacific Coast Regional Shorebird
Management Plan .......................................................................................................... 1-26
1.8 Planning and Issue Identification ..................................................................................... 1-27
1.9 Issues Addressed in the CCP/EIS ..................................................................................... 1-27
1.9.1 Lewis and Clark National Wildlife Refuge ................................................................ 1-28
1.9.1.1 Issue 1: Wilderness Study .................................................................................... 1-28
Lewis and Clark and Julia Butler Hansen National Wildlife Refuges CCP/EIS
ii Table of Contents
1.9.1.2 Issue 2: Dredged Materials Management ............................................................ 1-28
1.9.1.3 Issue 3: Oregon Department of State Lands Management Agreement ............... 1-28
1.9.2 Julia Butler Hansen Refuge for the Columbian White-tailed Deer ............................ 1-28
1.9.2.1 Issue 1: Population Management of Predators to protect CWT Deer Fawns ...... 1-28
1.9.2.2 Issue 2: Wildlife and Habitat Management ......................................................... 1-29
1.9.2.3 Issue 3: Management of Public Access and Use ................................................. 1-29
1.9.2.4 Issue 4: Tidal Wetland and Stream Restoration for Native Fish Enhancement ... 1-29
1.9.2.5 Issue 5: Wilderness Study .................................................................................... 1-29
1.9.2.6 Issue 6: Education and Outreach ......................................................................... 1-30
1.10 Issues Outside the Scope of the CCP .............................................................................. 1-30
1.10.1 Lewis and Clark Refuge ........................................................................................... 1-30
1.10.1.1 Floathouses ........................................................................................................ 1-30
1.10.1.2 East Sand Island Management ........................................................................... 1-30
1.10.2 Julia Butler Hansen Refuge for the Columbian White-tailed Deer .......................... 1-30
1.10.2.1 Deer Depredation ............................................................................................... 1-30
1.10.2.2 Liquefied Natural Gas Facility .......................................................................... 1-31
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ............................. 2-1
2.1 Considerations in Alternative Design ................................................................................. 2-1
2.2 Actions Considered but Not Developed for the CCP/EIS ................................................ 2-1
2.2.1 Commercial Waterfowl Guiding .................................................................................. 2-1
2.2.2 Camping ....................................................................................................................... 2-2
2.3 Alternative Descriptions ...................................................................................................... 2-2
2.4 Features Common to all Alternatives ................................................................................ 2-2
2.4.1 Implementation Subject to Funding Availability ......................................................... 2-2
2.4.2 Columbian White-tailed Deer Recovery Plan .............................................................. 2-3
2.4.3 Elk Hunt Plan ............................................................................................................... 2-3
2.4.4 Fire Management Plan ................................................................................................. 2-3
2.4.5 Wallace Island Hunt Plan ............................................................................................. 2-3
2.4.6 Wilderness Review ....................................................................................................... 2-3
2.4.7 Integrated Pest Management (IPM) ............................................................................. 2-4
2.4.8 Monitor Effects of Public Use Programs on Wildlife .................................................. 2-5
2.4.9 Regulatory Compliance ................................................................................................ 2-5
2.4.10 Maintaining/Upgrading Existing Facilities ................................................................ 2-5
2.4.11 Tribal Coordination .................................................................................................... 2-5
2.4.12 State Coordination ...................................................................................................... 2-5
2.4.13 Volunteer Opportunities ............................................................................................. 2-6
2.4.14 Participation in Planning and Review of Regional Development Activities ............. 2-6
2.4.15 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 536 Habitat Restoration .............................. 2-6
2.4.17 Participation in Planning and Review of Regional Development Activities ............. 2-7
2.5 Actions Considered but Dismissed ..................................................................................... 2-7
2.5.1 No Mammalian Predator Control ................................................................................. 2-7
2.5.2 Nonlethal Techniques to Remove Coyotes .................................................................. 2-7
2.5.3 Public Trapping and Hunting to Remove Coyotes ...................................................... 2-7
2.6 Alternatives Descriptions Summary .................................................................................. 2-8
2.6.1 Lewis and Clark Refuge ............................................................................................... 2-8
Lewis and Clark and Julia Butler Hansen National Wildlife Refuges CCP/EIS
Table of Contents iii
2.6.1.1 Alternative 1 Continue Current Management (No Action) ................................... 2-8
2.6.1.2 Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) Enhance Resource Protection/Provide
Wildlife-dependent Public Use .................................................................................. 2-13
2.6.2 Julia Butler Hansen Refuge for the Columbian White-tailed Deer ............................ 2-13
2.6.2.1 Alternative 1, Current Management (No Action) ................................................ 2-13
2.6.2.2 Alternative 2, Enhanced Habitat and Columbian White-tailed Deer
Management with Increased Wildlife-dependent Public Use Opportunities
(Preferred Alternative) ............................................................................................... 2-17
2.6.2.3 Alternative 3, Maintain Current Habitat Management; Enhance Columbian
White-tailed Deer Population Management and Wildlife-dependent Public Use ..... 2-23
2.7 Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Introduction ............................................................... 2-24
2.7.1 Reviewing the Goals, Objectives and Strategies ........................................................ 2-25
2.8 Lewis and Clark National Wildlife Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ............. 2-25
2.8.1 Goal 1. Protect and Maintain Natural Forested Wetland (Swamp) Habitats
Characteristic of the Historic Lower Columbia River for the Benefit of Migratory
Birds, Columbian White-tailed Deer, and Other Native Wildlife ................................. 2-26
2.8.1.1 Objective for Scrub-Shrub Swamp ...................................................................... 2-26
2.8.1.2 Objective for Sitka Spruce Swamp ...................................................................... 2-31
2.8.1.3 Objective for Cottonwood/Willow Swamp ......................................................... 2-32
2.8.2 Goal 2. Protect Unique Palustrine and Estuarine Emergent Tidal Marsh,
Characteristic of the Historic Lower Columbia River .................................................. 2-33
2.8.2.1 Objective for Emergent Tidal Marsh ................................................................... 2-33
2.8.3 Goal 3. Protect Tidal Mudflats and Sandbar Habitats Characteristic of the
Historic Lower Columbia River .................................................................................... 2-34
2.8.3.1 Objective for Mud Flats and Sand Bars ............................................................... 2-34
2.8.4 Goal 4. Protect Upland Forest Characteristic of the Historic Lower Columbia
River for Marbled Murrelets, Bald Eagles, Forest Birds, and a Diverse Assemblage
of Other Native Species ................................................................................................ 2-35
2.8.4.1 Objective for Upland Forest ................................................................................ 2-35
2.8.4.2 Objective for Riparian Forest .............................................................................. 2-35
2.8.5 Goal 5. Protect Riverine and Estuarine Open Water and Slough Habitats
Characteristic of the Historic Lower Columbia River Estuary ..................................... 2-37
2.8.5.1 Objective for Open Water .................................................................................... 2-37
2.8.6 Goal 6. Foster and Strengthen Partnerships to Enhance Estuary Protection,
Wildlife and Habitat Conservation, and Public Understanding and Appreciation of
the Natural Resources in the Lower Columbia River Estuary ...................................... 2-38
2.8.6.1 Objective for Oregon Department of State Lands ............................................... 2-38
2.8.6.2 Objective for Lower Columbia River Estuary ..................................................... 2-38
2.8.6.3 Objective for Dredge Spoil Islands ...................................................................... 2-39
2.8.6.4 Objective for Pest Management ........................................................................... 2-40
2.8.7 Goal 7. Gather Scientific Information (Inventories, Monitoring, Research, and
Studies) in Support of Adaptive Management Decisions on the Refuge under Goals
1-6 ................................................................................................................................ 2-42
2.8.7.1 Objective for Scientific Information .................................................................... 2-42
Lewis and Clark and Julia Butler Hansen National Wildlife Refuges CCP/EIS
iv Table of Contents
2.8.8 Goal 8. Provide a Variety of Quality, Wildlife-dependent Recreational
Opportunities Focusing on Lewis and Clark Refuge’s Unique Solitude and
Abundant Wildlife Resources While Minimizing Negative Impacts on Wildlife ........ 2-44
2.8.8.1 Objective for Hunting .......................................................................................... 2-44
2.8.8.2 Objective for Fishing ........................................................................................... 2-44
2.8.8.3 Objective for Education and Interpretation ......................................................... 2-47
2.8.8.4 Objective for Wildlife Observation and Photography ......................................... 2-47
2.9 Julia Butler Hansen Refuge for the Columbian White-tailed Deer Goals,
Objectives, and Strategies ................................................................................................. 2-48
2.9.1 Goal 1. Provide Short-Grass Fields for the Benefit of Columbian White-tailed
Deer, Dusky Canada Geese, and Other Grassland Dependent Wildlife ....................... 2-48
2.9.1.1 Objective for Short-grass Fields .......................................................................... 2-48
2.9.2. Goal 2. Restore and Maintain Riparian Forests with Diverse Age and Structural
Features Characteristic of the Historic Lower Columbia River .................................... 2-50
2.9.2.1 Objective for Early Successional Riparian Forest ............................................... 2-50
2.9.2.2 Objective for Mid-successional Riparian Forest ................................................. 2-53
2.9.2.3 Objective for Late-successional Riparian Forest ................................................. 2-54
2.9.3 Goal 3. Restore and Maintain Nontidal Wetlands and Sloughs as a Mosaic with
Other Refuge Habitat Types, Especially Riparian Forest and Short-Grass Fields ....... 2-55
2.9.3.1 Objective for Nontidal Wetlands ........................................................................ 2-55
2.9.3.2 Objective for Sloughs .......................................................................................... 2-56
2.9.4 Goal 4. Maintain and Protect Tidally Influenced Freshwater Wetlands and
Swamp Habitats Characteristic of the Historic Lower Columbia River ....................... 2-58
2.9.4.1 Objective for Scrub-Shrub Swamp ...................................................................... 2-58
2.9.4.2 Objective for Sitka Spruce Swamp ...................................................................... 2-59
2.9.4.3 Objective for Cottonwood/Willow Swamp ......................................................... 2-59
2.9.4.4 Objective for Emergent Tidal Marsh ................................................................... 2-60
2.9.4.5 Objective for Open Water and Tidal Slough ....................................................... 2-61
2.9.5 Goal 5. Maintain a Healthy, Sustainable Population of Endangered Columbian
White-tailed Deer to Promote the Recovery of this Species ......................................... 2-62
2.9.5.1 Objective for Columbian White-tailed Deer Recovery ....................................... 2-62
2.9.5.2 Objective for Establishing Healthy Populations of Columbian White-tailed
Deer off of Refuge Lands .......................................................................................... 2-64
2.9.6 Goal 6. Provide and Encourage Establishment of Aquatic Habitat Conditions that
Benefit Salmonids and Other Native Aquatic Species of the Lower Columbia River . 2-65
2.9.6.1 Objective for Aquatic Habitat .............................................................................. 2-65
2.9.7 Goal 7. Gather Scientific Information (Inventories, Monitoring, Research, and
Studies) in Support of Adaptive Management Decisions on the Refuge Under
Goals 1-6 ....................................................................................................................... 2-66
2.9.7.1 Objective for Scientific Information .................................................................... 2-66
2.9.8 Goal 8. Provide Refuge Visitors with the Opportunity to Participate in Wildlife
Observation, Hunting, Fishing, Photography, Interpretation, and Environmental
Education ....................................................................................................................... 2-68
2.9.8.1 Objective for Wildlife Observation and Photography ......................................... 2-68
2.9.8.2 Objective for Hunting .......................................................................................... 2-69
2.9.8.3 Objective for Fishing ........................................................................................... 2-70
Lewis and Clark and Julia Butler Hansen National Wildlife Refuges CCP/EIS
Table of Contents v
2.9.8.4 Objective for Interpretation and Environmental Education ................................. 2-73
Chapter 3. Physical Environment ...................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Refuge Introductions ........................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Climate ................................................................................................................................. 3-3
3.3 Climate Change .................................................................................................................... 3-4
3.4 Predicted Future Ecological Trends ................................................................................... 3-5
3.5 Detailed Future Climate Change in the Pacific Northwest .............................................. 3-7
3.5.1 Sea Level Rise .............................................................................................................. 3-7
3.5.2 Temperature/Precipitation Changes ........................................................................... 3-10
3.5.3 Potential Changes to the Refuges ............................................................................... 3-11
3.6 Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 3-11
3.7 Land Use ............................................................................................................................. 3-12
3.71 Julia Butler Hansen Refuge ......................................................................................... 3-12
3.7.1.1 Pasture Management ............................................................................................ 3-16
3.7.1.2 Riparian Establishment ........................................................................................ 3-18
3.7.1.3 Non-tidal Wetland Enhancement ......................................................................... 3-20
3.7.2 Lewis and Clark National Wildlife Refuge ................................................................ 3-23
3.8 Topography and Bathymetry............................................................................................ 3-24
3.9 Geology............................................................................................................................... 3-24
3.10 Soils................................................................................................................................... 3-25
3.10.1 Lewis and Clark Refuge ........................................................................................... 3-25
3.10.1.1 Brownsmead Unit .............................................................................................. 3-25
3.10.1.2 Tongue Point Unit .............................................................................................. 3-25
3.10.1.3 Emerald Heights Unit ........................................................................................ 3-25
3.10.2 Julia Butler Hansen Refuge ...................................................................................... 3-25
3.11 Hydrology ......................................................................................................................... 3-26
3.11.1 Overview .................................................................................................................. 3-26
3.11.2 Lewis and Clark Refuge ........................................................................................... 3-27
3.11.3 Julia Butler Hansen Refuge ...................................................................................... 3-27
3.11.3.1 Tenasillahe Island Unit ...................................................................................... 3-31
3.11.3.2 Hunting and Price Islands .................................................................................. 3-31
3.11.3.3 Wallace and Crims Islands ................................................................................ 3-32
3.11.3.4 Westport Unit ..................................................................................................... 3-33
3.12 Water Quality ................................................................................................................... 3-33
3.13 Environmental Contaminants......................................................................................... 3-33
3.13.1 Lewis and Clark Refuge ........................................................................................... 3-33
3.13.1.1 Lewis and Clark Islands Unit ............................................................................. 3-34
3.13.1.2 Tongue Point Unit .............................................................................................. 3-34
3.13.2 Julia Butler Hansen Refuge ...................................................................................... 3-35
3.14 Surrounding Land Use .................................................................................................... 3-36
3.14.1 Lewis and Clark Refuge ........................................................................................... 3-36
3.14.2 Julia Butler Hansen Refuge ...................................................................................... 3-37
3.15 Effects to the Physical Environment .............................................................................. 3-38
3.15.1 Lewis and Clark Refuge ........................................................................................... 3-38
3.15.1.1 Air Quality ......................................................................................................... 3-38
Lewis and Clark and Julia Butler Hansen National Wildlife Refuges CCP/EIS
vi Table of Contents
3.15.1.2 Water Quality ..................................................................................................... 3-38
3.15.1.3 Soils ................................................................................................................... 3-39
3.15.2 Julia Butler Hansen Refuge ...................................................................................... 3-39
3.15.2.1 Air Quality ......................................................................................................... 3-39
3.15.2.2 Hydrology .......................................................................................................... 3-40
3.15.2.3 Soils ................................................................................................................... 3-40
3.15.2.4 Water Quality ..................................................................................................... 3-41
Chapter 4. Biological Environment .................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Biological Integrity Analysis ............................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Identification of Refuge Resources of Concern and Analysis .......................................... 4-2
4.3 Habitats and Vegetation .................................................................................................... 4-20
4.3.1 Riverine and Estuarine Open Water and Unconsolidated Bottom ............................. 4-21
4.3.2 Riverine and Estuarine Unconsolidated Shore (Tidal Flats and Sandbars) ............... 4-21
4.3.3 Estuarine and Palustrine Emergent Wetland  Tidal Marsh ...................................... 4-21
4.3.4 Palustrine Tidal Scrub-Shrub Wetland ....................................................................... 4-22
4.3.5 Palustrine Evergreen Forested Tidal WetlandSitka Spruce Swamp ........................ 4-23
4.3.6 Palustrine Deciduous Forested Tidal Wetland  Cottonwood/Willow Swamp ......... 4-23
4.3.7 Palustrine Emergent WetlandNontidal Marsh ......................................................... 4-24
4.3.8 Riparian Forest and Shrub .......................................................................................... 4-24
4.3.9 Grassland .................................................................................................................... 4-25
4.3.10 Barren Land – Upland Dredge Spoil Islands ........................................................... 4-26
4.3.11 Upland Conifer and Mixed Forest ............................................................................ 4-26
4.4 Fish and Wildlife ................................................................................................................ 4-26
4.4.1 Fish ............................................................................................................................. 4-26
4.4.1.1 Salmon ................................................................................................................. 4-28
4.4.1.2 Sturgeon ............................................................................................................... 4-30
4.4.1.3 Warm Water Fish ................................................................................................. 4-30
4.4.2 Birds ........................................................................................................................ 4-30
4.4.2.1 Waterbirds ............................................................................................................ 4-30
4.4.2.2 Shorebirds ............................................................................................................ 4-31
4.4.2.3 Raptors ................................................................................................................. 4-31
4.4.2.4 Landbirds ............................................................................................................. 4-32
4.4.3 Mammals .................................................................................................................... 4-33
4.4.3.1 Coyote .................................................................................................................. 4-33
4.4.3.2 Other Mammals ................................................................................................... 4-34
4.4.4 Reptiles and Amphibians ........................................................................................... 4-35
4.4.5 Invertebrates ............................................................................................................... 4-35
4.5 Federally Threatened and Endangered Species .............................................................. 4-36
4.5.1 Fish ............................................................................................................................. 4-36
4.5.2 Birds ........................................................................................................................... 4-37
4.5.2.1 Brown Pelican ...................................................................................................... 4-37
4.5.2.2 Northern Spotted Owl and Marbled Murrelet ...................................................... 4-37
4.5.2.3 Streaked Horned Lark .......................................................................................... 4-37
4.5.3 Mammals .................................................................................................................... 4-38
4.5.3.1 Steller Sea Lion .................................................................................................... 4-38
Lewis and Clark and Julia Butler Hansen National Wildlife Refuges CCP/EIS
Table of Contents vii
4.5.3.2 Columbian White-tailed Deer .............................................................................. 4-38
4.6 Special Designation Areas ................................................................................................. 4-55
4.7 Effects to Species and Habitats ......................................................................................... 4-55
4.7.1 Effects Common to All Alternatives (Integrated Pest Management) ........................ 4-55
4.7.2 Julia Butler Hansen Refuge ........................................................................................ 4-56
4.7.2.1 Effects to Fish ...................................................................................................... 4-56
4.7.2.2 Effects to Birds .................................................................................................... 4-57
4.7.2.3 Effects to Mammals ............................................................................................. 4-61
4.7.2.4 Effects to Reptiles and Amphibians ..................................................................... 4-64
4.7.2.5 Effects to Invertebrates ........................................................................................ 4-64
4.7.2.6 Effects to Federally Threatened and Endangered Species ................................... 4-65
4.7.2.7 Effects to Wetland Habitats and Associated Wildlife ......................................... 4-73
4.7.2.8 Effects to Riparian (Nontidal) Habitats and Associated Wildlife ........................ 4-74
4.7.3 Lewis and Clark Refuge ............................................................................................. 4-75
4.7.3.1 Effects to Fish ...................................................................................................... 4-75
4.7.3.2 Effects to Birds, Mammals, Reptiles, Amphibians, and Invertebrates ................ 4-75
4.7.3.3 Effects to Federally Threatened and Endangered Species ................................... 4-76
4.7.3.4 Effects to Wetland Habitats and Associated Wildlife ......................................... 4-79
4.7.3.5 Effects to Riparian and Upland Habitats and Associated Wildlife ...................... 4-79
Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment ................................................. 5-1
5.1 Refuge Conditions, Infrastructure, and Administrative Facilities .................................. 5-1
5.1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 5-1
5.1.2 Lewis and Clark Refuge Infrastructure and Administrative Facilities ......................... 5-2
5.1.2.1 Emerald Heights Unit ............................................................................................ 5-2
5.1.2.2 Tongue Point Unit .................................................................................................. 5-2
5.1.2.3 Brownsmead Unit .................................................................................................. 5-2
5.1.2.4 Islands Unit ............................................................................................................ 5-2
5.1.3 Julia Butler Hansen Refuge Infrastructure and Administrative Facilities .................... 5-3
5.1.3.1 Mainland Unit ........................................................................................................ 5-3
5.1.3.2 Tenasillahe Island Unit .......................................................................................... 5-4
5.1.3.3 Anunde Island Unit ................................................................................................ 5-7
5.1.3.4 Westport Unit ......................................................................................................... 5-7
5.1.3.5 Wallace Island Unit ............................................................................................... 5-7
5.1.3.6 Hunting Islands Unit .............................................................................................. 5-7
5.2 Public Use ............................................................................................................................. 5-8
5.2.1 Area Outdoor Recreational Opportunities and Trends ................................................. 5-8
5.2.1.1 Current Outdoor Participation Rates ...................................................................... 5-8
5.2.1.2 Forecast of Future Regional Recreation Demand and Key Recreation Needs
Identified by IAC ......................................................................................................... 5-9
5.2.2 Overview of the Refuges’ Public Use .......................................................................... 5-9
5.2.2.1 Lewis and Clark Refuge ...................................................................................... 5-10
5.2.2.2 Julia Butler Hansen Refuge ................................................................................. 5-11
5.2.3 Wildlife-dependent Public Uses ................................................................................. 5-12
5.2.3.1 Hunting Opportunities ......................................................................................... 5-12
5.2.3.2 Lewis and Clark Refuge-Hunting ........................................................................ 5-13
Lewis and Clark and Julia Butler Hansen National Wildlife Refuges CCP/EIS
viii Table of Contents
5.2.3.3 Julia Butler Hansen Refuge-Hunting ................................................................... 5-13
5.2.3.4 Fishing Opportunities .......................................................................................... 5-14
5.2.3.5 Fishing Opportunities-Lewis and Clark Refuge .................................................. 5-15
5.2.3.6 Fishing Opportunities-Julia Butler Hansen Refuge ............................................. 5-15
5.2.3.7 Wildlife Observation and Photography-Lewis and Clark Refuge ....................... 5-15
5.2.3.8 Wildlife Observation and Photography-Julia Butler Hansen Refuge .................. 5-16
5.2.3.9 Environmental Education and Interpretation ....................................................... 5-16
5.2.4 Nonwildlife-dependent Recreation ............................................................................ 5-17
5.2.4.1 Recreational Boating, Waterskiing, Swimming, and Beach Use ........................ 5-17
5.2.4.2 Recreational Boating, Waterskiing, Swimming, and Beach Use-Lewis and
Clark Refuge .............................................................................................................. 5-17
5.2.4.3 Recreational Boating, Waterskiing, Swimming, and Beach Use-Julia Butler
Hansen Refuge ........................................................................................................... 5-17
5.2.5 Illegal Uses ................................................................................................................. 5-18
5.3 Cultural Resources............................................................................................................. 5-18
5.3.1 Native American Cultural History and Landscape .................................................... 5-18
5.3.2 Euro-American Cultural History and Landscape ....................................................... 5-19
5.3.2.1 Early Exploration, Lewis and Clark, and the Fur Trade: 1790s-1840s ............... 5-19
5.3.2.2 Euro-American Settlement, the Fishing Industry, and Farming: 1840s-1970s ... 5-20
5.3.3 Archaeological Resources and Historic Properties .................................................... 5-21
5.3.3.1 Lewis and Clark Refuge ...................................................................................... 5-21
5.3.3.2 Julia Butler Hansen Refuge ................................................................................. 5-22
5.4 Social and Economic Conditions ...................................................................................... 5-22
5.4.1 Population, Housing, and Income .............................................................................. 5-22
5.4.1.1 Lewis and Clark Refuge ...................................................................................... 5-22
5.4.1.2 Julia Butler Hansen Refuge ................................................................................. 5-23
5.5 Effects to the Social and Economic Environment ........................................................... 5-25
5.5.1 Projected Future Public Uses ..................................................................................... 5-26
5.5.2 Opportunities for Quality Wildlife Observation and Photography ............................ 5-27
5.5.2.1 Lewis and Clark Refuge ...................................................................................... 5-27
5.5.2.2 Julia Butler Hansen Refuge ................................................................................. 5-28
5.5.3 Opportunities for Quality Hunting ............................................................................. 5-28
5.5.3.1 Lewis and Clark Refuge ...................................................................................... 5-28
5.5.3.2 Julia Butler Hansen Refuge ................................................................................. 5-29
5.5.4 Opportunities for Quality Fishing .............................................................................. 5-29
5.5.4.1 Lewis and Clark Refuge ...................................................................................... 5-29
5.5.4.2 Julia Butler Hansen Refuge ................................................................................. 5-29
5.5.5 Opportunities for Quality Environmental Education and Interpretation .................... 5-30
5.5.5.1 Lewis and Clark Refuge ...................................................................................... 5-30
5.5.5.2 Julia Butler Hansen Refuge ................................................................................. 5-30
5.5.6 Opportunities for Quality Nonwildlife-dependent Recreation ................................... 5-30
5.5.7 Illegal Uses ................................................................................................................. 5-30
5.5.8 Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................... 5-30
5.5.9 Environmental Justice ................................................................................................ 5-31
Lewis and Clark and Julia Butler Hansen National Wildlife Refuges CCP/EIS
Table of Contents ix
Chapter 6. Environmental Effects ...................................................................... 6-1
6.1 Effect Ratings Description .................................................................................................. 6-1
6.2 Summary of Effects for Lewis and Clark and Julia Butler Hansen Refuges ................. 6-2
6.3 Cumulative Effect Analysis ................................................................................................. 6-6
6.3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 6-6
6.3.2 Cumulative Impacts Lewis and Clark Refuge ............................................................. 6-7
6.3.3 Cumulative Impacts Julia Butler Hansen Refuge ........................................................ 6-7
6.3.3.1 Hunting and Migratory Waterfowl ........................................................................ 6-7
6.3.3.2 Non-Hunted Migratory Wildlife .......................................................................... 6-10
6.3.3.3 Resident Wildlife ................................................................................................. 6-11
6.3.3.4 Endangered Species ............................................................................................. 6-12
6.3.3.5 Anticipated Direct and Indirect Effects of Proposed Action on Refuge
Programs, Facilities, and Cultural Resources ............................................................ 6-13
6.3.3.6 Anticipated Effects of Proposed Hunting on Refuge Environment and
Community ................................................................................................................ 6-14
6.3.3.7 Other Past, Present, Proposed, and Reasonably Foreseeable Hunting and
Anticipated Effects .................................................................................................... 6-14
6.3.3.8 Anticipated Effects if Individual Hunts are Allowed to Accumulate .................. 6-15
6.3.3.9 Cumulative Effects from Predator Control .......................................................... 6-16
6.3.3.10 Other Predators of Deer ..................................................................................... 6-17
6.3.3.11 Columbian White-tailed Deer ............................................................................ 6-18
6.3.3.12 Impacts to Fisheries ........................................................................................... 6-18
6.3.3.13 Public Use Program ........................................................................................... 6-20
6.3.3.14 Refuge Habitat Management Activities and Actions ........................................ 6-21
6.4 Placement of Dredged Spoil Material .............................................................................. 6-22
6.5 Columbia River Channel Dredging .................................................................................. 6-22
6.6 Proposed Bradwood Liquefied Natural Gas Plant ......................................................... 6-23
6.7 Other Wildlife Management Actions on the Lower Columbia River ........................... 6-23
Maps
Map 1. Regional Context ............................................................................................................. 1-3
Map 2. Land Status – Lewis and Clark National Wildlife Refuge .............................................. 1-5
Map 3. Land Status – Julia Butler Hansen Refuge for the Columbian White-tailed Deer .......... 1-7
Map 4. Alternative 1 – Lewis and Clark National Wildlife Refuge ............................................ 2-9
Map 5. Alternative 2 – Lewis and Clark National Wildlife Refuge .......................................... 2-11
Map 6. Alternative 1 – Julia Butler Hansen Wildlife Refuge for the Columbian White-tailed
Deer ............................................................................................................................ 2-15
Map 7. Alternative 2 – Julia Butler Hansen Wildlife Refuge for the Columbian White-tailed
Deer ............................................................................................................................ 2-19
Map 8. Alternative 3 – Julia Butler Hansen Wildlife Refuge for the Columbian White-tailed
Deer ............................................................................................................................ 2-21
Map 9a. Existing Vegetation – Lewis and Clark National Wildlife Refuge ............................. 2-27
Map 9b. Existing Vegetation – Lewis and Clark National Wildlife Refuge ............................. 2-29
Map 10. Public Use – Lewis and Clark National Wildlife Refuge ............................................ 2-45
Map 11. Existing Vegetation – Julia Butler Hansen Refuge for the Columbian White-tailed
Deer ..................................................................................................................................... 2-51
Lewis and Clark and Julia Butler Hansen National Wildlife Refuges CCP/EIS
x Table of Contents
Map 12. Public Use – Julia Butler Hansen Refuge for the Columbian White-tailed Deer ........ 2-71
Tables
Table 2-1 Alternatives Summary Table – Lewis and Clark Refuge .......................................... 2-74
Table 2-2 Alternatives Summary TableJulia Butler Hansen Refuge ....................................... 2-75
Table 3-1 Projections of Changes for Columbia River Study Site .............................................. 3-8
Table 3-2 Change in Annual Mean Temperature and Precipitation .......................................... 3-10
Table 4-1a Comprehensive List of Resources of Concern for Julia Butler Hansen Refuge ........ 4-3
Table 4-1b Comprehensive List of Resources of Concern for Lewis and Clark Refuge ............ 4-8
Table 4-2a Summary of Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health
(BIDEH) for Julia Butler Hansen Refuge ............................................................................ 4-13
Table 4-2b Summary of Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health
(BIDEH) for Lewis and Clark Refuge ................................................................................. 4-14
Table 4-3a Priority Resources of Concern for Julia Butler Hansen Refuge .............................. 4-15
Table 4-3b Priority Resources of Concern for Lewis and Clark Refuge ................................... 4-18
Table 4-4 Habitat Types and Acreages within Lewis and Clark and Julia Butler Hansen
Refuges ............................................................................................................................... 4-20
Table 4-5 Species of Fish Collected in the Columbia River Estuary ........................................ 4-27
Table 4-6 Federally Listed Pacific Salmon and Steelhead in the Columbia River Basin .......... 4-36
Table 4-7 Estimated Number of CWT Deer in the Lower Columbia River Population, by
Subpopulation, in 2009 ........................................................................................................ 4-39
Table 4-8 Upper Estuary Islands Acreage and Land Ownership ............................................... 4-39
Table 4-9 Population Estimates, by Refuge Unit, for CWT Deer on the Julia Butler Hansen
Refuge in Southwest Washington and Northwest Oregon .................................................. 4-43
Table 4-10 Seasonal and Annual Food Consumption, by Forage Class, Expressed as a
Percentage of the Total Diet of CWT Deer at Three Locations in Southwest
Washington and Northwest Oregon, 1996-1998 ................................................................. 4-44
Table 4-11 Seasonal Crude Protein (CP) and In Vitro Dry Matter Digestibility (IVDMD)
for Diets of Three Subpopulations of CWT Deer in Southwest Washington and
Northwest Oregon ................................................................................................................ 4-47
Table 4-12 Seasonal Calcium and Phosphorus Content of the Diets of Three
Subpopulations of CWT Deer in Southwest Washington and Northwest Oregon .............. 4-47
Table 4-13 Fawn:doe Ratios for Subpopulations along the Lower Columbia River during
1986-2006 ............................................................................................................................ 4-49
Table 4-14 Causes of Mortality for Radio-marked CWT Deer Fawns at Julia Butler Hansen
Refuge, in Southwest Washington, 1978-2000.................................................................... 4-51
Table 4-15 Cause-specific Mortality Ratesa for Radio-marked CWT Deer Fawns from 28
May through 31 October at Julia Butler Hansen Refuge for the Columbian White-
Tailed Deer, Southwestern Washington, 1978–1982 and 1996–2000. ................................ 4-54
Table 4-16 Fawn:doe Ratios Pre- and Post-coyote Removal for the Mainland and
Tenasillahe Island Units in Southwest Washington and Northwest Oregon ....................... 4-54
Table 4-17 Number of Coyotes Removed from the Julia Butler Hansen Refuge ..................... 4-62
Table 4-18 Estimated Years of Consecutive Coyote Control Required to Achieve Greater
Than or Equal to 125 CWT Deer at Julia Butler Hansen Refugea in Northwest Oregon
and Southeast Washington ................................................................................................... 4-72
Lewis and Clark and Julia Butler Hansen National Wildlife Refuges CCP/EIS
Table of Contents xi
Table 4-19 Mean Fawn per Doe Ratios (R) Required over 10 Consecutive Years to Achieve
Management Objectives of 90 Percent or 50 Percent of Simulateda Populations with ≥
125 CWT deer at Julia Butler Hansen Refuge in Northwest Oregon and Southeast
Washington .......................................................................................................................... 4-72
Table 5-1 Projected Future Increase in Participation for Selected Outdoor Recreation
Activities ............................................................................................................................... 5-9
Table 5-2 Selected Population and Associated Social Statistics, Local Counties ..................... 5-24
Table 5-3 Julia Butler Hansen Refuge’s Projected Annual Visitation in 15 Years, by
Alternative........................................................................................................................... 5-27
Table 5-4 Lewis and Clark Refuge’s Projected Annual Visitation in 15 Years, by
Alternative........................................................................................................................... 5-27
Table 6-1 CCP Alternatives Summary of Effects for Lewis and Clark Refuge .......................... 6-2
Table 6-2 CCP Alternatives Summary of Effects for Julia Butler Hansen Refuge ..................... 6-3
Table 6-3 Estimates of the Percent of Change to Occur in Recreation Participation over the
next 10 to 20 Years (IAC 2002b) ......................................................................................... 6-20
Figures
Figure 3.1 Predicted sea level rises at the mouth of the Columbia River. ................................... 3-9
Figure 3.2 Wetland names and locations on the Mainland Unit of the Julia Butler Hansen
Refuge. ................................................................................................................................ 3-14
Figure 3.3 Refuge riparian planting from 2003 with protective fencing. .................................. 3-15
Figure 3.4. Woodlot names and locations on the Mainland Unit of the Julia Butler Hansen
Refuge. ................................................................................................................................ 3-21
Figure 3.5. Woodlot names and locations on the Tenasillahe Island Unit of the Julia Butler
Hansen Refuge. .................................................................................................................... 3-22
Figure 3.7 W201 tidegate replaced in 2003 across from Price Island. ...................................... 3-28
Figure 3.6 Water management structures – Mainland Unit. ...................................................... 3-29
Figure 3.8 Crims Island before tidal restoration work. .............................................................. 3-32
Figure 3.9 Crims Island after tidal restoration work. ................................................................. 3-32
Figure 3.10 Aerial photo of Tongue Point, Oregon. .................................................................. 3-35
Figure 4.2 Monthly mean fecal nitrogen values (percent) for three subpopulations of CWT
deer in southwest Washington and northwest Oregon, August 1996–July 1998. ............... 4-46
Figure 4.3 Mean monthly fecal DAPA values (mg/g) for 3 subpopulations of CWT deer in
southwest Washington and northwest Oregon, August 1996–July 1998. ........................... 4-46
Figure 4.4 Survival rates of radio-marked, CWT deer from 28 May through 31 October at
Julia Butler Hansen Refuge for the Columbian White-tailed Deer, southwestern
Washington, 1978–1982 and 1996–2000. ........................................................................... 4-51
Figure 5.1 Water management structures on Tenasillahe Island. ................................................ 5-5
Appendices
Appendix A. Appropriate Use Determinations .......................................................................... A-1
Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations ............................................................................... B-1
Appendix C. Statement of Compliance ...................................................................................... C-1
Appendix D. Integrated Pest Management Program .................................................................. D-1
Appendix E. Wilderness Inventory for the Lewis and Clark National Wildlife Refuge ............ E-1
Lewis and Clark and Julia Butler Hansen National Wildlife Refuges CCP/EIS
xii Table of Contents
Appendix F. Wilderness Inventory for the Julia Butler Hansen Refuge for the Columbian
White-tailed Deer ................................................................................................................... F-1
Appendix G. CCP Team Members ............................................................................................. G-1
Appendix H. Acronyms and Glossary ........................................................................................ H-1
Appendix I. Comments and Responses ...................................................................................... I-1
Appendix J. Implementation ...................................................................................................... J-1
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background
The Lewis and Clark National
Wildlife Refuge was established
to preserve the vital fish and
wildlife habitat of the Columbia
River estuary.
Photo: Coho salmon stilly /
USFWS
The Julia Butler Hansen Refuge
for the Columbian White-tailed
Deer was established to protect
and manage the endangered
Columbian white-tailed deer.
Photo: Columbian white-tailed
deer buck / USFWS
Lewis and Clark and Julia Butler Hansen National Wildlife Refuges CCP/EIS
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-1
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background
1.1 Introduction
From its origin in the Canadian Rockies, the Columbia River flows 1,200 miles through forests,
fields, and mountains until meeting the Pacific Ocean near Astoria, Oregon. The river’s
significance to this country is far-reaching. Native Americans have fished its waters and lived
near its shores for thousands of years. In 1805, the Lewis and Clark expedition journeyed down
the river, seeking a route to the Pacific Ocean. This exploration opened the vast, uncharted
territory of the Columbia River Basin to a westward migration that continues even today. The
grandeur and abundance of the Columbia River are revealed in many ways. Its natural beauty
defines much of who we are in the Pacific Northwest and we are drawn to it for recreation and
renewal. Millions of people depend on the river for employment in water-related industries, for
commerce, and for transportation. Wildlife species also depend upon the river. Thousands of
species swim in its waters, dwell along its banks, and fly and nest in the surrounding heights
(LCREP 1999).
The lower Columbia River estuary is formed where the Columbia River meets the Pacific Ocean.
An estuary is the area where the fresh water of a river meets the salt water of an ocean. In the
Columbia River system, this occurs in the lower 35 river miles. In an estuary, the river has a
direct, natural connection with the open sea. This transition from fresh water to salt water
creates a special environment that supports unique communities of plants and animals, specially
adapted for life at the margin of the sea. Estuarine environments are considered among the most
productive ecosystems on earth (LCREP 1999).
It is within the lower Columbia River estuary that the Julia Butler Hansen Refuge for the
Columbian White-tailed Deer (refuge) and the Lewis and Clark National Wildlife Refuge (refuge
or collectively refuges), become intertwined with the Columbia River. Both refuges are located
in the lower reach of the Columbia River with lands and waters in southwest Washington
(Wahkiakum County) and northwest Oregon (Clatsop and Columbia counties) (Map 1). Since
the early 1970s, both refuges have played important roles in the protection, conservation, and
management of natural resources in an ecologically significant area.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), an agency of the Department of the Interior (DOI),
is the principal Federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting and enhancing fish,
wildlife and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The
Service manages the refuges as part of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System),
which comprises 150 million acres managed on 550 national wildlife refuges and other units of
the Refuge System, plus 37 wetland management districts.
The Lewis and Clark Refuge’s approved acquisition boundary encompasses approximately
33,000 acres of the Columbia River estuary, including 18 named islands and numerous sand
bars, mud flats, unnamed intertidal marshes, and areas of open water in northern Clatsop County,
Oregon (Map 2). The refuge also includes three small parcels in Oregon on the mainland at
Tongue Point, Emerald Heights, and Brownsmead. The Service has acquired 12,167 acres of
Lewis and Clark and Julia Butler Hansen National Wildlife Refuges CCP/EIS
1-2 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background
land within the refuge’s approved boundary; the State of Oregon also owns land within the
refuge boundary.
Julia Butler Hansen Refuge was established in 1971 and contains more than 6,000 acres of
pastures, Sitka spruce swamps, brushy woodlots, marshes, and sloughs, in both Washington and
Oregon (Map 3). As the refuge’s name implies, this refuge was set aside specifically to protect
the endangered Columbian white-tailed deer (CWT deer) and its habitat.
1.2 Proposed Action
The Service proposes to develop and implement comprehensive conservation plans for both
refuges. As part of a single planning process, this Comprehensive Conservation Plan and
Environmental Impact Statement (CCP/EIS) covers both refuges. The final documentation will
be separated into individual CCPs for each refuge at the conclusion of this planning process.
The CCPs will set forth management guidance for the refuges for a period of 15 years, as
required by the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16
U.S. Code [U.S.C.] 688dd-688ee), which mandates the Service to address “…significant
problems that may adversely affect the populations and habitats of fish, wildlife and plants and
the actions necessary to correct or mitigate such problems.”
We have developed and analyzed alternatives for managing the refuges. The alternatives address
the major issues and relevant mandates identified in the CCP process and are consistent with
principles of sound fish and wildlife management. The Service evaluated two alternatives for the
Lewis and Clark Refuge and has identified Alternative 2 as the preferred alternative. The
Service evaluated three alternatives for Julia Butler Hansen Refuge and identified Alternative 2
as the preferred alternative.
The preferred alternatives represent the best balanced approach for achieving the refuges’
purposes, visions, and goals; contributing to the Refuge System mission; and addressing relevant
issues and mandates consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management. The
preferred alternatives were modified between the draft and final documents based upon
comments received from the public or other agencies and organizations. The Service’s Pacific
Region Regional Director will decide which alternatives will be adopted for implementation.
For details on the specific components and actions making up the range of alternatives, see
Chapter 2.
1.3 Purpose and Need for the CCP
The purpose of the CCP is to provide the Service, the Refuge System, our partners, and the
public with a management plan for improving fish and wildlife habitat conditions and refuge
infrastructure, for wildlife and public use on the Lewis and Clark and Julia Butler Hansen
Refuges over a period of 15 years. An approved CCP will ensure that the Service manages these
refuges to achieve the individual refuges’ purposes, visions, goals, and objectives to help fulfill
the mission of the Refuge System.
Lewis and Clark and Julia Butler Hansen National Wildlife Refuges CCP/EIS
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-3
Map 1. Regional Context
CAPE MEARES
NWR
!`
!`
!a
!b
!b
!b
C A L I F O R NI A
WA S H I N G T O N
O R E G O N
I D A H O
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Salem
Eugene
Tacoma
Seattle
Olympia
Portland
OREGON
ISLANDS
NWR
COPALIS
NWR
QUILLAYUTE
NEEDLES
NWR
FLATTERY
ROCKS
NWR
Lewis and Clark NWR
WILLAPA
NWR
RIDGEFIELD
NWR
WILLIAM L. FINLEY NWR
ANKENY NWR
NISQUALLY
NWR
BASKETT SLOUGH NWR
GRAYS
HARBOR
NWR
NESTUCCA
BAY NWR
DUNGENESS
NWR
STEIGERWALD LAKE NWR
Julia Butler Hansen
Refuge for the Columbian
White-Tailed Deer
BANDON
MARSH
NWR
SAN JUAN
ISLANDS
NWR
THREE ARCH
ROCKS NWR
PROTECTION
ISLAND
NWR
TUALATIN
RIVER
NWR
SILETZ BAY
NWR
FRANZ LAKE NWR
PIERCE NWR
Data Sources: Highways, State and Country Boundaries from ESRI; Cities from USGS; USFWS Ecoregions and Refuge Boundaries from USFWS/R1
Area
Enlarged
Pacific
Flyway
Legend
National Wildlife Refuge
North Pacific Coast Ecoregion
0 Miles 100
0 Kilometers 100 UTM ZONE 10N
NAD 83
Lewis and Clark and Julia Butler Hansen National Wildlife Refuges CCP/EIS
1-4 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background
The back sides of map pages are blank to facilitate map readability.
Lewis and Clark and Julia Butler Hansen National Wildlife Refuges CCP/EIS
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-5
Map 2. Land Status – Lewis and Clark National Wildlife Refuge
Little Be ar C r eek
C rooked Cr eek
B ig Cre ek
Su pply Cr e ek
Lit tle Creek
F erris C r e ek
B i g N o i s e Cre e k
Rock Cr eek
K n o t t s Cr ee k
Davi s Cree k
Si ss o n C ree k
Mc Nary Cree k
Hi l l cres t Cree k
F er t i l e V a l le y Cr eek
So u t h C re e k
J im C r ow C r e ek
Bli nd Sl ou g h
Fink Cr ee k
Ca r men Cr e e k
D o gwo o d Cr eek
Hitc hco ck C ree k
Gnat
Cree k
Crook ed Cree k
Rock C r e ek
Li t tle Wa lloosk ee River
Wal looskee Rive r
Mi ll Cr e e k
S kam ok awa C
re e k
Hu nt Cree k
J oh n Day Rive r
Pol l a r d C r ee k
Ma ry s Cre e k
Ca dman C re ek
B el l C anyo n C
K el ly Cr e ek
B rooks S loug h
S k a m o k a wa Cr e ek
33 31
36
35
34
30
26 25 27
33 34
27
25 30 29 28
33 34 36 31 32
29 28 27 26
28
30
25
25 30 29 28 27 26
20
27 26
43
22
19 20 21
35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35
22 23 24
21
19
22
23 24
21
44
40
19 20
39
21 22 23 24
16 15
42 41 18 17 16
14
15 14 13
16
17
13 18
12 7
14 13 16 15
9
12 7 8
4
11
10
9
9
8
11
10
5 4
5
1 6
2
3
4
5
34
33
15 13 18 17
14
17
13
18
16
16
15
14
28
21 20 21
16
9
5 4 6 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 4 3 2
4
20
16 15
14
18
13
9
12
7 8
7 8
10 12 11 9 9 10
12 7 8 11 11
9 10
1 4
2
3 5
35 36 33
32 33 34 35 32 33 34 31 32
35 36 31
36 31
33 34
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
VALLE Y
HI LLCRES T L OOP
AL D R ICH POINT ROAD
ZIA K GNAT CR E EK
CLI F TO N
STEA MBOAT SLO UGH
S VE N SO N M ARKE T
B R O OK S SLOUGH
RU DAT
BROWNSMEAD DIKE
BRO W NSM EA D HILL ROAD
KN A PPA DOCK
M AG GIE
JOH NSO N
I V Y STATI ON
GNAT CREEK
OLD HWY 30
F ISH
WAT E RHOU SE
BA R ENDS E
A LT O O N A /P ILLA R ROC K ROA D
P&W
a
P&W
Woody Island Welch Island
Tronson Island
Tenasillahe Island
Svensen Island
Snag Islands
Seal Island
Russian Island
Quinns Island
Pillar Rock Island
North Island
Mott Island
Minaker Island
Miller Sands
Green Island
Marsh Island
Long Island
Lois Island
Karlson Island
Horseshoe Island
Grassy Island
Grassy Island
Goose Island
Fitzpatrick Island
Brush Island
Price Island
H
Columbia River Shipping Channel
Pra irie C h annel
Miller Sands Channel
C lift o n C ha nne l
Taylor Sands
Jim Crow Sands
Grays Bay
McGregor Island
Svensen Junction
Svensen Knappa Junction
Knappa
Fern Hill
Clifton
Brownsmead
Bradwood
Skamokawa
Oneida
Frankfort
Eden
Dahlia
Carlson Landing Brookfield
Altoona
×Ö
×Ö ×Ö
×Ö
WASHINGTON
Woody Island Channel
OREGON
Pacific County
Wahkiakum County
Pacific County
Clatsop County
Wahkiakum County
tu30
tu30
UV4
Data Sources: Refuge Boundaries from USFWS/R1; Railroads from University of Oregon; Roads from ESRI; County and State Boundaries from BLM; Hydrology from NOAA and USGS; PLSS from WDNR and OR SSCGIS; Elevation from USGS
T 10 N
T 9 N
R 9 W R 8 W R 8 W R 7 W
R 9 W R 8 W R 8 W R 7 W R 7 W R 6 W
Legend
Boundaries
Approved Refuge Boundary
Approximate Mean High Tide
Approximate Mean Low Tide
WA/OR State Boundary
County Boundaries
Ownership Boundary
Julia Butler Hansen Refuge for the
Columbian White-Tailed Deer
Ownership
USFWS
State
Deeded Lands Now Below Low Water
×Ö Private Floathouses
The land ownership information depicted on this map
was compiled from 1:24000 source data. It reflects the
current refuge land status according to documents and
information available in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Division of Realty. It may be incomplete and/or
contain errors. The Approximate High Tide line was
created using color-infrared photos taken on May 20,
2001 around the 1:00pm tide (taken from Astoria Tongue
Point site). The Approximate Low Tide line was created
from color-infrared photos taken on August 14, 2003
around the 10:00am tide (taken from Astoria Tongue
Point site).
!
!
!
WASHINGTON
OREGON
tu101
tu101
LEWIS AND CLARK
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Columbia River
Pacific Ocean
tu101
tu30
UV4
UV401
UV103
UV409
UV202
Long Beach
Naselle
Astoria
VICINITY MAP
5 0 5
Miles
T 9 N
T 8 N
R 7 W R 6 W
0 Miles 2
0 Kilometers 2 UTM ZONE 10N
NAD 83
Lewis and Clark and Julia Butler Hansen National Wildlife Refuges CCP/EIS
1-6 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background
The back sides of map pages are blank to facilitate map readability.
Lewis and Clark and Julia Butler Hansen National Wildlife Refuges CCP/EIS
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-7
Map 3. Land Status – Julia Butler Hansen Refuge for the Columbian White-tailed Deer
k
McNa r y Cre e k
Gnat
Cre ek
Hu n te r Cre ek
Tan dy Cre ek
S ou th Fork Mill Creek
OK C ree k
Sk amoka wa C
O ls e n C ree k
Mid way C r ee k
R oc k Cree k
S t ewart C r e ek
Hunt C reek
Abern e t hy C r eek
C l e ar C reek
Camero n Cree k
Mi ll Creek
Wies t C reek
S p ruce Creek
W es t C r eek
Bel l Ca nyon C reek
F all C r e e k
Eri ck Cr eek
B e av er C reek
Eloc h o m an Rive r
E l oc hom an Rive r
Brook s S lou g h
Kell y C ree k
Ger m a ny Cree k
B irnie Creek
Mil l Cre ek
C l atskanie Ri ve r
R is k C r e ek
G rah a m C r e e k
P lymp t on C ree k
Ei l ertsen Creek
R os s C re e k
B rook s S lo ugh
Be a ver C reek
Du c k Creek
N e lson Creek
31
31
0
36 31
33 34
34 35
32 33
31
30
29 28 27
27
29 28
23
30
7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12
32
31
31
36
36
33 34 35
25 0
31 32
24 19
23
26
22
21
20
26
15
22
20 21
16
16 15
19
12 7
7 8 9 10 11
3 2 1 6
4
2 1 6 5
5
4 3
36
5
0
6
6
6 5 4 3 2 1
35 36
31
30
25 30
26
18 17 16
9
7 8
4
5
6
28 27 28
23 24
22
27
28
26
35
34
33
14 13 14
13
18
13 18 17 16 16 15 18
17 16 15 14
26
28
2
6 1 6
1
2
29
30
26
0
0
25
26
24 22 23 24 19 23
9 11
10
4 3 2
30 29 25 30 29 27 26 25 30 25
21 22
24
20 23
19
13 18
17
16 13
18
18
13
15 14
16
8 9 10 11 12 7
10 11
8
11
7
12
11 12 7 9 10
34
5 1 6 5 3 2
4
3
4
32 33 35 36 31 32 33 34 36 31 31 35
36
19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21
20
15 14 13 18 17
15
8 9 10 11 12 7 8
9
9
12 10
12 7 7 8 11 10 11 12 7
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
B EAVER FAL LS
QUINCY MAYGER
CL IFTON
ST EAMBOAT S L OU GH
B R O O KS SL OUGH
5 T H
OLD HWY 30
W
P&W
Wallace Island
Gull Island
Crims Island
Anunde Island
Welch Island
Tenasillahe Island
Ryan Island
Price Island
Little Island
Hunting
Islands
Cl ifton Channel
Mainland Unit
Westport Unit
Oak Point
Woodson
Quincy
Mayger
Marshland
Locoda
Kerry
Inglis
Clatskanie
Westport
Wauna
Taylorville
Oklahoma Hill
Clifton
Bradwood
Waterford
Stella
State Camp
Skamokawa
Flandersville
Eagle Cliff
Cathlamet
Bunker Hill
Puget Island
WASHINGTON
OREGON
Wahkiakum County
Cowlitz County
Clatsop County
Columbia County
tu30
tu30
UV4
UV4
Data Sources: Refuge Boundaries from USFWS/R1; Railroads from University of Oregon; Roads from ESRI; County and State Boundaries from BLM; Hydrology from NOAA and USGS; PLSS from WDNR and OR SSCGIS; Elevation from USGS
T 9 N
T 8 N
R 7 W R 6 W R 6 W R 5 W R 5 W R 4 W
T 8 N
T 7 N
R 6 W R 5 W R 5 W R 4 W
Legend
Boundaries
Approved Refuge Boundary
WA/OR State Boundary
County Boundaries
Lewis and Clark National Wildlife Refuge
Ownership
USFWS
Inholding
Clouded Title
!
! !
WASHINGTON
OREGON
UV4
JULIA BUTLER HANSEN REFUGE
FOR THE COLUMBIAN
WHITE-TAILED DEER
tu30 UV409
Westport Longview
Cathlamet
§¨¦5
tu30
UV47
UV504
UV407
UV4
VICINITY MAP
5 0 5
R 6 W Miles
UTM ZONE 10N
NAD 83
0 Miles 2
0 Kilometers 2
Lewis and Clark and Julia Butler Hansen National Wildlife Refuges CCP/EIS
1-8 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background
The back sides of map pages are blank to facilitate map readability.
Lewis and Clark and Julia Butler Hansen National Wildlife Refuges CCP/EIS
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-9
This CCP/EIS was developed to provide reasonable, scientifically grounded guidance for
improving the refuges’ riparian, wetland, Sitka spruce swamp, and grassland habitats, for the
long-term conservation of CWT deer, native plants, and migratory birds. The CCP/EIS identifies
appropriate actions for protecting and sustaining the cultural and biological features of the
estuary islands, the refuges’ wintering waterfowl populations and habitats, the migratory
shorebird populations that use the refuges, and threatened, endangered, or rare species. A final
purpose of the CCP is to provide guidance and evaluate the priority public use programs on the
refuges. which may include hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental
education, and interpretation.
The CCP is needed for a variety of reasons. Primary among these is the need to improve the
refuges’ riparian, wetland, and Sitka spruce swamp habitats, some of which are degraded by
invasive plants and animals. The CCP/EIS also recognizes and identifies threats to the
endangered CWT deer, including predation of fawns, competition for food resources with elk,
and impacts to habitat from invasive species. There is a need to address the refuges’
contributions to conservation efforts for listed salmon species that migrate through the water and
use certain refuge habitats for rearing. The refuges’ wildlife-dependent priority public uses were
analyzed, to determine what improvements or alterations could be made in the pursuit of higher
quality programs (see Chapter 5). We determined whether and how the refuge should consider
other nonwildlife-dependent uses, including commercial guiding activities and camping. We
also described our strategies for better protecting the refuges’ habitats and wildlife and the steps
that should be taken to accomplish our goals.
1.4 Content and Scope of the CCP
This CCP/EIS provides guidance for management of the refuges’ habitats and wildlife and
administration of public uses on refuge lands and waters. Information provided in this CCP/EIS
includes the following topics.
 An overall vision for the refuges and their role in the local ecosystem (Chapter 1).
 Goals and objectives for specific conservation targets and public use programs, as well as
strategies for achieving the objectives (Chapter 2).
 A description of the refuges’ physical environment (Chapter 3).
 A description of the conservation targets, their condition and trends on the refuges and
within the local ecosystem, a presentation of the key desired ecological conditions for
sustaining the conservation targets, and a short analysis of the threats to each one of the
conservation targets (Chapter 4).
 An overview of the refuges’ public use programs and facilities, a list of desired future
conditions for each refuge program, and other management considerations (Chapter 5).
 An evaluation of the environmental consequences of implementing the alternatives
(Chapter 6).
 Evaluations of existing and proposed public and economic uses for compatibility with
each refuge’s purposes (Appendix B).
 An outline of the projects, staff, and facilities needed to support the alternatives
considered.
 Information regarding current state and Federal wildlife species listing status, and
identification under relevant ecosystem plans.
Lewis and Clark and Julia Butler Hansen National Wildlife Refuges CCP/EIS
1-10 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background
This CCP/EIS is intended to comply with both the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act
and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347).
1.5 National Wildlife Refuge System Laws and Directives
1.5.1 Planning and Management Guidance
Refuges are guided by various Federal laws, executive orders, Service policies, and international
treaties. Fundamental to the management of every refuge are the mission and goals of the
Refuge System, and the designated purposes of the refuge unit as described in establishing
legislation, executive orders, or other documents establishing, authorizing, or expanding a
refuge.
Key concepts and guidance of the Refuge System are derived from the National Wildlife Refuge
System Administration Act of 1966 as amended (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), the Refuge Recreation
Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4), as amended, Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), and the Service Manual. The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act is
implemented through regulations covering the Refuge System, published in Title 50, subchapter
C of the CFR. These regulations govern general administration of units of the Refuge System.
1.5.2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mission
The mission of the Service is “working with others, to conserve, protect and enhance fish and
wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.” National natural
resources entrusted to the Service for conservation and protection include migratory birds,
endangered and threatened species, interjurisdictional fish, wetlands, and certain marine
mammals. The Service also manages national fish hatcheries, enforces Federal wildlife laws and
international treaties regarding importing and exporting wildlife, assists with state fish and
wildlife programs, and helps other countries develop wildlife conservation programs.
1.5.3 National Wildlife Refuge System
The Refuge System is the world’s largest network of public lands and waters set aside
specifically for conserving wildlife and protecting ecosystems. From its inception in 1903, the
Refuge System has grown to encompass 150 million acres managed on 550 national wildlife
refuges located in all 50 states and waterfowl production areas in 10 states. More than 40 million
visitors annually fish, hunt, observe, and photograph wildlife, or participate in environmental
education and interpretive activities on national wildlife refuges.
Lewis and Clark and Julia Butler Hansen National Wildlife Refuges CCP/EIS
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-11
1.5.4 National Wildlife Refuge System Mission and Goals
The mission of the Refuge System 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.”
(National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended).
Wildlife conservation is the fundamental mission of the Refuge System. The goals of the Refuge
System, as articulated in our Mission, Goals and Purposes Policy (601 FW1) follow.
 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
interjurisdictional 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.
1.5.5 National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act
Of all the laws governing activities on National Wildlife Refuges, the Refuge Administration Act
undoubtedly exerts the greatest influence. In 1997, the Refuge System Administration Act was
amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act; it included a unifying
mission for all national wildlife refuges to be managed as a system, a new process for
determining compatible uses on refuges, and a requirement for each refuge to be managed under
a comprehensive conservation plan, developed in an open public process.
The Refuge Administration Act states that the Secretary shall provide for the conservation of
fish, wildlife and plants, and their habitats within the System as well as ensure that the biological
integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the System are maintained. 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.” Biological integrity,
diversity, and environmental health (BIDEH) are critical components of wildlife conservation.
As later made clear in the Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy
section, “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.”
Lewis and Clark and Julia Butler Hansen National Wildlife Refuges CCP/EIS
1-12 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background
Under the Refuge Administration Act, each refuge must be managed to fulfill the Refuge System
mission as well as the specific purposes for which it was established. The Refuge
Administration Act requires the Service to monitor the status and trends of fish, wildlife, and
plants on each refuge.
Additionally, the Refuge Administration Act identifies six priority wildlife-dependent
recreational uses. These uses are hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and
environmental education and interpretation. Under the Refuge Administration Act, the Service is
to grant these six wildlife-dependent public uses special consideration during planning,
managing, establishing, and expanding units of the Refuge System. The overarching goal is to
enhance wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities and provide access to quality visitor
experiences on refuges, while managing the refuges to conserve fish, wildlife, plants, and their
habitats.
New and ongoing recreational uses should help visitors focus on wildlife and other natural
resources. These uses should provide an opportunity to make visitors aware of resource issues,
management plans, and how the refuge contributes to the Refuge System and Service’s mission.
When determined compatible on a refuge-specific basis, the six priority uses assume priority
status among all uses of the refuge in question. The Service is to make extra efforts to facilitate
priority wildlife-dependent public use opportunities.
When preparing a CCP, refuge managers must re-evaluate all general public, recreational, and
economic uses (even those occurring to further refuge habitat management goals) proposed or
occurring on a refuge for appropriateness and compatibility. No refuge use may be allowed or
continued unless it is determined to be appropriate and compatible.
Generally, an appropriate use is one that contributes to fulfilling the refuge purpose(s), the
Refuge System mission, or goals or objectives described in a refuge management plan (see
Appropriate Uses policy found at 603 FW 1). A compatible use is a use that, in the sound
professional judgment of the refuge manager, will not materially interfere with or detract from
the fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge. Updated
appropriate use and compatibility determinations for existing and proposed uses for the Lewis
and Clark and Julia Butler Hansen Refuges are in Appendix B of this CCP/EIS.
A CCP must be developed with the participation of the public, as required by the Refuge
Administration Act and other formally established guidance. Issues and concerns articulated by
the public play a role in guiding alternatives considered during the development of the CCP, and
together with the formal guidance, can play a role in selection of the preferred alternative. It is
Service policy to develop CCPs in an open public process. The Service is committed to securing
public input throughout the CCP planning process.
1.5.6 Relationship to Previous and Future Refuge Plans
Planning has been part of the refuges’ operations since they were established. A considerable
number of plans have been completed over the years to guide refuge managers. In recent history,
additional smaller “step-down” plans and or management agreements (plans addressing one
program or resource) have been developed for one and or both refuges. A list of current
Lewis and Clark and Julia Butler Hansen National Wildlife Refuges CCP/EIS
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-13
management plans for the Julia Butler Hansen and Lewis and Clark refuges and the year they
were completed follows.
 Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza Disease Contingency Plan (2006)
 Fire Management Plan (2004)
 Station Safety Plan (2004; with annual updates current to 2008)
 Elk Management Plan (1986; updated 2004)
 Julia Butler Hansen Habitat Management Plan (1987)
 Julia Butler Hansen Public Use Management/Development Plan (1983)
 Columbian White-tailed Deer Recovery Plan, (1976; updated 1983)
 Julia Butler Hansen Migratory Bird Hunting Plan (1985)
 Julia Butler Hansen Animal Control Plan (1989)
 Habitat Management Summary (annually)
 Julia Butler Hansen Sport Fishing Plan (1985)
 Lewis and Clark Refuge Hunting Plan (1985)
 Lewis and Clark Refuge Management Plan (1986)
 Lewis and Clark Refuge Public Use Management/Development Plan (1984)
1.5.7 Future Planning
The final CCP will be revised every 15 years or sooner if monitoring and evaluation findings
determine that changes are needed to achieve the refuges’ purposes, visions, goals, or objectives.
The CCP provides guidance in the form of goals, objectives, and strategies for refuge programs
areas but may lack some of the specifics needed for implementation. Step-down management
plans will, therefore, be developed for individual program areas as needed, following completion
of the CCP. Step-down plans may require appropriate NEPA and other compliance.
1.6 Refuge Establishment and Refuge Purposes
The purpose or purposes for which a refuge was established or acquired are of key importance in
refuge planning. Refuge purposes form the foundation for planning and management decisions.
The purposes of a refuge are specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, executive order,
agreement, public land order, donation document, or administrative memorandum establishing,
authorizing, or expanding a refuge, refuge unit, or refuge subunit.
Unless the establishing law, order, or other document indicates otherwise, purposes dealing with
the conservation, management, and restoration of fish, wildlife, and plants, and the habitats on
which they depend, take precedence over other purposes in the management and administration
of any Refuge System unit. Where a refuge has multiple purposes related to fish, wildlife, and
plant conservation, the more specific purpose will take precedence in instances of conflict.
When an additional unit is acquired under an authority different from the establishing authority,
the addition takes on the purpose(s) of the original unit, but the original unit does not take on the
purpose(s) of the newer addition.
Lewis and Clark and Julia Butler Hansen National Wildlife Refuges CCP/EIS
1-14 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background
By law, refuges are to be managed to achieve their purposes. When a conflict exists between the
Refuge System’s mission and the purpose of an individual refuge, the refuge’s purpose may
supersede the Refuge System’s mission.
Refuge purposes are also the driving force in the development of a refuge’s vision statements,
goals, objectives, and strategies in a CCP, and are critical to determining the compatibility of all
existing and proposed refuge uses. The purposes for the Lewis and Clark and Julia Butler
Hansen Refuges follow.
1.6.1 Lewis and Clark National Wildlife Refuge Purposes and Acquisition
History
On January 5, 1971, the Service identified a 33,000-acre acquisition boundary for what was
called at the time the Columbia River Islands Refuge. Initially, this refuge included some 15,000
acres of county lands, 14,000 acres of state lands, and 3,168 acres of private lands.
On September 21, 1971, the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission (MBCC), under the
authority of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1929, approved the purchase price for 3,110 acres
of private property, including an agreement with Clatsop County to manage 4,990 acres for a
total of 8,100 acres to be included in the Lewis and Clark Refuge. This acreage was identified as
important habitat “To preserve an important wintering and feeding area for migratory waterfowl
in the Pacific Flyway” in MBCC Memorandum #2. The memorandum also specified numbers
for migratory bird populations, including 3,000 whistling swans, 2,000 dusky Canada geese, and
50,000 ducks. It also specifically mentioned the protection of “other water and shore birds, band
tailed pigeons, bald eagles, Columbian white-tailed deer, and various kinds of small fur-bearing
animals.” The importance of this rich estuarine habitat was recognized as “irreplaceable” not
only for its importance to waterfowl, but also as a transition area for migrating and juvenile
salmon.
On April 19, 1972, the Service signed a 25-year agreement with Clatsop County, Oregon,
entitled “Refuge Use and Cooperative Agreement Lewis and Clark National Wildlife Refuge
Astoria, Oregon.” The agreement, which established the refuge, was authorized under the Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), it stated the
following:
 “WHEREAS it is the desire of the parties to this agreement to cooperate in the
preservation and enhancement of a portion of the Columbia River’s islands, estuaries and
tidelands constituting a broad ecological unit located in Clatsop County, Oregon,
supporting fish and wildlife in Natural habitat for the benefit of the public.”
 Section 1 of the agreement specified “For the purpose of establishing the Lewis and Clark
National Wildlife Refuge as authorized to be operated and administered under the
applicable statutes and regulations for migratory birds, fish and other wildlife…”
 In Section 9 the agreement stated “The commercial fishery is one of the public rights to
be continued and preserved within the refuge…” It further stated that it “includes but is
not limited to the actual harvesting of fish, the control of seal and sea lions in accordance
with State and Federal rules and regulations and the clearing, preservation and
maintenance of the fishing grounds.”
Lewis and Clark and Julia Butler Hansen National Wildlife Refuges CCP/EIS
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-15
 Section 7 of the agreement was later amended in July 1975, to give the Service
management authority to regulate hunting and to close County lands to hunting with the
County’s concurrence. The amended section reaffirmed that “Public and commercial
fishing shall continue in accordance with established custom and usage…” and that
“other recreational uses shall be as prescribed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.” In
May 2004, Clatsop County donated these lands to the Service. The deed states the lands
to be subject to “Public Waterfowl hunting, recreational fishing, and commercial fishing,
in accordance with established custom and usage in accordance with State and Federal
rules and regulations.”
The MBCC’s meeting notes and Memorandum #7 (dated May 1974) re-approved the purchase
price for 1,595 acres. The justification for this acquisition was “Wintering area for migratory
waterfowl.” It further identified the refuge as “extremely important estuarine environment for
marine animals, and a transition zone for hundreds of thousands of migrating salmon.”
During December 1974, Oregon Department of State Lands (ODSL) entered into a 50-year
agreement with the Service entitled “Refuge Use and Cooperative Agreement Lewis and Clark
National Wildlife Refuge.” This agreement specified the management of state lands inside the
refuge acquisition boundary as “...to cooperate in the preservation, enhancement and
management of a portion of the Columbia River’s island and submerged and submersible lands,
located in Clatsop County, Oregon, which constitute a broad and irreplaceable ecological unit
supporting fish and wildlife in natural habitat for the benefit of the public.”
The Service recognized an opportunity to acquire habitat near the Lewis and Clark Refuge’s
boundary, which was available through the government excess process from the U.S.
Department of Labor (DOL). Formerly, these units were part of the Tongue Point Naval Station;
a portion of the area is now part of the Tongue Point Job Corps Center. The first parcel was
transferred during March 1979; the DOL under the authority of Section 1 of Public Law (P.L.)
537, 80th Congress (Federal Property and Administrative Service Act 1949) transferred 41.76
acres of the east shore at Tongue Point to the Service for “…wildlife conservation purposes.”
In 1989 the Service received a 47.83-acre parcel of land from the Farmers Home Administration.
In a letter dated May 26, 1989, it states that the land is “for conservation purposes.” This parcel
is called the Brownsmead Unit; the refuge has an agreement with the local Volunteer Fire
Department, which operates a fire station on a small portion of the property.
In May of 1990, the DOL transferred an additional 89.38 acres (Emerald Heights) to the refuge
in order to “...maintain existing habitat for the threatened bald eagle, as well as support its
eventual recovery.” In the Categorical Exclusion for the property transfer, the Service
specifically stated its objectives for acquiring the property “The lower Columbia River estuary is
important resident bald eagle habitat. Acquisition of this parcel would secure three of the four
nest sites which constitute the Mill Creek bald eagle nesting territory.” It also described how the
“….mature forest supports cavity nesters and other wildlife species that depend on the presence
of large trees and snags.”
Lewis and Clark and Julia Butler Hansen National Wildlife Refuges CCP/EIS
1-16 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background
During April 1992, 83 acres were also transferred from the DOL and added to the refuge at
Tongue Point, including 9 acres of tidelands around the base of Tongue Point. Habitat
descriptions include “...patchy stand of mature western hemlock up to 36 inches in diameter.
Younger stands of hemlock predominate interspersed with Douglas fir. The understory is
primarily sword fern with salmonberry and devil’s club. Red alder, western red cedar, willow
species, mosses, sedges, yellow monkey flower and celery-leaved buttercup are associated with
many small drainages.”
In 1993, the State of Oregon terminated a 50-year agreement with the Service entitled “Refuge
Use and Cooperative Agreement Lewis and Clark National Wildlife Refuge.” This agreement
was cancelled due to a conflict with State laws, and subsequently the State issued a one-year
license based upon existing law. A decision was made to allow the license agreement to expire
in 1994 as a result of decreasing land values.
The South Tongue Point Land Exchange and the Marine Industrial Park Development Project
Record of Decision were approved on June 20, 1994. The decision stated that the excess lands
were set up to enhance habitat and wildlife protection on the refuge. The development
component of the land exchange created real property assets for the State of Oregon’s Common
School Fund; it also encouraged new industrial employment within the area. Initially, the Job
Corps conveyed 130 acres to ODSL for the development of a marine industrial site. In
exchange, the ODSL conveyed 3,930 acres of State land within the approved Lewis and Clark
Refuge boundary to the Service to become part of the refuge.
On May 20, 2004, Clatsop County donated 4,535 acres in fee title to the Service. As it was
noted in the earlier agreement from April 19, 1972 (the Service’s 25-year management
agreement with Clatsop County), these deeded lands are “Subject to; Public waterfowl hunting,
recreational fishing, and commercial fishing, in accordance with established custom and usage in
accordance with State and Federal rules and regulations.” Map 2 shows the approved refuge
boundary and ownerships within it.
1.6.2 Summary of Purposes and Management Direction for the Lewis and
Clark Refuge
The purposes for the Lewis and Clark Refuge have been identified in legal documentation
establishing and adding refuge lands. Because the refuge was originally established to preserve
important wintering and foraging habitat for migratory waterfowl in the Pacific Flyway, this
purpose represents a priority for refuge management. Protecting nesting and roosting habitat for
the bald eagles is also a management priority.
Refuge authority and management is primarily limited to the islands; the State maintains
jurisdiction over the open waters of the Columbia River. In accordance with the National
Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 688dd-688ee), all
lands acquired since the original establishment of the refuge retain this purpose. Along with
managing for migratory waterfowl to achieve refuge purposes, legal documentation for the
inclusion of additional refuge lands identified the following habitats as management priorities, to
support a diverse assemblage of native fish, wildlife, and plants, and their habitats.
Lewis and Clark and Julia Butler Hansen National Wildlife Refuges CCP/EIS
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-17
 Columbia River bottomlands.
 Island, estuaries, and tidelands.
 Forested habitats.
 Recreational and commercial fishing.
 Public waterfowl hunting.
 American bald eagle.
1.6.3 Julia Butler Hansen Refuge for the Columbian White-tailed Deer
Purposes and Acquisition History
The Julia Butler Hansen Refuge contains over 6,000 acres of pastures, forested tidal swamps,
brushy woodlots, marshes, and sloughs in both Washington and Oregon (Map 3). The refuge is
located along the Columbia River from river mile 33 to river mile 56. Virtually all refuge lands
were originally intertidal wetlands; some areas were diked, drained, and converted to uplands
early in the twentieth century.
The early planning history for protection of the CWT deer began in January 1940, with a report
and a plan for the protection of CWT deer habitat by J. Burton Lauckhart, a Service game
biologist. The brief report included purchasing lands for the protection of deer habitat. Nearly
25 years later, a formal discussion to preserve these lands within the Refuge System began in a
letter (October 28, 1966) from the Service’s Acting Regional Director, John Findlay, to John
Biggs, Director of Washington’s Department of Game, in it he stated “On October 15, 1966, the
President signed the endangered species bill (P.L. 89-669) which authorizes the purchase of land
for various endangered species of fish and wildlife.” Public Law 89-669 was the Endangered
Species Preservation Act, the precursor to the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Findlay’s letter
also stated “Our Region is being programmed $350,000 in fiscal year 1968 for acquisition of the
proposed Columbia white-tailed deer area.” This letter set the stage for cooperation in
establishing protection for CWT deer habitat.
During the following year, the Service completed an Estimated Land Acquisition report under
the funding authority of P.L. 88-578 (Land and Water Conservation Fund). The report proposed
the purchase of 1,970 acres to create the “Columbia White Tailed Deer Sanctuary” and stated
“The lands proposed for acquisition are essential to the preservation of the endangered Columbia
white-tailed deer, Odocoileus virginianus leucurus (Douglas).” The report also describes past
estimates of suitable habitat from the 1940s of “9,000 acres in Washington and 14,000 in
Oregon.” At the time of the report (1967), the total estimated acreage of “quality white-tail
habitat remaining is less than 2,000 acres.” A short description on needed habitat was identified
as “A varied pattern of timber, brush and cropland seems to provide optimum habitat.”
The first parcel (totaling 845 acres) was purchased during December 1971, establishing the
“Columbia White Tailed Deer Sanctuary.” By July 1972, the sanctuary had gained over 1,900
acres and was renamed the Columbian White-tailed Deer National Wildlife Refuge.
During May 1973, a Final Environmental Statement entitled “Proposed Additions to and
Operation of the Columbian White-Tailed Deer National Wildlife Refuge, Oregon and
Washington” was completed. The Environmental Statement described the need for acquisition
Lewis and Clark and Julia Butler Hansen National Wildlife Refuges CCP/EIS
1-18 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background
of 5,230 acres in Clatsop County, Oregon, and Wahkiakum County, Washington, as a national
wildlife refuge with the following statements:
 “The objective for acquiring and managing this area is to preserve the Columbian white-tailed
deer in its natural habitat for future generations to see and enjoy.”
 It identified a secondary purpose as “…providing viewing opportunities for the public to
see this animal.”
 This report also identified other wildlife values: “…waterfowl, band-tailed pigeons, and
numerous other wildlife species associated with a river environment.”
 Wintering waterfowl estimates for the refuge and proposed acquisition included “1,000
whistling swans and 200 dusky Canada geese along with several thousand mallards,
American widgeon and pintails.” The report stated its significance as “…a waterfowl use
area, this refuge will be a part of the overall Columbia River wintering area, which plays
a major role in winter for the Pacific Flyway.”
 A description of the wildlife benefits to preserving the river bottom habitat was specified
as “…mammals such as mink and beaver, and birds ranging from grebes to numerous
hawks and owls and passerine species. Bald eagles and red-tailed hawks are among the
most abundant species.”
 The report also mentioned muskrats, nutria, river otter, coyotes, raccoons, and red fox.
 It also described historic, current and proposed management practices for the refuge.
General descriptions included “Vegetation on the islands consists of thick stands of
willow, black cottonwood, Sitka spruce, red alder, red osier dogwood, elderberry,
salmonberry, and other species.”
 A description of the fishery identified “Cold water species taken include Chinook and
coho salmon and steelhead.”
 The sloughs within the acquisition area were characterized by “…populations of warm
water game fish including bass, black and white crappies, bluegill, yellow perch, etc., and
various catfishes…”
The lands proposed for purchase were located on the Mainland Unit, Price Island, and Hunting
Island. These lands were later purchased under the authority of the Fish and Wildlife Act of
1956 and the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
During 1988, the refuge was renamed the Julia Butler Hansen Refuge for the Columbia White
Tail Deer (P.L. 100-446, September 27, 1988) to recognize a prominent local legislator who was
instrumental in establishing the refuge.
An environmental assessment (EA) was completed during June 1993, entitled “Proposed
Additions to Julia Butler Hansen Refuge for the Columbia White-tailed Deer, Clatsop and
Columbia Counties, Oregon.” This EA stated that the Service “…proposes to ensure the
preservation of essential habitat for the Westport, Oregon subpopulation of the endangered
Columbia White-tailed Deer.” The EA also stated “The proposal would also serve to protect a
portion of the dwindling wetland and riparian habitats along the lower Columbia River.” This
Columbia River addition approved under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
included 4,484 acres within the approved boundary. All of the units are located in Columbia
County, Oregon. Some of these lands were later purchased under the authorities of the Fish and
Lewis and Clark and Julia Butler Hansen National Wildlife Refuges CCP/EIS
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-19
Wildlife Act of 1956, and the Endangered Species Act of 1973, using the Land and Water
Conservation Fund’s funding authority.
During 1998, the addition of the Willamette Industries property to the refuge was approved
under the authority of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. The purpose for this addition was
specified as “…to preserve native spruce swamp habitat for the Endangered Columbian white-tailed
deer.”
In 2001, the Service modified the approved refuge boundary to include the addition of the
Moores-Wright Tracts which included an estimated 264 acres. These lands were not purchased,
yet are included in the refuge acquisition boundary for future consideration if they are made
available for purchase. The purpose for this addition to the refuge boundary was specified to
complement and facilitate ongoing refuge management activities for endangered species,
anadromous fish, and migratory birds.
A memorandum of agreement was signed in August of 2003 between the Bonneville Power
Administration (BPA), Columbia Land Trust, and the Service for the “Acquisition and
Management of a Portion of Crims Island.” This document stated that the purpose of the
agreement is to “permanently protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats,
and to manage these resources in a manner consistent with the council’s program in accordance
with the goals and objectives established by the refuge to help fulfill BPA’s obligations,
particularly those under the Northwest Power Act and the Endangered Species Act, and other
laws as appropriate. The desired future condition of the property is one of naturally self-sustaining
native habitat that minimizes the need for future human intervention to achieve the
purpose of the project.” Ultimately, the Service will assume all management responsibilities of
this land. In May 2004, the Service received a large portion of Crims Island in fee title;
approximately one-third of the island is held in private ownership. Map 3 shows the approved
refuge boundary and ownerships within it.
1.6.4 Summary of Purposes and Management Direction for the Julia Butler
Hansen Refuge
In summary, purposes for the refuge have been identified in legal documentation establishing
and adding lands. Because the refuge was originally established for the preservation and
management of the endangered CWT deer, this purpose represents the highest priority for refuge
management. In accordance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of
1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 688dd-688ee), all lands acquired since the establishment of the
refuge retain this purpose for preservation of the deer and its habitat. Along with the CWT deer,
legal documentation for inclusion of additional lands to the refuge identified the importance of
the following resources, also essential to achieving refuge purposes:
 Wetlands – aquatic migratory birds.
 Deepwater channels and slough – native fish including steelhead and Chinook.
 Columbia River bottomlands – diversity of native fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats.
 Native spruce swamp habitat.
 Wintering waterfowl habitat.
 Public viewing opportunities for CWT deer.
Lewis and Clark and Julia Butler Hansen National Wildlife Refuges CCP/EIS
1-20 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background
1.7 Relationship to Ecosystem Management Goals
One of the major purposes of this CCP is to ensure that refuge management is focused on
achieving not only the refuge’s purposes, but also national, regional, state, and watershed goals
for the preservation and enhancement of wildlife and habitats. These goals are stated in various
plans that pertain to the Pacific Northwest and especially the Columbia River Basin. A brief
summary of the major plans considered during development of this CCP/EIS follows.
1.7.1 Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plan
The Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership (LCREP) is part of the National Estuary
Program (NEP). The NEP was established to coordinate the protection of estuaries of national
significance that are threatened with ecological degradation resulting from human activities. The
estuary partnership focuses its efforts on the tidally influenced portion of the Columbia River,
which reaches from the river’s mouth to Bonneville Dam.
In response to an agreement between the governors of Oregon and Washington, and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, the estuary partnership prepared the Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plan for the estuary (LCREP 1999). The plan embodies the
efforts of many committed citizens who represent environmental groups, local governments,
state and Federal agencies, ports, tribal governments, industry, labor, agriculture, recreational
users, commercial fishing, the Northwest Power Planning Council (now known as the Northwest
Power and Conservation Council, or NPCC), and citizens-at-large. The goals of the plan include
the following:
 Increase habitat and habitat functions.
 Prevent toxic and conventional pollution.
 Improve land use practices to protect ecosystems.
 Monitor the river for long term impacts and evaluate impact of actions.
 Strengthen coordination between the states in water quality and species issues.
 Enhance education opportunities regarding the lower river and estuary to build
stewardship among all citizens: individual, municipal, corporate.
For each of the plan’s goals, there are specific actions that may be taken to accomplish the goal.
The refuges play an important role in achieving many of the plan’s recommended actions,
including the following:
 Protect, conserve and enhance identified habitats, particularly wetlands, on the mainstem
of the lower Columbia River.
 Preserve and/or restore buffer areas in appropriate locations along tributaries and the
mainstem to a condition that is adequate to maintain a healthy, functioning riparian zone
for the lower river and estuary.
 Restore 3,000 acres of tidal wetlands along the lower 46 river miles to return tidal
wetlands to 50 percent of the level present in 1948.
 Identify and increase points of public access to the river. Ensure that access does not
cause further loss of habitat, increased erosion, loss of riparian vegetation, or degradation
Lewis and Clark and Julia Butler Hansen National Wildlife Refuges CCP/EIS
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-21
of water quality.
 Maintain public information and education efforts regarding the lower river and estuary
that focus on endangered species, habitat loss and restoration, biological diversity, and
lifestyle practices and connections to the river.
1.7.2 Oregon Natural Heritage Plan
The Oregon Natural Heritage Plan (2003) is a product of the Oregon Natural Heritage Program,
whose mission is to conserve the full range of Oregon’s native plants, animals, and ecosystems
through voluntary and cooperative action. The program uses science to identify high quality and
representative examples of native Oregon habitats and species and works to protect these natural
treasures through voluntary and cooperative habitat conservation agreements. The Oregon
Natural Heritage Plan has three roles:
 Describe the components of Oregon's natural heritage;
 Identify natural areas of exceptional value for conservation; and
 Provide opportunities for voluntary conservation on both public and private lands.
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, Wilderness Areas, National Monuments, local
preserves and other public lands with management plans that adequately protect Oregon’s natural
heritage are now included with Research Natural Areas and preserves as providing complete or
partial protection for some ecosystems and species. For national wildlife refuges, the plan
recommends that Research Natural Areas be established to protect natural areas of exceptional
value (particularly those areas that are unique, and have no similar examples protected
elsewhere). Freshwater tidal marsh at Russian Island (Lewis and Clark Refuge) and
cottonwood/willow-creek dogwood tidal swamp at Tenasillahe Island (Julia Butler Hansen
Refuge) are identified in the plan as desirable sites for Research Natural Area designation.
1.7.3 Oregon and Washington Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy
The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) and Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife (WDFW) prepared Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategies (CWCSs) (ODFW
2006; WDFW 2005) in response to two Federal programs—the Wildlife Conservation and
Restoration Program and the State Wildlife Grant Program. The CWCSs included information
on the distribution and abundance of priority wildlife and habitats; provide strategies for
conserving and monitoring wildlife and habitat; and provide for coordination with Federal, state,
tribal, and local agencies, and the public. The CWCSs emphasized proactive measures to
conserve declining species and habitats, and to maintain the status of common species. At least
24 species that were identified as priority species in the CWCSs occur on the refuges, including
CWT deer; bald eagle; band-tailed pigeon; Chinook, chum, and coho salmon; and steelhead.
1.7.4 Mainstem Lower Columbia River and Columbia Estuary Subbasin Plan
The NPCC was formed by the states of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana to protect and
mitigate fish and wildlife that are affected by development and operation of the Columbia River
hydropower system while ensuring an adequate power supply. The NPCC established the
Columbia River Fish and Wildlife Program to guide efforts to protect, mitigate, and enhance fish
Lewis and Clark and Julia Butler Hansen National Wildlife Refuges CCP/EIS
1-22 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background
and wildlife resources. Through the Fish and Wildlife Program, the Columbia Basin was divided
into 62 subbasins for planning purposes. A subbasin plan was then developed for each subbasin.
These plans contain the strategies that drive the implementation of the Council’s fish and wildlife
program.
The Julia Butler Hansen Refuge’s Mainland and Hunting Island units are within the Elochoman
Subbasin of the Lower Columbia Province. The Elochoman Subbasin Plan is part of the Lower
Columbia Salmon Recovery and Fish and Wildlife Subbasin Plan. Thus, there are three plans
that apply to the refuges. It is the Mainstem and Estuary Subbasin Plan (NPCC 2004) that
pertains most directly to the refuges.
The Mainstem Lower Columbia River and Columbia Estuary Subbasin Plan identities the
following focal species: CWT deer; bald eagle; chum, Chinook, and coho salmon; steelhead;
Pacific lamprey; green sturgeon; and white sturgeon. The refuges provide important habitats for
these species. Enhancing and preserving these habitats are key elements of the CCP/EIS.
1.7.5 Columbian White-tailed Deer Recovery Plan
Recovery Plans are prepared by the Service for most endangered species. These plans specify
actions that are necessary to protect and recover the species. The CWT deer Recovery Plan, as
revised in 1983 (USFWS 1983), states that the lower Columbia River population of the deer may
be considered recovered if a minimum of 400 individuals can be maintained in at least three
viable subpopulations distributed in suitable secure habitat. General guidelines for
accomplishing this goal are (1) maintain overall viability of 400 deer; (2) increase the
subpopulation on Tenasillahe Island to a minimum viable herd of 50; and (3) secure the habitat
of one additional subpopulation. Listed stepwise under the general guidelines are specific
actions that are recommended to accomplish the deer’s recovery. Actions that are applicable to
management of the refuges include the following:
 Census the population annually for numbers, sex ratios, and doe to fawn ratios.
 Maintain closed areas on the Julia Butler Hansen Refuge.
 Manage Julia Butler Hansen Refuge habitat to benefit the deer.
 Prepare a long-range management plan for the Julia Butler Hansen Refuge that is based
on existing knowledge of CWT deer habitat relationships.
 Monitor the incidence of hybridization between CWT deer and black-tailed deer and take
action if hybridization frequency increases.
 Transplant CWT deer to establish new subpopulations within their historical range.
1.7.6 North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Pacific Coast Joint
Venture
The North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) is an international action plan to
conserve migratory birds throughout the continent. The goal of the NAWMP is to return
waterfowl populations to their levels in the 1970s by conserving wetland and upland habitat.
Canada and the United States signed the NAWMP in 1986, in reaction to critically low numbers
of waterfowl. Mexico joined in 1994, making it a truly continental effort. The NAWMP is a
partnership of Federal, provincial, state and municipal governments, non-governmental
Lewis and Clark and Julia Butler Hansen National Wildlife Refuges CCP/EIS
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-23
organizations, private companies, and many individuals, all working toward achieving better
wetland habitat for the benefit of migratory birds, other wetland-associated species, and people.
Transforming the goals of the NAWMP into on-the-ground actions is accomplished through
partnerships called joint ventures. Joint ventures are made up of individuals, corporations,
conservation organizations, and local, state, provincial, and Federal agencies. There are
currently 11 habitat joint ventures in the United States and four in Canada endorsed by the
NAWMP committee. One of the habitat joint ventures has international status (Canada/United
States). Partners from Canada and the United States also jointly support three species joint
ventures. Habitat joint ventures restore and enhance wetlands and associated upland habitats.
The species joint ventures address monitoring and research needs of black ducks, Arctic nesting
geese, and seaducks.
The Oregon Habitat Joint Venture’s partners work within a planning framework that links local
habitat conservation priorities to the regional goals of the Pacific Coast and Intermountain West
Joint Ventures. A series of Oregon “focus area” plans, developed in the 1990s, provide a broad
overview of wetland and wildlife resources and describe conservation needs and opportunities in
general areas identified as “target areas” for Joint Venture action. A focus area plan was
developed for the lower Columbia River, the objectives of the plan follow.
1.7.6.1 Habitat Objectives
Within the Lower Columbia River Focus Area the Joint Venture is dedicated to ensuring the
following habitat objectives are met and sustained. These objectives are based on the
recommended actions for individual target areas contained in the plan. The figures represent
estimates of what the Joint Venture hopes to accomplish, given the resource needs and
opportunities identified through the planning process and the financial, political and logistical
constraints that exist.
 Ensure that at least 4,600 hectares (11,500 acres) of low-lying pastureland in private
ownership will remain in agricultural production with farm management practices that
are compatible with providing needed waterfowl feeding areas.
 Permanently protect, through easements or fee title acquisition, an additional 1,600
hectares (4,000 acres) of tidal wetlands, 1,280 hectares (3,200 acres) of freshwater
wetlands, and approximately 500 hectares (1,200 acres) of uplands that are important to
maintaining the habitat values of the wetlands they are associated with.
 Restore or create at least 500 hectares (1,250 acres) of tidal wetlands, and 100 hectares
(250 acres) of freshwater wetlands.
 Enhance wildlife habitat values on 270 hectares (680 acres) of tidal wetlands, 1,450
hectares (3,600 acres) of freshwater wetlands, and 700 hectares (1,750 acres) of uplands.
1.7.6.2 Actions Specific to the Refuges
In addition to the overall objectives, the NAWMP contains the following recommended actions
specific to the refuges:
Lewis and Clark and Julia Butler Hansen National Wildlife Refuges CCP/EIS
1-24 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background
Lewis and Clark Refuge
 Maintain existing habitat values.
 Support land exchanges to acquire the State of Oregon’s inholdings as an addition to
Lewis and Clark Refuge.
Julia Butler Hansen Refuge
 Enhance open field habitat to support expanded wintering goose populations.
 Support securing additional habitat necessary to carry out the recommendations of the
Revised Columbian White-tailed Deer Recovery Plan.
1.7.7 Pacific Flyway Management Plans
The Pacific Flyway Council is an administrative body th