Washington Islands National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental... 
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
|
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Washington Islands
National Wildlife Refuges
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Assessment
Flattery Rocks, Quillayute Needles, and Copalis
National Wildlife Refuges
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 Service’s best estimate of future needs. These plans detail
program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget
allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service 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.
Vision Statement for the Washington Islands National Wildlife Refuges:
Since 1907, critical resting and breeding grounds for marine wildlife off the
outer Olympic coast have been protected and preserved by the National
Wildlife Refuge System. The more than 600 rocks, reefs, and islands known
as Flattery Rocks, Copalis, and Quillayute Needles National Wildlife
Refuges are designated wilderness (except Destruction Island), and all will
continue to be preserved in a natural condition with minimal human
intrusion. Management activities will focus on monitoring Refuge wildlife
and on protection and maintenance of a natural functioning ecosystem. The
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will coordinate with other agencies and tribes
to ensure the long-term health and viability of native seabird and marine
wildlife populations. We will also work with others to provide wildlife
viewing and interpretation at selected locations on the adjacent coastline.
Fostering an appreciation for Pacific coast wildlife will enrich people in a
variety of ways and ensure that this outstanding legacy of wildlife is passed
on to future generations.
Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA
i
Table of Contents Page
Chapter 1. Introduction, Purpose, and Need
1.1 Background............................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Purpose of and Need for Action................................................................................ 1-3
1.2.1 Proposed Action ............................................................................................. 1-3
1.2.2 Purpose and Need........................................................................................... 1-3
1.3 Location and Historical Overview of the Washington Islands
National Wildlife Refuges........................................................................................ 1-4
1.3.1 Location of Washington Islands NWRs......................................................... 1-4
1.3.2 Historical Overview ....................................................................................... 1-4
1.3.3 Washington Islands NWR and Regional Management Responsibilities ....... 1-9
1.4 National Wildlife Refuge System Mission, Refuge Purpose, and Vision .............. 1-10
1.5 Related Actions and Activities ............................................................................... 1-11
1.5.1 Research Activities....................................................................................... 1-11
1.5.2 Tribal Fish and Wildlife Programs................................................................ 1-11
1.5.3 Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary.................................................. 1-11
1.5.4 United States Coast Guard Activities........................................................... 1-12
1.5.5 National Park Service................................................................................... 1-12
1.5.6 Environmental Education ............................................................................. 1-12
1.5.7 Northern Pacific Coast Regional Shorebird Management Plan ................... 1-13
1.5.8 Regional Seabird Conservation Plan, Pacific Region .................................. 1-13
1.5.9 National and Regional Waterbird Conservation Plan .................................. 1-13
1.5.10 Comprehensive Plan for Coastline Management ....................................... 1-14
1.6 Applicable Legal Mandates .................................................................................... 1-14
1.6.1 Mandates Specific to the Washington Islands NWRs.................................. 1-14
1.6.2 Service and Refuge System Policies ............................................................ 1-15
1.7 Public Involvement ................................................................................................. 1-15
1.7.1 Interagency Meetings ................................................................................... 1-16
1.7.2 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Meeting ................................ 1-16
1.7.3 Planning Updates........................................................................................... 1-16
1.7.4 Issues and Opportunities Identified............................................................... 1-16
1.7.5 Tribal Consultation....................................................................................... 1-17
1.7.6 Comment Response Process on the Draft CCP/EA ..................................... 1-20
1.8 Summary of Key Planning Issues ........................................................................... 1-20
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
2.1 Alternatives............................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1.1 Alternative A: No Action ............................................................................... 2-1
2.1.2 Alternative B: Proposed Action ..................................................................... 2-2
2.2 Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ............................................................................. 2-2
2.3 Management Themes ................................................................................................ 2-3
2.3.1 Wildlife and Habitat Protection and Management (WH)............................... 2-3
2.3.2 Sensitive Species Protection (SS) .................................................................. 2-8
2.3.3 Wilderness Protection (WP)........................................................................... 2-9
Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA
ii
Table of Contents (continued) Page
2.3.4 Cooperative Programs (CP).......................................................................... 2-10
2.3.5 Research and Monitoring Activity Management (RA) ................................ 2-15
2.3.6 Public Education Management (PE) ............................................................ 2-18
2.4 Common Features Among the Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .......................... 2-20
2.5 Comparison of Alternatives .................................................................................... 2-21
Chapter 3. Affected Environment
3.1 Introduction............................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Climate and Ocean Conditions ................................................................................. 3-1
3.3 Geology and Soils..................................................................................................... 3-2
3.4 Biological Resources ................................................................................................ 3-2
3.4.1 Vegetation ...................................................................................................... 3-3
3.4.2 Wildlife........................................................................................................... 3-5
3.4.3 Species with Special Status .......................................................................... 3-22
3.5 Cultural Resources.................................................................................................. 3-27
3.5.1 Ethnographic Information ............................................................................ 3-27
3.5.2 Archaeology ................................................................................................. 3-28
3.5.3 History .......................................................................................................... 3-29
3.6 Recreation/Public Use............................................................................................. 3-30
3.7 Environmental Justice............................................................................................. 3-32
3.8 Visual Resources..................................................................................................... 3-32
3.9 Socioeconomics ...................................................................................................... 3-33
3.10 Public Health and Safety....................................................................................... 3-35
3.11 Wilderness Resources ........................................................................................... 3-35
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences
4.1 Introduction............................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Climate and Ocean Conditions ................................................................................. 4-1
4.3 Geology and Soils..................................................................................................... 4-2
4.4 Biological Resources ................................................................................................ 4-3
4.4.1 Effects to Vegetation ...................................................................................... 4-3
4.4.2 Effects to Wildlife .......................................................................................... 4-4
4.4.3 Effects to Species with Special Status.......................................................... 4-10
4.5 Cultural Resources.................................................................................................. 4-12
4.6 Recreation/Public Use............................................................................................. 4-13
4.7 Wilderness Resources .............................................................................................. 4-14
4.8 Environmental Justice............................................................................................. 4-14
4.9 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ................................................................................ 4-14
4.10 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resource...................................... 4-14
4.11 Short-Term Uses vs. Long-Term Productivity ...................................................... 4-14
4.12 Cumulative Effects................................................................................................. 4-15
Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA
iii
Table of Contents (continued) Page
Appendices
A: Glossary of Terms........................................................................................................... A-1
B: References.......................................................................................................................B-1
C: Legal Materials Pertinent toWashington Islands National Wildlife Refuges
Laws and Executive Orders Potentially Applicable to the CCP and EA
for Washington Islands National Wildlife Refuges .................................................C-1
Executive Order 703.................................................................................................C-4
Executive Order 704 ................................................................................................C-5
Executive Order 705 ................................................................................................C-7
Public Land Order 4095 ...........................................................................................C-8
Public Law 91-504 ..................................................................................................C-9
Public Law 99-635 .................................................................................................C-12
Public Law 100-226 ..............................................................................................C-15
Memorandum of Understanding with National Park Service, 1993 .....................C-17
Memorandum of Understanding with United States Coast Guard, 2003 ..............C-21
D: List of Preparers.............................................................................................................. D-1
E: Minimum Requirement Analysis and Compatibility Determination
Minimum Requirement Analysis ............................................................................E-1
Compatibility Determination ...................................................................................E-7
F: Summary of Washington Islands NWRs Wildland Fire Management Plan ................... F-1
G: Implementation .............................................................................................................. G-1
H: Public Comments and Service Responses ..................................................................... H-1
List of Figures
1-1 Washington Islands NWRs and Vicinity ......................................................................... 1-2
1-2 Flattery Rocks NWR........................................................................................................ 1-5
1-3 Quillayute Needles NWR ................................................................................................ 1-6
1-4 Copalis NWR................................................................................................................... 1-7
3-1 Biological Zones of Washington Islands NWRs and Vicinity ........................................ 3-4
List of Tables
2-1 Comparison of Alternatives ........................................................................................... 2-22
3-1 Breeding seabirds of the Washington Islands NWRs, outer coast
of Washington State....................................................................................................... 3-11
3-2 Special Status Species and Habitats That Have Been Documented on the Washington
Islands NWRs ................................................................................................................ 3-23
3-3 Population and Density Information for Selected Areas ............................................... 3-34
3-4 Median Household Income for Selected Areas ............................................................. 3-34
Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA
Chapter 1 Introduction, Purpose, and Need 1-11-1
Chapter 1 Introduction, Purpose, and Need
1.1 Background
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has prepared this Comprehensive Conservation
Plan/Environmental Assessment (CCP/EA) to guide its management of the lands and resources
of the following three national wildlife refuges (NWRs): Flattery Rocks NWR, Quillayute
Needles NWR, and Copalis NWR. Located along the outer coast of Washington State=s Olympic
Peninsula (Figure 1-1), these three national wildlife refuges are collectively called the
Washington Islands NWRs or Refuges throughout this document. The Service has primary
management authority over most of the offshore rocks and islands except for those included
within established Native American reservation boundaries.
The Service prepared a management plan for the Washington Islands NWRs in 1986 (revised in
1989). To better manage refuge resources and comply with Federal law, the Service has prepared
this CCP that addresses resource management at the Washington Islands NWRs for the next 15
years. Alternative B, the Proposed Action presented in this final EA is also the CCP. Alternative
B presents the goals, objectives, and strategies for the long-term management of the Washington
Islands NWRs. The strategies for achieving refuge goals will guide management decisions over
the 15-year life of the CCP. The final EA describes the effects of each alternative for managing
the Washington Islands NWRs. This integrated document is divided into four primary chapters:
$ Chapter 1 Introduction, Purpose, and Need
$ Chapter 2 Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
$ Chapter 3 Affected Environment
$ Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Additional material is included as appendices at the end of the document, as necessary.
Remaining sections in Chapter 1 include the following: 1.2 The Purpose of and Need for Action;
1.3 An Overview of the History of the Washington Islands NWRs; 1.4 the National Wildlife
Refuge System mission, refuge purposes, and vision statement; 1.5 A Discussion of the Related
Actions and Activities; 1.6 A Review of the Legal Mandates Applicable to the Washington
Islands NWRs CCP; and 1.7 A Summary of all Relevant Issues and Opportunities.
112
101
109
101
12
ABERDEEN
Pacific Ocean
Quillayute
Needles
National
Wildlife
Refuge
Copalis
National
Wildlife
Refuge
Strait of Juan de Fuca
Flattery
Rocks
National
Wildlife
Refuge
FORKS
Lake Ozette
Neah Bay
Taholah
Grays
Harbor
La Push
PORT ANGELES
Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA
Washington Islands NWRs
And Vicinity
Chapter 1 Introduction, Purpose, and Need FIGURE 1-1
Sources: FWS 1986; NPS 2000; Pers. Comm. Jim Thomas,
Realty Dept, WDNR, April 30, 2000.
Key Map
WASHINGTON
Olympic
Peninsula
P a c i f i c O c e a n
OLYMPIC
PENINSULA
10 0 10 20 Miles
P/9E418.01/Graphics/wa-marine-rfg6-29.cdr
1-2
Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA
Chapter 1 Introduction, Purpose, and Need 1-3
1.2 Purpose of and Need for Action
1.2.1 Proposed Action
The Service proposes to adopt and implement a CCP for the three Washington Islands NWRs:
Flattery Rocks NWR, Quillayute Needles NWR, and Copalis NWR. Because a CCP is a Federal
action, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 requires an assessment of the
potential environmental effects of the proposed action and any alternatives (including the Ano
action@ or status quo alternative). The two alternatives evaluated in this EA are Alternative A, the
no action alternative; and Alternative B, the proposed action. Alternative B would fulfill the
vision and purposes of each Refuge and is consistent with the mission of the National Wildlife
Refuge System and the goals of the National Wilderness Preservation System. Alternative B
addresses the significant issues identified in the CCP planning process and is consistent with
principles of sound fish and wildlife management.
1.2.2 Purpose and Need
Under the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) Administration Act of 1966, as amended
by the Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57), the Service is required to develop CCPs
for all NWRs outside Alaska. The purpose of this CCP is to update management direction so
that it is consistent with the Improvement Act and with the Washington Islands Wilderness
designation under Public Law 91-504. The CCP will provide the refuge manager and staff with
a 15-year management plan for the conservation of seabirds, marine mammals, other wildlife,
and their related habitats and for the protection of wilderness values. A CCP is needed to
address significant problems that may adversely affect refuge wildlife, plant populations, and
habitats. Specifically, the problems, concerns, and opportunities for the Washington Islands
Refuges include: (1) a lack of public awareness of the Refuges’ valuable and sensitive wildlife
resources; (2) the need to improve coordination with other managing agencies and Tribes;
(3) wildlife disturbances from aircraft overflights and people on or near breeding sites; (4) the
need for additional scientific research, surveys, and monitoring; (5) the existing occurrence and
potential threat of contaminants and debris; and (6) concerns related to exotic species. The
goals, objectives, and strategies included in Alternative B were developed to address
coordination and cooperation opportunities, and external threats to the biological diversity,
biological integrity, and environmental health of the Washington Islands NWRs.
Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA
1-4 Chapter 1 Introduction, Purpose, and Need
1.3 Location and Historical Overview of the Washington Islands
National Wildlife Refuges
1.3.1 Location of Washington Islands NWRs
The Washington Islands NWRs, located along 100 miles (161 km) of the outer coast of the
Olympic Peninsula, encompass more than 600 islands, sea stacks, rocks, and reefs (Figures 1-2,
1-3, and 1-4). The total land area above the line of mean high water of the rocks, reefs, and
islands which comprise the Refuges is approximately 486 acres (0.8 sq miles) (196.7 ha [2 sq.
km]). Only about 40 of the islands are named. The legal descriptions for each Refuge are as
follows: Copalis NWR is between Latitude 47o08' North and 47o29' north; Quillayute Needles
NWR is between Latitude 47o38' North and 48o02' North; and Flattery Rocks is between Latitude
48o02' North and 48o23' North. The Refuges do not include islands that are part of designated
Native American reservations, such as James Island.
1.3.2 Historical Overview
The Washington Islands NWRs have long been considered remote and isolated areas. At least
seven groups of Native Americans���the Makah, Ozettes, Quileutes, Hoh, Queets, Quinaults, and
Copalis−occupied the outer coast of the Olympic Peninsula adjacent to the present day
Washington Islands Refuges. They depended on the natural resources of the Pacific Ocean as
well as the rivers and forests for their subsistence (Ruby and Brown 1992). Washington coastal
development by European-Americans began during the late 1800s, but the area remains
relatively undeveloped and sparsely populated. There has been little private ownership of any of
the islands. Today, the population of Forks, the largest town on the west side of the Olympic
Mountains, is estimated at 3,500 people (Forks Chamber of Commerce 2000). The Native
American populations living on or near the four local Indian reservations are estimated at 1,752
for the Makah Reservation, 2,951 for the Quinault Indian Reservation, 784 for the Quileute
Reservation, and 86 for the Hoh Reservation (Northwest Portland Indian Health Board 2003).
The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) was given authority to operate a lighthouse on Destruction Island
in 1866 by an Executive Order. The lighthouse is currently fully automated and unstaffed;
however, the USCG retains authority over the facilities and conducts maintenance activities,
including servicing lighthouse batteries quarterly, under a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) with the Service. The USCG facilities include the lighthouse, a helicopter/generator pad,
several buildings, a network of tramcar tracks, a tramcar shed, a water tower, two underground
cisterns, several old house foundations filled with rubbish, and remnants of docking facilities
(USFWS 1986).
!
"
#$ #
%
"%
"
& '
!""# $ %& '#("#% % $ % ) $
* +
#
$
+ , )
( ) ( * &
1-5
!
"
#
$
$ %
"
& '$
!
"## $% & '# $ $! ($ )! ! (
& !
# (
) * ) +
1-6
! "
" #
$ "$
!
"## $% & '# $ $! ($ )! ! (
!
% & % ' (
1-7
Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA
1-8 Chapter 1 Introduction, Purpose, and Need
Along much of the coastline adjacent to the islands lies the Olympic National Park (ONP), which
officially became a national park on June 29, 1938. This park encompasses 922,651 acres
(373,396 ha), and includes some of the beaches and headlands along the coast.
The islands that make up the Washington Islands NWRs were first granted Federal conservation
protection under a seabird reserve system, designated in 1907 by President Theodore Roosevelt
(Executive Orders No. 703, 704, 705). The three reservations were renamed Flattery Rocks,
Quillayute Needles, and Copalis National Wildlife Refuges in 1940 (Presidential Proclamation,
July 30, 1940, President Franklin D. Roosevelt as granted under 50 Stat. 917). All three are
managed together as the Washington Islands NWRs.
In 1944, the U.S. Navy was granted use of a number of rocks within the Washington Islands
Refuges for bombing and strafing activities (USFWS 1986). White Rock, North Rock, North
Sea Lion Rock, South Sea Lion Rock, Carroll Island, Split Rock, Rounded Island, and possibly
other islands were all utilized for this purpose until 1949, when bombing was continued only on
South Sea Lion Rock. In 1993, the U.S. Navy=s use of this area was rescinded by the Secretary
of the Interior (NOAA 1993).
In 1967, the Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) signed a resolution
prohibiting the Aprospecting, mining, and/or oil and gas exploration activities within one-quarter
of one statute mile of any island, islet, reef, or rock within the boundaries of said Refuges@
(Resolution Number 76).
The Department of the Interior removed James Island, near La Push, Washington, from the
Quillayute Needles NWR in 1966 (Public Land Order 4095), when it was determined that the
lands were set aside for the Quileute Reservation in 1889.
In 1970, all three of the Washington Islands NWRs were designated as Wilderness Areas
through Public Law 91-504, except for Destruction Island in Quillayute Needles NWR. This
action was undertaken to promote and protect the pristine and remote nature of the islands.
In 1986, Public Law 99-635 expanded and adjusted the boundaries of ONP. The bill effectively
transferred land management authority for Flattery Rocks and Quillayute Needles NWRs to the
National Park Service (NPS). As a result of pressure from Washington State=s scientific and
environmental community, another bill to restore the two Refuges to the Service was introduced.
In December 1987, Public Law 100-226 restored Flattery Rocks and Quillayute Needles to full
NWR status, although both are now located within the boundary of the ONP. The bill also called
for a cooperative agreement between the Service and the NPS. The Service and NPS signed a
MOU in June 1988 (Agreement No. 9500-80001) which outlines the objectives for the
Washington Islands NWRs and the obligation of both agencies. Under this agreement, the
Service maintains management and administration responsibilities; regulates the Washington
Islands NWRs’ uses; monitors wildlife; works with the NPS in developing educational
information; notifies NPS of site visits; and exchanges information and training pertinent to the
Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA
Chapter 1 Introduction, Purpose, and Need 1-9
Washington Islands NWRs. As a result of the agreement, the NPS is obligated to: develop
informational and educational programs about the Washington Islands NWRs; provide law
enforcement training for park rangers; monitor trespassing activity; support the Service=s
restriction of public and agency access to the NWRs; and conduct cooperative scientific research
as needed.
The waters surrounding the Washington Islands NWRs were designated a National Marine
Sanctuary in 1994. The Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (Sanctuary), encompasses
2,111,992 acres (3,310 sq miles) ( 854,696 ha [8547 sq km]) of marine waters and extends along
135 miles (217 km) of coastline, thereby incorporating the entire area surrounding the islands
and rocks of all three Refuges. This designation covers most of the continental shelf and varies
between 25 to 40 miles (40 to 65 km) offshore (NPS 2000). The National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) manages the Sanctuary through guidance contained in the
May 1993 Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary Management Plan.
1.3.3 Washington Islands NWR and Regional Management Responsibilities
The management responsibilities as they apply on and around the Washington Islands NWRs’
region are complex. The Service is responsible for most of the islands, rocks, and seastacks
above the mean high water line. As with other national wildlife refuges, the Service is
responsible for any wildlife, fish, and plants that occupy the Washington Islands NWRs whether
they are seasonal or permanent residents. This includes seabirds, shorebirds, and marine
mammals that use the Refuges’ islands and shoreline. Although Service responsibilities cover
terrestrial environments, the Refuges are vitally linked with the surrounding marine environment
and its resources. As an agency, the Service is mandated to enforce Federal wildlife laws,
manage migratory bird populations, conserve and restore wildlife habitat, and administer the
Endangered Species Act (ESA).
Along the Washington Coast, Federal, State, and Tribal governments exercise management
responsibility along the shoreline and in waters surrounding the Refuges. The NPS manages
ONP, which includes expanses of mainland coastline (CFR 15- IX-922). As described in
Section 1.3.2, the Service manages the Quillayute Needles and Flattery Rocks NWRs under an
agreement with the NPS. The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission maintains
Pacific State Park, Griffith Priday State Park, and Ocean City State Park, which are all adjacent
to the Copalis NWR (pers. comm., Karmen Martin). The Quileute, Makah, Hoh, and Quinault
Tribes manage reservation lands that border the Washington Island NWRs. These Tribes also
have off-reservation access to Ausual and accustomed grounds and stations@ for activities
reserved by treaties (fishing, shellfishing, and in the case of the Makah, whaling and sealing)
which overlap with State and Federal management responsibilities. The Sanctuary designation
as described in section 1.3.2 extends to the higher high water mark on Refuge islands. The
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is responsible for management of fish and wildlife
in State waters around the Refuges.
Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA
1-10 Chapter 1 Introduction, Purpose, and Need
1.4 National Wildlife Refuge System Mission, Refuge Purpose,
and Vision
The Service=s mission for the NWRS is to Aadminister 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 the present and future
generations of Americans@ (National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 1997; Public
Law 105-57). The CCP for the Washington Islands NWRs is being developed in accordance
with this mission statement and the guidelines as delineated in the Improvement Act.
Based on the guidance provided in the Improvement Act (Section 7), the CCP for any refuge
must identify and describe the following: (1) the refuge purpose; (2) the distribution, migration/
dispersal patterns, and abundance of fish, wildlife, and plant populations and their habitat on the
refuge; (3) the archaeological and cultural values; (4) areas that are suitable for use as
administrative sites or visitor facilities; (5) problems that may adversely affect fish, plant, and
wildlife populations and habitats on the refuge and potential corrective actions; and
(6) opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent recreation.
Originally, when established in 1907, the stated purpose of the three Washington Islands
Reservations was to establish Aa preserve and breeding ground for native birds and animals@
(Executive Order No. 703, 704, and 705). The inclusion of these Refuges into the Wilderness
System in 1970 placed added emphasis on the purpose of wilderness preservation for these
refuge islands (Public Law 91-504). Section 5 of Public Law 91-504 directs the administration
of the Washington Islands Wilderness to be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the
Wilderness Act. The purposes of the Wilderness Act are to secure an enduring resource of
wilderness and to administer designated areas in a way that protects and preserves wilderness
character. Wilderness is an additional purpose for all lands within the Washington Islands
NWRs except Destruction Island. In the 1986 Washington Islands NWR Management Plan, the
Service stated that the management direction for the Refuges is to protect the natural resources in
an undisturbed and wilderness nature, with special emphasis on seabird nesting colonies.
The Refuges’ vision is a broad statement of how the Service intends to manage refuge resources
over the 15-year life of the CCP. The vision statement for the Washington Islands NWRs
follows:
Since 1907, critical resting and breeding grounds for marine wildlife off the outer
Olympic coast have been protected and preserved by the National Wildlife Refuge
System. The more than 600 rocks, reefs, and islands known as Flattery Rocks, Copalis,
and Quillayute Needles National Wildlife Refuges, are designated wilderness (except
Destruction Island), and all will continue to be preserved in a natural condition with
Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA
Chapter 1 Introduction, Purpose, and Need 1-11
minimal human intrusion. Management activities will focus on monitoring refuge
wildlife and on protection and maintenance of a natural functioning ecosystem. The U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service will coordinate with other agencies and tribes to ensure the
long-term health and viability of native seabird and marine wildlife populations. We will
also work with others to provide wildlife viewing and interpretation at selected locations
on the adjacent coastline. Fostering an appreciation for Pacific coast wildlife will enrich
people in a variety of ways and ensure that this outstanding legacy of wildlife is passed
on to future generations.
1.5 Related Actions and Activities
A number of ongoing actions and activities pertinent to the development of the CCP for the
Washington Islands NWRs are described below.
1.5.1 Research Activities
The Service, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), and National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration Fisheries (NOAA Fisheries) currently conduct research on the
Washington Islands NWRs and surrounding area, focusing on seabirds, raptors, salmon, and
marine mammals. Other Federal and State agencies and universities have also performed
research on the Refuges.
1.5.2 Tribal Fish and Wildlife Programs
All four of the Tribes adjacent to the Washington Islands Refuges are active in a variety of fish
and wildlife management programs. These include monitoring shellfish in cooperation with
State and Federal agencies; developing tribal hunting regulations; seabird monitoring and
research; and management of fisheries resources with the State. Most of these Tribes have
natural resource professionals on their staff.
1.5.3 Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary
The Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary was established in 1994 because this marine
environment was considered to be of special national significance. The Sanctuary is managed by
NOAA with guidance from the Sanctuary Advisory Council. NOAA has established an Area to
be Avoided (ATBA), which serves as a guide for navigating vessels safely along the Washington
Coast. NOAA also regulates a number of activities within the Sanctuary boundaries. Restricted
activities within the Sanctuary include: oil and mineral exploration; disturbances to cultural and
historical resources; material dumping; seabed alterations; low-flying aircraft (under 2,000 feet
[610 m]) over islands or coastlines; and disturbances to marine mammals, turtles, and seabirds
Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA
1-12 Chapter 1 Introduction, Purpose, and Need
(15 C.F.R. ' 922.152). The intended effect of these regulations is to protect the biological,
recreational, ecological, and historical qualities of the Sanctuary (NOAA 1993).
The Sanctuary Advisory Council=s management mission is the protection of ecological and
cultural integrity of the Sanctuary area. The Council is composed of 15 representatives from
local Tribes, local county governments, Washington State Department of Ecology, WDNR,
WDFW, the tourism industry, commercial fishing interests, the marine industry, research and
education entities, conservation organizations, and the general public. In addition, Federal
agencies (NPS, NOAA Fisheries, USCG, Navy, Northwest Straits Commission, and the Service)
participate as non-voting members, providing technical input.
1.5.4 United States Coast Guard Activities
The USCG is responsible for the Destruction Island lighthouse and the associated buildings. As
stated earlier, this lighthouse was established in 1891, and is still considered an active aid to
navigation. Maintenance on the automated lighthouse is the duty of the USCG and includes
servicing the optics and light batteries quarterly, with occasional overnight visitations. There is
no full-time USCG presence on the island. If problems are reported regarding lighthouse
operation, the USCG will usually visit the island for repair work within 18 hours of the report
time (pers. comm. Kilburger 2000). Travel to the island is conducted by helicopter. Methods of
transportation to and activities on the island are guided by an MOU with the Service. Biological
surveys and assessments of Destruction Island, conducted as part of a biological assessment of
USCG activities, describe the sensitive areas of the island. The MOU states what types of
activities are allowed and where they are allowed. (Appendix C-10).
1.5.5 National Park Service
Flattery Rocks NWR and Quillayute NWR as mentioned in 1.3.2 Historical Overview, were
included within the exterior boundaries of ONP in1986 but are managed as national wildlife
refuges by the Service. The ONP assists the Refuge in developing informational and educational
programs, providing law enforcement, monitoring trespass, and conducting cooperative research.
In addition, ONP and the Service have entered into an agreement whereby ONP will assist the
Service in wildfire suppression on Refuge lands as resources are available.
1.5.6 Environmental Education
Environmental education along Washington=s Olympic Coast is currently carried out by a variety
of entities, including the Service, NPS, NOAA, Tribes, and Olympic Park Institute. Each off-refuge
program incorporates the Washington Islands NWRs in some way. Both NOAA and the
NPS offer naturalist-led programs during the tourist season along the mainland coast that discuss
coastal ecology. The Makah Museum and Cultural Center, in cooperation with the Sanctuary,
Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA
Chapter 1 Introduction, Purpose, and Need 1-13
offers educational programs about the ecology and tribal aspects of the coast and islands. The
Olympic Park Institute also offers coastal and island ecology seminars.
1.5.7 Northern Pacific Coast Regional Shorebird Management Plan
The Northern Pacific Coast Regional Shorebird Management Plan establishes regional goals and
objectives for western Oregon and Washington (Drut and Buchanan 2000). Regional goals
under the plan are to: A(1) measurably increase populations, over the next 10 years, of species
impacted by current or recent declines at population or flyway levels, and (2) stabilize and
maintain current levels of breeding, wintering, and migrating populations of other shorebird
species within the region/flyway.@ The regional plan also identifies research and monitoring
goals. Important shorebird habitats identified under the plan include coastal estuaries, beaches,
rocky shorelines, and pelagic and freshwater systems. The Refuges are categorized under the
rocky shores and pelagic systems. The Northern Pacific Coast Plan covers 40 shorebird species.
High priority species that use the Refuges include black oystercatcher, ruddy and black
turnstones, surfbird, rock sandpiper, and 19 others. The Refuges are known to host breeding
populations of black oystercatchers and a large variety of migrating species.
1.5.8 Regional Seabird Conservation Plan, Pacific Region
A Seabird Conservation Plan was recently completed for the Pacific Region (USFWS 2005).
The Seabird Plan identifies Service priorities for seabird management, monitoring, outreach,
planning, and coordination, at the regional scale. It includes: a review of seabird resources and
habitats, a description of issues and threats, and a summary of current management, monitoring
and outreach efforts. All species are prioritized by conservation concern at the regional scale
and recommendations for conservation actions are identified. The plan gives a brief species
profile for each of the 60 breeding species and provides a summary of current information on
population size, status, ecology, distribution, habitats, threats, and recommended actions. The
Washington Islands NWRs provide habitat for more than 70 percent of Washington‘s nesting
seabirds and support some of the largest seabird colonies in the continental United States. The
Refuges will be integral to the successful implementation of the Pacific Region Seabird
Conservation Plan.
1.5.9 National and Regional Waterbird Conservation Plan
The North American Waterbird Conservation Plan (Kushlan et al. 2002) was developed through
an international, broad-based partnership of individuals, institutions, and agencies. It sets forth
goals and priorities for waterbirds (including seabirds) in all habitats at the continental scale, and
provides an overarching framework and guide for conserving waterbirds. A regional waterbird
conservation plan for western Oregon, Washington, and northwestern California is currently
being developed as a component of this continental plan. As a cooperative effort between
agencies and private organizations, the regional plan will cover all waterbird species except
Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA
1-14 Chapter 1 Introduction, Purpose, and Need
seabirds (e.g. loons, herons, and egrets). Seabirds are covered in the Service’s Regional Seabird
Conservation Plan (sec. 1.5.8, USFWS 2005) and the California Current Marine Bird
Conservation Plan (Mills et al. 2005). National and regional waterbird plans aim to facilitate
conservation activities at various geographic scales, including planning, research and
monitoring, outreach, and habitat protection and management.
1.5.10 Comprehensive Plan for Coastline Management
In December 2000, NOAA, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the Department of Agriculture,
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released the first comprehensive strategy
for research and monitoring in national waters (NOAA et al. 2000). This strategy outlines plans
for these Federal agencies to assess the health of the Nation=s coastal resources. Recommended
actions include enhancing and adapting existing monitoring programs to support an integrated
national program, integrating interagency research efforts to fill data gaps, conducting periodic
national and regional coastal assessments, improving data management, establishing mechanisms
to assess and adjust monitoring and research to meet changing national coastal priorities, and
developing an implementation plan for further action. These strategies could aid in the
collaboration between NOAA and the Service along the outer Washington Coast.
1.6 Applicable Legal Mandates
As stated previously, the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 mandates
preparation of CCPs. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 requires
environmental analysis for Federal actions, including comprehensive plans. Appendix C
contains a list of other mandates, laws, and executive orders that may affect implementation of
the CCP. The list includes the: Coastal Zone Management Act (1972); Endangered Species Act
(1973); Wilderness Act (1964); Treaty of Olympia (1856); Treaty of Neah Bay (1855); and
Executive Order 13175 Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (2000).
1.6.1 Mandates Specific to the Washington Islands NWRs
A subset of laws, executive orders, and agreements form the foundation of purpose and
management guidelines for the Washington Islands NWRs. These laws and agreements which
specifically pertain to the Refuges include (also see Appendix C):
$ Executive Orders 703, 704, and 705, 1907 (established the three Reservations);
$ Presidential Proclamation by Franklin D. Roosevelt, July 30, 1940, granted under 50 Stat.
917 (renamed “Reservations” to current “National Wildlife Refuge” names);
$ Public Land Order 4095, 1966 (order removed James Island from the NWRS);
$ Public Law 91-504, 1970 (act designated Washington Islands Wilderness);
$ Public Law 99-635, 1986 (act expanded the boundaries of ONP to include Flattery Rocks and
Quillayute Needles NWRs);
Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA
Chapter 1 Introduction, Purpose, and Need 1-15
$ Public Law 100-226, 1987 (act restored administration of Flattery Rocks and Quillayute
Needles NWRs within ONP Boundary to the Fish and Wildlife Service);
$ MOU with National Park Service, 1993; and
$ MOU with United States Coast Guard, 2003.
1.6.2 Service and Refuge System Policies
Several Service and Refuge System policies act as important guidelines for evaluating and
directing actions and management of the Washington Islands NWRs. Policies that apply to the
Refuges include:
$ Refuge Planning Policy, 2000 (guides process for developing refuge management plans);
$ Regional Marine Bird Policy, revised 1985 (this policy guides seabird management actions);
$ Biological Integrity Policy, 2001 (this policy provides guidance for preserving the biological
integrity, diversity, and environmental health of refuge lands);
$ Fire Management Handbook, 2005 (outlines Service policy, authorities, and responsibilities
for fire management on refuge lands);
$ Wilderness Management Policy, 1986 (this policy, currently being updated, provides
guidance to national wildlife refuges for the implementation of the Wilderness Act of 1964
and the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act of 1966, as amended); and
$ Native American Policy, 1994 (guides government to government relationships in the
conservation of fish and wildlife resources).
1.7 Public Involvement
To incorporate public input, the Service developed a Public Outreach Plan with the following
goals: (1) raise public awareness of the purpose of the Washington Islands NWRs; (2) inform the
public about the mission and purpose of the National Wildlife Refuge System and the process of
comprehensive conservation planning; (3) make the public aware of the threat to seabird
populations from pollution, invasive species, disturbance, and habitat loss and degradation;
(4) identify public concerns and desires for the Washington Islands NWRs; (5) build long-term
community support for the Washington Islands NWRs and the conservation of marine wildlife
resources; (6) build cooperation with the Tribes, NOAA, NPS, WDNR, Washington State Parks,
and WDFW to conserve marine wildlife resources; and (7) identify education opportunities to
continue improving public knowledge of the Washington Islands NWRs mission and purpose.
Involvement with local, State, and Federal agencies; local government entities; conservation
groups; Native American Tribes; and the general public occurred through meetings and
publications. Early in the planning process (scoping) the Service received written and/or verbal
comments from the following agencies, groups, and individuals.
$ Makah Tribe
$ Quileute Tribe
Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA
1-16 Chapter 1 Introduction, Purpose, and Need
$ Quinault Indian Nation
$ Washington Wilderness Coalition (Seattle, WA)
$ Olympic Park Associates (Sequim, WA)
$ Port Angeles Chamber of Commerce (Port Angeles, WA)
$ Local and regional citizens
$ Washington Native Plant Society-Olympic Peninsula Chapter (Poulsbo, WA)
$ NOAA-Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (Port Angeles, WA)
$ Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission (Olympia, WA)
1.7.1 Interagency Meetings
One interagency meeting was held to gather feedback from other agencies with interest in the
Refuges. This meeting was held in conjunction with a Marine Sanctuary Advisory Committee
meeting. Service representatives announced that the Service was initiating the CCP process for
the Refuges and described the process to the Advisory Committee on March 3, 2000.
1.7.2 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Meeting
The Service’s CCP Planning Team met with representatives from WDFW on February 8, 2005, to
provide updated information on CCP development and obtain feedback.
1.7.3 Planning Updates
In addition to meetings, information on the development of the Washington Islands NWRs
CCP/EA was disseminated through Planning Updates. Planning Update #1 was published in
March 2000 and provided an introduction to the Washington Islands NWRs, a description of the
CCP/EA planning process, and a mail-in response form to provide input on major issues and
vision planning. The second Planning Update was published in March 2001. The third Planning
Update announced the availability of the Draft CCP/EA for public review in May of 2005. The
fourth and final Planning Update will be available in 2006 concurrent with the approved
Washington Islands Comprehensive Conservation Plan.
1.7.4 Issues and Opportunities Identified
Effective long-term management of the Washington Islands NWRs will require among other
things, integration of the perspectives and concerns of numerous interested parties. To explore all
refuge management issues and opportunities, the Service reviewed and considered comments
received from the public, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), other agencies, and Tribes.
Public involvement and tribal consultation for the Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA was
conducted with the purpose of identifying issues of concern, as well as potential opportunities
related to future management direction.
Interested Public
Public input received from the Planning Update response forms was used to identify the issues,
concerns, and opportunities to consider during development of the CCP. These are listed below
in order of frequency of comment, with the most commonly reported concern first.
Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA
Chapter 1 Introduction, Purpose, and Need 1-17
• Wildlife disturbances from aircraft overflights
$ Wildlife disturbances from oil spills
$ Wildlife disturbances from recreational boating
$ Wildlife disturbances from marine invertebrate harvests
$ Other wildlife disturbances
$ Invasive species management
$ Ecotourism
$ Interagency coordination of area management
$ Law enforcement
$ Research support
Nongovernmental Organizations
Predominant issues reported in the response forms and letters are listed below.
$ Wildlife disturbances from overflights
$ Wildlife disturbances from commercial fishing
$ Wildlife disturbances from shellfish harvests
$ Wildlife disturbances from recreational boating
$ Wildlife disturbances from oil spills
$ General wildlife disturbance
$ Invasive species management
Other Agencies
Specific issues, concerns, and opportunities raised by Federal, State, and local agencies are
summarized below.
$ Management/enforcement opportunities with ONP and the Washington State Parks and
Recreation Commission for areas adjacent to the Refuges.
$ Inventory of archaeological and historical materials and structures within the Refuges.
$ Coordination of refuge interpretive signs on State lands with the Washington State Parks and
Recreation Commission.
$ Human disturbance to refuge plants and animals.
$ Invasive and nuisance species management on refuge islands.
$ Interagency cooperation, including cooperative research and monitoring efforts.
$ Pollution threats to the Refuges and vicinity.
$ Educational and visitor experience analysis and management.
$ Cultural resource identification and management.
1.7.5 Tribal Consultation
The Washington Islands NWRs are important to the culture of the Makah, Quileute, Hoh, and
Quinault Tribes. These Tribes were individually contacted to conduct government-to-government
Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA
1-18 Chapter 1 Introduction, Purpose, and Need
consultation meetings. At each meeting, refuge staff presented the CCP process and/or document
to tribal representatives and asked them to identify important issues and concerns. The Makah,
Quileute, and Quinault identified the following issues. The Hoh Tribe commented on the Draft
CCP.
Quileute Tribe
The Quileute Tribe met with Washington Islands NWRs staff on May 17, 2000, to discuss CCP
issues and goals. They met again on August 29, 2003, and May 25, 2004, to discuss tribal
comments on the Interim Draft CCP. They requested a meeting with the Service=s Regional
Director which took place on July 7, 2004. The Quileute described the following concerns with
regard to the Washington Islands NWRs.
$ Development of baseline intertidal information that could be used to assess mainland
intertidal disturbances.
$ Interagency cooperation.
$ Overflight disturbances.
$ Treaty rights to maintain use of resources and access.
$ Recognition of tribal role/interest in refuge management and fishing/hunting rights.
$ Coordination of interpretive opportunities (e.g., seabird exhibit in marina).
$ Seabird bycatch assessment.
$ Commercial fishing impacts assessment.
$ Destruction Island clean-up opportunities.
$ Oil spill preparedness.
$ Annual meetings between the Tribe and the Service and more often when decisionmaking
processes call for it.
Quinault Indian Nation
The Quinault Indian Nation natural resources staff met with Washington Islands NWRs staff on
October 25, 2000, to discuss CCP issues and goals. On August 28, 2003, and May 24, 2004, the
Service met with tribal leaders and natural resources staff to discuss the Tribe’s comments on the
Interim Draft CCP. The Quinault Indian Nation’s representatives described the following
concerns regarding the Washington Islands NWRs.
• The Quinaults= tribal treaty rights to Ausual and accustomed areas@ extending from Grays
Harbor to Destruction Island.
• How the CCP would address treaty rights including fishing, hunting marine mammals, and
gathering.
• Boundary and island ownership issues between the Quinault Indian Reservation and the
Refuges.
• What opportunities would be available for contract work for their natural resource staff.
• Providing prior notification when Refuge staff need to access Quinault Reservation lands.
Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA
Chapter 1 Introduction, Purpose, and Need 1-19
Makah Tribe
The Makah Tribe met with Washington Islands NWRs staff on June 20, 2000, to discuss CCP
issues and goals, and again on November 25, 2003, to discuss the Tribe’s comments on the
Interim Draft CCP. The Makah Tribe’s representatives described the following concerns
regarding the Washington Islands NWRs.
$ How would the Sanctuary relate to refuge management?
$ Right of access, under the Treaty of Neah Bay, to Flattery Rocks NWR which is entirely
encompassed within the Tribe’s usual and accustomed grounds and stations.
$ Restrictions to fishing and gillnets.
$ The Tribe states that the fishing, hunting and gathering of marine resources, such as gathering
eggs, collecting sea foods, and subsistence hunting of marine mammals, are tribal rights
reserved by the Treaty of Neah Bay. The Tribe wants to protect these fundamental rights from
any adverse effects of the CCP. The Tribe considers these islands within their usual and
accustomed ground and stations to be subsistence resources in case of future need.
$ The Service’s management authority over the right of access to the Refuge’s lands and
adjoining waters and over certain islands, particularly Ozette Island.
$ The Service=s position on the topic of a dedicated rescue tug.
$ On the topic of boat tours, the Tribe implied that this type of activity could grow in the future.
$ Threats to seabird habitat/populations from low flying aircraft.
$ The Tribe doesn’t know how many common murres are taken each year, but they believe they
have a right to gather them.
$ The Tribe has observed an increasing trend of people launching boats and kayaks at the Neah
Bay Marina. Related to the education issue, the Tribe has discussed the possibility of the
Sanctuary leasing space at the Neah Bay marina kiosk to display education and interpretation
materials.
$ The Tribe has a research agreement with the Department of Commerce on Reservation lands
and offshore waters and would like something similar with Service. The Tribe would like
information on who is doing research and access to the data.
Tribal Treaty Rights
The Service consulted with the four Native American Tribes in the vicinity of the Washington
Islands National Wildlife Refuges. While the Tribes and the Service discussed tribal treaty rights,
the Service believes that defining the application of tribal treaty rights is outside the scope of this
CCP planning effort. The Service will continue meeting with the Tribes independent of the CCP
process to develop memorandums of understanding that are both respectful of the rights and
needs of the Tribes and consistent with preserving the wildlife and wilderness values of the
Washington Islands Refuges. Neither the existence of this CCP/EA nor any portion of its
contents is intended to enlarge or diminish treaty rights or to have any influence over the
resolution of unadjudicated treaty rights.
Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA
1-20 Chapter 1 Introduction, Purpose, and Need
1.7.6 Comment Response Process on the Draft CCP/EA
Public comments on the Draft CCP/EA were accepted during the official public comment period
from June 1 through June 31, 2005; in addition, comments dated by July 15, 2005, were also
accepted and analyzed. The comments were used to develop the Final CCP/EA and refine the
Preferred Alternative (B). Summarized comments, Service responses, and copies of the original
comments can be found in Appendix H.
1.8 Summary of Key Planning Issues
The CCP Planning Team reviewed the Refuges’ resource conditions, public comments, and input
from NGOs, agencies, and the Tribes, to formulate the following list of key issues. The key
issues have provided the basis for the formulation of the alternatives discussed in detail in
Chapter 2.
Issue 1. Public Awareness
The hundreds of islands and rocks that dot the Washington coastline are one of the State=s most
recognized symbols. However, the public does not generally identify them as National Wildlife
Refuges or designated wilderness nor adequately understand their importance as a critical
resource to wildlife. Public awareness in the form of education and interpretative programs is
currently being promoted by a variety of agency groups including the Service, NPS, Tribes,
WDNR, U.S. Forest Service, and NOAA. The Service believes that this presents an opportunity
for cooperative efforts among agencies and tribes. Currently, there is an interagency plan for a
future interpretive center somewhere on the coast.
Issue 2. Interagency and Tribal Coordination
Interagency cooperation is needed to bring together State and Federal agencies to establish an
understanding of and protocols for management and use of the NWRs, the surrounding marine
environment, and shared fish and wildlife resources. Tribal consultation and coordination are
necessary to conserve fish and wildlife resources and to fulfill the Federal government=s trust
responsibilities related to the four Tribes near the Refuges. Issues that need to be addressed in the
CCP include island clean-up, use of Destruction Island, joint interpretative programs, law
enforcement, off-refuge threats, tidal zone management, overflight disturbance avoidance, species
management, and cooperative conservation efforts including the need for additional agreements
with tribes and other agencies.
Cleaning up Destruction Island has been identified as a CCP issue. There is waste, debris, and
unused structures associated with USCG and U.S. Navy activities. The USCG currently has an
MOU with the Service regarding Destruction Island management. This MOU, signed in 2003,
describes the responsibilities of both agencies for their work at Destruction Island, and Smith
Island. The document outlines protective measures that the USCG will undertake, while
performing required duties, to ensure that harm to wildlife and habitat is minimal. The USCG
currently lands on Destruction Island for lighthouse maintenance, as described previously. The
Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA
Chapter 1 Introduction, Purpose, and Need 1-21
Service recognizes the lighthouse maintenance work for its value to both protecting human life
and safeguarding wildlife along the outer Washington Coast. Oil spill threats are a significant
issue along the coast, and the Destruction Island lighthouse is considered an important aid in safe
tanker navigation. However, it is also important to address chronic disturbances to island wildlife
caused by USCG activities. In addition, clean-up of U.S. Navy generated debris needs to be a
coordinated effort.
Education and interpretative programs are currently being operated off-refuge by a variety of
agency groups including NPS, Tribes, WDNR, U.S. Forest Service, and NOAA. This presents
the opportunity for cooperative efforts among agencies.
There are many off-refuge activities that threaten the integrity of the Washington Islands NWRs
ecosystem that need to be addressed at an interagency level. These threats include oil spills,
fishery bycatch, and marine debris. In the past 15 years, oil and fuel spills from the Tenyo Maru
and Nestucca vessels have killed more than 70,000 refuge seabirds in Washington and Oregon
(Tenyo Maru Oil Spill Natural Resources Trustees 2000, Momot 1995). Bycatch is the discarded
non-target portion of a fishing catch. This occurs to some degree in all types of fishing, however,
gillnets and longlines kill the greatest number of seabirds in our area (USFWS 2005, Forney et al.
2001, Melvin et al. 1999). Marine debris, such as plastic litter and fishing gear around refuge
islands, entangle seabirds and marine mammals (WDNR 1988). Agencies involved with these
issues include the Service, NOAA, NPS, WDNR, WDFW, and the Tribes.
The overlap in management responsibilities that was identified in CCP comments is most extreme
in the tidal zone, where the Service, NPS, WDNR, NOAA, and the Tribes are all involved in
management. The tidal zone is the gateway to refuge lands. The management and health of this
habitat is very important to the viability of the island habitats and species dependent on them.
The CCP will need to address opportunities for cooperation among agencies and Tribes for tidal
zone management.
Marine mammal protection along the outer coast is managed by NOAA Fisheries, with the
exception of sea otters which are the responsibility of the Service. The sea otter is the only
marine mammal species within the boundaries of the Washington Islands NWRs for which the
Service has primary responsibility. The WDFW conducts surveys of marine mammals in State
waters. The WDFW, NOAA Fisheries, and the Service need to coordinate closely over sea lions
and seals that use the refuge islands for pupping and haul-out sites. When on refuge lands, these
mammals are also a wildlife resource responsibility of the Service.
There are a number of spiritually significant sites for the Tribes along the Washington Coast.
Destruction Island is culturally significant to the Hoh and Quileute Tribes (NOAA 1993). The
Makah Tribe considers Ozette and Tskawahyah (or Cannonball/Indian) Islands to be of cultural
and spiritual importance. Additional opportunities are available to recognize and protect the
spiritual and cultural aspects of the three Refuges.
Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA
1-22 Chapter 1 Introduction, Purpose, and Need
There are many opportunities for more cooperation in terms of conservation and preservation
programs. Tribes and Federal and State agencies should be consulted to explore possible
collaborative efforts.
Issue 3. Disturbance
Biologists, agencies, Tribes, conservation groups, and interested members of the public have all
brought attention to the serious issue of disturbance to sensitive seabirds and marine mammals.
There are a variety of potential disturbance threats to the Washington Islands NWRs, ranging
from aircraft disturbances to sea kayakers and fishing activities. The Service=s goals for the
Washington Islands NWRs are to minimize or eliminate disturbance to wildlife. Island
trespassing from boats is rare. Due to the dangerous surf conditions, gaining access to the rocks
and islands of the Washington Islands NWRs is difficult. Low tide provides more opportunity for
people to gain access to these islands. Destruction and Ozette Islands receive the majority of
trespassing incidents. Tribal access is outside the scope of this CCP and will be addressed by a
MOU developed in a process separate from the CCP.
Disturbance is a larger issue from the air, with helicopters and other aircraft flying low over
seabirds and marine mammal areas. Biologists, NPS staff, and conservation groups have all
brought attention to the incidences of overflight disturbances to wildlife on refuge islands.
Overflight disturbances disrupt seabird and marine mammal breeding and resting activities.
Currently, there is a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) advisory and Sanctuary regulation
that requires a 2,000-foot (610 m) minimum flight altitude for aircraft flying over the islands.
However, this regulation is difficult to enforce due to the remote nature of the region and is often
violated. For the CCP, this issue will overlap with interagency cooperation, as work with NOAA
and the FAA will be needed to address this concern.
Issue 4. Monitoring and Research
Scientific research, surveys, and monitoring are conducted by the Service and various other
groups on the Washington Islands NWRs. The purpose is primarily to further the knowledge and
conservation of the species the Refuges were established to protect. Other research groups which
have conducted research on or near the Refuges include universities, other educational
institutions, WDFW, NPS, WDNR, NOAA, other Federal and State agencies, Tribes, and private
researchers. Research topics vary from archeological to natural resources. Intra-agency research
generally focuses on wildlife species of special status, and long-term seabird and fisheries
monitoring.
The Service manages the type and amount of research conducted on the Refuges through written
agreements and special use permits. Based on its experience in managing research, the Service is
concerned with unnecessary disturbance, unreliable methodologies, safety, and compatibility with
wilderness designation. The Service supports cooperative research efforts, especially those that
promote long-term monitoring, are directed toward minimizing threats or resolving conflicts with
Refuge resources, or increase knowledge of species and populations.
Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA
Chapter 1 Introduction, Purpose, and Need 1-23
Issue 5. Contaminants
Refuge staff, agencies, Tribes, conservation groups, and the public agree that the area is under
significant threat from oil spills. It is within a heavy traffic area for ocean transport of oil and
freight that can be treacherous because of severe weather and difficult navigation. In the past 15
years, oil and fuel spills from the Tenyo Maru and Nestucca vessels have killed more than 70,000
refuge seabirds in Washington and Oregon (Tenyo Maru Oil Spill Natural Resources Trustees
2000; Momot 1995).
Marine debris, such as plastic litter, fishing gear, gillnets, and other marine debris, has been
documented around refuge islands, and entangles seabirds and marine mammals (WDNR 1988).
However, the inaccessibility of the islands makes removing contaminants and debris a difficult
and dangerous task. It is not fully known what contaminants and debris might remain on islands
used for military activities during WWII. Refuge staff supports interagency and tribal education
efforts to reduce introduction of debris in the marine environment.
Issue 6. Invasive Species Management
The effects of invasive nonnative species are not clear for the Washington Islands NWRs.
Research and impact determinations are needed. Known invasive species include European
rabbits on Destruction Island and a number of plant species on many of the islands (Barrett 1979,
Cornelius 1982, USFWS 1989, NOAA 1993). Past research from other seabird nesting islands
where rabbits have been introduced has shown mixed results in terms of adverse effects on
seabird reproduction (Aubry and West 1984, Rodway et al. 1990, Tomich et al. 1968, Warner
1963). Based on Aubry and West=s 1984 research on Destruction Island, rabbits are considered a
threat to the island=s indigenous small mammal populations (USFWS 1983).
Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA
Chapter 2 Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-1
Chapter 2 Alternatives, Goals, Objectives,
and Strategies
2.1 Alternatives
The Service has developed alternatives that represent options for managing the Washington
Islands Refuges over the next 15 years. Two alternatives for managing the Refuges follow:
$ Alternative A: No Action (Status Quo).
$ Alternative B: Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative).
2.1.1 Alternative A: No Action
The National Environmental Policy Act requires an analysis of the no action or status quo
alternative, in an EA against which the effects of Aaction@ alternatives can be compared and
evaluated. Under the No Action Alternative, the Refuges would continue to be managed as they
have been over the past several years. Essentially, this means that the Service would continue to
follow guidance contained in the 1989 revision of the Washington Islands NWRs Management
Plan. Goals outlined in the management plan include:
$ Provide habitat and protection for endangered and threatened species that are important in
the North Pacific Coast.
$ Provide habitat to maintain seabird populations at not-less-than current levels.
$ Protect habitat to maintain waterfowl and other wildlife at not-less-than current levels.
$ Cooperate with agencies of higher education, private organizations and individuals in
providing technical assistance and research opportunities.
$ Protect and preserve scientific sites located on the Refuges.
$ Preserve and protect the unique ecosystems associated with the Washington Islands
Refuges.
$ Provide a quality program of interpretation.
$ Provide opportunity for wildlife/wildlands observations.
Additionally, the Refuges have never been open to the general public and this management
would continue. Guidance and Federal mandates that were developed after the 1989
Management Plan was completed would also apply to the No Action Alternative. For example,
Executive Order 13175 (2000) directs the Service to consult and coordinate with Native
American tribal governments. Under the guidance of the Washington Maritime National
Wildlife Refuge Complex Fire Management Plan (2005), there would be full suppression of
Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA
2-2 Chapter 2 Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
wildland fires. The level and priority for staffing and funding would remain similar to current
conditions (see Appendix G). Any changes in this regard would be a result of needs identified
through compatibility determinations on an as needed basis and/or though the Refuge
Operational Needs System (RONS) list on an annual basis.
2.1.2 Alternative B: Proposed Action
The Refuges are composed of islands and rocks that are extremely important habitat for seabirds,
marine mammals, and other wildlife, and are difficult (if not impossible) to safely access.
Therefore, all of the Washington Islands NWRs will remain closed to public use and access. The
scope of tribal access to the Refuges will be discussed through the development of agreements
between the Service and each Tribe, in efforts separate from the CCP process. Because of the
limited variance that would be possible between action alternatives, it was determined that
Alternative B would be the only action alternative developed as part of this EA.
The goals, objectives, and strategies described in Section 2.2 and 2.3 represent the Proposed
Action refuge staff would implement. Therefore sections 2.2 and 2.3 can effectively be
considered the CCP.
2.2 Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
This chapter presents the goals, objectives, and strategies developed for the Washington Islands
NWRs. Goals are broad statements for managing refuge resources and will remain unchanged
for the 15-year time frame of the CCP. They are derived from the mission of the National
Wildlife Refuge System, the enabling legislation for the individual refuges, and purpose and
concerns identified for the Washington Islands NWRs. The objectives have been developed
from the goals and serve as the framework to guide ongoing decision-making by the Service and
coordination with other responsible parties. They are, where possible, quantified statements of a
standard to be achieved or work to be accomplished. Strategies further define the objectives as
specific tasks intended to guide refuge staff in the activities required to implement the objectives.
The six goals developed for the Washington Islands NWRs are:
$ Protect migratory birds and other native wildlife and their associated habitats, with special
emphasis on seabirds.
$ Protect and support the recovery of federally listed threatened and endangered species and
birds of conservation concern, and Washington State special status species and their habitats.
$ Protect and manage the Washington Islands Wilderness Area to maintain its wilderness
character and values.
$ Through effective coordination and cooperation with others, promote conservation of refuge
resources, with special emphasis on governmental agencies and Tribes with adjoining
ownership or management responsibilities.
Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA
Chapter 2 Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-3
$ Continue and enhance long-term monitoring of wildlife and habitat resources and sustain
applied scientific research.
$ Increase public interpretation and awareness programs to enhance appreciation,
understanding, and enjoyment of refuge resources.
2.3 Management Themes
The goals, objectives, and strategies have been categorized according to the following six
management themes, each of which has been assigned a two-letter acronym for organizational
purposes:
$ Wildlife and Habitat Protection and Management (WH)
$ Sensitive Species Protection (SS)
$ Wilderness Protection (WP)
$ Cooperative Programs (CP)
$ Research Activity Management (RA)
$ Public Education Management (PE)
For each of the management themes, the applicable goals are presented first, followed by the
objectives and strategies. Following the strategies is a discussion intended to provide further
background and understanding pertaining to the development of each objective and the
applicable strategies. Except where noted, all objectives would have a 15-year time frame for
completion. All objectives would be carried out by the Washington Islands NWR staff, unless
otherwise noted in objective statements.
2.3.1 Wildlife and Habitat Protection and Management (WH)
WH Goal: Protect migratory birds and other native wildlife and their associated
habitats, with special emphasis on seabirds.
Objective WH1: Continue to promote an undisturbed, natural environment across the
Refuges by prohibiting public access on an ongoing basis.
Achievement Strategies:
A. Maintain the policy of restricted public access to the Refuges and enforce existing
refuge regulation on trespass (50 CFR 26.21).
B. Continue to document incidences of trespass. Results will be summarized in the
annual refuge report, as described under Objective CP9.
C. Work with ONP and Tribes to develop signs and other deterrents to keep the public
off islands that are accessible at low tide. Cooperative efforts under which this
program will be carried out are established under Objectives CP1, CP3, and CP5.
Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA
2-4 Chapter 2 Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
D. Continue and enhance efforts to promote a voluntary 200-yard (183 m) boat-free zone
around refuge islands in cooperation with other appropriate groups and enforce
existing refuge regulations on wildlife disturbance (50 CFR 27.51).
E. Work with WDNR, the Sanctuary, and the Tribes to secure a 200-yard (183 m)
tideland lease area around islands with important wildlife areas.
F. Assist in the implementation of the regional seabird conservation plan (USFWS
2005).
G. Negotiate MOUs with Tribes regarding the time, place, and manner of tribal access to
the Refuges where appropriate and compatible.
H. Resurvey Destruction Island’s rhinoceros auklet and small mammal populations by
2009.
Discussion: Nesting seabirds and marine mammals are particularly vulnerable to human
disturbances. Buffer zones have been shown to minimize disturbance to waterbirds (Rodgers
and Smith 1997). Islands that are accessible from the mainland during low tides have been
identified by refuge staff as vulnerable to potential impacts. Restricting human use of the
refuge islands will protect these species from such negative impacts and fulfill Wilderness
Area goals. One of the principles of wilderness stewardship is managing human use so that it
does not impact the integrity of natural and biological processes (BLM et al. 1995). Offshore
islands are dangerous and unstable environments for human use and access; restricting public
access will also enhance public safety on the outer coast. For nearshore, low-tide accessible
islands, the Service will work with local landowners, such as the ONP and Tribes, to deter
trespassing.
Objective WH2: Support regional efforts to reduce the risk of oil spills near refuge islands
to protect seabird and other marine wildlife. Activities will include attending periodic
drills, meetings and training, and providing on-site resource knowledge in the event of a
spill.
Achievement Strategies:
A. Participate in planning and training efforts that identify opportunities to reduce oil
spill risks to refuge resources.
B. Support the Sanctuary=s AArea To Be Avoided.@
C. Support the placement of a mission capable rescue tug boat at Neah Bay.
D. Support improving vessel traffic service, weather prediction sensors, decision-making
tools for dealing with vessel controls, and broader standby tug availability.
E. Send appropriate staff to Hazardous Materials, Shoreline Assessment, and Incident
Command training.
F. Participate in periodic updates of the Outer Coast Geographic Response Plan.
G. Participate in Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) restoration planning
and implementation.
H. Work with NOAA to ensure refuge areas are identified on navigation charts.
Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA
Chapter 2 Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-5
Discussion: Oil spills are considered by refuge staff and CCP commenters to be the biggest
threat to the continued health of refuge resources. A 1997 USCG study found that the outer
Olympic Peninsula coastline has a high likelihood of an oil spill accident, as well as high
sensitivity to oil spills and low capability for response to the spill (Tenyo Maru Oil Spill
Natural Resources Trustees 2000). Many species, including seabirds and marine mammals,
are vulnerable to such pollution events. Prevention and preparation, as exemplified in
strategies above, are the keys to reducing oil spill impacts on the refuge islands. The Service
will continue to work with the Washington Department of Ecology and other partners to
address the use of in-situ burning and dispersants. It is also important to assist with
planning, design, and implementation of restoration projects that affect wildlife populations
or the Refuges themselves.
Objective WH3: Coordinate with the USCG to remove as much human-generated debris as
feasible on Destruction Island by 2019.
Achievement Strategies:
A. Conduct an assessment to prioritize debris removal tasks by 2010.
B. Initiate cooperative clean-up of debris from Destruction Island by 2011;
Discussion: See discussion under Objective CP4.
Objective WH4: Preserve refuge islands in a native condition by monitoring for invasive
species and develop and implement control measures on an ongoing basis as appropriate
and feasible, starting in 2008.
Achievement Strategies:
A. Conduct an environmental assessment for removing European rabbits from
Destruction Island by 2010.
B. Survey islands for invasive species at regular intervals or when information exists
regarding potential infestations. Implement control measures as appropriate and
feasible.
C. Monitor management efforts to evaluate the success of control measures and
responses of native wildlife, and adapt management if results are not satisfactory
D. Coordinate with regional efforts and create a geographic information system (GIS)
database and map of identified infestations. Link this map to treatment records and
effectiveness measurements. A refuge GIS is proposed under Objectives WH5 and
RA2.
Discussion: Invasive species are a potential threat to the native flora and fauna on the refuge
islands, and control of these species, when possible, is a priority of the Refuges as addressed
in Executive Order 13112. The 1983 annual report for the Washington Islands NWRs stated
that there is a Aneed for alternative control measures of serious pest species.@ This statement
Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA
2-6 Chapter 2 Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
was made in reference to past unsuccessful efforts to eradicate exotic rabbits on Destruction
Island but should extend to all exotic invaders. The purpose of invasive species
identification and control is to preserve the integrity of existing natural conditions.
Objective WH5: Promote accurate and effective management of wildlife resources through
establishing a system for managing mapped data for the Washington Islands Refuges by
winter of 2007.
Achievement Strategies:
A. Secure the funding needed to develop an in-house GIS.
B. Acquire existing natural resource GIS data layers and maps for the Refuges,
including data available from other agencies and Tribes.
C. Update databases and maps as necessary.
D. Coordinate with the Service’s regional efforts to develop a GIS database of all
seabird colonies and key roost sites in the region, with information on ownership,
protected status seabird species, breeding status, and abundance (see USFWS 2005:
objectives 1a (v) and 7f ).
Discussion: Conservation and management of resources requires ready access to current
information on the entire system and its integration into management decisions. Many of the
resources associated with the Refuges have been inventoried and mapped. These databases
can be very useful to management if acquired and updated routinely. For example, GIS can
provide preparation for and enhance response to catastrophic events like oil spills by
enabling the Service to quickly and accurately identify resources at risk.
Objective WH6: Work with others to develop and implement an aircraft impacts
awareness program to reduce overflight-induced wildlife disturbances on refuge islands
starting in 2009.
Achievement Strategies:
A. Continue to produce educational materials that will be distributed to airports, popular
landing strips, aircraft associations, aircraft publications, and aircraft-based
businesses. See CP7 for cooperative efforts for evaluating and disseminating this
information.
B. Promote the 2,000-foot (610 m) minimum flight altitude over the islands.
C. Record any observed incidents and report violation trends to appropriate law
enforcement personnel and to the FAA.
D. Enforce wildlife disturbance regulations.
Discussion: Protection of wildlife species, especially seabird populations, is a primary
refuge goal. Refuge biologists, ONP staff, Sanctuary staff, and conservation groups have all
brought attention to the incidences of overflight disturbances on the refuge islands. These
Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA
Chapter 2 Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-7
incidents disrupt seabird and marine mammal breeding and resting activities. The Service
will use existing refuge regulations to enforce wildlife disturbance incidences by aircraft (50
CFR 17.34). National Wildlife Refuge boundaries are designated on updated FAA
aeronautical charts and there is a Sanctuary-regulated, 2,000-foot (610 m) minimum flight
altitude over the refuge islands. The Service will cooperate in a proactive approach to
educate the public on low overflights and their impact on refuge wildlife. Documenting the
occurrences of overflights will aid in communicating the problem to the FAA and the public
with regards to the level of disturbances.
Objective WH7: Develop and implement a boating impacts awareness education program
to reduce boating disturbance to wildlife beginning in 2008.
Achievement Strategies:
A. Produce educational materials that will be distributed to marinas, boat ramps, popular
kayak launch areas, boating associations, boating publications, boat-based businesses,
and sport and commercial fishing regulations and pamphlets.
B. Continue and enhance efforts to promote a voluntary 200-yard (183 m) boat-free zone
around refuge islands.
C. Monitor boating activity near refuge islands.
D. Enforce trespass regulations for the Refuges. Enforcement of trespassing policies is
also addressed under Objective CP3, CP5, and CP6.
E. Enforce wildlife disturbance regulations
Discussion: Boating has been identified by refuge staff, local citizens, and conservation
groups as a source of impacts to nesting seabirds and resting marine mammals. However,
there is a public desire to boat in the area and to increase ecotourism boating opportunities.
Refuge islands will need to be protected from near-refuge boating impacts, thereby allowing
for undisturbed wildlife nesting, feeding, and resting activities. Nesting seabirds and marine
mammals have been documented in scientific literature to be particularly vulnerable to
disturbances (see Affected Environment for further discussion on this topic). Creating a
boat-free zone of 200 yards (183 m) around the islands that is free from boating disturbances
will benefit these sensitive species. In addition, off-shore islands are dangerous
environments; restricting public access will also enhance public safety on the outer coast.
The Service will use existing refuge regulations to enforce wildlife disturbance incidences
(50 CFR 27.51).
Objective WH8: Develop a new Washington Maritime National Wildlife Refuge Complex
headquarters located at the Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge to assist in the effective
and efficient management of refuge resources.
Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA
2-8 Chapter 2 Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
Achievement Strategy:
A. Demonstrate need and secure funding for new facility.
Discussion: Washington Islands NWRs are only three of the six national wildlife refuges
administered by the Washington Maritime NWR Complex. The others are Dungeness NWR,
Protection Island NWR, and San Juan Islands NWR. The current headquarters, located
between Sequim and Port Angeles, Washington, is not sufficient for management, research,
or educational program needs. This objective calls for increased facility support to meet the
demands of all six refuges to be sited at Dungeness NWR, because it is centrally located and
has the highest visitor use.
Objective WH9: Promote coordinated management of west coast marine national wildlife
refuges.
Achievement Strategies:
B. Initiate regular meetings of west coast refuge managers and biologists to discuss
management activities and issues.
B. Improve consistency on allowed and prohibited activities.
C. Work on improving consistency on data gathering and data management
Discussion: While refuge managers from Washington, Oregon, and California informally
coordinate activities and actions associated with seabird and island management, a more
formal arrangement is proposed. This will help insure continuity of management of marine
refuges along the west coast and the way the public perceives these refuges.
2.3.2 Sensitive Species Protection (SS)
SS Goal: Protect and support the recovery of federally listed threatened and
endangered species (TES) and birds of conservation concern (BCC), and
Washington State special status species and their habitats.
Objective SS1: Continue coordination with others to identify, monitor, protect, and
contribute to the recovery of plants and animals that are federally listed as: TES; proposed
or candidates for Federal listing as TES; federally listed as BCC; State-listed as threatened,
endangered, or sensitive; proposed or candidates for State listing; or State priority species.
Achievement Strategies:
A. Update and add existing data on sensitive species into GIS database. A refuge GIS is
established under Objectives WH5 and RA2.
B. Secure funding for continued monitoring of peregrine falcons, bald eagles, Steller sea
lions, and brown pelicans.
Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA
Chapter 2 Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-9
C. Provide protection for State-listed species occurring on refuge islands.
D. Determine population status of Destruction Island shrew.
E. Cooperate with international efforts to monitor black oystercatchers range-wide,
evaluate population trends, and develop conservation measures.
Discussion: The Service enforces Federal wildlife laws, including the Endangered Species
Act (16 USC 1531 et seq.), and is responsible for assisting other Federal and State agencies
in the recovery of listed species. The responsibilities of an individual refuge include these
Service-wide duties for species protection. Mapping and identification of key habitat areas
are important first steps for managing sensitive species. Peregrine falcon eyries, bald eagle
nest sites, Steller sea lion haul sites, and sea otter and brown pelican use areas have been
documented, mapped, and entered into a WDFW non-game data system. Establishing an in-house
GIS system will facilitate access to existing data and will expedite refuge
management. Monitoring is an important next step to ascertain the population levels and
trends of sensitive species and key life history parameters for refuge populations. This
information will assist in the sound management of sensitive species such as the Destruction
Island shrew.
2.3.3 Wilderness Protection (WP)
WP Goal: Protect and manage the Washington Islands Wilderness Area to
maintain its wilderness character and values.
Objective WP1: Preserve and enhance the wilderness character of the Refuges by
removing human-generated debris from refuge islands, where feasible, on an ongoing
basis.
Achievement Strategies:
A. On scheduled visits to islands, search and remove debris if possible.
B. Where appropriate, seek clean-up assistance from the U.S. Navy, USCG, volunteer
groups, Tribes, and other agencies. Cooperative efforts with the U.S. Navy and
USCG are established under Objectives CP4 and CP8.
C. Partner with other agencies and groups in educating the public to the adverse effects
of marine debris.
Discussion: The Wilderness Act defines wilderness as an area which is protected and
managed to preserve its natural conditions and which generally appears to have been affected
primarily by the forces of nature with the imprint of man=s work substantially unnoticeable.
This objective provides for the enhancement of wilderness character through clean-up of
man-made debris that is environmentally and aesthetically undesirable.
Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA
2-10 Chapter 2 Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
Objective WP2: Continue to promote and preserve the wilderness characteristics of the
Refuges by prohibiting human-caused visually intrusive alterations on refuge islands on an
ongoing basis.
Achievement Strategy:
A. Review and evaluate visual intrusion aspects of all research projects on the Refuges
using the Minimum Requirement Analysis to ensure low intrusion levels.
Discussion: Under the Wilderness Area designation (1970), refuge islands (except
Destruction Island) shall be protected in their pristine and natural conditions. The Service
recognizes its obligations under this designation and has put forth this objective to preserve
the visual characteristics of the area. The purpose of this objective is to allow refuge staff to
evaluate proposed actions on refuge islands from a visual impact perspective and prohibit
those with predicted negative results.
2.3.4 Cooperative Programs (CP)
CP Goal: Through effective coordination and cooperation with others, promote
conservation of refuge resources, with special emphasis on governmental
agencies and Tribes with adjoining ownership or management
responsibilities.
Objective CP1: By 2007, begin working with Tribes on issues and resources of mutual
interest to promote conservation.
Achievement Strategies:
A. Meet annually or more often if needed, with Tribes.
B. Identify areas of mutual interest including research, monitoring, and resource
protection efforts. See Service-identified areas of interests under Objectives WP1,
Objective RA1, and Objective PE3.
C. Provide annual updates on the year=s activities. This strategy is also addressed under
Objective CP10.
D. Negotiate memorandums of understanding with Tribes regarding the time, place, and
manner of tribal access to the Refuges where appropriate and compatible.
E. Work on resolving any ambiguities between Native American reservation and refuge
boundaries.
Discussion: The Hoh, Makah, Quinault, and Quileute Tribes have all expressed interest and
concern for natural and cultural resources on refuge islands. These islands are also important
to the Tribes for tribal identity and spirituality. The Service will continue to work with the
Tribes on a government-to-government basis to address areas of mutual interest and concern.
Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA
Chapter 2 Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-11
Objective CP2: Beginning in 2007, work with WDFW on issues and resources of mutual
interest to promote conservation.
Achievement Strategies:
A. Continue joint wildlife surveys with WDFW; see cooperative projects under
Objective SS1.
B. Explore joint research opportunities with WDFW; see Objectives RA1 and RA4.
C. Coordinate with WDFW law enforcement to protect refuge wildlife and the resources
on which they depend.
D. Report accomplishments in periodic reports and/or publications.
Discussions: Cooperation between WDFW and the Service will help both agencies by
sharing information, funding, and expertise. Mutual interests include: continuing joint
wildlife surveys, educational programs, species management, and developing joint research
projects.
Objective CP3: Coordinate with the Tribes, the Sanctuary, ONP, and WDNR in managing
for the protection and conservation of intertidal and subtidal zones surrounding the refuge
islands by fall 2008.
Achievement Strategies:
A. Jointly identify zones, management responsibilities, and land use policies for
intertidal and subtidal areas by 2008.
B. Jointly develop a conservation policy and enforcement plan for intertidal and subtidal
zones by 2010; see Objectives WH4 and WP1.
C. Jointly monitor for marine debris and implement measures for its removal.
Discussion: The intertidal and subtidal zones of the refuge islands are important habitats; not
only are they vital to the continued health of many unique flora and fauna, but they are also
the entry way for the terrestrial island habitats. Land use policies must be designed to protect
both tidal and terrestrial habitats. The intertidal and subtidal land management is
complicated with overlapping designations and management responsibilities. The intent of
this objective is to pull together all agencies with management responsibilities and interest in
the island tidelands and to identify opportunities for conservation of refuge habitats.
Objective CP4: Coordinate with the USCG to update the existing MOU for Destruction
Island, which will clarify the roles of the two agencies on the island and thereby aid in the
conservation of refuge resources by 2010.
Achievement Strategy:
A. The MOU will address USCG and Service operations and maintenance.
Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA
2-12 Chapter 2 Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
Discussion: Destruction Island is a unique island within the Refuges due to overlapping
management responsibilities of the Service and USCG. There is an existing MOU; however,
it needs to be revised to address current concerns. Refuge concerns for Destruction Island
include wildlife disturbances and debris impacts. Disturbance and pollution can negatively
impact many sensitive refuge wildlife species, especially nesting seabirds, bald eagles, and
the endemic Destruction Island shrew. This objective is needed to allow the Service and
USCG to address these mutual issues of concern.
Objective CP5: Coordinate with the NPS to update the existing MOU for joint refuge law
enforcement on low-tide accessible islands by 2008.
Achievement Strategies:
A. The MOU will address trespass law enforcement, educational programs, fire
suppression support, and refuge boundaries; see Objectives WP1, WP2, RA1, and
Objective PE3.
B. Secure joint funding for a seasonal ranger stationed along the coast. The duties of
this ranger will include law enforcement and education.
Discussion: Law enforcement is extremely difficult on off-shore islands. The islands are
difficult to gain access to and even to patrol. Teaming the NPS with the Service will boost
the effectiveness of law enforcement for both agencies. The enforcement of the no-trespass
policy is important in protecting vulnerable wildlife, research projects, and natural resources.
Understanding Tribal access agreements will be an important component of the ranger=s
duties. It is important to maintain the NPS radio facility on Destruction Island to facilitate
law enforcement and ONP emergency communications.
Objective CP6: Coordinate with the Sanctuary to develop an MOU covering mutual
resource issues by 2007.
Achievement Strategy:
A. The MOU will address cooperative law enforcement, oil spill response planning and
action, overflight restrictions, research, educational programs, and Refuges’ and
Sanctuary management responsibilities; see Objective WH1, Objective RA1, and
Objective PE3.
Discussion: The overlap between the Sanctuary and the Refuges’ boundaries represents a
management challenge for NOAA and the Service. The common goal between the resource
managers is habitat protection; however, details for specific issues need to be developed. Oil
spill preparation is a topic that many local citizens and regional conservation groups are
concerned about. Other issues this objective will address include law enforcement and
educational opportunities. The public also voiced concern over the confusion generated from
Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA
Chapter 2 Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-13
multi-agency responsibilities over the region. It is clear that all involved or interested in the
conservation of the region would benefit from clear descriptions of roles and policies.
Objective CP7: Work with others to reduce wildlife disturbances from aircraft flying over
refuge islands through education, monitoring, and enforcement by spring 2010.
Achievement Strategies:
A. Working with the FAA, jointly identify refuge areas on aeronautical charts and
develop Anotice to pilots.@
B. In communications with the FAA, stress bird-strike safety concerns for pilots.
C. Coordinate with ONP and the Sanctuary on carrying out an overflight impacts
education program that will promote the 2,000-foot (610 m), flight-free ceiling over
refuge islands. Use educational materials developed under Objective WH6.
D. Coordinate with the ONP, Sanctuary, and Tribes on monitoring overflight incidents
and wildlife response as opportunities arise, and document results in annual reports.
E. The Service will use existing refuge regulations to enforce wildlife disturbance
violations (50 CFR 27.34).
Discussion: Protection of seabird populations is a primary refuge goal. Refuge biologists,
ONP staff, and conservation groups have all brought attention to the incidences of overflight
disturbances on the refuge islands. These types of disturbances have been documented to
disrupt seabird and marine mammal breeding and resting activities. Currently, the Sanctuary
has established a minimum flight altitude of 2,000 feet (610m) for aircraft flying over the
islands. The FAA is the enforcement agency of the aircraft industry. To maintain a
minimum overflight altitude over the Refuges, the FAA needs to support the policy. This
objective encourages bringing these two agencies to the table to discuss the issue and
develop ways to prevent overflight disturbances.
Objective CP8: Beginning in 2007, work with the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) on
issues and resources of mutual interest to promote conservation.
Achievement Strategy:
A. The joint program will address clean-up of debris and unwanted structures; see Goal
WP, Objective WP1.
Discussion: The U.S. Navy and Air Force (DOD) have a long history (1944-1993) of using
refuge islands for bombing practices. Private citizens, conservation groups, and refuge
biologists are concerned about the remaining military debris on off-shore islands and its
potential impacts to the ecosystems. This objective provides an opportunity for the Service
to initiate discussions with the DOD about island clean-up and other issues remaining
regarding land use by the military.
Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA
2-14 Chapter 2 Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
Objective CP9: Beginning in 2007, cooperate with interested nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs) to promote awareness of the Refuges and conservation of the
Refuges’ habitats, cultural resources, and wildlife and the resources upon which they
depend.
Achievement Strategies:
A. Conduct outreach targeting NGOs to increase support and appreciation for the
Refuges.
B. Seek NGO assistance in implementing the CCP.
C. Seek assistance in identifying strategies relating to inventorying, monitoring and
managing the marine fish and other resources that seabirds and marine mammals
depend on for food.
D. Meet with NGOs as requested to explore cooperation opportunities in areas of mutual
interest.
Discussion: Various nongovernmental organizations representing differing interest groups
have long had an interest in the fish, wildlife, and marine environment of Washington State.
Many citizen-based conservation organizations have been strong supporters of national
wildlife refuges nationwide. Other organizations are more specific in their interests such as
wilderness values, seabird conservation, or coastal management. All of these groups can
assist with citizen-based involvement and support to accomplish the objectives and strategies
outlined in this CCP.
Objective CP10: Promote cooperation and long-term conservation of refuge resources by
producing an annual summary report every March starting in 2007.
Achievement Strategies:
A. The Service will produce a complex-wide annual narrative report as a partial source
for the summary report.
B. The report will include a summary of research/monitoring activities and findings;
trespass and disturbance incidents; major management actions; a listing of
publications and public lectures made by refuge staff or associated researchers; staff
names and responsibilities; educational program activities; and other highlights that
occurred on the Refuges. See Objective WH1.
C. The summary report will be mailed to associated agencies, Tribes, and interested
parties.
Discussion: Research results are often available only to the scientific community. The
purpose of this objective is to communicate refuge research results to the interested public, as
well as other agencies, to increase understanding of the Refuges, the regional ecosystem, and
natural resources. This report will not only communicate research results but also staff
changes, educational program activities, and other highlights. All these items will foster a
Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA
Chapter 2 Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-15
sense of community for the regional context of the Refuges. Due to the restricted nature of
the islands, the public is distanced from refuge activities. This annual report will be a
method for the Service to reach out once a year to inform the public and organizations about
their work and ongoing concerns. This will promote support and respect for the Refuges.
2.3.5 Research and Monitoring Activity Management (RA)
RA Goal: Continue and enhance long-term monitoring of wildlife and habitat
resources and sustain applied scientific research.
Objective RA1: Continue to promote management-related research and monitoring.
Achievement Strategies:
A. Establish and develop partnerships with Tribes, State, other Federal agencies, and
Canada, as well as universities and conservation groups to pursue joint research
projects.
B. Encourage research organizations to perform cooperative research projects that
explore factors affecting refuge wildlife, especially the effects of overflight and
boater disturbances on seabirds and marine mammals, and gillnet impacts on sea
otters and seabirds.
C. Identify and pursue funding opportunities.
D. Conduct an ethnographic study of the Washington Islands Refuges.
Discussion: The National Wildlife Refuge System encourages compatible research activities
on refuge lands. Research and monitoring projects on refuge islands enhance scientific
understanding of the ecosystems and lead to better management. Long-term monitoring
efforts are extremely valuable in terms of the information provided and in adaptive
management techniques. Human use issues are likely to increase in terms of pressures on the
refuge resources due to developing local and regional markets. This may lead to additional
and new types of human impacts. This is likely to present management challenges, which
can be approached with proactive applied research projects and long-term monitoring efforts.
The Service is supportive of ethnographic research that does not negatively impact wildlife
and wilderness resources of the Refuges.
Objective RA2: Update the Refuges’ seabird monitoring plan by 2010, to benefit seabird
populations.
Achievement Strategies:
A. Assist in the development of a monitoring manual for California Current System
(CCS) seabirds and integrate it with the Refuges’ seabird monitoring plan.
Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA
2-16 Chapter 2 Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
B. Map seabird colonies using GIS and population parameters such as population
estimates and reproductive data.
C. Integrate refuge GIS data with GIS seabird colony catalogues for Washington,
Oregon, and California.
D. Continue annual common murre, cormorant, and brown pelican inventories.
E. Update population estimate of rhinoceros auklets on Destruction Island and institute
regular population monitoring.
F. Explore low impact methods of determining population sizes of tufted puffin and
ancient murrelet at key refuge breeding colonies.
G. Contribute to implementing the Regional Seabird Conservation Plan and North
American Waterbird Conservation Plan.
Discussion: Seabird research and monitoring has been carried out on refuge islands for over
25 years. The purpose of this objective is to ensure that this work not only continues but is
enhanced and improved to provide refuge management and resource managers with the tools
to make conservation decisions. Due to natural history traits, seabirds are a difficult fauna to
study and understand. Long-term research and directed applied studies better our
understanding of these resources. Population estimates are a basic database that needs to be
established to make informed management decisions for the Refuges and for world-wide
seabird conservation. It has been shown that long-term monitoring programs of water-based
avian species can substantially contribute to improvements for recovery from oil spills and
other catastrophes (Parsons 1996). The Service is working with USGS and other seabird
experts to develop a regional monitoring program for seabirds of the California Current
System that involves standardized protocols for data collection, analyses, and reporting.
Integration of refuge monitoring with this regional effort will provide a broader context for
analyses of trends and environmental and human-caused factors that influence these trends.
Objective RA3: Continue to promote the publication and communication of monitoring
and research findings by refuge staff on an ongoing basis.
Achievement Strategies:
A. Encourage refuge staff to continue publishing in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
B. Encourage refuge staff to attend professional society and agency sponsored
meetings/conferences.
C. Promote dissemination of relevant agency reports (also see strategy CP9).
Discussion: Communication of monitoring and research findings is the responsibility of the
Service. Encouraging refuge staff to publish research findings in peer-reviewed journals and
providing other means to disseminate refuge monitoring and research information helps
foster understanding and respect for refuge management actions and conservation of natural
resources. Research presentation also provides a forum for research and management
improvements through the peer-review forum. The Service should pursue peer-reviewed
Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA
Chapter 2 Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-17
presentations to maintain a high caliber of refuge research. Refuge scientists will also be
encouraged to include research findings in public interpretive programs. Information on the
locations of extremely fragile natural resources, or those subject to vandalism, will not be
included in final studies and reports for public distribution.
Objective RA4: Promote regional conservation through developing compatible and
comparable research/monitoring methods and data on an ongoing basis.
Achievement Strategies:
A. Modify seabird, black oystercatcher, and marine mammal monitoring methods to
make them as comparable as possible to other monitoring programs along the west
coast (also see strategy RA2).
B. Require outside researchers to use regionally comparable field methods while
performing work on the Refuges, where feasible and appropriate.
C. Coordinate with the WDFW, Tribes, and other Federal agencies involved in
monitoring efforts for opportunities for compatible development.
Discussion: Modification of databases and methods to be comparable and compatible to
other research is a cost-effective way to conduct comprehensive refuge research. Being able
to compare refuge data with other local, regional, and even global data will help guide
ecosystem management priorities for refuge resources. It will also promote the Service=s
ecosystem approach to resource management, as well as enhance the world-wide scientific
connection and understanding.
Objective RA5: Increase effective management of the Refuges by establishing a
comprehensive refuge office research library of current and previously published relevant
scientific papers and publications, maps, photos, reports, theses, and dissertations,
including those resulting from research and monitoring projects conducted on the Refuges
and in the surrounding region, by 2010.
Achievement Strategies:
A. Obtain copies of all reports and other materials relevant to the Refuges.
B. Provide library training for refuge staff.
C. Pursue funding for including library space in the new office.
D. Scan copies of unpublished reports to provide computer backup.
E. Archive photographs and maps.
F. Develop data management system for storage and retrieval of monitoring and other
data. (See objective WH5)
Discussion: The research that has been conducted along the outer coast has led to the current
understanding and formation of remaining questions about the uniqueness and value of the
Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA
2-18 Chapter 2 Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
Refuges= natural resources. Documentation and understanding of past and current research
will contribute to future studies and management actions.
2.3.6 Public Education Management (PE)
PE Goal: Increase public interpretation and awareness programs to enhance
appreciation, understanding, and enjoyment of refuge resources.
Objective PE1: Promote appreciation and interpretation for the Refuges through the
development and project implementation of a visitor contact center located at Dungeness
NWR as soon as funding is appropriated.
Achievement Strategy:
A. This will be a joint facility with the new Washington Maritime National Wildlife
Refuge Complex headquarters. See Objective WH8.
Discussion: Interpretation and education are essential to increasing public support for
wildlife resources and in turn the National Wildlife Refuge System. Providing a visitor
contact center, is an important step in making the educational connection to the public,
especially for the Washington Islands Refuges where access is prohibited. The restricted
nature of the islands calls for well-developed off-site visitor contact and interpretation
centers.
Objective PE2: Promote awareness and understanding of the Washington Island Refuges
and wildlife resources by developing a website for the Washington Maritime National
Wildlife Refuge Complex by 2007.
Achievement Strategies:
A. Include on the website photographs and natural history information on refuge islands
and how they are used by breeding seabirds and marine mammals.
B. Place an annual biological summary and other pertinent reports or announcements on
the website.
C. Provide website maintenance training to refuge staff.
Discussion: The Service can use the World Wide Web to reach a broader audience with their
environmental educational programs. This medium will provide worldwide awareness and
appreciation for the regional and worldwide context of the Refuges= resources. The website
can offer a virtual visit to the restricted refuge islands. This medium will also provide the
Service with input and collaboration on a worldwide scale, which is particularly important
with marine and avian resources that commonly cross international borders.
Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA
Chapter 2 Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-19
Objective PE3: Promote refuge conservation and awareness by coordinating with other
agencies, Tribes, and organizations to develop off-site interpretive facilities by 2010.
Achievement Strategies:
A. Coordinate with ONP and the Sanctuary to develop an interagency interpretive center
somewhere on the coast.
B. Coordinate with Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission, Washington
Department of Transportation, ONP, and the Sanctuary to develop off-refuge viewing
and interpretation opportunities.
C. Work with the Tribes and other partners to interpret cultural resources of the area.
D. Coordinate with Tribes on development and placement of interpretive
exhibits/materials on tribal lands.
E. Establish a remote viewing camera on at least one seabird colony and coordinate the
placement of a viewing screen at a high public use area on the outer coast, and also
provide a link to the seabird colony on the refuge website.
F. Hire seasonal interpretive staff to work at the interagency interpretive center.
Discussion: Current off-refuge interpretation facilities exist but are very limited and are in
need of repair and upgrading. Off-refuge interpretive panels within the Olympic National
Park at Rialto Beach, Second Beach, Ruby Beach, and Kalaloch are extensively weathered,
missing, or need repair. The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (PL 105-57)
identifies compatible environmental education as a priority wildlife-dependent use. The
impacts of human disturbances and difficulty of access on the Refuges prevent the educational
programs from being located on the islands. Off-site facilities are used as an alternative for
providing public education about refuge resources. This method offers local visitors and
residents a way to experience the islands without detrimental impacts to the resources. The
technique of remote viewing by a video camera will provide public observation of refuge
wildlife. Tribal, State Parks, and ONP cooperation is needed because the only vantage points
from the mainland are from their lands. These areas are well used by the public, and it is from
these areas that visitors see the islands and become interested in the island ecosystems. The
ethnographic study identified under RA1 will assist in the development of cultural resource
interpretive materials.
Objective PE4: Satisfy public desires to see charismatic species and learn about the
Refuges by developing traveling interpretive displays and handout materials about refuge
wildlife by 2008.
Achievement Strategies:
A. Seek funding for a permanent outdoor recreation planner staff position.
B. Seek funding for traveling refuge interpretive displays and materials on refuge
wildlife.
C. Update refuge wildlife fact sheets and brochures.
Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA
2-20 Chapter 2 Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
Discussion: Annually, over one million visitors view the Refuges, creating a tremendous
opportunity to provide information about the Refuges and the resources requiring protection.
The outdoor recreation planner position is critical for planning/coordinating and
implementing an interpretive/education program. The impacts of human disturbance and
difficulty of access on the islands prevent the Service from locating educational programs on
refuge islands. Traveling displays and materials could be used as an alternative for providing
public education about refuge resources. This method offers diversity and flexibility to
education providers to reach the largest audience possible. These strategies also address
public requests for ecotourism without impacts to wildlife.
2.4 Common Features Among the Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
Effective and efficient management of the Refuges is dependent on reliable and well-synthesized
data. Hence, there are some common themes that run across many of the goals, objectives, and
strategies such as development of cooperative efforts, monitoring plans, GIS, as well as annual
report writing. Our obligations to protect and manage cultural resources, conduct fire
suppression, and use the “minimum requirement analysis” tool for wilderness areas, while not
elaborated on in the goals, objectives, and strategies are still an important part of the
management of the Refuges.
Groups of organized associations or entities can often achieve more when working together than
separately. The Service recognizes that cooperation among Federal, State, and tribal agencies
serves to promote management stability and enhance regional conservation efforts. It is with this
holistic approach in mind that the Service will attempt to obtain natural resource and
management agreements between the Service and other neighboring agencies, such as the
WDNR, WDFW, USCG, NOAA, other State and Federal agencies, and Tribes. Cooperative
efforts may include island clean-up, law enforcement, data exchange, and coordinating research
and monitoring efforts.
Refuge wildlife monitoring is a priority for the National Wildlife Refuge System (USFWS
1999). Refuge monitoring plans include a wide array of data collected on natural resources such
as seabirds, marine mammals, threatened and endangered species, and human disturbance
impacts. Monitoring efforts across long time periods provide extremely useful data, especially
in highly dynamic systems such as the marine refuge islands. Environmental changes and
uncertainty are very common in marine systems, as exemplified by El Niño and other oceanic
fluctuations. These fluctuations can add uncertainty to the validity of short-term scientific
research; the only way to counter this problem is through long-term studies. Long-term
monitoring data support adaptive management procedures, which the Service promotes
nationwide.
The use of GIS is a useful method for organizing and synthesizing complex data sets on a spatial
scale, such as the Service would be producing through the proposed monitoring and research
Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA
Chapter 2 Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-21
projects. It enables the Service to look at multiple layers of data across a spatial scale. This
powerful instrument is very useful in resource management decision-making, although it must be
made very clear that the results of GIS data analysis are only as accurate as the data put into it.
Using GIS can help the Service effectively guide research and management directives.
Preparing an annual report will be an important data compilation and review tool, which will
help the Service manage the Refuges holistically and inform the public and other agencies about
current activities. This report will include narrative summaries of monitoring programs, island
disturbances, and other events involving the islands or their resources over the previous year.
The Service will continue to uphold Federal laws protecting cultural resources, including the
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), Archeological Resources Protection Act, and Native
American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. These laws also require consultation with
Native American Tribes, the State Historic Preservation Office, and other preservation partners.
The NHPA requires all projects that use Federal funding, permitting, or licensing to be reviewed
by a cultural resource professional to determine if there is the potential to affect cultural
resources. If needed, an inventory must be conducted, and appropriate actions to mitigate effects
must be identified, prior to implementation of the project.
Fire suppression will be conducted as described in the Washington Islands National Wildlife
Refuges Wildland Fire Management Plan (FMP), 2005. A summary of the FMP can be found in
Appendix F. Under the guidance of the FMP, all wildland fires will be suppressed using the
appropriate management response. There will be no prescribed fires or pile burning on any of
the refuges, and managing wildland fires for resource benefit (wildland fire use) is not an option
at this time. The Service already works cooperatively through the Puget Sound Interagency
Communication Center for wildland fire suppression on the Washington Maritime National
Wildlife Refuge Complex, of which Washington Islands NWRs are a part.
Appendix E-1 contains a Aminimum requirements analysis@ (MRA) as described in wilderness
stewardship planning policy, for research, monitoring, and clean-up activities in wilderness.
Additional MRAs would be prepared if implementation of strategies involved the use of motor
vehicles, motorized equipment, aircraft landings, mechanical transport, or structures or
installations in designated wilderness areas. Researchers requesting a permit to conduct research
on the Refuges which is not already covered under the existing MRA will be required to
complete an MRA for refuge manager review and approval.
2.5 Comparison of Alternatives
Table 2-1 highlights and compares some of the actions associated with the two alternatives.
These comparisons are organized based on the key planning issues identified in Chapter 1. No
attempt was made to include all actions.
Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA
2-22 Chapter 2 Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
Table 2-1: Comparison of Alternatives
Issues Alternative A: No Action Alternative B: Proposed Action
Public
Awareness
-Off-site interpretation would
remain limited to a few
highway panels.
-Develop a visitor contact station with interpretive
exhibits and a resource library at new headquarters.
-Develop interagency interpretive center on the
coast to provide off-refuge education to public.
-Develop a website to provide information on
breeding seabirds and marine mammals.
-Seek funding for a staff position to implement an
off-site education program to include boating and
aircraft impact awareness.
Interagency
and Tribal
C
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.
| Rating | |
| Title | Washington Islands National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment |
| Description | washislands_final.pdf |
| FWS Resource Links | http://library.fws.gov |
| Subject |
Document Wildlife refuges Planning |
| Location |
Region 1 Washington |
| FWS Site |
WASHINGTON ISLAND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE FLATTERY ROCKS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE QUILLAYUTE NEEDLES NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COPALIS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE |
| Publisher | U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service |
| Date of Original | June 2007 |
| Type | Text |
| Format | |
| Source | NCTC Conservation Library |
| Rights | Public domain |
| File Size | 25507770 Bytes |
| Original Format | Document |
| Length | 249 |
| Full Resolution File Size | 25507770 Bytes |
| Transcript | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Washington Islands National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment Flattery Rocks, Quillayute Needles, and Copalis National Wildlife Refuges 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 Service’s best estimate of future needs. These plans detail program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service 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. Vision Statement for the Washington Islands National Wildlife Refuges: Since 1907, critical resting and breeding grounds for marine wildlife off the outer Olympic coast have been protected and preserved by the National Wildlife Refuge System. The more than 600 rocks, reefs, and islands known as Flattery Rocks, Copalis, and Quillayute Needles National Wildlife Refuges are designated wilderness (except Destruction Island), and all will continue to be preserved in a natural condition with minimal human intrusion. Management activities will focus on monitoring Refuge wildlife and on protection and maintenance of a natural functioning ecosystem. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will coordinate with other agencies and tribes to ensure the long-term health and viability of native seabird and marine wildlife populations. We will also work with others to provide wildlife viewing and interpretation at selected locations on the adjacent coastline. Fostering an appreciation for Pacific coast wildlife will enrich people in a variety of ways and ensure that this outstanding legacy of wildlife is passed on to future generations. Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA i Table of Contents Page Chapter 1. Introduction, Purpose, and Need 1.1 Background............................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Purpose of and Need for Action................................................................................ 1-3 1.2.1 Proposed Action ............................................................................................. 1-3 1.2.2 Purpose and Need........................................................................................... 1-3 1.3 Location and Historical Overview of the Washington Islands National Wildlife Refuges........................................................................................ 1-4 1.3.1 Location of Washington Islands NWRs......................................................... 1-4 1.3.2 Historical Overview ....................................................................................... 1-4 1.3.3 Washington Islands NWR and Regional Management Responsibilities ....... 1-9 1.4 National Wildlife Refuge System Mission, Refuge Purpose, and Vision .............. 1-10 1.5 Related Actions and Activities ............................................................................... 1-11 1.5.1 Research Activities....................................................................................... 1-11 1.5.2 Tribal Fish and Wildlife Programs................................................................ 1-11 1.5.3 Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary.................................................. 1-11 1.5.4 United States Coast Guard Activities........................................................... 1-12 1.5.5 National Park Service................................................................................... 1-12 1.5.6 Environmental Education ............................................................................. 1-12 1.5.7 Northern Pacific Coast Regional Shorebird Management Plan ................... 1-13 1.5.8 Regional Seabird Conservation Plan, Pacific Region .................................. 1-13 1.5.9 National and Regional Waterbird Conservation Plan .................................. 1-13 1.5.10 Comprehensive Plan for Coastline Management ....................................... 1-14 1.6 Applicable Legal Mandates .................................................................................... 1-14 1.6.1 Mandates Specific to the Washington Islands NWRs.................................. 1-14 1.6.2 Service and Refuge System Policies ............................................................ 1-15 1.7 Public Involvement ................................................................................................. 1-15 1.7.1 Interagency Meetings ................................................................................... 1-16 1.7.2 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Meeting ................................ 1-16 1.7.3 Planning Updates........................................................................................... 1-16 1.7.4 Issues and Opportunities Identified............................................................... 1-16 1.7.5 Tribal Consultation....................................................................................... 1-17 1.7.6 Comment Response Process on the Draft CCP/EA ..................................... 1-20 1.8 Summary of Key Planning Issues ........................................................................... 1-20 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2.1 Alternatives............................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.1 Alternative A: No Action ............................................................................... 2-1 2.1.2 Alternative B: Proposed Action ..................................................................... 2-2 2.2 Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ............................................................................. 2-2 2.3 Management Themes ................................................................................................ 2-3 2.3.1 Wildlife and Habitat Protection and Management (WH)............................... 2-3 2.3.2 Sensitive Species Protection (SS) .................................................................. 2-8 2.3.3 Wilderness Protection (WP)........................................................................... 2-9 Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA ii Table of Contents (continued) Page 2.3.4 Cooperative Programs (CP).......................................................................... 2-10 2.3.5 Research and Monitoring Activity Management (RA) ................................ 2-15 2.3.6 Public Education Management (PE) ............................................................ 2-18 2.4 Common Features Among the Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .......................... 2-20 2.5 Comparison of Alternatives .................................................................................... 2-21 Chapter 3. Affected Environment 3.1 Introduction............................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Climate and Ocean Conditions ................................................................................. 3-1 3.3 Geology and Soils..................................................................................................... 3-2 3.4 Biological Resources ................................................................................................ 3-2 3.4.1 Vegetation ...................................................................................................... 3-3 3.4.2 Wildlife........................................................................................................... 3-5 3.4.3 Species with Special Status .......................................................................... 3-22 3.5 Cultural Resources.................................................................................................. 3-27 3.5.1 Ethnographic Information ............................................................................ 3-27 3.5.2 Archaeology ................................................................................................. 3-28 3.5.3 History .......................................................................................................... 3-29 3.6 Recreation/Public Use............................................................................................. 3-30 3.7 Environmental Justice............................................................................................. 3-32 3.8 Visual Resources..................................................................................................... 3-32 3.9 Socioeconomics ...................................................................................................... 3-33 3.10 Public Health and Safety....................................................................................... 3-35 3.11 Wilderness Resources ........................................................................................... 3-35 Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4.1 Introduction............................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Climate and Ocean Conditions ................................................................................. 4-1 4.3 Geology and Soils..................................................................................................... 4-2 4.4 Biological Resources ................................................................................................ 4-3 4.4.1 Effects to Vegetation ...................................................................................... 4-3 4.4.2 Effects to Wildlife .......................................................................................... 4-4 4.4.3 Effects to Species with Special Status.......................................................... 4-10 4.5 Cultural Resources.................................................................................................. 4-12 4.6 Recreation/Public Use............................................................................................. 4-13 4.7 Wilderness Resources .............................................................................................. 4-14 4.8 Environmental Justice............................................................................................. 4-14 4.9 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ................................................................................ 4-14 4.10 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resource...................................... 4-14 4.11 Short-Term Uses vs. Long-Term Productivity ...................................................... 4-14 4.12 Cumulative Effects................................................................................................. 4-15 Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA iii Table of Contents (continued) Page Appendices A: Glossary of Terms........................................................................................................... A-1 B: References.......................................................................................................................B-1 C: Legal Materials Pertinent toWashington Islands National Wildlife Refuges Laws and Executive Orders Potentially Applicable to the CCP and EA for Washington Islands National Wildlife Refuges .................................................C-1 Executive Order 703.................................................................................................C-4 Executive Order 704 ................................................................................................C-5 Executive Order 705 ................................................................................................C-7 Public Land Order 4095 ...........................................................................................C-8 Public Law 91-504 ..................................................................................................C-9 Public Law 99-635 .................................................................................................C-12 Public Law 100-226 ..............................................................................................C-15 Memorandum of Understanding with National Park Service, 1993 .....................C-17 Memorandum of Understanding with United States Coast Guard, 2003 ..............C-21 D: List of Preparers.............................................................................................................. D-1 E: Minimum Requirement Analysis and Compatibility Determination Minimum Requirement Analysis ............................................................................E-1 Compatibility Determination ...................................................................................E-7 F: Summary of Washington Islands NWRs Wildland Fire Management Plan ................... F-1 G: Implementation .............................................................................................................. G-1 H: Public Comments and Service Responses ..................................................................... H-1 List of Figures 1-1 Washington Islands NWRs and Vicinity ......................................................................... 1-2 1-2 Flattery Rocks NWR........................................................................................................ 1-5 1-3 Quillayute Needles NWR ................................................................................................ 1-6 1-4 Copalis NWR................................................................................................................... 1-7 3-1 Biological Zones of Washington Islands NWRs and Vicinity ........................................ 3-4 List of Tables 2-1 Comparison of Alternatives ........................................................................................... 2-22 3-1 Breeding seabirds of the Washington Islands NWRs, outer coast of Washington State....................................................................................................... 3-11 3-2 Special Status Species and Habitats That Have Been Documented on the Washington Islands NWRs ................................................................................................................ 3-23 3-3 Population and Density Information for Selected Areas ............................................... 3-34 3-4 Median Household Income for Selected Areas ............................................................. 3-34 Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA Chapter 1 Introduction, Purpose, and Need 1-11-1 Chapter 1 Introduction, Purpose, and Need 1.1 Background The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has prepared this Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment (CCP/EA) to guide its management of the lands and resources of the following three national wildlife refuges (NWRs): Flattery Rocks NWR, Quillayute Needles NWR, and Copalis NWR. Located along the outer coast of Washington State=s Olympic Peninsula (Figure 1-1), these three national wildlife refuges are collectively called the Washington Islands NWRs or Refuges throughout this document. The Service has primary management authority over most of the offshore rocks and islands except for those included within established Native American reservation boundaries. The Service prepared a management plan for the Washington Islands NWRs in 1986 (revised in 1989). To better manage refuge resources and comply with Federal law, the Service has prepared this CCP that addresses resource management at the Washington Islands NWRs for the next 15 years. Alternative B, the Proposed Action presented in this final EA is also the CCP. Alternative B presents the goals, objectives, and strategies for the long-term management of the Washington Islands NWRs. The strategies for achieving refuge goals will guide management decisions over the 15-year life of the CCP. The final EA describes the effects of each alternative for managing the Washington Islands NWRs. This integrated document is divided into four primary chapters: $ Chapter 1 Introduction, Purpose, and Need $ Chapter 2 Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies $ Chapter 3 Affected Environment $ Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Additional material is included as appendices at the end of the document, as necessary. Remaining sections in Chapter 1 include the following: 1.2 The Purpose of and Need for Action; 1.3 An Overview of the History of the Washington Islands NWRs; 1.4 the National Wildlife Refuge System mission, refuge purposes, and vision statement; 1.5 A Discussion of the Related Actions and Activities; 1.6 A Review of the Legal Mandates Applicable to the Washington Islands NWRs CCP; and 1.7 A Summary of all Relevant Issues and Opportunities. 112 101 109 101 12 ABERDEEN Pacific Ocean Quillayute Needles National Wildlife Refuge Copalis National Wildlife Refuge Strait of Juan de Fuca Flattery Rocks National Wildlife Refuge FORKS Lake Ozette Neah Bay Taholah Grays Harbor La Push PORT ANGELES Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA Washington Islands NWRs And Vicinity Chapter 1 Introduction, Purpose, and Need FIGURE 1-1 Sources: FWS 1986; NPS 2000; Pers. Comm. Jim Thomas, Realty Dept, WDNR, April 30, 2000. Key Map WASHINGTON Olympic Peninsula P a c i f i c O c e a n OLYMPIC PENINSULA 10 0 10 20 Miles P/9E418.01/Graphics/wa-marine-rfg6-29.cdr 1-2 Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA Chapter 1 Introduction, Purpose, and Need 1-3 1.2 Purpose of and Need for Action 1.2.1 Proposed Action The Service proposes to adopt and implement a CCP for the three Washington Islands NWRs: Flattery Rocks NWR, Quillayute Needles NWR, and Copalis NWR. Because a CCP is a Federal action, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 requires an assessment of the potential environmental effects of the proposed action and any alternatives (including the Ano action@ or status quo alternative). The two alternatives evaluated in this EA are Alternative A, the no action alternative; and Alternative B, the proposed action. Alternative B would fulfill the vision and purposes of each Refuge and is consistent with the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and the goals of the National Wilderness Preservation System. Alternative B addresses the significant issues identified in the CCP planning process and is consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife management. 1.2.2 Purpose and Need Under the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57), the Service is required to develop CCPs for all NWRs outside Alaska. The purpose of this CCP is to update management direction so that it is consistent with the Improvement Act and with the Washington Islands Wilderness designation under Public Law 91-504. The CCP will provide the refuge manager and staff with a 15-year management plan for the conservation of seabirds, marine mammals, other wildlife, and their related habitats and for the protection of wilderness values. A CCP is needed to address significant problems that may adversely affect refuge wildlife, plant populations, and habitats. Specifically, the problems, concerns, and opportunities for the Washington Islands Refuges include: (1) a lack of public awareness of the Refuges’ valuable and sensitive wildlife resources; (2) the need to improve coordination with other managing agencies and Tribes; (3) wildlife disturbances from aircraft overflights and people on or near breeding sites; (4) the need for additional scientific research, surveys, and monitoring; (5) the existing occurrence and potential threat of contaminants and debris; and (6) concerns related to exotic species. The goals, objectives, and strategies included in Alternative B were developed to address coordination and cooperation opportunities, and external threats to the biological diversity, biological integrity, and environmental health of the Washington Islands NWRs. Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA 1-4 Chapter 1 Introduction, Purpose, and Need 1.3 Location and Historical Overview of the Washington Islands National Wildlife Refuges 1.3.1 Location of Washington Islands NWRs The Washington Islands NWRs, located along 100 miles (161 km) of the outer coast of the Olympic Peninsula, encompass more than 600 islands, sea stacks, rocks, and reefs (Figures 1-2, 1-3, and 1-4). The total land area above the line of mean high water of the rocks, reefs, and islands which comprise the Refuges is approximately 486 acres (0.8 sq miles) (196.7 ha [2 sq. km]). Only about 40 of the islands are named. The legal descriptions for each Refuge are as follows: Copalis NWR is between Latitude 47o08' North and 47o29' north; Quillayute Needles NWR is between Latitude 47o38' North and 48o02' North; and Flattery Rocks is between Latitude 48o02' North and 48o23' North. The Refuges do not include islands that are part of designated Native American reservations, such as James Island. 1.3.2 Historical Overview The Washington Islands NWRs have long been considered remote and isolated areas. At least seven groups of Native Americans���the Makah, Ozettes, Quileutes, Hoh, Queets, Quinaults, and Copalis−occupied the outer coast of the Olympic Peninsula adjacent to the present day Washington Islands Refuges. They depended on the natural resources of the Pacific Ocean as well as the rivers and forests for their subsistence (Ruby and Brown 1992). Washington coastal development by European-Americans began during the late 1800s, but the area remains relatively undeveloped and sparsely populated. There has been little private ownership of any of the islands. Today, the population of Forks, the largest town on the west side of the Olympic Mountains, is estimated at 3,500 people (Forks Chamber of Commerce 2000). The Native American populations living on or near the four local Indian reservations are estimated at 1,752 for the Makah Reservation, 2,951 for the Quinault Indian Reservation, 784 for the Quileute Reservation, and 86 for the Hoh Reservation (Northwest Portland Indian Health Board 2003). The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) was given authority to operate a lighthouse on Destruction Island in 1866 by an Executive Order. The lighthouse is currently fully automated and unstaffed; however, the USCG retains authority over the facilities and conducts maintenance activities, including servicing lighthouse batteries quarterly, under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Service. The USCG facilities include the lighthouse, a helicopter/generator pad, several buildings, a network of tramcar tracks, a tramcar shed, a water tower, two underground cisterns, several old house foundations filled with rubbish, and remnants of docking facilities (USFWS 1986). ! " #$ # % "% " & ' !""# $ %& '#("#% % $ % ) $ * + # $ + , ) ( ) ( * & 1-5 ! " # $ $ % " & '$ ! "## $% & '# $ $! ($ )! ! ( & ! # ( ) * ) + 1-6 ! " " # $ "$ ! "## $% & '# $ $! ($ )! ! ( ! % & % ' ( 1-7 Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA 1-8 Chapter 1 Introduction, Purpose, and Need Along much of the coastline adjacent to the islands lies the Olympic National Park (ONP), which officially became a national park on June 29, 1938. This park encompasses 922,651 acres (373,396 ha), and includes some of the beaches and headlands along the coast. The islands that make up the Washington Islands NWRs were first granted Federal conservation protection under a seabird reserve system, designated in 1907 by President Theodore Roosevelt (Executive Orders No. 703, 704, 705). The three reservations were renamed Flattery Rocks, Quillayute Needles, and Copalis National Wildlife Refuges in 1940 (Presidential Proclamation, July 30, 1940, President Franklin D. Roosevelt as granted under 50 Stat. 917). All three are managed together as the Washington Islands NWRs. In 1944, the U.S. Navy was granted use of a number of rocks within the Washington Islands Refuges for bombing and strafing activities (USFWS 1986). White Rock, North Rock, North Sea Lion Rock, South Sea Lion Rock, Carroll Island, Split Rock, Rounded Island, and possibly other islands were all utilized for this purpose until 1949, when bombing was continued only on South Sea Lion Rock. In 1993, the U.S. Navy=s use of this area was rescinded by the Secretary of the Interior (NOAA 1993). In 1967, the Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) signed a resolution prohibiting the Aprospecting, mining, and/or oil and gas exploration activities within one-quarter of one statute mile of any island, islet, reef, or rock within the boundaries of said Refuges@ (Resolution Number 76). The Department of the Interior removed James Island, near La Push, Washington, from the Quillayute Needles NWR in 1966 (Public Land Order 4095), when it was determined that the lands were set aside for the Quileute Reservation in 1889. In 1970, all three of the Washington Islands NWRs were designated as Wilderness Areas through Public Law 91-504, except for Destruction Island in Quillayute Needles NWR. This action was undertaken to promote and protect the pristine and remote nature of the islands. In 1986, Public Law 99-635 expanded and adjusted the boundaries of ONP. The bill effectively transferred land management authority for Flattery Rocks and Quillayute Needles NWRs to the National Park Service (NPS). As a result of pressure from Washington State=s scientific and environmental community, another bill to restore the two Refuges to the Service was introduced. In December 1987, Public Law 100-226 restored Flattery Rocks and Quillayute Needles to full NWR status, although both are now located within the boundary of the ONP. The bill also called for a cooperative agreement between the Service and the NPS. The Service and NPS signed a MOU in June 1988 (Agreement No. 9500-80001) which outlines the objectives for the Washington Islands NWRs and the obligation of both agencies. Under this agreement, the Service maintains management and administration responsibilities; regulates the Washington Islands NWRs’ uses; monitors wildlife; works with the NPS in developing educational information; notifies NPS of site visits; and exchanges information and training pertinent to the Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA Chapter 1 Introduction, Purpose, and Need 1-9 Washington Islands NWRs. As a result of the agreement, the NPS is obligated to: develop informational and educational programs about the Washington Islands NWRs; provide law enforcement training for park rangers; monitor trespassing activity; support the Service=s restriction of public and agency access to the NWRs; and conduct cooperative scientific research as needed. The waters surrounding the Washington Islands NWRs were designated a National Marine Sanctuary in 1994. The Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (Sanctuary), encompasses 2,111,992 acres (3,310 sq miles) ( 854,696 ha [8547 sq km]) of marine waters and extends along 135 miles (217 km) of coastline, thereby incorporating the entire area surrounding the islands and rocks of all three Refuges. This designation covers most of the continental shelf and varies between 25 to 40 miles (40 to 65 km) offshore (NPS 2000). The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) manages the Sanctuary through guidance contained in the May 1993 Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary Management Plan. 1.3.3 Washington Islands NWR and Regional Management Responsibilities The management responsibilities as they apply on and around the Washington Islands NWRs’ region are complex. The Service is responsible for most of the islands, rocks, and seastacks above the mean high water line. As with other national wildlife refuges, the Service is responsible for any wildlife, fish, and plants that occupy the Washington Islands NWRs whether they are seasonal or permanent residents. This includes seabirds, shorebirds, and marine mammals that use the Refuges’ islands and shoreline. Although Service responsibilities cover terrestrial environments, the Refuges are vitally linked with the surrounding marine environment and its resources. As an agency, the Service is mandated to enforce Federal wildlife laws, manage migratory bird populations, conserve and restore wildlife habitat, and administer the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Along the Washington Coast, Federal, State, and Tribal governments exercise management responsibility along the shoreline and in waters surrounding the Refuges. The NPS manages ONP, which includes expanses of mainland coastline (CFR 15- IX-922). As described in Section 1.3.2, the Service manages the Quillayute Needles and Flattery Rocks NWRs under an agreement with the NPS. The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission maintains Pacific State Park, Griffith Priday State Park, and Ocean City State Park, which are all adjacent to the Copalis NWR (pers. comm., Karmen Martin). The Quileute, Makah, Hoh, and Quinault Tribes manage reservation lands that border the Washington Island NWRs. These Tribes also have off-reservation access to Ausual and accustomed grounds and stations@ for activities reserved by treaties (fishing, shellfishing, and in the case of the Makah, whaling and sealing) which overlap with State and Federal management responsibilities. The Sanctuary designation as described in section 1.3.2 extends to the higher high water mark on Refuge islands. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is responsible for management of fish and wildlife in State waters around the Refuges. Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA 1-10 Chapter 1 Introduction, Purpose, and Need 1.4 National Wildlife Refuge System Mission, Refuge Purpose, and Vision The Service=s mission for the NWRS is to Aadminister 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 the present and future generations of Americans@ (National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 1997; Public Law 105-57). The CCP for the Washington Islands NWRs is being developed in accordance with this mission statement and the guidelines as delineated in the Improvement Act. Based on the guidance provided in the Improvement Act (Section 7), the CCP for any refuge must identify and describe the following: (1) the refuge purpose; (2) the distribution, migration/ dispersal patterns, and abundance of fish, wildlife, and plant populations and their habitat on the refuge; (3) the archaeological and cultural values; (4) areas that are suitable for use as administrative sites or visitor facilities; (5) problems that may adversely affect fish, plant, and wildlife populations and habitats on the refuge and potential corrective actions; and (6) opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. Originally, when established in 1907, the stated purpose of the three Washington Islands Reservations was to establish Aa preserve and breeding ground for native birds and animals@ (Executive Order No. 703, 704, and 705). The inclusion of these Refuges into the Wilderness System in 1970 placed added emphasis on the purpose of wilderness preservation for these refuge islands (Public Law 91-504). Section 5 of Public Law 91-504 directs the administration of the Washington Islands Wilderness to be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Wilderness Act. The purposes of the Wilderness Act are to secure an enduring resource of wilderness and to administer designated areas in a way that protects and preserves wilderness character. Wilderness is an additional purpose for all lands within the Washington Islands NWRs except Destruction Island. In the 1986 Washington Islands NWR Management Plan, the Service stated that the management direction for the Refuges is to protect the natural resources in an undisturbed and wilderness nature, with special emphasis on seabird nesting colonies. The Refuges’ vision is a broad statement of how the Service intends to manage refuge resources over the 15-year life of the CCP. The vision statement for the Washington Islands NWRs follows: Since 1907, critical resting and breeding grounds for marine wildlife off the outer Olympic coast have been protected and preserved by the National Wildlife Refuge System. The more than 600 rocks, reefs, and islands known as Flattery Rocks, Copalis, and Quillayute Needles National Wildlife Refuges, are designated wilderness (except Destruction Island), and all will continue to be preserved in a natural condition with Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA Chapter 1 Introduction, Purpose, and Need 1-11 minimal human intrusion. Management activities will focus on monitoring refuge wildlife and on protection and maintenance of a natural functioning ecosystem. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will coordinate with other agencies and tribes to ensure the long-term health and viability of native seabird and marine wildlife populations. We will also work with others to provide wildlife viewing and interpretation at selected locations on the adjacent coastline. Fostering an appreciation for Pacific coast wildlife will enrich people in a variety of ways and ensure that this outstanding legacy of wildlife is passed on to future generations. 1.5 Related Actions and Activities A number of ongoing actions and activities pertinent to the development of the CCP for the Washington Islands NWRs are described below. 1.5.1 Research Activities The Service, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries (NOAA Fisheries) currently conduct research on the Washington Islands NWRs and surrounding area, focusing on seabirds, raptors, salmon, and marine mammals. Other Federal and State agencies and universities have also performed research on the Refuges. 1.5.2 Tribal Fish and Wildlife Programs All four of the Tribes adjacent to the Washington Islands Refuges are active in a variety of fish and wildlife management programs. These include monitoring shellfish in cooperation with State and Federal agencies; developing tribal hunting regulations; seabird monitoring and research; and management of fisheries resources with the State. Most of these Tribes have natural resource professionals on their staff. 1.5.3 Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary The Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary was established in 1994 because this marine environment was considered to be of special national significance. The Sanctuary is managed by NOAA with guidance from the Sanctuary Advisory Council. NOAA has established an Area to be Avoided (ATBA), which serves as a guide for navigating vessels safely along the Washington Coast. NOAA also regulates a number of activities within the Sanctuary boundaries. Restricted activities within the Sanctuary include: oil and mineral exploration; disturbances to cultural and historical resources; material dumping; seabed alterations; low-flying aircraft (under 2,000 feet [610 m]) over islands or coastlines; and disturbances to marine mammals, turtles, and seabirds Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA 1-12 Chapter 1 Introduction, Purpose, and Need (15 C.F.R. ' 922.152). The intended effect of these regulations is to protect the biological, recreational, ecological, and historical qualities of the Sanctuary (NOAA 1993). The Sanctuary Advisory Council=s management mission is the protection of ecological and cultural integrity of the Sanctuary area. The Council is composed of 15 representatives from local Tribes, local county governments, Washington State Department of Ecology, WDNR, WDFW, the tourism industry, commercial fishing interests, the marine industry, research and education entities, conservation organizations, and the general public. In addition, Federal agencies (NPS, NOAA Fisheries, USCG, Navy, Northwest Straits Commission, and the Service) participate as non-voting members, providing technical input. 1.5.4 United States Coast Guard Activities The USCG is responsible for the Destruction Island lighthouse and the associated buildings. As stated earlier, this lighthouse was established in 1891, and is still considered an active aid to navigation. Maintenance on the automated lighthouse is the duty of the USCG and includes servicing the optics and light batteries quarterly, with occasional overnight visitations. There is no full-time USCG presence on the island. If problems are reported regarding lighthouse operation, the USCG will usually visit the island for repair work within 18 hours of the report time (pers. comm. Kilburger 2000). Travel to the island is conducted by helicopter. Methods of transportation to and activities on the island are guided by an MOU with the Service. Biological surveys and assessments of Destruction Island, conducted as part of a biological assessment of USCG activities, describe the sensitive areas of the island. The MOU states what types of activities are allowed and where they are allowed. (Appendix C-10). 1.5.5 National Park Service Flattery Rocks NWR and Quillayute NWR as mentioned in 1.3.2 Historical Overview, were included within the exterior boundaries of ONP in1986 but are managed as national wildlife refuges by the Service. The ONP assists the Refuge in developing informational and educational programs, providing law enforcement, monitoring trespass, and conducting cooperative research. In addition, ONP and the Service have entered into an agreement whereby ONP will assist the Service in wildfire suppression on Refuge lands as resources are available. 1.5.6 Environmental Education Environmental education along Washington=s Olympic Coast is currently carried out by a variety of entities, including the Service, NPS, NOAA, Tribes, and Olympic Park Institute. Each off-refuge program incorporates the Washington Islands NWRs in some way. Both NOAA and the NPS offer naturalist-led programs during the tourist season along the mainland coast that discuss coastal ecology. The Makah Museum and Cultural Center, in cooperation with the Sanctuary, Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA Chapter 1 Introduction, Purpose, and Need 1-13 offers educational programs about the ecology and tribal aspects of the coast and islands. The Olympic Park Institute also offers coastal and island ecology seminars. 1.5.7 Northern Pacific Coast Regional Shorebird Management Plan The Northern Pacific Coast Regional Shorebird Management Plan establishes regional goals and objectives for western Oregon and Washington (Drut and Buchanan 2000). Regional goals under the plan are to: A(1) measurably increase populations, over the next 10 years, of species impacted by current or recent declines at population or flyway levels, and (2) stabilize and maintain current levels of breeding, wintering, and migrating populations of other shorebird species within the region/flyway.@ The regional plan also identifies research and monitoring goals. Important shorebird habitats identified under the plan include coastal estuaries, beaches, rocky shorelines, and pelagic and freshwater systems. The Refuges are categorized under the rocky shores and pelagic systems. The Northern Pacific Coast Plan covers 40 shorebird species. High priority species that use the Refuges include black oystercatcher, ruddy and black turnstones, surfbird, rock sandpiper, and 19 others. The Refuges are known to host breeding populations of black oystercatchers and a large variety of migrating species. 1.5.8 Regional Seabird Conservation Plan, Pacific Region A Seabird Conservation Plan was recently completed for the Pacific Region (USFWS 2005). The Seabird Plan identifies Service priorities for seabird management, monitoring, outreach, planning, and coordination, at the regional scale. It includes: a review of seabird resources and habitats, a description of issues and threats, and a summary of current management, monitoring and outreach efforts. All species are prioritized by conservation concern at the regional scale and recommendations for conservation actions are identified. The plan gives a brief species profile for each of the 60 breeding species and provides a summary of current information on population size, status, ecology, distribution, habitats, threats, and recommended actions. The Washington Islands NWRs provide habitat for more than 70 percent of Washington‘s nesting seabirds and support some of the largest seabird colonies in the continental United States. The Refuges will be integral to the successful implementation of the Pacific Region Seabird Conservation Plan. 1.5.9 National and Regional Waterbird Conservation Plan The North American Waterbird Conservation Plan (Kushlan et al. 2002) was developed through an international, broad-based partnership of individuals, institutions, and agencies. It sets forth goals and priorities for waterbirds (including seabirds) in all habitats at the continental scale, and provides an overarching framework and guide for conserving waterbirds. A regional waterbird conservation plan for western Oregon, Washington, and northwestern California is currently being developed as a component of this continental plan. As a cooperative effort between agencies and private organizations, the regional plan will cover all waterbird species except Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA 1-14 Chapter 1 Introduction, Purpose, and Need seabirds (e.g. loons, herons, and egrets). Seabirds are covered in the Service’s Regional Seabird Conservation Plan (sec. 1.5.8, USFWS 2005) and the California Current Marine Bird Conservation Plan (Mills et al. 2005). National and regional waterbird plans aim to facilitate conservation activities at various geographic scales, including planning, research and monitoring, outreach, and habitat protection and management. 1.5.10 Comprehensive Plan for Coastline Management In December 2000, NOAA, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the Department of Agriculture, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released the first comprehensive strategy for research and monitoring in national waters (NOAA et al. 2000). This strategy outlines plans for these Federal agencies to assess the health of the Nation=s coastal resources. Recommended actions include enhancing and adapting existing monitoring programs to support an integrated national program, integrating interagency research efforts to fill data gaps, conducting periodic national and regional coastal assessments, improving data management, establishing mechanisms to assess and adjust monitoring and research to meet changing national coastal priorities, and developing an implementation plan for further action. These strategies could aid in the collaboration between NOAA and the Service along the outer Washington Coast. 1.6 Applicable Legal Mandates As stated previously, the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 mandates preparation of CCPs. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 requires environmental analysis for Federal actions, including comprehensive plans. Appendix C contains a list of other mandates, laws, and executive orders that may affect implementation of the CCP. The list includes the: Coastal Zone Management Act (1972); Endangered Species Act (1973); Wilderness Act (1964); Treaty of Olympia (1856); Treaty of Neah Bay (1855); and Executive Order 13175 Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (2000). 1.6.1 Mandates Specific to the Washington Islands NWRs A subset of laws, executive orders, and agreements form the foundation of purpose and management guidelines for the Washington Islands NWRs. These laws and agreements which specifically pertain to the Refuges include (also see Appendix C): $ Executive Orders 703, 704, and 705, 1907 (established the three Reservations); $ Presidential Proclamation by Franklin D. Roosevelt, July 30, 1940, granted under 50 Stat. 917 (renamed “Reservations” to current “National Wildlife Refuge” names); $ Public Land Order 4095, 1966 (order removed James Island from the NWRS); $ Public Law 91-504, 1970 (act designated Washington Islands Wilderness); $ Public Law 99-635, 1986 (act expanded the boundaries of ONP to include Flattery Rocks and Quillayute Needles NWRs); Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA Chapter 1 Introduction, Purpose, and Need 1-15 $ Public Law 100-226, 1987 (act restored administration of Flattery Rocks and Quillayute Needles NWRs within ONP Boundary to the Fish and Wildlife Service); $ MOU with National Park Service, 1993; and $ MOU with United States Coast Guard, 2003. 1.6.2 Service and Refuge System Policies Several Service and Refuge System policies act as important guidelines for evaluating and directing actions and management of the Washington Islands NWRs. Policies that apply to the Refuges include: $ Refuge Planning Policy, 2000 (guides process for developing refuge management plans); $ Regional Marine Bird Policy, revised 1985 (this policy guides seabird management actions); $ Biological Integrity Policy, 2001 (this policy provides guidance for preserving the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of refuge lands); $ Fire Management Handbook, 2005 (outlines Service policy, authorities, and responsibilities for fire management on refuge lands); $ Wilderness Management Policy, 1986 (this policy, currently being updated, provides guidance to national wildlife refuges for the implementation of the Wilderness Act of 1964 and the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act of 1966, as amended); and $ Native American Policy, 1994 (guides government to government relationships in the conservation of fish and wildlife resources). 1.7 Public Involvement To incorporate public input, the Service developed a Public Outreach Plan with the following goals: (1) raise public awareness of the purpose of the Washington Islands NWRs; (2) inform the public about the mission and purpose of the National Wildlife Refuge System and the process of comprehensive conservation planning; (3) make the public aware of the threat to seabird populations from pollution, invasive species, disturbance, and habitat loss and degradation; (4) identify public concerns and desires for the Washington Islands NWRs; (5) build long-term community support for the Washington Islands NWRs and the conservation of marine wildlife resources; (6) build cooperation with the Tribes, NOAA, NPS, WDNR, Washington State Parks, and WDFW to conserve marine wildlife resources; and (7) identify education opportunities to continue improving public knowledge of the Washington Islands NWRs mission and purpose. Involvement with local, State, and Federal agencies; local government entities; conservation groups; Native American Tribes; and the general public occurred through meetings and publications. Early in the planning process (scoping) the Service received written and/or verbal comments from the following agencies, groups, and individuals. $ Makah Tribe $ Quileute Tribe Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA 1-16 Chapter 1 Introduction, Purpose, and Need $ Quinault Indian Nation $ Washington Wilderness Coalition (Seattle, WA) $ Olympic Park Associates (Sequim, WA) $ Port Angeles Chamber of Commerce (Port Angeles, WA) $ Local and regional citizens $ Washington Native Plant Society-Olympic Peninsula Chapter (Poulsbo, WA) $ NOAA-Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (Port Angeles, WA) $ Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission (Olympia, WA) 1.7.1 Interagency Meetings One interagency meeting was held to gather feedback from other agencies with interest in the Refuges. This meeting was held in conjunction with a Marine Sanctuary Advisory Committee meeting. Service representatives announced that the Service was initiating the CCP process for the Refuges and described the process to the Advisory Committee on March 3, 2000. 1.7.2 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Meeting The Service’s CCP Planning Team met with representatives from WDFW on February 8, 2005, to provide updated information on CCP development and obtain feedback. 1.7.3 Planning Updates In addition to meetings, information on the development of the Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA was disseminated through Planning Updates. Planning Update #1 was published in March 2000 and provided an introduction to the Washington Islands NWRs, a description of the CCP/EA planning process, and a mail-in response form to provide input on major issues and vision planning. The second Planning Update was published in March 2001. The third Planning Update announced the availability of the Draft CCP/EA for public review in May of 2005. The fourth and final Planning Update will be available in 2006 concurrent with the approved Washington Islands Comprehensive Conservation Plan. 1.7.4 Issues and Opportunities Identified Effective long-term management of the Washington Islands NWRs will require among other things, integration of the perspectives and concerns of numerous interested parties. To explore all refuge management issues and opportunities, the Service reviewed and considered comments received from the public, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), other agencies, and Tribes. Public involvement and tribal consultation for the Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA was conducted with the purpose of identifying issues of concern, as well as potential opportunities related to future management direction. Interested Public Public input received from the Planning Update response forms was used to identify the issues, concerns, and opportunities to consider during development of the CCP. These are listed below in order of frequency of comment, with the most commonly reported concern first. Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA Chapter 1 Introduction, Purpose, and Need 1-17 • Wildlife disturbances from aircraft overflights $ Wildlife disturbances from oil spills $ Wildlife disturbances from recreational boating $ Wildlife disturbances from marine invertebrate harvests $ Other wildlife disturbances $ Invasive species management $ Ecotourism $ Interagency coordination of area management $ Law enforcement $ Research support Nongovernmental Organizations Predominant issues reported in the response forms and letters are listed below. $ Wildlife disturbances from overflights $ Wildlife disturbances from commercial fishing $ Wildlife disturbances from shellfish harvests $ Wildlife disturbances from recreational boating $ Wildlife disturbances from oil spills $ General wildlife disturbance $ Invasive species management Other Agencies Specific issues, concerns, and opportunities raised by Federal, State, and local agencies are summarized below. $ Management/enforcement opportunities with ONP and the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission for areas adjacent to the Refuges. $ Inventory of archaeological and historical materials and structures within the Refuges. $ Coordination of refuge interpretive signs on State lands with the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission. $ Human disturbance to refuge plants and animals. $ Invasive and nuisance species management on refuge islands. $ Interagency cooperation, including cooperative research and monitoring efforts. $ Pollution threats to the Refuges and vicinity. $ Educational and visitor experience analysis and management. $ Cultural resource identification and management. 1.7.5 Tribal Consultation The Washington Islands NWRs are important to the culture of the Makah, Quileute, Hoh, and Quinault Tribes. These Tribes were individually contacted to conduct government-to-government Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA 1-18 Chapter 1 Introduction, Purpose, and Need consultation meetings. At each meeting, refuge staff presented the CCP process and/or document to tribal representatives and asked them to identify important issues and concerns. The Makah, Quileute, and Quinault identified the following issues. The Hoh Tribe commented on the Draft CCP. Quileute Tribe The Quileute Tribe met with Washington Islands NWRs staff on May 17, 2000, to discuss CCP issues and goals. They met again on August 29, 2003, and May 25, 2004, to discuss tribal comments on the Interim Draft CCP. They requested a meeting with the Service=s Regional Director which took place on July 7, 2004. The Quileute described the following concerns with regard to the Washington Islands NWRs. $ Development of baseline intertidal information that could be used to assess mainland intertidal disturbances. $ Interagency cooperation. $ Overflight disturbances. $ Treaty rights to maintain use of resources and access. $ Recognition of tribal role/interest in refuge management and fishing/hunting rights. $ Coordination of interpretive opportunities (e.g., seabird exhibit in marina). $ Seabird bycatch assessment. $ Commercial fishing impacts assessment. $ Destruction Island clean-up opportunities. $ Oil spill preparedness. $ Annual meetings between the Tribe and the Service and more often when decisionmaking processes call for it. Quinault Indian Nation The Quinault Indian Nation natural resources staff met with Washington Islands NWRs staff on October 25, 2000, to discuss CCP issues and goals. On August 28, 2003, and May 24, 2004, the Service met with tribal leaders and natural resources staff to discuss the Tribe’s comments on the Interim Draft CCP. The Quinault Indian Nation’s representatives described the following concerns regarding the Washington Islands NWRs. • The Quinaults= tribal treaty rights to Ausual and accustomed areas@ extending from Grays Harbor to Destruction Island. • How the CCP would address treaty rights including fishing, hunting marine mammals, and gathering. • Boundary and island ownership issues between the Quinault Indian Reservation and the Refuges. • What opportunities would be available for contract work for their natural resource staff. • Providing prior notification when Refuge staff need to access Quinault Reservation lands. Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA Chapter 1 Introduction, Purpose, and Need 1-19 Makah Tribe The Makah Tribe met with Washington Islands NWRs staff on June 20, 2000, to discuss CCP issues and goals, and again on November 25, 2003, to discuss the Tribe’s comments on the Interim Draft CCP. The Makah Tribe’s representatives described the following concerns regarding the Washington Islands NWRs. $ How would the Sanctuary relate to refuge management? $ Right of access, under the Treaty of Neah Bay, to Flattery Rocks NWR which is entirely encompassed within the Tribe’s usual and accustomed grounds and stations. $ Restrictions to fishing and gillnets. $ The Tribe states that the fishing, hunting and gathering of marine resources, such as gathering eggs, collecting sea foods, and subsistence hunting of marine mammals, are tribal rights reserved by the Treaty of Neah Bay. The Tribe wants to protect these fundamental rights from any adverse effects of the CCP. The Tribe considers these islands within their usual and accustomed ground and stations to be subsistence resources in case of future need. $ The Service’s management authority over the right of access to the Refuge’s lands and adjoining waters and over certain islands, particularly Ozette Island. $ The Service=s position on the topic of a dedicated rescue tug. $ On the topic of boat tours, the Tribe implied that this type of activity could grow in the future. $ Threats to seabird habitat/populations from low flying aircraft. $ The Tribe doesn’t know how many common murres are taken each year, but they believe they have a right to gather them. $ The Tribe has observed an increasing trend of people launching boats and kayaks at the Neah Bay Marina. Related to the education issue, the Tribe has discussed the possibility of the Sanctuary leasing space at the Neah Bay marina kiosk to display education and interpretation materials. $ The Tribe has a research agreement with the Department of Commerce on Reservation lands and offshore waters and would like something similar with Service. The Tribe would like information on who is doing research and access to the data. Tribal Treaty Rights The Service consulted with the four Native American Tribes in the vicinity of the Washington Islands National Wildlife Refuges. While the Tribes and the Service discussed tribal treaty rights, the Service believes that defining the application of tribal treaty rights is outside the scope of this CCP planning effort. The Service will continue meeting with the Tribes independent of the CCP process to develop memorandums of understanding that are both respectful of the rights and needs of the Tribes and consistent with preserving the wildlife and wilderness values of the Washington Islands Refuges. Neither the existence of this CCP/EA nor any portion of its contents is intended to enlarge or diminish treaty rights or to have any influence over the resolution of unadjudicated treaty rights. Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA 1-20 Chapter 1 Introduction, Purpose, and Need 1.7.6 Comment Response Process on the Draft CCP/EA Public comments on the Draft CCP/EA were accepted during the official public comment period from June 1 through June 31, 2005; in addition, comments dated by July 15, 2005, were also accepted and analyzed. The comments were used to develop the Final CCP/EA and refine the Preferred Alternative (B). Summarized comments, Service responses, and copies of the original comments can be found in Appendix H. 1.8 Summary of Key Planning Issues The CCP Planning Team reviewed the Refuges’ resource conditions, public comments, and input from NGOs, agencies, and the Tribes, to formulate the following list of key issues. The key issues have provided the basis for the formulation of the alternatives discussed in detail in Chapter 2. Issue 1. Public Awareness The hundreds of islands and rocks that dot the Washington coastline are one of the State=s most recognized symbols. However, the public does not generally identify them as National Wildlife Refuges or designated wilderness nor adequately understand their importance as a critical resource to wildlife. Public awareness in the form of education and interpretative programs is currently being promoted by a variety of agency groups including the Service, NPS, Tribes, WDNR, U.S. Forest Service, and NOAA. The Service believes that this presents an opportunity for cooperative efforts among agencies and tribes. Currently, there is an interagency plan for a future interpretive center somewhere on the coast. Issue 2. Interagency and Tribal Coordination Interagency cooperation is needed to bring together State and Federal agencies to establish an understanding of and protocols for management and use of the NWRs, the surrounding marine environment, and shared fish and wildlife resources. Tribal consultation and coordination are necessary to conserve fish and wildlife resources and to fulfill the Federal government=s trust responsibilities related to the four Tribes near the Refuges. Issues that need to be addressed in the CCP include island clean-up, use of Destruction Island, joint interpretative programs, law enforcement, off-refuge threats, tidal zone management, overflight disturbance avoidance, species management, and cooperative conservation efforts including the need for additional agreements with tribes and other agencies. Cleaning up Destruction Island has been identified as a CCP issue. There is waste, debris, and unused structures associated with USCG and U.S. Navy activities. The USCG currently has an MOU with the Service regarding Destruction Island management. This MOU, signed in 2003, describes the responsibilities of both agencies for their work at Destruction Island, and Smith Island. The document outlines protective measures that the USCG will undertake, while performing required duties, to ensure that harm to wildlife and habitat is minimal. The USCG currently lands on Destruction Island for lighthouse maintenance, as described previously. The Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA Chapter 1 Introduction, Purpose, and Need 1-21 Service recognizes the lighthouse maintenance work for its value to both protecting human life and safeguarding wildlife along the outer Washington Coast. Oil spill threats are a significant issue along the coast, and the Destruction Island lighthouse is considered an important aid in safe tanker navigation. However, it is also important to address chronic disturbances to island wildlife caused by USCG activities. In addition, clean-up of U.S. Navy generated debris needs to be a coordinated effort. Education and interpretative programs are currently being operated off-refuge by a variety of agency groups including NPS, Tribes, WDNR, U.S. Forest Service, and NOAA. This presents the opportunity for cooperative efforts among agencies. There are many off-refuge activities that threaten the integrity of the Washington Islands NWRs ecosystem that need to be addressed at an interagency level. These threats include oil spills, fishery bycatch, and marine debris. In the past 15 years, oil and fuel spills from the Tenyo Maru and Nestucca vessels have killed more than 70,000 refuge seabirds in Washington and Oregon (Tenyo Maru Oil Spill Natural Resources Trustees 2000, Momot 1995). Bycatch is the discarded non-target portion of a fishing catch. This occurs to some degree in all types of fishing, however, gillnets and longlines kill the greatest number of seabirds in our area (USFWS 2005, Forney et al. 2001, Melvin et al. 1999). Marine debris, such as plastic litter and fishing gear around refuge islands, entangle seabirds and marine mammals (WDNR 1988). Agencies involved with these issues include the Service, NOAA, NPS, WDNR, WDFW, and the Tribes. The overlap in management responsibilities that was identified in CCP comments is most extreme in the tidal zone, where the Service, NPS, WDNR, NOAA, and the Tribes are all involved in management. The tidal zone is the gateway to refuge lands. The management and health of this habitat is very important to the viability of the island habitats and species dependent on them. The CCP will need to address opportunities for cooperation among agencies and Tribes for tidal zone management. Marine mammal protection along the outer coast is managed by NOAA Fisheries, with the exception of sea otters which are the responsibility of the Service. The sea otter is the only marine mammal species within the boundaries of the Washington Islands NWRs for which the Service has primary responsibility. The WDFW conducts surveys of marine mammals in State waters. The WDFW, NOAA Fisheries, and the Service need to coordinate closely over sea lions and seals that use the refuge islands for pupping and haul-out sites. When on refuge lands, these mammals are also a wildlife resource responsibility of the Service. There are a number of spiritually significant sites for the Tribes along the Washington Coast. Destruction Island is culturally significant to the Hoh and Quileute Tribes (NOAA 1993). The Makah Tribe considers Ozette and Tskawahyah (or Cannonball/Indian) Islands to be of cultural and spiritual importance. Additional opportunities are available to recognize and protect the spiritual and cultural aspects of the three Refuges. Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA 1-22 Chapter 1 Introduction, Purpose, and Need There are many opportunities for more cooperation in terms of conservation and preservation programs. Tribes and Federal and State agencies should be consulted to explore possible collaborative efforts. Issue 3. Disturbance Biologists, agencies, Tribes, conservation groups, and interested members of the public have all brought attention to the serious issue of disturbance to sensitive seabirds and marine mammals. There are a variety of potential disturbance threats to the Washington Islands NWRs, ranging from aircraft disturbances to sea kayakers and fishing activities. The Service=s goals for the Washington Islands NWRs are to minimize or eliminate disturbance to wildlife. Island trespassing from boats is rare. Due to the dangerous surf conditions, gaining access to the rocks and islands of the Washington Islands NWRs is difficult. Low tide provides more opportunity for people to gain access to these islands. Destruction and Ozette Islands receive the majority of trespassing incidents. Tribal access is outside the scope of this CCP and will be addressed by a MOU developed in a process separate from the CCP. Disturbance is a larger issue from the air, with helicopters and other aircraft flying low over seabirds and marine mammal areas. Biologists, NPS staff, and conservation groups have all brought attention to the incidences of overflight disturbances to wildlife on refuge islands. Overflight disturbances disrupt seabird and marine mammal breeding and resting activities. Currently, there is a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) advisory and Sanctuary regulation that requires a 2,000-foot (610 m) minimum flight altitude for aircraft flying over the islands. However, this regulation is difficult to enforce due to the remote nature of the region and is often violated. For the CCP, this issue will overlap with interagency cooperation, as work with NOAA and the FAA will be needed to address this concern. Issue 4. Monitoring and Research Scientific research, surveys, and monitoring are conducted by the Service and various other groups on the Washington Islands NWRs. The purpose is primarily to further the knowledge and conservation of the species the Refuges were established to protect. Other research groups which have conducted research on or near the Refuges include universities, other educational institutions, WDFW, NPS, WDNR, NOAA, other Federal and State agencies, Tribes, and private researchers. Research topics vary from archeological to natural resources. Intra-agency research generally focuses on wildlife species of special status, and long-term seabird and fisheries monitoring. The Service manages the type and amount of research conducted on the Refuges through written agreements and special use permits. Based on its experience in managing research, the Service is concerned with unnecessary disturbance, unreliable methodologies, safety, and compatibility with wilderness designation. The Service supports cooperative research efforts, especially those that promote long-term monitoring, are directed toward minimizing threats or resolving conflicts with Refuge resources, or increase knowledge of species and populations. Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA Chapter 1 Introduction, Purpose, and Need 1-23 Issue 5. Contaminants Refuge staff, agencies, Tribes, conservation groups, and the public agree that the area is under significant threat from oil spills. It is within a heavy traffic area for ocean transport of oil and freight that can be treacherous because of severe weather and difficult navigation. In the past 15 years, oil and fuel spills from the Tenyo Maru and Nestucca vessels have killed more than 70,000 refuge seabirds in Washington and Oregon (Tenyo Maru Oil Spill Natural Resources Trustees 2000; Momot 1995). Marine debris, such as plastic litter, fishing gear, gillnets, and other marine debris, has been documented around refuge islands, and entangles seabirds and marine mammals (WDNR 1988). However, the inaccessibility of the islands makes removing contaminants and debris a difficult and dangerous task. It is not fully known what contaminants and debris might remain on islands used for military activities during WWII. Refuge staff supports interagency and tribal education efforts to reduce introduction of debris in the marine environment. Issue 6. Invasive Species Management The effects of invasive nonnative species are not clear for the Washington Islands NWRs. Research and impact determinations are needed. Known invasive species include European rabbits on Destruction Island and a number of plant species on many of the islands (Barrett 1979, Cornelius 1982, USFWS 1989, NOAA 1993). Past research from other seabird nesting islands where rabbits have been introduced has shown mixed results in terms of adverse effects on seabird reproduction (Aubry and West 1984, Rodway et al. 1990, Tomich et al. 1968, Warner 1963). Based on Aubry and West=s 1984 research on Destruction Island, rabbits are considered a threat to the island=s indigenous small mammal populations (USFWS 1983). Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA Chapter 2 Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-1 Chapter 2 Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2.1 Alternatives The Service has developed alternatives that represent options for managing the Washington Islands Refuges over the next 15 years. Two alternatives for managing the Refuges follow: $ Alternative A: No Action (Status Quo). $ Alternative B: Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative). 2.1.1 Alternative A: No Action The National Environmental Policy Act requires an analysis of the no action or status quo alternative, in an EA against which the effects of Aaction@ alternatives can be compared and evaluated. Under the No Action Alternative, the Refuges would continue to be managed as they have been over the past several years. Essentially, this means that the Service would continue to follow guidance contained in the 1989 revision of the Washington Islands NWRs Management Plan. Goals outlined in the management plan include: $ Provide habitat and protection for endangered and threatened species that are important in the North Pacific Coast. $ Provide habitat to maintain seabird populations at not-less-than current levels. $ Protect habitat to maintain waterfowl and other wildlife at not-less-than current levels. $ Cooperate with agencies of higher education, private organizations and individuals in providing technical assistance and research opportunities. $ Protect and preserve scientific sites located on the Refuges. $ Preserve and protect the unique ecosystems associated with the Washington Islands Refuges. $ Provide a quality program of interpretation. $ Provide opportunity for wildlife/wildlands observations. Additionally, the Refuges have never been open to the general public and this management would continue. Guidance and Federal mandates that were developed after the 1989 Management Plan was completed would also apply to the No Action Alternative. For example, Executive Order 13175 (2000) directs the Service to consult and coordinate with Native American tribal governments. Under the guidance of the Washington Maritime National Wildlife Refuge Complex Fire Management Plan (2005), there would be full suppression of Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA 2-2 Chapter 2 Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies wildland fires. The level and priority for staffing and funding would remain similar to current conditions (see Appendix G). Any changes in this regard would be a result of needs identified through compatibility determinations on an as needed basis and/or though the Refuge Operational Needs System (RONS) list on an annual basis. 2.1.2 Alternative B: Proposed Action The Refuges are composed of islands and rocks that are extremely important habitat for seabirds, marine mammals, and other wildlife, and are difficult (if not impossible) to safely access. Therefore, all of the Washington Islands NWRs will remain closed to public use and access. The scope of tribal access to the Refuges will be discussed through the development of agreements between the Service and each Tribe, in efforts separate from the CCP process. Because of the limited variance that would be possible between action alternatives, it was determined that Alternative B would be the only action alternative developed as part of this EA. The goals, objectives, and strategies described in Section 2.2 and 2.3 represent the Proposed Action refuge staff would implement. Therefore sections 2.2 and 2.3 can effectively be considered the CCP. 2.2 Goals, Objectives, and Strategies This chapter presents the goals, objectives, and strategies developed for the Washington Islands NWRs. Goals are broad statements for managing refuge resources and will remain unchanged for the 15-year time frame of the CCP. They are derived from the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, the enabling legislation for the individual refuges, and purpose and concerns identified for the Washington Islands NWRs. The objectives have been developed from the goals and serve as the framework to guide ongoing decision-making by the Service and coordination with other responsible parties. They are, where possible, quantified statements of a standard to be achieved or work to be accomplished. Strategies further define the objectives as specific tasks intended to guide refuge staff in the activities required to implement the objectives. The six goals developed for the Washington Islands NWRs are: $ Protect migratory birds and other native wildlife and their associated habitats, with special emphasis on seabirds. $ Protect and support the recovery of federally listed threatened and endangered species and birds of conservation concern, and Washington State special status species and their habitats. $ Protect and manage the Washington Islands Wilderness Area to maintain its wilderness character and values. $ Through effective coordination and cooperation with others, promote conservation of refuge resources, with special emphasis on governmental agencies and Tribes with adjoining ownership or management responsibilities. Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA Chapter 2 Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-3 $ Continue and enhance long-term monitoring of wildlife and habitat resources and sustain applied scientific research. $ Increase public interpretation and awareness programs to enhance appreciation, understanding, and enjoyment of refuge resources. 2.3 Management Themes The goals, objectives, and strategies have been categorized according to the following six management themes, each of which has been assigned a two-letter acronym for organizational purposes: $ Wildlife and Habitat Protection and Management (WH) $ Sensitive Species Protection (SS) $ Wilderness Protection (WP) $ Cooperative Programs (CP) $ Research Activity Management (RA) $ Public Education Management (PE) For each of the management themes, the applicable goals are presented first, followed by the objectives and strategies. Following the strategies is a discussion intended to provide further background and understanding pertaining to the development of each objective and the applicable strategies. Except where noted, all objectives would have a 15-year time frame for completion. All objectives would be carried out by the Washington Islands NWR staff, unless otherwise noted in objective statements. 2.3.1 Wildlife and Habitat Protection and Management (WH) WH Goal: Protect migratory birds and other native wildlife and their associated habitats, with special emphasis on seabirds. Objective WH1: Continue to promote an undisturbed, natural environment across the Refuges by prohibiting public access on an ongoing basis. Achievement Strategies: A. Maintain the policy of restricted public access to the Refuges and enforce existing refuge regulation on trespass (50 CFR 26.21). B. Continue to document incidences of trespass. Results will be summarized in the annual refuge report, as described under Objective CP9. C. Work with ONP and Tribes to develop signs and other deterrents to keep the public off islands that are accessible at low tide. Cooperative efforts under which this program will be carried out are established under Objectives CP1, CP3, and CP5. Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA 2-4 Chapter 2 Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies D. Continue and enhance efforts to promote a voluntary 200-yard (183 m) boat-free zone around refuge islands in cooperation with other appropriate groups and enforce existing refuge regulations on wildlife disturbance (50 CFR 27.51). E. Work with WDNR, the Sanctuary, and the Tribes to secure a 200-yard (183 m) tideland lease area around islands with important wildlife areas. F. Assist in the implementation of the regional seabird conservation plan (USFWS 2005). G. Negotiate MOUs with Tribes regarding the time, place, and manner of tribal access to the Refuges where appropriate and compatible. H. Resurvey Destruction Island’s rhinoceros auklet and small mammal populations by 2009. Discussion: Nesting seabirds and marine mammals are particularly vulnerable to human disturbances. Buffer zones have been shown to minimize disturbance to waterbirds (Rodgers and Smith 1997). Islands that are accessible from the mainland during low tides have been identified by refuge staff as vulnerable to potential impacts. Restricting human use of the refuge islands will protect these species from such negative impacts and fulfill Wilderness Area goals. One of the principles of wilderness stewardship is managing human use so that it does not impact the integrity of natural and biological processes (BLM et al. 1995). Offshore islands are dangerous and unstable environments for human use and access; restricting public access will also enhance public safety on the outer coast. For nearshore, low-tide accessible islands, the Service will work with local landowners, such as the ONP and Tribes, to deter trespassing. Objective WH2: Support regional efforts to reduce the risk of oil spills near refuge islands to protect seabird and other marine wildlife. Activities will include attending periodic drills, meetings and training, and providing on-site resource knowledge in the event of a spill. Achievement Strategies: A. Participate in planning and training efforts that identify opportunities to reduce oil spill risks to refuge resources. B. Support the Sanctuary=s AArea To Be Avoided.@ C. Support the placement of a mission capable rescue tug boat at Neah Bay. D. Support improving vessel traffic service, weather prediction sensors, decision-making tools for dealing with vessel controls, and broader standby tug availability. E. Send appropriate staff to Hazardous Materials, Shoreline Assessment, and Incident Command training. F. Participate in periodic updates of the Outer Coast Geographic Response Plan. G. Participate in Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) restoration planning and implementation. H. Work with NOAA to ensure refuge areas are identified on navigation charts. Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA Chapter 2 Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-5 Discussion: Oil spills are considered by refuge staff and CCP commenters to be the biggest threat to the continued health of refuge resources. A 1997 USCG study found that the outer Olympic Peninsula coastline has a high likelihood of an oil spill accident, as well as high sensitivity to oil spills and low capability for response to the spill (Tenyo Maru Oil Spill Natural Resources Trustees 2000). Many species, including seabirds and marine mammals, are vulnerable to such pollution events. Prevention and preparation, as exemplified in strategies above, are the keys to reducing oil spill impacts on the refuge islands. The Service will continue to work with the Washington Department of Ecology and other partners to address the use of in-situ burning and dispersants. It is also important to assist with planning, design, and implementation of restoration projects that affect wildlife populations or the Refuges themselves. Objective WH3: Coordinate with the USCG to remove as much human-generated debris as feasible on Destruction Island by 2019. Achievement Strategies: A. Conduct an assessment to prioritize debris removal tasks by 2010. B. Initiate cooperative clean-up of debris from Destruction Island by 2011; Discussion: See discussion under Objective CP4. Objective WH4: Preserve refuge islands in a native condition by monitoring for invasive species and develop and implement control measures on an ongoing basis as appropriate and feasible, starting in 2008. Achievement Strategies: A. Conduct an environmental assessment for removing European rabbits from Destruction Island by 2010. B. Survey islands for invasive species at regular intervals or when information exists regarding potential infestations. Implement control measures as appropriate and feasible. C. Monitor management efforts to evaluate the success of control measures and responses of native wildlife, and adapt management if results are not satisfactory D. Coordinate with regional efforts and create a geographic information system (GIS) database and map of identified infestations. Link this map to treatment records and effectiveness measurements. A refuge GIS is proposed under Objectives WH5 and RA2. Discussion: Invasive species are a potential threat to the native flora and fauna on the refuge islands, and control of these species, when possible, is a priority of the Refuges as addressed in Executive Order 13112. The 1983 annual report for the Washington Islands NWRs stated that there is a Aneed for alternative control measures of serious pest species.@ This statement Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA 2-6 Chapter 2 Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies was made in reference to past unsuccessful efforts to eradicate exotic rabbits on Destruction Island but should extend to all exotic invaders. The purpose of invasive species identification and control is to preserve the integrity of existing natural conditions. Objective WH5: Promote accurate and effective management of wildlife resources through establishing a system for managing mapped data for the Washington Islands Refuges by winter of 2007. Achievement Strategies: A. Secure the funding needed to develop an in-house GIS. B. Acquire existing natural resource GIS data layers and maps for the Refuges, including data available from other agencies and Tribes. C. Update databases and maps as necessary. D. Coordinate with the Service’s regional efforts to develop a GIS database of all seabird colonies and key roost sites in the region, with information on ownership, protected status seabird species, breeding status, and abundance (see USFWS 2005: objectives 1a (v) and 7f ). Discussion: Conservation and management of resources requires ready access to current information on the entire system and its integration into management decisions. Many of the resources associated with the Refuges have been inventoried and mapped. These databases can be very useful to management if acquired and updated routinely. For example, GIS can provide preparation for and enhance response to catastrophic events like oil spills by enabling the Service to quickly and accurately identify resources at risk. Objective WH6: Work with others to develop and implement an aircraft impacts awareness program to reduce overflight-induced wildlife disturbances on refuge islands starting in 2009. Achievement Strategies: A. Continue to produce educational materials that will be distributed to airports, popular landing strips, aircraft associations, aircraft publications, and aircraft-based businesses. See CP7 for cooperative efforts for evaluating and disseminating this information. B. Promote the 2,000-foot (610 m) minimum flight altitude over the islands. C. Record any observed incidents and report violation trends to appropriate law enforcement personnel and to the FAA. D. Enforce wildlife disturbance regulations. Discussion: Protection of wildlife species, especially seabird populations, is a primary refuge goal. Refuge biologists, ONP staff, Sanctuary staff, and conservation groups have all brought attention to the incidences of overflight disturbances on the refuge islands. These Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA Chapter 2 Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-7 incidents disrupt seabird and marine mammal breeding and resting activities. The Service will use existing refuge regulations to enforce wildlife disturbance incidences by aircraft (50 CFR 17.34). National Wildlife Refuge boundaries are designated on updated FAA aeronautical charts and there is a Sanctuary-regulated, 2,000-foot (610 m) minimum flight altitude over the refuge islands. The Service will cooperate in a proactive approach to educate the public on low overflights and their impact on refuge wildlife. Documenting the occurrences of overflights will aid in communicating the problem to the FAA and the public with regards to the level of disturbances. Objective WH7: Develop and implement a boating impacts awareness education program to reduce boating disturbance to wildlife beginning in 2008. Achievement Strategies: A. Produce educational materials that will be distributed to marinas, boat ramps, popular kayak launch areas, boating associations, boating publications, boat-based businesses, and sport and commercial fishing regulations and pamphlets. B. Continue and enhance efforts to promote a voluntary 200-yard (183 m) boat-free zone around refuge islands. C. Monitor boating activity near refuge islands. D. Enforce trespass regulations for the Refuges. Enforcement of trespassing policies is also addressed under Objective CP3, CP5, and CP6. E. Enforce wildlife disturbance regulations Discussion: Boating has been identified by refuge staff, local citizens, and conservation groups as a source of impacts to nesting seabirds and resting marine mammals. However, there is a public desire to boat in the area and to increase ecotourism boating opportunities. Refuge islands will need to be protected from near-refuge boating impacts, thereby allowing for undisturbed wildlife nesting, feeding, and resting activities. Nesting seabirds and marine mammals have been documented in scientific literature to be particularly vulnerable to disturbances (see Affected Environment for further discussion on this topic). Creating a boat-free zone of 200 yards (183 m) around the islands that is free from boating disturbances will benefit these sensitive species. In addition, off-shore islands are dangerous environments; restricting public access will also enhance public safety on the outer coast. The Service will use existing refuge regulations to enforce wildlife disturbance incidences (50 CFR 27.51). Objective WH8: Develop a new Washington Maritime National Wildlife Refuge Complex headquarters located at the Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge to assist in the effective and efficient management of refuge resources. Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA 2-8 Chapter 2 Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Achievement Strategy: A. Demonstrate need and secure funding for new facility. Discussion: Washington Islands NWRs are only three of the six national wildlife refuges administered by the Washington Maritime NWR Complex. The others are Dungeness NWR, Protection Island NWR, and San Juan Islands NWR. The current headquarters, located between Sequim and Port Angeles, Washington, is not sufficient for management, research, or educational program needs. This objective calls for increased facility support to meet the demands of all six refuges to be sited at Dungeness NWR, because it is centrally located and has the highest visitor use. Objective WH9: Promote coordinated management of west coast marine national wildlife refuges. Achievement Strategies: B. Initiate regular meetings of west coast refuge managers and biologists to discuss management activities and issues. B. Improve consistency on allowed and prohibited activities. C. Work on improving consistency on data gathering and data management Discussion: While refuge managers from Washington, Oregon, and California informally coordinate activities and actions associated with seabird and island management, a more formal arrangement is proposed. This will help insure continuity of management of marine refuges along the west coast and the way the public perceives these refuges. 2.3.2 Sensitive Species Protection (SS) SS Goal: Protect and support the recovery of federally listed threatened and endangered species (TES) and birds of conservation concern (BCC), and Washington State special status species and their habitats. Objective SS1: Continue coordination with others to identify, monitor, protect, and contribute to the recovery of plants and animals that are federally listed as: TES; proposed or candidates for Federal listing as TES; federally listed as BCC; State-listed as threatened, endangered, or sensitive; proposed or candidates for State listing; or State priority species. Achievement Strategies: A. Update and add existing data on sensitive species into GIS database. A refuge GIS is established under Objectives WH5 and RA2. B. Secure funding for continued monitoring of peregrine falcons, bald eagles, Steller sea lions, and brown pelicans. Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA Chapter 2 Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-9 C. Provide protection for State-listed species occurring on refuge islands. D. Determine population status of Destruction Island shrew. E. Cooperate with international efforts to monitor black oystercatchers range-wide, evaluate population trends, and develop conservation measures. Discussion: The Service enforces Federal wildlife laws, including the Endangered Species Act (16 USC 1531 et seq.), and is responsible for assisting other Federal and State agencies in the recovery of listed species. The responsibilities of an individual refuge include these Service-wide duties for species protection. Mapping and identification of key habitat areas are important first steps for managing sensitive species. Peregrine falcon eyries, bald eagle nest sites, Steller sea lion haul sites, and sea otter and brown pelican use areas have been documented, mapped, and entered into a WDFW non-game data system. Establishing an in-house GIS system will facilitate access to existing data and will expedite refuge management. Monitoring is an important next step to ascertain the population levels and trends of sensitive species and key life history parameters for refuge populations. This information will assist in the sound management of sensitive species such as the Destruction Island shrew. 2.3.3 Wilderness Protection (WP) WP Goal: Protect and manage the Washington Islands Wilderness Area to maintain its wilderness character and values. Objective WP1: Preserve and enhance the wilderness character of the Refuges by removing human-generated debris from refuge islands, where feasible, on an ongoing basis. Achievement Strategies: A. On scheduled visits to islands, search and remove debris if possible. B. Where appropriate, seek clean-up assistance from the U.S. Navy, USCG, volunteer groups, Tribes, and other agencies. Cooperative efforts with the U.S. Navy and USCG are established under Objectives CP4 and CP8. C. Partner with other agencies and groups in educating the public to the adverse effects of marine debris. Discussion: The Wilderness Act defines wilderness as an area which is protected and managed to preserve its natural conditions and which generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature with the imprint of man=s work substantially unnoticeable. This objective provides for the enhancement of wilderness character through clean-up of man-made debris that is environmentally and aesthetically undesirable. Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA 2-10 Chapter 2 Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Objective WP2: Continue to promote and preserve the wilderness characteristics of the Refuges by prohibiting human-caused visually intrusive alterations on refuge islands on an ongoing basis. Achievement Strategy: A. Review and evaluate visual intrusion aspects of all research projects on the Refuges using the Minimum Requirement Analysis to ensure low intrusion levels. Discussion: Under the Wilderness Area designation (1970), refuge islands (except Destruction Island) shall be protected in their pristine and natural conditions. The Service recognizes its obligations under this designation and has put forth this objective to preserve the visual characteristics of the area. The purpose of this objective is to allow refuge staff to evaluate proposed actions on refuge islands from a visual impact perspective and prohibit those with predicted negative results. 2.3.4 Cooperative Programs (CP) CP Goal: Through effective coordination and cooperation with others, promote conservation of refuge resources, with special emphasis on governmental agencies and Tribes with adjoining ownership or management responsibilities. Objective CP1: By 2007, begin working with Tribes on issues and resources of mutual interest to promote conservation. Achievement Strategies: A. Meet annually or more often if needed, with Tribes. B. Identify areas of mutual interest including research, monitoring, and resource protection efforts. See Service-identified areas of interests under Objectives WP1, Objective RA1, and Objective PE3. C. Provide annual updates on the year=s activities. This strategy is also addressed under Objective CP10. D. Negotiate memorandums of understanding with Tribes regarding the time, place, and manner of tribal access to the Refuges where appropriate and compatible. E. Work on resolving any ambiguities between Native American reservation and refuge boundaries. Discussion: The Hoh, Makah, Quinault, and Quileute Tribes have all expressed interest and concern for natural and cultural resources on refuge islands. These islands are also important to the Tribes for tribal identity and spirituality. The Service will continue to work with the Tribes on a government-to-government basis to address areas of mutual interest and concern. Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA Chapter 2 Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-11 Objective CP2: Beginning in 2007, work with WDFW on issues and resources of mutual interest to promote conservation. Achievement Strategies: A. Continue joint wildlife surveys with WDFW; see cooperative projects under Objective SS1. B. Explore joint research opportunities with WDFW; see Objectives RA1 and RA4. C. Coordinate with WDFW law enforcement to protect refuge wildlife and the resources on which they depend. D. Report accomplishments in periodic reports and/or publications. Discussions: Cooperation between WDFW and the Service will help both agencies by sharing information, funding, and expertise. Mutual interests include: continuing joint wildlife surveys, educational programs, species management, and developing joint research projects. Objective CP3: Coordinate with the Tribes, the Sanctuary, ONP, and WDNR in managing for the protection and conservation of intertidal and subtidal zones surrounding the refuge islands by fall 2008. Achievement Strategies: A. Jointly identify zones, management responsibilities, and land use policies for intertidal and subtidal areas by 2008. B. Jointly develop a conservation policy and enforcement plan for intertidal and subtidal zones by 2010; see Objectives WH4 and WP1. C. Jointly monitor for marine debris and implement measures for its removal. Discussion: The intertidal and subtidal zones of the refuge islands are important habitats; not only are they vital to the continued health of many unique flora and fauna, but they are also the entry way for the terrestrial island habitats. Land use policies must be designed to protect both tidal and terrestrial habitats. The intertidal and subtidal land management is complicated with overlapping designations and management responsibilities. The intent of this objective is to pull together all agencies with management responsibilities and interest in the island tidelands and to identify opportunities for conservation of refuge habitats. Objective CP4: Coordinate with the USCG to update the existing MOU for Destruction Island, which will clarify the roles of the two agencies on the island and thereby aid in the conservation of refuge resources by 2010. Achievement Strategy: A. The MOU will address USCG and Service operations and maintenance. Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA 2-12 Chapter 2 Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Discussion: Destruction Island is a unique island within the Refuges due to overlapping management responsibilities of the Service and USCG. There is an existing MOU; however, it needs to be revised to address current concerns. Refuge concerns for Destruction Island include wildlife disturbances and debris impacts. Disturbance and pollution can negatively impact many sensitive refuge wildlife species, especially nesting seabirds, bald eagles, and the endemic Destruction Island shrew. This objective is needed to allow the Service and USCG to address these mutual issues of concern. Objective CP5: Coordinate with the NPS to update the existing MOU for joint refuge law enforcement on low-tide accessible islands by 2008. Achievement Strategies: A. The MOU will address trespass law enforcement, educational programs, fire suppression support, and refuge boundaries; see Objectives WP1, WP2, RA1, and Objective PE3. B. Secure joint funding for a seasonal ranger stationed along the coast. The duties of this ranger will include law enforcement and education. Discussion: Law enforcement is extremely difficult on off-shore islands. The islands are difficult to gain access to and even to patrol. Teaming the NPS with the Service will boost the effectiveness of law enforcement for both agencies. The enforcement of the no-trespass policy is important in protecting vulnerable wildlife, research projects, and natural resources. Understanding Tribal access agreements will be an important component of the ranger=s duties. It is important to maintain the NPS radio facility on Destruction Island to facilitate law enforcement and ONP emergency communications. Objective CP6: Coordinate with the Sanctuary to develop an MOU covering mutual resource issues by 2007. Achievement Strategy: A. The MOU will address cooperative law enforcement, oil spill response planning and action, overflight restrictions, research, educational programs, and Refuges’ and Sanctuary management responsibilities; see Objective WH1, Objective RA1, and Objective PE3. Discussion: The overlap between the Sanctuary and the Refuges’ boundaries represents a management challenge for NOAA and the Service. The common goal between the resource managers is habitat protection; however, details for specific issues need to be developed. Oil spill preparation is a topic that many local citizens and regional conservation groups are concerned about. Other issues this objective will address include law enforcement and educational opportunities. The public also voiced concern over the confusion generated from Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA Chapter 2 Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-13 multi-agency responsibilities over the region. It is clear that all involved or interested in the conservation of the region would benefit from clear descriptions of roles and policies. Objective CP7: Work with others to reduce wildlife disturbances from aircraft flying over refuge islands through education, monitoring, and enforcement by spring 2010. Achievement Strategies: A. Working with the FAA, jointly identify refuge areas on aeronautical charts and develop Anotice to pilots.@ B. In communications with the FAA, stress bird-strike safety concerns for pilots. C. Coordinate with ONP and the Sanctuary on carrying out an overflight impacts education program that will promote the 2,000-foot (610 m), flight-free ceiling over refuge islands. Use educational materials developed under Objective WH6. D. Coordinate with the ONP, Sanctuary, and Tribes on monitoring overflight incidents and wildlife response as opportunities arise, and document results in annual reports. E. The Service will use existing refuge regulations to enforce wildlife disturbance violations (50 CFR 27.34). Discussion: Protection of seabird populations is a primary refuge goal. Refuge biologists, ONP staff, and conservation groups have all brought attention to the incidences of overflight disturbances on the refuge islands. These types of disturbances have been documented to disrupt seabird and marine mammal breeding and resting activities. Currently, the Sanctuary has established a minimum flight altitude of 2,000 feet (610m) for aircraft flying over the islands. The FAA is the enforcement agency of the aircraft industry. To maintain a minimum overflight altitude over the Refuges, the FAA needs to support the policy. This objective encourages bringing these two agencies to the table to discuss the issue and develop ways to prevent overflight disturbances. Objective CP8: Beginning in 2007, work with the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) on issues and resources of mutual interest to promote conservation. Achievement Strategy: A. The joint program will address clean-up of debris and unwanted structures; see Goal WP, Objective WP1. Discussion: The U.S. Navy and Air Force (DOD) have a long history (1944-1993) of using refuge islands for bombing practices. Private citizens, conservation groups, and refuge biologists are concerned about the remaining military debris on off-shore islands and its potential impacts to the ecosystems. This objective provides an opportunity for the Service to initiate discussions with the DOD about island clean-up and other issues remaining regarding land use by the military. Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA 2-14 Chapter 2 Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Objective CP9: Beginning in 2007, cooperate with interested nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to promote awareness of the Refuges and conservation of the Refuges’ habitats, cultural resources, and wildlife and the resources upon which they depend. Achievement Strategies: A. Conduct outreach targeting NGOs to increase support and appreciation for the Refuges. B. Seek NGO assistance in implementing the CCP. C. Seek assistance in identifying strategies relating to inventorying, monitoring and managing the marine fish and other resources that seabirds and marine mammals depend on for food. D. Meet with NGOs as requested to explore cooperation opportunities in areas of mutual interest. Discussion: Various nongovernmental organizations representing differing interest groups have long had an interest in the fish, wildlife, and marine environment of Washington State. Many citizen-based conservation organizations have been strong supporters of national wildlife refuges nationwide. Other organizations are more specific in their interests such as wilderness values, seabird conservation, or coastal management. All of these groups can assist with citizen-based involvement and support to accomplish the objectives and strategies outlined in this CCP. Objective CP10: Promote cooperation and long-term conservation of refuge resources by producing an annual summary report every March starting in 2007. Achievement Strategies: A. The Service will produce a complex-wide annual narrative report as a partial source for the summary report. B. The report will include a summary of research/monitoring activities and findings; trespass and disturbance incidents; major management actions; a listing of publications and public lectures made by refuge staff or associated researchers; staff names and responsibilities; educational program activities; and other highlights that occurred on the Refuges. See Objective WH1. C. The summary report will be mailed to associated agencies, Tribes, and interested parties. Discussion: Research results are often available only to the scientific community. The purpose of this objective is to communicate refuge research results to the interested public, as well as other agencies, to increase understanding of the Refuges, the regional ecosystem, and natural resources. This report will not only communicate research results but also staff changes, educational program activities, and other highlights. All these items will foster a Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA Chapter 2 Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-15 sense of community for the regional context of the Refuges. Due to the restricted nature of the islands, the public is distanced from refuge activities. This annual report will be a method for the Service to reach out once a year to inform the public and organizations about their work and ongoing concerns. This will promote support and respect for the Refuges. 2.3.5 Research and Monitoring Activity Management (RA) RA Goal: Continue and enhance long-term monitoring of wildlife and habitat resources and sustain applied scientific research. Objective RA1: Continue to promote management-related research and monitoring. Achievement Strategies: A. Establish and develop partnerships with Tribes, State, other Federal agencies, and Canada, as well as universities and conservation groups to pursue joint research projects. B. Encourage research organizations to perform cooperative research projects that explore factors affecting refuge wildlife, especially the effects of overflight and boater disturbances on seabirds and marine mammals, and gillnet impacts on sea otters and seabirds. C. Identify and pursue funding opportunities. D. Conduct an ethnographic study of the Washington Islands Refuges. Discussion: The National Wildlife Refuge System encourages compatible research activities on refuge lands. Research and monitoring projects on refuge islands enhance scientific understanding of the ecosystems and lead to better management. Long-term monitoring efforts are extremely valuable in terms of the information provided and in adaptive management techniques. Human use issues are likely to increase in terms of pressures on the refuge resources due to developing local and regional markets. This may lead to additional and new types of human impacts. This is likely to present management challenges, which can be approached with proactive applied research projects and long-term monitoring efforts. The Service is supportive of ethnographic research that does not negatively impact wildlife and wilderness resources of the Refuges. Objective RA2: Update the Refuges’ seabird monitoring plan by 2010, to benefit seabird populations. Achievement Strategies: A. Assist in the development of a monitoring manual for California Current System (CCS) seabirds and integrate it with the Refuges’ seabird monitoring plan. Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA 2-16 Chapter 2 Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies B. Map seabird colonies using GIS and population parameters such as population estimates and reproductive data. C. Integrate refuge GIS data with GIS seabird colony catalogues for Washington, Oregon, and California. D. Continue annual common murre, cormorant, and brown pelican inventories. E. Update population estimate of rhinoceros auklets on Destruction Island and institute regular population monitoring. F. Explore low impact methods of determining population sizes of tufted puffin and ancient murrelet at key refuge breeding colonies. G. Contribute to implementing the Regional Seabird Conservation Plan and North American Waterbird Conservation Plan. Discussion: Seabird research and monitoring has been carried out on refuge islands for over 25 years. The purpose of this objective is to ensure that this work not only continues but is enhanced and improved to provide refuge management and resource managers with the tools to make conservation decisions. Due to natural history traits, seabirds are a difficult fauna to study and understand. Long-term research and directed applied studies better our understanding of these resources. Population estimates are a basic database that needs to be established to make informed management decisions for the Refuges and for world-wide seabird conservation. It has been shown that long-term monitoring programs of water-based avian species can substantially contribute to improvements for recovery from oil spills and other catastrophes (Parsons 1996). The Service is working with USGS and other seabird experts to develop a regional monitoring program for seabirds of the California Current System that involves standardized protocols for data collection, analyses, and reporting. Integration of refuge monitoring with this regional effort will provide a broader context for analyses of trends and environmental and human-caused factors that influence these trends. Objective RA3: Continue to promote the publication and communication of monitoring and research findings by refuge staff on an ongoing basis. Achievement Strategies: A. Encourage refuge staff to continue publishing in peer-reviewed scientific journals. B. Encourage refuge staff to attend professional society and agency sponsored meetings/conferences. C. Promote dissemination of relevant agency reports (also see strategy CP9). Discussion: Communication of monitoring and research findings is the responsibility of the Service. Encouraging refuge staff to publish research findings in peer-reviewed journals and providing other means to disseminate refuge monitoring and research information helps foster understanding and respect for refuge management actions and conservation of natural resources. Research presentation also provides a forum for research and management improvements through the peer-review forum. The Service should pursue peer-reviewed Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA Chapter 2 Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-17 presentations to maintain a high caliber of refuge research. Refuge scientists will also be encouraged to include research findings in public interpretive programs. Information on the locations of extremely fragile natural resources, or those subject to vandalism, will not be included in final studies and reports for public distribution. Objective RA4: Promote regional conservation through developing compatible and comparable research/monitoring methods and data on an ongoing basis. Achievement Strategies: A. Modify seabird, black oystercatcher, and marine mammal monitoring methods to make them as comparable as possible to other monitoring programs along the west coast (also see strategy RA2). B. Require outside researchers to use regionally comparable field methods while performing work on the Refuges, where feasible and appropriate. C. Coordinate with the WDFW, Tribes, and other Federal agencies involved in monitoring efforts for opportunities for compatible development. Discussion: Modification of databases and methods to be comparable and compatible to other research is a cost-effective way to conduct comprehensive refuge research. Being able to compare refuge data with other local, regional, and even global data will help guide ecosystem management priorities for refuge resources. It will also promote the Service=s ecosystem approach to resource management, as well as enhance the world-wide scientific connection and understanding. Objective RA5: Increase effective management of the Refuges by establishing a comprehensive refuge office research library of current and previously published relevant scientific papers and publications, maps, photos, reports, theses, and dissertations, including those resulting from research and monitoring projects conducted on the Refuges and in the surrounding region, by 2010. Achievement Strategies: A. Obtain copies of all reports and other materials relevant to the Refuges. B. Provide library training for refuge staff. C. Pursue funding for including library space in the new office. D. Scan copies of unpublished reports to provide computer backup. E. Archive photographs and maps. F. Develop data management system for storage and retrieval of monitoring and other data. (See objective WH5) Discussion: The research that has been conducted along the outer coast has led to the current understanding and formation of remaining questions about the uniqueness and value of the Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA 2-18 Chapter 2 Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Refuges= natural resources. Documentation and understanding of past and current research will contribute to future studies and management actions. 2.3.6 Public Education Management (PE) PE Goal: Increase public interpretation and awareness programs to enhance appreciation, understanding, and enjoyment of refuge resources. Objective PE1: Promote appreciation and interpretation for the Refuges through the development and project implementation of a visitor contact center located at Dungeness NWR as soon as funding is appropriated. Achievement Strategy: A. This will be a joint facility with the new Washington Maritime National Wildlife Refuge Complex headquarters. See Objective WH8. Discussion: Interpretation and education are essential to increasing public support for wildlife resources and in turn the National Wildlife Refuge System. Providing a visitor contact center, is an important step in making the educational connection to the public, especially for the Washington Islands Refuges where access is prohibited. The restricted nature of the islands calls for well-developed off-site visitor contact and interpretation centers. Objective PE2: Promote awareness and understanding of the Washington Island Refuges and wildlife resources by developing a website for the Washington Maritime National Wildlife Refuge Complex by 2007. Achievement Strategies: A. Include on the website photographs and natural history information on refuge islands and how they are used by breeding seabirds and marine mammals. B. Place an annual biological summary and other pertinent reports or announcements on the website. C. Provide website maintenance training to refuge staff. Discussion: The Service can use the World Wide Web to reach a broader audience with their environmental educational programs. This medium will provide worldwide awareness and appreciation for the regional and worldwide context of the Refuges= resources. The website can offer a virtual visit to the restricted refuge islands. This medium will also provide the Service with input and collaboration on a worldwide scale, which is particularly important with marine and avian resources that commonly cross international borders. Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA Chapter 2 Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-19 Objective PE3: Promote refuge conservation and awareness by coordinating with other agencies, Tribes, and organizations to develop off-site interpretive facilities by 2010. Achievement Strategies: A. Coordinate with ONP and the Sanctuary to develop an interagency interpretive center somewhere on the coast. B. Coordinate with Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission, Washington Department of Transportation, ONP, and the Sanctuary to develop off-refuge viewing and interpretation opportunities. C. Work with the Tribes and other partners to interpret cultural resources of the area. D. Coordinate with Tribes on development and placement of interpretive exhibits/materials on tribal lands. E. Establish a remote viewing camera on at least one seabird colony and coordinate the placement of a viewing screen at a high public use area on the outer coast, and also provide a link to the seabird colony on the refuge website. F. Hire seasonal interpretive staff to work at the interagency interpretive center. Discussion: Current off-refuge interpretation facilities exist but are very limited and are in need of repair and upgrading. Off-refuge interpretive panels within the Olympic National Park at Rialto Beach, Second Beach, Ruby Beach, and Kalaloch are extensively weathered, missing, or need repair. The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (PL 105-57) identifies compatible environmental education as a priority wildlife-dependent use. The impacts of human disturbances and difficulty of access on the Refuges prevent the educational programs from being located on the islands. Off-site facilities are used as an alternative for providing public education about refuge resources. This method offers local visitors and residents a way to experience the islands without detrimental impacts to the resources. The technique of remote viewing by a video camera will provide public observation of refuge wildlife. Tribal, State Parks, and ONP cooperation is needed because the only vantage points from the mainland are from their lands. These areas are well used by the public, and it is from these areas that visitors see the islands and become interested in the island ecosystems. The ethnographic study identified under RA1 will assist in the development of cultural resource interpretive materials. Objective PE4: Satisfy public desires to see charismatic species and learn about the Refuges by developing traveling interpretive displays and handout materials about refuge wildlife by 2008. Achievement Strategies: A. Seek funding for a permanent outdoor recreation planner staff position. B. Seek funding for traveling refuge interpretive displays and materials on refuge wildlife. C. Update refuge wildlife fact sheets and brochures. Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA 2-20 Chapter 2 Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Discussion: Annually, over one million visitors view the Refuges, creating a tremendous opportunity to provide information about the Refuges and the resources requiring protection. The outdoor recreation planner position is critical for planning/coordinating and implementing an interpretive/education program. The impacts of human disturbance and difficulty of access on the islands prevent the Service from locating educational programs on refuge islands. Traveling displays and materials could be used as an alternative for providing public education about refuge resources. This method offers diversity and flexibility to education providers to reach the largest audience possible. These strategies also address public requests for ecotourism without impacts to wildlife. 2.4 Common Features Among the Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Effective and efficient management of the Refuges is dependent on reliable and well-synthesized data. Hence, there are some common themes that run across many of the goals, objectives, and strategies such as development of cooperative efforts, monitoring plans, GIS, as well as annual report writing. Our obligations to protect and manage cultural resources, conduct fire suppression, and use the “minimum requirement analysis” tool for wilderness areas, while not elaborated on in the goals, objectives, and strategies are still an important part of the management of the Refuges. Groups of organized associations or entities can often achieve more when working together than separately. The Service recognizes that cooperation among Federal, State, and tribal agencies serves to promote management stability and enhance regional conservation efforts. It is with this holistic approach in mind that the Service will attempt to obtain natural resource and management agreements between the Service and other neighboring agencies, such as the WDNR, WDFW, USCG, NOAA, other State and Federal agencies, and Tribes. Cooperative efforts may include island clean-up, law enforcement, data exchange, and coordinating research and monitoring efforts. Refuge wildlife monitoring is a priority for the National Wildlife Refuge System (USFWS 1999). Refuge monitoring plans include a wide array of data collected on natural resources such as seabirds, marine mammals, threatened and endangered species, and human disturbance impacts. Monitoring efforts across long time periods provide extremely useful data, especially in highly dynamic systems such as the marine refuge islands. Environmental changes and uncertainty are very common in marine systems, as exemplified by El Niño and other oceanic fluctuations. These fluctuations can add uncertainty to the validity of short-term scientific research; the only way to counter this problem is through long-term studies. Long-term monitoring data support adaptive management procedures, which the Service promotes nationwide. The use of GIS is a useful method for organizing and synthesizing complex data sets on a spatial scale, such as the Service would be producing through the proposed monitoring and research Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA Chapter 2 Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-21 projects. It enables the Service to look at multiple layers of data across a spatial scale. This powerful instrument is very useful in resource management decision-making, although it must be made very clear that the results of GIS data analysis are only as accurate as the data put into it. Using GIS can help the Service effectively guide research and management directives. Preparing an annual report will be an important data compilation and review tool, which will help the Service manage the Refuges holistically and inform the public and other agencies about current activities. This report will include narrative summaries of monitoring programs, island disturbances, and other events involving the islands or their resources over the previous year. The Service will continue to uphold Federal laws protecting cultural resources, including the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), Archeological Resources Protection Act, and Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. These laws also require consultation with Native American Tribes, the State Historic Preservation Office, and other preservation partners. The NHPA requires all projects that use Federal funding, permitting, or licensing to be reviewed by a cultural resource professional to determine if there is the potential to affect cultural resources. If needed, an inventory must be conducted, and appropriate actions to mitigate effects must be identified, prior to implementation of the project. Fire suppression will be conducted as described in the Washington Islands National Wildlife Refuges Wildland Fire Management Plan (FMP), 2005. A summary of the FMP can be found in Appendix F. Under the guidance of the FMP, all wildland fires will be suppressed using the appropriate management response. There will be no prescribed fires or pile burning on any of the refuges, and managing wildland fires for resource benefit (wildland fire use) is not an option at this time. The Service already works cooperatively through the Puget Sound Interagency Communication Center for wildland fire suppression on the Washington Maritime National Wildlife Refuge Complex, of which Washington Islands NWRs are a part. Appendix E-1 contains a Aminimum requirements analysis@ (MRA) as described in wilderness stewardship planning policy, for research, monitoring, and clean-up activities in wilderness. Additional MRAs would be prepared if implementation of strategies involved the use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, aircraft landings, mechanical transport, or structures or installations in designated wilderness areas. Researchers requesting a permit to conduct research on the Refuges which is not already covered under the existing MRA will be required to complete an MRA for refuge manager review and approval. 2.5 Comparison of Alternatives Table 2-1 highlights and compares some of the actions associated with the two alternatives. These comparisons are organized based on the key planning issues identified in Chapter 1. No attempt was made to include all actions. Washington Islands NWRs CCP/EA 2-22 Chapter 2 Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Table 2-1: Comparison of Alternatives Issues Alternative A: No Action Alternative B: Proposed Action Public Awareness -Off-site interpretation would remain limited to a few highway panels. -Develop a visitor contact station with interpretive exhibits and a resource library at new headquarters. -Develop interagency interpretive center on the coast to provide off-refuge education to public. -Develop a website to provide information on breeding seabirds and marine mammals. -Seek funding for a staff position to implement an off-site education program to include boating and aircraft impact awareness. Interagency and Tribal C |
| Tag | Library-Source-CCPs |
| Date created | 2012-10-05 |
|
|