Conboy Lake 

National Wildlife 

Refuge

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan
Aspen stand. 

Lisa Wilson/USFWS

Comprehensive Conservation Plans 

provide long-term guidance for 

management decisions and set forth 

goals, objectives, and strategies 

needed to accomplish refuge purposes 

and identify the U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service’s best estimates of future 

needs. These plans detail program 

planning levels that are sometimes 

substantially above current budget 

allocations, and as such, are primarily 

used for strategic planning and program 

prioritization purposes. The plans do 

not constitute a commitment for 

staffing increases, operational and 

maintenance increases, or funding 

for future land acquisition.

Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge’s lush seasonal marshes and vibrant 

forested uplands gleam at the base of the iconic snow-capped Mount Adams. 

Camas and buttercup blossoms sway throughout a wet meadow canvas awash 

with vibrant colors. The trumpeting of Sandhill cranes echoes throughout 

the refuge as they descend homeward. As a national wildlife refuge, this 

living system will continue to satisfy our longing for splendor and serenity 

as it did for the indigenous peoples, explorers, loggers, and ranchers who 

were first drawn to the valley’s plentiful resources. The rich habitat diversity 

will sustain thriving populations of migrating waterfowl and other wildlife. 

Refuge habitats will play a key role in the long-term recovery of greater 

Sandhill cranes and Oregon spotted frogs. Together with our friends, 

partners, and neighbors, and applying sound scientific principles, we will 

manage and protect the biological integrity of refuge wildlife and habitats. 

We envision the continued development and enhancement of inspiring 

wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities for our visitors, providing them 

with a window into this living heritage. The refuge will be a source of pride 

for the local community and instill a sense of ownership for all those who 

visit, forever underscoring the importance of protecting lands for wildlife 

conservation and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Our Vision for the Future
Conboy Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Prepared by: 

Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

Mid-Columbia National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

64 Maple Street 

Burbank, Washington 99323 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Pacific Northwest Planning Team 

911 NE 11th Avenue 

Portland, Oregon 97232 

December 2014 

Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Finding of No Significant Impact i 

Finding of No Significant Impact

for the

Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Klickitat County, Washington 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has completed a Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

(CCP) and Environmental Assessment (EA) for Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

(Refuge). The CCP/EA describes our proposals for managing the Refuge and their effects on the 

human environment under two alternatives, including the “no action” alternative. 

The purpose and need for the CCP is to provide reasonable, scientifically grounded guidance for 

improving the Refuge’s riparian, wetland, forest, and meadow habitats for the long-term 

conservation of native plants and animals and migratory birds. Additionally, the CCP provides 

guidance for the implementation of high-quality public use programs in hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation; protection of cultural 

resources; and for full compliance with legal and policy mandates. The CCP will guide 

management of the Refuge for 15 years. 

Alternatives Considered

Alternative 1 (Current Management): Alternative 1 satisfies the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (NEPA) requirement of a “no action” alternative, which we define as “continuing 

current management.” It describes our existing management priorities and activities for the 

Refuge, and serves as a baseline for comparing and contrasting with Alternative 2.

Alternative 2: Alternative 2 is the Service-preferred alternative. Under Alternative 2, most 

current management actions would continue. Refuge habitats would continue to be managed for

priority species whose habitat needs also benefit other species of conservation concern that are 

found in the region. In particular, we would focus on providing habitat for priority migratory 

birds, such as waterfowl, waterbirds, shorebirds, and landbirds; for rare and declining species, 

such as the Oregon spotted frog, Mardon skipper, rosy owl-clover, Ames’ milk-vetch; and for 

other native wildlife species. 

The Water Management Plan would be revised within 2 years of plan completion and then 

modified as needed. Haying and mowing would continue, but grazing would be added as a 

potential management tool for reed canarygrass. Existing dikes would be evaluated and 

potentially modified to achieve target water levels. Additionally, disking and prolonged deep 

flooding would be potentially used to control reed canarygrass. In areas with known Oregon 

spotted frog oviposition and rosy owl-clover sites, these techniques would be performed on an 

experimental basis with pre- and post-monitoring. An aggressive bullfrog and bullhead fish 

control program would be implemented. The cover of shrubs and trees would be reduced in 

upland meadow habitats using mechanized removal and prescribed fire, where appropriate. A 

program to actively create snags in all forest types would be implemented to benefit 

woodpeckers, other insectivore birds, and cavity-nesting species. Additional forest thinning in all 

forest stand types would occur to create structural diversity and allow regeneration of understory 

species and young trees. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

ii Finding of No Significant Impact

Visitor services opportunities would be provided in key areas. The Refuge would continue with 

the same public access hours, but increase the area open to nonconsumptive access. The Willard 

Springs Trail would be realigned, lengthened, and given a new interpretive emphasis. 

Environmental education would receive a greater emphasis through volunteer recruitment and 

new partnerships with teachers and schools. New interpretive exhibits would be installed along 

the Willard Springs Trail, the Observation Overlook, and the Whitcomb-Cole Hewn Log House. 

Deer hunting within the 100-acre deer hunting area would be discontinued; elsewhere, waterfowl 

hunting and fishing would remain much the same. 

New cultural resource protection measures would be implemented through completing a cultural 

resources overview, establishing new tribal partnerships, evaluating the National Register of 

Historic Places eligibility of archeological sites, and developing an inadvertent discovery plan. 

Summary of Effects

Alternative 1 (Current Management): Under Alternative 1, the Service would continue with the 

existing programs of protection, enhancement, and restoration of habitats; wildlife-dependent 

public uses; and cultural resource protection. Over the long term, the overall effects of current 

management on the physical, biological, and socioeconomic environments within and 

surrounding the Refuge would be negligible to minor positive. There may be short-term, minor, 

negative impacts associated with individual management actions (e.g., increased turbidity due to 

maintenance of the water delivery system). However, best management practices and/or 

mitigation measures would be implemented, as necessary, to minimize adverse impacts. 

Alternative 2: Alternative 2 does not propose any major changes in management direction. Those 

changes that are proposed are generally incremental (e.g., treating only a few acres of habitat 

annually) or are limited in scope (e.g., closing the deer hunting area that rarely has deer or 

hunters). Management actions in Alternative 2 would be expected to provide more benefits to the 

natural and human environment than it would cause adverse effects.

Generally, there would be negligible effects on the physical environment, including soils and air 

quality, over the long term. In the short term, individual actions may have negative effects; 

however, due to the limited duration, area, and intensity of these activities, the effects would be 

minor. Overall, a long-term minor to intermediate beneficial effect is expected for Refuge 

habitats and associated species, including special status species, from habitat management 

actions. There could be negligible to minor negative impacts from recreational activities where 

they would occur; however, these impacts to biological resources would be minimized through 

use stipulations. 

The availability and quality of wildlife-dependent recreation on the Refuge would have minor 

improvements under Alternative 2, but within a regional context, the cumulative change would 

be small. Implementing the Refuge hunt program would result in no significant impacts to 

population levels to hunted or nonhunted wildlife species. Effects to socioeconomics are 

expected to be negligible to minor. Under Alternative 2, outreach, interpretation, survey, and 

evaluation of cultural resources would be expanded. In general, this would help to strengthen 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Finding of No Significant Impact iii 

long-term protection and preservation of all cultural resources at the Refuge, leading to minor to 

intermediate benefits. Negative impacts to cultural resources from implementation of any of the

activities under this alternative are would be negligible. Therefore, the effects from 

implementing Alternative 2 are not expected to have any significant beneficial or adverse effects 

on Refuge resources or other elements of the human environment.

Public Involvement 

The Service incorporated a variety of public involvement techniques in developing and 

reviewing the CCP/EA. This included an open house; a planning update; meetings with partners, 

state agencies, other federal agencies, and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama 

Nation (Yakama Nation); and public review and comment on the draft CCP/EA. The draft 

CCP/EA was available for a 34-day period of public review and comment from January 16, 

2014, to February 18, 2014. During that period, the Service received four comment letters, three 

from private citizens and one from the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Subsequent to 

the comment period, the Service received a letter from the Yakama Nation on March 17, 2014, 

which the Service accepted as part of the comments. The details of our public involvement 

program are described in Appendix K. Following an analysis of the comment letters, the Service 

prepared responses to all substantive comments, which are in Appendix O. 

Selection of Management Alternative for the Final CCP

Based on our comprehensive review and analysis in the CCP/EA and the comments received 

during the public, agency, and government review of the draft CCP/EA, we selected Alternative 

2 as presented in the draft for implementation. The management strategies described in 

Alternative 2 will guide management of the Refuge in a manner that:

• Achieves the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, as well as the purposes, 

vision, and goals of the Refuge.

• Maintains and restores the ecological integrity of the Refuge’s habitats and populations. 

• Addresses the important issues identified during the CCP scoping process. 

• Addresses the legal mandates of the Service and the Refuge.

• Is consistent with the scientific principles of sound wildlife management and endangered 

species recovery.

• Facilitates priority public uses appropriate and compatible with the Refuge’s purposes 

and the Refuge System mission.

Based on the public comments we received and considered, the CCP was slightly modified

between the draft and final. Most of the changes were made to improve readability and accuracy. 

None of the changes would result in a significant impact on the environment.

Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Table of Contents i 

Table of Contents 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background ..................................................................................... 1-1 

1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1-1 

1.2 Significance of the Refuge ........................................................................................................ 1-1 

1.3 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................................ 1-2 

1.4 Purpose and Need for Action .................................................................................................... 1-3 

1.5 Legal and Policy Guidance ....................................................................................................... 1-3 

1.5.1 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ................................................................................... 1-3 

1.5.2 National Wildlife Refuge System ...................................................................................... 1-4 

1.5.3 Other Laws and Mandates ................................................................................................. 1-6 

1.5.4 Tribal Rights and Interests ................................................................................................ 1-6 

1.5.5 State of Washington Wildlife Management ...................................................................... 1-7 

1.6 Refuge Establishment and Purposes ......................................................................................... 1-8 

1.6.1 Legal Significance of the Refuge Purpose ........................................................................ 1-8 

1.6.2 History of Refuge Establishment and Purposes ................................................................ 1-8 

1.7 Relationship to Ecosystem and Other Planning Efforts .......................................................... 1-10 

1.7.1 Regional Plans ................................................................................................................. 1-11 

1.7.2 Migratory Bird Plans ....................................................................................................... 1-12 

1.7.3 Other U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Plans .................................................................... 1-13 

1.7.4 Washington State Plans ................................................................................................... 1-14 

1.8 Planning and Issue Identification ............................................................................................ 1-19 

1.8.1 Land Acquisition, Exchanges, Conservation Easements ................................................ 1-19 

1.8.2 Water Rights .................................................................................................................... 1-19 

1.8.3 Water Management ......................................................................................................... 1-21 

1.8.4 Wet Meadow, Riparian and Instream Habitat Management ........................................... 1-21 

1.8.5 Short Grass (Wet Prairie and Upland Meadow) Management ........................................ 1-23 

1.8.6 Upland Meadow Management ........................................................................................ 1-24 

1.8.7 Forest Management ......................................................................................................... 1-24 

1.8.8 Invasive and Non-Native Plants and Wildlife ................................................................. 1-25 

1.8.9 Oregon Spotted Frog Management ................................................................................. 1-25 

1.8.10 Rare Plant Management ................................................................................................ 1-26 

1.8.11 Sandhill Crane Management ......................................................................................... 1-27 

1.8.12 Elk Management............................................................................................................ 1-27 

1.8.13 Waterfowl and Waterbirds ............................................................................................ 1-28 

1.8.14 Wildlife-Dependent Public Uses ................................................................................... 1-29 

1.8.15 Effective Law Enforcement ........................................................................................... 1-30 

1.8.16 Impacts of Development and Climate Change .............................................................. 1-30 

1.8.17 Staffing .......................................................................................................................... 1-30 

1.8.18 Issues Outside the Scope of the CCP ............................................................................ 1-30 

Chapter 2. Management Direction .......................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Overview .................................................................................................................................. 2-1 

2.2 Management Directions Considered But Not Developed ........................................................ 2-1 

2.2.1 Full-scale Restoration of Creeks to Historic Channels/Oxbows ....................................... 2-1 

2.2.2 Lethal Control of Coyotes to Benefit Nesting Waterbirds ................................................ 2-2 

2.2.3 Implementing an Elk Hunt ................................................................................................ 2-2 

2.3 Description of Management Direction ...................................................................................... 2-2 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

ii Table of Contents 

2.3.1 Factors in Management Direction ...................................................................................... 2-2 

2.3.2 Summary of Management Direction ............................................................................... 2-10 

2.4 Goals, Objectives and Strategies ............................................................................................ 2-11 

Goal 1. Protect and maintain a diverse assemblage of aquatic habitats characteristic of Glenwood 

Valley/Conboy Lake Region. ........................................................................................................ 2-11 

Objective 1.1 Wet Prairie (Wet Meadow) ................................................................................ 2-11 

Objective 1.2 Emergent Marsh ................................................................................................. 2-17 

Objective 1.3 Main Water Delivery System (Creeks and Ditches) .......................................... 2-19 

Objective 1.4 Springs ............................................................................................................... 2-20 

Goal 2. Protect and maintain upland meadow habitat characteristic of Glenwood Valley/Conboy 

Lake Region. ................................................................................................................................. 2-21 

Objective 2.1 Upland Meadow ................................................................................................. 2-21 

Goal 3. Protect, maintain, and enhance forest habitats characteristic of Glenwood Valley/Conboy 

Lake Region. ................................................................................................................................. 2-23 

Objective 3.1 Ponderosa Pine Forest ........................................................................................ 2-23 

Objective 3.2 Lodgepole/Ponderosa Pine Forest ...................................................................... 2-26 

Objective 3.3 Mixed Conifer Forest ......................................................................................... 2-28 

Objective 3.4 Oregon White Oak Woodland ........................................................................... 2-30 

Objective 3.5 Quaking Aspen Stands ....................................................................................... 2-32 

Goal 4. Protect and maintain riparian habitats characteristic of the Glenwood Valley/Conboy Lake 

Region. .......................................................................................................................................... 2-34 

Objective 4.1 Riparian Corridor (Alder and Willow) .............................................................. 2-34 

Goal 5. Gather scientific information (surveys, research, and assessments) to support adaptive 

management decisions under objectives for Goals 1-4. ................................................................ 2-35 

Objective 5.1 Surveys............................................................................................................... 2-35 

Objective 5.2 Research ............................................................................................................. 2-37 

Objective 5.3 Scientific Assessments ....................................................................................... 2-39 

Goal 6. Visitors of all ages and abilities will feel welcomed and enjoy safe, quality, 

wildlife-dependent recreational uses, including wildlife observation and photography, hunting, 

fishing, and environmental education and interpretation, compatible with CLNWR’s purpose and 

vision. ............................................................................................................................................ 2-40 

Objective 6.1 Wildlife Observation and Photography ............................................................. 2-40 

Objective 6.2 Volunteers .......................................................................................................... 2-42 

Objective 6.3 Hunting and Fishing ........................................................................................... 2-42 

Objective 6.4 Law Enforcement ............................................................................................... 2-44 

Goal 7. Students, educators, and visitors will understand, appreciate, and support CLNWR’s 

cultural and natural heritage through environmental education and interpretation. ...................... 2-45 

Objective 7.1 Environmental Education .................................................................................. 2-45 

Objective 7.2 Environmental Interpretation ............................................................................. 2-46 

Goal 8. CLNWR will preserve and value its cultural resources and heritage and connect refuge 

staff, visitors, and the community to the area’s past. .................................................................... 2-47 

Objective 8.1 Cultural Resource Protection ............................................................................. 2-47 

Objective 8.2 Public Awareness and Education of Cultural Resources ................................... 2-48 

Objective 8.3 Whitcomb-Cole Hewn Log House .................................................................... 2-49 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment ........................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Topography .............................................................................................................................. 3-1 

3.2 Geology .................................................................................................................................... 3-1 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Table of Contents iii 

3.2.1 Origins and Development .................................................................................................. 3-1 

3.2.2 Recent Geologic Events .................................................................................................... 3-1 

3.3 Soils .......................................................................................................................................... 3-1 

3.4 Climate ..................................................................................................................................... 3-3 

3.4.1 Temperature....................................................................................................................... 3-3 

3.4.2 Precipitation....................................................................................................................... 3-4 

3.4.3 Wind .................................................................................................................................. 3-4 

3.5 Climate Change ........................................................................................................................ 3-5 

3.6 Hydrology ................................................................................................................................ 3-9 

3.6.1 Regional Hydrology for the Klickitat River Sub-Basin .................................................... 3-9 

3.6.2 Refuge-Specific Hydrology ............................................................................................. 3-10 

3.7 Water Quality and Environmental Contaminants .................................................................. 3-12 

3.7.1 Overview Klickitat River Basin ...................................................................................... 3-12 

3.7.2 CLNWR Waterways ........................................................................................................ 3-12 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment ......................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Overview .................................................................................................................................. 4-1 

4.2 Wet Prairie (Wet Meadow) ...................................................................................................... 4-2 

4.2.1 Overview ........................................................................................................................... 4-2 

4.2.2 Historic and Current Distribution ...................................................................................... 4-2 

4.2.3 Key Species Supported ...................................................................................................... 4-2 

4.2.4 Refuge Management Activities ......................................................................................... 4-2 

4.3 Emergent Marsh ....................................................................................................................... 4-2 

4.3.1 Overview ........................................................................................................................... 4-2 

4.3.2 Historic and Current Distribution in the Glenwood Valley............................................... 4-3 

4.3.3 Key Species Supported ...................................................................................................... 4-3 

4.3.4 Refuge Management Activities ......................................................................................... 4-3 

4.4 Riverine (Streams, Water Delivery Systems) .......................................................................... 4-3 

4.4.1 Overview ........................................................................................................................... 4-3 

4.4.2 Historic and Current Stream Network ............................................................................... 4-4 

4.4.3 Key Species Supported ...................................................................................................... 4-4 

4.4.4 Refuge Management Activities ......................................................................................... 4-4 

4.5 Springs ...................................................................................................................................... 4-4 

4.5.1 Overview ........................................................................................................................... 4-4 

4.5.2 Historic and Current Distribution ...................................................................................... 4-4 

4.5.3 Key Species Supported ...................................................................................................... 4-4 

4.5.4 Refuge Management Activities ......................................................................................... 4-4 

4.6 Upland Meadow ....................................................................................................................... 4-5 

4.6.1 Overview ........................................................................................................................... 4-5 

4.6.2 Historic and Current Distribution ...................................................................................... 4-5 

4.6.3 Key Species Supported ...................................................................................................... 4-5 

4.6.4 Refuge Management Activities ......................................................................................... 4-5 

4.7 Ponderosa Pine ......................................................................................................................... 4-5 

4.7.1 Overview ........................................................................................................................... 4-5 

4.7.2 Historic and Current Distribution ...................................................................................... 4-6 

4.7.3 Key Species Supported ...................................................................................................... 4-6 

4.7.4 Refuge Management Activities ......................................................................................... 4-6 

4.8 Lodgepole/Ponderosa Pine ....................................................................................................... 4-6 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

iv Table of Contents 

4.8.1 Overview ........................................................................................................................... 4-6 

4.8.2 Historic and Current Distribution ...................................................................................... 4-7 

4.8.3 Key Species Supported ...................................................................................................... 4-7 

4.8.4 Refuge Management Activities ......................................................................................... 4-7 

4.9 Mixed Conifer .......................................................................................................................... 4-7 

4.9.1 Overview ........................................................................................................................... 4-7 

4.9.2 Historic and Current Distribution ...................................................................................... 4-7 

4.9.3 Key Species Supported ...................................................................................................... 4-8 

4.9.4 Refuge Management Activities ......................................................................................... 4-8 

4.10 Oregon White Oak ................................................................................................................. 4-8 

4.10.1 Overview ......................................................................................................................... 4-8 

4.10.2 Historic and Current Distribution .................................................................................... 4-8 

4.10.3 Key Species Supported .................................................................................................... 4-8 

4.10.4 Refuge Management Activities ....................................................................................... 4-9 

4.11 Quaking Aspen ....................................................................................................................... 4-9 

4.11.1 Overview ......................................................................................................................... 4-9 

4.11.2 Historic and Current Distribution .................................................................................... 4-9 

4.11.3 Key Species Supported .................................................................................................... 4-9 

4.11.4 Refuge Management Activities ....................................................................................... 4-9 

4.12 Alder and Willow (Riparian)................................................................................................ 4-10 

4.12.1 Overview ....................................................................................................................... 4-10 

4.12.2 Historic and Current Distribution .................................................................................. 4-10 

4.12.3 Key Species Supported .................................................................................................. 4-10 

4.12.4 Refuge Management Activities ..................................................................................... 4-10 

4.13 Waterfowl ............................................................................................................................. 4-10 

4.14 Endangered, Threatened and Rare Species .......................................................................... 4-13 

4.14.1 Plants ............................................................................................................................. 4-13 

4.14.2 Insects ............................................................................................................................ 4-14 

4.14.3 Amphibians ................................................................................................................... 4-14 

4.14.4 Birds .............................................................................................................................. 4-14 

4.14.5 Mammals ....................................................................................................................... 4-15 

4.15 Fisheries ............................................................................................................................... 4-15 

4.16 Other Wildlife and Plants ..................................................................................................... 4-15 

4.16.1 Amphibians and Reptiles ............................................................................................... 4-15 

4.16.2 Landbirds ....................................................................................................................... 4-16 

4.16.3 Mammals ....................................................................................................................... 4-16 

4.17 Exotic, Invasive and Nuisance Species ................................................................................ 4-16 

4.17.1 Exotic and Invasive Plants ............................................................................................ 4-16 

4.17.2 Exotic Wildlife Species ................................................................................................. 4-17 

Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment ...................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Administrative Facilities .......................................................................................................... 5-1 

5.2 Recreation Overview ................................................................................................................ 5-1 

5.2.1 Entrances and Access Points ............................................................................................. 5-1 

5.2.2 Roads, Trails, and Parking Areas ...................................................................................... 5-1 

5.2.3 Open and Closed Areas ..................................................................................................... 5-1 

5.2.4 Annual Recreation Visits................................................................................................... 5-1 

5.2.5 Accessibility of Recreation Sites and Programs to Disabled Persons ............................... 5-2 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Table of Contents v 

5.3 Wildlife Observation and Photography .................................................................................... 5-2 

5.4 Interpretation ............................................................................................................................ 5-2 

5.5 Environmental Education ......................................................................................................... 5-2 

5.6 Hunting ..................................................................................................................................... 5-3 

5.6.1 Waterfowl Hunting ............................................................................................................ 5-3 

5.6.2 Big Game Hunting............................................................................................................. 5-3 

5.7 Fishing ...................................................................................................................................... 5-3 

5.8 Non-Wildlife-Dependent Recreation ....................................................................................... 5-3 

5.9 Illegal Uses and Law Enforcement .......................................................................................... 5-3 

5.10 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................. 5-4 

5.10.1 Native American Overview ............................................................................................. 5-4 

5.10.2 Euro-American Overview ............................................................................................... 5-6 

5.10.3 Current Knowledge of Local Cultural Resources ........................................................... 5-7 

5.10.4 Section 106 Consultation................................................................................................. 5-9 

5.10.5 Native American Resources ............................................................................................ 5-9 

5.11 Paleontological Resources...................................................................................................... 5-9 

5.12 Socioeconomic Environment ............................................................................................... 5-10 

5.12.1 Overview of Regional Economic Setting ...................................................................... 5-10 

5.12.2 Regional Demographic Information .............................................................................. 5-10 

5.12.3 Local Industries ............................................................................................................. 5-10 

Appendices 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings ......................................................................................... A-1 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations .................................................................................. B-1 

Appendix C. Implementation Plan ................................................................................................. C-1 

Appendix D. Wilderness Review..................................................................................................... D-1 

Appendix E. Management Priorities .............................................................................................. E-1 

Appendix F. Statement of Compliance .......................................................................................... F-1 

Appendix G. Glossary and Abbreviations ..................................................................................... G-1 

Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management ................................................................................... H-1 

Appendix I. Laws, Orders, Policies, and Agreements ................................................................... I-1 

Appendix J. Distribution List .......................................................................................................... J-1 

Appendix K. Public Involvement .................................................................................................... K-1 

Appendix L. CCP Preparation ....................................................................................................... L-1 

Appendix M. References Cited ...................................................................................................... M-1 

Appendix N. Maps ........................................................................................................................... N-1 

Appendix O. Comments and Responses ........................................................................................ O-1 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

vi Table of Contents 
Chapter 1

Introduction and 

Background

Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-1 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background

1.1 Introduction

Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge (CLNWR or refuge) was authorized in 1964 by the 

Migratory Bird Conservation Commission (MBCC), and the refuge was established in 1965 with the 

purchase of the 920-acre Dilling Tract. The approved acquisition boundary for CLNWR is 10,951 

acres; the refuge currently encompasses approximately 6,353 acres in fee title ownership, with a 

718-acre conservation easement. Located in Klickitat County, Washington, the refuge resides on the 

east slope of the Cascade Mountains at the base of Mount Adams and lies within the boundaries of 

the Yakama Indian Reservation. CLNWR manages approximately 3,500 acres of wet prairie, 

emergent marsh, and seasonally flooded scrub-shrub and forest land habitats, which is approximately 

55% of the refuge. Land surrounding the refuge is managed by the Confederated Tribes and Bands 

of the Yakama Nation (Yakama Nation), private landowners and the state of Washington. Water 

management is the single most important wildlife management issue on the refuge and within the 

Glenwood Valley. 

Species with management emphasis at the refuge include greater Sandhill cranes, Oregon spotted 

frogs, Mardon skippers, Ames’ milk-vetch, and Oregon coyote thistle. CLNWR provides migratory 

and breeding habitat for waterfowl of the Pacific Flyway. 

CLNWR is administered by the Mid-Columbia River National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

(MCRNWRC) in Burbank, Washington. CLNWR is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Service) as part of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS or System). The mission of the 

NWRS is to “administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, 

and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within 

the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.” The Service, an 

agency of the Department of the Interior, is principally responsible for conserving, protecting, and 

enhancing fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American 

people. 

1.2 Significance of the Refuge

The refuge is a haven for plants and animals, supporting Washington’s largest and healthiest 

populations of Oregon coyote-thistle, rosy owl-clover, Kellogg’s rush, dwarf rush, and long-bearded 

sego lily. A blend of oak, pine, and aspen forests, wetlands, grassy prairies, and streams supports a 

diverse and plentiful wildlife community. The rich habitat diversity sustains thriving populations of 

migrating waterfowl and songbirds. Elk are plentiful and frequently seen along refuge roads. The 

rare Oregon spotted frog breeds in wetlands throughout the refuge, and CLNWR supports the only 

breeding population of greater Sandhill cranes in Washington, approximately 26–27 pairs. 

History is also an important part of CLNWR. Native Americans have depended—and still depend—

on the area’s plentiful resources, collecting plants for food and religious purposes, a practice that still 

occurs throughout the area to this day. These same resources drew settlers to the area, arriving in the 

1870s. One of the early homes, the Whitcomb-Cole Hewn Log House, still stands on the refuge and 

is listed on the National Register of Historic Places (National Register).
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

1-2 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background

1.3 Proposed Action

The Service manages national wildlife refuges as part of the NWRS. The NWRS is subject to the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (Administration Act) of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 

688dd-688ee), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (Improvement 

Act) of 1997 (Public Law 105-57). The Administration Act mandates that a Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan (CCP) be developed for each refuge in the NWRS. 

The Service is proposing to adopt and implement a CCP for CLNWR. The CCP sets forth 

management guidance for CLNWR for the next 15 years. The Administration Act requires CCPs to 

identify and describe: 

• The purposes of the refuge; 

• The fish, wildlife and plant populations; their habitats; and the archaeological and cultural 

values found on the refuge; 

• Significant problems that may adversely affect wildlife populations and habitats and ways to 

correct or mitigate those problems;

• Areas suitable for administrative sites, visitor facilities, and opportunities for wildlifedependent recreation. 

NWRS Planning Policy (Service Manual Part 602, 602 FW3, June 21, 2000) states that the purpose 

of CCPs is to describe the desired future conditions of a refuge and provide long-range guidance and 

management direction to achieve refuge purposes; help fulfill the NWRS mission; maintain and, 

where appropriate, restore the ecological integrity of each refuge and the NWRS; help achieve the 

goals of the National Wilderness Preservation System; and meet other mandates. 

Another purpose of CCPs is to set the appropriate direction for full compliance with other legal and 

policy mandates, such as the Service’s Native American Policy.

The Service developed and examined alternatives considered reasonable for future management of 

CLNWR and disclosed anticipated effects for each alternative, pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321–4347). The CCP will 

implement a series of actions described under the selected alternative, Alternative 2. These goals, 

objectives, and strategies will best achieve the purpose and need for the CCP, while maintaining 

balance among the varied management needs and programs. The selected management direction will 

represent the most balanced approach for achieving CLNWR’s purposes, vision, and goals; 

contributing to the NWRS mission; addressing relevant issues and mandates; and managing the 

refuge consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management. 

The alternative has not been appreciably modified between the draft and this final document. The

Service’s Regional Director for the Pacific Region made the final decision about the alternative to be 

implemented. For details on the specific components and actions comprising the selected 

management direction, see Chapter 2. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-3 

1.4 Purpose and Need for Action

The purpose of the CCP is to provide reasonable, scientifically grounded guidance for improving 

CLNWR’s riparian, wetland, forest, and meadow habitats for the long-term conservation of native 

plants and animals and migratory birds. The CCP identifies the appropriate actions for protecting 

and sustaining the cultural and biological features of CLNWR; the refuge’s waterfowl populations 

and habitats; and threatened, endangered, or rare species. A final purpose of the CCP is to provide 

guidance for providing high-quality public use programs in hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, 

photography, environmental education, and interpretation. 

The CCP is needed for a variety of reasons. Primary among these are the need to establish improved 

habitat conditions on CLNWR’s forest, riparian, wetland, and meadow habitats—many of which are 

degraded by invasive plants—and to identify and deal with key threats to these habitats, including 

altered fire regimes and fragmentation. There is a need to secure and control the water supply for the 

refuge. There is a need to address CLNWR’s contributions to state-listed species that rely on the 

refuge, such as Oregon spotted frogs and greater Sandhill cranes. There is a need to analyze wildlifedependent public use programs and to determine what improvements or alterations should be made in 

the pursuit of higher-quality programs. Finally, there is a need to describe the steps that should be 

taken to better protect and promote cultural resources. 

A CCP, and the process used to complete it, also accomplishes other things:

1) Communicates with the public, partners, and other governments’ efforts to carry out the 

mission of the NWRS; 

 2) Provides a clear statement of direction for managing the refuge; 

3) Provides neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of the Service’s 

management actions on and around the refuge; 

4) Ensures that the Service’s management actions support the goals and intent of the 

Administration Act;

5) Ensures refuge plans will be consistent with the fish and wildlife conservation plans of the 

state and the conservation programs within the ecosystem, to the extent practicable; and 

6) Provides a basis for development of budget requests for the refuge’s operation, maintenance, 

and capital improvement needs.

1.5 Legal and Policy Guidance

CLNWR is managed as part of the NWRS within a framework provided by legal and policy 

guidelines. The NWRS is the world’s largest network of public lands and waters set aside 

specifically for conserving wildlife and protecting ecosystems. 

1.5.1 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The refuge is managed by the Service, an agency within the Department of the Interior (DOI). The 

Service is the principal Federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing the 

nation’s fish and wildlife populations and their habitats. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

1-4 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background

The mission of the Service is “working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, 

and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.” Although this is a 

shared responsibility with other Federal, State, tribal, local, and private entities, the Service has 

specific trust responsibilities for migratory birds, endangered and threatened species, and certain 

anadromous fish and marine mammals. The Service has similar trust responsibilities for the lands 

and waters it administers to support the conservation and enhancement of fish, wildlife, plants and 

their habitats. The Service also enforces Federal wildlife laws and international treaties for importing 

and exporting wildlife, assists with state fish and wildlife programs, and helps other countries 

develop wildlife conservation programs. 

1.5.2 National Wildlife Refuge System

The needs of wildlife and their habitats come first on national wildlife refuges, in contrast to other 

public lands that are managed for multiple uses. Refuges are guided by various Federal laws and 

executive orders, agency policies, and international treaties. Fundamental are the mission and goals 

of the NWRS and the designated purposes of each refuge as described in its establishing legislation, 

executive orders, or other documents establishing, authorizing, or expanding the refuge. 

Key concepts and guidance of the NWRS derive from the Administration Act (as amended), the 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4, as amended), Title 50 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) and the Service Manual. The Administration Act is implemented through 

regulations covering the NWRS, published in Title 50, Subchapter C of the CFR. These regulations 

govern general administration of units of the NWRS. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission and Goals

The mission of the NWRS is “. . . to administer a national network of lands and waters for the 

conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant 

resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations 

of Americans.” (Administration Act, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.) 

The goals of the NWRS, as articulated in the Mission Goals and Purposes Policy (601 FW1) are: 

• Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats, including species that are 

endangered or threatened with becoming endangered. 

• Develop and maintain a network of habitats for migratory birds, anadromous and interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammal populations that is strategically distributed and 

carefully managed to meet important life history needs of these species across their ranges. 

• Conserve those ecosystems, plant communities, wetlands of national or international 

significance, and landscapes and seascapes that are unique, rare, declining, or underrepresented in existing protection efforts.

• Provide and enhance opportunities to participate in compatible wildlife-dependent recreation 

(hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation). 

• Foster understanding and instill appreciation of the diversity and interconnectedness of fish, 

wildlife, and plants and their habitats. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-5 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act

Of all the laws governing activities on national wildlife refuges, the Administration Act undoubtedly 

exerts the greatest influence. The Improvement Act amended the Administration Act in 1997 by 

including a unifying mission for all national wildlife refuges as a system, adding a new process for 

determining compatible uses on refuges and a requirement that each refuge will be managed under a 

CCP developed in an open public process. 

The Administration Act states that the Secretary of the Interior shall provide for the conservation of 

fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats within the NWRS, as well as ensure that its biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health (BIDEH) are maintained. House Report 105–106 

accompanying the Improvement Act states “. . . the fundamental mission of our System is wildlife 

conservation: wildlife and wildlife conservation must come first.’’ BIDEH are critical components 

of wildlife conservation. As later made clear in the Biological Integrity, Diversity and 

Environmental Health Policy (601 FW 3) “. . . the highest measure of biological integrity, diversity, 

and environmental health is viewed as those intact and self-sustaining habitats and wildlife 

populations that existed during historic conditions.” 

Under the Administration Act, each refuge must be managed to fulfill the NWRS mission as well as 

the specific purposes for which it was established. The Administration Act requires the Service to 

monitor the status and trends of fish, wildlife, and plants in each refuge.

Additionally, the Administration Act identifies six wildlife-dependent recreational uses for the 

NWRS. These uses are hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental 

education, and interpretation. Under the Administration Act, the Service is to grant these six 

wildlife-dependent public uses special consideration in the planning for, management of, and 

establishment and expansion of units of the NWRS. The overarching goal of wildlife-dependent 

public uses is to enhance opportunities and access to quality wildlife-dependent visitor experiences 

on refuges, while managing refuges to conserve fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats. When 

determined compatible on a refuge-specific basis, these six uses assume priority status among all 

uses of the refuge in question. The Service is to make extra efforts to facilitate priority wildlifedependent public use opportunities. 

When preparing a CCP, refuge managers must re-evaluate all general public, recreational, and 

economic uses (even those occurring to further habitat management goals) proposed or occurring on 

a refuge for appropriateness and compatibility. No refuge use may be allowed or continued unless it 

is determined to be appropriate and compatible. Generally, an appropriate use is one that contributes 

to fulfilling refuge purposes, the NWRS mission, or goals and objectives described in a refuge 

management plan. A compatible use is a use that, in the sound professional judgment of the refuge 

manager, will not materially interfere with, or detract from, fulfillment of the mission of the NWRS 

or the purposes of the refuge. Updated appropriate use and compatibility determinations are in 

Appendices A and B of this CCP. 

The Administration Act also requires that, in addition to formally established guidance, the CCP 

must be developed with the participation of the public. Issues and concerns articulated by the public 

play a role in the development of the CCP, and together with formal guidance, can play a role in 

selection of the selected alternative. It is Service policy that CCPs are developed in an open public 

process and that the agency is committed to securing public input throughout the process. Appendix 

K outlines the public involvement that has been undertaken during the CCP process. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

1-6 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background

Public Use of CLNWR

The first priority of the NWRS is to protect the biological resources entrusted to the Service and the 

irreplaceable cultural resources found within the NWRS. Consistent with the Administration Act, the 

Service makes a special effort to provide wildlife-dependent public use opportunities across the 

NWRS. Balancing these often-conflicting goals is accomplished through a variety of means, 

including the development of CCPs. 

To determine what uses can be allowed on a national wildlife refuge, the Service first determines 

whether the use is appropriate. For this CCP, refuge staff applied a series of questions/ standards to 

determine whether a use was appropriate (see Appendix A). If the activity was determined to be an 

appropriate use of CLNWR, the refuge developed what are known as compatibility determinations 

(CDs). These CDs determine whether the proposed activity is compatible with the refuge’s purposes 

and the mission of the NWRS. Only if the activity is determined compatible with resource protection 

by the MCRNWRC Project Leader, with concurrence by the Region 1 Refuge Chief, may it occur. 

The CDs for CLNWR are presented in Appendix B. 

1.5.3 Other Laws and Mandates

Many other Federal laws, executive orders, Service policies, and international treaties govern the 

Service and NWRS lands. Examples include the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Refuge 

Recreation Act of 1962, National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), Yakama Treaty of 

1855, and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). The more relevant of these are described in 

Appendix I. For further information on laws and other mandates of interest to the Service, a list and 

brief description can be found in the Laws Digest at www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest.html.

In addition, over the last few years, the Service has developed or revised numerous policies and 

Director’s Orders to reflect the mandates and intent of the Administration Act. Some of these key 

policies include the Native American Policy; Biological Integrity, Diversity and Environmental 

Health Policy (601 FW 3); Compatibility Policy (603 FW 2); Comprehensive Conservation Planning 

Policy (602 FW 3); Mission, Goals and Purposes (601 FW 1), Appropriate Refuge Uses (603 FW 1); 

Wildlife-Dependent Public Uses (605 FW 1); wilderness-related policies (610 FW 1–5); and the 

Director’s Order for Coordination and Cooperative Work with State Fish and Wildlife Agency 

Representatives on Management of the NWRS. These policies and others can be found at 

refuges.fws.gov/ policymakers/nwrpolicies.html. 

In developing a CCP, refuges must consider these broader laws and policies, as well as NWRS and 

ecosystem goals and visions. The CCP must be consistent with these and also with the refuge 

purpose(s). 

1.5.4 Tribal Rights and Interests

Although the tribes and the Service may discuss tribal treaty rights within context of the CCP 

process, the Service believes that defining the application of treaty rights is outside the scope of this 

CCP. At their request, the Service will meet with area tribes independent of the CCP process to 

develop memorandums of understanding (MOUs) and other instruments that are respectful of the 

rights and needs of the tribes, in accordance with Service tribal policies, and consistent with 

preserving the natural and cultural resources of CLNWR. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-7 

There is a unique and distinctive relationship between the United States and Native American 

governments—as defined by treaties, statutes, court decisions, and the United States Constitution—

that differentiates Native American sovereign governments from other interests and constituencies. 

Several tribes have historically occupied or used portions of CLNWR. The Treaty of 1855 created 

the Yakama Indian Reservation (see Appendix I) and CLNWR is within the exterior boundary of the 

reservation. 

Through this and other treaties, the Yakama Nation retained certain lands for exclusive use (the 

reservation) and also retained the rights to continue traditional activities outside the reservations. 

These reserved rights include those to hunt, gather food and medicines, and pasture livestock on open 

and unclaimed lands. 

Tribal access to the refuge for gathering and other traditional practices is guided by the Service’s 

Native American Policy. If needed, the Service will seek to develop agreements with each tribe for 

addressing tribal access to areas for foods, collection of medicines and other resources, traditional 

practices, and other tribal concerns.

The existing Service Native American Policy, Executive Order (EO) 13175, and legislation provides 

guidance for directing on-going consultation. The Native American Policy, in particular, assists the 

Service in accomplishing its mission of resource protection while also guiding the Federal

government’s interactions with tribes to:

. . . assist Native Americans in protecting, conserving, and utilizing their reserved 

guarantee of statutorily identified trust resources. The Service will consult with 

Native American governments on fish and wildlife resource matters of mutual interest 

and concern to keep Native American governments involved in such matters from 

initiation to completion of related Service activities. . . . The Service will continue to 

involve Native American governments in all Service actions that may affect cultural 

or religious interests, including archaeological sites. The Service is guided by such 

legislation as the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, the Native American 

Graves Protection Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Native American 

Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, and Archaeological Resources Protection 

Act.

1.5.5 State of Washington Wildlife Management

The Service has primary jurisdiction of fish and wildlife on refuge lands as established through a 

variety of laws, policies, and directives related to migratory and resident fish and wildlife resources 

on Federal lands. However, the Administration Act states in part, “Nothing in this Act shall be 

construed as affecting the authority, jurisdiction, or responsibility of the several States to manage, 

control, or regulate fish and resident wildlife under State law or regulations in any area within the 

[NWRS]. Regulations permitting hunting or fishing of fish and resident wildlife within the [NWRS] 

shall be, to the extent practicable, consistent with State fish and wildlife laws, regulations, and 

management plans.” 

Federal management activity involving migratory birds and other wildlife residing on units of the 

NWRS is a Federal function specifically authorized by Congress. It is, therefore, for the Secretary of 

the Interior to determine whether units of the NWRS shall be open to public uses, such as hunting and 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

1-8 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background

fishing, and on what terms such access shall be granted. However, in recognition of the existing 

jurisdictional relationship between the states and the Federal government, Congress has directed that, 

to the maximum extent practicable, such public uses shall be consistent with state laws and 

regulations (43 CFR 24.4). Consistent with the Administration Act, the Director of the Service will 

“interact, coordinate, cooperate, and collaborate with state fish and wildlife agencies in a timely and 

effective manner on the acquisition and management of national wildlife refuges” (Director’s Order 

Number 148). 

1.6 Refuge Establishment and Purposes

The purposes for which a refuge was established or acquired is of key importance in refuge planning. 

Purposes must form the foundation for management decisions. Refuge purposes are the driving force 

in the development of refuge vision statements, goals, objectives, and strategies in a CCP and are 

critical to determining the compatibility of existing and proposed refuge uses. 

1.6.1 Legal Significance of the Refuge Purpose

The purposes of a refuge are specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, executive order, 

agreement, public land order, donation document, administrative memorandum, etc., establishing, 

authorizing, or expanding a refuge. 

Unless the establishing law, order, or other document indicates otherwise, purposes dealing with the 

conservation, management, and restoration of fish, wildlife, and plants, and the habitats on which 

they depend, take precedence over other purposes in the management and administration of any 

refuge. Where a refuge has multiple purposes related to fish, wildlife, and plant conservation, the 

more specific purpose will take precedence in instances of conflict. When additional lands are 

acquired under an authority different from the authority used to establish the original unit, the 

addition takes on the purpose(s) of the original unit, but the original unit does not take on the 

purposes of the newer addition. When a conflict exists between the NWRS mission and the purpose 

of an individual refuge, the refuge purpose may supersede the mission. 

1.6.2 History of Refuge Establishment and Purposes

CLNWR was established in 1965 with the purchase of the 920-acre Dilling Tract, although the 

authorization for its establishment was granted during the August 10, 1964, quarterly meeting of the 

Migratory Bird Conservation Commission (MBCC). The minutes of the MBCC is the sole 

establishing documentation for the CLNWR; there have been no public land orders, executive orders, 

etc., related to CLNWR. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-9 

General Refuge Establishment Authorities

Executive Order 9337 – April 24, 1943. This Executive Order of President Franklin Roosevelt 

authorized the Secretary of the Interior to withdraw and reserve lands of the public domain and other 

lands owned or controlled by the United States. 

Executive Order 10355 – May 26, 1952. President Harry Truman’s Executive Order delegated to the 

Secretary of the Interior the authority of the President to withdraw or reserve lands of the United 

States for public purposes. This Executive Order superseded Executive Order 9337 of April 24, 

1943. 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act (Public Law 70-770) – February 18, 1929. “A commission to be 

known as the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission . . . is created and authorized to consider and 

pass upon any area of land, water, or land and water that may be recommended by the Secretary of 

the Interior for purchase or rental [as sanctuaries for migratory birds]. The Secretary of the Interior 

may . . . purchase or rent such areas or interests therein as have been approved for purchase or rental 

by the Commission . . . [or] . . . acquire, by gift or devise, any area or interests therein . . . which he 

determines to be suitable for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for 

migratory birds. . . .” The funds for the purchase of lands and interests in lands was subsequently 

greatly expanded through the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (aka Duck Stamp 

Act) which requires that each waterfowl hunter over the age of 16 purchase a Federal hunting stamp, 

the proceeds of which fund the activities of the MBCC. 

Fish and Wildlife Act (Public Law 84-1024) – August 8, 1956. Under this legislation, the Secretary 

of the Interior was granted the authority to “. . . take such steps as may be required for the 

development, management, advancement, conservation, and protection of wildlife resources through 

research, acquisition of refuge lands, development of existing facilities, and other means.” 

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (Public Law 88-578) – September 3, 1964. The Land and 

Water Conservation Fund Act established mechanisms to collect funds for. . . preserving, developing, 

and assuring accessibility to all citizens of the United States . . . quality and quantity of outdoor 

recreation resources ... Moneys appropriated from the fund for Federal purposes shall, unless 

otherwise allotted in the appropriation Act making them available, be allotted by the President to the 

following purposes and subpurposes...National Wildlife Refuge System–Acquisition for (a) 

endangered species and threatened species authorized under section 5(a) of the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973;...(c) national wildlife refuge areas under section 7(a)(5) of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 

1956 (16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4); and wetlands acquired under section 304 of the Emergency Wetlands 

Resources Act of 1986; (d) any areas authorized for the National Wildlife Refuge System by specific

Acts. 

Endangered Species Act (Public Law 93-205) – December 28, 1973. “The Secretary [of the Interior] 

. . . shall establish and implement a program to conserve fish, wildlife, and plants, including those 

that are listed as endangered species or threatened species . . . To carry out such a program, the 

appropriate Secretary shall utilize the land acquisition authority under the Fish and Wildlife Act of 

1956 . . . the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act . . . and the Migratory Bird Conservation Act . . . 

and is authorized to acquire by purchase, donation, or otherwise, lands, waters, interests therein, and 

such authority shall be in addition to any other land acquisition authority vested in him.” 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

1-10 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background

Specific Refuge Establishment Authorities

Below are citations from MBCC meeting minutes that document some of the management focus at 

CLNWR. 

Migratory Bird Conservation Commission – August 10, 1964, and March 22, 2000. Under the 

authorities of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, the established MBCC agreed to create CLNWR 

for these reasons: 

• Restoration of these lands [i.e., hay lands] to former wetland habitat and stabilization of 

spring and summer water levels in managed impoundments will ensure greater waterfowl 

nesting and production of aquatic vegetation for all seasons’ use. (MBCC Meeting, 

August 10, 1964) 

• Proposed water development and management will be based primarily on the needs for 

nesting waterfowl with secondary benefits to migrating ducks and geese. (MBCC 

Meeting, August 10, 1964) 

• . . . migration and nesting habitat for many waterfowl species, including mallard, pintail, 

cinnamon teal, and wood ducks, as well as Canada Geese. (MBCC Meeting, March 22, 

2000) 

• . . . one of three known nesting sites for greater Sandhill cranes in Washington. (MBCC 

Meeting, March 22, 2000) 

• . . . important wetlands used by resident wildlife as well as migratory waterfowl. (MBCC 

Meeting, March 22, 2000) 

The Service’s National Wildlife Refuge System database states the purposes for CLNWR: 

• . . . for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory 

birds. 16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) 

• . . . suitable for (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened 

species. 16 U.S.C. § 460k-1 

• . . . the Secretary . . . may accept and use . . . real . . . property. Such acceptance may be 

accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors. 

16 U.S.C. § 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 460k-460k-4), as amended)

• . . . to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened 

species . . . or (B) plants . . . 16 U.S.C. § 1534 (Endangered Species Act of 1973) 

1.7 Relationship to Ecosystem and Other Planning Efforts

When developing a CCP, the Service considers the goals and objectives of existing national, 

regional, and ecosystem plans; state fish and wildlife conservation plans; and other landscape-scale 

plans developed for the same watershed or ecosystem in which the refuge is located. To the extent 

possible, the CCP is expected to be consistent with the existing plans and assist in meeting their 

conservation goals and objectives (Part 602 FW 3.3). This section summarizes some of the key plans 

reviewed by members of the core team while developing the CCP. This section is not inclusive of all 

the relevant plans that are relevant for refuge planning and management. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-11

1.7.1 Regional Plans

Northwest Power and Conservation Council Klickitat Subbasin Plans

The Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC) has overseen the development of plans for 

each of the 60 interior tributary subbasins of the Columbia River. Subbasin plans are expected to 

assess the biological potential of the subbasin and to describe opportunities for restoration. Plans 

also describe the amount of habitat change that has occurred within the subbasin and limiting factors 

(analogous to stresses/sources in this plan). The plans are the basis for review of proposals each year 

for the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) by the fish and wildlife agencies and tribes, the 

Independent Scientific Review Panel, and the NPCC. All of CLNWR is situated within the Klickitat 

Subbasin. Focal habitats included in the subbasin plan occurring on CLNWR include montane 

coniferous wetlands, ponderosa pine/Oregon white oak forests and woodlands, interior grasslands 

and interior riparian areas. These habitats include a set of focal species selected for the subbasin 

plan. Quantitative objectives were written for each focal habitat, based on the needs of selected focal 

species. CLNWR will have the opportunity every 5 years to submit project proposals for BPA 

funding that are consistent with the subbasin plan. 

The Nature Conservancy (TNC) East Cascades – Modoc Plateau and West Cascades 

Ecoregional Assessment

Ecoregional assessments offer a means to evaluate and implement biodiversity conservation at a 

regional scale. An ecoregional assessment identifies a portfolio of sites for conservation action with 

a goal of protecting biodiversity and ecologically significant populations. These assessments are the 

result of rigorous analysis that has been extensively reviewed by experts and represent a 

comprehensive effort to provide the widest variety of habitats within individual river drainage. 

TNC’s intent is to create a shared vision for agencies and other organizations at the regional, state, 

and local levels which will ensure efficient allocation of conservation resources. Biodiversity 

conservation in these ecoregions will be most effective if all conservation organizations coordinate to 

protect and restore biodiversity according to the priorities identified by this process. 

U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem 

Management Plan

This project was an ambitious effort covering the majority of the Inland Northwest and is one of the 

best sources of broad-scale ecosystem analysis for the region. The scientific assessment which 

underlies the plan identified numerous threats to the ecological integrity of the basin. It provides a 

planning model for ecosystem management that has four iterative steps—monitoring, assessment, 

decision-making, and implementation. The model proposed is an adaptive model and is based upon 

an appreciation that people are part of, not separate from, ecosystems. Its chief value to CLNWR is 

in identifying regional and local trends, and in proposed risk management options that will dovetail 

with the goals, objectives, and strategies outlined in this CCP. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

1-12 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background

1.7.2 Migratory Bird Plans

Birds of Conservation Concern

Based on the efforts and assessment scores of three major bird conservation efforts (Partners In 

Flight, the United States Shorebird Conservation Plan, and the North American Waterbird 

Conservation Plan), this report identifies, by Service Region and by Bird Conservation Region 

(BCR), the bird species most in need of conservation attention. CLNWR is located within BCR 

Region 9, for which 29 species are listed. 

Partners in Flight (PIF), East Slope Cascade Mountains Plan

The primary goal of the Conservation Strategy for Landbirds in the East Slope of the Cascade 

Mountains in Oregon and Washington is to ensure long-term maintenance of healthy populations of 

native landbirds. Specific management activities and strategies are recommended to guide planning 

efforts and actions of land managers, direct expenditures of government and non-government 

organizations, and stimulate monitoring and research to support landbird conservation. The 

recommendations also are expected to be the foundation for developing detailed conservation 

strategies at multiple geographic scales to ensure functional ecosystems with healthy populations of 

landbirds. 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan

The North American Waterfowl Management Plan, signed by the United States and Canada in 1986 

and by Mexico in 1994, provides a strategy to protect North America’s remaining wetlands and to 

conserve waterfowl populations through habitat protection, restoration, and enhancement. The plan 

contains population goals for several species and groups of species by season or life stage. The plan 

was updated in 2004 with an emphasis on strengthening the biological foundation, using a landscape 

approach, and expanding partnerships. Additional strategic guidance was provided in a 2004 update, 

with specific population objectives by species. Implementation of this plan is accomplished at the 

regional level through partnerships, within 11 Joint Venture areas. CLNWR is located within the 

area of the Intermountain West Joint Venture. The document, a 15-year plan, contains speciesspecific population objectives as a step-down from the North American Waterfowl Plan and 

evaluations of whether the continental population is currently short or over the target. There are also 

flyway goals for production by species. The Columbia Basin is recognized as one of 67 areas of 

continental significance to waterfowl, but the plan does not target population objectives for wintering 

or migratory waterfowl by area. 

Pacific Flyway Plans

Flyway management plans are the products of Flyway Councils, developed to help state and Federal 

agencies cooperatively manage migratory game birds. These plans typically focus on populations. 

The Pacific Flyway Council has prepared 29 management plans to date in either draft or final form 

available at pacificflyway.gov/Abstracts.asp#rmts. The following flyway management plans pertain 

to CLNWR and the CCP: 

• Canada Geese: Lesser and Taverner’s, Pacific Western, Rocky Mountain, Western, 

Depredation Control 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-13

• Greater White-fronted Geese: Pacific, Tule

• Snow Geese: Wrangel Island Lesser, Western Canadian Arctic Lesser 

• Ross’ Geese

• Swans: Pacific Trumpeter, Rocky Mountain Trumpeter, Western Tundra, Eastern Tundra 

• Sandhill Cranes: Pacific Coast, Central Valley

• Mourning Dove: National Mourning Dove Plan 

Intermountain West Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan

According to this plan, the Intermountain West is North America’s most important inland area for 

maintaining the continent’s shorebird populations. The plan identifies major shorebird issues in the 

region and outlines regional goals and objectives in the areas of habitat management, monitoring and 

assessment, research, outreach, and planning. Key issues identified in the plan include water quality 

and quantity; maintenance and enhancement of populations of long-billed curlew, mountain plover, 

and upland sandpiper; depredation of eggs and young; regional coordination; agriculture/shorebird 

interface; and wintering sites. Concern ranking scores are provided for each of the 15 shorebird 

species breeding or moving through the region. Species ranked as critically important include blacknecked stilt, American avocet, long-billed curlew, long-billed dowitcher, and Wilson’s phalarope. 

Intermountain West Region Waterbird Conservation Plan

This plan identifies the 41 waterbird species inhabiting the Intermountain West. The plan provides 

detailed background information for each species by BCR, including population estimates, 

identification of important areas, and an itemization of threats. For each BCR, species were 

categorized as high, moderate, or low concern, or as not currently at risk. Specific objectives are 

provided, usually framed in terms of overall population goals. Some habitat objectives are provided 

as well. The plan provides a useful section on research and education/outreach needs as well. A 

detailed species account is included for each of the 41 species. 

1.7.3 Other U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Plans

Several Service plans address management on either the MCRNWRC or CLNWR. 

CLNWR Hunting Plan

In 1992 a revised Hunting Plan was signed that allowed hunting of deer, geese, ducks, coots, and 

snipe. This revision eliminated hunting for band-tailed pigeons and upland game birds, primarily 

because none of these species exist in adequate numbers to allow hunting. Grouse hunting could 

potentially disrupt Sandhill cranes. The plan also does not allow for hunting of black bears or elk. 

Most of the provisions of the 1992 plan are carried forward into this CCP, although eliminating deer 

hunting (accepted) and allowing elk hunting (rejected) were considered in this CCP. The areas open 

to hunting remain the same. 

CLNWR Public Use Management and Development Plan

In 1984 a public use plan was adopted. Included in the plan were facilities such as a hunter boat 

launch, wildlife viewing platform, and new signs. It also included development of a teachers’ guide, 

highway maps, refuge brochures, and kiosks. Wildlife-dependent recreational activities were 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

1-14 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background

addressed and supported, although the plan is short on details. In the intervening years, some of the 

items/actions have been implemented (e.g., refuge brochure), some not (e.g., teachers’ guide). 

Despite its limited use and implementation, the existing plan has been useful as a starting point for 

actions proposed in this CCP and coincides with the actions in this CCP. 

CLNWR Sport Fishing Plan

In 1984 a Sport Fishing Plan was signed that allowed fishing on the lower 0.25 mile of Outlet Creek. 

Although other areas of the refuge supported target fish species, the decision to limit the fishing area 

to a section of Outlet Creek was so that it would not interfere with waterfowl nesting along ditch 

banks. By limiting the fishing area to Outlet Creek, it was determined through a 1976 environmental 

assessment that fishing would not have a significant impact on the environment. This scenario is 

being carried forward into this CCP. 

CLNWR Visitor Experience Site Plan

In 2011 the Service contracted for a design plan to address landscaping, interpretation along trails, 

trail redesigns, informational and interpretive kiosks, wildlife observation sites, visitor and staff 

parking, and several other facilities considerations. Most of the proposed elements are included

within this CCP in Goals 6–8 in Chapter 2. Other elements have already been implemented or are in 

the process of being implemented. 

CLNWR Water Management Plan

The CLNWR Water Management Plan addresses the current water management needs and 

capabilities within the context of the existing infrastructure and landowner arrangements. Water 

management needs are defined by supporting refuge wildlife habitat goals and objectives. The plan 

prescribes specific water management procedures for 32 water management units within the refuge 

by monitoring 34 water gauges set on the various units and creek systems. Water management 

capabilities of the units vary, with a few having no current management capabilities. Water enters 

the refuge through precipitation and slope run-off, springs, Frasier Creek, Holmes Creek, Chapman 

Creek, and Bird Creek. All water ultimately flows into and exits the refuge through the Camas Ditch 

and Outlet Creek, then downstream (northeast) into the Klickitat River. 

MCRNWRC Fire Management Plan

The 2009 Mid-Columbia River National Wildlife Refuge Complex Fire Management Plan details 

how the refuge will respond to the threat of wildfire and determines under what circumstances to use 

fire as a management tool. This plan will remain as is, and no changes to fire management 

capabilities or opportunities are proposed in this CCP. 

1.7.4 Washington State Plans

The Service is committed to participating in Washington State planning efforts and assisting in their 

implementation, where feasible and affordable.
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-15

Washington Natural Heritage Plan

This plan describes Washington State programs, especially the Natural Areas Program, for 

conservation of the state’s biological diversity. Species and ecosystem types (habitat associations) 

are ranked in terms of conservation priority. Of approximately 800 plant and wetland communities 

located within the state, 250 are considered priorities for conservation. Lists of rare animals, rare 

plants, and priority communities are located at www.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/. 

Washington Status Report for the Mardon Skipper

The Mardon skipper is a small, tawny-orange butterfly currently found at only four small, 

geographically unconnected areas in Washington, Oregon, and California. In Washington, nine of 18 

historic sites are known to be occupied, including CLNWR. Based on several years of repeated 

survey efforts, it has been concluded that populations at five historic sites have been extirpated, four 

in south Puget Sound and one in the southern Cascades. The current status of four other sites is 

uncertain. Grasslands of the Puget prairies and Washington’s southern Cascades are believed to 

support just a few hundred individuals. 

In the southern Cascades, the Mardon skipper is found in open, fescue grasslands within ponderosa 

pine savanna/woodland, at elevations ranging from 1,900' to 5,100'. South Cascade sites vary in size 

from small, 1/2-acre or less meadows to large grassland complexes, and site conditions range from 

dry, open ridgetops, to areas associated with wetlands or riparian habitats. A variety of nectar source 

plants are important to the butterfly; on CLNWR the short, open stature of native, fescue bunchgrass 

stands allows Mardon skippers to access nectar and a place to safely lay eggs (oviposition). 

In the south Cascades, the Mardon skipper relies on grasslands. However, during the past 150 years, 

native grasslands have been developed, fragmented and degraded. More than 95% of the original 

prairie grasslands are gone from western Washington. One reason is likely due to fire suppression. 

Fire historically played an important role in maintaining grassland plant communities, and 

suppression has allowed woodlands to encroach. Mardon skippers were likely more widespread and 

abundant prior to large-scale loss of their open, fescue-dominated, grassland habitat. 

The grassland and savanna landscapes upon which Mardon skippers depend are threatened today by 

forest encroachment, invasion by native and non-native plants, development, recreational activities, 

grazing, agricultural practices, and application of herbicides. The butterflies themselves are 

threatened by insecticides, control practices for invasive plants, military training, fire, and 

recreational activities. Of the population sites remaining, many are under assault from invasive nonnative plants and have human uses which are incompatible with butterfly management. At none of 

the Mardon skipper sites does a mandate and dedicated funding occur for managing the site for 

Mardon skipper habitat. Due to the Mardon skipper’s small population size, limited distribution, 

isolation, and the numerous factors threatening the species and its remaining habitat, the Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) believes the species is vulnerable to extirpation. As such, 

WDFW has recommended the Mardon skipper be classified as a state endangered species (WDFW 

1999). 

Washington Status Report for the Oregon Spotted Frog

The Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) is endemic to the Pacific Northwest. Historically, it ranged 

from southwestern British Columbia south to the northeast corner of California. In Washington, the 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

1-16 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background

Oregon spotted frog was historically found in the Puget Trough from the Canadian border to the 

Columbia River and east into the southern Washington Cascades. 

Oregon spotted frogs breed in late winter or early spring. Females lay their eggs in communal 

oviposition sites; areas of shallow, still, or slow-moving water and sparse, emergent wetland 

vegetation. Eggs hatch in 18 to 30 days, and the tadpoles grow and develop for 13 to 16 weeks prior 

to metamorphosis in mid-summer. Oregon spotted frogs mature and begin breeding at 2 or 3 years of 

age.

Oregon spotted frogs are almost entirely aquatic in habit, leaving the wetlands only occasionally and 

for short duration. Wetlands associated with lakes, ponds, and slow-moving streams provide suitable 

habitat. However, these aquatic environments must include a shallow emergent wetland component 

to be capable of supporting an Oregon spotted frog population. Historically, this critical element was 

found in the floodplains of many larger water bodies. Various emergent wetland and floating aquatic 

plants are found in abundance in Oregon spotted frog habitat. Adult female and juvenile frogs, in 

particular, spend summers in relatively warm water of this shallow emergent wetland environment. 

Within Washington, Oregon spotted frog populations face a myriad of threats. Historically, the 

shallow floodplain pools that Oregon spotted frogs inhabited were drained, diked, and filled to 

accommodate human needs. Exotic plants like reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) have 

changed the character of many wetlands and reduced their value as habitat for Oregon spotted frogs. 

Oregon spotted frogs are preyed upon during all life stages by a wide variety of predators, ranging 

from invertebrates that prey on eggs, to garter snakes (Thamnophis spp.) and herons (family 

Ardeidae) that feed on adults. Among the most significant predators are various introduced species, 

most notably the numerous warmwater fish species (primarily of the families Centrarchidae, 

Percidae, and Ictaluridae) introduced for sport fishing and the bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana). Because 

of their life histories and habitat affinities, these introduced species pose serious threats to Oregon 

spotted frog populations. Based on an assessment of presence at historical localities, the species is 

estimated to have been lost from 78% of its former range. However, considering the broad former 

range suggested by the historic data, it is likely the species has actually been lost from over 90% of 

its former range. 

The locations for 11 historic populations in Washington have been verified using museum specimen 

and published records. Only one historically known population and two recently discovered 

populations are known to remain in Washington. An additional 20 extant populations are known in 

Oregon and one in British Columbia. Due to the limited number of extant populations and the 

inadequacy of existing protection for these populations, the State of Washington has recommended 

that the Oregon spotted frog be listed as a state endangered species. Likewise, the Service is also 

evaluating listing the species as threatened or endangered in 2013 (WDFW 1997). 

Washington Sandhill Crane Recovery Plan

The Sandhill crane has been listed as an endangered species by the State of Washington since 1981. 

Sandhill cranes are represented in Washington by a small number of greater Sandhill cranes that 

breed in Klickitat and Yakima Counties, about 23,000 lesser Sandhill cranes that stop in eastern 

Washington during migration and 3,000–4,000 cranes (Canadian and possibly some lesser and 

greater Sandhill cranes) that stop on lower Columbia River bottomlands. On CLNWR it is the 

greater Sandhill crane that is of management concern, although some lesser Sandhill cranes 

undoubtedly occasionally pass through. Greater Sandhill cranes nest on CLNWR. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-17

The greater Sandhill cranes that breed in Washington are part of the Central Valley Population, socalled because they winter in California’s Central Valley. Other members of this population nest in 

Oregon, California, Nevada, and interior British Columbia. The historical distribution of breeding 

cranes in Washington was poorly documented, but the few historical accounts mention breeding in 

south-central, northeastern, and southeastern regions, and the southern Puget Sound Basin. 

Sandhill crane numbers had been severely reduced due to widespread habitat destruction concurrent 

with human settlement, and perhaps more importantly, unregulated hunting which continued until 

passage of the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act in 1916. The species disappeared as a breeder 

from the state after 1941 when the last nest was documented at Signal Peak, Yakima County, in 

south-central Washington. They were again found summering in the Glenwood Valley on CLNWR 

in 1972, but it was not until 1979 that nesting was confirmed. Since then other nesting sites have 

been reestablished, including Yakama Nation lands in Yakima County; Panakanic Valley in Klickitat 

County, and on Washington Department of Natural Resource (WDNR) lands along Deer Creek in 

Yakima County. The nesting population on CLNWR is somewhere around 26–27 pairs. Factors 

currently affecting Washington’s breeding greater Sandhill cranes include predation, incompatible 

grazing and haying practices, water availability and management, and habitat loss.

The goal of the Washington recovery plan is to restore a healthy breeding population of cranes and to 

maintain the flocks that winter or stop in Washington. To reach this goal, the plan calls for 

expansion of the breeding range of greater Sandhill cranes into former breeding areas in eastern 

Washington and protection of habitat for crane wintering and staging during migration. The plan 

identifies recovery objectives that must be reached and outlines strategies to use in meeting them 

before down-listing of the species to threatened or sensitive can occur. The Sandhill crane will be 

considered for down-listing from state endangered to state threatened status when the state’s overall 

breeding population reaches at least 65 territorial pairs with an average annual recruitment rate of >8 

% and effective water management control is established at CLNWR. The Sandhill crane will be 

considered for down-listing to state sensitive when the state’s breeding population reaches at least 

130 territorial pairs with an average annual recruitment rate of >8 %, and habitat used by cranes at 

the major staging sites in eastern Washington is protected through management agreements or 

easements. Also, for down-listing to sensitive, habitat needed to maintain 2,000 migrant and 500 

wintering cranes should be secured and managed for cranes on the lower Columbia River 

bottomlands in Washington (WDFW 2002). 

Washington Western Gray Squirrel Recovery Plan

The western gray squirrel is an arboreal squirrel best known for its large size, gray pelage, and 

plumose, white-tipped tail. Western gray squirrels are often confused with introduced eastern gray 

squirrels that are increasingly common in Washington’s urban areas. Historically, western gray 

squirrels in Washington were widely distributed in transitional forests of mast-(the fruit of woody 

plants used as food for wildlife) producing Oregon white oak, ponderosa pine, and Douglas-fir, such 

as those on CLNWR. Western gray squirrels play an important role in maintaining oak woodlands 

by planting acorns and disseminating spores of fungi that aid tree growth. 

During the 20th century, the Washington population of western gray squirrels experienced great 

reductions in both numbers and distribution. The species now occurs as separate populations in the 

Puget Trough, Klickitat, and Okanogan regions that are estimated to total between 468 and 1,405 

individuals. These three populations are genetically isolated from one another and have been isolated 

from those in Oregon and California for at least 12,000 years. None of the three current populations 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

1-18 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background

seems to be large enough to avoid a decline in genetic diversity, and at least two may suffer from the 

negative effects of inbreeding.

The western gray squirrel was listed as a threatened species in Washington in 1993 by the 

Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission (WFWC), and its native oak habitat is recognized as a 

WDFW Priority Habitat. The Service considers the western gray squirrel a species of concern in 

western Washington, and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) recognizes it as a sensitive species and a 

management indicator species for oak-pine communities. Washington populations of the western 

gray squirrel have not recovered from past reductions in their range, and existing populations face 

significant threats to their survival. The western gray squirrel is vulnerable because of the small size 

and isolation of remnant populations. Major threats to the western gray squirrel in Washington 

include habitat loss and degradation, road-kill mortality, and disease. Populations of eastern gray 

squirrels, fox squirrels, California ground squirrels, and wild turkeys are expanding and may compete 

with, and negatively impact, western gray squirrel populations. Competition with eastern gray 

squirrels may be an important current issue for the population in southwestern Klickitat County. 

California ground squirrels, which became established in Washington in the 20th century, may also 

compete with western gray squirrels in Klickitat County. 

In Klickitat County, squirrels face a myriad of problems. Habitat has been lost to urbanization and 

other development. Conifer-dominated stands of large diameter and mast-producing trees of pine 

and oak with interconnected crowns are particularly important in the life history of the western gray 

squirrel; logging that removes the large mast-producing trees and results in evenly spaced trees with 

few or no canopy connections reduces habitat quality. Habitat also has been degraded by fire 

exclusion and historic over-grazing. Road-kill is a frequent source of mortality for western gray 

squirrels. Notoedric mange, a disease caused by mites, periodically becomes epidemic in western 

gray squirrel populations and appears to be the predominant source of mortality in some years. The 

incidence and severity of mange epidemics appears to be related to stresses in the local population 

precipitated by periodic food shortages. 

Recovery actions are needed to maintain and restore western gray squirrel populations in 

Washington. The WDFW recovery plan identifies western gray squirrel recovery areas and interim 

recovery objectives for these areas. The recovery plan outlines strategies intended to restore a viable 

western gray squirrel population in the South Cascade Recovery Area. The western gray squirrel 

will be reclassified from state threatened to state sensitive status when management plans, 

agreements, regulations, and other mechanisms are in place that effectively protect the habitat values 

for western gray squirrel populations and the following population levels are maintained: 

• A total population of 3,300 adult western gray squirrels in the South Cascades Recovery 

Area;

• A total population of 1,000 adult western gray squirrels in the North Cascades Recovery 

Area; and

• A population of >300 adults is restored and maintained in the Puget Trough Recovery Area. 

Recovery objectives may be modified as more is learned about the habitat needs and population 

structure of this species. Increasing and maintaining a population in the Puget Trough and the North 

Cascades may require augmentation with individuals from healthier populations. Western gray 

squirrel recovery strategies include protecting and monitoring populations, restoring depleted 

populations and degraded habitat, and protecting suitable oak-conifer habitat from harmful timber 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-19

practices, catastrophic fires, and loss to development. Research is needed on the habitat requirements 

and factors limiting western gray squirrel populations, the role of disease in dynamics of populations, 

and to refine survey and population monitoring methods. Successful recovery of the western gray 

squirrel in Washington will depend on cooperative efforts of large and small private landowners, 

Native American tribes, counties, and multiple public agencies (WDFW 2007). 

1.8 Planning and Issue Identification

The Service evaluated the issues and concerns raised during public scoping. Issues are defined as 

matters of controversy, dispute, or general concern over resource management activities, the 

environment, land uses, or public use activities. Issues are important to the planning process because 

they identify topics to be addressed in the CCP, pinpoint the types of information to gather, and help 

define alternatives for the draft CCP. It is the Service’s responsibility to focus planning and analysis 

on the major issues. Major issues typically suggest different management actions or solutions are 

within the refuge’s jurisdiction and have a positive or negative effect on the resource. Major issues 

will and have influenced the decisions in this CCP. 

1.8.1 Land Acquisition, Exchanges, Conservation Easements

• How will CLNWR acquire inholdings? 

• If the refuge is unable to acquire inholdings, what actions will be pursued in order to provide 

suitable wildlife habitat, e.g., water management?

The approved acquisition boundary for CLNWR is 10,951 acres. The refuge currently encompasses 

approximately 6,353 acres in fee title ownership, plus a 718-acre easement. This easement restricts 

the development of the tract, but it does not allow Service management or monitoring of the site.

CLNWR is interspersed with private ranches and timberlands within the refuge boundary. This 

mixed ownership has resulted in negative impacts on some refuge resources due to: 1) early water 

drawdowns via private water control structures; 2) contiguous Service and private habitats that are 

subject to both documented and undocumented mutual agreements for drying, vegetation removal, 

and other mechanical disturbances for haying operations on both refuge and private lands; 3) 

agreements for ditch maintenance with the Klickitat Drainage District #1 (KDID); and 4) trespass 

cattle grazing. Acquisition or exchange of key inholdings continues to be crucial for fulfilling the 

long-term goals of CLNWR. 

1.8.2 Water Rights

• Does CLNWR receive all of its allotted water?

• How will the refuge manage points of diversions within private lands? 

• How will the refuge manage untimely water delivery actions by other users that affect refuge 

management?

• What are the water rights associated with springs? 

There are three types of water rights on CLNWR—water right claims, state-appropriated water 

rights, and decreed water rights. A water right claim is for a water right or beneficial use that existed 

prior to 1917 and the establishment of Washington Water Code, but one that has not been adjudicated 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

1-20 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background

yet. Washington State appropriative water rights are rights that have been obtained through the 

usual permitting process established by the Washington Water Code. A decreed water right is 

determined to have existed prior to 1917 and the establishment of the Washington Water Code. 

Decreed water rights are determined through water rights adjudication. 

As a result of Federal law and the treaty rights of several Pacific Northwest Indian tribes, the tribes 

are major stakeholders in water resource issues. Tribal treaty rights include fishing and hunting rights 

as well as rights to the protection of the water habitat necessary to realize those treaty rights. As of 

August 2011, Federally Reserved Rights for the tribal lands in the Upper and Middle Klickitat 

subbasin had not been quantified. The future of Tribal water rights in the Upper and Middle 

Klickitat is unknown. Within the Upper and Middle Klickitat, Bird Creek and Frasier Creek 

drainages were adjudicated by the State of Washington in 1918. The Hell Roaring Irrigation 

Company (HRIC) supplies over 116 cfs to the refuge through contributions of Bird, Muddy, and 

Hellroaring Creeks. 

The volume of Bird Creek water delivered to the refuge from the HRIC is not a fixed quantity and 

varies depending on seasonal supplies. “Bird Creek water is controlled and regulated by the Hell 

Roaring Irrigation Company which was organized as a stock company which sold shares. 

Shareholders are allowed proportionate shares of the annually available water. The water is not tied 

to any given land and shares in the irrigation company do not transfer with the land” (Langman D., 

Memo to the Refuge Manager, Conboy Lake NWR, Glenwood, WA, May 6, 1994). The refuge 

holds 26 of the 400 shares in the HRIC. Copies of the Hell Roaring Irrigation share certificates are 

on file in the Regional Office, Water Resources Branch. 

Two water right claims on Holmes and Chapman Creek, both with priority dates of 1900, claim a 

total of 600 cfs over 5280 acres of refuge lands. Refuge staff indicate that these flows are limited to 

brief flow periods during snowmelt and high intensity storm events. 

For the Water Resources Inventory and Assessment, the Service’s Water Rights Evaluation Network 

(WREN) database was cross checked with the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) Water 

Resources Explorer (http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/info/webmap.html) to ensure that the 

Service has current and updated water rights data. Place of Use (POU) and Point of Diversion (POD) 

from WDOE were limited to the township/range/section scale and as such, are spatially imprecise. 

GIS coordinates are not available for actual PODs. WREN has been updated to reflect all water 

rights on fee title and inholdings within the approved refuge boundary. 

In general, natural water flows are sufficient from November through April to fill all the wetlands 

and prairies on CLNWR. Since the refuge is situated at the bottom of the basin, and ultimately 

receives almost all tailwaters from upstream users, it generally receives sufficient water. However, 

because the refuge is located at the end of the water delivery system, it has also received unexpected 

water flows which have compromised management actions (such as drawdowns, flooded hay bales). 

There are four diversion points off the refuge. The significance of having points of diversion off the 

refuge is that the refuge may have to access private property to manage the diversion. 

Documented temperature increases over the past 20 years, and anticipated water shifts in rain/snow 

cycles due to climate change, will lead to an earlier spring drying trend in the valley. Therefore, the 

need to resolve CLNWR water rights and efficiently utilize and manage water flows is critical to 

achieving refuge purposes. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-21

1.8.3 Water Management

• How will CLNWR manage water to provide suitable wildlife habitat with respect to private 

lands? 

• What is the most efficient use of delivery water within the refuge?

• How will CLNWR manage water delivery system maintenance?

• What actions should the refuge take to sustain and restore priority habitats over the next 15 

years?

CLNWR manages approximately 3,500 acres of wet prairie, emergent marsh, and seasonally flooded 

scrub-shrub and forest land habitats, which encompass approximately 54% of the refuge. Water 

management is the single most important management issue on the refuge and within the Glenwood 

Valley. The habitat is important due to its biodiversity and its juxtaposition within the broader 

geographic landscape and to remaining populations of rare wildlife and plant species. In general, the 

goal is to manage wetlands that mimic the natural hydrology of the basin, where feasible. This 

includes maintaining the large contiguous wet prairie system (Camas Prairie) and the Conboy Lake 

wetland system.

The main hydrologic input to CLNWR is Bird Creek. Chapman, Holmes, and Frazier Creeks, along 

with several springs, provide additional seasonal flows. Chapman and Holmes Creeks provide early 

season water, whereas Bird Creek provides water later in the growing season due to the Hellroaring 

Irrigation District’s ability to shunt irrigation water to valley users. The only output from the refuge 

is Outlet Creek, which was channelized (straightened, controlled) approximately 100 years ago. 

Water management on CLNWR requires using all creek and sheet water flows entering Glenwood 

Valley. All of these flows have been diverted and/or modified into delivery and drainage ditches 

with associated dikes, water control structures, spillways, and many miles of minor ditches. Water 

management on the refuge is constrained due to the inability to control water on private lands 

(inholdings), failing dikes, plugged ditches, undersized culverts, and lack of water control structures. 

Challenges regarding water management on CLNWR include: 1) the KDID’s annual draining and 

irrigation of the Camas Prairie, and to a lesser extent Conboy Lake, for cattle grazing and haying by 

private landowners in the valley; 2) the KDID authority to dredge specific waterways (such as Camas 

Ditch/Outlet Creek) on the refuge when they become choked with vegetation or silt; and 3) the 

refuge not having the complete infrastructure required to control water independently from the KDID 

and other landowners. Historically, Glenwood Valley was ditched and drained to promote 

agricultural practices (farming, haying, grazing). As a result, much of the Camas Prairie is still 

annually drained to facilitate the production of hay and provide grass pastures on inholdings. These 

early drawdowns directly affect refuge management and subsequently have negative impacts on 

wildlife and plant resources, particularly Sandhill crane and waterfowl production. 

1.8.4 Wet Meadow, Riparian and Instream Habitat Management

• What actions should the refuge take to sustain and restore priority habitats over the next 15 

years?

• What habitat conditions should be targeted and rehabilitated on wetland habitats? 

• How will the refuge manage the long-term viability of wet meadows in response to pine 

encroachment?
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

1-22 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background

• How will the refuge approach managing or controlling reed canarygrass? 

These habitats are best characterized by the Camas Prairie and the areas including and surrounding 

the historic Conboy and Swan Lakes. Annual water inundation varies considerably depending on the 

unit location, rainfall, and snowpack, ability to flood/irrigate from the Bird Creek system, haying, 

and specific unit vegetation and management needs.

These areas are dominated by reed canarygrass, which may be differentially expressed annually 

depending on weather and water conditions. The Camas Prairie and other open sites are generally 

scoured of taller vegetation by winter ice and winds. Protected sites, however, often develop thick 

stands of canarygrass, which displace native species. 

The prairie habitats support a diversity of wildlife species, including invertebrates, amphibians, 

marsh birds, waterfowl, and Sandhill cranes. This habitat supplies essentially all the breeding habitat 

for the state endangered Oregon spotted frog in the Glenwood Valley, as well as that of other 

amphibians. It is essential for Sandhill crane rearing/foraging habitat and supports nearly all 

breeding and active season habitat for rails, Wilson’s snipe, and American bitterns, and it supplies 

brood habitat for waterfowl. 

Management of the prairie habitat is complicated by five private inholdings. Because these 

inholdings are hayed and grazed, they require a water regime that conflicts with wildlife and habitat 

needs. The refuge’s portion of the prairie (920 acres) is not hydrologically isolated from the private 

lands (320 acres), so early dewatering of inholdings concurrently dries up refuge lands. Initiation of 

drawdowns starts as early as April in some years and occurs during the breeding season of many of 

the wet prairie-dependent species. Documented impacts include drying of water around Sandhill 

crane nests and desiccation of Oregon spotted frog egg masses. These are the earliest breeding 

species, so it is assumed that other nesting species are impacted more severely.

Widespread encroachment of lodgepole pine and Douglas spiraea into wet meadow and prairie 

habitats on the refuge is a problem. Ponderosa pine can encroach into drier sites. This woody 

encroachment degrades prime breeding habitats for Sandhill cranes and Oregon spotted frogs. This 

condition could be caused by nearly a century of early dewatering and wild or manmade fires. 

Riparian habitats occur primarily along Bird Creek and some of the smaller ditches on CLNWR. 

Aspens, alders, and willows are the dominant native woody species within the riparian corridors. 

The historical extent of riparian habitat likely was limited to stream systems that entered or exited the 

valley. More riparian habitat may exist today due to its association with the miles of constructed 

ditches and re-channelization of creeks that has occurred during the past century. The potential 

riparian habitat acreage is relatively small in the valley.

Woody vegetation along the constructed dike system poses maintenance, management, and access 

issues. Tree roots compromise dike integrity, and downed trees block waterways, making water 

management difficult. Beavers are attracted to riparian areas; their dams, bank burrows, felled trees, 

and runways cause additional management problems. Although canopy cover provides shade along 

water courses, it may also shade out submergent and floating plants which provide substrates for 

invertebrate food resources and predator escape cover for Oregon spotted frogs. Therefore, there is a 

need to balance riparian cover with other aquatic species requirements. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-23

1.8.5 Short Grass (Wet Prairie and Upland Meadow) Management

• What actions should the refuge take to sustain and restore priority species and habitats over 

the next 15 years? 

• What habitat conditions should be targeted and rehabilitated on wetland habitats? 

• How should the refuge consider utilizing haying, grazing, or prescribed fire as a management 

tool? 

• What options exist in the absence of a haying program? 

• How will the refuge approach managing or controlling reed canarygrass? 

Reed canarygrass is widespread in wet meadows on CLNWR, and mowing and haying later in the 

growing season are utilized to reduce the reed canarygrass cover. These methods do not reduce 

infestations, but do serve to open up rank, densely vegetated areas, making them more useful for 

wildlife.

Haying is used to: 1) improve Oregon spotted frog breeding sites (short vegetation, warmer spring 

soil temperatures), especially where canarygrass is prevalent; 2) provide winter and spring green 

forage habitat for Canada geese; 3) enhance foraging opportunities for Sandhill cranes (access to 

invertebrates and small vertebrates); 4) reduce encroachment by woody species; and 5) provide open 

areas of water for wintering and migrating waterfowl. There has been little change in the haying 

program since the refuge was established. There are 31 hay allotments that total approximately 2,325 

acres of upland and wet meadows; however, less than one-half of that total is currently hayed. There 

are eight permittees that cut and harvest about 1,500 tons of hay annually on approximately 1,100 

acres of the refuge. Recent surveys indicate there will be less of a demand for hay in the valley due 

to changing economic conditions. Haying operations begin August 1st to protect nesting and 

flightless migratory birds; all hay is required to be removed by September 15 to allow flood-up of 

wetland units. 

Mowing has been used sporadically, but it has been under-utilized as a tool for short-grass 

management. Mowing does occur annually on dike tops that must be kept open for routine staff 

operations. Mowing can be an effective technique to maintain short vegetation along prairie and 

wetland margins within spotted frog breeding areas. 

It is estimated that over 1,100 acres of reed canarygrass-infested wet meadows exist that are not 

currently treated on the refuge. The condition of these sites, and their suitability for haying or other 

management to produce short-grass habitat, is unknown. The haying program needs to be evaluated 

to ensure that short-grass management needs are being met without compromising native vegetation.

Prescribed fire can been utilized as an effective management tool to remove dense, rank vegetation, 

woody encroachment, and accumulated debris, particularly in areas that are unsuitable for machinery. 

From refuge establishment to date, there have not been any prescribed fires targeting prairie or 

meadow management. Fire is needed as an initial step to access and evaluate some of these wet 

prairie and upland grass units before they can be fully evaluated for other management regimes. 

Grazing was also used until 1976, when it was found incompatible due to negative environmental 

effects to habitats and priority species. As a result, many of the grazing units were converted to 

haying units. Trespass grazing is an annual issue as fences frequently fail due to winter ice flows, elk 

damage, or fence and gate disrepair. A few areas of the refuge (southwest) are unfenced and subject 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

1-24 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background

to trespass (open-range) cattle grazing. High stocking-rate grazing has been used in a few 

circumstances where dense stands of canarygrass could not be accessed by mowers.

1.8.6 Upland Meadow Management

• What actions should the refuge take to sustain and restore priority species and habitats over 

the next 15 years? 

• What habitat conditions should be targeted and rehabilitated on upland habitats? 

• How will the refuge manage the long-term viability of upland meadows in response to pine 

encroachment?

• How should CLNWR consider utilizing haying, grazing, or prescribed fire as a management 

tool? 

CLNWR contains approximately 1,125 acres of dry upland meadows providing a diverse transition 

zone between wet meadows and forested areas. The upland meadows range from saturated soil 

during the winter and spring months to very dry soils in summer. 

Many of the upland meadows are threatened by encroachment of ponderosa and lodgepole pines. 

Cutting and removal of these pines has occurred, primarily the younger trees, and this control effort 

has increased in recent years and has targeted larger diameter pines. Upland meadows in this region 

are a fire-dependent habitat, and fire can be used to maintain the vigor of native upland grasses and 

forbs. Prescribed fire can be used as a tool to reduce woody encroachment and improve native plant 

vigor, but has been under-utilized in the past.

1.8.7 Forest Management

• What actions should the refuge take to sustain and restore priority species and habitats over 

the next 15 years? 

• What habitat conditions should be targeted and rehabilitated on forested habitats? 

• How should CLNWR consider utilizing commercial thinning and prescribed fire as a 

management tool?

Forested habitat on CLNWR totals approximately 2,000 acres, primarily around the perimeter of the 

prairie and wetland units. CLNWR forest stands can be roughly lumped into five categories: 

ponderosa pine forest, lodgepole pine forest, mixed conifer stands, quaking aspen stands, and Oregon 

white oak woodlands. Although most of the refuge forest acreage is small, much of it abuts private 

and corporate timber lands and functions within the larger landscape. Scattered patches of forest also 

occur within the wetland units on higher ground. 

Forests on and adjacent to the refuge were logged approximately 60 to 80 years ago and are relatively 

even-aged. Aside from a couple of small prescribed fires within the ponderosa pine habitat (1989 

and 1991), there have been no forest management practices conducted on the refuge. The 

Silvicultural Report and Recommendations for Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Forest Stands

(White 2009) is an assessment of the forest habitats and silvicultural needs for each of these forest 

types on the refuge. This report found that forest stands generally are too densely populated due to 

lack of fire and/or thinning; forest canopy layers are lacking; snag density is low; and forest openings 

are lacking. Overall, CLNWR’s forested habitats are still in relatively good health, but they are in 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-25

need of management to attain the features and vegetative structure necessary for optimizing wildlife 

values.

1.8.8 Invasive and Non-Native Plants and Wildlife 

• How will the refuge control invasive species and prevent new invasive species from 

becoming established?

• What are the most appropriate strategies for controlling invasive species on the refuge? 

Invasive species are generally defined as non-native species that harm, or have the potential to harm, 

the environment, economy, and/or human health when present in an area. Invasive species often 

pose a serious threat to native species through competition and predation. Although there are only a 

small number of invasive species on CLNWR, they are widespread and problematic. Refuge staff 

employ an integrated pest management (IPM) approach using mechanical, physical, chemical and, 

where appropriate, biological controls to control pest species. See Appendix H for a full description 

of IPM

Meadow knapweed is the most prevalent invasive plant occurring on the refuge. It invades upland 

and wet meadows on the refuge, as well as similar areas on adjacent private land. The seed head 

weevil, a biological control agent, was released over 20 years ago on the refuge to control meadow 

knapweed. This weevil is well-established and can be found in most stands of knapweed. Although 

this weevil is relatively effective in reducing reproduction, it does not kill the plant. Herbicides have 

also been used strategically in the past to help control infestations. 

Other invasive but less prevalent non-native plants include bachelor buttons, diffuse knapweed, 

common St. John’s wort, Scotch broom, and Canada thistle.

The non-native bullfrog is fairly common on the refuge. Studies indicate that bullfrogs can prey 

heavily on native frog species (including Oregon spotted frogs). Some ineffective control efforts 

have been carried out in the past on adults and juveniles. Water management can be used as an 

effective method to reduce tadpole survival by drying up seasonal wetlands completely by early fall. 

However, widespread drawdowns for tadpole control can conflict with the need to provide lateseason waterbird brood habitat. 

Brown bullhead fish are not native to the refuge, and they occur in virtually all permanent and 

seasonal wetlands. There is no information about the impacts of bullhead on the native wildlife or 

ecology of the prairie and wetlands. However, in other areas they are known to eat frog tadpoles. 

1.8.9 Oregon Spotted Frog Management

• What is CLNWR’s role in assisting Oregon spotted frog recovery, while at the same time 

meeting refuge purposes to provide migration habitat for waterfowl? 

• What actions can be taken to protect and restore habitat values for Oregon spotted frogs? 

The Oregon spotted frog is listed as endangered by the state of Washington and is a Federal

candidate species. CLNWR and the surrounding private lands within the Glenwood Valley are one 

of the few areas where Oregon spotted frogs are known to remain in Washington. This population is 

the largest remaining across its historic geographic range. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

1-26 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background

Oregon spotted frogs are one of the most aquatic ranid (smooth and moist-skinned, with large, 

powerful legs and extensively webbed feet) frog species and the most aquatic native ranid frog in 

western North America. They require permanent waters (mainly creeks, ditches, and springs) of 

sufficient depth and flow to overwinter, presumably because such sites provide shelter from freezing 

with sufficient oxygenation. Breeding occurs within the seasonal wetlands (late February to April), 

and metamorphs start appearing in June. Physical barriers between permanent waters and breeding 

sites due to the diking system may hinder frog movements into appropriate breeding sites, as well as 

metamorph dispersal into the permanent waters. 

Beaver activity creates considerable habitat for Oregon spotted frogs (and other wildlife). Beaver 

dams provide low-flow, stable water conditions that promote invertebrate populations, provide 

rearing areas, and enhance vegetative diversity within the pond system. Dams and lodges contain a 

complex matrix of logs and branches through which flow maintains high levels of dissolved oxygen. 

Dams and ponds also limit freezing in a microhabitat relatively secure from predators, and thus 

provide ideal frog overwintering sites. Beaver dams are also active seasonal refuges secure from 

most predators. However, beaver dams have historically been actively removed by refuge staff and 

private landowners to increase water flows. 

Water control infrastructure, and the periodic dredging to remove silt, vegetation, and in-stream 

obstructions, often conflicts with the needs of Oregon spotted frogs, particularly at overwintering 

sites.

Despite considerable knowledge about the habitat and management requirements for Oregon spotted 

frogs, management remains complex, as habitat needs and the abatement of other stressors often 

conflict with the conventional intensive wetland management that occurs on the refuge. Water 

management related to early drawdowns for private inholdings, dredging of overwintering creeks and 

ditches, continued failure of water control infrastructure, removal of beaver dams and the recently 

discovered presence of Chytridiomycosis—an infectious disease of amphibians—within the frog 

population are probably suppressing population recovery. 

1.8.10 Rare Plant Management

• What is CLNWR’s role in assisting in rare plant recovery, while at the same time meeting 

refuge purposes to provide migration habitat for waterfowl? 

• What actions can be taken to protect and restore habitat values for rare plants? 

CLNWR is botanically rich, lying in a transition zone between the lush high mountains surrounding 

Mt. Adams and the drier foothills to the east. The refuge supports known populations of two 

Washington State endangered and three threatened plant species. CLNWR also supports other state 

sensitive/rare plant species, which can be found in the several refuge plant species inventories that 

have been compiled by native plant groups. 

Most of the unique and rare plants are wet prairie associates. The wet prairie species of primary 

management concern are Oregon coyote-thistle (state threatened), rosy owl-clover (state 

endangered), Kellogg’s rush (state threatened), dwarf rush (state threatened), and long-bearded sego 

lily (state sensitive). The refuge is believed to support the largest and healthiest populations of these 

plants in the state, other than Kellogg’s rush which may be extirpated. These plants are affected by 

permanent water management regimes, trespass cattle grazing, haying, and invasive species.
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-27

Two rare plant species are associated with openings within the ponderosa pine forests—Ames’ 

milk-vetch (state endangered) and Pulsifer’s monkey-flower (state sensitive). Ames’ milk-vetch may 

be affected by fire suppression within the forest community, which has led to canopy closures not 

conducive for maintaining the shrub communities associated with this plant. Pulsifer’s 

monkey-flower is primarily a grassland-forb community associate and may be impacted by 

non-native plant species and encroachment by shrub and tree species.

1.8.11 Sandhill Crane Management

• What is CLNWR’s role in assisting in greater Sandhill crane recovery, while at the same time 

meeting refuge purposes to provide migration habitat for waterfowl and other birds? 

• What actions can be taken to protect and restore habitat values for greater Sandhill cranes?

The greater Sandhill crane is listed as endangered by WDFW. Nesting was first confirmed on 

CLNWR in 1979, and the refuge supports 80–90% of the known nesting cranes in Washington. The 

number of breeding pairs on the refuge has increased from seven (1995) to 21 (2008) to 

approximately 26–27 today. During that same time period, the number of individual cranes 

(breeding population) in Washington (on and off refuge) increased from 22 to 64. Despite this 

growth, the number of nesting pairs has remained relatively stable over the past five years. 

Predation of crane eggs and colts is suspected to come primarily from predatory birds and coyotes; 

however, these causes have not been well documented. Water management (or lack of capability) 

can lead to nest loss by drying (increasing predation) or flooding. Water elevations need to remain 

fairly stable during the nesting period (April–May), and drawdowns need to occur slowly to provide 

rearing habitat for colts. Ideally, wet meadows should retain some water for roosting and brood 

habitat through July.

Haying in the Glenwood Valley occurs predominantly from mid-July through September. Hay 

operations, and the resulting human disturbance, can drive cranes off territory and remove valuable 

portions of cover, endangering unfledged colts. There has not been any documented mortality of 

crane colts on the refuge directly attributable to haying operations, but this problem has been noted at 

other sites. To avoid potential issues during haying, there is an August 1 initiation date for haying on 

refuge lands. 

1.8.12 Elk Management

• What is CLNWR’s role in managing elk within the state’s elk management unit?

• Is elk hunting a viable public use opportunity on the refuge? 

Prior to 1980, elk were rarely observed in the Glenwood Valley and apparently arrived in the area 

following the Mount Saint Helens volcanic eruption. The refuge currently supports a population of 

elk during much of the year, and the population appears to be increasing annually. Multiple 

long-term factors appear to be driving the increasing elk use of the valley. For example, forage 

conditions seem to have improved on the refuge with improved wetland conditions and a concurrent 

increase in shrubs and small trees. 

The elk population appears to be expanding its range and herd size, though there have been no longterm surveys conducted to assess population trends and range within the Glenwood Valley. From 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

1-28 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background

April 2005 to June 2006, Service and WDFW staff initiated monthly elk surveys to document 

population size and seasonal use of the valley. The total number of elk counted per survey varied 

from 0 (December 2005 and January 2006) to 359 (April 2005). The December and January low was 

expected and consistent with information that the elk herd moves out of the valley during the winter 

months. The peak counts occurred during April 2005 (n=359) and April 2006 (n=333). The refuge 

is used for calving, and the first calves are observed mid-May.

Habitat impacts in the form of elk trails in both wetlands and timbered areas appear to be increasing, 

and erosion of stream banks at elk crossings is evident throughout the refuge. Continual erosion at 

these sites ultimately leads to dike overtopping, which complicates water management.

Elk depredation has been a suspected periodic problem in nearby agricultural fields for many years. 

Elk damage generally occurs in grain fields starting in August. Conversely, elk depredation in Trout 

Lake is primarily on spring forage crops. 

WDFW and local landowners have expressed interest in an elk hunt on CLNWR. However, elk 

hunting within and around the town of Glenwood has been controversial. Over the past several 

years, unethical and reckless hunting on private lands has prompted local concerns regarding safety. 

A lack of information on depredation complaints and herd data, herd management objectives, and 

safety issues pre-empts the development of a hunting program. There is general agreement that a 

refuge elk hunting program will not resolve the depredation issue and that a hunt may actually 

exacerbate the problem off-refuge by driving elk onto private lands. There is not sufficient habitat 

damage data to support pursuing a regular elk hunting season on the refuge, and it is felt that a more 

liberal hunt may be problematic due to safety concerns (nearby residences and roads), disturbance to 

other refuge resources, and timing conflicts with management activities and other public uses. A 

specialized hunt—youth, Architectural Barriers Act (ABA)-accessible, or limited entry—may be an 

option. 

Elk observation is a popular spring and fall pastime for CLNWR visitors; therefore, maintaining 

these viewing opportunities is important and should not be compromised by other refuge programs. 

1.8.13 Waterfowl and Waterbirds

• Where should specific waterfowl management tools and techniques be utilized?

• What role should CLNWR play in providing migrating waterfowl habitat and hunting areas 

within the Pacific Flyway?

At least 25 species of waterfowl use the refuge during the year. Outside of species presence and 

seasonal use, little is known about population numbers, distribution, and productivity of migratory 

birds. There have been no formal surveys to quantify waterfowl or waterbird use or reproductive 

success on CLNWR. However, it is estimated that as many as 200,000 Taverner’s/lesser/western 

Canada geese may pass through the refuge and the surrounding agricultural lands during the spring 

migration. Over 3,000 greater white-fronted geese have been noted in recent years, while Wrangle 

Island snow goose numbers generally average less than 200. 

Marsh birds can be abundant, particularly during wet years; however, no quantifiable population 

information exists. Brood water on and off the refuge is generally lacking due to the valley-wide 

practice of private landowners draining lands for hay and pasture. In addition, permanent or late 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-29

season waters for brood rearing can be restricted by efforts to control bullfrogs and wetland 

drawdowns necessary to promote native vegetation, such as sedges. 

Winter bird use is generally low, as open waters often freeze by late November and remain so into 

March. As with breeding, there have not been any surveys to determine populations of wintering and 

migratory waterfowl. Annual winter and migratory waterfowl use can vary considerably depending 

on forage conditions both on and off the refuge, ice and snow cover, and timing of late winter storm 

events.

Annual variability (availability, depth, distribution, timing) of wetlands and meadows—in large part 

a function of early drawdowns for private lands—is believed to have significant impacts on 

recruitment of waterfowl and waterbirds in some years. However, the lack of both refuge and 

regional data makes it difficult to discern if these perceived population trends are a function of 

valley-specific or regional habitat conditions. In general, mid-summer through fall water availability 

is confined to the three creeks and the major ditches in the valley. 

1.8.14 Wildlife-Dependent Public Uses

• What types of improvements to wildlife-dependent uses can be provided to enhance public 

enjoyment and ensure a quality experience for refuge visitors? 

• How will CLNWR meet the increasing demand for safe, accessible, high-quality 

wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities in the future? 

• How will the refuge provide visitors with safe and ABA-accessible access?

• How will the refuge improve the quality of the hunting program? 

• How will CLNWR address the impacts of increasing visitation on wildlife and minimize 

impacts to priority species?

The Administration Act identified six priority refuge uses: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, 

wildlife photography, environmental education, and interpretation. These uses receive enhanced 

consideration in planning and management over all other general public uses on refuges. When 

compatible with refuge purposes, these wildlife-dependent recreational uses are to be strongly 

encouraged. Under the Service compatibility policy (603FW2), refuges with limited staffing and 

funding are required to make efforts to obtain additional resources or outside assistance to provide 

wildlife-dependent recreational uses and to document those efforts before determining that any of 

these uses are not compatible. These uses, as well as other current or proposed uses, receive an 

extensive compatibility review in the CCP before being allowed. 

CLNWR must manage ever-increasing visitation and demand for visitor services programs with a 

small staff. This limits all visitor services programs; however, it is more problematic for certain 

programs (e.g., waterfowl hunting and environmental education) than others (wildlife observation.) 

To date, emphasis has been placed on maintaining facilities, welcoming and orienting visitors, 

answering information requests and dealing with law enforcement issues. The visitor services 

programs are mostly self-serve through informational kiosks and a walking trail. Currently, best 

guesses are being used to estimate visitation. Environmental education programs are delivered 

through the use of volunteers and partnerships with local groups.

Waterfowl hunting is allowed on CLNWR within the designated free-roam hunt area in accordance 

with Washington State seasons and regulations, 7 days a week, all day (dawn to dusk). Hunting 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

1-30 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background

pressure is light to moderate and is concentrated mainly in response to Canada goose activity late in 

the season. 

Dove hunting is allowed on CLNWR, but very few, if any, harvests have been documented. 

Deer hunting is allowed on a designated 100-acre unit, but is of questionable quality due to the area 

restriction and deer population. 

1.8.15 Effective Law Enforcement

• How does CLNWR create a stronger law enforcement presence to better facilitate 

effective management, reduce law enforcement violations, and reduce user group 

conflicts?

Law enforcement is currently covered by refuge officers stationed out of MCRNWRC in Burbank, 

Washington. Because of the distance from the MCRNWRC office and the lack of waterfowl hunting 

pressure, law enforcement visits are limited to elk hunting season and a few sporadic visits 

throughout the year. Most law enforcement coverage is provided by WDFW officers based out of 

Trout Lake, Goldendale, and Vancouver, Washington. 

Most reports of violations occur during elk season. Several incidences of elk poaching have occurred 

on the refuge in the recent past. 

1.8.16 Impacts of Development and Climate Change

• How should CLNWR address the impact of increasing development, and ultimately a 

reduction in open space, of adjacent lands on its wildlife and habitat? 

• How will the refuge address the potential impacts of climate change? 

Temperature increases, documented over the past 20 years, and anticipated water shifts in rain/snow 

cycles due to climate change will likely lead to an earlier spring drying trend in the Glenwood 

Valley.

1.8.17 Staffing

• What staffing levels are needed to maintain current management operations at CLNWR? 

• How will the refuge address the staffing limitations?

CLNWR is administered by MCRNWRC and the Refuge Manager is headquartered at Toppenish 

National Wildlife Refuge in Toppenish, Washington. A full-time, career-seasonal maintenance 

worker is stationed at the refuge. Typical staffing patterns include seasonal biologists and visiting 

crews of maintenance and fire personnel. 

1.8.18 Issues Outside the Scope of the CCP

While CCPs are, by definition, comprehensive plans, no single plan can cover all issues. The issue 

identified below is currently considered to be outside the scope of this CCP. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-31

Refuge Expansion

A proposal to expand the refuge acquisition boundary is not included in this CCP. The Service may 

analyze additional habitat protection needs and possible additions to the approved refuge boundary in 

future planning efforts. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

1-32 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background
Chapter 2

Management 

Direction

Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-1 

Chapter 2. Management Direction

2.1 Overview

During development of the CCP presented in this chapter, the Service reviewed and considered a 

variety of resource, social, climatic, economic, and organizational aspects important for managing 

the refuge. These background conditions are described more fully in the following chapters. As is 

appropriate for a national wildlife refuge, resource considerations were fundamental in designing 

alternatives. House Report 105-106 accompanying the Administration Act states “. . . the 

fundamental mission of our System is wildlife conservation: wildlife and wildlife conservation must 

come first.” 

The refuge planning team reviewed and used available scientific information (reports and studies) to 

better understand ecosystem trends and the latest scientific recommendations for species and habitats. 

The team met with staff from local, state, and federal agencies; the Confederated Bands and Tribes of 

the Yakama Nation (Yakama Nation); and elected officials to ascertain priorities and problems as 

perceived by others. Refuge staff also met with refuge users, nonprofit groups, and community 

organizations to solicit their comments and ideas, which were considered during CCP development. 

The details of public participation can be found in Appendix K. 

After gathering as much information as possible, the planning team, with considerable assistance 

from the Service’s Regional Office, combined this data with CLNWR’s purposes and determined the 

conservation targets to be included in the CCP process, that is, those resources upon which the CCP 

would focus management attention (see Appendix E). From this flowed the goals, objectives, and 

strategies which the planning team felt should be included in the CCP. Each goal, objective, and 

strategy was carefully evaluated for how it benefitted, augmented and fit with Service trust resources; 

CLNWR’s purposes; identified conservation targets; key refuge and state species; and the principles 

of biological diversity, integrity and environmental health (BIDEH). Once the range of acceptable 

management goals and objectives was determined, the objectives and strategies were logically 

organized into reasonable alternatives along coherent management directions, as in the draft CCP. 

2.2 Management Directions Considered But Not Developed

During development of the alternatives, the planning team considered the actions detailed below. All 

of these actions were ultimately eliminated for the reasons provided. 

2.2.1 Full-scale Restoration of Creeks to Historic Channels/Oxbows

The entire valley has been modified due to the channelization of creeks and development of drainage 

canals. However, private land inholdings preclude hydrologic restoration. Even if inholdings on the 

refuge were acquired from willing sellers, it would be hydrologically impossible to restore just short, 

select portions of streams; what happens in one part of a stream impacts the stream both up and 

downstream. Partial restorations might be possible, but would be analyzed on a case-by-case basis 

and then only after further study to determine historic conditions. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

2-2 Chapter 2. Management Direction

2.2.2 Lethal Control of Coyotes to Benefit Nesting Waterbirds

No assessment of the impacts of coyotes on waterbirds has been undertaken to determine the extent 

and severity of impacts to waterbirds. Consequently, a proposal for the lethal control of coyotes to 

benefit nesting waterbirds would be premature and not based on sound science. Although some 

coyotes appear to target certain Sandhill crane pairs, overall the refuge maintains high recruitment 

rates for cranes. Under the CCP, the Service will continue to monitor the nesting population of 

Sandhill cranes on the refuge. 

2.2.3 Implementing an Elk Hunt

As discussed in Section 1.8.12, the elk population appears to be expanding its range and herd size, 

and there are some concerns over agricultural depredation and resource/infrastructure damage on the 

refuge. However, there have been no long-term surveys conducted to assess population trends and 

range within the Glenwood Valley, nor have resource impacts been well documented. WDFW and 

local landowners have expressed interest in an elk hunt on CLNWR, but this is not an interest 

expressed throughout the valley. Over the past several years, unethical and reckless hunting on 

private lands has prompted local concerns regarding safety. In addition, there is a widely held 

opinion that a refuge elk hunting program would not resolve depredation issues and that a hunt may 

actually exacerbate the problem off-refuge by driving elk onto private lands. 

A lack of information on depredation complaints, resource/infrastructure damage, herd data, herd 

management objectives, and safety issues preempts the development of an elk hunting program at 

this time. In addition, an elk hunt on the refuge may be problematic due to safety concerns (nearby 

residences and roads), a lack of assessment of elk movements in the event of a hunt, disturbance to 

other refuge resources, and timing conflicts with management activities and other public uses. For 

example, elk observation is a popular spring and fall pastime for CLNWR visitors, likely undertaken 

by more visitors in a day than the number of elk hunters that would use the refuge in an entire 

season; therefore, maintaining these viewing opportunities is important and should not be 

compromised by other refuge programs. For these reasons, an elk hunt is not proposed at this time, 

although the idea could be revisited in the future as more information becomes available. 

2.3 Description of Management Direction

2.3.1 Factors in Management Direction

Adaptive Management. Adaptive management is an approach to resource management that 

emphasizes adjusting management practices in response to what has been learned. Based on 522 DM 

1 (Adaptive Management Implementation Policy), the refuge will utilize adaptive management for 

conserving, protecting and, where appropriate, restoring lands and resources. Within 43 CFR 46.30, 

adaptive management is defined as a system of management practices based on clearly identified 

outcomes, where monitoring evaluates whether management actions are achieving desired results 

(objectives). Adaptive management decisions are based on the best available science, common 

sense, experience, experimentation, new scientific discoveries and monitoring.

The Department of the Interior Adaptive Management Technical Guide also defines adaptive 

management as a decision process that promotes flexible decision making that can be adjusted in the 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-3 

face of uncertainties as outcomes from management actions and other events become better 

understood. Adaptive management accounts for the fact that complete knowledge about fish, 

wildlife, plants, habitats and the ecological processes supporting them may be lacking. The role of 

natural variability contributing to ecological resilience also is recognized as an important principle 

for adaptive management. It is not a trial-and-error process; instead adaptive management 

emphasizes learning-while-doing. It is based on available scientific information and the best 

professional judgment of refuge staff while considering site-specific biotic and abiotic factors on the 

refuge.

Avoidance of Sensitive Resources. Under the alternatives, visitor activity centers, visitor facilities, 

and both non-vehicular and vehicular travel routes will be sited to minimize effects by avoiding 

sensitive natural and cultural resources. Potential adverse effects from visitor use will be further 

minimized through closures or special restrictions at sites with seasonal protection needs or sites 

vulnerable to or experiencing resource damage. Group size limitations may be used for specific sites 

or activities as needed to protect sensitive resources. Visitor use will be managed using 

informational signs, educational materials, trails, protective devices, and law enforcement patrols. 

Because threatened, endangered, and sensitive (TE&S) species migrate through CLNWR, 

construction projects and public use patterns will be scheduled seasonally to avoid adverse effects. 

 

Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health. The Administration Act, as amended, 

directs the Service to ensure that the BIDEH of the NWRS are maintained for the benefit of present 

and future generations of Americans. Refuge Manual Chapter 601 FW 3 defines biological integrity 

as “. . . the biotic composition, structure, and functioning at genetic, organism, and community levels 

comparable with historic conditions, including the natural biological processes that shape genomes, 

organisms, and communities.” Historic conditions are “. . . composition, structure, and functioning 

of ecosystems resulting from natural processes that we believe, based on sound professional 

judgment, were present prior to substantial human related changes to the landscape.” Biological 

diversity is defined as “. . . the variety of life and its processes, including the variety of living 

organisms, the genetic differences among them, and communities and ecosystems in which they 

occur.” Environmental health is the “. . . composition, structure, and functioning of soil, water, air, 

and other abiotic features comparable with historic conditions, including the natural abiotic processes 

that shape the environment.” Simply stated BIDEH, are represented by native fish, wildlife, plants 

and their habitats as well as those environmental conditions and processes that support them. 

The BIDEH policy is an additional directive for the Service to follow while achieving CLNWR’s 

purposes and the NWRS mission. When evaluating the appropriate management direction for 

CLNWR (e.g., in compatibility determinations), the Service will use sound professional judgment to 

determine the refuge’s contribution to BIDEH at multiple landscape scales. Sound professional 

judgment will incorporate field experience, knowledge of refuge resources, an understanding of 

CLNWR’s role within the ecosystem, applicable laws and best available science, including 

consultation with others both inside and outside the Service. The policy states that the highest 

measure of biological integrity, diversity and environmental health is viewed as those intact and 

self-sustaining habitats and wildlife populations that existed during historic conditions. 

There is one caveat, however. Management for a refuge’s purpose(s) is the highest priority, so 

maintenance and/or restoration of biological integrity, diversity and environmental health cannot 

compromise or conflict with refuge purpose(s). 

Much of the wetland habitat in Washington has been lost during the last 100 years as a result of 

urban and commercial development, agricultural conversion, and drainage. CLNWR retains one of 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

2-4 Chapter 2. Management Direction

the largest remnant wet prairie/wetland systems remaining in the state. The dynamic complex of 

wetlands that historically occurred in Glenwood Valley was replaced by agricultural lands, primarily 

cattle pastures and hay crops. Wetland drainage and conversion commenced in the early 1900s and 

drainage for agriculture continues to this day. Consequently, one of the most important contributions 

the refuge can make for biological integrity at the local, regional and flyway scales involves 

managing and restoring wet prairie and wetland habitats for migrating and nesting waterfowl and 

waterbirds, as well as listed amphibians and plants. 

Cultural Resource Protection and Section 106 Compliance. Actions with the potential to affect 

cultural resources will undergo a thorough review before being implemented, as is consistent with the 

requirements of cultural resource laws. This investigation may entail a literature review, records 

search, field survey and tribal consultation. All actions with the potential to impact cultural resources 

will undergo a review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). If 

cultural resources are present, appropriate procedures will be implemented to protect them per 

federal laws and Service policies and guidelines.

Facility Design/Aesthetic Considerations. Landscape design standards will be developed to protect 

CLNWR’s natural beauty, scenic vistas and cultural heritage and to ensure that all site developments 

and facility improvements contribute to, rather than detract from, aesthetic appeal. Facility design 

and placement will be carefully planned with landscape integrity in mind. Future interpretive sites 

and signs will be designed to have an unobtrusive profile, with framing and supports that blend with 

the environment. 

Fire Management. Fire management activities will conform to guidelines set forth in Service policy 

and the approved Fire Management Plan for the MCRNWRC (Service 2009). Wildland fire will be 

suppressed when possible; suppression techniques will be employed that minimize surface 

disturbance in the vicinity of sensitive resources. Fire control policies will be implemented to reduce 

the risk of human-caused wildland fire. Hazardous fuels will be addressed according to the Fire 

Management Plan. The Fire Management Plan will be updated as appropriate. 

Implementation Subject to Funding Availability. Actions will be implemented over a period of 15 

years as funding becomes available. It is the intent of the planning team that annual priorities will 

follow the final CCP guidelines, although funding initiatives, unforeseeable management issues, and 

budgets may vary from year to year. The CCP will be reviewed every five years and updated as 

necessary throughout its life. 

Invasive Species Control/Integrated Pest Management. Because invasive plants and animals 

currently represent one of the greatest threats to the refuge’s wildlife and habitats, control of invasive 

species will be a high priority management activity. Invasive species, such as meadow knapweed, 

Scotch broom, and other state- and county-listed noxious weeds, will continue to be a primary 

management concern. Noxious weeds, such as reed canarygrass (an undesirable exotic grass that has 

spread to dominate the refuge’s wet meadows), and introduced animals, such as bullfrogs, also limit 

the refuge’s ability to provide high-quality habitat for refuge purpose and trust species and will be 

controlled to the degree that funding permits. Invasive species control will be initiated prior to or 

concurrently with habitat restoration efforts. 

In accordance with 517 DM 1 and 569 FW 1, an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach will be 

utilized, where practicable, to eradicate, control, or contain pest and invasive species (herein 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-5 

collectively referred to as pests) on refuge lands. IPM will involve using methods based upon 

effectiveness, cost, and minimal ecological disruption, which considers minimum potential effects to 

non-target species and the refuge environment. Pesticides may be used where physical, cultural and 

biological methods, or combinations thereof, are impractical or incapable of providing adequate 

control, eradication, or containment. If a pesticide is needed on refuge lands, the most specific 

(selective) chemical available for the target species will be used unless considerations of persistence 

or other environmental and/or biotic hazards preclude it. In accordance with 517 DM 1, pesticide 

usage will be further restricted because only pesticides registered with the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in full compliance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, 

and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and as provided in regulations, orders, or permits issued by the EPA 

may be applied on lands and waters under refuge jurisdiction. 

Environmental harm by pest species will refer to a biologically substantial decrease in environmental 

quality as indicated by a variety of potential factors, including declines in native species populations 

or communities, degraded habitat quality or long-term habitat loss, and altered ecological processes. 

Environmental harm may be a result of the direct effects of pests on native species, including preying 

and feeding on them; causing or vectoring diseases; preventing them from reproducing or killing 

their young; outcompeting them for food, nutrients, light, nest sites, or other vital resources; or 

hybridizing with them so frequently that within a few generations few if any truly native individuals 

remain. Environmental harm also can be the result of an indirect effect of pest species. For example, 

decreased waterfowl use may result from invasive plant infestations reducing the availability and 

abundance of native wetland plants that provide forage during the winter. 

 

Appendix H contains the refuge’s IPM program documentation to manage pests for this CCP. Along 

with a more detailed discussion of IPM techniques, this documentation describes the selective use of 

pesticides for pest management on refuge lands, where necessary. Throughout the life of the CCP, 

most proposed pesticide uses on refuge lands will be evaluated for potential effects to refuge 

biological resources and environmental quality. These potential effects will be documented in 

Chemical Profiles (see Appendix H). Pesticide uses with appropriate and practical best management 

practices (BMPs) for habitat management, as well as facilities maintenance, will be approved for use 

on refuge lands where there likely will be only minor, temporary and localized effects to species and 

environmental quality, based on not exceeding the threshold values in the Chemical Profiles. 

However, pesticides may be used on refuge lands where substantial effects to species and the 

environment are possible (exceed threshold values) in order to protect human health and safety (e.g., 

mosquito-borne disease).

Land Acquisition Within the Approved Boundary. The Service has the authority to acquire land 

or negotiate agreements on behalf of the National Wildlife Refuge System only within an approved 

refuge boundary. The Service can make offers to purchase land, purchase conservation easements, or 

enter into management agreements with willing landowners within the approved boundary. Lands or 

interests therein do not become part of the NWRS unless they are purchased from or are placed under 

a management agreement with the individual landowner. Service authority over any use of lands 

within an approved refuge boundary is limited to lands the Service has acquired in fee title, 

conservation easement, or a management agreement. Private landowners within an approved refuge 

boundary retain all of the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of private land ownership and are 

under no obligation to sell their property to the Service. Service policy for land acquisition is to 

work on a one-on-one basis with a willing seller/interested landowner. Based on the availability of 

funds, the Service will continue to negotiate with willing sellers to acquire lands, easements, or 

management agreements within the existing approved refuge boundary. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

2-6 Chapter 2. Management Direction

Maintaining/Upgrading Existing Infrastructure and Facilities. Periodic maintenance and 

upgrading of the refuge buildings and facilities will be necessary. Water control structures, dikes and 

ditches all require recurring annual maintenance to ensure integrity and functioning capabilities. 

Maintenance examples include water control structure repair or replacement, dike repair and ditch 

cleaning. Additional maintenance activities will include filling in shallow feeder ditches, which will 

improve water management capability, and maintaining secondary arterials to provide flood relief 

and irrigation water for private landowners (irrigation tailwater). Annual maintenance will continue 

on roads, boundary and interior fencing, and firebreaks. Periodic maintenance and upgrading of 

facilities is necessary for safety and accessibility and to support staff and management needs. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Establishing Authority Compliance. If a refuge, or portion 

thereof, has been designated, acquired, reserved, or set apart as an inviolate sanctuary, hunting of 

migratory game birds can be allowed on no more than 40% of that refuge, or portion of refuge, at any 

one time unless there is a finding that taking of a species in more than 40% of the refuge would be 

beneficial to the species (16 U.S.C. 668dd(d)(1)(A), Administration Act; 16 U.S.C. 703 712, 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act; and 16 U.S.C. 715a 715r, Migratory Bird Conservation Act). Currently 

more than 40% of CLNWR is open to migratory bird hunting; the areas open to hunting will be 

adjusted to comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 

Monitoring and Assessing Effects of Climate Trends and Climate Change. As stated in DOI’s 

Secretarial Order 3226 and the Service’s Climate Change Strategic Plan, the Service considers and 

analyzes climate change in its decisions, long-range plans, and other activities. Habitat conditions 

and wildlife populations are directly and indirectly sensitive to climatic conditions, namely 

precipitation and temperature. As described in greater detail in Chapter 3, the area’s hydrology is 

particularly sensitive to changes in climate because snowmelt dominates seasonal runoff and the 

Klickitat River watershed’s rain/snow balance is sensitive to temperature. For example, higher 

winter temperatures provide more rain instead of snow at low and mid-elevations. 

Although annual variation in temperatures and the amount and timing of precipitation is high in the 

Pacific Northwest (due to the El Niño Southern Oscillation and other large-scale climate patterns), 

long-term trends show significant changes in the timing of streamflows throughout the Pacific 

Northwest, and these trends are projected to accelerate. Research indicates that increased winter 

streamflows can be expected, and the timing of peak flows is projected to occur earlier in the spring 

in the future. In the longer-term future (i.e., 2080s), projections show that streamflow regimes could 

become rain-dominant in the Klickitat River watershed, meaning that they will peak with 

precipitation in the winter. 

Increasing temperatures have also increased fire risk throughout the Pacific Northwest, and these 

trends may affect the refuge’s forest, riparian and upland habitats and their management. 

Knowledge and monitoring of these regional and local trends will be used to assess potential changes 

or enhancements to CLNWR’s management actions and techniques and timing, using the adaptive 

management approach described above. The region’s changing hydrology highlights the importance 

of the refuge’s efforts to improve its ability to enhance water management capacity; restore/enhance 

its hydrology to meet wet meadow, marsh, and riparian/aquatic goals; and maintain secondary 

arterials to provide flood relief and irrigation water for private landowners. Increasing temperatures 

highlight the need for forest thinning and other management actions to meet refuge goals for forest, 

riparian, and upland habitats. The combined changes (temperature, precipitation, and hydrology) can 

affect CLNWR’s habitats and species directly, such as the timing of migratory arrival and many 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-7 

other phenologic responses, and indirectly by adding vulnerability to other stressors, including 

invasive species and pathogens. This highlights the importance of monitoring habitat and species to 

establish potential correlations and adaptation options. 

The Service will monitor wildlife corridor analyses, vulnerability assessments, and other efforts, 

including those underway at a landscape scale such as the Great Northern Landscape Conservation 

Cooperative (LCC). LCCs are formal, science-management partnerships between the Service, other 

Federal agencies, States, tribes, nongovernmental organizations, universities and other entities to 

address climate change and other biological stressors in an integrated fashion. LCCs provide science 

support, biological planning, conservation design, research and design of inventory and monitoring 

programs. As needed, objectives and strategies will be adjusted to assist in enhancing CLNWR’s 

resources’ resiliency to climate change. The MCRNWRC will also continue to pursue and engage in 

mechanisms to conserve energy in refuge operations. 

Monitoring Effects of Visitor Use on Wildlife. Monitoring to assess effects of visitor use on 

wildlife will be conducted. Monitoring will be needed to ensure that permitted uses remain 

compatible over time and that the use will not materially interfere with, or detract from, the 

biological integrity of CLNWR, meeting the refuge’s purposes, and fulfilling the mission of the 

NWRS. Areas and/or timing of visitor use will be modified, or even eliminated if necessary to 

provide secure and adequately sized sanctuary areas for migratory birds and trust species. 

 

Natural Resource Data Collection and Monitoring. Inventories will be conducted to obtain data 

related to habitat conditions; wildlife populations and habitat requirements; restoration treatment 

locations, timing, and effectiveness; resource protection measures; invasive species control; TE&S 

species; and other areas of management concern. Resource information will be collected using 

global positioning system (GPS) technology, permanent monitoring plots, point counts, pedestrian 

transect surveys, and other methods. The information collected will be used to improve existing data 

sets, mapping and scientific knowledge concerning species, habitats, restoration needs, treatment 

effectiveness, land disturbance events and other areas of concern. 

Existing and new fish, wildlife, water and vegetation monitoring programs will be conducted by 

refuge staff, volunteers, or cooperators to support adaptive management. These programs will entail 

monitoring and evaluation of habitat management and restoration activities, TE&S species, and 

public uses. Periodic monitoring (every five to seven years) of priority sensitive plant communities 

will be conducted in permanent monitoring plots. 

Where possible, CLNWR management projects will be designed to contribute to the body of 

knowledge, as well as to meet specified resource objectives. For additional information, see Goal 5. 

Participation in Planning and Review of Regional Development Activities. The Service will 

actively participate in planning and studies pertaining to future industrial and urban development, 

transportation, recreation, contamination, and other potential concerns that may affect CLNWR’s 

wildlife resources, habitats, or environmental quality. The Service will continue to cultivate working 

relationships with county, state, federal agencies and the Yakama Nation to stay abreast of current 

and potential developments. The Service will utilize outreach and education as needed to raise 

awareness of CLNWR’s resources and dependence on the local environment. 

Partnerships. Partnerships on the refuge are critical components in maintaining and continuing 

efforts to enhance recreation opportunities or implement resource management improvements, such 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

2-8 Chapter 2. Management Direction

as restoring habitat for threatened and endangered species. These partnerships typically involve 

joining forces with Federal, State, and local agencies and organizations. For example, the refuge will 

continue to coordinate with the Klickitat Drainage District #1, Hell Roaring Irrigation District and 

neighboring landowners on issues of mutual interest. 

Regulatory Compliance. Prior to implementation, all activities will undergo appropriate reviews 

and consultations, and permits and clearances will be secured, as necessary, to comply with legal and 

policy requirements. This includes water quality permits required under Section 401 and dredge and 

fill permits required under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251-

1382); appropriate evaluations and documentation under NEPA; evaluation and consultation required 

by Section 7 of the ESA; and review and consultation required by Section 106 of the NHPA.

 

Restoration Activities. Native seeds and plants derived from the area will be used as a priority for 

all planting/restoration projects on CLNWR. Providers of native seed or native plants to CLNWR 

will provide documentation for the origin of seed or plants and will also, in the case of seed, provide 

certification that the seed provided to CLNWR is free of noxious weed contamination. These 

requirements will be included in any scope of work prior to contracting the production and supply of 

plant materials. Plant materials may be refused if they do not meet these requirements. 

Occasionally, small amounts of seed may be collected from CLNWR to be provided to plant 

nurseries and grown into seedling plants to be replanted onto the refuge. In these cases, refuge staff 

will supervise the selection of species for collection and the actual collection of seed from plants on 

CLNWR. Seed collection needs for species and amounts will be based on annual restoration and 

rehabilitation needs. Seeds will be collected during the appropriate season as dictated by plant 

species phenology, and the parent plant will not be damaged or harmed in any way during seed 

collection. Seed will be collected from no more than 20 percent of individuals within a population, 

and no more than 50 percent of the total seed production from individual plants will be collected 

annually. 

State Coordination. The Service will continue to maintain regular discussions with the WDFW, 

WDNR, Washington State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and other agencies with joint 

responsibility for resources on the refuge. This includes coordination to implement Washington 

State plans and programs as outlined above and in Chapter 1. Coordination with other agencies is a 

key component of successful management and is vital to CLNWR’s programs, plans and projects, 

especially in times of static or declining budgets. 

State Plan Compliance and Cooperation. To the extent possible, the CCP will support and 

complement the Washington State recovery plans for greater Sandhill cranes and western gray 

squirrels as outlined in Chapter 1 and any other relevant species. Where feasible, the CCP and its 

implementation will coordinate with other Washington State plans and programs, e.g., hunting and 

fishing regulations.

Step-down Plans. The CCP provides guidance in the form of goals, objectives and strategies for 

several refuge program areas but may lack some of the specifics needed for implementation. Several 

subsequent, or step-down, plans will be developed for management of the plan. For example, the 

CCP may note that a trail is needed to accomplish a certain management objective. However, it will 

take a Visitor Services Plan or a Trails Plan to specifically site the trail and define design standards. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-9 

All step-down plans require appropriate NEPA compliance and implementation may require 

additional county, State, and Federal permits. Project-specific plans, with appropriate NEPA 

compliance, may be prepared outside of these step-down plans. For CLNWR, the step-down plans 

we anticipate needing into the future include: 

• Cultural Resources Management Plan.

• Habitat Management Plan or the Refuge Habitat Management Database.

• Hunting (i.e., Hunt Opening Package). 

• Integrated Pest Management Plan (See Appendix H). 

• Visitor Services Plan.

Tribal Coordination. The Service will continue to consult and coordinate with the Yakama Nation, 

including seeking assistance on issues related to cultural resources education and interpretation, 

special programs, repatriation and the NHPA.

Volunteer Opportunities. Volunteer opportunities are key components of the successful 

management of public lands and are vital to CLNWR’s programs, plans and projects, especially in 

times of static or declining budgets. Currently, CLNWR makes extensive use of volunteers in 

activities like counting Oregon spotted egg masses. In the future, successful implementation of 

native habitat restoration, survey and monitoring activities, and environmental education and 

interpretation programs will require the use of partnerships and volunteers. 

Water Rights. The need to document refuge water rights and efficiently utilize and manage water 

flows is critical to achieving refuge purposes. The Water Resources Inventory and Assessment 

summary report (USFWS 2013) documented all water rights claims and certificates on fee title and 

inholdings within the approved refuge boundary. Under the CCP, documentation of water rights for 

CLNWR will continue to be researched and mapped by the Water Resources Branch of the Division 

of Engineering for any new land acquisitions. Any errors, omissions, or inconsistencies within the 

information in the water rights files in the Regional Office will be investigated and resolved. 

Wilderness and Wild and Scenic Rivers Review. The Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 

1131-1136), as amended, provides the following description of wilderness: 

A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is 

hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where 

man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act 

as an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without 

permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its 

natural conditions. 

The Wilderness Act directed the Secretary of the Interior, within 10 years, to review every roadless 

area of 5,000 acres or more within DOI lands and to recommend to the President the suitability of 

each qualifying area for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. This assessment 

is still in progress. Service policy (Part 602 FW 3.4 C (1)(c)) requires that wilderness reviews be 

completed as part of the CCP process. This review includes the re-evaluation of refuge lands 

existing during the initial 10-year review period of The Wilderness Act of 1964, as amended (16 

U.S.C. 1131-1136), as well as new lands and waters added to the NWRS since 1974. If it is 

determined that the potential for wilderness designation is found, the process moves on to the 

wilderness study phase. As part of the process for the draft CCP/EA, the planning team completed a 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

2-10 Chapter 2. Management Direction

wilderness review and found that currently there are no lands on CLNWR that meet wilderness 

criteria (see Appendix D). 

To arrive at this conclusion, refuge staff used the same process used for the Hanford Reach National 

Monument (Monument) in development of its CCP. Using criteria derived from the Wilderness Act, 

Service standards and protocols employed by the Bureau of Land Management's Colorado and Utah 

State Offices, Monument staff and contractors developed standards to be used in the wilderness 

assessment for the Monument. Using the same standards and a geographic information system (GIS) 

analysis of man-made infrastructure on CLNWR, coupled with in-the-field observations, it was 

readily apparent that there are no areas on CLNWR that meet the standards and are sufficiently large 

to support wilderness characteristics. 

In addition, a Secretarial Directive requires that all DOI agencies complete a wild and scenic rivers 

eligibility assessment when conducting land planning and during pre-acquisition planning for new or 

expanded refuges (341 FW 2.4 B., Land Acquisition Planning). The only stream on CLNWR is Bird 

Creek, which does not meet the outstandingly remarkable value standards, as defined by Section 1 of 

the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and thus is not eligible for designation (see Appendix D). 

2.3.2 Summary of Management Direction

The focus of refuge management will continue to be for wildlife rather than public use, and most 

current management actions will continue. The Water Management Plan will be revised within two

years of plan completion and then modified as needed. Haying and mowing will continue, but 

grazing will be added as a potential management tool for reed canarygrass. Existing dikes will be 

evaluated and potentially modified to achieve target water levels. Additionally, disking and 

prolonged deep flooding will be potentially used to control reed canarygrass. In areas with known 

Oregon spotted frog oviposition and rosy owl-clover sites, these techniques will be performed on an 

experimental basis with pre- and post-monitoring. An aggressive bullfrog and bullhead fish control 

program will be implemented. The cover of shrubs and trees will be reduced in upland meadow 

habitats using mechanized removal and prescribed fire, where appropriate. A program to actively 

create snags in all forest types will be implemented to benefit woodpeckers, other insectivore birds, 

and cavity-nesting species. Additional forest thinning in all forest-stand types will occur to create 

structural diversity and allow regeneration of understory species and young trees. 

While the refuge is focused on wildlife protection and conservation, visitor services opportunities 

will be provided in key areas. The refuge will continue with the current public access hours. Wildlife 

observation and photography will continue to be allowed in the same open areas. However, the area 

west of the Cold Springs Canal will be opened to public use, apart from hunting and fishing. The 

Willard Springs Trail will be realigned, lengthened, and given a new interpretive emphasis. 

Environmental education will receive a greater emphasis through the hiring of a part-time staff 

person, training of local teachers through a new program so that they might conduct classes, and 

implementing a monitoring program to track progress. The recruitment and use of volunteers will be 

enhanced for all visitor service activities, but with a strong emphasis on education. New interpretive 

exhibits will be installed at the refuge headquarters and along the Willard Springs Trail, the 

Observation Overlook, and the Whitcomb-Cole Hewn Log House. Deer hunting within the 100-acre 

deer hunting area will be discontinued. Elsewhere, waterfowl hunting and fishing will remain much 

the same.
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-11

Cultural resource management would continue to fulfill law and policy, and additional measures will

be implemented, such as completing a cultural resources overview, establishing new tribal 

partnerships, evaluating the National Register eligibility of archeological sites, and developing an 

inadvertent discovery plan. The Whitcomb-Cole Hewn Log House will receive an increased 

emphasis, primarily through the use of volunteers to provide education and interpretation. 

2.4 Goals, Objectives and Strategies

Goals and objectives are the unifying elements of successful refuge management. They identify and 

focus management priorities, resolve issues, and link to refuge purposes, Service policy and the 

NWRS mission.

A CCP describes management actions that help bring a refuge closer to its vision. The vision 

broadly reflects the refuge’s purpose(s), the NWRS mission and goals, other statutory requirements 

and larger-scale plans as appropriate. Goals then define general targets in support of the vision, 

followed by objectives that direct effort into incremental and measurable steps toward achieving 

those goals. Finally, strategies identify specific tools and actions to accomplish objectives. 

The goals for CLNWR to be implemented over the next 15 years under the CCP are presented on the 

following pages. Each goal is followed by the objectives that pertain to that goal. Some objectives 

pertain to multiple goals and have simply been placed in the most reasonable spot. Similarly, some 

strategies pertain to multiple objectives. The order of goals does not imply any priority in this CCP. 

Below each objective statement are the strategies that could be employed in order to accomplish the 

objectives.

Goal 1. Protect and maintain a diverse assemblage of aquatic 

habitats characteristic of Glenwood Valley/Conboy Lake Region.

Objective 1.1 Wet Prairie (Wet Meadow)

Annually, protect and maintain 3,281 acres of wet meadows on CLNWR for the benefit of 

migrating waterfowl (e.g., mallards, northern pintails), breeding/migrating greater Sandhill 

cranes, raptors (e.g., northern harriers, short-eared owls), native amphibians (e.g., Oregon 

spotted frogs), and other wetland-dependent species. Wet prairie is characterized by:

• Water depths ranging from saturated soils to 3 feet. 

• Inundation from approximately October 1 to late June or early July.

• A short (<2 feet) cover of sedges (e.g., Carex species), rushes (e.g., Juncus species), 

spikerushes (e.g., Eleocharis species), and other native or desirable emergents. 

• The presence of native forbs (e.g., camas, common monkey-flower, potentilla). 

• The presence of rare plant species (e.g., rosy owl-clover, Oregon coyote thistle, 

long-bearded sago lily, dwarf rushes). 

• A limited presence of woody species (e.g., lodgepole pine, spirea, willow species). 

• A <20% cover of reed canarygrass where native wet meadow vegetation is established.

• A <10 inch vegetation height by late fall in reed canarygrass-dominated wet meadow 

sites.

• A <5% presence of invasive/undesirable plants (e.g., Scotch broom, Canada thistle, 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

2-12 Chapter 2. Management Direction

meadow knapweed, St. John’s wort).

Strategies For Achieving Objective

Acres 3,281

A. Mimic the natural duration when surface water is present (hydroperiod) throughout the year 

(i.e., flooding to commence with the fall rains and subside with the summer dry season).

B. Revise Water Management Plan within 2 years of CCP completion and then modify as 

needed.

C. Set boards in water control structures in all creeks and ditches by October 1 to maintain 

maximum (optimal) water levels for overwintering Oregon spotted frogs and other aquatic 

species. Initiate drawdowns by July 1 with drawdowns complete by August 15. Some water 

may be maintained in swales or deeper portions all year.

D. Hay reed canarygrass from August 1 to October 15 (see Haying CD).

E. Mow reed canarygrass from late summer (e.g., August 1, unless Sandhill crane colts less 

than 3 weeks of age are present) through fall (e.g., October 15) in important Oregon spotted 

frog breeding areas (such as C&H Units, Conboy Lake, and the Oxbow area) that have not been 

hayed.

F. Graze reed canarygrass from September 1 to November 30 (see Grazing CD).

G. Evaluate and modify existing dikes to achieve target water levels as outlined in the Water 

Management Plan.

H. Use disking and prolonged deep flooding. In areas with known Oregon spotted frog 

oviposition and rosy owl-clover sites, perform on an experimental basis with pre- and postmonitoring. See also Goal 5.

I. Use prescribed fire to treat up to 700 acres between September 1 and December 1. 

J. Use appropriate IPM techniques which may include mechanical/physical, cultural, 

chemical, and/or biological means to eradicate or control invasive species (see Appendix H).

Rationale

The refuge was initially established for nesting and migrating waterfowl. Wet meadow habitats 

represent important foraging habitat for a variety of migrating waterfowl, such as mallards, tundra 

swans, northern pintails and Canada geese. Under the CCP, the refuge will continue to manage wet 

meadows to provide habitat for waterfowl. In addition to providing suitable waterfowl habitat, the 

refuge also provides important habitat for populations of several species of state and federal 

management concern. The species of highest concern found in wet meadows include Oregon spotted 

frogs, greater Sandhill cranes, rosy owl-clover, long-bearded sego lily and Oregon coyote thistle. 

Under the CCP, strategies for wet meadow management on the refuge include a combination of 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-13 

water management, haying, mowing and prescribed fire to benefit Oregon spotted frogs, greater 

Sandhill cranes, rare plants, waterfowl, and all wet meadow associated native species. The refuge 

will also pursue other management alternatives when appropriate. These actions include chemical 

treatment, disking and strictly controlled grazing. 

Water management is the single most important management issue on the refuge and within 

Glenwood Valley. The wet prairie, emergent marsh and seasonally flooded scrub-shrub and forest 

habitats are important due to their biodiversity, juxtaposition within the broader geographic 

landscape, and remaining populations of rare wildlife and plants. In general, the goal of CLNWR 

water management is to manage wetlands that mimic the natural hydrology of the basin, where 

feasible. This includes protecting and maintaining the large contiguous wet prairie system (Camas 

Prairie) and the areas including and surrounding the Conboy Lake wetland system.

In 2005, a Water Management Plan was written that outlined water-flow scenarios, target water 

elevations, and infrastructure needed for water management. A key design component of the water

management infrastructure is to pass virtually all inflows through the wetland system versus 

bypassing flows down drainage ditches. This system also should allow passive movement of aquatic 

adapted wildlife (frogs, salamanders, fish) through the dike system, between permanent waters 

(creeks and ditches) and seasonal wetlands. Under the selected management direction, the Water 

Management Plan, which details the timing and elevation of water levels by management unit, will

be revised to include subsequent restoration work that has been accomplished, as well as future 

needs. 

Refuge wet prairie areas are managed as seasonal wetlands with variable water regimes that range 

from October (flood-up) to August (drawdown). Annual water inundation varies considerably 

depending on the unit location, rainfall and snowpack, inflow/outflow capabilities, and specific unit 

vegetation and management needs. Water management is feasible only in a few units where water is 

available and can be manipulated without affecting private landowners. Effective water management 

occurs in areas such as the C&H Units and Conboy Lake Unit where adequate infrastructure exists 

and there are no known impacts to private landowners. More extensive water management 

capabilities will be realized through modifying existing or adding water management infrastructure, 

such as a berms, water control structures, and spillways. The natural seasonal and cyclical pattern of 

water will be restored by improving the water management infrastructure and/or working with 

adjacent landowners. 

 

For the purposes of this plan, October 1 is set as the initiation of the water year as this coincides 

approximately with the end of the haying/mowing season and commencement of fall rains and 

increased water flow onto the refuge. A later flood-up initiation date may be required if inflows are 

insufficient or specific management objectives have not yet been accomplished (e.g., haying or 

desiccation to prevent juvenile recruitment of bullfrogs and bullhead catfish). Regardless, boards 

should be installed in water control structures in all prairie and wetland units by freeze-up (usually 

late November). Mid-June should be the earliest start of slow drawdown to maintain waterfowl and 

waterbird brood habitat. However, drawdowns should be initiated by July 1 and completed by 

August 15 except in permanent ditches and creeks, which should be maintained at maximum 

elevations year-round when possible. 

A key component of water management for frogs and cranes (and others) is to ensure that all 

meadows and wetlands are filled to maximum by early February to allow movements of frogs, 

salamanders and dace into meadow units via spillways and other conveyance routes. High winter 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

2-14 Chapter 2. Management Direction

water conditions also tend to suppress reed canarygrass growth. Streams and ditches need to be at 

maximum fall and winter to provide overwintering habitat and to ensure that critical water is not lost 

during flood-up by having to fill ditches, etc., first.

Invasive reed canarygrass is widespread in many refuge wetlands, altering plant and animal 

community composition. As much as 2,300 acres of seasonal wetlands are heavily infested with reed 

canarygrass. Invasive plants limit native plant production and cause impacts to food, nesting and 

cover for wildlife and reduce waterfowl food availability during the migration and wintering periods. 

Reed canarygrass is an aggressive, cool-season perennial grass that invades many wetland systems 

(Foster and Wetzel 2005). Reed canarygrass is clonal and rapidly spreads with rhizomes, forming 

dense monotypic stands that prevent the establishment and survival of other herbaceous species 

(Barnes 1999; Galatowitsch et al. 1999; Green and Galatowitsch 2001). Few animals will eat the 

grass after flowering because of its rank growth, and most waterfowl are unable to utilize the 

monotypic habitat for nesting, food, or cover (Maia 1994). However, waterfowl, greater Sandhill 

cranes and Oregon spotted frogs do utilize reed canarygrass when it is managed as short grass by 

haying, mowing, and/or grazing and then subsequently flooded during winter and spring. 

Because of the aggressive nature of reed canarygrass, control strategies are limited and require 

long-term planning, dedicated resources and commitment to follow-up for multiple years. Reed 

canarygrass-dominated wet meadows will be managed as short-grass habitats until resources are 

available to control the reed canarygrass and convert the habitats to sustainable native vegetation. 

Haying is preferable to mowing, as mowing leaves residual vegetation and is more costly, but not all 

areas can be hayed due to the presence of surface water or woody vegetation. Under the CCP, up to 

2,325 acres of wet meadows will be hayed or mowed from early summer through fall to provide for 

short grass management of reed canarygrass. Where haying is not possible, some areas will be 

mowed to provide short-grass areas. Mowing will occur on low-demand areas not economically 

suitable for haying by authorized permittees, but that still require mechanical manipulation of reed 

canarygrass to attain short-grass conditions. 

Managed livestock grazing will be utilized on a limited basis from late summer through fall to help 

address reed canarygrass in areas where haying or mowing cannot occur and reed canarygrass 

becomes unmanageable or rank. In some areas, grazing may be the only management option 

available to limit growth of woody vegetation and reduce cover of reed canarygrass. Grazing can 

have negative effects, including overbrowsing of palatable plant species, trampling of vegetation, soil 

compaction, reduced water quality and disturbance to native species. Any grazing on the refuge will

be limited to small areas and low numbers of animals. Limited grazing has been shown to have little 

effect on Oregon spotted frogs (Watson et al. 2003). Haying, grazing and mowing start dates will be 

established to reduce the disturbance to ground nesting birds. 

When resources become available, an integrated and adaptive management strategy will be 

established to control reed canarygrass and convert those areas to native vegetation. The control 

strategy will most likely include a combination of chemical and mechanical applications, prescribed 

fire, planting a cover crop and native vegetation seeding and planting. 

IPM methods, which may include chemical application of herbicides in the fall (Kilbride and 

Paveglio 1999; Reinhardt Adams and Galatowitsch 2006), will be used to control herbaceous species 

such as reed canary grass. The use of prescribed fire will reduce the seed bank density (Reinhardt 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-15

Adams and Galatowitsch 2006), help reduce the amount of thatch, and prepare a suitable seed bed for 

native vegetation re-establishment. Native seed or live plant selection will be limited to vegetation 

native to the Glenwood Valley. In some instances, a cover crop may be planted to help reduce the 

recolonization of reed canarygrass by shading until dense native vegetation can be established. 

Shade limits reed canarygrass establishment from seed, leading to a dense, native canopy that may 

prevent reed canarygrass establishment and growth (Mauer and Zedler 2002; Mauer et al. 2003). 

However, this strategy will apply following eradication efforts only if native species can close the 

canopy faster than reed canarygrass re-invades. Often reed canarygrass can establish more quickly 

than the native species despite sowing native seeds immediately following removal of extant reed 

canarygrass individuals (Reinhardt Adams and Galatowitsch 2006). Therefore, seeding with natives 

alone is not likely to limit reed canarygrass recolonization. Reed canarygrass management will be 

necessary during establishment of the native species canopy and during times in which gaps in the 

native canopy occur. As native species recolonize, selectively removing reed canarygrass will

become increasingly complex and will shift from broadcast chemical treatments to selective spot 

applications and hand removal. 

An alternative option will be to use disking and prolonged deep flooding in order to control reed 

canarygrass (Kilbride and Paveglio 1999; Paveglio and Kilbride 2000; Tu 2004). Wetland units 

could be modified to allow for greater water management capability by impounding water within a 

dike, thus reducing the amount of reed canarygrass, promoting a diversity of native wetland plants 

and provide more suitable migratory waterfowl and greater Sandhill crane habitat. Further analysis 

will be required to understand topography, hydrogeology and historical natural conditions when 

considering this option. This potential strategy will be carefully considered where Oregon spotted 

frogs are present to prevent barriers to dispersal. In areas with known Oregon spotted frog

oviposition and rosy owl-clover sites, this option will be initially explored on an experimental basis 

with pre- and post-monitoring. 

Prescribed fire is effective at removing woody vegetation and accumulated grasses but is very 

expensive. The timing and locations where prescribed fire can be applied on the refuge are limited. 

Where it is possible, prescribed fire will be used to manage for short reed canarygrass, remove 

thatch, and promote nutrient cycling. Prescribed fire may also be used in areas inaccessible to 

mechanical equipment due to woody debris and uneven terrain. 

Oregon spotted frogs were historically found from southwestern British Columbia to northern 

California, throughout the Puget Trough and Willamette Valley and extending into the Cascades in 

Oregon and southern Washington (McAllister and Leonard 1997). The Oregon spotted frog is now 

thought to be extirpated from up to 90% of its historic range (Hayes 1997). This decline is due 

mainly to habitat loss, modification, and curtailment, as well as through interactions with introduced 

bullfrogs and predatory fish (Service 2010d). 

The refuge is home to the largest extant population of Oregon spotted frogs and the only population 

in Washington known to coexist with bullfrogs (Service 2007; McAllister and Leonard 1997). The 

loss of historic populations and the ongoing threats to extant populations has elevated the Oregon 

spotted frog to a candidate for ESA protection and a state endangered species, making it the highest 

management priority for the refuge. Refuge management will need to adapt to needed recovery 

actions if the Oregon spotted frog is federally listed and protected under the ESA. 

Wet meadows represent core breeding habitat for Oregon spotted frogs. Oregon spotted frogs breed 

in shallow water (2-12 inches) that is at least seasonally connected to a larger water body. Preferred 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

2-16 Chapter 2. Management Direction

breeding habitat consists of sparse or short native grasses, sedges and rushes. Frogs rarely utilize 

densely vegetated areas of wet meadows, such as reed canarygrass-dominated wetlands, unless 

managed as short grass through haying or mowing, and areas shaded by woody vegetation, such as in 

shrubs or pines (Service 2007). Under the CCP, the refuge will manage wet meadows to promote 

Oregon spotted frog breeding by reducing cover of undesirable vegetation, mainly reed canarygrass 

and woody vegetation, and by ensuring breeding areas are inundated long enough to allow sufficient 

time for tadpoles to metamorphose and move from seasonal wetlands to permanent waters, which 

typically occurs in June or July, depending on seasonal conditions. Where possible, hydrologic 

connections will be maintained between wetland units and permanent water through August. 

Greater Sandhill cranes were listed as endangered by the State of Washington in 1981. Greater 

Sandhill cranes historically nested in several areas in Washington, including the southern Puget 

Trough and the south-central, northeastern, and southeastern regions. Crane populations declined 

significantly following human settlement and the associated habitat loss and through overhunting. 

Breeding populations were extirpated from Washington by 1941. In 1979, nesting was confirmed on 

the refuge (Littlefield and Ivey 2002). The refuge is now home to approximately 60 summering 

birds, including about 25 nesting pairs. 

Breeding territories of cranes typically include a variety of habitats: wet meadows, emergent 

marshes, grass uplands, and partially forested uplands. Nest sites are generally found in open areas 

in wet meadows or emergent marshes. Under the CCP, the Service will manage wet meadows to 

ensure continued crane nesting by maintaining habitat through removal of undesirable vegetation, 

mainly reed canarygrass and woody vegetation, and delaying any management actions which may 

affect breeding cranes until August 1 or after all colts have fledged. Management activities, such as 

pine removal in wet meadows that may affect breeding cranes, will be discontinued after March 1. 

Rosy owl-clover, long-bearded sego lily and Oregon coyote-thistle are wet meadow plants of 

management concern. Rosy owl-clover is restricted to two areas in Washington and is listed as 

endangered by the State of Washington. Long-bearded sego lily is restricted to a few populations in 

Klickitat and Yakima Counties; it is listed as sensitive by the State of Washington. Oregon coyotethistle is restricted to three populations in Klickitat and Clark Counties. All three plant species rely 

on open wet meadow habitat with little woody vegetation or competing cover, such as reed 

canarygrass (Camp and Gamon 2011). Under the CCP, the refuge will manage wet meadow habitat 

to remove woody vegetation for these three rare plant species. 

The nonnative bullfrog is fairly common on the refuge, and studies indicate that bullfrogs can prey 

heavily on native frog species (including Oregon spotted frogs). Brown bullhead fish are not native 

to the refuge and they occur in virtually all permanent and seasonal wetlands. There is no 

information about the impacts of bullhead on the native wildlife or ecology of the prairie and 

wetlands. Under the IPM program within the CCP, bullfrogs and bullheads will be removed from 

wetland areas using water management (drawdowns) and other reasonable methods. Drawdowns are 

an important management tool for reducing American bullfrog populations. Bullfrogs spend two 

years in the tadpole stage, so fall drawdowns limit bullfrog populations by culling tadpoles. 

Screening water control structure outlets is an additional option utilized to prevent bullfrog tadpoles 

from entering permanent water sources. Water level management requires functional water control 

structures. Water control structures are regularly maintained to keep them free of vegetation and 

ensure proper water flow and are replaced when no longer capable of functioning. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-17

Beaver activity creates considerable habitat for Oregon spotted frogs (and other wildlife). Beaver 

dams provide low-flow, stable water conditions that promote invertebrate populations, provide 

rearing areas, and enhance vegetative diversity within the pond system. Dams and lodges contain a 

complex matrix of logs and branches that maintains a water flow with high levels of dissolved 

oxygen. This structure also limits freezing in a microhabitat relatively secure from predators and 

thus provides ideal frog overwintering sites; beaver ponds are also secure from most predators. 

However, beaver dams and beaver activity can also cause damage to water management 

infrastructure by compromising the integrity of dikes and water control structures. Under the CCP, 

beavers determined to be causing damage to water management infrastructure will be removed or 

relocated to alternative locations within the Yakama Nation Reservation or other suitable sites. 

Objective 1.2 Emergent Marsh

Annually, protect and maintain 156 acres of emergent marsh on CLNWR for the benefit of 

migratory/breeding waterfowl, migrating/breeding greater Sandhill cranes, waterbirds (e.g., 

Virginia rails, soras, black terns), overwintering and breeding native amphibians (e.g., Oregon 

spotted frogs), and a diverse assemblage of wetland-dependent species. Emergent marshes are

characterized by:

• Water depths ranging from 2 to 4 feet.

• Inundation from approximately October 1 to late July or early September. 

• A 50/50 ratio of open water and emergent cover as a mosaic. 

• Native emergent cover, including bulrushes (Scirpus species) and cattails (Typha

species).

• Open water with native/desirable submergents (e.g., pondweeds). 

• A limited presence of woody species (e.g., lodgepole pine, spirea, willow species). 

• A <5% presence of invasive/undesirable plants (e.g., purple loosestrife). 

• Limited bullfrog recruitment.

Strategies For Achieving Objective

Acres 156

A. Mimic the natural duration when surface water is present (hydroperiod) throughout the year 

(i.e., flooding to commence with the fall rains and subside with the summer dry season).

B. Revise Water Management Plan within 2 years of CCP completion and then modify as 

needed.

C. Set boards in water control structures in all creeks and ditches by October 1 to maintain 

maximum (optimal) water levels for overwintering Oregon spotted frogs and other aquatic 

species. Initiate drawdowns by July 1 with drawdowns complete by August 15. Some water may 

be maintained in swales or deeper portions all year.

D. Apply prescribed fire to treat a maximum of 50 acres/year.

E. Graze reed canarygrass from September 1 to November 30 (see Grazing CD).
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

2-18 Chapter 2. Management Direction

F. Employ mechanical techniques (mowing, disking) to reduce emergent cover and maintain 

the desired vegetation/open water ratio.

G. Remove bullfrog tadpoles and bullheads using all available and appropriate means.

H. Use appropriate IPM techniques which may include mechanical/physical, cultural, chemical, 

and/or biological means to eradicate or control invasive species (see Appendix H).

Rationale 

The refuge was initially established for breeding and migrating waterfowl. Emergent marsh habitats 

represent important nesting and brooding areas for a variety of waterbirds that nest on the refuge, 

such as mallards, Virginia rails, soras and black terns. Emergent marsh is also important for 

migrating waterfowl, such as mallards, tundra swans, northern pintails and Canada geese. Under the 

CCP, the refuge will continue to manage emergent marsh to provide habitat for waterfowl. 

Oregon spotted frogs also require emergent marsh habitat during parts of the year. As noted in 

Objective 1.1, Oregon spotted frog populations have declined precipitously and they are State

endangered. The refuge population represents the largest extant population and the only population 

in Washington that coexists with large numbers of introduced bullfrogs (Service 2007; McAllister 

and Leonard 1997). Emergent marshes contain water through much of the summer and sometimes 

year-round. Oregon spotted frogs may utilize these areas for breeding in the spring and for foraging 

during the summer when other wetlands become dry. Frogs may also overwinter in the deeper water 

found in emergent marshes. For summering frogs, at least 50% open water is required for basking 

and to allow escape from predators (Watson et al. 2003). 

Although year-round water is beneficial to Oregon spotted frogs, such permanent water also provides 

breeding habitat for bullfrogs. The presence of bullfrogs negatively affects Oregon spotted frogs 

(Pearl et al. 2004). Under the CCP, the refuge will manage emergent marshes to maintain open water 

for Oregon spotted frogs and to curtail breeding of bullfrogs. Emergent marsh units, such as Willard 

Pond, C&H Bog, and Cattail Marsh, will be periodically drawn down to maintain open water to 

vegetation ratio and to reduce bullfrog recruitment. The units may be drawn down as much as every 

other year, but only one emergent marsh unit will be dewatered in any given year to maintain suitable 

Oregon spotted frog habitat. 

Greater Sandhill cranes, another species of management concern addressed in Objective 1.1, utilize 

emergent marsh habitat on the refuge. Open water found in emergent marshes provides roosting sites 

for cranes; roosting in open water allows cranes to avoid predation. In some units, notably the 

Oxbow and Willard Units, cranes nest in emergent marsh. Under the CCP, the refuge will manage 

emergent marshes to maintain open water for crane roosting and will delay any management 

activities that may affect breeding cranes until after August 1, or all colts have fledged, and will

cease management activities that may affect breeding cranes after March 1.

Current management of emergent marshes includes water level management, such as flooding or 

drawdowns, to influence vegetation and maintain some areas of open water. Drawdowns are an 

important management tool for reducing American bullfrog populations. Bullfrogs spend two years 

in the tadpole stage, so fall drawdowns limit bullfrog populations by culling tadpoles. Screening 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-19

water control structure outlets is an additional option utilized to prevent bullfrog tadpoles from 

entering permanent water sources. Water level management requires functional water control 

structures. Water control structures are regularly maintained to keep them free of vegetation and 

ensure proper water flow and are replaced when no longer capable of functioning. For more 

information on water management, see the Rationale in Objective 1.1. 

Management actions may include prescribed fire, mowing, disking, and grazing. Prescribed fire, 

mowing, and disking will be utilized to reduce emergent vegetation, create open water habitat, and 

reduce the cover of undesirable species, such as reed canarygrass. Prescribed fire is highly effective 

at reducing vegetative cover and removing accumulated vegetation. However, it is often cost 

prohibitive and only feasible in some areas. Mowing is less costly, but leaves behind residual 

vegetation and is less effective at removing shrubs and reed canarygrass. Additionally, mowing is 

not practical in all areas and produces only short-term benefits. Disking is a management tool for 

creating disturbance that increases heterogeneity in the landscape and can effectively reduce 

vegetative cover. 

In limited circumstances, livestock grazing may also be used to reduce emergent vegetation. Grazing 

can be effective at reducing vegetative cover and creating open water but can have significant 

negative effects on native plants and animals. Limited grazing will occur in select areas where no 

other management alternatives are available. IPM techniques, which may include mechanical, 

cultural, chemical, and/or biological agents, will be used to eradicate or control invasive species. 

Management actions will usually occur from August 1 until precipitation prevents further use. For 

bullfrogs, populations may be controlled by direct removal. 

Objective 1.3 Main Water Delivery System (Creeks and Ditches)

Annually, protect and maintain 19 miles of creeks and ditches on CLNWR for the benefit of 

Oregon spotted frogs, native fishes (e.g., speckled dace), migratory birds, and a diverse 

assemblage of other species (e.g., invertebrates). These creeks and ditches are characterized 

by:

• Permanent, moving water.

• Variable elevations and flows.

• The presence of submergents and floating vegetation (e.g., pondweeds). 

• Limited/restricted stands of tall emergents (e.g., Typha species).

Strategies For Achieving Objective

Miles 19

A. Set water control structure flood-up levels by October 1. Set water control structure 

drawdown levels by July 1 (see Conboy Lake Water Management Plan 2005).

B. Revise Water Management Plan within 2 years of CCP completion and then modify as 

needed.

C. Use mechanical techniques (dredging, vegetation removal) to maintain water flows.

D. Use appropriate IPM techniques which may include mechanical/physical, cultural, 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

2-20 Chapter 2. Management Direction

chemical, and/or biological means to eradicate or control invasive species (see Appendix H).

Rationale

A legacy of agricultural use in the Glenwood Valley has resulted in several man-made or altered 

ditches and creeks that function as inflows and outflows for the refuge. Chapman and Holmes 

Creeks provide spring-time flows to the southwest side of the refuge. Cold Springs Ditch, supplied 

by several springs, provides some year-round flow to the west side of the Camas Prairie lake bed. 

Bird Creek, supplied by irrigation water, provides the bulk of year-round water and flows to the north 

side of the refuge. Water drains out of the refuge through the Camas Ditch, which becomes Outlet 

Creek and flows east into the Klickitat River. Although these ditches are man-made, some have been 

in place for 100 years and now serve as critical habitat for Oregon spotted frogs, native invertebrates, 

and fish. They are also the water delivery system for all aquatic habitats on the refuge, which 

includes critical habitat for Oregon spotted frogs, Sandhill cranes, rare plants and other species of 

management concern.

As noted in Objective 1.1, Oregon spotted frogs are state endangered due to precipitous population 

declines as a result of habitat loss and degradation and interactions with introduced bullfrogs and 

predatory fish. The ditches and creeks, supplied by springs, run-off and irrigation water, contain the 

bulk of year-round water on the refuge. During late summer into winter, these ditches and creeks are 

important habitat for the highly aquatic Oregon spotted frog, as they are the only available water, 

other than several emergent marshes. Under the CCP, the refuge will manage ditches and creeks so 

that they continue to function as summer and winter habitat for Oregon spotted frogs. 

As the bulk of year-round water, the ditches and creeks serve as habitat for aquatic invertebrates and 

speckled dace, a native fish. Creek and ditch banks also represent the only riparian habitat on the 

refuge. Under the CCP, the Service will manage the creeks and ditches to maintain native 

assemblages of invertebrates, fish and riparian vegetation. 

Current management of creeks and ditches includes maintenance of water control structures and 

spillways, occasional cleaning and dredging, and vegetation control in riparian areas. Maintenance 

of water control structures is necessary to ensure continued flow and functioning of ditches and 

creeks. The timing and intensity of any cleaning and dredging activities will take into consideration 

the presence of Oregon spotted frogs. Water control structures also allow wetland units to be filled 

or drained as necessary. Spillways provide mitigation of flood water and hydrologic connections for 

migration of aquatic animals and require occasional maintenance. 

It should be noted that in the future there may be a management need to restore (likely through filling 

of manmade water channels) the stream system to its historic conditions. However, at this time what 

those historic conditions were is unknown. Additional study will be needed to determine those 

conditions and if restoration is desirable (see Goal 5). Such restoration will be the content of future 

CCPs or a modification of this one. 

Objective 1.4 Springs

Annually, protect and maintain springs (e.g., Willard Springs, Headquarters) on CLNWR for the 

benefit of a diverse assemblage of native species. Springs are characterized by:

• Permanent, moving water.
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-21

• Being groundwater-driven or associated with groundwater.

• Water temperatures ranging from 44 to 48°F.

Strategies For Achieving Objective

Springs 4

A. Strategically remove unwanted vegetation and debris, when necessary, to promote natural 

hydrology.

B. Use appropriate IPM techniques, including mechanical /physical, cultural, chemical, and/or 

biological means to eradicate or control invasive species (see Appendix H).

Rationale

There are four known springs on the refuge: Willard Spring is the only named spring. This habitat 

can support a diverse assemblage of native species, including overwintering Oregon spotted frogs. 

Springs are sometimes home to rare, endemic species; however, no biological surveys have been 

conducted on springs within the refuge, so it is unknown what species occupy these springs. The 

refuge will manage springs to protect any native species present and promote and maintain natural 

hydrology. This will be accomplished by conducting biological surveys within springs and initiating 

a periodic flow and temperature monitoring regime. Unwanted vegetation that accumulates in 

springs may be removed to allow free flow from springs. Maintaining existing springs is consistent 

with the Service’s 2001 policy on BIDEH (601 FW 3). 

Goal 2. Protect and maintain upland meadow habitat characteristic 

of Glenwood Valley/Conboy Lake Region.

Objective 2.1 Upland Meadow

Annually, protect and maintain 799 acres of upland meadow habitat on CLNWR for the benefit 

of foraging greater Sandhill cranes, migratory landbirds (e.g., grasshopper sparrows), raptors 

(e.g., northern harriers, short-eared owls), and a diverse assemblage of other native species 

(e.g., Mardon skippers, western yellow-bellied racers). Upland meadows are characterized by: 

• A full complement of native grasses (e.g., bluebunch wheatgrass, blue wildrye, and 

Idaho fescue). 

• A 20% cover of native forbs (e.g., Oregon checkermallow, yarrow, aster species). 

• A 75% cover of native bunchgrasses (e.g., blue-bunch wheatgrass, blue wildrye, Idaho 

fescue).

• A <5% cover of invasive species (e.g., meadow knapweed). 

• A limited presence of woody species (e.g., ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine).

Strategies For Achieving Objective

Acres 799
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

2-22 Chapter 2. Management Direction

A. Apply prescribed fire to treat up to 100 acres annually

B. Graze nonnative grasses from September 1 to November 30 (see Grazing CD).

C. Use mechanical techniques (e.g., mowing, grazing, heavy equipment) to selectively 

remove ponderosa and lodgepole pines and control pine seedlings.

D. Use appropriate IPM techniques which may include mechanical/physical, cultural, 

chemical, and/or biological means to eradicate or control invasive species (see Appendix H).

Rationale

Protection of habitat for migratory birds was the initial reason for the creation of the refuge. Upland 

meadows provide habitat for migratory songbirds, such as grasshopper sparrows. Raptors, such as 

northern harriers, build nests and forage in upland meadows. Greater Sandhill cranes, a species of 

management concern, forage in upland meadow habitats. Under the CCP, the refuge will manage 

upland meadows to provide habitat for migratory birds. 

Upland meadow habitat also provides habitat for other species of management concern. The Mardon 

skipper is a small butterfly that relies on native bunchgrasses, especially fescues, within upland 

meadows. Throughout much of its range, a great deal of upland meadow habitat has been lost or 

degraded by overgrazing, forest encroachment, invasive species, residential development and 

recreational activities. As a result of this habitat loss, Mardon skippers are restricted to five 

geographic areas, including two in Washington (77 FR 54331). Due to population declines, the 

Mardon skipper has been elevated to State endangered status. Mardon skipper populations are 

known to exist in two areas in upland meadows on the refuge, although extensive surveys for Mardon 

skippers across all appropriate habitats on the refuge have not been conducted. 

Mardon skippers require native bunchgrasses, particularly fescues and oatgrasses, for reproduction 

and other native plants, such as early blue violet, for foraging (Service 2010b). The presence of 

shrubs and trees negatively affects Mardon skippers by reducing meadow habitat. Fire suppression 

in upland meadows has allowed encroachment by shrubs and trees on the refuge, particularly 

lodgepole and ponderosa pines. Prescribed fire has been used in many grassland restoration sites to 

prevent the establishment and growth of woody vegetation, reduce the density of nonnative herbs, 

and maintain vigorous stands of native grasses and forbs. However, due to small population sizes, 

limited connectivity between Mardon skipper populations, and their limited dispersal ability, the 

potential for direct mortality due to fire could harm Mardon skipper populations (Service 2010b, 

Black 2011, Black et al. 2011). 

Mardon skipper populations may be vulnerable to local extirpation if a fire burns all of the occupied 

habitats at a population site (Black 2011). If a known Mardon skipper site is burned, these areas 

must then be re-colonized by butterflies flying in from unburned parts of the meadow; however, the 

rate and extent of re-colonization for Mardon skippers is still currently being investigated (Black 

2011, Black et al. 2011). Overall, assessing whether the habitat benefits gained from using 

prescribed fire will balance the lethal effects fire can pose to Mardon skippers is a complex 

undertaking. Further, potential effects will depend upon the timing and severity of the fire and the 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-23

condition of the habitat. The re-colonization rate and extent will depend upon the abundance and 

distribution of the protected core populations as well as the habitat response of the burned areas. 

Under the CCP, the refuge will manage upland meadows for the benefit of Mardon skippers by 

reducing the cover of shrubs and trees. Activities that may negatively affect Mardon skippers will be 

avoided, including heavy grazing and extensive burning. In areas with known populations of 

Mardon skippers, grazing, burning and other management activities will be subject to careful 

consideration. 

Invasive species are a concern within upland meadows. Invasives crowd out native plants and reduce 

plant biodiversity. Some invasives, like cheatgrass, increase fire frequency. Under the CCP, the 

refuge will manage upland meadows to reduce the cover of invasive plants. Current management of 

upland meadows that do not contain populations of Mardon skippers include pine removal and 

chemical control of invasive, nonnative plants, such as meadow knapweed. 

Pine removal and chemical control of invasive plants will continue to be management strategies. 

Pine removal is conducted by sawyers, and slash is hand piled. Mechanized removal actions will be 

extremely limited in areas with active Mardon skipper populations; all pine removal in known areas 

of Mardon skipper populations will be conducted by hand to minimize trampling and disturbance. In 

areas where the Mardon skipper does not occur, small pines may be removed by mowing or 

mastication; larger pines will be removed using chainsaws or heavy equipment. Mechanical, 

cultural, chemical, and biological agents may be used to eradicate or control invasive species. 

Prescribed fire may also be used to remove pines and shrubs. When applied, prescribed fires will be 

conducted in fall to mimic natural processes. Light, managed grazing may also be applied to prevent 

pine and shrub growth in areas where Mardon skippers do not occur. Management activities will be 

delayed until late summer or fall to reduce effects on nesting cranes and migratory birds. 

Goal 3. Protect, maintain, and enhance forest habitats 

characteristic of Glenwood Valley/Conboy Lake Region.

Objective 3.1 Ponderosa Pine Forest

Over the life of the CCP, protect, maintain, and enhance 610 acres of ponderosa pine forest on 

CLNWR for the benefit of migratory birds (e.g., white-headed woodpeckers, chipping 

sparrows, dark-eyed juncos, Townsend’s solitaires, dusky flycatchers) and a diverse 

assemblage of native forest-dependent species (e.g., Ames’ milk-vetch, Pulsifer’s monkeyflower). Late-succession ponderosa pine forest is characterized by:

• Being dominated by large, well-spaced ponderosa pine with lesser amounts of 

lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir, and grand fir. 

• Some areas of small trees in even-aged groups, one to several acres in size. 

• Mean canopy closures of 10-40% with 10 trees/acres at >21 inches diameter at breast 

height (DBH), with at least two trees being >31 inches DBH. 

• An average of 1.4 snags/acres being >8 inches DBH. 

• Small forest openings in dry sites with bitterbrush and milk-vetch present.

• An open understory with regenerating pines. 

• An interspersion of herbaceous ground cover with native shrubs (e.g., snowberry, wild 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

2-24 Chapter 2. Management Direction

rose, bitterbrush, rabbitbrush).

• A <5% presence of invasive/undesirable plants. 

In areas where ponderosa pine stands are potential western gray squirrel habitat (where it meets 

Oregon white oak forest), desired attributes include: 

• A multi-layered and well-connected canopy with between 45% and 75% canopy cover. 

• At least eight large conifers (>16 inches DBH) per acre. 

• At least a 30% cover of native shrubs. 

• A 50% to 80% ground cover of forest litter or moss.

Strategies For Achieving Objective

Acres 610

A. Over the life of the CCP, conduct mechanical thinning on ponderosa pine stands as 

prescribed in the Silvicultural Report and Recommendations (White 2009). For about 35% of 

the stand, thin to a stand density index of about 100-135. On an additional 35% of the stand, 

thin to a stand density index of about 180. Maintain about 15% of the stand intact, with no 

treatment, in patches 2-5 acres in size.

B. Apply prescribed fire in the fall as outlined in the Silvicultural Report and 

Recommendations. Use “underburning,” or the use of light controlled burns, to remove fuels, 

kill some small trees, and remove ladder fuels. 

C. Create small openings in about 15% of the stand, in sizes from .5 to 2 acres. Small 

openings could be contiguous to very widely spaced areas, in order to allow for maximum 

growth on large ponderosa pine trees.

D. Determine the existing snag density and, if needed, create additional snags through 

girdling, cutting, or prescribed fire.

E. Use appropriate IPM techniques which may include mechanical/physical, cultural, 

chemical, and/or biological means to eradicate or control invasive species (see Appendix H).

Rationale

Protecting, maintaining, and enhancing the existing ponderosa pine forest is consistent with the 

Service’s 2001 policy on BIDEH (601 FW 3). This habitat provides thermal cover and migration and 

dispersal corridors for a diverse assemblage of wildlife species, including amphibians, reptiles, 

migratory landbirds and small mammals. The state threatened western gray squirrel relies on 

ponderosa pine forests for foraging habitat (Linders et al. 2010). A number of rare or uncommon 

native birds and wildflowers have been found in this habitat. 

The black-backed woodpecker and white-headed woodpecker are found in ponderosa pine forests. 

Both are candidates for listing as state threatened or endangered and prefer open, mature stands of 

ponderosa pine (Wahl et al. 2005). Under the CCP, the refuge will manage for late-succession 

ponderosa pine stands exhibiting variable stand structure that will support species such as 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-25

black-backed and white-headed woodpeckers. Mechanical thinning will occur to meet attributes 

identified above, as well as objectives defined in the CLNWR Silvicultural Report and 

Recommendations (White 2009). 

Ames’ milk-vetch is a state endangered plant found on the refuge and adjacent lands. This represents 

the only population in Washington. Ames’ milk-vetch is found in open ponderosa pine habitat and 

germinates on disturbed ground with little forest litter. Historically, periodic fires maintained open 

ponderosa pine forests free of shrubs and forest litter (Camp and Gamon 2011). However, fire 

suppression during the last century has limited available habitat for the Ames’ milk-vetch. Under the 

selected management direction, the refuge will manage ponderosa pine stands for the benefit of 

Ames’ milk-vetch.

Western gray squirrels utilize ponderosa pine stands that are adjacent to, or intermingled with, stands 

of Oregon white oak. These stands occur mainly on the southern boundary of the refuge. Ideal pine 

stands are a mix of ages and stand densities. Mature ponderosa pines provide nest sites and serve as 

a reliable food source. Areas with dense cover allow fungal production, which is an important food 

source, while openings enhance the variety of food sources by allowing seed-bearing shrubs to grow. 

Isolated trees often produce more seeds and may serve as secluded den sites and cover for migration; 

isolated trees should be maintained for these purposes. Migration corridors should be two or more 

trees wide with a complex canopy. In areas where ponderosa pine stands are potential western gray 

squirrel habitat, stands will be managed to provide a multi-layered and well-connected canopy 

between 45% and 75% canopy cover with at least eight large conifers (>16 inches DBH) per acre. 

These stands should also have at least 30% cover of native shrubs and 50% to 80% ground cover of 

forest litter or moss. Timber management or prescribed fire will be avoided around active squirrel 

nests between March 1 and August 31 to prevent any disturbance to nesting females and young 

(Linders et al. 2010). 

The existing ponderosa pine forest sites are occupied by stands primarily composed of 60–100 

year-old ponderosa pine. These stands are dominated by ponderosa pine, with lesser amounts of 

lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir, and grand fir present. Two of the stands are part of the forested 

landscape directly west of Conboy Lake. The other ponderosa pine stands are scattered along the 

edges of Conboy Lake wetlands, and are usually associated with adjacent stands of lodgepole pine 

and quaking aspen. In these cases, as mentioned previously, ponderosa pine occupies slightly higher, 

better drained sites. Common understory shrubs and herbs include snowberry (Symphocarpus spp.), 

wild rose (Rosa spp.), bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), various 

native bunchgrasses and other grass species. Ecologically, these stands lie between the grand fir and 

ponderosa pine zones (Franklin and Dyrness 1973) and are similar to, but drier than, the grand 

fir/pinegrass and grand fir/elk sedge plant communities in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest to the 

west (Topik 1989). 

Ponderosa pine stands in the refuge have followed a development history similar to others on the 

eastern slopes of the Cascade Range. In pre-settlement times, frequent, low-intensity ground fires 

probably were the predominant disturbance influencing these forests and were key in maintaining 

more open conditions than we see today. Fire prevention, beginning in the late 1800s and early 

1900s, mostly removed the influence of fire on forest succession in ponderosa pine stands. The lack 

of fires has probably resulted in an increased density in these stands. Most ponderosa pine stands on 

CLNWR are densely stocked, and understory tree species are mostly lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir, 

ponderosa pine and grand fir. Pure ponderosa pine stands often contain large numbers of small trees. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

2-26 Chapter 2. Management Direction

Under the CCP, most ponderosa pine stands will be managed towards a desired future condition 

comprised of large patches of older forest with large snags. Stands will be dominated by large, 

well-spaced ponderosa pine trees, with some areas of small trees in even-age groups one to several 

acres in size. Reducing stand density via mechanical thinning will enhance individual tree vigor, 

promoting development of large, old-growth pines in the future, help provide for habitat for species 

adapted to open pine stands, and will provide a margin of protection from future insect outbreaks and 

wildfires. Reducing stand density may also allow for the re-introduction of light ground fires in a 

future prescribed burning program. Density reduction prior to the reintroduction of fire is likely 

necessary in many areas; build-up of duff and reduction of individual tree vigor in dense stands after 

years of fire exclusion may make it difficult to immediately reintroduce fire (Arno 2005). 

Mechanical thinning could include commercial thinning, hand clearing with chainsaws, or other 

suitable heavy equipment. 

Fire suppression has allowed a hazardous buildup of fuels within ponderosa pine forests. A fire 

moving through this forest could become catastrophic and threaten human life or property. Under 

the CCP, the refuge will manage ponderosa pine forests to reduce the buildup of fuels and avoid 

stand replacement fires. Proposed hazardous fuels reduction is detailed in the MCRNWRC’s Fire 

Management Plan.

Within recent history, the ponderosa pine forest has not been actively managed. In the future, 

hazardous fuels treatments, including prescribed fire and mechanical methods, will be conducted to 

reduce risks to humans and wildlife. These treatments also address past climate trends and projected 

increases to fire risk associated with future climate conditions. Mechanical thinning and prescribed 

fire may be used to create more open structure for Ames’ milk-vetch and black-backed and 

white-headed woodpeckers. For the benefit of both woodpeckers and other species, such as owls, 

that nest and forage in ponderosa pine forests, snags will be created through fire or girdling. 

Additionally, other mechanical, cultural, chemical and biological agents may be used to control or 

eradicate invasive species.

Objective 3.2 Lodgepole/Ponderosa Pine Forest

Over the life of the CCP, protect, maintain, and enhance 587 acres of lodgepole/ponderosa pine 

on CLNWR for the benefit of migratory birds (e.g., mountain chickadees, yellow-rumped 

warblers, Cassin’s finches), nesting bald eagles, and a diverse assemblage of other native 

forest-dependent species (e.g., elk, deer, Douglas squirrels, western gray squirrels). 

Lodgepole/ponderosa pine is characterized by: 

• Larger, older lodgepole and ponderosa pine. 

• Small openings with small trees in even-aged groups, one to several acres in size. 

• An average of 1.4 snags/acres being >8 inches DBH. 

• A <5% presence of invasive/undesirable plants. 

In areas where ponderosa pine stands are potential western gray squirrel habitat (where it meets 

Oregon white oak forest), stands will be managed with:

• A multi-layered and well-connected canopy with between 45% and 75% canopy cover. 

• At least eight large conifers (>16 inches DBH) per acre. 

• At least a 30% cover of native shrubs.
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-27

• A 50% to 80% ground cover of forest litter or moss.

Strategies For Achieving Objective

Acres 587

A. Over the life of the CCP, conduct mechanical thinning on lodgepole/ponderosa pine stands 

as prescribed in the Silvicultural Report and Recommendations (White 2009). Focus on areas 

where the stand is a mixture of lodgepole and ponderosa pine and replicate the density called 

for in ponderosa pine stands, favoring ponderosa pine.

B. Create small openings to enhance structural diversity.

C. Determine the existing snag density and, if needed, create additional snags through girdling 

or cutting.

D. Apply prescribed fire in the fall as outlined in the Silvicultural Report and 

Recommendations where appropriate.

E. Use appropriate IPM techniques which may include mechanical/physical, cultural, 

chemical, and/or biological means to eradicate or control invasive species (see Appendix H).

Rationale

Maintaining existing lodgepole/ponderosa pine forest is consistent with the Service’s 2001 policy on 

BIDEH (601 FW 3). This habitat provides thermal cover and migration and dispersal corridors for a 

diverse assemblage of wildlife species. Migratory songbirds, such as the yellow-rumped warbler, 

Cassin’s finch, and mountain chickadee, which have experienced population declines in Washington, 

nest and forage in lodgepole/ponderosa pine forests. Native mammals, such as elk, deer and Douglas 

squirrels may use lodgepole/ponderosa pine forests for nesting, foraging, or cover. Bald eagles, 

which are a state sensitive species, nest in mature lodgepole and ponderosa pines. 

Western gray squirrels, a state threatened species, may use some lodgepole and ponderosa pine 

stands. Western gray squirrels may utilize pine stands that are adjacent to, or intermingled with, 

stands of Oregon white oak, which occurs mainly on the southern boundary of the refuge. These 

pine stands should be managed to increase stand complexity, with a variety of densities and tree ages. 

The largest trees are important for nest sites and food sources and should be maintained. Isolated 

trees and small groups of trees are also important as migration cover and secluded nest sites. In areas 

where pine stands are potential western gray squirrel habitat, stands will be managed to provide a 

multi-layered and well-connected canopy between 45% and 75% canopy cover with at least eight 

large conifers (>16 inch DBH) per acre, preferably ponderosa pine. These stands should also have at 

least 30% cover of native shrubs and 50% to 80% ground cover of forest litter or moss. Timber 

management or prescribed fire will be avoided around active squirrel nests between March 1 and 

August 31 to prevent any disturbance to nesting females and young (Linders et al. 2010). 

CLNWR lodgepole/ponderosa pine forests are primarily composed of 40-100-year-old lodgepole and 

ponderosa pines. Lodgepole pine occupies low areas and depressions on the local landscape, 

adjacent to wet meadows. Farther away from wet meadow edges, on slightly higher terrain, stands 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

2-28 Chapter 2. Management Direction

change to a mixture of lodgepole pine and ponderosa pine. Some areas in the middle of these stands 

are almost pure ponderosa pine. The most common shrub in lodgepole/ponderosa pine stands is 

spirea. Other common shrubs and forbs include serviceberry, snowberry, wild rose and trailing 

blackberry. Lodgepole/ponderosa pine stands on CLNWR are densely stocked and are reasonably 

healthy. Lodgepole pine is quite intolerant of shade, thus needing room to grow well. Lodgepole 

pine can, however, grow at very dense levels, with little individual tree growth. CLNWR stands are 

growing at moderate rates. 

Unlike ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine is not maintained by frequent, low-intensity fire. The species 

has thin bark and is susceptible to cambium damage and killing by fire (Evers et al. 1996). 

Lodgepole pine grows fast and is relatively short-lived, usually not surviving more than 150 or 200 

years (Arno 1977). Mature, dense stands are susceptible to attacks by the mountain pine beetle, 

which can kill the majority of trees in a stand. Large fires, such as the Yellowstone fires of 1988, 

burned in stands that had earlier outbreaks of mountain pine beetles (Lynch et al. 2006). Trees 

occupying low sites with high water tables, such as at CLNWR, are also subject to periodic breakage 

or uprooting by wind, adding fuel for later wildfires.

Although stands are not maintained by fire, lodgepole pine is well-adapted to regrowing after fire. 

The tree colonizes and grows quickly on open, disturbed sites. The tree exhibits fast juvenile growth 

and quickly becomes established. The species is very tolerant of growing season frost and does well 

on valley bottoms, depressions, and other sites where cold air accumulates and growing season frost 

can be a problem. 

The refuge will manage for late-succession lodgepole/ponderosa pine forests for a variety of species 

by creating structural diversity. In areas where the stand is a mixture of lodgepole and ponderosa 

pine, thinning to replicate the density to favor ponderosa pines will improve stand vigor. This will be 

accomplished by creating openings through mechanical methods, creating snags by girdling trees, 

prescribed fire, and mechanical thinning to reduce stand density. Reducing density in areas of pure 

lodgepole pine, a relatively short-lived species, will not necessarily translate into long-term stand 

health; even thinned stands are susceptible to insects such as the mountain pine beetle and other 

pathogens. In addition, there is value in retaining some areas of unthinned stand, which may provide 

superior habitat for species such as the black-backed woodpecker. 

Stand density reduction efforts will focus on areas of mixed ponderosa pine and lodgepole pine and 

on removing lodgepole pine. Mechanical thinning will occur to meet attributes identified above, as 

well as objectives defined in the CLNWR Silvicultural Report and Recommendations (White 2009). 

Mechanical thinning could include commercial thinning or hand clearing with chainsaws or other 

suitable heavy equipment. Natural processes, such as windthrow of trees, will also contribute to 

creation of structural diversity. Invasive species that negatively affect native species may be 

controlled or eradicated through a combination of mechanical, cultural, chemical and biological 

methods. 

A history of fire suppression has allowed a hazardous buildup of fuels within lodgepole/ponderosa 

pine forests. To reduce risks to human life and property, as well as wildlife, the refuge will reduce 

hazardous fuels through prescribed fire and mechanical thinning. These treatments will also address 

past climate trends and projected increases to fire risk associated with future climate conditions. 

Hazardous fuels reduction is detailed in the MCRNWRC’s Fire Management Plan. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-29

Objective 3.3 Mixed Conifer Forest

Over the life of the CCP, protect, maintain, and enhance 926 acres of mixed conifer forest on 

CLNWR for the benefit migratory birds (e.g., brown creepers, Townsend’s warblers, 

red-breasted nuthatches, pine siskins) and a diverse assemblage of other forest-dependent 

species (e.g., elk, black-tailed deer). Mixed conifer forest is characterized by:

• A dense overstory canopy dominated by Douglas-fir, grand fir, and ponderosa pine.

• Being multi-layered and structurally diverse. 

• Large, well-spaced Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine (>4 trees/acre at >18 inches DBH 

with at least two trees >24 inches DBH). 

• At least two snags/acre.

• A 20% aerial coverage of scattered openings with understory shrubs (e.g., snowberry, 

California hazel, wild rose) and other herbaceous species (e.g., bracken fern). 

In areas where ponderosa pine stands are potential western gray squirrel habitat (where it meets 

Oregon white oak forest), stands will be managed with:

• A multi-layered and well-connected canopy with between 45% and 75% canopy cover. 

• At least eight large conifers (>16 inches DBH) per acre. 

• At least a 30% cover of native shrubs. 

• A 50% to 80% ground cover of forest litter or moss.

Strategies For Achieving Objective

Acres 926

A. Over the life of the CCP, conduct mechanical thinning on mixed conifer stands as 

prescribed in the Silvicultural Report and Recommendations (White 2009). Over about 50% of 

the stand area, thin Douglas-fir and grand fir to a relative density of 25-35 and retain larger 

trees.

B. Create small openings (approximately 0.5 acres in size) to enhance structural diversity.

C. Determine the existing snag density and, if needed, create additional snags through girdling

or cutting.

D. Apply prescribed fire in the fall as outlined in the Silvicultural Report and 

Recommendations.

E. Use appropriate IPM techniques which may include mechanical/physical, cultural, 

chemical, and/or biological means to eradicate or control invasive species (see Appendix H).

Rationale

Maintaining existing mixed conifer forest is consistent with the Service’s 2001 policy on BIDEH 

(601 FW 3). This habitat provides thermal cover and migration and dispersal corridors for a diverse 

assemblage of wildlife species. Mixed conifer forests provide nesting and foraging habitat for a 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

2-30 Chapter 2. Management Direction

variety of migratory birds, including brown creepers, Townsend’s warblers, red-breasted nuthatches 

and pine siskins, which have declined in Washington (Wahl et al. 2005). Other native animals, such 

as elk and deer, use mixed conifer forests for cover and as migration corridors. 

Western gray squirrels may utilize conifer stands that are adjacent to, or intermingled with, stands of 

Oregon white oak, which occurs mainly on the southern boundary of the refuge. These stands should 

be managed to increase stand complexity, with a variety of densities and tree ages. Areas of dense 

canopy cover promote the growth of fungi, which are important food sources. Light gaps allow the 

growth of seed-bearing shrubs. The largest trees are important for nest sites and food sources and 

should be maintained. Isolated trees and small groups of trees are also important as migration cover 

and secluded nest sites. In areas where pine stands are potential western gray squirrel habitat, stands 

will be managed to provide a multi-layered and well-connected canopy between 45% and 75% 

canopy cover with at least eight large conifers (>16 inch DBH) per acre, preferably ponderosa pine 

and Douglas-fir. These stands should also have at least 30% cover of native shrubs and 50% to 80% 

ground cover of forest litter or moss. Timber management or prescribed fire will be avoided around 

active squirrel nests between March 1 and August 31 to prevent any disturbance to nesting females 

and young (Linders et al. 2010). 

CLNWR mixed conifer stands are densely populated, with a few areas of light stocking (dry 

ridgetops populated by young ponderosa pine and Oregon white oak). These stands are stocked with 

Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, and grand fir as the primary tree species. In addition, most mixed 

conifer stands include an understory of grand fir, or a component of grand fir in the overstory. 

Although many small grand fir and Douglas-fir saplings inflate the number of stems per acre, stands 

are fully occupied with larger trees. Mixed conifer stands appear to be about 100 years old, similar 

to or a bit older than other stands on the refuge. Fire is probably less frequent than in ponderosa pine 

stands, on the order of every 25–100 years. Semi-frequent surface fire maintained stands of 

ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir on the drier end of this fire group. 

The northerly slopes of these stands allow development of shade-tolerant grand fir to a greater extent 

than ponderosa pine and lodgepole pine stands, particularly with fire exclusion during the past 

century. Currently, mixed conifer stands are relatively dense and include understories of Douglas-fir

and grand fir. In some areas, grand fir is a stand canopy component. 

Management direction will include retaining late-successional forest conditions, which these stands 

are developing, and creating edge. Small openings and thinned areas, combined with areas that 

remain in their current, relatively dense condition, will help to maintain parts of the stand as dense 

forest. Creating openings and reducing overall stand density will lessen the chance of large-scale 

stand loss from disturbance agents such as insects or fire. The refuge will manage for native wildlife 

by creating and maintaining structural diversity dominated by Douglas-fir, grand fir and ponderosa 

pine in mixed conifer forests. This will be accomplished through prescribed fire, mechanical 

thinning, creating small openings, and creating snags by girdling. Mechanical thinning will occur to 

meet attributes identified above, as well as objectives defined in the CLNWR Silvicultural Report 

and Recommendations (White 2009). Mechanical thinning could include commercial thinning or 

hand clearing with chainsaws or other suitable heavy equipment. 

A history of fire suppression has allowed a hazardous buildup of fuels. A fire burning in mixed 

conifer forests could threaten human life and property, as well as wildlife. To prevent hazardous 

wildfires, several management tools may be used. Stands may be commercially thinned to reduce 

stand density and remove ladder fuels. Grand fir, which is not fire resistant, may be selectively 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-31

removed. Prescribed fire may also be used to reduce hazardous fuels. These treatments also address 

past climate trends and projected increases to fire risk associated with future climate conditions. 

Hazardous fuels reduction is detailed in the MCRNWRC’s Fire Management Plan. 

Objective 3.4 Oregon White Oak Woodland

Over the life of the CCP, protect, maintain, and enhance 61 acres of Oregon white oak 

woodlands on CLNWR for the benefit of breeding and migrating landbirds (e.g., dusky 

flycatchers, American robins, white-breasted nuthatches, Lewis’ woodpeckers), foraging 

greater Sandhill cranes, small mammals (e.g., western gray squirrels) and a diverse assemblage 

of oak woodland-dependent species (e.g., turkeys, deer). Oregon white oak woodlands are 

characterized by:

• Oak-pine woodland, with or without scattered trees, that comprise a moderate and 

variable (<25 to 75%) canopy cover. 

• At least eight large diameter (>16 inch DBH) trees per acre, dominated by conifers, but 

with a diversity of mast-producing trees. 

• A multi-layered canopy of ponderosa pine with an upper canopy layer >46 feet. 

• Sparse understories of oak with <50% shrub cover or other ground vegetation. 

• The presence of snags.

• Connectivity of the oak forests with adjacent conifer forests. 

• A <5% presence of invasive/undesirable plants.

Strategies For Achieving Objective

Acres 61

A. Create openings with mechanical techniques to allow oak recruitment.

B. Selectively thinning (e.g., mechanical techniques) adjacent conifers overtopping hardwood 

species.

C. Determine the existing snag density and, if needed, create additional snags through 

girdling.

D. Apply prescribed fire in the fall as outlined in the Silvicultural Report and 

Recommendations (White 2009).

E. Use appropriate IPM techniques which may include mechanical/physical, cultural, 

chemical, and/or biological means to eradicate or control invasive species (see Appendix H).

Rationale

Protecting and maintaining Oregon white oak woodland habitat is consistent with the Service’s 2001 

policy on BIDEH (601 FW 3). Oregon white oak woodland is also a priority habitat in Washington 

due to declining populations (Larsen and Morgan 1998). White oak woodlands provide habitat for a 

variety of native species, including turkey, deer, bats, and other small mammals and migratory birds. 

Birds such as the white-breasted nuthatch and Lewis’s woodpecker, a state candidate species, nest in 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

2-32 Chapter 2. Management Direction

white oak woodlands (Wahl et al. 2005). Greater Sandhill cranes, a state endangered species, forage 

in white oak woodlands. Under the CCP, the refuge will protect and promote the growth of Oregon 

white oak woodlands for the benefit of native species. 

Oregon white oak woodlands also provide habitat for the State threatened western gray squirrel 

which is present on the refuge. Ideal habitat for western gray squirrels is complex, with a mix of age 

classes, species, and densities. Mature oaks are an important food source, and the largest oaks should 

be maintained by removing conifers that overtop them. Conifers within Oregon white oak 

woodlands are an important component of habitat. Large pines provide nesting, foraging and 

denning habitat. Areas of dense pine cover allow for growth of fungus, such as truffles, which are a 

food source for western gray squirrels. Areas of low canopy cover and open patches ensure a 

broader variety of food sources, such as seed-bearing shrubs. However, a dense shrub understory 

may stress plants and limit seed production. Timber management or prescribed fire between March 1 

and August 31 could disrupt breeding or access to mates and young and should be avoided within 

400 feet of any squirrel nests (Linders et al. 2010). 

Oregon white oak occurs interspersed with conifers, or in small, almost pure, groups on the refuge. 

The species is very drought-tolerant and occupies locations with very shallow soils where conifers 

have difficulty competing. The species is shade-intolerant; fire exclusion has resulted in many 

Oregon white oaks being overtopped by conifers, decreasing their vigor or killing the hardwoods due 

to lack of light.

Due to its importance as habitat, the primary strategy for managing Oregon white oak on CLNWR 

will be to protect, maintain, and enhance the vigor and growth of existing trees. A recommended 

practice for Oregon white oak is to thin adjacent conifers that are shading the hardwood in order to 

maintain the oaks’ vigor and growth (Larson and Morgan 1998). Thinning conifers from the south 

side of oak trees leaves some connectivity on the north side for arboreal rodents such as the western 

gray squirrel. Connectivity is important since gray squirrels nest in conifers (Larson and Morgan 

1998). 

Periodic, low-intensity fire is one of the key ecological processes affecting the viability of oak 

woodland ecosystems. An anthropogenic fire regime by American Indians was probably present 

historically. Fire maintained open understory conditions in oak woodland and favored dominance of 

oak over Douglas-fir. The recent history of fire suppression on the refuge has allowed encroachment 

of Douglas-fir and invasive plants in oak woodlands and may have contributed to a decline in oak 

recruitment and in native wildflowers. To maintain this rare plant community, control of invasive 

plants, planting oak seedlings or saplings, and maintaining sufficient forest floor light conditions by 

thinning dense, even-aged oak stands may be necessary.

Structurally diverse stands will be created to benefit native species, such as western gray squirrels. 

To benefit cavity-nesting species, such as Lewis’s woodpecker, snags may be created by girdling. 

Connectivity with conifer forests will be maintained to serve as movement corridors for western gray 

squirrels, turkey, deer, and other native species.

Objective 3.5 Quaking Aspen Stands

Over the life of the CCP, protect, maintain, and enhance 95 acres of quaking aspen stands on 

CLNWR for the benefit of migratory landbirds (e.g., red-naped sapsuckers, house wrens, 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-33

western screech owls, tree swallows, northern flickers), raptors (e.g., sharp-shinned hawks, 

Cooper’s hawks), and a diverse assemblage of other native species (e.g., elk, ruffed grouse, 

beavers). Quaking aspen is characterized by: 

• Large aspen trees and snags with regeneration. 

• A mean canopy cover of 40-80% (either clumped with patches and openings or 

relatively evenly distributed) with >1.5 trees and >1.5 snags/acre >39 feet in height and 

10 inch DBH. 

• A >10% cover of saplings in the understory.

Strategies For Achieving Objective

Acres 95

A. Provide a setback from haying to promote suckering (recruitment) of aspens.

B. Disk up to five acres annually to cause disturbance and promote suckering.

C. Selectively thin pine up to 30 feet around aspen stands to promote expansion of aspen 

stands within conifer forests.

D. Remove conifers (mechanical techniques, girdling) within established aspen stands.

E. Determine the existing snag density and, if needed, create additional snags through 

girdling.

F. Selectively cut back (top) or girdle large aspens to promote suckering, where necessary.

G. Apply prescribed fire in the fall as outlined in the Silvicultural Report and 

Recommendations (White 2009).

H. Use appropriate IPM techniques which may include mechanical/physical, cultural, 

chemical, and/or biological means to eradicate or control invasive species (see Appendix H).

Rationale

Protecting and maintaining aspen stands is consistent with the Service’s 2001 policy on BIDEH (601 

FW 3). Aspen stands provide habitat for a diverse assemblage of native species. Migratory 

landbirds are found in all life stages within aspen stands. Snags provide an insect food source for 

birds, such as red-naped sapsuckers and downy and hairy woodpeckers, as well as habitat for cavity 

nesters. Cavities created by birds for nesting are used by other birds and mammals. Aspen stands 

are also important habitat for western screech owls, mountain bluebirds, tree swallows and other 

birds (Altman 2000). Raptors, such as sharp-shinned and Cooper’s hawks, forage in aspen stands. 

The aspen buds are an important winter food source for ruffed grouse. Elk and deer rely on aspen for 

foraging and calving or fawning. Porcupines, beaver, rabbits, bears and other mammals eat aspen 

bark, foliage, or buds. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

2-34 Chapter 2. Management Direction

Aspen is found on the valley floor, adjacent to wetlands. Quaking aspen grows in clones, with many 

stems sharing the same genetic makeup. The species sprouts prolifically from root suckers, produced 

on the shallow lateral roots. Suckering occurs mainly at the edge of existing aspen stands and often 

occurs due to disturbance. The resulting young trees need abundant light in order to develop; thus, 

new suckers that survive and develop are on the edges of the clone. Suckers are susceptible to 

consumption by wild and domestic ungulates. Individual quaking aspen trees are not long-lived 

(maximum age of about 150 years in the western United States), although clones are much older. 

Fire suppression reduces suckering and allows conifers to become established within aspen stands. 

Conifer encroachment can eliminate aspen stands because aspen is shade-intolerant. 

The refuge will manage aspen stands to maintain structural diversity and promote suckering through 

multiple disturbance regimes. This will be accomplished by removing pines within aspen stands, as 

well as by selectively removing pines around aspen stands. Prescribed fire in the fall may be used to 

simulate natural conditions that promote disturbance. Any haying or mowing will be set back from 

stand edges to promote suckering. Large aspens may be topped or girdled to promote suckering and 

create snags. Refuge boundary fences will be maintained to prevent unauthorized grazing by cattle, 

which can limit aspen recruitment. 

Goal 4. Protect and maintain riparian habitats characteristic of the 

Glenwood Valley/Conboy Lake Region.

Objective 4.1 Riparian Corridor (Alder and Willow)

Over the life of the CCP, protect and maintain 35 acres of alder/willow-dominated riparian 

corridor on CLNWR for the benefit of breeding and migrating landbirds (e.g., wood ducks, 

willow flycatchers, yellow warblers, song sparrows, spotted towhees), accipiters (e.g., redshouldered hawks), and a diverse assemblage of other native species (e.g., ruffed grouse, deer, 

elk). Desired attributes of alder/willow dominated riparian corridors include: 

• The presence of riparian shrubs (e.g., willow, alder, hawthorne) on up to 50% of the 

riparian corridor.

Strategies For Achieving Objective

Acres 35

A. Create setbacks from grazing/haying activities to protect riparian areas.

B. Strategically remove riparian vegetation for infrastructure maintenance (e.g., dikes, 

ditches).

C. Use appropriate IPM techniques which may include mechanical/physical, cultural, 

chemical, and/or biological means to eradicate or control invasive species (see Appendix H).
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-35

Rationale

A legacy of agricultural use on the refuge has resulted in a series of ditches and channelized creeks. 

Riparian habitat associated with these ditches and creeks was probably not present in the area prior to 

development of agriculture. However, within the altered landscape riparian zones provide resources 

for a variety of wildlife species, especially neotropical migrant birds which use riparian habitat more 

than any other habitat for foraging and nesting (Quigley and Arbelbide 1997). Riparian areas also 

provide habitat for bats, other small mammals, grouse, deer, elk, and frogs. However, excessive 

riparian vegetation can overshadow waterways, preventing growth of aquatic vegetation that is 

important to Oregon spotted frogs, a species of management concern. 

Under the CCP, riparian areas will be managed to provide habitat for a variety of native species. 

Haying, mowing, and grazing will be set back from riparian edges to allow growth of riparian 

vegetation. A variety of techniques, including mechanical, cultural, chemical and biological agents 

may be used to eradicate or control invasive species. Riparian vegetation will be selectively removed 

in areas to allow for maintenance of infrastructure, such as dikes, ditches and water control 

structures, as well as provide open areas to promote aquatic vegetation growth. 

Goal 5. Gather scientific information (surveys, research, and 

assessments) to support adaptive management decisions under 

objectives for Goals 1-4.

Objective 5.1 Surveys

Throughout the life of the CCP, conduct high-priority inventory and monitoring (survey) 

activities that evaluate resource management and public-use activities to facilitate adaptive 

management. These surveys contribute to the enhancement, protection, use, preservation, and 

management of wildlife populations and their habitats on and off refuge lands. Specifically, 

they can be used to evaluate achievement of resource management objectives identified under 

Goals 1-4 in the CCP. These surveys have the following attributes:

• Data collection techniques will have minimal animal mortality or disturbance and 

minimal habitat destruction.

• The minimum number of samples (e.g., water, soils, vegetative litter, plants, 

macroinvertebrates, vertebrates) to meet statistical analysis requirements will be 

collected for identification and/or experimentation in order to minimize long-term or 

cumulative impacts.

• Proper cleaning of investigator equipment and clothing, as well as implementing 

quarantine methods, where necessary, will minimize the potential spread or 

introduction of invasive species. 

• Projects will adhere to scientifically defensible protocols for data collection, where 

available and applicable.

Prioritized List of Surveys

• Oregon spotted frog egg mass surveys. 

• Mardon skipper surveys across all appropriate habitats on the refuge.
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

2-36 Chapter 2. Management Direction

• Sandhill crane monitoring: breeding pair surveys, productivity, and colt survival.

• Monitoring water levels with staff gauges in wet meadows and emergent marshes.

• Western gray squirrel surveys. 

• Rare plant surveys. 

• Elk population surveys. 

• Waterfowl survey during spring migration. 

• Waterfowl pair and brood counts. 

• Invasive species mapping and monitoring. 

• Secretive marshbird surveys. 

• Pollinator surveys. 

• Bat surveys. 

• Western toad surveys. 

• Water rights monitoring. 

• Aquatic invertebrate surveys. 

• Refuge plant list by habitat.

• Coyote population surveys. 

• Inventory of all species present in springs, including plants and invertebrates.

• Monitoring flows and temperatures in springs. 

• Terrestrial invertebrate surveys. 

• Deer population surveys.

Strategies For Acheiving Objective

A. Understand distributions of species through appropriate survey methodologies.

B. Conduct refuge-wide sampling in all habitats.

C. Stratified sampling techniques to select for key species or guilds.

D. Develop a geodatabase that ties individual records to specific locations (GIS/GPS).

Rationale

The Administration Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 668dd ee), requires monitor the status and trends of 

fish, wildlife, and plants in each refuge. Surveys will be used primarily to evaluate resource response 

to assess progress toward achieving refuge management objectives (under Goals 1-4 in this CCP) 

derived from the NWRS mission, refuge purpose(s), and the maintenance of BIDEH (601 FW 3). 

Determining resource status and evaluating progress toward achieving objectives is essential to 

implementing adaptive management on Department of the Interior lands as required by policy (522 

DM 1). Specifically, results of surveys will be used to refine management strategies, where 

necessary, over time in order to achieve resource objectives. Surveys will provide the best available 

scientific information to promote transparent decision-making processes for resource management 

over time on refuge lands. 

Inventories, monitoring, research, and studies are essential to high-quality habitat and population 

management. Currently, CLNWR has comprehensive species lists, but population numbers of 

numerous species are little more than estimates, albeit ones made from years spent on the refuge. 

Inventorying populations of at least the target species in this CCP is a priority. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-37

Most of the highest priority surveys concern species listed as sensitive, candidate, threatened, or 

endangered (State or Federal), including Mardon skipper, Oregon spotted frog, Sandhill crane, 

western gray squirrel, and rare plants. It is important to initiate or continue monitoring these 

populations to understand their distribution on the refuge to ensure appropriate management actions 

and to evaluate the effectiveness of management actions. 

Other high priority surveys, such as monitoring water levels and invasive species mapping, facilitate 

habitat restoration and management. Water levels directly influence the suitability of habitat for 

Oregon spotted frogs and Sandhill cranes. Invasive species, notably bullfrogs and various plants, can 

greatly diminish habitat suitability and need to be mapped. Elk population surveys will be valuable 

for understanding the numbers and distribution of elk on the refuge and evaluating the effects of a 

limited hunt. Waterfowl and secretive marshbird surveys directly relate to the reason for which the 

refuge was created and also relate to hunting, one of the priority public uses of the refuge. Other 

surveys identified in the objectives concern species or communities that may be listed as threatened 

or endangered or they concern food sources and predators that affect species of concern. Some 

surveys are valuable to understanding water availability and inputs to the refuge. 

Monitoring habitat conditions provides valuable support for sound decision making when applied to 

refuge resource management and also contributes to the Service’s ability to modify management 

practices (adaptive management). This is especially the case due to long-term changes in climatic 

conditions that may affect habitats and fish and wildlife populations. Wildlife populations, habitat 

conditions and habitat management practices, including restoration efforts, must be monitored to 

evaluate their status and effectiveness. Population trends can be used to evaluate habitat 

effectiveness and guide management actions.

The importance of monitoring is amplified by climate change, which is projected to significantly 

affect habitats and species on the refuge. These changes could result in species declines and/or loss 

of populations at refuges, particularly for small and isolated populations, and for species with high 

sensitivity to changes in temperature, precipitation, hydrology, disturbance, and other stressors 

influenced by climate. The most likely beneficiaries of these changes are species that can rapidly 

disperse and establish, but unfortunately nonnative invasive species also share these traits. 

Objective 5.2 Research

Throughout the life of the CCP, conduct high-priority research projects that provide the best 

science for habitat and wildlife management on and off refuges. Scientific findings gained 

through these projects will expand knowledge regarding life-history needs of species and 

species groups as well as identify or refine habitat and wildlife management actions. Research 

also will reduce uncertainty regarding wildlife and habitat responses to refuge management 

actions in order to achieve desired outcomes reflected in resource management objectives and 

to facilitate adaptive management. These research projects have the following attributes:

• Adhere to scientifically defensible protocols for data collection, where available and 

applicable, in order to develop the best science for resource management.

• Data collection techniques will have minimal animal mortality or disturbance and 

minimal habitat destruction.

• Collect the minimum number of samples (e.g., water, soils, vegetative litter, plants, 

macroinvertebrates, vertebrates) to meet statistical analysis requirements for 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

2-38 Chapter 2. Management Direction

identification and/or experimentation in order to minimize long-term or cumulative 

impacts.

• Utilize proper cleaning of investigator equipment and clothing, as well as 

implementing quarantine methods where necessary, to minimize the potential spread or 

introduction of invasive species. 

• Often result in peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals and publications and/or 

symposiums.

Prioritized List of Research Needs

• The fate and movement of Oregon spotted frog metamorphs. 

• Oregon spotted frog overwintering habitat needs. 

• Sandhill crane habitat use (nesting and foraging) in relation to water and upland 

management on the refuge.

• Sandhill crane colt dispersal and survival estimates from radio-telemetry and banding. 

• The effects of disking and prolonged flooding in wetland areas on vegetation and target 

species.

Strategies For Achieving Objective

A. Generally use well-established procedures and protocols.

B. Establish partnerships to assist in research efforts.

C. Establish relationships with universities, etc., to assist in research efforts.

Rationale

Research projects on refuge lands will address a wide range of natural and cultural resource and 

public use management issues. Examples of research projects include habitat use and life-history 

requirements for specific species/species groups, practical methods for habitat management and 

restoration, extent and severity of environmental contaminants, techniques to control or eradicate 

pest species, effects of climate change on environmental conditions and associated habitat/wildlife 

response, identification and analyses of paleontological specimens, wilderness character, modeling of 

wildlife populations, and assessing the response of habitat/wildlife to disturbance from public uses. 

Projects may be species-specific, refuge-specific, or evaluate the relative contribution of the refuge to 

larger landscape (e.g., ecoregion, region, flyway, national, international) issues and trends. Like 

monitoring, results of research projects will expand the best available scientific information and 

potentially reduce uncertainties, promoting transparent decision-making processes for resource 

management over time on refuge lands. In combination with the results of surveys, research will

promote adaptive management on refuge lands. Scientific publications resulting from research on 

refuge lands will help increase the visibility of the NWRS as a leader in the development of the best 

science for resource conservation and management. 

Refuges must collect site-specific information and conduct defensible research to provide 

information for devising, guiding, and adapting management practices. Research is valuable for 

protecting and understanding refuge resources, determining natural resource components and their 

interactions, and understanding the consequences of management actions on the parts and the whole. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-39

Research is also necessary for the overall advancement of science and scientific inquiry. Applied 

research on the refuge will help address management issues and questions, in theory, and will result 

in improved management decisions on both the refuge and on a regional basis. 

Developing and maintaining partnerships is crucial in accomplishing this goal as funds and staff time 

are limited. The refuge has always maintained a close working relationship with several State, tribal, 

local agencies, and universities to advance the knowledge base of a variety of habitats and plant and 

wildlife species. Applied research by universities and other entities will be encouraged and will help 

address management issues and answer questions, allowing an opportunity to improve management 

decisions. Invasive species are a major threat to high-quality wildlife habitat and pose a major 

problem in the restoration and recovery of rare and listed species. Efforts will be made to work with 

partners as much as possible in a combined effort to pinpoint infestations and plan and coordinate 

control efforts both on and off the refuge. 

Understanding fate and movement of metamorphs and overwintering requirements of Oregon spotted 

frogs is necessary to properly manage wetlands and make management decisions regarding habitat 

restoration. Likewise, a better understanding of habitat use and dispersal of Sandhill cranes will

facilitate management decisions regarding habitat and habitat restoration.

Depending on future management goals and objectives, there may be a desire to return streams to 

their historic conditions (see Objective 1.3). Determining what those conditions were is the first step 

needed.

Objective 5.3 Scientific Assessments

Throughout the life of the CCP, conduct scientific assessments to provide baseline information to 

expand knowledge regarding the status of refuge resources to better inform resource management 

decisions. These scientific assessments will contribute to the development of refuge resource 

objectives and they will also be used to facilitate habitat restoration through selection of 

appropriate habitat management strategies based upon site-specific conditions.

• Utilize accepted standards, where available, for completion of assessments.

• The scale and accuracy of assessments will be appropriate for development and 

implementation of refuge habitat and wildlife management actions.

Prioritized List of Scientific Assessments

• Water resources inventory (Water Resources Branch). 

• NVCS habitat/vegetation map, georectified in GIS. 

• Species and habitat sensitivity to climate change.

Strategies For Achieving Objective

A. Establish relationships with universities, etc., to assist in research efforts.

B. Develop cost-share cooperative projects with other agencies.

C. Whenever possible, conduct research on a basin-wide scale.
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

2-40 Chapter 2. Management Direction

Rationale

In accordance with policy for implementing adaptive management on refuge lands (522 DM 1), 

appropriate and applicable environmental assessments are necessary to determine resource status, 

promote learning, and evaluate progress toward achieving objectives whenever using adaptive 

management. These assessments will provide fundamental information about biotic (e.g., vegetation 

data layer) and abiotic (e.g., soils, topography) processes and conditions to ensure that 

implementation of on-the-ground management actions achieve the resource management objectives 

identified under Goals 1-4.

In addition to surveys and research, complete assessments of resources and habitats facilitate 

management of the refuge, maintenance of biodiversity, and recovery of listed species. A greater 

understanding of water inputs to the refuge and movement of water through the refuge will contribute 

directly to management of Oregon spotted frogs, Sandhill cranes, and waterfowl. Thoroughly 

mapped habitat and vegetation will help direct management activities to improve habitat. Such 

assessments will also facilitate further research into relationships between species and their habitats. 

Goal 6. Visitors of all ages and abilities will feel welcomed and 

enjoy safe, quality, wildlife-dependent recreational uses, including 

wildlife observation and photography, hunting, fishing, and 

environmental education and interpretation, compatible with 

CLNWR’s purpose and vision.

Objective 6.1 Wildlife Observation and Photography

Over the life of the CCP, implement the CLNWR Visitor Experience Site Plan to facilitate 

self-guided wildlife observation and photography opportunities on the refuge.

Strategies For Achieving Objective

A. Maintain the existing open areas, the Willard Springs Trail and its Observation Overlook 

(raised platform), and parking areas.

B. Open the area from the Cold Springs Ditch to the western boundary of the refuge to allowed 

public uses, except for hunting and fishing.

C. Within 5 years of the completion of the CCP, design and build information and interpretive 

structures at the Willard Springs Trailhead and the BZ Highway parking area to welcome, orient, 

and educate visitors about the refuge.

D. Design and construct 0.25 mile of accessible trails on the Willard Springs Trail leading to the 

Observation Overlook, Whitcomb-Cole Hewn Log House, and Cold Springs section within the 

life of the CCP.

E. Realign and construct up to one mile of the Willard Springs Trail to enhance wildlife 

observation and photography opportunities within 10 years of the adoption of the CCP.
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-41

F. Replace the Willard Springs Trail Observation Overlook with a safer, accessible, and sizedto-accommodate structure.

G. Construct three vehicle pullouts, following the Visitor Facilities Enhancement Five-Year 

Plan, along adjacent roads to provide safe wildlife observation and photography opportunities 

within 15 years of the adoption of the CCP (subject to working with, and approval by, the 

appropriate highway departments).

H. Create a Service-standard wildlife list.

Rationale

Wildlife observation and photography are two of the six priority public uses of the NWRS and are to 

be facilitated when compatible. They are important and valuable activities that promote 

understanding and appreciation of our natural heritage. CLNWR offers breathtaking opportunities 

for viewing and photographing wildlife and landscapes. 

Currently, the refuge is closed to public use, except for the Willard Springs Trail and a limited area 

around the headquarters and apart from special access provided to hunters and anglers. Opening the 

area around the trail from the Cold Springs Ditch to the refuge’s western boundary will allow visitors 

to explore the refuge while having limited impact to resources. Visitor use will be concentrated in 

one area, while still protecting the majority of the refuge from human intrusion. 

The CLNWR Visitor Experience Site Plan (VSP), February 2011, was created to enhance the visitor 

experience around the headquarters area of the refuge. The site plan includes universally accessible 

nature trail enhancements along with overlook locations and designs. It also includes design plans 

(specifications and details) for kiosks and signs to guide visitors engaged in wildlife observation and 

photography. Due to limited staffing, visitor contact with refuge personnel is limited. The site plan 

addresses the need to create a self-guided and user-friendly system which will limit the need for 

refuge staff to welcome and orient visitors. By focusing the development of visitor use facilities 

around the headquarters area, an area already disturbed with refuge facilities (e.g., visitor contact 

area, shop, and housing), the refuge will minimize disturbance to wildlife, yet allow visitors the 

opportunity to experience the splendor and beauty of this national wildlife refuge. 

Building a new overlook platform on the Willard Springs Trail will provide a safe, universally 

accessible, and size-appropriate viewing area for the public walking the nature trail. The current 

overlook platform contains stairs for access, can accommodate only a few visitors, and is in need of 

repairs. 

A new BZ Highway parking area kiosk will incorporate the CLNWR’s interpretive message(s), as 

outlined in the VSP, and provide prospective visitors information about the refuge’s cultural and 

natural heritage, refuge regulations, and the wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities available 

on the refuge. The current kiosk serves as a sign post for law enforcement regulations. The kiosk is 

rotting and needs to be replaced.

Creating vehicle pullouts along adjacent roads in and around the refuge will provide safe stopping 

areas for wildlife viewing and photography. These pullouts will also facilitate accommodation for 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

2-42 Chapter 2. Management Direction

our physically challenged visitors by giving them an opportunity to experience the refuge from their 

vehicle where it otherwise might not be feasible. In recent years, the roadways in and around the 

refuge have become a popular bicycle tour route called the Glenwood Loop, which starts at BZ 

Corners and loops through Glenwood for a 43-mile ride.

If implemented, the strategies under the CCP will accomplish a balanced and measured increase in 

facilities for wildlife observation and photography, while continuing to meet fish and wildlife 

protection and management responsibilities.

Objective 6.2 Volunteers

Over the life of the CCP, continually recruit and train volunteers to assist the public in 

appreciating the resources of CLNWR; function as a link between the Service and the public; 

and assist refuge staff in doing their jobs. Volunteers will maintain up-to-date signage, 

information, and brochures with current public use regulations.

Strategies For Achieving Objective

A. Annually recruit and train one volunteer to operate the Visitor Contact Station to welcome 

and orient visitors from May to September.

B. Host a 2–3 day training session in early May.

C. Conduct outreach to recruit volunteers in the local community, with the refuge volunteer 

program and Friends of Mid-Columbia River Wildlife Refuges group, and online at 

Volunteer.gov.

Rationale

Welcoming and orienting refuge visitors follows the criteria that define a quality wildlife-dependent 

recreation program as identified in the Administration Act. By having and supporting a 

volunteer-run visitor contact station, CLNWR will continue to show its commitment to the newly 

reauthorized National Wildlife Refuge Volunteer Improvement Act of 2010 and will provide a 

meaningful opportunity for volunteers to support the resource management, conservation, and public 

education programs and activities of a national wildlife refuge as outlined in the Act. Currently, the 

visitor contact station is only open when staff is available, which is a limited amount of time during 

the work-week.

This service will also provide refuge management with a better understanding of visitor needs and 

patterns and allow the refuge mission and management practices to be communicated to visitors. 

Objective 6.3 Hunting and Fishing

Over the life of the CCP, provide safe, quality hunting opportunities on 2,343 acres of CLNWR 

and fishing opportunities on the lower 0.25 mile of Outlet Creek, compatible with protecting 

natural and cultural resources.
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-43

Strategies For Achieving Objective

A. Maintain fishing on the lower 0.25 mile of Outlet Creek, from the first Saturday in June 

through the end of October, with an extension of the closure for active Sandhill crane nests. The 

buffer around Sandhill crane nests will be a minimum of 660 feet, or as determined by further 

research.

B. Continue the existing 7 day/week free-roam waterfowl hunting program.

C. Construct a mobility-impaired blind within the next 15 years to meet the needs of a growing 

and aging population.

D. Discontinue the existing 100-acre deer hunting program.

E. Make hunting regulations and information readily available that emphasize safe, appropriate, 

and ethical hunting behavior and help reduce hunting conflicts.

Rationale

Hunting and fishing are two of the six priority public uses of the NWRS and are to be facilitated 

when compatible and provide a quality experience. According to draft policy on hunting on NWRs, 

issued in the January 16, 2001, Federal Register (Volume 66, Number 10), a quality hunting 

experience is one that:

1) Maximizes safety for hunters and other visitors; 

2) Encourages the highest standards of ethical behavior in taking or attempting to take wildlife;

3) Is available to a broad spectrum of the hunting public; 

4) Contributes positively to or has no adverse effects on population management of resident or 

migratory species; 

5) Reflects positively on the individual refuge, the NWRS, and the Service; 

6) Provides hunters uncrowded conditions by minimizing conflicts and competition among 

hunters; 

7) Provides reasonable challenges and opportunities for taking targeted species under the 

described harvest objective established by the hunting program; 

8) Minimizes the reliance on motorized vehicles and technology designed to increase the 

advantage of the hunter over wildlife; 

9) Minimizes habitat impacts;

10) Creates minimal conflict with other priority, wildlife-dependent recreational uses or refuge 

operations; and

11) Incorporates a message of stewardship and conservation in hunting opportunities. 

Waterfowl hunting at CLNWR is opportunistic, as waterfowl sporadically migrate through during the 

early fall, and goose and duck use peaks later in the season; this is reflected in the amount of hunter 

visits. Generally, waterfowl migration patterns and use are less consistent during the early fall due to 

a lack of early season irrigation water available to produce quality habitat and the geographic 

location of the refuge in the Pacific Flyway. Hunting use peaks during the late season when 

waterfowl populations peak and weather conditions permit. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

2-44 Chapter 2. Management Direction

The current hunting system provides 7-day-a-week, free-roam hunting on 2,343 acres. Over the 

years, the refuge has maintained a quality, albeit opportunistic, waterfowl hunt program at the refuge. 

There exists no hunter use data to help determine whether hunting demand exceeds opportunity, but 

hunter feedback generally relates to the need for more early-season opportunities. Currently, no 

mobility-impaired waterfowl hunting opportunities are available. 

While the Administration Act recognizes that wildlife-dependent recreation is an appropriate use of 

NWRS lands, the Act also mandates that the needs of wildlife come first on refuges. Opening 

additional refuge wetland areas to any public use through this planning process will effectively 

reduce the refuge’s value to migrating waterfowl and other purpose species. Due to the limited 

availability of waterfowl habitat in the area, it is not feasible to significantly increase the number of 

acres hunted on the refuge. As such, under the CCP the free-roaming waterfowl hunting 

opportunities for 7 days a week will remain the same as present. A mobility-impaired blind will be 

added over the next 15 years to meet the needs of a growing and aging population. 

Deer hunting on the refuge will be discontinued due to low populations and inability to meet the 

Service’s policy on quality hunting. Surveys will need to document a harvestable population before 

a deer hunt program could be supported. WDFW indicated concurrence with this management 

direction. 

Deer hunting had been allowed within the refuge hunt area and occurred within approximately 100 

acres of suitable deer habitat. However, general observations document limited deer presence. No 

hunter use data exist, but general opinion is that very little use occurred. Historic deer population 

levels are unknown but are generally thought to be higher than current deer numbers (McCorquodale 

1999). Record harvests in the mid-1960s, coupled with severe winter conditions, drastically reduced 

deer populations, and deer have never fully recovered in Klickitat County (Oliver 1986). When deer 

hunting was previously established on the refuge, there was a significant cattle presence, but the elk 

population was much lower than today. Increasing elk populations, the presence of cattle, and severe 

winters, coupled with harvest, may have led to reduced deer populations. 

Currently, fishing is allowed on a 0.25-mile reach of Outlet Canal, a man-made drainage ditch. No 

fishing visit numbers are available, but general observations indicate limited use, almost entirely by 

local residents. However, rainbow and brook trout can be taken; rainbow trout is stocked annually 

and brook trout are remnants of former stocking within the system. As the fishing is a wellestablished, long-time use, and as there are no known negative impacts of any significance associated 

with fishing if undertaken correctly, there is no reason to discontinue a use identified in the 

Administration Act as being desirable on a national wildlife refuge.

However, the fishing area is in the vicinity of habitat suitable for greater Sandhill crane nesting. 

Sandhill cranes generally begin nesting in April to May, while the fishing season does not start until 

the first Saturday in June. If there are active Sandhill crane nests within the area at the start of the 

fishing season, the season will be delayed until the colts leave the nest. Generally, a 1/8-mile buffer 

around the nests will be sufficient (Gary Ivey, personal communication), although this could be 

extended if refuge staff believe it necessary.

Objective 6.4 Law Enforcement

Reduce illegal activities on CLNWR.
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-45

Strategies For Achieving Objective

A. Increase law enforcement, signs, and education to reduce activity, partially through 

recruitment of an additional Law Enforcement Officer.

B. Increase both law enforcement patrols and regular (scheduled) staff presence on-site by all 

staff or volunteer representatives.

C. Enhance cooperative relationships with WDFW Law Enforcement to provide regular 

patrols and presence on the refuge.

Rationale

Problems with illegal trespassing, shooting, and vandalism at the refuge are increasing. A Law 

Enforcement Officer from the MCRNWRC is assigned to enforce special refuge regulations, protect 

resources, and maintain public safety. However, this officer has multiple refuges in the 

MCRNRWC, which covers a large geographical area, to protect. The MCRNWRC headquarters, 

where the officer is stationed, is four hours from CLNWR. 

Increasing presence on the refuge by hiring an additional Law Enforcement Officer and scheduling 

more refuge law enforcement patrols, scheduling volunteers to operate the visitor contact station, and 

working cooperatively with WDFW Law Enforcement Officers will help to reduce illegal activity.

Goal 7. Students, educators, and visitors will understand, 

appreciate, and support CLNWR’s cultural and natural heritage 

through environmental education and interpretation.

Objective 7.1 Environmental Education

Within 15 years, develop and deliver a curriculum-based environmental education program 

that follows State education standards in partnership with the local school districts, utilizing the 

refuge as an outdoor classroom for up to 500 student visits annually.

Strategies For Achieving Objective

A. Hire a part-time Visitor Services Specialist.

B. Host educator workshops to enhance knowledge of CLNWR.

C. Continue and enhance partnerships with the Spring Creek National Fish Hatchery and the 

Columbia Gorge Ecology Institute.

D. By the end of 15 years, develop up-to-date environmental education curricula to be used 

with teacher-led classes. Enlist local teachers to help develop curricula to ensure that 

educational requirements are met.
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

2-46 Chapter 2. Management Direction

E. Develop and implement evaluation techniques with volunteers, students, and teachers to 

maintain program quality.

F. Foster long-term support for environmental education by ensuring that the refuge has 

committed, qualified, and trained volunteers available to implement high-quality educational 

experiences for local school visits and youth group outings (e.g., scouts, summer camps).

Rationale

Environmental education is one of the six priority public uses of the NWRS and is to be fostered if 

compatible with refuge purposes and the NWRS mission. Incorporating environmental education 

into school curricula is an important way to influence the future well-being of the refuge. 

Environmental education is also key to changing attitudes and behavior which affect the refuge 

through off-refuge land use decisions and on-refuge conduct and use. 

CLNWR is fortunate to have an environmental education partnership with the Service’s Spring Creek 

Fish Hatchery in White River, Washington, and the Columbia Gorge Ecology Institute (CGEI) in 

Hood River, Oregon. With the lack of visitor services staff at the refuge, these partners fill the void 

for environmental education. The Information and Education Specialist at the Spring Creek Fish 

Hatchery has been educating 2nd–5th grade students on field trips to CLNWR for 3–4 years. The 

non-profit CGEI is dedicated to promoting knowledge, stewardship, and curiosity of the local 

environment. The CGEI provides environmental education programming to area schools 

surrounding the refuge. 

In 2010, CGEI received a Nature of Learning Grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 

to link diverse natural resource and climate change-focused environmental education initiatives to 

CLNWR. As a result of this grant, CGEI has reached out to the Glenwood School District to partner 

on environmental education programming. Although in its early stage of developing, they are talking 

about naming the program “Natural Resources Academy” and using the refuge as an outdoor 

classroom. 

Since environmental education is a curriculum-based and labor intensive, a part-time Visitor Services 

Specialist is needed to administer this program. 

Objective 7.2 Environmental Interpretation

Throughout the life of the CCP, provide visitors with opportunities for self-guided and refugeled interpretation that will enhance visitor understanding of CLNWR’s natural and cultural 

heritage.

Strategies For Achieving Objective

A. Within 5 years after the completion of the CCP, develop a refuge interpretive plan that will

describe new and enhanced interpretive facilities and programs.

B. Develop and install interpretive exhibits at the visitor contact station.
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-47

C. Design and build two interpretive panels on the Willard Springs Trail near the refuge 

headquarters, including the Whitcomb-Cole Hewn Log House and the observation platform.

D. Recruit and train volunteers to design and present five interpretive programs from May 

through September.

Rationale

Interpretation is one of the six priority public uses of the NWRS and is to be fostered if compatible 

with refuge purposes and the NWRS mission. Interpreting the resources and challenges of CLNWR 

to the general public are important ways to influence the future well-being of the refuge. Only 

through understanding and appreciation will people be moved to personal and collective action to 

ensure a healthy refuge for the future. 

The interpretive plan will orient visitors, increase visitor awareness of the cultural and natural 

heritage, and increase visitor understanding of the management practices at CLNWR. Summer 

interpretive programming is of high interest to the community as discussed at the public scoping 

meeting for this CCP and visitors to the area. It will enhance a better understanding of the refuge’s 

vision and purposes through direct contact with volunteers who are trained and familiar with the 

refuge.

Goal 8. CLNWR will preserve and value its cultural resources and 

heritage and connect refuge staff, visitors, and the community to the 

area’s past.

Objective 8.1 Cultural Resource Protection

Inventory, evaluate, monitor, and protect the refuge’s cultural resources throughout the life of 

the CCP.

Strategies For Achieving Objective

A. Identify archaeological sites that coincide with existing and planned construction of roads 

and facilities, public use areas, habitat projects, and other undertakings in compliance with 

Section 106 of NHPA. Plan and implement activities to avoid or mitigate impacts to sites as 

necessary.

B. Complete a comprehensive cultural survey of the refuge, as called for in Section 110 of 

NHPA, and consolidate all previous site surveys, work requests, and reports for secure access 

by managers.

C. Coordinate and consult with Native American Tribe Cultural Resource Programs to 

identify and plan for protection of significant sites.

D. In partnership with Native American Tribes and the Regional Cultural Resources Team, 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

2-48 Chapter 2. Management Direction

establish protocols for consultation to help managers meet NHPA and Archeological Resource 

Protection Act (ARPA) requirements, including consultation, identification, inventory, and 

evaluation of projects and sites.

E. Evaluate the eligibility to the National Register archaeological sites and other historic 

properties. Priority will be given to those that may be affected by management activities, other 

human activities, erosion, and other natural processes.

F. Protect cultural resources through law enforcement patrols.

G. Develop a plan for the inadvertent discovery and repatriation of human remains with 

affected tribes and implement it through MOUs with tribes.

Rationale

The Section 106 process of NHPA will be followed. Since many historic properties have been lost 

over time, those that remain, including buildings, structures, and historic and prehistoric 

archeological sites, should be evaluated for listing on the National Register. If determined eligible, 

these sites should be monitored and efforts made to protect and stabilize them as historic properties. 

There are many cultural resources on CLNWR, identified or not, that are at risk of damage or loss 

from a variety of sources. Vandalism of cultural resources is another threat that has negative impacts 

on both cultural resources and relations with the tribes. Once destroyed, these resources are 

irretrievable, hence the need for implementation of a strategy for protection. 

Objective 8.2 Public Awareness and Education of Cultural Resources

Increase public awareness and appreciation of CLNWR’s historic, archaeological, and cultural 

resources throughout the life of the CCP.

Strategies For Achieving Objective

A. Partner with Native American Tribes, historical societies, and other interested groups to 

tell the history and interpret the cultural heritage of CLNWR. Prepare media (brochures, signs, 

exhibits) describing the history of Native Americans and early settlers in this area, with an 

emphasis on the fish and wildlife resources and their historic uses.

B. Partner with Native American Tribes, historical societies, and volunteers to provide up to 

two cultural and natural heritage interpretation programs per year for both tribal members and 

the public.

C. Where feasible and appropriate, produce exhibits (permanent, temporary, or traveling) 

incorporating artifacts found on the refuge, or replica artifacts.
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-49

Rationale

See the discussion under Objective 7.2 regarding the benefits of interpretation. 

Partnering with the Yakama Nation, historical societies, and other interested groups will ensure the 

interpretive facilities and programs tell an accurate and compelling story about CLNWR’s historic, 

archeological, and cultural resources. 

Objective 8.3 Whitcomb-Cole Hewn Log House

Integrate the Whitcomb-Cole Hewn Log House into CLNWR’s interpretation and 

environmental education program within 5 years of the completion of the CCP.

Strategies For Achieving Objective

A. Utilize volunteers to deliver interpretation and environmental education programs at the 

Whitcomb-Cole Hewn Log House from May through September.

B. Work with partners to incorporate environmental education into educational programs and 

special events utilizing the Whitcomb-Cole Hewn Log House.

C. Develop approved interpretive and educational scripts to ensure consistency and accuracy 

of messages conveyed to the public.

Rationale

See the discussion under Objective 7.2 regarding the benefits of interpretation. 

The Whitcomb-Cole Hewn Log House has significant historical valley to the area and is listed on the 

National Register. Interpreting the cultural heritage of this structure to the general public, and 

incorporating these topics into school curricula, are important ways to influence the future well-being 

of CLNWR and the log house. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

2-50 Chapter 2. Management Direction
Chapter 3

Physical 

Environment

Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-1 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

3.1 Topography

CLNWR is east of Mount Adams and is surrounded by a number of smaller volcanic buttes and 

basalt flows. The topography of CLNWR is mostly flat valley bottom. The western, southern and 

eastern edges of the refuge are gently sloped. CLNWR is located at an elevation between about 

1,820 and 1,900 feet above mean sea level on, and adjacent to, the relatively flat Camas Prairie. 

Higher and steeper terrain comprised of volcanic buttes and ridges rise to northwest and southeast of 

the refuge. 

3.2 Geology

3.2.1 Origins and Development 

The refuge is located on a series of basalt flows that were deposited during and since the Miocene 

epoch. More recent Quaternary basalt flows are located at the western side of the refuge, and most of 

the refuge is located on alluvium of volcanic origin that has been deposited on the valley floor. 

Geologic formations that have been mapped in the refuge are shown in Table 3.2-1. The alluvium 

that makes up the valley floor has a moderate to high susceptibility to liquefaction. 

Table 3.2-1. CLNWR Geologic Formations. 

Geologic Unit Lithology Geologic Age

Camas Prairie Basalt Basalt flows Quaternary

Younger Alluvium Alluvium Quaternary

Simcoe Mountains Volcanics Basalt flows Pleistocene-Pliocene

Grande Ronde Basalt Basalt flows Miocene (middle)

Frenchman Springs Member, Wanapum Basalt Basalt flows Miocene (middle)

Sources: Hildreth and Fierstein 1995; WDNR 2011

3.2.2 Recent Geologic Events 

The Camas Prairie has developed on alluvium deposited within the last 10,000 years. During that 

period the area has received volcanic ash from repeated eruptions of Mount Mazama, Mount Adams 

and Mount Saint Helens (Scott et al. 1995). 

3.3 Soils

Soils have been described for three forest types within the refuge (White 2009). In ponderosa pine 

stands, soils include Guler Stony Sandy Loam, Fanal Sandy Loam, Kreft Sandy Loam, Sedigal 

Sandy Loam and Kaiders Sandy Loam. These soils are mostly deep and well-drained in volcanic ash 

and colluvium from basalt. These soils have low water holding capacities, making them effectively 

too dry for Douglas-fir and grand fir to thrive, thereby allowing ponderosa pine to occupy these areas 

(White 2009). 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-2 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

Three soils are mapped in mixed lodgepole/ponderosa pine stands—Kreft, Sedigal and Fanal Sandy 

Loams. These soils are mostly deep and well-drained in volcanic ash and colluvium from basalt. It 

is likely that these sites also contain associated soil types, such as Conboy or Grayland series, which 

are on old lake bottoms and are poorly drained. 

Mixed conifer stands located on sideslopes and ridges include Beezee Cobbly Loam, Fanal Sandy 

Loam, Kaiders Stony Loam, Panak Cobbly Loam and Underwood Loam soils. As with the other 

forested soils, these soils are mostly deep and well-drained in volcanic ash and colluvium from 

basalt. Small inclusions, usually on convex slopes, have shallower soils, some with soil moisture too 

limiting for growth of conifers. These areas are occupied by Oregon white oak (White 2009). 

Table 3.3-1. CLNWR Soils. 

Soil Series Parent 

Material

Drainage & 

Permeability Use & Vegetation

Beezee Cobbly 

Loam

Basalt 

colluvium 

mixed with 

loess.

Well-drained; medium 

to rapid runoff; 

moderate permeability.

Woodland, grazable woodland, wildlife 

habitat, and recreation. Native vegetation 

is ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and 

Oregon white oak with an understory of 

common snowberry, deerbrush, 

ceanothus, western hazel, creambush, 

oceanspray, and elk sedge.

Conboy Alluvium of 

volcanic ash, 

diatomite, and 

basalt in lake 

basins.

Poorly drained; very 

slow runoff; 

moderately slow 

permeability.

Pasture and hay production.

Fanal Sandy Loam Alluvium and 

colluvium of 

volcanic ash 

and basalt in 

lake basins.

Moderately welldrained; slow to 

medium runoff; 

moderate permeability.

Pasture and timber production. Native 

vegetation is mainly ponderosa pine and 

some Douglas-fir and Oregon white oak, 

with an understory of common 

snowberry, woods rose, Canada bluegrass, 

tufted hairgrass, and spirea.

Grayland Lacustrine and 

alluvium with 

basalt and 

volcanic ash.

Poorly drained; ponded 

to very slow runoff; 

slow permeability.

Pasture and hay production. Native 

vegetation is sedge, biscuitroot, common 

snowberry, rose, and alder.

Guler Sandy Loam Volcanic ash 

and colluvium 

from basalt.

Well-drained; slow to 

medium runoff; 

moderately rapid 

permeability.

Timber production, livestock grazing, 

wildlife habitat, hay, and pasture. 

Vegetation is ponderosa pine, with an 

understory of antelope bitterbrush, Idaho 

fescue, elk sedge, hawkweed, rabbitbrush, 

goldenweed, snowbrush, ceanothus, 

mountain brome, and needlegrass.

Kaiders Stony Loam Colluvium 

from basalt and 

minor amounts 

of volcanic ash 

and loess.

Well-drained; medium 

to rapid runoff; 

moderate permeability.

Timber production, grazable woodland 

and wildlife habitat. Vegetation is 

Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, and Oregon 

white oak, with an understory of western 

hazel, deerbrush, ceanothus, redstem 

ceanothus, Oregon-grape, elk sedge, 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-3 

Soil Series Parent 

Material

Drainage & 

Permeability Use & Vegetation

Idaho fescue, and squawcarpet.

Kreft Sandy Loam Alluvium from 

volcanic ash 

and basalt.

Moderately welldrained; slow runoff; 

moderate permeability.

Timber production, livestock grazing, 

crop production, building sites, and 

wildlife habitat. Native vegetation is 

ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine, black 

cottonwood, Oregon white oak, Douglasfir, and grand fir, with and understory of 

elk sedge, spirea, common snowberry, 

black hawthorn, and rose.

Panak Cobbly Loam Residuum from 

basalt with an 

influence of 

volcanic ash; 

formed in 

colluvium.

Well-drained; medium 

to rapid runoff; 

moderate permeability.

Timber production, livestock grazing, 

wildlife habitat, and recreation. Native 

vegetation is Douglas-fir, grand fir, and 

ponderosa pine with an understory of 

common snowberry, western hazel, rose, 

vine maple, creambush, oceanspray, 

Oregon-grape, trailing blackberry, Pacific 

dogwood, and bitter cherry.

Underwood Loam Residuum from 

basalt with an 

influence of 

volcanic ash; 

formed in 

colluvium.

Well-drained, medium 

to rapid runoff; 

moderately slow 

permeability.

Timber production, orchards, homesites, 

wildlife habitat, and livestock grazing. 

Native vegetation is Douglas-fir, bigleaf 

maple, vine maple, salal, starflower, and 

western bracken fern.

Soils descriptions: NRCS 2005, 2008a, 2008b, 2008c, 2008d, 2010, 2011a, 2011b, 2011c.

3.4 Climate

CLNWR is in the rain shadow of Mount Adams and Mount Saint Helens. The climate is temperate, 

with warm dry summers and most precipitation falling as snow during winter months. The nearest 

weather station with reported data is located at Glenwood, Washington, about 2.5 miles from 

CLNWR and at 1,900 feet elevation, the same elevation as portions of the refuge (WRCC 2011). 

3.4.1 Temperature 

The monthly average minimum daily temperatures for Glenwood, Washington, range from 21.9/F in 

December to 43.3/F in July, while the average maximum daily temperatures range from 37.7/F in 

December to 81.9/F in August. Normal daily temperature ranges are shown in Figure 3.4.1-1 

(WRCC 2011). 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-4 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

Figure 3.4.1-1. Monthly Average Daily Temperatures.

3.4.2 Precipitation 

A large proportion of precipitation falls as snow during the winter months, and the mean annual 

precipitation is 31 inches per year. Average monthly precipitation is shown in Figure 3.4.2-1 

(WRCC 2011). 

Figure 3.4.2-1. Monthly Average Precipitation.

3.4.3 Wind 

Wind speed data are not available at ground level for CLNWR, but are generally low. Wind speed 

models developed for assessing wind power potential estimate that annual average wind speeds at 

250 meters above the ground range from about 15 to about 18 feet per second (AWS Truepower and 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-5 

NREL 2010). Assuming wind speed at CLNWR follows the logarithmic relationship between 

elevation and speed observed at other locations (Thuillier and Lappe 1964), the average wind speed 

at ground level is estimated to be less than 3 feet/second. 

Prevailing winds in south-central Washington are generally from the north to northwest during 

summer and from the south to southwest during winter (Western Regional Climate Center 2002). 

3.5 Climate Change

No research has been done to determine any changes that may have already occurred, and no 

modeling has been done to predict specific changes at CLNWR. Additional work, or at least 

opportunistic monitoring, will need to occur over the next few years to begin to assess what, if any, 

climate change effects are realized at CLNWR. 

As stated in DOI Secretarial Order 3226 (DOI 2009) and the Service’s Climate Change Strategic 

Plan (Service 2010c), the Service considers and analyzes climate change in its decisions, long-range 

plans, and other activities. Additionally, a 1999 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) report, Carbon 

Sequestration Research and Development (DOE 1999), concluded that ecosystem protection is 

important to carbon sequestration and may reduce or prevent loss of carbon currently stored in the 

terrestrial biosphere. The report defines carbon sequestration as the capture and secure storage of 

carbon that would otherwise be emitted to or remain in the atmosphere. 

The terms “climate” and “climate change” are defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC). The term “climate” refers to the mean and variability of different types of weather 

conditions over time, with 30 years being a typical period for such measurements, although shorter or 

longer periods also may be used (IPCC 2007a). The term “climate change” thus refers to a change in 

the mean or variability of one or more measures of climate (e.g., temperature or precipitation) that 

persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer, whether the change is due to natural 

variability, human activity, or both (IPCC 2007a). 

Scientific measurements spanning several decades demonstrate that changes in climate are occurring 

and that the rate of change has been faster since the 1950s. Examples include warming of the global 

climate system and substantial increases in precipitation in some regions of the world and decreases 

in other regions. (For these and other examples, see IPCC 2007a and Solomon et al. 2007.) In the 

Pacific Northwest, increased greenhouse gases and warmer temperatures have resulted in a number 

of physical and chemical impacts. These include changes in snowpack, stream flow timing and 

volume, flooding and landslides, sea levels, ocean temperatures and acidity, and disturbance regimes 

such as wildfires, insects, and disease outbreaks (USGCRP 2009). All of these changes will cause 

major perturbations to ecosystem conditions, possibly imperiling species that evolved in response to 

local conditions. 

Results of scientific analyses presented by the IPCC show that most of the observed increase in 

global average temperature since the mid-20th century cannot be explained by natural variability in 

climate and is very likely (defined by the IPCC as 90% or higher probability) due to the observed 

increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere as a result of human activities, 

particularly carbon dioxide emissions from use of fossil fuels (IPCC 2007a; Solomon et al. 2007). 

Further confirmation of the role of GHGs comes from analyses by Huber and Knutti (2011), who 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-6 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

concluded it is extremely probable that approximately 75% of global warming since 1950 has been 

caused by human activities. 

Climate Trends in the Pacific Northwest and at CLNWR

Climate trends are already having profound effects on the region’s natural resources (Littell et al. 

2009; Waring et al. 2022). In the Pacific Northwest, regionally averaged temperature rose 1.5/F 

between 1920 and 2000, slightly more than the global average; warming was largest for the winter 

months of January–March (Mote et al. 2005). Minimum daily temperatures have increased faster 

than maximum daily temperatures (Mote et al. 2005). Fu et al. (2010) showed that in Washington 

State from 1952 to 2002, annual mean air temperature increased 1.1/F (daily mean), 0.43/F (daily 

maximum), and 1.67/F (daily minimum), on average. Increases in winter temperatures have created 

more rain-on-snow events, high winds, and landslides for the region (Guthrie et al. 2010), but this is 

not manifested uniformly throughout the region and appears to be more pronounced in areas 

northwest of CLNWR (Salathé et al. 2010). As a result, average snow depth decreased widely across 

the western United States, especially at lower-elevation stations (less than 3,280 feet) (Grundstein 

and Mote 2010). The vast majority of lower-elevation stations (80%) and a majority (62%) of 

mid-elevation stations (6,560 to 9,840 feet) showed significantly negative trends (Grundstein and 

Mote 2010). 

The closest United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) observation station to CLNWR 

is Goldendale, Washington.1 Temperature and precipitation changes shown below from the 

Goldendale station conform to regional trends: +1.230F has been observed from 1981 to 2010 in 

average monthly temperature, with a larger increase in average monthly maximum temperature of 

+2.070F. Precipitation trends are slight (-0.5%) and note the large inter-annual variation, a common 

feature in the Pacific Northwest due to inter-annual and decadal oscillations such as the El Nino 

Southern Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. More striking are the changes in seasonal 

trends. The Goldendale area has experienced wetter springs (+16.8% precipitation) and hotter 

(+2.870F average monthly temperatures) and drier (-12.2% precipitation) summers. 

The graphs below show the total change in precipitation and temperature using monthly data. The 

most recent 30-year period is calculated using the slope of the linear trendline. The precipitation 

change is calculated as a percent change from the initial value in 1981, while the temperature change 

is an absolute change over the 30-year period. 

 

1

 The USHCN has been developed to assist in the detection of regional climate change. It has been widely 

used in analyzing United States climate and each of the stations has a complete record of monthly temperature and 

precipitation from 1895 to 2010. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-7 

Figure 3.5.1-1. Spring Precipitation 1925-2010.

Figure 3.5.1.-2 Summer Temperature 1925-2010. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-8 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

Climate Projections for the Pacific Northwest Affecting CLNWR

Scientists use a variety of climate models, which include consideration of natural processes and 

variability, as well as various scenarios of potential levels and timing of GHG emissions, to evaluate 

the causes of changes already observed and to project future changes in temperature and other 

climate conditions (Meehl et al. 2007; Ganguly et al. 2009; Prinn et al. 2011). All combinations of 

models and emissions scenarios yield very similar projections of increases in the most common 

measure of climate change, average global surface temperature (commonly known as global 

warming), until about 2030. Although projections of the magnitude and rate of warming differ after 

about 2030, the overall trajectory of all the projections is one of increased global warming through 

the end of this century, even for the projections based on scenarios that assume that GHG emissions 

will stabilize or decline. Thus, there is strong scientific support for projections that warming will 

continue through the 21st Century and that the magnitude and rate of change will be influenced 

substantially by the extent of GHG emissions (IPCC 2007a; Meehl et al. 2007; Ganguly et al. 2009; 

Prinn et al. 2011). 

The statistical downscaling of 20 global climate models projects average annual temperature to 

increase 2.0/F by the 2020 decade for the Pacific Northwest, 3.2/F by the 2040 decade, and 5.3/F by 

the 2080 decade, relative to the 1970–1999 average temperature (Figure 1) (Mote and Salathé 2010). 

These projected changes are substantially greater than the 1.5/F increase in average annual 

temperature observed in the Pacific Northwest during the 20th Century. Seasonally, summer 

temperatures are projected to increase the most. Actual global emissions of greenhouse gases in the 

past decade have so far exceeded even the highest IPCC emissions scenario (A2), which wasn't 

included in Mote and Salathé (2009 and 2010, above), or Salathé et al. 2010 (below). Consequently, 

if these emissions trends continue, the climate projections referenced herein likely represent a 

conservative estimate of future climatic changes. 

Two additional regional climate simulations conducted by Salathé et al. (2010) support the warming 

increases described above, with small variations (one shows slightly higher increases and one slightly 

lower). Mean air temperature is predicted to significantly increase across all seasons to the east of 

the Cascade mountains by both regional climate change models, with the CCSM3-WRF model 

consistently predicting greater increase than the ECHAM5-WRF model. The CCSM3-WRF model 

predicts the greatest seasonal increase of up to 5.4/F in the summer, while the ECHAM5-WRF model 

predicts a lower increase of only 2.7 to 4.5/F. The frequency of heat waves is predicted to increase 

substantially, especially in southwest Washington. Increases of >1.8/F are predicted by both models 

for the rest of the seasons. 

Projected changes in mean annual precipitation are less clear. The projected trends from Mote and 

Salathé (2009 and 2010) and Salathé et al. (2010) are very small relative to the inter-annual 

variability in precipitation. Seasonally, precipitation is projected by Mote and Salathé (2009 and 

2010) to decrease in the summer and increase in the autumn and winter by most climate models, 

although the average shifts are small. However, even small changes in seasonal precipitation could 

have impacts on streamflow flooding, summer water demand, drought stress, and forest fire 

frequency. Salathé et al. (2010) project wetter autumns and drier or stable summers. Regional 

simulations vary whether winter and spring seasons will turn wetter or drier. Salathé et al. (2010) 

project increased extreme precipitation events in the State of Washington, with stronger increases in 

the northwestern portion of the State. Increases in the intensity of future extreme winter precipitation 

are projected for the western United States by Dominguez et al. (2012). These researchers project an 

area-averaged 12.6% increase in 20-year return period and 14.4% increase in 50-year return period 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-9 

daily precipitation (a return period is an estimate of how long it will be between rainfall events of a 

given magnitude). 

Figure 3.5.1-3 Simulated temperature change (top panel) and percent precipitation change (bottom panel) in the 

Pacific Northwest from 20th and 21st Century global climate model simulations. 

The black curve for each panel is the weighted average of all models during the 20th Century. The 

colored curves are the weighted average of all models in that emissions scenario (“low” or B1, and 

“medium” or A1B) for the 21st Century. The colored areas indicate the range (5th to 95th percentile) for 

each year in the 21st century. All changes are relative to 1970-1999 averages. (Credit: Mote and 

Salathé 2009 and 2010).

3.6 Hydrology

3.6.1 Regional Hydrology for the Klickitat River Sub-Basin 

CLNWR is located within the Klickitat River Sub-Basin. The Klickitat River drains an area of about 

1,350 square miles from Mount Adams and Cispus Pass to the Columbia River Gorge at Lyle, 

Washington (Yakama Nation 2012). Major tributaries include Swale Creek, Little Klickitat River, 

Outlet Creek, West Fork Klickitat River, and Diamond Fork Klickitat River. The Klickitat River is 

free-flowing, with no dams or other flow control. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-10 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

3.6.2 Refuge-Specific Hydrology 

This section describes the hydrology of CLNWR as detailed in the Conboy Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge Water Management Plan (Service 2005). Major channels that flow through the refuge are 

shown in Map 3. 

The refuge encompasses approximately 3,182 acres of the Conboy Lake wetland. This makes up 

about 58% of the wetland system that was formed by the historic Camas Prairie, Conboy Lake and 

Swan Lake; the remaining 42% is in private inholdings, creating a mosaic of refuge and private lands 

within the basin. This wetland complex, as well as lands surrounding the refuge, north to the town of 

Glenwood, is generally referred to as the Glenwood Valley. Water management in the Glenwood 

Valley has been primarily for agricultural purposes and is focused on early green-up of grasses for 

hay removal in July and August, as well as earlier dewatering for cattle pastures. Private land 

inholding activities necessitate the early drawdown of water from approximately 1,879 acres of 

refuge wet meadow habitat, equivalent to 59% of the refuge total. 

CLNWR is crossed by a network of over a hundred miles of dikes, low-level berms, and drainage 

ditches from historic agricultural uses. Dozens of unaccounted and unmanaged water control 

structures still exist within the refuge boundaries. These agricultural relics are largely dysfunctional, 

serve little purpose for current refuge management, and inhibit efficient management of water 

resources. Berms and dikes divert or impede water flow, while even the smallest ditches accelerate 

the loss of both ground and surface water from the wetland system. 

Water enters the refuge through precipitation and slope runoff, springs, Frasier Creek, Holmes Creek, 

Chapman Creek, and Bird Creek. All water ultimately flows into and exits the refuge through the 

Camas Ditch and Outlet Creek, then downstream (northeast) into the Klickitat River. The Camas 

Ditch is that segment of the main basin drain west of the BZ-Glenwood Highway. Outlet Creek is 

that portion of the main basin drain east of the BZ-Glenwood Highway. All creeks have been 

realigned, channelized, and deepened for drainage purposes. Outlet Creek and the Camas Ditch are 

periodically dredged by the KDID or the refuge to enhance drainage. Based on the original land 

survey maps (1870s), the Camas Prairie (fed by Holmes, Chapman and Bird Creeks) did not have a 

direct outlet to the Klickitat River. This water outflow was historically impeded by high ground at 

what is now the north-south segment of the Glenwood-BZ Road (H. Cole personal communication in 

Service 2005); this high ground separated the Camas Prairie (to the west) from Conboy Lake. The 

1870s land surveys show that Conboy Lake drained into the Klickitat River via Outlet Creek. The 

Camas Ditch was excavated through high ground to expedite drainage of the Camas Prairie. The 

Camas Ditch was continued downstream, dividing Conboy Lake, and bypassing and cutting off the 

oxbows of Outlet Creek that historically drained toward the Klickitat River. Because of its size and 

high outflow, management of the Camas Ditch/Outlet Creek and its embankments are critical to the 

water management within the entire valley, both for water retention and drainage purposes. 

Fall and winter precipitation via rain and snow is important for initial soil saturation but is generally 

inadequate for filling wetlands and maintaining water levels throughout the valley. Runoff from 

slopes provides much of the water necessary to fill and maintain the refuge parcels known as the 

Camas South, Lakeside SW, Lakeside SE, Myer, Arena and East Oxbow Units. Currently there is no 

efficient alternative to filling these units from the creek inflows. Water can be backed into these 

units from the main drain during winter months (depending on water levels) but requires diligent 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-11

observation to close off structures as water recedes. Slope runoff generally maintains the water level 

in these units into the late spring, but levels recede rapidly thereafter. 

Springs occur primarily in the northwestern portion of the refuge, around the headquarters and on 

private lands along the western boundary of the Camas Prairie. Spring waters generally enter the 

Cold Springs Ditch, which rings the western edge of the Camas Prairie from approximately Kreps 

Lane north and east to Lake Road. This water is shunted into the lakebed on both refuge and private 

lands. Private landowners control and manage most of the spring waters. 

Holmes Creek enters the valley from the southwest near Laurel. Most of the flow is diverted onto 

private lands through various ditch systems, ultimately flowing south into Chapman Creek or flowing 

eastward along Kreps Lane and then joining Chapman Creek on refuge lands. Holmes Creek is 

important for filling and maintaining the refuge’s Laurel West Unit. This unit, west of Laurel Road, 

is an important breeding site for the State-listed Oregon spotted frog (endangered). Transitional 

zones between wet prairie and uplands in this area support the State-listed rosy owl-clover 

(endangered), Mardon skipper (endangered) and long-bearded sego lily (sensitive). The Service has 

no direct management control of Holmes Creek flow; therefore, the management of hydrology in the 

Laurel West Unit is dependent upon the private landowner. 

Chapman Creek enters at the southwest corner of the valley. It bisects a disjointed segment of the 

refuge in the southwest valley but primarily flows through private lands, including a 700-acre refuge 

easement. A beaver dam on the creek at the refuge boundary maintains a wetland critical for 

Sandhill cranes and Oregon spotted frogs in the Laurel East Unit. Various ditches divert water onto 

private lands. The creek re-enters the refuge in the Chapman Creek South Unit (south of Kreps 

Lane). A water control structure within the creek checks up water to fill the refuge wetlands south of 

the road. Chapman and Holmes Creeks then join along the road edge and continue northeast under 

the Kreps Lane Bridge. The creek is then necessary to fill refuge wetlands to the west (Chapman 

Creek North Unit and Aspen Grove Unit). However, unless water levels are high, the creek must 

first be checked up within private lands to back water through the appropriate structures. There is no 

current agreement with the landowner to check up water for these units; therefore, their annual filling 

and maintenance is not dependable. These units are rarely filled to capacity, and may remain dry in 

some years. Chapman Creek continues northward through private land before terminating at the 

Camas Ditch. 

Bird Creek enters the refuge from the north, off Hansen Road. It is the main source of sustained 

inflow for the refuge as it is fed by snowmelt from Mt. Adams. Bird Creek can be diverted at 

Hansen Road into the C&H Units via a screw-gate, westward along the Alternate Bird Creek 

Channel (which then turns into the Cold Springs Ditch), or southward in the main Bird Creek 

Channel. Bird Creek was completely realigned in the early 1900s and no longer follows any portion 

of the historic creek bed while on the refuge (per original 1870s land survey maps). Bird Creek 

water is used to flood the entire Camas Prairie lakebed north of Camas Ditch. It is also shunted 

eastward under the Glenwood-BZ Road to fill Conboy Lake and the wetlands and oxbows of the 

Troh and West Oxbow Units. Bird Creek enters the Camas Ditch in the northern portion of the 

refuge where it then drains toward the Klickitat River. Water coming down Bird Creek and onto the 

refuge is controlled by various local landowners and irrigation districts; the timing and duration of 

the refuge water supply is reliant upon these private entities. The refuge does not exercise its water 

rights to refine timing and duration since this generally is not critical, except in dry years. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-12 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

Frasier Creek enters the refuge in the northeast corner. Currently there are no infrastructure options 

for utilizing this water, and virtually all flows exit the refuge via the Camas Ditch. 

The refuge also receives water from the Anderson Ditch and through ditches entering the Troh area, 

both along Troh Lane east of the Glenwood-BZ Road. These channels are part of the Old Joe Creek 

system. Flows in these channels are unknown and unreliable. Water can also be brought onto the 

refuge just west of the Glenwood-BZ Road through the recently acquired Gamble Tract. Water also 

flows through the Kelley Tract in the far northern portion of the refuge. Water rights for these four 

sites are unknown, and the refuge does not currently exercise any requests for these waters. 

The Service owns 16 water rights for irrigation of the refuge (Mayer 2009). On the refuge, Bird 

Creek and Frazier Creek have been adjudicated. The Service filed claims for Holmes Creek, 

Chapman Creek and several other sources for irrigation, stockwater and domestic use. The claims 

for Holmes Creek and Chapman Creek are for large flows (400 cfs and 200 cfs, respectively), and the 

place of use encompasses almost the entire approved boundary of the refuge. The validity of these 

claims will not be established until there is an adjudication (Mayer 2009). 

3.7 Water Quality and Environmental Contaminants

3.7.1 Overview Klickitat River Basin 

The Klickitat River Watershed is largely undeveloped. Land uses include wilderness, forestry, and 

agriculture. No stream reaches in the watershed are listed as impaired by the WDOE (2008). One 

reach of the Klickitat River, located upstream of the confluence of Outlet Creek, was identified as 

Category 2 water (water of concern) due to detection of polychlorinated biphenol (PCB) beyond the 

National Toxic Rule criterion in a composite tissue sample from four spring Chinook salmon 

collected in 1997 (WDOE 2008). However, since there are no suspected sources of PCB in the 

watershed, and since Chinook salmon are migratory, it is possible that the source of this pollutant 

was from outside the watershed. 

3.7.2 CLNWR Waterways 

All of the streams on CLNWR drain to Outlet Creek and then to the Klickitat River. There are no 

water quality concerns on any of these streams. 
Chapter 4

Biological 

Environment

Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-1 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

4.1 Overview

The Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) retains one of the largest remnant wet 

prairie/wetland systems remaining in the State of Washington. Historically, the lands surrounding 

the present day Refuge were a dynamic, natural wetland complex known as Camas Prairie. Native 

Americans managed habitat in the area to maintain populations of plants and animals necessary for 

subsistence (e.g. use of fire to maintain meadow and oak savanna) and traditional habitat 

management practices promoted sustainable populations of plant resources (e.g. camas). In the early 

1900s, Euro-American settlers ditched and drained the valley to promote and support agriculture. In 

1965, the refuge was established on agricultural lands within the former Camas Prairie/Conboy Lake 

basin. 

Today, CLNWR includes a diversity of native habitats, centered around the seasonally flooded wet 

prairie habitat. Approximately 50% of the refuge is wet prairie; the other habitats on the refuge 

include mixed conifer, upland meadow, ponderosa pine, ponderosa pine-lodgepole pine, emergent 

marsh, quaking aspen, Oregon white oak and alder-willow dominated riparian. 

The refuge’s seasonal wetlands and meadows provide important resting, feeding and breeding areas 

for migrating waterfowl and shorebirds within the Pacific Flyway. In particular, the refuge is used 

by thousands of Canada geese, ducks and swans. Greater Sandhill cranes breed in the area. 

The mosaic of habitats in proximity to extensive seasonal wetlands and coniferous forests results in a 

diverse assemblage of more than 250 species of birds, mammals, fish, reptiles, and amphibians. 

Overall, refuge lands are vital to healthy populations of wildlife dependent on these rare habitats. 

Table 4-1 lists the area of each of the habitat types mapped in the refuge. 

Table 4-1. Existing Habitats at Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge. 

Habitat Type Acreage

Administrative/Developed 3.5

Alder and Willow (Riparian) 35.0

Emergent Marsh (Seasonal Wetland) 156.0

Lodgepole/Ponderosa Pine 587.0

Mixed Conifer 926.0

Oregon White Oak 61.0

Ponderosa Pine 610.0

Quaking Aspen 95.0

Upland Meadow 799.0

Wet Prairie (Wet Meadow, Seasonal Wetland) 3,281.0

Total 6,553.5
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-2 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

The habitats described below and the management actions are also described in Chapter 2 under the 

corresponding goals and objectives. Please refer to those descriptions for additional information. 

4.2 Wet Prairie (Wet Meadow)

4.2.1 Overview 

Wet prairies are characterized by saturated soil and ponding of water up to 3 feet deep from October 

through late June to early July. Ideally, wet prairie areas have a short (<2 foot) cover of sedges (e.g., 

Carex species), rushes (e.g., Juncus species), spikerushes (e.g., Eleocharis species), and other native 

or desirable emergents. Native forbs include camas, common monkey-flower and potentilla. Wet 

prairies are known for mounded topography, with interstitial spaces that support many plant species. 

Wetland prairie habitat covers 3,281 acres, approximately half of CLNWR. This habitat is key for 

migratory waterfowl, shorebirds and other waterbirds, as well as aquatic mammals and amphibians. 

4.2.2 Historic and Current Distribution 

Historic farming practices in the Glenwood Valley included ditch construction and draining of large 

areas, primarily for pasture and hay cultivation. Prior to European settlement of the area and the 

subsequent ditching and draining, a large portion of the valley was naturally sustained wet prairie. 

4.2.3 Key Species Supported 

Wet prairie habitat supports a number of species of Federal and State management concern, including 

rosy owl clover, long-bearded sego lily, Oregon coyote thistle, Oregon spotted frog, Sandhill crane 

and elk. Of particular note, wet meadows represent core breeding habitat for Oregon spotted frogs. 

In addition, this habitat supports migratory waterfowl, such as mallards, tundra swans, northern 

pintails and Canada geese. 

4.2.4 Refuge Management Activities

Wet prairie habitat is managed through control of the local hydrology. Units of wet prairie are 

seasonally flooded, beginning in October and then allowed to drain starting in July. Some areas are 

mowed and/or hayed to control reed canarygrass and maintain short grass conditions that are more 

suitable for Oregon spotted frogs and Sandhill cranes. 

Under the CCP, controlled grazing will also be used to reduce reed canarygrass in targeted areas 

during summer and fall. 

4.3 Emergent Marsh

4.3.1 Overview 

Emergent marsh habitat is characterized by a 50-50 mosaic of areas of open water and emergent 

plants. Water depths range from 2 to 4 feet from October 1 through late July to September. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-3 

Common native emergent plants include bulrushes (Scirpus species) and cattails (Typha species). 

Open water supports submerged aquatic plants, such as pondweeds (Potomogeton species). There 

should be a limited presence of woody vegetation (e.g., lodgepole pine, spirea and willow (Salix

species)).

4.3.2 Historic and Current Distribution in the Glenwood Valley 

Presumably, emergent marsh habitat was present adjacent to the original stream channels. The flat 

topography would allow beavers to construct ponds that probably covered a larger area than is now 

occupied by emergent marsh habitat; currently, the refuge supports 156 acres of emergent marsh 

habitat in several areas adjacent to Outlet Creek, Bird Creek, Chapman Creek and the Willard 

Spillway. 

4.3.3 Key Species Supported 

While limited in acreage, emergent marsh is important to migratory and breeding waterfowl, 

migrating and breeding greater Sandhill cranes, waterbirds (e.g., Virginia rails, soras, American 

bitterns), overwintering and breeding native amphibians (e.g., Oregon spotted frogs), and a diverse 

assemblage of wetland-dependent plant species. 

4.3.4 Refuge Management Activities 

The hydrologic regime is maintained by allowing marsh habitat to flood from October 1 through July 

1, then allowing these areas to drain completely by August 1 in order to control bullfrog recruitment. 

Integrated pest management techniques are used to control invasive plant species, including physical 

removal and the use of chemical and biological agents. 

In addition to hydrologic control and integrated pest management listed above, under the CCP 

additional management activities include prescribed burns, targeted grazing on reed canarygrass, and 

mowing and disking to remove vegetation and maintain the desired ratio of vegetation to open water. 

Reducing emergent vegetation will benefit Oregon spotted frogs and curtail breeding of American 

bullfrogs. 

4.4 Riverine (Streams, Water Delivery Systems)

4.4.1 Overview 

Numerous creeks, ditches and spillways cross the Glenwood Valley floor and drain to Chapman 

Creek, Camas Ditch, Bird Creek, Holmes Creek, Frazier Creek and Outlet Creek. Outlet Creek flows 

northeast from the refuge to the Klickitat River that drains south to the Columbia River. 

A series of water control structures are located throughout the refuge for management of water in 

various units of the refuge. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-4 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

4.4.2 Historic and Current Stream Network 

Prior to agricultural uses in the Glenwood Valley, it is clear that drainage would have followed a 

more sinuous pattern that would have included a greater length of stream habitat. A natural drainage 

pattern likely would have supported a different distribution of associated emergent wetland and wet 

prairie areas. Currently there are 19 miles of channels in the area on and around the refuge, including 

streams and ditches. A network of spillways, gauges and other control structures allows management 

of flows to fill and drain wet prairie areas to support refuge goals. 

4.4.3 Key Species Supported 

The streams and ditches support Oregon spotted frogs, native fishes (e.g., speckled dace), migratory 

birds and a diverse assemblage of stream invertebrates. Submergent and floating vegetation are also 

present. 

4.4.4 Refuge Management Activities 

Flow control structures are used to flood areas by October 1 and to draw down water levels by July 1. 

Dredging and vegetation removal are used to maintain flows. Integrated pest management 

techniques, including mechanical/physical, cultural, chemical and biological agents are used to 

eradicate or control invasive plants. These measures will continue unchanged under the CCP. 

4.5 Springs

4.5.1 Overview 

There are four springs on the refuge: Willard Spring and three that are unnamed. 

4.5.2 Historic and Current Distribution 

There are no records of the locations of springs prior to agricultural development in the Glenwood 

Valley. The existing springs have probably been flowing in their current locations for many years. 

4.5.3 Key Species Supported 

This habitat can support a diverse assemblage of native species, including overwintering Oregon 

spotted frogs. However, no biological surveys have been conducted on springs within the refuge, so 

it is unknown what species actually occupy these springs. 

4.5.4 Refuge Management Activities 

Unwanted vegetation and debris may be strategically removed to promote natural flow and habitat 

conditions at the springs. IPM techniques, including mechanical/physical, chemical and biological 

agents may be used to eradicate or control invasive plants in and around the springs. These measures 

will continue unchanged under the CCP. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-5 

4.6 Upland Meadow

4.6.1 Overview 

Upland meadows are characterized by a diverse mix of grasses and forbs, including bluebunch 

wheatgrass, blue wildrye, Idaho fescue, Oregon checkermallow, yarrow and asters, as well as limited 

numbers of woody species such as ponderosa and lodgepole pine. 

4.6.2 Historic and Current Distribution 

Upland meadow areas are generally located on higher ground surrounding the wet prairie areas. On 

the refuge much of the upland meadow habitat is transitional between wet prairies and woodlands. 

The greatest extent of the 799 acres of upland meadows is located along the southeast edges of the 

refuge. In the absence of fire or management activities, these areas would likely be succeeded by 

pine forest. Historically, there may have been less upland meadow and more pine woodlands that 

were cleared for agricultural uses, which then developed into upland meadow habitat over time. 

4.6.3 Key Species Supported

Upland meadows provide habitat for migratory songbirds. Raptors, such as northern harriers, nest 

and forage in upland meadows. Greater Sandhill cranes, a species of management concern, forage 

and occasionally nest in upland meadow habitats. The Mardon skipper butterfly relies on native 

bunchgrasses in upland meadows; on the refuge, Mardon skippers are limited to two locations, both 

in upland meadows. 

4.6.4 Refuge Management Activities 

Refuge management actions are focused on maintaining this habitat, particularly as necessary to 

preserve Mardon skipper habitat and as habitat for migratory birds. Management activities include 

limited controlled burns that avoid existing Mardon skipper habitat, selective mechanical removal of 

pines and pine seedlings, and the use of IPM techniques to eradicate or control invasive plants. 

Under the CCP, controlled grazing will also be used to reduce reed canarygrass in targeted upland 

meadow areas during summer and fall. 

4.7 Ponderosa Pine

4.7.1 Overview

Ponderosa pine stands on CLNWR are relatively dense compared to the range of natural variation for 

a ponderosa pine forest. On the refuge these stands are dominated by 80- to 100-year-old ponderosa 

pines, with smaller numbers of lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir and grand fir scattered throughout. 

Ideally, understory and ground cover include bitterbrush, milk-vetch, snowberry, wild rose and 

bracken fern, with about 5%t cover of invasive/undesirable plants. Wildfires naturally maintain the 

open condition of ponderosa forests by periodically removing understory vegetation from around the 

large fire-resistant ponderosa pines. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-6 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

4.7.2 Historic and Current Distribution 

As described in Chapter 2, ponderosa pine stands on CLNWR have followed a development history 

similar to others on the eastern slopes of the Cascade Range. In pre-european settlement times, 

frequent, low-intensity ground fires probably were the predominant disturbance influencing these 

forests and were key in maintaining more open conditions than we see today. Fire prevention, 

beginning in the late 1800s and early 1900s, mostly removed the influence of fire on forest 

succession in ponderosa pine stands. The lack of fires has probably resulted in an increased density 

in these stands. Most ponderosa pine stands on CLNWR are densely stocked, and understory tree 

species are mostly lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine and grand fir. Pure ponderosa pine 

stands often contain large numbers of small trees. Currently there are 610 acres of ponderosa pine 

forest on the refuge. 

4.7.3 Key Species Supported 

Black-backed and white-headed woodpeckers are found in ponderosa pine forests, preferring open, 

mature stands of ponderosa pine (Wahl et al. 2005). Both are candidates for listing by the State of 

Washington as threatened or endangered. Ames’ milk-vetch is a State-listed endangered species that 

is found only on the refuge and adjacent lands. The State-listed threatened western gray squirrel is 

also present. This habitat also provides cover for a variety of amphibian, reptile, upland migratory 

bird and mammal species. 

4.7.4 Refuge Management Activities 

Currently, refuge management of ponderosa pine forest is limited to IPM techniques, including 

mechanical/physical, cultural, chemical and biological agents to eradicate or control invasive species. 

Under the CCP, likely additional management measures described in the silvicultural plan include 

mechanical thinning on the entire forest, application of controlled burns to reduce fuel and some 

small trees, creation of canopy openings for Ames’ milk-vetch, and creation of additional snags 

through tree girdling if necessary to achieve an appropriate density of snags that support 

black-backed and white-headed woodpeckers and other species. 

4.8 Lodgepole/Ponderosa Pine

4.8.1 Overview 

CLNWR supports 587 acres of mixed lodgepole and ponderosa pine forest in upland areas at the 

eastern, western, and southern portions of the refuge. This forest habitat is characterized by 40- to 

80-year-old pines with small openings in even-aged groups. Ponderosa pines and lodgepole pines 

show some differences in moisture preference, with lodgepole pines often inhabiting lower lying 

areas and ponderosa pines in higher and dryer areas. The lodgepole/ponderosa habitat type 

represents a gradient between these other forest types. The tree density is higher in this forest than in 

mature ponderosa pine forest. Understory shrubs include snowberry, wild rose, bitterbrush, 

rabbitbrush, bracken fern and various native grasses. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-7 

4.8.2 Historic and Current Distribution 

The historic distribution of lodgepole/ponderosa pine forest has likely shifted with changes in 

disturbance history (from fires, timber harvest and clearing) and climate changes. Currently, the 

majority of this habitat is in the northern portion of the refuge, adjacent to wet prairie and ponderosa 

pine forest. 

4.8.3 Key Species Supported 

Key species supported are migratory songbirds, including the yellow-rumped warbler, Cassin’s finch,

and mountain chickadee, which nest and forage in ponderosa/lodgepole pine forests. Native 

mammals, such as elk, deer and Douglas squirrels, may use ponderosa/lodgepole pine forests for 

nesting, foraging, or cover. Bald eagles, which are a State sensitive species, nest in mature 

ponderosa and lodgepole pines. Western gray squirrels may be present in portions of this habitat that 

are adjacent to oak forest. Black-backed woodpeckers also inhabit ponderosa pine forests and may 

be present in this habitat on the refuge. 

4.8.4 Refuge Management Activities 

Currently, IPM includes mechanical/physical, chemical and biological agents used to eradicate or 

control invasive species. 

Under the CCP, lodgepole/ponderosa pine forest could be managed using a number of practices 

described in The Silvicultural Report and Recommendations for Conboy Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge Forest Stands (White 2009). Selective clearing could be used to create openings and to 

encourage understory growth, enhancing the structural diversity of the forest. In areas with low snag 

density, tree girdling may be used to increase the number of snags. Clearing and thinning will be 

strategically located to prevent pine encroachment into wet prairie and upland meadows and to 

improve habitat within this forest type. 

4.9 Mixed Conifer

4.9.1 Overview 

The 926 acres of mixed conifer stands on CLNWR feature a densely populated mix of Douglas-fir, 

ponderosa pine, and grand fir. Oregon white oak is also present in places. These stands are located 

on north-, west-, or east-facing slopes on the edges of the Glenwood Valley in areas with lower 

moisture stress than on flat or southerly slopes. Stands feature a multi-layered complex forest 

structure. 

4.9.2 Historic and Current Distribution 

Forest clearing for settlement and agriculture has reduced the coverage of mixed conifer stands. 

Historically, mixed conifer stands probably experienced fire on the order of every 25 to 100 years, 

less frequently than for ponderosa pine forests on the refuge. Fire intensity in these sloped sites 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-8 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

would be more intense than on flat sites, resulting in greater changes in vegetation when fires did

occur. 

4.9.3 Key Species Supported 

Mixed conifer forest supports a diverse community of migratory birds and forest-dependent mammal 

species. The silviculture plan identified Townsend’s warbler, varied thrush, hermit thrush and 

olive-sided flycatcher as focal species for this habitat. These birds use large, older, mixed conifer 

stands for breeding and generally favor mature stands of large trees. The olive-sided flycatcher also 

favors the edges of openings in this habitat. Where ponderosa pines and Oregon white oak forest are 

in close proximity, this forest type offers potential western gray squirrel habitat. 

4.9.4 Refuge Management Activities 

Currently, IPM, including mechanical/physical, chemical and biological agents, is used to eradicate 

or control invasive species. 

Under the CCP, mixed forest could be managed as described in the silviculture plan. Mixed conifer 

forest could be managed with mechanical thinning and prescribed fire to reduce fuel and prevent 

hazardous wildfires. Tree clearing could be used to create small openings to enhance structural 

diversity. Tree girdling could be used as necessary to create the desired density of snags. 

4.10 Oregon White Oak

4.10.1 Overview 

CLNWR supports 61 acres of Oregon white oak woodlands adjacent to mixed conifer stands, 

primarily along the BZ-Glenwood Highway. These stands typically are characterized as oak-pine 

woodland, with scattered trees that create from approximately 25% up to 75% canopy cover of a 

multi-layered canopy of oaks and pines and a sparse (<50%) understory of shrubs and other ground 

cover. However, some stands on the refuge are composed almost entirely of Oregon white oak. 

4.10.2 Historic and Current Distribution 

There is nothing known about the historic distribution of this forest type. However, given the 

historic fire regime and the oak’s resistance to fire, it is likely that the historic conditions for the area 

are much as they are today. 

4.10.3 Key Species Supported 

Oregon white oak woodlands benefit migratory landbirds, foraging greater Sandhill cranes and 

western gray squirrels which occur south of the refuge and may be present on the refuge. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-9 

4.10.4 Refuge Management Activities 

Currently, IPM, including mechanical/physical, chemical and biological agents, is used to eradicate 

or control invasive species. 

Under the CCP, Oregon white oak woodland could be managed as described in the Silvicultural 

Report and Recommendations (White 2009). Selective thinning could be used to remove adjacent 

conifers that overtop hardwood species and to create openings allowing oak recruitment. Tree 

girdling could be used to create additional snags as needed to improve wildlife habitat. 

4.11 Quaking Aspen

4.11.1 Overview 

Quaking aspen occupies small stands on a total of 95 acres on the valley floor of the refuge adjacent 

to wetland areas. Quaking aspens are not long-lived, but they do regenerate from lateral shoots as 

clones. Young trees need abundant light, so this species occupies recently opened areas. 

4.11.2 Historic and Current Distribution 

The historic distribution of quaking aspen stands in the Glenwood Valley is not known, but likely 

was variable, with this species colonizing valley floor areas adjacent to wetlands after fire or other 

disturbance cleared areas of other trees. Currently quaking aspen stands are interspersed with wet 

prairie habitat in the valley floor. 

4.11.3 Key Species Supported 

Quaking aspen stands support migratory landbirds, including red-naped sapsuckers, house wrens, 

western screech owls, tree swallows and northern flickers; raptors, including sharp-shinned and 

Cooper’s hawks; and a diverse assemblage of resident species, including ruffed grouse, elk, beavers, 

porcupines, rabbits and black bears. 

4.11.4 Refuge Management Activities 

Current management activities include girdling trees as necessary to provide an adequate density of 

snags and IPM to eradicate or control invasive species, including mechanical/physical, chemical and 

biological methods. 

Under the CCP, management could also include measures to promote expansion of quaking aspen 

stands including providing a setback for haying to allow aspen suckers to become established, 

disking up to 5 acres annually to cause disturbance and promote suckering at the edges of aspen 

stands, selective thinning of conifers within 30 feet of aspen stands to promote expansion into conifer 

forest areas, and selective topping or girdling of large aspens to promote suckering. Prescribed fire 

in the fall may be used to simulate a natural disturbance regime. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-10 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

4.12 Alder and Willow (Riparian)

4.12.1 Overview 

Alder and willow-dominated riparian habitat covers about 35 acres along the stream channels in the 

refuge. This riparian corridor shades stream channels, provides organic material, and provides 

habitat for a diverse assemblage of resident and migratory wildlife species. 

4.12.2 Historic and Current Distribution 

This habitat is defined by proximity to stream channels. Historically, the distribution would probably 

have included a greater area associated with a more meandering stream network. 

4.12.3 Key Species Supported 

Key bird species supported include wood ducks, willow flycatchers, yellow warblers, song sparrows, 

spotted towhees, red shouldered hawks and ruffed grouse. Mammals supported include deer and elk. 

4.12.4 Refuge Management Activities 

Management of riparian areas includes the use of setbacks to protect this habitat from grazing and 

haying. Vegetation removal is conducted to maintain water control infrastructure (e.g., dikes, 

ditches, stream gauges, and spillways) and to promote aquatic vegetation in certain areas. IPM, 

including mechanical/physical, chemical, and biological agents, is used to eradicate or control 

invasive species. These measures will continue under the CCP. 

4.13 Waterfowl

Under the authorities of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, the established Migratory Bird 

Conservation Commission (MBCC) emphasized the value of CLNWR for waterfowl nesting through 

the restoration of former wetland habitats and stabilizing spring and summer water levels in managed 

impoundments. CLNWR is an important breeding area for Canada geese, with as many as 200,000 

individuals recorded over the spring season (NAS 2012). Emergent marsh, other wetlands, 

agricultural pastures, wet prairies and upland meadow areas all provide habitat for Canada geese. 

Several species of ducks also breed on the refuge. As many as 5,000 geese, 4,000 ducks, and 500 

tundra swans have been present on the refuge at a time during annual migrations in the spring and 

fall (Service 1992).

Hunting for waterfowl is allowed in the eastern portion of the refuge in accordance with a hunting 

plan (Service 1992) and State hunting regulations. Generally hunts are allowed at times between 

mid-October and mid-January. 

CLNWR also supports numerous other waterfowl. Table 4-2 lists the waterfowl species that have 

been seen at the refuge. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-11

Table 4-2. Waterbird Occurrence at Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge. 

Species Spring Summer Fall Winter

Grebes

Pied-Billed Grebe* o o o

Red-necked Grebe x

Western Grebe r r

Bitterns & Herons

American Bittern* o u u

Great Blue Heron c c c u

Great Egret x

Green Heron x

Double-crested Cormorant x

Swans, Geese & Ducks

Tundra Swan u o o

Trumpeter Swan r r

Greater White-fronted Goose o o r

Snow Goose r r r

Ross’ Goose r

Canada Goose* a u u c

Wood Duck* c c c

Green-winged Teal* u u u

Mallard* a a c c

Northern Pintail c u c

Blue-winged Teal* u o o

Cinnamon Teal* c u u

Northern Shoveler* o o o o

Gadwall* o o o

American Wigeon u o o

Canvasback r

Redhead r r

Ring-necked Duck* o o o o

Scaup* o o r o

Common Goldeneye o o o

Barrow’s Goldeneye r r r
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-12 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Species Spring Summer Fall Winter

Bufflehead o o o

Hooded Merganser u u u o

Common Merganser o o o

Cranes & Rails

Virginia Rail* u u u

Sora* c c o

American Coot* u u u o

Greater Sandhill Crane* u u u

Shorebirds & Gulls

Black-bellied Plover r

Killdeer* c a c o

Semipalmated Plover r

Black-necked Stilt r

American Avocet x

Long-billed Curlew o o o

Greater Yellowlegs o o o

Lesser Yellowlegs r

Spotted Sandpiper* o o r

Least Sandpiper o o r

Pectoral Sandpiper r

Dunlin r r

Long-billed Dowitcher o r r

Common Snipe* a a c r

Wilson’s Phalarope* c u r

Bonaparte’s Gull r

Glaucous-winged Gull r

California Gull r r

Ring-billed Gull r r

Forster’s Tern r r

Black Tern* o o o

Codes: *: birds known to nest locally

a: abundant; very numerous

c: common; certain to be seen in proper habitat

u: uncommon; present, but not certain to be seen

o: occasional; seen only a few times during the season
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-13

Species Spring Summer Fall Winter

r: rare; not present every year

x: accidental; outside normal species range

4.14 Endangered, Threatened and Rare Species

4.14.1 Plants 

CLNWR is located in a transitional zone between higher elevations surrounding Mt. Adams and drier 

foothills, resulting in a diverse botanical community that includes several rare species (Engler 2007). 

Ten State-recognized plants have been found in the refuge. These plants and their habitat 

requirements are summarized in Table 4-3. 

Table 4-3. Rare Plants at Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

Common Name Scientific Name Status CLNWR Occurrence

Long-bearded Sego Lily Calochortus longebarbatus

var. longebarbatus State Sensitive Common in wet meadows and prairies.

Oregon Coyote-thistle Eryngium petiolatum State Threatened Only known in two wet meadow 

complexes.

Rosy Owl-clover Orthocarpus bracteosus State Endangered Throughout wet meadows and 

prairies and on adjacent lands.

Kellogg’s Rush Juncus kelloggii State Threatened

Seasonal wetlands. CLNWR is 

the only known occurrence in 

Washington. No verified 

presence since 1989.

Dwarf Rush Juncus hemiendytus var. 

hemiendytus State Threatened

Seasonal wetlands. Only found 

in one location in 2005. 

CLNWR is the only known 

occurrence in Klickitat County.

Pulsifer’s Monkeyflower Mimulus pulsiferae State Sensitive

One location in a seasonally 

moist area in the transition zone 

between an open meadow and a 

ponderosa pine forest area in the 

vicinity of a spring.

Suksdorf’s Milk-vetch 

aka Ames’ Milk-vetch

Astragalus pulsiferae var. 

suksdorfii State Endangered Ponderosa pine forest and on adjacent lands.

California Broomrape Orobanche californica ssp. 

grayana

Possibly Extirpated

Moist meadows in association 

with asters and erigeron species. 

Historical collection of this 

species is from the Falcon 

Valley (includes CLNWR), but 

no recent sightings in 

Washington.

Suksdorf’s Bladderwort Utricularia ochroleuca State Sensitive Has not been verified since its 

initial description.

Carnival Meconella Meconella linearis Not Listed

Photographed on refuge in 1989, 

but not verified since. No other 

known occurrences in 

Washington.

Sources: Engler 2007; Stutte and Engler 2005.
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-14 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

4.14.2 Insects 

The Mardon skipper butterfly (State endangered) is found in only four locations, including a portion 

of Klickitat County that includes CLNWR (Potter et al. 1999). This species occupies five sites 

within the refuge. Threats to this species include losses of habitat associated with development, 

overgrazing, and natural succession, as well as herbicides and introduced plants that result in the loss 

of host plants. Additional potential threats include competition from introduced insects and diseases 

of insects or host plants (Potter et al. 1999). On CLNWR fescue and western blue violet that occur in 

upland meadow habitat have the potential to support Mardon skippers. 

4.14.3 Amphibians 

The Camas Prairie that intersects the CLNWR is one of only four locations in Washington where the 

Oregon spotted frog (State endangered) still occurs. This species is adapted to develop in warmer 

water than other Pacific Northwest species (Pearl and Hayes 2004). Oregon spotted frogs currently 

occupy less than about 30% of their historical range (Pearl and Hayes 2004). On the refuge, Oregon 

spotted frogs occur primarily in emergent marsh and wet prairie habitats, although some individuals 

may overwinter at springs on the refuge. As described in Chapter 2, wet meadows provide core 

breeding habitat for Oregon spotted frogs. Stressors to Oregon spotted frogs include changes in 

vegetation, cattle grazing, and bull frog predation (Pearl and Hayes 2004). 

4.14.4 Birds 

Eleven special status bird species occur on CLNWR (Table 4-4). 

Table 4-4. Special Status Birds Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge. 

Species Status Spring Summer Fall Winter

Western Grebe SC r r

Bald Eagle SS u o u u

Golden Eagle SC r r r r

Peregrine Falcon SS o o o o

Greater Sandhill Crane SE u u u

Lewis’ Woodpecker SC o o o o

Pileated Woodpecker SC o o o o

White-headed Woodpecker* SC o o o o

Loggerhead Shrike SC o o r

Purple Martin SC x

Sage Thrasher SC x

Codes: *: birds known to nest locally

a: abundant; very numerous

c: common; certain to be seen in proper habitat

u: uncommon; present, but not certain to be seen

o: occasional; seen only a few times during the season
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-15

Species Status Spring Summer Fall Winter

r: rare; not present every year

x: accidental; outside normal species range

Status: SS: State Sensitive

SC: State Candidate

SE: State Endangered

At least one pair of bald eagles nests on the refuge annually. Juvenile bald eagles are common. 

CLNWR and the surrounding area is the only known remaining nesting location for greater Sandhill 

cranes in Washington (Stocking et al. 2007, Stocking et al. 2008). In recent years, there have been 

typically more than 25 breeding pairs on the refuge. Due to the limited range and small population, 

greater Sandhill cranes are a State-listed endangered species. The white-headed woodpecker (State 

candidate for listing) nests and forages on the refuge and prefers open, mature stands of ponderosa 

pine (Wahl et al. 2005). Northern spotted owls have been observed in the general vicinity of the 

refuge (WDFW 2012), but have not been observed there in recent years. The other special status 

birds are outside of their normal range or are only seen occasionally. 

4.14.5 Mammals 

The western gray squirrel, State-listed as threatened, is known to occur outside of the refuge and may 

use some ponderosa and lodgepole pine stands in the refuge. 

The gray wolf State-listed as endangered, is not likely to occur on the refuge; however, one 

reportedly was observed in the Glenwood Valley in 1992 (WDFW 2012). 

4.15 Fisheries

Fish are present in the main stream channels in the refuge, including Outlet Creek, Bird Creek, 

Chapman Creek, Holmes Creek and Cold Spring Ditch. These waters support two non-native game 

fish, rainbow trout and eastern brook trout, as well as brown bullhead and speckled dace. Eastern 

brook trout were stocked into ponds located upstream of the refuge, escaped and have been reported 

to spawn within the refuge (Service 1983). Rainbow trout are stocked in Outlet Creek annually. 

4.16 Other Wildlife and Plants

A diverse assemblage of wildlife species attests to the diversity of habitats that occur on and near the 

refuge. 

4.16.1 Amphibians and Reptiles 

Several amphibian and reptile species are found on the refuge, including long-toed salamanders, 

northwestern salamanders, rough-skinned newts, western toads, Pacific tree frogs, Oregon spotted 

frogs, bullfrogs (introduced), western fence lizards, western skinks, rubber boas, western 

yellow-belly racers, northwestern garter snakes and valley (common) garter snakes. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-16 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

4.16.2 Landbirds 

Landbirds can be found in all habitats of the refuge. Each habitat type has value to some species, and 

the mosaic of habitats provides important transitional and edge habitats that can be important 

foraging areas for many species. A total of 198 bird species have been recorded on the CLNWR bird 

list (Service 2012). Of these, 140 are landbirds, including 14 diurnal raptors, 4 gallinaceous birds 

(pheasant, grouse, turkey, and quail), pigeons and doves, 7 owls, nighthawks, Vaux’s swifts, 3 

hummingbird species, belted kingfishers, 9 woodpeckers, horned larks and 98 perching birds 

(passerines). A total of 80 landbird species are known to breed on CLNWR. 

4.16.3 Mammals 

There are 36 mammal species that have been confirmed on the refuge and another 7 that are likely to 

be present. Mammals that are confirmed present include badgers, beavers, Bendire’s shrews, black 

bears, black-tailed deer, bobcats, bushy-tailed woodrats, California ground squirrels, California 

myotis, big brown bats, Cascade golden-mantled ground squirrels, coyotes, deer mice, Douglas’ 

squirrels, hoary bats, little brown myotis, long-eared myotis, long-tailed weasels, minks, mountain 

lions, muskrats, northern flying squirrels, northern pocket gophers, Pacific jumping mice, pine 

martens, porcupines, raccoons, river otters, Rocky Mountain elk, shrew-moles, silver-haired bats, 

small-footed myotis, snowshoe hares, striped skunks, Townsend’s big-eared bats, yellow-bellied 

marmots and Yuma myotis. 

Other mammals that are likely to occur on the refuge include long-legged myotis, long-tailed voles, 

montane shrews, Townsend’s chipmunks, Trowbridge shrews, vagrant shrews and yellow pine 

chipmunks. As with birds, the mosaic of fully functioning habitats supports a greater diversity of 

mammals than would generally be found in a single uniform habitat or a situation where individual 

habitat units are too small to provide values that vary from surrounding units. For example, bat 

species present will roost in the forested areas and forage in the open areas, particularly over the 

extensive wetland areas. The upland meadows and seasonally dry prairie areas bordered by mixed 

conifer and pine forest support Rocky Mountain elk and mule deer through most of the refuge.

4.17 Exotic, Invasive and Nuisance Species

An exotic species may be defined as any species occurring in a particular ecosystem or habitat that is 

not native to that ecosystem or habitat. An invasive species may be defined as an exotic species 

whose introduction is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health 

(Service Executive Order 13112). Generally, the terms “nuisance” and “invasive” can be used 

interchangeably. However, in certain circumstances, a native species can be considered a nuisance 

when it is out of balance with its habitat or when it is present in a time or location where it is 

annoying to humans. Canada geese feeding on a golf course is a frequent example of a nuisance. 

Nationwide, impacts from invasive species are considered to be the most critical issue facing wildlife 

refuges, especially in ecosystems with threatened and endangered species (Service 2010). 

4.17.1 Exotic and Invasive Plants 

The management strategy utilized at CLNWR is IPM, an ecological approach that uses a number of 

control methods, including mechanical treatments, herbicide application, manual removal, prescribed 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-17

burning and biological control. Preferred methods are those that have the least environmental impact 

while effectively controlling invasive species. Early detection of new invasions is considered critical 

for cost-effective control and elimination. For this reason, invasive species mapping and monitoring 

are a relatively high priority among survey needs. 

Although native plants are also present, reed canarygrass can be found in up to 2,300 acres of 

seasonal wetlands. This aggressive species out-competes native plants, limiting food, nesting habitat 

and cover for wildlife species. Reed canarygrass can severely limit suitability and use of seasonal 

wetlands by Oregon spotted frogs and other wetland-dependent species. Other invasive or 

undesirable plants of concern on the refuge include Scotch broom, Canada thistle, meadow knapweed 

and St. John’s wort.

4.17.2 Exotic Wildlife Species 

American bullfrogs (McKercher and Gregoire 2012) and brown bullhead fish (USGS 2009) are 

present within the waters of the refuge; populations expand and contract seasonally with water levels 

and availability. Bullfrogs are voracious predators and can have significant adverse effects on native 

amphibian populations, such as the Oregon spotted frogs. The most effective control of both 

bullfrogs and exotic warm-water fish is seasonal dewatering of wetland impoundments. Bullfrog 

tadpoles require a full year to mature, so the dewatering interrupts that life cycle. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-18 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 
Chapter 5

Social and Economic 

Environment

Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment 5-1 

Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment

This chapter addresses the existing refuge facilities, public use programs, cultural resources, 

economics, and social considerations.

5.1 Administrative Facilities

Administrative facilities at CLNWR are all located at the end of Wildlife Refuge Road at the western 

portion of the refuge. Facilities in this complex include the refuge office/shop/visitor contact 

building, public restrooms, employee house, bunkhouse, equipment storage building, and a portable 

building for storage of hazardous materials. 

5.2 Recreation Overview

5.2.1 Entrances and Access Points

The main entrance (Wildlife Refuge Road) is located at the western side of the refuge off Trout Lake 

to Glenwood Road. 

5.2.2 Roads, Trails, and Parking Areas

There are four designated parking areas in the refuge: the office complex, the southern end of Lake 

Road, from BZ-Glenwood Road just south of Bird Creek, and by BZ-Glenwood Road Bridge across 

Outlet Creek. These areas provide access to the portion of the refuge open to hunting. The 

southwestern units of the refuge may be viewed via county roads. The Willard Springs Trail is the 

one established trail on CLNWR. This 2-mile trail originates at the administrative complex and 

winds north through mixed conifer forest along the western edge of Conboy Lake to the southwestern 

side of Willard Springs. 

5.2.3 Open and Closed Areas

Approximately 2,300 acres of the refuge is open to waterfowl hunting in accordance with State and 

refuge-specific rules. This hunting area is primarily the eastern portion of the refuge, and hunters are 

allowed free range within this area. Under the management direction of this CCP, deer hunting on 

the refuge will be discontinued. Non-hunting access is limited to the administrative complex, 

Willard Springs Trail, county roads, four established parking areas, and the Whitcomb-Cole Hewn 

Log House.

Under the CCP, additional acres may be opened to non-consumptive public use and access. 

5.2.4 Annual Recreation Visits

Annual visitation is estimated to be 6,620 visitors per year, including about 6,500 for nonconsumptive uses (wildlife viewing, photography, environmental education, cross-country skiing, 

snowshoeing, and painting) and about 120 visits per year for hunting. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

5-2 Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment

5.2.5 Accessibility of Recreation Sites and Programs to Disabled Persons

The four parking areas and roadside viewing are accessible to disabled persons. 

5.3 Wildlife Observation and Photography

Non-consumptive wildlife-dependent uses are allowed from sunrise to sunset the entire year, unless 

temporary closures are necessary to protect wildlife. The mix of open and forested habitats with 

large open areas, including seasonally flooded areas that concentrate migratory waterfowl, set against 

the backdrop of Mt. Adams, provides a setting of natural beauty with opportunities for wildlife 

viewing and photography. The Willard Springs Trail that loops through mixed coniferous forest on 

the northern portion of the refuge provides excellent viewing opportunities. Pullouts along county 

roads and dirt and gravel roads within the refuge also provide opportunities for wildlife viewing. In 

order to minimize visitor disturbance of wildlife, access apart from hunting and fishing is limited to 

the Willard Springs Trail, established parking areas, and county roads. Approximately 5% of the 

refuge is accessible to visual-based activities. A detailed description of this use is included in 

Appendix B. 

5.4 Interpretation

Interpretation is largely self-guided. Information about refuge resources is available on the refuge 

website (Service 2012). On-site interpretation includes information signs at the refuge office, 

Willard Springs Trail, and at Whitcomb-Cole Hewn Log House.

As funds become available, the refuge intends to implement a Visitor Services Experience Site Plan 

(Service 2011b) to improve interpretive facilities, landscaping, and road and trail alignment at the 

administrative complex.

5.5 Environmental Education

Currently, the Information and Education Specialist at the Service’s Spring Creek Fish Hatchery 

provides field trip opportunities on the refuge for local school children. CGEI, a non-profit 

environmental education organization, has also started working with the Glenwood School District to 

create an outdoor classroom curriculum for CLNWR. 

Under management direction, the refuge will hire a part-time Visitor Services Specialist as funding 

becomes available. This position will also manage the volunteer program. The Visitor Services 

Specialist will facilitate partnerships; provide teacher training; create site-specific curricula, 

materials, and activities; and provide field trip assistance to enhance learning in an outdoor 

classroom. Ideally, refuge staff will work with local educators to develop curricula for outdoor 

learning to foster an understanding of, and appreciation for, resource management and human 

impacts on wildlife and habitats.
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment 5-3 

5.6 Hunting

5.6.1 Waterfowl Hunting

The Service estimates there are approximately 120 waterfowl hunting visits each year. The overall 

harvest success, typically measured by the number of birds harvested per hunter per day, is unknown. 

The most common species harvested include Canada geese, mallards, northern pintails, and 

American widgeons. Select portions of the refuge are open to waterfowl hunting (approximately 

2,343 acres); the areas include wet meadows and wetlands. Within those areas, hunting is free-roam 

and open for access from 1-1/2 hours before the start of legal hunting within the State of Washington 

to 1-1/2 hours after the end of legal hunting hours, 7 days a week. Only shotguns and archery 

equipment may be used and the use must be in accordance with State of Washington regulations. 

Only federally approved, non-toxic shot may be used or possessed, and hunters are limited to 25 

shells per day. Appendix B provides a detailed description of waterfowl hunting on the refuge. 

5.6.2 Big Game Hunting

Under the management direction of this CCP, big game hunting, including deer hunting, will be 

discontinued. Previously, deer hunting was allowed within one 100-acre parcel southeast of Troh 

Lane Road. 

5.7 Fishing

Fishing is allowed only on a 0.25-mile segment of Outlet Creek upstream of the bridge on Lakeside 

Road at the northeast end of the Refuge. Eastern brook trout is the main game fish in this stream 

segment, although brown bullheads are also present and may be caught as well. 

5.8 Non-Wildlife-Dependent Recreation

Cross country skiing, hiking, snowshoeing and painting have been identified as current non-wildlifedependent uses of the refuge. A description of these uses is found in Appendix B. All of these uses 

are limited to defined trails and county roads immediately adjacent to refuge facilities, although this 

could change under the CCP. 

5.9 Illegal Uses and Law Enforcement

Law enforcement is currently provided by Service officers stationed at the MCRNWRC in Burbank, 

Washington. Because of the distance from the MCRNWRC office, law enforcement visits are 

limited to a few periodic visits throughout the year (Service 2010). Fortunately, there have been few 

instances of poaching and sign vandalism in the past. Otherwise, there is little attraction for criminal 

activity, and other illegal uses of the refuge have not been noted recently. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

5-4 Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment

5.10 Cultural Resources

This section addresses Federal statutes, regulations, executive orders, and memoranda applicable to 

the consideration and management of historic properties in the CLNWR study area. Sections 106 

and 110 of the NHPA (P.L. 88-655; 16 U.S.C § 470 et seq.) ensure that Federal agencies consider 

historic properties, defined as any prehistoric or historic district, site building, structure, or object 

eligible for inclusion on the National Register in their proposed programs, projects, and actions prior 

to their initiation.

CLNWR was established in 1964 and currently encompasses 6,532 acres of the Conboy/Camas 

lakebeds, a shallow marshy wetland area with a multitude of wildlife and plant resources used by 

Native Americans for thousands of years, the same abundance of resources that attracted early EuroAmerican settlers. 

5.10.1 Native American Overview

CLNWR is located within the southwestern portion of the Southern Plateau Pre-contact Culture 

Area. Cultural developments on the plateau prior to contact with European cultures have been 

summarized by Ames et. al. (1998), Browman and Munsell (1969), Sanger (1967), and Greengo 

(1986), as well as others. Studies of the archaeology and prehistory of the region typically divide the 

pre-contact cultural sequence into multiple phases, or periods, from around 11,500 years ago to 

around 280 years ago. These phases are academic in nature and do not necessarily reflect tribal 

viewpoints. The following summarizes the pre-contact cultural chronology for the southern plateau 

developed by Ames and others (2008), which divides the cultural sequence into three periods. 

Period 1

Period 1a (11,500 years ago to 11,000 years ago): A single site from the southern plateau, the 

Richey-Roberts Clovis Cache, has been dated to this period. The site contains bone objects, large 

bifaces, biface blades, fluted points, and unifacial implements. The assemblage is attributed to the 

Clovis culture, a group of highly mobile terrestrial mammal hunters (Bonnichsen and Turnmire 

1991). Rare isolated fluted points associated with the Clovis culture have been found throughout the 

region. 

Period 1b (11,000 years ago to 7,000/6,400 years ago): Archaeological assemblages from postClovis cultures typically include a wide variety of stone, bone, and antler technology, with occasional 

assemblages containing fishing gear, abraders, milling stones, and anvils. There is temporal variation 

in projectile point form during this period, with shouldered, stemmed, and unstemmed lancolate 

points prior to 9,000 years ago, laurel-leaf shaped points between 9,000 and 7,800 years ago, and 

side- and corner-notched points after 7,800 years ago. Based on the composition of the artifact 

assemblage, people from this period were highly mobile hunter gatherers with low population 

densities that moved annually as well as seasonally.

Period 2

This period (7,000/6,400 years ago to 3,900 year ago) is characterized by reduced investment in 

chipped stone tools; the paucity of edge ground cobbles and prepared cores; and the appearance of 

milling stones and semi-subterranean house pits. There is also evidence of increased reliance on 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment 5-5 

roots and salmon for subsistence, indicating a transition toward a less mobile lifestyle oriented to 

points of resource procurement. Near the end of this period, projectile point styles become highly 

variable over space.

 

Period 3

This period (3,900 years ago to 280 years ago) is characterized by the widespread use of pit houses, 

increased capture and storage of salmon, and intensive exploitation of camas. Perishable wood and 

fiber tools appear during this period as well. The concentration of winter-use pit houses around 

drainages and occurrence of summer-use special use camps in the uplands during this period is 

consistent with ethnographically documented settlement patterns, indicating a continued move 

towards sedentism. 

CLNWR

CLNWR is located in an area known as the Camas (or Tahk) Prairie on the south side of Mt. Adams. 

Archaeological, ethnographic, and historical evidence indicates that cultural use of the Camas Prairie 

extends into the early to middle Holocene (Period 2) and occurred as recently as the historic past. 

Previous archaeological investigations within the Camas Prairie resulted in the discovery of lithic 

artifacts with diagnostic attributes, indicating human use between 7,000 and 11,000 years ago 

(Adams 1992). 

Ethnographic research indicates the prairie was traditionally used by the Yakama and Klickitat Tribes 

and was an important seasonal gathering location for plants and animals (Fagan et al. 2000:1). Since 

the Camas Prairie is located at a relatively high altitude, the growth and development of plants is 

delayed relative to plants located at lower altitudes (Adams 1992). The traditional inhabitants may 

have taken advantage of this delay to extend the harvesting season for camas bulbs, berries, and other 

plants known to have existed in concentrated patches in the area. As a result, it is likely that the 

Conboy Lake area would have been used as a seasonal resource collection camp in support of larger 

villages located along the Columbia River (Speulda 2006:4). Examination of General Land Office 

(GLO) surveyor notes indicates that a network of Indian trails crossed through the Camas Prairie, 

particularly on the eastern side of the refuge (Adams 1992). 

During the 1830s, the Yakama and Klickitat Tribes were decimated by smallpox epidemics (Boyd 

1985), resulting in severely reduced Native American populations in the project vicinity. By the time 

Euro-American settlers permanently moved into the valley in the mid-1850s, fewer than 100 Native 

Americans were living around the Camas Prairie (Speulda 2006:4; Adams 1992:7). Following the 

ratification of the Yakama Treaty in 1859, the traditional inhabitants of the area were displaced to the 

Yakama Indian Reservation. 

As noted earlier, CLNWR is within the boundaries of the Yakama Indian Reservation, and members 

of the Yakama Nation still use the area to this day for a variety of purposes important to their culture 

and heritage, including gathering and religious practices. However, the Service is not aware of any 

specific use of the refuge itself through the SUP process. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

5-6 Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment

5.10.2 Euro-American Overview

The earliest Euro-American settlement of what is now Klickitat County began in 1852 along the 

north side of the Columbia River (Adams 1992:7). Hudson’s Bay Company trappers reportedly 

inhabited the Camas Prairie vicinity during seasonal trapping excursions at least as early as the 

1850s, and Captain George B. McClellan led an expedition through the area in 1853, camping at 

several locations on the prairie while exploring possible railroad routes through the Cascades. 

Klickitat County was formed in 1859, with county elections held the next year, and the first sawmill 

in the region was built in 1860 as lumbering began in the nearby mountains. It was not until 1872, 

however, that Peter Conboy, Sr., filed the first land claim in the Camas Prairie (Adams 1992:6-7). 

After Conboy’s death in 1875, his widow and children continued to live in the valley, assigning their 

family name to the small lake near their claim. After 1875, the name Conboy Lake appeared in 

various land surveyor notes. 

Peter Conboy is also credited as being one of the first Euro-American settlers of the community of 

Glenwood, along with the Joseph Silva and Richard Kelly families. The city of Glenwood is 

approximately 3 miles north of CLNWR. Other small communities, such as Laurel and Fulda, were 

also established around the Camas Prairie, but these communities have not survived to the present. 

Accounts written by travelers, explorers, and other settlers spoke highly of the valley’s beauty and 

abundant resources and lured even more settlers to Glenwood and the Camas Prairie area during the 

1870s and 1880s (Adams 1992:8-9). 

The Klickitat County’s first inland post office was operated by Stephen Whitcomb in Fulda from 

1877 to 1881. During this time he operated the post office out of his house (Adams 1992:8). When 

other community members took on the role of postmaster, they too operated out of their homes. 

Early settlers established homes in various parts of the Camas Prairie. For example, in 1891 John 

Cole acquired land from Whitcomb and built the main structure of the house now known as the 

Whitcomb-Cole Hewn Log House. Although the house was moved by the Service to its current 

location, it is listed on the National Register and is considered historically significant as one of the 

last examples of early pioneer log house construction in the region (Speulda 2004). Many of the 

known historic sites in the Camas Prairie are the locations of these early homesteads. 

Agriculture and raising livestock were the basis of the Camas Prairie’s early economy. Initially, 

during the 19th century, ranching was more feasible than agriculture for residents of the Camas 

Prairie (Speulda 2006:4; Adams 1992:9). The nearby hills provided ample grass for grazing cattle 

and sheep, which could be more affordably transported to markets than carts of produce (Adams 

1992:9). The agricultural potential of the prairie, however, was known and eventually exploited. As 

early as 1873, land surveyors noted the rich lakebed soils would be highly suitable for agriculture, if 

only the lake and marsh could be drained. 

Commercial logging was first established in the area at the turn of the 20th century. The Menominee 

Lumber Company began log drives on the White Salmon River, and a sawmill was constructed in the 

community of Laurel. The town of Glenwood emerged as the primary commercial center for the 

Camas Prairie during this period (Adams 1992:9). 

Economic growth from the increasing dairy, logging, and milling industries influenced a boom in the 

local economy of the Camas Prairie communities between 1910 and 1930 (Speulda 2006:4). At least 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment 5-7 

half of the farmsteads identified during the 1990 survey of the refuge were established during this 

period (Adams 1992:39). The excavation of the Camas Ditch also began in 1910, greatly expanding 

the amount of arable land. The Camas Ditch stretched across the center of the valley and effectively 

drained Conboy Lake and the marshes to create more pasture land for livestock grazing and to help 

irrigate agricultural fields by diverting water to small, intersecting creeks that once fed the marsh 

(Speulda 2006:5). 

The Camas Prairie’s boom ended in the 1930s. By this time, the rich lakebed soils were depleted, 

and the valley experienced several years of poor agricultural production, contributing to the Great 

Depression. Ranchers went bankrupt, and residents began leaving Glenwood and the neighboring 

communities of Fulda and Laurel. A small wave of people moved back into the valley following the 

end of World War II. These new residents took up ranching and dairying. A resurgence in the 

logging and agricultural industries occurred in the 1950s, followed again by subsequent declines in 

the 1960s (Speulda 2006:5). Today, the Camas Prairie has a population of approximately 600 to 700 

people, is home to CLNWR, and serves as a gateway to recreation on nearby Mt. Adams. 

5.10.3 Current Knowledge of Local Cultural Resources

A record search was undertaken on January 18, 2011, using the Washington Information System for 

Architectural and Archaeological Records Database (WISAARD) published by the Washington 

Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) to identify previously documented 

archaeological and historic resources within 1 mile of the study area. No fieldwork was conducted to 

identify previously unknown cultural resources as part of this process. The cultural resources 

considered in the study area may be categorized into two major types, archaeological resources and 

historic resources. The CCP assumes the study area contains additional archaeological resources and 

historic resources that have not been identified at this time.

The study area falls into what DAHP has identified as a very high probability area for archaeological 

resources in its statewide predicative model based on environmental factors. 

Previously Conducted Cultural Resources Surveys

Five cultural resource surveys and investigations have been conducted within the study area (Table 

5-1). An overview of the refuge was completed in 1990 (Adams 1992), during which 30 prehistoric, 

35 historic-period, and 5 multi-component archaeological resources were identified. It should be 

noted that the study used transects and only in areas with known resources or very likely to have 

resources, e.g. homestead locations. All of the cultural resources identified by Adams (1992) are 

within the study area of the CCP. The multi-component sites typically contained remains of historic 

farmsteads and prehistoric lithic artifact scatters. The greatest concentrations of both prehistoric and 

historic-period sites were found in the eastern half of the refuge. This extensive survey continues to 

be the primary comprehensive survey of the refuge area. More recent surveys have focused on 

specific, previously recorded resources or newly acquired tracts of land, but not on CLNWR as a 

whole. 

In 1997 a pedestrian survey was conducted of the Kreps Ranch along the southeastern edge of the 

refuge. It was conducted at the request of the property owner, in anticipation of proposed gravel 

mining operations (Daughterty 1997:7). The survey did not identify any cultural resources in its 20-

acre study area. The study did identify lithic debris and evidence of someone digging for artifacts 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

5-8 Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment

just outside the gravel pit study area. However, these finds were not further examined because they 

were outside the study area of the time (Daughterty 1997:8). 

In 2000 a pedestrian survey was conducted in association with the development and realignment of 

Lakeside Road through the northeast corner of the refuge. The survey identified three historic refuse 

scatters, one prehistoric lithic scatter, and three prehistoric isolates (Fagan 2000). A data recovery 

excavation was later conducted at one of the refuse scatters, Can Dump Number 2, which contained a 

wide range of early 20th century food and domestic debris (Fagan et al. 2000). 

In 2006 the newly acquired Gamble Tract portion of CLNWR was surveyed for the development of a 

new refuge headquarters. This 15-acre tract on the north boundary was not part of the refuge when 

the 1990 cultural resources survey was conducted for the entire refuge area (Adams 1992; Speulda 

2006:1). The proposed headquarters development necessitated the removal of several existing 

buildings on the property, which were built between 1940 and 1960 (Speulda 2006:1). No 

archaeological resources were identified during the pedestrian survey (Speulda 2006:5). The house, 

hobby shed, and barn structures were evaluated and found not eligible for listing on the National 

Register. 

Table 5-1. Some Recent Cultural Resources Investigations within Study Area.

Authors/Year Project Methods Cultural Resources

Adams 1992

Archaeological Survey and 

Testing, CLNWR

Pedestrian Survey and 

Archaeological Testing

Prehistoric and Historic 

Archaeological Resources

Daugherty 1997

A Cultural Resource Survey 

for Kreps Ranch

20 Acres, Pedestrian 

Survey None

Fagan 2000

Lakeside Road 

Reconstruction Project Pedestrian Survey

Prehistoric and Historic 

Archaeological Resources

Fagan et al. 2000

Klickitat County Road 

Project Data Recovery Historic Archaeological Site

Speulda 2006

CLNWR: Gamble Tract 

Development Project

15 Acres, Pedestrian 

Survey None

Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites

CLNWR contains 76 previously recorded archaeological sites. Most of the recorded sites have been 

found on the surface during pedestrian surveys. The eligibility of most archaeological resources in 

the study area remains undetermined. Adams (1992) noted that many of the archaeological sites 

identified by the 1990 cultural resources survey had been disturbed by past logging activities. 

The known prehistoric archaeological sites within the refuge are primarily classified as lithic scatters. 

About one-third of these sites include only flakes and fire-cracked rocks. The 1990 cultural 

resources survey (Adams 1992) recorded 15 prehistoric archaeological sites with formed tools, with 

only six sites containing a single diagnostic stemmed point (Adams 1992:37). Although temporally 

diagnostic artifacts were few, based on the discovery of a point similar to the Windust Phase, Adams 

(1992) suggested that humans have been using the Camas Prairie for as much as 10,000 years. 

The known historic archaeological sites located within the refuge include concentrated refuse 

deposits and structural remains with surface scatters of domestic, agricultural, and architectural 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment 5-9 

artifacts. Most structural remains (ranging from rock foundations to corral poles to rotting plank 

sheds) are associated with late 19th to mid-20th century farmsteads.

Four recorded sites are associated with burials. One site is associated with 1873 land survey notes, 

which mention an Indian Graveyard estimated in the vicinity of a prehistoric lithic artifact scatter. 

The other three sites are small historic cemeteries or unmarked burials associated with the farmsteads 

and Euro-American settlers.

Previously Recorded Historic Resources

One historic structure on CLNWR is listed on the National Register. Known as the Whitcomb-Cole 

Hewn Log House, the structure is considered historically significant as one of the last examples of 

early pioneer log house construction in the region from the 1870s to the 1900s. 

No other historic resources on the refuge have been determined eligible for listing on the National 

Register or the Washington Historic Register. Structures associated with the Klosner Ranch and 

Gamble Tract were inventoried and evaluated in 2004 and 2006, respectively (Speulda 2004; Speulda 

2006). The Klosner Ranch is adjacent to the Whitcomb Cabin and is used by the CLNWR 

headquarters. The house, hobby shed, and barn structures in the Gamble Tract were found not 

eligible for listing on the National Register based on lack of integrity and lack of historical 

association. 

5.10.4 Section 106 Consultation

The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), affected tribes and other interested parties were

provided a description of the proposed alternatives at CLNWR, per the requirements of Section 106 

of the NHPA. Coordination with the SHPO and tribes with an interest in CLNWR is ongoing. All 

activities initiated will undergo Section 106 compliance and clearance. 

5.10.5 Native American Resources

No traditional cultural properties or Native American sacred places have been identified within 

CLNWR. The Native American Tribe that has an expressed interest in CLNWR is the Yakama 

Nation, a federally recognized tribe. The Yakama Nation was sent a consultation letter regarding this 

action. Coordination and consultation are described in Appendix K. 

5.11 Paleontological Resources

No paleontological resources are known to exist on CLNWR. Due to the geologically young 

condition of the refuge, there is limited potential for paleontological resources to occur. If any fossils 

are present in the volcanic alluvium that makes up the valley floor, they would likely be of extant 

species.
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

5-10 Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment

5.12 Socioeconomic Environment

5.12.1 Overview of Regional Economic Setting

CLNWR is located in the Glenwood Valley, south of the town of Glenwood, Washington, in rural 

Klickitat County. This community and the surrounding area support agriculture, timber, and outdoor 

recreation-related businesses. 

5.12.2 Regional Demographic Information

Population 

Table 5-2 shows the population estimates and past trends for Washington and Klickitat County. 

Washington’s population increased by 14% from 2000 to 2010, and Klickitat County increased by 

6% (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). 

Table 5-2. Local and State Population Estimates and Characteristics.

Residents Median Age

Persons/ 

Square Mile

Land Area 

(Square Miles)

Population

Change

2000-2010

State of 

Washington 6,830,038 37 103 66,455 14.1%

Klickitat County 20,318 45 11 1,871 6%

Source: US Census Bureau (2010). All figures rounded to the nearest whole number.

Ethnicity, Ancestry, and Education 

In 2010 Washington’s population consisted of 77% white persons not of Hispanic or Latino origin 

(U.S. Census Bureau 2010). The Klickitat County average was higher at 88%. In 2010 the Klickitat 

County Hispanic or Latino population was roughly 11%, the same as for Washington State. The 

second most populous group in Klickitat County was American Indian, at 2.4%. All other ethnicity 

groups were less than 1% each (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). By comparison, the statewide population 

in Washington was 7.2% Asian, 3.6% black, and 1.5% American Indian. 

5.12.3 Local Industries

The refuge is located in rural Klickitat County. Agriculture and timber production are the primary 

industries (Mesek 2011). 
Appendix A

Appropriate Use 

Findings

Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings A-1

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings

Public uses on national wildlife refuges are considered closed until specifically opened. Opening 

such uses is a two-part process. First, the proposed use must be determined to be an appropriate use 

of the refuge. Second, if a use is found to be appropriate, then it must be found to be compatible with 

the purposes of the refuge (see Appendix B) in order to be allowed. Compatibility determinations do 

not need to be developed for uses found to be not appropriate. 

Under the Service Appropriate Refuges Uses policy (601 FW 1), there are nine categories of refuge 

uses and activities which are found to be appropriate or otherwise exempt from the requirement for 

evaluation of appropriateness. These are: 

1) Situations where the Service does not have adequate jurisdiction to prohibit a use. 

2) The exercise of reserved rights, treaty rights by Native Americans, or other situations where legal 

mandates state the Service must allow certain uses. 

3) Refuge management activities, not including refuge management economic activities (see 603 

FW 2.6 N.). 

4) Six wildlife-dependent public uses defined by the Administration Act as hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation, often referred to as the “Big 

6.” 

5) The take of fish and wildlife regulated by a state (e.g., through fishing, hunting, and trapping). 

6) Authorized military activities that directly benefit refuge purposes. 

7) Uses which have already been described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan 

approved after October 9, 1997. 

8) Uses which contribute to fulfilling the NWRS mission, or refuge purpose(s), goals, or objectives 

which are described in a refuge management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

9) State fish and wildlife agency activities which have been documented to directly contribute to 

achievement of refuge purpose(s), goals, and the NWRS mission, are addressed in a CCP or formal 

agreement, or are approved under national policy. 

This appendix provides the Service’s appropriateness review for uses identified by some portion of 

the public as being desirable on CLNWR. With few exceptions (below), the Refuge Manager must 

decide if a new or existing use is appropriate. In assessing whether a secondary use is appropriate, 

the Refuge Manager must evaluate the following ten factors (the letters correspond to the evaluation 

criteria in the Appropriate Uses form): 

a) Does the Service have jurisdiction over the use? If the Service does not have jurisdiction over 

the use or the area where the use would occur, then there is no authority to consider the use. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

A-2 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings

b) Does the use comply with all applicable laws and regulations? The proposed use must be 

consistent with all applicable laws and regulations (e.g., Federal, State, local, and tribal). Uses 

prohibited by law are not appropriate. 

c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive Orders and Department and Service policies? If

not, the use is not appropriate. 

d) Is the use consistent with public safety? If the proposed use creates an unreasonable level of risk 

to visitors or staff, or if the use requires staff to take unusual safety precautions to assure the safety of 

the public or refuge staff, the use is not appropriate. 

e) Is the use consistent with refuge goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? Refuge goals and objectives are designed to guide management toward achieving refuge 

purpose(s). Goals and objectives for CLNWR are defined in Chapter 2 of the CCP.1

 If the proposed 

use, either itself or in combination with other uses or activities, conflicts with a refuge goal, 

objective, or management strategy, the use is generally not appropriate. 

f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use, or is this the first time the use has been 

proposed? If the use was already considered and rejected as not appropriate, then it should not 

further unless circumstances or conditions have changed significantly. 

g) For uses other than wildlife-dependent recreational uses, is the use manageable with available 

budget and staff? If a proposed use diverts management efforts or resources away from proper, 

reasonable management of a refuge activity or wildlife-dependent recreational use, the use is 

generally not appropriate. 

h) Will the use be manageable in the future within existing resources? If the use would lead to 

recurring requests for the same or similar activities that will be difficult to manage in the future, then 

the use is not appropriate. 

i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural or 

cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to those resources? If not, then the use will generally not 

be further considered. 

j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses or 

reducing the potential to provide quality, compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? If 

not, the use is generally not further considered. 

If an existing use is found to be not appropriate, the Refuge Manager must eliminate or modify the 

use as expeditiously as practicable. If a proposed new use is not appropriate, the Refuge Manager 

must deny the use (601 FW 1.3). 

 1

 Refuges may also rely on goals and objectives found in comprehensive management plans or refuge master 

plans developed prior to passage of the Improvement Act, as long as these goals and objectives comply with the 

tenets and directives of the Administration Act.




















Appendix B

Compatibility 

Determinations

Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-1 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations

B.1 Introduction

The compatibility determinations (CDs) we developed during the CCP planning process evaluate 

uses projected to occur on CLNWR. There is also an evaluation of funds needed for management 

and implementation of each use. Chapter 4 of the CCP also contains analysis of the impacts of 

public uses to wildlife and habitats. That portion of the document is incorporated through reference 

into this set of CDs.

B.1.1 Uses Evaluated At This Time

The following section includes full CDs for all refuge uses that are required to be evaluated at this 

time. According to Service policy, CDs will be completed for all uses proposed under a CCP that 

have been determined to be appropriate (see Appendix A). Existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses must also be reevaluated and new CDs prepared during development of a CCP. According to 

the Service’s compatibility policy, uses other than wildlife-dependent recreational uses are not 

explicitly required to be reevaluated in concert with preparation of a CCP, unless conditions of the 

use have changed or unless significant new information relative to the use and its effects have 

become available, or the existing CDs are more than 10 years old. However, Service planning policy 

recommends preparing CDs for all individual uses, specific use programs, or groups of related uses 

associated with the proposed action. Accordingly, the following CDs are included in this document 

for public review. 

Table B.1 Summary of Compatible Use Determinations 

Page # Refuge Use Compatible?

Year Due For 

Reevaluation 

B-3 Environmental Education, Interpretation, 

Photography and Wildlife Observation Yes 2029 

B-15 Fishing Yes 2029

B-21 General Uses: Hiking, Cross-country

Skiing, Snowshoeing, and Painting Yes 2024 

B-33 Grazing Yes 2024

B-43 Haying Yes 2024

B-53 Research Yes 2024

B-63 Timber Harvest Yes 2024

B-73 Waterfowl Hunting Yes 2029

B.1.2 Compatibility Legal and Historical Context

Compatibility is a tool refuge managers use to ensure that recreational and other uses do not interfere 

with wildlife conservation, the primary focus of refuges. Compatibility is not new to the NWRS and 

dates back to 1918 as a concept. As policy, it has been used since 1962. The Refuge Recreation Act 

of 1962 directed the Secretary of the Interior to allow only those public uses of refuge lands that were 

compatible with the primary purposes for which the area was established.
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-2 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations

Legally, refuges are closed to all public uses until officially opened through a CD. Regulations 

require that adequate funds be available for administration and protection of refuges before opening 

them to any public uses. However, wildlife-dependent recreational uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation) are to receive enhanced 

consideration and cannot be rejected simply for lack of funding resources unless the refuge has made 

a concerted effort to seek out funds from all potential partners. Once found compatible, wildlifedependent recreational uses are deemed the priority public uses at the refuge. If a proposed use is 

found not compatible, the refuge manager is legally precluded from approving it. Economic uses that 

are conducted by or authorized by the refuge also require compatibility determinations. 

Under compatibility policy, uses are defined as recreational, economic/commercial, or management 

use of a refuge by the public or a non-NWRS entity. Uses generally providing an economic return 

(even if conducted for the purposes of habitat management) are also subject to CDs. The Service

does not prepare compatibility determinations for uses when it does not have jurisdiction. For 

example, the Service may have limited jurisdiction over refuge areas where property rights are vested 

by others, where legally binding agreements exist, or where there are treaty rights held by tribes. In 

addition, aircraft overflights, emergency actions, some activities on navigable waters, and activities 

by other Federal agencies on overlay refuges are exempt from the compatibility review process. 

New compatibility regulations, required by the Improvement Act, were adopted by the Service in 

October 2000 (refuges.fws.gov/policymakers/nwrpolicies.html). The regulations require that a use 

must be compatible with both the mission of the NWRS and the purposes of the individual refuge. 

This standard helps to ensure consistency in application across the NWRS. The act also requires that 

CDs be in writing and that the public have an opportunity to comment on most use evaluations. 

The NWRS mission emphasizes that the needs of fish, wildlife, and plants must be of primary 

consideration. The Administration Act defined a compatible use as one that “. . . in the sound 

professional judgment of the Director, will not materially interfere with or detract from the 

fulfillment of the mission of the System or the purposes of the refuge.” Sound professional judgment 

is defined under the Act as “. . . a finding, determination, or decision that is consistent with principles 

of sound fish and wildlife management and administration, available science and resources . . .”. 

Compatibility for priority wildlife-dependent uses may depend on the level or extent of use. 

Court interpretations of the compatibility standard have found that compatibility is a biological 

standard and cannot be used to balance or weigh economic, political, or recreational interests against 

the primary purpose of the refuge (Defenders of Wildlife v. Andrus [Ruby Lake Refuge]). The 

Service recognizes that compatibility determinations are complex. For this reason, refuge managers 

are required to consider principles of sound fish and wildlife management and best available science 

in making these determinations (House of Representatives Report 105-106). Evaluations of the 

existing uses on CLNWR are based on the professional judgment of refuge and planning personnel 

including observations of refuge uses and reviews of appropriate scientific literature. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-3 

Compatibility Determination 

Environmental Education, Interpretation, 

Photography and Wildlife Observation

Use

Environmental Education, Interpretation, Photography, and Wildlife Observation

Refuge Name

Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge (CLNWR) 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities

Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. § 715d) 

Acquisition of lands for recreational development; funds (16 U.S.C. § 460k-1) 

Refuge Recreation Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 460k-460k-4)

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. § 1534)

Refuge Purposes

The purposes for CLNWR have been identified in historic legal documentation establishing and 

adding refuge lands. The refuge was established to preserve important habitat for migratory birds 

with refuge purposes specified as follows: 

“. . . for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 

U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) 

 

“. . . suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species . . .”.

16 U.S.C. § 460k-1 

 

“. . . the Secretary . . . may accept and use . . . real . . . property. Such acceptance may be 

accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors . . .”. 16 

U.S.C. § 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 460k-460k-4), as amended) 

 

“. . . to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened species . . . 

or (B) plants . . .”. 16 U.S.C. § 1534 (Endangered Species Act of 1973) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) is to administer a national network of 

lands and waters for the conservation, management and, where appropriate, restoration of the fish, 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-4 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations

wildlife and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans. 

Description of Use

Environmental education, interpretation, photography and wildlife observation are non-consumptive 

wildlife-dependent recreational uses that will be allowed around the headquarters area of the refuge 

and, to a lesser extent, along pull-out parking areas on county roads meandering around the perimeter 

of the refuge. The headquarters area includes the Willard Springs Trail, Whitcomb-Cole Hewn Log 

House, visitor contact station, restroom facilities and parking area. The pull-out parking areas, both 

existing and proposed, are located along the BZ-Glenwood Highway and Lakeside Roads. These 

non-consumptive, wildlife-dependent uses cover an area less than 10% of the refuge’s land base, and 

yearly visitation for these uses is estimated to be approximately 6,500 visitors. 

The Willard Springs Trail is a three-mile loop trail traveling through the ponderosa pine forest along 

the edge of the Camas Prairie. The trail has spectacular views of the refuge and its wildlife. On a 

clear day, visitors using the observation platform are rewarded with picturesque views of Mt. Adams 

rising over the landscape. A refurbished and/or new observation platform will provide safe, 

universally accessible access. The trail has two shortcuts to allow visitors a variety of opportunities 

depending on the time they have. In 2010, the trailhead for the Willard Springs Trail was moved to 

the parking area near the refuge headquarters to centralize visitor facilities and create a more 

user-friendly, self-guided system. At the same time, the trail was realigned to provide new access to 

the Whitcomb-Cole Hewn Log House and along the Cold Springs Dike. 

The Whitcomb-Cole Hewn Log House is listed on the National Register and is open to the public. It 

looms above the valley floor and catches your eye from the headquarters parking area. This historic 

dwelling attracts visitors to explore, photograph, paint and ponder what life was like during the 

pioneer days. 

All non-consumptive wildlife-dependent uses will be allowed sunrise to sunset throughout the entire 

year, unless temporary closures are needed to protect wildlife. However, most wildlife observation, 

photography and interpretation occur during the spring, summer and fall seasons, with the majority 

of environmental education occurring in the spring and fall seasons. Less use of the refuge occurs in 

the winter due to the cold weather and lack of wildlife activity, which coincides with the Service’s 

need to minimize energy expenditures of wildlife through visitor contact. 

Interpretation, wildlife observation, and photography will be largely self-guided and will be restricted 

to the headquarters area, designated trails and developed parking areas. When staff and/or volunteers 

are available, they may guide interpretive walks and talks about the natural and cultural heritage of 

CLNWR. 

Environmental education, however, will require refuge staff and/or trained individuals to guide 

school children and teachers around the refuge. At the present time, the Information and Education 

Specialist at the Spring Creek Fish Hatchery is providing field trip opportunities on the refuge for 

local school children. Recently, the Columbia Gorge Ecology Institute, a non-profit environmental 

education organization, started working with the Glenwood School District to create an outdoor 

classroom curriculum for CLNWR. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-5 

Because environmental education is curriculum-based and labor intensive, the refuge will hire a 

part-time Visitor Services Specialist, as funding allows. This position will also manage the volunteer 

program. The Visitor Services Specialist will facilitate partnerships; provide teacher training; create 

site-specific curricula, materials and activities; and provide field trip assistance to enhance learning 

in an outdoor classroom. 

Ideally, teachers will educate students in the refuge’s outdoor classroom using multiple disciplines 

(science, math, writing, art, etc.) several times throughout the school year. Staff will work with 

students and educators to foster an understanding of the human impacts on wildlife and habitats and 

appreciation for resource management. After teachers attend an educator training presented by 

Service staff, teachers could use the refuge as an outdoor classroom on their own. 

In 2011, a Visitor Services Experience Site Plan was created for CLNWR by Quatrefoil, a landscape 

contractor, who worked with regional office and refuge staff. Needs around the headquarters 

facilities addressed in the site plan include road and trail alignment, interpretive facilities, 

accessibility, and landscape design. This plan relates directly to the uses proposed in this 

compatibility determination and will ultimately, when funds become available, enhance the visitor 

experience in this dedicated area for interpretation, environmental education, wildlife observation 

and photography on the refuge. 

Availability of Resources

The following funding/annual costs will be required to administer and manage environmental 

education, interpretation, photography, and wildlife observation activities as described above. 

Activity or Project One Time Expense Recurring Expense

Program Operations Visitor Services 

Specialist (0.5 FTE) $30,000 

Exhibits for Visitor Contact Station $20,000 $1,000 

Construction of Elevated Observation 

Platform on Willard Springs Trail $20,000 

Construction of Three New Road Pull-Offs $55,000 

Maintenance of Facilities $20,000 

Visitor Experience Site Plan $345,000 - $510,000 

Totals $440,000 - $605,000 $51,000 

Although a portion of the programs and associated projects could be accomplished through the use of 

existing staff, resources and facilities, existing refuge resources are not adequate to fully fund and 

safely administer the uses as envisioned in the CCP. However, because environmental education, 

interpretation, photography and wildlife observation are considered priority public uses on a national 

wildlife refuge, the refuge will find funding to administer the program to a safe level, at a minimum. 

CLNWR is part of the MCRNWRC, and staff from within the complex can be available to assist with 

projects and development of programs, thereby helping to offset costs. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-6 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations

The Visitor Experience Site Plan can be completed in phases as funding becomes available.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use

Environmental education, interpretation, photography and wildlife observation engaged in by the 

public can result in negative impacts to wildlife and habitat. Use of trails and associated facilities 

provide potential avenues for human disturbance of wildlife and habitat on the refuge. Direct 

impacts are those that have an immediate effect on wildlife, and indirect or cumulative impacts are 

those that would affect habitat, wildlife access to resources, or those that collectively or ultimately 

affect wildlife.

Anticipated direct impacts include disturbance to wildlife by human presence which typically results 

in a temporary displacement of individuals or groups. Conflicts arise when migratory birds and 

humans are present in the same areas (Boyle and Samson 1985). Immediate responses by wildlife to 

recreational activity can range from behavioral changes, including nest abandonment or departure 

from site (Burger 1981; Havera et al. 1992; Henson and Grant 1991; Klein 1993; Korschgen et al. 

1985; Morton et al. 1989; Owens 1977; Taylor and Knight 2003; Ward and Stehn 1989); use of 

suboptimal habitat (Erwin 1980; Williams and Forbes 1980); changes in food habits (Knight and 

Cole 1995); physiological changes, such as elevated heart rates due to flight (Knight and Cole 1995); 

increases in energy expenditure (Belanger and Bedard 1990; Morton et al. 1989); or even death 

(Knight and Cole 1995). Researchers found that many waterfowl species avoid disturbance by 

feeding at night instead of during the day (McNeil et al. 1992). 

Wildlife photographers tend to have larger disturbance impacts than those viewing wildlife since they 

tend to approach animals more closely (Klein 1993; Morton 1995). The long-term effects are 

difficult to assess but may include altered behavior, vigor, productivity, or death of individuals; 

altered population abundance, distribution, or demographics; and altered community species 

composition and interactions.

The magnitude of the avoidance response may depend on a number of factors, including the type 

(e.g., autos, bicycles, walkers), distance, movement pattern, speed, and duration of the disturbance, 

time of day, time of year, weather, the animal’s access to food and cover, energy demands, and 

reproductive status (Gabrielsen and Smith 1995; Knight and Cole 1991). 

Some of the impacts would be mitigated as many species of wildlife habituate to human activities, 

and some species may even be attracted by the activity (Knight and Cole 1991). Habituation is 

defined as a form of learning in which individuals stop responding to stimuli that carry no reinforcing 

consequences for the individuals that are exposed to them (Alcock 1993). A key factor in predicting 

how wildlife would respond to disturbance is the predictability of the disturbance. Often, when a use 

is predictable, such as following a trail or boardwalk, or activity at a viewing deck, wildlife will 

accept a human presence (Oberbillig 2001). Gabrielsen and Smith (1995) suggest that most animals 

seem to have a greater defense response to humans moving unpredictably in the terrain than to 

humans following a distinct path. Resident waterbirds tend to be less sensitive to human disturbance 

than migrants, and migrant ducks are particularly sensitive when they first arrive (Klein 1993). In 

areas where human activity is common, birds tolerated closer approaches than in areas receiving less 

activity.

The location and timing of recreational activities can impact species in different ways. Stolen (2003) 

found that the proximity of wading birds to a roadway influenced the probability that a given bird 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-7 

would flush. Migratory waterfowl at J.N. Ding Darling National Wildlife Refuge remained more 

than 260 feet from the auto tour route, even when human visitation was low (Klein 1995). Miller et 

al. (1998) found that nesting success was lower near recreational trails, where human activity was 

common, than at greater distances from the trails. A number of species have shown greater reactions 

when pedestrian use occurred off-trail (Miller et al. 1998; Taylor and Knight 2003). In regard to 

waterfowl, Klein (1989) found migratory dabbling ducks to be the most sensitive to disturbance and 

migrant ducks to be more sensitive when they first arrived in the late fall than later in winter. She 

also found gulls and sandpipers to be apparently insensitive to human disturbance, with Burger 

(1981) finding the same to be true for various gull species. 

Burger (1999 as cited by Oberbillig 2001) suggests that viewing distances that minimize disturbance 

can serve as useful guides for managers lacking good site-specific information and serve as a starting 

point in determining what is appropriate elsewhere. Some factors that affect viewing distances 

include the numbers of viewers, time of day, and noise levels. When exposing nonbreeding 

waterbirds to four types of human disturbances (walking, all-terrain vehicle, automobile, and boat), 

Rodgers and Smith (1997) concluded that a buffer zone of approximately 300 feet would minimize 

disturbance to most species of waterbirds. 

Vos et al. (1985) recommended buffer zones of approximately 800 feet on land and 500 feet in water 

for great blue herons. Miller et al. (1998) found that the trail zone of influence for forest and 

grassland birds appears to be approximately 250-325 feet. Beyond this distance, bird abundance, 

species composition, and nest predation were not affected by even heavily used recreational trails. 

Sound may elicit a much milder response from wildlife if animals are visually buffered from the 

disturbance (Knight and Cole 1991).

Impacts from non-consumptive uses can be controlled most effectively, mitigating the effect on 

refuge wildlife, by managing these uses in time and space. To minimize disturbance to wildlife and 

their habitats, the refuge will be open only from sunrise to sunset and visitors engaging in 

recreational activities must stay on designated hiking trails and roads. The existing designated trails 

are located at a sufficient distance from important wildlife areas that minimal disturbance is 

expected, while still providing the public with good opportunities to participate in recreational 

activities. To minimize disturbance during formal education programs, refuge staff will manage 

group size, timing, and locations. Enforcement to ensure visitors follow the rules, and public 

education that informs users of ethical and least intrusive methods will also be available.

While the impacts of visitor use can be severe, there are several reasons why the direct impacts of 

these uses on CLNWR are expected to be moderate and localized. First, visitors, apart from hunters 

and anglers, are limited to less than 5 percent of the refuge, and those areas tend to be in already 

disturbed areas with ongoing human activity, e.g., the refuge headquarters area. The impacts of 

hunters and anglers are addressed in separate CDs, but it should be noted that these activities are 

limited in participants and scope and for the most part occur in seasons when impacts are minimized 

(or are controlled through use stipulations). Second, these uses are limited to daylight hours, which 

limits the duration of any impact. Third, the uses are confined to specific areas and trails, thus 

creating predictability for wildlife, at least within certain areas. Fourth, apart from school groups, 

these activities are generally quiet (see separate Hunting CD). Fifth, the number of participants is 

very limited at this time, thus ensuring that impacts are minor to moderate. Sixth, the stipulations 

below will ensure that while impacts are moderate immediately adjacent to activity areas, the impacts 

are confined to small areas and thus do not impact overall species or populations. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-8 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

For the most part, this same rationale applies to indirect impacts. The indirect impacts of these 

activities depend upon a number of variables, including the season of use, duration of the activity, 

location, and number of users. In a general sense, these activities may result in trampling of 

vegetation, soil compaction, incidences of littering, potential removal of vegetation, and potential 

vandalism. Visitors may occasionally pull their vehicles off the county road onto vegetation, and 

visitors may also stray off trails, trampling vegetation. These off-road/trail activities could cause soil 

compaction, erosion, and alterations in vegetative structure and composition. Visitors could also act 

as vectors for invasive plants by moving seeds or other propagules from one area to another. 

Construction and maintenance of visitor use facilities will also affect vegetation and could potentially 

increase localized soil compaction and erosion. The maintenance of trails and parking areas will 

impact soils, vegetation and, in some instances, hydrology around the site. This could include an 

increased potential for erosion, soil compaction (Liddle 1975), reduced seed emergence (Cole and 

Landres 1995), alteration of vegetative structure, and composition and sediment loading (Cole and 

Marion 1988). However, where possible, existing administrative roads (many maintained seasonally 

as firebreaks) and facilities will be used. In addition, most parking lots and access trails will be 

relatively small in size. 

These factors are coupled with best management practices to minimize impacts to natural and 

cultural resources. In areas where new trails or access points are established, best management 

practices (e.g., seasonal closures during sensitive portions of life cycles, routing of trails away from 

sensitive areas) will negate or minimize impacts. Overall these adverse impacts on the refuge are 

expected to be short-term and limited to locations along the roads, trails, and associated facilities 

open to non-consumptive uses. These activities will be timed to minimize disturbance to wildlife and 

habitat. 

There is a potential for conflicts between user groups. Vehicles and bicycles using the same road as 

pedestrians may present a safety hazard to visitors. If the number of road users increases as 

predicted, the potential for accidents or user group conflicts may also increase. Because of this, the 

refuge is proposing to build three new vehicle pull-out areas along Lakeside Road. Hunting 

(especially gunshot noise) has the potential to disturb refuge visitors engaged in other 

wildlife-dependent recreational uses. To minimize this potential conflict, the refuge has designated 

defined hunting areas that are separated spatially (approximately one mile) from hiking trails and 

visitor facilities (see Hunting CD). 

Measures to reduce potential conflicts between user groups will include providing information at the 

parking lots, refuge headquarters, and in the CLNWR brochure (available both at headquarters and 

kiosks and on the refuge website) that clearly indicates the permitted uses and rules of conduct. 

Finally, it should be noted that environmental education, interpretation, photography, and wildlife 

observation engaged in by the public can result in positive impacts to wildlife and habitat, as these 

activities promote an understanding, appreciation, and ultimately a sense of stewardship toward our 

natural and cultural heritage. 

See also the General Uses CD for a further discussion of impacts from users. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-9 

Public Review and Comment 

This CD was submitted for a 30-day comment period for public review and response as part of the 

draft CCP and Environmental Assessment for Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge. 

Determination 

 The use is not compatible. 

 X The use is compatible with the following stipulations. 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility 

To ensure compatibility with NWRS and CLNWR goals and objectives, the following nonconsumptive wildlife dependent recreational uses—environmental education, interpretation, 

photography, and wildlife observation—can only occur under the following stipulations: 

• Activities associated with these proposed uses are restricted to the refuge headquarters, the 

Whitcomb-Cole Hewn Log House, the 3-mile Willard Springs Trail, and vehicle pull outs 

along Lakeside Road. 

• Deliberate harassment of wildlife or excessive damage to vegetation is prohibited. 

• Educational groups are required to have a sufficient number of adults to supervise their 

groups, a minimum of one adult per ten students. 

• Environmental education and interpretation activities that are not led by refuge staff will 

require verbal approval or a Special Use Permit by the Refuge Manager to minimize conflicts 

with other groups, safeguard students and resources, and to allow tracking of use levels. 

• CLNWR is open to public access year-round from sunrise to sunset, apart from hunting (see 

separate CD). 

• Camping, overnight use, fires, and littering are prohibited. 

• Pets must be on a leash. 

Justification 

Environmental education, interpretation, photography and wildlife observation are priority 

wildlife-dependent recreational uses as defined by the Administration Act and through Executive 

Order (Executive Order 12996, March 25, 1996). They enhance the visitor’s appreciation of 

CLNWR, the NWRS, wildlife, their habitats and the human environment. Access to CLNWR for 

these uses will help in meeting the goals of the refuge, as well as those of the NWRS. 

The Service’s policy is to provide expanded opportunities for these wildlife-dependent uses when 

compatible and consistent with sound fish and wildlife management; the Service ensures that they 

receive enhanced attention during planning and management. Although these activities can result in 

disturbance to wildlife and habitat, disturbances on the refuge are expected to be intermittent, 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-10 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

moderate, and localized and are not expected to diminish the value of the refuge for its stated 

purposes. Disturbances to wildlife and habitat will be minimized by limiting uses to the trails and 

associated facilities and opening these facilities to the public from sunrise to sunset only. The 

stipulations above also will ensure proper control of the uses and provide management flexibility 

should detrimental impacts develop. As noted, facilitating these uses on the refuge will increase 

visitor knowledge and appreciation of fish and wildlife resources. Hopefully, this enhanced 

understanding will foster increased public stewardship of natural resources and support for the 

Service’s management actions in achieving the refuge purposes and the mission of the NWRS. 

 

It is anticipated that wildlife populations will find sufficient food resources and resting places such 

that their overall abundance and use of the refuge will not be measurably lessened from allowing 

environmental education, interpretation, photography and wildlife observation to occur as described. 

The relatively limited number of individuals expected to be adversely affected by these uses will not 

cause wildlife populations to materially decline, the physiological condition and production of 

wildlife species will not be impaired, their behavior and normal activity patterns will not be altered 

dramatically, and their overall welfare will not be negatively impacted. Thus, these uses will not 

materially interfere with, or detract from, the mission of the NWRS or the purposes for which 

CLNWR was established. 

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date 

Provide month and year for allowed uses only. 

 X Mandatory 15-year re-evaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses). 

 Mandatory 10-year re-evaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public uses). 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision 

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement. 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement. 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact. 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision. 

References 

Alcock, J. 1993. Animal Behavior: An Evolutionary Approach. Fifth edition. Sinauer Associates, 

Sunderland, Massachusetts. 625 pages. 

Belanger, L., and J. Bedard. 1990. Energetic cost of man-induced disturbance to staging snow 

geese. Journal of Wildlife Management 54(1):36-41. 

Boyle, S.A., and F.B. Samson. 1985. Effects of non-consumptive recreation on wildlife: A review. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 13(2):110-116. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-11 

Burger, J. 1981. The effect of human activity on birds at a coastal bay. Conservation 21:231-241. 

Burger, J. 1999. Recreation, consumption of wild game, risk, and the Department of Energy sites: 

Perceptions of people attending the Lewiston, Idaho, roundup. Journal of Toxicology and 

Environmental Health 56:221-234. 

Cole, D.N., and P.B. Landres. 1995. Indirect effects of recreation on wildlife. Pages 183-201 in

Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence Through Management and Research. R.L. Knight and K.J. 

Gutzwiller, editors. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 372 pages. 

Cole, D.N., and J.L. Marion. 1988. Recreation impacts in some riparian forests of the eastern United 

States. Environmental Management 12:99-107. 

Gabrielson, G.W., and E.N. Smith. 1995. Physiological responses of wildlife to disturbance. Pages 

95-107 in Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence Through Management and Research. R.L. 

Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, editors. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 372 pages. 

Havera, S.P., L.R. Boens, M.M. Georgi, and R.T. Shealy. 1992. Human disturbance of waterfowl 

on Keokuk Pool, Mississippi River. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20:290-98. 

Henson, P., and T.A. Grant. 1991. The effects of human disturbance on trumpeter swan breeding 

behavior. Wildlife Society Bulletin 19:248-257. 

Klein, M.L. 1989. Effects of high levels of human visitation on foraging waterbirds at J.N. Ding 

Darling National Wildlife Refuge. Final Research Report. Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife 

Research Unit. Work Order Number 42. 103 pages. 

Klein, M.L. 1993. Waterbird behavioral responses to human disturbances. Wildlife Society Bulletin 

21:31-39. 

Klein, M.L. 1995. Effects of ecotourism on the distribution of waterbirds on a wildlife refuge. 

Conservation Biology 9:1454-1465. 

Knight, R.L., and D.N. Cole. 1991. Effects of recreational activity on wildlife in wildlands. 

Transcripts of the 56th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, pages 238-246. 

Knight, R.L., and D.N. Cole. 1995. Factors that influence wildlife responses to recreationists. Pages 

71-79 in Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence Through Management and Research. R.L. Knight 

and K.J. Gutzwiller, editors. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 372 pages. 

Knight, R.L., and S.A. Temple. 1995. Origin of wildlife responses to recreationists. Pages 81-91 in

Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence Through Management and Research. R.L. Knight and K.J. 

Gutzwiller, editors. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 372 pages. 

Korschgen, C.E., L.S. George, and W.I. Green. 1985. Disturbance of diving ducks by boaters on a 

migrational staging area. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13:290-96. 

McNeil, R., P. Drapeau, and J.D. Goss-Custard. 1992. The occurrence and adaptive significance of 

nocturnal habits in waterfowl. Biological Reviews 67:381-419. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

B-12 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Miller, S.G., R.L. Knight, and C.K. Miller. 1998. Influence of recreational trails on breeding bird 

communities. Ecological Applications 8(1):162-169. 

Morton, J.M., A.C. Fowler, and R.L. Kirkpatrick. 1989. Time and energy budgets of American 

black ducks in winter. Journal of Wildlife Management 53(2):401-410. 

Oberbillig, D.R. 2001. Providing positive wildlife viewing experiences. Deborah Richie 

Communications, Missoula, Montana. 

Owens, N.W. 1977. Responses of wintering Brent geese to human disturbance. Wildfowl 28:5-14. 

Rodgers, J.A., Jr., and H.T. Smith. 1997. Buffer zone distances to protect foraging and loafing 

waterbirds from human disturbance in Florida. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:139-145. 

Stolen, E.D. 2003. The effects of vehicle passage on foraging behavior of wading birds. Waterbirds 

26(4):429-436. 

Taylor, A.R., and R.L. Knight. 2003. Wildlife responses to recreation and associated visitor 

perceptions. Ecological Applications 13(4):951-963. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Public use management/development plan. Conboy Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mid-Columbia National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex, Burbank, Washington. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge visitor experience site 

plan. 2011. Prepared under contract by Quatrefoil, Portland, Oregon. 

Vos, D.K., R.A. Ryder, and W.D. Gram. 1985. Responses of breeding great blue herons to human 

disturbance in north central Colorado. Colonial Waterbirds 8:13-22. 

Williams, G., and J.E. Forbes. 1980. The habitat and dietary preferences of dark-bellied brent geese 

and widgeon in relation to agricultural management. Wildfowl 31:151-157. 

Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-14 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-15

Compatibility Determination

Fishing 

Use

Fishing

Refuge Name

Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge (CLNWR) 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities

Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. § 715d) 

Acquisition of lands for recreational development; funds (16 U.S.C. § 460k-1) 

Refuge Recreation Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 460k-460k-4)

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. § 1534)

Refuge Purposes

The purposes for CLNWR have been identified in historic legal documentation establishing and 

adding refuge lands. The refuge was established to preserve important habitat for migratory birds 

with refuge purposes specified as follows: 

“. . . for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 

U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) 

 

“. . . suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species . . .”.

16 U.S.C. § 460k-1 

 

“. . . the Secretary . . . may accept and use . . . real . . . property. Such acceptance may be 

accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors . . .”. 16 

U.S.C. § 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 460k-460k-4), as amended) 

 

“. . . to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened species . . . 

or (B) plants . . .”. 16 U.S.C. § 1534 (Endangered Species Act of 1973) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission 

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) is to administer a national network of 

lands and waters for the conservation, management and, where appropriate, restoration of the fish, 

wildlife and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-16 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations

Description of Use

In the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act, the United States Congress declared hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education and interpretation as priority 

wildlife-dependent public uses of the NWRS. These activities have been determined to be 

compatible with resource protection on CLNWR through separate determinations and thus are 

priority public uses for the refuge. 

In the CCP, fishing will continue. The Service will provide recreational fishing opportunities on a 

0.25-mile stretch of lower Outlet Creek (from Lakeside Road to 0.25 mile upstream) in the northeast 

corner of the refuge. Outlet Creek is a man-made drainage ditch, and the fish caught include catfish 

and remnant populations of eastern brook trout and rainbow trout from when the State of Washington 

stocked tributaries outside of the refuge (Service 1983). Only bank fishing is allowed and access is 

by foot from a turn-out off Lakeside Road. Use is very low; the refuge estimates that approximately 

20 fishing days occur each year.

There will be one change from current use. As before, anglers must comply with all Washington 

State regulations; however, the season dates on CLNWR are July 1 to October 31, which protects 

greater Sandhill cranes nesting in the area, as well as other resources. 

Availability of Resources

Fishing is a nominal use on CLNWR and thus has minimal costs for signing, maintenance, and 

occasional patrol by law enforcement officers. The necessary funds, as described below, are 

available for the administration of this fishing program. 

Activity or Project One Time 

Expense 

Recurring 

Expense 

Administration (Management, Law 

Enforcement, Staff) $1,000 

Facilities Maintenance (Roads, Parking 

Areas, Signs, Etc.) $200 

Totals $1,200 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use

By its nature, fishing results in the intentional take of individual fish. Even catch-and-release fishing 

can harm individual fish, killing them or reducing their likelihood of long-term survival. However, 

the fish species available in Outlet Creek are either species of no concern on the refuge (catfish), or 

are remnant populations of non-native, introduced species (eastern brook trout and rainbow trout), so 

impacts to native, desirable refuge species will be negligible.

Fishing could cause disturbance to birds and other wildlife using the creek and surrounding area on 

the refuge. However, fishing, when practiced as a solitary and stationary activity as it is on CLNWR, 

tends to be less disturbing to wildlife than hunting or motorized boating (Tuite et al. 1983). 

Nonetheless, fishing activities may influence the composition of bird communities, as well as 

distribution, abundance, and productivity of waterbirds (Bell and Austin 1985; Bordignon 1985; 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-17

Bouffard 1982; Cooke 1987; Edwards and Bell 1985; Tydeman 1977). Anglers often fish in the 

same areas that birds prefer, negatively impacting distribution and abundance of waterfowl and 

waterbirds (Cooke 1987). However, due to the extremely limited amount of fishing occurring on the 

refuge, impacts will be minor, at worst. To further ensure impacts are limited and to ensure that 

recreational fishing does not interfere with waterfowl nesting along ditch banks, the fishing area is 

restricted to a 0.25-mile section along Outlet Creek. 

Of greatest concern, the fishing area on the refuge is in the vicinity of established greater Sandhill 

crane nests and within additional suitable greater Sandhill crane nesting habitat. To reduce 

disturbance on nesting greater Sandhill cranes, a 660-foot buffer is maintained around all nests for all 

activities. Should a crane nest in the area by the beginning of the fishing season on CLNWR (July 

1), fishing will not be allowed to occur within this buffer until the colt(s) have fledged. 

Direct habitat impacts include a certain amount of litter and general garbage left at fishing sites and 

could include soil compaction and trampling of vegetation. To minimize impacts to soil and 

vegetation, CLNWR has a parking area off Lakeside Road and a walking path located on the existing 

dike to the fishing area along Outlet Creek, thus limiting impacts by concentrating visitors on 

hardened surfaces. Disturbance and destruction of riparian vegetation, and impacts to bank stability 

and water quality, have not been documented at the current minimal participation levels and are 

expected to remain negligible with the current use levels. Littering has not been a problem, and this 

is expected to continue to be the case. 

The public fishing area is within the public hunting area. Since the Washington State fishing season 

does not close until October 31, and the waterfowl hunting season normally opens in mid-October, 

there is a slight possibility of conflict during the time these two seasons overlap. However, there 

have been no known incidents of conflict reported, and since sport fishing on CLNWR is minimal, 

particularly at that time of the year, no significant levels of conflict are expected. Should significant 

conflicts become evident in the future, changes to the program will be made to minimize conflicts 

and ensure public safety. 

Public Review and Comment

This CD was submitted for a 30-day comment period for public review and response as part of the 

draft CCP and Environmental Assessment for Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge. 

Determination

The use is not compatible.

 

 X The use is compatible with the following stipulations. 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

To ensure compatibility with NWRS and CLNWR goals and objectives, fishing will be allowed 

subject to the following stipulations: 

• The fishing season is from the second Saturday in June to October 31. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-18 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations

• If a Sandhill crane nest is found within the area by the beginning of the fishing season, a 660-

foot buffer will be maintained around the nest until the colt(s) fledge. 

• Anglers must obey all Washington State fishing regulations, with the season dates as listed 

above. 

• Fishing is restricted to the 0.25-mile stretch of lower Outlet Creek from Lakeside Road to 

0.25 mile upstream.

• Anglers will use existing parking areas and walking paths to access fishing areas. Access 

will be walk-in only, except upon special request to reasonably accommodate disability. 

• Overnight use, except on public roads, and fires are prohibited.

Justification

The Administration Act clarified that the NWRS is not a multiple-use management system and is not 

managed for commodity production or on the basis of sustained-yield economic principles. Refuges 

are managed first and foremost for fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats (House Report 105-106, 

Section 5), often referred to as the Wildlife First management mandate. The Administration Act 

states the NWRS was created to conserve fish, wildlife and plants and their habitats and this 

conservation mission has been facilitated by providing Americans opportunities to participate in 

compatible wildlife-dependent recreation, including fishing and hunting, on System lands and to 

better appreciate the value of and the need for fish and wildlife conservation. It goes on to identify 

Executive Order 12996, which recognized six compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education and 

interpretation as priority public uses of the Refuge System. The Act also established a three-tiered 

hierarchy for management activities that occur on NWRS lands. The first tier involves management 

actions that specifically assist the refuge in fulfilling the purposes for which it was established (e.g., 

migratory birds and other wildlife) and the NWRS mission, including the conservation, management, 

and restoration of fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats. The second and third tiers involve 

wildlife-dependent public uses (i.e., hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, 

environmental education and interpretation) and general public uses. Fishing falls into the wildlifedependent category.

Fishing at CLNWR, as described above, will not significantly interfere with, and will have negligible 

impact to, any refuge resources. It also provides a wildlife-dependent recreational opportunity as 

defined under the Act. By limiting the area open to fishing, as well as limiting the season, a fishing 

program will not interfere with CLNWR achieving its purposes of providing sanctuary and a 

breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife. Other wildlife-dependent, priority public 

uses (i.e., wildlife observation, photography, environmental education and interpretation) will also 

benefit from any increases in visitors’ knowledge and appreciation of fish and wildlife, thereby 

potentially leading to increased public stewardship of fish and wildlife and their habitats on the 

refuge. Increased public stewardship supports and complements the Service’s actions in achieving 

the refuge’s purposes and the mission of the NWRS. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-19

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date

Provide month and year for allowed uses only. 

 X Mandatory 15-year re-evaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses). 

Mandatory 10-year re-evaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public uses). 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision

Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement. 

Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement. 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact. 

Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision. 

References

Bell, D.V., and L.W. Austin. 1985. The game-fishing season and its effects on overwintering 

wildfowl. Biological Conservation 33:65-80. 

Bordignon, L. 1985. Effetti del disturbo antropico su una popolazione di germano reale Anas 

platyrhynchos. (Effects of human disturbance on a population of mallard Anas platyrhynchos). 

Avocetta 9:87-88. 

Bouffard, S. 1982. Wildlife values versus human recreation: Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge. 

Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 47:553-558. 

Cooke, A.S. 1987. Disturbance by anglers of birds at Grafham Water. ITE Symposium 19:15-22. 

Edwards, R.W., and D.V. Bell. 1985. Fishing in troubled waters. New Science 1446, 7 March:19-

21. 

Tuite, C.H., M. Owen and D. Paynther. 1983. Interaction between wildfowl and recreation at 

Llangorse Lake and Talybont Reservoir, South Wales. Wildfowl 34:48-63. 

Tydeman, C.F. 1977. The importance of the close fishing season to breeding bird communities. 

Journal of Environmental Management 5:289-296. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983. Sport Fishing Decision Document Package for Conboy Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2001. Priority species and habitats list. Available at 

www.wa.gov/wdfw/hab/phsvert.htm#birds. 

Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-21

Compatibility Determination

General Uses: Hiking, Cross-country Skiing, Snowshoeing, Painting 

Use

General Uses in Support of Hunting, Fishing, Wildlife Observation, Interpretation, Environmental 

Education, Photography: Hiking, Cross-country Skiing, Snowshoeing and Painting

Refuge Name

Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge (CLNWR) 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities

Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. § 715d) 

Acquisition of lands for recreational development; funds (16 U.S.C. § 460k-1) 

Refuge Recreation Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 460k-460k-4)

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. § 1534)

Refuge Purposes

The purposes for CLNWR have been identified in historic legal documentation establishing and 

adding refuge lands. The refuge was established to preserve important habitat for migratory birds 

with refuge purposes specified as follows: 

“. . . for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 

U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) 

 

“. . . suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species . . .”.

16 U.S.C. § 460k-1 

 

“. . . the Secretary . . . may accept and use . . . real . . . property. Such acceptance may be 

accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors . . .”. 16 

U.S.C. § 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 460k-460k-4), as amended) 

 

“. . . to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened species . . . 

or (B) plants . . .”. 16 U.S.C. § 1534 (Endangered Species Act of 1973) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission 

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) is to administer a national network of 

lands and waters for the conservation, management and, where appropriate, restoration of the fish, 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-22 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations

wildlife and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans. 

Description of Use

In the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, the United States Congress declared 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education and interpretation as 

wildlife-dependent public uses of the NWRS. These activities have been determined to be 

compatible with resource protection on CLNWR through separate determinations and thus are 

priority public uses for the refuge. 

Under management direction, interpretive sites, interpretive trails, wildlife observation sites and dayuse areas will continue or are proposed. Some sites and trails may only be open seasonally to both 

protect sensitive resources and to take advantage of specific interpretive, viewing and photographic 

opportunities (e.g., Sandhill cranes on their nests). Other sites and trails will be open year-round but 

monitored to address any negative impacts. Interpretive points, trails, observation sites, signs, 

kiosks, etc., will focus on CLNWR wildlife and habitats, historic features, cultural resources and 

traditions, restoration, management and the other special values of the refuge. Since there are 

currently limited facilities to support these uses on CLNWR, the Service expects wildlife 

observation, environmental education, photography and interpretation to increase over the next 15 

years as facilities are developed.

Under the CCP all public uses, except hunting and fishing (see separate compatibility 

determinations), are limited to defined trails, refuge roads and areas immediately adjacent to Service

facilities, an area that constitutes less than 10 percent of the refuge. That includes all of the 

secondary activities discussed here: cross-country skiing, hiking, snowshoeing and painting. The 

first three are standard uses on refuges, but painting needs clarification. CLNWR is an exceptionally 

scenic and historically rich refuge, with stunning views of Mt. Adams, charismatic wildlife like elk, 

and the historic Whitcomb-Cole Hewn Log House. The refuge has become a destination for artists to 

visit to paint the landscape and its wildlife and the historic log house. 

Availability of Resources

These four uses, which basically support the wildlife-dependent uses, are quite inexpensive. There 

are some people who may undertake hiking, skiing and snowshoeing for the activities’ own sake; 

however, most use is directly associated with the wildlife-dependent uses. For the most part the uses 

are covered within the budgets and staff time for the primary wildlife uses. Any costs are additive, 

not separate, from those associated with wildlife-dependent uses. 

Activity or Project One Time 

Expense 

Recurring 

Expense 

Additional Trail and Facilities 

Maintenance $1,000 

Totals $1,000 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-23

Anticipated Impacts of the Use

Hiking

Only the impacts of hiking on designated trails and near Service facilities are considered here. The 

impacts of hiking associated with hunting and fishing are discussed within CDs specific to those 

activities. The impacts of hiking specifically on CLNWR have not been studied; this discussion 

centers around impacts described elsewhere and thus may be applicable to CLNWR. 

Hiking has the potential of affecting shorebird, waterfowl, marsh bird and other migratory bird 

populations feeding and resting near trails or roads during certain times of the year. A primary 

concern in allowing any public use on CLNWR is to maintain adverse impacts within acceptable 

limits to habitats and wildlife.

The maintenance of trails and parking areas will impact soils, vegetation and, in some instances, 

hydrology around the site. This could include an increased potential for erosion, soil compaction 

(Liddle 1975), reduced seed emergence (Cole and Landres 1995), alteration of vegetative structure 

and composition, and sediment loading (Cole and Marion 1988). However, existing roads and 

facilities will be used to the extent possible, so additional impacts from hiking should be negligible. 

In addition, most parking lots and access trails will be relatively small in size. These factors are 

coupled with best management practices to minimize impacts to natural and cultural resources. In 

areas where new trails or access points (i.e., facilities such as observation blinds) are established, best 

management practices (e.g., seasonal closures during sensitive portions of life cycles, routing of trails 

away from sensitive areas) will negate or minimize impacts.

Hiking can cause structural damage to plants and increase soil compaction. The degree of surface 

compaction is dependent on topography, soil structure, and soil moisture (Whittaker 1978). Impacts 

of trampling on vegetation and soils commonly noted on trails (Dale and Weaver 1974; Liddle 1975) 

are unlikely to occur on the road system, except for shoulder areas. While hikers are required to 

remain on trails and roads, some users may leave the trail to observe and photograph wildlife or for 

other reasons. Plants may be trampled in the process and wildlife disturbed. 

Human activities on trails and at other access points can result in immediate, direct effects on wildlife 

through harassment, a form of disturbance that can cause physiological effects such as elevated heart 

rates due to flight, behavioral modifications, or death (Knight and Cole 1995a; Knight and Cole 

1995b; Smith and Hunt 1995). Numerous studies have confirmed that people on foot can cause a 

variety of disturbance reactions in wildlife, including flushing or displacement (Burger 1981; Erwin 

1989; Fraser et al. 1985; Freddy 1986; Henson and Grant 1991; Klein 1993; Korschgen et al. 1985; 

Owens 1977; Taylor and Knight 2003), heart rate increases (MacArthur et al. 1982), altered behavior 

or foraging patterns (Burger 1981; Burger and Gochfeld 1991; Havera et al. 1992; Klein 1993; 

Korschgen et al. 1985; Morton et al. 1989; Ward and Stehn 1989), increases in energy expenditures 

(Belanger and Bedard 1990; Morton et al. 1989) and even, in some cases, diminished reproductive 

success (Boyle and Samson 1985). These studies and others have shown that the severity of the 

effects depends upon the distance to the disturbance and its duration, frequency, predictability and 

visibility to wildlife (Knight and Cole 1991).

The long-term effects are more difficult to assess but may include altered behavior, vigor, 

productivity, or death of individuals; altered population abundance, distribution, or demographics; 

and altered community species composition and interactions. Many species will resort to use of 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-24 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations

suboptimal habitat (Erwin 1980; Williams and Forbes 1980); many waterfowl species will even 

avoid disturbance by feeding at night instead of during the day (McNeil et al. 1992). 

The magnitude of the avoidance response may depend on a number of factors including the type, 

distance, movement pattern, speed, and duration of the disturbance, as well as the time of day, time 

of year, weather, access to food and cover, energy demands and reproductive status (Gabrielsen and 

Smith 1995; Knight and Cole 1991). Knight and Cole (1991) also suggested that sound may elicit a 

much milder response from wildlife if animals are visually buffered from the disturbance. 

Habituation is defined as a form of learning in which individuals stop responding to stimuli that carry 

no reinforcing consequences for the individuals that are exposed to them (Alcock 1993). A key 

factor in predicting how wildlife would respond to disturbance is its predictability. Often, when a 

use is predictable, following a trail or boardwalk or at a viewing deck, wildlife will accept human 

presence (Oberbillig 2001). Gabrielsen and Smith (1995) suggest that most animals seem to have a 

greater defense response to humans moving unpredictably in the terrain than to humans following a 

distinct path. Resident waterbirds tend to be less sensitive to human disturbance than migrants, and 

migrant ducks are particularly sensitive when they first arrive (Klein 1993). 

In areas where human activity is common, birds tolerated closer approaches than in areas receiving 

less activity. Wildlife may also be attracted to human presence. For example, wildlife may be 

converted to beggars lured by handouts (Knight and Temple 1995), and scavengers are attracted to 

road kills (Rosen and Lowe 1994). 

On the refuge, birds are especially vulnerable and can be affected by human activities when they are 

disturbed and flushed from feeding, resting, or nesting areas. Flushing, especially repetitive flushing, 

can strongly impact habitat use patterns of many bird species. Flushing from an area can cause birds 

to expend more energy, be deterred from using desirable habitat, affect resting or feeding patterns, 

increase exposure to predation, and cause abandonment of sites (Smith and Hunt 1995). Migratory 

birds are observed to be more sensitive than resident species to disturbance (Klein 1989). 

The location and timing of recreational activities, such as hiking, impact species in different ways. 

Miller et al. (1998) found that nesting success was lower near recreational trails, where human 

activity was common, than at greater distances from the trails. A number of species have shown 

greater reactions when pedestrian use occurred off-trail (Miller et al. 1998; Taylor and Knight 2003). 

In regard to waterfowl, Klein (1989) found migratory dabbling ducks to be the most sensitive to 

disturbance and migrant ducks to be more sensitive when they first arrived, in the late fall, than later 

in winter. She also found gulls and sandpipers to be apparently insensitive to human disturbance, 

with Burger (1981) finding the same to be true for various gull species. For songbirds, Gutzwiller et 

al. (1994) found that singing behavior of some species was altered by low levels of human intrusion. 

Nest predation for songbirds (Miller et al. 1998), raptors (Glinski 1976), colonial nesting species 

(Buckley and Buckley 1976), and waterfowl (Boyle and Samson 1985) tends to increase in areas 

more frequently visited by people. In addition, for many passerine species, primary song occurrence 

and consistency can be impacted by a single visitor (Gutzwiller et al. 1994). This could potentially 

limit the number of breeding pairs of certain passerine species, thus limiting production within 

riparian habitats (Reijnen and Foppen 1994). 

How hiking trails and access points are planned is important. Burger (1999, as cited by Oberbillig 

2001) suggests that viewing distances that minimize disturbance can serve as useful guides for 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-25

managers lacking good site-specific information and serve as a starting point in determining what is 

appropriate elsewhere. Some factors that affect viewing distances include the numbers of viewers, 

the time of day, and noise level. When exposing nonbreeding waterbirds to four types of human 

disturbances (walking, all-terrain vehicle, automobile and boat), Rodgers and Smith (1997) 

concluded that a buffer zone of approximately 300 feet would minimize disturbance to most species 

of waterbirds. 

Vos et al. (1985) recommended buffer zones of approximately 800 feet on land and 500 feet in water 

for great blue herons. Miller et al. (1998) found that the trail zone of influence for forest and 

grassland birds appears to be approximately 250-325 feet. Beyond this distance, bird abundance, 

species composition and nest predation were not affected by even heavily used recreational trails.

Other design factors can be important. Movement away or at an oblique angle to the animal is less 

disturbing to wildlife than a direct approach (Knight and Cole 1991). Animals show greater flight 

response to humans moving unpredictably than to humans following a distinct path (Gabrielsen and 

Smith 1995). Korschgen and Dahlgren (1992) and Fox and Madsen (1997) state the importance of 

disturbance-free food reserves and areas as a management alternative to minimize human 

disturbances. These factors noted will be considered in the development of all facilities in order to 

minimize impacts.

The studies cited above show that public use activities, such as hiking, can and do disturb wildlife. 

Based on the circumstances described in the scientific literature, it is reasonable to assume similar 

effects could occur on CLNWR. However, based on the limitation of hikers to trails, roads and 

Service facility areas (an area of less than 10 percent of the refuge) these impacts will be confined to 

a very small area, and the impacts will be measured in terms of individual animals, not entire habitats

or populations. If unreasonable impacts are observed, the Service retains the option of seasonal or 

temporal closures to eliminate or mitigate those observed impacts. Due to the limited area, 

restrictions, number of anticipated participants, and mitigative measures at hand, impacts are 

anticipated to negligible to minor.

Cross-country Skiing and Snowshoeing

In principle, all of the potential impacts, and most of the discussion, that applies to hiking also 

applies to skiing and snowshoeing. However, there are two important differences: 1) the use is in the 

winter when impacts to vegetation will be nonexistent; and 2) wildlife disturbance, when it does 

occur, can be of serious impact at a time when wildlife is trying to minimize energy expenditures. 

However, while exact numbers are not known, even casual observation shows that use is very low. 

Moreover, winter wildlife populations of birds and deer are low. As such, impacts to a population 

will be minor. 

Other factors that minimize impacts to both wildlife populations and individuals include: 1) with 

repeated use of the same trails, wildlife will move to areas with no disturbance (e.g., deer will move

elsewhere); and 2) few species are present and active, and those that are present are adapted to some 

level of disturbance (e.g., deer). 

Cross-country skiing introduces a new concern to the discussion above—speed. Rapid movement is 

more disturbing to wildlife than slower moving hikers (Bennett and Zuelke 1999). However, this 

should be offset by the mere fact that there are few cross-country skiers using the refuge, and the 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-26 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations

daily period of use is limited (daylight hours are limited, and the refuge is only open from dawn to 

dusk). As such the additive impacts of cross-country skiing will still remain minor. 

Painting

The only real impacts associated with painting are those potentially associated with hiking to and 

from locations, as described above. Use is quite low, as observed by refuge staff, and the activity is 

generally quiet and introduces no additional impacts. As the activity is limited to areas open to the 

public (i.e., trails, roads and refuge facilities), with the mitigative measures described above and the 

stipulations identified below, the impacts associated with painting will be negligible.

Public Review and Comment

This CD was submitted for a 30-day comment period for public review and response as part of the 

draft CCP and Environmental Assessment for Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge. 

Determination

The use is not compatible.

 

 X The use is compatible with the following stipulations. 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

• Uses are limited to existing trails, roads, and refuge facilities, such as parking lots, 

observation towers, office buildings, etc. 

• Seasonal closures could be implemented as necessary to protect refuge wildlife and habitats.

• Any of these activities could be reduced or closed with the finding of significant negative 

impacts to CLNWR facilities or natural and cultural resources. 

• Monitoring will be conducted to ensure that high-quality habitat for wildlife feeding, resting, 

and breeding is maintained. 

• A system to monitor the level of use and vegetation damage and impact along roadsides, 

designated parking areas, and trails may need to be established if field observations indicate 

possible substantial impacts from use. 

• The refuge will provide signs, brochures, and digital information to promote the appropriate 

use of trails, roads, and waters to minimize wildlife and habitat disturbance. 

• No overnight use of the refuge is allowed except travel on public roads. 

Justification

Although hiking, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing and painting are not wildlife-dependent public 

uses of a refuge as defined by statute (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.), most often their implementation is 

fully in support of wildlife-dependent uses. Only in rare instances on CLNWR are these activities 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-27

undertaken fully for their own sake—that is, where some element of wildlife observation, education, 

photography, etc., is not part of the experience. Those instances will be indistinguishable from a 

wildlife dependent activity. Thus, these activities support and/or augment other activities that the 

Service fully endorses. 

As noted, the impacts from these activities are anticipated to be negligible to minor. As they are 

ongoing activities, this conclusion is supported by existing data and observations. It is anticipated 

that wildlife populations will find sufficient food resources and resting places such that their 

abundance and use of the refuge will not be measurably lessened from allowing the activities. The 

relatively limited number of individuals expected to be adversely affected due to hiking, etc., will not 

cause wildlife populations to materially decline, the physiological condition and production of 

wildlife species will not be impaired, their behavior and normal activity patterns will not be altered 

dramatically, and their overall welfare will not be negatively impacted. There will be no widespread 

or long-term impacts to habitats, plants, etc. Thus, allowing these activities to occur with stipulations 

will not materially detract from, or interfere with, the purposes for which CLNWR was established or 

the NWRS mission. 

Finally, CLNWR is important to the community and is an increasingly well-known destination for 

wildlife watchers, photographers, and other recreational users in Washington. In addition, many 

local residents visit the refuge on a regular basis to observe wildlife and spend time in the outdoors, 

and they develop a sense of ownership of the refuge. CLNWR is a source of community pride, and 

many local residents feel that having a national wildlife refuge nearby contributes significantly to 

their quality of life.

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date

Provide month and year for allowed uses only. 

Mandatory 15-year re-evaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses). 

 X Mandatory 10-year re-evaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public uses). 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision

Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement. 

Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement. 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact. 

_____ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision. 

References

Alcock, J. 1993. Animal Behavior: An Evolutionary Approach. Fifth edition. Sinauer Associates, 

Sunderland, Massachusetts. 625 pages. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-28 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations

Belanger, L., and J. Bedard. 1990. Energetic cost of man-induced disturbance to staging snow 

geese. Journal of Wildlife Management 54(1):36-41.

Bennett, K.A., and E. Zuelke. 1999. The effects of recreation on birds: A literature review. 

Delaware Natural Heritage Program, Smyrna, Delaware.

Boyle, S.A., and F.B. Samson. 1985. Effects of non-consumptive recreation on wildlife: A review. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 13(2):110-116. 

Buckley, P.A., and F.G. Buckley. 1976. Guidelines for protection and management of colonially 

nesting waterbirds. National Park Service, North Atlantic Regional Office, Boston, Massachusetts. 

52 pages. 

Burger, J. 1981. The effect of human activity on birds at a coastal bay. Biological Conservation 

21:231-241. 

Burger, J., and M. Gochfeld. 1991. Human activity influence and diurnal and nocturnal foraging of 

sanderlings (Calidris alba). Condor 93: 259-265. 

Cole, D.N., and P.B. Landres. 1995. Indirect effects of recreation on wildlife. Pages 183-201 in

Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence Through Management and Research. R.L. Knight and K.J. 

Gutzwiller, editors. Island Press, Washington, DC. 372 pages. 

Cole, D.N., and J.L. Marion. 1988. Recreation impacts in some riparian forests of the eastern United 

States. Environmental Management 12:99-107. 

Dale, D., and T. Weaver. 1974. Trampling effects on vegetation of the trail corridors of north Rocky 

Mountain forests. Journal of Applied Ecology 11:767-772. 

Erwin, R.M. 1980. Breeding habitat use by colonially nesting waterbirds in two mid-Atlantic U.S. 

regions under different regimes of human disturbances. Biological Conservation 18:39-51.

Erwin, R.M., 1989. Responses to human intruders by birds nesting in colonies: Experimental 

results and management guidelines. Colonial Waterbirds 12:104-108. 

Fox, A.D., and J. Madsen. 1997. Behavioral and distributional effects of hunting disturbance on 

waterbirds in Europe: Implications for refuge design. Journal of Applied Ecology 34(1):1-13. 

Fraser, J.D., L.D. Frenzel, and J.E. Mathisen. 1985. The impact of human activities on breeding 

bald eagles in north-central Minnesota. Journal of Wildlife Management 49:585-592. 

Freddy, D.J. 1986. Responses of adult mule deer to human harassment during winter. Pages 286 in

Proceedings II. Issues and Technology in the Management of Impacted Western Wildlife: 

Proceedings of a National Symposium (R.D. Comer, T.G. Baumann, P. Davis, J.W. Monarch, J. 

Todd, S. VanGytenbeek, D. Wills, and J. Woodling, editors). Thorne Ecological Institute, Boulder, 

Colorado. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-29

Gabrielson, G.W., and E.N. Smith. 1995. Physiological responses of wildlife to disturbance. Pages 

95-107 in Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence Through Management and Research. R.L. 

Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, editors. Island Press, Washington, DC. 372 pages. 

Glinski, R.L. 1976. Birdwatching etiquette: The need for a developing philosophy. American Bird 

30(3):655-657. 

Gutzwiller, K.J., R.T. Wiedenmann, K.L. Clements, and S.H. Anderson. 1994. Effects on human 

intrusion on song occurrence and singing consistency in subalpine birds. Auk 111:28-37. 

Havera, S.P., L.R. Boens, M.M. Georgi, and R.T. Shealy. 1992. Human disturbance of waterfowl 

on Keokuk Pool, Mississippi River. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20:290-98. 

Henson, P., and T.A. Grant. 1991. The effects of human disturbance on trumpeter swan breeding 

behavior. Wildlife Society Bulletin 19:248-257. 

Klein, M.L. 1989. Effects of high levels of human visitation on foraging waterbirds at J.N. Ding 

Darling National Wildlife Refuge, Sanibel, Florida. Master’s thesis. University of Florida, 

Gainesville, Florida. 

Klein, M.L. 1993. Waterbird behavioral responses to human disturbances. Wildlife Society Bulletin 

21:31-39. 

Knight, R.L., and D.N. Cole. 1991a. Wildlife responses to recreationists. In Wildlife and 

Recreationists: Coexistence Through Management and Research. R.L. Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, 

editors. Island Press, Washington, DC. 372 pages. 

Knight, R.L., and D.N. Cole. 1991b. Effects of recreational activity on wildlife in wildlands. 

Transcripts of the 56th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference (238-246). 

Knight, R.L., and D.N. Cole. 1995a. Factors that influence wildlife responses to recreationists. 

Pages 71-79 in Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence Through Management and Research. R.L. 

Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, editors. Island Press, Washington, DC. 372 pages. 

Knight, R.L., and S.A. Temple. 1995b. Origin of wildlife responses to recreationists. Pages 81-91 

in Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence Through Management and Research. R.L. Knight and 

K.J. Gutzwiller, editors. Island Press, Washington, DC. 372 pages. 

Korschgen, C.E., L.S. George, and W.I. Green. 1985. Disturbance of diving ducks by boaters on a 

migrational staging area. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13:290-96. 

Korschgen, C.E., and R.B. Dahlgren. 1992. Human disturbances of waterfowl: Causes, effects, and 

management. Waterfowl Management Handbook. Fish and Wildlife Leaflet 13. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service.

Liddle, M.J. 1975. A selective review of the ecological effects on human trampling on natural 

ecosystems. Biological Conservation 7:17-36. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-30 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations

MacArthur, R.A., V. Geist, and R.H. Johnston. 1982. Cardiac and behavioral responses of mountain 

sheep to human disturbance. Journal of Wildlife Management 46:351-358. 

McNeil, R., P. Drapeau, and J.D. Goss-Custard. 1992. The occurrence and adaptive significance of 

nocturnal habits in waterfowl. Biological Reviews 67:381-419. 

Miller, S.G., R.L. Knight, and C.K. Miller. 1998. Influence of recreational trails on breeding bird 

communities. Ecological Applications 8(1):162-169.

Morton, J.M., A.C. Fowler, and R.L. Kirkpatrick. 1989. Time and energy budgets of American 

black ducks in winter. Journal of Wildlife Management 53(2):401-410. 

Oberbillig, D.R. 2001. Providing positive wildlife viewing experiences. Deborah Richie 

Communications, Missoula, Montana. 

Owens, N.W. 1977. Responses of wintering brant geese to human disturbance. Wildfowl 28:5-14. 

Reijnen, R., and R. Foppen. 1994. The effects of car traffic on breeding bird populations in 

woodland. Evidence of reduced habitat quality for willow warbler (Pylloscopus trochilus) breeding 

close to a highway. Journal of Applied Ecology 31: 85-94. 

Rodgers, J.A., Jr., and H.T. Smith. 1997. Buffer zone distances to protect foraging and loafing 

waterbirds from human disturbance in Florida. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:139-145. 

Rosan, P.C., and C.H. Lowe. 1994. Highway mortality of snakes in the Sonoran Desert of southern 

Arizona. Biological Conservation 68:143-148. 

Smith, L., and J.D. Hunt. 1995. Nature tourism: Impacts and management. Pages 203-219 in

Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence Through Management and Research. R.L. Knight and K.J. 

Gutzwiller, editors. Island Press, Washington, DC. 

Taylor, A.R., and R.L. Knight. 2003. Wildlife responses to recreation and associated visitor 

perceptions. Ecological Applications 13(4):951-963. 

Vos, D.K., R.A. Ryder, and W.D. Gram. 1985. Responses of breeding great blue herons to human 

disturbance in north central Colorado. Colonial Waterbirds 8:13-22. 

Ward, D., and R. Stehn. 1989. Response of brant and other geese to aircraft disturbances at Izembek 

Lagoon, Alaska. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Fish and Wildlife Research Center, 

Anchorage, Alaska. 241 pages. 

Whittaker, P.L. 1978. Comparison of surface impact by hiking and horseback riding in the Great 

Smoky Mountains National Park. Management Report 24. National Park Service, Southeast Region, 

Atlanta, Georgia. 32 pages. 

Williams, G., and J.E. Forbes. 1980. The habitat and dietary preferences of dark-bellied brent geese 

and widgeon in relation to agricultural management. Wildfowl 31:151-157. 

Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-32 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-33

Compatibility Determination

Grazing 

Use

Grazing 

Refuge Name

Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge (CLNWR) 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities

Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. § 715d) 

Acquisition of lands for recreational development; funds (16 U.S.C. § 460k-1) 

Refuge Recreation Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 460k-460k-4)

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. § 1534)

Refuge Purposes

The purposes for CLNWR have been identified in historic legal documentation establishing and 

adding refuge lands. The refuge was established to preserve important habitat for migratory birds 

with refuge purposes specified as follows: 

“. . . for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 

U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) 

 

“. . . suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species . . .” 

16 U.S.C. § 460k-1 

 

“. . . the Secretary . . . may accept and use . . . real . . . property. Such acceptance may be 

accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors . . .”. 16 

U.S.C. § 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 460k-460k-4), as amended) 

 

“. . . to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened species . . . 

or (B) plants . . .”. 16 U.S.C. § 1534 (Endangered Species Act of 1973) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission 

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) is to administer a national network of 

lands and waters for the conservation, management and, where appropriate, restoration of the fish, 

wildlife and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-34 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations

Description of Use

Grazing has not been continuously used as a habitat management tool on CLNWR. Grazing was 

used from 1964 until 1976, when it was discontinued. The managed grazing program needs to be 

revived to better meet refuge purposes and goals. New biological data has been acquired and there is 

need for more accessible habitat management tools. The primary objective of the grazing program is 

to reduce the biomass of reed canarygrass, which, left unharvested, will likely out-compete native 

grasses and herbaceous plant species, thus reducing overall refuge biodiversity. 

Targeted grazing areas include dense reed canarygrass areas not accessible to haying or mowing 

equipment. Secondary objectives include: 1) maintaining a low vegetation structure to enhance 

breeding sites for the State endangered and Federal candidate Oregon spotted frog; 2) providing late 

summer-through-winter foraging opportunities for elk and geese; 3) enhancing late summer 

invertebrate foraging opportunities for State endangered greater Sandhill cranes; 4) limiting woody 

species encroachment into seasonal wetlands and prairie habitats; 5) reducing fuel loads for wildfire 

management; and 6) providing large areas of open water habitat for migrating and wintering 

waterfowl. Grazing privately owned livestock will be used as a management tool to improve habitat 

conditions on the refuge from September 1 through November 30 in order to provide short green 

browse for migratory birds and suitable habitat for Sandhill cranes and Oregon spotted frogs. 

Livestock grazing by privately owned livestock (cattle) could be conducted annually on CLNWR, 

where appropriate, for a specified period (i.e., seasonally) to manage vegetation for the benefit of 

native plants and wildlife habitats. The primary habitat types where grazing will be considered are 

wet meadows (meadow habitats with standing surface water during the growing season) and reed 

canarygrass areas. Areas targeted for grazing include reed canarygrass areas not accessible to haying 

or mowing equipment. These habitats require a management action to meet specified wildlife habitat 

objectives detailed in an annual habitat management plan.

Grazing will be administered with a livestock cooperator under a Special Use Permit (SUP). The 

SUP will state provisions for habitat objectives, expected wildlife benefits, shared staffing, facility 

maintenance, operating rules and laws, and reporting requirements. An annual grazing plan will

identify tracts to be grazed and specify vegetation and habitat types, grazing objectives (primary 

target weed and/or primary native species or taxa), prescribed expected tract conditions (vegetation 

height), date by which expected conditions are to be met, livestock turn-in/turn-out dates, and animal 

unit months (AUMs). Permittees may be allowed to provide in-kind services in lieu of payment for 

grazing. Services completed by permittees may include ditch and dike maintenance, as well as 

mowing additional areas of unwanted reed canarygrass that are undesireable for grazing due to 

woody plant encroachment and weeds. 

Under some circumstances, a cooperative land management agreement (CLMA) may be used to 

administer the grazing program; CLMAs are authorized under 50 CFR 29.2. These agreements will

allow refuge staff and permittees to effectively work together to meet habitat objectives (e.g., ditch 

and dike maintenance, road repair, weed management). The CLMA serves as an annual grazing plan 

and states provisions for habitat objectives, expected wildlife benefits, and operating rules, 

regulations, and reporting requirements. The CLMA prescribes expected habitat conditions 

(vegetation height), livestock turn-in/turn-out dates, and AUMs. 

The grazing plan has built-in flexibility due to the uncertainties of annual and seasonal precipitation 

and climate, flooding, and the consequent effect on vegetation growth. This is to ensure that 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-35

expected conditions are met and that refuge vegetation is neither over-grazed nor under-grazed, both 

conditions resulting in degraded habitat. Because conditions change during the course of a season, 

regular monitoring by refuge staff is required. 

Permittees will pay a unit price per AUM that is based as closely as possible on local market rates. 

Market rate surveys will be completed every 3 years to establish a minimum AUM rate, and 

individual graze units will be awarded to the highest bidder. The previous permittee will have the 

right to match the high bid. Funds will be deposited into the Refuge Revenue Sharing Fund. 

Availability of Resources

Based on 2010 costs, the estimated costs to administer and manage grazing activities as described 

above are: 

Activity or Project One Time 

Expense 

Recurring 

Expense 

Administration (Evaluation of 

Applications, Management of Permits, 

Oversight)

$3,000 

Facilities Maintenance $4,000 

Monitoring $1,000 

Totals $8,000 

Refuge operational funds are currently available through the Service budget process to administer 

this program. Individual grazing units will be awarded to the highest bidder. Every three years the 

refuge will conduct a rate survey to determine the base rate for an AUM. This base rate provides the 

minimum bid used during the bidding process. The previous permittee has the right to match the 

high bid. Monitoring will be addressed in an annual grazing management plan. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use

Carefully controlled grazing intended to improve wildlife habitat rather than produce livestock can be 

an effective management tool as part of an overall vegetative management program to improve and 

maintain wet meadows for the benefit of migratory birds. Limited grazing can replace natural 

disturbance regimes that have been eliminated by human intervention and fragmentation of 

landscapes, helping to maintain species diversity and conserve the value of grasslands and old 

pastures (Hobbs and Huennekke 1992), such as those found at CLNWR. Such grasslands require 

some disturbance to increase forage production and accelerate nutrient cycling (Schuman et al. 

1999). 

Proposed grazing areas on the refuge are dominated by reed canarygrass, with some sedges (Carex 

nebrascensis, Eleocharis spp., Juncus balticus) and a minor mix of forbs. The primary benefits to 

plant communities associated with grazing include: 

1) A reduction in the accumulation of dead plant material; 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-36 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations

2) A reduction in non-native invasive weeds (Thomsen et al. 1993); 

3) Increases in native plants, including special-status species, from reduced competition for 

sunlight, water, and nutrients with non-native annual grasses (Coppoletta and Moritsch 2001; 

Davis and Sherman 1992; Menke 1992; Muir and Moseley 1994); 

4) Increases in primary production and resultant increases in plant biomass (McNaughton 

1985); and 

5) Increases in flowering, with consequent increases in macro-invertebrate populations, 

including native pollinators of native plants and prey items for refuge wildlife, such as 

migratory birds. 

These areas where grazing might be implemented may be used by a variety of wildlife species during 

different parts of the year to meet specific life-cycle needs. Overall, beneficial effects to refuge 

habitat, wildlife, and native plants will occur as a result of a well-managed livestock grazing 

program. However, individual species or families respond differently to grazing in general and 

timing and intensity of grazing in particular. Changes to vegetation as a result of limited grazing can 

benefit breeding and migratory waterfowl. Grazing increases habitat heterogeneity and reduces 

height and density of monotypic stands of plants, such as reed canarygrass. The resulting 

interspersion of open areas and emergent vegetation results in a higher density of nests and higher 

nest success for dabbling and diving ducks (Carroll 1999; Carroll et al. 2007; Kantrud 1986). 

Increased habitat complexity resulting from limited grazing improves foraging habitat and abundance 

and increases the variety of food sources for migrating birds, including ducks and geese in spring and 

for broods in summer (Bos et al. 2005; Buchsbaum et al. 1986; Kantrud 1986; Vickery et al. 2005). 

Grazing will also provide improved shorebird foraging habitat (Colwell and Dodd 1995; Knopf and 

Rupert 1995). 

CLNWR provides habitat for the only nesting population of greater Sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis 

tabida) in Washington State. Grazing had no influence on nest success in a study of 506 greater 

Sandhill crane nests at Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon (Ivey and Dugger 2008). 

However, Sandhill cranes have been observed to prefer grazed areas over ungrazed areas for foraging 

(Carroll 1999). 

Upland and grassland nesting birds generally can benefit from limited grazing, especially when 

grazing is deferred during nesting and brooding (Fuhlendorf et al. 2006; Holechek et al. 1992), 

although there is variation in the response of upland and grassland bird species (Salo et al. 2004). 

However, the proposed grazing areas are generally wet meadows and will not support upland or 

grassland species, so impacts to these species, positive or negative, will be expected to be minimal.

Oregon spotted frogs are the main species of management concern within potentially grazed areas. 

Although limited grazing has been shown to have little effect on Oregon spotted frogs (Watson et al. 

2003), what impacts there are from limited grazing are likely to be beneficial. Oregon spotted frogs 

utilize reed canarygrass shortened by grazing to deposit their egg masses in the early spring 

(McAllister and Leonard 1997). Additionally, as habitat complexity is increased by grazing, 

invertebrate communities become more abundant and diverse (Kantrud 1986; Scrimgeour and 

Kendall 2003), providing more forage for Oregon spotted frogs. Grazing on CLNWR will occur 

when areas are dry, effectively preventing direct mortality of the highly aquatic Oregon spotted frog. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-37

Limited grazing can also benefit other species, such as improving forage for mule deer and elk by 

increasing the nutritive value of grasses (Holechek et al. 1992; Vavra and Sheehy 1996). Aquatic 

invertebrates, insects, and special-status species could benefit from grazed herbaceous habitats 

(Bratton 1990; Bratton and Fryer 1990; Germano et al. 2001; Knopf and Rupert 1995; Panzer 1988). 

The grazing program could also negatively affect refuge wildlife and habitat. Impacts to some 

nesting waterfowl and songbirds could occur, mainly through direct disturbance from cattle (Kirsch 

1969; Krueper 1993; West and Messner 2006). There could be some reduced use of habitats by 

rodents and raptors (Johnson and Horn 2008), mainly due to changes in structure. However, since 

grazing will be in the fall, well outside of most potentially impacted species’ use, impacts will be 

negligible. 

Since seasonal grazing will improve plant species composition and structure, short-term effects on 

wildlife and habitat will be more than mitigated by the long-term benefits to the refuge. Primary 

long-term benefits include continued annual native plant production; control of non-native invasive 

plant species; continued seasonal use of refuge habitat by migratory birds, deer and elk; and 

improvements to overall wildlife habitat quality.

Potential impacts of grazing activities on the refuge’s resources will be minimized as sufficient 

restrictions will be included as part of the annual habitat management plan, and grazing activities will

be monitored by refuge staff. The annual habitat management plan and associated projects contribute 

to the enhancement, protection, conservation and management of native wildlife populations and 

their habitats, thereby helping the refuge fulfill the purposes for which it was established, the mission 

of the NWRS, and the need to maintain ecological integrity, diversity and environmental health. 

Public Review and Comment

This CD was submitted for a 30-day comment period for public review and response as part of the 

draft CCP and Environmental Assessment for Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge. 

Determination

The use is not compatible.

 X The use is compatible with the following stipulations. 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

The following stipulations will ensure that grazing is compatible with refuge resource needs. 

• Grazing is not allowed in sensitive natural areas or cultural resource sites. 

• Grazing is restricted to the period of September 1 through November 30. 

• The permittee shall notify the Refuge Manager not less than 48 hours prior to the time of 

moving cattle on or off the refuge or between grazing units. 

• Dead cattle shall be removed from the refuge immediately.
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-38 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations

• The permittee will be responsible for repair or construction of unit fences. Fences must be in 

good condition and approved by the Refuge Manager prior to the entry of cattle. Permittees 

on adjoining units will be jointly responsible for fences between units. Materials for fence 

repairs will be furnished by the refuge. 

• The criteria for evaluating the need for vegetation management, including grazing, will be 

determined during the annual review of the habitat management plan. 

• Grazing will be conducted in accordance with the SUPs or CLMAs, which include special 

conditions that specify timing of grazing, location(s) of grazing, stocking densities, access 

locations, and personnel and equipment allowed. The specific conditions may vary annually 

due to differences in management objectives, habitat conditions, and weather. 

Justification

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act established a three-tiered hierarchy for 

management activities that occur on NWRS lands. The first tier involves management actions that 

specifically assist the refuge in fulfilling the purpose(s) for which it was established (e.g., migratory 

birds and other wildlife) and the NWRS mission, including the conservation, management, and 

restoration of fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats. The second and third tiers involve 

wildlife-dependent public uses (i.e., hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, 

environmental education and interpretation) and general public uses. Management tools that help 

refuges achieve established refuge purposes become first-tier management priorities, when properly 

authorized through signed management plans and compatibility determinations. When management 

tools (such as grazing, haying, pest management, or prescribed burning) are not specifically used on 

a refuge to help achieve established refuge purposes, then these activities fall into the third, lowest 

priority tier. As described above, managing vegetation at CLNWR through grazing provides habitat 

in the form of water, food, cover, breeding areas, rearing areas and sanctuary for a variety of wildlife, 

including migratory birds, waterfowl and shorebirds. 

There are specific Service regulations which address economic uses of refuges. At 50 CFR 29.1, it 

states, in part, that the Service . . . may only authorize public or private economic use of the natural 

resources of any national wildlife refuge, in accordance with 16 USC 715s, where we determine that 

the use contributes to the achievement of the national wildlife refuge purposes or the NWRS mission. 

This regulatory standard is in addition to the compatibility requirement. Grazing is listed in the 

regulations as an example of a use to which this provision applies. 

While grazing on the refuge provides economic benefits to permittees, grazing is dictated exclusively 

by habitat and wildlife management needs. All activities associated with grazing, including 

locations, acres, timing, and other special conditions, are directed by the Refuge Manager to the 

permittees through signed SUPs. 

The use of permittees to complete grazing operations on refuge lands saves the refuge a significant 

amount of money (purchase of specialized equipment, fuel, labor, etc.) and staff time (mowing, 

vegetation removal, equipment maintenance and transport, etc.). The proposed grazing program is 

described in the draft CCP and associated EA, which are incorporated by reference (Service 2014). 

The grazing program as described is determined to be compatible and is designed to avoid or 

minimize anticipated impacts to the refuge’s resources and visitors. Based upon impacts described in 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-39

the draft CCP and EA (Service 2014), it is determined that grazing within CLNWR, as described 

above, will not materially interfere with or detract from the purposes for which the refuge was 

established or the mission of the NWRS. Grazing will directly benefit and support refuge goals, 

objectives and management plans and activities. Populations of fish, wildlife, plants, and their 

habitats will improve through vegetation management, which will result in short-term and long-term 

reductions of non-native invasive plant species, increases in native plants, increases in biomass, 

improved foraging conditions for migratory birds and local deer and elk herds, and long-term 

improved nesting conditions for some species. Consequently, the grazing program will increase or 

maintain the biological integrity, diversity and environmental health of the refuge. The 

wildlife-dependent, priority public uses (i.e., hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, 

environmental education and interpretation) will also benefit as a result of the increased biodiversity, 

wildlife and native plant populations from improved habitat conditions associated with the grazing 

program. 

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date

Provide month and year for allowed uses only. 

Mandatory 15-year re-evaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses). 

 X Mandatory 10-year re-evaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public uses). 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision

Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement. 

Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement. 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact. 

_____ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision. 

References

Bos, D.M.J., J.E. Loonen, M. Stock, F. Hofeditz, A.J. van der Graaf, and J.P. Baker. 2005. 

Utilization of Wadden Sea salt marshes by geese in relation to livestock grazing. Journal for Nature 

Conservation 13:1-15. 

Bratton, J.H. 1990. Seasonal pools: An overlooked invertebrate habitat. British Wildlife 2:22-29. 

Bratton, J.H., and G. Fryer. 1990. The distribution and ecology of Chirocephalus diaphanus Prevost 

(Branchiopoda: Anostraca) in Britain. Journal of Natural History 24:955-964. 

Buchsbaum, R., J. Wilson, and I. Valiela. 1986. Digestibility of plant constituents by Canada geese 

and Atlantic brant. Ecology 67:386-393. 

Carroll, L.C. 1999. Use of grazed and non-grazed fields by wintering sandhill cranes and nesting 

dabbling ducks. Master’s Thesis, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California. 40 pages. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-40 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations

Carroll, L.C., T.W. Arnold, and J.A. Beam. 2007. Effects of rotational grazing on nesting ducks in 

California. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:902-905. 

Colwell, M.A., and S.L. Dodd. 1995. Waterbird communities and habitat relationships in coastal 

pastures of northern California. Conservation Biology 9:827-834. 

Coppoletta, M., and B. Moritsch. 2001. Taking steps toward long-term preservation of the Sonoma 

spineflower. Fremontia 29(2):23-25. 

Davis, L.H., and R.J. Sherman. 1992. Ecological study of the rare Chorizanthe valida

(Polygonaceae) at Point Ryes National Seashore, California. Madrõno 39(4):271-280. 

Fuhlendorf, S.D., W.C. Harrell, D.M. Engle, R.G. Hamilton, C.A. Davis, and D.M. Leslie, Jr. 2006. 

Should heterogeneity be the basis for conservation? Grassland bird response to fire and grazing. 

Ecological Applications 16:1706-1716. 

Germano, D.J., G.B. Rathbun, and L.R. Saslaw. 2001. Managing exotic grasses and conserving 

declining species. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29(2):551-559. 

Griggs, F.T. 2000. Vina Plains Preserve: Eighteen years of adaptive management. Fremontia 

27(4):48-51. 

Hobbs, R.J., and L.F. Huennekke. 1992. Disturbance, diversity, and invasion: Implications for 

conservation. Conservation Biology 6:324-337. 

Holechek, J.L., R. Valdez, S.D. Schemnitz, R.D. Pieper, and C.A. Davis. 1992. Manipulation of 

grazing to improve or maintain wildlife habitat. Wildlife Society Bulletin 10:204-210. 

Ivey, G.L., and B.D. Dugger. 2008. Factors influencing nest success of greater sandhill cranes at 

Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, Oregon. Waterbirds 31:52-61. 

Johnson, M.D., and C.M. Horn. 2008. Effects of rotational grazing on rodents and raptors in a 

coastal grassland. Western North American Naturalist 68:444-452. 

Kantrud, H.A. 1986. Effects of vegetation manipulation in prairie wetlands. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Technical Report Number 3. United States Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 

Kirsch, L.M. 1969. Waterfowl production in relation to grazing. Journal of Wildlife Management 

33:821-828. 

Knopf, F.L., and J.R. Rupert. 1995. Habits and habitats of mountain plovers in California. The 

Condor 97:143-751. 

Krueper, D.J. 1993. Effects of land use practices on western riparian ecosystems. In Status and 

management of neotropical migratory birds. D.M. Finch and P.W. Strangel, editors. U.S. Forest 

Service, General Technical Report RM-229. Fort Collins, Colorado. 

McAllister, K.R., and W.P. Leonard. 1997. Washington State status report for the Oregon spotted 

frog. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 38 pages. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-41

McNaughton, S.J. 1985. Ecology of a grazing ecosystem: The Serengeti. Ecological Monographs 

55:259-294. 

Menke, J.W. 1992. Grazing and fire management for native perennial grass restoration in California 

grasslands. Fremontia 20(2):22-25. 

Muir, P.S., and R.K. Moseley. 1994. Responses of Primula alcalina, a threatened species of 

alkaline seeps, to site and grazing. Natural Areas Journal 14:269-279. 

Panzer, R. 1988. Managing prairie remnants for insect conservation. Natural Areas Journal 8(2):83-

90. 

Salo, E.D., K.F. Higgins, B.D. Patton, K.K. Bakker, W.T. Barker, B. Kreft, and P.E. Nyren. 2004. 

Grazing intensity effects on vegetation, livestock and non-game birds in North Dakota mixed grass 

prairie. Proceedings of the North American Prairie Conferences 19:205-215. 

Schuman, G.E., J.D. Reeder, J.T. Manley, R.H. Hart, and W.A. Manley. 1999. Impact of grazing on 

the carbon and nitrogen balance of a mixed-grass rangeland. Ecological Applications 9:65-71. 

Scrimgeour, G.J., and S. Kendall. 2003. Effects of livestock grazing on benthic invertebrates from a 

native grassland ecosystem. Freshwater Biology 48:347-362. 

Thomsen, C.D., W.A. Williams, M.P. Vayssieres, F.L. Bell, and M.R. George. 1993. Controlled 

grazing on annual grassland decreases yellow starthistle. California Agriculture 47:36-40.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Burbank, 

Washington. 

Vavra, M., and D.P. Sheehy. 1996. Improving elk habitat characteristics with livestock grazing. 

Rangelands 18:182-185. 

Vickery, J.A., W.J. Sutherland, M. O’Brien, A.R. Watkinson, and A. Yallop. 1997. Managing 

coastal grazing marshes for breeding waders and over-wintering geese: Is there a conflict? 

Biological Conservation 79: 23-34. 

Watson, J.W., K.R. McAllister, and D.J. Pierce. 2003. Home ranges, movements, and habitat 

selection of Oregon spotted frogs (Rana pretiosa). Journal of Herpetology 37:292-300. 

West, B.C., and T.A. Messner. 2006. Effects of livestock grazing on duck nesting habitat in Utah. 

Rangeland Ecology & Management 59:208-211. 

Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-43

Compatibility Determination

Haying 

Use

Haying

Refuge Name

Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge (CLNWR) 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities

Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. § 715d) 

Acquisition of lands for recreational development; funds (16 U.S.C. § 460k-1) 

Refuge Recreation Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 460k-460k-4)

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. § 1534)

Refuge Purposes

The purposes for CLNWR have been identified in historic legal documentation establishing and 

adding refuge lands. The refuge was established to preserve important habitat for migratory birds 

with refuge purposes specified as follows: 

“. . . for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 

U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) 

 

“. . . suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species . . .”. 

16 U.S.C. § 460k-1 

 

“. . . the Secretary . . . may accept and use . . . real . . . property. Such acceptance may be 

accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors . . .”. 16 

U.S.C. § 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 460k-460k-4), as amended) 

 

“. . . to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened species . . . 

or (B) plants . . .”. 16 U.S.C. § 1534 (Endangered Species Act of 1973) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission 

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) is to administer a national network of 

lands and waters for the conservation, management and, where appropriate, restoration of the fish, 

wildlife and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-44 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations

Description of Use

Haying is the cutting, processing (typically baling), and removal of reed canarygrass, meadow grass, 

sedges, rushes and associated species. Haying has been used as a habitat management tool on the 

refuge since its establishment. Over the past two decades, the haying program has evolved to better 

meet refuge purposes and goals as new biological data has been acquired. The primary objective of 

the haying program is to reduce the biomass of reed canarygrass (an undesirable exotic wet meadow 

grass that has spread to dominate the refuge’s wet meadows), which, left unharvested, will likely outcompete native grasses and herbaceous plant species, thus reducing overall refuge biodiversity. 

Secondary objectives include: 1) maintaining a low vegetation structure to enhance breeding sites for 

the State endangered and Federal candidate Oregon spotted frog; 2) providing late summer-throughwinter foraging opportunities for elk and geese; 3) enhancing late summer invertebrate foraging 

opportunities for State endangered greater Sandhill cranes; 4) limiting woody species encroachment 

into seasonal wetlands and prairie habitats; 5) reducing fuel loads for wildfire management; and 6) 

providing large areas of open water habitat for migrating and wintering waterfowl.

A late-season haying program will be conducted on up to 2,325 acres of the refuge, divided into 31 

individual units, for the purpose of habitat management. The primary habitat types where haying 

will be used are wet meadows (meadow habitats with standing surface water during the growing 

season) and reed canarygrass areas. Permittees hay introduced reed canarygrass (Phalaris 

arundinacea), native grasses, pasture grasses, sedges (Carex spp.), and rushes (Juncus spp., 

Eleocharis spp.), primarily on the refuge’s historic Camas Prairie and Conboy Lake wetland basins. 

Haying requires the use of large equipment, including tractors; implements, such as swathers and 

balers; and trucks to haul gear and personnel. Equipment for haying generally remains on-refuge 

until the completion of a specific harvest phase or throughout the entire haying season. 

Haying will be conducted by a permittee through the special use permit (SUP) process. All SUPs are 

allotted through a bid process. Every three years, CLNWR conducts a rate survey to determine the 

base rate for a ton of hay. This base rate provides the minimum bid used during the bidding process. 

Individual haying units are awarded to the highest bidder. The previous year’s permittee has the 

right to match the high bid. Permittees may provide in-kind services in lieu of payment for hay. 

Services completed by permittees may include ditch and dike maintenance, as well as mowing 

additional areas of unwanted reed canarygrass made undesirable to haying due to woody plant 

encroachment and weeds.

Permittees pay a unit price per ton of hay cut. This price is based as closely as possible on local 

market rates. During 2010, 1,374 acres of the refuge were hayed. Permittees paid $7.00 per ton of 

hay cut on the refuge, and total revenues for haying were $3,960.00. Funds are deposited into the 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Fund. 

Under some circumstances, a Service Cooperative Land Management Agreement (CLMA) will be 

used to administer the haying program. CLMAs are authorized under 50 CFR 29.2. These 

agreements allow refuge staff and permittees to effectively work together to meet habitat objectives 

(e.g., ditch and dike maintenance, road repair, weed management, habitat enhancement). The CLMA 

serves as an annual haying plan and states provisions for habitat objectives, expected wildlife 

benefits, and operating rules, regulations and reporting requirements. The CLMA prescribes 

expected habitat conditions (vegetation height) and entry and exit dates. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-45

The haying plan has built-in flexibility due to the uncertainties of annual and seasonal precipitation 

and climate, flooding and the consequent effect on vegetation growth. 

All haying is conducted by permittees beginning August 1 and ending October 15. The start of 

haying can be delayed if Sandhill crane colts less than three weeks of age are present. All hay bales 

and equipment are required to be removed from the refuge by October 15. Permittees typically spend 

2-4 weeks haying on the refuge, although the entire process of cutting, baling and hauling can extend 

longer depending on weather and other factors. In special cases, certain fields could possibly be 

hayed prior to August 1st, but only after a biological evaluation by a Service Biologist. Biological 

conditions used to evaluate haying prior to August 1st will include plant phenology, the status of 

nesting birds, the presence of greater Sandhill crane chicks, and the timing of Oregon spotted frog 

metamorphosis. 

As noted, haying requires the use of heavy equipment. However, no additional roads or gates have 

been, or will be, constructed for this use. Administrative roads used by refuge staff are available for 

use by permittees. Permittees are permitted to travel off road with vehicles through specified hay 

fields to conduct harvest operations. No pesticides, herbicides, or fertilizers are associated with this 

use.

Availability of Resources

Based on 2010 costs, the estimated costs to administer and manage haying activities as described 

above are: 

Activity or Project One Time 

Expense 

Recurring 

Expense 

Administration (Evaluation of 

Applications, Management of Permits, 

Oversight)

$2,000 

Facilities Maintenance $2,000 

Monitoring $1,000 

Totals $5,000 

Refuge operational funds are currently available through the Service budget process to administer 

this program. The refuge charges a fee per ton of hay cut (see above), which recoups most of the 

costs to the Service, not the refuge. Monitoring will be addressed in an annual habitat management 

plan. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use

Haying can be an effective management tool as part of an overall vegetative management strategy to 

improve and maintain wet meadows for the benefit of migratory birds and other species. Primary 

plant species found in areas hayed include reed canarygrass, sedges (Carex nebrascensis, Eleocharis

spp., Juncus balticus) and a mix of forbs. These areas may be used by a variety of wildlife species 

during different parts of the year to meet specific life-cycle needs.
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-46 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations

Haying will result in short-term disturbances and long-term benefits to both resident and migratory 

wildlife using the refuge. Short-term impacts include disturbance and displacement by haying 

operations. Haying activities also result in short-term loss of habitat for species using those areas for 

nesting, feeding, or resting. 

Long-term benefits are positive and outweigh the short-term disturbances due to establishment of 

desired habitat. The resulting habitat will improve conditions for most of the species adversely 

affected by the short-term negative impacts. Control of the timing of haying will limit anticipated 

impacts.

Wet meadow habitats need periodic disturbance to remove vegetation and maintain plant vigor, 

diversity, and structure necessary for wildlife use (Schuman et al. 1999). Haying of wet meadows 

can replace natural disturbance regimes that have been eliminated by habitat fragmentation and 

human intervention (Hobbs and Huennekke 1992). The rotation and periodic haying of areas also 

helps to create a mosaic and interspersion of habitats that many species find attractive for feeding, 

breeding, and protection (Kantrud 1986). Removal of accumulated biomass through haying will

reduce unwanted overstory including dead and decadent vegetation, reduce woody plant invasion, 

and allow for more vigorous regrowth of desirable species. These management strategies contribute 

to the overall health of these vegetative communities, help limit or reduce the spread of invasive 

species, and reduce the speed of vegetation succession. 

Haying provides short-grass habitat preferred by migratory bird species in the spring, including 

Canada geese, white-fronted geese, pintails, mallards and a variety of other duck and bird species 

(Krapu and Reinecke 1992; Carroll 1999). During early summer, hayed areas provide foraging areas 

for Canada goose broods and greater Sandhill cranes (Sparling and Krapu 1994). Some duck species 

prefer hayed areas for nesting (Klett et al. 1988), and haying may improve nesting habitat (Burgess et 

al. 1965). Nesting success among ducks may be higher in hayed areas than in unmanaged areas, 

particularly when haying is delayed (Emery et al. 2005). Migrating birds will also benefit if haying 

is conducted as quickly as possible to ensure that fields can be reflooded and green-up can occur 

prior to the peak migration period in October. 

Timing of treatments will be used to minimize the impacts to wildlife. Greater Sandhill crane 

management plans suggest delaying haying until August 10th to prevent mowing mortality of young 

Sandhill cranes (Littlefield 1995; Littlefield and Ivey 2002); the refuge can delay the start of haying 

even more if Sandhill crane colts less than three weeks of age are present. Haying will result in a 

temporary reduction of residual nesting cover for Sandhill cranes for the first spring period after 

haying, although haying operations are not expected to have significant impacts on Sandhill cranes 

(Littlefield and Paullin 1990; Ivey 2007). While there could be some short-term disturbance 

associated with haying activities, hayed areas can provide excellent foraging sites for nesting and 

migrating cranes (Sparling and Krapu 1994). 

Some grassland and ground-nesting bird species benefit from haying, while others are negatively 

affected. However, ground-nesting and grassland birds will be minimally affected if haying is 

delayed until after August 1 each year (Dale et al. 1997). Hayed areas at CLNWR consist mainly of 

wet meadows and do not provide grassland or upland bird nesting habitat. 

The main species of management concern within hayed areas, the Oregon spotted frog, is likely to 

benefit from haying. Oregon spotted frogs utilize reed canarygrass shortened by haying to deposit 

their egg masses in the early spring (McAllister and Leonard 1997). In studies of areas dominated by 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-47

reed canarygrass, such as those areas hayed at CLNWR, Oregon spotted frogs oviposited only in 

areas where reed canarygrass had been mowed (Kapust et al.; Hayes et al.). Haying on CLNWR will

occur when areas are dry, effectively preventing direct mortality of the highly aquatic Oregon spotted 

frog.

Potential impacts of haying activities on the refuge’s resources will be minimized because sufficient 

restrictions will be included as part of the annual habitat management plan, and haying activities will 

be monitored by refuge staff. Refuge staff will ensure that haying contributes to the enhancement, 

protection, conservation, and management of native wildlife populations and their habitats, thereby 

helping CLNWR fulfill the purposes for which it was established, the mission of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System, and the need to maintain ecological integrity, diversity, and environmental 

health. 

Public Review and Comment

This CD was submitted for a 30-day comment period for public review and response as part of the 

draft CCP and Environmental Assessment for Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge. 

Determination

The use is not compatible.

 X The use is compatible with the following stipulations. 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

The following stipulations will ensure that haying is compatible with refuge resource needs: 

• The criteria for evaluating need for vegetation management, including haying, are determined 

during the annual work plan review. 

• Haying will be conducted from August 1 through October 15, although the start of haying 

will be delayed if Sandhill crane colts less than three weeks of age are present. In special 

cases, certain fields could possibly be hayed prior to 1 August, but only after a biological 

evaluation by an Service biologist. Biological conditions used to evaluate haying prior to 1 

August could include plant phenology, the status of nesting birds, the presence of greater 

Sandhill crane chicks, and the timing of Oregon spotted frog metamorphosis. 

• Haying will be conducted in accordance with the SUPs, which include special conditions that 

specify timing, location(s), access, personnel, and equipment allowed. The specific 

conditions will vary annually due to differences in objectives, habitat conditions and weather. 

• Permittees will be required to weigh and submit certified weight receipts for 10 percent of all 

hay taken from the field. 

• Haying will be conducted during daylight hours only. 

• Permittees must provide bale counts and certified weight receipts to the refuge by November 

30. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-48 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations

• Any property damage to the refuge as a result of the permittee’s activities will be added to 

the permittee’s final billing.

• Non-use of permit privileges, in whole or in part, will be cause for the cancellation of a 

permittee’s privileges at the discretion of the Refuge Manager, unless non-use has previously 

been approved. Non-use of a permit, in whole or in part, may be authorized by the Refuge 

Manager for resource protection, research, or fact-finding purposes. Non-use for the 

convenience of the permit holder will normally not be approved unless there are extenuating 

circumstances that would warrant such approval. Fire and flood are examples of such 

extenuating circumstances.

• Haying will not be allowed in sensitive natural areas or cultural resource sites. 

Justification

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act also established a three-tiered hierarchy 

for management activities that occur on NWRS lands. The first tier involves management actions 

that specifically assist the refuge in fulfilling the purpose(s) for which it was established (e.g., 

migratory birds and other wildlife) and the NWRS mission, including the conservation, management, 

and restoration of fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats. The second and third tiers involve wildlifedependent public uses (i.e., hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental 

education and interpretation) and general public uses. Management tools that help refuges achieve 

established refuge purposes become first-tier management priorities, when properly authorized 

through signed management plans and compatibility determinations. When management tools (such 

as grazing, haying, pest management, or prescribed burning) are not specifically used on a refuge to 

help achieve established refuge purposes, then these activities fall into the third, lowest priority tier. 

As described above, managing vegetation at CLNWR through haying provides habitat in the form of 

water, food, cover, breeding areas, rearing areas and sanctuary for a variety of wildlife, including 

migratory birds, waterfowl and shorebirds. 

There are specific Service regulations which address economic uses of refuges. At 50 CFR 29.1, it 

states, in part, that the Service . . . may only authorize public or private economic use of the natural 

resources of any national wildlife refuge, in accordance with 16 USC 715s, where we determine that 

the use contributes to the achievement of the national wildlife refuge purposes or the National 

Wildlife Refuge System mission. This regulatory standard is in addition to the compatibility 

requirement. Harvesting hay is listed in the regulations as an example of a use to which this 

provision applies. 

While haying on the refuge provides economic benefits to permittees, haying is dictated exclusively 

by habitat and wildlife management needs. All activities associated with haying, including locations, 

acres cut, timing, and other special conditions, are directed by the Refuge Manager to the permittees 

through signed SUPs. 

The use of permittees to complete haying operations on refuge lands saves the refuge a significant 

amount of money (purchase of specialized equipment, fuel, labor, etc.) and staff time (mowing, 

vegetation removal, equipment maintenance, transport, etc.). The proposed haying program is 

described in the draft CCP and associated EA, which are incorporated by reference (Service 2014). 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-49

The haying program as described is determined to be compatible and is designed to avoid or 

minimize anticipated impacts to the refuge’s resources and visitors. Based upon impacts described in 

the draft CCP and EA (Service 2014), it is determined that haying within CLNWR, as described 

above, will not materially interfere with or detract from the purposes for which the refuge was 

established or the mission of the NWRS. Haying will directly benefit and support refuge goals, 

objectives, and management plans and activities. Populations of fish, wildlife, plants and their 

habitats will improve through vegetation management, which will result in short-term and long-term 

reductions of non-native invasive plant species, increases in native plants, increases in biomass, 

improved foraging conditions for migratory birds and local deer and elk herds, and long-term 

improved nesting conditions for some species. Consequently, the haying program will increase or 

maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the refuge. The 

wildlife-dependent, priority public uses (i.e., hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, 

environmental education and interpretation) will also benefit as a result of the increased biodiversity, 

wildlife, and native plant populations from improved habitat conditions associated with the haying 

program. 

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date

Provide month and year for allowed uses only. 

Mandatory 15-year re-evaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses). 

 X Mandatory 10-year re-evaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public uses). 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision

Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement. 

Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement. 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact.

Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision. 

References

Burgess, H.H., H.H. Prince and T.L. Trauger. 1965. Blue-winged teal nesting success as related to 

land use. Journal of Wildlife Management 29:89-95. 

Carroll, L.C. 1999. Use of grazed and non-grazed fields by wintering sandhill cranes and nesting 

dabbling ducks. Master’s Thesis, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California. 40 pages. 

Dale, B.C., P.A. Martin and P.S. Taylor. 1997. Effects of hay management on grassland songbirds 

in Saskatchewan. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:616-626. 

Emery, R.B., D.W. Howerter, L.M. Armstrong, M.G. Anderson, J.H. Devries and B.L. Joynt. 2005. 

Seasonal variation in waterfowl nesting success and its relation to cover management in the Canadian 

prairies. Journal of Wildlife Management 69:1181-1193. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-50 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations

Hayes, M.P., D.W. Hays, R.M. Johnson, J.A. Tyson. Re-examination of approaches to manipulating 

invasive reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) to enhance Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) 

oviposition habitat in western Washington State. In preparation.

Hobbs, R.J., and L.F. Huennekke. 1992. Disturbance, diversity and invasion: Implications for 

conservation. Conservation Biology 6:324-337. 

Ivey, G.L. 2007. Factors influencing nest success of greater sandhill cranes at Malheur National 

Wildlife Refuge, Oregon. Master’s Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis. 47 pages. 

Kantrud, H.A. 1986. Effects of vegetation manipulation in prairie wetlands. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Technical Report No. 3. United States Department of the Interior. 

Kapust, H.Q.W., K.R. McAllister, M.P. Hayes. Oregon Spotted Frog (Rana pretiosa) response to 

enhancement of oviposition habitat and resetting succession with special reference to the invasive 

reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) in western Washington State. In preparation.

Klett, A.T., T.L. Shaffer and D.H. Johnson. 1988. Duck nest success in the prairie pothole region. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 52:431-440. 

Krapu, G.L., and K.J. Reinecke. 1992. Foraging ecology and nutrition. Pages 1-15 in Ecology and 

Management of Breeding Waterfowl. B.D.J. Batt, editor. University of Minnesota Press, 

Minneapolis, Minnesota. 

Littlefield, C.D. 1995. Pacific Flyway Management Plan for the Central Valley population of 

greater sandhill cranes. Prepared for the Pacific Flyway Council, Canadian Wildlife Service and 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Littlefield, C.D., and G.L. Ivey. 2002. Washington State Recovery Plan for the Sandhill Crane. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 71 pages. 

Littlefield, C.D., and D.G. Paullin. 1990. Effects of land management on nesting success of sandhill 

cranes in Oregon. Wildlife Society Bulletin 18:63-65.

Schuman, G.E., J.D. Reeder, J.T. Manley, R.H. Hart and W.A. Manley. 1999. Impact of grazing on 

the carbon and nitrogen balance of a mixed-grass rangeland. Ecological Applications 9:65-71. 

Sparling, D.W., and G.L. Krapu. 1994. Communal roosting and foraging behavior of staging 

Sandhill cranes. The Wilson Bulletin 206:62-77. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Burbank, 

Washington. 

Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-52 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-53

Compatibility Determination

Research 

Use

Research and Management Studies 

Refuge Name

Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge (CLNWR) 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities

Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. § 715d) 

Acquisition of lands for recreational development; funds (16 U.S.C. § 460k-1) 

Refuge Recreation Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 460k-460k-4)

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. § 1534)

Refuge Purposes

The purposes for CLNWR have been identified in historic legal documentation establishing and 

adding refuge lands. The refuge was established to preserve important habitat for migratory birds 

with refuge purposes specified as follows: 

“. . . for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 

U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) 

 

“. . . suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species . . .”.

16 U.S.C. § 460k-1 

 

“. . . the Secretary . . . may accept and use . . . real . . . property. Such acceptance may be 

accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors . . .”. 16 

U.S.C. § 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 460k-460k-4), as amended) 

 

“. . . to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened species . . . 

or (B) plants . . .”. 16 U.S.C. § 1534 (Endangered Species Act of 1973) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) is to administer a national network of 

lands and waters for the conservation, management and, where appropriate, restoration of the fish, 

wildlife and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-54 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations

Description of Use

The refuge receives periodic requests from non-Service entities (e.g., universities, state or territorial 

agencies, other Federal agencies, non-governmental organizations) to conduct research, scientific 

collecting and surveys on CLNWR. These project requests can involve a wide range of natural and 

cultural resources, as well as public-use management issues including basic absence/presence 

surveys; collection of new species for identification, habitat use, and life-history requirements for 

specific species/species groups; practical methods for habitat restoration, extent and severity of 

environmental contaminants; techniques to control or eradicate pest species; effects of climate 

change on environmental conditions and associated habitat/wildlife response; identification and 

analyses of paleontological specimens; wilderness character; modeling of wildlife populations, 

bioprospecting and assessing response of habitat/wildlife to disturbance from public uses. Projects 

may be species-specific, refuge-specific, or evaluate the relative contribution of the refuge lands to 

larger landscapes (e.g., ecoregion, region, flyway, national, international), issues, and trends. 

The Service’s Research and Management Studies (4 RM 6) and Appropriate Refuge Uses (603 

FW1.10D(4)) policies indicate priority for scientific investigatory studies that contribute to the 

enhancement, protection, use, preservation, and management of native wildlife populations and their 

habitats, as well as their natural diversity. Projects that contribute to refuge-specific needs for 

resource and/or wilderness management goals and objectives, where applicable, will be given a 

higher priority over other requests. 

Research applicants are required to submit a proposal that outlines: 

1) The objectives of the study;

2) A justification for the study;

3) A detailed methodology and schedule; 

4) The potential impacts on wildlife or its habitat, including disturbance (short- and long-term), 

injury, or mortality (including a description of measures the researcher will take to reduce 

disturbance or impacts);

5) The research personnel required; 

6) Costs to the Service, if any; and

7) A timeline for submitting progress reports and final products (i.e., reports, theses, 

dissertations, publications). 

Research proposals are reviewed by Service staff. If the proposal is approved, an SUP is issued by 

the Project Leader. Evaluation criteria and specific provisions for approval of studies include, but are 

not limited to, the following list. Future research proposals will also be subject to these criteria and 

provisions. This will also apply to any properties acquired in the future within the approved 

boundary of the CLNWR. 

• Research that contributes to specific CLNWR management issues is given a higher priority 

over other research requests. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-55

• Research that conflicts with other ongoing research, monitoring, or management programs 

will not be allowed.

• Research projects that can be accomplished off CLNWR are less likely to be approved. 

• Research which causes undue disturbance or is intrusive is not likely to be allowed. 

• The level and type of disturbance will be carefully evaluated when considering a request. 

Strategies to minimize disturbance through study design, including location, timing, scope, 

number of permittees, study methods, number of study sites, etc., will be encouraged. 

• If staffing or logistics make it impossible for the refuge to monitor the researcher, the permit 

is likely to be denied.

• If the activity is in a sensitive area, the research request may be denied, depending on the 

specific circumstances.

• The length of the project will be considered and agreed upon before approval. 

• Projects will be reviewed annually.

SUPs will be issued for monitoring and investigations which contribute to the enhancement, 

protection, preservation, management of native plant and wildlife populations and their habitats, 

public use and other important resources, especially as they relate to CLNWR lands and management 

activities. Other proposals (e.g., social science research) will be subject to even stricter 

considerations of the potential impacts to wildlife and its habitats, geological resources, cultural 

resources, aesthetics and visitor use and enjoyment. 

Availability of Resources

CLNWR staff responsibilities for projects by non-Service entities will primarily be limited to the 

review of proposals, preparation of SUP(s) and other compliance documents (e.g., Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act), and monitoring 

project implementation to ensure that impacts and conflicts remain within acceptable levels 

(compatibility) over time. Additional administrative support, logistical, and operational support may 

also be provided, depending on each specific request. 

Estimated costs for one-time (e.g., preparing a SUP) and annually reoccurring tasks by CLNWR staff 

and other Service employees will be determined for each project. Sufficient funding in the general 

operating budget of CLNWR must be available to cover expenses for these projects. The terms and 

conditions for funding and staff support necessary to administer each project on CLNWR will be 

clearly stated in the SUP(s). 

The following funding will be required to administer and manage research activities as described 

above. CLNWR has the funding to administratively support and monitor research that is currently 

taking place on the refuge. Any substantial increase in the number of projects will create a need for 

additional resources to oversee the administration and monitoring of the investigators and their 

projects. Any substantial additional costs above those itemized below may result in finding a project 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-56 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations

not compatible unless expenses are offset by the investigator(s), sponsoring agency, or organization. 

No special equipment, facilities, or improvements are anticipated. 

Activity or Project One Time 

Expense 

Recurring 

Expense 

Administration (Evaluation of 

Applications, Management of Permits, 

Oversight)

$2,000 

Monitoring $2,000 

Totals $4,000 

Itemized costs are current estimates calculated using 2% of the base cost for a GS-11 Refuge 

Biologist and a 2% cost of a GS-12 Refuge Manager. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use

Use of CLNWR to conduct research, scientific collecting and surveys will generally provide 

information that will benefit fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats. Scientific findings gained 

through these projects provide important information regarding life-history needs of species and 

species groups, as well as identify or refine management actions to achieve resource management 

objectives in refuge management plans (especially CCPs). Reducing uncertainty regarding wildlife 

and habitat responses to refuge management actions in order to achieve desired outcomes reflected in 

resource management objectives is essential for adaptive management in accordance with 522 DM 1. 

If project methods impact or conflict with refuge-specific resources, priority wildlife-dependent 

public uses, other high-priority research, wilderness and refuge habitat, and wildlife management 

programs, then it must be clearly demonstrated that its scientific findings will contribute to resource 

management and that the project cannot be conducted off refuge lands in order for the project to be 

compatible. The investigator(s) must identify methods/strategies in advance that are required to 

minimize or eliminate the potential impact(s) and conflict(s). If unacceptable impacts cannot be 

avoided, then the project will not be compatible. Projects that represent public or private economic 

use of the natural resources of any national wildlife refuge (e.g., bioprospecting), in accordance with 

16 U.S.C. 715s, must contribute to the achievement of the national wildlife refuge purposes or the 

NWRS mission to be compatible (50 CFR. 29.1). 

Impacts will be project- and site-specific, where they will vary depending upon nature and scope of 

the field work. Data collection techniques will generally have minimal animal mortality or 

disturbance, habitat destruction, no introduction of contaminants, and no introduction of nonindigenous species. In contrast, projects involving the collection of biotic samples (plants or 

animals), or requiring intensive ground-based data or sample collection, will have short-term 

impacts. 

To reduce impacts, the minimum number of samples (e.g., water, soils, vegetative litter, plants, 

macroinvertebrates, vertebrates) will be collected for identification and/or experimentation and 

statistical analysis. Where possible, researchers will coordinate and share collections to reduce 

sampling needed for multiple projects. For example, if one investigator collects fish for a diet study 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-57

and another research examines otoliths, then it may be possible to accomplish sampling for both 

projects with one collection effort. 

Investigator(s) obtaining required State, territorial and/or Federal collecting permits will also ensure 

minimal impacts to fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats. If, after incorporating the above 

strategies, projects will result in long-term or cumulative effects, they will not be found compatible. 

A Section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 Stat. 884, as 

amended, Public Law 93-205) will be required for activities that may affect a federally listed species 

and/or critical habitat. Only projects which have no effect, or will result in not likely to adversely 

affect determinations, will be considered compatible.

The spread of invasive plants and/or pathogens is possible from ground disturbance and/or 

transportation of project equipment and personnel, but it will be minimized or eliminated by 

requiring proper cleaning of investigator equipment and clothing, as well as implementation of 

quarantine methods where necessary. If, after all practical measures are taken and unacceptable 

spread of invasive species is anticipated to occur, then the project will be found not compatible 

without a restoration or mitigation plan. 

There also could be localized and temporary effects from vegetation trampling, collecting of soil and 

plant samples, or trapping and handling of wildlife. Impacts may also occur from infrastructure 

necessary to support a project (e.g., permanent transects or plot markers, exclosure devices, 

monitoring equipment, solar panels to power unattended monitoring equipment). Some level of 

disturbance is expected with these projects, especially if investigator(s) enter areas closed to the 

public and collect samples or handle wildlife. However, wildlife disturbance (including altered 

behavior) will usually be localized and temporary in nature. 

Where long-term or cumulative unacceptable effects cannot be avoidable, the project will be found 

not compatible. Project proposals will be reviewed by refuge staff and others, as needed, to assess 

the potential impacts (short-term, long-term and cumulative) relative to the benefits of the 

investigation to refuge management issues and understanding of natural systems. 

At least six months before initiation of field work (unless an exception is made by prior approval of 

the Project Leader), project investigator(s) must submit a detailed proposal using a standard format 

(www.fws.gov/mcriver/research/). Project proposals will be reviewed by refuge staff and others, as 

needed, to assess the potential impacts (short-term, long-term and cumulative) relative to the benefits 

of the investigation to refuge management issues and understanding of natural systems. This 

assessment will form the primary basis for allowing or denying a specific project. Projects which 

result in unacceptable refuge impacts will be found not compatible. If allowed and found compatible 

after approval, all projects will also be assessed during implementation to ensure impacts and 

conflicts remain within acceptable levels.

If the proposal is approved, then the Project Leader will issue an SUP(s) with required stipulations 

(terms and conditions) for the project to avoid and/or minimize potential impacts to refuge resources 

as well as conflicts with other public-use activities and refuge field management operations. After 

approval, projects are monitored during implementation to ensure impacts and conflicts remain 

within acceptable levels based upon documented stipulations. 

The combination of stipulations identified above and conditions included in any SUP(s) will ensure 

that proposed projects contribute to the enhancement, protection, conservation, and management of 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-58 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations

native wildlife populations and their habitats on CLNWR. As a result, these projects will help fulfill 

refuge purposes, contribute to the mission of the NWRS, and maintain the biological integrity, 

diversity, and environmental health of the refuge. 

Projects which are not covered by the CCP (objectives under Goal 5 [Gathering Scientific 

Information]) will require additional National Environmental Policy Act documentation. 

Public Review and Comment

This CD was submitted for a 30-day comment period for public review and response as part of the 

draft CCP and Environmental Assessment for Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge. 

Determination

The use is not compatible.

 X The use is compatible with the following stipulations. 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

If proposed research methods are evaluated and determined to have potential adverse impacts on 

wildlife or habitat, then the Project Leader will determine the utility and need of such research to 

conservation and management of wildlife and habitat. If the need is demonstrated by the research 

permittee, and accepted by the refuge, then measures to minimize potential impacts (e.g., reduce the 

numbers of researchers entering an area, restrict research in specified areas) will be developed and 

included as part of the study design and included on the SUP (each project will require a SUP). 

Other stipulations and provisions include: 

• Projects will adhere to scientifically defensible protocols for data collection, where available 

and applicable. 

• Investigators must possess and comply with appropriate conditions of State, territorial, and/or 

Federal permits for their projects. 

• SUPs will contain specific terms and conditions that the researcher(s) must follow relative to 

activity, location, duration, seasonality, etc., to ensure continued compatibility. All refuge 

rules and regulations (50 CFR) must be followed, unless otherwise exempted in writing by 

Service management.

• Annual or other short-term SUPs are preferred; however, some permits will be a longer 

period, if needed, to allow completion of the project. All SUPs will have a definite 

termination date in accordance with 5 RM 17.11. Renewals will be subject to Project Leader 

review and approval based on timely submission of and content in progress reports, 

compliance with SUP stipulations, and required permits. 

• Continuation of existing projects will require approval by the Project Leader. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-59

• Progress reports are required at least annually for multiple-year projects. The minimum 

required elements for a progress report will be provided to investigator(s) (see 

www.fws.gov/mcriver/research/).

• Final reports are due one year after completion of the project unless negotiated otherwise 

with the Project Leader. 

• Service staff will be given the opportunity to review draft manuscript(s) from the project 

before being submitted to a scientific journal(s) for consideration of publication. 

• Service staff will be provided with copies (reprints) of all publications resulting from a refuge 

project. 

• The NWRS, specific refuge and names of Service staff that supported or contributed to the 

project will be appropriately cited and acknowledged in all written and oral presentations 

resulting from projects on refuge lands. 

• Service staff will be provided with copies of raw data (preferably electronic database format) 

at the conclusion of the project. 

• Sampling equipment, as well as investigator(s)’ clothing and vehicles (e.g., ATV, boats), will 

be thoroughly cleaned (free of dirt and plant material) before being allowed for use on refuge 

lands to prevent the introduction and/or spread of disease or pests. Where necessary, 

quarantine methods will be implemented (see www.fws.gov/mcriver/research/).

• Upon completion of the project (or annually if the project is multi-year), all equipment and 

markers (unless required for long-term projects), must be removed and sites must be restored 

to the Refuge Manager’s satisfaction. Conditions for clean-up and removal of equipment and 

physical markers will be stipulated in the SUP(s). Failure to remove research paraphernalia 

will result in the principal investigator not being permitted to conduct future scientific studies 

on refuge lands within the Mid-Columbia River refuges. 

• Sensitive wildlife habitat areas will be avoided unless sufficient protection from research 

activities (i.e., disturbance, collection, capture and handling) is implemented to limit the area 

and/or wildlife potentially affected by the proposed research. 

• All samples collected on refuge lands are the property of the Service even while in the 

possession of the investigator(s). Any future work with previously collected samples not 

clearly identified in the project proposal will require submission of a subsequent proposal for 

review and approval. In addition, a new SUP will be required for additional project work. 

For samples or specimens to be stored at other facilities (e.g., museums), a memorandum of 

understand will be necessary (see www.fws.gov/mcriver/research/). 

• Investigator(s) and support staff will follow all CLNWR-specific regulations that specify 

access and travel on the refuge.

• When and where needed, some areas may be temporarily/seasonally closed to researchers; 

research can be permitted to resume when impacts to wildlife and habitat are no longer a 

concern. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-60 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations

• Research activities will be modified to avoid harm to sensitive wildlife and habitat when 

unforeseen impacts arise, such as wildfire altering landscape conditions or large declines in a 

population. 

• If unacceptable impacts to natural resources or conflicts arise, or are documented by Service

staff, then the Project Leader can suspend, modify conditions of, or terminate an on-going 

project already permitted by SUP(s) on CLNWR. 

• At any time, Service staff may accompany investigator(s) in the field. 

• The criteria for evaluating a research proposal, outlined in the Description of Use section 

above, will be used when determining whether a proposed study will be approved on 

CLNWR. 

Service staff will monitor researcher activities for compliance with conditions outlined on the SUP. 

The Project Leader may determine that previously approved research and SUP be terminated:

1) If the researcher is out of compliance with permit conditions; 

2) To ensure wildlife and habitat protection; and/or 

3) To protect visitor and public safety. 

Justification

Natural resource inventories, monitoring and research are not only provisions of the National 

Wildlife Refuge Administration Act, they are necessary tools to maintain biological integrity, 

diversity and environmental health, which are also key provisions of the Act. Inventories, 

monitoring, and research are intended to improve habitat, wildlife populations, biological integrity, 

diversity and environmental health, and to monitor public use impacts. Monitoring and research will 

directly benefit and support CLNWR goals, objectives, and management plans and activities, as well 

as contribute to recovery of endangered/threatened species.

Research, scientific collecting and surveys on refuge lands are inherently valuable to the Service

because they expand scientific information available for resource management decisions. In 

addition, only projects which directly or indirectly contribute to the enhancement, protection, use, 

preservation, and management of refuge wildlife populations and their habitats generally will be 

authorized on refuge lands. In many cases, if it were not for Service staff providing access to refuge 

lands and waters, along with some support, the project would never occur and less scientific 

information would be available to the Service to aid in managing and conserving the refuge 

resources. 

Monitoring and research investigations are also an important component of adaptive management. 

Standardized monitoring will be used to ensure data compatibility for comparisons from across the 

landscape. 

Wildlife-dependent public uses (wildlife viewing, photography, environmental education, 

interpretation, fishing and hunting) will also benefit as a result of increased biodiversity, wildlife, and 

native plant populations. Refuge staff will ensure research projects contribute to the enhancement, 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-61

protection, preservation and management of wildlife populations and their habitats, thereby helping 

CLNWR fulfill the purposes for which it was established, the mission of the NWRS, and the need to 

maintain ecological integrity.

By allowing the use to occur under the stipulations described above, it is anticipated that wildlife 

species which could be disturbed during the use will find sufficient food resources and resting places 

so that their abundance and use will not be measurably lessened on CLNWR. Additionally, it is 

anticipated that monitoring, as needed, will prevent unacceptable or irreversible impacts to fish, 

wildlife, plants and their habitats. As a result, these projects will not materially interfere with, or 

detract from, fulfilling CLNWR’s purposes, contributing to the mission of the NWRS, and 

maintaining the biological integrity, diversity and environmental health of the refuge. 

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date

Provide month and year for allowed uses only. 

Mandatory 15-year re-evaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses). 

 X Mandatory 10-year re-evaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public uses). 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision

Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement. 

Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement. 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact. 

Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision. 

Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-63

Compatibility Determination

Timber Harvest

Use

Timber Harvest

Refuge Name

Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge (CLNWR) 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities

Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. § 715d) 

Acquisition of lands for recreational development; funds (16 U.S.C. § 460k-1) 

Refuge Recreation Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 460k-460k-4)

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. § 1534)

Refuge Purposes

The purposes for CLNWR have been identified in historic legal documentation establishing and 

adding refuge lands. The refuge was established to preserve important habitat for migratory birds 

with refuge purposes specified as follows:

“... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 

U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) 

 

“. . . suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species . . .”.

16 U.S.C. § 460k-1 

 

“. . . the Secretary . . . may accept and use . . . real . . . property. Such acceptance may be 

accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors . . .”. 16 

U.S.C. § 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 460k-460k-4), as amended) 

 

“. . . to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened species . . . 

or (B) plants . . .”. 16 U.S.C. § 1534 (Endangered Species Act of 1973) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission 

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) is to administer a national network of 

lands and waters for the conservation, management and, where appropriate, restoration of the fish, 

wildlife and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-64 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations

Description of Use

This compatibility determination examines commercial timber harvest in the CLNWR CCP. The 

management goals and objectives defined in the CCP reference individual stand prescriptions 

detailed in Silvicultural Recommendations: Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge (White 2009). 

Commercial timber harvest has not been used as a habitat management tool on the refuge in the past. 

A managed commercial timber harvest program is needed to better meet refuge purposes and goals as 

new biological data are acquired, and there is a need for more accessible habitat management tools. 

The primary objective of the commercial timber harvest program is to develop habitats that address 

the needs of focal species, provide a diversity of habitats, and meet other management objectives. 

Treatments are prescribed to maintain tree vigor and the resilience of forest stands and to assist 

ecological processes associated with the more open forest conditions that historically existed. 

However, prescriptions are also aimed at maintaining some older forest conditions that are relatively 

rare in the managed forest landscape surrounding the refuge, thus addressing the needs of focal 

species. For example, dead and down trees, pockets of dense forest, and tree species diversity help to 

maintain habitat diversity and conditions important to many species. 

Uses of commercial timber harvest as a management tool may include, but would not be limited to 

the following: thinning of ponderosa pine and mixed conifer stands, creation of small openings in 

various stands, removal of young trees that are colonizing meadows, maintenance and creation of 

snags, and removal of conifers that are overtopping and shading small stands of hardwoods (quaking 

aspen and Oregon White Oak). 

Commercial timber harvest prescriptions are detailed in Silvicultural Recommendations: Conboy 

Lake National Wildlife Refuge. There, specific forest management prescriptions are identified to 

achieve habitat goals in specific stands of ponderosa pine forest, ponderosa pine/lodgepole pine 

forest, mixed conifer forest, oak woodlands, and aspen stands. Approximately 1,500 acres of 

forested habitat is available to conduct forest management. Approximately 200-400 acres of forest 

will be treated annually as prescribed in the silvicultural recommendations. 

Commercial contractors will be used for some forest management activities, including 

precommercial and commercial thinning and selective harvesting. Forest management activities not 

completed by commercial contractors will be completed by refuge staff and volunteers. The 

purposes of each treatment are to aid progression of forest structure and composition to more natural 

conditions and may include any one or more of the following objectives: 

• Increasing the proportion of mature forest. 

• Maintaining mature forest components. 

• Preparing select stands for low-intensity prescribed fire. 

• Reducing tree densities in overstocked stands, favoring mature and over-mature trees and 

promoting diameter and height growth in the remaining stand. 

• Creating small openings within stands. 

• Removing small pines encroaching within wet and dry meadows. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-65

• Creating and/or retaining snags. 

Commercial timber harvest with the use of heavy equipment will in most cases occur during summer 

and fall months when soil moisture conditions are dry and stands are accessible. Other periods may 

be considered based upon the equipment being used and the moisture level in soils. Forest units will 

be cruised and marked by contractors or refuge staff prior to bid proposals going out to potential 

permittees. Awards will be determined through competitive bidding. The successful bidder will be 

issued an SUP with conditions attached. 

This use is not defined as a wildlife-dependent recreational use under the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Administration Act. This is a refuge management economic activity, and its utilization will 

help the refuge achieve the purposes for which it was created and the mission of the NWRS. 

Availability of Resources

The following funds will be required to run a program as designed under the CCP. For the one-time 

expenses, all available sources will be investigated.

Activity or Project One Time 

Expense 

Recurring 

Expense 

(Each Sale) 

Administration (Management of 

Permits/Contracts, Oversight) $4,000 

Cruising and Marking Timber Sales $20,000 

Monitoring $5,000 

Re-enforcement/Rehabilitation of Haul 

Road $50,000 

Rehabilitation of Skid Trails, Etc. $30,000 

Totals $109,000 

Revenues received by the refuge are submitted to the United States Treasury. Each sale site includes 

an estimate of rehabilitation work needed, and prospective purchasers need to submit a bid to pay for 

this work. The permittee either pays directly or reimburses the Service for costs of rehabilitation and 

monitoring on each sale site. The refuge does not anticipate the need for recurring road maintenance 

or reseeding after the contract closes. It is anticipated that each sale will cost the Service only the 

price of administration and the marking of timber sales ($24,000). Refuge operational funds are 

currently available through the Service budget process to administer this program, and it is possible 

that some portion of the timber sale marking will be recovered through money coming back to the 

NWRS from the timber sales. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use

All forest types will be subject to forest management treatments over the 15-year span of the CCP. 

The long-term intent of the treatments is to rehabilitate the forest structure and composition to 

conditions more closely resembling those present just prior to settlement by American pioneers and 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-66 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations

homesteaders. The forest treatments undertaken will have the objective of increasing stand vigor, 

increasing the proportion of mature forest, maintaining or enhancing the presence of mature forest 

components, and preparing the stands for the reintroduction of low-intensity ground fires. 

This will be accomplished by removing excess trees, mostly from age classes of less than 70 years 

old. Cut-tree selection in these age classes will be based upon those trees exhibiting poor form, 

vigor, or that face a significant risk of disease or insect mortality. Trees aged 100 years or older will

largely be left standing to continue to develop. In some instances older trees could be marked for 

removal where reduced competition and better spacing will enhance the longevity and vigor of 

neighboring desirable trees. Since a primary component of mature forests is the presence of 

defects—including broken tops, flattened tops, mistletoe brooms, heart rot, large coarse branches and 

decay, all of which are important to wildlife—trees with these kinds of defects will mostly be left 

standing. 

The effect of these treatments will be to reduce the overall tree density, generally favoring the larger, 

older trees with characteristics favorable to wildlife. Such treatments are considered to be 

particularly effective at promoting the diameter and height growth of the remaining stand, thus 

speeding the development of mature and old growth characteristics, such as large boles, large limbs, 

and robust canopies (Oliver and Larson 1990). Thinning and the use of prescribed fire is also 

intended to promote conditions that are favorable to reintroduction of a more natural fire disturbance 

regime over the long term, thus lessening the likelihood of a catastrophic or lethal fire that could 

wipe out huge areas.

The potential negative impacts of commercial tree harvest include short-term ground disturbance 

from the use of heavy equipment and disturbance to wildlife from tree harvest activities. It is 

expected that each year for the next 15 years, between 25 and 50 acres of the refuge will be subject to 

potentially ground-disturbing activities. Ground disturbance will likely occur when skidding trees to 

a landing. Impact will also occur at the landing site during log processing and loading. Ground 

disturbance may increase the risk of invasion by exotic plants (Hobbs and Huennekke 1992). 

Rehabilitation of these sites by planting native plants or seeds will reduce the risk of invasion, as well 

as mitigate the site disturbance.

Impacts to wetlands can be expected if heavy equipment is allowed to work within the wetland basin 

or near the wetland edge. This disturbance can increase erosion and sediment transport to the 

wetland. Increased sedimentation can impact aquatic plant and animal communities. To alleviate 

these potential impacts, timber management activities will take place in the fall, when most wetlands 

are dry, or in the winter, when the ground is frozen, to avoid erosion and sediment transport. 

Some disturbance of wildlife is expected to occur during tree harvest activity, which creates noise in 

addition to the presence of machinery and people. Some upland birds (songbirds, grouse, owls, and 

hawks), black-tailed deer, Rocky mountain elk, and coyotes are expected to avoid areas of high 

activity. However, these species will readily move back into these sites after the disturbance is 

removed, and most of these species will benefit in the long-term from an increase in forage, seeds, 

and the resultant rodents. This level of activity is expected to occur on less than five percent of the 

refuge at any given time.

Timber management activities may affect State threatened western gray squirrels (Sciurus griseus) 

by removal of nest trees, reducing food sources, and fragmenting the tree canopy (Linders et al. 

2010). However, any activities conducted in western gray squirrel habitat are intended to improve 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-67

habitat (e.g., creating snags), and care will be taken not to remove nest trees. Tree removal may 

improve habitat conditions for other small mammals, such as mice and voles (Suzuki and Hayes 

2003). 

If tree harvest occurs during the summer months, foliage-roosting bats, such as silver-haired bats 

(Lasionycteris noctivagans) and hoary bats (Lasiurus cinereus), may be dislodged from roost trees, 

or killed if roost trees are felled (Hayes 2003, Hayes and Loeb 2007). Timber management activities 

may also affect the abundance, distribution, and quality of roosting sites for these species (Hayes 

2003). Several other species of bat, including big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus), little brown bats 

(Myotis lucifugus), California myotis (Myotis californicus), and small-footed myotis (Myotis 

ciliolabrum), rely on coniferous forests for foraging or occasional roosting (Carter and Menzel 2007; 

Kunz and Lumsden 2006; Lacki et al. 2007). Snags and trees with rot, splits, or cracks provide 

roosting habitat and should be retained for bats (Carter and Menzel 2007; Hayes 2003; Hayes and 

Loeb 2007; Kunz and Lumsden 2006); the SUPs issued will include this as an important measure. 

Tree harvest activities occurring during the nesting season can directly impact both ground- and 

foliage-nesting birds. Delaying timber management until the fall or winter greatly reduces these 

impacts (Altman 2000). Cavity nesting birds may be impacted if snags or dead top trees are removed 

(Mannan et al. 1980; Zarnowitz and Manuwal 1985). No snags will to be cut if they measure 8" dbh 

or larger. 

 

Greater Sandhill cranes are a species of concern on the refuge and are sensitive to disturbances 

(Littlefield and Ivey 2002). To avoid nest abandonment, any major tree harvest will occur outside of 

the nesting season, and minor tree removal will be restricted to areas farther than 0.25 mile from 

active nests.

While some short-term negative effects on wildlife and habitats are possible as a result of tree 

removal, timber management activities will be limited in scale, scope, and season in such a way that 

those negative effects will be limited. Mandatory rehabilitation will reverse the impacts, and the 

long-term benefits to species and stand vigor outweigh the potential drawbacks of tree removal. 

Public Review and Comment

This CD was submitted for a 30-day comment period for public review and response as part of the 

draft CCP and Environmental Assessment for Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge. 

Determination

The use is not compatible.

 X The use is compatible with the following stipulations. 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

The stipulations needed to ensure a successful timber harvest fall under several different areas. 

Specifically:
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-68 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations

Equipment

Unless approved in writing in advance by the Refuge Manager, only high-flotation, rubber-tired 

equipment will be permitted.

Only rubber-tired forwarders may be used. 

Metal-tracked vehicles may be used at the landings and along existing roads with the prior approval 

of the Refuge Manager. 

Under no circumstances shall oil, grease, fuel, de-greasers, or other hazardous chemicals be dumped, 

buried, or otherwise disposed of in the treatment unit or elsewhere on CLNWR. 

Ground Disturbance Areas, Roads, and Landings

Harvesting and heavy equipment use will be limited to periods of time when soils are either frozen or 

the soil moisture is just enough to cushion the ground but not be either soggy nor powder dry. The 

Refuge Manager will make the determination whether or not the ground conditions are right for 

operation. 

Trees will be skidded by lifting the butt-end off the ground to minimize ground disturbance. 

New road construction will not be allowed. 

Existing road access will be improved, as specified in the SUP, if necessary for the specific harvest 

and equipment will be hauled to the harvest and landing sites so that road surface degradation can be 

avoided. 

Landings will be of the minimum size required and will not encompass more than 5 acres of the sale.

The Service will comply with current policies and procedures related to cultural resource protection 

and perform mitigation required through a cultural resources review. 

Sensitive Resource Protection

Limited tree harvest activities will be allowed during the peak of the spring/summer breeding season 

to avoid impacts to roosting bats and ground- and foliage-nesting birds. The determination will be 

made by the Refuge Manager as to location and quantity of harvest allowed during this period. 

No snags or dead top trees capable of housing cavity-using wildlife will be removed (i.e., snags and 

dead top trees >8 inches dbh shall be retained). 

Heavy equipment will not be allowed within 25 yards of a wetland. 

Any trees cut within 25 yards of wetlands must be manually felled away from the wetland and cabled 

outside the buffer area before skidding. 

Heavy equipment will not be used on large exposed rock outcrops. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-69

Known cultural resource areas will not be disturbed. Contracts will be designed to avoid known 

cultural resource areas. If new cultural resource sites are discovered during contract activities, 

contract modification will be undertaken to avoid further ground disturbance in the area. 

Excessive disturbance of wildlife and disturbance to sensitive areas and cultural resources will result 

in SUP suspension. 

Rehabilitation

All soil surfaces disturbed by harvest operations shall be restored to their natural surface contours 

and topsoil replaced if needed. 

Rehabilitation of disturbed areas by re-seeding with native species will be required of all timber 

operators. 

Administrative Stipulations

The Service will provide the permittee with maps of wetland and other sensitive areas (cultural or 

historical). 

Monitoring provided by the permittee will be completed on all treatment areas to assure stipulations 

are adhered to, expected benefits are realized, and negative impacts fall within the range anticipated.

Justification

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act established a three-tiered hierarchy for 

management activities that occur on NWRS lands. The first tier involves management actions that 

specifically assist the refuge in fulfilling the purpose(s) for which it was established (e.g., migratory 

birds and other wildlife) and the NWRS mission, including the conservation, management, and 

restoration of fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats. The second and third tiers involve 

wildlife-dependent public uses (i.e., hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, 

environmental education and interpretation) and general public uses. Management tools that help 

refuges achieve established refuge purposes become first-tier management priorities, when properly 

authorized through signed management plans and compatibility determinations. When management 

tools (such as grazing, haying, pest management, or prescribed burning) are not specifically used on 

a refuge to help achieve established refuge purposes, then these activities fall into the third, lowest 

priority tier. As described above, managing forested habitats at CLNWR through commercial timber 

harvest will provide habitat in the form of food, cover, breeding areas, rearing areas and sanctuary for 

a variety of wildlife, including migratory birds, elk and deer. 

There are specific Service regulations which address economic uses of refuges. At 50 CFR 29.1, it 

states, in part, that the Service . . . may only authorize public or private economic use of the natural 

resources of any national wildlife refuge, in accordance with 16 USC 715s, where we determine that 

the use contributes to the achievement of the national wildlife refuge purposes or the NWRS mission. 

This regulatory standard is in addition to the compatibility requirement. Commercial timber harvest 

is listed in the regulations as an example of a use to which this provision applies. Forest management 

policy for the Refuge System is described in 6 RM 3 and includes commercial contracts.
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-70 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations

The commercial timber harvest program as described is determined to be compatible. Based on the 

impacts described in the draft CCP and EA (Service 2014), it is determined that commercial timber 

harvest within CLNWR will not materially interfere with, or detract from, the purposes for which the 

refuge was established or the mission of the NWRS. The use of commercial tree harvesting instead 

contributes to the NWRS mission and the purposes of CLNWR by helping to rehabilitate and manage 

the refuge’s forested habitats for the historical conditions of widely spaced, large-diameter trees and 

by reducing the encroachment of pine trees into meadow and riparian areas. It also supports the 

National Fire Plan in reducing hazardous fuel loads on Federal lands. 

As detailed in the Silvicultural Plan, the refuge’s forests are densely stocked due to past logging and 

fire suppression. Current conditions are ripe in some stands for catastrophic loss to insects, disease, 

and/or fire. While fire was the primary natural disturbance that maintained healthy historic forest 

conditions on the refuge, a combination of commercial tree harvesting and prescribed fire is needed 

to address today’s current forest conditions, social values, air quality, human safety concerns and 

resource protection needs.

Commercial timber harvest will directly benefit and support refuge goals, objectives, management 

plans and activities. Populations of fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats will improve through 

forest management, which will result in short-term and long-term reductions of non-native invasive 

plant species; increases in native plant populations; increases in biomass; improved conditions for 

migratory birds and local deer and elk herds; and long-term improved nesting conditions for some 

migratory bird species. Consequently, the commercial timber harvest program will increase or 

maintain the biological integrity, diversity and environmental health of the refuge. 

The wildlife-dependent, priority public uses (i.e., hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, 

environmental education and interpretation) will also benefit as a result of the increased biodiversity, 

wildlife and native plant populations realized from improved habitat conditions associated with the 

commercial timber harvest program. 

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date

Provide month and year for allowed uses only. 

Mandatory 15-year re-evaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses). 

 X Mandatory 10-year re-evaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public uses). 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision

Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement. 

Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement.

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact. 

_____ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-71

References

Altman, B. 2000. Conservation strategy for landbirds of the east-slope of the Cascade Mountains in 

Oregon and Washington. Report to Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight. 131 pages. 

Carter, T.C., and J.M. Menzel. 2007. Behavior and day-roosting ecology of North American 

foliage-roosting bats. Pages 61-82 in Bats in Forests: Conservation and Management. M.J. Lacki, 

J.P. Hayes and A. Kurta, editors. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. 

Hayes, J.P. 2003. Habitat ecology and conservation of bats in western coniferous forests. Pages 81-

119 in Mammal Community Dynamics: Management and Conservation in the Coniferous Forests of 

Western North America. C.J. Zabel and R.G. Anthony, editors. Cambridge University Press, New 

York, New York. 

Hayes, J.P., and S.C. Loeb. 2007. The influences of forest management on bats in North America. 

Pages 207-236 in Bats in Forests: Conservation and Management. M.J. Lacki, J.P. Hayes and A. 

Kurta, editors. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. 

Hobbs, R.J., and L.F. Huennekke. 1992. Disturbance, diversity, and invasion: Implications for 

conservation. Conservation Biology 6:324-337. 

Kunz, T.H., and L.F. Lumsden. 2006. Ecology of cavity and foliage roosting bats. Pages 3-89 in

Bat Ecology. T.H. Kunz and M.B. Fenton, editors. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.

Lacki, M.J., S.K. Amelon, and M.D. Baker. 2007 Foraging ecology of bats in forests. Pages 83-128 

in Bats in Forests: Conservation and Management. M.J. Lacki, J.P. Hayes and A. Kurta, editors. 

Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. 

Linders, M.J., W.M. Vander Haegen, J.M. Azerrad, R. Dobson, and T. Labbe. 2010. Management 

recommendations for Washington’s priority species: Western gray squirrel. Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 

Littlefield, C.D., and G.L. Ivey. 2002. Washington State recovery plan for the Sandhill crane. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 71 pages. 

Mannan, R.W., E.C. Meslow, and H.M. Wight. 1980. Use of snags by birds in Douglas-fir forests, 

western Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 44:787-797. 

Oliver, C.D., and B.C. Larson. 1990. Forest Stand Dynamics. McGraw-Hill, New York, New York.

Suzuki, N., and J.P. Hayes. 2003. Effects of thinning on small mammals in Oregon coastal forests. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 67:352-371. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Burbank, 

Washington. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-72 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations

White, J. 2009. Silvicultural recommendations: Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge. 

Unpublished report. Washington State Conservation Commission, Olympia, Washington, for the 

Underwood Conservation District, White Salmon, Washington. 

Zarnowitz, J.E., and D.A. Manuwal. 1985. The effects of forest management on cavity-nesting birds 

in northwestern Washington. Journal of Wildlife Management 49:255-263. 

Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-74 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-75

Compatibility Determination

Waterfowl Hunting

Use

Waterfowl Hunting: Waterfowl, Coot, Snipe 

Refuge Name

Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge (CLNWR) 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities

Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. § 715d) 

Acquisition of lands for recreational development; funds (16 U.S.C. § 460k-1) 

Refuge Recreation Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 460k-460k-4)

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. § 1534)

Refuge Purposes

The purposes for CLNWR have been identified in historic legal documentation establishing and 

adding refuge lands. The refuge was established to preserve important habitat for migratory birds 

with refuge purposes specified as follows: 

“. . . for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 

U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) 

 

“. . . suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species . . .”.

16 U.S.C. § 460k-1 

 

“. . . the Secretary . . . may accept and use . . . real . . . property. Such acceptance may be 

accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors . . .” 16 

U.S.C. § 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 460k-460k-4), as amended) 

 

“. . . to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened species . . . 

or (B) plants . . .”. 16 U.S.C. § 1534 (Endangered Species Act of 1973) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission 

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) is to administer a national network of 

lands and waters for the conservation, management and, where appropriate, restoration of the fish, 

wildlife and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-76 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations

Description of Use

This compatibility determination does not propose changes to the current waterfowl hunting program 

on CLNWR. Only select portions of the refuge are open to waterfowl hunting (approximately 2,343 

acres), and the areas include wet meadows and wetlands. Within those areas hunting is free-roam 

and open for access from 1-1/2 hours before the start of legal hunting within the State of Washington 

to 1-1/2 hours after the end of legal hunting hours, 7 days a week. Only shotguns, muzzleloaders and 

archery equipment may be used, as appropriate to the species being hunted and in accordance with 

State of Washington regulations. Only federally approved non-toxic shot may be used or possessed, 

and hunters are limited to 25 shells per day. 

Hunters may only enter the hunting area from one of four designated parking areas. The hunting 

areas themselves are walk-in only, except bicycles may be used on designated motorized routes of 

travel. Waterfowl hunters may use non-motorized boats in some areas to set decoys and retrieve 

downed birds; boats are not allowed in the Camas Drain/Outlet Creek, Bird Creek Canal, or Cold 

Springs Canal. Portable or temporary blinds constructed of non-living natural materials are 

permitted. 

The refuge hosts a youth waterfowl hunt, which typically occurs two weeks prior to the general hunt 

opening weekend. Youth hunters must be accompanied by an adult non-hunter. 

The refuge estimates that there are approximately 120 waterfowl hunting visits each year. The 

overall harvest success, typically measured by the number of birds harvested per hunter per day, is 

unknown. The most common species harvested include Canada geese, mallards, northern pintails 

and American wigeons. 

The refuge does not have a law enforcement officer on site. This function is administered from 

MCRNWRC, which is located four hours from CLNWR. As a result, there is a limited amount of 

time enforcing and ensuring compliance with State and refuge-specific regulations on the refuge. 

Field checks by refuge law enforcement officers are planned, conducted and coordinated with 

Service staff and other agencies to maintain compliance with regulations. Dogs, which are normally 

required to be kept on leash, are allowed when engaged in authorized hunting activities and under the 

immediate control of a licensed hunter. The refuge’s hunting regulations are available on a tear-sheet 

with a map, available at the CLNWR Headquarters, hunter access points and on-line. In addition to 

covering refuge-specific regulations, the tear-sheet and web site inform the public of hunting 

opportunities. 

The species that will be hunted include waterfowl (ducks, geese), coot and snipe. 

Availability of Resources

The following table shows the estimated funds needed to administer the program. Existing refuge 

resources are adequate to properly and safely administer the use as described. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-77

Activity or Project One Time 

Expense 

Recurring 

Expense 

Administration and Support Costs 

(Management, Law Enforcement, Staff) $5,000 

Maintenance of Facilities (Roads, 

Parking Areas, Signs, Etc.) $3,000 

Updating & Printing of Hunting 

Regulations $1,000 

Totals $9,000 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use

Hunting can impact wildlife in a variety of ways. Direct effects of hunting include mortality, 

wounding, and disturbance (De Long 2002). Human disturbance associated with hunting includes 

loud noises and rapid movements, such as those produced by shotguns. This disturbance, especially 

when repeated over a period of time, compels waterfowl to change food habits (e.g., foraging time), 

feed only at night, lose weight, or desert feeding areas (Madsen 1995; Wolder 1993). 

In addition to changes in feeding behavior, there may also be changes in population structure and 

distribution patterns of wildlife (Bartelt 1987; Cole and Knight 1990; Madsen 1985; Owens 1977; 

Raveling 1979; Thomas 1983; White-Robinson 1982). For example, there appears to be an inverse 

relationship between the numbers of birds using an area and hunting intensity (DeLong 2002); in 

Connecticut, lesser scaup were observed to forage less in areas that were heavily hunted (Cronan 

1957). In California, the numbers of northern pintails on the Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge’s 

non-hunted areas increased after the first week of hunting and remained high until the season was 

over in early January (Heitmeyer and Raveling 1988). Following the close of the hunting season, the 

ducks generally increased their use of the hunted area; however, use was lower than before the 

hunting season began. 

These impacts can be reduced by the presence of adjacent sanctuary areas where hunting does not 

occur and where birds can feed and rest relatively undisturbed. Sanctuaries or non-hunt areas have 

been identified as the most common solution to disturbance problems caused from hunting (Havera 

et. al 1992). Prolonged and extensive disturbances may cause large numbers of waterfowl to leave 

disturbed areas and migrate to sanctuary areas (Madsen 1995; Paulus 1984). In Denmark, hunting 

disturbance effects were experimentally tested by establishing two sanctuaries (Madsen 1995). Over 

a 5-year period, these sanctuaries became two of the most important staging areas for coastal 

waterfowl; the numbers of dabbling ducks and geese increased 4- to 20-fold within the sanctuary 

(Madsen 1995). 

In another study, mallards redistributed locally following a disturbance, which lead to a 

recommendation that refuge areas should be established proximate to areas that are hunted, and if 

possible, disturbance should be managed as a comprehensive whole rather than property by property 

(Dooley 2010). Thus, sanctuary and non-hunt areas are very important to minimize disturbance to 

waterfowl populations to ensure their continued use of CLNWR. The refuge provides 4,080 acres of 

sanctuary habitat where hunting and other disturbances do not occur. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-78 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations

Intermittent hunting can be a means of minimizing disturbance, especially if rest periods in between 

hunting events are weeks rather than days (Fox and Madsen 1997). Although CLNWR does not 

subscribe to intermittent hunting, and offers hunting seven days a week, the refuge receives 

approximately 120 hunting visits per year, thus minimizing wildlife impacts through a lack of 

hunting pressure. The lack of hunting pressure is likely due to the remoteness of the refuge from 

major metropolitan areas, an inconsistent waterfowl presence in the fall, and an early freeze-up, 

which typically occurs by late November. Most hunting is opportunistic and occurs late in the season 

during January if the ice melts and when large numbers of waterfowl use the refuge during the 

initiation of spring migration. 

The Pacific Flyway Council, of which the Service is the convening agency, sets annual waterfowl 

hunting parameters, determining if there is a harvestable population in any given year. To assure that 

populations are sustainable, the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission, in consultation with the 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), annually reviews the population censuses to 

establish season lengths and harvest levels. In light of harvestable populations and due to low 

hunting pressure, the limited number of individuals expected to be removed from wildlife 

populations due to hunting will not cause populations to materially decline; the physiological 

condition and production of hunted species will not be impaired; their behavior and normal activity 

patterns will not be altered dramatically; and their overall welfare will not be negatively impacted.

In addition, harvest data are reported by hunters to WDFW, and season and bag limits are adjusted 

accordingly to ensure that overall populations of game species remain healthy into the future, thus 

ensuring that impacts are minor. Impacts to species numbers and composition will be monitored, 

and, if necessary, additional measures will be developed in coordination with WDFW to protect 

refuge resources. 

The refuge hunting program indirectly impacts species other than those targeted by hunters. The 

presence of hunters and dogs, sounds of gunfire, and the sight of hunters traveling to, from, and 

within hunting areas can disturb other wildlife species such as elk, deer, passerine birds and other 

waterbirds that use refuge wetlands. This disturbance, especially when repeated over a period of 

time, may result in some wildlife species altering food habits or moving to other areas. However, 

waterfowl hunting occurs at a time of year when few birds are present, so impacts are minor, at 

worst. Although deer and elk can be affected, few are present in the waterfowl hunting areas during 

this time period, and those that are present do not have to travel far to reach a sanctuary area; impacts 

are deemed to be minor. 

Foot travel associated with waterfowl hunting could potentially result in trampling of vegetation and 

other impacts (see the General Uses CD for a full discussion). However, since waterfowl hunting on 

the refuge involves small numbers of hunters and takes place during the time of the year when most 

understory plants are dormant, this activity has little direct impact on any native plant species.

The presence of retrieving dogs can disturb wildlife through motion and sound. On CLNWR the use 

of retrieving dogs is permitted and encouraged in all areas open to waterfowl hunting. These dogs 

are required to be under control at all times. Any hunter who allows his/her dog to disturb wildlife is 

not well-received by other hunters who do not want waterfowl disturbed in areas they are hunting. 

Law enforcement officers will enforce regulations requiring owners to maintain control over their 

dogs while on the refuge. Between regulatory compliance, the timing of the hunt, and the very 

limited number of hunters, the use of dogs is expected to result in negligible impacts, especially 

when considered as additive to the presence of the hunter to begin with. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-79

To further mitigate impacts, proper zoning, regulations, and refuge seasons are designated to 

minimize any negative impacts to wildlife populations using the refuge. Harvesting waterfowl will 

not result in a decrease in biological diversity on the refuge, nor substantially impact refuge 

resources. 

Although conflicts between user groups can arise, this is currently not a significant issue at the 

present levels of use. Should significant conflicts become evident in the future, changes to the 

program will be made to minimize conflicts and ensure public safety. To minimize potential conflict, 

the refuge will implement the following:

• Physically separate non-hunting and hunting acres to spatially divide the activities.

• Maintaining boundary and hunting area signs to clearly define the designated hunting areas. 

• Allowing vehicle traffic only on designated roads and parking areas. 

• Signing parking areas to allow only pedestrian hunter access to hunting areas.

• Managing the hunting program in strict accordance with all applicable Federal laws (50 CFR 

Subchapter C) and to the extent practicable, consistent with applicable State laws.

• Performing field checks by Service and WDFW law enforcement officers to maintain 

compliance with regulations.

• Providing information about the refuge hunting program through signs, kiosks, brochures, 

and the refuge’s website. 

The public fishing area is within the public hunting area. Since the State fishing season does not 

close until October 31, and the State waterfowl hunting season normally opens in mid-October, there 

is a possibility of conflict during the time these two seasons overlap. However, since sport fishing at 

the refuge is minimal, particularly at that time of the year, conflicts have not occurred, and none are 

expected. 

The public parking/access area adjacent to the Glenwood-BZ Corners Road presents a potential for 

conflict/confrontation between hunters and non-consumptive wildlife users. Although the hunting 

area is not open to the general public, the hunting area can be seen from the parking area, and both 

groups can use the lot at the same time. However, since general public use of this area is minimal 

during the hunting season (late fall early winter), conflicts have not occurred, and few, if any, are 

expected. 

Public Review and Comment

This CD was submitted for a 30-day comment period for public review and response as part of the 

draft CCP and Environmental Assessment for Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge. 

Determination

The use is not compatible.
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-80 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations

 X The use is compatible with the following stipulations. 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

To ensure compatibility with NWRS and CLNWR goals and objectives, waterfowl hunting can only 

occur under the following stipulations: 

• Hunters must obey all State and Federal hunting regulations. 

• Hunting will be permitted from within designated hunting areas only. 

• Hunters will use existing open roads and parking areas to access hunting areas. Access will 

be walk-in only, except upon special request to reasonably accommodate disability. 

• Access will be allowed from 1-1/2 hours before legal shooting time until 1-1/2 hours after 

legal shooting time. No overnight use of the refuge will be allowed. 

• Service permission is needed to retrieve animals from closed areas of the refuge.

• Camping, overnight use, fires and construction of pit blinds are prohibited. 

Justification

The Administration Act clarified that the NWRS is not a multiple-use management system and is not 

managed for commodity production or on the basis of sustained-yield economic principles. Refuges 

are managed first and foremost for fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats (House Report 105-106, 

Section 5), often referred to as the Wildlife First management mandate. The Act states . . . the 

(Refuge) System was created to conserve fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats and this 

conservation mission has been facilitated by providing Americans opportunities to participate in 

compatible wildlife-dependent recreation, including fishing and hunting, on System lands and to 

better appreciate the value of and the need for fish and wildlife conservation. It goes on to identify 

Executive Order 12996, which recognized compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses involving 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education and interpretation as 

priority public uses of the Refuge System. The Act also established a three-tiered hierarchy for 

management activities that occur on NWRS lands. The first tier involves management actions that 

specifically assist the refuge in fulfilling the purposes for which it was established (e.g., migratory 

birds and other wildlife) and the NWRS mission, including the conservation, management, and 

restoration of fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats. The second and third tiers involve 

wildlife-dependent public uses (i.e., hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, 

environmental education and interpretation) and general public uses. Waterfowl hunting falls into 

this category. 

The hunting program will provide high-quality, safe, and cost-effective hunting opportunities and 

will be carried out consistent with Washington State regulations. The guiding principles of the 

NWRS’s hunting programs (Service Manual 605 FW 2) are to: 

• Manage wildlife populations consistent with NWRS-specific management plans and, to the 

extent practicable, State fish and wildlife conservation plans; 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-81

• Promote visitor understanding of and increase visitor appreciation for America’s natural 

resources; 

• Provide opportunities for quality recreational and educational experiences consistent with 

criteria describing quality found in 605 FW 1.6; 

• Encourage participation in this tradition deeply rooted in America’s natural heritage and 

conservation history; and 

• Minimize conflicts with visitors participating in other compatible wildlife-dependent 

recreational activities.

CLNWR’s hunting program will comply with the CFR Title 50, 32.1 and be managed in accordance 

with Service Manual 605 FW2. Hunting will be permitted in accordance with State regulations and 

seasons to ensure that it will not interfere with the conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats. 

The waterfowl hunting season coincides with the State-specified season, typically the second 

weekend in October to the third weekend in January. Therefore, the hunting of migratory birds on 

the refuge is in compliance with State regulations and seasons; the NWRS Administration Act of 

1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 668dd-ee); and the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k). 

Managed hunting programs help promote an understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural 

resources and their management. Additionally, managed hunts on the refuge contribute to the 

mission of the NWRS by providing a traditional wildlife-dependent recreational activity with no 

definable adverse impacts to the biological integrity or habitat sustainability of refuge resources. 

By limiting the hunting area and providing sanctuary from human disturbance in other areas of the 

refuge, the waterfowl hunting program will not interfere with the refuge achieving its purposes of 

providing an inviolate sanctuary and a breeding ground for migratory birds. It is anticipated that 

wildlife populations will find sufficient food resources and resting places such that their abundance 

and use of the refuge will not be measurably lessened from allowing hunting to occur on the refuge. 

Thus, allowing hunting to occur with stipulations will not materially detract or interfere with the 

purposes for which the refuge was established or the NWRS mission. 

Hunting is one of the six wildlife-dependent recreational uses of the NWRS as stated in the 

Administration Act. This program as described was determined to be compatible because hunter use 

levels on CLNWR are relatively low, and sufficient restrictions ensure that high-quality feeding and 

resting habitat are available in relatively undisturbed areas to accommodate the needs of the 

waterfowl and other wildlife. 

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date 

Provide month and year for allowed uses only. 

 X Mandatory 15-year re-evaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses).

Mandatory 10-year re-evaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public uses). 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-82 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision

Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement. 

Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement.

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact. 

Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision. 

References

Bartelt, G.A. 1987. Effects of disturbance and hunting on the behavior of Canada goose family 

groups in east central Wisconsin. Journal of Wildlife Management 51:517-522. 

Cole, D.N., and R.L. Knight. 1990. Impacts of recreation on biodiversity in wilderness. Utah State 

University, Logan, Utah. 

Cronan, J.M. 1957. Food and feeding habits of the scaups in Connecticut waters. Auk 

74(4):459- 468. 

DeLong, A.K. 2002. Managing visitor use and disturbance of waterbirds: Literature review of 

impacts and mitigation measures. Appendix L in Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge Complex Final 

Environmental Impact Statement for the Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Boundary Revision 

(Volume II). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge, Fallon, Nevada. 

Dooley, J.L., T.A. Sanders, and P.F. Doherty, Jr. 2010. Mallard response to experimental walk-in 

and shooting disturbance. Journal of Wildlife Management 74(8):1815-1824. 

Fox, A.D., and J. Madsen. 1997. Behavioral and distributional effects of hunting disturbance on 

waterbirds in Europe: Implications for refuge design. Journal of Applied Ecology 34:1-13. 

Havera, S.P., L.R. Boens, M.M. Georgi, and R.T. Shealy. 1992. Human disturbance of waterfowl 

on Keokuk Pool, Mississippi River. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20:290-298. 

Heitmeyer, M.E., and D.G. Raveling. 1988. Winter resource use by three species of dabbling ducks 

in California. Final report to Delta Waterfowl and Wetlands Research Center, Bismark, North 

Dakota. 

Knight, R.L., and D.N. Cole. 1995. Factors that influence wildlife responses to recreationists. Pages 

71-79 in Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence Through Management and Research. R.L. Knight 

and K.J. Gutzwiller, editors. Island Press, Washington, DC. 372 pages. 

Liddle, M.J., and H.R.A. Scorgie. 1980. The effects of recreation on freshwater plants and animals: 

A review. Biological Conservation 17:183-206. 

Madsen, J. 1985. Impact of disturbance on field utilization of pink-footed geese in West Jutland, 

Denmark. Biological Conservation 33:53-63. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-83

Madsen, J. 1995. Impacts of disturbance on migratory waterfowl. Ibis 137:S67-S74. 

Owens, N.W. 1977. Responses of wintering brant geese to human disturbance. Wildfowl 28:5-14. 

Paulus, S.L. 1984. Activity budgets of nonbreeding gadwalls in Louisiana. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 48:371-380. 

Raveling, D.G. 1979. The annual cycle of body composition of Canada geese with special reference 

to control of reproduction. Auk 96:234-252. 

Thomas, V.G. 1983. Spring migration: The prelude to goose reproduction and a review of its 

implication. In Fourth Western Hemisphere Waterfowl and Waterbird Symposium, H. Boyd, editor. 

Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Canada.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2001. Priority species and habitats list. Available at 

www.wa.gov/wdfw/hab/phsvert.htm#birds. 

White-Robinson, R. 1982. Inland and salt marsh feeding of wintering brent geese in Essex. 

Wildfowl 33:113-118. 

Wolder, M. 1993. Disturbance of wintering northern pintails at Sacramento National Wildlife 

Refuge, California. Master’s Thesis. Humboldt State University, Arcata, California. 62 pages. 

Appendix C

Implementation Plan

Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix C. Implementation C-1 

Appendix C. Implementation Plan

C.1 Introduction

Implementation of the CCP will require increased funding, which will be sought from a variety of 

sources. This plan will depend upon additional congressional allocations, partnerships, and grants. 

There are no guarantees that additional federal funds will be made available to implement any of 

these projects. Other sources of funds will need to be obtained, both public and private. Activities 

and projects identified will be implemented as funds become available.

The CCP proposes several projects to be implemented over the next 15 years. Most of these projects 

are included in the Refuge Operational Needs System (RONS), such as new staff, or Service Asset 

Maintenance and Management System (SAMMS), such as deferred maintenance projects, which are 

used to request funding from Congress. Currently, a large backlog of maintenance needs exists for 

CLNWR. In 2012, the deferred maintenance backlog for CLNWR was $4,601,407. An attempt at 

reducing this backlog needs to be addressed and is included in the analysis of funding needs. 

Prioritized staffing needs identified in RONS will be necessary to implement the CCP to meet refuge 

goals and objectives and legal mandates.

Annual revenue sharing payments, associated with CLNWR in Klickitat County, will continue as 

deemed appropriate by Congress. The total payment made in 2012 was $44,373. Monitoring 

activities will be conducted on a percentage of all new and existing projects and activities to 

document wildlife populations and changes across time and habitat conditions and to responses to 

management practices.

C.2 Costs to Implement the CCP

The following sections detail both one-time and recurring costs for various projects in the plan. Onetime costs reflect the initial costs associated with a project, whether it is purchase of equipment, 

contracting services, construction, a research project, etc. Recurring costs reflect the future 

operational and maintenance costs associated with the project. The following tables primarily 

document projects with a physically visible, trackable, on-the-ground component, such as structures, 

habitat restoration, research, monitoring and surveys. The scope and costs for administrative 

activities, such as memorandums of understanding, reporting, and establishment of partnerships, are 

difficult to estimate in advance and thus are not accounted for in the tables below. 

A. One-time Costs

One-time costs are project costs that have a start-up cost associated with them, such as purchasing a 

new vehicle for wildlife and habitat monitoring, or designing and installing an interpretive sign. 

Some are full project costs for those projects that can be completed in three years or less. One-time 

costs can include the cost of temporary or term salary associated with a short-term project. Salary for 

existing and new positions and operational costs are reflected in operational (or recurring) costs. 

Funds for one-time costs will be sought through increases in refuge base funding, special project 

funds, and grants. Projects listed below in Table C-1 show one-time costs, such as those associated 

with building and facility needs including offices, public use facilities, road improvements, and new 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

 

C-2 Appendix C. Implementation

signs. One-time costs are also associated with projects, such as habitat restoration, invasive plant and 

animal control, and research. New research projects, because of their short-term nature, are 

considered one-time projects and include costs of contracting services or hiring a temporary worker 

for the short-term project. Some project costs are taken from 2010 RONS or SAMMS proposals; 

others are not yet in any project database, and their costs have been estimated, particularly if the 

scope of the project is unknown at this time due to lack of baseline data. 

C-1: Estimated one-time costs associated with implementation of the CCP.

Project 

Identifier Project Description Cost

Deferred Maintenance 

2010131638 Replace 24 miles of boundary fence $836,000

10064594 Replace 8 water control structures $307,000

2009945520 Repair 4 miles of levees and dikes $1,521,000

2009945533 Rehabilitate 12,000 feet of Cold Springs Ditch and several feeder 

ditches $735,000

2008867072 Repair Chapman Creek Canal at Laurel $400,000

91100949 Replace 500 feet of above-ground powerlines at HQ $35,000

TBD Remove Kelley residence $40,500

2007739719 Remove Kelley property storage sheds $9,000

2008844420 Remove 2,850 square foot Kelley property barn $32,000

2008866972 Remove Kelley property garage $9,000

TBD Remove Gambel residence $40,500

TBD Remove Gambel property storage sheds $9,000

TBD Replace Gambel property barn $31,000

TBD Remove Gambel property garage $9,000

Visitor Facility Enhancements 

TBD Exhibits for visitor contact station $36,000

TBD

Construct new elevated observation platform on Willard Springs 

Trail $57,000

Construction of 3 new road pull-offs $105,000

92100950 Replace directional signs $22,300

TBD Implementation of Visitor Experience Site Plan $345,000 - 510,000

Refuge Operational Needs (Projects)

TBD Implement Silviculture Plan $8,000

TBD Rehabilitate 3,000 acres of Conboy Lake wet meadow habitat $1,539,000

Acquisition

TBD Purchase additional lands for habitat connectivity and wildlife 

protection $843,000
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix C. Implementation C-3 

Project 

Identifier Project Description Cost

Research

TBD Assess wildlife and plant community response to management 

activities $50,000

B. Annual Operational (Recurring) Costs

Operational costs reflect refuge spending of base funds allocated each year. These are also known as 

recurring costs and are usually associated with day-to-day operations and projects that last longer 

than three years. 

The CCP will require increased funding for new or expanded public uses and facilities, habitat 

restoration and conservation activities, and new monitoring needs. This includes salary and 

operational expenditures, such as travel, training, supplies, utilities, and maintenance costs. Project 

costs include permanent and seasonal staff needed year after year to accomplish each project. 

Table C-2: Reoccurring costs associated with implementation.

Annual Operating Costs Cost

Implement and monitor silviculture program $30,000

Survey and scientific assessment $100,000

Inventory and monitoring activities $90,000

Research $50,000

Habitat management and restoration $150,000

Regulatory and enforcement actions $90,000

Public use opportunities and education $64,000

Facilities maintenance $100,000

C. Maintenance Costs

The maintenance need over the next 15 years is defined as funds needed to repair or replace 

buildings, equipment, and facilities. Maintenance includes preventative maintenance; cyclic 

maintenance; repairs; replacement of parts, components, or items of equipment; adjustments, 

lubrication, and cleaning (non-janitorial) of equipment; painting; resurfacing; rehabilitation; special 

safety inspections; and other actions to assure continuing service and to prevent breakdown. 

Maintenance costs include the maintenance backlog needs that have come due but are as yet 

unfunded, as well as the increased maintenance need associated with new facilities.

The facilities associated with CLNWR that require maintenance include trails, interpretive panels, 

regulatory signs, roads, water delivery systems, and buildings. Major equipment includes vehicles, 

tractors, other heavy equipment, and ATVs. Approximately 10-15% of operational (non-project) 

maintenance funding for MCRNWRC is expended on CLNWR; the other approximately 85-90% is 

used to maintain the majority of facilities, including buildings and equipment, which are located on 

the other seven MCRNWRC refuges, which are not included in this Implementation Plan. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

 

C-4 Appendix C. Implementation

D. Staffing

Current and proposed staffing is shown in Table C-3. Two permanent full-time and two temporary 

positions serve CLNWR; all other current positions serve the other refuges within MCRNWRC. 

Because there is no separate budget for individual refuges, we have chosen to present the entire 

MCRNWRC staff in Table C-3. This does not include fire staff that serves the entire refuge 

complex. The have separate funding and have seasonally variable staff numbers. 

Approximately 10% of current MCRNWRC staff time is expended on CLNWR covered under this 

CCP; the other approximately 90% of staff time is expended on the other refuges.

Table C-3: Current positions within MCRNWRC supporting CLNWR and proposed staff positions for CLNWR.

Staff-Refuge Operations FTE Staff Position Complex 

Cost

Percent 

Time

CLNWR 

Cost

RONS 

Number

Project Leader 1 GS-0485-14 $140,692 10 $14,069 NA

Deputy Project Leader 1 GS-0485-13 $115,657 5 $5,783 NA

Deputy Project Leader 1 GS-0485-13 $119,060 15 $17,859 NA

Wildlife Biologist 1 GS-0486-13 $119,002 1 $1,190 NA

Supervisory Wildlife 

Biologist 1 GS-0486-12 $95,263 15 $14,289 NA

Planner 1 GS-0401-12 $108,705 10 $10,871 NA

Visitor Services Manager 1 GS-0025-12 $94,468 15 $14,170 NA

GIS Specialist 1 GS-0401-12 $102,538 5 $5,127 NA

Administrative Officer 1 GS-0341-11 $79,129 15 $11,869 NA

Park Ranger (Visitor 

Services) 1 GS-0025-11 $93,078 5 $4,654 NA 

Supervisory Park Ranger 

(Law Enforcement) 1 GL-0025-11 $80,334 $0 NA

Park Ranger (Law 

Enforcement) 1 GL-0025-09 $62,690 10 $6,269 NA

Park Ranger (Law 

Enforcement) 1 GL-0025-09 $63,797 5 $3,190 NA

Park Ranger (Law 

Enforcement) 1 GL-0025-09 $67,579 5 $3,379 NA

Budget Technician 1 GS-0561-07 $51,980 15 $7,797 NA

Office Automation Clerk 1 GS-0303-05 $50,770 10 $5,077 NA

Refuge Manager 1 GS-0485-12 $94,402 1 $944 NA

Refuge Manager 1 GS-0485-12 $89,342 20 $17,868 NA

Wildlife Biologist 1 GS-0486-09 $76,927 0 $0 NA

Wildlife Biologist -

Complex 1 GS-0486-09 $61,585 10 $6,159 NA

Engineering Equipment 

Operator 1 WG-5716-08 $65,799 5 $3,290 NA

Engineering Equipment 

Operator 1 WG-5716-08 $61,120 5 $3,056 NA

Engineering Equipment 

Operator 1 WG-5716-08 $65,799 5 $3,290 NA

Engineering Equipment 

Operator 1 WG-5716-10 $75,185 5 $3,759 NA
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix C. Implementation C-5 

Staff-Refuge Operations FTE Staff Position Complex 

Cost 

Percent 

Time 

CLNWR 

Cost 

RONS 

Number 

Engineering Equipment 

Operator 1 WG-5716-10 $75,185 5 $3,759 NA 

Engineering Equipment 

Operator 1 WG-5716-08 $65,799 5 $3,290 NA 

Maintenance Worker 1 WG-4749-08 $65,799 95 $62,509 NA 

Wildlife Refuge Specialist 1 GS-0485-09 $67,067 0 $0 NA 

Wildlife Refuge Specialist 1 GS-0485-09 $67,067 0 $0 NA 

Wildlife Refuge Specialist 1 GS-0485-

5/7/9 $61,585 90 $55,427 NA 

Inventory &Monitoring 

Zone Biologist 1 GS-0486-12 $94,402 10 $9,440 NA 

Visitor Services 

Specialist* 1 GS-0485-09 $71,011 50 $35,506 NA 

Park Ranger* 1 GS-0025-05 $40,710 100 $40,710 FY08-6379 

Park Ranger (Law 

Enforcement)* 1 GL-0025-09 $62,690 100 $62,690 TBD 

Maintenance Worker* 1 WG-4749-06 $48,131 100 $48,131 FY08-1913 

Biological Science 

Technician* 1 GS-0404-5/6 $45,380 100 $45,380 FY08-1912 

Office Automation Clerk* 1 GS-0303-05 $40,710 100 $40,710 TBD 

TOTALS 37 $2,840,437 $571,511 

* Additional staffing needs for CLNWR.

Table C-3 shows an increase of 10 full-time-equivalent (FTE) positions over current levels. 

Proposed additions include two in Visitor Services (Park Ranger), one Law Enforcement (Park 

Ranger), one Engineering Equipment Operator, two Maintenance Workers, one Wildlife Biologist, 

one Biological Technician, one Wildlife Refuge Specialist, and one Office Automation Clerk. 

The two Visitor Services (Park Ranger) positions will be responsible for the environmental education 

and interpretation programs, as well as other wildlife-dependent recreational activities taking place 

on CLNWR. The environmental education program for CLNWR is currently volunteer-run by a few 

extremely ambitious and dedicated individuals. This program, if supported by a full-time staff 

member, could provide year-round environmental education to an underserved population. The 

interpretive and outreach program will be expanded to include bilingual signage and programs, as 

well as focused expansion of recreational opportunities to more appropriately incorporate the social 

demographic of the surrounding communities. 

The Law Enforcement Officer (Park Ranger) position is needed to help prevent an increase in illegal 

actions currently taking place on CLNWR. Over the last decade there has been an increase in drug 

trafficking, drug production, vandalism, gang activity, and violent crimes within the surrounding 

communities and on CLNWR. This position will provide active law enforcement for both natural 

resource and general law enforcement issues currently on the refuge. 

With a backlog of over 20 million dollars in deferred maintenance, the two additional Maintenance 

Workers and the Engineering Equipment Operator will help decrease the maintenance backlog, 

providing habitat management support (i.e., spraying of invasive species) and restoration activities 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

 

C-6 Appendix C. Implementation

(i.e., Camas Prairie Restoration). These positions will help prevent additional facilities and assets 

from falling into disrepair and thus further increasing the maintenance backlog. 

The two Biologist positions will fill out the biological staff to conduct inventory and monitoring, 

research, and surveys to fully assess the biological capacity of CLNWR. These positions will 

support the outlined needs in Goal 4 to further the management of CLNWR, both as a refuge and in a 

larger scope as part of the Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative. 

The Wildlife Refuge Specialist and Office Automation Clerk will provide administrative support for 

all aspects relating to the management of CLNWR. The Wildlife Refuge Specialist will work on 

additional habitat and restoration needs, as well as complete the step-down plans enumerated in the 

next section. 

E. Budget Summary

Table C-4 summarizes the data from tables C-1 and C-2. 

Table C-4: Budget Summary for one-time projects and annual funding needs for CLNWR as identified in the CCP.

Activity Description One-time Costs Recurring 

Surveys and scientific assessments $50,000 $100,000

Inventory and monitoring activities $60,000 $90,000

Research $200,000 $50,000

Habitat management and restoration $1,555,000 $180,000

Regulatory and enforcement actions $50,000 $90,000

Public use opportunities and education $730,300 $64,000

Facilities maintenance $4,014,000 $100,000

Total Costs $6,659,300 $644,000 

C.3 Step-down Plans

Step-down plans are prepared when they are required by Service policy or when they are needed to 

provide additional details to implement the CCP. The following table identifies step-down plans, 

their status, and relationship to this CCP. 

Step-down Plan Status

Inventory and Monitoring Plan (IMP) Within 5 year of CCP approval

Visitor Services Plan Within 6 years of CCP approval

Fire Management Plan Current as Complex Plan

Cultural Resources Management Plan Within 6 years of CCP approval
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix C. Implementation C-7 

Step-down Plan Status

Safety Plan Current - Updated annually

Habitat Management Plan Within 5 years of CCP approval

Hunting Plan Within 5 years of CCP approval

Landscape Design Standards/Aesthetics Plan Within 10 years of CCP approval

Law Enforcement and Emergency Response Plan Within 7 years of CCP approval

Land Protection Plan Within 5 years of CCP approval
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

 

C-8 Appendix C. Implementation
Appendix D

Wilderness Review

Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix D. Wilderness Review D-1 

Appendix D. Wilderness Review

D.1 Wilderness Assessment

Policy for Wilderness Reviews

Service policy (Part 602 FW 3.4 C. (1)(c)) requires that wilderness reviews be completed as part of 

the CCP process. This review includes the re-evaluation of refuge lands existing during the initial 

10-year review period of the Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136), as amended, as well as 

new lands and waters added to the NWRS since 1974. A preliminary inventory of the wilderness 

resources is to be conducted during pre-acquisition planning for new or expanded refuges (341 FW 

2.4 B., Land Acquisition Planning). NWRS policy on Wilderness Stewardship (610 FW 1-5) 

includes guidance for conducting wilderness reviews (610 FW 4. Wilderness Review and 

Evaluation). 

Service Criteria for Evaluating Lands for the National Wilderness Preservation System

The Wilderness Act provides the following description of wilderness: 

A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the 

landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are 

untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of 

wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act as an area of undeveloped Federal land 

retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human 

habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions . . .

The following criteria for identifying areas as wilderness are outlined in Section 2(c) of the 

Wilderness Act and are further expanded upon in NWRS policy (610 FW 4). The first three criteria 

are evaluated during the inventory phase; the fourth criterion is evaluated during the study phase. 

1) Generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of 

man’s work substantially unnoticeable; 

2) Has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; 

3) Has at least 5,000 acres of land, or is of a sufficient size as to make practicable its 

preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and 

4) May also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or 

historic value. 

Criterion 3 is further defined in Section 3(c) of the Wilderness Act as: 1) a roadless area of 5,000 

contiguous acres or more; or 2) a roadless island. Roadless is defined as the absence of improved 

roads suitable and maintained for public travel by means of 4-wheeled, motorized vehicles that are 

intended for highway use. 

As noted in Chapter 2, the CCP team also included criteria used in the Hanford Reach National 

Monument review, which in turn were taken in part from the BLM’s Utah wilderness assessment. 

Chief among the reasons these additional criteria were employed is that Service policy does not 

account for the ability to control use by others on the land, which will be discussed below. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

D-2 Appendix D. Wilderness Review 

The Wilderness Review Process

A wilderness review is the process of determining whether the Service should recommend NWRS 

lands and waters to Congress for wilderness designation. The wilderness review process consists of 

three phases: wilderness inventory, wilderness study, and wilderness recommendation. 

Wilderness Inventory

The inventory is a broad look at a refuge to identify lands and waters that meet the minimum criteria 

for wilderness—size, naturalness, and outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and 

unconfined types of recreation. All areas meeting the criteria are preliminarily classified as 

Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs). If WSAs are identified, the review proceeds to the study phase. 

Wilderness Study

During the study phase, WSAs are further analyzed: 

• For all values of ecological, recreational, cultural, economic, and/or symbolic value. 

• For all resources, including wildlife, vegetation, water, minerals, and soils.

• For existing and proposed public uses. 

• For existing and proposed refuge management activities within the area.

• To assess the refuge’s ability to manage and maintain the wilderness character in perpetuity, 

given the current and proposed management activities. Factors for evaluation may include, 

but are not limited to, staffing and funding capabilities, increasing development, 

urbanization, public uses, and safety.

If areas are found that qualify as WSAs, the Service compares the benefits and impacts of managing 

the area as wilderness (All-Wilderness Alternative) as opposed to managing the area under an 

alternate set of goals, objectives, and strategies that do not involve wilderness designation (NoWilderness Alternative). The Service may also develop Partial-Wilderness Alternatives that evaluate 

the benefits and impacts of managing portions of a WSA as wilderness.

In the alternatives, we evaluate:

1) The benefits and impacts to wilderness values and other resources. 

2) How each alternative will achieve the purposes of the Wilderness Act and the National 

Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS). 

3) How each alternative will affect achievement of refuge purpose(s) and the refuge’s 

contribution toward achieving the NWRS mission. 

4) How each alternative will affect maintaining and, where appropriate, restoring biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health at various landscape scales. 

5) Other legal and policy mandates.

6) Whether a WSA can be effectively managed as wilderness by considering the effects of 

existing private rights, land status and service jurisdiction, refuge management activities and 

refuge uses and the need for, or possibility of, eliminating Section 4(c) prohibited uses. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix D. Wilderness Review D-3 

Wilderness Recommendation

If the wilderness study demonstrates that a WSA meets the requirements for inclusion in the NWPS, 

a wilderness study report will be written that presents the results of the wilderness review, 

accompanied by a legislative environmental impact statement (LEIS). The wilderness study report 

and LEIS that support wilderness designation are then transmitted through the Secretary of the 

Interior to the President of the United States and ultimately to the United States Congress for action. 

Refuge lands recommended for wilderness consideration by the wilderness study report will retain 

their WSA status and be managed as “...wilderness according to the management direction in the 

final CCP until Congress makes a decision on the area or we amend the CCP to modify or remove 

the wilderness recommendation” (610 FW 4.22B). When a WSA is revised or eliminated, or when 

there is a revision in “wilderness stewardship direction, we include appropriate interagency and tribal 

coordination, public involvement, and documentation of compliance with NEPA” (610 FW 3.13). 

Lands Considered Under This Wilderness Review

All Service-owned lands and waters (in fee title) within the CLNWR acquired boundary were 

considered during this wilderness review. 

Wilderness Inventory 

The first step of the wilderness assessment is to divide the refuge or other management entity into 

preliminary wilderness evaluation units. The boundaries of these artificial units can follow the 

refuge boundary, but not cross permanent roadways, private or other non-Federal lands, or nonService-owned waterways. These roads, non-Federal lands, or waterways can form the boundary for 

an individual evaluation unit. Other obvious incompatible wilderness uses or structures (such as 

refuge headquarters, residential areas, rights-of-way, non-jurisdictional waters) may also be 

eliminated from any evaluation units at this time. Once boundaries have been established for each 

individual evaluation unit, the criteria in 2.1–2.3 are applied to determine each unit’s suitability as 

potential wilderness and need for further evaluation under the wilderness study. 

Unit Size

Roadless areas meet the size criteria if any one of the following standards apply: 

1) An area with over 5,000 contiguous acres solely in Service ownership. 

2) A roadless island of any size. A roadless island is defined as an area surrounded by 

permanent waters or an area that is markedly distinguished from the surrounding lands by 

topographical or ecological features. 

3) An area of less than 5,000 contiguous Federal acres that is of sufficient size as to make 

practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition and of a size suitable for 

wilderness management.

4) An area of less than 5,000 contiguous Federal acres that is contiguous with a designated 

wilderness, recommended wilderness, or area under wilderness review by another Federal

wilderness managing agency, such as USFS, NPS, or BLM. 

On CLNWR, there are no areas of 5,000 acres or more that meet these criteria. In fact, there are no 

areas greater than 1,000 acres that meet these criteria. The largest area without significant, 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

D-4 Appendix D. Wilderness Review 

disqualifying man-made intrusions is less than 700 acres; this area is not of sufficient size to be 

effectively managed as wilderness. All other roadless areas are far smaller.

Naturalness and Wildness

The area must meet the criteria of generally appearing to have been affected primarily by the forces 

of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable. This criterion must be 

evaluated in the context of current natural conditions and societal values and expectations without 

compromising the original intent of the Wilderness Act. It is well recognized that there are few areas 

remaining on the planet that could be truly classified as primeval or pristine, with even fewer, if any, 

existing in the conterminous United States. Few areas exist that do not exhibit some impact from 

anthropogenic influences, be it noise, light, or air pollution; water quality or hydrological 

manipulations; past and current land management practices; road or trails; suppression of wildfires; 

invasions by non-native species of plants and animals; or public uses. While allowing for the nearcomplete pervasiveness of modern society on the landscape, the spirit of the Wilderness Act is to 

protect lands that still retain the wilderness qualities of being natural, untrammeled, and 

undeveloped. These three qualities are cornerstones of wilderness character. For areas proposed or 

designated as wilderness, wilderness character must be monitored to determine baseline conditions 

and thereafter be periodically monitored to assess the condition of these wilderness qualities. 

Proposed and designated wilderness areas by law and policy are required to maintain wilderness 

character through management and/or restoration in perpetuity. 

Defining the first two qualities (natural and untrammeled) requires a knowledge and understanding of 

the ecological systems which are being evaluated as potential wilderness. Ecological systems 

comprise three primary attributes: composition, structure, and function. Composition is the 

components that make up an ecosystem, such as the habitat types, native species of plants and 

animals, and abiotic (physical and chemical) features. These contribute to the diversity of the area. 

Structure is the spatial arrangement of the components that contribute to the complexity of the area. 

Composition and structure are evaluated to determine the naturalness of the area. Function is the 

processes that result from the interaction of the various components, both temporally and spatially, 

and the disturbance processes that shape the landscape. These processes include, but are not limited 

to, predator-prey relationships, insect and disease outbreaks, nutrient and water cycles, 

decomposition, fire, windstorms, flooding, and both general and cyclic weather patterns. Ecological 

functions are evaluated to determine the wildness or untrammeled quality of the area. 

The third quality assessment is whether an area is undeveloped. Undeveloped refers to the absence 

of permanent structures such as roads, buildings, dams, fences, and other man-made alterations to the 

landscape. Exceptions can be made for historic structures or structures required for safety or health 

considerations, provided they are made of natural materials and relatively unobtrusive on the 

landscape. 

General guidelines used for evaluating areas for wilderness potential during this wilderness inventory 

process include: 

1) The area should provide a variety of habitat types and associated abiotic features, as well as a 

nearly complete complement of native plants and wildlife indicative of those habitat types. 

Non-native and invasive species should comprise a negligible portion of the landscape. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix D. Wilderness Review D-5 

2) The area should be spatially complex (vertically and/or horizontally) and exhibit all levels of 

vegetation structure typical of the habitat type, have an interspersion of these habitats, and 

provide avenues for plant and wildlife dispersal. 

3) The area should retain the basic natural functions that define and shape the associated 

habitats including, but not limited to, flooding regimes, fire cycles, unaltered hydrology and 

flowage regimes, and basic predator-prey relationships, including herbivory patterns. 

4) Due to their size, islands may not meet the habitat guidelines in 1 and 2 above. Islands 

should, however, exhibit the natural cover type with which it evolved and continue to be 

shaped and modified by natural processes. Islands should be further analyzed during the 

study portion of the review if they provide habitat for a significant portion of a population, or 

key life cycle requirements for any resources of concern, or listed species. 

5) Potential wilderness areas should be relatively free of permanent structures or man-made 

alterations. Areas may be elevated to the study phase if existing structures or alterations can 

be removed or remediated within a reasonable timeframe and prior to wilderness 

recommendation to the Secretary of the Interior. 

This section is somewhat redundant with the section on unit size in that many of the same standards 

that limit roadless area size are also defined here (infrastructure, man-made intrusions, etc.). As 

noted above, infrastructure—roads, power lines, irrigation canals, farm fields, etc.—limits the size of 

areas on CLNWR that might meet wilderness criteria. Here, taking into account the extreme 

unnaturalness of the landscape, the few large areas of CLNWR that do not have man-made objects lie 

within artificial ecosystems. The areas are altered by past farming and timber activities to such an 

extent that one cannot reasonably argue that they are natural in character or are wild, as defined 

above. 

Outstanding Solitude or Primitive or Unconfined Recreation

A designated wilderness area must provide outstanding opportunities for solitude, or a primitive and 

unconfined type of recreation. Possession of only one of these outstanding opportunities is sufficient 

for an area to qualify as wilderness, and it is not necessary for one of these outstanding opportunities 

to be available on every acre. Furthermore, an area does not have to be open to public use and access 

to qualify under these criteria. 

Opportunities for solitude refers to the ability of a visitor to be alone and secluded from other visitors 

in the area. Primitive and unconfined recreation means non-motorized, dispersed, outdoor recreation 

activities that are compatible and do not require developed facilities or mechanical transport. 

Primitive recreation activities may provide opportunities to experience challenge and risk, selfreliance, and adventure.

Of the large areas on CLNWR, these areas could provide for solitude, although given the developed 

nature of the area in general, there are little, if any, opportunities for challenge, risk, self-reliance, 

and adventure in the manner generally thought of as wilderness. 

Inventory Summary and Conclusion

As defined above, no areas on CLNWR meet the minimum criteria for wilderness, other than the 

opportunity for solitude. In addition, not considered above is the impact wilderness designation 

would make on meeting wildlife and habitat goals, i.e., meeting the purposes for which CLNWR was 

established. In order to successfully manage the refuge to meet its purposes, the Service has 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

D-6 Appendix D. Wilderness Review 

determined that mechanized timber harvest, haying, and grazing are needed. While grazing could be 

accomplished within the context of wilderness, mechanized timber harvesting and commercially 

viable haying cannot. Therefore, even if an area were deemed to be of such natural value despite its 

limited size and therefore eligible for designation, it would not be suitable for designation. 

D.2 Wild and Scenic Rivers Assessment

By the 1960s, there was sufficient concern over the seemingly inexorable loss of free-flowing rivers 

that Congress decided to intervene. The result was passage of legislation to preserve forever in a 

free-flowing condition some of the nation’s most precious rivers. This legislation—the Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA)—was signed into law (Public Law 90-542, as amended) on October 2, 

1968, establishing the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (National System). Section 1(b) of 

the Act expresses Congressional policy for America’s rivers: 

It is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States that certain selected rivers of the 

Nation which, with their immediate environments, possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, 

recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values, shall be 

preserved in free-flowing condition, and that they and their immediate environments shall be 

protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations. The Congress 

declares that the established national policy of dam and other construction at appropriate 

sections of the rivers of the United States needs to be complemented by a policy that would 

preserve other selected rivers or sections thereof in their free-flowing condition to protect the 

water quality of such rivers and to fulfill other vital conservation purposes.

The heart of the WSRA is protection of free-flowing character. Free-flowing is defined in the Act as 

“...existing or flowing in natural condition without impoundment, diversion, straightening, riprapping, or other modification of the waterway. The existence, however, of low dams, diversion 

works, and other minor structures at the time any river is proposed for inclusion in the national wild 

and scenic rivers system shall not automatically bar its consideration for such inclusion ...” To 

protect free-flowing character, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (which licenses nonFederal hydroelectric projects) is not allowed to license construction for dams, water conduits, 

reservoirs, powerhouses, and transmission lines, or other project works on, or directly affecting, wild 

and scenic rivers. Other Federal agencies may not assist by loan, grant, license, or otherwise any 

water resource project which would have a direct and adverse effect on the values for which a river 

was designated.

Rivers in the National System are classified as wild, scenic, or recreational. This terminology has 

caused frequent confusion: wild rivers are not necessarily fast-moving whitewater rivers, scenic 

rivers may not be noted for scenic values, and recreational rivers may not receive heavy public use. 

The labels actually refer to the degree of development along the river. The definitions of wild, 

scenic, and recreational from the law are: 

• Wild river areas — Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments and 

generally inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive 

and waters unpolluted. These represent vestiges of primitive America. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix D. Wilderness Review D-7 

• Scenic river areas — Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments, with 

shorelines or watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but 

accessible in places by roads.

• Recreational river areas — Those rivers or sections of rivers that are readily accessible by 

road or railroad, that may have some development along their shorelines, and that may have 

undergone some impoundment or diversion in the past.

Rivers in the National System are often referred to as wild and scenic rivers without regard to actual 

classification. This is acceptable when speaking of the National System in general, but the specific 

legal classification is an important distinction as it has a direct effect on how the river is administered 

and whether certain activities on federally owned land within the boundaries are permissible. 

Regardless of classification, each designated river is administered with the goal of nondegradation 

and enhancement of the values which caused it to be designated. 

The WSRA requires that, to be eligible for inclusion in the National System, a river or river segment 

must be free-flowing (as defined by the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior) and, with its 

immediate environment, must possess one or more outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, 

geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values (i.e., it must have at least one 

resource important to the region or nation). 

Free-Flowing Condition

Free-flowing, as defined in Section 16(b) of the WSRA, is applied to any river or section of a river, 

and means: 

. . . existing or flowing in natural condition without impoundment, diversion, straightening, 

rip-rapping, or other modification of the waterway. The existence, however, of low dams, 

diversion works, and other minor structures . . . shall not automatically bar its consideration 

for inclusion: Provided, that this shall not be construed to authorize, intend, or encourage 

future construction of such structures within components of the National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System.

Outstandingly Remarkable Values

The second criterion that a river must meet to be eligible for inclusion in the National System is that 

it must possess one or more outstandingly remarkable resources important to the region or nation. 

The term “outstandingly remarkable” is not precisely defined in the WSRA. As directed by 1982 

interagency guidelines, the determination of whether or not a river area contains outstandingly 

remarkable resources is based on the professional judgment of the study team. However, USFS and 

BLM in the Pacific Northwest developed standards for certain categories of values; these standards 

have become widely accepted by both agencies and have been used extensively by NPS. Under the 

USFS/BLM criteria, the river is judged on eight different classes of resources: scenic, recreational, 

geological, fish, wildlife, prehistoric, historic, and a catch-all category, other, as described below. 

Recreation Resources

Recreational opportunities are, or have the potential to be, unique enough to attract visitors from 

outside the region of comparison. Visitors are willing to travel long distances to use the river 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

D-8 Appendix D. Wilderness Review 

resources for recreational purposes. River-related opportunities could include, but are not limited 

to, sightseeing, wildlife observation, camping, photography, hiking, fishing, hunting, and 

boating/rafting. 

Interpretive opportunities may be exceptional and attract, or have the potential to attract, visitors 

from outside the region of comparison. 

The river may provide, or have the potential to provide, settings for national or regional usage or 

competitive events.

Fish

Fish values may be judged on the relative merits of either fish populations or habitat or Native 

American cultural use, or a combination of these river-related conditions. Consideration shall be 

given for potential as well as existing values. 

The river is internationally, nationally, or regionally an important producer of resident and/or 

anadromous fish species. Of particular significance is the presence of wild stocks and/or Federalor State-listed threatened, endangered, and sensitive species. Diversity of species is an important 

consideration and could, in itself, lead to a determination of outstandingly remarkable. 

Wildlife

Wildlife values shall be judged on the relative merits of either wildlife populations or habitat or 

Native American cultural use or a combination of these conditions. 

Populations. The river or area within the river corridor contains nationally or regionally 

important populations of indigenous wildlife species. Of particular significance are species 

considered to be unique, or populations of Federal- or State-listed or candidate threatened, 

endangered and sensitive species. Diversity of species is an important consideration and could in 

itself lead to a determination of outstandingly remarkable. 

Habitat. The river or area within the river corridor provides exceptionally high quality habitat 

for wildlife of national or regional significance, or may provide unique habitat or a critical link in 

habitat conditions for Federal- or State-listed or candidate threatened, endangered, and sensitive 

species. Contiguous habitat conditions are such that the biological needs of the species are met. 

Diversity of habitats is an important consideration and could, in itself, lead to a determination of 

outstandingly remarkable. 

Scenic/Aesthetic Resources

The landscape elements of landform, vegetation, water, color, and related factors result in notable 

or exemplary visual features and/or attractions. When analyzing scenic values, additional factors 

such as seasonal variations in vegetation, scale of cultural modifications, and the length of time 

of negative intrusions are viewed may be considered. Scenery and visual attractions may be 

highly diverse over the majority of the river or river segment. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix D. Wilderness Review D-9 

Geological Resources

The river or the area within the river corridor contains an example(s) of a geologic feature, 

process, or phenomena that is rare, unusual, or unique to the region of comparison. The 

feature(s) may be in an unusually active stage of development, represent a textbook example, 

and/or represent a unique or rare combination of geologic features (erosional, volcanic, glacial 

and other geologic structures). 

Prehistoric Resources

The river or area within the river corridor contains a site(s) where there is evidence of occupation 

or use by Native Americans. Sites must have rare or unusual characteristics or exceptional 

human interest value(s). Sites may have national or regional importance for interpreting 

prehistory; may be rare and represent an area where a culture or cultural period was first 

identified and described; may have been used concurrently by two or more cultural groups; or 

may have been used by cultural groups for rare or sacred purposes. 

Historic Resources

The river or area within the river corridor contains a site(s) or feature(s) associated with a 

significant event, an important person, or a cultural activity of the past that was rare, unusual, or 

one-of-a-kind in the region. An historic site(s) and/or feature(s) in most cases is 50 years or 

older. 

Other Values

While most river values of regional or national significance can be described under one of the other 

categories, sometimes there is a resource or traditional use of the river that is unique and does not fit 

any of the standard categories. An example can be found on the Klamath River in Oregon. There, 

BLM and NPS found that the river had been used continuously by three different Native American 

tribes for religious and spiritual purposes for at least the last 7,000 years. The agencies determined 

this to be a unique, nationally significant value, and Native American Traditional Use was 

determined to be an outstandingly remarkable resource. The criterion is: 

While no specific national evaluation guidelines have been developed for the other similar values 

category, assessments of additional river-related values consistent with the foregoing guidance 

will be completed, including, but not limited to, hydrologic, paleontologic, ecologic, and botanic 

resources. 

Inventory Summary and Conclusion

As defined above, no areas on CLNWR meet the definition of free-flowing as the waterways are 

extensively channelized, and further analysis was not done. Had any waterways on CLNWR met the 

standard of free-flowing, it is likely that the presence of Oregon spotted frogs would have met the 

standard for an outstandingly remarkable value. However, both conditions must be met, and no 

streams qualify for wild and scenic river eligibility. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

D-10 Appendix D. Wilderness Review 
Appendix E

Management 

Priorities

Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix E. Management Priorities E-1 

Appendix E. Management Priorities 

(Conservation Targets) 

BIDEH

The following habitats are found on the refuge and are considered priorities under the concept of 

Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health (BIDEH): 

• Ponderosa Pine Forest 

• Mixed Conifer Forest 

• Lodgepole Forest 

• Riparian Forest and Shrublands 

• Freshwater Marshes 

• Oregon White Oak Woodlands 

• Quaking Aspen Stands 

• Riparian 

• Emergent Wetland/Wet Meadow 

• Permanent Wetlands/Creeks and Canals 

Habitats 

(Plant 

Communities) 

Represent Existing 

BIDEH 

Population/Habitat 

Attributes 

(Age Class, Structure, Serial 

Stage, Species Composition) 

Natural Processes 

Responsible For Conditions Limiting Factors 

Ponderosa Pine Stands comprised of large 

patches of older forest with 

large snags. 

Common understory shrubs 

and herbs include snowberry 

(Symphocarpus spp.), wild rose 

(rosa spp.), bitterbrush 

(Purshia tridentata), bracken 

fern (Pteridium aquilinum), 

various native bunchgrasses, 

and other grass species. 

Typically associated with 

adjacent stands of lodgepole 

pine and aspen. 

Stands dominated by large, 

well-spaced ponderosa pine 

trees, with some areas of small 

trees in even-age groups one to 

several acres in size. 

Understory trees and secondary 

forest canopies generally 

absent. 

Small, scattered areas consist 

of more dense forest, with 

greater development of 

understory trees, including 

Frequent, low-intensity ground 

fires, possibly every 5 to 45 

years. 

Insects, including pine 

butterfly (Noephasia menapia), 

western pine beetle, and 

mountain pine beetle. 

Windfall. 

Logging. 

Fire exclusion. 

Development. 

Stand replacement 

fires. 

Agriculture. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

E-2 Appendix E. Management Priorities 

Habitats 

(Plant 

Communities) 

Represent Existing 

BIDEH 

Population/Habitat 

Attributes 

(Age Class, Structure, Serial 

Stage, Species Composition) 

Natural Processes 

Responsible For Conditions Limiting Factors 

grand fir and Douglas-fir, and 

snags. 

The forest structure is not 

uniform. It is a mosaic of 

different ages and sizes, 

although generally very open 

in nature. 

Over time, many of the large 

trees would be very old, on the 

order of 300 years. 

Potential Conservation

 - White-headed woodpecker 

 - Chipping sparrow 

 - Astragalus pulsiferae

 - Flammulated owl 

 - Lewis’ woodpecker 

 - Mimulus pulsiferae

Lodgepole/ 

Ponderosa Pine 

Stands are even-aged, but a 

variety of age and size classes 

would be represented across 

the landscape. 

Understories have varying fuel 

levels, including large down 

logs. 

Snags are numerous. 

Stands would be healthy, with 

endemic levels of mountain 

pine beetle and other insect 

use. 

Potential Conservation

 - Black-backed woodpecker 

Windthrow. 

Insects, such as mountain pine 

beetle. 

Disease. 

Stand replacement fires. 

Logging. 

Flooding. 

Agriculture. 

Draining. 

Development. 

Mixed Conifer 

Stands 

Stands are late-successional 

mixed conifer forests 

comprised of Douglas-fir, 

ponderosa pine, and grand fir 

as the primary tree species with 

Oregon white oak present in 

minor amounts. 

Forests dominated by large, 

well-spaced Douglas-fir and 

ponderosa pine trees. 

Scattered areas consist of a 

more dense forest with a 

greater development of 

understory trees, including 

grand fir, Douglas-fir, and 

Infrequent fire. 

Disease. 

Insects. 

Logging. 

Agriculture. 

Development. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix E. Management Priorities E-3 

Habitats 

(Plant 

Communities) 

Represent Existing 

BIDEH 

Population/Habitat 

Attributes 

(Age Class, Structure, Serial 

Stage, Species Composition) 

Natural Processes 

Responsible For Conditions Limiting Factors 

snags. 

Potential Conservation

 - Black-backed woodpecker 

 - Townsend’s warbler 

 - Varied thrush 

 - Hermit thrush 

 - Olive-sided flycatcher 

Oregon White Oak Interspersed with conifers or in 

small, pure groups. 

Potential Conservation

 - Western gray squirrel 

Shallow, droughty soils. 

Periodic fire. 

Fire exclusion. 

Development. 

Quaking Aspen Aspen are found on the valley 

floor, adjacent to wetlands. 

Aspen grows in clones, with 

many stems that originate from 

the same genotype. The 

species sprouts prolifically 

from the root suckers produced 

on the shallow lateral roots. 

Seasonal high soil 

moisture/flooding. 

Fire. 

Insects. 

Disease. 

Draining. 

Development. 

Grazing. 

Emergent Wetland Seasonal; semi-permanent; 

permanent. 

Sedges, rushes, spike rushes, 

cattails, and forbs. 

Potential Conservation

 - Waterfowl 

 - Canada goose 

 - Sandhill crane 

 - Oregon spotted frog 

 - Shorebirds 

 - Oregon coyote-thistle 

 - Rosy owl-clover 

 - Kellog’s rush 

 - Dwarf rush 

 - Long-bearded sego lily 

Periodic flooding; seasonal 

fluctuations/drying. 

Periodic fire. 

Intermittent grazing. 

Beaver dams. 

Agriculture. 

Grazing. 

Invasive species, 

especially reed 

canarygrass. 

Draining. 

Dikes. 

Development. 

Fire exclusion. 

Woody plant 

encroachment. 

Upland (Mesic) 

Meadow 

Transition zone between wet 

meadow and forested habitats. 

A mix of grasses and forbs. 

Periodic fire. 

Well-drained soils. 

Agriculture. 

Grazing. 

Invasive species, 

especially cheatgrass, 

meadow knapweed. 

Draining. 

Dikes. 

Development. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

E-4 Appendix E. Management Priorities 

Habitats 

(Plant 

Communities) 

Represent Existing 

BIDEH 

Population/Habitat 

Attributes 

(Age Class, Structure, Serial 

Stage, Species Composition) 

Natural Processes 

Responsible For Conditions Limiting Factors 

Fire exclusion. 

Woody plant 

encroachment. 

Riparian Occurring along irrigation and 

drainage ditches. 

Dominated by aspens, alders, 

and willows. 

Space and moisture availability 

along creeks and streams. 

Agriculture. 

Grazing. 

Draining. 

Dikes. 

Development. 

Refuge Purpose Species & Habitats

Species, Species Group, 

or Habitat Supporting Habitat Type(s) Life History Requirement(s) Documentation 

Waterfowl nesting 

Emergent marsh, permanent and 

seasonal wetlands, agricultural 

pastures, wet meadow, 

grasslands 

Nesting cover, feeding areas, 

brood rearing habitats, hiding 

cover MBCC 

Migrating ducks and 

geese 

Emergent marsh, permanent and 

seasonal wetlands, agricultural 

pastures, wet meadow, 

grasslands 

Resting areas, loafing areas, 

hiding cover, security, feeding 

areas, staging, flocking MBCC 

Mallard 

Emergent marsh, permanent and 

seasonal wetlands, agricultural 

pastures, wet meadow, 

grasslands 

Nesting cover, feeding areas, 

brood rearing habitats, hiding 

cover, resting areas, loafing 

areas, security, staging, flocking, 

breeding MBCC 

Northern pintail 

Emergent marsh, permanent and 

seasonal wetlands, agricultural 

pastures, wet meadow, 

grasslands 

Nesting cover, feeding areas, 

brood rearing habitats, hiding 

cover, resting areas, loafing 

areas, security, staging, flocking, 

breeding MBCC 

Cinnamon teal 

Emergent marsh, permanent and 

seasonal wetlands, agricultural 

pastures, wet meadow, 

grasslands 

Nesting cover, feeding areas, 

brood rearing habitats, hiding 

cover, resting areas, loafing 

areas, security, staging, flocking, 

breeding MBCC 

Wood ducks 

Emergent marsh, permanent and 

seasonal wetlands, agricultural 

pastures, wet meadow, 

grasslands, including forested 

zones 

Nesting cover, feeding areas, 

brood rearing habitats, hiding 

cover, resting areas, loafing 

areas, security, staging, flocking, 

breeding MBCC 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix E. Management Priorities E-5 

Species, Species Group, 

or Habitat Supporting Habitat Type(s) Life History Requirement(s) Documentation 

Canada geese 

Emergent marsh, permanent and 

seasonal wetlands, agricultural 

pastures, wet meadow, 

grasslands 

Nesting cover, feeding areas, 

brood rearing habitats, hiding 

cover, resting areas, loafing 

areas, security, staging, flocking, 

breeding MBCC 

Greater Sandhill crane 

Emergent marsh, permanent and 

seasonal wetlands, agricultural 

pastures, wet meadow, 

grasslands 

Nesting cover, feeding areas, 

available prey base, colt rearing 

habitats, hiding cover, resting 

areas, loafing areas, security, 

staging, flocking, breeding MBCC 

Resident wildlife 

Emergent marsh, permanent and 

seasonal wetlands, agricultural 

pastures, wet meadow, 

grasslands and associated upland 

habitat and forested areas 

Cover, feeding areas, rearing 

habitats, hiding cover, resting 

areas, loafing areas, security, 

breeding MBCC 

Species Priorities

The key below applies to the tables that appear in the remainder of this appendix. 

Refuge Purpose Species

X = Covered under refuge purposes 

BIDEH (Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health)

X = Species or habitats covered under BIDEH 

Federal T&E Species 

FE = Federal Endangered 

FT = Federal Threatened 

FC = Federal Candidate 

FCo = Federal Species of Concern 

State T&E Species

SE = State Endangered 

ST = State Threatened 

SC = State Candidate 

SS = State Sensitive 

SM = State Monitored 

BCC (Birds of Conservation Concern) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2008) 

X = Listed as Species of Concern Under Bird Conservation Region 5, Service Region 1, and Nationally. 

Partners in Flight (PIF) Tier (Rosenberg, K.V. 2004. Partners in Flight Continental Priorities and Objectives 

Defined at the State and Bird Conservation Region Levels, Washington. Cornell Lab of Ornithology.) 

Tier I = High Continental Importance: Species on the continental Watch List, which are typically of 

conservation concern throughout their range. 

Tier II = High Regional Priority: Species that are of moderate continental priority (not on continental 

Watch List), but are important enough to consider for conservation within a region because of various 

combinations. 

Tier IIA = High Regional Concern: Species that are experiencing declines in the core of their range and that 

require conservation action to reverse or stabilize trends. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

E-6 Appendix E. Management Priorities 

Tier IIB = High Regional Responsibility: Species for which this region shares in the responsibility for longterm conservation, even if they are not currently declining or threatened. These are species of 

moderate overall priority with a disproportionately high percentage of their total population in the 

region. 

Tier IIC = High Regional Threats: Species of moderate overall priority that are uncommon in a region and 

whose remaining populations are threatened, usually because of extreme threats to sensitive habitats. 

Birds of Management Concern (BMC) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Birds) 

GBBDC = Game Birds Below Desired Condition 

Washington State Wildlife Action Plan

X = Identified by plan as Species of Greatest Conservation Needs 

Shorebird Plan (Drut, M.S., and Buchanan, J.B. 2000. Northern Pacific Coast Regional Shorebird 

Management Plan.) 

1 = No Risk 

2 = Low Concern 

3 = Moderate Concern 

4 = High Concern 

5 = Highly Imperiled 

Waterbird Plan

1 = Lowest Concern 

2 = Low Concern 

3 = Moderate Concern 

4 = High Concern 

5 = Highest Concern 

Waterfowl Plan (North American Waterfowl Management Plan, 2004 Strategic Guidance. Breeding 

population trends in North America.) 

N = No Trend 

I = Increasing 

D = Decreasing 

NE = No Estimate 

The Nature Conservancy (TNC)-ECMPWC (The Nature Conservancy and Washington Department of Fish 

and Wildlife. 2007.) 

X = Conservation Target Species 

Washington Natural Heritage Program, State Rank (WA NHP S Rank)

S1 = Critically Imperiled 

S2 = Imperiled 

S3 = Rare or Uncommon 

S4 = Apparently Secure 

S5 = Demonstrably Secure in State

Plant Priority Species

 Common Name BIDEH 

FED 

T&E 

STATE 

T&E 

State 

Plan TNC 

WA NHP 

S Rank 

Plants x 

Ames’ Milk-vetch x FCo SE S1 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix E. Management Priorities E-7 

 Common Name BIDEH 

FED 

T&E 

STATE 

T&E 

State 

Plan TNC 

WA NHP 

S Rank 

Long-bearded Sego Lily x FCo SS S2, S3 

Oregon Coyote-thistle x ST S1 

Rosy Owl-clover x SE S1 

Dwarf Rush x ST S1 

Insect Priority Species

 Common Name BIDEH 

FED 

T&E 

STATE 

T&E 

State 

Plan TNC 

WA NHP 

S Rank 

Insects x 

Mardon Skipper x SE x x S1 

Amphibian Priority Species

 Common Name BIDEH 

FED 

T&E 

STATE 

T&E 

State 

Plan TNC 

WA NHP 

S Rank 

Amphibians x 

Oregon Spotted Frog x FC SE x S1 

Mammal Priority Species

 Common Name BIDEH 

FED 

T&E 

STATE 

T&E 

State 

Plan TNC 

WA NHP 

S Rank 

Mammals x 

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat 

FCo SC x x S2, S3 

Pallid Townsend’s Big-eared 

Bat FCo SC x x S2, S3 

Long-eared Myotis FCo SM S4 

Western Gray Squirrel FCo ST x x S2 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix E. Management Priorities E-8 

Bird Priority Species

Common Name

Refuge 

Purpose BIDEH

FED 

T&E

STATE 

T&E BCC #5

BCC R1

Status 

BCC

National PIF

Waterfowl x x 

Ducks/Geese 

(Migrating/Wintering) x x 

Dabbling Ducks 

(Nesting) x x 

Diving Ducks 

(Nesting) x x 

Canada Geese 

(Resting/Wintering 

Habitat) x 

Pacific White-fronted 

Goose x x 

Tundra Swan x 

Wood Duck x 

Green-winged Teal x 

Mallard x 

Northern Pintail x 

Cinnamon Teal x 

American Wigeon x 

Ring-necked Duck x 

Lesser Scaup x 

Bufflehead x 

Common Goldeneye x 

Hooded Merganser x 

Common Merganser x 

Raptors x 

Bald Eagle 

(Nesting/Roosting) FCo SS x x x 

Northern Harrier x 

Cooper’s Hawk IIA

Northern Goshawk FCo SC x 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix E.Management Priorities E-9

Bird Priority Species

Common Name

Refuge 

Purpose

BMC R1

Status 

State 

Plan

Shorebird

Plan

Waterbird 

Plan

Waterfowl 

Plan TNC

WA NHP S

Rank

Waterfowl x 

Ducks/Geese 

(Migrating/Wintering) x x 

Dabbling Ducks 

(Nesting) x 

Diving Ducks (Nesting) x 

Canada Geese 

(Resting/Wintering 

Habitat) x NE S5

Pacific White-fronted 

Goose x GBBDC I S3, S4

Tundra Swan x N x 

Wood Duck x GBBDC I S3

Green-winged Teal x I S3, S4

Mallard x N S5

Northern Pintail x GBBDC x D S3, S4

Cinnamon Teal x N S5

American Wigeon x GBBDC N S4, S5

Ring-necked Duck x GBBDC x I S3, S4

Lesser Scaup x GBBDC x D S3, S4

Bufflehead x I x S4

Common Goldeneye x N S5

Hooded Merganser x I S3, S4

Common Merganser x I S3, S4

Raptors

Bald Eagle 

(Nesting/Roosting) x x S4

Northern Harrier S3

Cooper’s Hawk S4

Northern Goshawk x x S2, S3
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix E. Management Priorities E-10

Common Name

Refuge 

Purpose BIDEH

FED 

T&E

STATE 

T&E BCC #5

BCC R1

Status 

BCC

National PIF

Golden Eagle SC

Peregrine Falcon FCo SS x x x IIC

Game Birds

Ruffed grouse IIA

California quail IIA

Marshbirds/

Waterbirds x x 

Pied-billed Grebe x 

Great Blue Heron x SM

American Bittern x 

Virginia Rail x 

Sora x 

American Coot x 

Sandhill Crane 

(Nesting/Brood 

Habitat) x x SE

Shorebirds x x 

Killdeer x 

Greater Yellowlegs x 

Lesser Yellowlegs x x x 

Spotted Sandpiper x 

Wilson’s Phalarope x x 

Wilson’s Snipe x 

Owls

Flammulated Owl SC x x 

Western Screech Owl IIA

Songbirds x 

Vaux’s Swift SC IIB

Rufous Hummingbird x x x I

White-headed 

Woodpecker SC x x 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix E. Management Priorities E-11 

Common Name

Refuge 

Purpose

BMC R1

Status 

State 

Plan

Shorebird

Plan

Waterbird 

Plan

Waterfowl 

Plan TNC

WA NHP S

Rank

Golden Eagle x x S3

Peregrine Falcon x x S2, S3

Game Birds

Ruffed grouse S5

California quail

Marshbirds/

Waterbirds x 

Pied-billed Grebe x 4 S4, S5

Great Blue Heron x x x S4, S5

American Bittern x 4 S3, S4

Virginia Rail x 3 S3, S4

Sora x 4 S4

American Coot x 2 S4

Sandhill Crane 

(Nesting/Brood 

Habitat) x x x S1, S3

Shorebirds x x 

Killdeer x 4 x S4, S5

Greater Yellowlegs x 4 S4, S5

Lesser Yellowlegs x 2 S4

Spotted Sandpiper x 3 S3, S4

Wilson’s Phalarope x 3 S3

Wilson’s Snipe x 4 S4, S5

Owls

Flammulated Owl x x S3

Western Screech Owl S4

Songbirds

Vaux’s Swift x x S3, S4

Rufous Hummingbird X x S4

White-headed 

Woodpecker x x S2, S3
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix E. Management Priorities E-12

Common Name

Refuge 

Purpose BIDEH

FED 

T&E

STATE 

T&E BCC #5

BCC R1

Status 

BCC

National PIF

Pileated Woodpecker SC

Olive-sided Flycatcher FCo x x x I

Willow Flycatcher SC x x I

Dusky Flycatcher IIA

Pacific-slope 

Flycatcher IIA

Cassin’s Vireo IIA

Steller’s Jay IIA

Pygmy Nuthatch

Brown Creeper

Marsh Wren IIC

Golden-crowned 

Kinglet IIA

Western Bluebird SM

Black-throated Gray 

Warbler IIA

Townsend’s Warbler IIA

MacGillivray’s 

Warbler IIA

Yellow Warbler X1

Black-headed 

Grosbeak IIB

Bullock’s Oriole IIA

Lazuli Bunting IIA

Spotted Towhee IIA

Cassin’s Finch x 

Purple Finch x IIA
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix E.Management Priorities E-13

Common Name

Refuge 

Purpose

BMC R1

Status 

State 

Plan

Shorebird

Plan

Waterbird 

Plan

Waterfowl 

Plan TNC

WA NHP S

Rank

Pileated Woodpecker x x S4

Olive-sided Flycatcher x S3

Willow Flycatcher x S4

Dusky Flycatcher S4, S5

Pacific-slope 

Flycatcher S4, S5

Cassin’s Vireo S4

Steller’s Jay S5

Pygmy Nuthatch x S3, S4

Brown Creeper x S4, S5

Marsh Wren S4, S5

Golden-crowned 

Kinglet S4, S5

Western Bluebird x S3

Black-throated Gray 

Warbler S5

Townsend’s Warbler S4, S5

MacGillivray’s Warbler S4, S5

Yellow Warbler S4

Black-headed Grosbeak S5

Bullock’s Oriole S4

Lazuli Bunting S5

Spotted Towhee S5

Cassin’s Finch S4

Purple Finch S4
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

E-14 Appendix E. Management Priorities

Focal Species

Focal Species Habitat Type Habitat Structure Life History 

Requirement

Other Benefitting 

Species

White-headed 

woodpecker

Ponderosa pine Large patches of old forest with 

large snags. Minimum patch size in 

350-700 acres. Mean canopy 

closure 10-40% with 10 trees/acres 

> 21 inches DBH with at least 2 

trees being >31 inches DBH and 

with 1.4 snags/acre > 8 in DBH. 

(PIF 2000)

Year-round Lewis’ woodpecker,

white-breasted nuthatch, 

pygmy nuthatch, 

Hammond’s flycatcher, 

hairy woodpecker, 

brown creeper

Chipping 

sparrow 

Ponderosa pine Open understory with regenerating 

pines: interspersion of herbaceous 

ground cover with shrub and 

regenerating pine patches.

Canopy cover 10-30%, 20-60% 

cover in the shrub layer, and >20% 

of the shrub layer in regenerating 

conifer saplings, especially pines. 

(PIF 2000)

Breeding Dark-eyed junco, 

Townsend’s solitaire,

dusky flycatcher

Ames milkvetchPonderosa pine Flat terrain, open ponderosa pine 

forests with bitterbrush. (WDNR, 

Natural Heritage Program)

All Chipping sparrow, darkeyed junco, Townsend’s 

solitaire, dusky 

flycatcher

Pulsifer’s 

monkey-flower

Ponderosa pine Seasonally moist openings in 

ponderosa pine. (WDNR, Natural 

Heritage Program)

All Chipping sparrow, darkeyed junco, Townsend’s 

solitaire, dusky 

flycatcher

Black-backed 

woodpecker

Lodgepole

/ponderosa pine

Old growth lodgepole pine: large 

tracts of lodgepole pine forest 

dominated by and managed for late 

successional conditions. (PIF 

2000)

Year-round Mountain chickadee,

yellow-rumped warbler, 

Cassin’s finch

Brown creeper Mixed conifer Large trees: >75 acres blocks of 

late successional habitat with > 4 

trees/acre > 18 inches DBH with at 

least 2 trees >24 inches DBH. (PIF 

2000)

Breeding Townsend’s warbler, 

red-breasted nuthatch, 

pine siskin

Hermit thrush Mixed conifer Multi-layered dense canopy

/vertical cover: patches of forest 

with multi-layered structure and a 

dense understory shrub layer. (PIF 

2000)

Breeding Varied thrush, chestnutbacked chickadee, 

Townsend’s warbler, 

winter wren

Olive-sided 

flycatcher

Mixed conifer Edges and openings created by 

wildfire: retain patches of live and 

dead trees/snags to provide 

potential nest trees (live) within the 

context of potential foraging and 

singing perches. (PIF 2000)

Breeding,

foraging

Western tanager, 

Cassin’s finch, Western 

wood-pewee, mountain 

bluebird

Nashville 

warbler

Oregon white 

oak woodland

Early succesional dense 

understory: oak-pine woodland 

Breeding Dusky flycatcher, 

American robin,
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix E. Management Priorities E-15

Focal Species Habitat Type Habitat Structure Life History 

Requirement

Other Benefitting 

Species

with > 40% native shrub cover 

interspersed with grassy openings 

and with or without scattered trees 

that comprise < 30% canopy cover. 

(PIF 2000)

White-breasted nuthatch

Western gray 

squirrel 

Oregon white 

oak woodland

Mixed oak-pine woodlands. 

Stands used most often in Klickitat 

County study by western gray 

squirrels were dominated by a 

multi-layered canopy of ponderosa 

pine that had an upper canopy layer 

taller than 14 m (46 ft) and a

sparse understory of oak with little 

or no shrub cover or other ground 

vegetation. Pine was the most 

frequently used tree for nesting, 

foraging, and cover. Squirrels on 

the Klickitat study area selected for 

moderate conifer (25-75% canopy 

cover) at the home range scale and 

for moderate and dense (>75% 

canopy cover) conifer (>75% 

conifer) cover-types at the 80% 

core area scale. Using radio 

telemetry fixes, there was selection 

only for moderate conifer cover 

types. These cover types were 

favored over sparse conifer (<25% 

canopy cover), pure oak (>75% 

oak) and mixed oak-conifer covertypes at all levels of canopy cover. 

(Linders 2000, referenced in 

Washington State recovery plan)

Year-round

Red-naped 

sapsucker

Quaking aspen Large aspen trees and snags with 

regeneration: mean canopy cover 

40-80%, either clumped with 

patches and openings or relatively 

evenly distributed, with >1.5 trees 

and > 1.5 snags/acre > 39 feet in 

height and 10 inched DBH, with 

>10% cover of saplings in 

understory. (PIF 2000)

Year-round House wren, western 

screech owl, tree 

swallow, northern 

flicker, ruffed grouse

Willow 

flycatcher

Riparian Dense patches of native shrubs > 

10 m5 interspersed with openings 

of herbaceous vegetation. Patch 

size 5-20 acres with shrub layer 

across 40-80%; shrub layer height 

> 3ft; tree cover < 30%. ( PIF 

2000)

Breeding Yellow warbler, song 

sparrow, spotted towhee

Oregon spotted 

frog

Emergent 

wetlands

Water depths range from 

approximately 2–12 inches in 

depth, emergent vegetation can be 

present, though generally not 

dense. (Washington State recovery 

plan)

Breeding Sandhill crane, 

cinnamon teal, Canada 

geese shorebirds
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

E-16 Appendix E. Management Priorities

Focal Species Habitat Type Habitat Structure Life History 

Requirement

Other Benefitting 

Species

Oregon spotted 

frog

Springs Permanent moving water that is 

groundwater driven

Breeding, 

overwintering

Invertebrates, wetland 

plants

Sandhill crane Emergent 

wetlands

Generally shallow water, averaging 

8–20 inches in depth in parts of the 

western US, however, dry sites are 

used also. Vegetation at nesting 

sites consists of a variety of 

herbaceous emergents and 

occasional woody shrubs. 

(Washington State recovery plan)

Nesting Oregon spotted frog, 

cinnamon teal,

Canada geese, shorebirds

Sandhill crane Wet meadow 

habitat

Maintain a mosaic of wetland, wet 

meadow, and upland meadow 

habitats and tracts of suitable 

habitat > 300 acres. (Washington 

State recovery plan)

Foraging, brood 

rearing

Wilson’s snipe, Lincoln 

sparrow, song sparrow, 

common yellowthroat

Sandhill crane Upland meadow Maintain a mosaic of wetland, wet 

meadow, and upland meadow 

habitats and tracts of suitable 

habitat > 300 acres. (Washington 

State recovery plan)

Foraging, brood 

rearing

Grasshopper sparrow, 

Mardon skipper, western 

yellow-bellied racer

Dwarf rush Emergent 

wetlands

Temporary and seasonally flooded 

shallow marshes that dry out. 

(WDNR, Natural Heritage 

Program)

All Sandhill crane, Wilson’s 

snipe, Lincoln sparrow, 

song sparrow, common 

yellowthroat

Long-bearded 

sego lily

Emergent 

wetland/

Wet meadow

Grass and forb dominated wet 

meadow with little to no shrub or 

tree cover. (WDNR, Natural 

Heritage Program)

All Sandhill crane, Wilson’s 

snipe, Lincoln sparrow, 

song sparrow, common 

yellowthroat

Rosy owl-clover Emergent 

wetland/

Wet meadow

Grass and forb dominated wet 

meadow with little to no shrub or 

tree cover. (WDNR, Natural 

Heritage Program)

All Sandhill crane, Wilson’s 

snipe, Lincoln sparrow, 

song sparrow, common 

yellowthroat

Oregon coyotethistleEmergent 

wetland/

Wet meadow

Grass and forb dominated wet 

meadow with little- to-no shrub or 

tree cover. (WDNR, Natural 

Heritage Program)

All Sandhill crane, Wilson’s 

snipe, Lincoln sparrow, 

song sparrow, common 

yellowthroat

Ring-necked 

duck

Permanent 

wetlands, creeks 

and canals

Water depths 3-10 feet, mixed open 

water and submergent vegetation, 

water present in summer months, 

winter depths variable with 

precipitation

Nesting, brood 

rearing

Overwintering Oregon 

spotted frogs
Appendix F

Statement of 

Compliance

Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix F. Statement of Compliance F-1 

Appendix F. Statement of Compliance 

STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

For Implementation of the

Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Klickitat County, Washington

The following executive orders and legislative acts have been reviewed as they apply to 

implementation of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for Conboy Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge (CLNWR), located in Washington State. 

National Environmental Policy Act (1969), as Amended (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.)

The planning process has been conducted in accordance with National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) Implementing Procedures, Department of the Interior (DOI) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service) procedures, and has been performed in coordination with the affected public. The 

requirements of NEPA and its implementing regulations in 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508 have been 

satisfied in the procedures used to reach this decision. These procedures included the development 

of a range of alternatives for the CCP, analysis of the likely effects of each alternative, and public 

involvement throughout the planning process. 

An environmental assessment (EA) was prepared for the project that integrated the draft CCP 

management objectives and alternatives into the EA and NEPA process. The draft CCP/EA was 

released for a 30-day public comment period. The affected public was notified of the availability of 

these documents through a Federal Register notice, news releases to local newspapers, the 

CLNWR’s planning website, and a letter. Copies of the draft CCP/EA were distributed to a mailing 

list. The CCP was revised based on public comments received on the draft documents. 

National Historic Preservation Act (1966), as Amended (16 U.S.C. § 470 et seq.) 

The management of archaeological and cultural resources of CLNWR will comply with the 

regulations of Sections 106 and 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). CLNWR 

contains a number of prehistoric sites. At least 36 prehistoric sites and 43 historic sites are recorded 

within the acquisition boundary of CLNWR. One historic site is listed on the National Register of 

Historic Places (National Register): the Whitcomb-Cole Hewn Log House. No known historic 

properties are likely to be affected by the proposed action, based on the criteria of an effect or 

adverse effect as an undertaking defined in 36 CFR 800.9 and Service Manual 614 FW2. However, 

determining whether a particular action has the potential to affect cultural resources is an ongoing 

process that occurs as step-down and site-specific project plans are developed. The Service will 

comply with the NHPA for management actions that have the potential to affect any historic 

properties which may be present. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

F-2 Appendix F. Statement of Compliance 

Executive Order 12372. Intergovernmental Review 

Coordination and consultation with affected tribal, local, and State governments; other Federal 

agencies; and local interested persons has been completed through personal contact by the Project 

Leader and the Refuge Manager. 

Executive Order 13175. Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments 

As required under Secretary of the Interior Order 3206, American Indian Tribal Rights, FederalTribal Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act, the Service consulted and coordinated with 

the Yakama Indian Nation regarding the proposed action. Specifically, the Service coordinated with 

the Yakama Indian Nation throughout the Service’s planning process. The tribe had the opportunity 

to review and provide input on the CCP alternatives and draft CCP. 

Executive Order 12898. Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and 

Low-income Populations 

All Federal actions must address and identify, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority 

populations, low-income populations, and Native American tribes in the United States. The CCP 

was evaluated and no adverse human health or environmental effects were identified for minority or 

low-income populations, Native American tribes, or anyone else. 

Wilderness Preservation Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. § 1131 et seq.) 

The Service has evaluated the suitability of CLNWR for wilderness designation and concluded that 

the refuge does not meet the basic criteria for inclusion into the National Wilderness Preservation 

System (see Chapter 3, Wilderness and Wild and Scenic Rivers Review, and Appendix D).

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271-1287) 

The Service has evaluated the eligibility of streams on CLNWR for wild and scenic river designation 

and concluded no streams meet the basic criteria for inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System (see Chapter 3, Wilderness and Wild and Scenic Rivers Review, and Appendix D).

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as Amended (16 U.S.C. § 668dd668ee) 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (Public Law 105-57, Refuge 

Administration Act) requires the Service to develop and implement a CCP for each refuge. The CCP 

identifies and describes refuge purposes; refuge vision and goals; fish, wildlife, and plant populations 

and related habitats; archaeological and cultural values of the refuge; issues that may affect 

populations and habitats of fish, wildlife, and plants; actions necessary to restore and improve 

biological diversity on the refuge; and opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation, as required by 

the Refuge Administration Act. During the CCP process, the Project Leader and Refuge Manager 

evaluated all existing and proposed refuge uses. Priority wildlife-dependent uses (hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation) are automatically 

considered appropriate under Service policy and thus exempt from appropriate uses review. Uses 

that were found not appropriate include horseback riding (Appendix A).
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix F. Statement of Compliance F-3 

Compatibility determinations (CDs) have been prepared for haying; grazing; timber harvesting; 

research; hunting (waterfowl); fishing; wildlife observation, photography, interpretation, and 

environmental education; and the associated activities of hiking, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, 

and painting. All of these were found to be compatible with refuge purposes and the National 

Wildlife Refuge System mission, with stipulations specified where appropriate (Appendix B).

Executive Order 13186. Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds 

This order directs departments and agencies to take certain actions to further implement the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act. A provision of the order directs Federal agencies to consider the impacts 

of their activities, especially in reference to birds on the Service’s list of Birds of Conservation 

Concern (BCC). It also directs agencies to incorporate conservation recommendations and objectives 

in the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan and bird conservation plans developed by 

Partners in Flight into agency planning. The effects of all alternatives to refuge habitats used by 

migratory birds were assessed within the draft CCP and EA. 

Endangered Species Act (1973), as Amended (16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.) 

This act provides for the conservation of threatened and endangered species of fish, wildlife, and 

plants by Federal action and by encouraging the establishment of state programs. Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires consultation before initiating projects which affect or may 

affect endangered species. One Federal candidate species for listing currently occurs on CLNWR, 

the Oregon spotted frog. CLNWR also provides habitat for two State endangered species, Ames’

milkvetch and the Mardon skipper. When the CCP is adopted and implementation begins, 

consultation on specific projects will be conducted prior to undertaking any management actions to 

avoid any adverse impacts to these species and their habitats. In most instances, CCP 

implementation will result in positive effects to these species; the CCP has goals and objectives 

directly related to improving populations where feasible. 

Executive Order 11990. Protection of Wetlands 

The CCP is consistent with Executive Order 11990 because CCP implementation will protect and 

enhance existing wetlands and associated riparian areas. 

Executive Order 11988. Floodplain Management 

Under this order, Federal agencies shall take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, minimize the 

impact of floods on human safety, health, and welfare, and restore and preserve the natural and 

beneficial values served by floodplains. The CCP is consistent with Executive Order 11988 as CCP 

implementation will protect floodplains from adverse impacts as a result of modification or 

destruction. The CCP calls for restoration of floodplains to the extent possible. 

Integrated Pest Management, 517 DM 1 and 7 RM 14 

In accordance with 517 DM 1 and 569 FW 1, an integrated pest management (IPM) approach has 

been adopted to eradicate, control, or contain pest and invasive species on the refuge. In accordance 

with 517 DM 1, only pesticides registered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in 

full compliance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, and as provided in 

Appendix G

Glossary and

Abbreviations

Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G.Glossary G-1 

Appendix G. Glossary and Abbreviations 

AAQS: Ambient Air Quality Standards. 

ABA: Architectural Barriers Act 

ACOE: (United States) Army Corps of Engineers. 

Adaptive Management: An approach to managing a refuge’s resources that builds upon learning—

based on best available science, common sense, experience, experimenting, new scientific 

discoveries and monitoring—by adjusting management practices based on what was learned. Where 

possible, Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge management projects will be designed to produce 

knowledge along with meeting other resource objectives. 

Administration Act: National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966. 

Aesthetic: Of or relating to the sense of beauty. (Source: Webster’s Dictionary II) 

Affected Environment: In an environmental assessment, a description of the existing environment 

covering information that directly relates to the scope of the proposed action and alternatives that are 

analyzed. 

Alternative: A set of objectives and strategies or means of achieving refuge purposes and goals, 

helping fulfill the National Wildlife Refuge System mission and resolving issues. 

Anadromous Fish: Fish that normally migrate to salt water as juveniles and return to freshwater as 

adults to spawn. 

APHIS-PPQ: (United States Department of Agriculture) Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, 

Plant Protection, and Quarantine. 

Archeological Resource: Material remains of past human life or activities, including, but not 

limited to, pottery, basketry, bottles, weapons, tools, structures, and graves, or any portion of the 

foregoing items, as well as the physical site or context in which it is found. (Source: Considering 

Cultural Resources) 

ARPA: Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979. Protects cultural resources and outlines 

permitting procedures as well as violations and fines. (Source: Considering Cultural Resources) 

BAF: Bioaccumulation Factors. 

Basalt: A dark grey to black, fine grained igneous rock composed primarily of calcium feldspar and 

pyroxene, with or without olivine. 

BCR: Bird Conservation Region. 

BIDEH: Biological Diversity, Integrity, and Environmental Health. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-2 Appendix G.Glossary 

Biological Diversity (Biodiversity): The variety of life and its processes, including the variety of 

living organisms, the genetic differences among them, and communities and ecosystems in which 

they occur. It also defines the interrelationships within and among various levels of ecological 

organization. Conservation, protection, and restoration of biological species and genetic diversity are 

needed to sustain the health of existing biological systems. Federal resource management agencies 

must examine the implications of management actions and development decisions on regional and 

local biodiversity. 

Biological Integrity: Biotic composition, structure, and functioning at genetic, organism, and 

community levels comparable with historic conditions, including the natural biological processes that 

shape genomes, organisms, and communities. 

BLM: (United States) Bureau of Land Management. 

BMP: Best Management Practice(s). As a means of accomplishing an action, the practices that are 

based on the best available science and generally accepted standards for the field, as well as being the 

most effective and practicable (including technological, economic, and institutional considerations). 

BPA: (United States) Bonneville Power Administration. 

Bti: Bacillus thuringiensis isrealensis. 

Candidate Species (Federal): A species for which there is sufficient information on biological 

vulnerability and threat(s) to support issuance of a proposed rule to list it as endangered or threatened 

but issuance of the proposed rule is precluded (i.e., by other listing activity or lack of funding). 

Candidate Species (State): Wildlife species that are under review by the Washington Department 

of Wildlife for possible listing as endangered, threatened, or sensitive. 

CCP: Comprehensive Conservation Plan. A document that describes the desired future conditions 

of a refuge or planning unit and provides long-range guidance and management direction to achieve 

the purpose(s) of the refuge; helps fulfill the mission of the System; maintains and, where 

appropriate, restores the BIDEH of each refuge and the System; helps achieve the goals of the 

National Wilderness Preservation System, if appropriate; and meets other mandates. (Service Habitat 

Management Planning Policy, 602 FW 1.4) 

CD: Compatibility Determination. 

Census Bureau: (United States) Census Bureau. 

CEQ: (United States) Council on Environmental Quality. 

CERCLA: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. 

CFR: Code of Federal Regulations. 

cfs: Cubic Feet Per Second. 

CGEI: Columbia Gorge Ecology Institute. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G.Glossary G-3 

CLNWR: Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge. 

Compatibility Determination: A written determination, usually signed by the Refuge Manager and 

Regional Chief, signifying that a proposed or existing use of a national wildlife refuge is a 

compatible use or is not a compatible use. 

Compatible Use: A proposed or existing wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other use of a 

national wildlife refuge that, based on sound professional judgment, will not materially interfere with 

or detract from the fulfillment of the National Wildlife Refuge System mission or the purpose(s) of 

the national wildlife refuge. 

Connectivity (Habitat Connectivity): The arrangement of habitats that allows organisms and 

ecological processes to move across the landscape. 

Conservation and Management: To sustain and, where appropriate, restore and enhance healthy 

populations of fish, wildlife, and plants utilizing methods and procedures associated with modern 

scientific resource programs. 

Contaminants: Chemicals present at levels greater than those naturally occurring in the 

environment resulting from anthropogenic or natural processes that potentially result in changes to 

biota at any ecological level. 

Council: Northwest Power and Conservation Council. 

Criterion 1 (State Listed and Candidate Species): State-listed species are those native fish and 

wildlife species legally designated as endangered, threatened, or sensitive. State candidate species 

are those fish and wildlife species that will be reviewed by the Department for possible listing as 

endangered, threatened, or sensitive. Federal candidate species are evaluated individually to 

determine their status in Washington and whether inclusion as a priority species is justified. 

Criterion 2 (Vulnerable Aggregations): Vulnerable aggregations include those species or groups 

of animals susceptible to significant population declines, within a specific area or statewide, by virtue 

of their inclination to group together. Examples include heron rookeries, seabird concentrations, 

marine mammal haul-outs, shellfish beds, and fish spawning and rearing areas. 

Criterion 3 (Species Considered to be of Recreational, Commercial, and/or Tribal Importance 

by Washington State): Native and non-native fish and wildlife species of recreational or 

commercial importance and recognized species used for tribal ceremonial and subsistence purposes 

that are vulnerable to habitat loss or degradation. 

Cultural Landscape: The distinctive setting or land-use pattern associated with a historic site or 

areas such as a homestead, mining district, or town. There is evidence of human manipulation of the 

land through purposeful design, cultivation, or extraction. 

Cultural Resources: The physical remains, objects, historic records, plants, animals, and traditional 

lifeways that connect us to our Nation’s past. (Source: Considering Cultural Resources) 

CWA: Clean Water Act (Federal Water Pollution Control Act). 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-4 Appendix G.Glossary 

DAHP: (Washington) Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. 

dbh: Diameter At Breast Height. 

DOE: (United States) Department of Energy. 

DOI: (United States) Department of the Interior. 

EA: Environmental Assessment. A concise public document that analyzes the environmental 

impacts (consequences) of a proposed Federal action and provides sufficient evidence to determine 

the level of significance of the impacts. (Source: The NEPA Book) 

Ecosystem: A biological community together with its associated non-living environment, 

functioning as a unit. A system made up of a community of animals, plants, and bacteria and its 

interrelated physical and chemical environment. 

EE: Environmental Education. A teaching process that increases people’s knowledge and 

awareness about the environment and associated challenges, develops the necessary skills and 

expertise to address the challenges, and fosters attitudes, motivations, and commitments to make 

informed decisions and take responsible action. 

EEC: Estimated Environmental Concentration. 

Endangered Species (Federal): A species that is likely to become extinct throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. These species are listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Endangered Species (State Plants): A species that is likely to become extinct throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range within the State of Washington. 

Endangered Species (State Wildlife): Wildlife species native to the State of Washington that are 

seriously threatened with extinction throughout all or a significant portion of their ranges within the 

State. 

Environmental Health: Composition, structure, and functioning of soil, water, air, and other abiotic 

features comparable with historic conditions, including the natural abiotic processes that shape the 

environment. 

Environmental Justice: The fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and income with respect 

to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and 

policies. Executive Order 12898 requires Federal agencies to identify and address any potentially 

disproportionate high and adverse human health and environmental effects of agency policies, 

programs, and activities on minority and low-income populations. 

Environmentally Preferable Alternative: The environmentally preferable alternative is the 

alternative that will promote the national environmental policy as expressed in NEPA, Section 101. 

Ordinarily, this means the alternative that causes the least damage to the biological and physical 

environment; it also means the alternative which best protects, preserves, and enhances historic, 

cultural, and natural resources. Section 1505.2(b) requires that, in cases where an EIS has been 

prepared, the Record of Decision must identify all alternatives that were considered, specifying the 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G.Glossary G-5 

alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferable. (Source: 

Council on Environmental Quality, 40 Questions) 

EO: Executive Order. 

EPA: (United States) Environmental Protection Agency. 

ESA: Endangered Species Act. 

F: Fahrenheit. 

Fauna: The animals of a specified region or time. 

FIFRA: Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. 

Fishery: A place to catch fish. 

Floodplain: A plain along a river subject to periodic flooding. (Source: Webster’s II Dictionary) 

Floodplains are composed of sediment deposited by floods. 

Flora: The plants of a specified region or time. 

FONSI: Finding Of No Significant Impact. 

Forage: Vegetation of all forms available and of a type used for animal consumption. 

FWS: (United States) Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Geological Resources: Natural features related to the form of the earth or its solid surface. 

GHG: Greenhouse Gas. 

GIS: Geographic Information System. 

GLO: General Land Office. 

GMA: (Washington State) Growth Management Act. 

GMU: (Washington State) Game Management Unit. 

Goal: A descriptive, open-ended, often broad statement of desired future conditions that conveys a 

purpose but does not define measurable units. 

GPS: Global Positioning System. 

GUS: Groundwater Ubiquity Score. 

GWMA: Groundwater Management Area. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-6 Appendix G.Glossary 

Habitat: A specific set of physical conditions in a geographic area that surrounds an organism, a 

single species, a group of species, or a large community and are required by an organism for survival 

and reproduction. The place where an organism typically lives. In wildlife management, the major 

components of habitat are food, water, cover, and living space. 

Habitat Diversity: Refers to the number, interspersion, and relative abundance of indigenous plant 

and animal species and communities. It also refers to the horizontal and vertical structure of a plant 

community. 

HACCP: Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point. 

Historic Conditions: Composition, structure, and functioning of ecosystems resulting from natural 

processes that are believed, based on sound professional judgment, to be present prior to substantial 

human changes to the landscape. 

Historic Preservation: Includes identification, evaluation, documentation, excavation, curation, 

acquisition, protection, rehabilitation, restoration, stabilization, maintenance, and any combination of 

the foregoing activities relative to cultural resources. (Source: Considering Cultural Resources) 

Historic Records: Any historical, ethnographic, architectural documents, drawings, and images that 

provide a record of the past. (Source: Considering Cultural Resources) 

Hydrology: The science dealing with the properties, distribution, and circulation of water. 

IBA: Important Bird Area. 

Impact: Synonymous with effects and includes ecological, aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, 

social, or health whether direct, indirect, or cumulative. Impacts may also include those resulting 

from actions which may have both beneficial and detrimental (adverse) effects. Impacts may be 

considered as direct, indirect, or cumulative. 

Impact Severity Rating: Thresholds used in this Comprehensive Conservation Plan for analyzing 

the scope, scale, and intensity of effects on natural, cultural, and recreational resources. The four 

levels of impacts include: 

Negligible: Resources would not be affected, or the effects would be at or near the lowest level 

of detection. Resource conditions would not change or would be so slight that 

there would not be any measurable or perceptible consequence to a population, 

plant community, cultural resource, recreation opportunity, or visitor experience. 

Minor: Effects would be detectable but localized, small, and of little consequence to a 

population, plant community, cultural resource, recreation opportunity, or visitor 

experience. Mitigation, if needed to offset adverse effects, would be easily 

implemented and successful. 

Intermediate: Effects would be readily detectable and localized, with consequences to a cultural 

resource, population, plant community level, or specific recreation opportunity or 

visitor experience. Mitigation measures would be needed to offset adverse 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G.Glossary G-7 

effects, would be extensive in nature, moderately complicated to implement, and 

probably would be successful. 

Major: Effects would be obvious and would result in substantial consequences to cultural 

resources, populations, plant communities within the local area and region, or 

recreation opportunities and visitor experiences within the refuge. Extensive 

mitigating measures would be needed to offset adverse effects, would be largescale in nature, very complicated to implement, and the probability of success 

would not be guaranteed. In some instances, major effects would include the 

irretrievable loss of the resource. (“Major” is also called “significant.”)

Time and duration of impacts have been defined as: 

Short-term: An effect that generally would last less than a single year or season. 

Long-term: A change in a resource or its condition that would last longer than a single year or 

season. 

Improvement Act: National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. 

Indicator Species: A species of plant or animal that is assumed to be sensitive to habitat changes 

and represents the needs of a larger group of species. 

Interpretation: A communication process that forges emotional and intellectual connections 

between the interests of the audience and the inherent meanings in the resource. 

Invasive Species: Plant or animal species that tend to spread rapidly and harmfully. For example, 

cheatgrass invasions of native shrub-steppe displace native species and alter natural fire regimes. 

Many invasive species are also noxious weeds. 

IPCC: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 

IPM: Integrated Pest Management. Used to treat targeted invasive plant species on Conboy Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge. Manual, mechanical, biological, cultural (e.g., prescribed fire, competitive 

plantings), and chemical treatment methods used to achieve prioritized weed control objectives. 

Invasive species managers draw upon the full range of appropriate control technologies to develop 

integrated treatment plans for target species at selected priority sites. Treatment methodologies are 

based upon the best information available from literature and professional experience, tailored to the 

characteristics of the particular species and site. 

Issue: Any unsettled matter that requires a management decision, e.g., an initiative, opportunity, 

resource management problem, threat to the resources of the unit, conflict in uses, public concern, or 

the presence of an undesirable resource condition. 

KDID: Klickitat Drainage District #1. 

LC: Lethal Concentration. 

LCC: Landscape Conservation Cooperative. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-8 Appendix G.Glossary 

LD: Lethal Dose. 

LOC: Level of Concern. 

LOEC: Lowest Observed Effect Concentration. 

LOEL: Lowest Observed Effect Level 

Long-term Impact: A change in a resource or its condition that would last longer than a single year 

or season. 

Major Impact: Also known as “significant impact.” Effects would be obvious and would result in 

substantial consequences to cultural resources, populations, plant communities within the local area 

and region, or recreation opportunities and visitor experiences within Conboy Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge. Extensive mitigating measures would be needed to offset adverse effects, would be largescale in nature, very complicated to implement, and the probability of success would not be 

guaranteed. In some instances, major effects would include the irretrievable loss of the resource. 

Management Unit: An administrative unit for refuge management purposes. 

MBCC: Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. 

MCRNWRC: Mid-Columbia River National Wildlife Refuge Complex. 

Migratory Birds: Those species of birds that migrate from place to place, either within the United 

States or between countries, to complete different stages of their life cycles. These species are listed 

under §10.13 of 50 CFR Chapter 1 - United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the 

Interior. 

Minor Impact: Effects would be detectable but localized, small, and of little consequence to a 

population, plant community, cultural resource, recreation opportunity, or visitor experience. 

Mitigation, if needed to offset adverse effects, would be easily implemented and successful. 

Mitigation: Avoiding, minimizing, rectifying, reducing, eliminating, or compensating for impacts. 

MOA: Memorandum of Agreement. 

Moderate Impact: Effects would be readily detectable and localized, with consequences to a 

cultural resource, population, plant community level, or specific recreation opportunity or visitor 

experience. Mitigation measures would be needed to offset adverse effects, would be extensive in 

nature, moderately complicated to implement, and probably would be successful. 

Monitoring: Tracking changes of selected parameters over time. 

MOU: Memorandum of Understanding. 

MSDS: Material Safety Data Sheet. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G.Glossary G-9 

NAGPRA: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1991. Specifies actions to 

be taken by Federal agencies with regard to Native American human remains, funerary objects, 

objects of cultural patrimony, and sacred objects. (Source: Considering Cultural Resources) 

National Register: National Register of Historic Places. Established through the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, the register is administered by the National Park Service. It is the nation’s 

master inventory of known historic properties, including buildings, structures, sites, objects, and 

districts that possess historic, architectural, engineering, archaeological or cultural significance at the 

national, state, and local levels. (Source: Considering Cultural Resources) 

Native: With respect to a particular ecosystem, a species that, other than as a result of an 

introduction, historically occurred or currently occurs in that ecosystem. 

Negligible Impact: Resources would not be affected, or the effects would be at or near the lowest 

level of detection. Resource conditions would not change or would be so slight that there would not 

be any measurable or perceptible consequence to a population, plant community, cultural resource, 

recreation opportunity, or visitor experience. 

NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act. 

NHPA: National Historic Preservation Act. It outlines historic preservation responsibilities of 

Federal agencies. (Source: Considering Cultural Resources) 

NIOSH: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. 

NOAA: (United States) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

NOAA-Fisheries: (United States) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries. 

This agency was formerly known as the National Marine Fisheries Service. 

NOAEC: No Observed Adverse Effect Concentration. 

NOAEL: No Observed Adverse Effect Level. 

NOEC: No Observed Effect Concentration. 

Non-native Invasive Species: Invasive species are plants and animals that are introduced into new 

areas in which they are not among the native flora and fauna, and because they no longer face the 

natural enemies or competition from their place of origin, spread or reproduce prolifically. Nonnative invasive species can cause significant changes to ecosystems, upset the ecological balance, 

create economic disruptions, and harm plants and wildlife. Within this document the words nonnative invasive species, invasives, noxious weeds, and weeds are used synonymously to represent 

those non-native species that persist and increase the risk of habitat fragmentation and degradation. 

Noxious Weed: A plant species designated by Federal or state law as generally possessing one or 

more of the following characteristics: aggressive or difficult to manage; parasitic; a carrier or host of 

serious insect or disease; or non-native, new, or not common to the United States. (Source: Federal 

Noxious Weed Act) 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-10 Appendix G.Glossary 

NPCC: Northwest Power and Conservation Council. 

NPS: National Park Service. 

NRCS: (United States) Natural Resource Conservation Service. 

NRHP: National Register of Historic Places. 

NVCS: National Vegetation Classification System. 

NWRS: National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Objective: A concise statement of what we want to achieve, how much we want to achieve, when 

and where we want to achieve it, and who is responsible for the work. Objectives derive from goals 

and provide the basis for determining strategies, monitoring refuge accomplishments, and evaluating 

the success of strategies. Objectives should be attainable, time-specific, and measurable. 

ODFW: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

Ordinary High Water Mark: The line that water impresses on land by covering it for sufficient 

periods to cause physical characteristics that distinguish the area below the line from the area above 

it. Characteristics of the area below the line include, but are not limited to, deprivation of the soil 

and substantially all terrestrial vegetation. 

OSHA: Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 

Overlay Wildlife Refuge: A wildlife refuge on land which is owned by one or more Federal 

agencies but managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Paleontological Resources: The preserved (fossilized) remains of plants and animals that existed in 

various geological periods, usually prior to human existence. 

PCB: Polychlorinated Biphenol. It is considered a contaminant in the context of this document. 

Permit: A short-term, revocable authorization to use public lands for specific purposes. 

PIF: Partners in Flight. 

Planning Area: The area upon which the planning efforts will focus. A planning area may include 

lands outside existing planning unit boundaries currently studied for inclusion in the National 

Wildlife Refuge System and/or partnership planning efforts. It also may include watersheds or 

ecosystems outside of our jurisdiction that affect the planning unit. At a minimum, the planning area 

includes all lands within the authorized boundary of the refuge. 

Post-contact: A time period referring to occupation of the area by Euro-Americans, usually 

assumed to be about 1800 in this region. 

PPE: Personal Protective Equipment. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G.Glossary G-11

ppb: Parts Per Billion. 

ppm: Parts Per Million. 

Pre-contact: A time period referring to the occupation of the land solely by Native Americans and 

prior to the occupation by Euro-Americans. Generally equates to approximately pre-1800 in this 

region. 

Preferred Alternative: The alternative determined to best achieve the refuge purpose, vision, and 

goals; to best contribute to the Refuge System mission; to best address the significant issues; and to 

be consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife management. 

Prescribed Fire: A fire ignited according to management actions to meet specific objectives. An 

intentionally or naturally ignited fire that burns under specified conditions that allow the fire to be 

confined to a predetermined area and produce the fire behavior and fire characteristics required to 

attain planned fire treatment and resource management objectives. 

Prey Species: An animal taken by a predator as food. 

Priority 1 Species (State Plants): Those taxa that are in danger of becoming extinct throughout 

their ranges. Populations are at critically low levels or their habitats are degraded or depleted to a 

significant degree. These taxa are the highest priorities for preservation. 

Priority 2 Species (State Plants): Those taxa that will become endangered in Washington if factors 

contributing to their population decline or habitat degradation or loss continue. These taxa are high 

priorities for preservation efforts. 

Priority 3 Species (State Plants): Those taxa that are vulnerable or declining and could become 

endangered or threatened in Washington without active management or removal of threats. These 

taxa should be important in the analysis of potential preserve sites. 

Proposed Species For Listing (Federal): A species for which a proposed rule to list as endangered 

or threatened has been published in the Federal Register. 

PUP: Pesticide Use Proposal. 

Purposes of a National Wildlife Refuge: The purposes specified in or derived from the law, 

proclamation, executive order, agreement, public land order, donation document, or administrative 

memorandum establishing, authorizing, or expanding a national wildlife refuge or refuge subunit. 

Review 1 Species: A plant species in need of additional field work before a status can be assigned. 

Review 2 Species: A plant species with unresolved taxonomic questions. 

Riparian: Of or on the bank of a natural course of water. (Source: Webster’s II Dictionary.) For 

example, riparian vegetation includes any and all plant-life growing on the bank of a stream or the 

edge of, but not within, a pond or lake. 

RM: Refuge Manual. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-12 Appendix G.Glossary 

RQ: Risk Quotient. 

Sacred Site: As defined by Executive Order 13007, a specific, discrete, narrowly delineated location 

on Federal land that is identified by an Indian tribe as sacred by virtue of its established religious 

significance to, or ceremonial use by, an Indian religion, providing that the tribe or authoritative 

representative of an Indian religion has informed the agency of the existence of such a site. (Source: 

Considering Cultural Resources) 

SCBID: South Columbia Basin Irrigation District. 

Sensitive Species (State Plants): A species that is likely to become endangered or threatened in a 

significant portion of its range within the State of Washington. 

Sensitive Species (State Wildlife): Wildlife species native to the State of Washington that are 

vulnerable or declining and are likely to become endangered or threatened throughout significant 

portions of their ranges within the State without cooperative management or the removal of threats. 

SEPA: (Washington) State Environmental Policy Act. 

Service: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Short-term Impact: An effect that generally would last less than a single year or season. 

SHPO: (Washington) State Historic Preservation Officer. 

Shrub-steppe: Arid land dominated by shrubs and grasses where soil and moisture limit the growth 

of trees. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife considers shrub-steppe a priority habitat. 

Significant: See Major. 

Site: When referring to cultural resources, it is the location of an event, occupation, activity, 

building, or structure or natural feature with cultural significance. 

Special Status Species: Wildlife and plant species either federally listed or proposed for listing as 

endangered or threatened; state-listed; or determined priority species. 

Spot Treatment: The application of chemicals directly onto a target plant to control non-native 

invasive species, using a backpack spraying unit, hand-held wand, wick, or other application device. 

SPRC: (Washington) State Parks and Recreation Commission. 

SSP: Science Support Program. 

Step-down (Management) Plan: A plan that provides specific guidance on management subjects 

(e.g., habitat, public use, fire, safety) or groups of related subjects. It describes strategies and 

implementation schedules for meeting Comprehensive Conservation Plan goals and objectives and is 

usually subsequent, subservient, and complimentary to the Comprehensive Conservation Plan. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G.Glossary G-13

Strategy: A specific action, tool, technique, or combination of actions, tools, and techniques used to 

meet unit objectives. 

SUP: Special Use Permit. 

TE&S Species: Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species. 

Threatened Species (Federal): A species that is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable 

future. 

Threatened Species (State Plants): A species that is likely to become endangered in the 

foreseeable future. 

Threatened Species (State Wildlife): Wildlife species native to the State of Washington that are 

likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout significant portions of their ranges 

within Washington without cooperative management or the removal of threats. 

TNC: The Nature Conservancy. 

Traditional/Religious Values: Places that possess values important to Native American tribal 

groups or other ethnic groups for traditional cultural or religious reasons. Traditional cultural values 

may not necessarily be associated with easily definable sites or objects, such as is the case with 

sacred peaks or viewsheds. (Source: Considering Cultural Resources) 

T-REX: Terrestrial Residue Exposure. 

Trust Responsibility: The fiduciary obligations that attach to the United States as trustee of the 

assets and resources that the United States holds in trust for Native American governments and their 

members, the treaty and statutory obligations of the United States toward Native American 

governments and their members, and other legal obligations that attach to the United States by virtue 

of the special relationship between the Federal government and Native American governments. The 

identification and quantification of trust assets is recognized as an ongoing and evolving process. 

(Source: The Native American Policy of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service) 

TSCA: Toxic Substances Control Act. 

USC: United States Code. 

USDA: United States Department of Agriculture. 

USFS: United States Forest Service. 

USGCRP: United Stated Global Change Research Program. 

USGS: United States Geological Survey. 

USHCN: United States Historical Climatology Network. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-14 Appendix G.Glossary 

Vegetation Type: A classification of the plant community based on the dominant plant species in 

the community. 

Vision Statement: A concise statement of what the planning unit should be, or what we hope to do, 

based primarily upon the National Wildlife Refuge System mission and specific refuge purposes and 

other mandates. 

VSP: Visitor Services Plan. 

Watch List Species: A species more abundant and/or less threatened in Washington than previously 

assumed. 

Watershed: All land and water within the confines of a drainage divide. 

WDFW: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

WDNR: Washington Department of Natural Resources. 

WDOE: Washington Department of Ecology. 

WDPR: Washington Department of Parks and Recreation. 

WISAARD: Washington (State) Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records 

Database. 

WSA: Wilderness Study Area. 

Wetlands: Lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is 

usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. 

Wild and Scenic River: A portion of a river that has been designated by Congress as part of the 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, established by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, the 

purpose of which is to protect rivers and their immediate environments that have outstanding scenic, 

recreation, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, and other similar values and are preserved in 

free-flowing conditions. 

Wilderness Units: Areas that have been designated by Congress as units of the National Wilderness 

Preservation System. 

Wildfire: An unplanned, unwanted wildland fire. 

Wildland: An area in which development is essentially non-existent, except for roads, railroads, 

powerlines, and similar transportation facilities. 

Wildlife-dependent Recreation: A use of a national wildlife refuge involving hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation. The National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, as amended, specifies that these are the six priority 

general public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G.Glossary G-15

WNHP: Washington Natural Heritage Program. 

Yakama Nation: Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-16 Appendix G.Glossary 
Appendix H

Integrated Pest 

Management

Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management H-1 

Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management Program

1.0 Background

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is an interdisciplinary approach utilizing methods to prevent, 

eliminate, contain and/or control pest species in concert with other management activities on 

National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) lands and waters to achieve wildlife and habitat 

management goals and objectives. IPM is also a scientifically based, adaptive management process 

where available scientific information, and the best professional judgment of the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service) and Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge staff members and other 

resource experts, would be used to identify and implement appropriate management strategies that 

can be modified over time to ensure effective, site-specific management of pest species to achieve 

desired outcomes. 

In accordance with 43 CFR 46.145, adaptive management would be particularly relevant where longterm impacts may be uncertain and future monitoring would be needed to make adjustments in 

subsequent implementation decisions. After a tolerable pest population threshold is determined, 

considering achievement of Refuge resource objectives and the ecology of pest species, one or more 

methods, or combinations thereof would be selected, that are feasible, efficacious, and most 

protective of nontarget resources, including native species (fish, wildlife, and plants), Service 

personnel, authorized agents, and volunteers; and the public. Staff time and available funding would 

be considered when determining feasibility/practicality of various treatments. 

IPM techniques to address pests are presented as strategies in Chapter 2 in an adaptive management 

context to achieve Refuge resource objectives. In order to satisfy requirements for IPM planning as 

identified in the Service Director’s Memo (dated September 9, 2004) entitled Integrated Pest 

Management Plans and Pesticide Use Proposals: Updates, Guidance and an Online Database, the 

following elements of an IPM program have been incorporated into this CCP. 

 Habitat and/or wildlife objectives that identify pest species and appropriate thresholds to 

indicate the need for and successful implementation of IPM techniques. 

 Monitoring before and/or after treatment to assess progress toward achieving objectives 

including pest thresholds. 

Where pesticides would be necessary to address pests, this appendix provides a structured procedure 

to evaluate potential effects of proposed uses involving ground-based applications to CLNWR’s

biological resources and environmental quality in accordance with effects analyses that were 

presented in Chapter 6 of the draft CCP/EA. Only pesticide uses that likely would cause minor, 

temporary, or localized effects to the Refuge’s biological resources and environmental quality with 

appropriate BMPs, where necessary, would be allowed for use on the Refuge. 

This appendix does not describe the more detailed process to evaluate potential effects associated 

with aerial applications of pesticides. However, the basic framework to assess potential effects to 

Refuge biological resources and environmental quality from aerial application of pesticides would be 

similar to the process described in this appendix for ground-based treatments of other pesticides. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

H-2 Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management 

2.0 Pest Management Laws and Policies

In accordance with the Service’s IPM policy 569 FW 1, plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate pests on 

units of the Refuge System can be controlled to assure balanced wildlife and fish populations in 

support of refuge-specific wildlife and habitat management objectives. Pest control on Federal 

(Refuge) lands and waters also is authorized under the following legal mandates: 

 National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 668dd668ee). 

 Plant Protection Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.). 

 Noxious Weed Control and Eradication Act of 2004 (7 U.S.C. 7781-7786, Subtitle E). 

 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 136-136y). 

 National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C. 4701). 

 Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 4701). 

 Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 136). 

 Executive Order 13148, Section 601(a). 

 Executive Order 13112. 

 Animal Damage Control Act of 1931 (7 U.S.C. 426-426c, 46 Stat. 1468). 

Pests are defined as “living organisms that may interfere with the site-specific purposes, operations, 

or management objectives or that jeopardize human health or safety” in Department of the Interior 

IPM policy 517 DM 1. Similarly, 569 FW 1 defines pests as “invasive plants and introduced or 

native organisms, that may interfere with achieving our management goals and objectives on or off 

our lands, or that jeopardize human health or safety.” 517 DM 1 also defines an invasive species as 

“a species that is non-native to the ecosystem under consideration and whose introduction causes or 

is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.” Throughout the 

remainder of this CCP, the terms pest and invasive species are used interchangeably because both 

can prevent/impede achievement of Refuge wildlife and habitat objectives and/or degrade 

environmental quality. 

In general, control of pests (vertebrate or invertebrate) on the Refuge would conserve and protect the 

nation’s fish, wildlife, and plant resources as well as maintain environmental quality. From 569 FW 

1, animal or plant species that are considered pests, may be managed if the following criteria are met. 

 Threat to human health and well-being or private property, the acceptable level of damage by 

the pest has been exceeded, or state or local government has designated the pest as noxious; 

 Detrimental to resource objectives as specified in a Refuge resource management plan (e.g., 

comprehensive conservation plan, habitat management plan), if available; and 

 Control would not conflict with attainment of resource objectives or the purposes for which 

the Refuge was established. 

The specific justifications for pest management activities on the Refuge follow. 

 Protect human health and well-being. 

 Prevent substantial damage to important to Refuge resources. 

 Protect newly introduced or reestablish native species. 

 Control nonnative (exotic) species, to support the existence of populations of native species. 

 Prevent damage to private property. 

 Provide the public with quality, compatible wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management H-3 

In accordance with Service policy 620 FW 1 (Habitat Management Plans), there are additional 

management directives regarding invasive species found on the Refuge.

“We are prohibited by Executive Order, law, and policy from authorizing, funding, or carrying 

out actions that are likely to cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive species in the 

United States or elsewhere.”

“Manage invasive species to improve or stabilize biotic communities to minimize unacceptable 

change to ecosystem structure and function and prevent new and expanded infestations of 

invasive species. Conduct Refuge habitat management activities to prevent, control, or eradicate 

invasive species . . .”

Animal species damaging/destroying Federal property and/or detrimental to the management 

program of a Refuge may be controlled as described in 50 CFR 31.14 (Official Animal Control 

Operations). For example, the incidental removal of beaver damaging Refuge infrastructure (e.g., 

clogging with subsequent damaging of water control structures) and/or negatively affecting habitats 

(e.g., removing woody species from existing or restored riparian) managed on Refuge lands may be 

conducted without a pest control proposal. We recognize beavers are native species and most of their 

activities on Refuge lands represent a natural process beneficial for maintaining wetland habitats. 

Exotic nutria, whose denning and burrowing activities in wetland dikes cause cave-ins and breaches, 

can be controlled using the most effective techniques considering site-specific factors without a pest 

control proposal. Along with the loss of quality wetland habitats associated with breaching of 

impoundments, the safety of Refuge staffs and public (e.g., along auto tour routes) driving on 

structurally compromised levees and dikes can be threaten by sudden and unexpected cave-ins. 

Trespass and feral animals also may be controlled on Refuge lands. Based upon 50 CFR 28.43 

(Destruction of Dogs and Cats), dogs and cats running at large on a national wildlife refuge and 

observed in the act of killing, injuring, harassing, or molesting humans or wildlife may be disposed 

of in the interest of public safety and wildlife protection. Feral animals should be disposed by the 

most humane method(s) available and in accordance with relevant Service directives (including 

Executive Order 11643). Disposed wildlife specimens may be donated or loaned to public 

institutions. Donation or loans of resident wildlife species will only be made after securing State 

approval (50 CFR 30.11 [Donation and Loan of Wildlife Specimens]). Surplus wildlife specimens 

may be sold alive or butchered, dressed and processed subject to federal and state laws and 

regulations (50 CFR 30.12 [Sale of Wildlife Specimens]). 

3.0 Strategies

To fully embrace IPM as identified in 569 FW 1, the following strategies, where applicable, would 

be carefully considered on the Refuge for each pest species. 

3.1 Prevention 

This would be the most effective and least expensive long-term management option for pests. It 

encompasses methods to prevent new introductions or the spread of the established pests to 

uninfested areas. It requires identifying potential routes of invasion to reduce the likelihood of 

infestation. Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) planning can be used to 

determine if current management activities on a refuge may introduce and/or spread invasive species 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

H-4 Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management 

in order to identify appropriate BMPs for prevention. (See www.haccp-nrm.org for more 

information about HACCP planning.) 

Prevention may include source reduction, using pathogen-free or weed-free seeds or fill; exclusion 

methods (e.g., barriers); and/or sanitation methods (e.g., wash stations) to prevent re-introductions by 

various mechanisms, including vehicles, personnel, livestock and horses. Because invasive species 

are frequently the first to establish newly disturbed sites, prevention would require a reporting 

mechanism for early detection of new pest occurrences with quick response to eliminate any new 

satellite pest populations. 

Prevention would require consideration of the scale and scope of land management activities that 

may promote pest establishment within uninfested areas or promote reproduction and spread of 

existing populations. Along with preventing initial introduction, prevention would involve halting 

the spread of existing infestations to new sites (Mullin et al. 2000). The primary reason of prevention 

would be to keep pest-free lands or waters from becoming infested. Executive Order 11312 

emphasizes the priority for prevention with respect to managing pests. The following methods would 

be conducted to prevent the introduction and/or spread of pests on Refuge lands. 

 Before beginning ground-disturbing activities (e.g., disking, scraping), inventory and 

prioritize pest infestations in project operating areas and along access routes. Refuge staff 

would identify pest species on site or within reasonably expected potential invasion vicinity. 

Where possible, the staff would begin project activities in uninfested areas before working in 

pest-infested areas. 

 The Refuge staff would locate and use pest-free project staging areas. They would avoid or 

minimize travel through pest-infested areas, or restrict travel to those periods when spread of 

seed or propagules of invasive plants would be least likely. 

 Refuge staff would determine the need for, and when appropriate, identify sanitation sites 

where equipment can be cleaned of pests. Where possible, the Refuge staff would clean 

equipment before entering lands at on-Refuge approved cleaning site(s). This practice does 

not pertain to vehicles traveling frequently in and out of the project area that will remain on 

roadways. Seeds and plant parts of pest plants would need to be collected, where practical. 

Refuge staff would remove mud, dirt, and plant parts from project equipment before moving 

it into a project area. 

 Refuge staff would clean all equipment, before leaving the project site, if operating in areas 

infested with pests. Refuge staff would determine the need for, and when appropriate, 

identify sanitation sites where equipment can be cleaned. 

 Refuge staff members, authorized agents, and Refuge volunteers, would where possible, 

inspect, remove and properly dispose of seeds and parts of invasive plants found on their 

clothing and equipment. Proper disposal means bagging the seeds and plant parts and then 

properly discarding of them (e.g., incinerating). 

 Refuge staff would evaluate options, including closure, to restrict the traffic on sites with ongoing restoration of desired vegetation. Staff would revegatate disturbed soil (except travel 

ways on surfaced projects) to optimize plant establishment for each specific site. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management H-5 

Revegetation may include topsoil replacement, planting, seeding, fertilization, liming and 

weed-free mulching, as necessary. Refuge staff would use native material where appropriate 

and feasible. Staff would use certified weed-free or weed-seed-free hay or straw where 

certified materials are reasonably available. 

 Refuge staff would provide information, training and appropriate pest identification materials 

to Refuge staffs, permit holders and recreational visitors. Staff would educate them about 

pest identification, biology, impacts and effective prevention measures. 

 Refuge staff would require grazing permittees to utilize preventative measures for their 

livestock while on Refuge lands. 

 Refuge staff would inspect borrow material for invasive plants prior to use and transport onto 

and/or within Refuge lands. 

 Refuge staff would consider invasive plants in planning for road maintenance activities. 

 Refuge staff would restrict off-road travel to designated routes. 

The following would be methods to prevent the introduction and/or spread of pests into Refuge 

waters: 

 Refuge would inspect boats (including air boats), trailers and other boating equipment. 

Where possible, Refuge staff would remove any visible plants, animals, or mud before 

leaving any waters or boat launching facilities. Where possible, Refuge staff would drain 

water from motors, live wells, bilges, and transom wells while on land before leaving the site. 

If possible, Refuge staff would wash and dry boats, downriggers, anchors, nets, boat floors,

propellers, axles, trailers, and other boat equipment to kill pests not visible at the boat launch. 

 Where feasible, Refuge staff would maintain a l00-foot buffer of aquatic pest-free clearance 

around boat launches and docks or quarantine areas, when cleaning around culverts, canals, 

or irrigation sites. Where possible, Refuge staff would inspect and clean equipment before 

moving to new sites or one project area to another. 

These prevention methods to minimize/eliminate the introduction and/or spread of pests were taken 

verbatim from Appendix E of USDA Forest Service (2005), or slightly modified. 

3.2 Mechanical/Physical Methods

Mechanical/physical methods would remove and destroy, disrupt the growth of, or interfere with, the 

reproduction of pest species. For plants species, these treatments can be accomplished by hand, hand 

tool (manual), or power tools (mechanical) and include pulling, grubbing, digging, tilling/disking, 

cutting, swathing, grinding, sheering, girdling, mowing and mulching of the pest plants. 

For animal species, Service employees or their authorized agents could use mechanical/physical 

methods (including trapping) to control pests as a Refuge management activity. Based upon 50 CFR 

31.2, trapping can be used on a refuge to reduce surplus wildlife populations for a “balanced 

conservation program” in accordance with Federal or State laws and regulations. In some cases, non-
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

H-6 Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management 

lethally trapped animals would be relocated to off-refuge sites with prior approval from the State. 

Each of these tools would be efficacious to some degree and applicable to specific situations. In 

general, mechanical controls can effectively control annual and biennial pest plants. However, to 

control perennial plants, the root system has to be destroyed or it would resprout and continue to 

grow and develop. Mechanical controls are typically not capable of destroying a perennial plant’s 

root system. Although some mechanical tools (e.g., disking, plowing) may damage root systems, 

which may stimulate regrowth producing a denser plant population that may aid in the spread 

depending upon the target species (e.g., Canada thistle). In addition, steep terrain and soil conditions 

would be major factors that can limit the use of many mechanical control methods. 

Some mechanical control methods (e.g., mowing), which would be used in combination with 

herbicides, can be a very effective technique to control perennial species. For example, mowing 

perennial plants followed sequentially by treating the plant regrowth with a systemic herbicide often 

would improve the efficacy of the herbicide compared to herbicide treatment only. 

3.3 Cultural Methods

Cultural methods would involve manipulating habitat to increase pest mortality by reducing its 

suitability to the pest. Cultural methods would include water-level manipulation; mulching; using 

winter cover crops; changing planting dates to minimize pest impact; prescribed burning (facilitate 

revegetation, increase herbicide efficacy, and remove litter to assist in emergence of desirable 

species); flaming with propane torches; trap crops; crop rotations that would include nonsusceptible 

crops; moisture management; addition of beneficial insect habitat; reducing clutter; proper trash 

disposal; planting or seeding desirable species to shade or out-compete invasive plants; applying 

fertilizer to enhance desirable vegetation; prescriptive grazing; and other habitat alterations. 

3.4 Biological Control Agents

Classical biological control would involve the deliberate introduction and management of natural 

enemies (parasites, predators, or pathogens) to reduce pest populations. Many of the most 

ecologically or economically damaging pest species in the U.S. originated in foreign countries. 

These newly introduced pests, which are free from the natural enemies found in their country or 

region of origin, may have a competitive advantage over cultivated and native species. This 

competitive advantage often allows introduced species to flourish, which can cause widespread 

economic damage to crops or out compete and displace native vegetation. Once the introduced pest 

species population reaches a certain level, traditional methods of pest management may be cost 

prohibitive or impractical. Biological controls typically are used when these pest populations have 

become so widespread that eradication or effective control would be difficult or no longer practical. 

Biological control has advantages as well as disadvantages. Benefits would include reducing 

pesticide usage, host specificity for target pests, long-term self-perpetuating control, low cost/acre, 

capacity for searching and locating hosts, synchronizing biological control agents to hosts’ life 

cycles, and the unlikelihood that hosts will develop resistance to agents. Disadvantages would 

include limited availability of agents from their native lands, the dependence of control on target 

species density, slow rate at which control occurs, biotype matching, the difficulty and expense of 

conflicts over control of the target pest, and host specificity when host populations are low. 

A reduction in target species populations from biological controls is typically a slow process, and 

efficacy can be highly variable. It may not work well in a particular area and work well in other 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management H-7 

areas. Biological control agents would require specific environmental conditions to survive over 

time. Some conditions are understood; whereas, others are only partially understood or not at all. 

Biological control agents would not eradicate a target pest. When using biological control agents, 

residual levels of the target pest typically are expected; the agent population level or survival would 

be dependent upon the density of its host. After the pest population decreases, the population of the 

biological control agent would decrease correspondingly. This is a natural cycle. Some pest 

populations (e.g., invasive plants) would tend to persist for several years after a biological control 

agent becomes established due to seed reserves in the soil, inefficiencies in the agents search 

behavior, and the natural lag in population buildup of the agent. 

The full range of pest groups potentially found on Refuge lands and waters would include diseases, 

invertebrates (insects, mollusks), vertebrates, and invasive plants (most common group). Often it is 

assumed that biological control would address many if not most of these pest problems. There are 

several well-documented success stories of biological control of invasive weed species in the Pacific 

Northwest, including Mediterranean sage, St. John’s wort (Klamath weed), and tansy ragwort. 

Emerging success stories include Dalmatian toadflax, diffuse knapweed, leafy spurge, purple 

loosestrife, and yellow star thistle. However, historically, each new introduction of a biological 

control agent in the U.S. has only about a 30 percent success rate (Coombs et al. 2004). Refer to 

Coombs et al. (2004) for the status of biological control agents for invasive plants in the Pacific 

Northwest. 

Introduced species without desirable close relatives in the U.S. would generally be selected as 

biological controls. Natural enemies that are restricted to one or a few closely related plants in their 

country of origin are targeted as biological controls (Center et al. 1997; Hasan and Ayres 1990). 

Refuge staff would ensure introduced agents are approved by the applicable authorities. Except for a 

small number of formulated biological control products registered by the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) under Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), most biological 

control agents are regulated by the USDA Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection 

and Quarantine (USDA-APHIS-PPQ). State departments of agriculture, and in some cases county 

agricultural commissioners or weed districts, have additional approval authority. 

USDA-APHIS-PPQ permits (form PPQ 526) are required to import biocontrol agents from another 

state. Form PPQ 526 may be obtained by writing to: 

USDA APHIS-PPQ 

Biological Assessment and Taxonomic Support 

4700 River Road, Unit 113 

Riverdale, Maryland 20737 

or 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wps/portal/ppq/permits/bioligical/weedbio.html

The Service strongly supports the development and legal and responsible use of appropriate, safe, 

and effective biological control agents for nuisance and nonindigenous or pest species. 

State and county agriculture departments may also be sources for biological control agents, or they 

may have information about where biological control agents may be obtained. Commercial sources 

should have an Application and Permit to Move Live Plant Pests and Noxious Weeds (USDA Form 

PPQ 226) to release specific biological control agents in a state and/or county. Furthermore, 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

H-8 Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management 

certification regarding the biological control agent’s identity (genus, specific epithet, sub-species and 

variety) and purity (e.g., parasite free, pathogen free, and biotic and abiotic contaminants) should be 

specified in purchase orders. 

Biological control agents are subject to 7 RM 8 (Exotic Species Introduction and Management). In 

addition, Refuge staff would follow the International Code of Best Practice for Classical Biological 

Control of Weeds (sric.ucdavis.edu/exotic/exotic.htm), as ratified by delegates to the International 

Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds, Bozeman, Montana, July 9, 1999. This code identifies 

the following: 

 Release-only approved biological control agents. 

 Use of the most effective agents. 

 Documenting of releases. 

 Monitoring for impacts to the target pest and nontarget species, and the environment. 

Biological control agents formulated as pesticide products and registered by the EPA (e.g., Bti) are 

also subject to Pesticide Use Proposal (PUP) review and approval (see below). 

A record of all releases would be maintained with date(s), location(s) and environmental conditions 

of the release site(s); the identity, quantity and condition of the biological control agents released; 

and other relevant data and comments, such as weather conditions. Systematic monitoring to 

determine the establishment and effectiveness of the release is also recommended. 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents regarding biological and other environmental 

effects of biological control agents prepared by another federal agency, where the scope is relevant to 

evaluation of releases on Refuge lands, would be reviewed. Possible source agencies for such NEPA 

documents include the Bureau of Land Management, USDA Forest Service, National Park Service, 

USDA-Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, and the military services. It might be 

appropriate to incorporate by reference parts or all of existing document(s) from the review. 

Incorporating by reference (43 CFR 46.135) is a technique used to avoid redundancies in analysis. It 

can also reduce the bulk of a Service NEPA document, which only must identify the documents that 

are incorporated by reference. In addition, relevant portions must be summarized in the Service 

NEPA document to the extent necessary to provide the decision-maker and public with an 

understanding of relevance of the referenced material to the current analysis. 

3.5 Pesticides

The selective use of pesticides would be based upon pest ecology (including mode of reproduction); 

the size and distribution of its populations, site-specific conditions (e.g., soils, topography); known 

efficacy under similar site conditions, and the capability to utilize best management practices (BMPs) 

to reduce/eliminate potential effects to nontarget species and sensitive habitats; and the potential to 

contaminate surface and groundwater. All pesticide usage (pesticide, target species, application rate, 

and method of application) would comply with the applicable federal (FIFRA) and state regulations 

pertaining to pesticide use, safety, storage, disposal, and reporting. 

Before pesticides can be used to eradicate, control, or contain pests on Refuge lands and waters, 

PUPs would be prepared and approved in accordance with 569 FW 1. PUP records would provide a 

detailed, time-, site-, and target-specific description of the proposed use of pesticides on the Refuge. 

All PUPs would be created, approved or disapproved, and stored in the Pesticide Use Proposal 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management H-9 

System (PUPS), which is a centralized database only accessible on the Service’s intranet 

(systems.fws.gov/pups). Only Service employees would be authorized to access PUP records for a 

Refuge in this database. 

Application equipment would be selected to provide site-specific delivery to target pests while 

minimizing/eliminating direct or indirect (e.g., drift) exposure to nontarget areas and degradation of 

surface and groundwater quality. Where possible, target-specific equipment (e.g., backpack sprayer, 

wiper) would be used to treat target pests. Other target-specific equipment to apply pesticides would 

include soaked wicks or paint brushes for wiping vegetation and lances, hatchets, or syringes for 

direct injection into stems. Granular pesticides may be applied using seeders or other specialized 

dispensers. In contrast, aerial spraying (e.g., fixed wing or helicopter) would only be used where 

access is difficult (remoteness) and/or the size/distribution of infestations precludes practical use of 

ground-based methods. 

Because repeated use of one pesticide may allow resistant organisms to survive and reproduce, 

multiple pesticides with variable modes of action would be considered for treatments on Refuge 

lands and waters. This is especially important if multiple applications within years and/or over a 

growing season likely would be necessary for habitat maintenance and restoration activities to 

achieve resource objectives. Integrated chemical and nonchemical controls also are highly effective, 

where practical, because pesticide resistant organisms can be removed from the site. 

Cost may not be the primary factor in selecting a pesticide for use on a refuge. If the least expensive 

pesticide would potentially harm natural resources or people, then a different product would be 

selected, if available. The most efficacious pesticide available with the least potential to degrade 

environmental quality (soils, surface water, and groundwater) as well as the least potential effect to 

native species and communities of fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats, would be acceptable for 

use on Refuge lands in the context of an IPM approach. 

3.6 Habitat Restoration/Maintenance

Restoration and/or proper maintenance of Refuge habitats associated with achieving wildlife and 

habitat objectives would be essential for long-term prevention, eradication, or control (at or below 

threshold levels) of pests. Promoting desirable plant communities through the manipulation of 

species composition, plant density and growth rate is an essential component of invasive plant 

management (Masters et al. 1996; Masters and Shelly 2001; Brooks et al. 2004). 

The three components of succession that could be manipulated through habitat maintenance and 

restoration are site availability, species availability, and species performance (Cox and Anderson 

2004). Although a single method (e.g., herbicide treatment) may eliminate or suppress pest species 

in the short term, the resulting gaps and bare soil create niches that are conducive to further invasion 

by the species and/or other invasive plants. 

On degraded sites where desirable species are absent or in low abundance, revegetation with 

native/desirable grasses, forbs, and legumes may be necessary to direct and accelerate plant 

community recovery and achieve site-specific objectives in a reasonable time frame. The selection 

of appropriate species for revegetation would be dependent on a number of factors, including 

resource objectives and site-specific, abiotic factors (e.g., soil texture, precipitation/temperature 

regimes, and shade conditions). Seed availability and cost, ease of establishment, seed production, 

and competitive ability also would be important considerations. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

H-10 Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management 

4.0 Priorities for Treatments

For many refuges, the magnitude (number, distribution, and sizes of infestations) for pest problems is 

too extensive and beyond the available capital resources to effectively address during any single field 

season. To manage pests in the Refuge, it would be essential to prioritize treatment of infestations. 

Highest priority treatments would be focused on early detection and rapid response to eliminate 

infestations of new pests, if possible. This would be especially important for aggressive pests 

potentially impacting species, species groups, communities, and/or habitats associated with Refuge 

purpose(s), Refuge System resources of concern (federally listed species, migratory birds, selected 

marine mammals, and interjurisdictional fish), and native species for maintaining/restoring biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health. 

The next priority would be treating established pests that appear in one or more previously uninfested areas. Moody and Mack (1988) demonstrated through modeling that small, new outbreaks 

of invasive plants eventually would infest an area larger than the established, source population. 

They also found that control efforts focusing on the large, main infestation rather than the new, small 

satellites reduced the chances of overall success. The lowest priority would be treating large 

infestations (sometimes monotypic stands) of well-established pests. In this case, initial efforts 

would focus upon containment of the perimeter followed by work to control/eradicate the established 

infested area. If containment and/or control of a large infestation are not effective, then efforts would 

focus upon halting pest reproduction or managing source populations. Maxwell et al. (2009) found 

treating fewer populations that are sources represents an effective long-term strategy to reduce of 

total number of invasive populations and decreasing meta-population growth rates. 

Although State-listed noxious weeds would always of high priority for management, other pest 

species known to cause substantial ecological impact would also be considered. For example, 

cheatgrass may not be listed by a state as noxious, but it can greatly alter fire regimes in shrub-steppe 

habitats resulting in large monotypic stands that displace native bunch grasses, forbs and shrubs. 

Pest control would likely require a multi-year commitment from Refuge staff. Essential to the longterm success of pest management would be pre- and post-treatment monitoring, assessment of the 

successes and failures of treatments, and development of new approaches when proposed methods do 

not achieve desired outcomes. 

5.0 Best Management Practices (BMPs)

BMPs can minimize or eliminate possible effects associated with pesticide usage to nontarget species 

and/or sensitive habitats as well as degradation of water quality from drift, surface runoff, or 

leaching. Based upon the Department of the Interior Pesticide Use Policy (517 DM 1) and the 

Service IPM policy (569 FW 1), the use of applicable BMPs (where feasible) also would likely 

ensure that pesticide uses may not adversely affect federally listed species and/or their critical 

habitats through determinations made using the process described in 50 CFR part 402. 

The following BMPs pertain to mixing/handling and applying pesticides for all ground-based 

treatments of pesticides, which would be considered and utilized, where feasible, based upon targetand site-specific factors and time-specific environmental conditions. Although not listed below, the 

most important BMP to eliminate/reduce potential impacts to nontarget resources would be an IPM 

approach to prevent, control, eradicate, and contain pests. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management H-11

5.1 Pesticide Handling and Mixing 

 As a precaution against spilling, spray tanks would not be left unattended during filling. 

 All pesticide containers would be triple rinsed, and the rinsate would be used as water in the 

sprayer tank and applied to treatment areas. 

 All pesticide spray equipment would be properly cleaned. Where possible, rinsate would be 

used as part of the make-up water in the sprayer tank and applied to treatment areas. 

 Refuge staff would empty and triple rinse pesticide containers that can be recycled at local 

herbicide container collections. 

 All unused pesticides would be properly discarded at a local “safe send” collection. 

 Pesticides and pesticide containers would be lawfully stored, handled, and disposed of in 

accordance with the label and in a manner safeguarding human health, fish, and wildlife; and 

preventing soil and water contamination. 

 Refuge staff would consider the water quality parameters (e.g., pH, hardness) that are 

important to ensure greatest efficacy where specified on the pesticide label. 

 All pesticide spills would be addressed immediately using procedures identified in the 

Refuge spill respond plan. 

5.2 Applying Pesticides 

 Pesticide treatments would only be conducted by or under the supervision of Service 

personnel and non-Service applicators with the appropriate State, or BLM certification to 

safely and effectively conduct these activities on Refuge lands and waters. 

 Refuge staff would comply with all Federal, State and local pesticide use laws and 

regulations as well as DOI, Service, and Refuge System pesticide-related policies. For 

example, the staff would use application equipment and apply rates for the specific pest(s) 

identified on the pesticide label as required under FIFRA. 

 Before each treatment season and prior to mixing or applying any product for the first time 

each season, all applicators would review the labels, material safety data sheets (MSDSs), 

and PUPs for each pesticide, determining the target pest, appropriate mix rate(s), necessary 

personal protective equipment (PPE), and other requirements listed on the pesticide label. 

 A one-foot no-spray buffer from the water’s edge would be used, where applicable, and 

where it does not detrimentally influence effective control of pest species. 

 Use low-impact herbicide application techniques (e.g., spot treatment, cut stump, oil basal, 

Thinvert system applications) rather than broadcast foliar applications (e.g., boom sprayer, 

other larger tank wand applications), where practical. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

H-12 Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management 

 Use low-volume rather than high-volume foliar applications where low-impact methods 

above are not feasible or practical to maximize herbicide effectiveness and ensure correct and 

uniform application rates. 

 Applicators would use and adjust spray equipment to apply the coarsest droplet size spectrum 

with optimal coverage of the target species while reducing drift. 

 Applicators would use the largest droplet size that results in uniform coverage. 

 Applicators would use drift reduction technologies such as low-drift nozzles, where possible. 

 Where possible, spraying would occur during low (average <7mph and preferably 3-5 mph) 

and consistent direction wind conditions with moderate temperatures (typically <85°F). 

 Where possible, applicators would avoid spraying during inversion conditions (often 

associated with calm and very low wind conditions) that can cause large-scale herbicide drift 

to nontarget areas. 

 Equipment would be calibrated regularly to ensure that the proper rate of pesticide is applied 

to the target area or species. 

 Spray applications would be made at the lowest height for uniform coverage of target pests to 

minimize/eliminate potential drift. 

 If windy conditions frequently occur during afternoons, spraying (especially boom 

treatments) would typically be conducted during early morning hours. 

 Spray applications would not be conducted on days with >30% forecast for rain within six 

hours, except for pesticides that are rapidly rain fast (e.g., glyphosate in one hour) to 

minimize/eliminate potential runoff. 

 Where possible, applicators would use drift retardant adjuvants during spray applications, 

especially adjacent to sensitive areas. 

 Where possible, applicators would use a nontoxic dye to aid in identifying target area treated 

as well as potential overspray or drift. A dye can also aid in detecting equipment leaks. If a 

leak is discovered, the application would be stopped until repairs can be made to the sprayer. 

 For pesticide uses associated with cropland and facilities management, buffers, as 

appropriate, would be used to protect sensitive habitats, especially wetlands and other aquatic 

habitats. 

 When drift cannot be sufficiently reduced through altering equipment setup and application 

techniques, buffer zones may be identified to protect sensitive areas downwind of 

applications. Refuge staff would only apply adjacent to sensitive areas when the wind is 

blowing the opposite direction. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management H-13

 Applicators would utilize scouting for early detection of pests to eliminate unnecessary 

pesticide applications. 

 Refuge staff would consider timing of application so native plants are protected (e.g., 

senescence) while effectively treating invasive plants. 

 Application equipment (e.g., sprayer, ATV, tractor) would be thoroughly cleaned and PPE 

would be removed/disposed of on-site by applicators after treatments to eliminate the 

potential spread of pests to uninfested areas. 

 Rinsate from cleaning spray equipment after application would be recaptured and reused or 

applied to an appropriate pest plant infestation. 

6.0 Safety

Safety is the highest priority in pest management. 

6.1 Personal Protective Equipment 

All applicators would wear the specific personal protective equipment (PPE) identified on the 

pesticide label. The appropriate PPE will be worn at all times during handling, mixing and applying. 

PPE can include the following: disposable (e.g., Tyvek) or laundered coveralls; gloves (latex, rubber, 

or nitrile); rubber boots; and/or an NIOSH-approved respirator. Because exposure to concentrated 

product is usually greatest during mixing, extra care should be taken while preparing pesticide 

solutions. Persons mixing these solutions can be best protected if they wear long gloves, an apron, 

footwear and a face shield. 

Coveralls and other protective clothing used during an application would be laundered separately 

from other laundry items. Transporting, storing, handling, mixing, and disposing of pesticide 

containers will be consistent with label requirements, EPA and OSHA requirements, and Service 

policy. 

If a respirator is necessary for a pesticide use, then the following requirements would be met in 

accordance with Service safety policy—a written Respirator Program, fit testing, physical 

examination (including pulmonary function and blood work for contaminants), and proper storage of 

the respirator. 

6.2 Notification 

The restricted entry interval (REI) is the time period required after the application at which point 

someone may safely enter a treated area without PPE. Refuge staff, authorized management agents 

of the Service, volunteers, and members of the public who could be in or near a pesticide treated area 

within the stated re-entry time period on the label would be notified about treatment areas. Posting 

would occur at any site where individuals might inadvertently become exposed to a pesticide during 

other activities on the Refuge. Where required by the label and/or state-specific regulations, sites 

would also be posted on its perimeter and at other likely locations of entry. Refuge staff would also 

notify appropriate private property owners of an intended application, including any private 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

H-14 Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management 

individuals who have requested notification. Special efforts would be made to contact nearby 

individuals who are beekeepers or who have expressed chemical sensitivities. 

6.3 Medical Surveillance 

Medical surveillance may be required for Service personnel and approved volunteers who mix, 

apply, and/or monitor use of pesticides (see 242 FW 7 [Pesticide Users] and 242 FW 4 [Medical 

Surveillance]). In accordance with 242 FW 7.12A, Service personnel would be medically monitored

if one or more of the following criteria is met: 

 Exposed or may be exposed to concentrations at or above the published permissible exposure 

limits or threshold limit values (see 242 FW 4); 

 Use pesticides in a manner considered “frequent pesticide use;” or

 Use pesticides in a manner that requires a respirator (see 242 FW 14 for respirator use 

requirements). 

In 242 FW7.7A, Frequent Pesticide Use means when a person is “applying pesticide handles, mixes, 

or applies pesticides, with a Health Hazard rating of three or higher, for eight or more hours in any 

week or 16 or more hours in any 30-day period.” Under some circumstances, individuals may be 

medically monitored who use pesticides infrequently (see Section 7.7 below), experience an acute 

exposure (sudden, short-term), or use pesticides with a health hazard ranking of one or two. This 

decision would consider the individual’s health and fitness level, the pesticide’s specific health risks, 

and the potential risks from other pesticide-related activities. Refuge cooperators (e.g., cooperative 

farmers) and other authorized agents (e.g., state and county employees) would be responsible for 

their own medical monitoring needs and costs. 

Standard examinations (at Refuge expense) of appropriate Refuge staff would be provided by the 

nearest certified occupational health and safety physician as determined by Federal Occupational 

Health. 

6.4 Certification and Supervision of Pesticide Applicators 

Appropriate Refuge staff or approved volunteers handling, mixing and/or applying or directly 

supervising others engaged in pesticide use activities would be trained and State or federally (BLM) 

licensed to apply pesticides to refuge lands or waters. In accordance with 242 FW7.18A and 569 FW 

1.10B, certification is required to apply restricted use pesticides based upon EPA regulations. For 

safety reasons, all individuals participating in pest management activities with general use pesticides 

also are encouraged to attend appropriate training or acquire pesticide applicator certification. The 

certification requirement would be for a commercial or private applicator depending upon the state. 

New staff unfamiliar with proper procedures for storing, mixing, handling, applying and disposing of 

herbicides and containers would receive orientation and training before handling or using any 

products. Documentation of training would be kept in the files at the Refuge office. 

6.5 Record Keeping 

6.5.1 Labels and Material Safety Data Sheets 

Pesticide labels and material safety data sheets (MSDSs) would be maintained at the Refuge shop 

and laminated copies in the mixing area. These documents also would be carried by field 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management H-15

applicators, where possible. A written reference (e.g., note pad, chalk board, dry erase board) for 

each tank to be mixed would be kept in the mixing area for quick reference while mixing is in 

progress. In addition, approved PUPs stored in the PUPS database typically contain website links to 

pesticide labels and MSDSs. 

6.5.2 Pesticide use proposals (PUPs) 

A PUP would be prepared for each proposed pesticide use associated with annual pest management 

on Refuge lands and waters. A PUP would include specific information about the proposed pesticide 

use, including the common and chemical names of the pesticide(s), target pest species, size and 

location of treatment site(s), application rate(s) and method(s), and federally listed species 

determinations, where applicable. 

In accordance with Service guidelines (Director’s memo [December 12, 2007]), staff may receive up 

to five-year approvals for Washington Office and field reviewed proposed pesticide uses based upon 

meeting identified criteria including an approved IPM Plan, where necessary (see www.fws.gov/ 

contaminants/Issues/IPM.cfm). For a refuge, an IPM Plan (requirements described herein) can be 

completed independently or in association with a CCP or a habitat management plan (HMP) if IPM 

strategies and potential environmental effects are adequately addressed within appropriate NEPA 

documentation. 

PUPs would be created, approved or disapproved, and stored as records in the Pesticide Use Proposal 

System, which is centralized database on the Service’s intranet (systems.fws.gov/pups). Only 

Service employees can access PUP records. 

6.5.3 Pesticide Usage 

In accordance with 569 FW 1, the Refuge Manager would be required to maintain records of all 

pesticides annually applied on lands or waters under Refuge jurisdiction. This would encompass 

pesticides applied by other federal agencies, state and county governments, nongovernment 

applicators, including cooperators and their pest management service providers with Service 

permission. For clarification, pesticide means all insecticides, insect and plant growth regulators, 

dessicants, herbicides, fungicides, rodenticides, acaricides, nematicides, fumigants, avicides and 

piscicides. 

The following usage information can be reported for approved PUPs in the PUPS database. 

 Pesticide trade name(s) 

 Active ingredient(s) 

 Total acres treated 

 Total amount of pesticides used (pounds or gallons) 

 Total amount of active ingredient(s) used (pounds) 

 Target pest(s) 

 Efficacy (percent control) 

To determine whether treatments are efficacious (eradicating, controlling, or containing the target 

pest) and achieving resource objectives, habitat and/or wildlife response would be monitored both 

pre- and post-treatment, where possible. Considering available annual funding and staffing, 

appropriate monitoring data regarding characteristics (attributes) of pest infestations (e.g., area, 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

H-16 Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management 

perimeter, degree of infestation-density, percent cover, density), as well as habitat and/or wildlife 

response to treatments, may be collected and stored in a relational database (e.g., Refuge Habitat 

Management Database), preferably a geo-referenced data management system (e.g., Refuge Lands 

GIS) to facilitate data analyses and subsequent reporting. In accordance with adaptive management, 

data analysis and interpretation would allow treatments to be modified or changed over time, as 

necessary, to achieve resource objectives considering site-specific conditions in conjunction with 

habitat and/or wildlife responses. Monitoring could also identify short- and long-term impacts to 

natural resources and environmental quality associated with IPM treatments in accordance with 

adaptive management principles identified in 43 CFR 46.145. 

7.0 Evaluating Pesticide Use Proposals

Pesticides would only be used on Refuge lands for habitat management as well as croplands/facilities 

maintenance after approval of a PUP. In general, proposed pesticide uses on Refuge lands would 

only be approved where there would likely be minor, temporary, or localized effects to fish and 

wildlife species, as well as a minimal potential to degrade environmental quality. Potential effects to 

listed and nonlisted species would be evaluated with quantitative ecological risk assessments and 

other screening measures. Potential effects to environmental quality would be based upon pesticide 

characteristics of environmental fate (water solubility, soil mobility, soil persistence, and 

volatilization) and other quantitative screening tools. 

Ecological risk assessments as well as characteristics of environmental fate and potential to degrade 

environmental quality for pesticides would be documented in Chemical Profiles (see Section 7.5). 

These profiles would include threshold values for quantitative measures of ecological risk 

assessments and screening tools for environmental fate that represent minimal potential effects to 

species and environmental quality. In general, only pesticide uses with appropriate BMPs (see 

Section 4.0) for habitat management and cropland/facilities maintenance on Refuge lands that would 

potentially have minor, temporary, or localized effects on Refuge biological and environmental 

quality (threshold values not exceeded) would be approved. 

7.1 Overview of Ecological Risk Assessment 

An ecological risk assessment process would be used to evaluate potential adverse effects to 

biological resources as a result of a pesticide(s) proposed for use on Refuge lands. It is an 

established quantitative and qualitative methodology for comparing and prioritizing risks of 

pesticides and conveying an estimate of the potential risk for an adverse effect. This quantitative 

methodology provides an efficient mechanism to integrate best available scientific information 

regarding hazard, patterns of use (exposure) and dose-response relationships in a manner that is 

useful for ecological risk decision-making. It would provide an effective way to evaluate potential 

effects where there is missing or unavailable scientific information (data gaps) to address reasonable, 

foreseeable adverse effects in the field as required under 40 CFR Part 1502.22. Protocols for 

ecological risk assessment of pesticide uses on the Refuge were developed through research and 

established by the EPA (2004). Assumptions for these risk assessments are presented in Section 6 

above. 

The toxicological data used in ecological risk assessments are typically results of standardized 

laboratory studies provided by pesticide registrants to the EPA to meet regulatory requirements under 

the FIFRA. These studies assess the acute (lethality) and chronic (reproductive) effects associated 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management H-17

with short- and long-term exposure to pesticides on representative species of birds, mammals, 

freshwater fish, aquatic invertebrates and terrestrial and aquatic plants. Other effects data publicly 

available would also be utilized for risk assessment protocols described herein. Toxicity endpoint 

and environmental fate data are available from a variety of resources. Some of the more useful 

resources can be found in Section 7.5 below. 

Table 1. Ecotoxicity tests used to evaluate potential effects to birds, fish, and mammals to 

establish toxicity endpoints for risk quotient calculations. 

Species Group Exposure Measurement Endpoint

Bird

Acute Median Lethal Concentration (LC50)

Chronic

No Observed Effect Concentration (NOEC) or

No Observed Adverse Effect Concentration (NOAEC)1

Fish

Acute Median Lethal Concentration (LC50)

Chronic

No Observed Effect Concentration (NOEC) or

No Observed Adverse Effect Concentration (NOAEC)2

Mammal

Acute Oral Lethal Dose (LD50)

Chronic

No Observed Effect Concentration (NOEC) or

No Observed Adverse Effect Concentration (NOAEC)3

1

 Measurement endpoints typically include a variety of reproductive parameters (e.g., number of eggs, number of 

offspring, eggshell thickness and number of cracked eggs). 

2

 Measurement endpoints for early life stage/life cycle typically include embryo hatch rates, time to hatch, growth 

and time to swim-up. 

3

 Measurement endpoints include maternal toxicity, teratogenic effects or developmental anomalies, evidence of 

mutagenicity or genotoxicity, and interference with cellular mechanisms such as DNA synthesis and DNA repair.

7.2 Determining Ecological Risk to Fish and Wildlife 

The potential for pesticides used on the Refuge to cause direct adverse effects to fish and wildlife 

would be evaluated using EPA’s Ecological Risk Assessment Process (2004). This deterministic 

approach, which is based upon a two-phase process involving estimation of environmental 

concentrations and then characterization of risk, would be used for ecological risk assessments. This 

method integrates exposure estimates (estimated environmental concentration [EEC] and 

toxicological endpoints [e.g., LC50 and oral LD50]) to evaluate the potential for adverse effects to 

species groups (birds, mammals, and fish) representative of legal mandates for managing units of the 

Refuge System. This integration is achieved through risk quotients (RQs) calculated by dividing the 

EEC by acute and chronic toxicity values selected from standardized toxicological endpoints or 

published effect (Table 1). 

RQ = EEC/Toxicological Endpoint

The level of risk associated with direct effects of pesticide use would be characterized by comparing 

calculated RQs to the appropriate Level of Concern (LOC) established by the EPA (1998 [Table 2]). 

The LOC represents a quantitative threshold value for screening potential adverse effects to fish and 

wildlife resources associated with pesticide use. The following are four exposure-species group 

scenarios that would be used to characterize ecological risk to fish and wildlife on the Refuge: acutelisted species, acute-nonlisted species, chronic-listed species, and chronic-nonlisted species. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

H-18 Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management 

Acute risk would indicate the potential for mortality associated with short-term dietary exposure to 

pesticides immediately after an application. For characterization of acute risks, median values from 

LC50 and LD50 tests would be used as toxicological endpoints for RQ calculations. In contrast, 

chronic risks would indicate the potential for adverse effects associated with long-term dietary 

exposure to pesticides from a single application or multiple applications over time (within a season 

and over years). For characterization of chronic risks, the no observed concentration (NOAEC) or no 

observed effect concentration (NOEC) for reproduction would be used as toxicological endpoints for 

RQ calculations. Where available, the NOAEC would be preferred over a NOEC value. 

Listed species are those federally designated as threatened, endangered, or proposed in accordance 

with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 Stat. 884, as amended, Public 

Law 93-205). For listed species, potential adverse effects would be assessed at the individual level 

because loss of individuals from a population could detrimentally impact a species. In contrast, risks 

to nonlisted species would consider effects at the population level. A RQ<LOC would indicate the 

proposed pesticide use “may affect, not likely to adversely effect” individuals (listed species) and it 

would not pose an unacceptable risk for adverse effects to populations (nonlisted species) for each 

taxonomic group (Table 2). In contrast, a RQ>LOC would indicate a “may affect, likely to adversely 

affect” for listed species and it would also pose unacceptable ecological risk for adverse effects to 

nonlisted species. 

Table 2. Presumption of unacceptable risk for birds, fish and mammals (EPA 1998). 

Risk Presumption Level of Concern

Listed Species Nonlisted Species

Acute Birds 0.1 0.5

Fish 0.05 0.5

Mammals 0.1 0.5

Chronic Birds 1.0 1.0

Fish 1.0 1.0

Mammals 1.0 1.0

7.2.1 Environmental Exposure 

Following release into the environment through application, pesticides would experience several 

different routes of environmental fate. Pesticides which would be sprayed can move through the air 

(e.g., particle or vapor drift) and may eventually end up in other parts of the environment such as 

nontarget vegetation, soil, or water. Pesticides applied directly to the soil may be washed off the soil 

into nearby bodies of surface water (e.g., surface runoff) or may percolate through the soil to lower 

soil layers and groundwater (e.g., leaching) (Baker and Miller 1999; Pope et al. 1999; Butler et al. 

1998; Ramsay et al. 1995; EXTOXNET 1993a). Pesticides which would be injected into the soil 

may also be subject to the latter two fates. The aforementioned possibilities are by no means 

complete, but it does indicate movement of pesticides in the environment is very complex with 

transfers occurring continually among different environmental compartments. In some cases, these 

exchanges occur not only between areas that are close together, but it also may involve transportation 

of pesticides over long distances (Barry 2004, Woods 2004). 

7.2.1.1 Terrestrial exposure 

The EEC for exposure to terrestrial wildlife would be quantified using an EPA screening-level 

approach (EPA 2004). This screening-level approach is not affected by product formulation because 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management H-19

it evaluates pesticide active ingredient(s). This approach would vary depending upon the proposed 

pesticide application method, spray or granular. 

7.2.1.1.1 Terrestrial-spray application 

For spray applications, exposure would be determined using the Kanaga nomogram method (EPA 

2005a; EPA 2004; Pfleeger et al. 1996) through the EPA’s Terrestrial Residue Exposure model (TREX) version 1.2.3 (EPA 2005b). To estimate the maximum (initial) pesticide residue on short grass 

(<20 cm tall) as a general food item category for terrestrial vertebrate species, T-REX input variables 

would include from the pesticide label: maximum pesticide application rate (pounds active ingredient 

[acid equivalent]/acre) and the pesticide half-life (days) in soil. Although there are other food item 

categories (tall grasses; broadleaf plants and small insects; fruits, pods, seeds and large insects), short 

grass was selected because it would yield maximum EECs (240 ppm per lb ai/acre) for worst-case 

risk assessments. Short grass is not representative of forage for carnivorous species (e.g., raptors), 

but it would characterize the maximum potential exposure through the diet of avian and mammalian 

prey items. Consequently, this approach would provide a conservative screening tool for pesticides 

that do not biomagnify. 

For RQ calculations in T-REX, the model would require the weight of surrogate species and Mineau 

scaling factors (Mineau et al. 1996). Body weights of bobwhite quail and mallard are included in TREX by default, but body weights of other organisms (Table 3) would be entered manually. The 

Mineau scaling factor accounts for small-bodied bird species that may be more sensitive to pesticide 

exposure than would be predicted only by body weight. Mineau scaling factors would be entered 

manually with values ranging from 1 to 1.55 that are unique to a particular pesticide or group of 

pesticides. If specific information to select a scaling factor is not available, then a value of 1.15 

would be used as a default. Alternatively, zero would be entered if it is known that body weight does 

not influence toxicity of pesticide(s) being assessed. The upper bound estimate output from the TREX Kanaga nomogram would be used as an EEC for calculation of RQs. This approach would 

yield a conservative estimate of ecological risk. 

Table 3. Average body weight of selected terrestrial wildlife species frequently used in research 

to establish toxicological endpoints (Dunning 1984). 

Species Body Weight (kg) Species Body Weight (kg)

Mammal (15 grams) 0.015 Bobwhite quail 0.178

House sparrow 0.0277 Rat 0.200

Mammal (35 grams) 0.035 Rock dove (aka pigeon) 0.542

Starling 0.0823 Mammal (1000 grams) 1.000

Red-winged blackbird 0.0526 Mallard 1.082

Common grackle 0.114 Ring-necked pheasant 1.135

Japanese quail 0.178

7.2.1.1.2 Terrestrial–granular application 

Granular pesticide formulations and pesticide-treated seed would pose a unique route of exposure for 

avian and mammalian species. The pesticide is applied in discrete units which birds or mammals 

might ingest accidentally with food items or intentionally as in the case of some bird species actively 

seeking and picking up gravel or grit to aid digestion or seed as a food source. Granules may also be 

consumed by wildlife foraging on earthworms, slugs or other soft-bodied soil organisms to which the 

granules may adhere. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

H-20 Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management 

Terrestrial wildlife RQs for granular formulations or seed treatments would be calculated by dividing 

the maximum milligrams of active ingredient (a.i.) exposed (e.g., EEC) on the surface of an area 

equal to 1 square foot by the appropriate LD50 value multiplied by the surrogate’s body weight (Table 

3). An adjustment to surface area calculations would be made for broad-cast, banded and in-furrow 

applications. An adjustment also would be made for applications with and without incorporation of 

the granules. Without incorporation, it would be assumed that 100 percent of the granules remain on 

the soil surface available to foraging birds and mammals. Press wheels push granules flat with the 

soil surface, but they are not incorporated into the soil. If granules are incorporated in the soil during 

band or T-band applications or after broadcast applications, it would be assumed only 15 percent of 

the applied granules remain available to wildlife. It would be assumed that only 1 percent of the 

granules are available on the soil surface following in-furrow applications. 

EECs for pesticides applied in granular form and as seed treatments would be determined 

considering potential ingestion rates of avian or mammalian species (e.g., 10-30% body weight/day). 

This would provide an estimate of maximum exposure that may occur as a result of granule or seed 

treatment spills such as those that commonly occur at end rows during application and planting. The 

availability of granules and seed treatments to terrestrial vertebrates would also be considered by 

calculating the loading per unit area (LD50/ft2) for comparison to EPA Level of Concerns (EPA 

1998). The T-REX version 1.2.3 (EPA 2005b) contains a submodel which automates Kanaga 

exposure calculations for granular pesticides and treated seed. 

The following formulas will be used to calculate EECs depending upon the type of granular pesticide 

application. 

 In-furrow applications assume a typical value of 1 percent granules, bait, or seed remain 

unincorporated. 

mg a.i./ft.2 = [(lbs. product/acre)(% a.i.)(453,580 mg/lbs)(1% exposed))] / {[(43,560 

ft.2/acre)/(row spacing (ft.))] / (row spacing (ft.)} 

or 

mg a.i./ft2 = [(lbs. product/1000 ft. row)(% a.i.)(1000 ft row)(453,580 mg/lb.)(1% exposed)

EEC = [(mg a.i./ft.2)(% of pesticide biologically available)]

 Incorporated banded treatments assume that 15 percent of granules, bait, and seeds are 

unincorporated. 

mg a.i./ft.2 = [(lbs. product/1000 row ft.)(% a.i.)(453,580 mg/lb.)(1-% incorporated)] / (1,000 

ft.)(band width (ft.))

EEC = [(mg a.i./ft.2)(% of pesticide biologically available)]

 Broadcast treatment without incorporation assumes 100% of granules, bait, seeds are 

unincorporated. 

mg a.i./ft.2 = [(lbs. product/acre)(% a.i.)(453,590 mg/lb.)] / (43,560 ft.2/acre)
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management H-21

EEC = [(mg a.i./ft.2)(% of pesticide biologically available)]

Where: 

 % of pesticide biologically available = 100% without species specific ingestion rates

 Conversion for calculating mg a.i./ft.2 using ounces: 453,580 mg/lb. /16 = 28,349 mg/oz

The following equation would be used to calculate a RQ based on the EEC calculated by one of the 

above equations. The EEC would be divided by the surrogate LD50 toxicological endpoint multiplied 

by the body weight (Table 3) of the surrogate. 

RQ = EEC / [LD50 (mg/kg) * body weight (kg)]

As with other risk assessments, an RQ>LOC would be a presumption of unacceptable ecological 

risk. A RQ<LOC would be a presumption of acceptable risk with only minor, temporary, or 

localized effects to species. 

7.2.1.2 Aquatic exposure 

Exposures to aquatic habitats (e.g., wetlands, meadows, ephemeral pools, water delivery ditches) 

would be evaluated separately for ground-based pesticide treatments of habitats managed for fish and 

wildlife compared with cropland/facilities maintenance. The primary exposure pathway for aquatic 

organisms from any ground-based treatments likely would be particle drift during the pesticide 

application. However, different exposure scenarios would be necessary as a result of contrasting 

application equipment and techniques as well as pesticides used to control pests on agricultural lands 

(especially those cultivated by cooperative farmers for economic return from crop yields) and 

facilities maintenance (e.g., roadsides, parking lots, trails), compared with other managed habitats on 

the Refuge. In addition, pesticide applications may be done <25 feet of the high water mark of 

aquatic habitats for habitat management treatments; whereas, no-spray buffers (>25 feet) would be 

used for croplands/facilities maintenance treatments. 

7.2.1.2.1 Habitat treatments 

For the worst-case exposure scenario to nontarget aquatic habitats, EECs (Table 4) would be derived 

from Urban and Cook (1986) that assumes an intentional overspray to an entire, nontarget water 

body (1-foot depth) from a treatment <25 feet from the high water mark using the max application 

rate (acid basis [see above]). However, use of BMPs for applying pesticides (see Section 4.2) would 

likely minimize/eliminate potential drift to nontarget aquatic habitats during actual treatments. If 

there would be unacceptable (acute or chronic) risk to fish and wildlife with the simulated 100 

percent overspray (RQ>LOC), then the proposed pesticide use may be disapproved or the PUP would 

be approved at a lower application rate to minimize/eliminate unacceptable risk to aquatic organisms 

(RQ=LOC). 

7.2.1.2.2 Cropland/facilities maintenance treatments 

Field drift studies conducted by the Spray Drift Task Force, which is a joint project of several 

agricultural chemical businesses, were used to develop a generic spray drift database. From this 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

H-22 Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management 

database, the AgDRIFT computer model was created to satisfy EPA pesticide registration spray drift 

data requirements and as a scientific basis to evaluate off-target movement of pesticides from particle 

Table 4. Estimated Environmental Concentrations (ppb) of pesticides in aquatic habitats 

(1 foot depth) immediately after direct application (Urban and Cook 1986). 

Lbs/acre EEC (ppb) Lbs/acre EEC (ppb)

0.10 36.7 2.00 735.7

0.20 73.5 2.25 827.6

0.25 91.9 2.5 919.4

0.30 110.2 3.00 1103.5

0.40 147 4.00 1471.4

0.50 183.7 5.00 1839

0.75 275.6 6.00 2207

1.00 367.5 7.00 2575

1.25 459.7 8.00 2943

1.50 551.6 9.00 3311

1.75 643.5 10.00 3678

drift and assess potential effects of exposure to wildlife. Several versions of the computer model 

have been developed (i.e., v2.01 through v2.10). The Spray Drift Task Force AgDRIFT® model 

version 2.01 (SDTF 2003, AgDRIFT 2001) would be used to derive EECs resulting from drift of 

pesticides to Refuge aquatic resources from ground-based pesticide applications >25 feet from the 

high water mark. The Spray Drift Task Force AgDRIFT model is publicly available at 

http://www.agdrift.com. At this website, click “AgDRIFT 2.0” and then click “Download Now” and 

follow the instructions to obtain the computer model. 

The AgDRIFT model is composed of submodels called tiers. Tier I Ground submodel would be used 

to assess ground-based applications of pesticides. Tier outputs (EECs) would be calculated with 

AgDRIFT using the following input variables: Max application rate (acid basis [see above]), low 

boom (20 inches), fine to medium droplet size, EPA-defined wetland, and a >25-foot distance 

(buffer) from treated area to water. 

7.2.2 Use of information on effects of biological control agents, pesticides, degradates, and 

adjuvants 

NEPA documents regarding biological and other environmental effects of biological control agents, 

pesticides, degradates and adjuvants prepared by another federal agency, where the scope would be 

relevant to evaluation of effects from pesticide uses on Refuge lands, would be reviewed. Possible 

source agencies for such NEPA documents would include the BLM, USDA’s Forest Service and 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, National Park Service, and the U.S. military services. It 

might be appropriate to incorporate by reference parts or all of existing document(s). Incorporating 

by reference (40 CFR 1502.21) is a technique used to avoid redundancies in analysis. It also would 

reduce the bulk of a Service NEPA document, which only would identify the documents that are 

incorporated by reference. In addition, relevant portions would be summarized in the Service NEPA 

document to the extent necessary to provide the decision maker and public with an understanding of 

relevance of the referenced material to the current analysis. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management H-23

In accordance with the requirements set forth in 43 CFR 46.135, the Service would specifically 

incorporate through reference ecological risk assessments prepared by the USDA Forest Service 

(www.fs.fed.us/r6/invasiveplant-eis/Risk-Assessments/Herbicides-Analyzed-InvPlant-EIS.htm) and 

BLM (www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/veg_eis.html). These risk assessments and associated 

documentation also are available in total with the administrative record for the Final Environmental 

Impact Statement entitled Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program—Preventing and 

Managing Invasive Plants (USFS 2005) and Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of 

Land Management Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic EIS (BLM 2007). In accordance with 

43 CRF 46.120(d), use of existing NEPA documents by supplementing, tiering to, incorporating by 

reference, or adopting previous NEPA environmental analyses would avoid redundancy and 

unnecessary paperwork. 

As a basis for completing “Chemical Profiles” for approving or disapproving Refuge PUPs, 

ecological risk assessments for the following herbicide and adjuvant uses prepared by the USDA 

Forest Service would be incorporated by reference: 

 2,4-D 

 Chlorosulfuron 

 Clopyralid 

 Dicamba 

 Glyphosate 

 Imazapic 

 Imazapyr 

 Metsulfuron methyl 

 Picloram 

 Sethoxydim 

 Sulfometuron methyl 

 Triclopyr 

 Nonylphenol polyethylate (NPE) based surfactants 

As a basis for completing “Chemical Profiles” for approving or disapproving Refuge PUPs, 

ecological risk assessments for the following herbicide uses as well as evaluation of risks associated 

with pesticide degradates and adjuvants prepared by the BLM would be incorporated by reference: 

 Bromacil 

 Chlorsulfuron 

 Diflufenzopyr 

 Diquat 

 Diuron 

 Fluridone 

 Imazapic 

 Overdrive (diflufenzopyr and dicamba) 

 Sulfometuron methyl 

 Tebuthiuron 

 Pesticide degradates and adjuvants (Appendix D–Evaluation of risks from degradates, 

polyoxyethylene-amine (POEA) and R-11, and endocrine disrupting chemicals) 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

H-24 Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management 

7.2.3 Assumptions for ecological risk assessments 

There are a number of assumptions involved with the ecological risk assessment process for 

terrestrial and aquatic organisms associated with utilization of the EPA’s (2004) process. These 

assumptions may be risk neutral or may lead to an over- or under-estimation of risk from pesticide 

exposure depending upon site-specific conditions. The following describes these assumptions, their 

application to the conditions typically encountered, and whether or not they may lead to 

recommendations that are risk neutral, underestimate, or overestimate ecological risk from potential 

pesticide exposure. 

 Indirect effects would not be evaluated by ecological risk assessments. These effects include 

the mechanisms of indirect exposure to pesticides: consuming prey items (fish, birds, or 

small mammals), reductions in the availability of prey items and disturbance associated with 

pesticide application activities. 

 Exposure to a pesticide product can be assessed based upon the active ingredient. However, 

exposure to a chemical mixture (pesticide formulation) may result in effects that are similar 

or substantially different compared to only the active ingredient. Nontarget organisms may 

be exposed directly to the pesticide formulation or only various constituents of the 

formulation as they dissipate and partition in the environment. If toxicological information 

for both the active ingredient and formulated product are available, then data representing the 

greatest potential toxicity would be selected for use in the risk assessment process (EPA 

2004). As a result, this conservative approach may lead to an overestimation of risk 

characterization from pesticide exposure. 

 Because toxicity tests with listed or candidate species or closely related species are not 

available, data for surrogate species would be most often used for risk assessments. 

Specifically, bobwhite quail and mallard duck are the most frequently used surrogates for 

evaluating potential toxicity to federally listed avian species. Bluegill sunfish, rainbow trout, 

and fathead minnow are the most common surrogates for evaluating toxicity for freshwater 

fishes. However, sheepshead minnow can be an appropriate surrogate marine species for 

coastal environments. Rats and mice are the most common surrogates for evaluating toxicity 

for mammals. Interspecies sensitivity is a major source of uncertainty in pesticide 

assessments. As a result of this uncertainty, data is selected for the most sensitive species 

tested within a taxonomic group (birds, fish, and mammals), if the quality of the data is 

acceptable. If additional toxicity data for more species of organisms in a particular group are 

available, the selected data will not be limited to the species previously listed as common 

surrogates. 

 The Kanaga nomogram outputs maximum EEC values that may be used to calculate an 

average daily concentration over a specified interval of time, which is referred to as a timeweighted-average (TWA). The maximum EEC would be selected as the exposure input for 

both acute and chronic risk assessments in the screening-level evaluations. The initial or 

maximum EEC derived from the Kanaga nomogram represents the maximum expected 

instantaneous or acute exposure to a pesticide. Acute toxicity endpoints are determined using 

a single exposure to a known pesticide concentration typically for 48 to 96 hours. This value 

is assumed to represent ecological risk from acute exposure to a pesticide. On the other hand, 

chronic risk to pesticide exposure is a function of pesticide concentration and duration of 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management H-25

exposure to the pesticide. An organism’s response to chronic pesticide exposure may result 

from either the concentration of the pesticide, length of exposure, or some combination of 

both factors. Standardized tests for chronic toxicity typically involve exposing an organism 

to several different pesticide concentrations for a specified length of time (days, weeks, 

months, years or generations). For example, avian reproduction tests include a 10-week 

exposure phase. Because a single length of time is used in the test, time response data is 

usually not available for inclusion into risk assessments. Without time response data it is 

difficult to determine the concentration which elicited a toxicological response. 

 Using maximum EECs for chronic risk estimates may result in an overestimate of risk, 

particularly for compounds that dissipate rapidly. Conversely, using TWAs for chronic risk 

estimates may underestimate risk if it is the concentration rather than the duration of 

exposure that is primarily responsible for the observed adverse effect. The maximum EEC 

would be used for chronic risk assessments although it may result in an overestimate of risk. 

TWAs may be used for chronic risk assessments, but they will be applied judiciously 

considering the potential for an underestimate or overestimate of risk. For example, the 

number of days exposure exceeds a LOC may influence the suitability of a pesticide use. The 

greater the number of days the EEC exceeds the LOC translates into greater the ecological 

risk. This is a qualitative assessment, and is subject to reviewer’s expertise in ecological risk 

assessment and tolerance for risk. 

 The length of time used to calculate the TWA can have a substantial effect on the exposure 

estimates and there is no standard method for determining the appropriate duration for this 

estimate. The T-REX model assumes a 21-week exposure period, which is equivalent to 

avian reproductive studies designed to establish a steady-state concentration for 

bioaccumulative compounds. However, this does not necessarily define the true exposure 

duration needed to elicit a toxicological response. Pesticides, which do not bioaccumulate, 

may achieve a steady-state concentration earlier than 21 weeks. The duration of time for 

calculating TWAs will require justification and it will not exceed the duration of exposure in 

the chronic toxicity test (approximately 70 days for the standard avian reproduction study). 

An alternative to using the duration of the chronic toxicity study is to base the TWA on the 

application interval. In this case, increasing the application interval would suppress both the 

estimated peak pesticide concentration and the TWA. Another alternative to using TWAs 

would be to consider the number of days that a chemical is predicted to exceed the LOC. 

 Pesticide dissipation is assumed to be first-order in the absence of data suggesting alternative 

dissipation patterns such as bi-phasic. Field dissipation data would generally be the most 

pertinent for assessing exposure in terrestrial species that forage on vegetation. However, 

this data is often not available and it can be misleading particularly if the compound is prone 

to “wash-off.” Soil half-life is the most common degradation data available. Dissipation or 

degradation data that would reflect the environmental conditions typical of refuge lands 

would be utilized, if available. 

 For species found in the water column, it would be assumed that the greatest bioavailable 

fraction of the pesticide active ingredient in surface waters is freely dissolved in the water 

column. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

H-26 Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management 

 Actual habitat requirements of any particular terrestrial species are not considered, and it is 

assumed that species exclusively and permanently occupy the treated area, or adjacent areas 

receiving pesticide at rates commensurate with the treatment rate. This assumption would 

produce a maximum estimate of exposure for risk characterization. This assumption would 

likely lead to an overestimation of exposure for species that do not permanently and 

exclusively occupy the treated area (EPA 2004). 

 Exposure through incidental ingestion of pesticide contaminated soil is not considered in the 

EPA risk assessment protocols. Research suggests <15% of the diet can consist of 

incidentally ingested soil depending upon species and feeding strategy (Beyer et al. 1994). 

An assessment of pesticide concentrations in soil compared to food item categories in the 

Kanaga nomogram indicates incidental soil ingestion will not likely increase dietary exposure 

to pesticides. Inclusion of soil into the diet would effectively reduce the overall dietary 

concentration compared to the present assumption that the entire diet consists of a 

contaminated food source (Fletcher et al. 1994). An exception to this may be soil-applied 

pesticides in which exposure from incidental ingestion of soil may increase. Potential for 

pesticide exposure under this assumption may be underestimated for soil-applied pesticides 

and overestimated for foliar-applied pesticides. The concentration of a pesticide in soil 

would likely be less than predicted on food items. 

 Exposure through inhalation of pesticides is not considered in the EPA risk assessment 

protocols. Such exposure may occur through three potential sources: 1) spray material in 

droplet form at time of application; 2) vapor phase with the pesticide volatilizing from treated 

surfaces; and 3) airborne particulates (soil, vegetative matter, and pesticide dusts). The EPA 

(1990) reported exposure from inhaling spray droplets at the time of application is not an 

appreciable route of exposure for birds. According to research on mallards and bobwhite 

quail, respirable particle size (particles reaching the lung) in birds is limited to maximum 

diameter of two to five microns. The spray droplet spectra covering the majority of pesticide 

application scenarios indicate that less than 1% of the applied material is within the respirable 

particle size. This route of exposure is further limited because the permissible spray drop 

size distribution for ground pesticide applications is restricted to ASAE medium or coarser 

drop size distribution. 

 Inhalation of a pesticide in the vapor phase may be another source of exposure for some 

pesticides under certain conditions. This mechanism of exposure to pesticides occurs post 

application, and would pertain to those pesticides with a high vapor pressure. The EPA is 

currently evaluating protocols for modeling inhalation exposure from pesticides including 

near-field and near-ground air concentrations based upon equilibrium and kinetics-based 

models. Risk characterization for exposure with this mechanism is unavailable. 

 The effect from exposure to dusts contaminated with the pesticide cannot be assessed 

generically as partitioning issues related to application site soils and chemical properties of 

the applied pesticides render the exposure potential from this route highly situation specific. 

 Dermal exposure may occur through three potential sources: 1) direct application of spray to 

terrestrial wildlife in the treated area or within the drift footprint; 2) incidental contact with 

contaminated vegetation; or 3) contact with contaminated water or soil. Interception of spray 

and incidental contact with treated substrates may pose risk to avian wildlife (Driver et al. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management H-27

1991). However, available research related to wildlife dermal contact with pesticides is 

extremely limited, except dermal toxicity values are common for some mammals used as 

human surrogates (rats and mice). The EPA is currently evaluating protocols for modeling 

dermal exposure. Risk characterization may be underestimated for this route of exposure, 

particularly with high risk pesticides such as some organophosphates or carbamate 

insecticides. If protocols are established by the EPA for assessing dermal exposure to 

pesticides, they will be considered for incorporation into pesticide assessment protocols. 

 Exposure to a pesticide may occur from consuming surface water, dew or other water on 

treated surfaces. Water-soluble pesticides have the potential to dissolve in surface runoff and 

puddles in a treated area may contain pesticide residues. Similarly, pesticides with lower 

organic carbon partitioning characteristics and higher solubility in water have a greater 

potential to dissolve in dew and other water associated with plant surfaces. Estimating the 

extent to which such pesticide loadings to drinking water occurs is complex and would 

depend upon the partitioning characteristics of the active ingredient, soils types in the 

treatment area, and the meteorology of the treatment area. In addition, the use of various 

water sources by wildlife is highly species-specific. Currently, risk characterization for this 

exposure mechanism is not available. The EPA is actively developing protocols to quantify 

drinking water exposures from puddles and dew. If and when protocols are formally 

established by the EPA for assessing exposure to pesticides through drinking water, these 

protocols will be incorporated into pesticide risk assessment protocols. 

 Risk assessments are based upon the assumption that the entire treatment area would be 

subject to pesticide application at the rates specified on the label. In most cases, there is 

potential for uneven application of pesticides through such plausible incidents such as 

changes in calibration of application equipment, spillage, and localized releases at specific 

areas in or near the treated field that are associated with mixing and handling and application 

equipment as well as applicator skill. Inappropriate use of pesticides and the occurrence of 

spills represent a potential underestimate of risk. It is likely not an important factor for risk 

characterization. All pesticide applicators are required to be certified by the state in which 

they apply pesticides. Certification training includes the safe storage, transport, handling, 

and mixing of pesticides, equipment calibration and proper application with annual 

continuing education. 

 The EPA relies on Fletcher (1994) for setting the assumed pesticide residues in wildlife 

dietary items. The EPA (2004) “believes that these residue assumptions reflect a realistic 

upper-bound residue estimate, although the degree to which this assumption reflects a 

specific percentile estimate is difficult to quantify.” Fletcher’s (1994) research suggests that 

the pesticide active ingredient residue assumptions used by the EPA represent a 95th 

percentile estimate. However, research conducted by Pfleeger et al. (1996) indicates EPA 

residue assumptions for short grass was not exceeded. Baehr and Habig (2000) compared 

EPA residue assumptions with distributions of measured pesticide residues for the EPA’s 

UTAB database. Overall residue selection level will tend to overestimate risk 

characterization. This is particularly evident when wildlife individuals are likely to have 

selected a variety of food items acquired from multiple locations. Some food items may be 

contaminated with pesticide residues whereas others are not contaminated. However, it is 

important to recognize differences in species feeding behavior. Some species may consume 

whole above-ground plant material, but others will preferentially select different plant 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

H-28 Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management 

structures. Also, species may preferentially select a food item although multiple food items 

may be present. Without species specific knowledge regarding foraging behavior 

characterizing ecological risk other than in general terms is not possible. 

 Acute and chronic risk assessments rely on comparisons of wildlife dietary residues with 

LC50 or NOEC values expressed as concentrations of pesticides in laboratory feed. These 

comparisons assume that ingestion of food items in the field occurs at rates commensurate 

with those in the laboratory. Although the screening assessment process adjusts dry-weight 

estimates of food intake to reflect the increased mass in fresh-weight wildlife food intake 

estimates, it does not allow for gross energy and assimilative efficiency differences between 

wildlife food items and laboratory feed. Differences in assimilative efficiency between 

laboratory and wild diets suggest that current screening assessment methods are not 

accounting for a potentially important aspect of food requirements. 

 There are several other assumptions that can affect nontarget species not considered in the 

risk assessment process. These include possible additive or synergistic effects from applying 

two or more pesticides or additives in a single application, colocation of pesticides in the 

environment, cumulative effects from pesticides with the same mode of action, effects of 

multiple stressors (e.g., combination of pesticide exposure, adverse abiotic and biotic factors) 

and behavioral changes induced by exposure to a pesticide. These factors may exist at some 

level contributing to adverse effects to nontarget species, but they are usually characterized in 

published literature in a general manner limiting their value in the risk assessment process. 

 It is assumed that aquatic species exclusively and permanently occupy the water body being 

assessed. Actual habitat requirements of aquatic species are not considered. With the 

possible exception of scenarios where pesticides are directly applied to water, it is assumed 

that no habitat use considerations specific for any species would place the organisms in closer 

proximity to pesticide use sites. This assumption produces a maximum estimate of exposure 

or risk characterization. It would likely be realistic for many aquatic species that may be 

found in aquatic habitats within or in close proximity to treated terrestrial habitats. However, 

the spatial distribution of wildlife is usually not random because wildlife distributions are 

often related to habitat requirements of species. Clumped distributions of wildlife may result 

in an under- or over-estimation of risk depending upon where the initial pesticide 

concentration occurs relative to the species or species habitat. 

 For species found in the water column, it would be assumed that the greatest bioavailable 

fraction of the pesticide active ingredient in surface waters is freely dissolved in the water 

column. Additional chemical exposure from materials associated with suspended solids or 

food items is not considered because partitioning onto sediments is likely minimal. 

Adsorption and bioconcentration occurs at lower levels for many newer pesticides compared 

with older more persistent bioaccumulative compounds. Pesticides with RQs close to the 

listed species level of concern, the potential for additional exposure from these routes may be 

a limitation of risk assessments, where potential pesticide exposure or risk may be 

underestimated. 

 Mass transport losses of pesticide from a water body (except for losses by volatilization, 

degradation and sediment partitioning) would not be considered for ecological risk 

assessment. The water body would be assumed to capture all pesticide active ingredients 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management H-29

entering as runoff, drift, and adsorbed to eroded soil particles. It would also be assumed that 

pesticide active ingredient is not lost from the water body by overtopping or flow-through, 

nor is concentration reduced by dilution. In total, these assumptions would lead to a near 

maximum possible water-borne concentration. However, this assumption would not account 

for potential to concentrate pesticide through the evaporative loss. This limitation may have 

the greatest impact on water bodies with high surface-to-volume ratios, such as ephemeral 

wetlands where evaporative losses are accentuated and applied pesticides have low rates of 

degradation and volatilization. 

 For acute risk assessments, there would be no averaging time for exposure. An instantaneous 

peak concentration would be assumed, where instantaneous exposure is sufficient in duration 

to elicit acute effects comparable to those observed over more protracted exposure periods 

(typically 48-96 hours) tested in the laboratory. In the absence of data regarding time-totoxic event, analyses and latent responses to instantaneous exposure, risk would likely be 

overestimated. 

 For chronic exposure risk assessments, the averaging times considered for exposure are 

commensurate with the duration of invertebrate life-cycle or fish-early life stage tests (e.g., 

21-28 days and 56-60 days respectively). Response profiles (time to effect and latency of 

effect) to pesticides likely vary widely with mode of action and species and should be 

evaluated on a case-by-case basis as available data allow. Nevertheless, because the EPA 

relies on chronic exposure toxicity endpoints based on a finding of no observed effect, the 

potential for any latent toxicity effects or averaging time assumptions to alter the results of an 

acceptable chronic risk assessment prediction is limited. The extent to which duration of 

exposure from water-borne concentrations overestimate or underestimate actual exposure 

depends on several factors. These include: localized meteorological conditions, runoff 

characteristics of the watershed (e.g., soils, topography); the hydrological characteristics of 

receiving waters, environmental fate of the pesticide active ingredient, and the method of 

pesticide application. It should also be understood that chronic effects studies are performed 

using a method that holds water concentration in a steady state. This method is not likely to 

reflect conditions associated with pesticide runoff. Pesticide concentrations in the field 

increase and decrease in surface water on a cycle influenced by rainfall, pesticide use 

patterns, and degradation rates. As a result of the dependency of this assumption on several 

undefined variables, risk associated with chronic exposure may in some situations 

underestimate risk, and in others, overestimate risk. 

 There are several other factors that can affect nontarget species not considered in the risk 

assessment process. These would include the following: possible additive or synergistic 

effects from applying two or more pesticides or additives in a single application; co-location 

of pesticides in the environment; cumulative effects from pesticides with the same mode of 

action; effects of multiple stressors (e.g., combination of pesticide exposure, adverse abiotic 

[not pesticides] and biotic factors); and sub-lethal effects, such as behavioral changes induced 

by exposure to a pesticide. These factors may exist at some level contributing to adverse 

effects to nontarget species, but they are not routinely assessed by regulatory agencies. 

Therefore, information on the factors is not extensive, limiting their value for the risk 

assessment process. As this type of information becomes available, it would be included, 

either quantitatively or qualitatively, in this risk assessment process. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

H-30 Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management 

 The EPA is required by the Food Quality Protection Act to assess the cumulative risks of 

pesticides that share common mechanisms of toxicity, or act the same within an organism. 

Currently, EPA has identified four groups of pesticides that have a common mechanism of 

toxicity requiring cumulative risk assessments. These four groups are the organophosphate 

insecticides, N-methyl carbamate insecticides, triazine herbicides, and chloroacetanilide 

herbicides. 

7.3 Pesticide Mixtures and Degradates

Pesticide products are usually a formulation of several components generally categorized as active 

ingredients and inert or other ingredients. The term active ingredient is defined by the FIFRA as 

preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating the effects of a pest, or it is a plant regulator, 

defoliant, desiccant, or nitrogen stabilizer. In accordance with the FIFRA, the active ingredient(s) 

must be identified by name(s) on the pesticide label along with its relative composition expressed in 

percentage(s) by weight. In contrast, inert ingredient(s) are not intended to affect a target pest. Their 

role in the pesticide formulation is to act as a solvent (keep the active ingredient is a liquid phase), an 

emulsifying or suspending agent (keep the active ingredient from separating out of solution), or a 

carrier such as clay in which the active ingredient is impregnated on the clay particle in dry 

formulations. For example, if isopropyl alcohol would be used as a solvent in a pesticide 

formulation, then it would be considered an inert ingredient. The FIFRA only requires that inert 

ingredients identified as hazardous and associated percent composition, and the total percentage of 

all inert ingredients must be declared on a product label. Inert ingredients that are not classified as 

hazardous are not required to be identified. 

The EPA (September 1997) issued Pesticide Regulation Notice 97-6, which encouraged 

manufacturers, formulators, producers and registrants of pesticide products to voluntarily substitute 

the term “other ingredients” for “inert ingredients” in the ingredient statement. This change 

recognized that all components in a pesticide formulation potentially could elicit or contribute to an 

adverse effect on nontarget organisms and, therefore, are not necessarily inert. Whether referred to 

as inert or other ingredients, these constituents within a pesticide product have the potential to affect 

species or environmental quality. The EPA categorizes regulated inert ingredients into the following 

four lists (http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/inerts/index.html):

 List 1-Inert Ingredients of Toxicological Concern 

 List 2-Potentially Toxic Inert Ingredients 

 List 3-Inerts of Unknown Toxicity 

 List 4-Inerts of Minimal Toxicity 

Several of the List 4 compounds are naturally-occurring earthen materials (e.g., clay materials, 

simple salts) that would not elicit toxicological response at applied concentrations. However, some 

of the inerts (particularly the List 3 compounds and unlisted compounds) may have moderate to high 

potential toxicity to aquatic species based on MSDSs or published data. 

Comprehensively assessing potential effects to nontarget fish, wildlife, plants, and/or their habitats 

from pesticide use is a complex task. It would be preferable to assess the cumulative effects from 

exposure to the active ingredient, its degradates, and inert ingredients, as well as other active 

ingredients in the spray mixture. However, it would only be feasible to conduct deterministic risk 

assessments for each component in the spray mixture singly. Limited scientific information is 

available regarding ecological effects (additive or synergistic) from chemical mixtures that typically 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management H-31

rely upon broadly encompassing assumptions. For example, the USDA Forest Service (2005) found 

that mixtures of pesticides used in land (forest) management likely would not cause additive or 

synergistic effects to nontarget species based upon a review of scientific literature regarding 

toxicological effects and interactions of agricultural chemicals (ATSDR 2004). Moreover, 

information on inert ingredients, adjuvants, and degradates is often limited by the availability of and 

access to reliable toxicological data for these constituents. 

Toxicological information regarding other ingredients may be available from the following sources. 

 TOMES (a proprietary toxicological database including EPA’s IRIS, the Hazardous 

Substance Data Bank, the Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances [RTECS]). 

 EPA’s ECOTOX database, which includes AQUIRE (a database containing scientific papers 

published on the toxic effects of chemicals to aquatic organisms). 

 TOXLINE (a literature searching tool). 

 Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) from pesticide suppliers. 

 Other sources, such as the Farm Chemicals Handbook. 

Because there is a lack of specific inert toxicological data, inert(s) in a pesticide may cause adverse 

ecological effects. However, inert ingredients typically represent only a small percentage of the 

pesticide spray mixture, and it would be assumed that negligible effects would be expected to result 

from inert ingredient(s). 

Although the potential effects of degradates should be considered when selecting a pesticide, it is 

beyond the scope of this assessment process to consider all possible breakdown chemicals of the 

various product formulations containing an active ingredient. Degradates may be more or less 

mobile and more or less hazardous in the environment than their parent pesticides (Battaglin et al. 

2003). Differences in environmental behavior (e.g., mobility) and toxicity between parent pesticides 

and degradates would make assessing potential degradate effects extremely difficult. For example, a 

less toxic and more mobile, bioaccumulative, or persistent degradate may have potentially greater 

effects on species and/or degrade environmental quality. The lack of data on the toxicity of 

degradates for many pesticides would represent a source of uncertainty for assessing risk. 

An EPA-approved label specifies whether a product can be mixed with one or more pesticides. 

Without product-specific toxicological data, it would not possible to quantify the potential effects of 

these mixtures. In addition, a quantitative analysis could only be conducted if reliable scientific 

information allowed a determination of whether the joint action of a mixture would be additive, 

synergistic, or antagonistic. Such information would not likely exist unless the mode of action would 

be common among the chemicals and receptors. Moreover, the composition of and exposure to 

mixtures would be highly site- and/or time-specific and, therefore, it would be nearly impossible to 

assess potential effects to species and environmental quality. 

To minimize or eliminate potential negative effects associated with applying two or more pesticides 

as a mixture, the use would be conducted in accordance with the labeling requirements. Labels for 

two or more pesticides applied as a mixture should be completely reviewed, where products with the 

least potential for negative effects would be selected for use on the Refuge. This is especially 

relevant when a mixture would be applied in a manner that may already have the potential for an 

effect(s) associated with an individual pesticide (e.g., runoff to ponds in sandy watersheds). Use of a 

tank mix under these conditions would increase the level of uncertainty in terms of risk to species or 

potential to degrade environmental quality. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

H-32 Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management 

Adjuvants generally function to enhance or prolong the activity of pesticide. For terrestrial 

herbicides, adjuvants aid in the absorption into plant tissue. Adjuvant is a broad term that generally 

applies to surfactants, selected oils, anti-foaming agents, buffering compounds, drift control agents, 

compatibility agents, stickers and spreaders. Adjuvants are not under the same registration 

requirements as pesticides, and the EPA does not register or approve the labeling of spray adjuvants. 

Individual pesticide labels identify types of adjuvants approved for use with it. In general, adjuvants 

compose a relatively small portion of the volume of pesticides applied. Selection of adjuvants with 

limited toxicity and low volumes would be recommended to reduce the potential for the adjuvant to 

influence the toxicity of the pesticide. 

7.4 Determining Effects to Soil and Water Quality

The approval process for pesticide uses would consider potential to degrade water quality on and off 

Refuge lands. A pesticide can only affect water quality through movement away from the treatment 

site. After application, pesticide mobilization can be characterized by one or more of the following 

(Kerle et al. 1996). 

 Attach (sorb) to soil, vegetation, or other surfaces and remain at or near the treated area. 

 Attach to soil and move off-site through erosion from run-off or wind. 

 Dissolve in water that can be subjected to run-off or leaching. 

As an initial screening tool, selected chemical characteristics and rating criteria for a pesticide can be 

evaluated to assess potential to enter ground and/or surface waters. These would include persistence, 

sorption coefficient, Groundwater Ubiquity Score (GUS), and solubility. 

Persistence, which is expressed as half-life (t1⁄2), represents the length of time that is required for 50 

percent of the deposited pesticide to degrade completely or partially. Persistence in the soil can be 

categorized as nonpersistent at less than 30 days, moderately persistent at 30 to 100 days, and 

persistent at more than 100 days (Kerle et al. 1996). Half-life data is usually available for aquatic 

and terrestrial environments. 

Another measure of pesticide persistence is dissipation time (DT50). It represents the time required 

for 50 percent of the deposited pesticide to degrade and move from a treated site; whereas, half-life 

describes the rate for degradation only. As for half-life, units of dissipation time are usually 

expressed in days. Field or foliar dissipation time is the preferred data for use to estimate pesticide 

concentrations in the environment. However, soil half-life is the most common persistence data cited 

in published literature. If field or foliar dissipation data is not available, soil half-life data may be 

used. The average or representative half-life value of most important degradation mechanism will be 

selected for quantitative analysis for both terrestrial and aquatic environments. 

Mobility of a pesticide is a function of how strongly it is adsorbed to soil particles and organic 

matter, its solubility in water, and its persistence in the environment. Pesticides strongly adsorbed to 

soil particles, relatively insoluble in water, and not environmentally persistent would be less likely to 

move across the soil surface into surface waters or to leach through the soil profile and contaminate 

groundwater. Conversely, pesticides that are not strongly adsorbed to soil particles, are highly water 

soluble, and are persistent in the environment would have greater potential to move from the 

application site (off-site movement). 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management H-33

The degree of pesticide adsorption to soil particles and organic matter (Kerle et al. 1996) is expressed 

as the soil adsorption coefficient (Koc). The soil adsorption coefficient is measured as micrograms of 

pesticide per gram of soil (μg/g) that can range from near zero to the thousands. Pesticides with 

higher Koc values are strongly sorbed to soil, and therefore, would be less subject to movement. 

Water solubility describes the amount of pesticide that will dissolve in a known quantity of water. 

The water solubility of a pesticide is expressed as milligrams of pesticide dissolved in a liter of water 

(mg/L or ppm). Pesticide with solubility <0.1 ppm are virtually insoluble in water, 100-1,000 ppm 

are moderately soluble, and >10,000 ppm highly soluble (USGS 2000). As pesticide solubility 

increases, there would be greater potential for off-site movement. 

The GUS is a quantitative screening tool to estimate a pesticide’s potential to move in the 

environment. It utilizes soil persistence and adsorption coefficients in the following formula. 

GUS = log10 (t2) x [4 - log10 (Koc)]

The potential pesticide movement rating would be based upon its GUS value. Pesticides with a GUS 

<0.1 would considered to have an extremely low potential to move toward groundwater. Values of 

1.0-2.0 would be low, 2.0-3.0 would be moderate, 3.0-4.0 would be high, and >4.0 would have a very 

high potential to move toward groundwater. 

Water solubility describes the amount of pesticide dissolving in a specific quantity of water, where it 

is usually measured as mg/l or parts per million (ppm). Solubility is useful as a comparative measure 

because pesticides with higher values are more likely to move by run-off or leaching. GUS, water 

solubility, t1⁄2, and Koc values are available for selected pesticides from the OSU Extension Pesticide 

Properties Database at http://npic.orst.edu/ppdmove.htm. Many of the values in this database were 

derived from the SCS/ARS/CES Pesticide Properties Database for Environmental Decision Making 

(Wauchope et al. 1992). 

Soil properties influence the fate of pesticides in the environment. The following six properties are 

mostly likely to affect pesticide degradation and the potential for pesticides to move off-site by 

leaching (vertical movement through the soil) or runoff (lateral movement across the soil surface). 

 Permeability is the rate of water movement vertically through the soil. It is affected by soil 

texture and structure. Coarse textured soils (e.g., high sand content) have a larger pore size, 

and they are generally more permeable than fine textured soils (i.e., high clay content). The 

more permeable soils would have a greater potential for pesticides to move vertically down 

through the soil profile. Soil permeability rates (inches/hour) are usually available in county 

soil survey reports. 

 Soil texture describes the relative percentage of sand, silt, and clay. In general, greater clay 

content with smaller pore size would lower the likelihood and rate that water would move 

through the soil profile. Clay also serves to adsorb (bind) pesticides to soil particles. Soils 

with high clay content would adsorb more pesticide than soils with relatively low clay 

content. In contrast, sandy soils with coarser texture and lower water holding capacity would 

have a greater potential for water to leach through them. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

H-34 Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management 

 Soil structure describes soil aggregation. Soils with a well-developed soil structure have a 

looser, more aggregated structure that would be less likely to be compacted. Both 

characteristics would allow for less restricted flow of water through the soil profile resulting 

in greater infiltration.

 Organic matter would be the single most important factor affecting pesticide adsorption in 

soils. Many pesticides are adsorbed to organic matter which would reduce their rate of 

downward movement through the soil profile. Also, soils high in organic matter would tend 

to hold more water, which may make less water available for leaching. 

 Soil moisture affects how fast water would move through the soil. If soils are already wet or 

saturated before rainfall or irrigation, excess moisture would runoff, rather than infiltrate into 

the soil profile. Soil moisture also would influence microbial and chemical activity in soil, 

which effects pesticide degradation. 

 Soil pH would influence chemical reactions that occur in the soil which in turn determines 

whether or not a pesticide will degrade, the rate of degradation, and in some instances, which 

degradation products are produced. 

Based upon the aforementioned properties, soils most vulnerable to groundwater contamination 

would be sandy soils with low organic matter. In contrast, the least vulnerable soils would be welldrained clayey soils with high organic matter. Consequently, pesticides with the lowest potential for 

movement in conjunction with appropriate best management practices (see below) would be used in 

an IPM framework to treat pests while minimizing effects to nontarget biota and protecting 

environmental quality. 

Along with soil properties, the potential for a pesticide to affect water quality through run-off and 

leaching would be considered, along with site-specific environmental and abiotic conditions 

including rainfall, water table conditions, and topography (Huddleston 1996). 

 Water is necessary to separate pesticides from soil. This can occur in two basic ways. 

Pesticides that are soluble move easily with runoff water. Pesticide-laden soil particles can 

be dislodged and transported from the application site in runoff. The concentration of 

pesticides in the surface runoff would be greatest for the first runoff event following 

treatment. The rainfall intensity and route of water infiltration into soil, to a large extent, 

determine pesticide concentrations and losses in surface runoff. The timing of the rainfall 

after application also would have an effect. Rainfall interacts with pesticides at a shallow soil 

depth (1⁄4 to 1⁄2 inch), which is called the mixing zone (Baker and Miller 1999). The 

pesticide/water mixture in the mixing zone would tend to leach down into the soil or runoff 

depending upon how quickly the soil surface becomes saturated and how rapidly water can 

infiltrate into the soil. Leaching would decrease the amount of pesticide available near the 

soil surface (mixing zone) to runoff during the initial rainfall event following application and 

subsequent rainfall events. 

 Terrain slope would affect the potential for surface runoff and the intensity of runoff. Steeper 

slopes would have greater potential for runoff following a rainfall event. In contrast, soils 

that are relatively flat would have little potential for runoff, except during intense rainfall 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management H-35

events. In addition, soils in lower areas would be more susceptible to leaching as a result of 

receiving excessive water from surrounding higher elevations. 

 Depth to groundwater would be an important factor affecting the potential for pesticides to 

leach into groundwater. If the distance from the soil surface to the top of the water table is 

shallow, pesticides would have less distance to travel to reach groundwater. Shallower water 

tables that persist for longer periods would be more likely to experience groundwater 

contamination. Soil survey reports are available for individual counties. These reports 

provide data in tabular format regarding the water table depths and the months during which 

it is persists. In some situations, a hard pan exists above the water table that would prevent 

pesticide contamination from leaching. 

7.5 Determining Effects to Air Quality 

Pesticides may volatilize from soil and plant surfaces and move from the treated area into the 

atmosphere. The potential for a pesticide to volatilize is determined by the pesticide’s vapor pressure 

which would be affected by temperature, sorption, soil moisture, and the pesticide’s water solubility. 

Vapor pressure is often expressed in mm Hg. To make these numbers easier to compare, vapor 

pressure may be expressed in exponent form (I x 10-7), where I represents a vapor pressure index. In 

general, pesticides with I<10 would have a low potential to volatilize; whereas, pesticides with 

I>1,000 would have a high potential to volatilize (Oregon State University 1996). Vapor pressure 

values for pesticides are usually available in the pesticide product MSDS or the USDA Agricultural 

Research Service pesticide database. 

7.6 Preparing a Chemical Profile

The following instructions would be used by Service personnel to complete chemical profiles for 

pesticides. Specifically, profiles would be prepared for pesticide active ingredients (e.g., glyphosate, 

imazapic) that would be contained in one or more trade name products that are registered and labeled 

with the EPA. All information fields under each category (e.g., Toxicological Endpoints, 

Environmental Fate) would be completed for a chemical profile. If no information is available for a 

specific field, then “No data is available in references” would be recorded in the profile. Available 

scientific information would be used to complete chemical profiles. Each entry of scientific 

information would be shown with applicable references. 

Completed chemical profiles would provide a structured decision-making process utilizing 

quantitative assessment/screening tools with threshold values (where appropriate) that would be used 

to evaluate potential biological and other environmental effects to Refuge resources. For ecological 

risk assessments presented in these profiles, the “worst-case scenario” would be evaluated to 

determine whether a pesticide could be approved for use considering the maximum single application 

rate specified on pesticide labels for habitat management and croplands/facilities maintenance 

treatments pertaining to refuges. Where the “worst-case scenario” likely would only result in minor, 

temporary, and localized effects to listed and nonlisted species with appropriate BMPs (see Section 

5.0 above), the proposed pesticide’s use in a PUP would have a scientific basis for approval under 

any application rate specified on the label that is at or below rates evaluated in a chemical profile. In 

some cases, the chemical profile would include a lower application rate than the maximum labeled 

rate in order to protect Refuge resources. As necessary, chemical profiles would be periodically 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

H-36 Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management 

updated with new scientific information or as pesticides with the same active ingredient are proposed 

for use on the Refuge in PUPs. 

Throughout this section, threshold values (to prevent or minimize potential biological and 

environmental effects) would be clearly identified for specific information presented in a completed 

chemical profile. Comparison with these threshold values provides an explicit scientific basis to 

approve or disapprove PUPs for habitat management and cropland/facilities maintenance on Refuge 

lands. In general, PUPs would be approved for pesticides with chemical profiles where there would 

be no exceedances of threshold values. However, BMPs are identified for some screening tools that 

would minimize/eliminate potential effects (exceedance of the threshold value) as a basis for 

approving PUPs. Instructions for completing a chemical profile for pesticide use follow. 

Date: Service personnel would record the date when the chemical profile is completed or updated. 

Chemical profiles (e.g., currently approved pesticide use patterns) would be periodically reviewed 

and updated, as necessary. The most recent review date would be recorded on a profile to document 

when it was last updated. 

Trade Name(s): Service personnel would accurately and completely record the trade name(s) from 

the pesticide label, which includes a suffix that describes the formulation (e.g., WP, DG, EC, L, SP, 

I, II or 64). The suffix often distinguishes a specific product among several pesticides with the same 

active ingredient. Service personnel would record a trade name for each pesticide product with the 

same active ingredient. 

Common chemical name(s): Service personnel would record the common name(s) listed on the 

pesticide label or material safety data sheet (MSDS) for an active ingredient. The common name of a 

pesticide is listed as the active ingredient on the title page of the product label immediately following 

the trade name and the MSDS, Section 2: Composition/ Information on Ingredients. A chemical 

profile is completed for each active ingredient. 

Pesticide Type: Service personnel would record the type of pesticide for an active ingredient as 

herbicide, dessicant, fungicide, fumigant, growth regulator, insecticide, pisicide, or rodenticide. 

EPA Registration Number(s): The EPA Registration Number appears on the title page of the label 

and MSDS, Section 1: Chemical Product and Company Description. It is not the EPA Establishment 

Number that is usually located near it. Service personnel would record the EPA Registration 

Number for each trade name product with an active ingredient based upon PUPs. 

Pesticide Class: Service personnel would list the general chemical class for the pesticide (active 

ingredient). For example, Malathion is an organophosphate and carbaryl is a carbamate. 

CAS (Chemical Abstract Service) Number: This number is often located in the second section 

(Composition/Information on Ingredients) of the MSDS. The MSDS table listing components 

usually contains this number immediately prior to or following the % composition. 

Other Ingredients: From the most recent MSDS for the proposed pesticide product(s), Service 

personnel would include any chemicals in the pesticide formulation not listed as an active ingredient 

that are described as toxic or hazardous, or regulated under the Superfund Amendments and 

Reauthorization Act (SARA); Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management H-37

Act (CERCLA); Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); OSHA, State Right-to-Know, or other listed 

authorities. These are usually found in MSDS sections titled “Hazardous Identifications,” “Exposure 

Control/Personal Protection,” and “Regulatory Information.” If concentrations of other ingredients 

are available for any compounds identified as toxic or hazardous, then Service personnel would

record this information in the Chemical Profile by trade name. MSDS(s) may be obtained from the 

manufacturer, manufacturer’s website or from an on-line database maintained by Crop Data 

Management Systems, Incorporated. 

7.6.1 Toxicological Endpoints 

Toxicological endpoint data would be collected for acute and chronic tests with mammals, birds, and 

fish as follows. Data would be recorded for species available in the scientific literature. If no data 

are found for a particular taxonomic group, then “No data available is references” would be recorded 

as the data entry. Throughout the chemical profile, references (including toxicological endpoint data) 

would be cited using parentheses (#) following the recorded data. 

Mammalian LD50: For test species in the scientific literature, Service personnel would record 

available data for oral lethal dose (LD50) in mg/kg-bw (body weight) or ppm-bw. The most common 

test species in scientific literature are the rat and mouse. The lowest LD50 value found for a rat would 

be used as a toxicological endpoint for dose-based RQ calculations to assess acute risk to mammals 

(see Table 1 in Section 7.1). 

Mammalian LC50: For test species in the scientific literature, Service personnel would record 

available data for dietary lethal concentration (LC50) as reported (e.g., mg/kg-diet or ppm-diet). The 

most common test species in scientific literature are the rat and mouse. The lowest LC50 value found 

for a rat would be used as a toxicological endpoint for diet-based RQ calculations to assess acute risk 

(see Table 1 in Section 7.1). 

Mammalian Reproduction: For test species listed in the scientific literature, Service personnel 

would record the test results (e.g., Lowest Observed Effect Concentration [LOEC], Lowest Observed 

Effect Level [LOEL], No Observed Adverse Effect Level [NOAEL], No Observed Adverse Effect 

Concentration [NOAEC]) in mg/kg-bw or mg/kg-diet for reproductive test procedure(s) (e.g., 

generational studies [preferred], fertility, new born weight). The most common test species available 

in scientific literature are rats and mice. The lowest NOEC, NOAEC, NOEL, or NOAEL test results 

found for a rat would be used as a toxicological endpoint for RQ calculations to assess chronic risk 

(see Table 1 in Section 7.1). 

Avian LD50: For test species available in the scientific literature, Service personnel would record 

values for oral lethal dose (LD50) in mg/kg-bw or ppm-bw. The most common test species available 

in scientific literature are the bobwhite quail and mallard. The lowest LD50 value found for an avian 

species would be used as a toxicological endpoint for dose-based RQ calculations to assess acute risk 

(see Table 1 in Section 7.1). 

Avian LC50: For test species available in the scientific literature, Service personnel would record 

values for dietary lethal concentration (LC50) as reported (e.g., mg/kg-diet or ppm-diet). The most 

common test species available in scientific literature are the bobwhite quail and mallard. The lowest 

LC50 value found for an avian species would be used as a toxicological endpoint for dietary-based 

RQ calculations to assess acute risk (see Table 1 in Section 7.1). 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

H-38 Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management 

Avian Reproduction: For test species available in the scientific literature, Service personnel would

record test results (e.g., LOEC, LOEL, NOAEC, NOAEL) in mg/kg-bw or mg/kg-diet consumed for 

reproductive test procedure(s) (e.g., early life cycle, reproductive). Most common test species 

available in scientific literature are the bobwhite quail and mallard. The lowest NOEC, NOAEC, 

NOEL, or NOAEL test results found for an avian species would be used as a toxicological endpoint 

for RQ calculations to assess chronic risk (see Table 1 in Section 7.1). 

Fish LC50: For test freshwater or marine species listed in the scientific literature, Service 

personnel would record a LC50 in ppm or mg/L. The most common test species available in the 

scientific literature are the bluegill, rainbow trout, and fathead minnow (marine). Test results for 

many game species may also be available. The lowest LC50 value found for a freshwater fish 

species would be used as a toxicological endpoint for RQ calculations to assess acute risk (see 

Table 1 in Section 7.1). 

Fish Early Life Stage (ELS)/Life Cycle: For test freshwater or marine species available in the 

scientific literature, Service personnel would record test results (e.g., LOEC, NOAEL, NOAEC, 

LOAEC) in ppm for test procedure(s) (e.g., early life cycle, life cycle). The most common test 

species available in the scientific literature are bluegill, rainbow trout, and fathead minnow. Test 

results for other game species may also be available. The lowest test value found for a fish species 

(preferably freshwater) would be used as a toxicological endpoint for RQ calculations to assess 

chronic risk (see Table 1 in Section 7.1). 

Other: For test invertebrate as well as nonvascular and vascular plant species available in the 

scientific literature, Service personnel would record LC50, LD50, LOEC, LOEL, NOAEC, NOAEL, or 

EC50 (environmental concentration) values in ppm or mg/L. The most common test invertebrate 

species available in scientific literature are the honey bee and the water flea (Daphnia magna). 

Green algae (Selenastrum capricornutum) and pondweed (Lemna minor) are frequently available test 

species for aquatic nonvascular and vascular plants, respectively. 

Ecological Incident Reports: After a site has been treated with pesticide(s), wildlife may be 

exposed to these chemical(s). When exposure is high relative to the toxicity of the pesticides, 

wildlife may be killed or visibly harmed (incapacitated). Such events are called ecological incidents. 

The EPA maintains a database (Ecological Incident Information System) of ecological incidents. 

This database stores information extracted from incident reports submitted by various federal and 

state agencies and nongovernment organizations. Information included in an incident report is date 

and location of the incident, type and magnitude of affects observed in various species, use(s) of 

pesticides known or suspected of contributing to the incident, and results of any chemical residue and 

cholinesterase activity analyses conducted during the investigation. 

Incident reports can play an important role in evaluating the effects of pesticides by supplementing 

quantitative risk assessments. All incident reports for pesticide(s) with the active ingredient and 

associated information would be recorded. 

7.6.2 Environmental Fate 

Water Solubility: Service personnel would record values for water solubility (Sw), which describes 

the amount of pesticide that dissolves in a known quantity of water. Sw is expressed as mg/L (ppm). 

Pesticide Sw values would be categorized as one of the following: insoluble <0.1 ppm; moderately 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management H-39

soluble = 100 to 1000 ppm; and highly soluble >10,000 ppm (USGS 2000). As pesticide Sw

increases, there would be greater potential to degrade water quality through run-off and leaching. 

Sw would be used to evaluate potential for bioaccumulation in aquatic species [see Octanol-Water 

Partition Coefficient (Kow) below]. 

Soil Mobility: Service personnel would record available values for soil adsorption coefficient (Koc

[μg/g]). It provides a measure of a chemical's mobility and leaching potential in soil. Koc values are 

directly proportional to organic content, clay content, and surface area of the soil. Koc data for a 

pesticide may be available for a variety of soil types (e.g., clay, loam, sand). Koc values would be 

used in evaluating the potential to degrade groundwater by leaching (see Potential to Move to 

Groundwater below). 

Soil Persistence: Service personnel would record values for soil half-life (t1⁄2), which represents the 

length of time (days) required for 50 percent of the deposited pesticide to degrade (completely or 

partially) in the soil. Based upon the t1⁄2 value, soil persistence would be categorized as one of the 

following: Nonpersistent <30 days; moderately persistent = 30 to 100 days; and persistent >100 days 

(Kerle et al. 1996). 

Threshold for Approving PUPs

If soil t1⁄2 <100 days, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs to protect water 

quality.

If soil t1⁄2 >100 days, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs specifically to 

protect water quality. One or more BMPs such as the following would be included in the 

Specific Best Management Practices section to minimize potential surface run-off and leaching 

that can degrade water quality:

 Do not exceed one application per site per year.

 Do not use on coarse-textured soils where the ground water table is <10 feet and 

average annual precipitation >12 inches.

 Do not use on steep slopes if substantial rainfall is expected within 24 hours or ground is 

saturated.

Along with Koc, soil t1⁄2 values would be used in evaluating the potential to degrade groundwater by 

leaching (see Potential to Move to Groundwater below). 

Soil Dissipation: Dissipation time (DT50) represents the time required for 50% of the deposited 

pesticide to degrade and move from a treated site; whereas, soil t1⁄2 describes the rate for degradation 

only. As for t1⁄2, units of dissipation time are usually expressed in days. Field dissipation time would 

be the preferred data for use to estimate pesticide concentrations in the environment because it is 

based upon field studies compared to soil t1⁄2, which is derived in a laboratory. However, soil t1⁄2 is the 

most common persistence data available in the published literature. If field dissipation data is not 

available, soil half-life data would be used in a chemical profile. The average or representative halflife value of most important degradation mechanism would be selected for quantitative analysis for 

both terrestrial and aquatic environments. 

Based upon the DT50 value, environmental persistence in the soil also would be categorized as 

nonpersistent <30 days; moderately persistent = 30 to 100 days; and persistent >100 days. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

H-40 Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management 

Threshold for Approving PUPs:

If soil DT50 <100 days, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs to protect 

water quality.

If soil DT50 >100 days, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs specifically 

to protect water quality. One or more BMPs such as the following would be included in the 

Specific Best Management Practices section to minimize potential surface run-off and leaching 

that can degrade water quality:

 Do not exceed one application per site per year.

 Do not use on coarse-textured soils where the ground water table is <10 feet and 

average annual precipitation >12 inches.

 Do not use on steep slopes if substantial rainfall is expected within 24 hours or ground is 

saturated.

Along with Koc, soil DT50 values (preferred over soil t1⁄2) would be used in evaluating the potential to 

degrade groundwater by leaching (see Potential to Move to Groundwater below), if available. 

Aquatic Persistence: Service personnel would record values for aquatic t1⁄2, which represents the 

length of time required for 50% of the deposited pesticide to degrade (completely or partially) in 

water. Based upon the t1⁄2 value, aquatic persistence would be categorized as nonpersistent <30 days; 

moderately persistent = 30 to 100 days; and persistent >100 days (Kerle et al. 1996). 

Threshold for Approving PUPs

If aquatic t1⁄2 <100 days, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs to protect 

water quality. 

If aquatic t1⁄2 >100 days, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs specifically 

to protect water quality. One or more BMPs such as the following would be included in the 

Specific Best Management Practices section to minimize potential surface run-off and leaching 

that can degrade water quality: 

 Do not exceed one application per site per year.

 Do not use on coarse-textured soils where the ground water table is <10 feet and 

average annual precipitation >12 inches. 

 Do not use on steep slopes if substantial rainfall is expected within 24 hours or ground is 

saturated. 

Aquatic Dissipation: Dissipation time (DT50) represents the time required for 50% of the deposited 

pesticide to degrade or move (dissipate); whereas, aquatic t1⁄2 describes the rate for degradation only. 

As for t1⁄2, units of dissipation time are usually expressed in days. Based upon the DT50 value, 

environmental persistence in aquatic habitats also would be categorized as follows: nonpersistent <30 

days; moderately persistent = 30 to 100 days; and persistent >100 days. 

Threshold for Approving PUPs:

If aquatic DT50 100 days, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs to protect 

water quality.

If aquatic DT50 >100 days, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs 

specifically to protect water quality. One or more BMPs such as the following would be 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management H-41

included in the Specific Best Management Practices section to minimize potential surface runoff and leaching that can degrade water quality:

 Do not exceed one application per site per year. 

 Do not use on coarse-textured soils where the ground water table is <10 feet and 

average annual precipitation >12 inches.

 Do not use on steep slopes if substantial rainfall is expected within 24 hours or ground is 

saturated.

Potential to Move to Groundwater: GUS = log10(soil t1⁄2) x [4 — log10(Koc)]. If a DT50 value is 

available, it would be used rather than a t1⁄2 value to calculate a GUS score. Based upon the GUS

value, the potential to move toward groundwater would be recorded as one of the following 

categories: extremely low potential<1.0; low - 1.0 to 2.0; moderate - 2.0 to 3.0; high - 3.0 to 4.0; or 

very high>4.0. 

Threshold for Approving PUPs:

If GUS <4.0, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs to protect water quality.

If GUS >4.0, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs specifically to protect 

water quality. One or more BMPs such as the following would be included in the Specific Best 

Management Practices section to minimize potential surface run-off and leaching that can 

degrade water quality:

 Do not exceed one application per site per year.

 Do not use on coarse-textured soils where the ground water table is <10 feet and 

average annual precipitation >12 inches.

 Do not use on steep slopes if substantial rainfall is expected within 24 hours or ground is 

saturated.

Volatilization: Pesticides may volatilize (evaporate) from soil and plant surfaces and move off-target 

into the atmosphere. The potential for a pesticide to volatilize is a function of its vapor pressure that 

is affected by temperature, sorption, soil moisture, and the pesticide’s water solubility. Vapor 

pressure is often expressed in mm Hg. To make these values easier to compare, vapor pressure 

would be recorded by Service personnel in exponential form (I x 10-7), where I represents a vapor 

pressure index. In general, pesticides with I<10 would have low potential to volatilize; whereas, 

pesticides with I >1,000 would have a high potential to volatilize (Oregon State University 1996). 

Vapor pressure values for pesticides are usually available in the pesticide product MSDS or the 

USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) pesticide database (see References).

Threshold for Approving PUPs:

If I <1,000, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs to minimize drift and 

protect air quality.

If I >1,000, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs specifically to minimize 

drift and protect air quality. One or more BMPs such as the following would be included in the 

Specific Best Management Practices section to reduce volatilization and potential to drift and 

degrade air quality: 

 Do not treat when wind velocities are <2 or >10 mph with existing or potential inversion 

conditions.

 Apply the large-diameter droplets possible for spray treatments.
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

H-42 Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management 

 Avoid spraying when air temperatures >85°F.

 Use the lowest spray height possible above target canopy.

 Where identified on the pesticide label, soil incorporate pesticide as soon as possible 

during or after application.

Octanol-Water Partition Coefficient (Kow): The octanol-water partition coefficient (Kow) is the 

concentration of a pesticide in octanol and water at equilibrium at a specific temperature. Because 

octanol is an organic solvent, it is considered a surrogate for natural organic matter. Therefore, Kow

would be used to assess potential for a pesticide to bioaccumulate in tissues of aquatic species (e.g., 

fish). If Kow >1,000 or Sw<1 mg/L and soil t1⁄2>30 days, then there would be high potential for a 

pesticide to bioaccumulate in aquatic species such as fish (USGS 2000).

Threshold for Approving PUPs:

If there is not a high potential for a pesticide to bioaccumulate in aquatic species, then the PUP 

would be approved.

If there is a high potential to bioaccumulate in aquatic species (Kow>1,000 or Sw<1 mg/L and 

soil t1⁄2>30 days), then the PUP would not approved, except under unusual circumstances where 

approval would only be granted by the Service’s Headquarters Office.

Bioaccumulation/Bioconcentration: The physiological process where pesticide concentrations in 

tissue would increase in biota because they are taken and stored at a faster rate than they are 

metabolized or excreted. The potential for bioaccumulation would be evaluated through 

bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) or bioconcentration factors (BCFs). Based upon BAF or BCF 

values, the potential to bioaccumulate would be recorded as one of the following: low — 0 to 300; 

moderate — 300 to 1,000; or high >1,000 (Calabrese and Baldwin 1993). 

Threshold for Approving PUPs:

If BAF or BCF<1,000, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs.

If BAF or BCF>1,000, then a PUP would not approved, except under unusual circumstances 

where approval would only be granted by the Washington Office.

7.6.3 Worst-Case Ecological Risk Assessment 

Max Application Rates (acid equivalent): Service personnel would record the highest application 

rate of an active ingredient (ae basis) for habitat management and cropland/facilities maintenance 

treatments in this data field of a chemical profile. These rates can be found in Table CP.1 under the 

column heading “Max Product Rate - Single Application (lbs/acre - AI on acid equiv basis).” This 

table would be prepared for a chemical profile from information specified in labels for trade name 

products identified in PUPs. If these data are not available in pesticide labels, then write “NS” for 

“not specified on label” in this table. 

Estimated Environmental Concentrations (EEC): An EEC represents potential exposure to fish 

and wildlife (birds and mammals) from using a pesticide. EECs would be derived by Service 

personnel using an EPA screening-level approach (EPA 2004). For each max application rate [see 

description under Max Application Rates (acid equivalent)], Service personnel would record two 

EEC values in a chemical profile; these would represent the worst-case terrestrial and aquatic 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management H-43

exposures for habitat management and croplands/facilities maintenance treatments. For terrestrial 

and aquatic EEC calculations, see the description for data entry under Presumption of Unacceptable 

Risk/Risk Quotients, which is the next field for a chemical profile. 

Presumption of Unacceptable Risk/Risk Quotients: Service personnel would calculate and record 

acute and chronic risk quotients (RQs) for birds, mammals, and fish using the provided tabular 

formats for habitat management and/or cropland/facilities maintenance treatments. RQs recorded in 

a chemical profile would represent the worst-case assessment for ecological risk. See Section 7.2 for 

a discussion regarding the calculations of RQs. 

For aquatic assessments associated with habitat management treatments, RQ calculations would be 

based upon selected acute and chronic toxicological endpoints for fish, and the EEC would be 

derived from Urban and Cook (1986), assuming 100% overspray to an entire one-foot deep water 

body using the max application rate (ae basis [see above]). 

For aquatic assessments associated with cropland/facilities maintenance treatments, RQ calculations 

would be done by Service personnel based upon selected acute and chronic toxicological endpoints 

for fish and an EEC would be derived from the aquatic assessment in AgDRIFT® model version 2.01 

under Tier I ground-based application with the following input variables: Max application rate (acid 

basis [see above]); low boom (20 inches); fine to medium/coarse droplet size; 20 swaths, EPAdefined wetland; and 25-foot distance (buffer) from treated area to water. 

See Section 7.2.1.2 for more details regarding the calculation of EECs for aquatic habitats for habitat 

management and cropland/facilities maintenance treatments. 

For terrestrial avian and mammalian assessments, RQ calculations would be done by Service 

personnel based upon dietary exposure, where the “short grass” food item category would represent 

the worst-case scenario. For terrestrial spray applications associated with habitat management and 

cropland/facilities maintenance treatments, exposure (EECs and RQs) would be determined using the 

Kanaga nomogram method through the EPA’s T-REX model version 1.2.3. T-REX input variables 

would include maximum application rate (acid basis [see above]) and pesticide half-life (days) in soil 

to estimate the initial, maximum pesticide residue concentration on general food items for terrestrial 

vertebrate species in short (<20 cm tall) grass. 

For granular pesticide formulations and pesticide-treated seed with a unique route of exposure for 

terrestrial avian and mammalian wildlife, see Section 7.2.1.1.2 for the procedure that would be used 

to calculate RQs. 

All calculated RQs in both tables would be compared with LOCs established by the EPA (see Table 

2 in Section 7.2). If a calculated RQ exceeds an established LOC value (in brackets inside the table), 

then there would be a potential for an acute or chronic effect (unacceptable risk) to federally listed 

(T&E) species and nonlisted species. See Section 7.2 for detailed descriptions of acute and chronic 

RQ calculations and comparison to LOCs to assess risk. 

Threshold for approving PUPs:

If RQs<LOCs, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs.

If RQs>LOCs, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs specifically to 

minimize exposure (ecological risk) to bird, mammal, and/or fish species. One or more BMPs 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

H-44 Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management 

such as the following would be included in the Specific Best Management Practices section to 

reduce potential risk to nonlisted or listed species: 

 Lower application rate and/or fewer number of applications so RQs<LOCs. 

 For aquatic assessments (fish) associated with cropland/facilities maintenance, increase 

the buffer distance beyond 25 feet so RQs<LOCs.

Justification for Use: Service personnel would describe the reason for using the pesticide based 

control of specific pests or groups of pests. In most cases, the pesticide label will provide the 

appropriate information regarding control of pests to describe in the section. 

Specific Best Management Practices (BMPs): Service personnel would record specific BMPs 

necessary to minimize or eliminate potential effects to nontarget species and/or degradation of 

environmental quality from drift, surface runoff, or leaching. These BMPs would be based upon 

scientific information documented in previous data fields of a chemical profile. Where necessary and 

feasible, these specific practices would be included in PUPs as a basis for approval. 

If there are no specific BMPs that are appropriate, then Service personnel would describe why the 

potential effects to Refuge resources and/or degradation of environmental quality is outweighed by 

the overall resource benefit(s) from the proposed pesticide use in the BMP section of the PUP. See 

Section 4.0 above for a complete list of BMPs associated with mixing and applying pesticides 

appropriate for all PUPs with ground-based treatments that would be additive to any necessary, 

chemical-specific BMPs. 

References: Service personnel would record scientific resources used to provide data/information for 

a chemical profile. Use the number sequence to uniquely reference data in a chemical profile. 

The following on-line data resources are readily available for toxicological endpoint and 

environmental fate data for pesticides. 

1. California Product/Label Database. Department of Pesticide Regulation, California 

Environmental Protection Agency. (www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/label/labelque.htm#regprods) 

2. ECOTOX database. Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA, Washington, DC 

(cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/) 

3. Extension Toxicology Network (EXTOXNET) Pesticide Information Profiles. Cooperative 

effort of University of California-Davis, Oregon State University, Michigan State University, 

Cornell University and University of Idaho through Oregon State University, Corvallis, 

Oregon. (extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/ghindex.html) 

4. FAO specifications and evaluations for plant protection products. Pesticide Management Unit, 

Plant Protection Services, Food and Agriculture Organization, United Nations. (www.fao.org/ 

WAICENT/FAOINFO/AGRICULT/AGP/AGPP/Pesticid/) 

5. Human health and ecological risk assessments. Pesticide Management and Coordination, 

Forest Health Protection, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. (www.fs.fed.

us/foresthealth/pesticide/risk.htm) 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management H-45

6. Pesticide Chemical Fact Sheets. Clemson University Pesticide Information Center. (entweb. 

clemson.edu/pesticid/Document/Labels/factsheet.htm) 

7. Pesticide Fact Sheets. Published by Information Ventures for Bureau of Land Management, 

Department of the Interior; Bonneville Power Administration, U.S. Department of Energy; and 

U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (infoventures.com/e-hlth/pesticide/pestfact.html) 

8. Pesticide Fact Sheets. National Pesticide Information Center. (npic.orst.edu/npicfact.htm) 

9. Pesticide Fate Database. EPA, Washington, DC. (cfpub.epa.gov/ pfate/) 

10. Pesticide product labels and material safety data sheets. Crop Data Management Systems. 

(www.cdms.net/pfa/LUpdateMsg.asp) or multiple websites maintained by agrichemical 

companies. 

11. Registered Pesticide Products (Oregon database). Oregon Department of Agriculture. 

(www.oda.state.or.us/dbs/pest_products/search.lasso) 

12. Regulatory notes. Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Health Canada, Ontario, 

Canada.(www.hc-sc.gc.ca/pmra-arla/) 

13. Reptile and Amphibian Toxicology Literature. Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment 

Canada, Ontario, Canada. (www.cws-scf.ec.gc.ca/nwrc-cnrf/ratl/) 

14. Specific Chemical Fact Sheet - New Active Ingredients, Biopesticide Fact Sheet and 

Registration Fact Sheet. EPA, Washington, DC. 

(www.epa.gov/pestidides/factsheets/chemical_fs.htm) 

15. Weed Control Methods Handbook: Tools and Techniques for Use in Natural Areas. The 

Invasive Species Initiative. The Nature Conservancy. (tnsweeds.ucdavis.edu/handbook.html) 

16. Wildlife Contaminants Online. U.S. Geological Survey, Department of Interior, Washington, 

DC. (www.pwrc.usgs.gov/contaminants-online/) 

17. One-liner database. 2000. EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

H-46 Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management 

8.0 Forms

Chemical Profile

Date:

Trade Name(s): Common Chemical Name(s):

Pesticide Type: EPA Registration Number:

Pesticide Class: CAS Number:

Other Ingredients:

Toxicological Endpoints

Mammalian LD50:

Mammalian LC50:

Mammalian Reproduction:

Avian LD50:

Avian LC50:

Avian Reproduction:

Fish LC50:

Fish ELS/Life Cycle:

Other:

Ecological Incident Reports

Environmental Fate

Water Solubility (Sw):

Soil Mobility (Koc):

Soil Persistence (t1⁄2):

Soil Dissipation (DT50):

Aquatic Persistence (t1⁄2):

Aquatic Dissipation (DT50):

Potential to Move to Groundwater (GUS Score):

Volatilization (mm Hg):

Octanol-Water Partition Coefficient (Kow):

Bioaccumulation/Biocentration: BAF:

BCF:
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management H-47

Worst Case Ecological Risk Assessment

Max Application Rate

(ai lbs/acre - ae basis)

Habitat Management:

Croplands/Facilities Maintenance:

EECs Terrestrial (Habitat Management):

Terrestrial (Croplands/Facilities Maintenance):

Aquatic (Habitat Management):

Aquatic (Croplands/Facilities Maintenance):

Habitat Management Treatments

Presumption of Unacceptable Risk Risk Quotient (RQ)

Listed (T&E) Species Nonlisted Species

Acute Birds [0.1] [0.5]

Mammals [0.1] [0.5]

Fish [0.05] [0.5]

Chronic Birds [1] [1]

Mammals [1] [1]

Fish [1] [1]

Cropland/Facilities Maintenance Treatments

Presumption of Unacceptable Risk Risk Quotient (RQ)

Listed (T&E) Species Nonlisted Species

Acute Birds [0.1] [0.5]

Mammals [0.1] [0.5]

Fish [0.05] [0.5]

Chronic Birds [1] [1]

Mammals [1] [1]

Fish [1] [1]

Justification for Use:

Specific Best Management 

Practices (BMPs):

References:
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

H-48 Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management 

Table CP.1 Pesticide Name 

Trade 

Namea

Treatment 

Typeb

Max Product 

Rate - Single 

Application 

(lbs/acre or 

gal/acre)

Max Product 

Rate - Single 

Application 

(lbs/acre - AI 

on acid equiv 

basis)

Max 

Number of 

Applications 

Per Season

Max Product 

Rate/Season 

(lbs/acre/

season or 

gal/acre/

season)

Minimum 

Time 

Between 

Applications 

(Days)

a

 From each label for a pesticide identified in pesticide use proposals (PUPs), Service personnel would record 

application information associated with possible/known uses on Service lands. 

b

 Treatment type: H - habitat management or CF - cropland/facilities maintenance. If a pesticide is labeled for 

both types of treatments (uses), then record separate data for H and CF applications. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management H-49

9.0 References 

AgDrift. 2001. A user’s guide for AgDrift 2.04: A tiered approach for the assessment of spray drift 

of pesticides. Spray Drift Task Force, PO Box 509, Macon, Missouri.

ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry) US Department of Health and Human 

Services. 2004. Guidance Manual for the Assessment of Joint Toxic Action of Chemical Mixtures. 

US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, ATSDR, Division of 

Toxicology. 62 pages plus Appendices. 

Baehr, C.H., and C. Habig. 2000. Statistical evaluation of the UTAB database for use in terrestrial 

nontarget organism risk assessment. 10th Symposium on Environmental Toxicology and Risk 

Assessment, American Society of Testing and Materials. 

Baker, J. and G. Miller. 1999. Understanding and reducing pesticide losses. Extension Publication 

PM 1495, Iowa State University Extension, Ames, Iowa. 6 pages. 

Barry, T. 2004. Characterization of propanil prune foliage residues as related to propanil use 

patterns in the Sacramento Valley, CA. Proceedings of the International Conference on Pesticide 

Application for Drift Management. Waikoloa, Hawaii. 15 pages. 

Battaglin, W.A., E.M. Thurman, S.J. Kalkhoff, and S.D. Porter. 2003. Herbicides and 

Transformation Products in Surface Waters of the Midwestern United States. Journal of the 

American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 39(4):743-756. 

Beyer, W.N., E.E. Connor, S. Gerould. 1994. Estimates of soil ingestion by wildlife. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 58:375-382. 

Brooks, M.L., C.M. D'Antonio, D.M. Richardson, J.B. Grace, J.E. Keeley, and others. 2004. Effects 

of invasive alien plants on fire regimes. BioScience 54:77-88. 

Bureau of Land Management. 2007. Vegetation treatments using herbicides on Bureau of Land 

Management Lands in 17 western states Programmatic EIS (PEIS). Bureau of Land Management, 

Headquarters Office. 

Butler, T., W. Martinkovic, and O.N. Nesheim. 1998. Factors influencing pesticide movement to 

ground water. Extension Publication PI-2, University of Florida, Cooperative Extension Service, 

Gainesville, FL. 4 pages. 

Calabrese, E.J. and L.A. Baldwin. 1993. Performing Ecological Risk Assessments. Lewis 

Publishers, Chelsea, MI. 

Center, T.D., J.H. Frank, and F.A. Dray Jr. 1997. Biological Control. Strangers in Paradise: Impact 

and Management of Nonindigenous Species in Florida. P.245-263. 

Cox, R.D., and V.J. Anderson. 2004. Increasing native diversity of cheatgrass-dominated rangeland 

through assisted succession. Journal of Range Management 57:203-210. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

H-50 Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management 

Coombs, E.M., J.K Clark, G.L. Piper, and A.F. Cofrancesco Jr. 2004. Biological control of invasive 

plants in the United States. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, 467 pages. 

Driver, C.J., M.W. Ligotke, P. Van Voris, B.D. McVeety, B.J. Greenspan, and D.B. Brown. 1991. 

Routes of uptake and their relative contribution to the toxicologic response of northern bobwhite 

(Colinus virginianus) to an organophosphate pesticide. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 

10:21-33. 

Dunning, J.B. 1984. Body weights of 686 species of North American birds. Western Bird Banding 

Association. Monograph No. 1. 

EXTOXNET. 1993a. Movement of pesticides in the environment. Pesticide Information Project of 

Cooperative Extension Offices of Cornell University, Oregon State University, University of Idaho, 

University of California–Davis, and the Institute for Environmental Toxicology, Michigan State 

University. 4 pages.

Fletcher, J.S., J.E. Nellessen, and T.G. Pfleeger. 1994. Literature review and evaluation of the EPA 

food-chain (Kenaga) nomogram, and instrument for estimating pesticide residue on plants. 

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 13:1381-1391. 

Hasan, S. and P.G. Ayres. 1990. The control of weeds through fungi: principles and prospects. 

Tansley Review 23:201-222. 

Huddleston, J.H. 1996. How soil properties affect groundwater vulnerability to pesticide 

contamination. EM 8559. Oregon State University Extension Service. 4 pages. 

Kerle, E.A., J.J. Jenkins, P.A. Vogue. 1996. Understanding pesticide persistence and mobility for 

groundwater and surface water protection. EM 8561. Oregon State University Extension Service. 8 

pages. 

Masters, R.A, and R.L. Sheley. 2001. Invited synthesis paper: principles and practices for managing 

rangeland invasive plants. Journal of Range Manage 54:502-517. 

Masters, R.A., S.J. Nissen, R.E. Gaussoin, D.D. Beran, and R.N. Stougaard. 1996. Imidazolinone 

herbicides improve restoration of Great Plains grasslands. Weed Technology 10:392-403. 

Maxwell, B.D., E. Lehnhoff, L.J. Rew. 2009. The rationale for monitoring invasive plant 

populations as a crucial step for management. Invasive Plant Science and Management 2:1-9. 

Mineau, P., B.T. Collins, and A. Baril. 1996. On the use of scaling factors to improve interspecies 

extrapolation to acute toxicity in birds. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 24:24-29. 

Moody, M.E., and R.N. Mack. 1988. Controlling the spread of plant invasions: the importance of 

nascent foci. Journal of Applied Ecology 25:1009-1021. 

Morse, L.E., J.M. Randall, N. Benton, R. Hiebert, and S. Lu. 2004. An Invasive Species Assessment 

Protocol: NatureServe. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management H-51

Mullin, B.H., L.W. Anderson, J.M. DiTomaso, R.E. Eplee, and K.D. Getsinger. 2000. Invasive 

Plant Species. Issue Paper (13):1-18. 

Oregon State University. 1996. EXTOXNET-Extension Toxicology Network, Pesticide 

Information Profiles. Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. 

Pfleeger, T.G., A. Fong, R. Hayes, H. Ratsch, C. Wickliff. 1996. Field evaluation of the EPA 

(Kanaga) nomogram, a method for estimating wildlife exposure to pesticide residues on plants. 

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 15:535-543.

Pope, R., J. DeWitt, and J. Ellerhoff. 1999. Pesticide movement: what farmers need to know. 

Extension Publication PAT 36, Iowa State University Extension, Ames, Iowa and Iowa Department 

of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, Des Moines, Iowa. 6 pages. 

Ramsay, C.A., G.C. Craig, and C.B. McConnell. 1995. Clean water for Washington–protecting 

groundwater from pesticide contamination. Extension Publication EB1644, Washington State 

University Extension, Pullman, Washington. 12 pages. 

SDTF 2003 Spray Drift Task Force. 2003. A summary of chemigation application studies. Spray 

Drift Task Force, Macon, Missouri. 

Teske, M.E., S.L. Bird, D.M. Esterly, S.L. Ray, and S.G. Perry. 1997. A User's Guide for 

AgDRIFTTM 1.0: A Tiered Approach for the Assessment of Spray Drift of Pesticides, Technical 

Note No. 95-10, CDI, Princeton, New Jersey. 

Teske, M.E., S.L. Bird, D.M. Esterly, T.B. Curbishley, S.L. Ray, and S.G. Perry. 2002. 

AgDRIFT®: a model for estimating near-field spray drift from aerial applications. Environmental 

Toxicology and Chemistry 21: 659-671. 

Urban, D.J and N.J. Cook. 1986. Ecological risk assessment. EPA 540/9-85-001. US 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington D.C. 94 pages. 

US Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. Laboratory Test Methods of Exposure to Microbial 

Pest Control Agents by the Respiratory Route to Nontarget Avian Species. Environmental Research 

Laboratory, Corvallis, OR. EPA/600/3-90/070. 

US Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. A Comparative Analysis of Ecological Risks from 

Pesticides and Their Uses: Background, Methodology and Case Study. Environmental Fate and 

Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, 

D.C. 105 pages. 

US Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. Overview of the ecological risk assessment process in 

the Office of Pesticide Programs, US Environmental Protection Agency: endangered and threatened 

species effects determinations, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC. 101 pages. 

US Environmental Protection Agency. 2005a. Technical overview of ecological risk assessment 

risk characterization; Approaches for evaluating exposure; Granular, bait, and treated seed 

applications. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC. 

http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/ecorisk_ders/toera_analysis_exp.htm. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

H-52 Appendix H. Integrated Pest Management 

US Environmental Protection Agency. 2005b. User’s Guide TREX v1.2.3. US Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC. 22 pages. 

http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/terrestrial/trex_usersguide.htm. 

US Geological Survey. 2000. Pesticides in stream sediment and aquatic biota – current 

understanding of distribution and major influences. USGS Fact Sheet 092-00, US Geological Survey, 

Sacramento, California. 4 pages. 

US Forest Service. 2005. Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program 

Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants Final Environmental Impact Statement. 359 pages. 

Wauchope, R.D., T.M. Buttler, A.G. Hornsby, P.M. Augustijn-Beckers, and J.P. Burt. 1992. The 

SCS/ARS/CES pesticide properties database for environmental decision making. Reviews of 

Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 123:1-155. 

Woods, N. 2004. Australian developments in spray drift management. Proceedings of the 

International Conference on Pesticide Application for Drift Management, Waikoloa, Hawaii. 8 

pages. 
Appendix I

Laws, Orders, 

Policies, and 

Agreements

Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

 Appendix I. Laws and Policies I-1 

Appendix I. Laws, Orders, Policies, and Agreements 

I.1 Federal Laws and Treaties

Relevant laws of the United States that might apply to the implementation of the land-use alternatives 

on CLNWR are discussed in the sections that follow. 

United States Treaties with American Indian Tribes

In May and June of 1855, at Wai-i-lat-pu (near present-day Walla Walla, Washington), leaders of 

various Columbia Plateau American Indian tribes and bands negotiated treaties with representatives 

of the United States. The negotiations resulted in three treaties, one with the 14 tribes and bands of 

what would become the Yakama Nation, one with the 3 tribes that would become the Confederated 

Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR), and 1 with the Nez Perce Tribe. The treaties 

were ratified by the United States Senate in 1859. The negotiated treaties are: 

• Treaty with the Walla Walla, Cayuse, etc. (June 9, 1855; 12 Stat. 945) 

• Treaty with the Yakama (June 9, 1855; 12 Stat. 951) 

• Treaty with the Nez Perce (June 11, 1855; 12 Stat. 957) 

The terms of all three treaties are essentially the same. Each of the three tribal organizations agreed 

to cede large blocks of land to the United States. The tribes retained certain lands for their exclusive 

use (the three reservations) and also retained the rights to continue traditional activities outside the 

reservations. These reserved rights include the right to fish (and erect fish-curing facilities) at usual 

and accustomed places. These rights also include rights to hunt, gather foods and medicines, and 

pasture livestock on open and unclaimed lands. 

The act of treaty-making between the United States and an Indian tribe has many legal consequences 

for both entities. The United States recognizes the existence of the tribe as sovereign and initiates a 

government-to-government relationship with the tribe. At the same time, the tribe loses some aspects 

of its sovereignty, such as the right to negotiate (independently of the United States) with other 

foreign powers. In return, the United States and the tribe enter into a trust relationship, whereby the 

United States assumes the responsibility to preserve the rights and resources of the tribe from 

incursions by private entities, states, or the Federal government itself. One aspect of this trust duty is 

the need to consult with the tribes concerning decisions made by the Federal government that could 

affect tribal rights or resources. In addition to these general legal consequences of treaty-making, the 

individual treaty itself defines particular new roles and responsibilities of the two governments, 

within the terms of the new legal relationship created by the treaty. 

Every Federal agency that makes decisions potentially affecting the rights or resources of federally 

recognized American Indian tribes shares in the trust responsibility duties of the Federal government. 

This trust responsibility includes the duty to consult with those tribes concerning the potential 

impacts of agency decisions. As a result, the Service regularly consults with the CTUIR, the Yakama 

Nation, and the Nez Perce Tribe concerning decisions being made by the Service on its lands that 

might affect tribal rights or resources. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

I-2 Appendix I .Laws and Policies 

CLNWR is within the exterior boundaries of the Yakama Indian Reservation, so consultation is 

primarily limited to the Yakama Nation. Consultation is of utmost importance with regard to Service 

actions and decisions. 

International Treaties of the United States

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended, is intended to protect birds that have common 

migration patterns between the United States and Canada, Mexico, Japan, and Russia. The law 

regulates the harvest of migratory birds by specifying factors such as the mode of harvest, hunting 

seasons, and bag limits. This act stipulates that, except as permitted by regulations, it is unlawful at 

any time, by any means, or in any manner to kill any migratory bird. The Service is the lead agency 

in implementation and enforcement of this act; other agencies consult with the Service regarding 

impacts to migratory birds and to evaluate ways to avoid or minimize impacts in accordance with the 

Service migration policy. 

Federal Natural Resource Management, Cultural Resource Laws, Water Management, and 

Pollution Control

American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978

The American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 reaffirms American Indians’ religious freedom 

under the First Amendment and sets United States policy to protect and preserve the inherent and 

constitutional right of American Indian tribes to believe, express, and exercise traditional religions. 

This act also requires that Federal agencies avoid interfering with access to sacred locations and 

traditional resources that are integral to the practice of religion. 

Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974

The Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974, as amended, protects sites that have 

historic and prehistoric importance. 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979

The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, as amended, requires a permit for any 

excavation or removal of archaeological resources from Federal or Indian lands. Excavations must 

be undertaken for the purpose of furthering archaeological knowledge in the public interest, and 

resources removed are to remain the property of the United States. Consent must be obtained from 

the Indian tribe or the Federal agency having authority over the land on which a resource is located 

before issuance of a permit; the permit must contain terms and conditions requested by the tribe or 

Federal agency. 

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1972

The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1972, as amended, makes it unlawful to take, pursue, 

molest, or disturb bald and golden eagles, their nests, or their eggs anywhere in the United States. A 

permit must be obtained from DOI to relocate a nest that interferes with resource development or 

recovery operations. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

 Appendix I. Laws and Policies I-3 

Clean Air Act of 1970

The Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended, is intended to protect and enhance the quality of the 

Nation’s air resources so as to promote the public health and welfare and the productive capacity of 

its population. Section 118 of the act requires each Federal agency with jurisdiction over properties 

or facilities engaged in any activity that might result in the discharge of air pollutants to comply with 

all Federal, state, interstate, and local requirements with regard to the control and abatement of air 

pollution. 

Clean Water Act of 1977

The Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1977, as amended, was enacted to restore and maintain the chemical, 

physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s water. The CWA prohibits discharge of toxic 

pollutants in toxic amounts to navigable waters of the United States. Section 313 of the CWA 

requires all branches of the Federal government with jurisdiction over properties or facilities engaged 

in any activity that might result in a discharge or runoff of pollutants to surface waters to comply 

with Federal, state, interstate, and local requirements. Section 404 of the CWA authorizes the Army 

Corps of Engineers (ACOE) to regulate, through permits, the discharge of dredged or fill material 

into waters of the United States, including wetlands. Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 

1899 authorizes the ACOE to regulate, through permits, structures and work in navigable waters of 

the United States. 

Endangered Species Act of 1973

The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, is intended to prevent the further decline of 

endangered and threatened species and to restore those species and their habitats. This act is jointly 

administered by the Departments of Commerce and the Interior. Section 7 of this act requires 

agencies to consult with the Service or NOAA-Fisheries. This consultation determines whether 

endangered and threatened species or critical habitats are known to be in the vicinity of a proposed 

action and whether an action will adversely affect listed species or designated critical habitats. 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1972

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1972, as amended, governs the storage, 

use, and disposal of pesticides through product labeling, registration, and user certification. 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 are the predecessors to the Federal 

statute to the Clean Water Act of 1977. 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980

The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980, as amended, encourages all Federal entities (in 

cooperation with the public) to protect and conserve the nation’s fish and wildlife.
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

I-4 Appendix I .Laws and Policies 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934

The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934, as amended, promotes more effectual planning and 

cooperation between Federal, state, public, and private agencies for the conservation and 

rehabilitation of the nation’s fish and wildlife and authorizes DOI to provide assistance. 

Historic Sites, Buildings, and Antiquities Act of 1965

The Historic Sites, Buildings, and Antiquities Act of 1965 sets national policy to preserve historic 

sites, buildings, and antiquities for the inspiration and benefit of United States’ citizens.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as amended, establishes a national policy that 

encourages awareness of the environmental consequences of human activities and promotes 

consideration of those environmental consequences during the planning and implementing stages of a 

project. Under NEPA, Federal agencies are required to prepare detailed statements to address the 

environmental effects of proposed major Federal actions that might significantly affect the quality of 

the human environment. 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, provides for nomination for placement 

of sites with significant national historic value on the National Register of Historic Places (NPS 

1988). Permits and certifications are not required under this act; however, consultation with the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation is required if a Federal undertaking might impact a 

historic property resource. This consultation generally results in a memorandum of agreement that 

includes stipulations to minimize adverse impacts to the historic resource. Coordination with the 

State Historic Preservation Office is undertaken to ensure that potentially significant sites are 

properly identified and appropriate mitigation measures are implemented. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (Amended by the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997)

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended, provides guidelines 

and directives for the administration and management of all lands within the system, including 

wildlife refuges, areas for the protection and conservation of fish and wildlife that are threatened with 

extinction, wildlife ranges, game ranges, wildlife management areas, or waterfowl production areas. 

The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to permit by regulations the use of any area within the 

system provided such uses are compatible with the major purposes for which such areas were 

established. 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990

The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990. This act 

established statutory provisions for the treatment of inadvertent discoveries of American Indians’ 

remains and cultural objects. Specifically, when discoveries are made during ground-disturbing 

activities, the following must take place: 1) activity in the area of the discovery must cease 

immediately; 2) reasonable efforts must be made to protect the items discovered; 3) notice of 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

 Appendix I. Laws and Policies I-5 

discovery must be given to the Service Director and the appropriate tribes; and 4) a period of 30 days 

must be set aside following notification for negotiations regarding the appropriate disposition of 

these items. NAGPRA also directs the Secretary of the Interior to guide Federal agencies in the 

repatriation of Federal archaeological collections and collections affiliated culturally to American 

Indian tribes, which are currently held by museums receiving Federal funding. 

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970

The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, as amended, establishes standards to enhance safe 

and healthy working conditions in places of employment throughout the United States. The act is 

administered and enforced by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), an 

agency of the United States Department of Labor. Although OSHA and the EPA both have a 

mandate to limit exposures to toxic substances, the jurisdiction of OSHA is limited to safety and 

health conditions in the workplace. In general, each employer is required to furnish a place of 

employment free of recognized hazards likely to cause death or serious physical harm to all 

employees. OSHA regulations establish specific standards telling employers what must be done to 

achieve a safe and healthy working environment. Employees have a duty to comply with these 

standards and with all rules, regulations, and orders issued by OSHA. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended, protects selected national rivers possessing 

outstanding scenic, recreational, geological, fish and wildlife, historical, cultural, or other similar 

values. These rivers are to be preserved in a free-flowing condition to protect water quality and for 

other vital national conservation purposes. This act also instituted a National Wild and Scenic Rivers 

System, designated the initial rivers within the system, and developed standards for the addition of 

new rivers in the future. In accordance with this act, the Secretary of the Interior has directed that all 

DOI agencies conduct assessments of their rivers for eligibility into the National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System as part of land planning processes. 

Wilderness Act of 1964

The Wilderness Act of 1964, as amended, was intended to “assure that an increasing population, 

accompanied by expanding settlement and growing mechanization, does not occupy and modify all 

areas within the United States and its possessions, leaving no lands designated for preservation and 

protection in their natural condition ...” Per DOI and Service policy, DOI lands are to be assessed for 

their potential as additions to the National Wilderness Preservation System as part of normal land 

planning processes. 

I.2 State Laws

State and local statutes also apply to activities on CLNWR when Federal law delegates enforcement 

or implementation authority to state or local agencies. In general, state laws do not apply to the 

Federal government based on the National Supremacy Clause that reads, “This Constitution, and the 

Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which 

shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and 

the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State 

to the Contrary notwithstanding.” (Article 6, U.S. Constitution). 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

I-6 Appendix I .Laws and Policies 

I.2.1 Growth Management Act of 1989

Most planning by local governments falls under the State of Washington Growth Management Act 

(GMA), which established a statewide planning framework and created roles and responsibilities for 

planning at the local, regional, and State levels. The GMA requires that all counties: 

1) Designate and protect wetlands, frequently flooded areas, and other critical areas. 

2) Designate farm lands, forest lands, and other natural resource areas. 

3) Determine that new residential subdivisions have appropriate provisions for public services 

and facilities. 

The GMA requires the largest and fastest growing counties (counties with more than 50,000 people 

or with a population growth of more than 20% in the past 10 years) and cities within those counties 

to develop new comprehensive plans. Counties not required to plan may elect to do so. Not having 

met the threshold requirements, Klickitat County chose not to participate and write a new plan under 

the GMA requirements. However, the county already had a comprehensive plan in place, written 

before the passage of the GMA, and updates to the plan are written to meet GMA standards. 

Shoreline Management Act of 1971

The Shoreline Management Act of 1971 uses authority passed to the state by the Federal Rivers and 

Harbors Act of 1899. Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act prohibits the unauthorized 

obstruction or alteration of any navigable waters of the United States. Examples of activities 

requiring an ACOE permit include constructing a structure in or over any waters of the United States, 

excavation or deposit of material in such waters, and various types of work performed in such waters, 

including fill and stream channelization. The state is considered the owner of all navigable 

waterways within its boundaries. 

The state has passed regulatory responsibility for the Shoreline Management Act to the affected 

county. Counties in Washington State regulate the shoreline (i.e., from the high-water mark to the 

low-water mark) through each county’s Shoreline Management Master Plan and a shoreline permit 

system consistent with WDOE guidelines. 

State Environmental Policy Act of 1971

The Washington State legislature enacted the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 (SEPA). The 

statute was amended in 1983, and new implementing regulations (SEPA rules) were adopted and 

codified by the WDOE in 1984 as Washington Administrative Code 197-11. The purpose and policy 

sections of the statute are extremely broad, including recognition by the legislature that “each person 

has a fundamental and inalienable right to a healthful environment ...” SEPA contains a substantive 

mandate that policies, regulations, and laws of the State of Washington shall be interpreted and 

administered in accordance with the policies set forth. 

SEPA applies to all branches of State government, including State agencies, municipal and public 

corporations, and counties. It requires each agency to develop procedures implementing and 

supplementing SEPA requirements and rules. Although SEPA does not apply directly to Federal 

actions, the term “government action” with respect to State agencies is defined to include the 

issuance of licenses, permits, and approvals. Thus, as in NEPA, proposals (Federal, State, or private) 

are evaluated and may be conditioned or denied through the permit process, based on environmental 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

 Appendix I. Laws and Policies I-7 

considerations. SEPA does not create an independent permit requirement, but overlays all existing 

agency permitting activities. 

I.3 Executive Orders

This section identifies Presidential Executive Orders that clarify issues of national policy and provide 

guidelines relevant to CLNWR land-use planning. 

Executive Order 11593, Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment

Executive Order 11593 requires Federal agencies to direct their policies, plans, and programs in a 

way that preserves, restores, and maintains federally owned sites, structures, and objects of historical 

or archaeological significance. 

Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management

Executive Order 11988 directs Federal agencies to establish procedures to ensure that the potential 

effects of flood hazards and floodplain management are considered for actions undertaken in a 

floodplain. This order further directs that floodplain impacts are to be avoided to the extent 

practicable. 

Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands

Governmental agencies are directed by Executive Order 11990 to avoid, to the extent practicable, 

any short- and long-term adverse impacts on wetlands wherever there is a practicable alternative. 

Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs

Executive Order 12372 applies to state review of NEPA documents and to the coordination of state 

and Federal NEPA processes. The goal of this Executive Order is to foster an intergovernmental 

partnership and a strengthened coordination and consultation process. 

Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations 

and Low-Income Populations

Executive Order 12898 directs all Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted 

by law, to achieve environmental justice by identifying and addressing disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental effects of agency programs, policies, and activities on 

minority populations and low-income populations in the United States and its territories and 

possessions. This order directs each Federal agency, to the extent permitted by existing law, to 

develop strategies to identify and address environmental justice concerns. The order further directs 

each Federal agency, to the extent permitted by existing law, to collect, maintain, analyze, and make 

available information on the race, national origin, income level, and other readily accessible and 

appropriate information for areas surrounding facilities or sites expected to have a substantial 

environmental, human health, or economic effect on the surrounding populations. This action is 

required when these facilities or sites become the subject of a substantial Federal environmental 

administrative or judicial action. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

I-8 Appendix I .Laws and Policies 

Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites

Executive Order 13007 directs Federal agencies to take measures to protect and preserve American 

Indian tribes’ religious practices. Federal agencies shall, to the extent practicable and permitted by 

law, and when consistent with essential agency functions, accommodate access to and ceremonial 

uses of sacred sites by American Indian tribes’ religious practitioners. Further, the Executive Order 

states that Federal agencies will comply with presidential direction to maintain government-togovernment relations with tribal governments. 

Executive Order 13112, Invasive Species

Issued on February 11, 1999, Executive Order 13112 is intended to prevent the introduction of 

invasive species and provide for their control and to minimize the economic, ecological, and human 

health impacts that invasive species cause. The Executive Order established an Invasive Species 

Council which created a National Invasive Species Management Plan detailing and recommending 

performance-oriented goals, objectives, and specific measures of success for Federal agencies 

concerned about invasive species. 

Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments

Executive Order 13175 further ensures that Federal government agencies recognize the unique legal 

relationship the United States has with Indian tribal governments as set forth in the Constitution of 

the United States, treaties, statutes, other Executive orders, and court decisions. It once again 

recognizes the rights of Indian tribes to self-government and to exercise inherent sovereign powers 

over their members and territory. It directs Federal agencies to work with Indian tribes on a 

government-to-government basis to address issues concerning Indian tribal self-government, tribal 

trust resources, and Indian tribal treaty and other rights. 

I.4 Presidential and Executive Branch Policies

President Clinton issued a memorandum to the heads of executive departments and agencies 

regarding government-to-government relations with tribal governments on April 29, 1994; this order 

is still in effect. This memorandum directed executive departments and agencies to implement 

activities that affect tribal rights in a knowledgeable, sensitive manner respectful of tribal 

sovereignty. The memorandum outlined principles for executive departments and agencies to follow 

in their interactions with tribal governments and clarified the responsibility of the Federal 

government to operate within a government-to-government relationship with federally recognized 

American Indian tribes. 

The United States Department of Justice reaffirmed a long-standing policy regarding the relationship 

between the Federal government and American Indian tribes (61 FR 29424). The policy states that 

the United States recognizes the sovereign status of Indian tribes as domestic dependent nations from 

its earliest days. The Constitution recognizes Indian sovereignty by classifying Indian treaties among 

the supreme Law of the Land, and establishes Indian affairs as a unique area of Federal concern. 

The Service’s Native American Policy (1994) articulates the general principles guiding the Service’s 

relationships with tribal governments in the conservation of fish and wildlife resources. The Service 

has a trust responsibility to “assist Native Americans in protecting, conserving, and utilizing their 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

 Appendix I. Laws and Policies I-9 

reserved, treaty guaranteed, or statutorily identified trust assets.” The policy commits the Service to 

working with tribal governments on a government-to-government basis, recognizes the Federal trust 

relationship with tribes and tribal members’ treaty rights, and commits the Service to consultation 

with tribes regarding agency activities that could potentially affect the tribes. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

I-10 Appendix I .Laws and Policies 
Appendix J

Distribution List

Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix J. Distribution List J-1 

Appendix J. Distribution List 

The Service developed this list based on known interest or a direct socio-economic interest in the 

results of the planning process. 

Tribal

Rex Buck, Spiritual Leader, Wanapum

Harry Smiskin, Chair, Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation

Office of the Governor

The Honorable Jay Inslee

United States Senators

The Honorable Maria Cantwell

The Honorable Patty Murray

United States Representatives

The Honorable Suzan DelBene

The Honorable Doc Hastings

The Honorable Denny Heck

The Honorable Jaime Herrera Beutler 

The Honorable Derek Kilmer

The Honorable Rick Larsen

The Honorable Jim McDermott

The Honorable Cathy McMorris Rodgers

The Honorable Adam Smith

The Honorable David Reichert

Washington State Elected Officials

Washington State Senate

The Honorable Curtis King

Washington State House of Representatives

The Honorable Norm Johnson

The Honorable Charles Ross

County Commissioners

Klickitat County Commissioners

Rex Johnson

David Sauter

Jim Sizemore

Skamania County Commissioners

Bob Anderson

Chris Brong

Doug McKenzie

Yakima County Commissioners

Kevin Bouchey

Rand Elliott

Mike Leita
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

J-2 Appendix J. Distribution List

Mayors

Arthur Babitz (Hood River)

Clinton Baze (Goldendale)

David Poucher (White Salmon)

Federal Agencies/Organizations

Bonneville Power Administration

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Bureau of Land Management

Bureau of Reclamation

Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Federal Highway Administration

National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration

National Park Service

Natural Resources Conservation Service

United States Army Corps of Engineers

United States Department of Energy

United States Environmental Protection Agency

United States Forest Service

United States Geological Survey

United States Department of Transportation

State Agencies/Organizations

Washington Department of Agriculture

Washington Department of Ecology

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Washington Department of Natural Resources

Washington Department of Transportation

Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission

Washington Interagency Committee for

Outdoor Recreation

Washington State Historic Preservation Officer

Local Agencies/Organizations

Klickitat County Planning Department

Skamania County Planning Department

Yakima County Planning Department

Interest Groups

American Bird Conservancy

American Fisheries Society

American Sportfishing Association

Animal Protection Institute

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies

Congressional Sportsman’s Association

Defenders of Wildlife

Ducks Unlimited

Ecological Society of America

Friends of the Mid-Columbia Refuges

Fund For Animals

Humane Society of the United States

Izaak Walton League of America

National Audubon Society

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation

Native Plant Society

Natural Resources Defense Council

Northwest Ecosystem Alliance

Northwest Environmental Defense Center

Predator Defense Institute

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

Safari Club International

Sierra Club

The Conservation Fund

The Fund for Animals

The Nature Conservancy

The Wilderness Society

The Wildlife Society

Trout Unlimited

Washington League of Voters

Washington Waterfowl Association

Washington Kayak Club

Wildlife Management Institute
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix J. Distribution List J-3 

Media

Associated Press, Yakima

The Enterprise, White Salmon (Newspaper)

KATU, Portland (Television)

KGW, Portland (Television)

KOIN, Portland (Television)

KPTV, Portland (Television)

The Oregonian, Portland (Newspaper)

Yakima Herald-Republic, Yakima (Newspaper)

Reading Rooms/Libraries

Gonzaga University, Foley Center

Hood River Library

Library of Congress

White Salmon Community Library
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

J-4 Appendix J. Distribution List
Appendix K

Public Involvement

Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix K. Public Involvement K-1 

Appendix K. Public Involvement

K.1 Service Policy

As outlined by Service policy, NEPA, and CEQ regulations for implementation (40 CFR 1500-

1508), developing both a CCP and an EA is a collaborative process. This chapter summarizes the 

Service’s efforts to involve the public, other agencies, and local, state and tribal governments in 

preparing the CCP/EA. Consultation beyond the planning stage and for step-down plans will 

continue to address concerns, issues and opportunities of mutual interest. 

K.2 Agency Consultation and Coordination

In the course of developing the CCP and completing the NEPA analysis, the refuge contacted a 

number of federal, state and local agencies to gather information and solicit input on the issues of 

concern. Rather than holding CCP-specific meetings, coordination and consultation was conducted 

by the Refuge Manager as he met with other agencies on all refuge matters of interest to those 

agencies. This proved to be more efficient and saved considerable time over holding a series of CCP 

meetings, although one public meeting was held June 14, 2011 (see K.4.1). It also allowed for other 

matters to be addressed and established working relationships between the Refuge Manager and other 

agencies and staff. As a result of these consultations, the goals and objectives outlined in Chapter 2 

were significantly enhanced to meet other agencies’ goals, particularly those of the State of 

Washington. 

K.3 Native American Government Consultation

In accordance with Service and NEPA policy, the refuge attempted to consult with the Yakama 

Nation during the scoping phase and throughout development of the CCP. With release of the final

CCP, the refuge will offer to meet with Yakama Nation Tribal Government to fully present the CCP. 

Prior to public scoping the refuge sent a letter on March 14, 2011, to the Yakama Nation requesting a 

meeting and consultation with the Tribal Council. The letter was signed by the Refuge Manager. 

Through a return letter (dated April 28, 2011) from the Yakama Nation’s Chair for Fish and Wildlife, 

the Yakama Nation requested that the Service letter should be resubmitted by someone in a policylevel position. The letter was resent on May 3, 2011, signed by the Region 1 Refuge Supervisor. As 

the result of a subsequent communication between the Region 1 Refuge Supervisor and the Yakama 

Nation’s Deputy Director of Natural Resources, an email was sent by the Region 1 Refuge 

Supervisor to the Deputy Director of Natural Resources requesting time on the Tribal Council 

agenda. The Service was given an hour on the June 8, 2011, agenda. However, since no one in the 

Service Regional Office was available to attend the meeting, the offered slot was rescinded. To date, 

a consultation meeting with the Tribal Council has not been arranged, although several additional 

attempts have been made (e.g., August 8, 2011, email from the Region 1 Refuge Supervisor to the 

Yakama Nation’s Deputy Director of Natural Resources). 

A September 20, 2011, meeting was arranged between the Service (Region 1 Refuge Supervisor, 

MCRNWRC Project Leader, Refuge Manager, and others) and three members of the Yakama 

Nation’s Department of Natural Resources and Wildlife Program. Points of contact were identified 

and approval was received by the Yakama Nation to continue technical meetings.
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

K-2 Appendix K. Public Involvement

Technical meetings with Yakama Nation staff were held on November 2, 2011, and November 9, 

2011. 

Prior to release of the draft CCP and EA, the document was provided to the Yakama Nation for 30-

day review, starting September 30, 2013, and ending October 29, 2013. During the public comment 

period for the draft CCP and EA from January 16, 2014, to February 18, 2014, the Yakama Nation 

provided comments, which are addressed in Appendix O (also see section K.7 below). 

K.4 Formal Scoping

Prior to developing a CCP and EA, the scope of the document, that is, what will be covered and in 

what detail, must be determined. Scoping is open to the public and tribal, state and local 

governments, as well as to affected federal agencies. This open process gives rise to important 

opportunities for better and more efficient NEPA analyses and simultaneously places responsibilities 

on public and agency participants alike to state their concerns early.

The scoping period has specific objectives: 1) to identify the affected public and agency concerns; 2) 

to identify those concerns early in the NEPA process; 3) to facilitate an efficient EA preparation 

process; 4) to define the issues and alternatives that will be examined in detail in the CCP/EA, while 

simultaneously devoting less attention and time to issues which cause no concern; and 5) to save time 

in the overall process by helping to ensure that drafts adequately address relevant issues, reducing the 

possibility that new comments will cause the CCP to be rewritten or supplemented. 

As undertaken by the Service, scoping is a process, not an event or a meeting. It has continued 

throughout the planning and development of this CCP; public comments have been welcomed at any 

time throughout CCP development. 

K.4.1 Notice of Intent and Public Scoping

Public scoping for issues to be addressed in the CCP, management actions to be undertaken, and 

opportunities to benefit wildlife and people officially began on July 13, 2011, with a notice published 

in the Federal Register. The formal comment period closed on August 12, 2011. Prior to the formal 

scoping period, an open house was held. 

Conboy Lake Open House

The refuge held a public open house on June 14, 2011, in Glenwood, Washington, to solicit ideas 

from the public on CCP issues and content. While the refuge had no mailing list prior to the open 

house for CLNWR, the meeting notice reached the desired audience through a number of avenues. 

1) A press release was sent to all media outlets in the area on June 1, 2011. The distribution list for 

the press release also included tribal governments, congressional staff, and agency offices.

2) The Refuge Manager made telephone calls to the Yakama Nation, WDFW staff, State house and 

senate members, congressional staff, local conservation organizations and numerous other personal 

contacts in the area.

The refuge’s open house meeting began with a 25-minute presentation by the Refuge Manager on the 

refuge, the planning process, and the issues the refuge had already identified. Following the 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix K. Public Involvement K-3 

presentation, the audience provided input en masse rather than break into stations. Comments, ideas 

and suggestions for management activities are presented below. 

Open House-Generated Ideas, Issues, and Management Actions

• There is a need for more access points.

• The Willard Springs Trail is a great resource; there is a need for more self-guided and other 

 (multi-use) trails.

• Install a walk-in gate at the BZ access parking lot.

• Don’t build a visitor center; a visitor contact station is all that’s needed. 

• There is a need to look at prioritization of infrastructure expenditures. 

• Before the Service acquires any houses in the area, there is a need to consider the housing needs 

 of the area. 

• School field trips, adult education classes, and environmental education programs are needed. 

Consider a Bird-N-Breakfast event(s) (Malheur National Wildlife Refuge might be a model). 

• The Youth Conservation Corp program is wonderful for local kids. 

• Clarify and ensure boating access and use, especially for hunting. 

• Implement an elk permit draw, limited to primitive weapons. 

• Consider whether the elk hunt should be an ABA-accessible-only hunt. If so, the Service should 

 consider allowing ATV access. There was a follow-up concern over ATV abuse if that were 

 allowed. 

• Determine if there would be conflicts between elk hunters and hikers. 

• What happened to all the ducks and geese? Is it possible to increase the food supply on the 

 refuge in order to increase hunting opportunities? 

• Maintain current waterfowl hunting opportunities. Don’t implement any drawings or blind 

assignments.

• Get water on the refuge sooner to benefit waterfowl hunters. 

• Agreements on water management need to be worked out. 

• A greater law enforcement presence is needed, with a special emphasis during waterfowl and big 

game seasons.

• Concerns were voiced over the proposed county road realignment route on Native American 

 artifacts. Be sure to address cultural resource issues for all projects. 

• Ensure sufficient outreach to former farmers. (There were no returning special use permit 

 requests.) Why don’t they want to hay? 

• Should farming permits be for longer periods? 

• Consider farming a larger area through co-op farming.

• Explore targeting grazing opportunities. 

• Grazing is a concern for special status plants. 

• Continue meadow enhancement.

• Hand pile slash. 

• Leave a tree buffer along the roads to screen wildlife and control poaching. 

• Actively manage upland forest stands for late seral conditions. 

• Control bullfrogs. 

• There is a need for a snake survey.

• More baseline biological information is needed, for example, on species numbers. 

• It is important to monitor the impacts of management actions on species of concern. The Service

 needs to look for partners and co-management opportunities. 

• The Washington State wildlife inventory is a good source of information, and the Service needs 

 to utilize it and be part of its evolution. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

K-4 Appendix K. Public Involvement

Scoping Comment Letters 

The Defenders of Wildlife submitted a comment letter focused primarily around climate change. In 

their letter, they stated that the CCP must consider and analyze the impacts of climate change on 

refuge resources, the ecosystem of north-central Oregon and public use of the refuge. The letter went 

on to suggest that the CCP planning team develop a plan to inventory and monitor changes to 

wildlife and habitats from climate change; address the cumulative impacts of climate change with 

other environmental threats (e.g., invasive species, over-harvesting, pollution); outline strategies for 

improving habitat connectivity in the face of climate change; and incorporate climate change into 

environmental education programs. The Defenders of Wildlife also recommended that the CCP 

include an assessment of water resources quality, quantity, timing, rights and threats. 

A letter from the EPA focused primarily on water resources. Specifically: 

1) Water bodies not meeting quality standards should be identified and a plan of action developed. 

 All water bodies that might be impacted by CCP actions must be identified. 

2) Drinking water sources must be protected. 

3) Roads and other infrastructure that might increase sedimentation should be identified, the impacts 

outlined, and corrective measures undertaken. 

4) The CCP should identify and map all wetland and floodplain resources. If any dredging or filling 

 is a result of the CCP, mitigation and restorative measures must be included. This section went 

 on to identify specific components to include in the CCP if wetlands are impacted. 

5) Impacts to wildlife and habitats must be identified and analyzed and fragmentation or loss of 

 connectivity should be identified and addressed. 

6) The CCP should include a plan to control noxious weeds and assess how it will benefit rare 

 plants. 

7) If air quality may be impacted, the sources and impacts must be addressed. 

8) Cumulative impacts must be identified and assessed. 

9) Impacts to endangered species must be identified and actions taken to improve populations. 

10) Climate change must be addressed, including identifying any significant sources of greenhouse 

gasses resulting from management actions.

11) There needs to be coordination with Native American tribes. 

12) The CCP must include an environmental justice analysis and must provide for public input and 

involvement.

13) Monitoring of wildlife, habitats, and environmental conditions must be a central component of 

 the CCP. 

The WDNR submitted procedures for forest thinning and slash management. The comments did not 

suggest that thinning should or should not be undertaken. 

Two letters from private citizens can be summarized as:

• Fences must be maintained on the refuge to control access by cattle.

• Hunting should be discontinued. 

• Actions that improve Sandhill crane nesting should be a high priority. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix K. Public Involvement K-5 

A letter from the WDFW had the following points: 

• WDFW would like to see a continuation and expansion of waterfowl hunting recreation at this 

 refuge, especially as new acquisitions are added. 

• WDFW supports consideration of a limited permit elk hunt on the refuge to address damage 

 issues and provide additional recreation. 

• Conboy is the most important site in Washington for breeding Sandhill cranes and Oregon 

 spotted frogs. Water management is the key to many life stages for these species and should 

receive detailed consideration in the draft CCP. 

K.4.2 Other Public Notices

The planning team sent an initial news release to all local media contacts in television, newspaper, 

radio, and other mass media outlets (e.g., organization newsletters). A week prior to the public 

scoping meeting (see below), the planning team sent a public service announcement to the mass 

media contacts with specific information on the meeting location and meeting format. 

The refuge mailed Planning Update #1, which announced the open house. 

K.5 Other Sources of Information

The refuge also conducted internal resource reviews on visitor services and wildlife and habitat. The 

refuge assembled teams of resource experts from local, state and federal agencies to assist with the 

resource reviews.

K.6 Planning Updates

As noted above, the refuge distributed a planning update (summarized below) to individuals, 

agencies and organizations on a mailing list to initiate the scoping process. No further updates were 

released due to: 1) the limited number of indentified interested parties; and 2) the limited number of 

minor changes being proposed in the CCP.

• Planning Update 1: May 2011, provided an overview of the CCP process, announced the start of 

 the planning process, and presented draft issues that might be addressed in the CCP. 

CLNWR’s web site at www.fws.gov/refuge/conboy_lake/management.html posts all planningrelated documents. 

K.7 Public Review of the Draft CCP/EA

As part of the public participation process, and to fulfill requirements of the NEPA, the Service 

solicits comments from the public, other agencies, other governments and any other interested party 

on the draft CCP. The Service released the Draft Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for public review and comment 

on January 16, 2014. The comment period closed 34 days later on February 18, 2014. During that 

period, the Service received four comment letters, three from private citizens and one from the U.S. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

K-6 Appendix K. Public Involvement

Environmental Protection Agency. Subsequent to the comment period, the Service received a letter 

from the Yakama Nation on March 17, 2014, which the Service accepted as part of the comments. 

Following an analysis of the comment letters, the Service prepared responses to all substantive 

comments (Appendix O), and the CCP was modified accordingly. 
Appendix L

CCP Preparation

Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix L. CCP Preparation L-1 

Appendix L. CCP Preparation 

L.1 CCP Preparation

Many people assisted in the writing of this CCP. While the Service hopes that the following lists are 

complete, there were so many people providing assistance, it is possible that some people’s names 

were inadvertently omitted. If so, please know that your contributions are valued and that the 

omission was in error. 

L.1.1 Planning Team

• Dan Craver, FWS GIS Specialist, Portland, Oregon 

• Shannon Ludwig, (Former) Conboy Lake NWR Refuge Manager, Glenwood, Washington

• Sue McDonald, FWS Visitor Services Manager, Burbank, Washington 

• Heidi Newsome, FWS Supervisory Biologist, Burbank, Washington 

• Dan Haas, FWS Planner, Burbank, Washington 

L.1.2 Contractors

• Christopher Earle, ICF International, Olympia, Washington 

• Erin VanDehay, ICF International, Portland, Oregon 

• Andrew Wones, ICF International, Seattle, Washington 

L.1.3 Additional Assistance with Review, Consultation

• Joe Engler, FWS Division of Refuges, Vancouver, Washington 

• Mike Green, FWS Division of Migratory Birds, Portland, Oregon 

• Ben Harrison, (Retired) Chief, FWS Division of Natural & Cultural Resources, Portland, 

Oregon 

• Chuck Houghten, (Former) Chief, FWS Division of Planning, Visitor Services, and 

 Transportation, Portland, Oregon

• Mike Marxen, Chief, FWS Branch of Visitor Services, Portland, Oregon 

• Nicole McCarthy, Writer-editor, FWS Branch of Planning, Portland, Oregon 

• Scott McCarthy, Chief, FWS Branch of Planning, Portland, Oregon 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

L-2 Appendix L. CCP Preparation

• Kevin O’Hara, Conservation Planner, FWS Branch of Planning, Portland, Oregon 

• Kendal Morris, Conservation Planner, FWS Branch of Planning, Portland, Oregon 

• Khem So, Conservation Planner, FWS Branch of Planning, Portland, Oregon 

• David Patte, FWS Climate Change Coordinator, Portland, Oregon 

• Anan Raymond, FWS Division of Cultural Resources, Portland, Oregon 

L.1.4 Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Management

• Charlie Stenvall, Project Leader 

• Jeff Howland, Deputy Project Leader 

• Larry Klimek, Deputy Project Leader 

• Rich Albers, Refuge Manager

• Lisa Wilson, Assistant Refuge Manager 
Appendix M

References Cited

Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix M. References M-1 

Appendix M. References Cited 

AgDrift 2001. A user’s guide for AgDrift 2.04: A tiered approach for the assessment of spray drift 

of pesticides. Spray Drift Task Force, Macon, Missouri. 

Adams, William Hampton. 1992. Archaeological survey and testing, Conboy Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge, Washington. NADB: 1341730. On file at the Washington State Historic 

Preservation Office, Olympia, Washington. 

Agee, J.K. 1993. Fire Ecology of Pacific Northwest Forests. Island Press, Washington, DC. 

Allen, C.D., A.K. Macalady, H. Chenchouni, D. Bachelet, N. McDowell, et al. 2010. A global 

overview of drought and heat-induced tree mortality reveals emerging climate change risks of 

forests. Forest Ecology and Management 259:660-684.

Alcock, J. 1993. Animal Behavior: An Evolutionary Approach. Fifth edition. Sinauer Associates, 

Sunderland, Massachusetts. 625 pages. 

Altman, B. 2000. Conservation strategy for landbirds of the east-slope of the Cascade Mountains in 

Oregon and Washington. Report to Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight. 131 pages. 

Ames, K.M., D.E. Dumond, J.R.Galm, and R. Minor. 1998. Prehistory of the Southern Plateau. In 

Handbook of North American Indians Volume 12: Plateau. D.E. Walker, editor. Smithsonian 

Institution, Washington, DC. 

Arno, S. 1977. Northwest Trees. Mountaineers, Seattle, Washington. 

ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry), U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services. 2004. Guidance manual for the assessment of joint toxic action of chemical 

mixtures. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic 

Substances and Disease Registry, Division of Toxicology. 62 pages plus appendices. 

AWS Truepower and National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). 2010. Washington : Annual 

average wind speed at 80 meters. Available at 

www.windpoweringamerica.gov/pdfs/wind_maps/wa_80m.pdf. Accessed January 17, 2012. 

Baehr, C.H., and C. Habig. 2000. Statistical evaluation of the UTAB database for use in terrestrial 

non-target organism risk assessment. Tenth Symposium on Environmental Toxicology and Risk 

Assessment, American Society of Testing and Materials. 

Baker, J. and G. Miller. 1999. Understanding and reducing pesticide losses. Extension Publication 

PM 1495, Iowa State University, Cooperative Extension Service, Ames, Iowa. 6 pages. 

Barnes, W.J. 1999. The rapid growth of a population of reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea L.) 

and its impact on some river-bottom herbs. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 126(2):133-138. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

M-2 Appendix M. References 

Barry, T. 2004. Characterization of propanil prune foliage residues as related to propanil use 

patterns in the Sacramento Valley, California. Proceedings of the International Conference on 

Pesticide Application for Drift Management. Waikoloa, Hawaii. 15 pages. 

Bartelt, G.A. 1987. Effects of disturbance and hunting on the behavior of Canada goose family 

groups in east-central Wisconsin. Journal of Wildlife Management 51:517-522. 

Battaglin, W.A., E.M. Thurman, S.J. Kalkhoff, and S.D. Porter. 2003. Herbicides and 

transformation products in surface waters of the midwestern United States. Journal of the American 

Water Resources Association 39(4):743-756. 

Beier, C.M., S.E. Sink, P.E. Hennon, D.V. D’Amore, and G.P. Juday. 2008. Twentieth-century 

warming and the dendroclimatology of declining yellow-cedar forests in southeastern Alaska. 

Canadian Journal of Forest Research 38:1319-1334. 

Belanger, L., and J. Bedard. 1990. Energetic cost of man-induced disturbance to staging snow 

geese. Journal of Wildlife Management 54(1):36-41. 

Bell, D.V., and L.W. Austin. 1985. The game-fishing season and its effects on overwintering 

wildfowl. Biological Conservation 33:65-80. 

Bennett, K.A., and E. Zuelke. 1999. The effects of recreation on birds: A literature review. 

Delaware Natural Heritage Program, Smyrna, Delaware. 

Bentz, B.J., J. Régnière, C.J. Fettig, E.M. Hansen, J.L Hayes, et al. 2010. Climate change and bark 

beetles of the western United States and Canada: Direct and indirect effects. BioScience 60:602-613. 

Beyer, W.N., E.E. Connor, S. Gerould. 1994. Estimates of soil ingestion by wildlife. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 58:375-382. 

Black, S. 2011. Mardon skipper and prescribed fire. Appendix 6 (p. 384) in: Schultz, C.B., and 

others. Conservation of prairie-oak butterflies in Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia. 

Northwest Science Vol. 85, No. 2, pp. 361-388. 

Black, S.H., C. Mazzacano and M. Blackburn. 2011. Report to the U.S. Forest Service, Oregon Zoo, 

and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Summary of Mardon skipper Coon Mountain Burn Site 

Occupancy Study Data from 2009, 2010, and 2011, Portland, OR: The Xerces Society. 

Bonnichsten, R., and K.L. Turnmire. 1991. Clovis: Origins and Adapations. People of the 

Americas Publications, Center for the Study of the First Americans, Oregon State University, 

Corvallis, Oregon. 

Bordignon, L. 1985. Effetti del disturbo antropico su una popolazione di germano reale Anas 

platyrhynchos. (Effects of human disturbance on a population of mallard Anas platyrhynchos). 

Avocetta 9:87-88. 

Bos, D.M.J., J.E. Loonen, M. Stock, F. Hofeditz, A.J. van der Graaf, and J.P. Baker. 2005. 

Utilisation of Wadden Sea salt marshes by geese in relation to livestock grazing. Journal for Nature 

Conservation 13:1-15. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix M. References M-3 

Bouffard, S. 1982. Wildlife values versus human recreation: Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge. 

Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 47:553-558. 

Boyd, Robert T. 1985. The introduction of infectious disease among the Indians of the Pacific 

Northwest, 1774-1874. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 

Boyle, S.A., and F.B. Samson. 1985. Effects of non-consumptive recreation on wildlife: A review. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 13(2):110-116. 

Bratton, J.H. 1990. Seasonal pools: An overlooked invertebrate habitat. British Wildlife 2:22-29. 

Bratton, J.H., and G. Fryer. 1990. The distribution and ecology of Chirocephalus diaphanus Prevost 

(Branchiopoda: Anostraca) in Britain. Journal of Natural History 24:955-964. 

Brooks, M.L., D’Antonio, C.M., Richardson, D.M., Grace, J.B., Keeley, J.E. and others. 2004. 

Effects of invasive alien plants on fire regimes. BioScience 54:77-88. 

Browman, D.L., and D.A. Munsell. 1969. Columbia Plateau prehistory: Cultural development and 

impinging influences. American Antiquity 34(3):249-264. 

Buchsbaum, R., J. Wilson, and I. Valiela. 1986. Digestibility of plant constituents by Canada geese 

and Atlantic brant. Ecology 67:386-393. 

Buckley, P.A., and F.G. Buckley. 1976. Guidelines for protection and management of colonially 

nesting waterbirds. National Park Service, North Atlantic Regional Office, Boston, Massachusetts. 

52 pages. 

Bureau of Land Management. 2007. Vegetation treatments using herbicides on Bureau of Land 

Management Lands in 17 western states programmatic EIS (PEIS). Bureau of Land Management, 

Washington, DC. 

Burger, J. 1981. The effect of human activity on birds at a coastal bay. Biological Conservation 

21:231-241. 

Burger, J., and M. Gochfeld. 1991. Human activity influence and diurnal and nocturnal foraging of 

sanderlings (Calidris alba). Condor 93: 259-265. 

Burgess, H.H., H.H. Prince and T.L. Trauger. 1965. Blue-winged teal nesting success as related to 

land use. Journal of Wildlife Management 29:89-95. 

Butler, T., W. Martinkovic, and O.N. Nesheim. 1998. Factors influencing pesticide movement to 

ground water. Extension Publication PI-2, University of Florida, Cooperative Extension Service, 

Gainesville, Florida. 4 pages. 

Calabrese, E.J. and L.A. Baldwin. 1993. Performing Ecological Risk Assessments. Lewis 

Publishers, Chelsea, Michigan. 

Camp, P., and J.G. Gamon. 2011. Field Guide to the Rare Plants of Washington. University of 

Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

M-4 Appendix M. References 

Carroll, L.C. 1999. Use of grazed and non-grazed fields by wintering sandhill cranes and nesting 

dabbling ducks. Master’s Thesis, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California. 40 pages.

Carroll, L.C., T.W. Arnold, and J.A. Beam. 2007. Effects of rotational grazing on nesting ducks in 

California. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:902-905. 

Carter, T.C., and J.M. Menzel. 2007. Behavior and day-roosting ecology of North American 

foliage-roosting bats. Pages 61-82 in Bats in Forests: Conservation and Management. M.J. Lacki, 

J.P. Hayes and A. Kurta, editors. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. 

Center, T.D., Frank, J.H., and Dray, Jr., F.A. 1997. Strangers in paradise: Impact and management 

of nonindigenous species in Florida. Pages 245-263 in Biological Control. 

Climate Impacts Group. 2011. University of Washington. Accessed 16 November 2011. 

cses.washington.edu/cig/. 

Cole, D.N., and R.L. Knight. 1990. Impacts of recreation on biodiversity in wilderness. Utah State 

University, Logan, Utah. 

Cole, D.N., and P.B. Landres. 1995. Indirect effects of recreation on wildlife. Pages 183-201 in

Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence Through Management and Research. R.L. Knight and K.J. 

Gutzwiller, editors. Island Press, Washington, DC. 372 pages. 

Cole, D.N., and J.L. Marion. 1988. Recreation impacts in some riparian forests of the eastern United 

States. Environmental Management 12:99-107. 

Colwell, M.A., and S.L. Dodd. 1995. Waterbird communities and habitat relationships in coastal 

pastures of northern California. Conservation Biology 9:827-834. 

Cooke, A.S. 1987. Disturbance by anglers of birds at Grafham Water. ITE Symposium 19:15-22. 

Coombs, E.M., J.K Clark, G.L. Piper, and A.F. Cofrancesco, Jr. 2004. Biological control of 

invasive plants in the United States. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon. 

Coops, N.C., and R.H. Waring. 2011. Estimating the vulnerability of fifteen tree species under 

changing climate in the Northwest North America. Ecological Modeling. 

doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2011.03.033. 

Coppoletta, M., and B. Moritsch. 2001. Taking steps toward long-term preservation of the Sonoma 

spineflower. Fremontia 29(2):23-25. 

Cox, R.D., and V.J. Anderson. 2004. Increasing native diversity of cheatgrass-dominated rangeland 

through assisted succession. Journal of Range Management 57:203-210. 

Cronan, J.M. 1957. Food and feeding habits of the scaups in Connecticut waters. Auk 

74(4):459- 468. 

Dale, B.C., P.A. Martin and P.S. Taylor. 1997. Effects of hay management on grassland songbirds 

in Saskatchewan. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:616-626. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix M. References M-5 

Dale, D., and T. Weaver. 1974. Trampling effects on vegetation of the trail corridors of north Rocky 

Mountain forests. Journal of Applied Ecology 11:767-772. 

Daughtery, Richard D. 1997. A cultural resource survey for Kreps Ranch. NADB 1341635. On file 

at the Washington State Historic Preservation Office, Olympia, Washington. 

Davis, L.H., and R.J. Sherman. 1992. Ecological study of the rare Chorizanthe valida

(Polygonaceae) at Point Ryes National Seashore, California. Madroño 39(4):271-280. 

DeBano, L.F., D.G. Neary, and P.F. Ffolliott. 1998. Fire’s Effects on Ecosystems. Wiley, New York. 

Debyle, N.V. 1985. Water and watershed. Pages 153-167 in Aspen: Ecology and Management in 

the Western United States. Debyle, N.V. and R.P. Winokur, editors. USDA Forest Service General 

Technical Report RM-119. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, 

Colorado. 

DeLong, A.K. 2002. Managing visitor use and disturbance of waterbirds: Literature review of 

impacts and mitigation measures. Appendix L in Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge Complex Final 

Environmental Impact Statement for the Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Boundary Revision 

(Volume II). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge, Fallon, Nevada. 

Dominguez, F., E. Rivera, D.P. Lettenmaier, and C.L. Castro. 2012. Changes in winter precipitation 

extremes for the western United States under a warmer climate as simulated by regional climate 

models. Geophysical Research Letters 39, L05803, doi:10.1029/2011GL050762. March 2, 2012. 

Dooley, J.L., T.A. Sanders, and P.F. Doherty, Jr. 2010. Mallard response to experimental walk-in 

and shooting disturbance. Journal of Wildlife Management 74(8):1815-1824. 

Driver, C.J., M.W. Ligotke, P. Van Voris, B.D. McVeety, B.J. Greenspan, and D.B. Brown. 1991. 

Routes of uptake and their relative contribution to the toxicologic response of northern bobwhite 

(Colinus virginianus) to an organophosphate pesticide. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 

10:21-33. 

Dunning, J.B. 1984. Body weights of 686 species of North American birds. Monograph Number 1. 

Western Bird Banding Association. 

Edwards, R.W., and D.V. Bell. 1985. Fishing in troubled waters. New Science 1446, 7 March:19-

21. 

Elsner, M.E., L. Cuo, N. Voisin, J.S. Deems, A.F. Hamlet, J.A. Vano, K.E.B. Mickelson, S.Y. Lee, 

and D.P. Lettenmaier. 2010. Implications of 21st century climate change for the hydrology of 

Washington State. Climatic Change 102:225-260. 

Emery, R.B., D.W. Howerter, L.M. Armstrong, M.G. Anderson, J.H. Devries and B.L. Joynt. 2005. 

Seasonal variation in waterfowl nesting success and its relation to cover management in the Canadian 

prairies. Journal of Wildlife Management 69:1181-1193. 

Engler, J.D. 2007. Rare plants of Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Klickitat County, 

Washington. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

M-6 Appendix M. References 

Engler, J.D., and A. Stutte. 2010. 2010 Status of Oregon coyote-thistle (Eryngium petiolatum

Hook), Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Klickitat County, Washington. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 

Erwin, R.M. 1980. Breeding habitat use by colonially nesting waterbirds in two mid-Atlantic U.S. 

regions under different regimes of human disturbances. Biological Conservation 18:39-51. 

Erwin, R.M. 1989. Responses to human intruders by birds nesting in colonies: Experimental results 

and management guidelines. Colonial Waterbirds 12:104-108. 

Evers, L., et al. 1996. Fire ecology of the Mid-Columbia Region. United States Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon. 108 pages. 

EXTOXNET. 1993. Movement of pesticides in the environment. Pesticide Information Project of 

the Cooperative Extension Offices of Cornell University, Oregon State University, University of 

Idaho, University of California: Davis, and the Institute for Environmental Toxicology, Michigan 

State University. 4 pages. 

Fagan, John. 2000. Lakeside Road reconstruction project, cultural resources reconnaissance survey. 

On file at the Washington State Historic Preservation Office, Olympia, Washington. 

Fagan, John L., Ronald J. Kent, Julie Schablitsky, and Todd Baker. 2000. Data recovery at Can 

Dump 2 (20-55) for the Klickitat County Road Project in the Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge, 

Washington. NADB 1341498. On file at the Washington State Historic Preservation Office, 

Olympia, Washington. 

Fletcher, J.S., J.E. Nellessen, and T.G. Pfleeger. 1994. Literature review and evaluation of the EPA 

food-chain (Kenaga) nomogram and instrument for estimating pesticide residue on plants. 

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 13:1381-1391. 

Fox, A.D., and J. Madsen. 1997. Behavioral and distributional effects of hunting disturbance on 

waterbirds in Europe: Implications for refuge design. Journal of Applied Ecology 34:1-13. 

Franklin, J.F., and C.T. Dyrness. 1973. Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington. Oregon 

State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon. 

Fraser, J.D., L.D. Frenzel, and J.E. Mathisen. 1985. The impact of human activities on breeding 

bald eagles in north-central Minnesota. Journal of Wildlife Management 49:585-592. 

Freddy, D.J. 1986. Responses of adult mule deer to human harassment during winter. Pages 286 in

Proceedings II. Issues and Technology in the Management of Impacted Western Wildlife: 

Proceedings of a National Symposium (R.D. Comer, T.G. Baumann, P. Davis, J.W. Monarch, J. 

Todd, S. VanGytenbeek, D. Wills, and J. Woodling, editors). Thorne Ecological Institute, Boulder, 

Colorado. 

Fu, G.B., M.E. Barber, and S.L. Chen. 2010. Hydro-climatic variability and trends in Washington 

State for the last 50 years. Hydrological Processes 24:866-878. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix M. References M-7 

Fuhlendorf, S.D., W.C. Harrell, D.M. Engle, R.G. Hamilton, C.A. Davis, and D.M. Leslie, Jr. 2006. 

Should heterogeneity be the basis for conservation? Grassland bird response to fire and grazing. 

Ecological Applications 16:1706-1716. 

Gabrielson, G.W., and E.N. Smith. 1995. Physiological responses of wildlife to disturbance. Pages 

95-107 in Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence Through Management and Research. R.L. 

Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, editors. Island Press, Washington, DC. 372 pages. 

Ganguly, A., K. Steinhaeuser, D. Erickson, M. Branstetter, E. Parish, N. Singh, J. Drake, and L. 

Buja. 2009. Higher trends but larger uncertainty and geographic variability in 21st century 

temperature and heat waves. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106:15555-15559. 

Gedalof, Z., D.L. Peterson, and N.J. Mantua. 2005. Atmospheric, climatic and ecological controls 

on extreme wildfire years in the northwestern United States. Ecological Application 15:154-174. 

Germano, D.J., G.B. Rathbun, and L.R. Saslaw. 2001. Managing exotic grasses and conserving 

declining species. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29(2):551-559. 

Glick, P., B.A. Stein, and N.A. Edelson (editors). 2011. Scanning the Conservation Horizon: A 

Guide to Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment. National Wildlife Federation, Washington, DC. 

168 pages. 

Glinski, R.L. 1976. Birdwatching etiquette: The need for a developing philosophy. American Bird 

30(3):655-657. 

Greengo, R.E. 1986. The Prehistory of the Priest Rapids: Wanapum Region: A Summary. Burke 

Musem Contributions in Anthropology and Natural History, Number 2. The Burke Museum, Seattle, 

Washington. 

Griggs, F.T. 2000. Vina Plains Preserve: Eighteen years of adaptive management. Fremontia 

27(4):48-51. 

Grundstein, A., and T.L. Mote. 2010. Trends in average snow depth across the western United 

States. Physical Geography 31:172-185. 

Guthrie, R.H., S.J. Mitchell, N. Lanquaye-Opoku, and S.G. Evans. 2010. Extreme weather and 

landslide initiation in coastal British Columbia. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and 

Hydrogeology 43:417-428. 

Gutzwiller, K.J., R.T. Wiedenmann, K.L. Clements, and S.H. Anderson. 1994. Effects of human 

intrusion on song occurrence and singing consistency in subalpine birds. Auk 111:28-37. 

Hasan, S. and P.G. Ayres. 1990. The control of weeds through fungi: principles and prospects. 

Tansley Review 23:201-222. 

Havera, S.P., L.R. Boens, M.M. Georgi, and R.T. Shealy. 1992. Human disturbance of waterfowl 

on Keokuk Pool, Mississippi River. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20:290-98. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

M-8 Appendix M. References 

Hayes, M.P. 1997. Status of the Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa sensu stricto) in the Deschutes 

Basin and selected other systems in Oregon and northeastern California with a rangewide synopsis of 

the species’ status. Report prepared for The Nature Conservancy under contract to United States 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 57 pages plus appendices. 

Hayes, J.P. 2003. Habitat ecology and conservation of bats in western coniferous forests. Pages 81-

119 in Mammal Community Dynamics: Management and Conservation in the Coniferous Forests of 

Western North America. C.J. Zabel and R.G. Anthony, editors. Cambridge University Press, New 

York, New York. 

Hayes, J.P., and S.C. Loeb. 2007. The influences of forest management on bats in North America. 

Pages 207-236 in Bats in Forests: Conservation and Management. M.J. Lacki, J.P. Hayes and A. 

Kurta, editors. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. 

Hayes, M.P., D.W. Hays, R.M. Johnson, J.A. Tyson. Re-examination of approaches to manipulating 

invasive reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) to enhance Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) 

oviposition habitat in western Washington State. In preparation.

Heitmeyer, M.E., and D.G. Raveling. 1988. Winter resource use by three species of dabbling ducks 

in California. Final report to Delta Waterfowl and Wetlands Research Center, Bismark, North 

Dakota. 

Hellman, J.J., J. Byers, B.G. Bierwagen, and J.S. Duke. 2008. Five potential consequences of 

climate change for invasive species. Conservation Biology 22(3):534-543. 

Henson, P., and T.A. Grant. 1991. The effects of human disturbance on trumpeter swan breeding 

behavior. Wildlife Society Bulletin 19:248-257. 

Hildreth, W., and J. Fierstein. 1995. Geologic map of the Mt. Adams volcanic field, Cascade Range 

of southern Washington. Map I-2460. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, DC. 

Hobbs, R.J., and L.F. Huennekke. 1992. Disturbance, diversity, and invasion: Implications for 

conservation. Conservation Biology 6:324-337. 

Hogg, E.H., J.P. Brandt, and B. Kochtubajda. 2002. Growth and dieback of aspen forests in 

northwestern Alberta, Canada, in relation to climate and insects. Canadian Journal of Forest 

Research 32(5):823-832. 

Holechek, J.L., R. Valdez, S.D. Schemnitz, R.D. Pieper, and C.A. Davis. 1992. Manipulation of 

grazing to improve or maintain wildlife habitat. Wildlife Society Bulletin 10:204-210. 

Huber, M., and R. Knutti. 2011. Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in 

Earth’s energy balance. Nature Geoscience. Published online December 4, 2011 DOI: 

10.1038/NGEO1327. 6 pages plus supplemental material. 

Huddleston, J.H. 1996. How soil properties affect groundwater vulnerability to pesticide 

contamination. EM 8559. Oregon State University, Cooperative Extension Service, Corvallis, 

Oregon. 4 pages. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix M. References M-9 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007a. Climate change 2007: Synthesis report. 

Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. R.K. Pachauri and A. Reisinger, editors. Geneva, 

Switzerland. 104 pages. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007b. Summary for policymakers. Pages 1-18 in

Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth 

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. 

Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor, and H.L. Miller, editors. Cambridge 

University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, New York. 996 pages. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2011. Summary for policymakers in

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme 

Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. C.B. Field, V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, 

D. Qin, D. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, 

and P.M. Midgley, editors. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New 

York, New York. 29 pages. 

Ivey, G.L. 2007. Factors influencing nest success of greater sandhill cranes at Malheur National 

Wildlife Refuge, Oregon. Master’s Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis. 47 pages. 

Ivey, G.L., and B.D. Dugger. 2008. Factors influencing nest success of greater sandhill cranes at 

Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, Oregon. Waterbirds 31:52-61. 

Johnson, M.D., and C.M. Horn. 2008. Effects of rotational grazing on rodents and raptors in a 

coastal grassland. Western North American Naturalist 68:444-452. 

Kantrud, H.A. 1986. Effects of vegetation manipulation in prairie wetlands. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Technical Report Number 3. United States Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 

Kapust, H.Q.W., K.R. McAllister, M.P. Hayes. Oregon Spotted Frog (Rana pretiosa) response to 

enhancement of oviposition habitat and resetting succession with special reference to the invasive 

reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) in western Washington State. In preparation.

Kaye, M.G., D. Binkley, and T.J. Stohlgren. Effects of conifers and elk browsing on quaking aspen 

forests in the central Rocky Mountains. Ecological Applications 15(14):1284-1295. 

Kerle, E.A., J.J. Jenkins, P.A. Vogue. 1996. Understanding pesticide persistence and mobility for 

groundwater and surface water protection. EM 8561. Oregon State University, Cooperative 

Extension Service, Corvallis, Oregon. 8 pages. 

Kirsch, L.M. 1969. Waterfowl production in relation to grazing. Journal of Wildlife Management 

33:821-828. 

Klein, M.L. 1989. Effects of high levels of human visitation on foraging waterbirds at J.N. Ding 

Darling National Wildlife Refuge, Sanibel, Florida. Master’s thesis. University of Florida, 

Gainesville, Florida. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

M-10 Appendix M. References 

Klein, M.L. 1993. Waterbird behavioral responses to human disturbances. Wildlife Society Bulletin 

21:31-39. 

Klein, M.L. 1995. Effects of ecotourism on the distribution of waterbirds on a wildlife refuge. 

Conservation Biology 9:1454-1465. 

Klett, A.T., T.L. Shaffer and D.H. Johnson. 1988. Duck nest success in the prairie pothole region. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 52:431-440. 

Knight, R.L., and D.N. Cole. 1991a. Wildlife responses to recreationists. In Wildlife and 

Recreationists: Coexistence Through Management and Research. R.L. Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, 

editors. Island Press, Washington, DC. 372 pages. 

Knight, R.L., and D.N. Cole. 1991b. Effects of recreational activity on wildlife in wildlands. 

Transcripts of the 56th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference (238-246). 

Knight, R.L., and D.N. Cole. 1995. Factors that influence wildlife responses to recreationists. Pages 

71-79 in Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence Through Management and Research. R.L. Knight 

and K.J. Gutzwiller, editors. Island Press, Washington, DC. 372 pages. 

Knight, R.L., and S.A. Temple. 1995. Origin of wildlife responses to recreationists. Pages 81-91 in

Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence Through Management and Research. R.L. Knight and K.J. 

Gutzwiller, editors. Island Press, Washington, DC. 372 pages. 

Knopf, F.L., and J.R. Rupert. 1995. Habits and habitats of mountain plovers in California. The 

Condor 97:143-751. 

Korschgen, C.E., L.S. George, and W.I. Green. 1985. Disturbance of diving ducks by boaters on a 

migrational staging area. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13:290-96. 

Korschgen, C.E., and R.B. Dahlgren. 1992. Human disturbances of waterfowl: Causes, effects, and 

management. Waterfowl Management Handbook. Fish and Wildlife Leaflet 13. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

Krapu, G.L., and K.J. Reinecke. 1992. Foraging ecology and nutrition. Pages 1-15 in Ecology and 

Management of Breeding Waterfowl. B.D.J. Batt., editor. University of Minnesota Press, 

Minneapolis, Minnesota. 

Krueper, D.J. 1993. Effects of land use practices on western riparian ecosystems. In Status and 

management of neotropical migratory birds. D.M. Finch and P.W. Strangel, editors. U.S. Forest 

Service, General Technical Report RM-229. Fort Collins, Colorado. 

Kunz, T.H., and L.F. Lumsden. 2006. Ecology of cavity and foliage roosting bats. Pages 3-89 in

Bat Ecology. T.H. Kunz and M.B. Fenton, editors. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois. 

Lacki, M.J., S.K. Amelon, and M.D. Baker. 2007 Foraging ecology of bats in forests. Pages 83-128 

in Bats in Forests: Conservation and Management. M.J. Lacki, J.P. Hayes and A. Kurta, editors. 

Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix M. References M-11

Larson, E.M., and J.T. Morgan. 1998. Management recommendations for Washington’s priority 

habitats: Oregon white oak woodlands. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, 

Washington. 

Lawler, J.J., M. Mathias, A. Yahnke, and E. Girvetz. 2008. Oregon’s biodiversity in a changing 

climate. Report prepared for the Climate Leadership Initiative, University of Oregon. University of 

Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. 55 pages. 

Liddle, M.J. 1975. A selective review of the ecological effects on human trampling on natural 

ecosystems. Biological Conservation 7:17-36. 

Liddle, M.J., and H.R.A. Scorgie. 1980. The effects of recreation on freshwater plants and animals: 

A review. Biological Conservation 17:183-206. 

Linders, M.J., W.M. Vander Haegen, J.M. Azerrad, R. Dobson, and T. Labbe. 2010. Management 

recommendations for Washington’s priority species: Western gray squirrel. Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 

Littell, J.S., M. McGuire Elsner, L.C. Whitely Binder, and A.K. Snover, editors. 2009. The 

Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment: Evaluating Washington’s Future in a Changing 

Climate. Climate Impacts Group, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 

Littlefield, C.D. 1995. Pacific Flyway Management Plan for the Central Valley population of 

greater sandhill cranes. Prepared for the Pacific Flyway Council, Canadian Wildlife Service and 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Littlefield, C.D., and D.G. Paullin. 1990. Effects of land management on nesting success of sandhill 

cranes in Oregon. Wildlife Society Bulletin 18:63-65. 

Littlefield, C.D., and G.L. Ivey. 2002. Washington State Recovery Plan for the Sandhill Crane. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 71 pages. 

Lynch, J.H., R.A. Renkin, R.L. Crabtree, and P.R. Moorcroft. 2006. The influence of previous 

mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) activity on the 1988 Yellowstone fires. 

Ecosystems 9:1318:1327. 

MacArthur, R.A., V. Geist, and R.H. Johnston. 1982. Cardiac and behavioral responses of mountain 

sheep to human disturbance. Journal of Wildlife Management 46:351-358. 

Madsen, J. 1985. Impact of disturbance on field utilization of pink-footed geese in West Jutland, 

Denmark. Biological Conservation 33:53-63. 

Madsen, J. 1995. Impacts of disturbance on migratory waterfowl. Ibis 137:S67-S74. 

Mannan, R.W., E.C. Meslow, and H.M. Wight. 1980. Use of snags by birds in Douglas-fir forests, 

western Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 44:787-797. 

Manter, D.K., P.W. Reeser, and J.K. Stone. 2005. A climate-based model for predicting geographic 

variation in Swiss needle cast severity in the Oregon Coast Range. Phytopathology 86:1256-1265. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

M-12 Appendix M. References 

Martin, T.E, and J.L. Marin. 2012. Climate impacts on bird and plant communities from altered 

animal-plant interactions. Nature Climate Change 2:195-200. 

Masters, R.A. and R.L. Sheley. 2001. Invited synthesis paper: Principles and practices for managing 

rangeland invasive plants. Journal of Range Management 54:502-517. 

Masters, R.A., S.J. Nissen, R.E. Gaussoin, D.D. Beran, and R.N. Stougaard. 1996. Imidazolinone 

herbicides improve restoration of Great Plains grasslands. Weed Technology 10:392-403. 

Mastin, M.C. 2008. Effects of potential future warming on runoff in the Yakima River Basin, 

Washington. United States Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2008-5124. 12 pages. 

Maurer, D.A., and J.B. Zedler. 2002. Differential invasion of a wetland grass explained by tests of 

nutrients and light availability on establishment and clonal growth. Oecologia 131:279-288. 

Mayer, T. 2009. Conboy Lake water rights summary. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Water 

Resources Branch, Portland, Oregon. 

Maxwell, B.D., E. Lehnhoff, and L.J. Rew. 2009. The rationale for monitoring invasive plant 

populations as a crucial step for management. Invasive Plant Science and Management 2:1-9. 

McAllister, K.R., and W.P. Leonard. 1997. Washington State status report for the Oregon spotted 

frog. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 38 pages. 

McCorquodale, S.M. 1999. Historical and contemporary policies regarding off-reservation hunting 

by Native Americans. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27(2):446-455. 

McKercher, L., and D.R. Gregoire. 2012. Lithobates [=Rana] catesbeianus. U.S. Geological 

Survey nonindigenous aquatic species database. Available at 

nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/factsheet.aspx?speciesid=71. Accessed February 9, 2012. U.S. Geological 

Survey, Gainesville, Florida. 

McNaughton, S.J. 1985. Ecology of a grazing ecosystem: The Serengeti. Ecological Monographs 

55:259-294. 

McNeil, R., P. Drapeau, and J.D. Goss-Custard. 1992. The occurrence and adaptive significance of 

nocturnal habits in waterfowl. Biological Reviews 67:381-419. 

Meehl, G.A., T.F. Stocker, W.D. Collins, P. Friedlingstein, A.T. Gaye, J.M. Gregory, A. Kitoh, R. 

Knutti, J.M. Murphy, A. Noda, S.C.B. Raper, I.G. Watterson, A.J. Weaver, and Z.C. Zhao. 2007. 

Global Climate Projections. Pages 747-845 in Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. 

Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change. S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, 

and H.L. Miller, editors. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, 

New York. 996 pages. 

Menke, J.W. 1992. Grazing and fire management for native perennial grass restoration in California 

grasslands. Fremontia 20(2):22-25. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix M. References M-13

Mesek, D. 2011. Klickitat County profile. Available at fortress.wa.gov/esd/employmentdata/ 

reports-publications/regional-reports/county-profiles/klickitat-county-profile. Accessed February 14, 

2012. 

Miller, S.G., R.L. Knight, and C.K. Miller. 1998. Influence of recreational trails on breeding bird 

communities. Ecological Applications 8(1):162-169. 

Mineau, P., B.T. Collins, and A. Baril. 1996. On the use of scaling factors to improve interspecies 

extrapolation to acute toxicity in birds. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 24:24-29. 

Moody, M.E., and R.N. Mack. 1988. Controlling the spread of plant invasions: The importance of 

nascent foci. Journal of Applied Ecology 25:1009-1021. 

Morse, L.E., J.M. Randall, N. Benton, R. Hiebert, and S. Lu. 2004. An Invasive Species Assessment 

Protocol: NatureServe. 

Morton, J.M. 1995. Management of human disturbance and its effects on waterfowl in Waterfowl 

habitat restoration, enhancement, and management in the Atlantic Flyway (3d edition). 

Environmental Management Committee, Atlantic Flyway Council Technical Section, and Delaware 

Division of Fish and Wildlife, Dover, Delaware. 

Morton, J.M., A.C. Fowler, and R.L. Kirkpatrick. 1989. Time and energy budgets of American 

black ducks in winter. Journal of Wildlife Management 53(2):401-410. 

Mote, P.W., A.F. Hamlet, M.P. Clark, and D.P. Lettenmaier. 2005. Declining mountain snowpack 

in western North America. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 86(1):39-49. 

Mote, P.W., and E.P. Salathé. 2009. Future climate in the Pacific Northwest. Chapter 1 in The 

Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment. J. Littell, M.M. Elsner, L.W. Binder, and A. 

Snover, editors. Climate Impacts Group, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 

Mote, P.W., and E.P. Salathé. 2010. Future climate in the Pacific Northwest. Climatic Change 

102(1-2):29-50. 

Muir, P.S., and R.K. Moseley. 1994. Responses of Primula alcalina, a threatened species of 

alkaline seeps, to site and grazing. Natural Areas Journal 14:269-279. 

Mullin, B.H., L.W. Anderson, J.M. DiTomaso, R.E. Eplee, and K.D. Getsinger. 2000. Invasive 

plant species. Issue Paper (13):1-18. 

National Audubon Society. 2012. Important Bird Areas in the U.S. site report: Conboy Lake. 

Available at iba.audubon.org/iba/profileReport.do?siteId=3198. Accessed February 8, 2012. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2008 (Last updated August 20, 2008). 

Temperature change and carbon dioxide. Available at www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/ 

climate_change/causes_co2.htm. Accessed January 17, 2012. 

Natural Resource Conservation Service. 2005. Guler series. Available at 

soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/G/GULER.html. Accessed January 10, 2012. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

M-14 Appendix M. References 

Natural Resource Conservation Service. 2008a. Beezee series. Available at 

soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/B/BEEZEE.html. Accessed January 10, 2012. 

Natural Resource Conservation Service. 2008b. Fanal series. Available at 

soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/F/FANAL.html. Accessed January 10, 2012. 

Natural Resource Conservation Service. 2008c. Kaiders series. Available at 

soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/K/KAIDERS.html. Accessed January 10, 2012. 

Natural Resource Conservation Service. 2008d. Panak series. Available at 

soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/P/PANAK.html. Accessed January 10, 2012. 

Natural Resource Conservation Service. 2010. Conboy series. Available at 

soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/C/CONBOY.html. Accessed January 10, 2012. 

Natural Resource Conservation Service. 2011a. Grayland series. Available at 

soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/G/GRAYLAND.html. Accessed January 11, 2012. 

Natural Resource Conservation Service. 2011b. Kreft series. Available at 

soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/K/KREFT.html. Accessed January 11, 2012. 

Oberbillig, D.R. 2001. Providing positive wildlife viewing experiences. Deborah Richie 

Communications, Missoula, Montana. 

Oliver, W.H. 1986. Historical review and discussion of deer unit management in Klickitat and 

Yakima Counties (and relationships with Yakama Indian Reservation). Unpublished Report. 

Yakama Nation, Toppenish, Washington. 

Oregon State University. 1996. EXTOXNET-Extension Toxicology Network, Pesticide Information 

Profiles. Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. 

Owens, N.W. 1977. Responses of wintering brant geese to human disturbance. Wildfowl 28:5-14. 

Panzer, R. 1988. Managing prairie remnants for insect conservation. Natural Areas Journal 8(2):83-

90. 

Parmesan, C. 2006. Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change. Annual 

Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 37: 637-669. 

Parmesan, C., C. Duarte, E. Poloczanska, A.J. Richardson, and M. C. Singer. 2011. Overstretching 

attribution. Nature Climate Change 1:2-4.

Paulus, S.L. 1984. Activity budgets of nonbreeding gadwalls in Louisiana. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 48:371-380. 

Paveglio, F.L., and K.M. Kilbride. 2000. Response of vegetation to control of reed canarygrass in 

seasonally managed wetlands of southwestern Washington. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:730-740. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix M. References M-15

Pearl, C. A, and M. P. Hayes. 2004. Habitat associations of the Oregon spotted frog (Rana 

pretiosa): A literature review. Final report of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 

Olympia, Washington. 

Pfleeger, T.G., A. Fong, R. Hayes, H. Ratsch, C. Wickliff. 1996. Field evaluation of the EPA 

(Kanaga) nomogram, a method for estimating wildlife exposure to pesticide residues on plants. 

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 15:535-543. 

Pope, R., J. DeWitt, and J. Ellerhoff. 1999. Pesticide movement: What farmers need to know. 

Extension Publication PAT 36, Iowa State University, Cooperative Extension Service, Ames, Iowa, 

and Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, Des Moines, Iowa. 6 pages. 

Potter, A., J. Fleckenstein, S. Richardson, and D. Hays. 1999. Washington state status report for the 

Mardon skipper. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 39 pages. 

Prinn, R., S. Paltsev, A. Sokolov, M. Sarofim, J. Reilly, and H. Jacoby. 2011. Scenarios with MIT 

integrated global systems model: Significant global warming regardless of different approaches. 

Climatic Change 104:515-537. 

Quigley, T.M., and S.J. Arbelbide. 1997. An assessment of ecosystem components in the interior 

Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. United States Forest Service and 

Bureau of Land Management, Pacific Northwest Region, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-405, 

Portland, Oregon. 

Raffa, K.F., B.H. Aukema, B.J. Bentz, A.L. Carroll, J.A. Hicke, et al., editors. 2008. Cross-scale 

drivers of natural disturbances prone to anthropogenic amplification: The dynamics of bark beetle 

eruptions. BioScience 58:501-517. 

Rahel, F.J., and J.D. Olden. 2008. Assessing the effects of climate change on aquatic invasive 

species. Conservation Biolology 22(3):521-533. 

Ramsay, C.A., G.C. Craig, and C.B. McConnell. 1995. Clean water for Washington. Protecting 

groundwater from pesticide contamination. Extension Publication EB1644. Washington State 

University, Cooperative Extension Service, Pullman, Washington. 12 pages. 

Raveling, D.G. 1979. The annual cycle of body composition of Canada geese with special reference 

to control of reproduction. Auk 96:234-252. 

Reijnen, R., and R. Foppen. 1994. The effects of car traffic on breeding bird populations in 

woodland. Evidence of reduced habitat quality for willow warbler (Pylloscopus trochilus) breeding 

close to a highway. Journal of Applied Ecology 31: 85-94. 

Reinhardt Adams, C., and S.M. Galatowitsch. 2006. Increasing the effectiveness of Phalaris 

arundinacea L. (reed canarygrass) control in wet meadow restorations. Restoration Ecology 14(3): 

440-450. 

Rodgers, J.A., Jr., and H.T. Smith. 1997. Buffer zone distances to protect foraging and loafing 

waterbirds from human disturbance in Florida. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:139-145. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

M-16 Appendix M. References 

Rosan, P.C., and C.H. Lowe. 1994. Highway mortality of snakes in the Sonoran Desert of southern 

Arizona. Biological Conservation 68:143-148. 

Ryan, K.C., and R. Frandsen. 1991. Basal injury from smoldering fires in mature Pinus ponderosa 

Laws. International Journal of Wildland Fire 1(2): 107-118. 

Salathé, E.P., L.R. Leung, Y. Qian, and Y. Zhang. 2010. Regional climate model projections for the 

State of Washington. Climatic Change 102(1-2):51-75. 

Salo, E.D., K.F. Higgins, B.D. Patton, K.K. Bakker, W.T. Barker, B. Kreft, and P.E. Nyren. 2004. 

Grazing intensity effects on vegetation, livestock, and non-game birds in North Dakota mixed grass 

prairie. Proceedings of the North American Prairie Conferences 19:205-215. 

Sanger, D. 1967. Prehistory of the Pacific Northwest Plateau as seen from the interior of British 

Columbia. American Antiquity 32(2):186-197. 

Schuman, G.E., J.D. Reeder, J.T. Manley, R.H. Hart, and W.A. Manley. 1999. Impact of grazing on 

the carbon and nitrogen balance of a mixed-grass rangeland. Ecological Applications 9:65-71. 

Scott, W.E., R.M. Iverson, J.W. Vallance, and W. Hildreth. Volcano hazards in the Mt. Adams 

region, Washington. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 95-492. Available 

vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Volcanoes/Adams/Hazards/OFR95-492/framework.html. Accessed February 16, 

2012. 11 pages. 

Scrimgeour, G.J., and S. Kendall. 2003. Effects of livestock grazing on benthic invertebrates from a 

native grassland ecosystem. Freshwater Biology 48:347-362. 

SDTF 2003 Spray Drift Task Force. 2003. A summary of chemigation application studies. Spray 

Drift Task Force, Macon, Missouri. 

Skovlin, J.M. 1982. Habitat requirements and evaluations. Pages 369-413 in Elk of North America 

Ecology and Management. J.W. Thomas and D.E. Toweill, editors. Wildlife Management Institute, 

Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 

Smith, L., and J.D. Hunt. 1995. Nature tourism: Impacts and management. Pages 203-219 in

Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence Through Management and Research. R.L. Knight and K.J. 

Gutzwiller, editors. Island Press, Washington, DC. 

Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, R.B. Alley, T. Berntsen, N.L. Bindoff, Z. Chen, A. Chidthaisong, 

J.M. Gregory, G.C. Hegerl, M. Heimann, B. Hewitson, B.J. Hoskins, F. Joos, J. Jouzel, V. Kattsov, 

U. Lohmann, T. Matsuno, M. Molina, N. Nicholls, J. Overpeck, G. Raga, V. Ramaswamy, J. Ren, M. 

Rusticucci, R. Somerville, T.F. Stocker, P. Whetton, R.A. Wood, and D. Wratt. 2007. Technical 

Summary. Pages 19-91 in Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of 

Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change. S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H.L. 

Miller, editors. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, New 

York. 996 pages. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix M. References M-17

Sparling, D.W., and G.L. Krapu. 1994. Communal roosting and foraging behavior of staging 

Sandhill cranes. The Wilson Bulletin 206:62-77. 

Speight, M.C.D. 1973. Outdoor recreation and its ecological effects: A bibliography and review. 

Discussion papers in Conservation 4. University College, London, England. 35 pages. 

Speulda, Lou Ann. 2004. The Whitcomb, Stephen S., and John N. Cole Hewn Log House. National 

Register of Historic Places nomination. On file at the Washington State Historic Preservation Office, 

Olympia, Washington. 

Speulda, Lou Ann. 2006. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service historic properties identification and 

evaluation report of the Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge: Gamble Tract Development Project. 

On file at the Washington State Historic Preservation Office, Olympia, Washington. 

St. John, Theodore V.; Rundel, Philip W. 1976. The role of fire as a mineralizing agent in a Sierran 

coniferous forest. Oecologia. 25: 35-45. 

Stocking, J., J.D. Engler, and D.P. Anderson. 2007. Final 2007 status report on the breeding 

population of the Washington state greater Sandhill crane (Grus canadensis tabida) in Klickitat and 

Yakima Counties. North American Crane Working Group, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

Stocking, J., D.P. Anderson and J.D. Engler. 2008. 2008 Greater Sandhill Crane breeding season at 

Conboy Lake NWR, Klickitat County, Washington: Final report. North American Crane Working 

Group, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

Stolen, E.D. 2003. The effects of vehicle passage on foraging behavior of wading birds. Waterbirds 

26(4):429-436. 

Stutte, A., and J.D. Engler. 2005. 2005 status survey for Pulsifer’s monkey-flower (Mimulus 

pulsiferae), Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Klickitat County, Washington. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 

Suzuki, N., and J.P. Hayes. 2003. Effects of thinning on small mammals in Oregon coastal forests. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 67:352-371. 

Taylor, A.R., and R.L. Knight. 2003. Wildlife responses to recreation and associated visitor 

perceptions. Ecological Applications 13(4):951-963. 

Teske, M.E., S.L. Bird, D.M. Esterly, T.B. Curbishley, S.L. Ray, and S.G. Perry. 2002. 

AgDRIFT®: A model for estimating near-field spray drift from aerial applications. Environmental 

Toxicology and Chemistry 21: 659-671. 

Teske, M.E., S.L. Bird, D.M. Esterly, S.L. Ray, and S.G. Perry. 1997. A user’s guide for AgDRIFT 

1.0: A tiered approach for the assessment of spray drift of pesticides. Technical Note Number 95-10. 

CDI, Princeton, New Jersey. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

M-18 Appendix M. References 

Thomas, V.G. 1983. Spring migration: The prelude to goose reproduction and a review of its 

implication. In Fourth Western Hemisphere Waterfowl and Waterbird Symposium, H. Boyd, editor. 

Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Canada. 

Thomsen, C.D., W.A. Williams, M.P. Vayssieres, F.L. Bell, and M.R. George. 1993. Controlled 

grazing on annual grassland decreases yellow starthistle. California Agriculture 47:36-40. 

Thuillier, R.H., and U.O. Lapp. 1964. Wind and temperature profile characteristics from 

observations on a 1400-foot tower. American Journal of Meteorology 3:299-306. 

Topik, C. 1989. Plant association and management guide for the grand fir zone. Gifford Pinchot 

National Forest. United States Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. R6-ECOL-TP-006-88. 

Portland, Oregon. 110 pages. 

Tu, M. 2004. Reed canarygrass: Control and management in the Pacific Northwest. The Nature 

Conservancy, Portland, Oregon. 

Tuite, C.H., M. Owen and D. Paynther. 1983. Interaction between wildfowl and recreation at 

Llangorse Lake and Talybont Reservoir, South Wales. Wildfowl 34:48-63. 

Tydeman, C.F. 1977. The importance of the close fishing season to breeding bird communities. 

Journal of Environmental Management 5:289-296. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. State & County Quick Facts. Washington Quick Facts. Data from the 

2010 U.S. Census. Available at quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/53000lk.html. Accessed February 

14, 2012. 

U.S. Department of Energy. 1999. Carbon sequestration restoration and development. United States 

Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Fossil Energy. 26 pages. 

U.S. Department of Interior. 2009. Secretarial Order 3226, Amendment 1. 

206.131.241.18/app_so/act_getfiles.cfm?order_number=3226A1. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. Laboratory test methods of exposure to microbial 

pest control agents by the respiratory route to non-target avian species. EPA/600/3-90/070. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. A comparative analysis of ecological risks from 

pesticides and their uses: Background, methodology and case study. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC. 

105 pages. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. Overview of the ecological risk assessment process 

in the Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Endangered and 

threatened species effects determinations. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 

Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC. 101 pages. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005a. Technical overview of ecological risk assessment 

risk characterization: Approaches for evaluating exposure; Granular, bait, and treated seed 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix M. References M-19

applications. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, 

DC. www.epa.gov/oppefed1/ecorisk_ders/toera_ analysis_exp.htm. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005b. User’s guide TREX v1.2.3. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC. 22 pages. 

www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/terrestrial/trex_usersguide.htm. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983. Sport fishing plan, Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Burbank, Washington. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Public use management/development plan: Conboy Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mid-Columbia National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex, Burbank, Washington. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge water management 

plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Burbank, Washington. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010a. Conboy Lake and Toppenish National Wildlife Refuges 

combined preplanning report. Available at www.fws.gov/conboylake/ documents/preplanningreport.pdf. Accessed February 13, 2012. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010b. Recovery plan for the prairie species of western Oregon and 

southwestern Washington. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010c. Rising to the urgent challenge: Strategic plan for responding 

to accelerating climate change. Available at www.fws.gov/home/ 

climatechange/pdf/CCStrategicPlan.pdf 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010d. Species assessment and listing priority assignment form: 

Oregon spotted frog. 82 pages. Available at 

http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/candforms_pdf/r1/D02A_V01.pdf . Accessed August 6, 2013.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011a. Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Hunting 

Regulations. Available at www.fws.gov/mcriver/documents/regulations/2011-conboy- lake.pdf. 

Accessed February 13, 2012. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011b. Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge visitor experience 

site plan. Prepared under contract by Quatrefoil, Portland, Oregon. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012a. Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge website. Available 

at www.fws.gov/conboylake/. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012b. Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (initial draft). U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Mid-Columbia National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Burbank, Washington. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

M-20 Appendix M. References 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Water Resources and 

Inventory Assessment summary report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Engineering, 

Branch of Water Resources, Portland, OR. 43 pages. 

U.S. Geological Survey. 2000. Pesticides in stream sediment and aquatic biota: Current 

understanding of distribution and major influences. USGS Fact Sheet 092-00. U.S. Geological 

Survey, Sacramento, California. 4 pages. 

U.S. Geological Survey. 2009. Brown bullhead (Ameiurus nebulosus) collection record. 

Nonindigenous Aquatic Species. Available at nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/specimen viewer.aspx? 

SpecimenID=164085. Accessed February 9, 2012. 

U.S. Forest Service. 2005. Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program: Preventing and 

Managing Invasive Plants Final Environmental Impact Statement. 359 pages. 

U.S. Global Change Research Program. 2009. National Climate Assessment, Pacific Northwest 

Chapter. Available at www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/ 

scientific-assessments/first-national-assessment/475 

Urban, D.J., and N.J. Cook. 1986. Ecological risk assessment. EPA 540/9-85-001. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington DC. 94 pages. 

Vavra, M., and D.P. Sheehy. 1996. Improving elk habitat characteristics with livestock grazing. 

Rangelands 18:182-185. 

Vickery, J.A., W.J. Sutherland, M. O’Brien, A.R. Watkinson, and A. Yallop. 1997. Managing 

coastal grazing marshes for breeding waders and over-wintering geese: Is there a conflict? 

Biological Conservation 79: 23-34. 

Vos, D.K., R.A. Ryder, and W.D. Gram. 1985. Responses of breeding great blue herons to human 

disturbance in north-central Colorado. Colonial Waterbirds 8:13-22. 

Wahl, T.R., B. Tweit, and S.G. Mlodinow, editors. 2005. Birds of Washington. Oregon State 

University Press, Corvallis, Oregon. 

Walstad, J.D., S.D. Radosevich, and D.V. Sandberg. 1990. Natural and Prescribed Fire in Pacific 

Northwest Forests. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis. 317 pages. 

Ward, A.L. 1973. Elk behavior in relation to multiple uses on the Medicine Bow National Forest. 

Proceedings of the Western Association of State Game and Fish Commissioners 53:125-141. 

Ward, D.H., and R.A. Stehn. 1989. Response of brandt and other geese to aircraft disturbance at 

Izembeck Lagoon, Alaska. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Final Report 14-12-0001-30332. 193 

pages. 

Ward, D., and R. Stehn. 1989. Response of brant and other geese to aircraft disturbances at Izembek 

Lagoon, Alaska. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Fish and Wildlife Research Center, 

Anchorage, Alaska. 241 pages. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix M. References M-21

Waring, R.H., N.C. Coops, and S.W. Running. 2011. Predicting satellite-derived patterns of 

large-scale disturbances in forests of the Pacific Northwest Region in response to recent climatic 

variation. Remote Sensing of Environment 115:3554-3566. 

Washington Department of Ecology. 2008. Washington State water quality assessment and 303d 

list. Available at www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/2008/. Accessed January 24, 2012. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1997. Washington State status report for the Oregon 

Spotted Frog. Olympia, Washington. 39 pages. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1999. Washington State status report for the Mardon 

Skipper. Olympia, Washington. 39 pages. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2001. Priority species and habitats list. Available at 

www.wa.gov/wdfw/hab/phsvert.htm#birds. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2002. Washington State recovery plan for the 

Sandhill Crane. Olympia, Washington. 17 pages. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2006. Mount St. Helens Elk Herd plan. Wildlife 

Management Program, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 52 pages. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2007. Washington State recovery plan for the western 

gray squirrel. Olympia, Washington. 128 pages plus appendices. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2012. Priority habitats and species. Online database 

available at wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/. Accessed February 8, 2012. 

Washington Department of Natural Resources. 2011. Washington interactive geologic map. 

Available at fortress.wa.gov/dnr/geology. Accessed January 10, 2012. 

Washington Department of Natural Resources. 2012. Washington State geologic information portal. 

Available at www.dnr.wa.gov/ResearchScience/Topics/Geosciences Data/Pages/ 

geology_portal.aspx. Accessed January 10, 2012. 

Watson, J.W., K.R. McAllister, and D.J. Pierce. 2003. Home ranges, movements, and habitat 

selection of Oregon spotted frogs (Rana pretiosa). Journal of Herpetology 37:292-300. 

Wauchope, R.D., T.M. Buttler, A.G. Hornsby, P.M. Augustijn-Beckers, and J.P. Burt. 1992. The 

SCS/ARS/CES pesticide properties database for environmental decision making. Reviews of 

Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 123:1-155. 

West, B.C., and T.A. Messner. 2006. Effects of livestock grazing on duck nesting habitat in Utah. 

Rangeland Ecology & Management 59:208-211. 

Westerling, A.L., H.G. Hidalgo, D.R. Cayan, and T.W. Swetnam. 2006. Warming and earlier spring 

increase western United States forest wildfire activity. Science 313:940-943. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

M-22 Appendix M. References 

Western Regional Climate Center. 2002. Prevailing wind direction [in] Washington. Available at 

www.wrcc.dri.edu/htmlfiles/westwinddir.html#WASHINGTON. Accessed January 17, 2012. 

Western Regional Climate Center. 2011. Period of record monthly climate summary [for] 

Glenwood 2, Washington (543184). Available at www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/ cliMAIN.pl?wa3184. 

Accessed December 19, 2011. 

White, J. 2009. Silvicultural report and recommendations for Conboy Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge forest stands. Unpublished report. Washington State Conservation Commission, Olympia, 

Washington, for the Underwood Conservation District, White Salmon, Washington. 

White-Robinson, R. 1982. Inland and salt marsh feeding of wintering brent geese in Essex. 

Wildfowl 33:113-118. 

Whittaker, P.L. 1978. Comparison of surface impact by hiking and horseback riding in the Great 

Smoky Mountains National Park. Management Report 24. National Park Service, Southeast Region, 

Atlanta, Georgia. 32 pages. 

Williams, G., and J.E. Forbes. 1980. The habitat and dietary preferences of dark-bellied brent geese 

and widgeon in relation to agricultural management. Wildfowl 31:151-157. 

Willis, C.G., B.R. Ruhfel, R.B. Primack, A.J. Miller-Rushing, J.B. Losos, et al. 2010. Favorable 

climate change response explains non-native species’ success in Thoreau’s Woods. PLoS ONE 

5(1):e8878. 

Wolder, M. 1993. Disturbance of wintering northern pintails at Sacramento National Wildlife 

Refuge, California. Master’s Thesis. Humboldt State University, Arcata, California. 62 pages. 

Woods, A., K.D. Coates, and A. Hamann. 2005. Is an unprecedented Dothistroma needle blight 

epidemic related to climate change? BioScience 55:761-769. 

Woods, N. 2004. Australian developments in spray drift management. Proceedings of the 

International Conference on Pesticide Application for Drift Management, Waikoloa, Hawaii. 8 

pages. 

Yakama Indian Nation. 2012. Yakima/Klickitat fisheries project: Klickitat River Basin. Available 

at www.ykfp.org/klickitat/. Accessed January 17, 2012. 

Zarnowitz, J.E., and D.A. Manuwal. 1985. The effects of forest management on cavity-nesting birds 

in northwestern Washington. Journal of Wildlife Management 49:255-263. 
Appendix N

Maps

!

!

!

!

!

!

Hood River

The Dalles

Trout Lake

Goldendale

UV141

Klic

k ita t

R i v e r

Glenwood

Biggs

Jct.

C o l u m b i a R i v e r

Whi te

S

a

ml o

n

River

Kl i c kit at Ri ver

Mt. Adams

Conboy Lake

National Wildlife Refuge

W a s h i n g t o n W a s h i n g t o n

O r e g o n O r e g o n

§ ̈¦84

§ ̈¦84

£¤197

£¤97

UV14

UV142

UV35

UV14

Copyright:© 2013 Esri

Location of Refuge and Regional Land Cover

Map Date: 6/10/2014 File: 12-154-1.mxd

Data Source: USGS NHD, ESRI World_Shaded_Relief, USGS National Land Cover Dataset 2001

AREA ENLARGED

Map 1

Approved Acquisition Boundary

0 5 10

Miles

0 5 10 E Kilometers

Regional Land Cover

Agriculture

Wetlands

Forest

Perennial Snow/Ice

Shrub/Scrub
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

N-2 Appendix N. Maps
7

6

1

8

6 4

9

3

7

5

7 8

9

7

2 1

15

18

11

18

26 28

21

11

18

22

29 27

12

12

25

23 19

12

10

10

17 16

34

25

33

24

36

15

14

12

20

16 13

14

24

13

36

13

18

35

21

13

30

19 22

19

30

17

32

23

31

31

19 20

24

24

Laurel

Chapman North

Myer

Camas

South

Camas West Camas East

Kelley

Ziegler

Chapman

South

Arena

Troh

Conboy

Lake

Oxbow

West

Bird

Creek

Meadows

Lakeside

SE

C&H

Unit

Oxbow

East

Copyright:© 2013 Esri

Land Status and Management Unit Names

Map Date: 6/10/2014 File: 12-154-2.mxd

Data Source: USDA National Agriculture Imagery Program 2011, ESRI World_Shaded_Relief

0 1 2

Miles

0 1 2

Kilometers E

AREA ENLARGED

Map 2

Although the ownership status

of the bed of Conboy Lake has

not been finally determined, this

area is managed as part of the

refuge.

T 6 N T 5 N

R 11 E R 12 E R 12 E R 13 E

Public Land Survey System

Willamette Meridian

Sections

Townships

Land Status

Easement

Fee

Inholding

Uncertain

Meander Line

Approved Acquisition

Boundary
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

N-4 Appendix N. Maps
Glenwood Highway

BZ CornerTrout Lake Highway

Laurel Road

Kreps Lane

Lakeside Road

Lake Road

BZ Corner-Glenwood Highway

Troh Lane

Goldendale Highway

Hansen Road

Refuge Road

Kelley Road

Cemetary Road

Mt. Adams Hwy

Copyright:© 2013 Esri

Habitat Types

Map Date: 6/10/2014 File: 12-154-3.mxd

Data Source: USDA National Agriculture Imagery Program 2011, ESRI World_Shaded_Relief

0 1 2

Miles

0 1 2

Kilometers E

AREA ENLARGED

Map 3

Fee Title Refuge Boundary

Roads

Meander Line

Alder and Willow

Emergent Marsh

Lodgepole/Ponderosa Pine

Mixed Conifer

Oregon White Oak

Ponderosa Pine

Quaking Aspen

Upland Meadow

Wet Prairie (Wet Meadow)
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

N-6 Appendix N. Maps
!i

!i !i

![ !i

!i

!i !i

Glenwood Highway

BZ Corner-

!l

Glenwood

!@

!i!_!=

Headquarters

Willard

Springs

Trout Lake Highway

Laurel Road

Kreps Lane

Lakeside Road

Lake Road

BZ Corner-Glenwood Highway

Troh Lane

Goldendale Highway

Hansen Road

Kelley Road

Refuge Road

Cemetary Road

Mt. Adams Hwy

Copyright:© 2013 Esri

Visitor Facilities & Access

Map Date: 7/28/2014 File: 12-154-5.mxd

Data Source: USDA National Agriculture Imagery Program 2011, ESRI World_Shaded_Relief

0 1 2

Miles

0 1 2

Kilometers E

AREA ENLARGED

Map 4

@" Refuge Office

Trail

![ Observation Platform

Migratory Bird Hunting

Free Roam Area != Historic Cabin

!_ Restrooms

Meander Line

!l Public Fishing

!i Parking

Fee Title Refuge Boundary

Roads
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

N-8 Appendix N. Maps
Appendix O

Comments and 

Responses

Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix O. Comments and Responses O-1 

Appendix O. Comments and Responses

As part of the public participation process, and to fulfill the requirements of NEPA, the Service 

solicited comments from the public, other agencies, other governments, and any other interested 

parties on the Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment. The public review and comment period started on January 16, 2014, and 

closed 34 days later on February 18, 2014. During that period, the Service received four comment 

letters: three from private citizens and one from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Subsequent to the comment period, the Service received a letter from the Yakama Nation on March 

17, 2014, which the Service has accepted as part of the comments. 

Following are the substantive comments received and the Service’s response to those comments.

Some comments have been paraphrased for clarity and brevity. Comments with a similar theme were 

grouped together and the Service response applies to the comments as a group. 

The Yakama Nation’s comments are addressed in section B below. 

A. Public and Agency Comments 

Comment: The Service should acquire complete jurisdiction over land and water rights and acquire 

additional lands or easements for the refuge. 

Response: CLNWR is interspersed with private ranches and timberlands within the approved 

refuge boundary. The Service agrees that acquisition or exchange of key inholdings from 

willing sellers continues to be crucial for fulfilling the long-term goals of CLNWR. This is 

included in the Actions Common to All Alternatives in Chapter 2 of the CCP. 

Expansion of the refuge boundaries and/or acquisition of lands outside the current refuge 

boundaries were determined to be outside the scope of the CCP due to CLNWR being within 

the Yakama Nation boundary. 

The Water Resources Inventory and Assessment summary report (USFWS 2013) documented 

all water rights claims and certificates on fee title and inholdings within the approved refuge 

boundary. Documentation of water rights for CLNWR will continue to be researched and 

mapped by the Water Resources Branch of the Division of Engineering for any new land 

acquisitions. Any errors, omissions, or inconsistencies within the information in the water rights 

files in the Regional Office will be investigated and resolved. 

Documented temperature increases over the past 20 years and anticipated water shifts in rain 

and snow cycles due to climate change will lead to an earlier spring drying trend in Glenwood 

Valley. Therefore, determining CLNWR’s water rights and efficiently utilizing and managing 

water will be critical to achieving refuge purposes in the future. As noted in the CCP, the 

Service will revise the water management plan to address these concerns, while clarifying and 

exercising its water use rights. 

Comment: There should be no tree removal; it is not needed for management purposes. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

O-2 Appendix O. Comments and Responses 

Response: The Service believes there are instances where the removal of trees is essential to 

achieve desired effects within wildlife habitat, for example, thinning dense, even-aged stands 

creates a more open canopy structure and reduces the risk of catastrophic wildfire. Tree 

removal (selective thinning) is therefore included as a management strategy in the CCP. 

Comment: Most, if not all, the forests surrounding CLNWR are extensively managed. Forests on 

CLNWR should be left alone. 

Response: Forests need to be managed at a landscape scale, rather than at an individual forest 

level. To achieve wildlife and habitat goals, managing CLNWR forests within a landscape 

context is more likely to reach those desired results. For example, late successional mixed 

conifer forest conditions (e.g., multiple canopy layers; dominated by Douglas-fir, grand fir, and 

ponderosa pine; down wood and snags) are relatively rare in the managed forest landscape 

surrounding the refuge. Within the CCP, strategies under objective 3.3 are focused on retaining 

these conditions where they are developing on the refuge, while reducing large disturbance 

probability and creating edge. Creating openings and reducing overall stand density through 

active management will lessen the chance of large-scale stand loss from disturbance agents 

such as insects or fire. 

Comment: Reestablishing the old-growth look of CLNWR can be easily achieved by removing 

immature trees within established stands of ponderosa pine. 

Response: Old-growth forests have unique ecosystem processes and provide habitat for 

specific species. Management strategies at the refuge intended to promote the development of 

old-growth or late successional conditions and ecological functions include mechanical thinning 

and prescribed fire. Within ponderosa pine and lodgepole/ponderosa pine stands, reducing stand 

density will enhance tree vigor, promote the development of large, old-growth pines in the 

future, help provide habitat for species adapted to open pine stands, and will provide a margin 

of protection from future insect outbreaks and wildfires. Individual stand prescriptions will be 

conducted as outlined within the CLNWR Silvicultural Report and Recommendations (White 

2009). 

Comment: Rather than logging on CLNWR to help with fire control, conduct selected cutting 

around the periphery of the refuge so that approaching fires can be kept at ground level and 

successfully fought. 

Response: Creating firebreaks is a viable fire control technique and will be used where needed. 

However, it is important to manage fuel loads throughout the landscape, including within the 

refuge itself, in the event that a fire either originates on the refuge or manages to reach the 

refuge. Selective thinning in forested stands throughout CLNWR will help to prevent 

catastrophic fire by reducing fuel loads, as well as promote a more diverse forest structure with 

a variety of wildlife habitats. 

Comment: The idea of creating snags from living trees should be scrapped; the living trees are more 

valuable. 

Response: Due to historic forest management practices, the number of naturally occurring 

snags is limited. Several species of emphasis (e.g., western gray squirrel and several bird 

species) will benefit by the creation of snags. Careful consideration will be given to target 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix O. Comments and Responses O-3 

species and impacts to secondary species before any forestry program will be implemented. The 

CCP does not mandate that snags will be created from living trees, only that it should be 

available as a management tool. 

Comment: Grazing is not needed for management purposes. 

Response: Grazing can be a valuable management tool, when conducted appropriately. The 

Service has no intention of allowing grazing on CLNWR on a broad scale. While grazing is not 

currently conducted on the Refuge, the Service believes it should be available as a management 

tool to reduce undesirable plant species (e.g. reed canarygrass) and create desired habitat 

conditions (e.g. short grass). Grazing, if conducted in the future, will be in small areas with low 

numbers of animals and on a limited basis from late summer through fall. Since grazing can 

have negative effects, including overbrowsing of palatable plant species, trampling of 

vegetation, soil compaction, reduced water quality, and disturbance to native species, the 

impacts will be closely monitored. 

Comment: If cattle are allowed on the refuge, proper fencing will be necessary. 

Response: The Service agrees that fencing is needed. Fencing requirements are described in 

the Grazing Compatibility Determination (Appendix B) under “Stipulations Necessary to 

Ensure Compatibility”: 

The permittee will be responsible for repair or construction of unit fences. Fences must be 

in good condition and approved by the Refuge Manager prior to the entry of cattle. 

Permittees on adjoining units will be jointly responsible for fences between units. 

Comment: Grazing in the lower areas has the potential to do more harm than good. 

Response: The Service agrees that any grazing has the potential to do harm if conducted in 

certain habitats or at certain times of year. However, we also believe that in specific 

circumstances grazing can be a useful tool to control invasive species or create desired habitat 

conditions for certain wildlife species. In some areas, grazing may be the only management 

alternative available to limit growth of woody vegetation and reduce cover of reed canarygrass. 

The Grazing CD outlines numerous stipulations that permittees must follow to ensure grazing 

has the desired effect on the refuge. 

Comment: If the Service allows grazing, then there is no incentive for landowners to sell their land 

to the Service. Likewise, if farmers become accustomed to grazing, then the Service decides grazing 

is no longer a useful management tool, it will be difficult to discontinue the practice. 

Response: Grazing permits would be issued for a specific period of time and violators would 

be subject to fines or revocation of the permit. 

Comment: Deciding who gets grazing privileges could be highly contentious. 

Response: The Grazing CD outlines the process for awarding grazing permits. It is not a 

subjective process, but is instead based on the highest bidder. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

O-4 Appendix O. Comments and Responses 

Comment: Who enforces grazing rules? 

Response: Stipulations (rules) under which grazing would be permitted are described in the 

Grazing Compatibility Determination (Appendix B). The Service enforces these rules. 

Comment: Mitigate the impacts of reed canarygrass using bio-control agents. 

Response: The Service agrees that biological controls for invasive species should be used 

where feasible and where this method provides desired levels of control. The use of biological 

controls for reed canarygrass is included as a strategy in in Chapter 2. 

Comment: The EA should contain information on invasive aquatic plants and how they would be 

treated to prevent further deterioration of water quality. 

Response: There are no known invasive aquatic plants on CLNWR; if found in the future, 

invasive aquatic plants will be addressed through the IPM Plan. 

Comment: The Service should include at-risk water bodies, such as those proposed for recreational 

purposes, in monitoring and inventorying efforts. 

Response: There are no water bodies on the refuge at high risk of deterioration, and the only 

non-passive water-related recreational activities allowed are limited fishing and hunting, which 

have an extremely low potential to cause significant degradation. 

Comment: It would be more helpful to provide data indicating the level of water quality within 

streams and lakes on the refuge. Under NEPA, documentation within an EA should contain 

supporting data and references that show the proposed actions would not significantly affect water 

quality. 

Response: We are unaware of current data on water quality within CLNWR. The Washington 

Department of Ecology is responsible for administering the Clean Water Act (CWA) for the 

State of Washington. Only about 5 percent of the state’s streams have been assessed to identify 

pollution problems (WA Department of Ecology 2005). The waters of CLNWR fall into the 

category of streams that have not been assessed (Category 3). 

In 2000, water samples were collected at 10 sites on the refuge and analyzed for dissolved 

oxygen, pH, temperature, conductivity, and nutrients (nitrogen, and phosphorus). The sample 

size, while small and limited to a single spring and summer season, found that aside from 

selective conditions (exacerbated summer eutrophication during a drought year [2000]), 

nitrogen and phosphorus levels were generally low. Values for both nutrients and other water 

quality parameters were generally lower than those recognized as compromising the life stages 

of western North American ranid frogs (Hayes et al. 2005). Moreover, available data suggest no 

significant problem with eutrophication. Nonetheless, CLNWR comprises part of a wetland 

system that exhibits a naturally eutrophic cycle that peaks in late summer. In some cases, 

temperature and dissolved oxygen (DO) levels were found to exceed water quality standards for 

aquatic life. The study confirmed that seasonal increases in water temperature correspond with 

seasonal declines in streamflow and DO. Recommendations from the study included protecting 

channels from livestock use along with periodic follow up monitoring to determine if nutrients 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix O. Comments and Responses O-5 

inputs from agricultural practices are increasing seasonal eutrophication of refuge waters 

(Hayes et al. 2005). 

In 2008, a Contaminants Assessment Process (CAP) was completed for CLNWR. The CAP did 

not identify any water quality issues other than those summarized above (Davidson 2008). 

Comment: The Service does not need to apply for Clean Water Act 401 and 404 permits if no 

significant water quality impacts are anticipated. 

Response: The Service believes that some actions may require permits. We will acquire all 

necessary permits for work conducted. 

Comment: The Service may need to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

permit for activities that would disturb one or more acres; the final CCP should discuss whether these 

permits would be necessary and include information on the permit application process and measures 

to protect water quality. 

Response: The Service follows all Federal and state permitting requirements for management 

activities. As no specific actions of this scale have been sited, the Service does not have any 

action to analyze in the CCP. The application process is well-defined, and the Service will 

abide by all provisions. 

Comment: The EA should discuss sources of drinking water on the refuge and how its quality 

would be maintained or improved. 

Response: The only drinking water supply on the refuge serves the quarters and CLNWR 

office. Drinking water quality is tested quarterly to ensure safety, and the supply is good. The 

Service does not believe that any proposed actions will affect drinking water quality. However, 

should testing show any changes, the Service will identify the source and take corrective action. 

Comment: The Safe Drinking Water Act requires Federal agencies to protect community drinking 

water sources. The EA should address any potential impacts to community drinking water sources. 

Response: There are no community drinking water sources present on CLNWR, nor do water 

resources on CLNWR affect any community drinking water sources. The only nearby 

withdrawals for drinking water are in the community of Glenwood, Washington. The Service 

does not believe any actions proposed have the potential to impact drinking water supplies if 

appropriate practices are followed. 

Comment: Please try to limit the use of chemicals on the refuge, and we request that the Klickitat 

County Road Department lessen or quit using chemicals along county roads in the Glenwood Valley. 

Response: The Service, as a matter of practice, seeks to limit its use of chemicals, but on 

occasion it is the only alternative to accomplish certain goals (e.g., the control of meadow 

knapweed). When the use of chemicals is deemed necessary, the Service will follow all 

labeling and all provisions of the IPM Plan, as well as other BMPs. 

The Service has no control over the Klickitat County Road Department, but will work with the 

Department to protect the refuge, including discussions over the use of chemical treatments. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

O-6 Appendix O. Comments and Responses 

Comment: The EA does not include information on the refuge’s air quality and does not include a 

smoke management program, so it is impossible to assess the impacts of prescribed burning on air 

quality. 

Response: CLNWR is in a remote location and air quality is not regularly monitored. Smoke 

management plans are included within burn plans for any prescribed fire. Prescribed fires 

conducted by the Service will adhere to state restrictions to ensure protection of air quality. A 

review of the Fire Management Plan for CLNWR is underway, and this comment will be 

considered during that review to ensure standards and practices are included. 

Comment: The EPA has set National Ambient Air Quality Standards for six principal pollutants. 

Any project that would generate emissions exceeding the standards would have to include measures 

to demonstrate that the project would comply with state and Federal air quality regulations. 

Response: None of our proposed actions has the potential to exceed emissions standards for 

the six principal pollutants. 

Comment: The Service should coordinate with the WDOE and WDNR to reduce air emissions in 

general and those due to prescribed or other fires in particular. 

Response: The Service will coordinate with WDOE and WDNR prior to conducting 

prescribed fire operations to ensure emission standards are met. 

Comment: The EA should consider all sources of air quality emissions and determine the 

contribution of each source to air quality. 

Response: We have considered the cumulative effects of actions proposed in the CCP with 

other sources of air pollution. Day-to-day operations of the Service will not contribute 

significantly to air quality degradation in the Glenwood Valley. Other than prescribed fire, there 

are no actions proposed that would add anything other than trace amounts of particulates to the 

atmosphere, and the impacts of fire are addressed in the refuge’s Fire Management Plan. 

Comment: The Service should monitor air quality, especially during prescribed burns, to prevent 

degradation of air quality and to protect at-risk populations (e.g., elderly, children). Monitoring 

strategies should be tailored to local conditions. 

Response: Day-to-day operations of the Service will not contribute significantly to air quality 

degradation in the Glenwood Valley. Due to strict Service and Washington State standards, 

prescribed fires will not be conducted under conditions that would create a health hazard for atrisk populations. 

Comment: Use wild birds as the indicators for management actions, i.e., “if it’s good for the birds, 

do it.”

Response: Many of the refuge’s focal species and/or species of management emphasis 

(Appendix E) are birds, and management decisions are focused around protecting those species. 

However, the Service also considers other species important in making management decisions 

(e.g., Oregon spotted frogs). 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix O. Comments and Responses O-7 

Comment: Oregon spotted frogs prefer cold water, so water management of the lake should take 

this into account. 

Response: The Service agrees that Oregon spotted frogs have specific water requirements, as 

described in the CCP. However, the Service does not have complete control over water in the 

Glenwood Valley, so it is limited in how much it can control lake levels. The Service will work 

within its management constraints to protect Oregon spotted frogs as this is one of the priority 

species for the refuge. 

Comment: Horseback riding, winter sports, ranching, foraging, hunting, and fishing should be 

banned as they are disruptive to wildlife. 

Response: While human activities may cause disruption to wildlife, the Service believes that 

some recreational activities can be implemented so as not to unduly impact wildlife. All current 

and proposed uses have been evaluated for appropriateness and compatibility in this CCP. The 

CCP and CDs go to considerable length to address how and/or why this can be accomplished. 

Comment: Hunting and trapping should not be allowed as they are not needed for management 

purposes. 

Response: Trapping is not allowed, nor will it be under this CCP. Hunting is identified by the 

National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act, as amended, as a priority wildlife-dependent 

recreational use, and the Service is to grant this use special consideration in planning for, and 

management of, units of the NWRS. The overarching goal of wildlife-dependent public uses is 

to enhance opportunities and access to quality wildlife-dependent visitor experiences on 

refuges, while managing refuges to conserve fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats. It must be 

emphasized that protection and enhancement of wildlife species is the highest priority of 

refuges, and if hunting were to be determined to be detrimental to the health of a population, it 

would be modified or discontinued. However, available data indicates that hunting of select 

species on CLNWR does not negatively impact their populations. 

Comment: Shield exterior lights and put them on motion sensors to reduce nighttime glare. 

Response: The Service endeavors to be a good neighbor and will examine the costs and 

feasibility of making these changes. 

B. Yakama Nation Comments 

Both overall and specific comments by CCP section were submitted and are addressed below.

Comment: It has been and will continue to be the official opinion of the Yakama Nation that 

Conboy [Lake] and Toppenish National Wildlife Refuges should be decommissioned and the land 

returned to the Yakama Nation. 

Response: Transferring ownership of Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge from the Federal 

government to the Yakama Tribe is outside the scope of the CCP/EA. Issues pertaining to 

Toppenish National Wildlife Refuge are also outside the scope of this CCP/EA. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

O-8 Appendix O. Comments and Responses 

Comment: Several key issues regarding the existence and management of these refuges have been 

identified. These issues include, but are not limited to, the implementation of the refuges without 

permission of the Yakama Nation, the funding and personnel limitations of the USFWS to manage 

refuges, the failure of the refuges to meet originally mandated land-based and wildlife goals, the 

mismanagement of water resources, the refusal to recognize Tribal hunting and gathering rights, and 

the designation of a critical habitat unit on the Reservation without tribal consent. Several attempts 

aimed at resolving these contentious issues, including a formal agreement between the Yakama 

Nation and the USFWS on Toppenish NWR, have failed due to the incompletion of promised action 

by the USFWS. In addition, several letters have been submitted including a recent [January 29, 2014] 

letter to the Secretary of the Interior stating a host of concerns regarding USFWS lands within the 

Yakama Nation Ceded Area. The current situation dictates that the USFWS must include as an 

alternative in the Conboy Lake CCP the prompt decommissioning and repatriation of the Refuge to 

the Yakama Nation. 

Response: The refuge was established in accordance with Federal law and was purchased in 

fee title or easement from private landowners. We acknowledge that funding and personnel to 

manage the refuge has been limited. The CCP/EA addresses refuge management (including 

water resource management) within these limitations, identifies and prioritizes future needs for 

funding and staffing, and assures that the refuge is managed consistently with the National 

Wildlife Refuge Administration Act, as amended. The issue of the creation of the refuge and 

possible transfer of the refuge to the Yakama Nation is outside the scope of the CCP/EA. Issues 

pertaining to Toppenish NWR are also outside the scope of this CCP/EA. 

Comment: . . . the USFWS [must] live up to its trust responsibility by immediately granting full and 

unfettered access and use of the Conboy [Lake] and Toppenish National Refuges to Yakama tribal 

members, in accordance with the Treaty of 1855. 

Response: The Service provides access to Tribes in compliance with existing laws and policy. 

The Service allows access to members of the Yakama Nation for traditional purposes, for 

example, gathering plants for traditional foods and medicines, through the issuance of Special 

Use Permits. Changes to this procedure are outside the scope of the CCP. 

Section 1.1 Introduction 

Comment: The following language should be clearly stated within both the introduction and tribal 

sections: 

• The Conboy [Lake] NWR lies entirely within the boundaries of the Yakama Reservation. 

• The majority of the Mid-Columbia National Wildlife Refuge Complex lies within the Ceded 

Area of the Yakama Nation. 

• “Land surrounding the Refuge is managed by the Yakama Nation, private landowners . . .”

• The USFWS has a trust responsibility to “assist Native Americans in protecting, conserving, 

and utilizing their reserved, treaty-guaranteed, or statutorily identified trust assets.” (Native 

American Policy, page 1) 

• The Yakama Nation has a strong interest in the management of fish, wildlife, water, and 

cultural resources in the Conboy [Lake] National Wildlife Refuge. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix O. Comments and Responses O-9 

Response: We acknowledge that the refuge is within the boundaries of the Yakama 

Reservation and that most of the Mid-Columbia NWRC lies within the ceded area under the 

Treaty of 1855. The CCP has been modified to acknowledge the location of the refuge within 

the Reservation boundary in Section 1.1. Section 1.1 has also been modified to indicate the 

ownership of lands surrounding the refuge. The Service acknowledges its trust responsibilities, 

and this is described in Section 1.5.4 of the CCP/EA. The Service acknowledges that the 

Yakama Nation has an interest in the management of natural resources and we look forward to 

exploring further coordination opportunities. 

Section 1.2 Significance of Refuge 

Comment: Although this section clearly states the historic use by Native Americans, it does not 

express the significance of current use by native people. This trend throughout the document is 

obvious and must be amended. 

Response: We acknowledge that the area is important to Native Americans, and this section 

has been amended to reflect that ongoing importance. 

Comment: Language should indicate [that] the Yakama People or Yakama Tribe (instead of 

“Native Americans”) have used the resources in the Conboy area for hunting, gathering, religious, 

and other traditional purposes since time immemorial and again that the Yakamas continue to use it 

today. 

Response: Historical and archaeological records indicate that several different Native 

American peoples, including the Yakama People, used this area for a variety of purposes. The 

ongoing importance of the area to the Yakama Nation is noted in Section 1.1 (see response 

above). 

Section 1.3 Purpose and Need for Action 

Comment: Insert the following language into the first paragraph: The CCP ensures that the refuge 

fully complies with and implements all provisions in the USFWS Native American Policy and all 

other policies, executive orders, and memoranda pertaining to the relationship with tribal 

governments. 

Response: The CCP has been amended to indicate that one purpose of a CCP is to ensure 

compliance with established Native American Policy and all other policies, executive orders, 

and memoranda pertaining to the Service’s relationship with tribal government. 

Section 1.5.2 National Wildlife Refuge System 

Comment: Insert the following language into the section: We acknowledge that resource use and 

management by the Yakama People were an integral and necessary part of maintaining the integrity 

and health of these intact and self-sustaining habitats and wildlife populations in historic times in the 

Conboy Lake area. 

Response: The Service acknowledges that the Yakama Nation has a long history of living 

within the landscape. We also acknowledge that the Tribe has managed habitat to maintain 

populations of plants and animals necessary for subsistence (e.g., use of fire to maintain 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

O-10 Appendix O. Comments and Responses 

meadow and oak savanna) and that traditional harvesting practices promoted sustainable 

populations of plant resources (e.g., wapato, camas). This comment is not in keeping with the 

intent and purpose of Section 1.5.2; however, it is germane to Section 4.1. We have changed 

this section to reflect this comment. 

Section 1.5.3 Other Laws and Mandates 

Comment: The following must be included in the list as part of this section: 

• Yakama Treaty of 1855 (12 Stat. 951) 

• Native American Policy 

• All other policies pertaining to government-to-government relationship with the Yakama 

Nation 

Response: While these mandates are acknowledged and discussed in Section 1.5.4 and in 

Appendix I, Section 1.5.3 has been amended to specifically mention the Yakama Treaty of 

1855 and the Service’s Native American Policy.

Section 1.5.4 Tribal Rights and Interests 

Comment: Insert the following language: 

“The full exercise of Treaty rights is integral to the management of fish, wildlife, and culture on 

the Refuge, which lies entirely within the Yakama Reservation. As such, acknowledging treaty 

reserved rights to access and use the Conboy [Lake] NWR for traditional purposes directly relates to 

management and lies fully within the scope of the CCP.”

 [Amend the CCP to include] “Tribal access . . . is guided by the Yakama Treaty of 1855 and 

the Service’s Native American Policy.”

 See [Native America Policy page 5] “Reasonable access.”

Response: Under the Treaty of 1855, the Yakama Tribe reserved the privilege of “hunting, 

gathering roots and berries, and pasturing their horses and cattle upon open and unclaimed 

land” throughout their ceded territory. Although the refuge lies within the Yakama Reservation 

boundary, it was purchased in fee title by the Federal government from private landowners. (An 

easement was purchased on 700 acres of privately owned land.) Therefore, the Service retains 

primary authority to manage the refuge. However, the Yakama Tribe has been, and will 

continue to be, afforded opportunities to participate in the Service’s decision-making processes 

for the refuge in accordance with the Service’s Native American Policy. We will provide 

members of the Yakama Tribe with reasonable access to the refuge for exercising ceremonial, 

medicinal, and traditional activities recognized by the Service and the Yakama Nation through 

our permit process. We will permit these uses if the activities are consistent with treaties, 

judicial mandates, or Federal and tribal law and are compatible with the purposes for which the 

refuge is managed. Since the Service has primary authority over refuge management, access to 

the refuge by tribal members for traditional purposes is allowed through the issuance of Special 

Use Permits. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix O. Comments and Responses O-11

Section 1.7.1 Regional Plans 

Comment: Yakama Nation natural resource management plans and policies need to be considered 

first. 

Response: Section 1.7.1 covers those plans that we are aware of and considered in our CCP, 

but is not intended to limit the scope of information the Service utilizes, nor is it intended to 

limit our collaboration with the Tribe to manage wildlife and habitat on a landscape scale. 

However, we are not aware of any Yakama Nation resource management plans that apply to the 

refuge, and none were provided by the Yakama Nation Department of Wildlife. If any plans are 

provided to us in the future, we will give them full consideration. 

 

Section 1.7.2 Migratory Bird Plans 

Comment: The following must be included: Yakama Nation Waterfowl Management Plan. 

Response: The Yakama Nation Department of Wildlife offered to send us a copy of this plan; 

however, it did not arrive by the time of this writing. If we are provided a copy we will give it 

full consideration in managing waterfowl on the refuge. 

Section 1.7.4 Washington State Plans 

Comment: Washington State plans and policies are not applicable within Yakama Nation 

boundaries. All state influence over wildlife management and enforcement within the Yakama 

Reservation has been removed. Yakama Nation policy should be consulted instead. 

Response: Although the refuge is within the boundaries of the Yakama Reservation, it is 

owned by the Federal government. Under existing law and policy, National Wildlife Refuge 

System regulations and management plans must be, to the extent practicable, consistent with 

State laws, regulations, and management plans. We also manage hunting and fishing on the 

refuge in a manner consistent with State regulations in accordance with the National Wildlife 

Refuge Administration Act, as amended, which states: “Regulations permitting hunting or 

fishing of fish and resident wildlife within the [Refuge] System shall be, to the extent 

practicable, consistent with State fish and wildlife laws, regulations, and management plans.”

Section 1.8 Planning 

Comment: The single most important issue is the incompatibility of an unwanted and unnecessary 

U.S. National Wildlife Refuge on the Yakama Nation Reservation. Conboy [Lake] NWR needs to be 

decommissioned and the lands returned to the Yakama Nation for YN management. 

Response: This is an issue outside the scope of the CCP/EA. 

Comment: The second most important issue is the full and unfettered exercise of YN Treaty rights 

on Conboy [Lake] NWR until it is returned to the Yakama Nation. Tribal members need to have full 

access, with no permit required, onto this open and unclaimed land as dictated by the supreme law of 

the land (i.e., Treaty of June 9, 1855, 12 Stat. 951). 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

O-12 Appendix O. Comments and Responses 

Response: Defining the application of tribal treaty rights is outside the scope of this 

CCP/EA planning effort. Neither the existence of this CCP nor any portion of its contents is 

intended to enlarge or diminish treaty rights, nor to have any influence over the resolution of 

issues related to treaty rights. We will provide Tribal access to the refuge in accordance with 

the Service’s Native American policy, through the issuance of Special Use Permits.

Section 1.8.12 Elk Management 

Comment: The designation of “elk observation” as a priority, not to be “compromised” by other 

programs seems out of sync with the stated goals in section 2.4. The primary goals should be natural 

resource protection. Any elk management activities should be coordinated with the Yakama Nation 

to support management for utilization. 

Response: The primary goal of the refuge is protection of natural, recreational, and cultural 

resources. However, the Service believes that wildlife observation can be conducted in such a 

manner that has no appreciable impact on the elk population. Likewise, wildlife observation has 

been identified by Congress as being a priority use of refuges, when compatible with refuge 

purposes. Consistent with our policies, the Service will work with the Yakama Nation, the State 

of Washington, and any other appropriate party when developing management plans related to 

managing the elk herd. 

Comment: The applicable Yakama Nation laws pertaining to discussion of hunting are Tribal 

resolutions T-90-66 and T-48-68 (attached) which provide the Yakama Nation jurisdiction over tribal 

member hunting and fishing on our reservation and all usual and accustomed areas. Both resolutions 

were approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The enforcement right was upheld in the Federal 

court case Settler v. Lameer. The resolutions cover all rights to hunt, fish, gather, etc. USFWS has no 

authority to restrict or enforce their internal policy over tribal members who are practicing their 

rights pursuant to the Treaty of 1855 (12 stat., 951). The Treaty of 1855 is considered the “supreme 

law of the land” according to Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution (commonly referred to as the 

Supremacy Clause). All Federal agencies have a trust responsibility to uphold the rights guaranteed 

in [the] Treaty of 1855 and any attempt to alter or neglect these rights is unconstitutional. 

Response: The Service believes that all of the goals, objectives, and strategies included in the 

CCP/EA, including those related to hunting, are consistent with all applicable treaties, laws, 

regulations, and policies. 

Section 1.8.14 Wildlife-Dependent Public Uses 

Comment: The Refuge should be opened to tribal hunting, managed by the YN under the law and 

order code of the YN. 

Response: Defining the application of tribal treaty rights is outside the scope of this CCP 

planning effort. Neither the existence of this CCP nor any portion of its contents is intended 

to enlarge or diminish treaty rights, nor to have any influence over the resolution of any 

issues related to treaty rights. We will provide Tribal access to the refuge in accordance with 

the Service’s Native American policy through the issuance of Special Use Permits.
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix O. Comments and Responses O-13

Section 1.8.18 Issues Outside the Scope of the CCP 

Comment: Currently the refuge comprises only 6,500 of the originally mandated 9,300 acres, with 

very little opportunity to expand. In contrast, the Tribe has proven its capability in management 

resources on the Reservation and continues to expand its capabilities and land base managing 

cultural, wildlife and fisheries resources throughout the Ceded area. Surrounding and adjacent to the 

refuge, the Yakama Nation manages over 900,000 acres of land protected in perpetuity for wildlife 

and other natural resources. If expansion of the refuge is not appropriate given the location, it follows 

logically that the original creation of the refuge was not appropriate, and that the current existence of 

the refuge is also not appropriate. For these reasons, it seems reasonable then to allow the repatriation 

of the refuge to the Tribe. 

Response: The Service recognizes the resource stewardship of the Yakama Nation; however, 

we disagree that the limited growth potential of the refuge reduces its value. We believe that the 

location of the refuge provides an exceptional opportunity for working with the Tribe on 

resource management issues of mutual interest. 

Section 2.1 Management Alternatives 

Comment: House Report 105-106 accompanying the Administration Act states “. . . the fundamental 

mission of our System is wildlife conservation: wildlife and wildlife conservation must come first.” 

This statement is fully consistent with returning the land into the hands of the original managers. 

Response: The House Report discussed the intent of the National Wildlife Refuge 

Administration Act. It did not address transferring federally owned national wildlife refuges to 

Tribes. 

Section 2.3 Alternative Descriptions 

Comment: The Refuge needs to acknowledge and seek to restore historic processes which occurred 

in a landscape managed and used by the Yakama People over thousands of years. Natural process did 

not occur in isolation from humans; humans and human use was a big part of it. Native use needs to 

be a part of any healthy landscape and biological system. 

Response: The Service recognizes humans have shaped the landscape, modified ecosystem 

processes, and influenced populations of fish, wildlife, and plants. In some cases this created or 

maintained habitats or populations of wildlife and plants, particularly those important to 

subsistence. We also acknowledge that the Yakama People, and other peoples, intentionally 

managed natural resources, for example by using fire to create and maintain grassland and open 

woodland habitat. We will continue to employ BMPs based on current science and our 

knowledge of ecosystem processes. In some cases it would be appropriate to utilize traditional 

ecological knowledge to replicate or mimic traditional habitat management practices to 

maintain or enhance habitat types that existed prior to Euro-American settlement of the area. 

Section 2.3.1 Features Common to All Alternatives Cultural Compliance 

Comment: The USFWS has a responsibility under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 to 

consider potential impacts to cultural resources significant to the Yakama Nation within the exterior 

boundaries of its reservation. Only the Yakama Nation can determine what is significant to the Tribe. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

O-14 Appendix O. Comments and Responses 

The USFWS has a trust responsibility to protect the rights guaranteed to the Yakama under the 

Treaty of 1855 (12 stat., 951). While the law (36 CFR 800) states that within the exterior boundaries 

of a reservation, a fee patent title holder may defer to the SHPO [State Historic Preservation Office] 

for cultural resources protection. As a Federal entity with a trust responsibility, the USFWS should 

recognize the Yakama Nation Tribal sovereignty and has every reason to consult with the THPO 

[Tribal Historic Preservation Office] in lieu of the SHPO. The Yakama Nation also has a Cultural 

Resources Program that has obtained a P.L 93-638 contract through the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and 

serves as Federal representative for enforcement of cultural resource protection within the exterior 

boundaries of the reservation. 

In matters of hunting, we have seen Tribal jurisdiction maintained against that of the State on 

reservation. While the SHPO’s jurisdiction has not been adjudicated on Federal land within the 

exterior boundaries of the reservation, the USFWS should recognize the authority that its sister 

agency, the BIA, has bestowed upon the operation of Tribal Programs over that of the State. It should 

also recognize the Executive Order by President Nixon that re-established the correct boundary of the 

Yakama Reservation (commonly called Tract D). In short, the Treaty of 1855 is considered the 

“supreme law of the land” according to Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution (commonly called the 

Supremacy Clause) and also predates the State of Washington and would therefore supersede state 

law in matters of enforcement of natural and cultural resources within the exterior boundaries of the 

reservation. 

Response: We recognize that the refuge occurs within the exterior boundaries of the Yakama 

Reservation. In the recent past the Service has consulted with the Yakama THPO instead of the 

Washington SHPO for matters relating to the exercise of the National Historic Preservation Act, 

particularly Section 106 on the refuge. We intend to continue to consult with the Yakama 

THPO on NHPA including Section 106 for all future undertakings on CLNWR. 

Integrated Pest Management 

Comment: Application of pesticides should be done in such a way that no harm to people gathering 

plants (i.e., tule, wapato, and camas) will occur. In addition, gatherers should be clearly notified 

when and where pesticide application occurs. 

Response: We agree, and we will provide the information requested to members of the 

Yakama Nation who are issued Special Use Permits for plant gathering. 

Monitoring 

Comment: All monitoring and research information will be fully shared with YN. YN will be 

informed of and participate with these activities to the extent possible. 

Response: We would welcome the opportunity to develop a partnership agreement with the 

Yakama Tribe to work together and to exchange data and technical expertise regarding matters 

of mutual interest. In the meantime, the Service will share any Service reports and publicly 

available data upon request. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix O. Comments and Responses O-15

State Coordination 

Comment: State plans and policies are not relevant to actions occurring within the YN reservation 

boundary. 

Response: Although the refuge is within the boundaries of the Yakama Reservation, it is 

owned by the Federal government. Law and policy mandate the NWRS to coordinate with 

States and to manage national wildlife refuges consistently with state law, policy, and 

management plans, where feasible. 

Step-Down Coordination 

Comment: State regulations over hunting and fishing should not apply here. In these matters, we 

have seen tribal jurisdiction maintained against that of the State on the Reservation. The CCP should 

implement coordination with tribal (not State) programs for any public hunting or fishing on the 

Refuge. 

Response: Although the refuge is within the boundaries of the Yakama Reservation, it is 

owned by the Federal government for the benefit of all Americans. Therefore, the Service must 

manage hunting on the refuge in accordance with the National Wildlife Refuge Administration 

Act, as amended, which states: “Regulations permitting hunting or fishing of fish and resident 

wildlife within the [Refuge] System shall be, to the extent practicable, consistent with State fish 

and wildlife laws, regulations, and management plans.”

Section 2.3.2 Summary of Alternatives 

Comment: The following must be included at the very least as an alternative. In actuality, this 

should be considered a goal in Section 2.4 to be met by a certain date. 

• The CLNWR will be decommissioned and land granted to the YN to be used as a YN 

managed wildlife area. Until its repatriation to the tribe, YN tribal members will have full, 

unrestricted access for hunting, gathering, and fishing without need for a permit. 

Response: As noted above, the transfer of the refuge to the Yakama Nation as well as the 

interpretation of treaty rights are beyond legal precedent and outside the scope of the CCP/EA. 

Comment: Again, this Refuge was placed on Yakama Nation land without consultation or approval 

of the Yakama Tribal Council. Its creation is in direct violation of treaty rights spelled out in the 

Treaty of 1855, wherein. The Yakama People are granted exclusive use of the land within 

Reservation boundaries. 

Response: The legal authority for the establishment of the Refuge is outside the scope of the 

CCP/EA. 

Section 2.4 Goals – Goal 7: Education 

Comment: As per Section X of the NAP (1994) which states, “The Service will work with Native 

American governments to inform and educate the public about Native American treaty and reserved 

rights, laws, regulations, and programs, and programs related to fish and wildlife,” any education 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

O-16 Appendix O. Comments and Responses 

program should be devoted to Yakama history and treaty rights. Education should be coordinated 

with and potentially delivered by Yakama Nation staff or tribal members. Any education program 

must have a large and strong component regarding YN treaty rights, self-determination, and tribal 

sovereignty, including a discussion of issues surrounding siting national wildlife refuges on the YN 

reservation. Education programs must emphasize the long history and current use by YN tribal 

members.

Response: The Service recognizes that it has an obligation to educate the public about Native 

American use and history through appropriate programs. Objective 8.2 addresses incorporating 

Native American culture into educational programs. We also recognize the desirability of 

working with Native American tribes to develop these programs. 

Section 4.1 Overview

Comment: Need to include that the biological heritage was in part shaped by thousands of years of 

Native American management of natural resources. 

Response: The Service agrees that the landscape, including populations of fish, wildlife, and 

plants, has been shaped by man. The section has been changed to include Native Americans. 

Section 5.10 Cultural Resources 

Comment: In addition to historical information, this section should state clearly that Native use has 

occurred continuously from ancient to current times; Native use continues to this very day. 

Response: The Service recognizes that the area has been used for thousands of years and still 

is to this day. Section 5.10.1 has been amended to include this. 

Appendix A. Appropriate Uses 

Comment: Appendix A identifies exemptions for the evaluation of appropriateness. These include, 

“1) Situations where the Service does not have adequate jurisdiction to prohibit a use, and 2) the 

exercise of reserved rights [such as] treaty rights by Native Americans . . .” Why then is Native 

American plant gathering included in this evaluation process? 

Response: The Service does not believe that the gathering of plants on the refuge is a reserved 

right; therefore an evaluation of appropriateness is necessary. However, we would work with 

the Yakama Nation to allow this use through Special Use Permits. 

Comment: No [criterion (i) determination selected] on understanding and appreciation of resources. 

How can traditional use not be beneficial to appreciation of cultural resources? 

Response: We agree that the gathering of plant material by Tribal members would be 

beneficial to the perpetuation and enhancement of Yakama Tribal culture, as well as the 

public’s and the Service’s understanding of cultural resources and have changed the 

determination in criterion (i) to Yes. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix O. Comments and Responses O-17

Comment: All of the “findings of appropriateness of a refuge use” in Appendix A were “inconsistent 

with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other document” but most were 

considered appropriate use of the Refuge so something else may be going on with that. 

Response: The reason for this determination is that this is the first comprehensive management 

plan developed for the refuge; there are no previous plans, so the action cannot be “consistent 

with goals and objectives in an approved management plan.”

Comment: The appropriateness of use forms ask only for consultation with Washington Department 

of Fish and Wildlife. This must be amended to include tribal consultation in place of WDFW. 

Response: The Appropriateness Policy was developed at the national level and this is the 

standard for this criteria. Compliance with laws and regulations related to Native Americans is 

in criteria B of the form. 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations 

Comment: At the previous meeting, Kate Valdez pointed out that conflicts with cultural uses needed 

close evaluation—for instance, the possibility that timing of drawdowns and burning could conflict 

with Yakama harvest of plants. It was suggested by Service staff that compatibility determinations 

were a powerful tool for looking at such specifics. Those are Appendix B, but they look at whether or 

not each use is compatible with the goals of the Refuge, so technically they would be set up to 

determine if cultural uses are consistent with Refuge goals rather than whether Refuge management 

is consistent with cultural uses. 

Response: Under the CCP we will manage the refuge to maintain and manage habitat for the 

benefit of priority species. In general, this should result in healthy populations of traditional 

plant resources that would be available for harvest by tribal members under Special Use 

Permits. However, while we agree that plant gathering by Native Americans is an appropriate 

use of the refuge, at times management of habitat for priority species may conflict with cultural 

uses. While we discussed plant gathering in general with the Tribe, we did not receive specific 

information regarding the area, timing, and technique of harvest needed to analyze the 

compatibility of the use. Should such requests for plant gathering be brought to the Service, 

they will be considered on a case-by-case basis through the Special Use Permit process. 

Appendix D. Wilderness and Wild & Scenic Rivers 

Comment: Any consideration of wild and scenic designation would have to be coordinated closely 

with YN. 

Response: The Service has determined that there are no streams on the refuge eligible for wild 

and scenic river designation. 

Appendix I. Laws, Orders, Policies, and Agreements 

Comment: Include the USFWS’s own Native American Policy in this list.

Response: The Service’s Native American Policy is discussed in Section 1.5.4 and Appendix 

I, Section I.4. 
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

O-18 Appendix O. Comments and Responses 
Ruddy duck male Camas blooms. Lisa Wilson/USFWS
U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge

Mid-Columbia National Wildlife Refuge Complex

64 Maple Street

Burbank, WA 99323

Phone: 509/546 8300

Fax: 509/546 8303

www.fws.gov/refuge/conboy_lake/

National Wildlife Refuge System Information

1 800/344 WILD

December 2014

The mission of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

is working with others to conserve, protect, and

enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats

for the continuing benefit of the American people.

Cover Photo:

Oregon spotted frog

©Chuck and Grace Bartlett